Accelerat ing t he world's research.

Enhancing sustainable performance

through job characteristics via
workplace spirituality A study on
SMEs
Qaisar Iqbal

Cite this paper Downloaded from Academia.edu 

Get the citation in MLA, APA, or Chicago styles

Related papers Download a PDF Pack of t he best relat ed papers 

Iqbal et al., (2020) JABS

Qaisar Iqbal

WORKPLACE SPIRIT UALIT Y AS PREDICT OR OF WORKPLACE AT T IT UDES AMONG PAKISTANI DOCT ORS
Sidra Nazir

Relat ionship of Workplace Spirit ualit y wit h Posit ive Job At t it ude (Job Sat isfact ion, Job Involvement a…
IJMSBR Open Access Journal
 The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:
www.emeraldinsight.com/2053-4620.htm

Workplace
Enhancing sustainable spirituality
performance through
job characteristics via
workplace spirituality
A study on SMEs Received 28 February 2018
Revised 18 September 2018
17 November 2018
Qaisar Iqbal and Noor Hazlina Ahmad Accepted 4 December 2018
School of Management, Universiti Sains Malaysia, George Town, Malaysia, and
Basheer Ahmad
Imperial College of Business Studies, Lahore, Pakistan

Abstract
Purpose – This paper aims to provide empirical evidence of the associations between perceived job
characteristics and workplace spirituality with environmental sustainability within the domain of small- and
medium-sized enterprises. This study aims to investigate the influence of perceived job characteristics (job
identity, task significance and task variety) on environmental sustainability through workplace spirituality.
Design/methodology/approach – Data are collected from 400 small and medium enterprises (SME)
employees working in New Delhi, India, and Islamabad, Pakistan. Response rate in this study is 58 per cent.
Structural equation modeling has been used to analyze the data through SmartPLS 3.0 and SPSS version 24.
Findings – The results indicate that perceived job characteristics have significant positive influence over
workplace spirituality. It is concluded that workplace spirituality also significantly mediates the relationship
between perceived job characteristics and environmental sustainability.
Research limitations/implications – In the present study, perceived job characteristics have been
evaluated to improve environmental sustainability in SMEs from Pakistan and India. Therefore, before
generalization in the context of other countries can be made, the results obtained may need some
modifications.
Practical implications – The research concerns the understanding of various job characteristics and
environmental sustainability from the viewpoint of employees in SMEs at imparting perceived job
characteristics as important factors to meet challenges relevant to environmental sustainability in the
dynamic market.
Social implications – There is anecdotal evidence claiming the pivotal role of job characteristics and
workplace spirituality toward the recognition of sustainability in the progressive dynamic market. The
results of this study represent the effectiveness of perceived job characteristics for accomplishing social
objectives through workplace spirituality.
Originality/value – This study contributes to the field by bringing together the concepts of workplace
spirituality with perceived job characteristics and environmental sustainability in the context of Pakistani
and Indian SMEs.
Keywords Pakistan, India, Job characteristics, Sustainable development, spirituality
Paper type Research paper

Journal of Science and Technology

Policy Management
The authors would like to thank Universiti Sains Malaysia for funding this project under the © Emerald Publishing Limited
2053-4620
Incentive GOT grant code no: 1001/PMGT/822110. DOI 10.1108/JSTPM-02-2018-0022
JSTPM 1. Introduction
There is a growing concern by both practitioners and academics about environmental
sustainability (Colicchia et al., 2013). Despite the small environmental impact of service
industries, logistic service operations play a significant role in Green Supply Chain
Management (Zailani et al., 2011) at reducing the environmental burden of the supply chain
in terms of pollution and greenhouse gas emissions, waste disposal and others. There is
ample literature available about the environmental issues in a variety of industries (Colicchia
et al., 2013; Fürst and Oberhofer, 2012). Similarly, Colicchia et al. (2011) has investigated the
environmental reporting of manufacturing sector to assess environmental initiative. There is
sufficient academic research about environmental sustainability in large firms. Large firms
are usually considered as the prime source of environmental degradation; hence, it is deemed
that they are responsible to deal with such damage (Biondi et al., 2002). Academic researchers
and practitioners have conducted environmental case studies on large-scale firms and
investigated their roles in environmental sustainability (Schmidheiny, 1992). Yet, research on
small and medium enterprises (SMEs) from the perspective of environmental sustainability is
still lacking (Biondi et al., 2002). SMEs constitute 98 per cent of total firms in the Asia-Pacific
region. SMEs contribute approximately 17 per cent to gross domestic products (GDPs) of
low-income countries such as India, and to about 40 to 50 per cent to higher income countries
such as Malaysia and Singapore. Pakistan and India are two major economies of South Asia
in terms of GDP. SMEs contribute 17 and 40 per cent to GDPs of India and Pakistan,
respectively (Rehman, 2016). SMEs in Pakistan employ 75 per cent of the non-agriculture
workers with 30 per cent manufacturing output. Similarly, SMEs in India contribute 15 per
cent to total workers with 45 per cent manufacturing output (Rehman, 2016).
Resultantly, policymakers have paid more attention to large-scale companies as
compared to SMEs (Biondi et al., 2002). Targeted industries and firms have utilized their
resources and energy to provide socially acceptable solutions to cope with environmental
sustainability. Anyhow, public has raised concern about the role and contribution of SMEs
to the deterioration of the environment. Policy makers realized that to have a global
improvement in environmental performance, consideration of SMEs is necessary. Being
numerous and heterogeneous in nature, where 98 per cent of total firms in Asia-Pacific
region are SMEs, environmental performance of SMEs is difficult to control (Chendo, 2013;
Asad, 2018). The preceding discussions reveal that SMEs must play a vital role in finding
reliable solutions to achieve environmental sustainability.
In spite of sufficient research on environmental behaviors in public and private settings
(Rezapouraghdam et al., 2018), research about engagement of employees in sustainable
development in the workplace is still lacking (Ruepert et al., 2016). Human behaviors are
considered as the source of tacking the deteriorating environment (Boeve-de Pauw and Van
Petegem, 2017). Researchers have claimed that as opposed to extrinsic motivation, employees
are more inclined intrinsically to environmental sustainability (Rezapouraghdam et al., 2018).
Other evidences also recommend less tangible motivation as the more vigor driver of
environmental sustainability than the tangible ones. Therefore, it is more feasible to focus on
environmental sustainability through the lens of spirituality. “Spirituality and sustainability
are vitally interlined and that there is no sustainability without spirituality” (Dhiman and
Marques, 2016). According to Pawar (2009), workplace spirituality refers to the experience of
employees about spirituality in the workplace. This concept concerns an employee-friendly
work environment that supports and improves the spirit of employees (Pandey et al., 2009). A
spiritual and moralistic view motivates employees to save environment (Kellert, 2012).
Workplace spirituality evokes the feeling of being connected and having compassion toward
others, as well as consciousness in the pursuit of meaningful work that ignite transcendence
(Petchsawang and Duchon, 2009). By increasing self-transcendence, workplace spirituality is a Workplace
source of motivation for employees to participate in activities that are good for others and spirituality
environment (Rezapouraghdam et al., 2018). Job characteristics evoke different psychological
processes and are linked to outcomes such as burnout or engagement (Birtch et al., 2016).
Researchers have claimed about the dynamic position of perceived job characteristics
(Wrzesniewski and Dutton, 2001). Employees may experience less or more autonomy or
variety in their daily routine. Moreover, when there are changes in job’s variety and autonomy,
employees may report significant job stability (Jex and Bliese, 1999). Positive overall
perception about the significance of the job drives the employees to put extra effort in finishing
a job. Resultantly, employees will experience enhanced workplace spirituality (Thatcher et al.,
2002). Therefore, this study aims to investigate the influence of perceived job characteristics on
environmental sustainability through the mediating role of workplace spirituality.
The study is explained as follows: Section 2 elaborates the extant literature about job
characteristics, workplace spirituality and environmental sustainability; Section 3 explains
research framework, methodology, sampling method and variables used in this study.
Section 4 deals with analysis and findings of the study, and finally, the main conclusions are
discussed in Section 5.

2. Literature review
2.1 Environmental sustainability
Sustainability itself is a contested topic. Currently, literature is rife with efforts to define sustainability.
There are alternative terms such as ecological sustainability, environmental sustainability (Iqbal and
Hassan, 2018; Iqbal et al., 2018), social sustainability, human sustainability and sustainable
development being used; nonetheless, corporate social responsibility and corporate citizenship have
been used to explore the sustainability. The most cited definition of sustainability comes from the
World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED) (1987). According to World
Commission on Environment and Development (WCED) (1987), sustainable development links to
social, economic and environmental aspects such as the notion of resource limits (materials, energy,
land and waste), intergenerational and intragenerational equity, equitable access to limited resources
and a progressive transformation of society and economy. There is no consensus among researchers
on this definition and varieties of views are available in the literature (Stubbs and Cocklin, 2008).
Sustainability refers to the way to meet present needs without compromising the ability of
future generations to fulfill their own needs. The sustainability model is based on three
pillars – economic, social and environment. It is also referred to as triple bottom line of
profit, people and planet. These are basically the long-term interests of an organization that
encompasses environmental sustainability, but short-term goals are only about economic
profit (Dubois and Dubois, 2012).
Changing working conditions are just leading towards one and only advice, i.e. the social
responsibility of a business is to use its resources only and involves in activities to increase its
profits which are unable to give sustainable victory (Dubois and Dubois, 2012). Environmental
sustainability presents a change to an organization and it is different from other factors like
globalization and technology change. The changes in technology and globalization impact only
the employees who are engaged within their ambit. However, entrenching environmental
sustainability into an organization requires changes in the thinking and behavior of all employees
in all areas of an organization. Obviously, without efforts of a single employee, organizations are
unable to achieve environmental sustainability (Laszlo and Zhexembayeva, 2011). Embedding
environmental sustainability in an organization requires real-time considerations of economic,
social and environmental sustainability. In fact, triple bottom line requires the connection of the
silos of functional efficiency with that of organizational effectiveness and sustainability (Dubois
and Dubois, 2012). Environment sustainability has been given very little focus by human resource
JSTPM management literature. Most of the extant literature talks about economic sustainability.
Substantial literature had also examined social sustainability issues like diversity, safety and
health, organizational justice and recently, corporate social responsibility. Technology push
strategies such as innovative capability and corporate strategy play an influencing role in
environmental performance in response to dynamic global competition (Singla et al., 2018).

