Journal of Cleaner Production 196 (2018) 576e587

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Cleaner Production

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jclepro

The role of employees' leadership perceptions, values, and motivation

in employees' provenvironmental behaviors
Laura M. Graves a, *, Joseph Sarkis b
a
Clark University, Graduate School of Management, 950 Main Street, Worcester, MA, 01610, USA
b
Worcester Polytechnic Institute, Foisie School of Business, 100, Institute Road, Worcester, MA, 01609, USA

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Despite the importance of employees' proenvironmental behaviors (PEBs) for the success of corporate
Received 26 November 2017 sustainability initiatives, there is limited evidence on the mechanisms that facilitate such behaviors. We
Received in revised form address this research gap by exploring the factors that underlie employees' PEBs. Drawing on leadership
1 May 2018
and motivation theories, we develop and test a model of the factors that facilitate employees' PEBs. We
Accepted 2 June 2018
Available online 6 June 2018
focus on employees' 1) perceptions of their immediate managers' environmental transformational
leadership, 2) environmental values and 3) internal and external motivation to perform PEBs. Structural
^ as de
Handling Editor: Cecilia Maria Villas Bo equation modeling (SEM) of self-report survey data from 251 manufacturing employees found that
Almeida employees who saw their managers as engaging in greater environmental transformational leadership
reported higher internal and external motivation. Employees' environmental values were also positively
Keywords: associated with their internal and external motivation. Moreover, employees' values moderated the link
Employee proenvironmental behaviors between leadership and motivation; leadership perceptions were most positively related to internal
Environmental transformational leadership motivation when employees possessed strong environmental values. Thus, environmental trans-
Environmental values
formational leadership may be most effective in boosting internal motivation among employees who
Employee motivation
possess strong environmental values. Employees' internal, but not external, motivation was positively
related to their self-reported PEBs, suggesting that increasing internal motivation may be particularly
important to facilitating PEBs. Employees' leadership perceptions had a direct positive relationship with
their self-reported PEBs. Overall, our findings reinforce the importance of immediate managers' lead-
ership, and provide new evidence suggesting that employees' values influence their responses to that
leadership. Further, internal motivation may be a key mechanism by which employees' leadership
perceptions and values are linked to PEBs.
© 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
The success of corporate environmental sustainability (CES)
initiatives depends on the proenvironmental behaviors (PEBs) of
employees, not just the implementation of new technology and
processes (Jabbour and de Sousa Jabbour, 2016; Jabbour and Santos,
2008; Yuriev et al., 2018). Although researchers have recently
begun to study employees' PEBs (e.g., Bissing-Olson et al., 2013;
Blok et al., 2015; Graves et al., 2013; Norton et al., 2014; Robertson
and Barling, 2013; Wesselink et al., 2017), further theorizing and
research is needed to better understand the mechanisms that
facilitate PEBs, and, ultimately, provide guidance for organizational
* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: lgraves@clarku.edu (L.M. Graves), jsarkis@wpi.edu (J. Sarkis).
practice.
Toward that end, this study proposes and tests a model of the
mechanisms that underlie employees' PEBs. We focus on the im-
mediate manager's role. Although top management leadership is
essential, employees' immediate managers are the proximal agents
of the organization and are likely to be critical in encouraging
employees' PEBs (Graves et al., 2013; Kim et al., 2014; Robertson
and Barling, 2013; Wesselink et al., 2017; Yuriev et al., 2018). A
few recent studies (i.e., Graves et al., 2013; Robertson and Barling,
2013) suggest that the immediate manager's environmentally-
specific transformational leadership is especially important, but
research on the impact of such leadership is limited (Yuriev et al.,
2018). We add to the small body of evidence on the links be-
tween environmental transformational leadership and employees'
PEBs.
Moreover, we advance that literature by testing whether

