Journal of Cleaner Production 366 (2022) 132878

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Cleaner Production

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

Interplay between corporate social responsibility and organizational green

culture and their role in employees’ responsible behavior towards the
environment and society
Changjian Pan a, Jawad Abbas b, Susana Álvarez-Otero c, Hina Khan d, Cheng Cai e, *
a
Tea Research Institute of Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences, Hangzhou, China
b
Faculty of Management Sciences, University of Central Punjab, Lahore, Pakistan
c
Department of Business Administration, Faculty of Economics and Business, University of Oviedo, Spain
d
Department of Business Administration, Iqra University, Islamabad, Pakistan
e
School of Accounting, Hubei University of Economics, Wuhan, Hubei, China

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Handling Editor: Dr. Govindan Kannan Organizational green culture and corporate social responsibility are known for their significant role in organi­
zational and societal development. However, it is rarely known whether such corporate activities inspire their
Keywords: employees to act in an environmentally and socially responsible fashion outside their firms or not. Following the
Organizational green culture Operant Conditioning theory, the current research analyzes the link between CSR and OGC and their role in
Business strategy
workers’ responsible behavior toward the environment and society at the individual level outside their orga­
Employee responsible behavior
nization. Data were collected from members of private and public manufacturing and services firms and analyzed
Sustainable society
Sustainable development via structural equation modeling, which indicated that OGC significantly inspires workers to behave environ­
Corporate social responsibility mentally and socially responsible manner outside their firms. However, an insignificant relationship is found
between organizational CSR activities and employees’ responsible behavior towards the environment and so­
ciety, suggesting that employees only show this behavior within the organizations. Moreover, firms having green
culture actively participate in CSR activities. This research is among the pioneer investigations that focus on
promoting workers’ environmentally and socially responsible behavior, which can serve as a foundation to
transform society into a sustainable civilization.

1. Introduction marketing efforts to portray themselves as environmentally friendly

Organizational strategies play a critical role in the development of
nations and economies (Abbas and Dogan, 2022). However, their pro­
duction activities significantly damage the natural environment, espe­
cially the deterioration of natural resources and increased pollution
(Ayayi and Wijesiri, 2022). Considering the significant decline in natural
resources and worsening the natural climate, the United Nations (2020)
urged organizations to transform their operations into green so that they
can comply with the current requirements without jeopardizing the
needs of future generations. As customers become more conscious of the
environment and the market’s competitive nature, businesses take
various measures to improve their reputation and performance (Lee,
2020). Corporate social responsibility (CSR), green culture, recyclable
products, and other green practices are part of many companies’
(Ayayi and Wijesiri, 2022) and socially responsible. The ultimate goal is
to achieve a competitive advantage through increased customer trust
(Yu et al., 2022).
Culture is the internal element of organizations, and green culture
(OGC) ensures that organizational activities are pro-environmental and
support the natural environment (Muisyo and Qin, 2021). It is a
collection of artifacts, assumptions, and values reflecting firm activities
to encourage environmentally friendly or sustainable operations (Lee
et al., 2022). From the OGC perspective, it is not enough to only prevent
pollution and produce environment-friendly products (Muisyo and Qin,
2021). Firms must think, seek, and act green (Liu and Lin, 2020). On the
other hand, primarily, CSR is an external phenomenon that focuses on
voluntary organizational activities toward different stakeholders (Kim,
2022), such as employees, customers, and society (Abbas, 2020). In CSR,

* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: caicsmile@hbue.edu.cn (C. Cai).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.132878
Received 27 December 2021; Received in revised form 10 June 2022; Accepted 23 June 2022
Available online 28 June 2022
0959-6526/© 2022 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
C. Pan et al.
firms align their financial and economic goals with ethical standards
(Latif et al., 2022). Dynamic firms discuss it in their vision, mission, and
values (Deng et al., 2022).
CSR and OGC play essential roles in organizational activities and
reputation (Kumari et al., 2021a). Many researchers have studied them
from different contexts. For instance, Latif et al. (2022) stated that
employee-oriented CSR initiatives by firms promote pro-environmental
behavior among employees, further building corporate reputation. Lee
et al. (2022) mentioned that green culture helps firms and nations to
achieve green economy objectives. Muisyo and Qin (2021) linked green
culture with green human resource management (GHRM) practices,
which facilitates firms in achieving green innovation objectives. Simi­
larly, Shahriari et al. (2022) stated that OGC assists workers in evolving
pro-environmental behaviors within the organization by shaping their
green behaviors.
OGC and CSR are organizational-level strategies and are proven to
have a significant impact on organizational reputation and performance
(Abbas and Kumari, 2021). Such organizations’ employees behave
within firms in an environment-friendly and responsible manner.
However, it is rarely known whether they depict socially and environ­
mentally responsible behavior in society or not. This study proposes that
employees of firms having green culture (being the internal aspect) and
involved in CSR activities (mainly external elements) use to demonstrate
environmentally and socially responsible behavior in society. This
research’s findings will provide valuable insights into promoting em­
ployees’ socially and environmentally responsible attitudes and
behavior through OGC and CSR for a sustainable community. Addi­
tionally, it would provide invaluable insight to business management
and related stakeholders to make their employees better citizens, lead­
ing to the formation of a better society.
2. Literature and theory
2.1. Theory of operant conditioning
Skinner’s Operant Conditioning theory is frequently used to examine
individual behavior, learning, and psychology (Skinner, 1948). It is also
known as instrumental conditioning. Multiple researchers, such as
Vikram (2019), Overskeid (2018), and Edwards (2016), have oper­
ationalized this theory in their behavioral studies. Skinner believed that
the best way to study human behavior is to look at the reasons that are
the causes of actions and their consequences (Skinner, 1938). In operant
conditioning, consequences of response cause the probability of it being
repeated. Skinner contributed to the conception of behavior shaped by
successive approximation. He explained that operant conditioning could
be used to develop complex behaviors if punishments and rewards are
given to encourage them to get closer to desired behavior each time
(McLeod, 2018). Firms appreciate employees who tend to follow orga­
nizational norms and regulations and promote an environment-friendly
and green culture within an organizational setup from an institutional
perspective. Such behavior becomes part of their personality, and they
tend to strengthen corporate culture and build reputation at all levels
(Manzoor et al., 2021). Based on the context of reshaping individual
behavior, this study claims that when an employee works in a firm
actively engaged in social responsibility activities and follows green
culture, such practices reshape their behavior, and employee absorbs it
in their personality. Thus, they follow green and socially responsible
activities within firms and society.
2.2. Organizational green culture
Organizational culture refers to the set of values, beliefs, behavior,
and morals that guide employees in decision-making at their uncon­
scious level (Roy and Gottlieb, 2021). It is a collection of mutual un­
derstandings, standards, principles, behaviors (Yoo et al., 2021), and
morals of an organization that can motivate employees (Azhar and Yang,
2
Journal of Cleaner Production 366 (2022) 132878
2021). Culture serves as a force that holds organizations together and
reshapes employees’ commitment, attitudes, and behavior (Shahriari
et al., 2022). OGC refers to widely accepted values involving shared
beliefs, norms, practices, and perspectives that guide all organizational
members to behave in eco-friendly manners (Yeşiltaş et al., 2022). It is
diversified as an environmentally friendly and sustainability-oriented
culture (Lee et al., 2022), based on taking the culture of organizations
to a green framework to achieve environmental balance.
Culture has significant importance in any organization and has a
prominent effect on employees (Cherian et al., 2021) and, as a whole, on
the organization. OGC promotes a healthier work environment through
increased efficiency and incentives (Abbas and Dogan, 2022). Green
organizations tend to follow technologies and practices that reduce their
operations’ harmful effects on the natural environment (Qu et al., 2021).
However, organizations can’t achieve their green business objectives
solely by concentrating on the natural resources used in their operations.
They must stretch it to their human capital by instilling the concept of
green employee behavior in their attitudes and behaviors.
2.2.1. Green culture and individual behavior
The phrase “organizational behavior” relates to how workers
perform and behave inside their enterprise and how their actions affect
the company’s functioning (Satyendra, 2020; Yeşiltaş et al., 2022).
Additionally, it investigates individual behavior in the context of an
organization (Cherian et al., 2021), particularly the interaction between
the organization and human behavior and the firm itself. It is intrinsi­
cally related to the firm’s culture, decision-making, and leadership
(Lakshmi and Shree, 2020). Humans are an organization’s most valuable
asset (Habib et al., 2019), and their job happiness (Khan and Abbas,
2022), work processes, and relationships are shaped by culture. Addi­
tionally, it functions as a code of behavior and attitude for employees.
Dynamic organizations continually develop new strategies for managing
employee behavior to maintain a balanced system (Kumari et al., 2022),
even when the equilibrium is less than optimum for organizational
prosperity (Yeşiltaş et al., 2022).
Organizational staff members are intentionally acculturated into
organizational culture presumptions (Xiao et al., 2022; Zhang et al.,
2022). One way of passing on cultural principles and ethics is through
corporate standards and norms (Mendis and Welmilla, 2021), which
help to determine employee behavior per organizational principles and
moral values (Imran and Jingzu, 2022). Culture serves as a productive
means of regulating employee attitudes towards activities considered
essential for organizational success (Khan et al., 2022). When an orga­
nization’s green culture exists, employees are motivated to act envi­
ronmentally friendly and adhere to eco-friendly ideas and practices
(Beksultanova et al., 2022), such as minimizing printing, turning off
lights, and using recyclable items (Aggarwal and Agarwala, 2022).
Environmental perspectives and the behavior of employees can
decrease the detrimental impact of organizational activities on the
natural environment (Ayayi and Wijesiri, 2022). In this situation, not
only should firms behave green, but their employees should also act
green (Abbas, 2020). Firms cannot achieve green goals without making
their employees green. The top management must educate employees
about the importance and benefits of green culture through workshops
and seminars (AlSuwaidi et al., 2021) so that employees also behave in
socially and environmentally responsible manners. Greening the culture
is not a unidimensional concept. It encompasses how employees believe
this behavior is critical to different organizational groups and in­
dividuals and how employees trust that this thinking is encouraged all
over the firm (Mendis and Welmilla, 2021).
Researchers are always concerned about employees’ positive and
negative attitudes at work and how it affects the environment’s effi­
ciency. For instance, Mendis and Welmilla (2021) studied the green
consciousness of employees. They concluded that employees could help
make their workplace and environment more environmentally friendly
for themselves and future generations by making small lifestyle changes
C. Pan et al.
and being conscious of going green.
Ren et al. (2020) said that GHRM practices alter employees’ attitude
and drive it toward green commitment. Paillé et al. (2020) studied
GHRM using three techniques, i.e., training, involvement, and perfor­
mance, and investigated their impact on individual environmental
performance. They concluded that green training by the organization
significantly improves individual environmental performance.
Chaudhary (2020) examined the role of GHRM practices in workers’
pro-environmental behavior (task and voluntary performance) using
personal environmental values as moderators and organizational iden­
tification as a mediator. She stated that GHRM positively predicts
employee voluntary green behavior and task-related activities. Daily
and Huang (2021) studied the role of human resource factors, such as
employee empowerment, employee training, leadership support, and
reward system, as critical environmental management and sustainability
processes.
Choong et al. (2022) studied the employees’ perception of green
work climate and their green behavior. They concluded that a green
work climate positively affects the green activities of workers at the
workplace. Green culture changes employees’ perspectives and helps
them view the world in a more nature-loving way (Fu et al., 2022). OGC
benefits from its employees’ awareness of the management of the
environment. A green organization is akin to a sizable workforce
actively involved in CSR initiatives (Chian, 2021). Employees become
eco-friendly during their work and in their everyday lives. Therefore, it
is essential to have people who care about the external environment.
There is explicit literature on the role of OGC in employee perfor­
mance (Cherian et al., 2021), corporate reputation, and employee green
behavior within the firm (Azhar and Yang, 2021). However, it is rarely
mentioned whether or not workers of companies having a green culture
perform responsibly socially and environmentally outside of their or­
ganization. According to this study, OGC encourages workers to practice
eco-friendly behaviors within the organization. Such practices get
absorbed in employees’ personalities, and they not only behave green
within their firms but also tend to follow similar practices outside their
firms in the society. Thus, the following hypotheses are proposed;
H1. Green culture of the firm motivates its employees to depict
environmental-responsible behavior in the society
