Available via license: CC BY 4.0
Content may be subject to copyright.
Academic Editors: Fulvio Signore,
Carmela Buono and Giuseppina
Dell’Aversana
Received: 13 November 2024
Revised: 21 January 2025
Accepted: 27 January 2025
Published: 17 February 2025
Citation: Yin, C.; Tan, J.; Deng, Y.
Corporate Social Responsibility
Motive Attributions and Green
Behaviors: Moderating Effect of Green
Intrinsic Motivation. Sustainability
2025,17, 1651. https://doi.org/
10.3390/su17041651
Copyright: © 2025 by the authors.
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
This article is an open access article
distributed under the terms and
conditions of the Creative Commons
Attribution (CC BY) license
(https://creativecommons.org/
licenses/by/4.0/).
Article
Corporate Social Responsibility Motive Attributions and Green
Behaviors: Moderating Effect of Green Intrinsic Motivation
Changqin Yin 1, Jie Tan 2,* and Yi Deng 1
1School of Management, Wuhan Polytechnic University, Wuhan 430024, China;
yinchangqin2015@163.com (C.Y.); dy@whpu.edu.cn (Y.D.)
2School of Management, Shenzhen Polytechnic University, Shenzhen 518055, China
*Correspondence: jietan@szpu.edu.cn
Abstract: Employee green behavior plays an important role in the realization of corporate
social responsibility (CSR) goals, and the employee motive attribution of CSR can affect
employee green behavior. Therefore, it is important to understand how CSR motive at-
tribution affects their green behavior. However, existing studies rarely establish a direct
link between CSR motive attribution and green behavior. Based on the attribution theory,
we establish a framework to explore the impact of CSR motive attributions on employees’
green behaviors. To examine our theoretical model and research hypotheses, we conducted
an experimental study (Study 1) and a multi-wave survey study (Study 2). The combined
results show that (substantive and symbolic) CSR motive attributions positively influence
in-role green behavior; however, for extra-role green behavior, substantive CSR motive attri-
bution positively influences it, while symbolic CSR motive attribution negatively influences
it. Green intrinsic motivation positively moderates the relationship between CSR motive
attributions and in-role green behavior and positively moderates the relationship between
substantive CSR motive attribution and extra-role green behavior but negatively moderates
the relationship between symbolic CSR motive attribution and extra-role green behavior.
This research contributes to the literature related to micro-CSR and provides explanations
for the favorable and unfavorable environmental results brought on by substantive and
symbolic CSR, respectively.
Keywords: substantive CSR motive attribution; symbolic CSR motive attribution; in-role
green behavior; extra-role green behavior; green intrinsic motivation
1. Introduction
The increasingly serious problems of global climate change, resource depletion, and
ecological destruction that come with economic development have made environmental
protection and sustainable development a global focus of attention. As a member of society,
enterprises should take responsibility for environmental protection. However, enterprise
development is also seen as an important factor in driving economic growth and creating
employment opportunities, so uncovering methods to balance the relationship between
their own economic development and environmental protection has become an important
issue for the development of enterprises. To handle the relationship between economic
development and environmental protection, an increasing number of organizations are
accepting the concept of CSR [
1
,
2
]. CSR is an organizational policy that takes into account
the expectations of stakeholders and the triple bottom line of economy, society, and environ-
ment [
3
]. Specific policies and measures include strengthening environmental protection
publicity in enterprises, promoting a circular economy, establishing green supply chain
Sustainability 2025,17, 1651 https://doi.org/10.3390/su17041651
Sustainability 2025,17, 1651 2 of 26
systems, selecting environmentally friendly suppliers and logistics service providers, etc.
The success of CSR often depends on employees because its implementation often trans-
forms into employees’ environmental behavior [
4
]. Although employees’ environmental
behaviors seem ordinary or minor when viewed individually, with time and accumulation,
they can accelerate the company’s greening process and have a multiplier effect on the
company’s environmental performance, socio-economic development, and improvement
in the ecological environment [
5
]. Existing research shows that CSR is positively related
to employees’ environmental behaviors [
6
]. However, as employees’ awareness of so-
cial responsibility increases, the impact of CSR on employee environmental behavior has
become complex. In recent years, organization fraud scandals, such as the Volkswagen
diesel fraud scandal and the emergence of greenwashing, have occurred frequently [
7
],
making employees increasingly concerned about the motivation behind the organization’s
CSR activities [
8
]. Different CSR motive attributions have different effects on employees’
environmental behavior [7].
When employees believe that CSR activities are truly and substantially based on
meeting social and environmental needs, they will make substantive attributions to the
motivation of CSR activities. For example, ByteDance’s Headline Tracing column has
successfully helped hundreds of families, which is being regarded as substantive CSR
activity. However, when employees think that the enterprise only symbolically participates
in the CSR practice to obtain economic benefits [
9
], they will make symbolic attributions
to the motivation of the CSR activities. For example, Procter and Gamble, after being
found to contain contraband in cosmetics, has increased its investment in scientific research,
education, and the environment, but the public has always regarded it as a symbolic CSR
activity of public welfare marketing. Substantive CSR motive attribution (the following
text is referred to as substantive CSR) usually results in positive attitudes and behaviors,
such as organizational citizenship behavior and job satisfaction [
9
]. Symbolic CSR motive
attribution (the following text is referred to as symbolic CSR) usually leads to negative
employee attitudes and behaviors [
10
]. However, some studies show that both external
and internal CSR motive attribution can positively affect in-role performance and extra-role
performance [
11
]. CSR motive attribution is also often regarded as an important mediate
variable and moderate variable. Vlachos et al. (2013) [
9
] found that employees’ CSR motive
motivation attribution played a mediating role in the impact of charismatic leaders on
employee job satisfaction. CSR motive attribution also acts as a mediator between CEO
ethics and stakeholder support of CSR initiatives [
11
]. Afsar et al. (2020) [
7
] show substan-
tive CSR can strengthen the impact of employees’ CSR perception on pro-environmental
behavior, while symbolic CSR can weaken the relationship between them. Some studies
show self-centered and others-centered CSR motive attributions can strengthen the rela-
tionship between CSR and job satisfaction. Although existing research has deepened our
understanding of CSR motive attribution and employee attitudes and behaviors, there are
still some knowledge gaps.
First, although previous studies show that CSR has a positive impact on employees’
environmental behaviors, few studies establish a direct connection between CSR motive
attribution and employees’ environmental behavior. Given the inconsistencies of different
CSR motive attributions’ effects on employees’ attitudes and behaviors [
12
,
13
], it is neces-
sary to examine the relationship between different CSR motive attributions and employee
environmental behavior. In recent years, various stakeholders have put forward more
requirements for enterprises to undertake social responsibilities to improve the natural
environment, and understanding how to transform CSR into employee environmental
behavior has become a challenge organizations are faced with [
14
,
15
]. Studying the impact
of employees’ CSR motive attributions on employees’ environmental behavior can help
Sustainability 2025,17, 1651 3 of 26
organizations understand the reasons why CSR is transformed into employees’ environ-
mental behavior. Employee green behavior is an environmental behavior implemented by
employees in the workplace [
16
]. This study will focus on the relationship between CSR
motive attributions and employee green behavior.
Second, the relationship between CSR motive attributions and different green behav-
iors remains to be studied. Employees’ green behavior is complex [
17
,
18
], and it is difficult
to use a single behavior result to measure the impact of CSR motive attributions. Recently,
many scholars have divided green behaviors into in-role green behavior and extra-role
green behavior [
19
]. In-role green behavior refers to the green behavior that employees
perform within the scope of organizational constraints and required work responsibilities
similar to work tasks [
19
], such as being required to purchase energy-saving lamps, sorting
garbage, and participating in environmental training. Extra-role green behavior is defined
as green behavior that involves individual initiative and exceeds organizational expecta-
tions [
19
], such as turning off lights, persuading colleagues to participate in environmental
protection activities, and putting forward constructive environmental suggestions. The dif-
ferent green behaviors of employees in the organization have different behavioral motives,
and different CSR motive attributions may have different effects on different green behav-
iors. Therefore, the relationship between different CSR motive attributions and different
green behaviors needs to be further explored. The CSR motive attributions can be roughly
divided into positive attribution and negative attribution, among which substantive CSR
and symbolic CSR are the representatives of positive and negative attributions. This study
researches the impact of substantive CSR and symbolic CSR on employee in-role green
behavior and extra-role green behavior.
Finally, studies have shown that employees’ positive attributions to organizations’ CSR
motives usually bring positive employee workplace results, while negative CSR motive
attributions usually lead to negative employee workplace results [
13
]. Therefore, we expect
that different CSR motive attributions will have different impacts on green behaviors.
How to strengthen the positive impact of employees’ positive CSR motive attributions on
green behavior and how to reduce the negative impact of employees’ negative CSR motive
attributions on green behaviors are worth considering. According to attribution theory, an
individual’s green behaviors are affected by the interactive effect of personal characteristics
and environmental factors [
20
]. Green intrinsic motivation refers to a state in which people
are driven by love and passion when participating in environmental activities [
21
]. CSR
motive attribution can be regarded as environmental factors and green intrinsic motivation
is an important internal factor affecting employees’ green behavior. Our research will
introduce green intrinsic motivation to moderate the relationship between CSR motive
attributions and green behaviors.
To bridge the above gaps, we established a theoretical model based on attribution
theory and proposed hypotheses. We then conducted two studies to test the hypotheses.
This article has three theoretical significance: First, this study fills the research gap of the
direct link between CSR motive attributions and employees’ green behaviors and enriches
the literature in terms of attribution theory and practice. Second, this research reveals the
different effects of different CSR motive attributions on different green behaviors, provides
a basis for us to better understand the relationship between CSR motive attributions and
employee green behaviors, and enriches the literature on micro-CSR. Third, this research
finds an important boundary condition of CSR motive attribution affecting employees’
green behavior by discovering the moderating role of green intrinsic motivation. Our
research also provides management suggestions: First, managers can incorporate necessary
green behaviors into the work requirements and link them with employees’ performance
appraisals to promote in-role green behavior. Second, organizations need to ensure their
Sustainability 2025,17, 1651 4 of 26
CSR activities are real and can promote the development of society and the environment
to stimulate employees’ extra-role green behavior. Third, organizations can provide the
CSR activities implementation steps, details, and environmental effects to reduce the
deviation between the CSR philosophy and employee perception. Finally, organizations
can publicize the organization’s green goals through training to draw employees’ attention
to the environment to awaken employees’ green awareness, thereby promoting employees’
green behaviors.
