ENGAGEMENT IN ENVIRONMENTAL BEHAVIORS AMONG SUPPLY CHAIN MANAGEMENT EMPLOYEES: AN ORGANIZATIONAL SUPPORT THEORETICAL PERSPECTIVE

DAVID E. CANTOR, PAULA C. MORROW AND FRANK MONTABON Iowa State University

While environmental management is an important topic in supply chain management, there is little theoretical understanding of how rm practices (supervisory support, rewards, and training) relate to employee engagement in environmental behaviors. Drawing upon behavioral research literature, the purpose of our article is to use organizational support theory to develop a model of how employee perceptions of management practices inuence employee engagement in environmental behaviors such as participating in environmental management activities, promoting environmental initiatives, and proposing innovative environmental practices. The theoretical model was evaluated using a sample of supply chain management employees employed by a major retailer and support was found for all of the hypothesized relationships except those entailing rewards. Study ndings demonstrate the importance of employee perceptions in advancing employee-level involvement in environmental behaviors and how organizations can modify their internal infrastructures to champion environmental behaviors through their effects on employee perceptions of support for the environment and commitment to the environment. Additionally, the research illustrates how an extant behavioral theory, organizational support theory, can protably be modied and adopted to explain behavior in the eld of supply chain management. Keywords: behavioral supply management; environmental issues; sustainability; organizational support theory; supply chain management; structural equation modeling; survey methods

INTRODUCTION
Encouraging workers to become engaged in environmental behaviors has emerged as an important topic in todays global economy. The Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) Sloan Management Review and the Boston Consulting Group conducted a business of sustainability study which revealed that 56 percent of corporate executives and managers selected employee interest in sustainability as an issue that can have a signicant impact on a company (Berns, Townend, Khayat, Balagopal, Reeves, Hopkins and Kruschwitz 2009). The respondents of this study also point out that organizational policies and practices which promote employee engagement in environmental behaviors can be used to enhance employee

recruitment and retention (Berns et al. 2009). This contention is supported by a National Association of Environmental Managers (NAEM 2009) report stating that 36 percent of respondents would be more inclined to work for green companies. Wal-Mart, the United States largest employer, has made a $30 million commitment to encourage its employees to engage in environmental behaviors, including promoting ways that its workforce can reduce carbon emissions and make greater use of environmentally friendly materials in its supply chain (Barbaro 2007). In so doing, Wal-Mart has a goal of improving its reputation with image-conscious stakeholders (Barbaro 2007). Undoubtedly, there are many more examples of how rms are looking to encourage their workforce

July 2012

33

Journal of Supply Chain Management

to become more involved in environmental behavior that is consistent with their corporate social responsibility strategy. Environmental practices are an important concern within supply chain management (Handeld, Walton, Melnyk and Seegars 1997; Carter, Kale and Grimm 2000; Carter and Dresner 2001; Montabon, Sroufe and Narasimhan 2007; Gattiker and Carter 2010; Sarkis, Gonzalez-Torre and Adenso-Diaz 2010). There is a substantial amount of research examining the challenges associated with implementing rm-level environmental practices (e.g., Dobos 2005; Corbett and Klassen 2006; Potoski and Prakash 2006). Examples of challenges that organizations face include establishing environmental criteria when selecting suppliers, recovering components, and disposing of waste and pollutants (Carter and Dresner 2001; Corbett and Klassen 2006). Firms have a wide variety of environmental management practices available to them, including reducing pollution from work-related activities, energy conservation efforts, and replacing materials with those that are more environmentally friendly (for a more detailed list, see Montabon et al. 2007). After choosing one or more environmental practices, rms are then faced with the issue of encouraging employees to implement these initiatives. Unfortunately, scant research exists on how to address the human resource management challenges of encouraging employees to exhibit environmental behaviors in the supply chain (Fernandez, Junquera and Ordiz 2003; Jabbour and Santos 2008). A burgeoning amount of supply chain research is emerging on how to promote employee participation in environmental behaviors. Gattiker and Carter (2010, p. 3) and others point out that employee engagement in environmental behaviors represents a signicant challenge to organizations, since environmental initiatives frequently require changes to business practices and reward systems (Drumwright 1994; Carter and Dresner 2001; Carter, Ellram and Tate 2007). In fact, several studies have found that overcoming internal organizational resistance is of paramount importance to the success of a rms environmental management initiatives (Drumwright 1994; Handeld et al. 1997; Crane 2000; Carter and Jennings 2004; Carter et al. 2007; Pagell and Gobeli 2009; Gattiker and Carter 2010). Examining employee engagement in environmental behavior is an important stream of supply chain research. Daily and Huang (2001) created a conceptual model linking human resource issues such as managerial support and training to environmental management system implementation. Ramus and Steger (2000) conducted an empirical examination of factors that contribute to an employees willingness to promote eco-initiatives. Adopting intra-organizational

inuence theory, Gattiker and Carter (2010) examined the determinants of an employees commitment to environmental management projects. Sarkis et al. (2010) empirically examined the importance of environmental training efforts, and how training contributes to the successful implementation of environmental practices. While the above mentioned studies, among many others, represent important contributions to the literature, we believe that further theoretical development and empirical testing of factors that promote employee engagement in environmental behaviors is needed. Specically, there is little theoretical understanding regarding how a rms environmental management practices promote employee involvement in environmental behaviors including how frequently employees engage in environmental behaviors, the degree to which they promote environmental initiatives, and whether they engage in innovative environmental behaviors. This research seeks to ll that void. The purpose of our article is to use organizational support theory (OST) to develop a model of how employee perceptions of management practices inuence employee engagement in environmental behaviors. In so doing, this research seeks to fulll a number of interrelated objectives and thus makes several important contributions to the eld of supply chain management. Our article contributes to the supply chain discipline by using a behavioral theory, OST, to address a contemporary supply chain management problem (e.g., Bendoly, Croson, Goncalves and Schultz 2010; Gattiker and Carter 2010; Sarkis et al. 2010; Tokar 2010). Consistent with ideas advanced by Tokar (2010) and Bendoly et al. (2010), our study integrates theory from the management and social psychology literatures to develop a model that provides insights into how employees are inuenced by a rms environmental management practices to engage in environmental behaviors. In our study, we draw upon OST (Eisenberger, Huntington, Hutchison and Sowa 1986) to explain how organizations can signal the importance of the environment to employees through their management practices. To the best of our knowledge and consistent with others assessments (e.g., Fernandez et al. 2003; Rothenberg 2003; Jabbour and Santos 2008), scant research exists which explicitly examines these factors in an unied manner. Additionally, our model examines perceptions of organizational support (POS) and affective commitment in the context of environmental behaviors which has not been previously investigated. Thus, we build upon prior organizational support research in the context of environmental management. Additionally, this article proposes three constructs of employee engagement in environmental behaviors, a topic of concern to many organizations today as alluded to earlier in this article.

34

Volume 48, Number 3

Engagement in Environmental Behaviors

Therefore, our constructs provide a deeper understanding of the precise nature of employee environmental behavior in organizations. In so doing, we develop and test a causal model of how our antecedents are related to employee environmental behaviors. Lastly, our study contributes to and extends growing literature on sustainability in supply chain management including: Reuter, Foerstl, Hartmann and Blomes (2010) examination of global sustainability practices; Paulrajs (2011) nding that internal resources play an important role in managing sustainable supply practices; and Carters (2004) purchasing social responsibility theoretical umbrella from which a wide range of socially responsible supply management activities can be understood.

THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK AND LITERATURE REVIEW

Underlying Theory and Research Organizational support theory can be used to examine the relationships among employee attitudes and behaviors toward organizational goals (Aselage and Eisenberger 2003). This framework for understanding such relationships asserts that employees will act on behalf of an organization to the degree that the organization is perceived as willing and able to reciprocate with appropriate leadership, training, and rewards (i.e., willing to engage in a norm of reciprocity). Eisenberger, his colleagues, and others (e.g., Eisenberger et al. 1986; Shore and Shore 1995; Rhoades and Eisenberger 2002) have utilized OST to explain employee attitudes and behaviors and, as such, OST with some modication provides a suitable theoretical lens for this study. We now turn to how our use of OST and selection of OST constructs is both similar to and different from traditional applications of OST. Organizational support theory asserts that employee perceptions regarding the extent to which organizations demonstrate care and value for their contributions to the organization have a great deal to do with the behavior that employees exhibit (Eisenberger et al. 1986). These employee-level behaviors include job performance and voluntary discretionary activities that employees may choose to engage in such as, for example, pro-environmental behaviors. These POS are thought to arise from employees recall and assessment of the prior treatment received by the organization. This history of treatment is typically a function of the organizations human resource policies and how agents of the organization (e.g., supervisors) have related to the individual in the past (Aselage and Eisenberger 2003). If the organization has provided favorable work conditions and if agents have demonstrated courtesy and respect, employee POS will be high.