H2. Green culture of the firm motivates its employees to depict social-
responsible behavior in the society Fig. 1
2.3. Corporate social responsibility
Organizations must create a unique individuality that can distinguish
Fig. 1. Research framework.
3
Journal of Cleaner Production 366 (2022) 132878
them from competitors in customers’ minds (Kumari et al., 2021a).
Multiple studies, such as Chian (2021), Viererbl and Koch (2022), Abbas
(2020), etc., have established that CSR initiatives facilitate firms in
achieving this target. The main idea of CSR is that businesses should pay
a significant portion of their profit for the betterment of society. This
role can be socially or environmentally beneficial for society (Abbas and
Dogan, 2022) or individuals who can be affected by organizational so­
cial operations (Herrera and Heras-Rosas, 2020). According to Chian
(2021), CSR can be assumed to be geographical, societal, indeterminate,
and cultural. It includes ethical practices which bring constructive re­
sults for organizations. Additionally, it provides stability for clients tied
to specific moral and ethical ideals (Kim, 2022) as clients recognize the
businesses they contact. CSR also helps build corporate reputations,
resulting in more loyal customers (Hwang et al., 2022), improved sup­
plier relationships, and dedicated and motivated employees, among
other benefits (Kumari et al., 2021b).
Herrera and Heras-Rosas (2020) said that CSR could take on a variety
of meanings depending on how an individual views the organization
that is pursuing it. It is believed to be an organizational policy that
warrants integrating organizational interests with society’s and stake­
holders’ interests (Kazmi and Abbas, 2021), such as donations for needy
people, resolving the social problem, facilitating community develop­
ment, etc. Besides creating economic value for the firms, CSR also
strengthens communities (Malik et al., 2021). It is a social advantage for
creating value, competitive spirit, and creativity in dynamic firms
(AlSuwaidi et al., 2021). CSR also helps all company members work
together to benefit the firm and society (Chian, 2021). Freitas et al.
(2020) linked CSR with organizational GHRM activities and found that
effective GHRM practices strengthen organizational CSR activities.
Particularly, recruitment and selection, performance evaluation, and
teamwork practices of GRHM play a critical role in an effective CSR
performance.
The review of the literature indicates that CSR has evolved into a
critical component of corporate strategy for four primary reasons. First,
it can generate wealth by encouraging people to pay a premium for a
brand they know and trust (Okafor et al., 2021). Second, in industrial­
ized countries, customer expectations of firms grow and must be met
(Hsu et al., 2022). Thirdly, it has repercussions for global operations and
information freedom. Corporate carelessness regarding CSR is readily
available, and communication between joint measures coordination and
active groups are generally recognized and appreciated. Finally, CSR
promotes resource and energy conservation (Latif et al., 2022). Given
the finite nature of Earth’s resources, an organization’s use of them
should be prudent and careful (Ahsan et al., 2020). Businesses that fail to
consider the influence of their activities on the environment and people
C. Pan et al.
may face penalties from legislators, socially engaged organizations, and
unwanted press (Frynas and Yamahaki, 2019).
2.3.1. Corporate social responsibility and employee behavior
The organizational environment has a critical role in determining an
organization’s commitment to CSR (Liu and Lin, 2020). Businesses that
engage in CSR efforts see immediate or indirect benefits within and
outside their companies (Ahmed et al., 2020). Modern businesses keep
their staff informed about their CSR initiatives. According to Latif et al.
(2022), firms devoted to CSR involve employees who have
eco-responsible attitudes in activities that promote employees’ well­
being. Positive attitudes toward social responsibility contribute to em­
ployees’ wellbeing (Malik et al., 2021). AlSuwaidi et al. (2021) stated
that organizational socially responsible initiatives also educate and train
workers and modify their behavior within an organization.
When firms practice social responsibility, their employees regard
them as distinctive, respectable, and a source of pride (Kumari et al.,
2021a). Dynamic businesses believe that including employees in orga­
nizational efforts strengthens their commitment to achieving corporate
goals (Matsuo and Aihara, 2021). As a result, many enterprises adopt
employee-centric CSR programs as a strategic strategy (Latif et al.,
2022). Farid et al. (2019) proposed the same in their study by focusing
on staff engaged in Pakistan’s financial institutions and observed that
CSR positively impacts employees’ work engagement and corporative
behavior.
The extant CSR literature demonstrates CSR’s value in business
performance, employee engagement, organizational reputation, em­
ployees’ responsible behavior within the firm, and organizational citi­
zenship behavior, among other things. However, just a few studies have
examined the significance of organizational CSR initiatives in fostering
employees’ social and environmental stewardship beyond the firm (in
the society). According to the behavioral psychology or behaviorism
paradigm, people’s actions are shaped by their surroundings. The cur­
rent investigation asserts that because the human resource of socially
responsible firms exhibits environmentally responsible attitudes and
behaviors within the firm, they demonstrate similar attitudes and be­
haviors outside the organization. Thus, the following hypotheses are
proposed;
H3. Corporate social responsibility initiatives positive predict em­
ployees’ environmental-responsible behavior in the society
H4. Corporate social responsibility initiatives positive predict em­
ployees’ socially-responsible behavior in the society
CSR refers to a set of self-regulating and inspirational actions that
help a business improve its reputation (Abbas, 2020; Viererbl and Koch,
2022). It also strengthens the organizational capacity to be responsible
for and respected by stakeholders (Chian, 2021). As a result,
social-ethical norms were created in response to the company’s objec­
tives. CSR is a broad phrase that refers to various company actions such
as sustainable sourcing, volunteerism, community participation, ethical
labor practices, and environmental conservatism. CSR has numerous
facets, including resolving social concerns, improving environmental
and social conditions, developing societies, and making philanthropic
donations to the poor (Shahzad et al., 2020). CSR may be augmented
when businesses face backlash for predicted green behavior or when
companies consider sustainability goals (Abbas and Dogan, 2022). Ac­
cording to this analysis, OGC catalyzes CSR initiatives and is effective
due to its environmental management and wellbeing initiatives. As a
result, a firm with a robust green culture is synonymous with one
committed to CSR. Firms that follow the green culture advocate CSR
strategies that aid in achieving sustainability goals. Thus, the following
hypothesis is proposed;
H5. Organizational green culture is a significant positive predictor of
firm engagement in socially responsible activities
4
Journal of Cleaner Production 366 (2022) 132878
3. Methodology
3.1. Target population and sampling procedure
This research focuses on employees holding managerial positions,
including top, middle, and first-line management, and the non-
managerial workers at enterprises in Karachi, Lahore, and Islamabad.
These regions were chosen since they represent the country’s most
frequently visited business destinations. The researchers concentrated
on manufacturing and service firms that are public, commercial, or
semi-government.
Due to the cross-sectional nature of the current research conducted in
several institutes and locations, it wasn’t easy for the researchers to get
to everyone in the population. For this reason, as suggested by Sekaran
(2003), the authors opted for the convenience sampling technique.
Before commencing the comprehensive survey, as Hinkin (1998) sug­
gested, a pilot study was performed on 43 respondents, and initial re­
sults presented constructs’ internal consistency with values ranging
from 0.68 to 0.91. On this basis, a comprehensive survey of 832 in­
dividuals was initiated, with 318 completed responses received. How­
ever, during the screening of data (missing values or outliers), 17 replies
were removed, resulting in 301 useable responses. The respondents were
approached via self-administration or making questionnaires available
on Google Drive. Data were collected by making it available on Google
Drive as well as through self-administration between February and May
2021.
3.2. Measuring instrument
The questionnaire was divided into five sections where the first
section focused on the participants’ demographic information like
gender, age, position, etc. The second section included questions about
green culture; this section selected items from Wang’s (2019) and
Mendis and Welmilla’s (2021) studies. The third, fourth, and fifth seg­
ments represented items for CSR, employee behavior towards society,
and employee behavior towards the environment. Their items were
taken from Lewin et al. (2020), Mayer et al. (2018), Abbas (2020), Chen
et al. (2021), Mendis and Welmilla (2021), and Malik et al. (2021),
respectively. All questions were rated on a 5-point Likert scale, with 1
indicating strong disagreement and 5 indicating strong agreement.
3.3. Analysis of data
The researchers used the structural equation modeling (SEM)
approach to analyze the association between CSR and OGC initiatives
and their role in employees’ responsible conduct toward the natural
environment and society. One of the advantages of the SEM technique is
that it can eliminate biases induced by measurement mistakes and may
also be used to create the hierarchy of latent components (Prajogo and
Cooper, 2010). AMOS v.27 and SPSS v.27 were operationalized to
analyze the data. The Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin test was used to determine the
sample’s adequacy. The collected data revealed a value of 0.922, which
consistently satisfies Kaiser and Rice’s 0.6 criteria (Kaiser and Rice,
1974). The authors quantified multicollinearity using the variance
inflation factor (VIF), which had a value of 2.993. This number signifi­
cantly satisfies Hair et al.’s (2010) criteria of lower than 4, showing that
multicollinearity is not an issue. Harman’s single factor test determined
the common method bias (CMB). Xie et al. (2022) (2017) stated that
CMB is a significant problem in empirical investigations, and authors
must guarantee its absence before doing structural analysis. The CMB
result suggested an individual factor loading of 38.19 percent. Accord­
ing to Podsakoff et al. (2012), there seems to be no concern with CMB in
data if the contribution of a single factor to the total variance is less than
50%.Table 1.
C. Pan et al. Journal of Cleaner Production 366 (2022) 132878