2.2 Workplace spirituality

Workplace spirituality is investigated as highly philosophical and personal constructs
(Milliman et al., 2003; Iqbal, 2018). All academic researchers agreed that workplace
spirituality put lights on the sense of wholeness, connectedness at work and deeper values
(Gibbons, 2000). Workplace spirituality ultimately elaborates about the one’s purpose in life,
quality of relationship with coworkers and other people associated with workplace,
harmony with the one’s personal beliefs and the values of working organization (Iqbal and
Hassan, 2016). Workplace spirituality acknowledges that individuals have an inner self that
grows in the presence of meaningful work in the context of community (Ashmos and
Duchon, 2000).
Nowadays, there is a great emphasize on the interplay between workplace spirituality
with other variables. However, researchers have raised many questions about its context
(Gibbons, 2000; Milliman et al., 2003). Abundance of literature is available about workplace
spirituality from individual perspective, but research on workplace environment is still
lacking. The performance of firms varies according to countries and geographical locations.
This is because of different working environments and cultures – the norms and values that
direct the employees and societies at large (Kash, 2010). Currently, human resource
management is facing the challenge of creating a workplace where employees are committed
to not only their organizations but also their society at large (Crawford et al., 2008).
Organizations are striving toward a positive workplace environment. One such way is to
introduce workplace spirituality (Crawford et al., 2008). The role of spirituality in the context
of its impact on individual attitudes is always assumed to be positive (Gibbons, 2000) rather
than formally building hypotheses and testing empirically on their relationships.
A clear definition of any variable is substantial before proceeding with rigorous research.
Workplace spirituality is a complex and multifaceted construct. Ashmos and Duchon (2000)
have elaborated workplace spirituality into seven dimensions. Meanwhile, Neal and Bennett
(2000) have investigated the workplace spirituality at three levels i.e. individual, group, and
organization. The transcendent aspect of workplace spirituality is not being investigated
here because of its major inclination towards individual’s personal life. The three core
dimensions of workplace spirituality are, meaningful work (individual level), sense of
community (group level) and being in “alignment with organization’s values’. Here, these
dimensions are analyzed at individual level.
2.2.1 Dimensions of workplace spirituality
2.2.1.1 Meaningful work. Workplace spirituality involves having a deep sense of meaning
and purpose in individual’s work (Iqbal, 2018). This dimension of workplace spirituality
determines how individuals interact with day-to-day job at their personal level. This
expression of workplace spirituality is based on the idea that individuals possess inner
motivation, truths and desires which make them forcefully involved in activities with
greater meaning to their lives and the lives of others (Ashmos and Duchon, 2000).Work does
not only mean to be challenging or interesting; it also involves other things such as
searching for deep meaning and purpose, living one’s dream, presenting individual’s inner
life needs by seeking meaningful work and contributing to others (Arnold et al., 2007). Work
is a vocation which requires greater meaning and identity in the workplace.
 2.2.1.2 Community. This dimension refers to the relationship of individuals with others Workplace
(Milliman et al., 2003). This dimension is categorized as a sense of community (Ashmos and spirituality
Duchon, 2000). This dimension of workplace is present at group level and represents the
relationships between individuals and their coworkers. This dimension is based on the belief
that people see themselves as connected to each other and there is certain type of
relationship between one’s inner self and the inner self of other people (Milliman et al., 2003).
Such workplace spirituality is based on the concept of esprit de corps. The relationship is
built based on mental, spiritual and emotional levels of the employees. The essence of
community in this dimension includes a deeper sense of connection among employees that
ranges from support, genuine care to freedom of expression.
2.2.1.3 Alignment with organizational values. Workplace spirituality provides a strong
sense of alignment between the individual’s personal values and organization’s mission and
purpose (Iqbal and Hassan, 2016). This dimension considers the interplay of employees with
larger organizational purpose. Alignment with organizational values is related to the
premise that an individual’s purpose is larger than one’s self and ready to contribute to
society. Alignment also indicates that managers and employees of a specific organization
have a compatibility, and the organization is concerned about the welfare of its employees
and community (Milliman et al., 2003; Ashmos and Duchon, 2000). According to Van
Dierendonck (2004), spirituality motivates employees to work with integrity and purpose
that is beneficial to others beyond simply doing a business. Employees like to work with
organization whose goal is to not just being a good corporate player but an organization
with high sense of ethics, or integrity and contribute a large proportion to the welfare of
employees, customers and society.

2.3 Job characteristics

Many task characteristics’ theories and models such as requisite task attributes theory, the
social information processing model and the job characteristic model emphasize on how
various job characteristics play their roles in motivating and improving job satisfaction of
employees. Research has proved the validity of job characteristic model (Hackman and
Oldham, 1976). Job characteristic model elaborates on the importance of employee’s talent,
number of activities required and varieties of skills to perform certain work (Hackman and
Oldham, 1974b).
According to Hackman and Oldham (1974b), five core dimensions of job have certain
influence over personal and work-related outcomes. The five core job dimensions are job
significance, job identity, skills variety, feedback and autonomy. This model acts as a
framework for managers to design job that intrinsically satisfies employees (Hackman and
Oldham, 1974b). These five core dimensions have significant impact on the meaningfulness
of the work, responsibility for outcome and knowledge of the actual results of the work
activities. These psychological states affect job-related outcomes such as job satisfaction,
work effectiveness and absenteeism (Fried and Ferris, 1987; Hackman and Oldham, 1976).
Task identity, task significance and skills variety enhanced the meaningfulness of the work
through internal high motivation (Christian et al., 2011). Task identity confirms the
expressive feeling of employees about their jobs. Thus, task identity motivates employees to
work efficiently and effectively. Task significance refers to the extent to which a work has
significant impact over the work or lives of other people in and outside their organizations.
Skills variety measures the extent employees making use of their personal and professional
skills to perform their assigned task. Employees experience high level of meaningfulness
upon employment of their personal abilities. Autonomy gives discretion to employees to
schedule and select procedure in conducting their work. Autonomy is defined as a vertical
JSTPM enlargement in decision-making rights, independence and responsibility assigned to
employees (Iqbal et al., 2017). Autonomy allows employees to try new ideas, face the
consequences, and enhance their expertise level. Feedback is where the information
regarding effective and efficient performance of activities conducted by employees is
provided. Higher management must give feedbacks to employees to enhance the
understanding about weak areas of their work and improve performance (Coelho and
Augusto, 2010a).
Job characteristics are considered as motivational factors. It has positive effects on the
meaningful level, work-related knowledge, and responsibility among employees. Five core
dimensions are used to measure Motivational Potential Scores of a job. Motivational
potential scores are defined as a degree to which a job motivates employees. Job
characteristics are strong predictors of stress among employees (Iqbal et al., 2017). Job
characteristics model is a formal theory that explains how five attributes of a job influence
behavior and attitudes of employees (Zhao et al., 2016).
Job characteristics play their roles in the development of intrinsic motivation through
three core dimensions, task identity, task significance and task skills variety, which exhibit
the meaningful level of a job. Employees perceive higher level of meaningfulness when they
use their personal abilities (Cummings and Bigelow, 1976; Lawler and Hall, 1970). Moreover,
their colleagues consider them as independent in the context of their jobs (Cerasoli et al.,
2014). In the presence of intrinsic motivation, employees perform their jobs better, are
satisfied with their jobs and face less work stress. Task identity, task significance and skills
variety have significant impact on job satisfaction (Said and Munap, 2010).

2.4 Hypotheses development

2.4.1 Perceived job characteristics and workplace spirituality. Workplace spirituality is
conceptualized as a mixture of three elements: meaningful work, sense of community, and
value alignment (Duchon and Plowman, 2005; Rego and Pina e Cunha, 2008). Three core job
characteristics – job identity, job significance and skills variety (Hackman, 1980) are
considered important for employees to experience meaningfulness (McKee et al., 2011).
According to Iqbal et al. (2017), job identity, job significance and job variety reduce turnover
intentions among employees. With the increase of job identity and job significance, there
will be a rise in meaningful work. Job significance measures the extent to which certain job
has impact on the lives of other people without any constraints (Hackman, 1980). With job
crafting, there is a rise in the commitment among employees (Iqbal, 2016). Workplace
spirituality plays a vital role in moderating the associations between certain personality
characteristics (openness, agreeableness and consciousness) and counterproductive
workplace behaviors among employees (Iqbal and Hassan, 2016). Therefore, there will be
direct relationship between job significance and community dimension of workplace
spirituality. According to Milliman et al. (2003), in the context of spirituality work, it is not
only meant to be challenging or interesting but it is also the expression of one’s inner needs
by seeking meaningful work (Iqbal, 2018). Job characteristics provide meaningful work that
ultimately satisfies the inner needs of individuals.
Meaningful work is a strong predictor for a conducive work environment (Iqbal and
Hassan, 2016; Duchon and Plowman, 2005). Job characteristic models refer to core
psychological states known as “experienced meaningfulness”. Having a meaningful job is a
part of workplace spirituality along with inner life and connectedness to community. Inner
life focuses on the individual in terms of their identity, job, and contribution. It relies on
social identity and individual identity. According to the self-concept theory of Shamir (1991),
congruence of job characteristics with the inner life makes the environment more
productive. According to Rosso et al. (2010), meaningful work forms a spiritual workplace Workplace
where meaning is derived from the job. Employees create meaning for their job through job spirituality
crafting based on job autonomy and feedback (Oldham and Hackman, 2010). According to
Karakas (2010), job attributes foster meaning. As meaningful work and workplace
spirituality are intertwined (Pawar, 2009) and employees derive meaning from their job, we
hypothesize:

H1. Perceived job characteristics significantly enhance workplace spirituality.

