The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:

https://www.emerald.com/insight/0142-5455.htm

Meaningful work as a mediator Meaningful

work as a
between perceived organizational mediator

support for environment and

employee eco-initiatives, 1487
psychological capital Received 17 April 2019
Revised 25 January 2020

and alienation 19 April 2020

8 June 2020
Accepted 9 June 2020
Jyotsna Bhatnagar and Pranati Aggarwal
Management Development Institute, Gurgaon, India

Abstract
Purpose – In this paper, the authors propose and empirically test an integrated model which investigates
the relationship between POS-E (perceived organizational support for the environment) and employee
outcomes, which are employee eco-initiatives (the first category of OCBE), employee psychological capital
and alienation. Meaningful work as a mediator between POS-E and employee outcomes was also
investigated.
Design/methodology/approach – The study utilized a survey method to empirically test the hypothesized
relationships on a sample of 303 respondents. For testing, Confirmatory factor analysis for the proposed and
alternative models, Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) based on software AMOS, version 20.0 was used. This
was to ensure validity and construct distinctiveness among the variables in the study and to evaluate the fit of
the hypothesized measurement model in comparison to several alternate models. To estimate the effects of
meaningful work (as a mediator) on the association between POS-E and eco-initiatives, psychological capital
and alienation, the authors administered Sobel test.
Findings – The present research augments the contemporary research on environmental sustainability and
employee outcomes by further developing the emerging constructs of perceived organizational support of the
environment (POS-E) and organized citizenship behavior toward the environment (OCBE), which is measured
by eco-initiatives. The results imply that POS-E is positively associated with eco-initiatives and employee
psychological capital and is negatively associated with alienation. The findings further suggest that
meaningful work mediates the association between POS-E and all the outcome variables which are: employee-
eco-initiatives, psychological capital and alienation.
Research limitations/implications – The findings confirm the desired direction of research and
accomplished the research objective of the study. As the consequences of POS-E imply immense value for all
stakeholders, decision-makers must also reflect on the means of enhancing employees’ understanding. Further,
it is imperative, that the organization supports their environmental goals and values, and their green
engagement.
Practical implications – Results of the present study exhibit wide practical inferences for the
managers. HR managers need to organize the passion for green behavior and work on intrinsic drivers of
employee green engagement to let it sustain over a period of time. As society gradually expects
increased organizational contributions towards environmental sustainability, this paper indicates that
those employees who get an opportunity to act in coordination with environmental objectives will
engage in eco-initiatives, exhibit higher psychological capital, and be less likely to feel alienated. The
results imply that leaders should examine a diversity of probable interventions to enhance POS-E in
order to gain from the initial rise in perceived meaningful work, employee eco-initiatives, increased
psychological capital and reduced alienation. These interventions may lead to higher passion for
sustainability and green behavior.
Social implications – Further, this work supports the work of Toffel and Schendler (2013), whose study
states that organizations should market their environment and climate initiatives, climate activism, such that
customers and suppliers appreciate their leadership, and understands what matters. This work supports the Employee Relations: The
International Journal
work of Turaga et al. (2010), whose study states that for pro-environment behavior, environment passion is an Vol. 42 No. 6, 2020
pp. 1487-1511
© Emerald Publishing Limited
0142-5455
Authors thank the anonymous reviewers of this manuscript which helped in improving this manuscript. DOI 10.1108/ER-04-2019-0187
ER intrinsic behavior which is needed (see Afsar et al., 2016). The current study enhances the need to trigger
employee’s sense of pro-environment passion at work place for significant results.
42,6 Originality/value – This is a pioneer study, in India which confirms and extends the construct of POS-E
using Social Exchange theory as an underpinning theory. We found that POS-E was linked with previously
untested employee consequences, like employee eco-initiatives and psychological capital and that it was
negatively associated with alienation. Our study confirmed mediator variable to be meaningful work in the
relationship between POS-E and psychological capital, alienation and eco-initiatives
Keywords Alienation, Psychological capital, Meaningful work, Employee eco-initiative, Perceived
1488 organizational support for the environment (POS-E)
Paper type Research paper

1. Introduction
Various studies have demonstrated that, to implement environment management effectively,
the required functional and managerial skills and abilities must be encouraged amongst all
employees across companies (Daily et al., 2008). Individual workers’ activities contribute a
significant part in firms’ accomplishments, including employees’ control of established
procedures (Ramus and Steger, 2000; Raineri et al., 2016). Few researchers, however, have
explored proactive environmental actions at the individual level within organizations, and
not many studies (e.g. Robertson and Barling, 2013; Kim et al., 2017) have investigated linkage
among organizations or supervisors’ green commitment and employee outcomes.
Thus, more research needs to focus on identifying factors related to individuals’ choices to
become involved in sustainable initiatives and this involvement’s impacts on businesses,
societies and the environment (Ones and Dilchert, 2013). The effect of single individual’s
contributions may be small, yet, when these are examined as a collective effort, their influence
can be substantial (Ones and Dilchert, 2012; Markey et al., 2016). In addition, Bhatnagar and
Srinivasan (2013) posit that, in the current, aggressive search for “talent,” “firms” that possess
a greater appreciation for HR practices that focus on environmental sustainability need to
develop ways to resolve individuals’ values with professional value systems. Company
objectives can, therefore, be achieved more fully if organizations make use of employees’
environment-related eco-initiatives.
To synthesize insights from established theories and future research directions from the
recent literature, the present enquiry sought to investigate the emerging constructs related to
perceived organizational support of the environment (POS-E). Eco-initiatives is one of the
constructs that are used to measure organized citizenship behavior in favor of the
environment (OCB-E), according to Lamm et al. (2015). To contribute to the promising theme
of work-related pro-environment behaviors (Turaga et al., 2010), the current research
included many psychological variables that work as mediators and outcome variables in the
proposed theoretical model. More specifically, we hypothesized and tested POS-E’s
association with employee outcomes, such as psychological factors, capital, eco-initiatives
and alienation. The results include the identification of the mediator variable, to be
meaningful work among the variables of POS-E and eco-initiatives, which is an unexplored
area of research (Boiral and Paill
e, 2012).
Studies on workplace pro-environment behaviors have also been sparse (Nag, 2012;
Raineri et al., 2016), so the present research aimed to address this research gap. The present
study further aimed to contribute to PRME (Principles for Responsible Management
Education, 2010) initiative, which focuses on persuading researchers and practitioners to
work together and develop novel ways to encourage environmental responsibility. The
current study’s findings incorporate suggestions for how managers can boost sustainable
employee behaviors, workers’ psychological capital and a sense of meaningful work, which
may contribute to reducing alienation within organizations and more pro-environment
behaviors.
 The research study is structured into the following six sections. The first section consists Meaningful
of a literature review on environmental sustainability. The third section introduces the work as a
existing findings on the concept of POS-E, which is the present study’s independent variable,
and the arguments for its association with employee outcomes such as eco-initiatives,
mediator
psychological capital and alienation. Perceived meaningful work is another important
variable in this research study. The following section details the testing of the conceptual and
hypothesized model with meaningful work, mediating POS-E’s relationships with outcomes
such as eco-initiatives, psychological capital and alienation. The last two sections present 1489
propositions for theory and practice, and present the study’s areas of limitation and explore
insights for further enquiries.

2. Conceptual framework
McMahon (2009) states that, even as organizations progressively intensify their engagement
in environmentally sustainable practices, these entities regularly ignore a critical element in
this perspective: their employees. Employees now want to feel that they are doing a
meaningful job and, to find reassurance this is true, they often look to their employers’ green
philosophy (Lamm et al., 2015). Within the domain of pro-environment work behavior, De
Groote and Steg (2009) report that organizations encourage employees to express these
corporations’ green image through flexible and voluntary behavior (Afsar et al., 2016).
Recent studies have investigated green behaviors at an individual level, which resulted in
a detailed classification system called “Green Five.” According to Ones and Dilchert (2012; cf.
Raineri et al., 2016, p. 48):
This taxonomy refers to individuals who take initiative at work, can serve as exchange agents, [and]
whose actions can be directed at activities such as reducing resource consumption (i.e. conserving),
developing greener products (i.e. working sustainably)or end-of-pipe pollution control (i.e.
avoiding harm).
Aggarwal and Bhatnagar (2016) have also proposed a possible association between
organizations’ green management practices and possible consequences for employees’ well-
being and attitudes.
However, to date, empirical inquiry, as per Mueller et al. (2012) and Rupp et al. (2013) in this
field has reflected on measuring how well CSR, (corporate social responsibility) combines
initiatives affecting all stakeholders, employees (external environment and society at large).
These studies appear to reflect the well-established assumption that businesses’ concern for
their employees leads to improved behaviors and attitudes (e.g. Rhoades and Eisenberger,
2002). However, due to possible contamination of assessments, the association between
organizations’ commitment to environmental pursuits and employee outcomes remains
inconclusive (Erdogachn et al., 2015).
Thus, the present study’s key research questions were formulated as follows:
(1) Does an association exist between organizational environmental support and
employee outcomes?
(2) While businesses undertake and support environmentally sustainable pursuits, do
these organizations also receive and undertake internal paybacks in the shape of
employee behaviors or mental models?
Lamm et al.’s (2015) seminal work answers some of these questions in a Western context.
However, POS-E may be related to other variables that have not been incorporated in earlier
studies of western organizations. These research queries however are to be addressed in
emerging markets such as India.
ER Further mention that the existing research lacks a consensus about a suitable theoretical
42,6 background model of constructs’ comparative significance in descriptions of engagement in
sustainable workplace behaviors. Studies of organizations’ sustainable behaviors have only
explored the construct of OCB-E (Ramus and Steger, 2000; Manika et al., 2013; Paill
e and
Boiral, 2013) without giving deliberation to individual categories of OCB-E.
To find answers to the above-mentioned inquiries and expand the constructs of POS-E
and OCB-E more fully, these were measured in the present study through eco-initiatives.
1490 Additional variables included in the model were employees’ psychological capital and
alienation, which were conceptualized within the framework of social exchange theory (SET).
Many important areas of organizational behavior have been examined using the arguments
set out in SET. For example, organizational citizenship behavior (Organ, 1988, 1990) –
including managerial and organizational support (Ladd and Henry, 2000) –has been
examined through this theory (Cropanzano et al., 2017).
According to SET, employees focus on being proactive and take initiative because of good
quality interactions occurring within their organization with supervisors and co-workers
(Chiaburu et al., 2013). Importance is also given to work experiences that promotes social
collaboration and reinforces trust, sincerity and openness. These attitudes augment the
progressive development of positive social exchanges in which employees respond to the
encouragement they receive owing to optimistic mindsets and behaviors (Cropanzano and
Mitchell, 2005).
According to Organ et al.(2006), [w]hen superior elements in interactions turn out to be
usual in place of work, and maintain a connotation of nurturance and support ,employees are
likely to draw in behaviors and actions which may reflect their dedication to the wellbeing of
the organization (cf. Raineri et al., 2016, p. 49). In a more recent study, Ciocirlan (2017) further
highlights that, when employees engage in sustainable behaviors, they can gain greater inner
contentment and meaning from doing their work. Firms which construct a constructive spirit
for environmental sustainability may, furthermore, be able to influence these workers’ sense
of belonging and their incorporation into the workplace (Carmeli et al., 2007).
The objective of the current research was to establish whether the concept of meaningful
work is a mediating variable between POS-E and the variables of eco-initiatives,
psychological capital and alienation. This theoretical model was shaped by the conceptual
framework provided by SET.