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.06.013
0959-6526/© 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
 L.M. Graves, J. Sarkis / Journal of Cleaner Production 196 (2018) 576e587
employees' environmental values influence the impact of man-
agers' environmental transformational leadership. Individuals'
environmental values affect their environmental behaviors in
communities and organizations (e.g., Blok et al., 2015; De Groot and
Steg, 2008, 2010; Deitz et al., 2005; Liobikiene and Juknys, 2016;
Ruepert et al., 2017; van den Broek et al., 2017; Van der Werff et al.,
2013; Yuriev et al., 2018), and may also influence their responses to
environmental transformational leadership. Drawing on the liter-
ature on value congruence or fit (e.g., Cable and Edwards, 2004;
Groves, 2014; Gully et al., 2013; Hoffman, 1993; van den Broek et al.,
2017), we posit that the impact of managerial environmental
transformational leadership on employee motivation to engage in
PEBs is strongest when employees value the environment. Our test
of this proposition provides initial evidence about how employees'
values influence their responses to environmental leadership and
has implications for whether organizations should consider envi-
ronmental values when selecting employees.
In addition, we consider employee motivation for performing
PEBs as a mechanism by which managerial leadership and
employee values are linked to PEBs. The management literature
indicates that leader behaviors and employee values influence
employee motivation (Deci et al., 2016; Graves et al., 2015; Gagne 
and Deci, 2005; Graves and Luciano, 2013; Ng, 2017). Recent sus-
tainability studies suggest that motivation facilitates PEBs in com-
munity, and, perhaps, work settings (e.g., Aitken et al., 2016; Graves
et al., 2013; Lavergne et al., 2010; Pelletier and Aitken, 2014; Webb
et al., 2013). Integrating these two streams of research, we further
the literature by exploring whether motivation potentially links
managers' environmental leadership and employees' environ-
mental values to employees' PEBs.
Thus, our work seeks to enhance understanding of the factors
that facilitate employees' PEBs by examining the interplay of
managers' environmental transformational leadership and em-
ployees' values and motives in predicting employees' PEBs. We add
to limited evidence on the links between managers' environmental
transformational leadership and employees' PEBs. We further the
literature by testing whether employees' environmental values
moderate the relationship between managers' leadership and
employees' motivation to perform PEBs. Additionally, we examine
the role of employee motivation in linking managers' leadership
and employees' values to PEBs.
This study also contributes to limited evidence on employees'
PEBs in manufacturing environments. Manufacturing organizations
often engage in a wide variety of environmental initiatives,
including environmental management systems; reduce, recycle,
reuse, reclaim, and remanufacture efforts; and green supply chains
(Sarkis, 2001). Understanding the factors that facilitate PEBs in such
organizations has important practical implications.
2. Theoretical background on variables
This section provides background on the study variables e the
manager's environmental transformational leadership, and the
employee's values, motives and PEBs e all of which are constructs
from the management and/or sustainability literature.
2.1. Environmental transformational leadership
Transformational leadership is values-based, inspirational
leadership (Bass, 1985; Bass et al., 1996; Judge and Piccolo, 2004).
Transformational leaders go beyond assigning tasks and adminis-
tering rewards; they focus on long-term goals and instill employees
with a higher sense of purpose. Transformational leadership has
been the subject of four decades of research and is arguably the
most dominant leadership perspective today (Lord et al., 2017). It
577
has been consistently linked to employee performance (Judge and
Piccolo, 2004; Montano et al., 2017; Ng, 2017) and is especially
pertinent to realizing environmental goals because achieving such
goals requires drawing on values (e.g., taking care of the planet for
future generations) and inspiring employees (Egri and Herman,
2000).
In environmental transformational leadership, or
environmentally-specific transformational leadership, managers
convey environmental visions for their units, and serve as role
models by talking about their environmental values and taking
appropriate actions on environmental problems (Graves and Sarkis,
2012; Robertson and Barling, 2013, 2017). They inspire employees
by describing a future where work activities are environmentally
sustainable, explaining how to bring about that future, and exhib-
iting optimism that initiatives will succeed. Environmental trans-
formational leaders also encourage innovation and facilitate
diverse views. Finally, they strengthen employees' ability to solve
environmental problems by providing individually-tailored
training.
2.2. Values
Individuals' values are their fundamental beliefs about desirable
behaviors or end-states (Kasser, 2002: Schwartz and Bilsky, 1987).
Values drive “attitudes, emotions, and behaviors, and typically
endure across time and situations” (Kasser, 2002, p. 123); they play
a critical role in environmental behaviors (e.g., De Groot and Steg,
2010; Ruepert et al., 2017; Steg et al., 2014; van den Broek et al.,
2017). We focus specifically on the employee's environmental
values, defined as the overall importance the employee attaches to
preserving nature (Soyez et al., 2009; Steg et al., 2014).
2.3. Motivation
Motivation determines what employees do, how they do it, and
how hard they work (Meyer et al., 2004). Researchers have begun to
consider motivation's role in eliciting employees' PEBs (Graves
et al., 2013; Pelletier and Aitken, 2014). We use self-
determination theory (SDT) (Deci and Ryan, 2000; Deci et al.,
2016), a well-established motivation theory within psychology, to
examine employee motivation to perform PEBs. SDT argues that
behavior depends on the type of motivation, not just the amount of
motivation. SDT identifies several different motivation types.
Drawing on these types (Deci and Ryan, 2000; Deci et al., 2016;
Gagne  and Deci, 2005; Koestner and Losier, 2002), we distinguish
between employees' external and internal motivation for per-
forming PEBs. External and internal motivation coexist because
employees can have multiple reasons for pursuing PEBs.
In external motivation, employees pursue PEBs because of fac-
tors outside of themselves; they are seeking rewards or approval, or
avoiding sanctions (Graves and Sarkis, 2012; Graves et al., 2013;
Koestner and Losier, 2002). In contrast, internal motivation comes,
in part, from within the employee; it includes introjected, identi-
fied, and intrinsic motivation. Employees who possess introjected
motivation have partially internalized external messages; they
believe they should perform PEBs and feel guilty if they do not
(Graves and Sarkis, 2012; Graves et al., 2013; Koestner and Losier,
2002). In identified motivation, employees carry out PEBs to fulfill
their values; they fully embrace the importance of sustainability.
Finally, those who are intrinsically motivated view PEBs as fun,
interesting, or challenging (e.g., finding pleasure in streamlining a
process to reduce waste). Although the three internal motives for
performing PEBs are theoretically distinct, they share similarities
and may be highly related because of their common origins within
the person (e.g., Koestner and Losier, 2002; Sheldon et al., 2016).
578 L.M. Graves, J. Sarkis / Journal of Cleaner Production 196 (2018) 576e587
They were highly related in our study, leading us to treat them as a
single internal motivation factor.
2.4. PEBs
There is not yet a definitive conceptualization of employees'
PEBs (Yuriev et al., 2018). We define PEBs as “a broad set of envi-
ronmentally responsible activities such as learning more about the
environment, developing and applying ideas for reducing the
company's environmental impact, developing green processes and
products, recycling and reusing, and questioning practices that hurt
the environment” (Graves et al., 2013, p. 81). Further, we distin-
guish between basic behaviors that occur as part of core tasks (e.g.,
recycling, reducing energy use) and advanced behaviors that
require being proactive (e.g., finding new environmentally sound
ways of working; building environmental design knowledge)
(Bissing-Olson et al., 2013; Norton et al., 2014; Pelletier and Aitken,
2014). Basic PEBs are more short-term, less arduous, and more
common; advanced behaviors are more long-term and arduous,
and less common. Although basic and advanced PEBs may be
related, we examine them separately because they may be differ-
entially linked to factors such as leadership and motivation (Aitken
et al., 2016; Pelletier and Aitken, 2014).
3. Hypothesized model
Fig. 1 shows the hypothesized model; it includes the manager's
environmental transformational leadership, and the employee's
environmental values, internal motivation, external motivation,
basic PEBs and advanced PEBs. The variables are assessed from the
employee's perspective. Employees' perceptions of managers' envi-
ronmental leadership are an appropriate measure because em-
ployees' perceptions are likely to drive their behaviors. This approach
acknowledges that, in part, leadership is in the “eye of the follower.”
Other studies (e.g., Blok et al., 2015; Graves et al., 2013; Robertson
and Barling, 2017; Wesselink et al., 2017) have also utilized em-
ployees' perceptions of leaders' environmental behavior. Employees'
values and motives are appropriately assessed through employees'
self-ratings because they are internal to the employee. Admittedly,
self-ratings are not the most ideal means of assessing PEBs. It would
have been helpful to have objective data, or ratings provided by
coworkers or supervisors. However, using such data would have
required employees to make their identities known to researchers
Fig. 1. Hypothesized model.
and created concern among the employees. Most research on PEBs in
communities and workplaces uses self-ratings (e.g., Blok et al., 2015;
Ruepert et al., 2017; Wesselink et al., 2017), perhaps because of the
challenges of measuring individuals' PEBs. We discuss the limitations
of our measurement approach in section 8.
As shown in Fig. 1, we propose that the employee's perceptions
of the manager's leadership and the employee's values are posi-
tively related to the employee's internal and external motivation.
We also expect the employee's values to moderate the relationships
between leadership and internal and external motivation. We
expect internal motivation to be positively related to both basic and
advanced self-reported PEBs, and external motivation to be posi-
tively related to basic self-reported PEBs. Finally, we posit direct,
positive links between leadership and PEBs. The sections below
provide the rationale for these relationships.
3.1. Relationships between environmental transformational
leadership and motivation
One key mechanism by which transformational leadership
works is by boosting employee motivation (Bass, 1985; Bono and
Judge, 2003; Deci et al., 2016; Ng, 2017). Environmental trans-
formational leadership is especially likely to be associated with
increased motivation to perform PEBs. Environmental trans-
formational leaders may strengthen employees' internal motiva-
tion by fostering internalization or “ownership” of the
organization's environmental values and goals (Bono and Judge,
2003; Egri and Herman, 2000; Ng, 2017; Shamir et al., 1993).
Their moral commitment to sustainability and higher ideals (e.g.,
preserving the planet for future generations) should increase em-
ployees' acceptance of organizational environmental goals
(Christensen et al., 2014; Robertson and Barling, 2013). Their pas-
sion and position as a role model may increase employees' desire to
emulate them and also facilitate internalization (Graves et al., 2013;
Hensen et al., 2016; Ng, 2017; Robertson and Barling, 2013).
In addition, environmental transformational leaders may facil-
itate internal motivation by increasing employees' belief in their
ability to address environmental issues. A lack of self-efficacy im-
pairs internal motivation (Aitken et al., 2016; Pelletier and Aitken,
2014; Ng, 2017). The leader's optimism about environmental
challenges and focus on improving employees' ability to address
these challenges help employees believe they can make a differ-
ence, thereby fostering internal motivation (Graves et al., 2013;
 L.M. Graves, J. Sarkis / Journal of Cleaner Production 196 (2018) 576e587
Hensen et al., 2016; Robertson and Barling, 2013).
We also expect environmental transformational leadership to be
positively related to employees' external motivation (Graves et al.,
2013). Despite their focus on internal motivation, environmental
transformational leaders may use performance-based external re-
wards as a leadership tool (e.g., Judge and Piccolo, 2004; Bono and
Judge, 2003; Shamir et al., 1993). Further, their leadership may
actually boost the impact of these rewards; the increases in
employee self-efficacy that accompany environmental trans-
formational leadership may help employees believe they can
perform successfully and obtain rewards (Graves et al., 2013; Ng,
2017). Employees' desire to emulate the leader may also lead