Our research represents an opportunity to expand the use of OST to other spheres by shifting of the intended target of support from the individual employee to organizational support of the environment, as perceived by the employee. Thus, the selection of antecedents of POS was deliberately made to accommodate the shift in referent in our OST research. At its most general level, OST contends that favorable treatment by organizations should increase POS. We extrapolate from OST to posit that organizations can not only convey favorable treatment of employees but they can analogously convey a favorable orientation toward other entities; specically, organizations can signal favorable treatment of the environment. Employees should attend to these signals and report higher POS for the environment. Rhoades and Eisenberger (2002) reported three forms of favorable treatment of employees were strong meta-analytic predictors of POS: (1) organizational rewards and job conditions, (2) supervisor support, and (3) procedural justice. Drawing from the rst two sets of predictors, we selected three ways in which organizations might signal favorable treatment of the environment to employees: rewards, training, and supervisory support. The justice element does not apply to the environmental context because the focus of our study is on environmental policies and practices which do not entail issues of reciprocity and fairness per se. Likewise, other job conditions applicable to employee-focused applications of OST such as job security and autonomy were thought to be less germane to the POS of environmental behaviors because environmental activities are not stipulated in employee job descriptions. Organizational support theory also addresses the consequences of POS (Rhoades and Eisenberger 2002). Empirical tests of OST have shown that employees strive to repay an organization for its demonstrations of support by increasing their efforts to help the organization reach its goals (Aselage and Eisenberger 2003). For example, Eisenberger, Armeli, Rexwinkel, Lynch and Rhoades (2001) found that POS among postal employees was positively related to employees felt obligation to care about the organizations welfare and to help the organization reach its objectives. This felt obligation to repay the organization was further evident in higher levels of affective organizational commitment, extra-role activities, and job performance. POS has also been asserted and empirically found to strengthen employees understanding of performancereward expectancies; that is, what an organization values and rewards (Rhoades and Eisenberger 2002). In addition, empirical research has demonstrated that POS directly contributes to employees affective organizational commitment (Rhoades, Eisenberger and Armeli 2001; Fu, Bolander

July 2012

35

Journal of Supply Chain Management

and Jones 2009; Riggle, Edmondson and Hansen 2009). Affective organizational commitment refers to the employees emotional attachment to, identication with, and involvement in the organization (Meyer and Allen 1997). From this original work focusing on the extent to which organizations support employees at a very personal, individual level, other researchers have used OST to better understand how organizational support for specic issues affect employee behavior. Examples of these applications include POS for workfamily balance (Behson 2002), innovation (Yuan and Woodman 2010), and diversity (Triana, Garcia and Colella 2010). We now turn to how OST can advance our understanding of employee engagement in environmental behaviors.

OST in the Present Study Organizational support theory, as formulated by Eisenberger and others and outlined above, provides a basis for understanding how organizations might achieve more employee engagement in environmental behaviors. Organizations can initiate the process by acting in ways that communicate the importance of the environment. Stated differently, organizations can foster stronger perceptions among employees that the rm is genuinely supportive of the environment (i.e., increased POS for environmental behaviors) because employees are inuenced through an organizations practices and policies on environmental matters (i.e., the organizations track record of support for the environment). Specically, organizational behaviors such as providing rewards and training for environmental behavior create a history of events that affect employees POS for environmental behaviors. Employees can also take into account how supervisors have supported environmental initiatives in the past. Together this information allows employees to form a perception of organizational support for environmental behaviors. In our study, we specically examine how POS are formed through supervisory support, rewards, and training. Organizational support theory can also provide a basis for examining how levels of POS for environmental behaviors have a bearing on employees affective commitment to environmental behaviors. Traditional considerations of OST indicate that employees with high levels of POS engage in the norm of reciprocity in order to repay the organization for its support and that this support can manifest itself in the form of higher levels of affective commitment. We suggest that it operates in the environmental context as follows. We contend that POS for environmental behaviors (signaled by the amount of rewards, training and leader behavior related to the environment) communicates organizational desires 36

with respect to the environment. In other words, POS for environmental behaviors claries employee understanding of the extent to which the organization values the environment and seeks employee involvement in pro-environmental behaviors. In addition, providing training, rewards and manager recognition of environmental behaviors stimulates a desire to repay the organization for benets received. Although not explicitly using OST, Sarkis et al. (2010) provide a good example. In their rm-level examination of environmental practices, they observed that employees who received training in environmental practices were more willing to engage in environmental behavior at the rm. In so doing, employees were repaying the organization for the investment in eco-training by engaging in the desired behavior. Employees with high levels of POS should thus reciprocate by increasing their affective commitment to environmental behaviors as they would feel a stronger obligation to help the organization achieve its objectives (i.e., fulll the reciprocity norm initiated by the organization). Correspondingly, employees with lower levels of POS would feel less pressure to increase their commitment to the environment. Stated differently, POS for environmental behaviors should affect employees emotional attachment, identication, and involvement with environmental behaviors. Lastly, and while not expressly tied to OST, our model species that affective commitment to environmental behaviors should predict employee engagement in environmental behaviors. Commitment appears to inuence employee behavior through its effects on motivational processes, including goal choice, goal regulation, and the direction and persistence of effort (Meyer, Becker and Vandenberghe 2004). Environmental behaviors can be regarded as an integral part of ones job or as a voluntary activity, depending on the work context. In either case, the proposed link is empirically supported by prior studies documenting a positive relationship between affective organizational commitment and job performance (Meyer and Allen 1997; Cooper-Hakim and Viswesvaran 2005) and between affective organizational commitment and organizational citizenship behaviors (Bentein, Stinglhamber and Vandenberghe 2002; Meyer, Stanley, Herscovitch and Topolnytsky 2002).

Environmental Practices at the Individual Employee Level Our goal is to use OST to shed light on how an organization might encourage individual employees to engage in behaviors more supportive of the natural environment (e.g., eco-behavior, offer eco-initiatives). Given this goal, this research is positioned at the individual level of analysis. The impact of individuals in promoting environmental behaviors has been recog-

Volume 48, Number 3

Engagement in Environmental Behaviors

nized but primarily in the role they play in championing environmental innovation (Andersson and Bateman 2000) or leading organizations (Ergi and Herman 2000). There have been only a few attempts to gauge involvement in environmental projects and initiatives across large cross-sections of employees. Ramus and Steger (2000) used self-reports of whether or not employees had tried to promote an environmental initiative within the company. As the authors note, this was a yes/no question. Gattiker and Carter (2010) measured commitment to environmental projects by asking people whether or not they were able to obtain buy-in from others. We believe that employee engagement in environmental behaviors entails a broader range of behaviors such as involvement in specic environmental practices, thinking about environmental improvements, and offering suggestions to be more environmentally friendly. By using multiple environmental behaviors and by asking the employees directly about these behaviors, we believe we improve on the previous literature.

mental behaviors. Lastly, higher levels of commitment will demonstrate stronger relationships with employee engagement in environmental behaviors. The multidimensional nature of environmental behaviors is theorized below and outlined in Figure 1 in the context of our overall model.

RESEARCH MODEL AND HYPOTHESES

Model Using OST, we propose that the more employees are inuenced by supervisory support for environmental initiatives and the more environmental training and rewards for environmental behavior are provided, the more employees will perceive organizational support for environmental behaviors. Higher levels of perceived support will in turn be associated with higher levels of affective commitment toward environ-

Hypotheses The rst determinant in our model is supervisory support of environmental initiatives. Consistent with Susskind, Kacmar and Borchgrevink (2003), supervisory support refers to the employees belief that the supervisor provides subordinates with the resources and feedback needed to participate in environmental initiatives. Supervisors provide direction and social cues regarding how employees should allocate their time (Jung and Sosik 2003). Previous studies have also shown that supervisors are critical enablers of risk taking, idea generation, and experimentation on the job (Cummings 1965; Kimberly and Evanisko 1981), which are behaviors that reect support for environmental initiatives. Because supervisors are uniquely positioned to inuence those above and below themselves in the organizational hierarchy, they have the opportunity to encourage or discourage environmental behaviors. Indirect support for this observation is provided by meta-analytic examinations of relationships between supervisory support and traditional POS (Rhoades and Eisenberger 2002). Indeed supervisory support may be even more inuential than top management support in reecting organizational goals in that employees attend more to the words and actions of immediate supervisors (Larkin and Larkin

FIGURE 1
Employee Perceptions of Environmental Management Practices that Promote Employee Engagement in Environmental Behaviors
Employee Engagement in Environmental Behaviors
Supervisory Support for Environmental Initiatives

H1+
Environmental Training Provided to an Employee by the Organization Employee Perception of Organizational Support for Environmental Behaviors

