15353966, 2020, 1, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/csr.1769 by University Of Oslo, Wiley Online Library on [27/01/2023].

See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
Received: 16 January 2019 Revised: 21 March 2019 Accepted: 3 April 2019
DOI: 10.1002/csr.1769

RESEARCH ARTICLE

Employees' corporate social responsibility perceptions and

organizational citizenship behaviors for the environment: The
mediating roles of organizational identification and
environmental orientation fit

Sadia Cheema1 | Bilal Afsar2 | Farheen Javed3

1
Department of Management Sciences,
National College of Business Administration Abstract
and Economics, Lahore, Pakistan The importance of organizational citizenship behaviors for the environment (OCBEs)
2
Department of Management Sciences,
has been clearly established in the environmental literature. The purpose of this study
Hazara University, Mansehra, Pakistan
3
Murdoch School of Business and
is to examine the mediation of organizational identification and environmental orien-
Governance, Murdoch University, Perth, tation fit on the relationship between employees' corporate social responsibility (CSR)
Western Australia, Australia
perceptions and their engagement in organizational citizenship behaviors for the
Correspondence environment. On the basis of 374 survey responses from employees, our structural
Sadia Cheema, Department of Management
Sciences, National College of Business
equation modeling results indicated that CSR perceptions had a positive effect on
Administration & Economics, Lahore, Multan employees' OCBEs. Moreover, both organizational identification and environmental
Campus, Pakistan.
Email: sadiacheema83@gmail.com
orientation fit mediated the effect of CSR perceptions on employees' OCBEs. This
study contributed to three literature streams (i.e., CSR, pro‐environmental behaviors
and environmental management, and person–environment fit). Managerial implica-
tions and recommendations for future research are given at the end.

K E Y W OR D S

corporate social responsibility, environmental orientation fit, green behavior, organizational

citizenship behavior for the environment, organizational identification, person–environment fit,
person–organization fit, pro‐environmental behavior

1 | I N T RO D U CT I O N sustainability, it is critical to comprehend how CSR affects

As the world faces increasing pressures from rising population, cli-
mate change, and resource scarcity, the concept of corporate sus-
tainability has gained considerable attention from both academia
and governments (Afsar, Cheema, & Javed, 2018; Babiak &
Trendafilova, 2011; Linnenluecke, Griffiths, & Winn, 2013). Research
examining the relationship between corporate social responsibility
(CSR) and employees' organizational citizenship behavior for the
environment (OCBE) is increasing in recent years (Norton, Parker,
Zacher, & Ashkanasy, 2015). This relationship is important because
the effects of CSR on employees' OCBE may diffuse into greater
environmental performance in the aggregate (Ardito & Dangelico,
2018; Norton et al., 2015). For an organization to achieve ecological
employees' OCBEs.
Individual employees within a business or organization can have a
significant impact (positive or negative) on the overall outcomes of
their employing organization's sustainability strategy. All businesses
and organizations need to promote employee engagement in green
behaviors if they are to become a “sustaining organization” (Benn,
Edwards, & Williams, 2014, p. 3). OCBE received a wider attention
over the past decade, answering the call for micro‐CSR research.
Research on CSR has focused on a range of issues, antecedents, and
consequences for CSR use. CSR is an innovative way to create value
for society and organizations (Baughn, Bodie, & McIntosh, 2007;
Manente, Minghetti, & Mingotto, 2014), to reinforce ties with commu-
nity (Baumgartner & Winter, 2014), to engage with social and

Corp Soc Resp Env Ma. 2020;27:9–21. wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/csr © 2019 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd and ERP Environment 9

10
environmental issues (Dahlsrud, 2008), and to use resources sustain-
ably (Jenkins, 2004).
OCBE refers to the “discretionary acts by employees within the
organization not rewarded or required that are directed toward envi-
ronmental improvement” (Daily, Bishop, & Govindarajulu, 2009, p.
246). Employees engage in OCBEs with a view that they want to show
care to others so that their well‐beings could be established along with
creating value towards organizational sustainability (Glavas & Kelley,
2014). Wells, Manika, Gregory‐Smith, Taheri, and McCowlen (2015)
suggest that those employees who perceive their organizations to be
socially responsible display greater propensity to contribute positively
to the environment. However, the underlying mechanisms through
which CSR is related to OCBE remains underdeveloped. Researchers
have mostly examined direct positive relationship linking CSR with
OCBE and suggest that there could be intervening variables that can
further explain the effect of CSR on employee's OCBE (Luu, 2017;
Tian & Robertson, 2017; Tuan, 2018).
Relatively few studies that focused on underlying mechanisms have
shown that empathy (Glavas & Kelley, 2014), green human resource
management (HRM) (Kim, Kim, Choi, & Phetvaroon, 2019), environmen-
tal specific servant leadership (Luu, 2018), corporate entrepreneurship,
and attachment style (Luu, 2017) represent important individual and
organizational factors explaining how CSR influences employee OCBE.
However, Tian and Robertson (2017) in a recent study suggested that
intervening mechanisms in the CSR–OCBE relationship should be
examined. Moreover, they also proposed future research to study the
microlevel approach in the analysis of CSR and how CSR can be related
to various employee behaviors at workplace. Especially, they suggest that
CSR can affect discretionary, nonobligatory, citizenship, extra‐role, and
volunteer activities and behaviors of employees at workplace. We, thus,
know that this relationship exists, but we do not know sufficiently why
and how (Tian & Robertson, 2017).
The purpose of this study is to examine the effect of CSR on OCBE
through additional intervening variables. To do so, we rely on social
identification theory (Tajfel & Turner, 1986), self‐determination theory
FIGURE 1 Hypothesized model
15353966, 2020, 1, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/csr.1769 by University Of Oslo, Wiley Online Library on [27/01/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
CHEEMA ET AL.
(Ryan & Deci, 2000), and the social exchange theory (Blau, 1964) to
explore the effect of CSR on employee's discretionary behaviors.
Drawing on these theoretical paradigms and as illustrated in Figure 1
, we suggest the following two mediators to explore the indirect effect
of the relationship between CSR and OCBE: environmental orienta-
tion fit and organizational identification.
This paper advances current CSR and OCBE research in the follow-
ing five ways. First, our understanding of the processes and mecha-
nisms through which OCBEs are enhanced and/or attenuated is
incomplete. This study is going to examine the effect of CSR percep-
tions on employee's OCBE and would enhance our understanding of
the underlying processes. Second, exploring microlevel analysis of
CSR is still underdeveloped as most research studies have focused
on the relationship of CSR with organizational success, corporate
financial performance, and organizational innovation (Kuo, Yeh, & Yu,
2012; Luu, 2017). Third, the effect of CSR on employee's OCBE is
not straight forward as potential mediators can provide a deeper
understanding of this phenomenon (Onkila, 2015). This study
advances knowledge by proposing that potential intervening variables
can help us to better understand the relationship between CSR and
OCBE. Fourth, this study applies social exchange theory and self‐
determination theory to theorize the antecedents of OCBE. Use of
three theoretical lenses in explaining a model of OCBE is special in
employee green behavior literature. Thus, this study fulfils the much
needed multitheory approach to examine OCBE and answers a recent
call for research by Paillé and Mejía‐Morelos (2014) and Luu (2017).
2 | LITERATURE REVIEW AND
H Y P O T H E S E S DE V E L O P M E N T
2.1 | Corporate social responsibility
CSR can be defined as “context‐specific organizational actions and
policies that take into account stakeholders' expectations and the