2.4.2 Workplace spirituality and environmental sustainability. Spirituality significantly
influences performance (Duchon and Plowman, 2005). Spiritual healthy workplaces have a
high probability to nurture performance (Houghton et al., 2016). In the context of workplace
spirituality, employees focus on their inner life, a meaningful job and connection to the
community. Researchers have a consensus that by introducing spiritual values,
organizations may become more profitable (Vandenberghe, 2011). Ample empirical
evidences suggest that workplace spirituality creates an environment in which employees
feel happier and perform better (Garcia-Zamor, 2003). Keeping them motivated for work and
finding the meaning of their work enhance retention (Duchon and Plowman, 2005).
Belonging to a community helps them when things get tougher. Further, the culture of
sharing and caring will eventually reach all the stakeholders. Spiritual organizations can get
most out of their employees by allowing them to bring their complete selves to work by
exploiting more of their intellectual and creative potential (Karakas, 2010). Workplace
spirituality moderates the relationship of agreeableness, consciousness and openness with
deviant behaviors of employees (Iqbal and Hassan, 2016). Organizations may overcome the
negative consequences such as late working hours and bad management when the
employees are facilitated with the sense of purpose, meaning, and perspective of self-
actualization (Rego and Pina e Cunha, 2008; Fry and Cohen, 2009). Workplace spirituality is
useful at eliciting productivity (Garcia-Zamor, 2003). In such a holistic working
environment, employees may become more creative and exhibit higher morale.
Spirituality enables employees to enjoy from peace, and tranquility (Roof, 2015).
Employees are satisfied in spiritual workplace and perform at optimum level (Lazar, 2010).
Employees exhibit increased creativity and honesty in the spiritual workplace (Goodarzi
and Kaviani, 2013). Job satisfaction in the perspective of workplace spirituality considers job
itself, relationship with supervisors, peers and labors, and working environment as well
(Choerudin, 2014). Spirituality enables employees to show emotional and cognitive behavior
towards their work (Zohar, 2010). Similarly, spiritual workplace significantly enhances
professional commitment among employees (Osman-Gani et al., 2013), i.e. high level of
acceptance and involvement for accomplishment of organizational goals. From above
discussion, it is hypothesized that:

H2. Workplace spirituality has significant positive influence on environmental

sustainability.
2.4.3 Mediating role of workplace spirituality. Environmental sustainability requires agreed
responsibilities of both vertically and horizontally among employees across various
departments within an organization (Taghavi et al., 2014). Five core dimensions of the job
characteristic model – task identity, task significance, skills variety, job autonomy and job
feedback – are positively related to work-related outcome (Iqbal et al., 2017). When these five
dimensions are not present in organizations, there will be low motivation, low job
satisfaction, high absenteeism and high turnover. These core dimensions are highly
JSTPM correlated. Three job dimensions – task identity, task significance and task variety – are
used to measure importance of job in academic research. These three dimensions are also
used to gauge motivating potential scale of a job (Hackman and Oldham, 1976). Task
identity is highly related with job enrichment (formation of work unit and combination of
tasks), but task significance and skills variety only emphasize on the implementation of idea
(Hackman and Oldham, 1976). Task identity, skills variety and task significance exhibit the
meaningful nature of job so employees will experience high level of internal work
motivation (Christian et al., 2011). Task identity motivates the employees by expressing that
the job is meaningful and worthwhile (Coelho and Augusto, 2010b). Perception toward job
characteristics and job satisfaction are moderately correlated (Christian et al., 2011).
According to Shamir’s (1991) self-concept theory, the congruence of job characteristics
and inner life results in greater motivation among employees provided that the job and its
context contribute to their self-identity. Employees are pleased with spiritual workplaces
based on their identity, responsibilities and contributions (Pawar, 2009). Connectedness to a
community under workplace spirituality results in high-quality associations that are life-
giving and not life-depleting (Carmeli et al., 2009). Workplace spirituality is life-giving
(composite reliability [CR]) and enhances honesty and creativity. It causes employees to feel
part of a larger community (Pfeffer, 2014). In addition, a spiritual workplace enables
employees to deliver complex work for the benefit of the community (Charoensukmongkol
et al., 2013). From the above discussion, it is hypothesized that:

H3. Workplace spirituality mediates the relationship between perceived job

characteristics and environmental sustainability.

2.5 Research model

In this study, sustainability is based on three dimensions - economic, social and environment.
Perceived job characteristics are studied in terms of their three characteristics i.e. job
significance, job identity and job variety. Workplace spirituality is mediating the association
between perceived job characteristics and environmental sustainability (Figure 1).

3. Research methodology
In this study, quantitative research design has been used. Items of all variables have been
adapted from various sources. Measurement scale of workplace spirituality has been taken
from the study of Milliman et al. (2003) (Iqbal and Hassan, 2016; Rezapouraghdam et al.,
2018). Environmental sustainability is measured with 15-items scale adopted from the study
of Khan et al. (2014). Job description scale has been used to gauge the perceived job
characteristics in this study (Hackman and Oldham, 1974a). These items of job
characteristics have been used in the studies of Thatcher et al. (2002) and Iqbal et al. (2017).
Survey-items were responded on a five-point Likert scale, where 1 refers to strongly disagree
and 5 refers to strongly agree.

Figure 1.
Research model
SMEs are deemed to play a substantial role in the pursuit of environmental sustainability. Workplace
SMEs, individually has little effect on the environment, but their combined impact is so spirituality
severe. Similarly, SMEs can collectively improve environmental quality to a higher level
(Biondi et al., 2002). Extant literature suggested on the development of an environmental
policy for SMEs to deal with sustainable development (Walker and Preuss, 2008). In India,
SMEs are defined as small scale units based on the criterion of capital investment. The
investment limit for SMEs in India is up to Rs. 10m on plant and machinery (Wani et al.,
2003). This definition differs from many other countries like China, Germany, Turkey, Iran
and Japan where SMEs are defined in accordance to number of employees (Mukherjee,
2000). SMEs are defined as those having up to 250 employees (Small and Medium
Enterprises Development Authority, 2011). Therefore, the criteria of investment of up to Rs.
10m for SME in India and total employees up to 250 for SME in Pakistan were applied while
collecting data. Employees working in the SME sector of Pakistan and India were targeted
as respondents. Purposive sampling approach had been used in this study. Respondents
were sampled from capital cities of Islamabad, Pakistan, and New Delhi, India. In total, 200
employees acting as representatives of their firms operating in SME sector of both countries
had been approached for filling of online survey form (Appendix). Out of 400, 233 surveys
had been returned as completed with no missing value.
Partial least squares-structural equation modeling technique (PLS-SEM) was used to test
the proposed hypotheses. PLS-SEM is considered as a comprehensive multivariate
statistical analysis approach that can simultaneously evaluates the association among all
the variables in a conceptual model, consisting of a measurement model and structural
model. Nonetheless, PLS-SEM is handy at building theory (Hair et al., 2011). G Power was
used to calculate the sample size in this study. G Power has suggested minimum sample
size of 138 for model testing with the power of 0.95. Sample size has exceeded the value of
138, so the power value in this study exceeds 0.95. Minimum power in social and behavioral
research is typically 0.8, therefore our sample size in this study is sufficient. Akter et al.
(2011) have identified 100 responses as threshold for PLS-SEM analysis, so a sample size
with 233 responses is considered as adequate.

4. Data analysis
4.1 Sample descriptive statistics
In Pakistan, 90 per cent of overall business enterprises were SMEs (Small and Medium
Enterprises Development Authority, 2011). In total, 95 per cent of total firms (3.4 million)
in India were under the category of SMEs (Singh et al., 2009). Data were collected from
SMEs in Pakistan and India. Being fast, inexpensive and easy, convenience sampling (a
non-probability sampling) approach had been used because of the large number of SMEs
in both countries. Questionnaires were sent through e-mails to 200 employees in each
country. In all, 233 employees had responded with response rate of 58 per cent. Average
response rate in empirical studies is 35.7 per cent with a standard deviation of 18.8
(Baruch and Holtom, 2008). In total, 142 employees had responded from Islamabad,
Pakistan, i.e. 61 per cent response rate. In addition, the response rate from New Delhi,
India, is also above the average response rate with n = 91, 39 per cent response rate.
Female respondents dominate the gender category at 66 per cent. Respondents are
classified into five categories with respect to their age: 21-28 years (n = 114), 29-36 years
(n = 78), 37-44 years (n = 30), 45-52 years (n = 0) and 53-60 years (n = 0). A description of
the respondents is exhibited in Table I.
JSTPM Demographics Frequency (%)

Country
Pakistan 142 61
India 91 39
Gender
Male 79 33.90
Female 154 66.09
Age
21 to 28 years 114 51.40
29 to 36 years 78 35.10
37 to 44 years 30 13.50
45 to 52 years 0 0.00
53 to 60 years 0 0.00
Working experience
< 1 year 36 16.20
1 to 5 years 114 51.40
6 to 10 years 42 18.90
11 to 15 years 30 13.50
Table I. 16 to 20 years 0 0.00
Respondent’s >20 years 0 0.00
background
information Note: Total sample size is 233

4.2 Data distribution

Notwithstanding, PLS-SEM analysis does not require normally distributed data; skewness
and kurtosis z-values test had been used to check the distribution of data (Hair et al., 2017).
Kurtosis measures the peak level of the distribution (Hair et al., 2017). Skewness refers to the
degree of the symmetrical nature of the construct. Values of both skewness and kurtosis in
this case are between 1.96 and þ1.96; therefore, data are normally distributed (Lee et al.,
2013) (Table II).