2.1 POS-E: antecedent

Support for socio political efforts of employees’ derives from the inner workings of
professional environments, which includes a favorable organizational climate and
organizations’ level of faith and trust in their employees. Further, these activities may be
conditional to workers’ perception of how their organization appreciates and cares about each
employee (Seibert et al., 2011). Perceived organizational support (POS) is amongst the most
significant constructs discussed in the socio-political literature. POS is employees’ general
views about how much their organization acknowledges and appreciates their input and how
concerned their employers are about their wellbeing (Rhoades et al., 2001).
As POS is a quite broad concept, the new, more specific idea of POS-E has been introduced
in recent studies to signify the social and political underpinning for sustainability. Expanding
on the basic definition of POS, Lamm et al. (2015, p. 209) define POS-E as “the specific beliefs
held by employees concerning how much the[ir] organisation values their contributions
toward sustainability.” This variable shares certain characteristics with POS that include a
belief that businesses offer their staff opportunities and autonomy over some decisions and
value employees’ contributions.
 Nevertheless, Lamm et al. (2015) have shown that these two constructs are distinctive as Meaningful
POS implies confirmation for nonspecific contributions, whereas POS-E directly implies work as a
organizational corroboration of sustainable activities. This new construct led Lamm et al.
(2015) to identify related theories that could be valuable in clarifying person specific CSR
mediator
engagement in workplace contexts. POS-E is quite similar to the concept of green
engagement developed by Bhatnagar and Srinivasan (2013). The cited authors suggest that
“[b]usiness and sustainability linkage supported by intense people processes leading to green
engagement at the individual, team and organisational level is an area which future studies in 1491
India may need to focus on” (Bhatnagar and Srinivasan, 2013, p. 43).
The current study built on this theoretical framework through POS-E and SET, which is
based on the principle of reciprocal behavior and, more specifically, inter-dependent
exchange (Cropanzano and Mitchell, 2005, p. 876). These principles are highlighted by POS-E,
which can be the result of employees’ relationship to green behaviors supported by their
organization and which provides the environment for these behaviors and green engagement.
Thus, to replicate SET more closely, present research was extended to determine POS-E’s
association with other variables suggested by the literature that have not been investigated in
previous studies. POS-E functioned as the main independent variable in the integrated,
cohesive theoretical framework.
Cropanzano and Mitchell (2005) assert that SET offers robust arguments for theoretical
investigations of various types of organizational behaviors, including performance on the job,
absenteeism and intention to quit. Schaninger and Turnipseed (2005) note that the process of
social exchange centers around patterns of reciprocal behavior and appears when employees
react efficiently to benefactors (e.g. organizations or supervisors) who deliver something
considered significant. This give and take among individuals within organizations outlines
the foundation of exchange associations (Schaninger and Turnipseed, 2005).
Besides SET, the current study examines the theoretical lens of social identity theory
(Tajfel, 1972; Hogg and Abrams, 1988; Hogg et al., 1995; Hogg and Terry, 2000).
Tajfel identifies the social identity concept stating that, “the individual’s knowledge that he
belongs to certain social groups together with some emotional and value significance to him of
this group membership” (1972, p. 292, cf. Hogg and Terry, 2000, p. 122). Thus, social identity
theory helps elucidates how shared activities at the organization may be used to express
group belonging and may signal a group identity (Hogg and Abrams, 1988; Tajfel and
Turner, 1986).
To quote: “Social identity theory, in contrast, has a somewhat more dynamic and more
highly elaborated perspective, which explains contextual salience in terms of social
comparative factors, self-esteem motivation, uncertainty reduction, and social explanation”
(Hogg et al., 1995, p. 263).
To account for social identity phenomena, social identity theory invokes the operation of
two underlying socio-cognitive processes. (1) Categorization and (2) Self Enhancement.
Specifically categorization brings into focus those aspects of experience which are
subjectively meaning full in a particular context (Hogg et al., 1995, p. 260).
The current enquiries fill the gaps of research pointed out by Raineri et al. (2016, p. 47), who
call for further research that systematically seeks to portray the systemic exchange based on
social context and the consequent dynamics that are cultivated in the workplace. These
include exchanges among employees and their organization, supervisors and workgroups
(Neff, 2008; Chiaburu et al., 2013). Thus, collective perceptions of organizational and
supervisor support appear to play a significant part in encouraging voluntary initiatives,
employee commitment and any additional effort benefiting the environment along with
corporate social responsibility (Bhattacharya et al., 2008).
The current study also investigated the literature on the association between POS-E and
employee attitudes, behaviors and mental states for those workers who value environmental
ER sustainability. The hypotheses developed focused on employees who respect ecological
42,6 sustainability because POS-E is largely to be significant to them. Conversely, workers who do
not respect environmental sustainability are improbable to pay attention to the perception
that their organization respects staff members’ sustainable and ecological initiatives. As
stated previously, POS-E is a version of POS focused more closely on environmental
sustainability. Therefore, POS-E was prone to have a superior impact on the relevant
employee consequences in contrast to POS.
1492
2.2 Employee eco-initiatives
Boiral (2009) conducted seminal research on eco-initiatives, which found that, regardless of
organizations’ existing systems, employee eco-initiatives play “a crucial role in preventing
pollution and promoting corporate greening” (cf. Raineri et al., 2016, p. 225). Eco-initiatives is
the first OCB-E category identified by Boiral and Paille (2012) and associated with employee-
driven environmentally sustainable initiatives. This concept includes sustainable behavior in
the place of work, namely, actions like decreasing consumption of water, increasing recycling
and reducing energy consumption. Other related voluntary behaviors are intended to
diminish greenhouse gas discharge and provide pro-environmental suggestions, among
other goals (Organ et al., 2006).
Boiral and Paill
e (2012) posit that individuals’ pro-environmental commitment through
eco-initiatives might quickly diminish if their behaviors or actions are overlooked by their
organizations. Part of the literature on environmentally sustainable behaviors in
organizations is based on SET, whose main assumption is that reciprocity exists between
workers and organizations (Paille et al., 2013; Paille and Mejia-Morelas, 2014). According to
SET, if employees are aware that protecting the environment is a crucial resolution of their
employer and if these individuals feel encouraged by their organization, they are predisposed
to relate to environmentally sustainable behaviors so as to receive the expected pay offs
(Paille and Mejia-Morelas, 2014).
Individual initiatives also require that employees possess a level of autonomy to adjust
current routines or contribute to the environment in different ways, not requisite to the
organization. Employee initiatives thus appear to partially depend on organizational contexts
involving crucial systems and processes such as empowerment, decentralized decision
making, corporate culture and management’s support, Bissing-Olson et al. (2013).
In other words, SET (Blau, 1964) assumes that immediate supervisors’ support along with
facilitation can make staff members feel obliged to adopt employee eco-initiatives. This
reaction may be dependent on workers’ perceptions of how much their firm supports
ecological behaviors. Thus, our study considered that the more employees perceive that their
organization supports their efforts to enhance environmental sustainability, the more they
are likely to engage in eco-initiatives. Thus, we posited that:
H1. POS-E and employees’ eco-initiatives will have a positive relationship.

2.3 Psychological capital

This research applied Luthans’s et al. (2007) definition of psychological capital. Employees
who possess a higher awareness of POS-E are expected to possess more psychological
capital. Luthans et al. (2008) previously demonstrated that people who feel their organizations
as more supportive of all work to safeguard the environment are expected to account for
increased levels of psychological capital. The latter further positively influences their
performance in both high-tech manufacturing and service industries. By presenting proof of
psychological capital’s importance to predicting employee outcomes, the cited studies also
ascertained the benefits of a supportive organizational environment. Luthans’s et al. (2007)
and Luthans et al. (2008) furthermore acknowledged the significant association among these Meaningful
insights and employees’ psychological capital and performance. These findings further work as a
strengthen SET’s underpinning assumptions.
Researchers have previously posited that experience of an encouraging organizational
mediator
climate can generate the affirmative conditions essential for psychological capital to grow
(Luthans et al., 2008). For instance, when obstructions occur due to employee mistakes,
individuals functioning in a supportive environment are more probable to come across better
levels of resiliency that is, the ability to bounce back after a setback. This resilience is less 1493
common among workers who live in constant fear of payback or punishment due to their
errors. Those employees who work in a supportive climate can stay focused on the tasks at
hand while placing setbacks behind them and successfully improving their subsequent
performance. Resilient employees convey upbeat emotions in themselves and in others
(Fredrickson, 2004), which can help ascertain a more supportive environment (Mishra et al.,
2017) that facilitates POS-E.
Finally, prior research’s findings suggest that a higher degree of POS is also related to
higher degree of psychological capital (Luthans et al., 2008). Due to a theoretical equivalence
between POS & POS-E, the present study extended POS’s benefits to POS-E, as suggested by
Lamm et al. (2015), so POS-E was expected to produce greater employee psychological capital.
Hence, we posited that:
H2. POS-E is positively related to employees’ psychological capital.