CHEEMA ET AL.
triple bottom line of economic, social, and environmental perfor-
mance” (Aguinis, 2011, p. 855). There is a notion that for‐profit orga-
nizations have a responsibility towards the society, from which they
derive profits. This notion was the origin of the CSR idea. The primary
objective of a for‐profit organization is, of course, to make profit. This
may create an agency problem, as views of managers and shareholders
may diverge. If shareholders regard CSR as a waste of resources, and
managers perceive it as something that could enhance performance,
then a dilemma arises. Although CSR has been a subject of discussion
for a long time, interest has been increasing over the past few years.
Aguinis and Glavas (2012) discovered 181 relevant papers published
in top tier journals, with about half of those papers published since
2005.
Carroll's (1979) influential definition suggested a model of CSR
that includes economic, legal, ethical, and discretionary categories,
with the latter group of expectations involving all sorts of responsibil-
ities beyond economic, legal, and ethical. That is, organizations should
pursue their economic goals while operating within the legal frame-
work, simultaneously respecting the ethical standards of the society.
Organizations are also expected to show some discretionary (i.e., vol-
untary) activities that address societal needs. This definition has been
extensively used for over 30 years in CSR research (Carroll & Shabana,
2010; Tosti‐Kharas, Lamm, & Thomas, 2017). Measuring CSR is diffi-
cult not only because economic, legal, and ethical expectations change
over time but also because discretionary expectations change even
more so. This difficulty in objectively measuring CSR led to more sub-
jective measures being used, such as those of stakeholders,
employees, top management, and others. The CSR notion then
evolved to also include stakeholders, instead of only caring for share-
holders (Carroll & Shabana, 2010; Reverte, 2012). When discussing
stakeholders, organizations should take into consideration different
groups of people that affect and are affected by their business, such
as customers, investors, suppliers and local, national, or even interna-
tional communities, as well as the organizations' employees.
Zink (2005) highlights the critical importance of a stakeholder ori-
entation in a frame of CSR as a requirement for sustainability. Initially,
research on CSR was mainly conducted at institutional level (Park,
Choi, & Kim, 2012), and discussions were about the role of organiza-
tions in the society (Sarkar, 2008). More recently, the subject has
begun being researched at the micro level and has been found to be
positively related to employee performance (Park et al., 2012), com-
mitment and organizational citizenship behavior (OCB; Park et al.,
2012), engagement (Glavas & Piderit, 2009) and employee relation-
ships (Vallaster, 2017). Despite the research efforts at the micro level,
little is known about how and why CSR directly influences employees
(Lee, 2008). One of the reasons is that measures of CSR are aggregate
(Testa, Gusmerottia, Corsini, Passetti, & Iraldo, 2016) and mainly based
on ratings conducted by players external to the organization. Thus,
these ratings may be influenced by visible CSR (e.g., charities and phi-
lanthropy) and may not account for internal activities carried out
throughout the organization, not being visible from the outside. Mea-
sures at the individual (employee) level may be more appropriate in
accurately capturing the degree of CSR as truly embedded in an
15353966, 2020, 1, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/csr.1769 by University Of Oslo, Wiley Online Library on [27/01/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
11
organization. Thus, measures of CSR at the individual level may be
better able to capture employee perceptions on how CSR affects them
personally.
Employee perceptions are important because they have an effect
on their behavior, attitude, and performance. It is clear thus far that
the field of CSR is wide, and it is difficult to achieve clarity as to
exactly what it encompasses (Vallaster, 2017), whereas sometimes,
CSR is hard to distinguish from business ethics. The previous discus-
sion of views regarding CSR only serves to show that there are over-
laps between various views (Vallaster, 2017). For instance,
responsibility towards the society and responsibility towards the nat-
ural environment do have common elements. In addition, it is clear
that all the above arguments see beyond the short‐term profit or
wealth (of the shareholders) maximization and also consider other
stakeholders, as noted. Based on above arguments, this study would
use employee's perceptions about CSR activities of an organization.
2.2 | OCB towards environment
Research has examined OCBs both generally in terms of broad aspects
(Hansen, Dunford, Boss, Boss, & Angermeier, 2011; Lin, Lyau, Tsai,
Chen, & Chiu, 2010) and, specifically, in terms of environmental
behavior as OCBE (Boiral & Paillé, 2012) or as employees' environ-
mentally responsible or green OCBs (Smith & O'Sullivan, 2012).
OCBEs occur in the workplace and are a crucial aspect of corporate
sustainability (Daily et al., 2009). The OCBE construct is in its infancy
but is a promising approach that captures those employee voluntary
pro‐environmental behaviors that sit outside traditional task or
compliance‐based pro‐environmental behaviors. Most studies do not
delineate between required and voluntary actions or behaviors by
employees to reduce the ecological footprint of the organization
(Boiral & Paillé, 2012). Employee pro‐environmental behaviors that
are not part of the formal task specific duties within the organization
need further exploration.
OCBE has been broadly defined as those voluntary actions by
employees within an organization “that are directed toward environ-
mental improvement” (Daily et al., 2009, p. 246). Boiral and Paillé
(2012) have expanded the definition of OCBE by also stating that
OCBEs are voluntary and may not be “explicitly recognized by the for-
mal reward system and contribute to more effective environmental
management by the organization” (p. 431). This definition of OCBE
aligns with Organ's (1997) definition of OCB, which emphasizes that
an employee's OCB goes above and beyond what is required by a for-
mal role description and adds to the preservation and development of
the context in which their work takes place. Boiral and Paillé's (2012)
definition of OCBE presents a case that these behaviors demonstrate
preparedness and an ability to perform pro‐environmental behaviors,
without the driver of formal recognition that also might add to the
effective functioning of the organization.
It is worth noting that even though OCBE is derived from OCB, the
two constructs have been determined as being reliably distinct from
each other (Lamm, Tosti‐Kharas, & Williams, 2013). In other words,

12
OCBE describes those less common voluntary behaviors that specifi-
cally benefit the environment, whereas OCB covers those behaviors
that benefit the organization more broadly. Examples of OCB could
be the active decision by an employee to arrive early to a meeting with
a positive mindset, ready to engage with colleagues, helping a
coworker to perform task, sharing knowledge about mistakes, and
talking good about the organization in front of people outside the
workplace. Conversely, examples of OCBE would be the same
employee ensuring the lights to the communal meeting room are
switched off after the meeting to limit electricity use, using double
side of the page for printing, and preferring to use stairs instead of ele-
vators. The first set of behaviors benefits the organization, whereas
the second set of behaviors specifically benefits the environment
and any benefit to the organization is secondary. Hence, the two
behavioral constructs are distinct from one another thus existing
OCB measures would not be appropriate to identify dimensions of
OCBE (Lamm et al., 2013).
There are several reasons due to which OCBEs are considered to
be of immense importance in the environmental sustainability of orga-
nizations. First, pro‐environmental behaviors at workplace are largely
based on voluntary involvement of employees and making them part
of the job descriptions and formal job roles is quite difficult. Second,
the effectiveness of formal environmental management practices
often depend on voluntary pro‐environmental behavior because
OCBE compensates for the weaknesses of formal practices, systems,
and technologies (Luu, 2018). Third, OCBEs are cost effective. Finally,
although OCBEs may seem insignificant, such behaviors when accu-
mulated organization wide and over time creates a substantial impact
on organizational environmental performance.
2.3 | CSR perceptions and OCBE
Organizations engage in CSR activities to increase environment sus-
tainability (Rupp, Wright, Aryee, & Luo, 2015) and positive social
change (Luu, 2018). CSR activities create value for the society and
help to resolve environmental issues (Rupp et al., 2015). Jones
(2010) found that employees engage in OCBs when they find their
organizations to play effective role in responding to social and envi-
ronmental needs. Luu (2018) also found a positive association
between employee's perceptions of CSR and their engagement in
OCB. Extending this notion, CSR acts as a sustainably pro‐
environmental force to drive employees to engage in OCB for the
environment (Afsar et al., 2018). A socially responsible organization
may thus become the right social group for employees to affiliate with
in order to distinguish themselves from others and voluntarily partici-
pate in the organization's environmental programs and activities. Affil-
iating with the socially responsible organization, they will modify their
identity from self‐identity towards collective identity. Their collective
identity with the organization engenders their “actions that reinforce
the organization and one's status within it” (Upham, 2006, p. 83).
When organizations devise and implement strategies directed
towards betterment of society, resolving social and environmental
15353966, 2020, 1, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/csr.1769 by University Of Oslo, Wiley Online Library on [27/01/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
CHEEMA ET AL.
issues and protecting the natural environment, employees attach to
a greater degree to such organizations and reciprocate by helping col-
leagues to better integrate environmental concerns and suggest novel
ways to improve environmental practices or performance purely on
discretionary basis (Boiral, Raineri, & Talbot, 2018). Because of organi-
zations' commitment to treat the society and environment in a posi-
tive way, the level of awareness among employees increases
substantially, and in return, they learn to behave in a pro‐
environmental way. Employees start to suggest ideas to improve
existing organizational environmental activities. For example, if an
organization installs trash bins to clean trash, arranges regular and fre-
quent seminars to raise environmental awareness among all stake-
holders, and engages in plantation activities, employees would
inspire and help colleagues to integrate environmental concerns and
motivated to participate in these environmental programs.
Companies engaging in CSR activities aimed at improving the nat-
ural environment and society inspire their employees to go beyond
obligatory work roles and display discretionary behaviors towards
the environment besides helping coworkers to build pro‐
environmental habits (Tuan, 2018). In other words, CSR may serve as
a driver to catalyze the three dimensions—eco‐civic engagement (par-
ticipating in organizational environmental programs), eco‐helping
(inspiring and helping coworkers to engage in pro‐environmental
behaviors), and eco‐initiatives (suggesting and implementing new and
novel ideas to improve the natural environment)—of OCBE among
employees. Based on these arguments, it is reasonable to hypothesize
the following:
Hypothesis 1. There is a positive relationship between
employee's perception of CSR and his/her engagement
in OCBE.
2.4 | CSR perceptions and organizational
identification
Organizational identification refers to an employee's “perceived affin-
ity with and sharing experiences with an organization where s/he
belongs to and where his/her personal identity is defined in refer-
ence to the group characteristics” (Jones, 2010). The role of organiza-
tional identification is well established within the CSR literature
(Korschun, Bhattacharya, & Swain, 2014). Self‐continuity, self‐
distinctiveness, and self‐enhancement of an employee increase when
they perceive their organizations to be socially and environmentally
responsible (Farooq et al., 2017). Employee views the organization
as attractive and identify strongly with it due to a positive image
among stakeholders (Afsar et al., 2018). Organizational identification
is very sensitive to organizational image and status. Farooq, Rupp,
and Farooq (2017) reported that CSR perceptions influences an
employee's level of attractiveness towards evaluating his/her organi-
zation's internal and external image and contributing to an individ-
ual's self‐continuity, distinctiveness, and self‐enhancement needs.
Social identity perspective suggests that a reflection of personal