Innovative Environmental Behaviors

H2+

H4+

H3+

Employee Affective Commitment to Environmental Behaviors

H5+
Frequency of Involvement

Rewards the Organization Provided for Environmental Behaviors

Ever Promote an Environmental Initiative

July 2012

37

Journal of Supply Chain Management

1996) and because supervisors are more actively involved with employees in developing a shared vision, fostering consensus, and developing consensus for new organizational practices (Beer, Eisenstat and Spector 1990). While studies in an environmental context on the role of supervisory support are rare, Ramus and Steger (2000) found that support from immediate supervisors contributed to eco-initiatives. Based on these arguments, we believe that because supervisors function as agents of the organization, their level of support for environmental initiatives inuences employee perceptions of the level of organizational support for environmental behaviors. H1: The higher the supervisory support for environmental initiatives, the higher the perception of organizational support for environmental behaviors. Environmental training is an important determinant in our model for several reasons. Training is a fundamental means by which organizations acquire and develop human capital which in turn enhances organizational capacity (Ahmad and Schroeder 2003) and performance (Van Iddekinge, Ferris, Perrewe, Perryman, Blass and Heetderks 2009). Training programs vary widely and sometimes have multiple objectives, from the conveying of technical information, to socialization, to the acceptance of new ideas. Scott and Meyer (1991) stress how training can help organizations increase their control by having employees internalize commitment to organization desired objectives. In other words, training signals what the organization values. Training and development practices have been found to exhibit moderately strong relationships with perceived organizational support in a meta-analytic examination (Rhoades and Eisenberger 2002) and again more recently by Armstrong-Stassen and Ursel (2009). The success of environmental management programs is dependent on the training of a rms employees (Fernandez et al. 2003; Sammalisto and Brorson 2008). Training programs are used to reinforce the importance of the organizations commitment to environmental initiatives (Brio, Fernandez and Junquera 2007). Sarkis et al. (2010) present examples of environmental training such as methodologies and techniques for eco-design, life cycle assessment, recycling and reusing of materials, and disposition of waste. For organizations that want to promulgate environmental initiatives, Sarkis et al. (2010) contend that environmental training programs can help provide the new mindset and focus that employees need to help generate new eco-ideas and behavior. Lastly, Sarkis and colleagues note that training provides a powerful way to improve the decision-making capabilities of all employees within the organization. Therefore, prior

research indicates that providing environmental training to employees may be another important management practice that fosters POS for environmental behaviors. H2: The more environmental training is provided by the organization, the higher the perception of organizational support for environmental behaviors. The rewards that are provided for engaging in environmental behaviors represent another factor in our model. Boyt, Lusch and Naylor (2001) discuss how rewards motivate behavior and reinforce job attitudes. They also point out that a well-developed rewards structure signals to the employee that the organization values: (1) the individuals contribution to the rm, (2) independent decision-making, (3) professional development activities, and (4) professional behavior. This perspective on rewards is especially germane here as organizations are seeking to convey that they value employee contributions in the environmental area and want employees to individually and voluntarily engage in the search for innovative solutions to environmental problems. Covin and Kilmann (1990) queried managers, researchers, and consultants on issues relevant to successful organizational change and found that of the over 900 issues that were raised, providing rewards for employee behaviors that support the desired change was among the most frequently mentioned. Jensen and Meckling (1995) also argue that it is important to provide nancial incentives to employees within an organization as a way to align their self-interests with the goals of the organization to address principalagent problems. It follows that employees who are rewarded for acting in ways consistent with the rms environmental goals will perceive that management supports eco-behavior. Lastly, organizational rewards have historically demonstrated strong relationships with POS (Rhoades and Eisenberger 2002). H3: The higher the rewards that are provided by the organization for environmental behaviors, the higher the perception of organizational support for environmental behaviors. We now turn to how employee POS for environmental behaviors can inuence affective commitment to environmental behaviors. Literature and prior research on organizational support suggests that when employees believe that organizations care about them, employees are more motivated to strengthen their affective commitment to the organization (Rhoades and Eisenberger 2002; Riggle et al. 2009). In addition, Bishop, Scott, Goldsby and Cropanzano (2005) found that higher levels of perceived support from two distinct entities (organiza-

38

Volume 48, Number 3

Engagement in Environmental Behaviors

tion and team) yielded higher levels of commitment to those same entities. As articulated previously, we suggest that organizations that convince employees of their support for the environment will generate employee commitment to the environment. To elaborate, an organization sends signals to employees about the value of environmental behavior based on the level of organizational support that is directed toward environmental matters and in so doing claries performancereward expectancies. Turban and Greening (1997) provide empirical support that rms do send signals of organizational values through their social policies and programs. Specically they observed that independent corporate social performance ratings (which included an environmental component) inuenced the reputation and subsequent attractiveness of rms to prospective employees. Research by Grant, Dutton and Rosso (2008) further indicates that organizations which provide programmatic opportunities for employees to contribute to a higher purpose (i.e., have a high company prosocial identity) demonstrate higher levels of employee affective organizational commitment. Their research suggests that when employees are given the opportunity to demonstrate support for a meaningful cause endorsed by the organization (e.g., charity, the environment), they are more likely to exhibit affective organizational commitment. H4: The higher the perception of organizational support for environmental behaviors, the higher the affective commitment to environmental behaviors. The nal linkage in our model indicates that affective commitment will be predictive of employee engagement in environmental behaviors. Employee engagement in environmental behaviors is conceptualized in three ways: frequency of involvement in environmental behaviors (e.g., looking for opportunities to reduce pollution from work-related activities); ever promoting an environmental initiative; and innovative environmental behaviors (e.g., number of eco-proposals made). Three distinct conceptualizations were used since the research on this topic is fairly recent and offers little guidance on how to operationalize employee environmental behaviors. Consequently, we did not devise separate hypotheses for each dimension of employee environmental behavior. As previously noted, affective commitment refers to an employees emotional attachment or bond to a given target (Klein, Molloy and Cooper 2009). Extensive theorizing and research has established a link between affective organizational commitment and employee behavior in the workplace including task performance, employment promotions, employee

turnover intentions, and organizational citizenship behaviors (e.g., Meyer et al. 2002, 2004; CooperHakim and Viswesvaran 2005). We borrow from this literature to hypothesize a connection between affective commitment to environmental behaviors and engagement in environmental behaviors. Specic to this research, Neubert and Cady (2001) found that members of a service organization who expressed higher commitment to a membership drive program exhibited greater levels of observable behavior in the form of attendance at more meetings, conducted more recruiting calls, and enrolled more new members as compared to those members with lower program commitment. These results are analogous to what we expect to nd with respect to employees who express higher levels of commitment to environmental behaviors and engagement in environmental behaviors (e.g., frequency of involvement in environmental behaviors; ever promoting an environmental initiative; and innovative environmental behaviors). Moreover, the connection between commitment to environmental behaviors and these umbrella environmental behaviors is crucial in that many experts have noted that as environmental practices become more advanced, their success will depend on employee involvement and commitment (Fineman 1997; Ramus 2001; Fernandez et al. 2003). Consequently, we hypothesize: H5: The higher the affective commitment to environmental behaviors, the higher the engagement in environmental behaviors.

METHODOLOGY
Survey Development and Pilot Test We conducted a survey to examine how employees are inuenced by environmental management practices to become engaged in environmental behaviors. Following the recommendations of Malhotra and Grover (1998), we developed our survey by soliciting input and feedback from ve academic faculty and 12 practitioners who are actively involved in environmental management initiatives. Additionally, a review of the government, academic, and industry environmental management literature was conducted. On the basis of the feedback that we received from the environmental management experts on the constructs in our model and a review of the environmental management literature, a preliminary version of the questionnaire was developed based upon the principles of survey design recommended by Dillman (2000). For example, we followed Dillmans (2000) recommendations concerning design of question structures (e.g., using a mixture of open-ended and close-ended response formats). We also heeded the advice of 39

July 2012

Journal of Supply Chain Management

Dillman (2000) by pretesting and pilot-testing our questionnaire with subject matter experts before administering our survey with the sponsoring organization. Lastly, as is the case with our study, Dillman (2000) recommends obtaining the support of a sponsoring organization. When possible, established items from the literature were used (Malhotra and Grover 1998).1 Basic descriptive analysis was conducted including an examination of normality, skewness, kurtosis, means, standard deviations, and Cronbach alpha values. For example, the Cronbach alphas of all items were within acceptable limits (i.e., the Cronbach alpha values of our items range between 0.747 and 0.938). We then proceeded to subject the data set to conrmatory factor analysis (CFA). The CFA t indices demonstrated excellent t (i.e., (v2 = 461.672)/ (df = 296) = 1.560, RMSEA = 0.043, CFI = 0.971, TLI = 0.965, IFI = 0.971). Therefore, analysis of the pilot test data did not indicate a need to revise the measurement items.

