Psychosocial Factors of Pro-Environmental Behavior at the Workplace

Размещено на http://www.allbest.ru/

FEDERAL STATE AUTONOMOUS EDUCATIONAL

INSTITUTION OF TERTIARY EDUCATION

«NATIONAL RESEARCH UNIVERSITY HIGHER SCHOOL OF ECONOMICS»

FACULTY OF SOCIAL SCIENCES DEPARTMENT OF PSYCHOLOGY

Master's Thesis

Master's Program «Applied Social Psychology»

Psychosocial Factors of Pro-Environmental Behavior at the Workplace

Pimenova Sofia

Supervisor:

PhD in Soc. Psych.,

Professor

Sautkina E.V.

Moscow, 2020

Abstract

The purpose of this study is to investigate psychosocial determinants of pro-environmental behavior at workplace. Environmental behavior at work is less researched compared to personal environmental behavior. Data obtained from a survey of employees of private companies (N=140) showed a significant relationship between selected psychosocial factors (corporate environmental responsibility, environmental identity and personal environmental norms, motivation, organizational citizenship behavior) and environmental behavior at work. Using moderation analysis, we found the absence of the effect of organizational citizenship behavior on the relationship between variables (corporate environmental responsibility, environmental identity, personal environmental norms and environmental motivation) and employees' pro-environmental behavior. The results of this study, being one of the first ones in Russia, to investigate pro-environmental behaviour at work,help to further understand the specifics of environmental behavior at work. Results will be of significance for companies interested in promoting pro-environmental behaviour among their employees. psychosocial behavior workplace

Key words:Pro-environmental behavior at work, psychosocial factors of pro-environmental behavior, organizational sustainability policies.

Introduction

The concept of pro-environmental behavior has been introduced in the field of environmental psychology. It can broadly be defined as actions aimed at minimizing the negative impact on the environment and striving for environmental sustainability (Steg & Vlek 2009). The world community calls for a comprehensive solution of environmental problems, at the individual, organizational and national levels. The United Nations in 2015 proposed a list of 17 sustainable development goals for the economy, society and environment for the period up to 2030 (Sustainable Development Knowledge Platform, 2019). The UN allocates a special role for large companies for solving environmental problems because they set development trends at the organizational level.

However, environmental initiatives of companies can be implemented at the external and internal levels (Ones & Dilchert, 2012; Graves, Sarkis, & Zhu, 2013). External initiatives are related to the modernization of production cycles and the transition to a circular economy. Thus, large companies become a positive example for the business community. Environmental initiatives at the internal level are related to the promotion of the environmental behavior of employees within the company. These may be small initiatives that make the employee's work process more environmentally friendly. After all, people sometimes do not notice how much they waste paper, create disposable garbage or using plastic drinking cups.

The specificity of environmental behavior is that it is self-transcendent and associated with the rejection of convenient but environmentally irresponsible alternatives (De Groot, Thogersen & Schubert, 2016; Steg & De Groot 2012).Previous studies mostly studied pro-environmental behavior in the context of everyday life, travel mode, marketing, and so on. In contrast, pro-environmental behavior at work is insufficiently studied. Social psychological theories are widely used to create programs to promote eco-friendly behavior through individual factors: attitudes, knowledge, norms and values. However, in order to encourage people to adopt ecological practices at work, it is important to take into consideration the specifics of the organizational context (Tudor, Barr, & Gilg, 2008).

Nowadays, the number of studies of various forms of pro-environmental behavior has increased: household, travel mode, “green” shopping preferences, and so on. However, pro-environmental behaviors have been studied in both the public and private sphere, but rarely in work settings” (Ones and Dilchert, 2012). The specific nature of employee involvement in corporate ecological initiatives remains unclear (Larson, Stedman, Cooper, & Decker, 2015). Therefore, in response to this problem, our study proposes to investigate psycho-social factors related to pro-environmental behavior at work.

The research question of this study: what is the effect of psychosocial factors on pro-environmental behavior at work?

The present research aimed to examine the effects of environmental and psychosocial factors (environmental identity, motivation, environmental personal environmental norm) and organizational factors, (organizational citizenship behavior and corporate environmental responsibility) on pro-environmental behavior at the workplace. Also, we are want to see whether the willingness of company employees to perform voluntary duties strengthens the influence of psychosocial factors on pro-environmental behavior even stronger.