4.3 Control variable

Academic research involving environmental sustainability has used firm size as control
variable provided firms in specific industries have sufficient resources to implement various
practices (Rahman et al., 2010; Pullman et al., 2010). Uhlaner et al. (2012) have also examined
firm size as control variable in their study conducted in Dutch SMEs. Total number of
employees is the dummy coded in IBM SPSS 24.0, and the resulted values were inserted into
SmartPLS 3.2.6 software. Bootstrapping with 5,000 samples was used (Hair et al., 2017) to

N Skewness Kurtosis
Variables Statistic Statistic Standard error Statistic Standard error

Perceived job characteristics 222 0.256 0.163 0.310 0.325

Table II. Workplace spirituality 222 0.097 0.163 0.450 0.325
Skewness and Environmental sustainability 222 0.327 0.163 0.292 0.325
kurtosis Valid N (listwise) 222
check the role of control variable. The results reveal that there is no significant impact of size Workplace
of firm on workplace spirituality and environmental sustainability (Table III). spirituality
4.4 Test of differences (Test of non-bias)
ANOVA test of differences was performed to detect statistically significant difference in
mean among the employees from two countries (Pakistan and India). Table IV exhibits no
statistically significant difference between employees of two countries, i.e. p-values for all
variables are less than 0.05. Therefore, response bias across countries is not a serious issue
in this research.

4.5 Preliminary analysis

All items in the online questionnaire form were marked mandatory, so there are no missing
data. A score, very different from the rest of data which causes bias to the mean and
increases the standard deviation is known as outlier. In the presence of outliers, there are
small or unfilled dots which are drawn to 1.5 IQR rather than minimum or maximum values
in the boxplot. As there is no circle within boxplot of current study, so the data are free from
outliers for age, gender and experience (Figure 2).
This boxplot represents below values (Table V).
Pretesting is a form of pilot testing that has been conducted by this study. Expert views
were taken into consideration in the pretesting of this study. Two industrial experts with
extensive knowledge about this subject and one survey methodologist expert have
participated to shape the content and form the questionnaire.
A single respondent was taken to generate the data about both independent as well as
dependent variables, and thus it is mandatory to investigate the common method variance.
Harman’s single factor score is used to check the presence of common method variance
(Podsakoff et al., 2012). By controlling (unrotated) factor extraction to one factor, there is

Workplace spirituality Environmental sustainability

Control variable Coefficient t-value R2 changes Coefficient t-value R2 changes Table III.
Summary of results
Size 0.110 1.058 – 0.117 1.105 – for control variable

Variables Sum of squares df Mean square F Significance

Workplace spirituality
Between groups 325.198 1 325.198 2.370 0.125
Within groups 30,185.288 232 137.206
Total 30,510.486 233
Environmental sustainability
Between groups 126.325 1 126.325 2.777 0.097
Within groups 10,009.135 232 45.496
Total 10,135.459 233 Table IV.
Perceived job characteristics Test of differences
Between groups 15.736 1 15.736 0.209 0.648 between Pakistan
Within groups 16,531.615 232 75.144 and India for all
Total 16,547.351 233 variables
JSTPM

Figure 2.
Boxplot figure for
age, gender and
experience

Demographic variables Minim Q1 Median Q3 Maxim

Experience 1 2 2 3 4
Age 1 1 1 2 3
Gender 1 1 1 2 2

Notes: Where The minimum, is shown at the far left of the chart, at the end of th left “whisker.”; First
quartile, Q1, is the far left of the box (or the far right of the left whisker); The median is shown as a line in
Table V. the center of the box; Third quartile, Q3, shown at the far right of the box (at the far left of the right
Box-plot analysis whisker); The maximum, shown at the far right of the box

common method bias provided that a single factor contributes more than 50 per cent
variance (Podsakoff et al., 2012). A single factor accounts less than 50 per cent of total
variance in this study, which reveals the absence of common method bias.

4.6 Measurement model (outer model)

4.6.1 Convergent validity. Researchers prefer CR over the Cronbach’s alpha for at least two
reasons (Hair and Lukas, 2014). Validity is gauged through outer loading and average
variance extracted (AVE). According to Hair and Lukas (2014), each item should have
loading of above 0.70, and value of AVE for each construct must be 0.50 or higher. CR of
each construct is suggested to be above 0.70. All items loadings are above 0.70. The values Workplace
of AVEs and CRs are greater than 0.50 and 0.70 respectively. There is significant convergent spirituality
validity at the item level in this study (Table VI).
4.6.2 Discriminant validity. Discriminant validity represents the extent to which
measures of a given construct is different from other constructs in the same model (Hulland,
1999). Two approaches are commonly used to evaluate the discriminant validity, i.e. cross
loading and Fornell–Larcker criterion. Henseler et al. (2015) have also introduced another

No. Construct Type No. of items Items deleted Loadings CR AVE Cronbach’s a

1 Perceived job Reflective 15 None 0.879 0.808 0.564 0.714

characteristics 0.842
0.832
0.900
0.864
0.754
0.878
0.860
0.855
0.910
0.935
0.891
0.823
0.830
0.784
2 Workplace Reflective 17 None 0.839 0.882 0.570 0.839
Spirituality 0.875
0.906
0.922
0.871
0.899
0.915
0.848
0.941
0.933
0.883
0.847
0.764
0.865
0.865
0.745
3 Environmental Reflective 15 None 0.898 0.862 0.577 0.813
Sustainability 0.941
0.818
0.903
0.825
0.845
0.889
0.861
0.853
0.919 Table VI.
0.918 Summary of
0.727 construct validity
0.919 and reliability
JSTPM method called the multitrait-multimethod matrix (HTMT) to evaluate the discriminant
validity in variance-based SEM. According to Fornell–Larcker criterion, the square root of
AVE is compared with the correlations between the focal construct and all other constructs
(Peng and Lai, 2012). The square root of each AVE in this construct is greater than the
related inter-correlations in the construct correlation matrix, revealing adequate
discriminant validity for all the constructs. The HTMT can be used in two ways to assess
the discriminant validity; i.e. as a criterion and as a statistical test. As a criterion, if the value
of HTMT is greater than HTMT.85 value of 0.85 (Kline, 2011) or HTMT0.90 value of 0.90
(Gold et al., 2001), then there is problem with discriminant validity. Table IV shows that all
values are below HTMT0.90 (Gold et al., 2001) and HTMT0.85 (Kline, 2011); hence,
discriminant validity is established (Tables VII and VIII).

4.7 Structural model (inner model)

Once the construct measures have been found to be reliable and valid, the assessment of
structural model has been performed. The assessment of structural model has five steps:
collinearity assessment, path coefficients, coefficient of determinations (R2 values), effect
size and predictive relevance and blindfolding (Hair and Lukas, 2014).
4.7.1 Collinearity assessment. Variance inflation factor (VIF) has been used to check the
collinearity of the structural model. According to Hair (2011), if the value of VIF is equal or
greater than five, then there is collinearity issue. In this study, all values are less than the
common threshold of 5.0. Therefore, collinearity among predictors construct is not an issue
in this study (Table IX).
4.7.2 Structural model path coefficients. Path coefficients indicate that the hypotheses’
relationships between the constructs and their values ranged between 1 and þ1 in a
regression analysis (Hair et al., 2016). Values of path coefficients close to þ1 represent
strong positive relationship and values near to 1 denote strong indirect relationship that
are almost always statistically significant. With the values approaching 0, relationships get
weaker. Values closest to the 0 are statistically non-significant (Hair et al., 2016). PLS-SEM
Algorithm can be run to determine the values of path coefficients or standardized beta

Variables ES WS PJC

ES 0.759
Table VII. WS 0.604 0.750
Discriminant validity PJC 0.570 0.585 0.754
of construct – Notes: Diagonals (in italic) represent the square root of AVE, while the other entries represent the
Fornell–larcker correlations. ES= Environmental sustainability, WS= Workplace Spirituality, and PJC= Perceived Job
criterion Characteristics

Variables ES WS PJC

ES 0.759
WS 0.604 0.750
PJC 0.570 0.585 0.754
Table VIII.
Heterotrait-monotrait Notes: ES = Environmental sustainability; WS = Workplace spirituality; PJC = Perceived job
ratio (HTMT) characteristics
values ( b ) for a relationship in the structural model. The t-values are used to assess the Workplace
significance of the path coefficients. Values of Path coefficients in this study are positive and spirituality
significant.
4.7.3. Coefficient of determination (R2 values). The coefficient of determination or R is
used to measure the endogenous latent variable’s combined impact (Hair et al., 2016). It
explains the variance caused by the model (Chin, 1998). R-square exhibits the model’s
predictive accuracy and can be determined as the squared correlation between a specific
endogenous construct’s actual and predicted values. The coefficient of determination
exhibits the impact of exogenous latent variable on the endogenous latent variable. The
values of the coefficient of determination ranged between 0 and 1. R-square value of 1
indicates higher predictive accuracy. The R-square values of 0.25, 0.50 and 0.75 are
suggested as weak, moderate, and substantial respectively (Henseler et al., 2009; Hair et al.,
2011). The R-square value of the endogenous variable concludes that the proposed
theoretical model explains 29.5 per cent of the variance in workplace spirituality and 33.5
per cent of the variance in environmental sustainability, which goes under the weak
category of model’s predictability.