2. Literature Review and Hypothesis Development
2.1. CSR Motive Attribution
The attribution theory originated from the psychological literature and mainly studies
the potential causal explanations given by people when facing the behavior of others in
a social environment [
22
]. Attribution theory shows individuals will observe events or
behaviors in their surroundings, make subjective inferences about why these activities are
performed, and attribute these to the causes of these events or behaviors [
23
]. Different
individuals have different understandings of the organization’s CSR practices and make
subjective evaluations based on the information they have obtained about the CSR activities
to make a causal explanation of the CSR motive [
24
], which is the employees’ CSR motive
attribution. The previous research shows that there are rich classifications of CSR motive
attribution. Ellen (2006) [
25
] put forward four categories of CSR motive attributions: egoist
motive attribution, strategic motive attribution, stakeholder-driven motive attribution,
and value-driven motive attribution. There are also CSR motive attribution classifications
of real and unreal [
10
], self-centered and other-centered [
9
], internal and external [
26
],
and substantive and symbolic [
27
]. Among them, substantive and symbolic have become
popular statements of CSR motive attribution and have been used to explain the attitude
and behavior of employees [
27
]. Therefore, the researchers consider the widely recognized
attributions of substantive and symbolic CSR to explain employees’ green behaviors.
When employees feel that CSR activities are motivated by genuine concern for the
social environment and environmental cause [
27
], they can not only satisfy the interests
of external stakeholders and conform to the legal basis but also truly benefit society and
the environment [
28
]. In this case, employees will believe that CSR activities are truly
and substantially based on meeting social and environmental needs and will make sub-
stantive attribution to the motivation of CSR activities [
7
], that is, substantive CSR motive
attribution. Substantive CSR instills a sense of pride, trust, and organizational identity
in employees, making employees believe that CSR is a way to solve social problems and
care for the Earth [
13
]. However, when employees feel that the enterprise’s investment
in CSR activities may only be to present a positive image, they symbolically participate
in social responsibility activities to establish a responsible image to present to external
stakeholders rather than devote themselves to meeting the actual needs of society and the
environment [
29
]. At this time, employees will think that the enterprise only symbolically
participates in the CSR practice to obtain economic benefits [
9
], to make symbolic attri-
bution to the motivation of the CSR activities, that is, symbolic CSR motive attribution.
These CSR practices do not necessarily harm society or the environment; they may not be
morally problematic nor be intended to deceive stakeholders [
30
]. However, due to their
strategic nature, employees may think these practices have little impact on society and the
environment and cannot truly achieve tangible results, nor can they create a true benefit for
society and the environment.
Based on previous research on the concepts of substantive CSR and symbolic CSR
and analysis of actual examples, this article summarizes the main clues to distinguish
them. First, it is authenticity [
31
,
32
], that is, whether the company’s CSR activities are truly
Sustainability 2025,17, 1651 5 of 26
committed to solving social needs. ByteDance’s Headline Tracing column has successfully
helped hundreds of families, which is a substantive CSR activity. Procter and Gamble,
after being found to contain contraband in cosmetics, has increased its investment in
scientific research, education, and poverty alleviation, but the public has always regarded
it as a symbolic CSR activity of public welfare marketing rather than to truly solve social
needs [
33
]. Second, it is consistency [
34
,
35
], that is, whether the company’s CSR concept is
consistent with the activities it is partaking in. Schema theory believes that inconsistency
with personal expectations may stimulate the negative cognition of CSR [
23
]. Tianjin
Sunhe has integrated philanthropy and corporate culture since 2010 and, since then, has
insisted on donating to schools, helping the poor, providing disaster relief and elderly
care, and donating 5 million yuan at the beginning of the COVID-19 outbreak in 2020.
This company’s concept of CSR and its activities are consistent. However, greenwashing
makes people think that the company is hypocritical [
36
]. For example, products with
green environmental protection labels are no different from ordinary products. In addition,
there are many clues to distinguish them, such as the goal of the organization’s CSR [
9
].
CSR activities aimed at meeting the expectations of stakeholders are generally regarded as
substantial, while CSR aimed at increasing market share is more often regarded as symbolic.
2.2. Green Behavior
Green behavior evolved from pro-environmental behavior [
16
]. Pro-environmental be-
havior refers to behaviors that protect the environment or benefit the environment [
37
,
38
].
When pro-environmental behavior is concentrated in the workplace, this behavior becomes
employee green behavior [
16
]. Ones and Dilchert (2013) [
16
] first proposed the concept
of green behavior and defined employee green behavior as an environmentally beneficial
behavior performed by employees in the organization. Employee green behavior is an inten-
tional behavior of employees that helps reduce the negative impact of human behavior on
the environment in the workplace [
39
,
40
], which includes behaviors such as water-saving,
the efficient use of resources, waste reduction, energy saving, recycling, and participation
in environmental-protection activities. With the deepening of research on employee green
behavior, scholars began to divide it into in-role green behavior and extra-role green behav-
ior according to the organization’s expectations of employees and the degree of employee
initiative [5].
In-role green behavior is also called task-related green behavior, which refers to the
green behavior that employees perform within the scope of organizational constraints and
requires work responsibilities similar to work tasks [
19
]. In-role green behavior directly or
indirectly serves the organization’s strategy and mission which can be seen as part of the
job description [
41
]. Therefore, in-role green behavior is the requirements and expectations
of the organization that are linked to the employee’s work performance and make the
employees feel included and afford them a sense of responsibility [
42
]. Such examples are
the requirement for the procurement department to purchase energy-saving lamps and for
employees to sort garbage, participate in environmental training, and deal with pollutant
discharge in accordance with government instructions [43].
Extra-role green behavior, also called voluntary green behavior, is defined as green
behavior that involves individual initiative and exceeds organizational expectations [
19
].
Extra-role green behaviors are not controlled by any formal environmental management
policy or system and are freely determined by employees, similar to organizational citizen-
ship behavior [
44
,
45
]. Employees’ extra-role green behaviors are mainly motivated by their
interests and personal choices. Such behaviors are subjective and obscure, and they are
encouraged rather than compulsory [
5
,
46
]. Behaviors such as using double-sided printing,
turning off lights, persuading colleagues to participate in environmental protection activi-
Sustainability 2025,17, 1651 6 of 26
ties, and putting forward constructive environmental suggestions that are not part of the
job responsibility but are also beneficial to the organization’s environmental performance
are considered extra-role green behaviors [47].
2.3. CSR Motive Attributions and Green Behaviors
Although the scope and application of attribution theory are multifaceted, its underly-
ing theme is that individuals observe and form judgments or explanations about the causes
of others’ behavior. These explanations, in turn, affect the attitude and behavior of the
perceiver [
48
]. Employee CSR motive attribution entails employees making subjective eval-
uations based on the information they have obtained about the organization’s CSR activities
and causally explaining the motive of the organization to participate in CSR activities [
24
].
Employee green behaviors will be affected by their CSR motive attribution [
25
]. In-role
green behavior is more restricted by the organization, while extra-role green behavior has
more autonomy; they have essential differences in terms of employee initiative. Therefore,
the impact of CSR attributions on them may also be different.
2.3.1. CSR Motive Attributions and In-Role Green Behavior
Employee in-role green behavior is mandatory behavior related to job responsibilities
and performance. The substantive CSR and symbolic CSR are all expected to promote
in-role green behavior. The self-determination theory divides motivation into controlled
motivation and autonomous motivation [
21
]; they are important antecedents of individual
behaviors [
49
]. Controlled motivation refers to the individual’s motivation to engage in
a certain behavior due to internal or external pressure. Autonomous motivation refers
to the motivation of individuals to engage in certain behaviors due to personal will and
free choice [
50
]. These motivations are not mutually exclusive and can happen simultane-
ously [
50
]. When employees evaluate the organization’s participation in CSR activities as
substantive, the employee will implement in-role green behavior that not only conforms
to their expectations but also meets the organization’s requirements. When employees
evaluate the organization’s CSR activities as symbolic, even if they are not in line with
their own will, employees will be driven by controlled motivation and choose to imple-
ment in-role green behavior under the dual pressure of personal job responsibilities and
organizational assessment.
Moreover, the multi-needs model of organizational justice theory shows that em-
ployees’ attention to CSR behaviors stems from tool needs, relationship needs, and moral
needs [
51
]. Tool-based needs are related to the satisfaction of control needs, relationship-
based needs are related to the satisfaction of affiliation needs, and morality-based needs are
related to meaningful existence needs. When employees believe that the organization’s CSR
activities are substantive, they will believe that the organization is benevolent, responsible,
and caring, which can meet the high-level needs of employees, such as relationship needs
and moral needs [
9
]. Therefore, employees will be more willing or better inclined to imple-
ment in-role green behaviors to actively support the organization’s CSR activities. When
the organization’s CSR activities are symbolic, the employee regards the CSR project as a
promotion tool to maintain the internal and external competitiveness of the organization
which will help the organization and the employees meet their tool needs. There is even
an argument that symbolic CSR makes employees perceive the utilitarian feature of the
organization which meets the employee’s tool needs [
52
]. To meet job performance goals or
make a good impression, employees will implement in-role green behavior more actively.
Therefore, we propose the following:
Hypothesis 1. Both the substantive and symbolic CSR motive attributions are positively associated
with employees’ in-role green behavior.
Sustainability 2025,17, 1651 7 of 26
2.3.2. CSR Motive Attribution and Extra-Role Green Behavior
Extra-role green behavior is complex as it is difficult to involve employees through
coercion or regulation. Employees who actively participate in extra-role green behavior do
so only when they genuinely care about the Earth and think of future generations, nature,
and humans [
5
]. According to the self-determination theory mentioned in the previous
section [
49
], when encountering extra-role green behaviors, the role of controlled moti-
vation is weakened and replaced by autonomous motivation based on personal will [
47
].
Substantive CSR conveys pride, trust, and organizational identity for employees, making
employees believe that CSR is a way to solve environmental problems and care for the
Earth [
7
], arousing employees’ attention to the environment and thereby promoting em-
ployees’ spontaneous participation in extra-role green behavior. The symbolic CSR will
give employees an impression of insincerity and negatively affects their extra-role green
behavior because the extra-role green behavior is not affected by internal and external
pressure (controlled motivation). This is also consistent with the view of the multi-needs
model of organizational justice theory [
51
]. Extra-role green behavior is more affected by
relationship needs and moral needs, and the influence of tool needs is weakened. Therefore,
substantive CSR meets the relationship and moral needs of employees and can actively
promote employee extra-role green behavior, but symbolic CSR will negatively impact
employee extra-role green behavior.
Moreover, the cognitive theory posits that individuals will balance their positive
and negative attitudes and behaviors in the workplace based on their cognition and emo-
tions [
53
]. When the organization’s CSR activities are substantive, it is easier to stimulate
employees’ positive attitudes and emotions and encourage them to implement extra-role
green behaviors. When the organization’s CSR activities are symbolic, it is more likely to
lead to negative perceptions and emotions of employees, thereby reducing the willingness
of employees to implement extra-role green behaviors. This is consistent with Lange and
Washburn’s (2012) [
54
] view that the human brain continuously evaluates the environment
and makes a classification of good–bad and close–avoid. When employees believe that
CSR motives are substantive, they are more likely to approach extra-role green behav-
iors because substantive CSR activities will bring them a deeper love for environmental
causes and make them feel good. When employees evaluate CSR motivation as symbolic,
they will feel bad, which leads to a mentality of avoidance and reduces the possibility of
implementing extra-role green behaviors. Therefore, we can infer that substantive CSR
makes it easier for employees to participate in extra-role green behavior, while symbolic
CSR will negatively impact employee extra-role green behavior. Therefore, we propose
the following:
Hypothesis 2. Substantive CSR is positively associated with the extra-role green behavior, while
symbolic CSR is negatively associated with the extra-role green behavior.
