Journal of Environmental Psychology 92 (2023) 102181

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Environmental Psychology

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

Environmentally specific transformational leadership and employee green

attitude and behavior: An affective events theory perspective
Rimsha Iqbal a, *, Khurram Shahzad a, Magda B.L. Donia b
a
Faculty of Management Sciences, Riphah International University, Islamabad, Pakistan
b
Telfer Business School, University of Ottawa, Canada

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

Handling Editor: W. Schultz Purpose: Although environmental psychology research acknowledges the strategic role of leadership in shaping
employee green outcomes for environmental sustainability, little is known about the role of environmentally
Keywords: specific transformational leadership (ETFL). Drawing on affective events theory (AET) we examined the medi­
Environmentally specific transformational ating role of harmonious environmental passion (HEP), and the moderating role of proactive personality (PP), on
leadership
the relationship between ETFL and employee environmental commitment (ECC) and organizational citizenship
Harmonious environmental passion
behavior towards the environment (OCBE).
Employee environmental commitment
Organizational citizenship behavior towards Design/methodology/approach: Time-lagged and multisource survey data were collected from 251 subordinate-
environment supervisor dyads working in manufacturing companies.
Proactive personality Findings: The results indicate that HEP mediates the positive relationship between ETFL and ECC and OCBE.
Affective events theory However, the combined effect of ETFL and PP on HEP was not significant. But the indirect effect of ETFL was
conditional on levels of PP.
Originality/value: Our study provides theoretical and practical insights by investigating the underlying mecha­
nism of HEP in the relationship between ETFL and employee green outcomes. Importantly, our findings illu­
minate role of proactivity among employees’ personality in these relationships.

1. Introduction depend entirely on these strategies. Rather, it is now increasingly

According to “Global Climate Risk Index 2020”, environmental
problems such as global warming, unprecedented climate change, water
shortages, and bio-diversity reduction pose a grand challenge to devel­
oped and developing countries alike (Eckstein et al., 2019, pp. 1–50). In
a recent report by Global Sustainable Development (2019), the UN
Secretary-General acknowledges we are not on track to achieve the
Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) by 2030. In light of this,
responsible governments and organizations of advanced and emerging
countries have reached a consensus to respond to this challenge by
inculcating environmental concerns such as preserving the natural
environment in their agendas (Han et al., 2019; Mi et al., 2019). Ac­
cording to Graafland and Bovenberg (2020), although various envi­
ronmental strategies, systems and regulations have been implemented
by organizations in response to these environmental challenges, these
formalized structures are inadequate in handling complicated environ­
mental problems in the workplace. Interestingly, it is now argued that
the environmental sustainability performance of companies cannot
acknowledged that employees’ eco-friendly attitudes and behaviors
such as employee environmental commitment (ECC) and their organi­
zational citizenship behavior for the environment (OCBE) have an
important role to play (Yuriev et al., 2018; Zhao et al., 2019). This in­
dicates that employees’ pro-environmental attitudes and behaviors are
increasingly recognized as having an important strategic role in
addressing environmental concerns in the workplace (Biswas et al.,
2022; Prasetya et al., 2020).
Along with organizational policies and employees’ characteristics,
leadership behavior is a significant determinant of employees’ green
attitude and behavior (Cheng et al., 2021; Faraz et al., 2021; Khan &
Khan, 2022; Norton et al., 2015; Zhao & Zhou, 2019). Transformational
leadership behavior has received significant attention and extensive
recognition in the extant literature as effective in positively impacting
desired employee behaviors (Hoch et al., 2018). As a result, scholars
increasingly focus on more specific transformational leadership styles,
such as focusing on occupational safety (Barling et al., 2002; Smith et al.,
2020) and environment-related behaviors (Cui et al., 2023; Robertson &

* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: rimsha.iqbal@riphah.edu.pk (R. Iqbal), khurram.shahzad@riphah.edu.pk (K. Shahzad), donia@telfer.uottawa.ca (M.B.L. Donia).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2023.102181
Received 7 June 2023; Received in revised form 26 October 2023; Accepted 29 October 2023
Available online 7 November 2023
0272-4944/© 2023 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
R. Iqbal et al.
Carleton, 2018) in predicting specific safety and environmental out­
comes respectively. In the domain of environmental management, focus
on the examination of environmentally specific transformational lead­
ership (ETFL) is substantially significant. However, a theory-driven
empirical examination of the direct and indirect influence of ETFL in
predicting employees’ eco-friendly attitudes and discretionary behav­
iors is unexplored.
This study contributes to the emerging field of environmental man­
agement by extending the literature on the consequences of ETFL (Li
et al., 2020) and predictors of OCBE (Khan et al., 2019) by investigating
the impact of ETFL on ECC and OCBE through the lens of affective events
theory (AET; Weiss & Cropanzano, 1996). Since its introduction in 1996,
AET remains one of the most relied upon theories in psychology, orga­
nizational behavior, and management (Ashton-James & Ashkanasy,
2005; Cropanzano et al., 2017; Glasø, Vie, Holmdal, & Einarsen, 2010,
Russell-Bennett et al., 2011; Russell & Eisenberg, 2012) explaining the
role of emotions (affect) on workplace attitudes and behaviors. The
theory offers a comprehensive and well-structured framework detailing
how everyday work events impact employees’ emotions and in turn,
their behaviors (Weiss & Beal, 2005). According to Weiss & Cropanzano,
1996, AETs central idea is that, depending on employees’ dispositions,
workplace conditions that are perceived as either supporting or hin­
dering their well-being can lead to daily experiences in the form of
uplifts or hassles. The five types of affective workplace events are
aversive work conditions, group dynamics, leaders, physical settings,
and organizational rewards and punishments (Brief & Weiss, 2002).
These daily experiences can trigger emotional responses, including
various moods, feelings, and emotions, among employees. These
emotional responses, in turn, have an impact on their attitudes and
behaviors. Thus, according to AET, employees’ exposure to positive
workplace events like ETFL may serve as a daily uplift which will
positively affect their green commitment and OCBE (Weiss & Cro­
panzano, 1996). Environmentally focused transformational leaders are
anticipated to create an eco-conscious work environment through their
environmentally inspired influence, environmentally motivated inspi­
ration, environmentally stimulating intellectual engagement, and envi­
ronmentally tailored consideration. This is expected to enhance
employees’ attachment to workplace environmental concerns which in
turn, is anticipated to inspire employees to engage in eco-friendly ac­
tions (such as recycling, disposing of waste in bins, voluntary involve­
ment in green projects and inspiring peers to care about the
environment) to preserve the natural environment (Kura, 2016; Raineri
& Paillé, 2016; Robertson & Barling, 2013).
Second, our study contributes to the existing literature by expanding
our understanding of the connection between ETFL and employee green
outcomes by exploring the underlying affective mechanism known as
harmonious environmental passion (HEP). Several studies have reported
that HEP reflects intense positive emotion for environmental sustain­
ability that stimulates a person to engage in eco-friendly behaviors (Jia
et al., 2018; Luu, 2022; Robertson & Barling, 2013). These studies
further highlight that employees with high levels of HEP are more likely
to devote their time and energy to environmental activities, provide
valuable suggestions for environmental preservation, and actively
engage in the discussion and subsequent implementation. According to
Judge and Ilies (2004), fluctuations in emotions serve as a primary
source of change in employees’ attitudes and behaviors. Prior studies
also found that spiritual, transformational, and environmental trans­
formational leadership predict passion for the environment (Afsar et al.,
2016; Jia et al., 2018; Li et al., 2020) and in turn, passion has been found
to inspire citizenship behaviors such as taking an active role in envi­
ronmental preservation (Rastogi, 2013). Therefore, consistent with AET,
we explore the underlying mechanism of HEP in the relationship be­
tween ETFL and ECC and OCBE, which remains relatively unexplored in
the environmental management literature. This knowledge is also ex­
pected to provide a valuable contribution to practice by providing in­
sights to managers on how to inspire their subordinates’ attitudes and
2
Journal of Environmental Psychology 92 (2023) 102181
behaviors that help reduce their organizations’ carbon footprints.
Finally, this study contributes to our understanding of when ETFL
may trigger HEP among employees that leads to eco-friendly attitudes
and behavior, which is expected to in turn reduce organizations’ carbon
footprint. In line with Ababneh’s (2021) assertion that a personality trait
characterized by identifying opportunities and bringing about mean­
ingful change in the environment is required to execute eco-friendly
behavior, we consider the contingent effect of proactive personality
(PP) between ETFL and HEP. Thus, drawing on affective events theory
we also explore the combined effect of ETFL and PP on HEP among
employees. In doing so, this study highlights that the mere imple­
mentation of ETFL at the workplace might not be enough to nurture
employee environmental passion; it is the combination of contextual and
individual factors that may drive employees’ intense positive emotions
for environmental sustainability. Additionally, based on the guidelines
of Edwards and Lambert (2007), it is also expected that the indirect
effect of ETFL on ECC and OCBE is conditional on levels of PP of
employees.
In summary, our study addresses the following research questions: 1)
What is the impact of environmentally specific transformational lead­
ership (ETFL) on employee environmental commitment (EEC) and
organizational citizenship behavior for the environment (OCBE)? 2) Is
the relationship between ETFL, EEC, and OCBE mediated by harmonious
environmental passion (HEP)? 3) Does a proactive personality (PP)
moderate the relationship between ETFL and HEP? 4) Is the indirect
effect of ETFL on EEC and OCBE through HEP conditional on levels of
PP? Fig. 1 shows the hypothesized model.
2. Theoretical background and hypotheses development
2.1. ETFL, EEC and OCBE
Given widespread and substantial recognition of generalized trans­
formational leadership in generating positive employee outcomes, there
is increasing focus on domain-specific transformational leadership such
as safety-specific transformational leadership and environmentally
specific transformational leadership (ETFL; Barling et al., 2002; Rob­
ertson & Barling, 2013). In the context of generating important envi­
ronmental employee outcomes, the concept of ETFL was first presented
by Robertson and Barling (2013). They defined ETFL as a trans­
formational leadership that emphasizes on eco issues by stimulating the
environmental actions of employees or organizations (Robertson &
Barling, 2013; Roberston, 2018). The four dimensions of ETFL are
environmental idealized influence, environmental inspirational moti­
vation, environmental intellectual stimulation, and environmental
individualized consideration. Firstly, environmental idealized influence
portrays leadership behavior, which serves as a role model by guiding
employees to what is ideal, sharing eco-friendly ideas, demonstrating
moral commitment toward followers, and demonstrating appreciation
toward employees who take action for environmental sustainability.
Secondly, leaders enacting environmental inspirational motivation
encourage employees to persist despite psychological setbacks, to
overcome their self-interest for the common good and to work in an
eco-friendly manner. Thirdly, transformational leaders exhibiting high
environmental intellectual stimulation cultivate critical thinking among
employees for environmental issues and inspire them to address envi­
ronmental issues innovatively. Lastly, leaders exhibiting high environ­
mental individualized consideration show great concern for employees’
well-being by establishing a closer relationship with them and assisting
them in developing the required potential and skills for environmental
sustainability (Robertson & Barling, 2013).
In the environmental sustainability context, EEC refers to an attitude
that incorporates strong attachment and sense of responsibility towards
environmental issues in the workplace (Afsar & Umrani, 2020). In line
with previous research identifying a positive relationship between
generalized transformational leadership and EEC (Goffnett, 2018; Zhang
R. Iqbal et al.
Fig. 1. Hypothesized research model.
et al., 2021b), we believe ETFL may be even more beneficial for the
development of EEC. For instance, we expect that environmentally
specific transformational leaders with environmental individualized
consideration stimulate a sense of responsibility towards eco issues
among employees through detailed guidance (Fu et al., 2010; Zhang
et al., 2021b). Further, the high environmental intellectual stimulation
provided by transformational leaders is expected to motivate employees
to experience and demonstrate intense attachment and concern for the
environmental problems of organizations and innovatively attempt to
address them. Thus, when leaders send clear signals about their
commitment to protect the environment which triggers a sense of
environmental responsibility among employees and in turn, leads to a
likely engagement in environmental affairs (Graves et al., 2013; Raineri
& Paillé, 2016). Lastly, transformational leaders with high environ­
mental idealized influence encourage employees to come up with
eco-friendly ideas and work for environmental sustainability (Schmitt
et al., 2016), which is expected to result in employees’ taking re­
sponsibility and exhibiting a strong attachment towards environmental
concerns in the workplace. Hence following is hypothesized:
H1a. ETFL is positively related to EEC.
Since Boiral (2009) first proposed the construct of organizational
citizenship behavior for the environment (OCBE), it has increasingly
been the focus of research given the plausible explanation it provides for
understanding employees’ eco-friendly behaviors. Boiral and Paillé
(2012) defined OCBE as a voluntary behavior, which is not explicitly
recognized by an organization but contributes to environmental per­
formance. The three dimensions of OCBE are eco-helping, eco-civic
engagement, and eco-initiatives. First, eco-initiatives such as recycling
and putting waste in bins are those initiatives that are taken by em­
ployees to overcome the negative influence on the environment at the
workplace. Second, eco-civic engagement includes initiatives taken by
employees such as voluntary participation in green activities and green
projects created by the organization. Finally, eco-helping includes the
initiatives of employees in which they encourage their colleagues to care
about the environment.
Although past studies have found conventional styles of leadership
such as transformational, ethical, responsible, and spiritual as anteced­
ents of OCBE (Anser et al., 2021; Khan & Khan, 2022; Zhang et al.,
2021a; Zhao & Zhou, 2019), we expect that ETFL will be a significantly
stronger predictor of OCBE because ETFL encompasses specific envi­
ronmental components such as environmental idealized influence,
environmental inspirational motivation, environmental intellectual
stimulation, and environmental individualized consideration. These are
instrumental in driving leaders’ behavior to motivate employees to­
wards demonstrating extra-role green behavior that includes exhibiting
eco-helping, participating in eco-civic engagement, and undertaking
eco-initiatives. According to Li et al. (2020), ETFL encourages
3
Journal of Environmental Psychology 92 (2023) 102181
employees to exhibit pro-environmental behavior beyond the call of
duty. For instance, transformational leaders high on environmental
inspirational motivation encourage employees’ eco-friendly actions and
promote eco-civic engagement in the workplace by supporting them to
actively attain environmental objectives beyond organizational expec­
tations (Bass & Riggio, 2006). In doing so, environmentally specific
transformational leaders inspire their employees’ extra-role behavior
when they engage in initiatives aimed at protecting the environment (Li
et al., 2020). Similarly, transformational leaders’ environmental intel­
lectual stimulation contributes to their organizations by cultivating an
eco-friendly climate which in turn stimulates green thinking among
employees (Chen & Chang, 2013; Tosti-Kharas, Lamm, & Thomas,
2017). Further, due to their environmental individualized consider­
ation, transformational leaders show great care towards employees and
maintain a close relationship with them. Moreover, these trans­
formational leaders eventually transmit their environmental values to
employees and encourage them to engage in voluntary tasks that
contribute to environmental performance (Kura, 2016). Hence the
following can be hypothesized:
H1b. ETFL is positively related with employee OCBE.
2.2. Mediating role of HEP
Robertson and Barling (2013) conceptualized harmonious environ­
mental passion (HEP) as a positive emotion that stimulates a person to
engage in environment-friendly activities. Afsar et al. (2016) stated that
a person who expresses passion for environmental sustainability not
only executes pro-environmental behaviors but also recognizes oneself
as an environmentalist. Grounded in AET (Weiss & Cropanzano, 1996),
which explains how affective events generated through the work envi­
ronment impact employee affective responses, we theorize HEP to be a
key emotional response mediating the relationship between ETFL and
our two outcomes of interest; employee environmental commitment and
OCBE. ETFL as a specific affective event employs four potential behav­
ioral strategies to evoke emotional responses in employees in the form of
HEP (Li et al., 2020). Firstly, leaders high on environmental idealized
influence serve as charismatic role models for employees with an intense
passion for protecting the environment (Kura, 2016). Thus, we expect
that due to their strong emotional identification with these charismatic
leaders, employees then demonstrate more willingness to understand
the green goals pursued by their leaders and eventually enact positive
affective responses towards environmental activities (Gumusluoglu &
Ilsev, 2009; Walumbwa et al., 2008). Further, by demonstrating envi­
ronmental inspirational motivation and environmental intellectual
stimulation, leaders provide employees with opportunities to challenge
traditional values and beliefs, boost their confidence, and actively solve
environmental protection challenges with innovative solutions (Jia
R. Iqbal et al. Journal of Environmental Psychology 92 (2023) 102181

