Historical background

Taking eco-initiatives

Because of the many environmental problems caused by orga-

nizational activities (Stern, 2000), companies are increasingly

pressured to reduce their environmental impacts. A strategic way

for companies to do this is by leveraging employee behavior (Hart,

1995; Lülfs &Hahn, 2013; Ramus &Killmer, 2007). The key role of

individuals in pollution prevention, waste management, and

resource conservation has long been established in the corporate

greening literature (e.g., Hanna, Newman, &Johnson, 2000; May &

Flannery, 1995; Ramus &Steger, 2000). Nevertheless, research on

workplace pro-environmental behaviors has not been conducted in

a systematic fashion. Only recently have researchers tried to iden-

tify and study employee green behaviors on a large scale, resulting

in the development of a comprehensive taxonomy called the ‘Green

Five’(Ones &Dilchert, 2012).

The Green Five Taxonomy by Ones and Dilchert (2012) is based

on the analysis of more than 3000 activities that was obtained from

a large spectrum of jobs, organizations, and industries in the United

States and Europe, and aims to encompass the whole range of

employees' actions that impact the natural environment. It pro-

poses a framework of workplace green behaviors under five main

analytical categories: conserving (i.e., reducing use, reusing,

repurposing, and recycling), working sustainably (e.g., changing

how work is done), avoiding harm (e.g., preventing pollution),

influencing others (e.g., encouraging and supporting others), and

taking initiative (e.g., initiating programs and policies). However,

these categories are not mutually exclusive, and Ones and Dilchert

have stressed that ‘taking initiative’comprises an instrumental set

of actions describing “how employees go about initiating and pro-

moting environmentally relevant behaviors that might, based on

their content, fall into other categories”(p. 99, emphasis in orig-

inal). In other words, individuals who take initiative at work can

serve as change agents whose actions can be directed at activities

such as reducing resource consumption (i.e., conserving), devel-

oping greener products (i.e., working sustainably), or improving

end-of-pipe pollution control (i.e., avoiding harm).

The concept of eco-initiative was formally introduced by Ramus

and Steger (2000), and defined as “any action taken by an employee

that she or he thought would improve the environmental perfor-

mance of the company”(p. 606). Eco-initiatives are discrete, indi-

vidual behaviors that can occur at any organizational level and

depend on employees offering innovative ideas and making sug-

gestions to improve the situation. According to Ramus and her

colleagues (Ramus, 2001; Ramus &Killmer, 2007; Ramus &Steger,

2000), employee eco-initiatives are a proxy for eco-innovation and

contribute to corporate greening in three main ways: (a) by

decreasing the environmental impacts of the company, (b) by

solving environmental problems, and (c) by creating more eco-

efficient products or services. As highlighted by Ramus and

Killmer (2007), eco-initiatives thus display aspects of ‘taking

charge’, i.e., behavior that is voluntary and intended to effect

organizationally functional change (Morrison &Phelps, 1999,p.

403).

Eco-initiatives often take the form of (change-oriented) orga-

nizational citizenship behavior (OCB), and entail employees' in-

vestment of time and energy toward environmental improvement

(Boiral, 2009; Daily, Bishop, &Govindarajulu, 2009; Lülfs &Hahn,

2013; Ones &Dilchert, 2012; Smith &O'Sullivan, 2012). Taking

eco-initiatives is about the advancement of the green agenda,

putting environmental interests first, and suggesting news ideas.

There is, more often than not, a discretionary aspect to employees'

initiatives toward the natural environment, which require proactive efforts to promote environmental
issues within the or-

ganization (Andersson &Bateman, 2000; Gattiker &Carter, 2010).

Although eco-initiatives can to some extent be subsumed within

environmental management systems and policies, research has

shown that formal procedures are not necessarily well integrated in

organizations and that employees may only pay lip service to the

standards in force (Boiral, 2007; Yin &Schmeidler, 2009). In other

words, eco-initiatives often rely on the goodwill of employees to do

the right thing for the environment by engaging in socially

responsible behavior (Kim, Kim, Han, Jackson, &Ployhart, 2014;

Ramus &Killmer, 2007).