them to respond positively to external rewards. Thus, we propose
that:
Hypothesis 1. Employees' perceptions of managers' environ-
mental transformational leadership will be positively related to
employees' internal motivation to perform PEBs.
Hypothesis 2. Employees' perceptions of managers' environ-
mental transformational leadership will be positively related to
employees' external motivation to perform PEBs.
3.2. Relationships between values and motivation
Values are a key aspect of the self and are typically reflected in
motivation (Kasser, 2002; Sheldon and Elliot, 1999). Moreover,
motivation may be a key mechanism for transforming values into
PEBs (Norton et al., 2015). We posit that employees' environmental
values will be positively related to their internal motivation to
perform PEBs. Internal motivation to engage in PEBs is, by defini-
tion, linked to values (Sheldon et al., 2016); it may reflect full (i.e.,
identified motivation) or partial acceptance (i.e., introjected moti-
vation) of the value of environmental action (Deci and Ryan, 2000;
Gagne  and Deci, 2005).
Strong environmental values are likely to steer employees'
attention toward ethical environmental behaviors (Steg, 2016; Steg
et al., 2014), boosting employees' desire to do “the right thing” and
increasing their introjected and identified motivation. To the extent
that doing “the right thing” is associated with a sense of pleasure
and enjoyment, intrinsic motivation may also increase (Steg, 2016).
Further, individuals who possess strong environmental values
incorporate these values into their self-identities; they see them-
selves as the kind of person who takes environmental action (De
Groot and Steg, 2010; Van der Werff et al., 2013, 2014). Such in-
dividuals will be likely to experience internal motivation.
The relationship between environmental values and external
motivation is less obvious. As noted above, employees with strong
values will view PEBs as internal; their external motivation should
be relatively low (De Groot and Steg, 2010; Van der Werff et al.,
2013, 2014). Nonetheless, they may possess more external moti-
vation than employees who have weak values. Because individuals
typically are motivated to pursue behaviors that match their values
(Shamir et al., 1993; Stone, 2010), individuals with strong envi-
ronmental values may accept external inducements for engaging in
PEBs. In contrast, those with weak environmental values may reject
the idea of engaging in PEBs, even if external inducements are
offered.
Thus, we propose that:
Hypothesis 3. Employees' environmental values will be positively
related to their internal motivation.
Hypothesis 4. Employees' environmental values will be positively
related to their external motivation.
579
3.3. Interaction effect of leadership and values on motivation
Employees typically seek to act in a manner consistent with who
they are, and follow a leader based on the degree to which they
believe that leader's values match their own values (Cable and
Edwards, 2004; Edwards and Cable, 2009; Shamir et al., 1993;
Stone, 2010). Employees' desire for self-consistent action may
extend to environmental sustainability; recent evidence suggests
that individuals respond more positively when environmental or
social initiatives are consistent with their own values (Groves,
2014; Gully et al., 2013; Ruepert et al., 2017; Rupp et al., 2013;
van den Broek et al., 2017).
Applying these ideas to motivation to perform PEBs, we posit
that employees' values moderate the effect of managers' environ-
mental leadership on employees' motivation. Employees with
strong environmental values may respond more positively to
perceived environmental transformational leadership than em-
ployees with weak values. When employees value the environ-
ment, leaders' environmental initiatives are consistent with
employees' desires; employees will be comfortable pursuing these
initiatives, boosting their internal and external motivation. Further,
perceptions of similarity between leaders' and employees' per-
spectives will increase communication and trust, and enhance their
relationships (Edwards and Cable, 2009), strengthening employees'
internalization of leaders' environmental goals and increasing in-
ternal motivation. Employees who have good relationships with
leaders may also have opportunities to learn how to address
environmental problems, further boosting motivation.
In contrast, when employees' values are weak, leaders' envi-
ronmental initiatives will be seen as inconsistent with those values,
causing employee discomfort (Stone, 2010) and reducing internal
and external motivation. The disparity between employees' values
and the leaders' environmental goals may inhibit leader-employee
relationships, hindering employees' internalization of goals and
reducing the development of their capacity to perform PEBs. Any
rewards offered by leaders may not be motivating because they
require employees to pursue actions that do not match their values.
Thus, we propose that:
Hypothesis 5. Employees' environmental values will moderate
the effect of their perceptions of managers' environmental trans-
formational leadership on internal and external motivation. Per-
ceptions of leadership will be more positively related to internal
and external motivation when environmental values are high than
low.
3.4. Relationships between motivation types and PEBs
SDT research suggests that internal motivation is more posi-
tively related to environmental behaviors than external motivation
(e.g., Aitken et al., 2016; Graves et al., 2013; Lavergne et al., 2010;
Pelletier and Aitken, 2014; Webb et al., 2013). Internally motivated
PEBs will feel relatively self-initiated and self-consistent, resulting
in feelings of engagement that boost effort and performance (Bono
and Judge, 2003; Deci et al., 2016; Judge et al., 2005; Sheldon and
Elliot, 1999). In contrast, employees will not “own” externally
motivated PEBs and their behaviors may be erratic (Gagne  and Deci,
2005; Koestner et al., 2008).
However, the exact links between motivation and PEBs depends
on the type of PEB (Aitken et al., 2016; Pelletier and Aitken, 2014).
Basic and advanced PEBs place different demands on employees.
Basic PEBs (e.g., recycling, conserving energy) often require little
initiative, creativity and innovation. In contrast, advanced PEBs
(e.g., learning more about the environmental issues, finding new
ways of working) require initiative, superior cognitive functioning
580 L.M. Graves, J. Sarkis / Journal of Cleaner Production 196 (2018) 576e587
(e.g., creativity, problem solving), and ongoing employee commit-
 and
ment (Bissing-Olson et al., 2013; Graves and Sarkis, 2012; Paille
Boiral, 2013; Pelletier and Aitken, 2014).
We believe internal motivation is positively related to basic and
advanced PEBs. The benefits that accrue from internal motivation
should be more than sufficient to evoke basic PEBs. Moreover, the
high task engagement that comes from internal motivation should
facilitate advanced PEBs by boosting cognitive functioning and
effort (Deci et al., 2016; Gagne and Deci, 2005; Graves and Sarkis,
2012; Pelletier and Aitken, 2014; Sheldon and Elliot, 1999).
We believe external motivation will be positively related to basic
PEBs and unrelated to advanced PEBs. Although SDT (Deci and
Ryan, 2000; Gagne  and Deci, 2005) regards external motivation
as detrimental, external rewards and motivation are an accepted
part of organizational life (Moran et al., 2012). External motivation
should facilitate any basic PEBs that place minimal demands on
employees (Deci et al., 2016; Gagne  and Deci, 2005; Graves and
Sarkis, 2012). However, external motivation is unlikely to
generate the cognitive resources and sustained effort needed to
perform advanced PEBs (Aitken et al., 2016; Deci et al., 2016;
Pelletier and Aitken, 2014). Truly excessive external motivation,
while unlikely, may be associated with feelings of pressure that
impair thinking and interfere with advanced PEBs (Gagne  and Deci,
2005).
Thus, we posit that:
Hypothesis 6. Employees' internal motivation will be positively
related to their self-reported basic and advanced PEBs.
Hypothesis 7. Employees' external motivation will be positively
related to their self-reported basic PEBs.
3.5. Direct relationships between leadership and PEBs
Although not our primary focus, the model also includes direct,
positive links between perceived environmental transformational
leadership and self-reported PEBs. These links acknowledge that
leadership may be related to employee performance through
mechanisms other than motivation (e.g., Bono and Judge, 2003; Ng,
2017). For instance, employees who see their leaders as engaging in
environmental transformational leadership (e.g., vision and inspi-
ration) may experience positive feelings toward their jobs and or-
ganizations that facilitate PEBs (Ng, 2017). Environmental
transformational leaders might also implement systems and pro-
cesses that increase the likelihood of PEBs. Thus, we posit:
Hypothesis 8. Employees' perceptions of managers' environ-
mental transformational leadership will be directly and positively
related to employees' self-reported basic and advanced PEBs.
4. Method
4.1. Subjects and procedure
We asked 769 U.S. employees of a manufacturing company to
complete an anonymous, confidential online survey containing the
study variables in return for the opportunity to enter a drawing for
several gift cards. We received 333 (43.3%) responses. Twenty-eight
employees were eliminated because they completed only a few
questions (11) or failed to provide demographic data (e.g., job
function) (17). Fifty-four respondents were eliminated because of
missing data on six or more leadership items. Missing data were
common for these items, perhaps because individuals had difficulty
evaluating managers' environmental leadership. There were 251
(173 men, 78 women) usable responses. On average, respondents
were 48.24 years of age (SD ¼ 8.98). Respondents included nonsu-
pervisory employees (82.7%) and first-level operational managers
(17.3%). They came from two manufacturing functions (function A,
26.7%; function B, 30.3%), as well as other areas (43.0%) such as
engineering, environmental, information systems, quality, and
product development. Ninety-four percent of the respondents had
been with the company for 5 or more years. Almost all (93%) had
worked for their manager for more than a year, and 64.7% had been
with their manager for 5 or more years.
4.2. Measures
The measures are described below. The Appendix provides
detailed information.
4.2.1. Perceptions of environmental transformational leadership
Employees' perceptions of their managers' environmental
leadership were assessed by 15 items adapted (Graves et al., 2013)
from the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ) Form 5x-
Short (Bass and Avolio, 1995). The items assessed five aspects of
environmental transformational leadership (i.e., idealized influ-
ence e behaviors, idealized influence e attributes, inspirational
motivation, intellectual stimulation, and individualized consider-
ation). Employees indicated how often their managers performed
the behaviors on 5-point scales (0 ¼ not at all, 4 ¼ frequently if not
always; responses were recoded to a 1 to 5 scale for analysis).
Consistent with past transformational leadership research (Judge
and Piccolo, 2004), a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) of the
items indicated that they formed a single factor (a ¼ 0.97).
4.2.2. Environmental values
Employees' environmental values were measured by six items
adapted from previous research (Thompson and Barton, 1994;
Soyez et al., 2009). Items were rated on 5-point scales (1 ¼ strongly
disagree, 5 ¼ strongly agree). Although the items distinguished be-
tween valuing nature for its own sake and for the benefits it affords
to one's self or humankind (e.g., Soyez et al., 2009; Thompson and
Barton, 1994), we found that they formed a single factor. This
finding is consistent with other studies (see Deitz et al., 2005). One
item (i.e., “nature is valuable for its own sake”) was dropped from
the analysis due to a low item-total correlation (0.35). Coefficient
alpha for the remaining items was 0.77.
4.2.3. Motivation
Employee motivation to perform PEBs was assessed by 12 items
from existing measures (i.e., Gagne  et al., 2010; Graves et al., 2013;
Pelletier et al., 1998). All items were rated on 5-point scales
(1 ¼ strongly disagree, 5 ¼ strongly agree). Three items assessed each
of the four motivation types (i.e., external, introjected, identified,
intrinsic). Although a preliminary CFA indicated that a four-factor
structure fit the data (c2 (48) ¼ 168.02, p < .001; CFI ¼ 0.93;
SRMR ¼ 0.07), the latent constructs for introjected, identified and
intrinsic motivation were high correlated (0.68, 0.81, 0.88).
Consistent with recent research (Sheldon et al., 2016), the nine
survey items for these motives appeared to form an internal
motivation factor (a ¼ 0.92). The other three items represented
external motivation (a ¼ 0.72).
4.2.4. Self-reported proenvironmental behavior
Seven items from Graves et al. (2013) measured PEBs. The items
reflected basic (3 items, a ¼ 0.72) and advanced (4 items, a ¼ 0.87)
PEBs at the participating company. Respondents indicated how
often they performed the behaviors on 5-point scales (0 ¼ not at all,
4 ¼ frequently if not always; items were recoded to a 1 to 5 scale for
analysis).
 L.M. Graves, J. Sarkis / Journal of Cleaner Production 196 (2018) 576e587 581