The novelty of this study consists in that we attempt to provide a holistic approach in terms of individual and organizational psychosocial which will help to shed light onto the specifics of pro-environmental behavior at workplace. Theoretical significance, this study is attempt to review modern studies of pro-environmental behavior at the workplaces.The methodological significance of this study is that adapt scales from studies of pro-environmental behavior into organizational context.The practical significance of this study consists in identification of determinants of pro-environmental behavior as levers for behavior change.

H1: Pro-environmental behavior in organizations will be determined by personal environmental norms, motivation, environmental identity, organizational citizenship behavior and corporate environmental responsibility.

H2: Organizational citizenship behavior will enhance the effect on the relationship between psychosocial variables and pro-environmental behavior at work.

Chapter 1: Theoretical background

1.1 Pro-environmental behavior at work

Environmental psychology research could help explain how the working environment influences employees. These studies often examine the relationship between the environment and work factors in the context of an office.

The office is a physical space that a company provides to its employees to perform their work duties in accordance with the company's goals (Bechtel, 2010). Nowadays, it is typical for a person to spend a significant part of their life at work (Emslie & Hunt, 2009). In this regard, company managers pay close attention now to how the workspace will be arranged. These characteristics can significantly contribute to employees' job satisfaction and loyalty, increase the level of creativity (Becker & Sims, 2001).At the same time, work is one of the places of socialization for a person, so it is important to create opportunities for employees' self-expression (Haslam, 2004).There are different ways to create opportunities for self-actualization at work. For this reason, employers could create various out-of-work activities for employees. Thus, employees do not need to spend their time looking for where they can express their social, creative, educational and other needs (Haslam, 2004).

Nowadays, people are becoming more and more concerned about environmental issues. In this regard, people are looking for different ways to reduce their environmental footprint (Krajhanzl, 2010).Pro-environmental behavior of employees could be defined as “scalable actions and behaviors that employees engage in that are linked with and contribute to or detract from environmental sustainability'' (Ones & Dilchert, 2012).Ecological behavior at work can be required or voluntary (Norton, Parker, Zacher & Ashkanasy, 2015). Required pro-environmental behavior is a part of employees' duties and it could be a part of a labor contract. Voluntary pro-environmental behavior reflects employees' initiative to perform some eco-friendly activities which go beyond required duties, for example, ecological activism, encouraging others to be eco-friendlier at work (Norton et al, 2015). In this research environmental behavior at work is considered as providing an opportunity for employees to make a positive contribution to the environment being at work.Examples of practices that relate to environmental behavior in the workplace: turning off personal computers every time employees leaving for an hour or more; using video conferencing for meetings that would require travel and waste management (plastic sorting, paper recycling disposing of food, etc) (Greaves, Zibarras & Stride, 2013).

Perceived barriers and co-benefits benefits have a significant impact on pro-environmental behavior(Klцckner & Verplanken, 2018). Psychological barriers are a set of both socio-psychological factors (limited cognition, social comparisons, ideology) and objective costs (financial, behavioral, conflict of interests) (Gifford, 2011). For example, if the manager decided to engage colleagues in plastic sorting, he or she should give proper information about why they need to do it. The information about certain ecological behavior information should be simple and clear and cover some basic questions about the importance of such behavior. It is important for covering the lack of knowledge among employees. Also, inconvenient infrastructure for pro-environmental behavior creates obstacles to form an eco-friendly habit. Behavioral movements that do not consist of working routine have high costs for employees (Norton, Zacher & Ashkanasy, 2014).Environmental co-benefits at the workplace could be defined as perceived advantages and bonuses from ecological behavior. For example, a co-benefit of environmental behavior in an organizational context is an opportunity to attract new talent, increase loyalty among employees, and horizontal communications development (Smith, 2013) At the same time, psychological barriers and perceived co-benefits play a very important role in ecological behavior (Gifford, 2011).Noticeable that such co-benefits are mainly related to social well-being parameters since environmental behavior is often not perceived as a source of direct financial benefit in the short term. At the same time, environmental behavior can certainly become a source of material benefit, and contributes to companies' brand. Thus, environmental actions of a company could increase the company's competitiveness, increase brand loyalty, and even increase investment attractiveness of the company for investors (First & Khetriwal, 2010)