Table 1 greater. The discriminant validity study is shown in Table 3. As per

Demographic characteristics of participants. Fornell and Larcker (1981) and Hair et al. (2010) recommended criteria,
Particulars Description Values % all discriminant validity requirements are met. Moreover, all constructs
have appropriate discriminant validity.
Gender Male 186 61.79%
Female 111 36.88% As per Kaynak (2003), the model’s goodness of fit is quantified using
Prefer not to disclose 4 1.33% seven indicators: the root means square error of approximation
Age Less than 20 31 10.30% (RMSEA), standardized root mean square residual (SRMR), the
20–30 102 33.89% chi-square to the degree of freedom (ϰ2/DF), normative fit index (NFI),
31–40 95 31.56%
41–50 58 19.27%
the goodness of fit index (GFI), comparative fit index (CFI), adjusted
50 + 15 4.98% goodness of fit index (AGFI), and Tucker-Lewis index (TLI). The ϰ2/DF
Qualification Undergraduate 35 11.63% value for the measurement model presented a 1.624 value, which meets
Graduate 78 25.91% Byrne’s (1989) criteria of less than 2. Additionally, it satisfies Bagozzi
Post Graduate 174 57.81%
and Yi’s (1988) condition of less than three. The examination of the
Ph.D. or Certification 14 4.65%
Length of services in the Organization Less than 2 4 1.33% other indicators, TLI, CFI, GFI, AGFI, and NFI, likewise meets the con­
2–5 years 98 32.56% ditions set forth by Bentler and Bonett (1980), Bagozzi and Yi (1988),
6–10 years 145 48.17% McDonald and Marsh (1990), and Byrne (1989), all of which indicate
More than 10 years 74 24.58% that values be more than 0.9. Further, RMSEA and SRMR values also
Organizational Position Non-Managerial 152 50.50%
1st Line Manager 82 27.24%
effectively matched the suggested values. The structural model also
Middle Line Manager 52 17.28% presented satisfactory results; all indices match the recommended
Top Line Manager 15 4.98% criteria (see Table 4). The RMSEA value of 0.039 satisfies Browne and
Organization Type Manufacturing 132 43.85% Cudeck’s (1992) criteria for a value less than 0.8. Finally, the result of
Services 169 56.15%
SRMR is 0.0476, which meets Hu and Bentler’s (1998) criteria for SRMR
to be less than 0.08. These findings demonstrate that the structural and
3.4. Measurement and structural model measurement models adequately fit the data (see Table 4 for details).
Table 5.
The researchers used confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) to guarantee
that all construct components were included in the measurement model. 4. Hypotheses testing and discussion
According to Hinkin (1998), CFA ensures the unidimensionality and
validity of the measurement model. The researchers verified the data’s This study aims to determine the relationship between CSR and OGC
reliability using Cronbach’s Alpha, which returned a value of 0.884, and their role in organizational members’ (employees) responsible
indicating that the data is reliable, as the recommended minimum score conduct towards the environment and society. SEM was used to assess
by Peterson (1994) is 0.6. Additionally, the researcher assessed the the proposed hypotheses. The structural analysis revealed a significant
discriminant and convergent validity of the collected data to determine positive effect of OGC on employees’ responsible behavior towards the
their validity for the current research. Awang (2012) stated that environment in the society, with p-values of 0.268 and β 0.011. Based on
convergent validity could be determined by the factor loading of items, this finding, H1, i.e., the green culture of the firm motivates its em­
which should be greater than 0.5. As shown in Table 2, the studied data ployees to depict environmental-responsible behavior in the society, is
indicate that the factor loading of all variables is greater than 0.5. accepted (see Table 5). This result matches AlSwidi et al.’s (2021)
According to Molina et al. (2007), the average variance extracted findings that OGC promotes green behavior among employees. It also
(AVE) ratio for all constructs should be more than 0.5. As per the find­ relates to Katz et al.’s (2022) literature review study, which mentioned
ings, the values of AVE for all variables were greater than the suggested that OGC reshapes individuals’ behavior and motivates them to behave
0.5 value. Table 2 contains detailed information about AVE values, in a pro-environmental fashion. This indicates that employees of green
composite reliability, and item loading, demonstrating that the results culture firms try to depict an environmentally responsible behavior
match the requirements specified by Awang (2012) and Molina et al. within and outside their firms.
(2007). The discriminant validity test was performed to determine the Examining OGC’s effect on employee responsible behavior towards
distinct nature of all constructs. Fornell and Larcker (1981) stipulate society also indicated positive outcomes with 0.018 p-value and 0.221 β
that the variation across constructs and their indices should equal or values. Hence, H2, i.e., the green culture of the firm motivates its em­
greater than the variance between other constructs. Hair et al. (2010) ployees to depict social-responsible behavior in society, is also accepted.
also recommended that the relation among the pair of forecaster vari­ The finding is consistent with Azhar and Yang’s (2021) research, which
ables should be below 0.9. Discriminant validity can also be determined stated that OGC encourages employees to practice pro-environmental
by computing the square root values of the extracted AVE. The corre­ behavior. It also relates to the Mendis and Welmilla (2021) study,
lation between calculated values and the pair of indicators should be which concluded that a green work climate has a significant positive
impact on the green behavior of employees. These findings indicate that
employees of firms following environment-friendly cultures absorb
Table 2 institutional standards and values in their nature and try to depict
Instrument reliability. similar socially and environmentally accountable behavior in the society
Variable Items Factor Composite AVE they follow within the organization. This finding also proposes that OGC
Loading Reliability guides people’s daily lives, integrating them with nature in a society,
Organizational Green Culture 8 0.741–0.891 0.869 0.677
Corporate Social 12 0.789–0.887 0.848 0.701
Responsibility Table 3
Employee Responsible 13 0.779–0.902 0.889 0.696 Discriminant validity analysis.
Behavior Toward
Environment Variable OGC CSR ERBE ERBS
Employee Responsible 13 0.784–0.885 0.879 0.693 OGC 0.823
Behavior Towards Society CSR 0.542 0.837
1 ERBE 0.574 0.611 0.836
According to Molina et al. (2007) composite reliability value should be ≥ 0.7.
2 ERBS 0.584 0.623 0.645 0.832
According to Molina et al. (2007), the value of AVE should be ≥ 0.5.