4.2.5. Controls
We assessed demographic variables that might be related to the
study variables, including gender (1 ¼ male, 2 ¼ female), age, and
job function. We used effect coding (Cohen et al., 2003) to represent
the job functions (i.e., manufacturing A, manufacturing B, and
other). Two effect-coded (i.e., 1, 0, 1) vectors, function code 1 and
function code 2, represented the three functions. Function code 1
contrasted employees in manufacturing A with the grand mean of
all employees. Function code 2 contrasted employees in
manufacturing B with the grand mean of all employees.
4.3. Analyses
We conducted latent variable structural equation modeling
(SEM) with maximum likelihood estimation using Mplus. Initially,
we tested a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) or measurement
model to ensure that the indicators reflected their intended latent
variables. The survey items for values, external motivation, basic
PEBs, and advanced PEBs were indicators of their respective latent
constructs. We used parcels (sums) of several survey items as in-
dicators of environmental transformational leadership and internal
motivation The use of parcels is common where there are
numerous items for a one construct (Landis et al., 2000). To create
the parcels for a construct, we conducted a factor analysis on survey
items for that construct, specifying a single-factor solution. We
then allocated three survey items to each parcel, ensuring that the
average factor loadings of the items that comprised the parcels
were comparable. This procedure resulted in five parcels for envi-
ronmental leadership and three parcels for internal motivation. We
standardized the indicators prior to the analysis to facilitate inter-
pretation of the interaction effect.
The second stage of the structural equation analysis tested our
hypotheses. We analyzed a linear structural model, followed by a
nonlinear model that included the interaction of environmental
transformational leadership and environmental values. Using
Mplus, we created a latent variable representing the interaction of
the latent environmental leadership and values constructs (Klein
and Moosbrugger, 2000; Mathieu et al., 2010). We tested whether
adding the links between the latent interaction variable and
motivation variables improved model fit.
We used the chi-square statistic, standardized root mean square
residual (SRMR), and the comparative fit index (CFI) to assess
model fit. We used the following cutoff ranges for CFI and SRMR to
balance Type I and Type II error: 1) models with CFI values of < 0.90
and SRMR > 0.10, deficient; 2) models with CFI values of  0.90
and < 0.95 and SRMR > 0.08 and  0.10, acceptable; and 3) models
with CFI  0.95 and SRMR  0.08, excellent (Mathieu and Taylor,
2006). The relative fit of nested models was measured by the
change in chi-square.
5. Results
5.1. Descriptive statistics and confirmatory factor analysis
Table 1 shows variable means, standard deviations, and correla-
tions. On average, employees saw managers as engaging in moder-
ate levels of environmental transformational leadership (X ¼ 2.57
out of 5.0). They reported relatively strong environmental values
(X ¼ 4.14). Their internal motivation (X ¼ 3.71) appeared to be higher
than their external motivation (X ¼ 2.61). They also reported more
basic (X ¼ 4.04) than advanced (X ¼ 3.27) PEBs. Employees' values
were positively correlated with internal motivation (r ¼ 0.56), basic
PEBs (r ¼ 0.28), and advanced PEBs (r ¼ 0.28), but not external
motivation (r ¼ 0.09). Leadership perceptions were positively
correlated with external motivation (r ¼ 0.30), internal motivation
(r ¼ 0.17), basic PEBs (r ¼ 0.34), and advanced PEBs (r ¼ 0.62). In-
ternal motivation had sizable positive correlations with basic
(r ¼ 0.47) and advanced (r ¼ 0.46) PEBs. External motivation was
positively correlated with advanced PEBs (r ¼ 0.26); its correlation
with basic PEBs was nonsignificant (r ¼ 0.12). There was a substan-
tial positive correlation between basic and advanced PEBs (r ¼ 0.58).
The CFA for our six-factor model yielded acceptable fit statistics,
despite a significant chi-square (c2 (215) ¼ 453.26, p < .001;
CFI ¼ 0.94; SRMR ¼ 0.06). The standardized factor loadings of the
latent variables on their indicators were significant (p < .001); they
ranged from 0.57 to 0.96. Given our use of single-source, cross-
sectional data, we were concerned about the potential for common
method bias (Podsakoff et al., 2003). We were unable to assess the
extent of such bias because the model was under-identified when
we added a latent common method factor to the CFA. However, we
compared the fit of six-, five-, four-, three-, two-, and one-factor
models. The results indicated that the six-factor model was supe-
rior to all of the other models. Although these results do not
eliminate the possibility of common method bias, they suggest that
the latent variables are distinct factors that represent more than
common methods.
5.2. Linear structural model
Fig. 2 shows the standardized results for the linear structural