2.4. The Moderate Role of Green Intrinsic Motivation
Green intrinsic motivation refers to a state in which people are driven by love and
passion when participating in environmental causes rather than external rewards or bene-
fits [
21
]. Green intrinsic motivation is an important motivation for personal environmentally
friendly behavior as it focuses their attention on the environment and makes people at-
tached to their environmentally friendly work [
7
,
55
]. People who have green intrinsic
motivation will feel excited and satisfied when participating in environmental work [
56
].
According to attribution theory, an individual’s attitude and behavior are determined by
both personal characteristics and environmental factors [
20
]. Personal characteristics are
internal factors that include a person’s ability and motivation, while environmental factors
Sustainability 2025,17, 1651 8 of 26
are external factors that refer to organizational support, work environment, or luck. In
our research, green intrinsic motivation is an important internal factor and CSR motive
attributions can be regarded as external factors for employees to implement green behavior.
As previously mentioned, in-role green behavior is a mandatory job responsibility [
50
].
However, green intrinsic motivation can make employees turn passive behavior into
action and actively participate in in-role green behaviors. First, the organization’s concern
for social and natural environmental issues, as reflected in substantive CSR activities, is
consistent with the attitude of employees with green intrinsic motivation towards the
natural environment [
56
]. They strengthened employees’ recognition of the organization’s
environmental goals and concern for the environment, thereby prompting employees to
more actively implement in-role green behaviors. Green intrinsic motivation may also
weaken employees’ utilitarian needs for symbolic CSR and stimulate employees’ moral
needs to genuinely love environmental activities. In this situation, employees may be
driven by both utilitarian and moral needs for environmental protection, thus promoting
in-role green behavior. Therefore, green intrinsic motivation may also strengthen the
connection between symbolic CSR and in-role green behavior. Chen and Chang (2012) [
57
]
show that employees who have love and enthusiasm for the environment are more inclined
to implement environmental behaviors, which include in-role green behaviors such as
avoiding wasteful production, excessive use of carbon-based products, energy use, and
other wastes that harm the environment. Employees who have green intrinsic motivation,
regardless of whether their motive attributions for the organization’s participation in CSR
activities are substantive or symbolic, are driven by their inner love for the environment to
participate in in-role green behavior. Therefore, we propose the following:
Hypothesis 3. Green intrinsic motivation acts as a positive moderator between substantive CSR
and in-role green behavior.
Hypothesis 4. Green intrinsic motivation acts as a positive moderator between symbolic CSR and
in-role green behavior.
In addition, extra-role green behavior is a voluntary behavior affected by autonomous
motivation rather than controlled motivation [
50
]. Green intrinsic motivation is a kind of
love and passion for the environment that originates from inner needs [
58
]. It is an au-
tonomous motivation that promotes employees to participate in extra-role green behavior.
Therefore, when employees assess the organization’s CSR as substantive, the environ-
mental protection spirit of substantive CSR is consistent with the environmental values
of employees who have green intrinsic motivation and jointly encourage employees to
implement extra-role green behaviors. When employees assess the organization’s CSR ac-
tivities as symbolic, green intrinsic motivation can weaken the negative impact of symbolic
CSR on extra-role green behavior because the inner need for green intrinsic motivation
(autonomous motivation) for environmental protection will drive employees to participate
in extra-role green behavior [59].
Further, when employees have green intrinsic motivation, they will be interested in
environmental issues and create conditions to promote environmental undertakings and
find joy in it [
50
]. Substantive CSR demonstrates the organization’s care and interest in the
social environment [
27
], enabling employees to create conditions to penetrate the extra-role
green behavior under the dual drive of their interests and organizational support. When
faced with symbolic CSR, employees can also participate in extra-role green behaviors,
and because of their interest in environmental undertakings, they are more likely to gain
satisfaction from environmental causes [
47
]. Finally, the self-improvement process of the
self-determination theory posits that when an individual wants to realize self-worth in
Sustainability 2025,17, 1651 9 of 26
an organization, they will perform more actively in the workplace [
49
]. If employees
with green intrinsic motivation, care, and love for the social environment want to develop
environmental self-esteem and environmental self-worth, extra-role green behavior is a
good choice, as no matter whether they assess the organization’s CSR motive is substantive
or symbolic, extra-role green behavior may be activated. Therefore, we put forward
the following:
Hypothesis 5. Green intrinsic motivation acts as a positive moderator between substantive CSR
and extra-role green behavior.
Hypothesis 6. Green intrinsic motivation acts as a negative moderator between symbolic CSR and
extra-role green behavior.
Based on the above discussion, we have established a theoretical model, as shown in
Figure 1:
Sustainability2025,17,xFORPEERREVIEW9of27
WhenfacedwithsymbolicCSR,employeescanalsoparticipateinextra-rolegreenbehav-
iors,andbecauseoftheirinterestinenvironmentalundertakings,theyaremorelikelyto
gainsatisfactionfromenvironmentalcauses[47].Finally,theself-improvementprocessof
theself-determinationtheorypositsthatwhenanindividualwantstorealizeself-worth
inanorganization,theywillperformmoreactivelyintheworkplace[49].Ifemployees
withgreenintrinsicmotivation,care,andloveforthesocialenvironmentwanttodevelop
environmentalself-esteemandenvironmentalself-worth,extra-rolegreenbehaviorisa
goodchoice,asnomaerwhethertheyassesstheorganization’sCSRmotiveissubstan-
tiveorsymbolic,extra-rolegreenbehaviormaybeactivated.Therefore,weputforward
thefollowing:
Hypothesis5.GreenintrinsicmotivationactsasapositivemoderatorbetweensubstantiveCSR
andextra-rolegreenbehavior.
Hypothesis6.GreenintrinsicmotivationactsasanegativemoderatorbetweensymbolicCSR
andextra-rolegreenbehavior.
Basedontheabovediscussion,wehaveestablishedatheoreticalmodel,asshownin
Figure1:
Figure1.Conceptualmodel.
2.5.OverviewoftheCurrentResearch
Totestthetheoreticalmodel,weconductedtwostudies,includinganexperimental
study(Study1)andamulti-wavesurveystudy(Study2).Study1wasusedtodetermine
thecausalrelationshipbetweenvariables,i.e.,thedirectionofinfluence.Study2wasused
totestthepositiveandnegativestrengthoftheinfluencerelationshipbetweenvariables.
Specifically,Study1includestwoexperiments:Toboostcausalinferences,weconducted
ExperimentAtoexaminethedirecteffectofsubstantiveCSRongreenbehaviorsandthe
interactiveeffectofsubstantiveCSRandgreenintrinsicmotivationongreenbehaviors.
ExperimentBisconductedtoexaminethedirecteffectofsymbolicCSRongreenbehav-
iorsandtheinteractiveeffectofsymbolicCSRandgreenintrinsicmotivationongreen
behaviors.Tofurthermaximizetheexternalvalidityofthisresearch,inStudy2,weused
amulti-wavesurveytocollectquestionnairesfromawiderrangeofindustriesandem-
ployeestotestourhypotheses.Thismulti-methoddesign(i.e.,experimentalandsurvey
studies)helpsestablishtheinternalandexternalvalidityofourfindings.
3.Study1
3.1.Participants
Figure 1. Conceptual model.
2.5. Overview of the Current Research
To test the theoretical model, we conducted two studies, including an experimental
study (Study 1) and a multi-wave survey study (Study 2). Study 1 was used to determine
the causal relationship between variables, i.e., the direction of influence. Study 2 was used
to test the positive and negative strength of the influence relationship between variables.
Specifically, Study 1 includes two experiments: To boost causal inferences, we conducted
Experiment A to examine the direct effect of substantive CSR on green behaviors and the
interactive effect of substantive CSR and green intrinsic motivation on green behaviors.
Experiment B is conducted to examine the direct effect of symbolic CSR on green behaviors
and the interactive effect of symbolic CSR and green intrinsic motivation on green behaviors.
To further maximize the external validity of this research, in Study 2, we used a multi-wave
survey to collect questionnaires from a wider range of industries and employees to test
our hypotheses. This multi-method design (i.e., experimental and survey studies) helps
establish the internal and external validity of our findings.
3. Study 1
3.1. Participants
This study recruited MBA students to conduct laboratory research in a large university
in Central China in 2022. We contacted the head teacher in charge of MBA students, and
after obtaining the consent of the head teacher, we issued a recruitment notice to the students.
The students volunteered to participate, and each participating student could receive two
credits toward practical courses. Before the experiment, each student signed an informed
consent form. Each questionnaire was returned within five minutes. In the end, 116 students
Sustainability 2025,17, 1651 10 of 26
participated in our study. A total of 116 part-time MBA students were recruited to participate
in our laboratory experiments. Participants could earn course credits by participating in this
research. Moreover, 55.2% of participants were male, M
age
= 32.55 years, M
working year
= 5.26
years. These participants came from different industries, including manufacturing (23.3%),
real estate (20.7%), information technology (17.2%), service (15.5%), financial (11.2%), and
others (12.1%). Table 1shows the detailed information about the participants.
Table 1. Demographics of the research samples (N = 116) in Study 1.
Demographic
Profile Categories Frequency Percent (%)
Gender Female 52 44.8
Male 64 55.2
Age
<25 12 10.3
25–30 39 33.6
30–35 53 45.7
35–40 6 5.2
>40 6 5.2
Working years
1–3 20 17.2
3–5 34 29.3
5–10 58 50.0
10–15 0 0
>15 4 3.4
Working position Junior manager 70 60.3
Middle manager 46 39.7
Industry
Manufacturing 27 23.3
Real estate 24 20.7
Information technology 20 17.2
Service 18 15.5
Financial 13 11.2
Other 14 12.1
3.2. Procedures and Experimental Design
Study 1 includes Experiment A and Experiment B. Both experiments adopt the 2
×
2
between-group factorial experiment design, and the same participant conducts laboratory
experiments at different points in time. In Experiment A at time 1, we manipulated both
substantive CSR and green intrinsic motivation, resulting in a 2 (substantive CSR: high vs.
low)
×
2 (green intrinsic motivation: high vs. low) factorial design. In Experiment B at
time 2, we manipulated both symbolic CSR and green intrinsic motivation, resulting in
a 2 (symbolic CSR: high vs. low)
×
2 (green intrinsic motivation: high vs. low) factorial
design. Different materials were used to create different experimental conditions. In both
experiments, we randomly assigned participants to four different experimental conditions.