4.8 Hypotheses testing (test of direct effect)

Research model was tested using bootstrap procedure on SmartPLS software. Perceived job
characteristics among employees significantly influence workplace spirituality i.e. ( b =
0.494, r < 0.05). This result claims that management of firms should tactfully design job
characteristics of employees. Management of the firms should also arrange proper training
to influence the perception of employees about their jobs. Moreover, workplace spirituality
has significant positive impact on environmental sustainability i.e. ( b = 0.367, r < 0.05).
This result also affirms the recommendations (Crawford et al., 2008) that workplace
spirituality is a tool that does not only enhance commitments of employees to their
organizations but also to their society at large. Therefore, H1 and H2 are accepted (Figures 3
and 4, and Table X).

4.9 Mediation analysis (indirect effect)

Sobel test requires normality of data for its employment that is considered as the major flaw.
Sobel test with such assumption of normality is not considered suitable for the assessment
of indirect effect (Hayes, 2009). Hayes (2009) has proposed bootstrapping as an alternative
for the investigation of indirect effect which does not require normality of distribution.
The t-values are manually calculated to establish the significant effects of the mediation.
The t-values for the mediation are calculated as below:

ba*bb
t¼
Standard deviation of a * b

Construct VIF

Perceived job characteristics ! Workplace spirituality 1.000 Table IX.

Perceived job characteristics !Environmental sustainability 1.520 Collinearity
Workplace spirituality ! Environmental sustainability 1.263 assessment
JSTPM

Figure 3.
Structural model
framework with
perceived job
characteristics and
environmental
sustainability as
second order
constructs, where
t-values are provided

Figure 4.
Structural model
framework with
perceived job
characteristics and
environmental
sustainability as
second order
constructs, where
values of R-square
and path coefficients
are provided

Hypotheses Relationship Path coefficient T p-values

H1 PJC ! WS 0.494 3.084 0.001

Table X. H2 WS ! ES 0.367 2.634 0.004
Hypothesis testing
(Direct effect) Notes: PJC = Perceived job characteristics; WS = workplace spirituality; ES = Environmental sustainability
where, a denotes the path between independent variable, whereas the mediator b refers to Workplace
the path between mediator and dependent variable. The numerator of the formula is equal spirituality
to the multiplication of the path coefficients for “a” and “b”. The product of a and b is
equal to the indirect effect (Hayes and Scharkow, 2013). The denominator of the above
formula is equal to the multiplication of the standard deviation for “a” and “b”.
Bootstrapping has been utilized to determine the values of the path coefficients and the
standard deviations. Division of the numerator by denominator gives the value of t. Based
on two-tail test, t-value is significant if it is above the critical value 1.96.
The values of path coefficient and standard deviations of “a” and “b” are also used to
calculate the confidence intervals to explore the existence of mediation. When there is no
zero between the lower confidence limit and upper confidence limit, intervening variable
significantly mediates (Hayes and Scharkow, 2013). In the presence of zero between lower
confidence limit and upper confidence limit, there is non-significant mediation (Hayes and
Scharkow, 2013).The formula for the lower confidence limit and upper confidence limit at 95
per cent confidence interval is given below;

Upper confidence limit ¼ ð b a * b bÞ þ ½1:96 * ðstandard deviation of a * bފ

Lower confidence limit ¼ ð b a * b bÞ ½1:96 * ðstandard deviation of a * bފ

Both the values of t and confidence interval are required for the examination of the
mediation. A significant-values and a confidence interval without a zero in between are
predictors of strong significant mediator. The results indicate that perceived job
characteristics have a significant indirect effect on environmental sustainability via
workplace spirituality ( b = 0.026, P < 0.05). Therefore, workplace spirituality significantly
mediates the relationship between perceived job characteristics and environmental
sustainability. Hence, H3 is accepted. These findings are similar to that recommended by
Rego and Pina e Cunha (2008), Marques (2007) and Brown (2003). According to Mitroff
(2003), Workplace spirituality enhances performance of organization provided that it is
ignited within the context of employees’ perception and dignity. Organizations are currently
dealing with employees who come for work with their tools and brains but not with souls
(Mitroff, 2003). As a result, organizations are not fully benefiting from the creativity and
potential of their employees (Rego and Pina e Cunha, 2008). Workplace spirituality (i.e.
workplace opportunities to perform meaningful work in the context of a community with a
sense of joy and personal fulfilment) helps the employees to prevent and mitigate toxic
ingredients and materials such as dehumanized practices, people humiliation and
destruction, vassalage, and grave intimidation to the “human soul” (Brown, 2003; Mitroff,
2003) (Table XI).

Table XI.
Mediating path
coefficient of
perceived job
Indirect Standard Lower confidence Upper confidence characteristics on
H Relationship Path a Path b effect error t-value interval interval environmental
sustainability
H3 PJC ! WS ! ES 0.168 0.158 0.026 0.013 5.478 0.000 0.052
through workplace
Notes: PJC = Perceived job characteristics; WS = Workplace spirituality; ES = Environmental sustainability spirituality
JSTPM 5. Discussion
The reactions of employees rely on their perceptions of the job characteristics within the
work environment (Oerlemans and Bakker, 2018). Similarly, this research supports that
perceived job characteristics significantly promote workplace spirituality (Oerlemans and
Bakker, 2018). It concludes that workplace spirituality substantially influences sustainable
performance. Perceived job characteristics significantly enhance sustainable performance
via workplace spirituality. These results are similar to other findings (Garcia-Zamor, 2003;
Oerlemans and Bakker, 2018; Duchon and Plowman, 2005), where the authors suggested
meaningful jobs and spiritual organizational climates promote more healthy work
environments and employees work in a more engaged and collaborative manner, apply full
potential to their jobs and deliver optimum performance. Such organizations become more
productive compared to those where spirituality is neglected. Thus, this study claims that
neglecting job characteristics means ignoring workplace spirituality which adversely affects
sustainability performance because of lower effective and normative commitment and high
continuance commitment. In the absence of spirituality, employees also exhibit more
neglecting behavior (Meyer and Herscovitch, 2001), which, in turn, can lead to lower
organizational performance. According to Visvizi et al. (2018), sustainability and innovation
are two substantial aspects of a diverse society. The integration of information and
communication technologies suggests a new managerial paradigm.
The results of this study are similar to the findings of Marques (2007), where individual
and organizational growth, enhanced organizational and life quality are associated. To
promote workplace spirituality, organizations are required to appreciate not only employees’
enhanced commitment but also comprehend the importance of openness to change and
interconnectedness among different departments (Garcia-Zamor, 2003). According to Elmes
and Smith (2001), empowerment is vital for the promotion of workplace spirituality.
Authenticity, reciprocity, accountability and productive connectiveness are also closely
associated with workplace spirituality (Marques, 2007).

6. Conclusion
This study confirms that perceived job characteristics (job significance, job identity and job
variety) are vital for the workplace spirituality within organizations. Workplace spirituality
has a significant influence on the performance of environmental sustainability within SME
firms. This study also affirms that workplace spirituality mediates the associations between
perceived job characteristics and environmental sustainability. Firms need to develop
internal structural and cultural capabilities to execute sustainability at the organizational
level and collaborate with major stakeholders to implement and enhance sustainability
performance.
At the system level, sustainability includes characteristics such as recycling facilities,
renewable energy facility, sustainable transportation systems and ecological tax-reform
systems. Therefore, sustainability requires certain amendments to legislation and
regulation, and a “sustainability mindset’ in society. There is a need to adopt new ways in
tracking the performance of the “system” and firms. organizations must look for
collaborative partnerships among their stakeholders to enhance sustainable performance at
individual and organizational levels. Industrial ecosystems should develop blueprints to
evaluate the performance of sustainability within their domain. Firms should look for
coordination in their usage of raw materials, water, energy, and go for standard waste
management practices. To reduce environmental damages, firms need to analyze their
material and energy flows.
 There are many limitations in this study, which suggests areas for future research. Workplace
Researchers can investigate the proposed framework with a more diverse sample such as spirituality
large firms to explore further variations in the performance of sustainability. Sustainable
development is a fragmented topic across managerial and technical levels, but the smart
cities concept may enhance its performance regarding the environment (Angelidou et al.,
2018). Sustainability does not only encompass natural environment issues but also considers
cultural and social environmental concerns which are beyond the scope in this study. There
is a need to use a triangulated approach for data collection to examine complicated research
questions about sustainable development in business.
Furthermore, this study does not differentiate between the cognitive and emotional
connectedness within workplace spirituality context (Perrin and Benassi, 2009). Therefore,
future researchers may embed these variables in their frameworks to compare their
influence on environmental sustainability. On a closing note, researchers can explore the
antecedents of workplace spirituality and their impact on sustainable development.