Table 1
Means, standard deviations, and intercorrelations for study variables.

Variable Mean SD Environmental Environmental External Internal Basic Advanced Gender Age Function
Values Transformational Motivation Motivation PEBs PEBs code 1
Leadership

Environmental values 4.14 .66

Environmental 2.57 .99 .11
transformational leadership
External motivation 2.61 .92 .09 .30
Internal motivation 3.71 .75 .56 .17 .19
Basic PEBs 4.04 .68 .28 .34 .12 .47
Advanced PEBs 3.27 .95 .28 .62 .26 .46 .58
Gender 1.31 .46 .11 -.03 -.01 .23 .16 -.04
Age 48.24 8.65 -.01 .15 .03 .04 -.10 .03 -.16
Function code 1 -.16 .82 .14 .10 .09 .03 .03 .05 -.27 .03
Function code 2 -.13 .84 .11 .00 .04 .02 -.01 .00 -.15 -.01 .59

Notes: N ¼ 251. With the exception of the demographic variables, means are based on the averages of the scale items and range from “1” to “5.” Correlations with an absolute
value of 0.13 or higher are significant at p < .05. Function codes 1 and 2 are effect-coded vectors (i.e., 1, 0 þ 1) representing the three different employee groups
(manufacturing unit A, manufacturing unit B, and all others). Function code 1 contrasts employees in manufacturing unit A with the grand mean of all employees; function
code 2 contrasts manufacturing unit B with the grand mean of all employees.
582 L.M. Graves, J. Sarkis / Journal of Cleaner Production 196 (2018) 576e587
Fig. 2. Structural model. Note: Coefficients in parentheses are for the nonlinear model, which was unstandardized. Other coefficients are for the standardized linear model. Only
significant or marginal effects are shown. Results for the controls are reported in the text. yp < .10, *p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001.
model, which included the control variables (gender, age and job
function). Chi-square was significant, c2 (287) ¼ 559.53, p < .001,
but the model fit was acceptable (CFI ¼ 0.93, SRMR ¼ 0.06). Re-
siduals were 0.96 for environmental transformational leadership,
0.94 for environmental values, 0.54 for internal motivation, 0.85 for
external motivation, 0.50 for basic PEBs, and 0.40 for advanced
PEBs.
As shown in Fig. 2, Hypotheses 1 and 2 were supported; em-
ployees' perceptions of managers' leadership were positively
related to employees' internal (B ¼ 0.12, p < .05) and external
motivation (B ¼ 0.36, p < .001). Higher leadership levels were
linked to higher employee motivation levels. Consistent with
Hypothesis 3, employees' environmental values were positively
related to internal motivation (B ¼ 0.63, p < .001); employees with
strong values reported high internal motivation levels. There was
only weak support for Hypothesis 4 regarding the positive link
between values and external motivation (B ¼ 0.15, p < .10). The re-
sults for Hypotheses 1 through 4 are discussed in sections 6.1 and
6.2.
Fig. 2 also reveals support for Hypothesis 6; internal motivation
was positively related to basic (B ¼ 0.47, p < .001) and advanced
PEBs (B ¼ 0.42, p < .001); employees who reported more internal
motivation reported more of both types of PEBs. Hypothesis 7 was
not supported; the relationship between external motivation and
basic behaviors was not significant (B ¼ 0.06, n. s.). For the sake of
completeness, we tested the link between external motivation and
advanced PEBs; it was nonsignificant (B ¼ 0.06, n. s.). These results
are discussed further in section 6.4.
Consistent with Hypothesis 8, there were significant direct
positive relationships between leadership and basic (B ¼ 0.34,
p < .001) and advanced (B ¼ 0.59, p < .001) PEBs; these links were
sizable. They are discussed in section 6.1.
Although not shown in Fig. 2, there were significant results for
the controls. Age was positively related to leadership perceptions
(B ¼ 0.15, p < .05) and negatively related to basic (B ¼ 0.20,
p < .001) and advanced (B ¼ 0.10, p < .05) PEBs. Older employees
saw their managers as displaying more leadership but reported
fewer PEBs. Employee gender was related to internal motivation
(B ¼ 0.14, p < .05) and advanced PEBs (B ¼ 0.15, p < .05); women
reported more internal motivation and fewer advanced PEBs. Also,
function was related to environmental values (B ¼ 0.18, p < .05) and
leadership (B ¼ 0.15, p < .10); employees in manufacturing function
A reported stronger environmental values and more managerial
leadership than other employees.
We assessed the indirect effects of leadership and values on
PEBs through internal motivation using Sobel (1982) tests. Trans-
formational leadership had significant indirect relationships with
basic (0.12  0.47 ¼ 0.06, Sobel ¼ 2.23, SE ¼ 0.03; p < .05) and
advanced PEBs (0.12  0.42 ¼ 0.05, Sobel ¼ 2.26, SE ¼ 0.04; p < .05)
through internal motivation. The links between environmental
values and basic (0.63  0.47 ¼ 0.30; Sobel ¼ 4.53; SE ¼ 0.08;
p < .001) and advanced PEBs (0.63  0.42 ¼ 0.27; Sobel ¼ 4.78;
SE ¼ 0.08; p < .001) through internal motivation were also signifi-
cant. We calculated an additional model to test the direct links
between environmental values and both basic and advanced PEBs.
The inclusion of these links did not improve model fit, suggesting
that the relationships between values and PEBs may have been fully
mediated by internal motivation.
5.3. Nonlinear structural model
We then introduced the latent environmental transformational
leadership by environmental values interaction to the model,
estimating its relationships with both internal and external moti-
vation. There was a significant improvement in model fit (Dc2
(2) ¼ 8.40, p < .05). The relevant unstandardized estimates are
shown in parentheses in Fig. 2 (standardized estimates are not
available for latent variable interactions). The leadership by values
interaction was significant for internal motivation (b ¼ 0.19,
p < .05), and approached significance for external motivation
(b ¼ 0.16, p < .106).
We plotted the interactions using traditional formulas for
depicting relationships at low (i.e., one standard deviation below
mean) and high (i.e., one standard deviation above mean) values of
the moderated variables (Cohen et al., 2003). As shown in Fig. 3, the
leadership by values interaction for internal motivation supported
Hypothesis 5. When employees' environmental values were strong,
leadership was positively related to internal motivation (internal
motivation ¼ 0.34 leadership þ 1.32). When employees values were
weak, there was little association between leadership and internal
motivation (internal motivation ¼ 0.05 leadership 0.43). As
shown in Fig. 4, the interaction for external motivation was similar
(although it was nonsignificant). The link between leadership and
external motivation was more positive when employees valued the
 L.M. Graves, J. Sarkis / Journal of Cleaner Production 196 (2018) 576e587
Fig. 3. Environmental transformational leadership by environmental values interac-
tion for internal motivation.
Fig. 4. Environmental transformational leadership by environmental values interac-
tion for external motivation.
environment (external motivation ¼ 0.54 leadership þ. 26) than
when they did not (external motivation ¼ 0.21 leadership - .09).
These interactions are discussed further in section 6.3.
6. Discussion
Our study contributes to research on the mechanisms that un-
derlie employees' PEBs, and adds to the few studies examining the
role of immediate managers' environmental transformational
leadership in facilitating employees' PEBs. We extend these studies
by examining whether the impact of leadership depends on em-
ployees' environmental values. We also consider employee moti-
vation as a possible mechanism by which managerial leadership
and employee values influence PEBs.
We found that employees' perceptions of managers' environ-
mental transformational leadership were positively related to
employees' internal and external motivation to perform PEBs, as
well as their self-reported basic and advanced PEBs. Employees'
environmental values were positively related to internal motiva-
tion, and possibly external motivation. Employees' values moder-
ated the impact of environmental leadership on internal
motivation; leadership was most positively associated with internal
motivation when employees had strong environmental values.
583
Further, internal motivation, but not external motivation, was
positively related to PEBs.
Although our methods limited our ability to establish causality,
the findings reinforce the importance of environmental trans-
formational leadership in facilitating PEBs and call attention to the
role of employees' values in determining their reactions to such
leadership. They also highlight the potential importance of em-
ployees' internal motivation as a mechanism by which managerial
leadership and employee values influence PEBs.
6.1. Linking environmental transformational leadership to employee
motivation and PEBs
The positive relationships between employees' perceptions of
managers' environmental transformational leadership and em-
ployees' internal and external motivation matched our hypotheses.
They were also consistent with the general literature on trans-
formational leadership (Bono and Judge, 2003; Ng, 2017), as well as
one recent study of environmental transformational leadership
(i.e., Graves et al., 2013). As noted earlier, a transformational
approach may evoke internal motivation by increasing employees'
internalization of leaders' environmental values and capacity to
solve environmental problems (Ng, 2017). Moreover, environ-
mental transformational leaders may create external motivation
through the use of rewards for completing environmental tasks and
goals.
There were substantial direct positive relationships between
employees' perceptions of their managers and self-reported basic