To overcome personal prejudice, we set up virtual companies C and D as carriers for ma-
nipulating CSR motive attribution. To manipulate CSR motive attribution, we instructed
participants to read the company’s CSR activities and evaluate the company’s motives for
fulfilling CSR. Then, to manipulate green intrinsic motivation, we instructed participants
to read a short statement about personal thoughts when participating in environmental
protection activities. Upon completion of these steps, participants completed the question-
naires about in-role green behavior, extra-role green behavior, and manipulation checks
and responded to the demographic questions.
Sustainability 2025,17, 1651 11 of 26
Experiment A
Substantive CSR manipulation: To manipulate substantive CSR, we instructed partic-
ipants to read the experimental materials and complete questionnaires. These materials
are based on understanding the definition of substantive CSR and the meaning of the
measurement and provide participants with substantive CSR performance information
through news excerpts to stimulate their psychological perception and judgment. The
specific materials are shown in Appendix A.1.
Green intrinsic motivation manipulation: after completing the manipulation of CSR
attribution, participants were asked to read a short statement to manipulate the individual’s
green intrinsic motivation. The specific materials are shown in Appendix A.1.
Experiment B
Symbolic CSR manipulation: To manipulate symbolic CSR, we instructed participants
to read the experimental materials and complete questionnaires. These materials are based
on understanding the definition of symbolic CSR and the meaning of the measurement and
provide participants with symbolic CSR performance information through news excerpts to
stimulate their psychological perception and judgment. The specific materials are shown in
Appendix A.2.
Green intrinsic motivation manipulation: After completing the manipulation of the
symbolic CSR, the green intrinsic motivation was manipulated, and the manipulation
method was the same as that in Experiment A.1.
3.3. Measures
We drew on Likert’s seven-point scale to compile the questionnaire.
Green behavior: employee green behavior was measured based on the scale developed
by Bissing-Olson et al. (2013) [
60
]. For example, “I perform tasks that are expected of me
in environmentally-friendly ways” is used to measure in-role green behavior. We used “I
did more for the environment at work than I was expected to” to measure extra-role green
behavior. The Cronbach’s alpha of in-role green behavior in experiment A and experiment
B are 0.968 and 0.992, respectively. The Cronbach’s alpha of extra-role green behavior in
Experiment A and Experiment B are 0.966 and 0.975, respectively.
Manipulation checks: After all the steps, we asked participants to evaluate substantive
CSR (
α
= 0.975) and symbolic CSR (
α
= 0.986) using the measure adapted from Afsar et al.
(2020) [
7
], for example, “My organization engages in CSR behaviors because it wants to help
solve problems in the community” to measure substantive CSR. We used “My organization
engages in CSR behaviors to avoid looking bad in front of others” to measure symbolic
CSR. In addition, we adopted the four items developed by Pelletier et al. (1998) [
58
] to
assess whether the manipulation of green intrinsic motivation was successful (
α
= 0.967 in
Experiment A;
α
= 0.989 in Experiment B). We used measurement items such as “I enjoy
improving the quality of the environment”.
3.4. Study 1 Results
Descriptive statistics and correlations of Experiment A and Experiment B are presented
in Table 2and Table 3, respectively.
One-way ANOVA with Tukey’s HSD tests and Independent Sample T-tests were conducted
in the SPSS(20.0) to check our manipulation. The results of Experiment A show that participants
in the high substantive CSR condition rated their substantive CSR higher (M = 5.50, SD = 1.13,
n = 58)
than those in the low substantive CSR condition (M = 4.71, SD = 0.92, n = 58,
t(116) = 4.09,
p< 0.001, differences = 0.78). Also, participants in the high green intrinsic motivation condition
rated their green intrinsic motivation higher (M = 5.40, SD = 1.04, n = 58) than those in the
low green intrinsic motivation condition (M = 4.58, SD = 0.89, n = 58, t(116) = 4.55, p< 0.001,
Sustainability 2025,17, 1651 12 of 26
differences = 0.82). The results of Experiment B show that participants in the high symbolic CSR
condition rated their symbolic CSR higher (M = 5.88, SD = 1.20, n = 58) than those in the low
symbolic CSR condition (M = 4.47, SD = 1.37, n = 58, t(116) = 5.87, p< 0.001, differences = 1.40).
Also, participants in the high green intrinsic motivation condition rated their green intrinsic
motivation higher (M = 5.93, SD = 1.43, n = 58) than those in the low green intrinsic motivation
condition (M = 4.15, SD = 1.44, n = 58, t(116) = 6.69, p< 0.001, differences = 1.78). Thus, these
results suggested that our manipulations were successful.
Table 2. The descriptive statistics and correlations of Experiment A in Study 1.
M SD 1 2 3
1.Substantive CSR manipulation 0.5 0.5 1
2. Green intrinsic motivation manipulation 0.5 0.5 0.00 1
3. In-role green behavior 4.34 1.13 0.32 ** 0.29 ** 1
4. Extra-role green behavior 4.34 1.22 0.41 ** 0.40 ** 0.36 **
Note: N = 116; N = 58 in the high substantive CSR condition; N = 58 in the low substantive CSR condition; N = 58 in
the high green intrinsic motivation condition; N = 58 in the low green intrinsic motivation. For the substantive CSR
manipulation, high = 1, low = 0; for the green intrinsic motivation manipulation, high = 1, low = 0. ** p< 0.01.
Table 3. The descriptive statistics and correlations of Experiment B in Study 1.
M SD 1 2 3
1. Symbolic CSR manipulation 0.5 0.5 1
2. Green intrinsic motivation manipulation 0.5 0.5 0.00 1
3. In-role green behavior 4.29 1.19 0.31 ** 0.45 ** 1
4. Extra-role green behavior 3.95 1.28 −0.22 ** 0.56 * 0.148
Note: N = 116; N = 58 in the high symbolic CSR condition; N = 58 in the low symbolic CSR condition; N = 58 in the high
green intrinsic motivation condition; N = 58 in the low green intrinsic motivation. For the symbolic CSR manipulation,
high = 1, low = 0; for the green intrinsic motivation manipulation, high = 1, low = 0. ** p< 0.01, * p< 0.05.
Next, we conducted hierarchical regression analysis in SPSS(20.0) to test the hypothe-
ses. As shown in Table 4, the direct effect of substantive CSR is positively related to
employee in-role green behavior (
β
= 0.32, p< 0.001, Model 1), the direct effect of symbolic
CSR is positively related to employee in-role green behavior (
β
= 0.31, p< 0.01, Model 2),
and hypothesis 1 is supported. The direct effect of substantive CSR is positively related
to employee extra-role green behavior (
β
= 0.41, p< 0.001, Model 3), the direct effect
of symbolic CSR is negatively related to employee extra-role green behavior (
β
=
−
0.22,
p< 0.05, Model 4), and hypothesis 2 is supported.
Table 4. Regression results for the predictors of in-role green behavior and extra-role green behavior
in Study 1.
Variables
In-Role Green Behavior Extra-Role Green Behavior
Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4
βSE t βSE t βSE t βSE t
Experiment
ASU 0.32 *** 0.08 3.64 0.41 *** 0.08 4.91
Experiment
BSY 0.31 ** 0.08 3.48 −
0.22 *
0.09 −
2.40
Constant 0.00 0.08 0.00 0.00 0.08 0.00 0.00 0.08 0.00 0.00 0.09 0.00
R20.10 0.09 0.17 0.04
Results Hypothesis 1 is supported Hypothesis 2 is supported
Note: SU: substantive CSR manipulation; SY: symbolic CSR manipulation; *** p< 0.001, ** p< 0.01, * p< 0.05;
unstandardized regression coefficients are reported.
Moreover, as shown in Table 5, the interactive effect of substantive CSR and green
intrinsic motivation in predicting in-role green behavior is significantly positive (
β
= 0.37,
p< 0.05, Model 2), and hypothesis 3 is supported. The interactive effect of symbolic CSR
Sustainability 2025,17, 1651 13 of 26
and green intrinsic motivation in predicting in-role green behavior is significantly positive
(β= 0.27, p< 0.05, Model 4), and hypothesis 4 is supported.
Table 5. Regression results for the predictors of in-role green behavior in Study 1.
Variables
In-Role Green Behavior
Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4
βSE t βSE t βSE t βSE t
Experiment
A
SU 0.32 *** 0.08 3.82 0.10 0.11 0.91
GM 0.29 ** 0.08 3.52 0.08 0.11 0.69
SU ×GM 0.37 * 0.14 2.62
Experiment
B
SY 0.31 *** 0.07 3.95 0.14 0.10 1.36
GM 0.45 *** 0.07 5.79 0.29 ** 0.10 2.68
SY ×GM 0.27 * 0.13 2.08
Constant 0.00 0.08 0.00 0.00 0.08 0.00 0.00 0.07 0.00 3.57 0.07 0.00
R20.19 0.24 0.30 0.32
Results Hypothesis 3 is supported Hypothesis 4 is supported
Note: SU: substantive CSR manipulation; SY: symbolic CSR manipulation; GM: green intrinsic motivation
manipulation; *** p< 0.001, ** p< 0.01, * p< 0.05; unstandardized regression coefficients are reported.
Finally, as shown in Table 6, the interactive effect of substantive CSR and green
intrinsic motivation in predicting extra-role green behavior is significantly positive (
β
= 0.30,
p< 0.05, Model 2), and hypothesis 5 is supported. The interactive effect of symbolic CSR and
green intrinsic motivation in predicting extra-role green behavior is significantly negative
(
β
= 0.44, p< 0.001, Model 4) (Note: The main effect is negative, while the interaction
coefficient is positive, so it is a negative moderate effect), and hypothesis 6 is supported.
Table 6. Regression results for the predictors of extra-role green behavior in Study 1.
Variables
Extra-Role Green Behavior
Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4
βSE t βSE t βSE t βSE t
Experiment
A
SU 0.41 *** 0.07 5.47 0.24 * 0.10 2.27
GM 0.40 *** 0.07 5.34 0.23 * 0.10 2.18
SU ×GM 0.30 * 0.13 2.36
Experiment
B
SY −0.22 ** 0.07 −
2.94
−0.47 *** 0.10 −4.74
GM 0.56 *** 0.07 7.63 0.31 ** 0.10 3.13
SY ×GM 0.44 *** 0.12 3.60
Constant 0.00 0.07 0.00 0.00 0.07 0.00 0.00 0.07 0.00 0.00 0.07 0.00
R20.34 0.37 0.37 0.43
Results Hypothesis 5 is supported Hypothesis 6 is supported
Note: SU: substantive CSR manipulation; SY: symbolic CSR manipulation; GM: green intrinsic motivation
manipulation; *** p< 0.001, ** p< 0.01, * p< 0.05; unstandardized regression coefficients are reported.