5
C. Pan et al. Journal of Cleaner Production 366 (2022) 132878

Table 4
Analysis of measurement and structural model.
Goodness of fit measures CMIN/DF NFI GFI AGFI CFI TLI RMSEA SRMR
a b b b b b c
Recommended value ≤3 ≥0.9 ≥0.9 ≥0.9 ≥0.9 ≥0.9 ≤0.08 ≤0.8d
Measurement Model 1.601 0.921 0.918 0.901 0.919 0.918 0.039 0.0476
Structural Model 1.624 0.928 0.925 0.916 0.923 0.923 0.041 0.0489
a
(Bagozzi and Yi, 1988).
b
(Bentler and Bonett, 1980; McDonald and Marsh, 1990).
c
(Browne and Cudeck, 1992).
d
(Hu and Bentler, 1998).

5. Research implications and limitations

Table 5
Testing the hypotheses.
The majority of the extant literature on OGC and CSR emphasizes
Hypothesis Direction Estimate Critical ratio p-Value Decision their contributions to organizational financial success, corporate repu­
H1 OGC → ERBE 0.268 2.783 0.011* Accepted tation, and green employee behavior inside the firm, among other
H2 OGC → ERBS 0.221 2.230 0.018* Accepted things. The current research is among the pioneer investigations to
H3 CSR → ERBE 0.109 1.112 0.068 Rejected
analyze the role of CSR and OGC in employees’ responsible behavior
H4 CSR → ERBS 0.129 1.785 0.061 Rejected
H5 OGC → CSR 0.351 3.776 0.001** Accepted outside of the firm and connect them to their social and environmental
stewardship in society. Nations cannot attain societal sustainability
**p < 0.01; *p < 0.05. objectives without actively fostering socially responsible thinking and
behaviors among the general public. OGC and CSR have the power to
community, and organization. modify employees’ behavior and make it more socially and ecologically
While analyzing the impact of CSR on employee responsible responsible. Thus, businesses must foster an eco-friendly culture within
behavior towards the environment, the authors found positive but their organizations and educate their employees about their CSR ini­
insignificant results with 0.109 β and 0.062 p-values. Although the effect tiatives to internalize these values and adopt similar behaviors within
is positive, considering its insignificance relationship, the H3, i.e., their enterprises and outside. Additionally, this study suggests that or­
corporate social responsibility initiatives positively predict employees’ ganizations’ senior management should support environmentally-
environmental-responsible behavior in society, is rejected. This finding friendly activities in their processes. This will assist firms and govern­
contradicts Jilani et al. (2021) study, where they found that CSR posi­ ments in accomplishing sustainable development goals by extending
tively reshapes students’ behavior towards the environment and moti­ such practices beyond organizations and into society. The current
vates them to behave in an environmentally responsible manner. The research will aid firms’ management, employees, and relevant stake­
current research indicates that employees of sampled firms actively holders by illuminating how they may foster a responsible attitude and
engaged in CSR activities do not adequately depict environmentally conduct among employees toward environmental conservation and so­
responsible behavior in society. Some of the reasons could be the lack of cial development. Additionally, it contributes to the scant literature on
encouragement and awareness by organizational management to em­ the role of CSR and OGC in instilling in employees socially responsible
ployees to opt for environmental-responsible behavior. behavior toward the environment and society.
While examining the effect of CSR on ERBS, the empirical analysis There are a few limitations to this study. For instance, it focuses only
presented an insignificant but positive impact with a 0.061 p-value and on firms located within Pakistan, one of the developing countries in
0.129 β-value. Since the result is insignificant, the H4, i.e., corporate Asia. Additional research should be conducted to validate this concept in
social responsibility initiatives positively predict employees’ socially- other emerging or developed regions. The current study employed a
responsible behavior in society, is also rejected. This finding contra­ quantitative technique to accomplish its goals. Future research may use
dicts Abbas and Dogan (2022) study, where they found a positive rela­ a mixed-method technique to elucidate the aspects that foster environ­
tionship between CSR initiatives and employees’ responsible behavior. mental and social responsibility among workers. Upcoming in­
It negates Lewin et al. ‘s (2020) study, concluding that organizational vestigations can also investigate the role of leadership or motivation in
CSR activities impact their behavior. These findings conclude that if employees’ responsible behavior in society.
firms are involved in CSR activities, it is not always seen that their
employees are also engaged in socially responsible activities on the in­ 6. Conclusion
dividual level in society. One cause could be that businesses do not
adequately inform their workers about their CSR operations and their With the passage of time, the world is experiencing environmental
importance to society. Thus, it is suggested that organizations must issues, such as pollution, global warming, waste disposal, public health,
adequately educate and inform their members about their socially deforestation, etc. Many of such challenges appear to be worsening over
responsible activities and motivate them to follow parallel practices for a time, bringing us to a moment of genuine environmental crisis. Multiple
sustainable society. firms started opting for environment-friendly practices, such as green
The investigation of the OGC’s effect on CSR revealed positive and culture, recyclable products, green processes, CSR, etc., to counter these
significant results with a p-value of 0.001 and 0.351 β-value. This issues and achieve sustainable development goals. However, such
finding suggested the acknowledgment of H5, i.e., organizational green practices must be extended from firms to the general public to achieve
culture is a positive predictor of firm engagement in socially responsible sustainable society goals. This study inspects the role of CSR and OGC
activities. Liu and Lin (2020) also revealed comparable findings from practices in promoting environmentally and socially responsible
China, saying that green-minded businesses participate in more CSR behavior among employees outside their firms and identifies contra­
initiatives than their competitors. This demonstrates that OGC is a dictory findings compared to operant conditioning theory in an orga­
driving factor behind firms’ CSR initiatives and that the surveyed en­ nizational context. The operant conditioning literature suggests that
terprises’ OGC processes are sufficiently linked to CSR objectives. conduct is likely to be repeated due to response consequences. The
findings of employee behavior concerning the green culture demon­
strate constructive effects on the environment and society and match the