and advanced PEBs. This finding suggests that leadership influences
PEBs through mechanisms other than internal motivation (e.g.,
positive feelings, additional resources, and team work) and mirrors
recent evidence showing that transformational leadership operates
through multiple mechanisms (Ng, 2017). Longitudinal research
using multiple data sources (e.g., data from supervisors, employees)
and incorporating other potential mediators is needed to more
completely understand the mechanisms by which environmental
transformational leadership impacts PEBs.
6.2. Links between employee values and motivation
As expected, we found that employees with strong environ-
mental values reported substantially more internal motivation to
perform PEBs. This result suggests that internal motivation to
perform PEBs is based, in part, on the pursuit of personal values. It is
consistent with recent work showing that individuals who value
the environment incorporate environmental activities into their
identities (e.g., Van der Werff et al., 2013, 2014), as well as findings
linking strong environmental values to PEBs (e.g., De Groot and
Steg, 2010; Ruepert et al., 2017).
We found evidence, albeit weak, of the hypothesized positive
association between values and external motivation. Although we
cannot ascribe causality, employees with strong values may have
experienced external motivation because seeking external organi-
zational rewards involved behaviors that matched their self-
perceptions. In contrast, individuals with weak environmental
values may not have pursued external rewards because doing so
involved behaviors that contradicted their values. The relatively
weak relationship between values and external motivation may
have been due to the tendency of employees with strong values to
internalize environmental goals; they may have possessed rela-
tively low external motivation.
Additional research on the links between environmental values
and motivation to perform PEBs is needed. Although theory (e.g.,
Deci et al., 2016; De Groot and Steg, 2010) suggests that values
precede motivation, scholars should confirm the directionality of
584 L.M. Graves, J. Sarkis / Journal of Cleaner Production 196 (2018) 576e587
the relationship. Future studies should also include measures of the
extent to which the organization offers rewards for performing
PEBs; the relationship between individuals' values and external
motivation may depend on the availability of rewards. It would also
be useful for researchers to examine whether motivation fully
mediates the relationship between values and PEBs; our method-
ology limited our ability to reach firm conclusions about the
mediating role of motivation.
6.3. Interaction of leadership and values on employee motivation
One special contribution of our study was the moderating ef-
fects shown in Figs. 3 and 4. These effects suggest that employees'
environmental values influenced the relationships between em-
ployees' perceptions of environmental leadership and motives. As
expected, leadership perceptions were more positively related to
internal motivation when employees' values were strong than
when they were weak. There appeared to be a similar trend for
external motivation. These findings are consistent with research
indicating that both environmental campaigns and employment
advertisements are most effective when they coincide with in-
dividuals' social or environmental values (Gully et al., 2013; van den
Broek et al., 2017).
As noted earlier, the moderating effect of values may be due to
the need for consistency between values and action (Stone, 2010).
Employees with stronger values may have felt more comfortable
with the leader's environmental initiatives because these initiatives
matched their own desires. Further, the similarity between leader
and employee perspectives may have deepened their relationship;
strengthening the employee's internalization of environmental
goals and increasing the chance that the leader would develop the
employee's capacity to solve environmental problems.
Unlike estimates of linear relationships, estimates of moder-
ating relationships are not inflated by common method bias. This
reinforces the importance of the moderating effects. Although
additional research is needed to confirm our findings, it seems that
managers' environmental leadership may not be equally effective
in motivating all employees; leadership may enhance motivation
most among employees who are committed to protecting the
environment. If this is the case, selecting employees who are con-
cerned about the environment may be worthwhile, particularly in
environmentally sensitive operational areas. A few organizations
now consider individuals' environmental values in selecting em-
ployees (Jabbour and Santos, 2008).
An alternative to selecting employees with strong values is to
boost the values of present employees. Although individuals'
environmental values may be difficult to change (Deitz et al., 2005),
a few recent findings suggest that change is possible (Steg, 2016;
Steg et al., 2014). For instance, it appears that positive environ-
mental values can be activated, at least temporarily, by cues or
prompts focusing on higher-order values such as generosity,
acceptance, community, and freedom (Sheldon et al., 2011).
Further, recurring challenges to individuals' values may facilitate
change (Steg, 2016). This raises the possibility that environmental
values may be more malleable than expected, suggesting that
research on changing environmental values is desirable (Steg,
2016).
6.4. Links between motivation and PEBs
Our finding that internal motivation was positively related to
both basic and advanced self-reported PEBs is consistent with SDT
(e.g., Deci et al., 2016; Koestner and Losier, 2002), as well as evi-
dence on its application to environmental sustainability in com-
munities (e.g., Aitken et al., 2016; Lavergne et al., 2010; Webb et al.,
2013) and organizations (i.e., Graves et al., 2013). It appears that
internal motivation facilitates both types of PEBs. Internally moti-
vated employees may engage in PEBs, leading them to work harder
and persist over time.
We found that external motivation was unrelated to either basic
or advanced self-reported PEBs. Although we expected external
motivation to be unrelated to advanced PEBs, we were somewhat
surprised that it was unrelated to basic PEBs, which require limited
effort and initiative. One explanation is that external motivation is
simply unrelated to PEBs of any type: another recent study also
failed to link external motivation to PEBs (i.e., Graves et al., 2013). It
is also possible that the relatively low level of external motivation
experienced by our respondents was inadequate to facilitate even
basic PEBs. Organizational rewards may not have been sufficient to
generate much external motivation.
Although additional research is needed, our results suggest that
encouraging employees' internal motivation is likely to facilitate
PEBs. It is unclear whether focusing on external rewards and
motivation is an effective strategy for facilitating PEBs; the effec-
tiveness of such rewards may depend on the nature of the rewards
and how they are administered (e.g., Deci et al., 2016; Maki et al.,
2016). Presently, companies vary widely in use of financial re-
wards in their sustainability programs (Jabbour and Santos, 2008).
Research that assesses the reward system, together with external
motivation and PEBs, is needed to determine if external rewards
and motivation strengthen PEBs.
7. Implications
Our work reinforces the desirability of continued research on
the links between managers' environmental transformational
leadership, and employees' environmental values, motivation, and
PEBs. The immediate managers' leadership may be critical and
deserves additional study. Further examination of how employees'
values interact with managerial leadership, as well as the medi-
ating roles of internal and external motivation, is needed. Other
potential mediating variables (e.g., self-efficacy, climate in the work
group) should be considered (Kim et al., 2014: Norton et al., 2014;
Pelletier and Aitken, 2014). Future research could also incorporate
human resources factors (e.g., performance appraisal, rewards,
training) that are likely to impact employees' PEBs (Jabbour and de
Sousa Jabbour, 2016; Jabbour and Santos, 2008). Finally, longitu-
dinal research using data from multiple sources (employee, man-
ager, organization) is needed to establish causality.
Using our findings and past research, we offer preliminary rec-
ommendations for practice. First, organizations should recognize
that environmental leadership is needed throughout the organi-
zation, not simply at the top or in a specialized sustainability unit.
The environmental transformational leadership provided by em-
ployees' immediate managers is likely to be critical for the effec-
tiveness of environmental initiatives. Organizations may want to
develop managers' capacity to provide such leadership (e.g.,
expressing their environmental values and goals, developing em-
ployees' capacity to solve environmental problems). Second, orga-
nizations might also want to focus on employees. Our work
suggests that employees' with strong environmental values may
respond more positively to environmental initiatives than those
with weak values. Thus, organizations that are committed to sus-
tainability may need to identify and recruit employees with strong
values. Another option is changing employees' values, but the
extent to which values can be altered is unclear.
8. Limitations and conclusions
Our study has several limitations. Because we collected data in a
 L.M. Graves, J. Sarkis / Journal of Cleaner Production 196 (2018) 576e587 585