et al., 2018; Robertson, 2018). Through these actions, these leaders’ have less of a tendency to sense problems and opportunities around
subordinates are more likely to surpass their personal interests for the them (Mubarak et al., 2021), and in turn, are less likely to be positively
fulfillment of their organizations’ responsibility toward the environment influenced by leaders’ environmental inspirational motivation, intel­
and thus, eventually ignite employees’ environmental passion (Shun­ lectual stimulation, and individualized consideration. Thus, the inter­
long & Weiming, 2012). Lastly, support in terms of caring and mentoring action of proactive personality and ETFL motivates employees to engage
received by employees from leaders high on environmental individual­ in eco-friendly activities, triggering stronger positive emotions among
ized consideration, arouses green work enthusiasm and harmonious employees for environmental sustainability. As a result, we believe that
passion for environmental activities (Judge & Piccolo, 2004). the positive association of leaders’ ETFL with followers’ HEP is
Vallerand et al. (2007) noted that passion triggers strong feelings strengthened when employees have highly proactive personalities.
toward an activity; people like it, consider it significant, and invest time Further, eco-friendly discretionary attitude (EEC) and behavior (OCBE)
and vigor into it. Thus, we expect that HEP as a positive emotional can also be demonstrated by employees with highly proactive person­
experience activates employees’ ingenious emotional state and vigor to alities. Thus, based on the premise of AET, the present study postulates
engage in eco-friendly activities by exhibiting pro-environmental atti­ that ETFL as an affective event along with a strong proactive personality
tudes and behaviors. AET (Weiss & Cropanzano, 1996) provides sturdy stimulates affective response among employees in the form of HEP. This
guidelines to elucidate the link between HEP, employee environmental passion then encourages individuals to exhibit environment-friendly
commitment, and OCBE. According to the premise of AET, workplace attitude and behavior. In line with the above, we expect that:
attitudes and behaviors are influenced by affective responses. Thus,
H3. The relationship between ETFL and HEP is stronger in the case of
based on this key principle it is proposed that employees who demon­
employees with highly PP.
strate intense positive emotions to engage in eco-friendly activities have
So far, we have suggested a moderated mediation model in which
a greater tendency to experience intense attachment and obligation to­
HEP mediates the direct effect of ETFL on EEC and OCBE and proactive
wards environmental issues in the form of environmental commitment.
personality moderates the relationship between ETFL and HEP. Building
This argument is consistent with the findings of Ho et al. (2011), which
on the first stage moderation logic in a mediation model by Edwards and
endorsed that people are more inclined to spend time and energy in
Lambert (2007), we assume that proactive personality also moderates
activities that they find pleasant and enjoyable. Moreover, passion has
the strength of the HEP-mediated relationship between ETFL, EEC and
been found to have a strong positive association with employee
OCBE. Thus, we further hypothesize that:
commitment (e.g. Forest et al., 2011; Permarupan et al., 2013). Further,
Perrewe et al. (2014) also stated that positive emotional experiences H3a. Proactive personality moderates the indirect effect of ETFL on
such as HEP stimulate individuals to strive to make a difference. The EEC through HEP such that the indirect effect is stronger for employees
focus on eco-helping and eco-civic engagement of motivated individuals with a high PP.
leads to efforts toward reducing the organization’s carbon footprint by
H3b. Proactive personality moderates the indirect effect of ETFL on
voluntarily exhibiting eco-friendly initiatives, as well as also encour­
OCBE through HEP such that the indirect effect is stronger for employees
aging their colleagues to do the same (Afsar & Umrani, 2020; Li et al.,
with a high PP.
2020). Thus, drawing on AET we argue that ETFL as an affective event
triggers employees’ HEP which further elicits their environmental
3. Methodology
commitment and OCBE. In line with the above, we expect that:
H2a. ETFL and EEC relationship is mediated by HEP. 3.1. Participants and data collection
H2b. ETFL and employee OCBE relationship is mediated by HEP.
Surveys were used to collect data from employees employed in the
manufacturing sector. We focused on this industry as it tends to be a
2.3. Moderating role of PP
major source of environmental pollution, requiring that its management
activities be evaluated and monitored critically (Rehman et al., 2020).
According to Bateman and Crant (1993), proactive personality refers
Personal and professional contacts of the first author allowed access to
to “the relatively stable tendency to effect environmental change” (p.
six firms operating in the textile, packaging, fertilizer, and pharmaceu­
103). Proactive employees are not constrained by situational pressures,
tical sectors of Pakistan located in Faisalabad, Lahore, Rawalpindi and
and instead, challenge the prevailing circumstances and can affect
Islamabad. Firms were selected based on the following criteria: having a
change by identifying and exploiting opportunities. Thus, a proactive
publicly declared formal corporate social responsibility policy and
personality is a behavioral tendency of trait-level that may be regarded
having ISO 14001 certification which means that they followed the in­
as a complex and diverse interaction between an individual and his/her
ternational standard that specifies requirements for an effective envi­
environment (Crant & Bateman, 2000). AET posits that discrete affective
ronmental management system (EMS). Because of the non-availability
events and personality traits reinforce each other leading to stronger
of complete employee listings, the convenience sampling technique was
affective responses. Thus, based on this premise of AET, we believe that
used to recruit participants for the survey. Participation was voluntary,
a proactive personality is likely to interact with ETFL to intensify em­
informed consent was obtained, and confidentiality was assured to the
ployees’ positive emotions for environmental sustainability in the
respondents.
following ways. First, highly proactive employees while being led by
Following the guidelines of Podsakoff et al. (2003) to rule out the
environmentally inspired and intellectually stimulating leaders are more
threat of common method bias (CMB), data were collected from re­
likely to think out of the box when addressing environmental challenges.
spondents at three different times that were each six weeks apart.
Further, these employees are also inclined to develop cognitive pro­
Similar approach was followed in past studies like Hussain and Shahzad
cesses related to eco-friendly ideas toward attaining environmental
(2022), At T1 the items measuring ETFL, proactive personality, and data
objectives (Chen & Chang, 2013; Gong et al., 2009). Second, employees
about demographics were included in the survey. The survey at T2
who have a high score on proactive personality are also more inclined to
included items measuring harmonious environmental passion, and the
readily internalize the guidance provided by their environmentally
survey at T3 included items measuring employee environmental
specific transformational leaders. This autonomous imitation of their
commitment and OCBE. All study variables were self-reported by em­
leader’s expressions and actions directed at environmental sustainabil­
ployees except OCBE which was supervisor reported. Employees were
ity in turn is expected to lead these employees to experience stronger
allotted unique identification codes to keep their information confi­
congruent emotions such as harmonious environmental passion. In
dential and for matching responses of T2 and T3. Names of employees
contrast, employees who have a lower score on proactive personality