Survey Administration We now turn to describing the process by which we administered our survey for hypothesis testing purposes. Because of recent calls to focus more supply chain research at the behavioral level (e.g., Bendoly et al. 2010; Tokar 2010), our research question and data collection were explicitly implemented at the individual employee level within a single organization. Stated differently, since the purpose of this research is to determine how to get individuals to engage in environmental behaviors, the individual employee is the appropriate unit of analysis. In fact, prior research points out that there can be considerable variability in employee perceptions and participation in environmental behaviors and that this behavior may reect differences in perceptions and attitudes (Berns et al. 2009; Pagell and Gobeli 2009). In addition, because the focus of this research is on testing the proposed linkages articulated by our individual level model, it is appropriate to control for organizational effects that would be evident in a multi-organization study. It is common in the management and psychology literatures, which also typically pose research questions couched at the individual level, to conduct studies based on samples from single organizations (e.g., Dutton, Ashford, ONeill, Hayes and Wierba 1997; Tsai 2002; McKay,
1 Because our nomological model has not been tested previously, we conducted a pilot test for measurement renement purposes (Davis-Sramek, Mentzer and Stank 2008; Fugate, Stank and Mentzer 2009). Our pilot test was conducted on a random sample of environmental management professionals on behalf of a U.S. environmental certication organization. A random sample of 304 respondents completed the survey.

Avery, Liao and Morris 2011) and this approach is beginning to be used in the supply chain literature to address research questions pertaining to individual employees (e.g., Carter et al. 2007). Furthermore, Carter et al. (2007, p. 153) point out, as is the case in our study, that, the resources required to gain access to and perform similar analyses with a large number of informants in a rm would have been prohibitive with multiple organizations. Accordingly, we selected a global retailer that places a value on environmental management activities in supply chain management and administered our survey to a sample of their supply chain employees. This organization communicated the legitimacy of our university-connected survey to the potential respondents. The use of a sponsoring organization can increase the legitimacy of the survey research project (Malhotra and Grover 1998; Tourangeau, Rips and Rasinski 2000) as it typically and did in this case assures condentiality to the respondents. As a part of the administration of the survey, the corporate retail sponsor prenotied their supply chain employees about the survey. As described by Dillman (2000, p. 156), the prenotication process improves response rates to surveys. Moreover, survey respondents were motivated to participate in this project because the data were collected by a third party and that the subject matter of the survey entailed a topic relevant to the respondents job. As a token of appreciation for participating in the research project (Dillman 2000), we offered each survey respondent a summary of the results in return for completing the survey.

Sample The sample consists of supply chain management employees employed by a large retailer. This specic sample was selected in part because prior research suggests that supply chain management professionals do not yet think nor are they always supportive of sustainability efforts (Pagell and Gobeli 2009). Because of condentiality and institutional review board reasons, we are limited in our ability to provide detailed information about the retailer except that this organization is recognized around the world as a leader in logistics and sustainability and is ranked among Fortune Magazines 2010 most admired companies. Our survey was distributed to 317 logistics and operations management mid-level distribution center employees in the second quarter of 2010. Our retailer demonstrated support for the project by providing advanced notication about the survey and hand-delivering hard copies of the questionnaire to the potential respondents. All 317 respondents returned the completed questionnaire, which was completed during regular work hours, an accommo-

40

Volume 48, Number 3

Engagement in Environmental Behaviors

dation that further facilitated the universal response rate. The average respondent was 41 years of age (SD = 7.9) while 77 percent of the sample was composed of males (SD = 0.421). The average respondent had 13 years of work experience (SD = 5.7).

Measurement of Variables Our dependent variable, employee engagement in environmental behaviors, is operationalized using three different measures. Our rst construct, frequency of involvement, is measured by asking employees on a scale from one to nine how often they engaged in environmental management activities during the past 12 months (i.e., 1 = never, 9 = frequently). Our second dependent variable uses Ramus and Stegers (2000) one-item measure, which asks: Independent of any specic time frame, have you ever (not in just the last 12 months) tried to promote an environmental initiative within your company? Our nal dependent variable, innovative environmental behaviors, uses three items which capture the number of innovative environmental management behaviors exhibited. The independent variables consisted of three intraorganizational management practices designed to inuence the above mentioned employee environmental behaviors. The rst, supervisory support, was measured using a 9-point response format (i.e.,

1 = strongly agree, 9 = strongly agree). Our second independent variable is the employee perception of environmental training provided by the organization and measured using a 17 response format (i.e., 1 = very inaccurate, 7 = very accurate). Previous research has rarely examined environmental training except Sarkis et al. (2010). Finally, our third independent variable focused on employee perceptions of the rewards provided by the company for involvement in environmental behaviors and was measured using a 7-point response format (i.e., 1 = very inaccurate, 7 = very accurate). Perceived organizational support is measured using three scale items from Eisenberger et al. (1986), modied to refer to the organizations support of employees in solving environmental behaviors. Lastly, we measure an employees affective commitment to environmental behaviors. We also gathered data on age and gender to use as control variables, a practice commonly used in studies which examine individual level phenomena. Age was measured as a metric variable, number of years, while a dummy variable (1 = male, 0 = female) was used to capture gender. A summary of the variables along with descriptive statistics is found in Table 1. Since we estimated our model using structural equation modeling, we examined our variables for skewness and kurtosis. We

TABLE 1 Descriptive Statistics and Correlation Matrix Mean 1. Supervisory support 2. Environmental training 3. Rewards 4. Perceived organizational support 5. Commitment to environmental behaviors 6. Frequency of involvement 7. Innovative environmental behaviors 8. Ever promoted an environmental initiative 6.16 5.22 3.29 6.34 Standard Deviation 1.69 1.55 1.57 0.72 1 1.000 0.634 1.000 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

0.498 0.440 1.000 0.407 0.410 0.210

1.000

5.69

0.90

0.494 0.435 0.380 0.452

1.000

1.49 5.76

2.69 1.69

0.189

0.115

0.156 0.283 0.099

0.188

1.000 1.000

0.391 0.250 0.244

0.503 0.314

0.48

0.50

0.154

0.133

0.156

0.083

0.155 0.255 0.249 1.000

Correlation coefcients signicant at p < 0.05 are in bold.

July 2012

41

Journal of Supply Chain Management

discovered that the innovative environmental behaviors variable suffered from high skewness and kurtosis. Following the recommendations of Bollen (1989), we log transform this variable. Indeed, Bollen (1989, p. 425) points out that when non-normality or excessive kurtosis threatens the validity of a measure to be used in maximum-likelihood estimation of a structural equation model, it is appropriate to transform the variable to achieve better approximate multivariate normality. We also checked for common method variance. Common method is attributable to the measurement method rather than the construct of interest (Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Lee and Podsakoff 2003, p. 879). In our study, we have taken a number of steps to reduce common method bias, including instrument design and validation. Following Podsakoff et al. (2003) and Song and Zahedi (2005), we utilized a strategy of mixing of the response formats (scales), neutral words, multiple items for each factor, and reverse coded items to minimize common method variance. In so doing, the respondent is required to cognitively process each item in the questionnaire. Also following Podsakoff et al. (2003, p. 885), as mentioned earlier, we used 7- and 9-point response formats since it is desirable to use response formats that are of longer length because it requires greater cognitive processing and hence the items are less easy to complete thereby reducing another source of common method bias. Additionally, we used the original response format (scales) of the items that were derived from the literature to facilitate meta-analysis studies. Otherwise, it would be difcult for future researchers to compare ndings of previous studies. While there are a number of ways to check for common method variance, following Podsakoff et al. (2003), we applied both Harmons single factor test and a marker variable test. First, we conducted an exploratory factor analysis of all variables in our model to determine whether the majority of the variance can be accounted for by one general factor (Podsakoff et al. 2003, p. 890). Harmons test showed that the rst factor accounted for only 13.929 percent of variance. Next, we also performed a marker variable test to detect the presence of common method variance. Specically, we included a global measure of job satisfaction because we believe that this factor represents an employees overall attitude toward his or her job whereas our hypothesized constructs examine the specic environmentally focused attitudes, behaviors, and practices. Including the marker variable, we found that our original structural model resulted in a similar overall t (v2/ df = 678.753/387 = 1.754, CFI = 0.946, TLI = 0.940, IFI = 0.947, and RMSEA = 0.049) and produced results which were consistent to the original estimates. Finally, as depicted in Table 1, the independent variables do not show any statistically signicant correla-

tions above the 0.70 threshold (Zhu and Kraemer 2002), which indicates that these variables are distinct. Given these results, we conclude that our model is not unduly affected by common method variance and that we can proceed with our model.