2.4 Alienation
Alienation is a state in which workers have lost control over their labor and work
procedures’ results and thus the capability to articulate their uniqueness through their
work (Marx, 1963). The nature of many jobs in contemporary work context scan create a
sense of alienation, especially due to specialization and an absence of control over work
outcomes. The literature indicates that work conditions including meaninglessness and
powerlessness are significant factors in self- schism in the workplace (Kohn, 1976; cf.
Raineri et al., 2016).
Marx (1963) contends that employees become alienated from their work because they
do not have a choice about their products’ production and design. Seeman (1959) also
suggests that alienation is the consequence of employees’ powerlessness over an
unsatisfied claim for independence. Control due to bureaucracy has extensively been
considered a source of alienation as control reduces employees’ work-related freedom
(Blauner, 1964; Aiken and Hage, 1966) and creates a sense of disempowerment
(Gouldner, 1952).
Conversely, the POS literature recognizes that an encouraging environment improves
employees’ experience of empowerment. Ahmad et al. (2010) argue that workers feel
psychologically empowered on the job when they perceive their organization as supportive of
their work. Patrick and Laschinger (2006) also demonstrated that psychological
empowerment and perceived organizational support are positively associated with each
other. More empowerment is observed among workers who report a higher level of
organizational support (Parker and Price, 1994), so employees who sense their organization is
supportive will possibly feel less alienated as their perception of powerlessness diminishes.
Given the theoretical similarity among the constructs of POS and POS-E, the present
study sought to extend Lamm et al. (2015) work. The cited authors state that POS-E can make
employees who value environmental sustainability feel more empowered and thus less
alienated. Therefore, we posited that:
H3. POS-E and alienation among employees will have a negative relationship.
ER 2.5 Meaningful work
42,6 Various scholars have explicitly acknowledged that benefits can be gained from examining
sustainability from a relational perspective (Genus and Coles, 2008; Geels, 2010; Shove and
Walker, 2010). More particularly, social and material actors’ mutual entanglement (Rip, 2010)
permits meaning to emerge and be translated into practice (cf. Garud and Gehman, 2012,
p. 983). Meaningfulness is defined as “the value of a work goal or purpose, judged. . . [by] the
individual’s own ideals or standards” (May et al., 2004, p. 11). Therefore, when individuals
1494 perceive their work as meaningful, this is a personal perception of this work’s existential
purpose or significance.
The concept of meaninglessness and/or meaningfulness in work contexts was first
explored in the field of organisational psychology. Meaningful Work is considered an
important psychological term which mediates the link between fundamental job
characteristics and outcomes (Hackman and Oldham (1976) . Humphrey et al. (2007)
discovered through the meta-analysis study that meaningfulness in work is the key mediator
between these two variables.
For the previous 30 years, American researchers have increasingly acknowledged that
meaningful work is a significant quality that individuals search for in their employment, well
ahead of income, promotions, hours at work and job security (Cascio, 2003). Preceding
research has implied that this variable is correlated with results that employees appreciate
and value, which lead to increased engagement (May et al., 2004), and wellbeing (Campbell
et al., 1976) among others. Regarding the benefits for employees and organizations,
researchers are just beginning to understand the features that contribute the most to
meaningful work. These include interpersonal relationships, job design and organizations’
culture and mission (Rosso et al., 2010).

2.6 Meaningful work and POS-E

The present study’s contention is based on the presupposition, that a workforce that
perceives organizations’ support for environmental activities will also report experiencing
meaningful work. Bowie (1998) categorizes Kantian features of meaningful work, the first and
second of which are work that is “freely entered into” and that “allows the worker to exercise
[his or] her autonomy and independence.” The third feature is work that “enable[s] the worker
to develop her rational capacities,” while the fourth is work that “provides a wage sufficient for
physical welfare.” The fifth feature is that meaningful work “supports the moral development of
employees,” and the last is work that “is not paternalistic.”
Basis these six characteristics, the assumption was made that employers’ support of
employees’ moral development and environmental initiatives can result in workers’ increased
perception of meaningful work. This assessment arises from their experience of autonomy,
comfort, support and independence [see also Blatt and Camden (2007), Kahn (2007) and Rosso
et al. (2010)].
Seibert et al. (2011) further explicate how socio political endorsement directly influences
various forms of psychological empowerment. For instance, social support promotes a feeling
of approval, which then augments the impression that work is meaningful. Seibert et al. (2011)
thus posit that socio-political endorsement leads to psychological empowerment, of which
meaningful work is a part.
Researchers have earlier argued that POS impacts the achievement of employees’
environmental resourcefulness, inputs and hard work (e.g. Ramus and Steger, 2000; cf. Afsar
et al., 2016). The present research again expanded the stated aspect of the POS model to POS-E
due to their theoretical similarity, proposing that POS-E positively relates to meaningful work.
Further arguing on the basis of the theoretical lens of Social identity theory which has
“a somewhat more dynamic and more highly elaborated perspective, which explains
contextual salience in terms of social comparative factors, self-esteem motivation, uncertainty
reduction, and social explanation” (Hogg et al., 1995, p. 263). Employees identify with the Meaningful
organization, feel more meaningful in their role specially when they perceive that their work as a
organization is engaging in green behavior (Bhatnagar and Srinivasan, 2013) and in good
corporate citizenship behaviors (Bhattacharya et al., 2008).
mediator
Therefore, we postulated that:
H4. POS-E and employees’ perception of meaningful work will have appositive
relationship. 1495

2.7 Meaningful work and employee eco-initiatives

Substantial evidence has been found that meaningful work can be related to a series of
positive results for organizations. These benefits may include increased job performance
(Hackman and Oldham, 1976; Fried and Ferris, 1987), and organizational identification and
commitment (Cardadaor et al., 2011) among others.
Seibert et al. (2011) seminal study established that organizational citizenship behavior is
an outcome of psychological empowerment. Work that employees perceive as meaningful
can propel them to go “above and beyond” their regular duties because they value and
attempt to improve business processes holistically. Those individuals who feel that their
organization supports their environmental aims are more probable to associate with eco-
initiatives, as well as individual, pro-environmental actions within the organization.
OCB-E classified as eco-initiatives may be described as “discretionary behaviours that
may not be acknowledged by the formal reward structure and that help to improve
organisations” environmental performance and practices (Boiral and Paill
e, 2012). The
assumption was thus made in the present study that the internal motivation created by
perceived task significance results in more engagement in discretionary job behaviors as
employees will experience a sense of meaning, self-determination and impact. We
posited that:
H5. Meaningful work and employees’ eco-initiatives will have appositive relationship.

2.8 Meaningful work and psychological capital

The existing research’s results indicate that achieving meaning at work is extremely
important to employees (Sheldon et al., 2001; Kotter-Gr€ uhn et al., 2009). Meaningful work has
been associated with wellbeing (Keyes, 2007; McKnight and Kashdan, 2009). A deficiency of
meaningful work has been consistent to frequent thoughts of changing employers, a skeptical
outlook on jobs and disengagement, among other negative outcomes.
In addition, Hobfoll’s, Conservation of resources theory (Hobfoll, 1989), suggests that
workers who perceive their efforts to be less meaningful can experience increased levels of
exhaustion. Debats et al. (1995) posit that the existence of meaningful work is more important
than any other work aspect affecting employee outcomes since meaningful work is closely
related to the self or individuals’ identity.
Therefore, drawing on the literature that reports a clear link between meaningful work
and other positive employee outcomes and states, the present study assumed that meaningful
work is positively associated with positive employee mental states. We proposed that:
H6. Meaningful work will be positively correlated with employees’ psychological capital.