3.5. Study 1 Discussion
Study 1 uses two controlled experiments to test the hypotheses. Experiment A tests
the effect of employee substantive CSR on green behaviors and the interactive effect of
substantive CSR and green intrinsic motivation on green behaviors. Experiment B tests
the effect of symbolic CSR on green behaviors and the interactive effect of symbolic CSR
and green intrinsic motivation on green behaviors. The results of Study 1 show that when
materials for CSR motive attribution are controlled, participants have different responses in
the face of different experimental materials. When faced with substantive CSR, participants
were willing to engage in in-role and extra-role green behaviors, but when faced with
symbolic CSR, participants were willing to engage in in-role green behaviors but not
interested in extra-role green behaviors. However, when the participant himself has a high
degree of green intrinsic motivation, he is willing to participate in green behavior, whether
it is in-role or extra-role. All hypotheses of this study were verified. Although Study 1
makes causal inferences and has high internal validity, Study 1 was conducted on a small
Sustainability 2025,17, 1651 14 of 26
scale, thus limiting the external validity of our research. Therefore, we used a survey to
collect a wider range of data to address this limitation and to further test the hypotheses.
4. Study 2
4.1. Participants
We contacted the managers of several enterprises to determine the interviewees,
obtained the permission of the managers of 22 companies, and finally sent questionnaires
to the employees of these 22 companies for questionnaire collection. The data were collected
at three time points to reduce the threat of common method bias. Each of the three waves
was separated by two weeks. At time 1 (T1), the respondents completed the measures of
substantive CSR and symbolic CSR, 600 questionnaires were distributed, and 543 valid
questionnaires were collected. At time 2 (T2), the respondents completed the measures of in-
role green behavior and extra-role green behavior, 543 questionnaires were distributed for
the second time, and 497 valid questionnaires were collected. At time 3 (T3), the respondents
completed the measures of green intrinsic motivation, 497 questionnaires were distributed
for the third time, and 462 valid questionnaires were collected. Each questionnaire has the
same number as the respondent to ensure that the three questionnaires are filled out by
the same person. Finally, we received 462 valid questionnaires. Among the 462 responses,
manufacturing enterprises, catering enterprises, retail enterprises, real estate companies,
and culture and entertainment companies had 316, 51, 49, 19, and 27 valid questionnaires,
respectively. In total, 67.7% of the respondents were male, 53.9% were between 25 and
35 years old, and 85.7% had worked in the company for more than three years. Table 7
shows the details.
Table 7. Demographics of the research samples (N = 462) in Study 2.
Demographic
Profile Categories Frequency Percent (%)
Gender Female 149 32.3
Male 313 67.7
Age
<25 101 21.9
25–35 249 53.9
35–45 59 12.8
>45 53 11.5
Working years
<3 66 14.3
3–5 352 76.2
5–10 33 7.1
>10 11 2.3
Working position
General staff 251 54.3
Skilled worker 189 40.9
Grassroots manager 17 3.7
Middle manager 5 1.1
Industry
Manufacturing 316 68.4
Catering 51 11.0
Retail 49 10.6
Real estate 19 4.1
Culture entertainment 27 5.8
4.2. Measures
We drew on Likert’s seven-point scale to compile the questionnaire. Tables 8and 9
show the measurement results for all items.
Sustainability 2025,17, 1651 15 of 26
Table 8. Means, SDs, correlations, and the square root of AVE between variables in Study 2.
M SD 1 2 3 4 5
1. Substantive CSR 4.85 1.13 0.81
2. Symbolic CSR 4.98 1.55 0.10 * 0.90
3. Green intrinsic motivation 4.93 1.29 0.38 ** 0.04 0.90
4. In-role green behavior 5.23 1.16 0.39 ** 0.35 ** 0.22 ** 0.93
5. Extra-role green behavior 4.78 1.08 0.31 ** −0.13 ** 0.29 ** 0.03 0.86
Note: ** p< 0.01, * p< 0.05; the bold number is the square root of AVE.
Table 9. Measurement model evaluation results in Study 2.
Construct Indicators Loading AVE CR Cronbach’s Alpha
Substantive CSR
SU1 0.776
0.659 0.866 0.939
SU2 0.759
SU3 0.832
SU4 0.838
SU5 0.839
SU6 0.822
SU7 0.841
SU8 0.794
Symbolic CSR
SY1 0.898
0.814 0.898 0.964
SY2 0.884
SY3 0.955
SY4 0.903
SY5 0.956
SY6 0.877
Green intrinsic motivation
GM1 0.911
0.818 0.903 0.948
GM2 0.908
GM3 0.891
GM4 0.883
In-role green behavior
IG1 0.891
0.880 0.938 0.957
IG2 0.908
IG3 0.896
Extra-role green behavior
EG1 0.908
0.745 0.859 0.897
EG3 0.855
EG3 0.871
CSR motive attribution: The 8 questionnaire items of substantive CSR are from Af-
sar et al. (2020) [
7
], which Cronbach’s alpha is 0.939. Then, the Cronbach’s alpha of symbolic
CSR is 0.964, and it has 6 questionnaire items.
Green intrinsic motivation: The 4 questionnaire items on employee green intrinsic
motivation were developed by Pelletier et al. (1998) [58]. Cronbach’s alpha is 0.948.
Green behavior: The 3 questionnaire items of employee in-role green behavior are
from Bissing-Olson et al. (2013) [
60
], which Cronbach’s alpha is 0.939. Then, the Cronbach’s
alpha of employee extra-role green behavior is 0.964, and it has 3 questionnaire items.
Control variables: Many researchers demonstrate that the demographic characteristics
may partly explain their differences in conducting green behaviors, which may affect the hy-
pothesized relationship [
7
]. Therefore, the study introduces the gender, age, working years,
working position, and industry of employees into the analytical model as control variables.
Sustainability 2025,17, 1651 16 of 26
4.3. Common Method Bias
Although our respondents come from different industries and the independent vari-
ables, moderator variables, and dependent variables are collected at different periods, all of
them are from employees. Therefore, the research may be threatened by common method
bias. Therefore, Harman’s single-factor test was implemented to examine a potential com-
mon method bias. The most significant factor in the five extracted from the data accounted
for only 32.710% (less than 40%) of the total variance [
61
]. The results suggested that the
overall variance is not affected by one single factor, so the common method bias is not a
threat in this study.
4.4. Measurement Model Test
Before testing the hypotheses, we tested the reliability and validity of the scale. As
shown in Tables 8and 9, the results show that all the measurements are correctly distributed
on the origin construct, and all the factor loadings are between 0.755 and 0.955. The
Cronbach’s alpha value of all variables is between 0.897 and 0.964, and the composite
reliability (CR) values are between 0.859 and 0.938. As for validity, the average variance
extracted (AVE) values are between 0.659 and 0.880, which implies our measurement scale
has good convergent validity. Table 8shows that the square root of the AVE for each
construct is larger than the correlations, thus indicating that our measurement scale has
good discriminant validity.
4.5. Analytical Strategy
Our research involved a direct and interactive effect design. To test the direct effect
(H1–H2), we conducted a linear regression in SPSS to calculate the direct effect. To test the
moderate effect (H3–H6), we followed the conditional moderate procedures proposed by
Preacher et al. (2007) [
62
] in PROCESS to calculate the magnitude of the moderating effect
and estimate its significance at high (+SD) and low (
−
SD) levels of the moderator. We used
5000 repeated samples to build 95% confidence intervals for the moderate effect.
4.6. Study 2 Results
4.6.1. Examining the Direct Effect
As shown in Table 8, substantive CSR is positively related to in-role green behavior
(r = 0.39, p< 0.01) and extra-role green behavior (r = 0.31, p< 0.01). Symbolic CSR is
positively related to in-role green behavior (r = 0.35, p< 0.01) but negatively related to
extra-role green behavior (r = −0.13, p< 0.01). These results initially support H1 and H2.
As shown in Table 10, substantive CSR positively affects employee in-role green
behavior (
β
= 0.39, p< 0.001, Model 2). Symbolic CSR also positively affects employee in-
role green behavior (
β
= 0.35, p< 0.001, Model 3); thus, H1 is supported. Next, substantive
CSR positively affects employee extra-role green behavior (
β
= 0.31, p< 0.01, Model 5), but
symbolic CSR negatively affects employee extra-role green behavior (
β
=
−
0.13, p< 0.01,
Model 6). H2 is, therefore, supported.
Table 10. Results of the direct effect in Study 2.
Variable In-Role Green Behavior Extra-Role Green Behavior
Model Paths Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 Model 5 Model 6
Control variables
Gender 0.04 0.06 0.02 0.14 0.15 0.14
Age −0.05 0.01 −0.04 −0.03 0.01 −0.04
Working years −0.003 −0.04 −0.009 −0.01 −0.04 −0.01
Sustainability 2025,17, 1651 17 of 26
Table 10. Cont.
Variable In-Role Green Behavior Extra-Role Green Behavior
Model Paths Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 Model 5 Model 6
Working position 0.03 0.04 0.04 −0.12 −0.12 −0.13
Industry 0.02 0.02 0.03 0.06 0.05 0.06
Independent variables
Substantive CSR 0.39 *** 0.31 **
Symbolic CSR 0.35 *** −0.13 **
Constant −0.05 −0.14 −0.05 −0.04 −0.11 −0.03
R20.005 0.15 0.12 0.01 0.11 0.03
Hypotheses results H1 supported H2 supported
Note: *** p< 0.001, ** p< 0.01; unstandardized regression coefficients are reported.
4.6.2. Examining the Moderate Effect
As shown in Table 11, in model 1, the interaction term of substantive CSR and green
intrinsic motivation in predicting employee in-role green behavior is significant (
β
= 0.07,
p< 0.05, 95% CI [0.009, 0.14]). When an employee has a high degree of green intrinsic
motivation, their positive relationship is stronger (
β
= 0.42, p< 0.001, 95% CI [0.31, 0.53]) but
is weaker (
β
= 0.26, p< 0.001, 95% CI [0.14, 0.38]) when in low green intrinsic motivation.
H3 is supported. In Model 2, the interaction term of symbolic CSR and green intrinsic
motivation in predicting employee in-role green behavior is significant (
β
= 0.09, p< 0.01,
95% CI [0.02, 0.17]), and when the employee has a high degree of green intrinsic motivation,
their positive relationship is stronger (
β
= 0.43, p< 0.001, 95% CI [0.32, 0.53]) but is weaker
(
β
= 0.23, p< 0.001, 95% CI [0.11, 0.35]) when the employee is low in green intrinsic
motivation. Therefore, H4 is supported.
Table 11. Results of moderate effect in Study 2.
Variable In-Role Green Behavior Extra-Role Green Behavior
Model paths Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4
Gender 0.04 0.05 0.15 0.18
Age −0.009 −0.06 −0.02 −0.06
Working years −0.03 −0.006 −0.03 −0.01
Working position 0.03 0.05 −0.13 −0.12
Industry 0.03 0.03 0.06 0.06
SU 0.34 *** 0.21 ***
SY 0.33 *** −0.16 ***
GM 0.06 0.19 *** 0.19 *** 0.30 ***
SU ×GM 0.07 * 0.07 *
SY×GM 0.09 ** 0.09 *
Low GM = M −1SD 0.26 *** 0.23 *** 0.14 * −0.25 ***
Mean GM = M 0.34 *** 0.33 *** 0.21 *** −0.16 ***
High GM = M + 1SD 0.42 *** 0.43 *** 0.29 *** −0.06
Constant −0.14 −0.09 −0.08 −0.05
R20.42 0.43 0.40 0.38
Hypotheses results H3 supported H4 supported H5 supported H6 supported
Note: SU: substantive CSR; SY: symbolic CSR; GM: green intrinsic motivation;*** p< 0.001, ** p< 0.01, * p< 0.05;
unstandardized regression coefficients are reported.