6.1 Implications of the study

6.1.1 Theoretical implications. The proposed framework and outcomes in this study add to
the extant research in many ways. This study presents important theoretical implications
for managers. First, to provide workplace spirituality, job characteristics do matter.
Managers should comprehend that to achieve the optimum level of workplace spirituality,
perceived job characteristics (job autonomy, job significance, job variety, feedback and job
identity) matter. It is mandatory that employees perceive that an organization understands
and supports their well-being, so that they immerse themselves in their jobs, thereby
reciprocating by improving environmental sustainability. Managers are recommended to
show concern about the job characteristics of their employees so that they are involved in
organizational performance.
Second, enhancing awareness among employees about environmental sustainability and
communicating with them about the significance of sustainable development may help them
to understand the positive side of their job characteristics. Motivating and engaging with
employees, the management should consider a spiritual workplace to deliver optimum
environmental performance. Employees may exhibit varying levels of spirituality, so
organizations need to integrate them with workplace spirituality by providing support
through job characteristics.
6.1.2 Managerial and practical implications. In certain environments, it is difficult to
intervene directly in workplace spirituality. This study claims that management can
significantly develop employees’ perceptions toward job characteristics, which are relevant
to meaningfulness and control. Therefore, human resource (HR) training could be enriched by
enhancing the association between perceived job characteristics and workplace spirituality.
Management could provide an environment where employees perceive favorable outcomes in
the presence of an abundance of job resources. In addition, perceived job characteristics are a
meaningful avenue to promote workplace spirituality among employees. In addition to the
benefits of perceived favorable job characteristics, management could also consider specific
organizational practices that affect workplace spirituality negatively.
This study has many practical implications. First, cognitive interpretation and appraisal
of employees’ work environment (job characteristics) influence their workplace spirituality
and, in turn, their performance in terms of environmental sustainability. Second,
management should undertake a regular assessment of employees’ perceptions about
perceived job characteristics, workplace spirituality and environmental sustainability
especially during heightened periods of change and uncertainty. Workplace spirituality is
JSTPM activated through cognitive reconciliation of one’s job characteristics with perceptions about
implicit promises in the employment exchange.
The assessment of job characteristics is not a static activity. As employee roles change
with the changes in the internal and external environment, organizations should also review
and reconfigure job characteristics to maintain workplace spirituality. The management of
workplace spirituality is the prime responsibility of firms aiming to develop “people-
building” rather than “people-using” organizations (Anderson et al., 2001; Birtch et al., 2016).
The practical implications of this study reveal important roles that HR department plays in
encouraging employees and managers to adopt and implement strong environmental
management exercises within a firm.