single organization, it is uncertain whether our findings apply Environmental values

across organizations. Moreover, the study participants worked in
the U.S. Although the fundamental leadership, values, and moti- 1. It makes me sad to see nature destroyed.
vation constructs used in our study apply across cultures (e.g., Deci 2. One of the most important reasons to conserve is to preserve
et al., 2016; Graves et al., 2013; Soyez et al., 2009), research on the wild areas.
impact of cultural factors in shaping PEBs is limited and we cannot 3. Nature is valuable for its own sake (this item was eliminated
be certain that our findings are applicable to other cultural contexts from analyses).
(Yuriev et al., 2018). Further, the cross-sectional nature of our data 4. One of the important reasons to conserve is to keep a high
raised the possibility of common method bias and restricted our standard of living.
ability to determine causality. However, the interaction of 5. We need to save resources to keep a high quality of life.
employee values and environmental transformational leadership 6. Nature is important because it boosts the health and happiness
could not have been due to common method bias. The presence of of humans.
this effect is a unique and important contribution of our work.
Another limitation of our work is that all data came from em-
ployees. As noted earlier, employees' interpretations of leader Internal motivation
behavior are important because they influence employees' behav-
iors. Further, employees are the best source of information about I would engage in green behaviors at work because:
their own environmental values and motivation. However, the use
of employees' self-ratings of their PEBs was not ideal and may have 1. I would feel bad if I didn't do it (introjected motivation).
led to biased results. It would have been helpful to include other 2. I would feel guilty if I didn't do it (introjected motivation).
measures of PEBs. It might also have been advantageous to obtain 3. It would bother me if I didn't do it (introjected motivation).
additional leader behavior data, perhaps aggregating data from 4. It allows me to achieve goals I consider important (identified
each manager's employees. motivation).
In conclusion, our work adds to the limited evidence on the 5. It fits my own values (identified motivation).
mechanisms that underlie employees' PEBs and extends recent 6. It is personally important to me (identified motivation).
work on the role of immediate managers' environmental trans- 7. I enjoy it (intrinsic motivation).
formational leadership. We examine the complex linkages between 8. Of the pleasure I get from doing it (intrinsic motivation).
employees' leadership perceptions, environmental values, motiva- 9. It is fun (intrinsic motivation).
tion and self-reported PEBs. Our results suggest that employees'
perceptions of managers' environmental transformational leader-
ship are likely to be important for facilitating PEBs; they may External motivation
impact PEBs directly or indirectly through internal motivation. Yet,
the values of the employee also seem to be a critical piece of the I would engage in green behaviors at work because:
puzzle. Employees' values may influence their motivation to engage
in PEBs and affect how they react to managerial leadership. Em- 1. I will be rewarded for doing it.
ployees' internal, but not external, motivation appears to be 2. I am paid to do it.
important in eliciting both basic and advanced PEBs. Our findings 3. I will get recognition from others.
provide guidance for further research on PEBs and suggest that
organizations that want to achieve environmental goals should
focus on boosting managerial environmental transformational Basic proenvironmental behaviors
leadership and selecting employees who have strong environ-
mental values. At work, I:

Appendix. Survey items 1. Try to reduce my energy use.