Further, model 3 shows that the interaction term of substantive CSR and green intrinsic
motivation in predicting employee extra-role green behavior is significant (
β
= 0.07, p< 0.05,
95% CI [0.003, 0.14]) and when the employee has a high degree of green intrinsic motivation
their positive relationship will stronger (
β
= 0.29, p< 0.001, 95% CI [0.18, 0.40]) but is
weaker (
β
= 0.14, p< 0.05, 95% CI [0.02, 0.26]) when the employee has low green intrinsic
motivation; thus, H5 is supported. Model 4 shows that the interaction term of symbolic
Sustainability 2025,17, 1651 18 of 26
CSR and green intrinsic motivation in predicting employee extra-role green behavior is
significantly negative (
β
= 0.09, p< 0.05, 95% CI [0.01, 0.16]) (Note: The main effect is
negative, while the interaction coefficient is positive, so it is a negative moderate effect)
and when the employee has a high degree of green intrinsic motivation their negative
relationship disappears (
β
=
−
0.06, p> 0.05, 95% CI [
−
0.17, 0.03]) but is stronger (
β
=
−
0.25,
p< 0.001, 95% CI [
−
0.36,
−
0.13]) when the employee has low green intrinsic motivation.
Again, H6 is supported.
4.7. Study 2 Discussion
A multi-wave survey was conducted in Study 2, with a total of 462 valid questionnaire
data collected. The data results show that both substantive CSR and symbolic CSR can
positively affect employee in-role green behavior. Substantive CSR positively affects the
extra-role green behavior, but symbolic CSR negatively affects the extra-role green behavior.
Green intrinsic motivation positively moderates the relationship between substantive CSR
and in-role green behavior and positively moderates symbolic CSR and in-role green behav-
ior. Green intrinsic motivation positively moderates the relationship between substantive
CSR and extra-role green behavior but negatively moderates the relationship between
symbolic CSR and extra-role green behavior (Note: The main effect is negative, while the
interaction coefficient is positive, so it is a negative moderate effect. It shows that under the
influence of green intrinsic motivation, the negative influence of symbolic CSR on extra-role
green behavior will be weakened). Study 2 once again verified all the hypotheses proposed
in this paper and enhanced the external validity of this study.
5. Discussion
This study explored the impact of employees’ different CSR motive attributions on
employees’ green behaviors. Most previous studies investigate the relationship between
CSR motive attribution and employees’ attitudes and behaviors in the workplace [
9
,
10
], but
few establish a direct connection between CSR motive attribution and green behavior. In
addition, the previous studies focus on CSR motive attribution as a boundary condition of
employee attitudes and behaviors [
7
,
25
] but ignore how to enhance the connection between
positive CSR motive attribution and employee attitudes and behaviors and reduce the
negative connection between negative CSR motive attribution and employee attitudes
and behaviors.
To address these knowledge gaps, we established a theoretical model to explore the
impact of CSR motive attributions on employees’ green behaviors. We also examined
the moderating effect of employees’ green intrinsic motivation on CSR motivations and
green behaviors. Then, we proposed six research hypotheses to test our research questions
and test the research hypotheses in two studies. Study 1 was a situational experimental
study; we tested the causal relationship through experimental operations and collected
experimental data to evaluate the effects of different CSR practices on green behavior. Study
2 is a multi-wave survey study; we collected data by randomly sending questionnaires to
test our research hypotheses.
The results of both Study 1 and Study 2 showed that both substantive CSR and
symbolic CSR can positively affect employee in-role green behavior; this is consistent
with the research conclusions of previous scholars [
7
,
33
,
44
,
63
]. At the same time, there
are differences between in-role green behavior and extra-role green behavior, and there
may be different antecedents [
10
], which is also confirmed by the conclusion of this article.
The results of this study indicate that substantive CSR positively affects extra-role green
behavior, but symbolic CSR negatively affects extra-role green behavior. This also directly
confirms the views that negative attribution of CSR motive is not conducive to stimulating
Sustainability 2025,17, 1651 19 of 26
employees’ role green behavior [
4
,
7
]. Green intrinsic motivation positively moderates the
relationship between substantive CSR and in-role green behavior and positively moderates
symbolic CSR and in-role green behavior. Green intrinsic motivation positively moderates
the relationship between substantive CSR and extra-role green behavior but negatively
moderates the relationship between symbolic CSR and extra-role green behavior. These
results can help explain the favorable environmental results brought by substantive CSR
as well as the unfavorable environmental results brought by symbolic CSR. Based on the
results, some theoretical implications and specific management suggestions are made.
5.1. Theoretical Implications
First, we find that employees’ CSR motive attribution is directly related to employees’
green behavior. However, many researchers pay attention to the impact of CSR motive
attribution on employees’ attitudes and behaviors and reveal that CSR motive attribution
is related to employees’ pro-environmental attitudes and behaviors [
7
]. However, few
studies establish a direct connection between CSR motive attribution and employees’
green behavior. This research fills the knowledge gaps of the direct impact of CSR motive
attributions on employees’ green behaviors. Consistent with previous studies, positive CSR
motive attribution can promote positive workplace results for employees, while negative
CSR motive attribution cannot [
7
]. The inconsistency lies in the fact that employees’ in-role
green behaviors are not negatively affected by the negative CSR motive attribution. Our
research results show both substantive and symbolic CSR have a positive influence on in-
role green behavior. But for extra-role green behavior, substantive CSR can play a positive
role while symbolic CSR negatively impacts it. This research reveals the differences in the
impact of different CSR motive attributions on different green behaviors, provides a basis
for us to better understand the relationship between CSR motive attributions and employee
green behaviors, and enriches the literature of micro-CSR and the sustainable development
of organizational behavior.
Second, our research promotes the development of the environmental management
literature by distinguishing the antecedents of different green behaviors. Most studies
on green behaviors and pro-environmental behaviors stay in a single dimension and
research in general. There are differences between in-role green behaviors and extra-role
green behaviors in the initiative, so they have different antecedents [
42
]. Our research
identifies the difference between in-role green behavior and extra-role green behavior
and studies their antecedents, thereby providing a basis for better understanding and
promotion of employees’ green behaviors. Specifically, our research reveals that in-role
green behavior is similar to the job description [
42
] and is greatly influenced by employee
tool needs and controlled motivation. Different CSR motive attributions have smaller
differences in the impact of in-role green behavior, and they are all positively connected.
Extra-role green behavior is a voluntary behavior [
16
] and is mainly affected by moral
needs and autonomous motivation. The impact of different CSR motive attributions on the
extra-role green behavior is quite different. Substantive CSR motive attribution positively
affects employees’ extra-role green behavior. If employees believe that their organization’s
CSR practices are unreal and too strategic and are not trying to improve society and the
environment, it will negatively impact the employee’s extra-role green behavior. Our
research deepens the understanding of different employee attitudes and behaviors caused
by organizational CSR activities and provides a basis for more targeted promotion of
green behaviors of employees in the workplace, thereby promoting the environmental
management of the organization.
Finally, this research finds an important boundary condition of CSR motive attribution
affecting employees’ green behavior by discovering the moderating effect of green intrinsic
Sustainability 2025,17, 1651 20 of 26
motivation. The previous research shows that CSR motive attribution is an important
boundary condition of employee attitudes and behaviors [
7
,
25
,
27
]. However, there is little
research on the boundary conditions that affect CSR motive attributions and green behav-
iors, and it limits our understanding of the relationship between them. Our research shows
that green intrinsic motivation can effectively promote the implementation of employees’
green behavior. Specifically, if employees have green intrinsic motivation, the positive rela-
tionship between CSR motive attributions and in-role green behavior will be strengthened,
and the positive relationship between substantive CSR and extra-role green behavior will
also be strengthened. Green intrinsic motivation can also weaken the negative impact of
symbolic CSR on employees’ extra-role green behavior. From our research results, we know
that green intrinsic motivation can enhance the positive connection of positive CSR motive
attribution and in-role and extra-role green behavior and can alleviate the negative impact
of negative CSR motive attribution on extra-role green behavior. This research helps us
understand how to weaken the negative factors that cause negative results from employees
and how to strengthen the positive green results of employees in the workplace.
5.2. Managerial Implications
The research provides practical suggestions for organizations to promote employee
green behaviors and the sustainable development of the organization. First, the orga-
nization can use job descriptions and job rewards to promote employees’ in-role green
behaviors. Our research results show that employees’ in-role green behaviors are affected
by utilitarian needs and control motivations. Therefore, to ensure the implementation
of in-role green behaviors, managers and leaders can appropriately incorporate some
necessary green behaviors into the work requirements and link them with employees’
performance appraisal, thus transforming these important green behaviors into the in-role
green behaviors of employees.
Second, the organization can promote employees to implement extra-role green behav-
iors by ensuring substantive CSR activities. Integrating CSR into organizational strategy
and increasing investment in substantive CSR can promote the sustainable development
of the organization [
33
,
63
]. From our research results, we know that substantive CSR can
promote employees’ extra-role green behavior. However, the symbolic CSR will negatively
impact employees’ extra-role green behavior. Therefore, to promote the implementation of
extra-role green behavior of the employee, organizations need to ensure their CSR activities
are real and can promote the development of society and the environment [
44
,
64
]. The
implementation of CSR strategy must be sincere to the greening of the company and the
promotion of environmental protection rather than symbolic; otherwise, the gap between
CSR policy and CSR practices will be regarded as formalism by employees, which is not
conducive to stimulating employees’ extra-role green behaviors [
4
]. Ensuring the good
implementation of CSR and increasing investment in CSR activities are important guaran-
tees for stimulating employees’ positive attitudes towards environmental undertakings,
promoting employees’ extra-role green behavior, and thereby promoting the sustainable
development of the organization.
Third, organizations must ensure that the CSR signal they send is closer to the signal
perceived by the employees. According to attribution theory, employees’ motive attribution
of the organization’s CSR is based on their subjective judgments based on what they see,
hear, and feel [
25
]. Different people will have different perceptions of the same thing [
65
].
Therefore, the philosophy the organization wants to convey and the signals received
by employees may be deviated [
66
], so some employees made substantive CSR motive
attribution, and other employees believed that the organization’s CSR activities were
symbolic. When ensuring the organization’s positive motive to participate in CSR activities,
Sustainability 2025,17, 1651 21 of 26
it is necessary to narrow the gap between the organization’s motive of CSR activities and
employee perception of the motive of the organization’s CSR activities. Therefore, to
reduce the deviation between the organization’s philosophy and employee perception, the
organization should increase its publicity of CSR activities. It includes some CSR activities
implementation steps, details, and environmental effects. It should provide specific digital
and visual evidence to prove the authenticity of the organization’s CSR activities and
ensure that employees perceive the authenticity of the organization’s participation in social
responsibility activities.