References
Akter, S., D’ambra, J. and Ray, P. (2011), “Trustworthiness in mHealth information services: an assessment
of a hierarchical model with mediating and moderating effects using partial least squares (PLS)”,
Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, Vol. 62, pp. 100-116.
Anderson, N., Ones, D.S., Sinangil, H.K. and Viswesvaran, C. (2001), Handbook of Industrial, work and
organizational Psychology: Volume 1: Personnel Psychology, Sage, New York, NY.
Angelidou, M., Psaltoglou, A., Komninos, N., Kakderi, C., Tsarchopoulos, P. and Panori, A. (2018),
“Enhancing sustainable urban development through smart city applications”, Journal of Science
and Technology Policy Management, Vol. 9 No. 2, pp. 146-169.
Arnold, K.A., Turner, N., Barling, J., Kelloway, E.K. and Mckee, M.C. (2007), “Transformational
leadership and psychological well-being: the mediating role of meaningful work”, Journal of
Occupational Health Psychology, Vol. 12 No. 3, pp. 193.
Asad, A. (2018), “The role of SMEs in Asia’s economic growth: SME finance forum”, available at: www.
smefinanceforum.org/post/the-role-of-smes-in-asias-economic-growth
Ashmos, D.P. and Duchon, D. (2000), “Spirituality at work: a conceptualization and measure”, Journal of
Management Inquiry, Vol. 9 No. 2, pp. 134-145.
Baruch, Y. and Holtom, B.C. (2008), “Survey response rate levels and trends in organizational research”,
Human Relations, Vol. 61 No. 8, pp. 1139-1160.
Biondi, V., Iraldo, F. and Meredith, S. (2002), “Achieving sustainability through environmental
innovation: the role of SMEs”, International Journal of Technology Management, Vol. 24 Nos 5/6,
pp. 612-626.
Birtch, T.A., Chiang, F.F. and Van Esch, E. (2016), “A social exchange theory framework for
understanding the job characteristics – job outcomes relationship: the mediating role of
psychological contract fulfillment”, The International Journal of Human Resource Management,
Vol. 27 No. 11, pp. 1217-1236.
Boeve-De Pauw, J. and Van Petegem, P. (2017), “Because my friends insist or because it makes sense?
Adolescents’ motivation towards the environment”, Sustainability, Vol. 9, pp. 750.
Brown, R.B. (2003), “Organizational spirituality: the sceptic’s version”, Organization, Vol. 10 No. 2,
pp. 393-400.
Carmeli, A., Brueller, D. and Dutton, J.E. (2009), “Learning behaviours in the workplace: the role of high-
quality interpersonal relationships and psychological safety”, Systems Research and Behavioral
Science, Vol. 26 No. 1, pp. 81-98.
Cerasoli, C.P., Nicklin, J.M. and Ford, M.T. (2014), “Intrinsic motivation and extrinsic incentives jointly
predict performance: a 40-year Meta-analysis”, Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 140 No. 4, pp. 980.
Charoensukmongkol, P., Daniel, J.L. and Chatelain-Jardon, R. (2013), “Enhancing workplace spirituality
through emotional intelligence”, Journal of Applied Management and Entrepreneurship, Vol. 18
No. 4, pp. 3.
Chendo, N.A. (2013), “Managers’ perception of environmental sustainability in small and medium scale Workplace
enterprises (SMEs): implication for competitive marketing advantages for sachet water
manufacturers in Anambra state, Nigeria”, European Journal of Business and Management,
spirituality
Vol. 5, pp. 186-195.
Chin, W.W. (1998), “The partial least squares approach to structural equation modeling”, Modern
Methods for Business Research, Vol. 295, pp. 295-336.
Choerudin, A. (2014), “The relationship between spirituality and work attitude: a empirical study”,
International Journal of Management Research and Reviews, Vol. 4, p. 455.
Christian, M.S., Garza, A.S. and Slaughter, J.E. (2011), “Work engagement: A quantitative review and
test of its relations with task and contextual performance”, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 64 No. 1,
pp. 89-136.
Coelho, F. and Augusto, M. (2010a), “Job characteristics and the creativity of frontline service
employees”, Journal of Service Research.
Coelho, F. and Augusto, M. (2010b), “Job characteristics and the creativity of frontline service
employees”, Journal of Service Research, Vol. 13 No. 4, pp. 426-438.
Colicchia, C., Melacini, M. and Perotti, S. (2011), “Benchmarking supply chain sustainability: insights
from a field study”, Benchmarking: An International Journal, Vol. 18 No. 5, pp. 705-732.
Colicchia, C., Marchet, G., Melacini, M. and Perotti, S. (2013), “Building environmental sustainability:
empirical evidence from logistics service providers”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 59,
pp. 197-209.
Crawford, A., Hubbard, S.S., Lonis-Shumate, S.R. and O’neill, M. (2008), “Workplace spirituality and
employee attitudes within the lodging environment”, Journal of Human Resources in Hospitality
and Tourism, Vol. 8, pp. 64-81.
Cummings, T.G. and Bigelow, J. (1976), “Satisfaction, job involvement, and intrinsic motivation: an
extension of lawler and hall’s factor analysis”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 61 No. 4,
p. 523.
Dhiman, S. and Marques, J. (2016), Spirituality and Sustainability, Springer, New York, NY.
Dubois, C.L.Z. and Dubois, D.A. (2012), “Strategic HRM as social design for environmental
sustainability in organization”, Human Resource Management, Vol. 51 No. 6, pp. 799-826.
Duchon, D. and Plowman, D.A. (2005), “Nurturing the spirit at work: Impact on work unit
performance”, The Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 16 No. 5, pp. 807-833.
Elmes, M. and Smith, C. (2001), “Moved by the spirit: Contextualizing workplace empowerment in
American spiritual ideals”, The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, Vol. 37 No. 1, pp. 33-50.
Fried, Y. and Ferris, G.R. (1987), “The validity of the job characteristics model: a review and meta-
analysis”, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 40 No. 2, pp. 287-322.
Fry, L.W. and Cohen, M.P. (2009), “Spiritual leadership as a paradigm for organizational transformation
and recovery from extended work hours cultures”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 84 No. S2,
pp. 265-278.
Fürst, E. and Oberhofer, P. (2012), “Greening road freight transport: evidence from an empirical project
in Austria”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 33, pp. 67-73.
Garcia-Zamor, J.C. (2003), “Workplace spirituality and organizational performance”, Public
Administration Review, Vol. 63, pp. 355-363.
Gibbons, P. (2000), “Spirituality at work: definitions, measures, assumptions, and validity claims”,
Work and Spirit: A Reader of New Spiritual Paradigms for Organizations, University of Scranton
Press, Scranton, PA, 111-131.
Gold, A.H., Malhotra, A. and Segars, A.H. (2001), “Knowledge management: an organizational
capabilities perspective”, Journal of Management Information Systems, Vol. 18 No. 1,
pp. 185-214.
JSTPM Goodarzi, H.T. and Kaviani, M. (2013), “The relationship between spirituality and job satisfaction”,
IOSR Journal of Business and Management, Vol. 12, pp. 108-116.
Hackman, J.R. (1980), “Work redesign and motivation”, Professional Psychology, Vol. 11 No. 3, pp. 445.
Hackman, J.R. and Oldham, G.R. (1974a), The Job Diagnostic Survey: An Instrument for the Diagnosis of
Jobs and the Evaluation of Job Redesign Projects, Yale Univ New Haven Ct Dept of
Administrative Sciences, New Haven, CT.
Hackman, J.R. and Oldham, G.R. (1974b), “The job diagnostic survey: an instrument for the diagnosis of
jobs and the evaluation of job redesign projects”,
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 No. 2, pp. 250-279.
Hair, J. Jr (2011), A Primer on Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM), Sage
Publications.
Hair, J.F., Jr and Lukas, B. (2014), Marketing Research, McGraw-Hill Education Australia, Sydney.
Hair, J.F., Ringle, C.M. and Sarstedt, M. (2011), “PLS-SEM: indeed a silver bullet”, Journal of Marketing
Theory and Practice, Vol. 19 No. 2, pp. 139-152.
Hair, J.F., Jr, Hult, G.T.M., Ringle, C. and Sarstedt, M. (2016), A Primer on Partial Least Squares
Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM, ), Sage Publications, New York, NY.
Hair, J., Hult, T., Ringle, C. and Sarstedt, M. (2017), A Primer on Partial Least Squares Structural
Equation Modeling, Sage, Thousand Oakes, CA.
Hayes, A.F. (2009), “Beyond Baron and Kenny: statistical mediation analysis in the new millennium”,
Communication Monographs, Vol. 76 No. 4, pp. 408-420.
Hayes, A., F. and Scharkow, M. (2013), “The relative trustworthiness of inferential tests of the indirect
effect in statistical mediation analysis: does method really matter?”, Psychological Science,
Vol. 24 No. 10, pp. 1918-1927.
Henseler, J., Ringle, C.M. and Sarstedt, M. (2015), “A new criterion for assessing discriminant validity in
variance-based structural equation modeling”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science,
Vol. 43 No. 1, pp. 115-135.
Henseler, J., Ringle, C.M. and Sinkovics, R.R. (2009), The Use of Partial Least Squares Path Modeling in
International Marketing: New Challenges to International Marketing, Emerald Group Publishing,
Bingley.
Houghton, J.D., Neck, C.P. and Krishnakumar, S. (2016), “The what, why, and how of spirituality in the
workplace revisited: a 14-year update and extension”, Journal of Management, Spirituality and
Religion, Vol. 13, pp. 177-205.
Hulland, J. (1999), “Use of partial least squares (PLS) in strategic management research: a review of four
recent studies”, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 20 No. 2, pp. 195-204.
Iqbal, Q. (2016), “Job-crafting and organizational commitment: person-job fit as moderator in banking sector
of Pakistan”, International Journal of Management, Accounting and Economics, Vol. 3, pp. 837-851.
Iqbal, Q. (2018), “The era of environmental sustainability: ensuring that sustainability stands on human
resource management”, Global Business Review, Vol. 1, 0972150918778967.
Iqbal, Q. and Hassan, S.H. (2016), “Role of workplace spirituality: Personality traits and
counterproductive workplace behaviors in banking sector”, International Journal of
Management, Accounting and Economics, Vol. 3, pp. 806-821.
Iqbal, Q. and Hassan, S.H. (2018), “Green management matters: green human resource management as
blue ocean strategy”, in Ohnishi, K. (ed.) Firms’ Strategic Decisions: Theoretical and Empirical
Findings, Bentham Science Publishers, Sharjah.
Iqbal, Q., Ahmad, N.H. and Akhtar, S. (2017), “The mediating role of job embeddedness fit: perceived
job characteristics and turnover intention in the services sector”, The Lahore Journal of Business,
Vol. 06, pp. 71-92.
Iqbal, Q., Hassan, S.H., Akhtar, S. and Khan, S. (2018), “Employee’s green behavior for environmental Workplace
sustainability: a case of banking sector in Pakistan”, World Journal of Science, Technology and
Sustainable Development, Vol. 1.
spirituality
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 No. 3, pp. 349.
Karakas, F. (2010), “Spirituality and performance in organizations: a literature review”, Journal of
Business Ethics, Vol. 94 No. 1, pp. 89-106.
Kash, D.E. (2010), “Technological innovation and culture: research needed for China and other
countries”, Journal of Science and Technology Policy in China, Vol. 1 No. 2, pp. 100-115.
Kellert, S.R. (2012), Building for Life: Designing and Understanding the Human-nature Connection,
Island press, Washington, DC.
Khan, E.A., Dewan, M.N.A. and Chowdhury, M.M.H. (2014), “Development and validation of a scale for
measuring sustainability construct of informal microenterprises”, The 5th Asia-Pacific Business
Research Conference, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.
Kline, R. (2011), Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling, 3rd edn, Guilford Press. New
York, NY.
Laszlo, C. and Zhexembayeva, N. (2011), Embedded Sustainability: The Next Big Competitive
Advantage, UK Greenleaf Publishing, Sheffield.
Lawler, E.E. and Hall, D.T. (1970), “Relationship of job characteristics to job involvement, satisfaction,
and intrinsic motivation”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 54 No. 4, pp. 305.
Lazar, A. (2010), “Spirituality and job satisfaction among female Jewish Israeli hospital nurses”, Journal
of Advanced Nursing, Vol. 66 No. 2, pp. 334-344.
Lee, V.-H., Leong, L.-Y., Hew, T.S. and Ooi, K.-B. (2013), “Knowledge management: a key determinant in
advancing technological innovation?”, Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 17 No. 6,
pp. 848-872.
McKee, M.C., Driscoll, C., Kelloway, E.K. and Kelley, E. (2011), “Exploring linkages among
transformational leadership, workplace spirituality and well-being in health care workers”,
Journal of Management, Spirituality and Religion, Vol. 8, pp. 233-255.
Marques, J., F. (2007), “The reciprocity between spirituality in the workplace and thinking outside the
box”, Business Renaissance Quarterly, Vol. 2, p. 93.
Meyer, J.P. and Herscovitch, L. (2001), “Commitment in the workplace: toward a general model”,
Human Resource Management Review, Vol. 11 No. 3, pp. 299-326.
Milliman, J., Czaplewski, A.J. and Ferguson, J. (2003), “Workplace spirituality and employee work
attitudes: An exploratory empirical assessment”, Journal of Organizational Change
Management, Vol. 16 No. 4, pp. 426-447.
Mitroff, I.I. (2003), “Do not promote religion under the guise of spirituality”, Organization, Vol. 10 No. 2,
pp. 375-382.
Mukherjee, N. (2000), “World trade organization and small and medium enterprises from a developing
country’s perspective: a study of Indian small scale industries”, Indian Economic Journal,
Vol. 48, pp. 18.
Neal, J.A. and Bennett, J. (2000), “Examining multi-level or holistic spiritual phenomena in the work place”,
Management, Spirituality, and Religion Newsletter, Academy of Management, Vol. 1, pp. 1-2.
Oerlemans, W. and Bakker, A. (2018), “Motivating job characteristics and happiness at work: a
multilevel perspective”, The Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 103 No. 11.
Oldham, G.R. and Hackman, J.R. (2010), “Not what it was and not what it will be: the future of job
design research”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 31 Nos 2/3, pp. 463-479.
Osman-Gani, A.M., Hashim, J. and Ismail, Y. (2013), “Establishing linkages between religiosity and
spirituality on employee performance”, Employee Relations, Vol. 35, pp. 360-376.
JSTPM Pandey, A., Gupta, R.K. and Arora, A. (2009), “Spiritual climate of business organizations and its
impact on customers’ experience”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 88 No. 2, pp. 313-332.
Pawar, B.S. (2009), “Workplace spirituality facilitation: a comprehensive model”, Journal of Business
Ethics, Vol. 90 No. 3, pp. 375.
Peng, D.X. and Lai, F. (2012), “Using partial least squares in operations management research: a
practical guideline and summary of past research”, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 30
No. 6, pp. 467-480.
Perrin, J.L. and Benassi, V.A. (2009), “The connectedness to nature scale: a measure of emotional
connection to nature?”, Journal of Environmental Psychology, Vol. 29 No. 4, pp. 434-440.
Petchsawang, P. and Duchon, D. (2009), “Measuring workplace spirituality in an Asian context”,
Human Resource Development International, Vol. 12 No. 4, pp. 459-468.
Pfeffer, J. (2014), “Business and the spirit: Management practices that sustain values”, Handbook of
Workplace Spirituality and Organizational Performance, Routledge, New York, NY.
Podsakoff, P.M., Mackenzie, S.B. and Podsakoff, N.P. (2012), “Sources of method bias in social science
research and recommendations on how to control it”, Annual Review of Psychology, Vol. 63,
pp. 539-569.
Pullman, M.E., Maloni, M.J. and Dillard, J. (2010), “Sustainability practices in food supply chains: how is
wine different?”, Journal of Wine Research, Vol. 21 No. 1, pp. 35-56.
Rahman, S., Laosirihongthong, T. and Sohal, A.S. (2010), “Impact of lean strategy on operational
performance: a study of Thai manufacturing companies”, Journal of Manufacturing Technology
Management, Vol. 21 No. 7, pp. 839-852.
Rego, A. and Pina E Cunha, M. (2008), “Workplace spirituality and organizational commitment: an
empirical study”, Journal of Organizational Change Management, Vol. 21 No. 1, pp. 53-75.
Rehman, N.U. (2016), “Does internal and external research and development affect SME innovation?
Evidence from India and Pakistan”, SMEs, Vol. 50.
Rezapouraghdam, H., Alipour, H. and Darvishmotevali, M. (2018), “Employee workplace spirituality
and pro-environmental behavior in the hotel industry”, Journal of Sustainable Tourism, Vol. 26
No. 5, pp. 740-758.
Roof, R.A. (2015), “The association of individual spirituality on employee engagement: the spirit at
work”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 130 No. 3, pp. 585-599.
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.
Ruepert, A., Keizer, K., Steg, L., Maricchiolo, F., Carrus, G., Dumitru, A., Mira, R.G., Stancu, A. and
Moza, D. (2016), “Environmental considerations in the organizational context: a pathway to pro-
environmental behaviour at work”, Energy Research and Social Science, Vol. 17, pp. 59-70.
Said, N.A. and Munap, R. (2010), “Job characteristics and job satisfaction: a relationship study on
supervisors performance. Management of innovation and technology (ICMIT)”, IEEE
International Conference on, IEEE, 714-719.
Schmidheiny, S. (1992), Changing Course: A Global Business Perspective on Development and the
Environment, MIT press, Cambridge.
Shamir, B. (1991), “Meaning, self and motivation in organizations”, Organization Studies, Vol. 12 No. 3,
pp. 405-424.
Singh, R.K., Garg, S.K. and Deshmukh, S. (2009), “The competitiveness of SMEs in a globalized
economy: Observations from China and India”, Management Research Review, Vol. 33 No. 1,
pp. 54-65.
Singla, A., Ahuja, I.S. and Sethi, A.S. (2018), “An examination of effectiveness of technology push
strategies for achieving sustainable development in manufacturing industries”, Journal of
Science and Technology Policy Management, Vol. 1.
Small and Medium Enterprises Development Authority (2011), “SME definitions”, available at: www. Workplace
smeda.org.pk (accessed 15 June 2018).
spirituality
Stubbs, W. and Cocklin, C. (2008), “Conceptualizing a sustainability business model”, Organization and
Environment, Vol. 21, pp. 103-127.
Taghavi, M., Bakhtiyari, K., Taghavi, H., Olyaee Attar, V. and Hussain, A. (2014), “Planning for
sustainable development in the emerging information societies”, Journal of Science and
Technology Policy Management, Vol. 5, pp. 178-211.
Thatcher, J.B., Stepina, L.P. and Boyle, R.J. (2002), “Turnover of information technology workers:
Examining empirically the influence of attitudes, job characteristics, and external markets”,
Journal of Management Information Systems, Vol. 19, pp. 231-261.
Uhlaner, L.M., Berent-Braun, M.M., Jeurissen, R.J. and De Wit, G. (2012), “Beyond size: predicting
engagement in environmental management practices of Dutch SMEs”, Journal of Business
Ethics, Vol. 109 No. 4, pp. 411-429.
Van Dierendonck, D. (2004), “The construct validity of Ryff’s scales of psychological well-being and its
extension with spiritual well-being”, Personality and Individual Differences, Vol. 36 No. 3,
pp. 629-643.
Vandenberghe, C. (2011), “Workplace spirituality and organizational commitment: an integrative
model”, Journal of Management, Spirituality and Religion, Vol. 8, pp. 211-232.
Visvizi, A., Lytras, M.D., Damiani, E. and Mathkour, H. (2018), “Policy making for smart cities:
innovation and social inclusive economic growth for sustainability”, Journal of Science and
Technology Policy Management, Vol. 9 No. 2, pp. 126-133.
Walker, H. and Preuss, L. (2008), “Fostering sustainability through sourcing from small businesses:
public sector perspectives”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 16 No. 15, pp. 1600-1609.
Wani, V., Garg, T. and Sharma, S. (2003), “The role of technical institutions in developing a techno-
entrepreneurial workforce for sustainable development of SMEs in India”, International Journal
of Management and Enterprise Development, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 71-88.
World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED). (1987), “Special working session”, Our
Common Future, WCED, PA.
Wrzesniewski, A. and Dutton, J.E. (2001), “Crafting a job: revisioning employees as active crafters of
their work”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 26 No. 2, pp. 179-201.
Zailani, S., Amran, A. and Jumadi, H. (2011), “Green innovation adoption among logistics service
providers in Malaysia: an exploratory study on the managers’ perceptions”, International
Business Management, Vol. 5, pp. 104-113.
Zhao, X.R., Ghiselli, R., Law, R. and Ma, J. (2016), “Motivating frontline employees: role of job
characteristics in work and life satisfaction”, Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management,
Vol. 27, pp. 27-38.
Zohar, D. (2010), “Exploring spiritual capital: an interview with Danah Zohar”, Spirituality in Higher
Education, Newsletter, Vol. 5, pp. 1-8.
JSTPM Appendix