In this paper, we propose and test a model of taking initiative

based on the workplace social exchange network. The next section

considers how complementary, as opposed to mutually exclusive,

social exchanges with the organization, the supervisor, and the

coworkers (Cole et al., 2002; Schaninger &Turnipseed, 2005), may

foster employee suggestions for constructive change

The workplace social exchange network and employee

initiatives

Social exchange theory, one of the “most influential conceptual

paradigms for understanding workplace behavior”(Cropanzano &

Mitchell, 2005, p. 874), has extensively been applied to the study

of employee behavior that is optional or supererogatory, known as

OCB (Organ, Podsakoff, &MacKenzie, 2006). Social exchange refers

to the mutual relationships between two or more parties that are

based on voluntary actions of reciprocity (Blau, 1964; Gouldner,

1960). The basic tenet of the theory is that when employees feel

supported and valued in the workplace, they are likely to return the

favor by demonstrating desirable work outcomes, such as proactive

or extra-role behavior (e.g., Lavelle, McMahan, &Harris, 2009;

Parker, Williams, &Turner, 2006).

Under the lens of social exchange theory, employee efforts to

take initiatives can be construed as a result of high-quality re-

lationships occurring with the organization, the supervisor, and the

coworkers (Chiaburu et al., 2013; Schaninger &Turnipseed, 2005).

Cole et al. (2002) argued that “the benefits employees receive from

the respective relationships are similar and can fall into the same

dimensions (p. 152).”Particularly, work experiences that foster

social support and are characterized by openness and trust,

contribute to the development of social exchanges whereby em-

ployees reciprocate the favorable treatment received through

positive attitudes and behavior (Cropanzano &Mitchell, 2005).

Social support refers to the positive nature and function of social

relationships (Burke, Greenglass, &Schwarzer, 1996), and is an

important input for initiating and enhancing social exchanges

(Blau,1964). When high-quality relationships become a standard in

the workplace, and sustain a sense of supportiveness, employees

are expected to engage in behaviors, acts, or gestures that

demonstrate their commitment to the well-being of the organiza-

tion and its constituents, such as OCB (Organ et al., 2006).

To date, most research has focused on OCB that preserves and

reinforces the status quo (i.e., ‘business as usual’), overlooking OCB

intended to functionally change or improve the situation

(Bettencourt, 2004; Choi, 2007; Parker et al., 20 06). Whereas OCB is

typically directed at maintaining existing working arrangements,

change-oriented OCB reflects “constructive efforts to bring about

improvement”(Morrison &Phelps, 1999, p. 414). OCB is usually not

defined by its motive (Organ, 1988). However, change-oriented OCB

aims at improving one's task or the organization's performance,

and is more likely to be motivated by underlying goals or needs

(Bettencourt, 2004; Choi, 2007; Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Paine, &

Bachrach, 2000). The nature of change-oriented OCB and its focus

on organizational improvement makes it a more diffuse behavior

with various levels of impact. Employee initiatives can bring about

change at the local level, such as a procedure change affecting a

specific job task; or at the wider level, and eventually involve sys-

temic policy change (Smith &O'Sullivan, 2012). As such, research

indicates that taking initiative is influenced by perceptions of the

generic (and principally formal) as well as the local (and principally

informal) work social context (Morrison &Phelps, 1999). Accord-

ingly, Chiaburu et al. (2013) found that change-oriented OCB are

equally predicted, “with effect sizes of similar magnitudes,”by all

three organizational, supervisor, and coworker sources of support

(p. 311).

Social exchanges with the organization and with the supervisor

shape the generic work social context, or the degree to which

suggestions and improvement initiatives are believed to be

accepted and listened to by the hierarchy (Morrison &Phelps,

1999). High-quality relationships with the organization and one's

supervisor provide a work environment that is perceived as open,

and where a certain degree of risk-taking is tolerated (Ramus &

Steger, 2000). However, employee initiatives develop at the indi-

vidual level, which implies that the local social context, represented

by the work group dynamic and coworker relationships, has to

facilitate the sharing of ideas and not hinder those. That is, offering

suggestions for improvement will be perceived as less costly and

more legitimate when employees feel that they can freely share

their viewpoint with, and gain approval from, other members of the
work group (Morrison &Phelps, 1999; Parker et al., 2006). On this

basis, it is reasonable to believe that complementary (as opposed to

mutually exclusive) social exchanges with the organization, the

supervisor, and the coworkers, will promote employee initiatives

(Chiaburu et al., 2013), and that peer relationships will mediate

influences of the broader social and psychological context (Bentein

et al., 2002; Riketta &Van Dick, 2005).

In the following section, we extend and develop the workplace

social exchange network to a socially responsible change-oriented

OCB: employee eco-initiatives. Such initiatives are intended to

improve the environmental performance of the company on an

individual and voluntary basis, and display aspects of taking charge

behavior (Ramus &Killmer, 2007). The rationale for the hypotheses

is presented below.