Finally, given the important role of green intrinsic motivation in weakening the nega-
tive effect of symbolic CSR and promoting the green behavior of employees, candidates
who are passionate about the environment can be given priority when recruiting, select-
ing, or appointing employees. In addition, the organization can also incorporate green
behavior into the company’s values through regular environmental knowledge lectures
and training courses to convey the company’s environmental values to employees so that
employees understand the importance of environmental protection and establish envi-
ronmental protection concepts. At the same time, the company can deepen and promote
the green values and behaviors of employees through specific environmental protection
measures, such as strengthening green technology research and innovation, launching envi-
ronmentally friendly products, implementing green management and operation, building a
green supply chain, strengthening green marketing and publicity, and improving the green
development evaluation and supervision mechanism.
6. Limitations and Future Research
Although this research has made several contributions, it still has some limitations.
First, this study mainly uses the experimental and survey methods to obtain cross-sectional
data to verify our hypotheses. In the future, we can use more comprehensive methods,
using case studies, grounded research, and other methods to further verify the in-role and
extra-role behavior of employees. Second, the relationship between CSR motive attribution
and green behavior still needs further exploration. In the future, we can explore more
mediate variables and moderate variables that affect the relationship between CSR motive
attribution and green behavior. The factors that can inhibit the negative impact of negative
CSR motive attributions on employees’ attitudes and behaviors especially need to be
further explored. Finally, when conducting the questionnaire survey, this paper ignored the
important influence of the education level of the subjects. In future studies, the education
level of the subjects should be controlled, or the influence of education level on employee
behavior should be increased.
Author Contributions: Conceptualization, C.Y.; data curation, Y.D.; funding acquisition, J.T. and Y.D.;
investigation, Y.D.; methodology, J.T.; resources, J.T.; software, C.Y.; supervision, J.T.; validation, Y.D.;
writing—original draft, C.Y.; writing—review and editing, C.Y. All authors have read and agreed to
the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research was funded by the Foundation of Post-doctoral Later-stage Foundation
Project of Shenzhen Polytechnic University, grant number 6022271005S, the Foundation of The
Business Administration Discipline Construction Program of Shenzhen Polytechnic University, and
the Humanities and Social Sciences Research Planning Fund of the Ministry of Education, grant
number 23YJA790016.
Institutional Review Board Statement: The study was conducted in compliance with the ethical
guidelines of local universities and companies (where the data were collected). According to national
legislation and institutional requirements, this study does not require written informed consent
for participation.
Sustainability 2025,17, 1651 22 of 26
Informed Consent Statement: All participants were orally informed of the informed consent before
participating in this study, and all research processes were conducted following the ethical require-
ments of the school and company. According to national legislation and institutional requirements,
this study does not require written informed consent for participation.
Data Availability Statement: The raw data supporting the conclusions of this article will be made
available by the authors upon request.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflicts of interest.
Abbreviations
Corporate social responsibility CSR
Substantive CSR motive attribution Substantive CSR
Symbolic CSR motive attribution Symbolic CSR
Appendix A
Appendix A.1 The Experimental Materials of Experiment A in Study 1
(1) Substantive CSR motive attribution manipulation.
Suppose you are a member of Company C. The following statements are Company C’s
efforts to improve the company’s environmental conditions and reduce its environmental
pollution:
•In the condition of high substantive CSR:
“Company C has established an environmental protection department, with manager-
level leaders in charge of environmental work, equipped with environmental protection
professional and technical personnel fully responsible for the management and monitoring
tasks of the company’s environmental protection work and coordinating the work of the
company and the government’s environmental protection department.
Some of the company’s environmental protection measures include: providing employ-
ees with environmental protection education and training; purchasing environmentally
friendly materials; producing green products; sorting garbage; investing a certain percent-
age of funds for pollution control and environmental protection; regularly announcing
the company’s environmental indicators.”
Therefore, Company C’s CSR activities are real, and its environmental protection
measures not only meet external stakeholders and minimum legal requirements but also
benefit society and the environment.
•In the condition of low substantive CSR:
“Company C has established an environmental protection department, with manager-
level leaders in charge of environmental work, equipped with environmental protection
professional and technical personnel fully responsible for the management and monitoring
tasks of the company’s environmental protection work and coordinating the work of the
company and the government’s environmental protection department.”
Therefore, Company C’s CSR measures meet the requirements of the government’s
environmental department and have made some efforts for environmental protection.
(2) Green intrinsic motivation manipulation.
Suppose the following statement is a monologue of your participation in environmen-
tal activities:
•In the condition of high green intrinsic motivation:
Sustainability 2025,17, 1651 23 of 26
“I am a supporter of environmental protection and I care about environmental pollution
and protection. I will actively participate in the environmental activities of companies
and social organizations. Every time I participate in environmental work it can stimulate
my sense of accomplishment and I will be sincerely happy because of the improvement of
the ecological environment.”
Therefore, my participation in environmental behavior is out of my passion for envi-
ronmental protection.
•In the condition of low green intrinsic motivation:
“I usually don’t pay much attention to the environment but I also participate in en-
vironmental behaviors because our company encourages employees to participate in
environmental behaviors and it is linked to performance and will give some rewards to
employees who perform well in environmental work.”
Therefore, my participation in environmental behavior is based on the requirements
of my company and society.
Appendix A.2 The Experimental Materials of Experiment B in Study 1
(1) Symbolic CSR motive attribution manipulation.
Suppose you are a member of Company D. The following statements are Company D’s
efforts to improve the company’s environmental conditions and reduce its environmental
pollution:
•In the condition of high symbolic CSR:
“Company D’s environmental management errors caused sewage leakage resulting in
millions of kilograms of fish poisoning and death and disrupting the local crop growth
and ecological balance. This incident was disclosed by the media, the company was
fined by the government, the public condemned it and its products were boycotted. To
save the corporate image, the company announced the establishment of a professional
environmental department to comprehensively handle and monitor the environmental
pollution and prevention of the enterprise as well as actively co-operating with the
government’s environmental protection department. At the same time, a corporate
environmental protection fund was set up to help companies and external stakeholders to
better practice environmental protection.”
Therefore, Company D’s CSR activities are to save the company’s image following a
crisis to regain the forgiveness and support of consumers, not really to contribute to society
and the environment.
•In the condition of low symbolic CSR:
“Company D’s environmental management errors caused sewage leakage resulting in
millions of kilograms of fish poisoning and death and disrupting the local crop growth and
ecological balance. After this incident, the company immediately responded and assumed
responsibility by announcing the establishment of a professional environmental depart-
ment to comprehensively handle and monitor the company’s environmental pollution
and prevention and actively co-operate with the government’s environmental protection
department. At the same time, a corporate environmental protection fund was set up to
help companies and external stakeholders to better practice environmental protection.”
Therefore, Company D’s CSR activities are to save the company’s image following a
crisis and avoid further environmental pollution.
(2)
Green intrinsic motivation manipulation: the manipulation method was the same as
in Experiment A.
Sustainability 2025,17, 1651 24 of 26
References
1.
Williamson, D.; Lynch-Wood, G.; Ramsay, J. Drivers of environmental behaviour in manufacturing SMEs and the implications for
CSR. J. Bus. Ethics 2006,67, 317–330. [CrossRef]
2.
Tatoglu, E.; Frynas, J.G.; Bayraktar, E.; Demirbag, M.; Sahadev, S.; Doh, J.; Koh, S.C.L. Why do emerging market firms engage in
voluntary environmental management practices? A strategic choice perspective. Brit. J. Manag. 2020,31, 80–100. [CrossRef]
3.
Aguinis, H.; Glavas, A. What we know and Don’t know about corporate social responsibility: A review and research agenda. J.
Manag. 2012,38, 932–968. [CrossRef]
4.
Raineri, N.; Paillé, P. Linking corporate policy and supervisory support with environmental citizenship behaviors: The role of
employee environmental beliefs and commitment. J. Bus. Ethics 2016,137, 129–148. [CrossRef]
5.
Paillé, P.; Boiral, O. Pro-environmental behavior at work: Construct validity and determinants. J. Environ. Psychol. 2013,36,
118–128. [CrossRef]
6.
Tian, Q.; Robertson, J.L. How and when does perceived CSR affect employees’ engagement in voluntary pro-environmental
behavior? J. Bus. Ethics 2019,155, 399–412. [CrossRef]
7.
Donia, M.B.L.; Tetrault Sirsly, C.A.; Ronen, S. Employee attributions of corporate social responsibility as substantive or symbolic:
Validation of a measure. Appl. Psychol. 2017,66, 103–142. [CrossRef]
8.
Su, L.; Lian, Q.; Huang, Y. How do tourists’ attribution of destination social responsibility motives impact trust and intention to
visit? The moderating role of destination reputation. Tour. Manag. 2020,77, 103970. [CrossRef]
9.
Vlachos, P.A.; Panagopoulos, N.G.; Rapp, A.A. Feeling good by doing good: Employee CSR-induced attributions, job satisfaction,
and the role of charismatic leadership. J. Bus. Ethics 2013,118, 577–588. [CrossRef]
10.
McShane, L.; Cunningham, P. To thine own self be true? Employees’ judgments of the authenticity of their Organization’s
corporate social responsibility program. J. Bus. Ethics 2012,108, 81–100. [CrossRef]
11.
Story, J.; Neves, P. When corporate social responsibility (CSR) increases performance: Exploring the role of intrinsic and extrinsic
CSR attribution. Bus. Ethics 2015,24, 111–124. [CrossRef]
12.
Ogunfowora, B.; Stackhouse, M.; Oh, W. Media depictions of CEO ethics and stakeholder support of CSR initiatives: The
mediating roles of CSR motive attributions and cynicism. J. Bus. Ethics 2018,150, 525–540. [CrossRef]
13.
Bo˘gan, E.; Sarıı¸sık, M. Organization-related determinants of employees’ CSR motive attributions and affective commitment in
hospitality companies. J. Hosp. Tour. Manag. 2020,45, 58–66. [CrossRef]
14.
Hur, W.; Moon, T.; Ko, S. How employees’ perceptions of CSR increase employee creativity: Mediating mechanisms of compassion
at work and intrinsic motivation. J. Bus. Ethics 2018,153, 629–644. [CrossRef]
15.
Zhang, S.; Ren, S.; Tang, G. From passive to active: The positive spillover of required employee green behavior on green advocacy.
J. Bus. Ethics 2023,192, 57–76. [CrossRef]
16.
Ones, D.S.; Dilchert, S. Measuring, understanding, and influencing employee green behaviors. In Green Organizations: Driving
Change with IO Psychology; Routledge: Oxfordshire, UK, 2013; pp. 115–148.
17.
Elgaaied-Gambier, L.; Monnot, E.; Reniou, F. Using descriptive norm appeals effectively to promote green behavior. J. Bus. Res.