RESULTS
Measurement Model Analysis Conrmatory factor analysis is used to assess the validity and adequacy of the factor structure pertaining to the measurement model. This model includes the latent factors pertaining to perceptions of supervisory support, environmental training, reward, perceived organizational support, commitment to environmental behavior, frequency of involvement, and innovative environmental behaviors. Maximumlikelihood estimation is used to test the measurement and structural models. Conrmatory Factor Analysis The CFA results of the measurement model suggest a high level of accuracy associated with the latent variables. As shown in Appendix A, the t indices for the overall measurement model and for each latent variable suggest the CFA accurately reected the underlying variancecovariance structure tying the indicator variables according to the criteria by Hu and Bentler (1999). As all loadings are statistically signicant (p < 0.01) and none of the standardized residuals is above or below 2.0, the CFA results provide evidence of discriminant validity, convergent validity, and unidimensionality (Anderson and Gerbing 1998). Discriminant validity is evaluated by examining the average variance extracted (AVE). Fornell and Larcker (1981) recommend an average extracted variance higher than 0.50. As shown in Appendix B, all of the AVE values meet the minimum required value. All construct reliability estimates are >0.70, which suggests good reliability. Overall, the measurement model t was very good (v2 = 404.151/df = 229 = 1.765, RMSEA = 0.049, CFI = 0.963, TLI = 0.956, IFI = 0.964). To obtain further support for our models validity, we compared our hypothesized (structural) model with two alternative models, which is reported in Table 2. The independent model fails to achieve reasonable t on any of the indices. Similarly, the unmediated model also demonstrates poor statistical t. Because these alternative models are less parsimonious and achieve poorer statistical t, we believe that our hypothesized model is reasonable from a statistical perspective. Structural Model Analysis The next stage of the analysis involved developing the structural model. The structural model controlled

42

Volume 48, Number 3

Engagement in Environmental Behaviors

TABLE 2 Model Fit Statistics Model Hypothesized model Unmediated model Independent model v2/df v2 = 562.010/df = 309 = 1.819 v2 = 315.889/df = 153 = 2.065 2 v = 1,087.932/df = 275 = 3.956 CFI 0.947 0.957 0.830 TLI 0.940 0.947 0.815 IFI 0.948 0.957 0.831 RMSEA 0.051 0.058 0.097

TABLE 3 R2 Values Dependent Variable Perceived organizational support Commitment to environmental behaviors Frequency of involvement Ever promoted an environmental initiative Innovative environmental behaviors R2 Value 0.475 0.384 0.458 0.060 0.073

for covariation with the variables measuring the employees age and gender. The structural model demonstrated excellent t (v2/df = 562.01/309 = 1.819, RMSEA = 0.051, CFI = 0.947, TLI = 0.940, IFI = 0.948). Because our control variables produced nonsignicant results and due to space constraints, the age and gender variable estimates are not reported. The r2 values are presented in Table 3.

Results of Hypothesis Testing Table 4 presents the results from our SEM structural path model. H1 is supported at the 0.01 level. H2 is supported the 0.01 level. H3 is not supported. H4 is supported at the 0.01 level. H5 is supported at the 0.01 level.2

DISCUSSION
Summary of Findings We found evidence that supervisory support for environmental initiatives is an important contributing factor in our model. As mentioned, others (e.g., Larkin and Larkin 1996) have suggested that supervisors may play a more visible role than top managers in encouraging pro-environmental behaviors. Supervisors serve as instrumental change agents because it is
Because our environmental behaviors construct is multidimensional in nature, we estimated our model for each of the three environmental measures independently. Each of these relationships is supported at the 0.01 level (ever promoted an environmental initiative, b = 0.148; frequency of involvement, b = 1.307; and innovative environmental behaviors, b = 1.321).
2

these individuals who provide employees with the necessary resources to facilitate environmental behavior. Furthermore, supervisors can positively inuence the employees perception that the organization genuinely values environmental behavior. In our discussions with a few companies, environmental behaviors are more readily encouraged through ad hoc committees that directly create and reward behaviors for proenvironmental behavior as compared to members of the rms top management team. Study ndings supported the hypothesis proposing that environmental training positively contributes to perceived organizational support for environmental behaviors. This nding is consistent with past research that emphasized the need to provide training programs in order to reinforce the types of behavior that the organization wants its employees to value and exhibit. Our ndings are also in line with Sarkis et al. (2010), who provided empirical evidence that training encourages employees to engage in environmental management activities. Thus, our results enhance prior research by providing empirical documentation that training increases the perception of perceived organizational support of environmental behaviors. Our results did not provide empirical support for the argument that rewards for environmental behaviors would signal to employees that the organization was supportive of environmental activities. Similar to training programs, our thought was that rewards would encourage and reinforce behaviors that the organization expects it employees to value and exhibit as a part of their job duties and responsibilities. However, the data simply do not support this line of reasoning. The relatively low mean rating of rewards (M = 3.29 using a 17 metric), suggests that the organization is not thought to be providing many rewards for environmental activities, especially compared to training (M = 5.22), which was also assessed using the same 17 metric. Until organizations begin to promote or more actively provide rewards to employees for environmental behaviors, rewards will not accurately serve to signal organizational intent. Indeed, the perception of lack of rewards may indicate to employees that environmental behaviors are not truly appreciated by the organization.

July 2012

43

Journal of Supply Chain Management

TABLE 4 SEM Structural Path Results Structural Path Supervisory supportPOS Environmental trainingPOS RewardsPOS POScommitment to environmental behaviors Commitment to environmental behaviorsfrequency of involvement Commitment to environmental behaviorsever promoted an environmental initiative Commitment to environmental behaviorsinnovative environmental behaviors Standard errors are reported in parentheses. ***Signicant at p = 0.01 level. Path Coefcient 0.202*** 0.124*** 0.003 0.630*** 1.547*** (0.036) (0.034) (0.031) (0.079) (0.379) Hypothesis H1 H2 H3 H4 H5 H5 H5 Finding Supported Supported Not supported Supported Supported Supported Supported

0.165*** (0.044) 1.343*** (0.161)

A key study nding was the positive relationship between employee perception of organizational support for environmental behaviors and employee affective commitment to environmental management practices. Many rms are now looking to build commitment to environmental behaviors among their employees and our results suggest that enhancing employee perceptions that the organization is fully supportive of environmentally friendly practices is a viable way to do just this. Our study provides initial evidence that organizations whose agents and policies communicate support for the environment send positive signals about corporate environmental programs and garner employees who internalize commitment to the environment. This suggests that organizations that are struggling to engage their employees in environmental behaviors should establish clear environmental goals, policies, and procedures and offer appropriate training in order to facilitate the POS which in turn will gain the commitment of their employees to proenvironmental behaviors.3 Perhaps most importantly, we found that the greater employee affective commitment to environmental practices, the greater the employees environmental behavior. As highlighted earlier, there has been scant research that has explicitly developed and measured employee participation in environmental behaviors. We found the relationship between commitment and behavior using three distinct measures; specically:
3 The average frequency of involvement in environmental activities measures was quite low. Future research is needed to understand how long it is before such efforts bear the benets desired by the rm. Future research should also investigate why a rms top management vision is not being received and acted-upon by employees at lower levels of the organization. We thank an anonymous reviewer for this comment.

(1) frequency of involvement in environmental behaviors, (2) promotion of an environmental practice, and (3) innovative environmental behaviors. Thus our study, in part, extends past research by looking at multiple aspects of employee environmental behavior. Future research should continue to explore how these and other measures, such as the amount of time spent on environmental initiatives, could provide important insight into how employees are engaged in pro-environmental behavior. In any case, our study suggests that for employees to engage in more environmentally conscious behaviors, they need to develop a sense of emotional commitment to such environmental causes. Stated differently, employees will engage in more environmental behaviors, if they want to do so.

Theoretical and Practical Implications There has been a recent call for greater attention to behavioral aspects of supply chain management (Boudreau, Hopp, McClain and Thomas 2003; Carter, Kaufmann and Michel 2007; Bendoly et al. 2010; Tokar 2010; among many others). This research investigation, based on a behavioral theory and employing individuals as the unit of analysis, seeks to heed this call. Specically, our research developed and tested a model of employee perceptions of environmental management practices which contribute to employeelevel engagement in environmental behaviors. We have provided statistical evidence that two specic employee perceptions of environmental management practices (supervisory support and training) contribute to employee-level engagement in environmental behaviors through the perceptions and attitudes they foster. Our results can help rms understand the impact of their management practices on gaining sup-

44

Volume 48, Number 3

Engagement in Environmental Behaviors

port and involvement among employees to become engaged in environmental activities. In addition to demonstrating statistical signicance, as described in the introduction, our model has theoretical and realworld implications. As pointed out in the MIT Sloan Management Review and Boston Consulting Group study (Berns et al. 2009), organizations are struggling on how to motivate their employees to become engaged in environmental activities. More broadly, our research is also in line with and supportive of the growing practice of using behavioral theories to address supply chain issues. Tangpong, Hung and Ro (2010) relied on transaction cost economics, personality trait theory, and contingency theory to explain buyerseller relationships. Goal setting theory was instrumental in explaining the relative success of operations managers in product development projects (Rauniar, Doll, Rawski and Hong 2008). While more examples can be cited, it is clear that future behavioral research has the potential to provide greater explanation for supply chain problems. Our research represents the initial effort to apply OST to a domain apart from employeeorganizational relationships. Specically, we move beyond the traditional application of OST and use this theoretical lens to explain employee behavior in the environmental domain. Our results support the extrapolation of OST to illustrate how organizations can convey favorable treatment toward the environment and consequently increase environmental behaviors. A specic theoretical contribution to the supply chain literature is the extension of OST to garner a better understanding of factors that promote environmental behaviors within organizations. Stated differently, the behavioral science literature provided a suitable explanatory framework that with modication helped address an important supply chain issue. We believe OST offers a sound explanation for how organizations might modify their internal infrastructures to champion environmental behaviors among their employees through its effects on POS and affective commitment. From this theoretical perspective, we explicated concepts and measures appropriate to the environmental realm to provide a model specically aimed at predicting employment engagement in environmental behaviors.4 As mentioned in the Introduction, our study has several important practical implications. While organizaWe acknowledge that not all components of OST transfer to the environmental context and that additional indicators of its core construct, favorable treatment, may be appropriate for its use in other research domains. For example, other ways to signal that the organization values the environment might be to formalize how environmental matters are handled, to invest more in environmental practices, and to create a pro-environmental culture akin to safety culture or quality climate.
4