1.2 Psychosocial determinants of pro-environmental behavior in organizations

Environmental behavior is a complex construct. Various socio-psychological theories are used to identify key factors of environmentalism: Theory of Planned Behavior (Greaves, Zibarras, & Stride, 2013), Norm Activation model (Steg & De Groot, 2010), Value - Belief - Norm model (Stern, 2000). From the social psychology perspective, environmental behavior is frequently studied by the example of the Theory of Planned Behavior, where behavior depends on intention, which in turn is influenced by attitude, perceived behavioral control and social norm (Greaves et al, 2013). The theory of planned behavior is used to explain various types of environmental behavior: recycling, travel mode choice, customer preferences (Carrus, Passafaro & Bonnes, 2008; Bamberg, Ajzen & Schmidt,2003; Chen & Tung, 2014). However, to study environmental behavior in an organizational context, it is also important to consider organizational factors such as the type, culture, structure and size of the organization (Tudor, Barr, & Gilg, 2008). Thus, context plays a big role in the process of developing both a new behavioral habit and the ability to follow an already established behavior.

According to research on environmental behavior at work, people tend to be less environmentally responsible while at work than at home (McDonald, 2011). Thus, the theory of planned behavior in an organizational context has limitations in the absence of organizational factors that also affect employee behavior. Other theories, such as the Norm activation model and Value-belief-norm theory,promote factors of environmental behavior associated with personal norms, values, and beliefs of a person (Steg & De Groot, 2010; Stern, 2000). These classic socio-psychological theories that explain the causality of human behavior and intentions have become practical tools in the development of programs to influence human environmental behavior and develop ecological habits.

However, the results of the studies of pro-environmental behavior differ in the list of socio-psychological factors that determine its. The reason is that ecological behavior is a complex construct that should be studied from a different perspective with the inclusion of new psychosocial determinants both at individual and organizational (Larson, Stedman, Cooper, & Decker, 2015).

Corporate environmental responsibility. Corporate environmental responsibility is one of the three pillars of an organization's corporate social responsibility, which in turn regulates the company's activities in social, economic and environmental terms (Aguinis & Glavas, 2012). Environmental responsibility can regulate the organization's activities in three ways: at the institutional level (production certification, international standards, etc.); organizational level (company mission, goals and values) and individual level (environmental activism, employee inspiration) (Aguinis & Glavas, 2012).

There are studies, which show that there is a positive relationship between environmental responsibility in the company and the environmental behavior of employees. Thus, environmental corporate responsibility can create favorable conditions for the development of employees' environmental values and their involvement in ecological initiatives (Ruepert, Keizer & Steg, 2017). The company's environmental responsibility may vary in a different extension depending on the company's preparedness and ability to take a course for sustainable development. At the same time, it is important to take into account the context in which the organization develops its environmental policy. First of all, this context is related to the company's focus on making a profit from the implementation of environmental initiatives.

There are three main conditions: first-corporate environmental responsibility is implemented even if it does not have direct financial benefits, second - the company implements environmental policy only if it has direct financial benefits, and third - the company is focused only on maximizing profits and does not conduct an environmental policy (Ruepert et al, 2017). According to the first condition, when the implementation of corporate environmental responsibility has no profit orientation, the company declares that its values and goals are directly related to sustainable development. In this case, environmental policy is part of the company's DNA and does not imply direct financial gain (Ruepert et al, 2017). This condition is possible when the principles of environmental responsibility were at the origin of the company. A huge role is played by the personality of the company's founder, who has a strong intrinsic motivation and environmental passion (Afsar, Badir & Kiani, 2016). In the second condition (the company implements environmental responsibility only when it has direct financial benefits), the company perceives the importance of environmental problems and ready to solve them at the organizational level. However, such a company implements an environmental policy only if it has financial benefits (Ruepert et al, 2017). Noteworthy that this condition is one of the most stable for companies since there is as internal, as external motivation. On the one hand, the company promotes environmental values, which creates intention for environmental behavior. On the other hand, the company has a clear plan for implementing environmental initiatives that are consistent with its financial capabilities. This condition is typical for companies that have no experience in implementing environmental policies or whose activities are not directly related to environmental behavior.