2. Try to reduce the use of supplies and materials.
Environmental transformational leadership (sample items)1 3. Recycle materials that can be recycled.

My manager:
Advanced proenvironmental behaviors
1. Displays confidence about environmental issues (idealized in-
fluence e attributes). At work, I:
2. Talks about the importance of protecting nature (idealized in-
fluence e behaviors). 1. Try to learn more about the environmental issues facing (name
3. Talks enthusiastically about what we need to do to protect na- of company).
ture (inspirational motivation). 2. Find ways of working that are better for the environment.
4. Gets me to look at environmental problems in new ways (in- 3. Offer ideas for reducing our impact on the environment.
tellectual stimulation). 4. Encourage others to think about the environment.
5. Provides teaching and coaching on environmental issues (indi-
vidualized consideration). References

1
The environmental transformational leadership items were adapted from the
Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire with permission form Mindgarden. We are
unable to reproduce all the items here. For information, please contact Mindgarden
at www.mindgarden.com.
Aitken, N.M., Pelletier, L.G., Baxter, D.E., 2016. Doing the difficult stuff: influence of
self-determined motivation toward the environment on transportation pro-
environmental behavior. Ecopsychology 8, 153e162.
Bass, B.M., 1985. Leadership and Performance beyond Expectations. Free Press, New
York.
Bass, B.M., Avolio, B., 1995. Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire. Mindgarden,
586 L.M. Graves, J. Sarkis / Journal of Cleaner Production 196 (2018) 576e587
Redwood City, CA.
Bass, B.M., Avolio, B., Atwater, L., 1996. The transformational and transactional
leadership of men and women. Appl. Psychol.: Int. Rev. 45 (1), 5e34.
Bissing-Olson, M.J., Iyer, A., Fielding, K.S., Zacher, H., 2013. Relationships between
daily affect and pro-environmental behavior at work: the moderating role of
pro-environmental attitude. J. Organ. Behav. 34, 156e175.
Blok, V., Wesselink, R., Studynka, O., Kemp, R., 2015. Encouraging sustainability in
the workplace: a survey on the proenvironmental behavior of university em-
ployees. J. Clean. Prod. 106, 55e67.
Bono, J.E., Judge, T.A., 2003. Self-concordance at work: towards understanding the
motivational effects of transformational leaders. Acad. Manag. J. 46, 554e571.
Cable, D.M., Edwards, J.R., 2004. Complementary and supplementary fit: a theo-
retical and empirical investigation. J. Appl. Psychol. 89, 822e834.
Christensen, L.J., Mackey, A., Whetten, D., 2014. Taking responsibility for corporate
social responsibility: the role of leaders in creating, implementing, sustaining,
or avoiding socially responsible firm behaviors. Acad. Manag. Perspect. 28,
164e178.
Cohen, J., Cohen, P., West, S.G., Aiken, L.S., 2003. Applied Multiple Regression/cor-
relation Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences, third ed. LEA, Mahwah, NJ.
Deci, E.L., Olafsen, A.H., Ryan, R.M., 2016. Self-determination theory in work orga-
nizations: the state of the science. Annu. Rev. Organ. Psychol. Organ. Behav. 4,
19e43.
Deci, E.L., Ryan, R.M., 2000. The “what” and “why” of goal pursuits: human needs
and the self-determination of behavior. Psychol. Inq. 11, 227e268.
De Groot, J.I.M., Steg, L., 2008. Value orientations to explain beliefs related to
environmental significant behavior: how to measure egoistic, altruistic, and
biospheric value orientations. Environ. Behav. 40, 330e354.
De Groot, J.I.M., Steg, L., 2010. Relationships between value orientations, self-
determined motivational types, and pro-environmental behavioural in-
tentions. J. Environ. Psychol. 30, 368e378.
Deitz, T., Fitzgerald, A., Shwom, R., 2005. Environmental values. Annu. Rev. Environ.
Resour. 30, 335e372.
Edwards, J.R., Cable, D.M., 2009. The value of value congruence. J. Appl. Psychol. 94,
654e677.
Egri, C.P., Herman, S., 2000. Leadership in the North American environmental
sector: values, leadership styles, and contexts of environmental leaders and
their organizations. Acad. Manag. J. 43, 571e604.
Gagne , M., Deci, E.L., 2005. Self-determination theory and work motivation.
J. Organ. Behav. 26, 331e362.
Gagne , M., Forest, J., Gilbert, M., Aube, C., Morin, E., Malorni, A., 2010. The moti-
vation at work scale: validation evidence in two languages. Educ. Psychol. Meas.
70, 628e646.
Graves, L.M., Cullen, K.L., Lester, H.F., Ruderman, M.N., Gentry, W.A., 2015. Mana-
gerial motivational profiles: composition, antecedents, and consequences.
J. Vocat. Behav. 87, 32e42.
Graves, L.M., Luciano, M.M., 2013. Self-determination theory at work: under-
standing the role of leader-member exchange. Motiv. Emot. 37, 518e536.
Graves, L.M., Sarkis, J., 2012. Fostering employee proenvironmental behavior: the
role of leadership and motivation. In: Gallagher, D.R. (Ed.), Environmental
Leadership: a Reference Handbook, vol. 1. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA,
pp. 161e171.
Graves, L.M., Sarkis, J., Zhu, Q., 2013. How transformational leadership and
employee motivation combine to predict employee proenvironmental behav-
iors in China. J. Environ. Psychol. 35, 81e91.
Groves, K.S., 2014. Examining leader-follower congruence of social responsibility
values in transformational leadership. J. Leader. Organ Stud. 21, 227e243.
Gully, S.M., Phillips, J.M., Castellano, W.G., Han, K., Kim, A., 2013. A mediated
moderation model of recruiting socially and environmentally responsible job
applicants. Person. Psychol. 66, 935e973.
Hensen, N., Keeling, D.I., de Ruyter, K., Wetzels, M., de Jong, A., 2016. Making SENS:
exploring the antecedents and impact of store environmental stewardship
climate. J. Acad. Market. Sci. 44, 497e515.
Hoffman, A.J., 1993. The importance of fit between individual values and organ-
isational culture in the greening of industry. Bus. Strat. Environ. 2 (4), 10e18.
Jabbour, C.K.C., de Sousa Jabbour, A.B.L., 2016. Green human resource management
and green supply chain management: linking two emerging agendas. J. Clean.
Prod. 112, 1824e1833.
Jabbour, C.K.C., Santos, F.C.A., 2008. Relationships between human resource di-
mensions and environmental management in companies: proposal of a model.
J. Clean. Prod. 16, 51e58.
Judge, T.A., Bono, J.E., Erez, A., Locke, E.A., 2005. Core self-evaluations and job and
life satisfaction: the role of self-concordance and goal attainment. J. Appl.
Psychol. 90, 257e268.
Judge, T.A., Piccolo, R.F., 2004. Transformational and transactional leadership: a
meta-analytic test of their relative validity. J. Appl. Psychol. 89, 755e768.
Kasser, T., 2002. Sketches for a self-determination theory of values. In: Deci, E.L.,
Ryan, R.M. (Eds.), Handbook of Self-determination Research. University of
Rochester, Rochester, NY, pp. 123e140.
Kim, A., Kim, Y., Han, K., Jackson, S.E., Ployhart, R.E., 2014. Multilevel influences on
voluntary workplace green behavior: individual differences, leader behavior,
and coworker advocacy. J. Manag. 43, 1335e1358.
Klein, A., Moosbrugger, H., 2000. Maximum likelihood estimation of latent inter-
action effects with the LMS method. Psychometrika 65, 457e474.
Koestner, R., Losier, G.F., 2002. Distinguishing three ways of being internally
motivated: a closer look at introjection, identification, and intrinsic motivation.
In: Deci, E.L., Ryan, R.M. (Eds.), Handbook of Self-determination Research.
University of Rochester, Rochester, NY, pp. 101e122.
Koestner, R., Otis, N., Powers, T.A., Pelletier, L., Gagnon, H., 2008. Autonomous
motivation, controlled motivation, and goal progress. J. Pers. 76, 1201e1229.
Landis, R.S., Beal, D.J., Tesluk, P.E., 2000. A comparison of approaches to forming
composite measures in structural equation models. Organ. Res. Meth. 3,
186e207.
Lavergne, K.J., Sharp, E.C., Pelletier, L.G., Holtby, A., 2010. The role of perceived
government style in the facilitation of self-determined and non-self-
determined motivation for pro-environmental behavior. J. Environ. Psychol.
30, 169e177.
Liobikiene, G., Juknys, R., 2016. The role of values, environmental risk perception,
awareness of consequences, and willingness to assume responsibility for
environmentally-friendly behavior: the Lithuanian case. J. Clean. Prod. 112,
3413e3422.
Lord, R.G., Day, D.V., Zaccaro, S.J., Avolio, B.J., Eagly, A.H., 2017. Leadership in applied
psychology: three waves of theory and research. J. Appl. Psychol. 102, 434e451.
Maki, A., Burns, R.J., Ha, L., Rothman, A.J., 2016. Paying people to protect the envi-
ronment: a meta-analysis of financial incentive interventions to promote pro-
environmental behavior. J. Environ. Psychol. 47, 242e255.
Mathieu, J.E., Rapp, T.L., Maynard, M.T., Mangos, M.M., 2010. Interactive effects of
team and task shared mental models as related to air traffic controllers' col-
lective efficacy and effectiveness. Hum. Perform. 23, 22e40.
Mathieu, J.E., Taylor, S.R., 2006. Clarifying conditions and decision points for
mediational type inferences in organizational behavior. J. Organ. Behav. 27,
1031e1056.
Meyer, J.P., Becker, T.E., Vandenberghe, C., 2004. Employee commitment and
motivation: a conceptual analysis and integrative model. J. Appl. Psychol. 89,
991e1007.
Montano, D., Reeske, A., Franke, F., Hüffmeier, J., 2017. Leadership, followers' mental
health and job performance in organizations: a comprehensive meta-analysis
from an occupational health perspective. J. Organ. Behav. 38, 327e350.
Moran, C.M., Diefendorff, J.M., Kim, T., Liu, Z., 2012. A profile approach to self-
determination theory motivations at work. J. Vocat. Behav. 81, 354e363.
Ng, T.W.H., 2017. Transformational leadership and performance outcomes: analyses
of multiple mediation pathways. Leader. Q. 28, 385e417.
Norton, T.A., Parker, S.L., Zacher, H., Ashkanasy, N.M., 2015. Employee green
behavior: a theoretical framework, multilevel review and future research
agenda. Organ. Environ. 28, 103e125.
Norton, T.A., Zacher, H., Ashkanasy, N.M., 2014. Organisational sustainability policies
and employee green behaviour: the mediating role of work climate perceptions.
J. Environ. Psychol. 38, 49e54.
Paille, P., Boiral, O., 2013. Pro-environmental behavior at work: construct validity
and determinants. J. Environ. Psychol. 36, 118e128.
Pelletier, L.G., Aitken, N.M., 2014. Encouraging environmental actions in employees
and in the working environment: a self-determination theory perspective. In:
Gagne , M. (Ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Work Engagement, Motivation, and
Self-determination Theory. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 314e334.
Pelletier, L.G., Tuson, K.M., Green-Demers, I., Noels, K., Beaton, A.M., 1998. Why are
you doing things for the environment? The motivation toward the environment
scale (MTES). J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 28, 437e468.
Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.B., Lee, J., Podsakoff, N.P., 2003. Common method
biases in behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and recom-
mended remedies. J. Appl. Psychol. 88, 879e903.
Robertson, J.L., Barling, J., 2013. Greening organizations through leaders' influence
on employees' proenvironmental behaviors. J. Organ. Behav. 34, 176e194.
Robertson, J.L., Barling, J., 2017. Contrasting the nature and effects of environmen-
tally specific and general transformational leadership. Leader. Organ. Dev. J. 38,
22e44.
Ruepert, A.M., Keizer, K., Steg, L., 2017. The relationship between Corporate Envi-
ronmental Responsibility, employees' biospheric values, and pro-
environmental behavior at work. J. Environ. Psychol. 54, 65e78.
Rupp, D.E., Shao, R., Thornton, M.A., Skarlicki, D.P., 2013. Applicants' and employees'
reactions to corporate social responsibility: the moderating effects of first-party
justice perceptions and moral identity. Person. Psychol. 66, 895e933.
Sarkis, J., 2001. Manufacturing's role in corporate environmental sustainability-
Concerns for the new millennium. Int. J. Oper. Prod. Manag. 21, 666e686.
Schwartz, S.H., Bilsky, W., 1987. Toward a universal psychological structure of hu-
man values. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 53, 550e562.
Shamir, B., House, R.J., Arthur, M.B., 1993. The motivational effects of charismatic
leadership: a self-concept theory. Organ. Sci. 4, 577e594.
Sheldon, K.M., Elliot, A.J., 1999. Goal striving, need satisfaction, and longitudinal
well-being: the self-concordance model. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 76, 482e497.
Sheldon, K.M., Nichols, C.P., Kasser, T., 2011. Americans recommend smaller
ecological footprints when reminded of intrinsic American values of self-
expression, family, and generosity. Ecopsychology 3, 97e104.
Sheldon, K.M., Wineland, A., Venhoeven, L., Osin, E., 2016. Understanding the
motivation of environmental activists: a comparison of self-determination
theory and functional motives theory. Ecopsychology 8, 228e238.
Sobel, M.E., 1982. Asymptotic confidence intervals for indirect effects in structural
equation models. In: Leinhardt, S. (Ed.), Sociological Methodology 1982.
American Sociological Association, Washington, DC, pp. 290e312.
Soyez, K., Hoffman, S., Wünschmann, Gelbrich, K., 2009. Proenvironmental value
orientation across cultures. Soc. Psychol. 40 (4), 222e233.
Steg, L., 2016. Values, norms, and intrinsic motivation to act proenvironmentally.
 L.M. Graves, J. Sarkis / Journal of Cleaner Production 196 (2018) 576e587
Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 41, 277e292.
Steg, L., Bolderdijk, J.W., Keizer, K., Perlaviciute, G., 2014. An integrated framework
for encouraging proenvironmental behaviour: the role of values, situational
factors, and goals. J. Environ. Psychol. 38, 104e115.
Stone, J., 2010. The power of the self-consistency motive in social life. In:
Gonzales, M.H., Tavris, C., Aronson, J. (Eds.), The Scientist and the Humanist: a
Festschrift in Honor of Elliot Aronson. Psychology Press, New York, pp. 138e158.
Thompson, S.C.G., Barton, M.A., 1994. Ecocentric and anthropocentric attitudes to-
ward the environment. J. Environ. Psychol. 14, 149e157.
van den Broek, K., Bolderdijk, J.W., Steg, L., 2017. Individual differences in values
determine the relative persuasiveness of biospheric, economic and combined
appeals. J. Environ. Psychol. 145e156.
Van der Werff, E., Steg, L., Keizer, K., 2013. The value of environmental self-identity:
the relationship between biospheric values, environmental self-identity and
587
environmental preferences, intentions, and behaviour. J. Environ. Psychol. 34,
55e63.
Van der Werff, E., Steg, L., Keizer, K., 2014. I am what I am, by looking past the
present: the influence of biospheric values and past behavior on environmental
self-identity. Environ. Behav. 46, 626e657.
Webb, D., Soutar, G.N., Mazzarol, T., Saldaris, P., 2013. Self-determination theory and
consumer behavioural change: evidence from a household energy saving study.
J. Environ. Psychol. 35, 59e66.
Wesselink, R., Blok, V., Ringersma, J., 2017. Pro-environmental behavior in the
workplace and the role of managers and organization. J. Clean. Prod. 168,
1679e1687.
, P., 2018. Overcoming the barriers to pro-
Yuriev, A., Boiral, O., Francoeur, V., Paille
environmental behaviors in the workplace: a systematic review. J. Clean. Prod.
182, 379e394.