CHEEMA ET AL.
values in organizational values enhances an employee's self‐concept
and self‐continuity (Luu, 2017).
Organizations that are perceived as socially and environmentally
responsible are thought of as prestigious and esteemed by external
stakeholders, whereas organizations that do not engage in responsible
activities towards the society and environment are taken as less pres-
tigious (Afsar et al., 2018). When an employee belongs to an organiza-
tion that can be differentiated from other organizations on the basis of
its commitment to contribute positively to the society and environ-
ment, his/her self‐distinctiveness and self‐uniqueness enhance
(Brammer et al., 2015). Finally, employees evaluate their self‐worth
and self‐esteem by using the status or social standing of their organi-
zation. When an employee works for an organization that is consid-
ered distinctive, prestigious, and responsible, feelings of respect,
pride, and worthiness in his/her mind increase substantially (De Roeck,
El Akremi, & Swaen, 2016), consequently increasing self‐esteem
(Brammer et al., 2015) and self‐worth (Jones Christensen, Mackey, &
Whetten, 2014). CSR influences employees' attitudes and behaviors
only to the extent they perceive and evaluate it (Rupp et al. 2006).
Individuals tend to identify themselves with groups that possess pos-
itive image and are viewed by others as responsible and attractive
because by associating with such groups, their own self‐concept and
self‐worth would enhance. Bauman and Skitka (2012) argue that
CSR leads to stronger organizational identification among employees
by promoting external assessments of organizational attractiveness
and status, thus provoking employees' desire to affiliate with a focal
organization and by symbolizing commitment to important values
and engendering a sense of belongingness. Research has shown that
socially and environmentally responsible organizations with emphasis
on societal and environmental focused CSR actions are more attrac-
tive to employees (Brammer et al., 2015; Jones et al., 2014; Rupp,
Shao, Thornton, & Skarlicki, 2013), and employees are more likely to
identify with them (e.g., Brammer et al., 2015; De Roeck et al.,
2016). Therefore, the following hypothesis is proposed:
Hypothesis 2. There is a positive association between
CSR perceptions and organizational identification.
2.5 | Organizational identification and OCBE
When employees identify strongly with the organization, any per-
ceived differences between their own interests and those of their
organizations are reduced, thereby making employees to internalize
their organizations' values, beliefs, and goals as their own and rein-
force their self‐concepts (Brammer et al., 2015), and in turn, engage
in behaviors that are consistent with those values, beliefs, and goals
(De Roeck et al., 2016). Organizational identification helps employees
to attach strongly with the organizational goals and employees exert
extra efforts to make organizations successful (Jones et al., 2014).
Therefore, they not only try to fulfill tasks and responsibilities assigned
to them but also go beyond call of duty to improve existing systems
through discretionary and citizenship behaviors. Employees feel
15353966, 2020, 1, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/csr.1769 by University Of Oslo, Wiley Online Library on [27/01/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
13
themselves as citizens of the organization and are motivated to con-
tribute to the success of the organization in all possible ways.
When employees identify strongly with the organization, they
devote more efforts to increase their self‐worth in organizations
(Jones et al., 2014). Behaviors that organizations expect from
employees gradually become part of the individual's self‐concept.
Employees think of engaging in behaviors that are not explicitly
stated in their job descriptions and that are primarily voluntarily in
nature. Various citizenship behaviors have been linked with organiza-
tional identification, such as extending cooperation to coworkers and
other members of the organization (De Roeck et al., 2016), engaging
in creative endeavors to suggest new and novel ideas (Farooq et al.,
2017), protecting the organization in front of external stakeholders
(Newman et al., 2016), and sharing knowledge with others on fre-
quent and regular basis (Farooq et al., 2017). Because OCBE is a
type of citizenship behavior, we expect employees who identify
strongly with the organization to contribute positively towards the
betterment of the environment. Thus, we make the following
hypothesis:
Hypothesis 3. There is a positive association between
organizational identification and OCBE.
2.6 | Mediating effect of organizational identification
According to Mael and Ashforth (1992), employees identify with their
organization through the manipulation of symbols. Organizational
identification has been found to mediate the relationship between
perceived CSR and employee's job performance (Carmeli, Gilat, &
Waldman, 2007), as well as CSR perceptions and innovative work
behaviors (Brammer et al., 2015). Perceived CSR affects various dis-
cretionary and nonobligatory behaviors of employees through media-
tion of organizational identification (Farooq et al., 2017). CSR
activities aimed to benefit the society and environment are perceived
by employees as attractive and motivating. In turn, employees iden-
tify strongly with such organizations and show greater attachment
to them. Employees would then try to reciprocate to the organization
by engaging in behaviors that could bring further good to the organi-
zation and support its goals. One such type of behavior that organi-
zations nowadays expect from their employees is to engage in
energy conservation and sustainable behaviors in order to improve
the quality of the natural environment and enhance environmental
performance (Brammer et al., 2015), and it would support organiza-
tional values, mission, and goals. Organizations do incorporate envi-
ronment protection, eco‐innovative activities, environmental
management, and initiatives to improve environmental performance
into their values, goals, and objectives. If employees identify and inte-
grate these values into their self‐concepts, it is reasonable to expect
that they would engage in OCBs directed towards protection and
improvement of the natural environment. Thus, we hypothesize the
following:
Hypothesis 4. Organizational identification mediates
the effect of CSR perceptions on OCBE.