2.9 Meaningful work and employee alienation

The research on meaningfulness has shaped the concept of alienation, which originated from
the sociology of work and organizational fields. Researchers have utilized the subjective
concept of alienation in numerous organizational studies, so the term currently has multiple
ER connotations. To provide a more precise definition, Seeman (1959) grouped these
42,6 connotations into five major alienation facets: meaninglessness, powerlessness, social
isolation, self-estrangement and normlessness. Among these facets, meaningless and
powerlessness are thought to be especially significant (DeHart-Davis and Pandey, 2005;
Tummers, 2011).
Marx (1963) suggests that individual workers’ apparent value depends on their capacity
for visualizing their actions’ outcomes as multiple meaningful ideas that are understandable
1496 primarily as part of the creation of ideas or products. Individuals aspire not only to actualize
their desires through intentional work but also to see the entire outcome finalized. Drawing on
Marx’s (1963) analogy, Seeman (1959) contends that employees will be alienated if they are
unable to see clear connections between their efforts or work and larger processes and
systems. The degree to which employees can relate to their work is an outcome of their ability
to visualize the end-to-end associations of work-related experiences. Thus, building on the
existing literature, we proposed that:
H7. Meaningful work will be negatively correlated with employee alienation.
In addition to the hypotheses presented above, we further assumed that workers’ perceptions
of meaningful work is a mediator amid POS-E and the dependent variables of employee eco-
initiatives, psychological capital and alienation. This theoretical model is consistent with the
literature on alienation, OCB-E and psychological empowerment. Seibert et al. (2011)
developed a cohesive model in which empowerment mediates the relationship between
antecedents such as socio political support and employee attitudinal and behavioral
consequences like turnover intention, job satisfaction and OCB.
Work is most meaningful when the purposes served exceed the external consequences
only (e.g. Arnold et al. 2007). Seibert et al. (2011) established that experiences of
meaningful work are dependent on the personal connections made between employees
and their work. Mohammed et al. (2013), in turn, investigated meaning in work to be a
partial mediator in the direct association between transformational leadership and work
engagement. Lee et al. (2017) additionally estimated that meaningful work is mediating
the relationship between variables of leadership and workers’ engagement and
empowerment.
Meaningful work has been linked with wellbeing and personal-organizational value fit as
an independent mediator (e.g. Duffy et al., 2015). Mohammed et al. (2013, p. 538) also argue
that experiences of meaningful work furthermore forms a connection and relates aspiration
and values (Chalofsky, 2003; Arnold et al., 2007). Van Wingerden et al., 2018, p. 5) provide an
example of a “policy officer working for a [m]unicipality [who] sees sustainability as a priority
in life and feels [his or] her organisation does so as well, which gives [him or] her a feeling of
belonging to a community of like-minded people,”
Greater perceived organization support for the environment can thus lead to higher
psychological capital, which contributes to lesser alienation and a fulfilling sense of
developing more eco-initiatives. However, workers should perceive their work as meaningful.
Meaningful work may consequently act as a mediator between POS-E, and employee eco-
initiatives, psychological capital and employee alienation. To the best of our knowledge,
meaningfulness has not been studied previously as a mediator between POS-E and these
three outcome variables. Hence, we proposed that:
H8. Meaningful work will mediate the association between POS-E and (a) employee eco-
initiatives, (b) psychological capital and (c) employee alienation.
Figure 1 presents the hypothesized relationships between the selected variables.
3. Methodology Meaningful
3.1 Sample work as a
This research design was based on survey method, wherein data was collected from working
adults in multiple Indian industries such as banking and consulting, information technology,
mediator
information technology enabled services. Diverse industries were incorporated to enhance
the results’ generalizability (Ostroff, 2007). In the present study’s first phase, we conducted a
pilot survey of 40 young adults in order to check our measures’ psychometric properties.
In the second phase, we created an online questionnaire link, which was mailed to 136 1497
working adults. They were asked to share this link with their colleagues. This snowball
sampling procedure resulted in a total sample of 330 working adults. A similar technique has
been used in earlier studies (Lamm and Meeks, 2009; Baltes et al., 2011; He and Li, 2011; Chou
and Pearson, 2012) in related research contexts.
Following Lamm et al.’s (2015) suggestions, the current analyses concentrated on
determining which employees in the sample value environmental sustainability. To this end,
the NEP scale (Dunlap et al., 2000) was customized by including 14 statements with a
Cronbach’s alpha of 0.75. This scale assesses respondents’ general pro-environmental
sustainability perspective. The employees surveyed responded on a five-point Likert scale.
The items incorporated such statements as “we are approaching the limit of the number of
people the Earth can support” and “humans were meant to rule over the rest of nature.”
We next chose the respondents who scored all items above the scale’s mean value of 3.0,
including their data in further analyses. This step resulted in a final sample of 303 employees.
Prior related studies have focused on the median as a measure of central tendency, but we
opted for the mean as our measure of central tendency and cleaned our data based on this
criterion.
Of the final sample of 303 working adults, 58% were male and 42% were female, with an
average age of 30 years (mean 5 30.33, standard deviation [SD] 5 6.97). The respondents
reported an average tenure of 4.46 years in their organizations (SD 5 6.07). Eighteen percent
of the sample population worked in organizations comprising fewer than 100 employees, and
26% worked in organizations comprising 100–1,000 employees. A further 56% worked in
organizations with 1,000 or more employees. Finally, 19% of the participants were working in
non-managerial positions, 25% were lower management, 49% middle management and 7%
top management.

3.2 Measures
The scale developed by Lamm et al. (2015) was utilized to measure POS-E. Examples of items
on this scale are as follows: “I feel that I am able to behave as sustainably as I want to at my
current organisation,” and “my actions toward sustainability are appreciated by my
organisation.” The Cronbach’s alpha for this scale is 0.71.
To measure the variable of eco-initiatives we utilized the scale developed by Boiral and
Paille (2012). The Cronbach’s alpha for this scale is 0.83.Items include, for instance, these two
statements: “in my work, I weigh the consequences of my actions before doing something that

Employee Alienation

Perceived Organizational
Support toward the
Environment (POSE) Meaningful Employee Psychological
Work Capital

Figure 1.
Employee Eco-Initiatives The proposed model
ER could affect the environment,” and “I voluntarily carry out environmental actions and
42,6 initiatives in my daily work activities.”
To measure psychological capital, we used, Luthans et al.’s (2007) 24-item scale covering
four components (i.e. hope, efficacy, resilience and optimism) with six items each. Some
examples of items are as follows: “there are lot of ways around any problem,” and “I usually
manage difficulties one way or another at work.” This scale’s Cronbach’s alpha is 0.95.
To evaluate alienation, Nair and Vohra’s (2009) scale was used. This includes items such
1498 as “I feel disconnected from the events in my workplace”. The Cronbach’s alpha for this scale
is 0.90. Meaningful work was, measured by the scale developed by May et al. (2004). An
example of the items is “the work I do on this job is meaningful to me.” The Cronbach’s alpha
for this scale is 0.95.

4. Findings and results

4.1 Descriptive statistics
When we refer to Table 1, which presents descriptive statistics, correlation coefficients and
Cronbach’s alpha values (n 5 303 .The results of correlation co-efficient established that the
mediator analysis may possibly tested. Further, correlation coefficient matrix also shows that
items assessing the same variable are highly correlated with each other , in contrast to be
correlated with other variables.
POS-E is positively associated with eco-initiatives (r 5 0.29; p < 0.01), psychological
capital (r 5 0.36; p < 0.01) and meaningful work (r 5 0.33; p < 0.01) and has a negative
association with alienation (r 5 0.35; p < 0.01). In addition, meaningful work is positively
associated with eco-initiatives (r 5 0.31; p < 0.01) and psychological capital (r 5 0.70; p < 0.01)
but has a negative association with alienation (r 5 0.39; p < 0.10). These correlation results
suggested acceptable conditions were present for conducting tests to evaluate the validity of
the proposed associations.
To check convergent and discriminant validity, we conducted principal component
analysis using promax with Kaiser normalization on the 303 respondents’ data. The KMO
value obtained is 0.9, and the Bartlett’s test score is 0.8 and significant at 0.000, thereby
establishing the sample’s adequacy. Following Podsakoff et al. (2003), we conducted
Harman’s single factor test, to test for Common method bias. The test’s output reveals only a
31.2% variance on a single factor. Using structural equation modelling (SEM), the
confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) produced results that showed an inadequate fit between
the single-factor model and the data (χ 2[104] 5 1042.26; root mean square error of
approximation [RMSEA] 5 0.172;comparative fit index [CFI] 5 0.63; incremental fit index
[IFI] 5 0.64; Tucker–Lewis index[TLI] 5 0.58). The questionnaire’s items were also
intermingled to create a natural psychological distance between them and reduce common
method bias (Som, 2008). Thus, common method bias is not a concern in the present study.

4.2 CFA
We used AMOS version 20.0 software to conduct CFA based on SEM (Structured
Equation Modeling). This was cone in order to affirm the distinctiveness of the research
model’s variables. Further, to evaluate the hypothesized model’s goodness of fit compared to
alternate models. The CFA’s outputs are detailed in Table 2.The findings for the proposed
measurement model were found to be suitable, confirming a good fit for the data. Table 3
demonstrates the outputs as χ 2(94) 5 225.59; RMSEA 5 0.068; CFI 5 0.95; IFI 5 0.95; and
TLI 5 0.93.
The hypothesized model fit indices, were assessed based on various fit indices including
RMSEA, CFI, IFI and TLI (Browne and Cudeck, 1993). The TLI, CFI and IFI values obtained
 Mean SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

1. POS-E 3.33 0.67 (0.71)

2. Eco-initiatives 3.52 0.81 0.299** (0.83)
3. Alienation 2.17 0.77 0.358** 0.14** (0.90)
4. Psychological capital 3.83 0.49 0.361** 0.396** 0.402** (0.95)
5. Meaningful work 3.87 0.79 0.335** 0.313** 0.397** 0.708** (0.95)
6. Gender 0.58 0.49 0.071 0.048 0.061 0.034 0.043 1
7. Org. size 3.77 1.98 0.002 0.143* 0.038 0.002 0.095 0.136* 1
8. Tenure 4.44 6.05 0.114* 0.079 0.161* 0.058 0.003 0.188* 0.278** 1
9. Profile 2.44 0.87 0.098 0.094 0.166** 0.071 0.087 0.002 0.131* 0.205** 1
10. Age 30.33 6.97 0.100 0.113* 0.130* 0.062 0.013 0.278** 0.165** 0.703** 0.332** 1
Note(s): *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, sample 5 303
POS-E, Eco-initiatives, Alienation, Psychological Capital and Meaningful Work are coded as 1 5 strongly disagree to 5 5 strongly agree. Organizational tenure and age
are reported in years. Gender was coded 0 5 female, 1 5 male, Organization size are coded as 1 5 Less than 100 employees, 2 5 100–499, 3 5 500–999, 4 5 1,000–4,999,
5 5 5,000–9,999, 6 5 greater than 10,000. Managerial level is coded as 1 5 non-management, 2 5 lower management, 3 5 middle management, 4 5 upper management
mediator
Meaningful

1499

Coefficient of
work as a

correlations and
Table 1.

deviation (SD),

Cronbach’s alpha
Mean, Standard

values of variables
ER are above 0.90 (Tucker and Lewis, 1973). The model’s fit can be considered reasonably good if
42,6 the RMSEA is below 0.08. To ensure the study variables are unique, the proposed five-factor
model was evaluated against the other competing models. Analysis of these confirmed that
the posited model demonstrates a superior fit as compared to other competing alternate
models.