4
R. Iqbal et al. Journal of Environmental Psychology 92 (2023) 102181

were shared only with their supervisors in T3 who rated their OCBE.
Given that the official language of Pakistan is English, the surveys were
administered in English which is consistent with prior studies conducted
in Pakistan, and were not translated into any local dialect (e.g., Donia
et al., 2016; Shahzad et al., 2022). A total of 251 employees and 36
supervisors participated and completed the survey forms in full. Among
the respondents, 53.4% were males and 46.6% were females. 39.8% of
respondents were aged between 26 and 30 years. More than half of the
respondents were married (60.6%) and nearly half the respondents had
a master’s degree (46.2 %). 39% of the respondents had 1–5 years of
experience and 42.6% of respondents had 1–5 years of job tenure in their
current organization.
3.2. Measures
A 7-point Likert response scale with the anchors 1 = strongly
disagree and 7 = strongly agree was used to measure the responses of all
variables.
3.2.1. Environmentally specific transformational leadership (ETFL)
ETFL was measured using a twelve-item scale developed by Rob­
ertson (2018). A sample item is “My leader acts as an environmental role
model.” The alpha reliability of this scale was .87.
3.2.2. Harmonious environmental passion (HEP)
A 10-item scale by Robertson and Barling (2013) was used to mea­
sure HEP. A sample item is “I am passionate about the environment.”
The alpha reliability of this instrument was 0.84.
3.2.3. Employee environmental commitment (ECC)
A 8-item scale of Raineri and Paillé (2016) was used to measure
employee environmental commitment. A sample item is “I really care
about the environmental concern of my company. The alpha reliability
of this scale was 0.85”.
3.2.4. Organizational citizenship behavior towards the environment
(OCBE)
OCBE was measured using a 10-item scale developed by Boiral and
Paillé (2012). A sample item is “In work, this subordinate weighs the
consequences of his/her actions before doing something that could
affect the environment (e.g., turn off light when leaving office, put
recycle material in proper bins).” The alpha reliability of this scale was
0.87.
under the 50% threshold (Podsakoff et al., 2003). Further, as some of the
correlations are high, we calculated variance inflation factor (VIF) sta­
tistics to rule out the threat of multicollinearity. Results show that there
is no issue of multicollinearity in our data because the value of VIF is less
than 3.3 (Kock, 2015).
4.2. Correlation analysis
Table 1 depicts the inter-correlations among the five study con­
structs. Results indicate that ETFL has a significant positive association
with HEP (r = 0.51, p < .00), employee environmental commitment (r
= 0.62, p < .00) and employee OCBE (r = 0.53, p < .00) respectively.
Table 1 also indicates that HEP has a strong positive association with
employee environmental commitment (r = .72, p < .00) and employee
OCBE (r = 0.69, p < .00) respectively.
4.3. Evaluation of measurement model
The quality of a measurement model comprised of the five constructs
(i.e., ETFL, HEP, proactive personality EEC, and OCBE) was assessed
through confirmatory factor analysis (Anderson & Gerbing, 1988). Re­
sults presented in Fig. 2 show that all loadings of latent variables that
exceeded the recommended value of 0.60 were retained because they
support content validity. Seven items including one item of ETFL (i.e.,
ETFL10), two items of HEP (i.e., HEP1 & HEP3), three items of proactive
personality (i.e., PP1, PP3 & PP4) and one item of OCBE (i.e., OCBE3)
were deleted because their loading fell below the minimum threshold
(0.60). However, HEP2 with loading slightly <0.60 was retained
because the validity of the measurement model was not compromised
due to the presence of this indicator.
Three indices - composite reliability (CR), internal consistency and
average variance extracted (AVE) - were used to determine convergent
validity. Results reported in Table 2 show that for each latent variable
the estimated values of internal consistency (alpha values) and CR is >
0.70. Further, as AVE is < 0.50 but composite reliability is > 0.60
therefore, the convergent validity is established as recommended by
Fornell & Larcker, 1981.
The discriminant validity of measures was determined through
Heterotrait-Monotrait (HTMT) ratio. As the estimated values of HTMT
ratio of constructs is less than 0.90 (see Table 3), therefore all constructs
achieved discriminant validity (Henseler et al., 2015).
4.4. Evaluation of structural model (hypotheses testing)

3.2.5. Proactive personality (PP) 4.4.1. Mediation analysis

Proactive personality was measured using a 10-item scale adopted The main effect hypotheses (H1a and H1b) and the indirect effect
from Seibert et al. (1999). A sample item is “I am constantly on the hypotheses (H2a and H2b) were tested using Partial Least Squares (PLS)
lookout for new ways to improve my life.” The alpha reliability of the bootstrapping technique. Results reported in Table 4 show that ETFL
instrument was 0.80. positively impacts employee environmental commitment (β = 0.63, p <
.00), and thus, H1a is supported. Further, the indirect effect (0.28) of
3.3. Data analysis harmonious environmental passion (HEP) between ETFL and employee
environmental commitment is significant (see Table 4). Thus, we
The data was analyzed using structural equation modeling (SEM)
comprising of the structural model and the measurement model. The Table 1
measurement model was assessed by using confirmatory factor analysis Descriptive stats and inter-correlations.
(CFA) through Partial Least Squares (PLS) technique (Hair et al., 2011).
Constructs Mean Std. Dev. ETFL HEP PP EEC OCBE
The bootstrapping method was used to examine the direct, indirect, and
moderating effects of the structural model. ETFL 5.91 .62 (.87)
HEP 5.95 .67 .51* (.84)
PP 5.90 .62 .54* .63* (.80)
4. Results EEC 5.93 .65 .62* .72* .64* (.85)
OCBE 5.89 .69 .53* .69* .74* .73* (.87)
4.1. Common method bias and multicollinearity analysis Notes: n = 251, Diagonal values are alpha reliabilities, *p < .00, ETFL = Envi­
ronmentally specific transformational leadership; HEP = Harmonious environ­
Harman’s single factor test was performed to rule out the threat of mental passion; PP = Proactive personality; EEC = Employee environmental
common method bias (CMB). Results indicate that our data is free from commitment; OCBE = Organizational citizenship behavior towards the
CMB as the total variance extracted by a single factor is 31.50% which is environment.