14
2.7 | CSR perceptions and environmental orientation
fit
Environmental orientation is the “recognition of the legitimacy and
importance of the biophysical environment in the formulation of orga-
nization strategy, and the integration of environmental issues into the
strategic planning process” (Banerjee, 2002, p. 181). Person–
environment fit is “the compatibility that occurs when individual and
work environment characteristics are well matched” (Caplan & Van
Harrison, 1993, p. 259). An individual behavior is a function of both
a person's characteristics and those of the environment within which
the individual acts (Kristof, 1996). Extending this argument, if an indi-
vidual perceives that his/her organization acts in a socially and envi-
ronmentally responsible manner, his/her values and beliefs about the
environment would match better with such organizational values.
According to the deontic theory (Folger, 2001), there is a general
belief that CSR practices are viewed by employees as moral binding
both on employees as well as organizations. That is, not only individ-
uals are responsible to act in ways that display social responsibility
aspects in their behaviors at workplace but organizations should also
show intent to sincerely and genuinely try out to act in socially
responsible manner. Practices such as taking care of the planet,
protecting natural environment, disposing off waste in an effective
and efficient manner, and engaging in pro‐environmental initiatives
to improve the environment are regarded as morally obligatory by
employees. Lack of such practices would mean that an individual per-
ceives a mismatch between his/her inclination towards the environ-
ment and his/her organizational orientation towards the environment.
Person–organization fit is considered to explain how CSR practices
affect moral obligations of an individual because it refers to the com-
patibility that an individual perceives when he/she compares his
values, beliefs, norms, and personality with his/her organization's
goals, values, demands, characteristics, and culture (Kristof, 1996).
Employee behaviors at workplace depend on the level of congruence
that an employee feels between his/her values and that of his/her
organization's values (Caplan & Van Harrison, 1993). If there is a high
level of congruence and similarity between values, the social responsi-
bility aspect of organizations is likely to be reflected in individual's
behaviors. Organizations that invest on protection of natural environ-
ment and encourage employees to share ideas that can improve the
environment expect that their demands of effective environmental
management systems would be established by employees' set of skills
and abilities to initiate and implement ideas directed towards green
innovation. For a socially responsible organization, it is likely that most
salient corporate values are fairness, ethics, responsibility, and respect
of moral obligations (Folger, 2001). Employees perceive CSR initiatives
as prestigious and attractive when organizations engage in activities
directed towards improving society, natural environment, and taking
care of all stakeholders. When an organization engages in CSR actions
and takes care of all the different stakeholders with whom it interacts,
employees are more likely to perceive a similarity of values between
self and the organization, which can make them to perceive higher
level of environmental orientation fit. Organizations with a strong
15353966, 2020, 1, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/csr.1769 by University Of Oslo, Wiley Online Library on [27/01/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
CHEEMA ET AL.
environmental orientation seek to develop ecologically sustainable
relationships with their environment. Therefore, we hypothesize the
following:
Hypothesis 5. CSR perceptions positively affect envi-
ronmental orientation fit.
2.8 | Environmental orientation fit and OCBE
Caplan and Van Harrison (1993) suggest that person‐organization fit
(P‐O fit) leads to “behaviors motivated by assisting the organization,
not just performing a job” (p. 262). One such discretionary citizenship
behavior is employee OCBE. In a survey of 4,000 millennials from 44
countries, Hörisch, Kollat, and Brieger (2017) found that future
workforce consciously seeks employers whose corporate responsibility
behaviors reflect their own values (88% of the respondents) and
consider an employer's policy on climate change and environment
important, when choosing an employer (58% of the respondents). Orga-
nizations and individuals have realized that protecting environment, sug-
gesting ideas to deal effectively with climate change and other
environmental issues, and devising strategies to manage environment
effectively are some of the most important values that need to be incor-
porated in one's priorities and value systems. Corporations have a huge
responsibility to act in social responsible manner as their operations and
functioning directly affect the natural environment and society. There-
fore, CSR activities are considered integral to the corporations' core
values and strategies. Similarly, individuals also feel that behaviors such
as green purchasing, protecting the natural environment, conserving
energy, generating ideas to improve the natural environment, and
disposing off waste in effective manners are to be practiced not only
at homes but also at workplaces. These behaviors then become part of
an individual value and belief system. When both corporation and its
employees place high emphasis on protection of the environment, it is
likely that employee would feel a strong need to engage in OCBE. Based
on these arguments, the following is hypothesized:
Hypothesis 6. There is a positive association between
environmental orientation fit and OCBE.
2.9 | Mediating effect of environmental orientation
fit
Absorbing pro‐environmental values in the CSR value set, employees
may become “environmental activists” inside the organization and
influence other stakeholders to engage in pro‐environmental behav-
iors (Hörisch et al., 2017). A high compatibility between environmental
values of an individual and that of his/her organization makes him/her
believe anything that is good for the organization will be also good for
him/her through a strong environmental orientation fit with the orga-
nization, thereby leading employees to show more citizenship behav-
ior for the environment. CSR practices alone might not be enough to
motivate employees to engage in behaviors that can improve the nat-
ural environment. As the nature of OCBE is nonobligatory, intrinsic

CHEEMA ET AL.
motivation is required if an employee has to engage in such behaviors.
If an individual does not consider pro‐environmental activities as part
of his/her values and beliefs, he/she might not be intrinsically moti-
vated to display these activities. Employee feels a higher sense of pur-
pose, belongingness, satisfaction, and fulfillment when he/she
performs an action that is congruent with his/her values. Afsar and
Badir (2017) found that person–organization fit mediated the link
between perceived organizational support and innovative work behav-
ior (a nonobligatory behavior). They suggest that when organizations
value their employees, innovative work behaviors of employees
increase, but the link between perceived organizational support and
innovative behaviors disappear if employees do not consider creativ-
ity, risk taking, trying out new solutions, implementing novel ideas,
convincing others in support of their ideas, and dealing with uncertain
situations without fear, as part of their values. They assert further that
innovative behaviors engender among employees in presence of orga-
nizational support only when employees perceive that creativity is
essentially rooted in both organization's and individual's value and
belief. If we apply same logic here, it is reasonable to propose that
CSR practices affect employee's OCBE, but this relationship exists
for those employees whose approach, values, and beliefs about the
natural environment are congruent to his/her organization's environ-
mental values. Environmental orientation fit makes employees to
understand and support organizational social responsibility activities
by displaying OCBE. This leads to the formulation of our final hypoth-
esis, as follows:
Hypothesis 7. Environmental orientation fit mediates
the effect of CSR perceptions on OCBE.
2.10 | Method
The present study used a cross‐sectional, quantitative, deductive
research design to address the hypotheses. Employees from auto
manufacturing, cement, plastic manufacturing, pharmaceutical, oil
and gas, and textile industries in various cities of Pakistan were cho-
sen. These industries were responsible for most of water and air pol-
lution. A cross‐industry sample would give us a deeper
understanding of the relationship among chosen variables. A total of
46 companies were contacted, and management of 23 companies
allowed us to conduct this study. Out of these 23 companies, six were
plastic manufacturers, five were pharmaceutical, four were cement,
three each were textile and oil and gas, and auto manufacturers.
Employees from all levels of management were selected for the sur-
vey. A total of 750 questionnaires were distributed among partici-
pants. We obtained 374 valid responses over a 4‐month period. In
total, 27% of the respondents were female, 47% were between 26
and 35, and 28% worked in the company for more than 10 years.
Out of 374 responses, 72 came from plastic manufacturers, 67 from
pharmaceutical, 63 from cement, 64 from textile, 56 from oil and
gas, and 52 from auto manufacturer companies. Employees answered
questions using a 5‐point Likert scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5
(strongly agree).
15353966, 2020, 1, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/csr.1769 by University Of Oslo, Wiley Online Library on [27/01/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
15
2.11 | Measures
2.11.1 | Perceived CSR (CSR perceptions)
We measured CSR perceptions at the individual level because much
like HR policies, employees may not perceive them in the same way
(Nishii, Lepak, & Schneider, 2008), thereby questioning the appropri-
ateness of aggregating individual CSR perceptions to a higher level.
Specifically, like other studies on CSR (e.g., Afsar et al., 2018; Baughn
et al., 2007), this study used Turker's (2009) scale, which measures
employees' perceptions that their organization acts responsibly
towards the environment (e.g., “our company participates in activities,
which aim to protect and improve the quality of the natural environ-
ment”), customers (e.g., “our company respects consumer rights
beyond legal requirements”), and the society (e.g., “our company pro-
vides financial support for humanitarian causes and charities”). The
reliability of this scale was 0.87.
2.11.2 | Organizational identification
Employees' rated their organizational identification on six items devel-
oped by Mael and Ashforth (1992). Sample items include, “this organi-
zation's successes are my successes” and “when I talk about my
organization, I usually say we rather than they.” The Cronbach's α of
organizational identification was .92.
2.11.3 | OCB for the environment
Employee OCBE was assessed through Boiral and Paillé (2012) 10‐
item scale. The statements developed by Boiral and Paillé (2012) were
chosen for this study because they are relatively general and unspe-
cific and can therefore apply to various “organizations, activity sectors,
occupations or circumstances” (p. 435). Illustrative items include “I vol-
untarily carry out environmental actions and initiatives in my daily
activities at work” and “I encourage my colleagues to adopt more envi-
ronmentally conscious behavior”. The Cronbach's α of OCBE was .84.
2.11.4 | Environmental orientation fit
The employee's individual environmental orientation measure uses a
modified eight‐item scale by Steenkamp and Gielens (2003). This scale
assesses an individual's behavioral disposition into the environmen-
tally friendly context. Sample item includes “I am usually among the
first to try ‘green’ and environmentally‐friendly brands.” The
employee's perception of his or her organization's environmental ori-
entation measure uses the seven‐item CSR scale developed by
Menguc and Ozanne (2005). This scale is particularly relevant to the
current study of fit between an individual's and his/her employer's
attitudes towards environmental conservation, as it captures a “set
of environmental management principles” and behaviors (Menguc &
Ozanne, 2005, p. 434). Given the current study's focus on assessing
the congruence between environmental orientations at the employee
and firm level, such items might confound the findings as they are
 15353966, 2020, 1, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/csr.1769 by University Of Oslo, Wiley Online Library on [27/01/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
16 CHEEMA ET AL.