1500 4.3 Hypothesis testing

To test Hypotheses 1–7, multiple regression analysis was conducted while treating gender,
age, organization size, organizational tenure and management level as control variables, as
suggested by Lamm et al. (2015). Hypotheses 1 and Hypotheses 2 predicted that POS-E will
have a positive relationship with eco-initiatives and psychological capital, respectively and
Hypothesis 3 predicted that POS-E may have a negative association with alienation (see
Table 3 above). Hypotheses 1, 2 and 3 are supported by the results as POS-E is significantly
related to eco-initiatives (b 5 0.26; p < 0.001), psychological capital (b 5 0.37; p < 0.001) and
alienation (b 5 0.35; p < 0.001).
Hypothesis 4 predicted that POS E would have a positive relationship with meaningful
work (b 5 0.38; p < 0.001), which is consistent with the results (see Table 4). In addition,
Hypothesis 5 and Hypothesis 6 posited that meaningful work would be positively associated
with eco-initiatives and psychological capital, respectively and Hypothesis 7 predicted that
meaningful work would be negatively related to alienation (see Table 4). All three hypotheses

Model χ 2 (df) Δχ 2 (Δdf) RMSEA CFI IFI TLI

5 Factor model (Baseline) 225.59 (94)** – 0.068 0.949 0.950 0.935

3 Factor modela 769.07 (101)** 543.48 (7)** 0.147 0.745 0.755 0.694
2 Factor modelb 968.55 (103)** 742.96 (9)** 0.166 0.667 0.669 0.612
1 Factor modelc 1042.262 (104)** 816.672 (10)** 0.172 0.639 0.641 0.583
Note(s): **p < 0.01, sample 5 303
Table 2. Chi-square difference tests were conducted between the baseline model and each alternative model
a
Output of confirmatory b In the 3 factors model, items of Eco-initiatives, Alienation and Psychological Capital are loaded on one factor
factor analysis for the In the 2-factor model, items Eco-initiatives, Alienation, Psychological Capital and Meaningful Work are
proposed and loaded on one factor
c
alternative models In the 1 factor model, all items are loaded on single factor

Standardized β
Eco- Psychological Meaningful
initiatives capital Alienation work
H1 H2 H3 H4

Gender 0.066 0.015 0.053 0.003

Age 0.106 0.021 0.005 0.005
Tenure 0.074 0.001 0.132 0.025
Organization size 0.163** 0.004 0.054 0.081
Managerial level 0.067 0.03 0.101 0.05
Perceived organizational support 0.285*** 0.355*** 0.330*** 0.334***
Table 3. toward the environment
Multiple regression F-static 7.046*** 7.586*** 9.516*** 7.064***
output for hypotheses Adjusted R2 0.106 0.115 0.143 0.107
tests with POSE Note(s): **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001, sample 5 303
are supported by the results. That is, meaningful work is significantly associated with eco- Meaningful
initiatives (b 5 0.19; p < 0.05), psychological capital (b 5 0.81; p < 0.001) and alienation (b 5 work as a
0.50; p < 0.001) [for a discussion of acceptable levels of significance, see Johnson (2013)].
mediator
4.4 Mediating effects
Hypotheses 8a, 8b and 8c stated that meaningful work would act as a mediator among POS-E
and eco-initiatives, psychological capital and alienation, respectively. The mediation effects 1501
were assessed using the Sobel test and bootstrap analysis (see Table 5). To estimate
meaningful work’s mediating effects on POS-E’s relationships with eco-initiatives,
psychological capital and alienation, we ran Sobel tests (Preacher and Hayes, 2004;
Preacher and Leonardelli, 2006). The results confirm that meaningful work significantly
mediates the relationships between POS-E and eco-initiatives (Sobel test, z 5 4.25; p < 0.001),
psychological capital (Sobel test z 5 5.77; p < 0.001) and alienation (Sobel test,
z 5 4.99; p < 0.001).
We also carried out bootstrapping analyses of five thousand bootstrapped samples with a
95% confidence interval (CI) , so as to compute indirect effects of meaningful work
(MacKinnon has a negative association 2004). Thus these existing findings demonstrate that
the corresponding ranges of meaningful work’s indirect effect on eco-initiatives,
psychological capital and alienation are from 0.0479 to 0.1833, 0.1024 to 0.2501 and
0.1985 to 0.0613, respectively. the corresponding ranges of POS-E direct effect on eco-
initiatives, psychological capital and alienation are from 0.0479 to 0.1833, 0.1024 to 0.2501
and 0.1985 to 0.0613, respectively, thus supporting the model of the study.
As the bootstrap results do not contain zero in the range of indirect effects and direct
effects, meaningful work’s mediator effect between POS-E and eco-initiatives, psychological
capital and alienation was confirmed. Hypotheses 8a, 8b and 8c are thus all supported.

Standardized β
Eco-initiatives Psychological capital Alienation
H5 H6 H7

Gender 0.083 0.025 0.072

Age 0.115 0.029 0.005
Tenure 0.188** 0.061 0.02
Organization size 0.05 0.028 0.16
Managerial level 0.06 0.002 0.095
Table 4.
Meaningful work 0.199*** 0.786*** 0.430*** Multiple regression
F Statistic 8.510** 51.67*** 12.466*** output for hypotheses
Adjusted R2 0.129 0.49 0.184 tests with
*p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001 meaningful work

95% BCA CIs’

Sobel’s normal theory tests bootstrap output
Dependent variable Z Lower Upper Hypothesis

Eco-initiatives 4.25*** 0.0479 0.1833 8 (a) supported Table 5.

Psychological capital 5.77*** 0.1024 0.2501 8 (b) supported Results of mediation
Alienation 4.99*** 0.1985 0.0613 8 (c) supported test: meaningful work
Note(s): Based on 5,000 bootstrapping samples. ***p < 0.001 as mediating variable
ER The results of both the bootstrapping analyses and Sobel tests indicate statistically
42,6 significant indirect effects on eco-initiatives, psychological capital and alienation. Thus,
meaningful work mediates the relationships between POS-E and eco-initiatives,
psychological capital and alienation.

5. Discussion, theoretical and practical implications

1502 The results of the present paper extend the earlier conceptualization of POS-E and adds to the
development of an evolving concept of OCB-E, namely, eco-initiatives. We established that
POS-E is positively associated with previously untested employee outcomes such as workers’
eco-initiatives and psychological capital and that POS-E is negatively associated with
alienation. In addition, the proposed model introduces the mediating mechanism of
meaningful work between POS-E and eco-initiatives, psychological capital and alienation.
These results provide a number of theoretical contributions. First, this study extended the
prevailing research on organizations’ sustainability behaviors to include the less explored
individual employee element of eco-initiatives. The study’s findings specifically validate and
extend the existing understanding of POS-E by associating this concept with eco-initiatives
and thus including employees’ discretionary sustainable behaviors.
Second, this study’s results contribute to the literature by supporting Lamm et al. (2015, p.
217) research. The cited authors found that employees who experienced that their companies’
value and support workers’ sustainable attitudes and behaviours will not only exhibit more
sustainable behaviors themselves but will also develop more positive job attitudes and
mental states. Thus, POS-E is a specific way to enhance environmentally sustainable
behaviors and psychological capital while lessening feelings of alienation. These results also
imply that organizations will experience substantial returns when they support activities that
benefit the environment.
Last, the study’s findings include that meaningful work is a mediator in the relationships
between POS-E and eco-initiatives, alienation and psychological capital. Although other
researchers have established that connections exist between psychological empowerment
and discretionary environmental behaviors (Lamm et al. 2015), the present study’s model
extends the meaning of the sub-variable of psychological empowerment (Spreitzer, 1995;
Bhatnagar, 2012) and establishes that meaningful work is also related to eco-initiatives. The
study contributes to the theoretical underpinning of SET and Social Identity theory (Hogg
et al., 1995; Hogg and Terry, 2000)
The current research has implications for the literature on HR management and for HR
practitioners. This field’s literature shows that researchers widely acknowledge that
capabilities demonstrated by humans can impact firm level consequences (Paauwe, 2009;
Guest and Conway, 2011). Further, HR management , process and systems should converge
on augmenting workers’ abilities, motivation, engagement and work prospects (Purcell and
Hutchinson, 2007). The present study’s results confirm that management need to design HR
interventions to encourage proactive environment behaviours by providing perceived
organizational support to employees’ efforts to protect the environment. This approach can
contribute to meaningful behaviors and outcomes such as eco-initiatives, increased level of
hope and higher degree of efficacy, resilience and optimism (i.e. psychological capital), as well
as diminishing alienation.

6. Study limitation and future work

Primarily data was gathered cross-sectionally and was self-reported. This is a limitation of
the study. In future research, scholars could implement diverse research designs, like
concurrent mixed method research design in order to analyze the temporal data collection and
explore specific links amongst the variables under study. Further research also may examine Meaningful
reports of eco-initiatives to check whether the present findings remain valid for observed work as a
actions.
To acquire insights into the emerging constructs of POS-E and eco-initiatives, scholars
mediator
need to investigate additional constructs related to these variables. Potential forthcoming
research could additionally include investigating the association between POS-E and
meaningful work to comprehend how this link differs in diverse organizational contexts, at
varied levels of green engagement and with diverse managerial styles. These studies may 1503
help leaders to gain insight into why and how best to augment POS-E related interventions in
diverse contexts, Further, they may design these initiatives to include various levels of
employees within organizations.
Future studies could obtain more interesting results by focusing on how HR management
systems can contribute to eco-initiatives, as well as examining horizontal integration
regarding firms’ greening goals and individual employees’ green engagement. Horizontal
integration refers to HR management practices’ internal alignment with each other and
support of organizational goals (Paauwe, 2013; cf. Christina et al., 2017).
Finally, further investigation should integrate multilevel research designs that can show
how employees’ eco-initiatives are related to previous efforts and results at the organizational
level. This approach could benefit both scholars and practitioners by revealing how
organizational and employee level actions can be synchronized to achieve sustainability
goals and improve organizational performance.
Establishments are increasingly required to find better ways to achieve their triple-
bottom-line objectives. This research created noteworthy findings that provide a fuller
understanding of how POS-E is significantly related to employee outcomes, including
discretionary environmental initiatives. The results also confirm that perceptions of
organizational support for environmental sustainability can influence workers’ feeling that
they are doing meaningful work, which has additional paybacks for employees, businesses
and the environment.