5
R. Iqbal et al.
Fig. 2. Final research model.
conclude that HEP partially mediates the association between ETFL and
employee environmental commitment, supporting H2a.
Results reported in Table 4 indicate that ETFL positively influences
employee OCBE (β = 0.54, p < .00), and thus, H1b is supported. Further,
the indirect effect (0.29) of harmonious environmental passion (HEP)
between ETFL and employee OCBE is significant (see Table 4). Thus, we
conclude that HEP partially mediates the association between ETFL and
employee OCBE, hence, H2b is supported.
4.4.2. Moderation analysis
Partial Least Squares (PLS) bootstrapping technique was used to test
the H3 of the present study. Results presented in Table 4 show that the
combined effect of ETFL and proactive personality on harmonious
environmental passion was insignificant (β = − 0.07, p = .15) hence, H3
is not supported. Fig. 2 depicts the significant relationships identified in
our study.
4.4.3. Moderated mediation analysis
To examine moderated mediation H3a, we followed Edwards and
Lambert’s (2007) moderated path analysis technique. H3a anticipated
that PP moderates the indirect effect of ETFL on EEC through HEP such
that the indirect effect is stronger for employees with high PP. The re­
sults shown in Table 5 indicate that the indirect effect of ETFL on EEC via
HEP is significant on mean (β = .09, LL = 0.01, UL = 0.19) and low (− 1
SD) values (β = 0.14, LL = 0.04, UL = 0.27) of PP and insignificant on
high (+1 SD) value (β = 0.06, LL = − 0.06, UL = 0.15) of PP. Also, the
indirect effect was stronger on the low value of PP.
Further, H3b predicted that PP moderates the indirect effect of ETFL
on OCBE through HEP such that the indirect effect is stronger for em­
ployees with high PP. The results displayed in Table 5 indicate that the
indirect effect of ETFL on OCBE via HEP was significantly on mean (β =
.11, LL = 0.01, UL = 0.24) and low (− 1 SD) values (β = 0.15, LL = 0.05,
UL = 0.32) of PP and insignificant on high (+1 SD) value (β = 0.06, LL =
− 0.06, UL = 0.20) of PP. Therefore, H3a and H3b were supported to an
extent that there is conditional indirect effect of ETFL on EEC and OCBE
through HEP but in contrast to our expectations in these two hypotheses,
these indirect effects was stronger on the low value of PP and insignif­
icant on high values of PP. Fig. 2 depicts the significant relationships
identified in our study.
5. Discussion and implications
5.1. Discussion of results
Drawing on affective events theory by Weiss and Cropanzano (AET;
1996), our findings contribute to the environmental sustainability
literature by examining how ETFL influences employee green attitudes
6
Journal of Environmental Psychology 92 (2023) 102181
and behaviors through the underlying mechanism of harmonious envi­
ronmental passion. While the hypothesized moderating role of proactive
personality was not supported, this finding provides valuable insight
into the role of ETFL regardless of employees’ proactive tendency.
First, our results confirmed H1a and H1b, showing that ETFL has a
significant positive association with employee green attitudes (envi­
ronmental commitment) and employee green behavior (OCBE). Our
findings are aligned with Li et al. (2020) and Robertson and Barling
(2013) who found that ETFL predicts eco-friendly behaviors. Given that
employees’ behaviors are influenced by their leaders (Eluwole et al.,
2022), leadership behavior that is focused on encouraging
pro-environmental initiatives is central to motivating and generating
opportunities for employees to exhibit a sense of commitment, re­
sponsibility, and discretionary behavior for environmental management
in organizations. Intellectually stimulated employees of ETFL probably
show more concern for environmental management and are more likely
to engage in green behavior at work (Kura, 2016).
Second, following the postulates of AET, which suggest that affective
reactions serve as the underlying mechanism by which affective events
influence employee outcomes, our study has identified harmonious
environmental passion (HEP) as a potential underlying mechanism
through which ETFL influences employee environmental commitment
and OCBE (supporting H2a and H2b). Former studies have advocated
that ETFL is a robust determinant of employee environmental commit­
ment and OCBE, which have been recognized as significant for organi­
zations in solving complex environmental problems in the workplace
(Kura, 2016; Li et al., 2020; Peng et al., 2020; Zhang, Sun, et al., 2021).
Our findings suggest that passion for environmental sustainability can
be aroused in employees if immediate leaders’ behavior focuses on
environmental issues. This passion appears to in turn inspire employees
to pursue eco-friendly attitudes and behaviors. In line with AET, our
findings also highlight that the leaders, through their focus on envi­
ronmental issues, environmental motivation, and environmental vision
description, may cause the chain of affective events that triggers green
passion among employees which in turn affects their environmental
commitment and OCBE. Given our findings, a strong presence of ETFL is
an asset and crucial to the organizations seeking to encourage and
facilitate green attitudes and behaviors among their workforce.
Third, the hypothesized (H3a) moderating effect of PP on the rela­
tionship between ETFL and HEP was not significant. Essentially, ETFL
has an important influence on HEP regardless of employees’ own
dispositional orientation toward driving change. While not aligned with
our theorizing, this finding is positive in practical terms as it suggests the
positive influence of ETFL presence in organizations. The cultural lens of
higher power distance orientation that characterizes Pakistan’s society
specifically in the organizational context (Hofstede et al., 2010, p. 576),
may offer additional insight into this unanticipated interesting finding.
R. Iqbal et al. Journal of Environmental Psychology 92 (2023) 102181

Table 2
Confirmatory factor analysis: Scale items and measurement properties.
Constructs Indicators Loadings Cronbach’s Average variance Composite
alpha extracted reliability

ETFL My leader acts as an environmental role model. 0.66 0.87 0.44 0.89
My leader motivates me to work in an environmentally friendly manner. 0.69
My leader shows a commitment to improve our organization’s environmental 0.65
performance.
My leader encourages me to think about environmental issues in different ways. 0.64
My leader shows that s/he values the natural environment. 0.70
My leader is open to my ideas about ways to improve our organization’s environmental 0.74
performance.
My leader recognizes my ability to improve our organization’s environmental 0.66
performance.
My leader takes note of my individual contributions to the organization’s environmental 0.62
performance.
My leader spends time developing my skills to contribute to our organization’s 0.62
environmental performance.
My leader urges me to think creatively about improving our organization’s 0.66
environmental performance.
My leader is optimistic about the future of our organization’s environmental 0.64
performance.
HEP I enjoy practicing environmentally friendly behaviors. 0.56 0.84 0.48 0.88
I take pride in helping the environment. 0.69
I enthusiastically discuss environmental issues with others. 0.74
I get pleasure from taking care of the environment. 0.74
I passionately encourage others to be more environmentally responsible. 0.69
I am a volunteer member of an environmental group. 0.69
I have voluntarily donated time or money to help the environment in some way. 0.75
I feel strongly about my environmental values. 0.65
PP Wherever I have been, I have been a powerful force for constructive change. 0.60 0.80 0.46 0.85
No matter what the odds, if I believe in something I will make it happen. 0.68
I love being a champion for my ideas, even against others’ opposition. 0.68
I excel at identifying opportunities. 0.74
I am always looking for better ways to do things. 0.65
If I believe in an idea, no obstacle will prevent me from making it happen. 0.66
I can spot a good opportunity long before others can. 0.71
EEC I really care about the environmental concerns of my company. 0.73 0.85 0.49 0.88
I would feel guilty about not supporting the environmental efforts of my company. 0.68
The environmental concern of my company means a lot to me. 0.72
I feel a sense of duty to support the environmental efforts of my company. 0.69
I really feel as if my company’s environmental problems are my own. 0.72
I feel personally attached to the environmental concerns of my company. 0.66
I feel an obligation to support the environmental efforts of my company. 0.71
I strongly value the environmental efforts of my company. 0.66
OCBE At work, my subordinate weighs the consequences of his/her actions before doing 0.70 0.87 0.48 0.89
something that could affect the environment.
My subordinate voluntarily carries out environmental actions and initiatives in his/her 0.63
daily work activities.
My subordinate actively participates in environmental events organized in and/or by our 0.62
company.
My subordinate stays informed of our company’s environmental initiatives. 0.67
My subordinate undertakes environmental actions that contribute positively to the image 0.72
of our organization.
My subordinate volunteers for projects, endeavors, or events that address environmental 0.78
issues in our organization.
My subordinate spontaneously gives his/her time to help other colleagues consider the 0.77
environment in everything they do at work.
My subordinate encourages other employees to adopt more environmentally conscious 0.69
behavior.
My subordinate encourages other employees to express their ideas and opinions on 0.65
environmental issues.

In such contexts, employees more readily follow the lead of their su­
Table 3
periors in determining what ought to be done in the workplace (Kirkman
Testing for Discriminant Validity (Heterotrait-Monotrait ratio).
& Shapiro, 1997). Thus, in such a context of high power distance culture,
Constructs ETFL HEP PP EEC OCBE ETFL more effectively transmits green passion to employees through
ETFL emotional contagion. The pro-environmental leader embodies organi­
HEP 0.59 zations’ environmental objectives, enthusiastically talks about the sig­
PP 0.64 0.77
nificance of eco-sustainability and motivates employees to solve
EEC 0.71 0.85 0.77
OCBE 0.61 0.80 0.88 0.85 eco-issues innovatively, which acts as a stimulus and enables em­
ployees to demonstrate positive emotions towards the environment. By
Notes: ETFL = Environmentally specific transformational leadership; HEP =
demonstrating great respect and care for their leader (Cole et al., 2013),
Harmonious environmental passion; PP = Proactive personality; EEC =
employees in a high power distance culture closely observe and replicate
Employee environmental commitment; OCBE = Organizational citizenship
the environmental enthusiasm of their leader through idealized
behavior towards the environment.