likely to also tap into personal convictions. Finally, the current mea-
sures of employee‐ and firm‐level environmental orientations satisfy
the need for measuring commensurate dimensions of the P‐O fit
(Kristof, 1996). The fit index between an employee's personal environ-
mental orientation and his or her firm's environmental orientation is
constructed as the cross‐product interaction between these two vari-
ables. The Cronbach's α of environmental orientation fit was .82.
3 | D A T A A N A L Y S I S A N D RE S U L T S
3.1 | Descriptive analysis
Table 1 presents the means, standard deviations, and correlations
among each variable. All the correlations among variables are signifi-
cant at .01 level. CSR perceptions was found to correlate positively
and significantly with environmental orientation fit, organizational
identification, and OCBE. Moreover, environmental orientation fit
and organizational identification have also been found to positively
correlate with OCBE at .01 significance level.
3.2 | Measurement model
(CMIN/DF = 1.81, GFI = 0.95, AGFI = 0.92, NFI = 0.95, RFI = 0.93,
IFI = 0.97, TLI = 0.96, CFI = 0.97, and RMSEA = 0.069), respectively.
And then, CSR perceptions, organizational identification, environmen-
tal orientation fit, and OCBE were correlated to judge the convergent
and discriminant validity of each construct. Overall fitness of the
measurement model indicated an adequate fit indices with the data
CMIN/DF = 1.51, GFI = 0.93, AGFI = 0.89, NFI = 0.93, RFI = 0.91,
IFI = 0.98, TLI = 0.97, CFI = 0.98, and RMSEA = 0.052 (Bentler,
1990). The convergent validity from the measurement model can
be assessed by significance of factor loading and its coefficient
(>0.5; Hair, Anderson, Tatham, & Black, 1998). For all constructs, the
individual item loading on the factor is above 0.5. For discriminant
validity, the variance extracted percentages average variance extract
(AVE) should be greater than square of the correlation (Fornell &
Larcker, 1981). This condition was also satisfied for all variables. The
Cronbach's α value for each construct was above .7 as suggested by
Nunnally (1978). Due to cross‐sectional nature of data and self‐report
surveys, Harman's one‐factor test (Podsakoff & Organ, 1986) was
applied to examine the existence of common method bias. All four
variables showed values of less than 50%, showing that common
method bias was not an issue in the present study. The highest
variance showed by any of the variables was 36.84%.

AMOS 22 was used to conduct confirmatory factor analysis, and first,

we analyzed the second‐order CFA of CSR perceptions and OCBE. 3.3 | Hypothesis testing
The second‐order CFA of CSR perceptions and OCBE indicated ade-
quate fit indices (CMIN/DF = 1.75, GFI = 0.96, AGFI = 0.92, NFI = 0.96, Structural equation modeling technique was used to test direct and
RFI = 0.93, IFI = 0.98, TLI = 0.97, CFI = 0.98, and RMSEA = 0.062) and indirect effects. Table 2 reveals the findings of direct effects of struc-

TABLE 1 Means, standard deviations, and correlations

S.
No. Variables Mean (SD) 1 2 3 4

1 CSR perceptions 3.74 (0.42) 1

2 Organizational identification 3.26 (0.63) 0.517* 1
3 Environmental orientation fit 3.11 (0.69) 0.368* 0.136 1
4 OCBE 3.66 (0.57) 0.531* 0.276* 0.313* 1

Abbreviations: CSR, corporate social responsibility; OCBE, organizational citizenship behavior for the environment; SD, standard deviation.
*Correlation is significant at .01 level (two tailed).

TABLE 2 Results of direct effects

Regression paths Hypothesis Estimate p value Remarks

CSR perceptions ➔ OCBE From Model 1 (Figure 2) H1 0.476*** <.001 Supported

CSR perceptions ➔ Organizational identification From Model 2 (Figure 3) H2 0.642** .064 Supported
CSR perceptions ➔ Environmental orientation fit H5 0.537*** <.001 Supported
Organizational identification ➔ OCBE H3 0.214* .028 Supported
Environmental orientation fit ➔ OCBE H6 0.382*** <.001 Supported

Abbreviations: CSR, corporate social responsibility; OCBE, organizational citizenship behavior for the environment.
*Significant at .05 level (two tailed).
**Significant at .01 level (two tailed).
***Significant at .001 level (two tailed).
 15353966, 2020, 1, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/csr.1769 by University Of Oslo, Wiley Online Library on [27/01/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
CHEEMA ET AL. 17

tural model. The regression coefficient among CSR perceptions and
OCBE was 0.476 (p < .001), supporting 1 (Figure 2). Regarding results
from Figure 3, CSR perceptions have positive significant impact on
both organizational identification (b = 0.642, p < .01) and environmen-
tal orientation fit (b = 0.537, p < .001) thus 2 and 5 were supported.
Moreover, the beta coefficients among organizational identification
and OCBE was .214 (p < .05) and environmental orientation fit and
OCBE was .382 (p < .001), supporting 4 and 6.
This study also used bootstrapping technique to test the specific
indirect effects among variables. Table 3 reveals the findings of
specific indirect effect of CSR perceptions towards OCBE of
employees through both organizational identification and environ-
mental orientation fit. The indirect effect of CSR perceptions towards
OCBE through organizational identification was 0.343 (p < .001), and
the indirect effect of CSR perceptions towards OCBE through envi-
ronmental orientation fit was 0.428 (p < .001). Hence, these results
supported 4 and 7 that organizational identification significantly medi-
ates the relationship among CSR perceptions and employee's OCBE
and that environmental orientation fit significantly mediates the rela-
tionship among CSR perceptions and employee's OCBE.

FIGURE 2 Direct effect of corporate social responsibility perceptions towards organizational citizenship behavior for the environment (Model 1)

FIGURE 3 Relationships among corporate social responsibility perceptions, organizational identification, environmental orientation fit, and
organizational citizenship behavior for the environment (Model 2)
 15353966, 2020, 1, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/csr.1769 by University Of Oslo, Wiley Online Library on [27/01/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
18 CHEEMA ET AL.