According to the third condition, the company does not implement an environmental policy, since its mission is to maximize financial profit. This condition is most consistent with the business as usual scenario in which the company prioritizes short-term benefits and does not focus on long-term sustainable development (Oxford Reference, 2019). This approach is now rather socially undesirable, since the global community expects companies to implement environmental practices (Sustainable Development Knowledge Platform, 2019).

Environmental identity. A person's self-identity is one of the key factors in behavior. If a person has a strong environmental identity (they initiate themselves with someone who cares about the environment and seeks to minimize their negative impact on it), they are more likely to actively implement environmental initiatives (Whitmarsh & O'Neill, 2010). Since a person also has an organizational identity in the process of working, it should not contradict the ecological one. This means that if the organizational identity of a person does not imply following ecological principles, then a weak ecological identity can be suppressed. For example, if an employee becomes interested in an eco-friendly lifestyle, but he is aware that colleagues' skepticism, then he would likely not demonstrate his environmental identity, since it may harm his reputation in the team.In this case, a person can compensate for their need for environmental behavior at home, and refuse to do it at work. The solution to this problem can be to create a trusting atmosphere in the team. The Manager's job is to translate to employees that environmental initiatives are encouraged and appreciated. At the same time, encouragement can be expressed in verbal form. Thus, if employees feel social support and safeness for their environmental identity, this creates a favorable context for environmental behavior.

Self-identity is a significant psychological predictor of behavior. Some researchers claim, that this ecological identity has a moderate effect on factors of the Theory of Planned behavior applicable pro-environmental behavior (Whitmarsh & O'Neill, 2010; Carfora, Caso, Sparks & Conner, 2010)

Motivation to adopt pro-environmental behavior at workplace. Motivation is a complex factor that determines environmental behavior since it covers both intrinsic and extrinsic psychosocial parameters (Pelletier, Tuson, Green?Demers, Noels, & Beaton, 1998). One of the key theories for explaining motivation towards pro-environmental behavior is the theory of self-determination (Deci, & Ryan, 2012). According to this theory, motivation is a person's desire to realize their internal and external values. Internal values include such factors as helping others, self-actualization, and creating quality relationships with others. External values include: financial well-being, creating a positive image, and fame. With regard to environmental behavior at work, internal motivation factors can be directed to meet personal, organizational, and environmental needs. Motivational factors of a personal level can be expressed in the form of social connections, altruism, and the need for self-expression. Organizational factors are associated with helping to create an environmental image of the company, saving the company's resources. Motivation is related to the employee's desire to maintain a positive image by doing socially-beneficial actions (Baumeister, 2005)

Personal environmental norm. Norms are generally shared ideas about the rules of human behavior and the expected reaction of people according to certain behavior (Cialdini & Trost, 1998). In relation to environmental behavior, the following norms are distinguished: descriptive, injunctive and personal (Bertoldo, Castro, 2016). Descriptive norms relate to the employee's image of colleagues' pro-environmental behavior. In an organizational context, strong descriptive norms towards the environment create an idea of the social pressure that awaits employees if they do not behave in an environmentally responsible way (Bertoldo, Castro, 2016). Injunctive norms mean how employees perceive colleagues' expectations of their environmental behavior. Whether colleagues expect others to behave in an environmentally friendly way at work or not. Notable, that both descriptive and injunctive norms are kind of an organizational factor since it is perceived as an assessment of the team towards employee's behavior (Smith and Louis, 2008).Personal norms imply personal feelings of employees towards pro-environmental behavior: whether they feel guilt or strong personal responsibility for their environmental behavior at work. Personal norms are perceived by a person as a moral duty. Thus, an employee who sees environmental behavior as mandatory will not need the approval of other colleagues (Schultz et al., 2016).