6
C. Pan et al.
operant conditioning theory stance that positive outcomes occur when
human conduct is influenced positively. However, although the CSR
initiatives have indicated a positive result in employee responsible
behavior towards the environment and society, the findings are insig­
nificant. Therefore, it is concluded that their employees rarely get
involved in social or environmentally responsible activities outside their
organization based on organizational CSR activities.
Funding
This research has benefited from the finance of the Research National
Project MCI-20-PID2019-108503RB-I00 and from Grant GECOFIN-
AYUD/2021/50878.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Changjian Pan: Methodology, Investigation. Jawad Abbas: Writing
– original draft, Writing – review & editing, review, and editing,
Conceptualization, Supervision. Susana Álvarez-Otero: Formal anal­
ysis, Writing – review & editing. Hina Khan: Formal analysis, Writing –
original draft, Methodology, Investigation. Cheng Cai: Investigation,
Writing – review & editing, Supervision.
Declaration of competing interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
the work reported in this paper.
Acknowledgment
The authors would like to thank all persons who directly or indirectly
participated in the completion of this manuscript.
References
Abbas, J., 2020. Impact of total quality management on corporate green performance
through the mediating role of corporate social responsibility. J. Clean. Prod. 242,
118458 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.118458.
Abbas, J., Dogan, E., 2022. The impacts of organizational green culture and corporate
social responsibility on employees’ responsible behaviour towards the society.
Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-022-20072-w.
Abbas, J., Kumari, K., 2021. Examining the relationship between total quality
management and knowledge management and their impact on organizational
performance. J. Econ. Adm. Sci. https://doi.org/10.1108/JEAS-03-2021-0046.
Aggarwal, P., Agarwala, T., 2022. Green organizational culture: an exploration of
dimensions. Global Bus. Rev., 09721509211049890 https://doi.org/10.1177/
09721509211049890.
Ahmed, M., Zehou, S., Raza, S.A., Qureshi, M.A., Yousufi, S.Q., 2020. Impact of CSR and
environmental triggers on employee green behavior: the mediating effect of
employee well-being. Corp. Soc. Responsib. Environ. Manag. 7, 1–15.
Ahsan, M.U., Nasir, M., Abbas, J., 2020. Examining the causes of plastic bags usages and
public perception about its effects on the natural environment. Int. J. Acad. Res. Bus.
Soc. Sci. 10, 80–96. https://doi.org/10.6007/IJARBSS/v10-i10/7919.
AlSuwaidi, M., Eid, R., Agag, G., 2021. Understanding the link between CSR and
employee green behaviour. J. Hospit. Tourism Manag. 46, 50–61.
Al-Swidi, A.K., Gelaidan, H.M., Saleh, R.M., 2021. The joint impact of green human
resource management, leadership and organizational culture on employees’ green
behavior and organizational environmental performance. J. Clean. Prod. 316,
128112.
Awang, Z., 2012. A Handbook on Structural Equation Modeling Using AMOS. Universiti
Technologi MARA Press, Malaysia.
Ayayi, A.G., Wijesiri, M., 2022. Is there a trade-off between environmental performance
and financial sustainability in microfinance institutions? Evidence from South and
Southeast Asia. Bus. Strat. Environ. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.2969.
Azhar, A., Yang, K., 2021. Examining the influence of transformational leadership and
green culture on pro-environmental behaviors: empirical evidence from Florida city
governments. Rev. Public Pers. Adm. 0734371X211027347. https://doi.org/
10.1177/0734371X211027347.
Bagozzi, R.R., Yi, Y., 1988. On the evaluation of structural equation models. J. Acad.
Market. Sci. 16, 074–094.
Beksultanova, A.I., Ibragimova, P.A., Sarkarova, D.S., 2022. Green, social bonds in the
context of the pandemic. In: Proceedings of the International Scientific and Practical
Conference “Sustainable Development of Environment after Covid-19”. https://doi.
org/10.2991/assehr.k.220106.057. SDEC 2021).
7
Journal of Cleaner Production 366 (2022) 132878
Bentler, P.M., Bonett, D.G., 1980. Significance tests and goodness of fit in the analysis of
covariance structures. Psychol. Bull. 88, 588–606.
Browne, M.W., Cudeck, R., 1992. Alternative ways of assessing model fit. Socio. Methods
Res. 21, 230–258.
Byrne, B.M., 1989. A Primer of LISREL: Basic Applications and Programming for
Confirmatory Factor Analytic Models. Springer-Verlag, New York.
Chaudhary, R., 2020. Green human resource management and employee green behavior:
an empirical analysis. Corp. Soc. Responsib. Environ. Manag. 27, 630–641. https://
doi.org/10.1002/csr.1827.
Chen, S., Jiang, W., Li, X., Gao, H., 2021. Effect of employees’ perceived green HRM on
their workplace green behaviors in oil and mining industries: based on cognitive-
affective system theory. Int. J. Environ. Res. Publ. Health 18.
Cherian, J., Gaikar, V., Paul, R., Pech, R., 2021. Corporate culture and its impact on
employees’ attitude, performance, productivity, and behavior: an investigative
analysis from selected organizations of the United Arab Emirates (UAE). J. Open
Innov. Technol. Mark. Complex. 7, 1–28. https://doi.org/10.3390/joitmc7010045.
Chian, M., 2021. Consequences of Corporate Social Responsibility Initiatives for
Stakeholders.
Choong, Y.-O., Ng, L.-P., Tee, C.-W., Kuar, L.-S., Teoh, S.-Y., Chen, I.-C., 2022. Green
work climate and pro-environmental behaviour among academics: the mediating
role of harmonious environmental passion. Int. J. Manag. Stud. 26, 77–97. https://
doi.org/10.32890/ijms.26.2.2019.10520.
Daily, B.F., Huang, S., 2021. Achieving sustainability through attention to human
resource factors in environmental management. Int. J. Oper. Prod. Manag. 21,
1539–1552. https://doi.org/10.1108/01443570110410892.
Deng, Y., Cherian, J., Kumari, K., Samad, S., Abbas, J., Sial, M.S., Popp, J., Oláh, J., 2022.
Impact of sleep deprivation on job performance of working mothers: mediating effect
of workplace deviance. Int. J. Environ. Res. Publ. Health 19, 1–17. https://doi.org/
10.3390/ijerph19073799.
Edwards, S., 2016. Chapter 4 - reinforcement principles for addiction medicine; from