7
R. Iqbal et al. Journal of Environmental Psychology 92 (2023) 102181

Table 4 environmental values. It would be a good idea to provide training to

Direct, indirect, and interactive effects. current leaders on how to motivate their subordinates to engage in
Hypothesized β Std. t- p- CI LL CI initiatives for preserving the natural environment beyond the job re­
Relationships Dev. value value UL quirements. To nurture employees’ HEP, organizations could develop
Direct Effects policies that stimulate their interest in pro-environmental activities. For
H1a ETFL EEC .63 .06 11.13 .00 0.52 0.74 instance, managers can emphasize how employees’ eco-friendly work is
H2a ETFL OCBE .54 .07 8.38 .00 0.44 0.68 of value to the organization, offer employees constructive feedback
Indirect Effects related to the significance of eco-friendly behaviors, and acknowledge
H1b ETFL HEP .28 .05 5.42 .00 0.19 0.39
EEC
their efforts for the attainment of the organization’s green goals.
H2b ETFL HEP .29 .06 5.09 .00 0.19 0.42 Moreover, employees with low level of proactivity in their personality
OCBE should be specifically focused by the environmentally specific trans­
Interactive Effect formational leaders because for them emotional route of HEP is
H3a ETFL × PP − .07 .05 1.44 .15 − 0.18 0.02
important in shaping their pro-environmental attitude and behavior.
HEP
Finally, it might be a good idea to consider an evaluation of candidates’
Notes: n = 251, ETFL = Environmentally specific transformational leadership; environmental values in the employee selection process. Candidates that
HEP = Harmonious environmental passion; PP = Proactive personality; EEC = show high concern for the environment are more likely to have higher
Employee environmental commitment; OCBE = Organizational citizenship pro-environmental attitudes and behaviors.
behavior towards the environment, Bootstrap sample size 5000, CI – Confidence
interval, LL = Lower limit, UL = Upper limit. 5.3. Limitations and future research directions

Our research is not without limitations, which offers opportunities

Table 5
Moderated mediation results for conditional indirect effects.
β SE
Conditional indirect effect of ETFL on EEC at values
of PP (H3a)
− 1 SD low level of PP .14 .06
Mean .09 .05
+1 SD low level of PP .06 .06
Conditional indirect effect of ETFL on OCBE at values
of PP (H3b)
− 1 SD low level of PP .15 .07
Mean .11 .06
+1 SD low level of PP .06 .07
Notes: n = 251, ETFL = Environmentally specific transformational leadership;
HEP = Harmonious environmental passion; PP = Proactive personality; EEC =
Employee environmental commitment; OCBE = Organizational citizenship
behavior towards the environment, Bootstrap sample size 5000, CI – Confidence
interval, LL = Lower limit, UL = Upper limit.
influence irrespective of their dispositions such as proactive personality.
Peng et al. (2020) also argue that in the presence of high power distance
cultures ETFL strongly provokes team members’ HEP and subsequent
eco-friendly behaviors.
Lastly, our data reveals that the HEP mediated effect of ETFL on EEC
and OCBE is conditional on levels of PP providing limited support for
H3b and H3c respectively. However, these findings are opposite to the
predictions of H3b and H3c and show that indirect effect of ETFL is
significant only in case of low PP. This means that only the employees
with low level of proactivity in their personalities respond emotionally
to ETFL and change in their HEP is the mechanism through which ETFL
influences their ECC and OCBE. This finding highlights the importance
of ETFL behavior as a pro-environmental cue particularly for the
employee who are not environmental change seeking in nature.
5.2. Managerial implications
Our study provides various valuable practical insights that may
facilitate organizational effectiveness in reducing carbon footprints. As
ETFL plays a promising role in enhancing employees’ pro-environmental
attitudes and behaviors, we suggest that organizations should aim to
select and appoint leaders with ETFL skills as a strategy. Environmen­
tally specific transformational leaders are likely to exhibit compelling
pro-environmental initiatives, demonstrate concern towards environ­
mental issues, and are enthusiastic toward promoting organizational
for future researchers. First, as convenience sampling technique was
used in this study, generalizability of the findings is limited. Another
important factor to consider in the generalizability of our findings is
CI LL CI whether the effects identified in this research translate to other cultural
UL contexts. For example, given the more collectivistic and high power
distance nature of Pakistani society (Hofstede, 1983) it is possible that
employees feel more compelled to emulate the enthusiasm of their
.04 .27 leader to maintain harmony in the group. However, given that HEP
.01 .19 mediated the relationship between ETFL and employee environmental
− .06 .15
commitment and organizational citizenship behavior towards the
environment, and that HEP assesses felt passion (rather than displayed
.05 .32 or perceived), we believe our findings suggest that employees’ outcomes
.01 .24 were a genuine response to their leaders’ influence. We recommend
− .06 .20
future researchers to repeat this study with a sample that offers the
possibility for generalization to other cultural contexts.
Second, though various methodological precautions were incorpo­
rated into the design of our study to minimize the threat of common
method variance (CMV; Podsakoff et al., 2012), such as separation of the
measures in time, and multi-source data, a longitudinal design could
more effectively guard against this bias. A longitudinal design would
also allow for causal inferences to be established.
Third, the mean and standard deviation of study constructs are
somehow similar due to data from one sector only, future researchers are
recommended to take data from a more diversified sample (from other
cultures and sectors) to capture broader perspectives. Fourth, future
studies can examine the role of other mediators such as obsessive
environmental passion and moderators like environment specific
dispositional characteristics in the relationship of ETFL and employee
green outcomes to further extend the application of affective events
theory in the domain of environmental management.
6. Conclusion
Concern for protecting the natural environment has been a critical
issue over the past few decades due to rapid escalation in eco-issues. In
this current context, organizations in general and manufacturing firms
in particular strive to foster a green approach to reduce their carbon
footprints. The promotion of pro-environmental emotions, attitudes,
and behaviors among employees can be instrumental in achieving
environmental sustainability goals. Therefore, using AET, we investi­
gated and found that ETFL significantly impacts environmental
commitment level of employees and their citizenship behavior for the
environment both directly and indirectly through harmonious environ­
mental passion. Further, ETFL significantly influences employees’
harmonious environmental passion regardless of their dispositional