TABLE 3 Results of indirect effects with organizational identification and environmental orientation fit

95% CI

Regression paths Hypothesis tested Estimated indirect effect Lower Upper p value
a
CSR perceptions ➔ Organizational identification ➔ OCBE H4 0.343* 0.159 0.376 .000
b
CSR perceptions ➔ Environmental orientation fit ➔ OCBE H7 0.428* 0.247 0.481 .001

Abbreviations: CI, confidence interval; CSR, corporate social responsibility; OCBE, organizational citizenship behavior for the environment.
a
CMIN/DF = 1.58, GFI = 0.93, AGFI = 0.90, NFI = 0.93, RFI = 0.90, IFI = 0.98, TLI = 0.97, CFI = 0.97, and RMSEA = 0.054.
b
CMIN/DF = 1.77, GFI = 0.91, AGFI = 0.87, NFI = 0.91, RFI = 0.89, IFI = 0.96, TLI = 0.95, CFI = 0.96, and RMSEA = 0.063.
*Significant at .001 level (two tailed).

This study has further developed partial mediation model to con-
firm whether organizational identification and environmental orienta-
tion fit fully mediate the relationship between CSR perceptions and
OCBE (Sattayaraksa & Boon‐itt, 2016). By doing so, the direct path
of CSR perceptions towards OCBE was added in hypothesized model
(Figure 3) and compare its level of significance with hypothesized
model by using chi‐square difference test. Table 4 reveals the chi‐
square difference between both models (252.3 and 252.58, respec-
tively) with respect to their degrees of freedom (174 and 173), which
was Δx2(1) = 0.28, p = .55, not significant at .1 level. This indicates that
hypothesized model and partial mediation model were not signifi-
cantly different, and this direct path did not significantly added to
the hypothesized model, that is, fails to improve the fit indices of
the hypothesized model. In addition, CSR perceptions does not reveal
notable impact on OCBE (b = −0.073, p = .53) in this partial mediation
model. Thus, it should be concluded that both organizational identifi-
cation and environmental orientation fit fully mediate the relationship
among CSR perceptions and OCBE of employees.
4 | DISCUSSION
This study explores the underlying mechanisms and boundary condi-
tions that explain why and under what circumstances CSR perceptions
relate to employee's OCBE. The primary objective of this research was
to empirically examine the impact of CSR perceptions on employee's
OCBE via two important mediators' (organizational identification and
environmental orientation fit). Specifically, the present study repre-
sents one of the first attempts to examine the mediating roles of orga-
nizational identification and environmental orientation fit in the
relationship between CSR perceptions and employee's OCBE. The
findings of this research have confirmed the positive and significant
impact of CSR perceptions on employee's OCBE, which are consistent
with prior studies (Luu, 2017; Tuan, 2018). The research findings also
supported the positive and significant influence of CSR perceptions on
both organizational identification and environmental orientation fit.
The results of these hypotheses are consistent with the findings of
previous literature (Afsar et al., 2018; Brammer, He, & Mellahi, 2015;
Wells et al., 2015).
In addition, results about the direct impact of organizational identi-
fication and environmental orientation fit on OCBE are also positive
and significant. These hypotheses results are also consistent with the
findings of existing literature (Wells et al., 2015). This study has fur-
ther tested the organizational identification and environmental orien-
tation fit as mediator on the linkage among CSR perceptions and
employee's OCBE. The mediation hypotheses findings of this research
also revealed that organizational identification and environmental ori-
entation fit both positively intervenes the association among CSR per-
ceptions and employee's OCBE.
This research contributes to the micro‐CSR literature by showing
that CSR's perceptions enhance employees' OCBE. Despite the
amount of research examining CSR, few studies have stressed the
importance of CSR policies in affecting employees' attitudes and
behaviors at work (Aguinis & Glavas, 2012). This study confirms that
an employee's perception about corporate's CSR policy is positively
associated with his/her engagement in voluntary and discretionary
behaviors directed towards the environment. Another important con-
tribution of this study is that instead of examining only the direct link
between perceived CSR and employee's voluntary pro‐environmental
behaviors (Luu, 2017), green and sustainable behaviors (Tuan, 2018),
this study claims that organizational identification and environmental
orientation fit mediate the link between CSR and OCBE. Therefore,

TABLE 4 Comparison between hypothesized model and partial mediation model

Model comparison test

Model x2 (df) Δx2 Δdf

a
Hypothesized model: CSR perceptions ➔ Organizational identification ➔ OCBE, 252.3 (174)
and CSR perceptions ➔ Environmental orientation fit ➔ OCBE
b
Partial mediation model: CSR perceptions ➔ Organizational identification ➔ OCBE, 252.58 (173) 0.28 1
CSR perceptions ➔ Environmental orientation fit ➔ OCBE, and CSR perceptions ➔ OCBE
a
Fit Indices: CMIN/DF = 1.45, GFI = 0.91, AGFI = 0.88, NFI = 0.91, RFI = 0.89, IFI = 0.97, TLI = 0.97, CFI = 0.97, and RMSEA = 0.047.
b
Fit Indices: CMIN/DF = 1.46, GFI = 0.91, AGFI = 0.88, NFI = 0.91, RFI = 0.89, IFI = 0.97, TLI = 0.97, CFI = 0.97, and RMSEA = 0.047.