recreational drug use to psychiatric disorder. In: Ekhtiari, H., Paulus, M. (Eds.),
Progress in Brain Research, Neuroscience for Addiction Medicine: from Prevention to
Rehabilitation - Constructs and Drugs. Elsevier, pp. 63–76. https://doi.org/10.1016/
bs.pbr.2015.07.005.
Farid, T., Iqbal, S., Ma, J., Castro-González, S., Khattak, A., Khan, M.K., 2019.
Employees’ Perceptions of CSR, Work Engagement, and Organizational Citizenship
Behavior: the Mediating Effects of Organizational Justice 1–16.
Fornell, C., Larcker, D.F., 1981. Structural Equation Models with Unobservable Variables
and Measurement Error: Algebra and Statistics.
Freitas, W.R. de S., Caldeira-Oliveira, J.H., Teixeira, A.A., Stefanelli, N.O., Teixeira, T.B.,
2020. Green human resource management and corporate social responsibility:
evidence from Brazilian firms. Benchmark Int. J. 27, 1551–1569. https://doi.org/
10.1108/BIJ-12-2019-0543.
Frynas, J.G., Yamahaki, C., 2019. Corporate social responsibility: an outline of key
concepts, trends, and theories. In: Practising CSR in the Middle East. Springer
International Publishing, pp. 11–37.
Fu, Q., Abdul Rahman, A.A., Jiang, H., Abbas, J., Comite, U., 2022. Sustainable supply
chain and business performance: the impact of strategy, network design, information
systems, and organizational structure. Sustainability 14, 1080. https://doi.org/
10.3390/su14031080.
Habib, M., Abbas, J., Noman, R., 2019. Are human capital, intellectual property rights,
and research and development expenditures really important for total factor
productivity? An empirical analysis. Int. J. Soc. Econ. 46, 756–774. https://doi.org/
10.1108/IJSE-09-2018-0472.
Hair, J.F., Anderson, R.E., Tatham, R.L., Black, W.C., 2010. Multivariate Data Analysis,
seventh ed. Pearson, Upper Saddle River, NJ.
Herrera, J., Heras-Rosas, C. de las, 2020. Corporate social responsibility and human
resource management: towards sustainable business organizations. Sustain. Org.
Lifestyles 12, 841.
Hinkin, T.R., 1998. A brief tutorial on the development of measures for use in survey
questionnaires. Organ. Res. Methods 1, 104–121.
Hsu, B.X., Chen, Y.M., Chen, L.A., Leann), 2022. Corporate social responsibility and
value added in the supply chain: model and mechanism. Technol. Forecast. Soc.
Change 174. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2021.121302.
Hu, L., Bentler, P.M., 1998. Fit indices in covariance structure modeling: sensitivity to
under-parameterized model misspecification. Psychol. Methods 3, 424–453.
Hwang, J., Abbas, J., Joo, K., Choo, S.-W., Hyun, S.S., 2022. The effects of types of
service providers on experience economy, brand attitude, and brand loyalty in the
restaurant industry. Int. J. Environ. Res. Publ. Health 19, 15. https://doi.org/
10.3390/ijerph19063430.
Imran, M., Jingzu, G., 2022. Green organizational culture, organizational performance,
green innovation, environmental performance: a mediation-moderation model.
J. Asia Pac. Bus. 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1080/10599231.2022.2072493, 0.
Jilani, G., Yang, G., Siddique, I., 2021. Corporate social responsibility and pro-
environmental behavior of the individuals from the perspective of protection
motivation theory. Sustainability 13, 13406. https://doi.org/10.3390/
su132313406.
Kaiser, H.F., Rice, J., 1974. Little Jiffy, mark iv. Educ. Psychol. Meas. 34, 111–117.
Kaynak, H., 2003. The relationship between total quality management practices and
their effects on firm performance. J. Oper. Manag. 21, 405–435.
Kazmi, S.J.A., Abbas, J., 2021. Examining the impact of industry 4.0 on labor market in
Pakistan. In: Handbook of Smart Materials, Technologies, and Devices. Springer,
Switzerland, pp. 1–11.
Khan, H., Abbas, J., Kumari, K., Najam, H., 2022. Corporate level politics from managers
and employees perspective and its impact on employees’ job stress and job
performance. J. Econ. Adm. Sci. https://doi.org/10.1108/JEAS-12-2021-0246.
C. Pan et al.
Khan, S.M., Abbas, J., 2022. Mindfulness and happiness and their impact on employee
creative performance: mediating role of creative process engagement. Think. Skills
Creativ. 101027 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2022.101027.
Kim, R.C., 2022. Rethinking corporate social responsibility under contemporary
capitalism: five ways to reinvent CSR. Bus. Ethics Environ. Responsib. 31, 346–362.
https://doi.org/10.1111/beer.12414.
Kumari, K., Abbas, J., Hwang, J., Cioca, L.I., 2022. Does servant leadership promote
emotional intelligence and organizational citizenship behavior among employees? A
structural analysis. Sustainability 14, 5231. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14095231.
Kumari, K., Abbas, J., Rashid, S., Haq, M.A.U., 2021a. Role of corporate social
responsibility in corporate reputation via organizational trust and commitment. Rev.
Manag. Sci. 3, 42–63.
Kumari, K., Ali, S.B., Khan, N. un N.K., Abbas, J., 2021b. Examining the role of
motivation and reward in employees’ job performance through mediating effect of
job satisfaction: an empirical evidence. Int. J. Organ. Leadersh. 10, 401–420.
Lakshmi, Dr, Shree, Dr.B., 2020. Impact of Organizational Culture on Employee Behavior
in Fmcg Retail Outlets 7.
Latif, B., Ong, T.S., Meero, A., Abdul Rahman, A.A., Ali, M., 2022. Employee-perceived
corporate social responsibility (CSR) and employee pro-environmental behavior
(PEB): the moderating role of CSR skepticism and CSR authenticity. Sustain. Switz.
14 https://doi.org/10.3390/su14031380.
Lee, C.-C., Wang, C.-W., Ho, S.-J., 2022. The dimension of green economy: culture
viewpoint. Econ. Anal. Pol. 74, 122–138.
Lewin, L.D., Warren, D.E., AlSuwaidi, M., 2020. Does CSR make better citizens? The
influence of employee CSR programs on employee societal citizenship behavior
outside of work. Bus. Soc. Rev. 271–288.
Liu, X., Lin, K.-L., 2020. Green organizational culture, corporate social responsibility
implementation, and food safety. Front. Psychol. 11.
Malik, S.Y., Hayat Mughal, Y., Azam, T., Cao, Y., Wan, Z., Zhu, H., Thurasamy, R., 2021.
Corporate social responsibility, green human resources management, and
sustainable performance: is organizational citizenship behavior towards
environment the missing link? Sustainability 13, 1044. https://doi.org/10.3390/
su13031044.