8
R. Iqbal et al. Journal of Environmental Psychology 92 (2023) 102181

orientation toward driving change. Additionally, the indirect effect of Eckstein, D., Künzel, V., Schäfer, L., & Winges, M. (2019). Global climate risk index 2020.
Bonn: Germanwatch.
ETFL on EEC and OCBE is significant and stronger in the case of em­
Edwards, J. R., & Lambert, L. S. (2007). Methods for integrating moderation and
ployees with low proactive personality. Our findings advance the mediation: A general analytical framework using moderated path analysis.
application of AET in the environmental management context and Psychological Methods, 12(1), 1.
provide inspiring insights for practitioners on the important role of Eluwole, K. K., Karatepe, O. M., & Avci, T. (2022). Ethical leadership, trust in
organization and their impacts on critical hotel employee outcomes. International
leader behavior in reducing organizations’ carbon footprints. Journal of Hospitality Management, 102, Article 103153.
Faraz, N. A., Ahmed, F., Ying, M., & Mehmood, S. A. (2021). The interplay of green
servant leadership, self-efficacy, and intrinsic motivation in predicting employees’
Author statement pro-environmental behavior. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental
Management, 28(4), 1171–1184.
Rimsha Iqbal: Conceptualization, Methodology, Software, Formal Forest, J., Mageau, G. A., Sarrazin, C., & Morin, E. M. (2011). “Work is my passion”: The
different affective, behavioral, and cognitive consequences of harmonious and
analysis, Investigation, Resources, Data curation, Writing-original draft,
obsessive passion toward work. Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences - Revue
Writing-Review & editing. Canadienne des Sciences de l Administration, 28(1), 27–40.
Khurram Shahzad: Conceptualization, Methodology, Formal anal­ Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with
unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1),
ysis, Investigation, Writing-original draft, Writing-Review & editing,
39–50.
Supervision, Validation. Fu, P. P., Tsui, A. S., Liu, J., & Li, L. (2010). Pursuit of whose happiness? Executive
Magda B.L. Donia: Writing-original draft, Writing-Review & edit­ leaders’ transformational behaviors and personal values. Administrative Science
ing, Supervision, Validation. Quarterly, 55(2), 222–254.
Glasø, L., Vie, T. L., Holmdal, G. R., & Einarsen, S. (2010). An application of affective
events theory to workplace bullying. European Psychologist, 16(3), 198–208.
References Goffnett, S. P. (2018). Transformational leadership and environmental commitment in
supply chain relationships: The mediating effect of perceived fairness. International
Journal of Integrated Supply Management, 12(1–2), 118–142.
Ababneh, O. M. A. (2021). How do green HRM practices affect employees’ green
Gong, Y., Huang, J. C., & Farh, J. L. (2009). Employee learning orientation,
behaviors? The role of employee engagement and personality attributes. Journal of
transformational leadership, and employee creativity: The mediating role of
Environmental Planning and Management, 64(7), 1204–1226.
employee creative self-efficacy. Academy of Management Journal, 52(4), 765–778.
Afsar, B., Badir, Y., & Kiani, U. S. (2016). Linking spiritual leadership and employee pro-
Graafland, J., & Bovenberg, L. (2020). Government regulation, business leaders’
environmental behavior: The influence of workplace spirituality, intrinsic
motivations and environmental performance of SMEs. Journal of Environmental
motivation, and environmental passion. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 45,
Planning and Management, 63(8), 1335–1355.
79–88.
Graves, L. M., Sarkis, J., & Zhu, Q. (2013). How transformational leadership and
Afsar, B., & Umrani, W. A. (2020). Corporate social responsibility and pro-environmental
employee motivation combine to predict employee proenvironmental behaviors in
behavior at workplace: The role of moral reflectiveness, coworker advocacy, and
China. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 35, 81–91.
environmental commitment. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental
Gumusluoglu, L., & Ilsev, A. (2009). Transformational leadership, creativity, and
Management, 27(1), 109–125.
organizational innovation. Journal of Business Research, 62(4), 461–473.
Anderson, J. C., & Gerbing, D. W. (1988). Structural equation modeling in practice: A
Hair, J. F., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2011). PLS-SEM: Indeed a silver bullet. Journal
review and recommended two-step approach. Psychological Bulletin, 103(3),
of Marketing Theory and Practice, 19(2), 139–152.
411–423.
Han, Z., Wang, Q., & Yan, X. (2019). How responsible leadership motivates employees to
Anser, M. K., Shafique, S., Usman, M., Akhtar, N., & Ali, M. (2021). Spiritual leadership
engage in organizational citizenship behavior for the environment: A double-
and organizational citizenship behavior for the environment: An intervening and
mediation model. Sustainability, 11(3), 605.
interactional analysis. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 64(8),
Henseler, J., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2015). A new criterion for assessing
1496–1514.
discriminant validity in variance-based structural equation modeling. Journal of the
Ashton-James, C. E., & Ashkanasy, N. M. (2005). What lies beneath? A process analysis of
Academy of Marketing Science, 43(1), 115–135.
affective events theory. In The effect of affect in organizational settings, 1 pp. 23–46).
Hoch, J. E., Bommer, W. H., Dulebohn, J. H., & Wu, D. (2018). Do ethical, authentic, and
Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
servant leadership explain variance above and beyond transformational leadership?
Barling, J., Loughlin, C., & Kelloway, E. K. (2002). Development and test of a model
A meta-analysis. Journal of Management, 44(2), 501–529.
linking safety-specific transformational leadership and occupational safety. Journal
Hofstede, G. (1983). The cultural relativity of organizational practices and theories.
of Applied Psychology, 87(3), 488–496.
Journal of International Business Studies, 14, 75–89.
Bass, B. M., & Riggio, R. E. (2006). Transformational leadership (2nd ed.). Lawrence
Hofstede, G., Hofstede, G. J., & Minkov, M. (2010). Cultures and organizations: Software of
Erlbaum Associates Publishers. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781410617095
the mind (3rd ed.). NY: McGraw-Hill USA.
Bateman, T. S., & Crant, J. M. (1993). The proactive component of organizational
Ho, V. T., Wong, S. S., & Lee, C. H. (2011). A tale of passion: Linking job passion and
behavior: A measure and correlates. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 14(2),
cognitive engagement to employee work performance. Journal of Management
103–118.
Studies, 48(1), 26–47.
Biswas, S. R., Uddin, M. A., Bhattacharjee, S., Dey, M., & Rana, T. (2022). Ecocentric
Hussain, S., & Shahzad, K. (2022). Unpacking perceived organizational justice-
leadership and voluntary environmental behavior for promoting sustainability
organizational cynicism relationship: Moderating role of psychological capital. Asia
strategy: The role of psychological green climate. Business Strategy and the
Pacific Management Review, 27(1), 10–17.
Environment, 31(4), 1705–1718.
Jia, J., Liu, H., Chin, T., & Hu, D. (2018). The continuous mediating effects of GHRM on
Boiral, O. (2009). Greening the corporation through organizational citizenship
employees’ green passion via transformational leadership and green creativity.
behaviors. Journal of Business Ethics, 87(2), 221–236.
Sustainability, 10(9), 3237.
Boiral, O., & Paillé, P. (2012). Organizational citizenship behavior for the environment:
Judge, T. A., & Ilies, R. (2004). Affect and job satisfaction: A study of their relationship at
Measurement and validation. Journal of Business Ethics, 109(4), 431–445.
work and at home. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(4), 661.
Brief, A. P., & Weiss, H. M. (2002). Organizational behavior: Affect in the workplace.
Judge, T. A., & Piccolo, R. F. (2004). Transformational and transactional leadership: A
Annual Review of Psychology, 53(1), 279–307.
meta-analytic test of their relative validity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(5),
Chen, Y. S., & Chang, C. H. (2013). The determinants of green product development
755–768.
performance: Green dynamic capabilities, green transformational leadership, and
Khan, M. A. S., Jianguo, D., Ali, M., Saleem, S., & Usman, M. (2019). Interrelations
green creativity. Journal of Business Ethics, 116(1), 107–119.
between ethical leadership, green psychological climate, and organizational
Cheng, Z., Liu, W., Zhou, K., Che, Y., & Han, Y. (2021). Promoting employees’ pro-
environmental citizenship behavior: A moderated mediation model. Frontiers in
environmental behaviour through empowering leadership: The roles of
Psychology, 10, 1977.
psychological ownership, empowerment role identity, and environmental self-
Khan, A. N., & Khan, N. A. (2022). The nexuses between transformational leadership and
identity. Business Ethics, the Environment & Responsibility, 30(4), 604–618.
employee green organisational citizenship behaviour: Role of environmental attitude
Cole, M. S., Carter, M. Z., & Zhang, Z. (2013). Leader–team congruence in power distance
and green dedication. Business Strategy and the Environment, 31(3), 921–933.
values and team effectiveness: The mediating role of procedural justice climate.
Kirkman, B. L., & Shapiro, D. L. (1997). The impact of cultural values on employee
Journal of Applied Psychology, 98(6), 962–973.
resistance to teams: Toward a model of globalized self-managing work team
Crant, J. M., & Bateman, T. S. (2000). Charismatic leadership viewed from above: The
effectiveness. Academy of Management Review, 22(3), 730–757.
impact of proactive personality. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 21(1), 63–75.
Kock, N. (2015). Common method bias in PLS-SEM: A full collinearity assessment
Cropanzano, R., Dasborough, M. T., & Weiss, H. M. (2017). Affective events and the
approach. International Journal of e-Collaboration, 11(4), 1–10.
development of leader-member exchange. Academy of Management Review, 42(2),
Kura, K. M. (2016). Linking environmentally specific transformational leadership and
233–258.
environmental concern to green behavior at work. Global Business Review, 17(3_
Cui, R., Wang, J., & Zhou, C. (2023). Exploring the linkages of green transformational
suppl), 1S–14S.
leadership, organizational green learning, and radical green innovation. Business
Li, Z., Xue, J., Li, R., Chen, H., & Wang, T. (2020). Environmentally specific
Strategy and the Environment, 32(1), 185–199.
transformational leadership and employee’s pro-environmental behavior: The
Donia, M. B. L., Johns, G., & Raja, U. (2016). Good soldier or good actor? Supervisor
mediating roles of environmental passion and autonomous motivation. Frontiers in
accuracy in distinguishing between selfless and self-serving OCB motives. Journal of
Psychology, 11, 1408.
Business and Psychology, 31, 23–32.