References
Afsar, B., Badir, Y. and Kiani, U.S. (2016), “Linking spiritual leadership and employee pro-
environmental behavior: the influence of workplace spirituality, intrinsic motivation ,and
environmental passion”, Journal of Environmental Psychology, Vol. 45, pp. 79-88.
Aggarwal, P. and Bhatnagar, J. (2016), “Conceptual review of green HRM practices and employee well
being: green work-life balance & green engagement as mediators (Chapter 12)”, in Pillania, R.K.,
Bhandari, N. and Dasgupta, M. (Eds), Emerging Themes in Strategy, Tata McGraw-Hill
Publishing Company, New Delhi.
Ahmad, A., Rehman, M.A., Haq, I., Jam, F.A., Ghafoor, M.B. and Azeetfi, M.U. (2010), “Organizational
support and psychological empowerment”, European Journal of Social Sciences, Vol. 17 No. 2,
pp. 186-192.
Aiken, M. and Hage, J. (1966), “Organizational alienation: a comparative analysis”, American
Sociological Review, Vol. 31, pp. 497-507.
Arnold, K.A., Turner, N., Julian Barling, E., Kelloway, K. and McKee, M.C. (2007), “Transformational
leadership and psychological well being: mediating role of meaningful work”, Journal of
Occupational Health Psychology, Vol. 12 No. 3, pp. 193-203.
Baltes, B., Zhdanova, L. and Clark, M. (2011), “Examining the relationships between personality, coping
strategies, and work- family conflict”, Journal of Business and Psychology, Vol. 26, pp. 517-530.
Bhatnagar, J. (2012), “Management of innovation: role of psychological empowerment, work
engagement and turnover intention in the Indian context”, International Journal of Human
Resource Management, Vol. 23 No. 5, pp. 928-951.
ER Bhatnagar, J. and Srinivasan, V. (2013), “Building sustainability through people capability: a case
study of Wipro ltd”, NHRD Network Journal, Vol. 6 No. 6, pp. 36-45.
42,6
Bhattacharya, C.B., Sen, S. and Korschun, D. (2008), “Using corporate social responsibility to win the
war for talent”, MIT Sloan Management Review, Vol. 49 No. 2, pp. 37-4.
Bissing-Olson, M.J., Iyer, A., Fielding, K.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, pp. 156-175.
1504
Blatt, R. and Camden, C.T. (2007), “Positive relationships and cultivating community”, in Dutton, J.E.
and Ragins, B.R. (Eds), Exploring Positive Relationships at Work: Building a Theoretical and
Research Foundation, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ, pp. 243-264.
Blau, P.M. (1964), “Exchange and power in social life”, Transaction, ISBN 9780887386282.
Blauner, R. (1964), Alienation and Freedom, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL.
Boiral, O. and Paill
e, P. (2012), “Organizational citizenship behavior for the environment: measurement
and validation”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 109 No. 4, pp. 431-445.
Boiral, O. (2009), “Greening the corporation through organizational citizenship behaviors”, Journal of
Business Ethics, Vol. 87, pp. 221-236.
Bowie, N.E. (1998), “A Kantian theory of meaningful work”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 17,
pp. 1083-1092.
Browne, M.W. and Cudeck, R. (1993), “Alternative ways of assessing model fit”, in Bollen, K.A. and Long,
J.S. (Eds), Testing Structural Equation Models, Sage Publications, Newbury Park, pp. 445-455.
Campbell, A., Converse, P. and Rodgers, W. (1976), The Quality of American Life: Perceptions,
Evaluations, and Satisfactions, Russell Sage, New York.
Cardador, M.T., Dane, E. and Pratt, M.G. (2011), “Linking calling orientations to organizational
attachment via organizational instrumentality”, Journal of Vocational Behavior, Vol. 79 No. 2,
pp. 367-378.
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, pp. 972-992.
Cascio, W.F. (2003), “Responsible restructuring: seeing employees as assets, not costs”, Ivey Business
Journal, Vol. 68, pp. 1-5.
Chalofsky, N. (2003), “An emerging construct for meaningful work”, Human Resource Development
International, Vol. 61, pp. 69-83.
Chiaburu, D.S., Lorinkova, N.M. and Van Dyne, L. (2013), “Employees’ social context and change-
oriented citizenship: a meta-analysis of leader, coworker, and organizational influences”, Group
and Organization Management, Vol. 38, pp. 291-333.
Chou, S.Y. and Pearson, J.M. (2012), “Organizational citizenship behavior in IT professionals: an
expectancy theory approach”, Management Research Review, Vol. 35, pp. 1170-1186.
Christina, S., Dainty, A., Daniels, K., Tregaskis, O. and Waterson, P. (2017), “Shut the fridge door!
HRM alignment, job redesign and energy performance”, Human Resource Management Journal,
Vol. 27, No. 3, pp. 382-402.
Ciocirlan, C.E. (2017), “Environmental workplace behaviors”, Organization and Environment, Vol. 30
No. 1, pp. 51-70.
Cropanzano, R. and Mitchell, M.S. (2005), “Social exchange theory: an interdisciplinary review”,
Journal of Management, Vol. 31 No. 6, pp. 874-900.
Cropanzano, R., Anthony, E., Daniels, S. and Hall, A. (2017), “Social exchange theory: a critical review
with theoretical remedies”, The Academy of Management Annals, Vol. 11, pp. 1-38, doi: 10.5465/
annals.2015.0099.
Daily, B., Bishop, J.W. and Govindarajulu, N. (2008), “A conceptual model for organizational citizenship Meaningful
behavior directed toward the environment”, Business and Society, Vol. 48 No. 2, pp. 243-256.
work as a
De Groot, J.I. and Steg, L. (2009), “Mean or green: which values can promote stable pro-environmental
behavior?”, Conservation Letters, Vol. 2, p. 61e66.
mediator
Debats, D.L., Drost, J. and Hansen, P. (1995), “Experiences of meaning in life: a combined qualitative
and quantitative approach”, British Journal of Psychology, Vol. 86, pp. 359-375.
DeHart-Davis, L. and Pandey, S.K. (2005), “Red tape and public employees: does perceived rule dysfunction 1505
alienate managers?”, Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, Vol. 15 No. 1, pp. 133-148.
Duffy, R.D., Autin, K.L. and Bott, E.M. (2015), “Work volition and job satisfaction: examining the role
of work meaning and person–environment fit”, The Career Development Quarterly, Vol. 63,
pp. 126-140, doi: 10.1002/cdq.12009.
Dunlap, R., Van Liere, K., Mertig, A. and Jones, R.E. (2000), “Measuring endorsement of the new
ecological paradigm: a revised NEP scale”, Journal of Social Issues, Vol. 56, pp. 425-442.
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.
Fredrickson, B.L. (2004), “The broaden-and-build theory of positive emotions”, Philosophical
Transactions-Royal Society of London Series B Biological Sciences, Vol. 359 No. 1449,
pp. 1367-1378.
Fried, Y. and Ferris, G.R. (1987), “The validity of the job characteristics model: a review and meta-
analysis”, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 40, pp. 287-322.
Garud, R. and Gehman, J. (2012), “Metatheoretical perspectives on sustainability journeys:
evolutionary, relational and durational”, Research Policy, Vol. 41 No. 6, pp. 980-995.
Geels, F.W. (2010), “Ontologies, socio-technical transitions (to sustainability), and the multi-level
perspective”, Research Policy, Vol. 39, pp. 495-510.
Genus, A. and Coles, A.-M. (2008), “,Rethinking the multilevel perspective of technologicaltransitions”,
Research Policy, Vol. 37, pp. 1436-1445.
Gouldner, A. (1952), “Red tape as a social problem”, in Merton, R., Gray, A., Hockey, B. and Selvin, H.
(Eds), Reader in Bureaucracy, Free Press, Glencoe, IL, pp. 410-418.
Guest, D. and Conway, N. (2011), “The impact of HR practices, HR effectiveness and a “strong HR
system” on organisational outcomes: a stakeholder perspective”, International Journal of
Human Resource Management, Vol. 22 No. 8, pp. 1686-1702.
Hackman, J.R. and Oldham, G.R. (1976), “Motivation through the design of work: test of a theory”,
Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, Vol. 16, pp. 250-279.
He, H. and Li, Y. (2011), “CSR and service brand: the mediating effect of brand identification and
moderating effect of service quality”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 100, pp. 673-688.
Hobfoll, S.E. (1989), “Conservation of resources: a new attempt at conceptualizing stress”, American
Psychologist, Vol. 44, pp. 513-524.
Hogg, M.A. and Abrams, D. (1988), Social Identifications: A Social Psychology of Intergroup Relations
and Group Pro Cesses, Routledge, London.
Hogg, M.A. and Terry, D.J. (2000), “Social identity and self-categorization processes in organizational
contexts”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 25 No. 1, pp. 121-140.
Hogg, M.A., Terry, D.J. and White, K.M. (1995), “A tale of two theories: a critical comparison of identity
theory with social identity theory”, Social Psychology Quarterly, Vol. 58 No. 4, pp. 255-269.
Humphrey, S.E., JenniferNahrgang, D. and Morgeson, F.P. (2007), “Integrating motivational, social,
and contextual work design features: a meta- analytic summary and theoretical extension of the
work design literature”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 92 No. 5, pp. 1332-1356.
ER Johnson, V.E. (2013), “Revised standards for statistical evidence”, Proceedings of the National
Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, Vol. 110 No. 48, pp. 19313-19317.
42,6
Kahn, W.A. (2007), “Meaningful connections: positive relationships and attachments at work”, in
Dutton, J.E. and Ragins, B.R. (Eds), Exploring Positive Relationships at Work: Building a
Theoretical and Research Foundation, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers, Mahwah, NJ,
pp. 189-206.
Keyes, C.L.M. (2007), “Promoting and protecting mental health as flourishing: a complementary
1506 strategy for improving national mental health”, American Psychologist, Vol. 62, pp. 95-108.
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.
Kohn, M.L. (1976), “Occupational structure and alienation”, American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 82,
pp. 111-130.
uhn, D., Wiest, M., Zurek, P.P. and Scheibe, S. (2009), “What is it we are longing for?
Kotter-Gr€
Psychological and demographic factors influencing the contents of Sehnsucht (life longings)”,
Journal of Research in Personality, Vol. 43, pp. 428-437.
Ladd, D. and Henry, R.A. (2000), “Helping coworkers and helping the organization: the role of support
perceptions, exchange ideology, and conscientiousness”, Journal of Applied Social Psychology,
Vol. 30, pp. 2028-2049.
Lamm, E. and Meeks, M. (2009), “Workplace fun: the moderating effects of generational differences”,
Employee Relations, Vol. 31, pp. 613-631.
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.
Lee, M.C.C., Idris, M.A. and Delfabbro, P.H. (2017), “The linkages between hierarchical culture and
empowering leadership and their effects on employees’ work engagement: work
meaningfulness as a mediator”, International Journal of Stress Management, Vol. 24 No. 4,
pp. 392-415, doi: 10.1037/str0000043.
Luthans, F., Youssef, C.M. and Avolio, B.J. (2007), Psychological Capital, Oxford University Press,
New York.
Luthans, F., Avey, J.B. and Patera, J.L. (2008), “Experimental analysis of a Web-based intervention to
develop positive psychological capital”, The Academy of Management Learning and Education,