Section A: Perceived Job Characteristics

Job identity
To what extent does your job involve a whole and identifiable piece
of work? That is, is the job a complete piece of work that has an
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
obvious beginning and end? Or is it a small part of the overall piece
of work, which is finished by other people or automatic machines?
The job is arranged so I do not have the chance to do an entire piece
of work from beginning to end. (r) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

The job provides me with a chance to finish the pieces of work I

1 2 3 4 5 6 7
begin.
Job significance
In general, how significant or important is your job? That is, are the
results of your work likely to significantly affect the lives or well- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
being of other people.
This job is one where a lot of other people can be affected by how
well the work gets done 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
The job itself is not very significant or important in the broader
scheme of things. (r) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Job variety
How much variety is there in your job? That is, to what extent does
the job require you to do many different things at work, using a 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
variety of skills and talents?
The job requires me to use several complex or high-level skills. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
The job is quite simple and repetitive. (r) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Job autonomy
How much autonomy is there in your job? That is, to what extent
does your job permit you to decide on your own how to go about 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
doing the work?
The job denies me any initiative or judgment in carrying out the
work. (r) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
The job gives me considerable opportunity for independence and
freedom in how I do the work. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Feedback
To what extent does the job itself provide you with information
about your work performance? That is, does the actual work provide
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
clues about how well you are doing—aside from any “feedback”
coworkers and supervisors may provide?
Just doing the work required by the job provides many chances for
me to figure out how well I am doing. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

The job itself provides very few clues about whether I am

performing well. (r) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
*r refers to reverse coded item.

(continued)
 Workplace
Section B: Workplace Spirituality spirituality

I am aware of and sympathize with others. 1 2 3 4 5

I try to help my coworkers relieve their suffering. 1 2 3 4 5

I am aware of my coworkers’€™ needs. 1 2 3 4 5

I do jobs or tasks automatically, without being aware of what I am doing 1 2 3 4 5

I find myself working without paying attention 1 2 3 4 5

I rush through work activities without being attentive to them 1 2 3 4 5

I go to the places on "automatic pilot" and then wonder why I went there. 1 2 3 4 5

I experience joy in my work 1 2 3 4 5

I believe others experience joy because of my work 1 2 3 4 5

My spirit is energized by my work 1 2 3 4 5

I see a connection between my work and the larger social good of my community 1 2 3 4 5

I understand what gives my work personal meaning 1 2 3 4 5

The work I do is connected to what I think is important in life 1 2 3 4 5

I have moments at work in which I have no sense of time or space 1 2 3 4 5

At times, I experience an energy or vitality at work that is difficult to describe. 1 2 3 4 5

I experience moments at work where everything is blissful. 1 2 3 4 5

At moments, I experience complete joy and ecstasy at work. 1 2 3 4 5

Section C: Sustainability

Economic sustainability
Economic Performance of your organization is at acceptable level in terms of sales
1 2 3 4 5
growth.
Economic Performance of your organization is at acceptable level in terms of
1 2 3 4 5
income stability.
Economic Performance of your organization is at acceptable level in terms of return
1 2 3 4 5
on investment
Economic Performance of your organization is at acceptable level in terms of
1 2 3 4 5
profitability
Your organization is providing employment opportunities to you and others. 1 2 3 4 5
Social sustainability

Your organization ensures basic needs for your family 1 2 3 4 5

Your organization enhances your social recognition in society 1 2 3 4 5

Your organization improves your empowerment in society 1 2 3 4 5

Your organization provides freedom and control over the course of your own
1 2 3 4 5
lifestyle
Your organization is concerned about child labor use 1 2 3 4 5
Environmental sustainability
Your organization uses utilities (e.g., energy and water) in an environmental friendly
1 2 3 4 5
manner
Your organization produces few wastes and emissions 1 2 3 4 5

Your organization is concerned about waste management 1 2 3 4 5

Your organization uses small space to set up and operate business 1 2 3 4 5

Your organization is concerned about hygienic factors 1 2 3 4 5

(continued)
JSTPM
Section D: Demographics

Kindly mark your response in the most appropriate box.

1. Gender

□ Male
□ Female

2. Age

□ Below 25 years
□ 25-35 years
□ 36-45 years
□ 46-55 years
□ More than 55 years

4. Your designation in this firm is________________ (Please mark against ONE only).

□ Director
□ General Manager
□ Manager
□ Executive
□ Others: ________________

5. Total number of permanent employees in your firm is ____________.

□ Less than 50
□ 50-100
□ 100-150
□ 150-200
□ 200-250
□ More than 250

6. Total investment on plant and machinery in your firm is PKR ________.

□ Less than 1.0 million

□ 1.0-2.5 million
□ 2.5-5.0 million
□ 5.0-7.5 million
□ 7.5-10.00 million
□ More than 10.00 million

7. Your country is _______________.

□ Pakistan
□ India

Corresponding author
Qaisar Iqbal can be contacted at: qaisariqbal@student.usm.my

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