CHEEMA ET AL.
the main novelty of this research consists of shedding light on the indi-
rect mechanisms linking CSR to employees' OCBE, which is an aspect
that has been overlooked so far.”
4.1 | Managerial implications
The present research has important practical implications. The main
practical implication of this study is that in order to increase
employees' OCBE, organizations should increase their investments
in CSR initiatives. Another way to encourage OCBE among
employees is through recognizing and rewarding pro‐environmental
values and actions (Onkila, 2015). The appraisal should include
employee's own engagement in environmental practices, his/her con-
tribution to the activation of peers' pro‐environmental behaviors, and
the number and quality of eco‐initiatives. To increase awareness of
CSR activities, employees should be invited to engage in CSR activ-
ities of the organization such as picking trash or installing sensor
fountains for some poor families around the organization. Training
to enhance employee's environmental awareness and inspiring them
through role‐modeling (leaders can walk between two levels of the
building or can use double side of page for printing) can prove effec-
tive in enhancing OCBE. Managers should be aware that a mismatch
of employees' concern for the environment with the organization's
high environmental orientation can prove detrimental to OCBE, and
hence they should be careful while selecting personnel for the
organization.
4.2 | Limitations and future research
This research is subject to limitations, which suggest interesting
improvements for future research. First, more objective measures than
perceptual scales should be utilized for some current research vari-
ables. CSR can also be assessed through strategy implementation
reports from organizations. Employee OCBE can also be gauged
through an individual performance indicator. Additionally, self‐
reported data could be exposed to CMV risk (Podsakoff, MacKenzie,
Lee, & Podsakoff, 2003). Second, to increase generalizability of the
study, it should be tested in other cultural contexts. Third, because this
study did not control for type of industry and company, future
research should, thus, explore the effects of the macroeconomic vari-
ables on individual outcomes relying on a theoretical and multilevel
empirical model.
ORCID
Sadia Cheema https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6411-8284
RE FE R ENC E S
Afsar, B., & Badir, Y. (2017). Workplace spirituality, perceived organiza-
tional support and innovative work behavior: The mediating effects
of person‐organization fit. Journal of Workplace Learning, 29(2),
95–109. https://doi.org/10.1108/JWL‐11‐2015‐0086
Afsar, B., Cheema, S., & Javed, F. (2018). Activating employee's pro‐
environmental behaviors: The role of CSR, organizational identification,
15353966, 2020, 1, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/csr.1769 by University Of Oslo, Wiley Online Library on [27/01/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
19
and environmentally specific servant leadership. Corporate Social
Responsibility and Environmental Management, 25(5), 904–911.
https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.1506
Aguinis, H. (2011). Organizational responsibility: Doing good and doing
well. In S. Zedeck (Ed.), APA handbook of industrial and organizational
psychology, Vol 3: Maintaining, expanding, and contracting the organiza-
tion (pp. 855–879). Washington: American Psychological Association.
https://doi.org/10.1037/12171‐024
Aguinis, H., & Glavas, A. (2012). What we know and don't know about cor-
porate social responsibility: A review and research agenda. Journal of
Management, 38(4), 932–968. https://doi.org/10.1177/014920631
1436079
Ardito, L., & Dangelico, R. M. (2018). Firm environmental performance
under scrutiny: The role of strategic and organizational orientations.
Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 25,
426–440. https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.1470
Babiak, K., & Trendafilova, S. (2011). CSR and environmental responsibility:
Motives and pressures to adopt green management practices. Corpo-
rate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 18(1), 11–24.
https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.229
Banerjee, S. B. (2002). Corporate environmentalism: The construct and its
measurement. Journal of Business Research, 55(3), 177–191. https://
doi.org/10.1016/S0148‐2963(00)00135‐1
Baughn, C. C., Bodie, N. L., & McIntosh, J. C. (2007). Corporate social and
environmental responsibility in Asian countries and other geographical
regions. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management,
14(4), 189–205. https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.160
Bauman, C. W., & Skitka, L. J. (2012). Corporate social responsibility as a
source of employee satisfaction. Research in Organizational Behavior,
32, 63–86.
Baumgartner, R. J., & Winter, T. (2014). The sustainability manager: A tool
for education and training on sustainability management. Corporate
Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 21(3), 167–174.
https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.1313
Benn, S., Edwards, M., & Williams, T. (2014). Organizational change for cor-
porate sustainability. London: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/
9781315819181
Bentler, P. M. (1990). Comparative fit indexes in structural models.
Psychological Bulletin, 107(2), 238–246.
Blau, H. (1964). The impossible theater: A manifestoMacmillan.
Boiral, O., & Paillé, P. (2012). Organizational citizenship behaviour for the
environment: Measurement and validation. Journal of Business Ethics,
109(4), 431–445. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551‐011‐1138‐9
Boiral, O., Raineri, N., & Talbot, D. (2018). Managers' citizenship
behaviors for the environment: A developmental perspective. Journal
of Business Ethics, 149(2), 395–409. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551‐
016‐3098‐6
Brammer, S., He, H., & Mellahi, K. (2015). Corporate social responsibility,
employee organizational identification, and creative effort: The
moderating impact of corporate ability. Group & Organization
Management, 40(3), 323–352. https://doi.org/10.1177/
1059601114562246
Caplan, R. D., & Van Harrison, R. (1993). Person‐environment fit theory:
Some history, recent developments, and future directions. Journal of
Social Issues, 49(4), 253–275. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540‐
4560.1993.tb01192.x
Carmeli, A., Gilat, G., & Waldman, D. A. (2007). The role of perceived orga-
nizational performance in organizational identification, adjustment and
job performance. Journal of Management Studies, 44(6), 972–992.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467‐6486.2007.00691.x

20
Carroll, A. B. (1979). A three‐dimensional conceptual model of corporate
performance. Academy of Management Review, 4(4), 497–505.
https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1979.4498296
Carroll, A. B., & Shabana, K. M. (2010). The business case for corporate
social responsibility: A review of concepts, research and practice. Inter-
national Journal of Management Reviews, 12(1), 85–105. https://doi.
org/10.1111/j.1468‐2370.2009.00275.x
Dahlsrud, A. (2008). How corporate social responsibility is defined: An
analysis of 37 definitions. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environ-
mental Management, 15(1), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.132
Daily, B. F., Bishop, J. W., & Govindarajulu, N. (2009). A conceptual model
for organizational citizenship behavior directed toward the environ-
ment. Business & Society, 48(2), 243–256. https://doi.org/10.1177/
0007650308315439
De Roeck, K., El Akremi, A., & Swaen, V. (2016). Consistency matters! How
and when does corporate social responsibility affect employees' orga-
nizational identification? Journal of Management Studies, 53(7),
1141–1168. https://doi.org/10.1111/joms.12216
Farooq, O., Rupp, D. E., & Farooq, M. (2017). The multiple pathways
through which internal and external corporate social responsibility
influence organizational identification and multifoci outcomes: The
moderating role of cultural and social orientations. Academy of
Management Journal, 60(3), 954–985. https://doi.org/10.5465/
amj.2014.0849
Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models
with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Market-
ing Research, 18(1), 39–50.
Folger, R. (2001). Fairness as deonance. Theoretical and cultural perspectives
on organizational justice (pp. 3–33).
Glavas, A., & Kelley, K. (2014). The effects of perceived corporate social
responsibility on employee attitudes. Business Ethics Quarterly, 24(2),
165–202. https://doi.org/10.5840/beq20143206
Glavas, A., & Piderit, S. K. (2009). How does doing good matter? Effects of
corporate citizenship on employees. Journal of Corporate Citizenship,
(36), 51–70.
Hair, J. E., Jr., Anderson, R. E., Tatham, R. L., & Black, W. C. (1998). Multi-
variate data analysis (5th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Hansen, S. D., Dunford, B. B., Boss, A. D., Boss, R. W., & Angermeier, I.
(2011). Corporate social responsibility and the benefits of employee
trust: A cross‐disciplinary perspective. Journal of Business Ethics,
102(1), 29–45. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551‐011‐0903‐0
Hörisch, J., Kollat, J., & Brieger, S. A. (2017). What influences environmen-
tal entrepreneurship? A multilevel analysis of the determinants of
entrepreneurs' environmental orientation. Small Business Economics,
48(1), 47–69. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187‐016‐9765‐2
Jenkins, H. (2004). Corporate social responsibility and the mining industry:
Conflicts and constructs. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environ-
mental Management, 11(1), 23–34. https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.50
Jones Christensen, L., Mackey, A., & Whetten, D. (2014). Taking responsi-
bility for corporate social responsibility: The role of leaders in creating,
implementing, sustaining, or avoiding socially responsible firm behav-
iors. Academy of Management Perspectives, 28(2), 164–178. https://
doi.org/10.5465/amp.2012.0047
Jones, D. A. (2010). Does serving the community also serve the company?
Using organizational identification and social exchange theories to
understand employee responses to a volunteerism programme. Journal
of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 83(4), 857–878. https://
doi.org/10.1348/096317909X477495
Kim, Y. J., Kim, W. G., Choi, H. M., & Phetvaroon, K. (2019). The effect of
green human resource management on hotel employees' eco‐friendly
15353966, 2020, 1, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/csr.1769 by University Of Oslo, Wiley Online Library on [27/01/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
CHEEMA ET AL.
behavior and environmental performance. International Journal of Hos-
pitality Management, 76, 83–93. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
ijhm.2018.04.007
Korschun, D., Bhattacharya, C. B., & Swain, S. D. (2014). Corporate social
responsibility, customer orientation, and the job performance of front-
line employees. Journal of Marketing, 78(3), 20–37. https://doi.org/
10.1509/jm.11.0245
Kristof, A. L. (1996). Person‐organization fit: An integrative review of its con-
ceptualizations, measurement, and implications. Personnel Psychology,
49(1), 1–49. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744‐6570.1996.tb01790.x
Kuo, L., Yeh, C. C., & Yu, H. C. (2012). Disclosure of corporate social
responsibility and environmental management: Evidence from China.
Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 19(5),
273–287. https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.274
Lamm, E., Tosti‐Kharas, J., & Williams, E. G. (2013). Read this article, but
don't print it: Organizational citizenship behavior toward the environ-
ment. Group & Organization Management, 38(2), 163–197. https://doi.
org/10.1177/1059601112475210
Lee, M. D. P. (2008). A review of the theories of corporate social responsi-
bility: Its evolutionary path and the road ahead. International Journal of
Management Reviews, 10(1), 53–73.
Lin, C. P., Lyau, N. M., Tsai, Y. H., Chen, W. Y., & Chiu, C. K. (2010). Model-
ing corporate citizenship and its relationship with organizational
citizenship behaviors. Journal of Business Ethics, 95(3), 357–372.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551‐010‐0364‐x
Linnenluecke, M. K., Griffiths, A., & Winn, M. I. (2013). Firm and industry
adaptation to climate change: A review of climate adaptation studies
in the business and management field. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews:
Climate Change, 4(5), 397–416.
Luu, T. T. (2017). CSR and organizational citizenship behavior for the envi-
ronment in hotel industry: The moderating roles of corporate
entrepreneurship and employee attachment style. International Journal
of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 29(11), 2867–2900. https://
doi.org/10.1108/IJCHM‐02‐2016‐0080
Luu, T. T. (2018). Building employees' organizational citizenship behavior
for the environment: The role of environmentally‐specific servant lead-
ership and a moderated mediation mechanism. International Journal of
Contemporary Hospitality Management..
Mael, F., & Ashforth, B. E. (1992). Alumni and their alma mater: A partial
test of the reformulated model of organizational identification. Journal
of Organizational Behavior, 13(2), 103–123. https://doi.org/10.1002/
job.4030130202
Manente, M., Minghetti, V., & Mingotto, E. (2014). Responsible tourism
and CSR: Assessment systems for sustainable development of SMEs
in tourism, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978‐3‐319‐06308‐9.
Menguc, B., & Ozanne, L. K. (2005). Challenges of the “green imperative”:
A natural resource‐based approach to the environmental orientation–
business performance relationship. Journal of Business Research, 58(4),
430–438. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2003.09.002
Nishii, L. H., Lepak, D. P., & Schneider, B. (2008). Employee attributions of
the “why” of HR practices: Their effects on employee attitudes and
behaviors, and customer satisfaction. Personnel Psychology, 61(3),
503–545. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744‐6570.2008.00121.x
Norton, T. A., Parker, S. L., Zacher, H., & Ashkanasy, N. M. (2015).
Employee green behavior: A theoretical framework, multilevel review,
and future research agenda. Organization & Environment, 28(1),
103–125. https://doi.org/10.1177/1086026615575773
Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric theory. New York: McGraw‐Ha.
Onkila, T. (2015). Pride or embarrassment? Employees' emotions and cor-
porate social responsibility. Corporate Social Responsibility and