Vol. 7 No. 2, pp. 209-221.
MacKinnon, D.P., Lockwood, C.M. and Williams, J. (2004), “Confidence limits for the indirect effect:
distribution of the product and resampling methods”, Multivariate Behavioral Research,
Vol. 391, pp. 99-128.
Manika, D., Wells, V.K., Gregory-Smith, D. and Gentry, M. (2013), “The impact of individual attitudinal
and organisational variables on workplace environmentally friendly behaviours”, Journal of
Business Ethics, Vol. 126, pp. 663-684.
Markey, R., McIvor, J. and Wright, C.F. (2016), “Employee participation and carbon emissions
reduction in Australian workplaces”, International Journal of Human Resource Management,
Vol. 27 No. 2, pp. 173-191.
Marx, K. (1963), The Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844, International Publication, New
York, NY, Original work published 1844.
May, D.R., Gilson, R.L. and Harter, L.M. (2004), “The psychological conditions of meaningfulness,
safety and availability and the engagement of the human spirit at work”, Journal of
Occupational and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 77, pp. 11-37.
McKnight, P.E. and Kashdan, T.B. (2009), “Purpose in life as a system that creates and sustains health
and well-being: an integrative, testable theory”, Review of General Psychology, Vol. 13,
pp. 242-251.
McMahon, J. (2009), “Greening your staff”, available at: Cumanagement.org, pp. 22-25. Meaningful
Mishra, P., Bhatnagar, J., Gupta, R. and Wadsworth, S.M. (2017), “How work-family enrichment work as a
influence innovative work behavior: role of psychological capital and supervisory support”,
Journal of Management and Organization, pp. 1-23, doi: 10.1017/jmo.2017.23.
mediator
Mohammed, Y.G., Mario, F. and Peter, C. (2013), “Transformational leadership and work engagement:
the mediating effect of meaning in work”, The Leadership and Organization Development
Journal, Vol. 34 No. 6, pp. 532-550, doi: 10.1108/LODJ-10-2011-0110.
1507
Mueller, K., Hattrup, K., Spiess, S.O. and Lin-Hi, N. (2012), “The effects of corporate social
responsibility on employees’ affective commitment: a cross-cultural investigation”, Journal of
Applied Psychology, Vol. 97, pp. 1186-1200.
Nag, M. (2012), “Pro-environmental behaviors in the workplace: is concern for the environment
enough?”, (Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation), University of Maryland, College Park, MD.
Nair, N. and Vohra, N. (2009), “Developing a new measure of work alienation”, Journal of Workplace
Rights, Vol. 14, pp. 293-309.
Neff, J.F. (2008), “Workplace social exchange network: effects of its relationship with job satisfaction
and organizational commitment (Doctoral dissertation)”, Available from ProQuest Dissertations
(AAT 3305633).
Ones, D.S. and Dilchert, S. (2012), “Employee green behaviors”, in Jackson, S.E., Ones, D. and Dilchert,
S. (Eds), Managing Human Resources for Environmental Sustainability, Jossey-Bass, San
Francisco, pp. 85-116.
Ones, D.S. and Dilchert, S. (2013), “Measuring, understanding, and influencing employee green
behaviors”, in Huffman, A.H. and Klein, S.R. (Eds), Greening Organizations: Driving Change
with I-O Psychology, Routledge Academic, New York, pp. 115-148.
Organ, D.W., Podsakoff, P.M. and MacKenzie, S.B. (2006), Organizational Citizenship Behavior: Its
Nature, Antecedents, and Consequences, Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Organ, D.W. (1988), Organizational citizenship behavior:The good soldier syndrome, Lexington Press,
Lexington,MA.
Organ, D.W. (1990), “The motivational basis of organizational citizenship behavior”, in Staw, B.M. and
Cummings, L.L. (Eds), Research in Organizational Behavior, JAI Press, Greenwich, CT, Vol. 12,
pp. 43-72.
Ostroff, C. (2007), “General methodological and design issues”, in Ostroff, C. and Judge, T.A. (Eds),
Perspectives on Organizational Fit, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, New York, pp. 389-416.
Paauwe, J., Wright, P. and Guest, D. (2013), “HRM and performance: what do we know and where
should we go?”, in Paauwe, J., Guest, D. and Wright, P. (Eds), HRM and Performance, Wiley,
Chichester, pp. 1-14.
Paauwe, J. (2009), “HRM and performance: a achievements, methodological issues and prospects”,
Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 46 No. 1, p. 12.
Paill
e, P. and Boiral, O. (2013), “Pro-environmental behavior at work: construct validity and
determinants”, Journal of Environmental Psychology, Vol. 36, pp. 118-128.
Paill
e, P. and Mej
ıa-Morelos, J. (2014), “Antecedents of pro-environmental behaviors at work: the
moderating influence of psychological contract breach”, Journal of Environmental Psychology,
Vol. 38, pp. 124-131.
Paill
e, P., Boiral, O. and Chen, Y. (2013), “Linking environmental management practices and
organizational citizenship behaviour for the environment: a social exchange perspective”,
International Journal of Human Resource Management, Vol. 24, pp. 3552-3575.
Parker, L. and Price, R. (1994), “Empowered managers and empowered workers: the effects of
managerial support and managerial perceived control on workers’ sense of control over
decision making”, Human Relations, Vol. 47 No. 8, pp. 911-928.
ER Patrick, A. and Laschinger, F.I.K.S. (2006), “The effect of structural empowerment and perceived
organizational support on middle level nurse managers’ role satisfaction”, Journal of Nursing
42,6 Management, Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 13-22.
Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.B., Lee, J.-Y. and Podsakoff, N.P. (2003), “Common method biases in
behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and recommended remedies”, Journal of
Applied Psychology, Vol. 88, pp. 879-903.
Preacher, K.J. and Hayes, A.F. (2004), “SPSS and SAS procedures for estimating indirect effects in
1508 simple mediation models”, Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, and Computers, Vol. 36
No. 4, pp. 717-731.
Preacher, K.J. and Leonardelli, G.J. (2006), “Calculation for the Sobel test: an interactive calculation tool
for mediation tests”, August 2008, available at: http://quantpsy.org/sobel/sobel.htm.
PRIME (2010), “The 6 principles for responsible management education”, available at: http://www.
unprme.org/the-6-principles/index.php.
Purcell, J. and Hutchinson, S. (2007), “Front-line managers as agents in the HRM-performance causal
chain: theory, analysis and evidence”, Human Resource Management Journal, Vol. 17
No. 1, pp. 3-20.
Raineri, N., Mej
ıa-Morelos, J., Francoeur, V. and Paill
e, P. (2016), “Employee eco-initiatives and the
workplace social exchange network”, European Management Journal, Vol. 34, pp. 47-58, doi: 10.
1016/j.emj.2015.10.006.
Ramus, C.A. and Steger, U. (2000), “The roles of supervisory support behaviors and environmental
policy in employee “ecoinitiatives” at leading-edge European companies”, Academy of
Management Journal, Vol. 43, pp. 605-626.
Rhoades, L. and Eisenberger, R. (2002), “Perceived organizational support: a review of the literature”,
Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 87, pp. 698-714.
Rhoades, L., Eisenberger, R. and Armeli, S. (2001), “Affective commitment to the organization: the
contribution of perceived organizational support”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 86,
pp. 825-836.
Rip, A. (2010), “Processes of entanglement”, in Akrich, M., Barthe, Y., Muniesa, F. and Mustar, P. (Eds),
D
ebordements: M
elanges offerts
a Michel Callon, Presses de Mines, Paris, pp. 381-392.
Robertson, J.L. and Barling, J. (2013), “Greening organizations through leaders’ influence on
employees’ pro- environmental behaviors”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 34,
pp. 176-194.
Rosso, B.D., Dekas, K.H. and Wrzesniewski, A. (2010), “On the meaning of work: a theoretical
integration and review”, Research in Organizational Behavior, Vol. 30, pp. 91-127.
Rupp, D.E., Shao, R., Thornton, M.A. and Skarlicki, D. (2013), “‘Applicants’ and ‘employees’ reactions
to corporate social responsibility: the moderating effects of first-party justice perceptions and
moral identity”, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 66, pp. 895-933.
Schaninger, W.S. and Turnipssed, D.L. (2005), “The workplace social exchange network: its effect on
organizational citizenship behavior, contextual performance, job”, in Turnipseed, D.L. (Ed.),
Handbook of Organizational Citizenship Behavior: A Review of ‘Good Solder’ Activity in
Organizations, Novasciences, New York.
Seeman, M. (1959), “On the meaning of alienation”, American Sociological Review, Vol. 24, pp. 783-91.
Seibert, S.E., Wang, G. and Courtright, S.H. (2011), “Antecedents and consequences of psychological
and team empowerment in organizations: a meta-analytic review”, Journal of Applied
Psychology, Vol. 96 No. 5, pp. 981-1003, doi: 10.1037/a0022676.
Sheldon, K.M., Elliot, A.J., Kim, Y. and Kasser, T. (2001), “What is satisfying about satisfying events?
Testing 10 candidate psychological needs”, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 80,
pp. 325-339.
Shove, E. and Walker, G. (2010), “,Governing transitions in the sustainability of everyday life”, Meaningful
Research Policy, Vol. 39, pp. 471-476.
work as a
Som, A. (2008), “Innovative human resource management and corporate performance in the context of
economic liberalization in India”, International Journal of Human Resource Management,
mediator
Vol. 19 No. 7, pp. 1278-1297.
Spreitzer, G. (1995), “Psychological empowerment in the work place: dimensions, measurement, and
validation”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 38, pp. 1442-1465.
1509
Tajfel, H. and Turner, J.C. (1986), “The social identity theory of intergroup behavior”, in Worchel, S.
and Austin, W.G. (Eds), The Psychology of Intergroup Relations, Nelson-Hall, Chicago, pp. 7-24.
Tajfel, H. (1972), “Social categorization (English translation of “La cat6gorisation sociale”)”, in
Moscovici, S. (Ed.), Introduction a la Psychologie Sociale, Vol. 1, Larousse, Paris, pp. 272-302.
Toffel, M. and Schendler, A. (2013), “Corporate leaders need to step up on climate change”, available
at: https://hbswk.hbs.edu/item/corporate-leaders-need-to-step-up-on-climate-change (accessed 5
April 2019).
Tucker, L.R. and Lewis, C. (1973), “The reliability coefficient for maximum likelihood factor analysis”,
Psychometrika, Vol. 38 No. 1, pp. 1-10.
Tummers, L.G. (2011), “Explaining the willingness of public professionals to implement new policies: a
policy alienation framework”, International Review of Administrative Sciences, Vol. 77 No. 3,
pp. 555-581.
Turaga, R.M.R., Howarth, R.B. and Borsuk, M.E. (2010), “Pro-environmental behavior”, Annals of the
New York Academy of Sciences, Vol. 1185, p. 211e224.
Van Wingerden, J., Berger, L. and Poell, R. (2018), “The role of person-organization value fit in
employees’ experience of meaningful work, use of strengths and work engagement”, Business
Management and Strategy, Vol. 9 No. 2, pp. 1-17, doi: 10.5296/bms.v9i2.14033.