tions are beginning to make major nancial investments to encourage their employees to engage in environmental behaviors, we discovered through interviews with several organizations including the NAEM that many rms are struggling with how to promote employee involvement in environmental management activities (Hoekenga 2010; Neuvelt 2010). This may be a response to pressures from key stakeholders who value proenvironmental organizations. Organizations may see the value that pro-environmental policies and practices can bring about as far as recruitment, retention, and engagement of employees. Thus, there are multiple reasons behind the growing interest in how organizations can encourage employee participation in environmental behaviors. Therefore, our ndings help to elucidate the types of intra-organizational practices needed to promote environmental behaviors. The insights from our model provide initial support for the importance of increasing perception of managerial support, training, and reward structure necessary to encourage desired environmental attitudes and behaviors.

CONCLUSIONS AND DIRECTIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH

The contribution of our article is the creation and testing of a causal model derived from OST to explain employee engagement in environmental behaviors. Using three different constructs for employee engagement in environmental behaviors, we provide a deeper understanding of actual employee-level environmental behavior than has been previously reported. Our results are based on a data set of logistics and operations employees. While our research has made an important contribution to the literature, there are several opportunities for future research beyond those discussed above. Specically, this work bears implications for increased study of individual supply chain employees (i.e., research where individual employees are the unit of analysis) within a single organization. The empirical ndings provided by supply chain employees working in a single rm indicated that there was considerable variability in employee participation in environmental behaviors and that this behavior reected individual differences in perceptions and attitudes. The variability in employee environmental participation might be the result of insufcient rewards practices by this organization. Employees might only engage in desired behaviors if they are properly compensated to do so. Future research should continue to examine the alignment between a rms rewards practices and employee environmental behaviors. Future research should also examine our nomological model in organizations where sustainability is currently not a priority. In so

July 2012

45

Journal of Supply Chain Management

doing, future research might also examine employee engagement in more tailored measures of environmental behavior designed for employees working in specic functional areas (e.g., logistics, purchasing). Also, future research could explicitly focus on whether an employees environmental behavior plays a part of the annual performance review process. Our ndings suggest that greater research attention to individual employees could demonstrate utility in many supply chain areas. For example, the adoption of JIT practices is frequently promoted and might be better understood if examined at the individual level and, to extend our research, through the use of OST. An interesting future research question is: Does a supply chain employees perceived organizational support of the implementation of JIT practices inuence the supply chain employees affective commitment to implementing JIT tools and techniques with the rms supply base? Thus, there are numerous opportunities to investigate employee-level perceptions of the organization in the broader domains of supply chain management and sustainability. For example, future research should examine how POS might promote supply chain employee involvement in areas such as supplier development (Lao, Hong and Rao 2010), outsourcing relationships (Bustinza, Molina and Gutierrez-Gutierrez 2010) global sustainability practices (Reuter et al. 2010). In so doing, such research may uncover an untapped mechanism for increasing employee commitment and involvement in supply chain activities.

REFERENCES
Ahmad, S. and R.G. Schroeder. The Impact of Human Resource Management Practices on Operational Performance: Recognizing Country and Industry Differences, Journal of Operations Management, (21), 2003, 19-43. Anderson, J.C. and D.W. Gerbing. Structural Equation Modeling in Practice: A Review and Recommended Two-Step Approach, Psychological Bulletin, (103:3), 1998, pp. 411-423. Andersson, L.M. and T.S. Bateman. Individual Environmental Initiative: Championing Natural Environmental Issues in U.S. Business Organizations, Academy of Management Journal, (43:4), 2000, pp. 548-570. Armstrong-Stassen, M. and N.D. Ursel.Perceived Organizational Support, Career Satisfaction, and the Retention of Older Workers, Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, (82:1), 2009, pp. 201-220. Aselage, J. and R. Eisenberger. Perceived Organizational Support and Psychological Contracts: A Theoretical Integration, Journal of Organizational Behavior, (24:5), 2003, pp. 491-509.

Barbaro, M. At Wal-Mart, Lessons in Self-Help, New York Times, http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/05/ business/05improve.html?pagewanted=all (last accessed online, February 23, 2011), 2007. Beer, M., R.A. Eisenstat and B. Spector. Why Change Programs Dont Produce Change, Harvard Business Review, (68:6), 1990, pp. 158-166. Behson, S.J. Which Dominates? The Relative Importance of Work-Family Organizational Support and General Organizational Context on Employee Outcomes, Journal of Vocational Behavior, (61:1), 2002, pp. 53-72. Bendoly, E., R. Croson, P. Goncalves and K.L. Schultz. Bodies of Knowledge for Research in Behavioral Operations, Production and Operations Management, (19:4), 2010, pp. 434-452. Bentein, K., F. Stinglhamber and C. Vandenberghe. Organization-, Supervisor-, and WorkgroupDirected Commitments and Citizenship Behaviors: A Comparison of Models, European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, (11), 2002, pp. 341-362. Berns, M., A. Townend, Z. Khayat, B. Balagopal, M. Reeves, M. Hopkins and N. Kruschwitz. The Business of Sustainability: Findings and Insights From the First Annual Business of Sustainability Survey and the Global Thought Leaders Research Project, MIT Sloan Management Review, (51:1), 2009, pp. 1-84. Bishop, J.W., K.D. Scott, M.G. Goldsby and R. Cropanzano. A Construct Validity Study of Commitment and Perceived Support Variables, Group and Organization Management, (30:2), 2005, pp. 153-180. Bollen, K.A. Structural Equations With Latent Variables. Wiley, New York, 1989. Boudreau, J., W. Hopp, J. McClain and L.J. Thomas. On the Interface Between Operations and Human Resources Management, Manufacturing and Service Operations Management, (5:3), 2003, pp. 179-202. Boyt, T.E., R.F. Lusch and G. Naylor. The Role of Professionalism in Determining Job Satisfaction in Professional Services, Journal of Service Research, (3:4), 2001, pp. 321-330. Brio, J.A., E. Fernandez and B. Junquera. Management and Employee Involvement in Achieving an Environmental Action-Based Competitive Advantage: An Empirical Study, International Journal of Human Resource Management, (18:4), 2007, pp. 491-522. Bustinza, O.F., L.M. Molina and L.J. Gutierrez-Gutierrez. Outsourcing as Seen From the Perspective of Knowledge Management, Journal of Supply Chain Management, (46:3), 2010, pp. 23-41. Carter, C.R. Purchasing and Social Responsibility: A Replication and Extension, Journal of Supply Chain Management, (40:4), 2004, pp. 4-18. Carter, C.R. and M.E. Dresner. Purchasings Role in Environmental Management: Cross-Functional Development of Grounded Theory, Journal of

46

Volume 48, Number 3

Engagement in Environmental Behaviors

Supply Chain Management, (37:3), 2001, pp. 1227. Carter, C.R. and M.M. Jennings. The Role of Purchasing in Corporate Social Responsibility: A Structural Equation Analysis, Journal of Business Logistics, (25:1), 2004, pp. 145-186. Carter, C.R., R. Kale and C.M. Grimm. Environmental Purchasing and Firm Performance: An Empirical Investigation. Transportation Research. Part E, Logistics & Transportation Review, (36E:3), 2000, pp. 219-228. Carter, C.R., L.M. Ellram and W.L. Tate. The Use of Social Network Analysis in Logistics Research, Journal of Business Logistics, (28:1), 2007a, pp. 57-81. Carter, C.R., L. Kaufmann and A. Michel. Behavioral Supply Management: A Taxonomy of Judgment and Decision-Making Biases, International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, (37:8), 2007b, pp. 631-669. Cooper-Hakim, A. and C. Viswesvaran. The Construct of Work Commitment: Testing an Integrative Framework, Psychological Bulletin, (131:2), 2005, pp. 241-259. Corbett, C.J. and R.D. Klassen. Extending the Horizons: Environmental Excellence as Key to Improving Operations, Manufacturing and Service Operations Management, (8:1), 2006, pp. 5-22. Covin, T.J. and R.H. Kilmann. Participant Perceptions of Positive and Negative Inuences on Large Scale Change, Group and Organization Studies, (15:2), 1990, pp. 233-248. Crane, A. Corporate Greening as Amoralization, Organization Studies, (21:4), 2000, pp. 673-696. Cummings, L. Organizational Climates for Creativity, Academy of Management Journal, (8:3), 1965, pp. 220-227. Daily, B.F. and S. Huang. Achieving Sustainability Through Attention to Human Resource Factors in Environmental Management, International of Journal of Operations and Production Management, (21:12), 2001, pp. 1539-1552. Davis-Sramek, B., J.T. Mentzer and T.P. Stank. Creating Consumer Durable Retailer Customer Loyalty Through Order Fulllment Service Operations, Journal of Operations Management, (26:6), 2008, pp. 781-797. Dillman, D.A. Mail and Internet Surveys The Tailored Design Method. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York, 2000. Dobos, I. The Effects of Emission Trading on Production and Inventories in the Arrow-Karlin Model, International Journal of Production Economics, (93 94), 2005, pp. 301-308. Drumwright, M.E. Socially Responsible Organizational Buying: Environmental Concern as a Noneconomic Buying Criterion, Journal of Marketing, (58:3), 1994, pp. 1-19. Dutton, J.E., S.J. Ashford, R.M. ONeill, E. Hayes and E.E. Wierba. Reading the Wind: How Middle Managers Assess the Context for Selling Issues to