CHEEMA ET AL.
Environmental Management, 22(4), 222–236. https://doi.org/10.1002/
csr.1340
Organ, D. W. (1997). Organizational citizenship behavior: It's construct
clean‐up time. Human Performance, 10(2), 85–97. https://doi.org/
10.1207/s15327043hup1002_2
Paillé, P., & Mejía‐Morelos, J. H. (2014). Antecedents of pro‐environmental
behaviours at work: The moderating influence of psychological con-
tract breach. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 38, 124–131.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2014.01.004
Park, S. J., Choi, S., & Kim, E. J. (2012). The relationships between socio‐
demographic variables and concerns about environmental sustainabil-
ity. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management,
19(6), 343–354. https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.284
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J. Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003).
Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of
the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychol-
ogy, 88(5), 879–903. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021‐9010.88.5.879
Podsakoff, P. M., & Organ, D. W. (1986). Self-reports in organizational
research: Problems and prospects. Journal of Management, 12(4), 531–544.
Reverte, C. (2012). The impact of better corporate social responsibility dis-
closure on the cost of equity capital. Corporate Social Responsibility and
Environmental Management, 19(5), 253–272. https://doi.org/10.1002/
csr.273
Rupp, D. E., Ganapathi, J., Aguilera, R. V., & Williams, C. A. (2006).
Employee reactions to corporate social responsibility: An organiza-
tional justice framework. Journal of Organizational Behavior: The
International Journal of Industrial, Occupational and Organizational Psy-
chology and Behavior, 27(4), 537–543.
Rupp, D. E., Shao, R., Thornton, M. A., & Skarlicki, D. P. (2013). Applicants'
and employees' reactions to corporate social responsibility: The moder-
ating effects of first‐party justice perceptions and moral identity.
Personnel Psychology, 66(4), 895–933. https://doi.org/10.1111/
peps.12030
Rupp, D. E., Wright, P. M., Aryee, S., & Luo, Y. (2015). Organizational jus-
tice, behavioral ethics, and corporate social responsibility: Finally the
three shall merge. Management and Organization Review, 11(1),
15–24. https://doi.org/10.1017/mor.2015.8
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivations: Classic
definitions and new directions. Contemporary Educational Psychology,
25(1), 54–67. https://doi.org/10.1006/ceps.1999.1020
Sarkar, R. (2008). Public policy and corporate environmental behavior: A
broader view. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Man-
agement, 15(5), 281–297. https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.167
Sattayaraksa, T., & Boon‐itt, S. (2016). CEO transformational leadership
and the new product development process: The mediating roles of
organizational learning and innovation culture. Leadership & Organiza-
tion Development Journal, 37(6), 730–749.
Smith, A. M., & O'Sullivan, T. (2012). Environmentally responsible behav-
iour in the workplace: An internal social marketing approach. Journal
of Marketing Management, 28(3–4), 469–493. https://doi.org/
10.1080/0267257X.2012.658837
15353966, 2020, 1, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/csr.1769 by University Of Oslo, Wiley Online Library on [27/01/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
21
Steenkamp, J. E. M., & Gielens, K. (2003). Consumer and market drivers of
the trial probability of new consumer packaged goods. Journal of
Consumer Research, 30(3), 368–384.
Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. (1986). The social identity theory of intergroup
behaviour. In S. Worchel, & W. G. Austin (Eds.), Psychology of intergroup
relations. Chicago: Nelson Hall.
Testa, F., Gusmerottia, N. M., Corsini, F., Passetti, E., & Iraldo, F. (2016).
Factors affecting environmental management by small and micro firms:
The importance of entrepreneurs' attitudes and environmental invest-
ment. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management,
23(6), 373–385. https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.1382
Tian, Q., & Robertson, J. L. (2017). How and when does perceived CSR
affect employees' engagement in voluntary pro‐environmental behav-
ior? Journal of Business Ethics, 1–14.
Tosti‐Kharas, J., Lamm, E., & Thomas, T. E. (2017). Organization OR
environment? Disentangling employees' rationales behind organiza-
tional citizenship behavior for the environment. Organization &
Environment, 30(3), 187–210. https://doi.org/10.1177/
1086026616668381
Tuan, L. T. (2018). Activating tourists' citizenship behavior for the environ-
ment: The roles of CSR and frontline employees' citizenship behavior
for the environment. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 26(7),
1178–1203. https://doi.org/10.1080/09669582.2017.1330337
Turker, D. (2009). Measuring corporate social responsibility: A scale devel-
opment study. Journal of Business Ethics, 85(4), 411–427. https://doi.
org/10.1007/s10551‐008‐9780‐6
Upham, S. P. (2006). A model for giving: The effect of corporate charity on
employees. Journal of Corporate Citizenship, 2006(22), 81–90. https://
doi.org/10.9774/GLEAF.4700.2006.su.00010
Vallaster, C. (2017). Managing a company crisis through strategic corporate
social responsibility: A practice‐based analysis. Corporate Social Respon-
sibility and Environmental Management, 24(6), 509–523. https://doi.
org/10.1002/csr.1424
Wells, V. K., Manika, D., Gregory‐Smith, D., Taheri, B., & McCowlen, C.
(2015). Heritage tourism, CSR and the role of employee environmental
behaviour. Tourism Management, 48, 399–413. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.tourman.2014.12.015
Zink, K. J. (2005). Stakeholder orientation and corporate social responsibil-
ity as a precondition for sustainability. Total Quality Management and
Business Excellence, 16(8–9), 1041–1052. https://doi.org/10.1080/
14783360500163243
How to cite this article: Cheema S, Afsar B, Javed F.
Employees' corporate social responsibility perceptions and
organizational citizenship behaviors for the environment: The
mediating roles of organizational identification and environ-
mental orientation fit. Corp Soc Resp Env Ma. 2020;27:9–21.
https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.1769