9
R. Iqbal et al.
Luu, T. T. (2022). How and when to activate hospitality employees’ organizational
citizenship behavior for the environment in South Korea and Vietnam. Journal of
Sustainable Tourism, 1–33.
Mi, L., Gan, X., Xu, T., Long, R., Qiao, L., & Zhu, H. (2019). A new perspective to promote
organizational citizenship behavior for the environment: The role of
transformational leadership. Journal of Cleaner Production, 239, Article 118002.
Mubarak, N., Khan, J., Yasmin, R., & Osmadi, A. (2021). The impact of a proactive
personality on innovative work behavior: The role of work engagement and
transformational leadership. The Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 42
(7), 989–1003.
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.
Peng, J., Chen, X., Zou, Y., & Nie, Q. (2020). Environmentally specific transformational
leadership and team pro-environmental behaviors: The roles of pro-environmental
goal clarity, pro-environmental harmonious passion, and power distance. Human
Relations, 74(11), 1864–1888.
Permarupan, P. Y., Saufi, R. A., Kasim, R. S. R., & Balakrishnan, B. K. (2013). The impact
of organizational climate on employee’s work passion and organizational
commitment. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 107, 88–95.
Perrewé, P. L., Hochwarter, W. A., Ferris, G. R., McAllister, C. P., & Harris, J. N. (2014).
Developing a passion for work passion: Future directions on an emerging construct.
Journal of Organizational Behavior, 35(1), 145–150.
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 Psychology, 88(5), 879.
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J. Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2012). Sources of
method bias in social science research and recommendations on how to control it.
Annual Review of Psychology, 63(1), 539–569.
Prasetya, R. Y., Nawangsari, L. C., & hidayat Sutawidjaya, A. (2020). The Factors that
influence OCBE in generation X and generation Y. Technium Social Sciences Journal,
14, 522–536.
Raineri, N., & Paillé, P. (2016). Linking corporate policy and supervisory support with
environmental citizenship behaviors: The role of employee environmental beliefs
and commitment. Journal of Business Ethics, 137(1), 129–148.
Rastogi, A. K. P. G. R. (2013). Employee engagement and organizational effectiveness:
The role of organizational citizenship behavior. The Business Management Review, 8
(4), 129–136.
Rehman, S. U., Kraus, S., Shah, S. A., Khanin, D., & Mahto, R. V. (2020). Analyzing the
relationship between green innovation and environmental performance in large
manufacturing firms. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 120481.
Robertson, J. L. (2018). The nature, measurement and nomological network of
environmentally specific transformational leadership. Journal of Business Ethics, 151
(4), 961–975.
Robertson, J. L., & Barling, J. (2013). Greening organizations through leaders’ influence
on employees’ pro-environmental behaviors. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 34
(2), 176–194.
Robertson, J. L., & Carleton, E. (2018). Uncovering how and when environmental
leadership affects employees’ voluntary pro-environmental behavior. Journal of
Leadership & Organizational Studies, 25(2), 197–210.
Russell-Bennett, R., Härtel, C. E., & Beatson, A. (2011). Chapter 7 affective events theory
as a framework for understanding third-party consumer complaints. In What have we
learned? Ten years on (pp. 167–193). Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
Russell, B., & Eisenberg, J. (2012). The role of cognition and attitude in driving behavior:
Elaborating on affective events theory. In Experiencing and managing emotions in the
workplace, 8 pp. 203–224). Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
Schmitt, A., Den Hartog, D. N., & Belschak, F. D. (2016). Transformational leadership
and proactive work behavior: A moderated mediation model including work
engagement and job strain. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 89
(3), 588–610.
Seibert, S. E., Crant, J. M., & Kraimer, M. L. (1999). Proactive personality and career
success. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84(3), 416–427.
Shahzad, K., Iqbal, R., Javed, B., & Hashmi, S. D. (2022). Impact of work-study conflict
on workplace outcomes: Supervisor support for juggling many balls. International
Journal of Conflict Management. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJCMA-05-2021-0069
10
Journal of Environmental Psychology 92 (2023) 102181
Shunlong, X., & Weiming, Z. (2012). The relationships between transformational
leadership, LMX, and employee innovative behavior. Journal of Applied Business and
Economics, 13(5), 87–96.
Smith, T. D., DeJoy, D. M., & Dyal, M. A. (2020). Safety specific transformational
leadership, safety motivation and personal protective equipment use among
firefighters. Safety Science, 131, Article 104930.
Tosti-Kharas, J., Lamm, E., & Thomas, T. E. (2017). Organization or environment?
Disentangling employees’ rationales behind organizational citizenship behavior for
the environment. Organization & Environment, 30(3), 187–210.
Vallerand, R. J., Salvy, S. J., Mageau, G. A., Elliot, A. J., Denis, P. L., Grouzet, F. M., &
Blanchard, C. (2007). On the role of passion in performance. Journal of Personality,
75(3), 505–534.
Walumbwa, F. O., Avolio, B. J., & Zhu, W. (2008). How transformational leadership
weaves its influence on individual job performance: The role of identification and
efficacy beliefs. Personnel Psychology, 61(4), 793–825.
Weiss, H. M., & Beal, D. J. (2005). The effect of affect in organizational settings. In The
effect of affect in organizational settings (research on emotion in organizations, 1 pp.
1–21). Bingley, UK: Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
Weiss, H. M., & Cropanzano, R. (1996). Affective events theory. Research in
Organizational Behavior, 18(1), 1–74.Chicago.
Yuriev, A., Boiral, O., Francoeur, V., & Paillé, P. (2018). Overcoming the barriers to pro-
environmental behaviors in the workplace: A systematic review. Journal of Cleaner
Production, 182, 379–394.
Zhang, S., Sun, W., Ji, H., & Jia, J. (2021b). The antecedents and outcomes of
transformational leadership: leader’s self-transcendent value, follower’s
environmental commitment and behavior. The Leadership & Organization
Development Journal, 42(7), 1037–1052.
Zhang, J., Ul-Durar, S., Akhtar, M. N., Zhang, Y., & Lu, L. (2021a). How does responsible
leadership affect employees’ voluntary workplace green behaviors? A multilevel
dual process model of voluntary workplace green behaviors. Journal of Environmental
Management, 296, Article 113205.
Zhao, H., & Zhou, Q. (2019). Exploring the impact of responsible leadership on
organizational citizenship behavior for the environment: A leadership identity
perspective. Sustainability, 11(4), 944.
Zhao, H., Zhou, Q., He, P., & Jiang, C. (2019). How and when does socially responsible
HRM affect employees’ organizational citizenship behaviors toward the
environment? Journal of Business Ethics, 169(2), 371–385.
Rimsha Iqbal Rimsha Iqbal is pursuing PhD in HRM from Riphah International Univer­
sity, Islamabad, Pakistan. She holds MS in Management Sciences from the same university.
Her research interest is in the area of environmental psychology, green human resource
management practices and environmental leadership. She can be contacted at rimsha.
iqbal@riphah.edu.pk
Khurram Shahzad Khurram Shahzad is presently working as Dean/Professor of Human
Resource Management and Organizational Behavior at Riphah School of Leadership,
Riphah International University, Islamabad, Pakistan. His research interests are HR
practices, leadership, ethics, employee attitudes and behaviors. He has published papers in
well reputed journals like Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Manage­
ment, Gender in Management and Leadership & Organizational Development Journal
among others. He has travelled extensively around the world and feels happy working with
diverse and different students and academics. He can be contacted at khurram.shah
zad@riphah.edu.pk
Magda Donia Dr. Donia joined the Telfer School of Management in 2011 as an assistant
professor of human resource management and organizational behaviour. Dr. Donia earned
a Ph.D. in Administration from Concordia University’s John Molson School of Business, an
M.Sc. from the same university and a B.A. in Political Science from McGill University. She
is multilingual (fluent in English and Portuguese, and with working knowledge of Spanish
and French) having lived in Brazil, Canada and Europe.