Top Managers, Strategic Management Journal, (18:5), 1997, pp. 407-423. Eisenberger, R., R. Huntington, S. Hutchison and D. Sowa, Perceived Organizational Support, Journal of Applied Psychology, (71), 1986, pp. 500-507. Eisenberger, R., S. Armeli, B. Rexwinkel, P.D. Lynch and L. Rhoades. Reciprocation of Perceived Organizational Support, Journal of Applied Psychology, (86:1), 2001, pp. 42-51. Ergi, C.P. and S. Herman. Leadership in the North American Environmental Sector: Values, Leadership Styles, and Contexts of Environmental Leaders and Their Organizations, Academy of Management Journal, (43:4), 2000, pp. 571-604. Fernandez, E., B. Junquera and M. Ordiz. Organizational Culture and Human Resources in the Environmental Issue: A Review of the Literature, International Journal of Human Resource Management, (14:4), 2003, pp. 634-656. Fineman, S. Constructing the Green Manager, British Journal of Management, (8), 1997, pp. 31-38. Fornell, C. and D.F. Larcker. Evaluating Structural Equation Models With Unobservable Variables and Measurement Error, Journal of Marketing Research, (18:1), 1981, pp. 39-50. Fu, F.Q., W. Bolander and E. Jones. Managing the Drivers of Organizational Commitment and Salesperson Effort: An Application of Meyer and Allens Three-Component Model, Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, (17:4), 2009, pp. 335-350. Fugate, B.S., T.P. Stank and J.T. Mentzer. Linking Improved Knowledge Management to Operational and Organizational Performance, Journal of Operations Management, (27:3), 2009, pp. 247-264. Gattiker, T.F. and C.R. Carter. Understanding Project Champions Ability to Gain Intra-Organizational Commitment for Environmental Projects, Journal of Operations Management, (28:1), 2010, pp. 7285. Grant, A.M., J.E. Dutton and B.D. Rosso. Giving Commitment: Employee Support Programs and the Prosocial Sensemaking Process, Academy of Management Journal, (51:5), 2008, pp. 898-918. Handeld, R.B., S.V. Walton, S.A. Melnyk and L.K. Seegars. Green Value Chain Practices in the Furniture Industry, Journal of Operations Management, (15:4), 1997, pp. 293-315. Hoekenga, V. Personal Interview. National Association of Environmental Managers, December 4, 2010. Hu, L. and P.M. Bentler. Cutoff Criteria for t Indexes in Covariance Structure Analysis: Conventional Criteria Versus New Alternatives, Structural Equation Modeling, (6:1), 1999, pp. 1-55. Jabbour, C.J.C. and F.C.A. Santos. The Central Role of Human Resource Management in the Search for Sustainable Organizations, International Journal of Human Resource Management, (19:12), 2008, pp. 2133-2154. Jensen, M.C. and W.H. Meckling. Specic and General Knowledge, and Organisational Structure,

July 2012

47

Journal of Supply Chain Management

Journal of Applied Corporate Finance, (8:2), 1995, pp. 4-18. Jung, D. and J. Sosik. Group Potency and Collective Efcacy: Examining Their Predictive Validity, Level of Analysis, and Effects of Performance Feedback on Future Group Performance, Group and Organization Management, (28:3), 2003, pp. 366-391. Kimberly, J.R. and M.J. Evanisko. Organizational Innovation: The Inuence of Individual, Organizational and Contextual Factors on Hospital Adoption of Technological and Administrative Innovation, Academy of Management Journal, (24:4), 1981, pp. 689-713. Klein, H.J., J.C. Molloy and J.T. Cooper. Conceptual Foundations: Construct Denitions and Theoretical Representations of Workplace Commitments, in H.J. Klein, T.E. Becker and J.P. Meyer (Eds.), Commitment in Organizations, Accumulated Wisdom and New Directions, Vol. 3. Routledge, New York, 2009, pp. 3-36. Lao, Y., P. Hong and S.S. Rao. Supply Management, Supply Flexibility and Performance Outcomes: An Empirical Investigation of Manufacturing Firms, Journal of Supply Chain Management, (46:3), 2010, pp. 6-24. Larkin, T.J. and S. Larkin. Reaching and Changing Front-Line Employees, Harvard Business Review, (MayJune), 1996, pp. 95-104. Malhotra, M.K. and V. Grover. An Assessment of Survey Research in POM: From Constructs to Theory, Journal of Operations Management, (16:4), 1998, pp. 407-425. McKay, P.F., D.R. Avery, H. Liao and M.A. Morris. Does Diversity Climate Lead to Customer Satisfaction? It Depends on the Service Climate and Business Unit Demography, Organization Science, (22:3), 2011, pp. 788-804. Meyer, J.P. and N.J. Allen. Commitment in the Workplace. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA, 1997. Meyer, J.P., D.J. Stanley, L. Herscovitch and L. Topolnytsky. Affective, Continuance, and Normative Commitment to the Organization: A Meta-Analysis of Antecedents, Correlates, and Consequences, Journal of Vocational Behavior, (61:1), 2002, pp. 20-52. Meyer, J.P., T.E. Becker and C. Vandenberghe. Employee Commitment and Motivation: A Conceptual Analysis and Integrative Model, Journal of Applied Psychology, (89), 2004, pp. 991-1007. Montabon, F., R. Sroufe and R. Narasimhan. An Examination of Corporate Reporting, Environmental Management Practices and Firm Performance, Journal of Operations Management, (25:5), 2007, pp. 998-1014. Mowday, R.T., R.M. Steers and L.W. Porter. The Measurement of Organizational Commitment, Journal of Applied Psychology, (14:2), 1979, pp. 224-247. NAEM. 2009. Advancing Sustainability: Putting Your Employees to Work, http://greentie.naem.org/

2009/05/12/advancing-sustainability-putting-youremployees-to-work/ last accessed February 23, 2011. Neubert, M.J. and S.H. Cady. Program Commitment: A Multi-Study Longitudinal Field Investigation of Its Impact and Antecedents, Personnel Psychology, (54:2), 2001, pp. 421-448. Neuvelt, C. Personal Interview. National Association of Environmental Managers, 4 December 2010. Pagell, M. and D. Gobeli. How Plant Managers Experiences and Attitudes Toward Sustainability Relate to Operational Performance, Production and Operations Management, (18:3), 2009, pp. 278-299. Paulraj, A. Understanding the Relationships Between Internal Resources and Capabilities, Sustainable Supply Management and Organizational Sustainability, Journal of Supply Chain Management, (47:1), 2011, pp. 19-39. Podsakoff, P.M., S.B. MacKenzie, J.Y. Lee and N.P. Podsakoff. Common Method Biases in Behavioral Research: A Critical Review of the Literature and Recommended Remedies, Journal of Applied Psychology, (88:5), 2003, pp. 879-903. Potoski, M. and A. Prakash. Institutional Design for EMS-Based Government Procurement Policies, Global Environmental Politics, (6:4), 2006, pp. 1322. Ramus, C.A. Organizational Support for Employees: Encouraging Creative Ideas for Environmental Sustainability, California Management Review, (43:5), 2001, pp. 85-105. Ramus, C.A. and U. Steger. The Roles of Supervisory Support Behaviors and Environmental Policy in Employee Ecoinitiatives at Leading-Edge European Companies, Academy of Management Journal, (43:4), 2000, pp. 605-626. Rauniar, R., W. Doll, G. Rawski and P. Hong. The Role of Heavyweight Product Manager in New Product Development, International Journal of Operations & Production Management, (28:2), 2008, pp. 130-154. Reuter, C., K. Foerstl, E. Hartmann and C. Blome. Sustainable Global Supplier Management: The Role of Dynamic Capabilities in Achieving Competitive Advantage, Journal of Supply Chain Management, (46:2), 2010, pp. 45-65. Rhoades, L. and R. Eisenberger. Perceived Organizational Support: A Review of the Literature, Journal of Applied Psychology, (87:4), 2002, pp. 698-714. Rhoades, L., R. Eisenberger and S. Armeli. Affective Commitment to the Organization: The Contribution of Perceived Organizational Support, Journal of Applied Psychology, (86:5), 2001, pp. 825-836. Riggle, R.J., D.R. Edmondson and J.D. Hansen. A Meta-Analysis of the Relationship Between Perceived Organizational Support and Job Outcomes: 20 Years of Research, Journal of Business Research, (62), 2009, pp. 1027-1030. Rothenberg, S. Knowledge Content and Worker Participation in Environmental Management at