In order to form stable environmental norms, it is important to ensure a safe atmosphere and make it clear that employees' environmental initiatives are welcome. Management plays a large role in translating norms. At the same time, the translation of environmental norms can occur both from the top-down and from the bottom-up. The way norms are translated depends largely on the type of organizational structure. Thus, in strict hierarchical structures descriptive and injunctive norms transmitted by the management will be more effective. In flatter and diffuse structures, a bottom-up approach could create a favorable context for environmental behavior.

Organizational citizenship behavior. Organizational citizenship behavior is understood as an employee performing duties and tasks that are not directly included in their job responsibilities, or showing additional initiative in relation to existing responsibilities (Farh, Zhong & Organ, 2004). Examples of voluntary work actions are the following: helping to adapt new employees, voluntary attendance at work on weekends, proactive assistance in improving work processes, making innovative proposals for the work process. Organizational citizenship behavior is associated with a high level of employee commitment to their company. If the company meets the employee's needs for self-expression, economic prosperity and creates a safe environment for working activities, then we can expect that employees will demonstrate extra labor behavior (Paillй & Boiral, 2013).

In this study, we expect to find a positive correlation and moderation effect of organizational citizenship behavior with environmental behavior. This is due to the fact that environmentally responsible behavior at work is not mandatory but desirable behavior for employees.

Pro-environmental behavior at workplace. Since in this study we consider local organizational environmental behavior, in order to determine the degree of its manifestation in the company, we selected specific initiatives that can be implemented in the office space (Ones & Dilchert, 2012; Greaves, Zibarras & Stride, 2013). The list of ecological initiatives is following: plastic sorting, light-off policy, battery collection, paper collection, double-sided printing, discarding personal bins, clean-up days, tree planting.

These initiatives were chosen because they require the lowest costs and can be implemented without a global upgrade of the workspace (such as installing energy-saving equipment, for example) (Greaves et al, 2013). Interviews conducted with managers of Russian companies and experts in the field of business greening were also the basis for choosing these initiatives. These actions are already used in some companies and we considered them the most acceptable to the Russian reality. These initiatives can be implemented both from the bottom up (from employees) and from the top down (from bosses to employees). It is important to explain all the logic and necessity of the chosen environmental initiative, in order to avoid sabotage or improper implementation of ecological behavior.Another important point is the organization of a convenient, accessible and understandable infrastructure to minimize the cost of employees to perform the appropriate action. For that reason, environmental behavior at work should be a convenient opportunity for employees to make a positive contribution to the environment. Since work is one of the places of socialization of a person, environmental initiatives are another option for self-expression and make a qualitative impact on their lives.

Chapter 2: Method

The study involved 140 people aged from 21 to 64 years (M = 30.54, SD = 7.226), of them women - 86 (61.4%) and men - 54 (38.6%).

Education level.Relatively equal shares of respondents have a bachelor's degree - 44 (31.4%) and a specialist - 51 (36.4%). 36 of respondents have a master's degree (25.7%).

Companies profile. The areas of activity of the companies are presented in the table 1.

Table 1. Descriptives: Companies profile

Size of companies.The size of the companies (total number of employees) in which the respondents work is presented in the Table 2.

Table 2. Descriptives: Size of companies

Variables.

IV: Psychosocial factors of pro-environmental behavior: corporate environmental responsibility, environmental identity, personal environmental norm, motivation, organizational citizenship behavior.

DV: Pro-environmental behavior and practices in organization (plastic sorting, light-off policy, battery collection, paper collection, double-sided printing, discarding personal bins, clean-up days, tree planting)

Descriptive Statistics and Reliability

Corporate environmental responsibility (CER) was presented in three options: when it is not directly profitable, only when directly profitable, focus on profit making without CER (Ruepert, Keizer, & Steg, 2017). Each condition corresponded to a statement that was suggested to be evaluated by respondents using a 7-point Likert scale (1=strongly disagree, 2=disagree, 3=slightly disagree, 4=neutral, 5=agree, 6=slightly agree, 7=strongly agree).

Environmental Identity. To measure the environmental identity of respondents, we used 4 items (Whitmarsh, & O'Neill, 2010). These items were measured on a 5-point Likert scale (1=absolutely disagree, 2=disagree, 3=neutral, 4=agree, 5=absolutely agree).