Further reading
Aguilera, R.V., Rupp, D.E., Williams, C.A. and Ganapathi, J. (2007), “Putting the S back in corporate
social responsibility: a multilevel theory of social change in organizations”, Academy of
Management Review, Vol. 32, pp. 836-863.
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, pp. 932-968.
Ameer, R. and Othman, R. (2011), “Sustainability practices and corporate financial performance: a
study based on the top global corporations”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 108 No. 1,
pp. 61-79.
Anuradha, M.V., Srinivas, E.S., Singhal, M. and Ramnarayan, S. (2014), “To work or not to work:
construction of meaning of work and making work choices”, Vikalpa, Vol. 39 No. 2, pp. 7-20,
doi: 10.1177/0256090920140203.
Appelbaum, E., Bailey, T., Berg, P. and Kalleberg, A. (2000), Manufacturing Advantage: Why High
Performance Work Systems Pay off, Cornell University Press, Ithaca, NY.
Bentler, P.M. and Bonett, D.G. (1980), “Significant tests and goodness of fit in the analysis of
covariance structures”, Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 88 No. 3, pp. 588-606.
Bunderson, J.S. and Thompson, J.A. (2009), “The call of the wild: zookeepers, callings, and the dual
edges of deeply meaningful work”, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 54, pp. 32-57.
Byrne, B.M. (1998), Structural Equation Modeling with LISREL, PRELIS, and SIMPLIS: Basic
Concepts, Applications, and Programming, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ.
Clausen, O. and Vilhelm, B. (2011), “Job demands, job resources, and meaning at work”, Journal of
Managerial Psychology, Vol. 26 No. 8, pp. 665-681.
ER Dawkins, C.E. (2002), “Corporate welfare, corporate citizenship, and the question of accountability”,
Business and Society, Vol. 41 No. 3, pp. 269-291.
42,6
Dutton, J.E. and Heaphy, E. (2003), “The power of high quality connections”, in Cameron, K., Dutton, J.
and Quinn, R.E. (Eds), Positive Organizational Scholarship, Berrett-Koehler Publishers, San
Francisco, pp. 263-278.
Dutton, J.E., Worline, M., Frost, P. and Lilius, J. (2006), “Explaining compassion organizing”,
Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 51 No. 1, pp. 59-96.
1510
Hackman, J.R. and Oldham, G.R. (1980), Work Redesign, Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA.
Hanna, M.D., Newman, W.R. and Johnson, P. (2000), “Linking operational and
environmentalimprovement through employee involvement”, International Journal of
Operations and Production Management, Vol. 20, p. 148e165.
Jackson, S.E. and Seo, J. (2010), “The greening of strategic HRM scholarship”, Organization
Management Journal, Vol. 7, pp. 278-290.
Jex, S.M. and Bliese, P.D. (1999), “Efficacy beliefs as a moderator of the impact of work-related
stressors: a multilevel study”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 84, pp. 349-361.
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, pp. 557-569.
King, L.A. and Napa, C.K. (1998), “What makes a life good?”, Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, Vol. 75, pp. 156-165.
Kirsch, B.A. and Lengermann, J.J. (1971), “An empirical test of Robert Blauner’s ideas on alienation in
work as applied to different type jobs in a white-collar setting”, Sociology and Social Research,
Vol. 56, pp. 180-194.
Kishton, J.M. and Widaman, K.F. (1994), “Unidimensional versus domain representative parceling of
questionnaire items: an empirical example”, Educational and Psychological Measurement,
Vol. 54 No. 3, pp. 757-765.
Lannelongue, G., Gonzalez-Benito, J. and Gonzalez-Benito, O. (2015), “Input, output, and environmental
management productivity: effects on firm performance”, Business Strategy and the
Environment, Vol. 24, pp. 145-158.
Leiter, M.P., Harvie, P. and Frizzel, C. (1998), “The correspondence of patient satisfaction and nurse
burnout”, Social Science and Medicine, Vol. 47, pp. 1611-1617.
Liden, R.C., Wayne, S.J. and Sparrowe, R.T. (2000), “An examination of the mediating role of
psychological empowerment on the relations between the job, interpersonal relationships, and
work outcomes”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 85 No. 3, pp. 407-416.
May, D.R. and Flannery, B.L. (1995), “Cutting waste with employee involvement teams”, Business
Horizons, Vol. 38, p. 28e38.
Maynard, M.T., Lucy, L.G. and Mathieu, J.E. (2012), “Empowerment— fad or fab? A multilevel review
of the past two decades of research”, Journal of Management, Vol. 38 No. 4, pp. 1231-1281.
Millard, D. (2011), “Management learning and the greening of SMEs: moving beyond problem-
solving”, German Journal of Research in Human Resource Management, Vol. 25, pp. 178-195.
O’Donohue, W. and Torugsa, N. (2015), “The moderating effect of ‘Green’ HRM on the association
between proactive environmental management and financial performance in small firms”,
International Journal of Human Resource Management, Vol. 27 No. 2, pp. 239-261.
Paille, 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,
pp. 451-466.
Peterson, D.K. (2004), “The relationship between perceptions of corporate citizenship and
organizational commitment”, Business and Society, Vol. 43 No. 3, pp. 296-319.
Piccolo, R.F. and Colquitt, J.A. (2006), “Transformational leadership and job behaviors: the mediating Meaningful
role of core job characteristics”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 49 No. 2, pp. 327-340.
work as a
Pratt, M.G. and Ashforth, B.E. (2003), “Fostering meaningfulness in work and at work”, in Cameron,
K.S., Dutton, J.E. and Quinn, R.E. (Eds), Positive Organizational Scholarship, Berrett- Koehler,
mediator
San Francisco, pp. 309-327.
Purvanova, R.K., Bono, J.E. and Dzieweczynski, J. (2006), “Transformational leadership, job characteristics,
and organizational citizenship performance”, Human Performance, Vol. 19, pp. 1-22.
1511
Ramus, C.A. and Killmer, A.C. (2007), “Corporate greening through prosocial extra-role behaviours: a
conceptual framework for employee motivation”, Business Strategy and the Environment,
Vol. 16, pp. 554-570.
Renwick, D.W., Redman, T. and Maguire, S. (2013), “Green human resource management: a review
and research agenda”, International Journal of Management Reviews, Vol. 15 No. 1, pp. 1-14.
Renwick, D., Jabbour, C., Muller-Camen, M., Redman, T. and Wilkinson, A. (2015), “Contemporary
developments in Green (environmental) HRM scholarship”, International Journal of Human
Resource Management, Vol. 27 No. 2, pp. 114-128.
Rip, A. and Kemp, R. (1998), “Technological change”, in Rayner, S. and Malone, E.L. (Eds), Human
Choice and Climate Change, Vol, 2, Battelle Press, Columbus, pp. 327-399.
Roxas, B. and Coetzer, A. (2012), “Institutional environment, managerial attitudes and environmental
sustainability orientation of small firms”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 111 No. 4, pp. 461-476.
Starik, M. and Rands, G.P. (1995), “Weaving an integrated web: multilevel and multisystem
perspectives of ecologically sustainable organizations”, Academy of Management Review,
Vol. 20, pp. 908-935.
Stern, P.C. (2000), “Toward a coherent theory of environmentally significant behavior”, Journal of
Social Issues, Vol. 56, pp. 407-424.
Sully de Luque, M., Washburn, N.T., Waldman, D.A. and House, R.J. (2008), “Unrequited profit: how
stakeholder and economic values relate to subordinates’ perceptions of leadership and firm
performance”, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 53, pp. 626-654.
Temminck, E., Mearns, K. and Fruhen, L. (2013), “Motivating employees towards sustainable
behaviour”, Business Strategy and the Environment, Vol. 24, pp. 402-412.
Thomas, T.E. and Lamm, E. (2012), “Legitimacy and organizational sustainability”, Journal of
Business Ethics, Vol. 110, pp. 191-203.
Williams, J. and MacKinnon, D.P. (2008), “Resampling and distribution of the product methods for
testing indirect effects in complex models”, Structural Equation Modeling, Vol. 15 No. 1,
pp. 23-51.
Wrzesniewski, A., McCauley, C., Rozin, P. and Schwartz, B. (1997), “Jobs, careers, and callings: people’s
relations to their work”, Journal of Research in Personality, Vol. 31, pp. 21-33.

About the authors

Jyotsna Bhatnagar is a Professor HRM, at Management Development Institute, Gurgaon, India. Jyotsna
Bhatnagar is the corresponding author and can be contacted at: jyotsnab@mdi.ac.in
Pranati Aggarwal was Research scholar, HRM, at Management Development Institute, Gurgaon,
India when this study was conceptualized.

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com