48

Volume 48, Number 3

Engagement in Environmental Behaviors

NUMMI, Journal of Management Studies, (40:7), 2003, pp. 1783-1802. Sammalisto, K. and T. Brorson. Training and Communication in the Implementation of Environmental Management Systems (ISO 14001): A Case Study at the University of Ga vle, Sweden, Journal of Cleaner Production, (16:3), 2008, pp. 299-309. Sarkis, J.P., P. Gonzalez-Torre and B. Adenso-Diaz. Stakeholder Pressure and the Adoption of Environmental Practices: The Mediating Effect of Training, Journal of Operations Management, (28:2), 2010, pp. 163-176. Scott, W.R. and J.W. Meyer. The Rise of Training Programs in Firms and Agencies: An Institutional Perspective, in: L.L. Cummings and B.M. Staw (Eds.), Research in Organizational Behavior, Vol. 13, JAI Press, Greenwich, CT, 1991, pp. 297-326. Shore, L.M. and T.H. Shore. Perceived Organizational Support and Organizational Justice, in R.S. Cropanzano and K.M. Kacmar (Eds.), Organizational Politics, Justice and Support: Managing the Social Climate of the Workplace. Quorum Books, Westport, CT, 1995. Song, J. and F. Zahedi. A Theoretical Approach to Web Design in e-Commerce: A Belief Reinforcement Model, Management Science, (51:8), 2005, pp. 1219-1235. Susskind, A.M., K.M. Kacmar and C.P. Borchgrevink. Customer Service Providers Attitudes Relating to Customer Service and Customer Satisfaction in the Customer-Server Exchange, Journal of Applied Psychology, (88:1), 2003, pp. 179-187. Tangpong, C., K.-T. Hung and Y.K. Ro. The Interaction Effect of Relational Norms and Agent Cooperativeness on Opportunism in Buyer-Seller Relationships, Journal of Operations Management, (28), 2010, pp. 398-414. Tokar, T. Behavioural Research in Logistics and Supply Chain Management, International Journal of Logistics Management, (21:1), 2010, pp. 89-103. Tourangeau, R., J.L. Rips and K. Rasinski. The Psychology of Survey Response. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 2000. Triana, M.D.C., M.F. Garcia and A. Colella. Managing Diversity: How Organizational Efforts to Support Diversity Moderate the Effects of Perceived Racial Discirmination on Affective Commitment, Personnel Psychology, (63:4), 2010, pp. 817-843. Tsai, W. Social Structure of Competition Within a Multiunit Organization: Coordination, Competition, and Intra-Organizational Knowledge Sharing, Organization Science, (13), 2002, pp. 179-190. Turban, D.B. and D.W. Greening. Corporate Social Performance and Organizational Attractiveness to Prospective Employees, Academy of Management Journal, (40:3), 1997, pp. 658-672. Van Iddekinge, C.H., G.R. Ferris, P.L. Perrewe, A.A. Perryman, F.R. Blass and T.D. Heetderks. Effects of Selection and Training on Unit-Level Perfor-

mance Over Time: A Latent Growth Modeling Approach, Journal of Applied Psychology, (94:4), 2009, pp. 829-843. Yuan, F. and R.W. Woodman. Innovative Behavior in the Workplace: The Role of Performance and Image Outcome Expectations, Academy of Management Journal, (53:2), 2010, pp. 323-342. Zhu, K. and K. Kraemer. E-Commerce Metrics for Net-Enhanced Organizations: Assessing the Value of e-Commerce to Firm Performance in the Manufacturing Sector, Information Systems Research, (13:3), 2002, pp. 275-295.

David E. Cantor (Ph.D., University of Maryland) is assistant professor of supply chain management in the College of Business at Iowa State University in Ames, Iowa. His primary research interest is in supply chain management and information systems, with a particular focus on the U.S. motor carrier industry. Dr. Cantor also is interested in human decision making in the supply chain. His research on these topics has been published in many academic and managerial outlets including the Journal of Business Logistics, the Journal of Operations Management, the Transportation Journal, Transportation Research (Logistics and Transportation Review), the International Journal of Physical Distribution and Logistics Management and the International Journal of Logistics Management. Paula C. Morrow (Ph.D., Iowa State University) is a University Professor and the Max S. Wortman, Jr. Professor of Management at Iowa State University. In addition to employee-level involvement in environmental matters, her research focuses on understanding employee attitudes and behaviors especially employee loyalty, turnover and safety. Dr. Morrow is the author of The Theory and Measurement of Work Commitment, and has published over 70 refereed articles in outlets that include the Academy of Management Review and the Journal of Applied Psychology. Dr. Morrow has served on several editorial review boards and has provided policy advice to both public and private organizations, particularly in the transportation sector. Frank Montabon (Ph.D., Michigan State University) is an associate professor at Iowa State University. In addition to his academic degrees, he has obtained a number of professional certications including the CPSM, CPIM, CIRM and CSCP credentials. Dr. Montabons research focuses on issues of environmental management. He has done large-scale surveys on ISO 14000 and has published research on the efcacy of

July 2012

49

Journal of Supply Chain Management

environmental approaches. Dr. Montabons current research projects involve the effect of proactive environmental efforts on innovation, factors correlating to

successful environmental management system implementation, and food systems. He serves as an Associate Editor for the Journal of Supply Chain Management.

APPENDIX A Measurement Model Results

Latent Factor (Item) Supervisory support (Susskind et al. 2003) My supervisor directly encourages me to work on eco-initiatives When engaging in eco-initiative activities, my supervisor is very supportive My supervisor provides me with useful advice related to eco-initiatives I nd my supervisor very helpful in performing eco-initiative activities Environmental training I have received training related to environmental issues (e.g., global warming) I have received training related to environmental management practices I have received training related to environmental tools/techniques Rewards (Boyt et al. 2001) I am recognized for keeping up with the latest environmental developments in my eld I am rewarded for performing work that has a positive environmental impact on both the rm and society I am recognized for exhibiting positive attitudes toward my companys environmental objectives Nonstandardized Loadings 1.625 1.474 1.687 1.514 Standardized Loadings 0.886 0.850 0.871 0.773 Standard Errors 0.083 0.080 0.089 0.096

1.480

0.850

0.079

1.503 1.509

0.968 0.945

0.065 0.068

1.480

0.811

0.089

1.518

0.876

0.082

1.382

0.823

0.081

Perceived organizational support (Eisenberger et al. 1986) My company is willing to 0.697 assist employees in solving environmental problems Help is available in my company when 0.538 environmental problems arise My company is willing to extend itself to 0.692 solve an environmental problem Commitment to environmental behaviors (Mowday, Steers and Porter 1979) 0.682 Having company practices and activities that support the environment inspires me to do the best I can in my job

0.810

0.044

0.732 0.714

0.039 0.052

0.663

0.055

(Continued)

50

Volume 48, Number 3

Engagement in Environmental Behaviors

APPENDIX A (Continued) Latent Factor (Item) I am really committed to our environmental activities I am proud to tell others about aspects of my work that support the environment I am willing to put in a great deal of effort beyond what is normally expected in order to make eco-initiatives successful Frequency of involvement (Montabon et al. 2007) I look for opportunities to reduce pollution from work-related activities I champion the use of energy conservation efforts in my department I actively research solutions to my companys environmental problems I am highly motivated to replace materials with those that are more environmentally friendly Innovative environmental behaviors How many eco-initiative ideas crossed your mind? How many formal eco-initiative ideas did you share with others? How many eco-initiative proposals did you make?
All loadings are statistically signicant at the 0.01 level.

Nonstandardized Loadings 0.810 0.704 0.861

Standardized Loadings 0.788 0.660 0.701

Standard Errors 0.052 0.057 0.065

1.815 1.550 1.396 1.387

0.809 0.678 0.717 0.730

0.113 0.122 0.102 0.099

2.603 3.665 0.858

0.911 0.856 0.522

0.204 0.298 0.111

APPENDIX B Reliability of Measure Results

Latent Factor Supervisory support Environmental training Rewards Perceived organizational support Commitment to environmental behaviors Frequency of involvement Innovative environmental behaviors Average Variance Extracted 0.716 0.851 0.701 0.567 0.497 0.540 0.612 Construct Reliability 0.970 0.973 0.962 0.974 0.972 0.952 0.895 Cronbachs a 0.916 0.940 0.873 0.787 0.757 0.819 0.782

July 2012

51