2018,82, 179–191. [CrossRef]
18.
Shao, X.; Jiang, Y.; Yang, L.; Zhang, L. Does gender matter? The trickle-down effect of voluntary green behavior in organizations.
Asia Pac. J. Hum. Resour. 2023,61, 57–78. [CrossRef]
19.
Dumont, J.; Shen, J.; Deng, X. Effects of green HRM practices on employee workplace green behavior: The role of psychological
green climate and employee green values. Hum. Resour. Manag. 2017,56, 613–627. [CrossRef]
20.
Stecyk, A.; Chojnowski, M. E-learning System in Theory of Systems: Structural, Process and Attributes Approach. Pr. I Mater.
Wydziału Zarz ˛adzania Uniw. Gda´nskiego 2011,3, 305–313.
21.
Deci, E.L.; Ryan, R.M. The general causality orientations scale: Self-determination in personality. J. Res. Pers. 1985,19, 109–134.
[CrossRef]
22. Kelley, H.H. The processes of causal attribution. Am. Psychol. 1973,28, 107–128. [CrossRef]
23. Hastie, R. Causes and effects of causal attribution. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 1984,46, 44–56. [CrossRef]
24.
Taylor, S.E. Asymmetrical effects of positive and negative events: The mobilization-minimization hypothesis. Psychol. Bull. 1991,
110, 67–85. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
25.
Ellen, P.S. Building corporate associations: Consumer attributions for corporate socially responsible programs. J. Acad. Market.
Sci. 2006,34, 147–157. [CrossRef]
26.
Ginder, W.; Kwon, W.; Byun, S. Effects of Internal–External congruence-based CSR positioning: An attribution theory approach. J.
Bus. Ethics 2019,169, 355–369. [CrossRef]
27.
Donia, M.B.L.; Ronen, S.; Sirsly, C.A.T.; Bonaccio, S. CSR by any other name? The differential impact of substantive and symbolic
CSR attributions on employee outcomes. J. Bus. Ethics 2019,157, 503–523. [CrossRef]
28.
Ducassy, I. Does corporate social responsibility pay off in times of crisis? An alternate perspective on the relationship between
financial and corporate social performance: Does CSR pay off? Corp. Soc. Resp. Environ. Manag. 2013,20, 157–167. [CrossRef]
Sustainability 2025,17, 1651 25 of 26
29.
Babiak, K.; Trendafilova, S. CSR and environmental responsibility: Motives and pressures to adopt green management practices.
Corp. Soc. Resp. Environ. Manag. 2011,18, 11–24. [CrossRef]
30.
Hyatt, D.G.; Berente, N. Substantive or symbolic environmental strategies? Effects of external and internal normative stakeholder
pressures. Bus. Strateg. Environ. 2017,26, 1212–1234. [CrossRef]
31.
Alhouti, S.; Johnson, C.M.; Holloway, B.B. Corporate social responsibility authenticity: Investigating its antecedents and outcomes.
J. Bus. Res. 2016,69, 1242–1249. [CrossRef]
32.
Joo, S.; Miller, E.G.; Fink, J.S. Consumer evaluations of CSR authenticity: Development and validation of a multidimensional CSR
authenticity scale. J. Bus. Res. 2019,98, 236–249. [CrossRef]
33.
Perrini, F.; Russo, A.; Tencati, A. CSR strategies of SMEs and large firms. Evidence from Italy. J. Bus. Ethics 2007,74, 285–300.
[CrossRef]
34.
Lim, R.E.; Sung, Y.H.; Lee, W. Connecting with global consumers through corporate social responsibility initiatives: A cross-
cultural investigation of congruence effects of attribution and communication styles. J. Bus. Res. 2018,88, 11–19. [CrossRef]
35.
Kim, S.; Choi, S.M. Congruence effects in post-crisis CSR communication: The mediating role of attribution of corporate motives.
J. Bus. Ethics 2018,153, 447–463. [CrossRef]
36.
Nyilasy, G.; Gangadharbatla, H.; Paladino, A. Perceived greenwashing: The interactive effects of green advertising and corporate
environmental performance on consumer reactions. J. Bus. Ethics 2014,125, 693–707. [CrossRef]
37.
Steg, L.; Vlek, C. Encouraging pro-environmental behaviour: An integrative review and research agenda. J. Environ. Psychol. 2009,
29, 309–317. [CrossRef]
38.
Katz, I.M.; Rudolph, C.W.; Kühner, C.; Zacher, H. Job characteristics and employee green behavior. J. Environ. Psychol. 2023,92,
102159. [CrossRef]
39.
De Roeck, K.; De Roeck, K.; Farooq, O.; Farooq, O. Corporate social responsibility and ethical leadership: Investigating their
interactive effect on employees’ socially responsible behaviors. J. Bus. Ethics 2018,151, 923–939. [CrossRef]
40.
Khalid, B.; Shahzad, K.; Shafi, M.Q.; Paille, P. Predicting required and voluntary employee green behavior using the theory of
planned behavior. Corp. Soc. Resp. Environ. Manag. 2022,29, 1300–1314. [CrossRef]
41.
Borman, W.C.; Motowidlo, S.J. Task performance and contextual performance: The meaning for personnel selection research.
Hum. Perform. 1997,10, 99–109. [CrossRef]
42.
Norton, T.A.; Zacher, H.; Parker, S.L.; Ashkanasy, N.M. Bridging the gap between green behavioral intentions and employee
green behavior: The role of green psychological climate. J. Organ. Behav. 2017,38, 996–1015. [CrossRef]
43.
Ramus, C.A.; Killmer, A.B.C. Corporate greening through prosocial extra role behaviours—A conceptual framework for employee
motivation. Bus. Strateg. Environ. 2007,16, 554–570. [CrossRef]
44.
Boiral, O.; Talbot, D.; Paillé, P. Leading by example: A model of organizational citizenship behavior for the environment. Bus.
Strateg. Environ. 2015,24, 532–550. [CrossRef]
45.
Kim, A.; Kim, Y.; Han, K.; Jackson, S.E.; Ployhart, R.E. Multilevel influences on voluntary workplace green behavior: Individual
differences, leader behavior, and coworker advocacy. J. Manag. 2017,43, 1335–1358. [CrossRef]
46.
Khan, A.N.; Khan, N.A. The nexuses between transformational leadership and employee green organisational citizenship
behaviour: Role of environmental attitude and green dedication. Bus. Strateg. Environ. 2022,31, 921–933. [CrossRef]
47.
Tian, H.; Zhang, J.; Li, J. The relationship between pro-environmental attitude and employee green behavior: The role of
motivational states and green work climate perceptions. Environ Sci. Poll. Res. Int. 2020,27, 7341–7352. [CrossRef]
48. Kelley, H.H.; Michela, J.L. Attribution theory and research. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 1980,31, 457–501. [CrossRef]
49.
Malinowska, D.; Tokarz, A. The moderating role of self-determination theory’s general causality orientations in the relationship
between the job resources and work engagement of outsourcing sector employees. Pers. Indiv. Differ. 2020,153, 109638. [CrossRef]
50.
Deci, E.L.; Ryan, R.M. The “what” and “why” of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self-determination of behavior. Psychol. Inq.
2000,11, 227–268. [CrossRef]
51.
Rupp, D.E.; Ganapathi, J.; Aguilera, R.V.; Williams, C.A. Employee reactions to corporate social responsibility: An organizational
justice framework. J. Organ. Behav. 2006,27, 537–543. [CrossRef]
52.
Brieger, S.A.; Anderer, S.; Froehlich, A.; Baero, A.; Meynhardt, T. Too much of a good thing? On the relationship between CSR
and employee work addiction. J. Bus. Ethics 2020,166, 311–329. [CrossRef]
53. Jahn, J.; Brühl, R. Can bad news be good? On the positive and negative effects of including moderately negative information in
CSR disclosures. J. Bus. Res. 2019,97, 117–128. [CrossRef]
54.
Lange, D.; Washburn, N.T. Understanding attributions of corporate social irresponsibility. Acad. Manag. Rev. 2012,37, 300–326.
[CrossRef]
55.
Li, Z.; Yu, H.; Xing, L. The impact of green culture on employees’ green behavior: The mediation role of environmental awareness.
Cor. Soc. Resp. Environ. Manag. 2023,30, 1325–1335. [CrossRef]
56.
Li, W.; Bhutto, T.A.; Xuhui, W.; Maitlo, Q.; Zafar, A.U.; Ahmed Bhutto, N. Unlocking employees’ green creativity: The effects of
green transformational leadership, green intrinsic, and extrinsic motivation. J. Clean. Prod. 2020,255, 120229. [CrossRef]
Sustainability 2025,17, 1651 26 of 26
57.
Chen, Y.; Chang, C. Enhance green purchase intentions the roles of green perceived value, green perceived risk, and green trust.
Manag. Decis. 2012,50, 502–520. [CrossRef]
58.
Pelletier, L.G.; Tuson, K.M.; Green-Demers, I.; Noels, K.; Beaton, A.M. Why are you doing things for the environment? The
motivation toward the environment scale (MTES)1. J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 1998,28, 437–468. [CrossRef]
59.
Afsar, B.; Badir, Y.; Kiani, U.S. Linking spiritual leadership and employee pro-environmental behavior: The influence of workplace
spirituality, intrinsic motivation, and environmental passion. J. Environ. Psychol. 2016,45, 79–88. [CrossRef]
60.
Bissing-Olson, M.J.; Iyer, A.; Fielding, K.S.; Zacher, H. Relationships between daily affect and pro-environmental behavior at
work: The moderating role of pro-environmental attitude. J. Organ. Behav. 2013,34, 156–175. [CrossRef]
61.
Wang, Y.S.; Wu, S.C.; Lin, H.H.; Wang, Y.Y. The relationship of service failure severity, service recovery justice and perceived
switching costs with customer loyalty in the context of e-tailing. Int. J. Inform. Manag. 2011,31, 350–359. [CrossRef]
62.
Preacher, K.J.; Rucker, D.D.; Hayes, A.F. Addressing moderated mediation hypotheses: Theory, methods, and prescriptions.
Multivar. Behav. Res. 2007,42, 185–227. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
63.
Miller, S.R.; Eden, L.; Li, D. CSR reputation and firm performance: A dynamic approach. J. Bus. Ethics 2020,163, 619–636.
[CrossRef]
64.
Siltaloppi, J.; Rajala, R.; Hietala, H. Integrating CSR with business strategy: A tension management perspective. J. Bus. Ethics
2020,174, 507–527. [CrossRef]
65.
Eastman, K.K. In the eyes of the beholder: An attributional approach to ingratiation and organizational citizenship behavior.
Acad. Manag. J. 1994,37, 1379–1391. [CrossRef]
66.
Connelly, B.L.; Certo, S.T.; Ireland, R.D.; Reutzel, C.R. Signaling theory: A review and assessment. J. Manag. 2011,37, 39–67.
[CrossRef]
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual
author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to
people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.