Manzoor, F., Wei, L., Asif, M., 2021. Intrinsic rewards and employee’s performance with
the mediating mechanism of employee’s motivation. Front. Psychol. 12, 1–13.
Matsuo, M., Aihara, M., 2021. Effect of a community of practice on knowledge sharing
across boundaries: the mediating role of learning goals. J. Knowl. Manag. 26, 1–16.
https://doi.org/10.1108/JKM-08-2020-0604.
Mayer, D.M., Leigh, P.T., Wellman, N., 2018. When Corporate Social Responsibility
Motivates Employee Citizenship Behavior: the Sensitizing Role of Task Signifificance
44–59.
McDonald, R.P., Marsh, H.W., 1990. Choosing a multivariate model: noncentrality and
goodness of fit. Pschol. Bull. 107, 247–255. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-
2909.107.2.247.
McLeod, S., 2018. What is operant conditioning and how does it work? [WWW
Document]. SImply Psychol. URL. https://www.simplypsychology.org/ope
rant-conditioning.html#:~:text=Skinner%20is%20regarded%20as%20the,less%
20likely%20to%20be%20repeated.
Mendis, M.V.S., Welmilla, DrI., 2021. Green consciousness of employees. Hum. Resour.
Manag. Challenging Environ. 88–106.
Molina, L.M., Lloréns-Montes, J., Ruiz-Morenoa, A., 2007. Relationship between quality
management practices and knowledge transfer, 25, pp. 682–701.
Muisyo, P.K., Qin, S., 2021. Enhancing the FIRM’S green performance through green
HRM: the moderating role of green innovation culture. J. Clean. Prod. 289, 125720
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.125720.
Okafor, A., Adeleye, B.N., Adusei, M., 2021. Corporate social responsibility and financial
performance: evidence from US tech firms. J. Clean. Prod. 292, 126078.
Overskeid, G., 2018. Do we need the environment to explain operant behavior? Front.
Psychol. 9, 1–6.
Paillé, P., Valéau, P., Renwick, D.W., 2020. Leveraging green human resource practices
to achieve environmental sustainability. J. Clean. Prod. 260, 121137.
Journal of Cleaner Production 366 (2022) 132878
Peterson, R.A., 1994. Meta-analysis of Alpha Cronbach ’ s coefficient. J. Consum. Res. 21,
381–391.
Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.B., Podsakoff, N.P., 2012. Sources of method bias in social
science research and recommendations on how to control it. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 63,
539–569.
Prajogo, D.I., Cooper, B.K., 2010. The effect of people-related TQM practices on job
satisfaction: a hierarchical model. Prod. Plan. Control Manag. Oper. 21, 26–35.
Qu, X., Khan, A., Yahya, S., Zafar, A.U., Shahzad, M., 2021. Green core competencies to
prompt green absorptive capacity and bolster green innovation: the moderating role
of organization’s green culture. J. Environ. Plann. Manag. 1–46.
Ren, S., Tang, G., Jackson, S.E., 2020. Effects of Green HRM and CEO ethical leadership
on organizations’ environmental performance. Int. J. Manpow. 42, 961–983.
https://doi.org/10.1108/IJM-09-2019-0414.
Roy, B., Gottlieb, A.S., 2021. Organizational culture, practices, and patterns of
interaction that drive the gender pay gap in medicine: second-generation gender bias
and other complexities. In: Closing the Gender Pay Gap in Medicine. Springer,
pp. 7–16.
Satyendra, 2020. Organizational Culture and Employee Behaviour [WWW Document].
Ispat. URL. https://www.ispatguru.com/organizational-culture-and-employee-beh
aviour/, 2.1.22.
Sekaran, U., 2003. Research Methods for Business: A Skill-Building Approach, fourth ed.
John Wiley and Sons, New York.
Shahriari, M., Tajmir Riahi, M., Azizan, O., Rasti-Barzoki, M., 2022. The effect of green
organizational culture on organizational commitment: the mediating role of job
satisfaction. J. Hum. Behav. Soc. Environ. 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1080/
10911359.2022.2029789, 0.
Shahzad, M., Ying, Q., Ur Rehman, S., Zafar, A., Ding, X., Abbas, J., 2020. Impact of
knowledge absorptive capacity on corporate sustainability with mediating role of
CSR: analysis from the Asian context. J. Environ. Plann. Manag. 63, 148–174.
https://doi.org/10.1080/09640568.2019.1575799.
Skinner, B.F., 1948. Walden Two. Hackett, Indianapolis.
Skinner, B.F., 1938. The Behavior of Organisms: an Experimental Analysis. Appleton-
Century-Crofts, New York.
United Nations [WWW Document], 2020. URL. www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment
/sustainable-development-goals/.
Viererbl, B., Koch, T., 2022. The paradoxical effects of communicating CSR activities:
why CSR communication has both positive and negative effects on the perception of
a company’s social responsibility. Publ. Relat. Rev. 48 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
pubrev.2021.102134, 102134–102134.
Vikram, C., 2019. Operant conditioning and the practice of defensive medicine. World
Neurosurg. 91, 603–605.
Wang, C.-H., 2019. How Organizational Green Culture Influences Green Performance
and Competitive Advantage: the Mediating Role of Green Innovation.
Xiao, H., Khan, S.M., Huang, S., Abbas, J., Matei, M.C., Badulescu, D., 2022. Employees’
green enterprise motivation and green creative process engagement and their impact
on green creative performance. Int. J. Environ. Res. Publ. Health 19, 1–13. https://
doi.org/10.3390/ijerph2004010001.
Xie, Z., Liu, X., Najam, H., Fu, Q., Abbas, J., Comite, U., Cismas, L.M., Miculescu, A.,
2022. Achieving financial sustainability through revenue diversification: a green
pathway for financial institutions in Asia. Sustainability 14, 3512.
Yeşiltaş, M., Gürlek, M., Kenar, G., 2022. Organizational green culture and green
employee behavior: differences between green and non-green hotels. J. Clean. Prod.
343, 131051 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.131051.
Yoo, J., Miyamoto, Y., Evers, U., Lee, J., Wong, N., 2021. Does materialism hinder
relational well-being? The role of culture and social motives. J. Happiness Stud. 22,
241–261. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-020-00227-7.
Yu, P., Jiao, A., Sampat, M., 2022. The effect of Chinese green transformation on
competitiveness and the environment. In: Igi-Global.Com, pp. 257–279. https://doi.
org/10.4018/978-1-7998-9664-7.ch014.
Zhang, J., Cherian, J., Sandhu, Y.A.B., Abbas, J., Cismas, L.M., Negrut, C.V., Negrut, L.,
2022. Presumption of green electronic appliances purchase intention: the mediating
role of personal moral norms. Sustainability 14, 1–15.