Personal environmentalnorm. To measure norms to act pro-ecologically, we used 4-items scale adapted by Sautkina (2019) from Bertoldo & Castro (2016). Respondents used a 7-point scale to assess agreement with the statement (1=strongly disagree, 2=disagree, 3=slightly disagree, 4=neutral, 5=agree, 6=slightly agree, 7=strongly agree).

Motivation. The scale was developed on the base of “Motivations to save Energy in the Workplace” scale (Leygue, Ferguson, & Spence, 2017). The motivation scale consists of 6 items that reflect the reasons why respondents are willing to follow environmental initiatives. For answers we used 7-point scale (1=strongly disagree, 2=disagree, 3=slightly disagree, 4=neutral, 5=agree, 6=slightly agree, 7=strongly agree).

Organizational Citizenship behavior (OCB). The scale of organizational civil behavior was adapted from the scale of extra-role work behavior (Rebzuev, 2009). The scale consists of 6 items, for the answer was used a 7-point Likert scale (1=never, 2=rarely, 3=quite rarely, 4=sometimes, 5=quite often, 6=often, 7=always).

Pro-environmental behavior (PEB). The scale of pro-environmental activities at work was developed on the basis of a series of interviews with company managers (N=3). Based on theoretical review (Greaves, Zibarras, Stride, 2013) and thematic analysis, activities that were most often found in Russian companies were selected: plastic sorting, light-off policy, battery collection, paper collection, double-sided printing, discarding personal bins, environmental clean-up days, tree planting. According to managers, these activities are aimed at reducing the negative impact on the environment, and also contribute to increasing employee loyalty. The PEB scale consists of 7 items, for the answer was used a 5-point Likert scale (1=never, 2=rarely, 3=neither, 4= often, 5=always).

Table 3. Item Statistics. Means (M), Standard deviations (SD)

Distribution.In order to determine the normality of the distribution, the items were combined into appropriate scales: Corporate environmental responsibility, environmental identity, personal environmental norm, motivation to perform PEB, organizational citizenship behavior, pro-environmental activity.

From the Table 4 we could find that the distributions for all scales, except Organizational Citizenship behavior scale, is normal, because the level of significance on Shapiro-Wilk test is ? 0.05, so we can use non-parametric tests. For organizational citizenship behavior scale we can use parametric tests.

Table 4. Tests of Normality

Study design. The study design was correlational.

Data analysis. In order to see whether the highlighted psychosocial factors relate to pro-environmental behavior at work, we run correlation analyses of the study variables in the SPSS software. To test the hypothesis about the presence of the moderation effect of organizational citizenship behavior on the causal chain between individual factors we perform multiple regression by using Hayes' Process macro (Hayes, 2018).

Chapter 3: Results

To create subscales of “Psychosocial factors of Pro-environmental behavior at workplace” questionnaire primary Factor analysis was conducted. It resulted with six factors. The results are presented below in Table 5.

Table 5. Primary factor analysis, Internal Consistencies (Cronbach's б)

Note: Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.

Rotation Method: Promax with Kaiser Normalization.

Next, we are presenting the main findings regarding our hypotheses.

H1: Pro-environmental behavior in organizations will be determined by personal environmental norms, motivation, environmental identity, organizational citizenship behavior and corporate environmental responsibility.

To check the relationship between psychosocial factors and PEB, bivariate correlational analysis was conducted. Results are presented in the Table 6.

Table 6. Means (M), Standard Deviations (SD), Correlations of the Study Variable

Note: ** p < .01

We can see that correlations among all variables are statistically significant. What stands out in this table is that strong positive correlations between pro-environmental behavior and psychosocial variables. Corporate environmental responsibility (r=.677), environmental Identity (r=587) and organizational citizenship behavior (r=.526) have significant relationship with pro-environmental behavior at workplace. There are also two somewhat weaker, but still statistically significant psychosocial correlates of pro-environmental behavior: environmental personal norm (r=.490) and motivation (r=.449). Among the previously identified predictors of environmental behavior, it stands to mention the relationship between the norm and environmental identity (r=.683). Moreover we can see from the Table 6, that correlation among other factors is weaker, but nevertheless significant. According to the obtained results, psychosocial factors have a significant positive relation to corporate environmental responsibility: environmental identity (r=.470), environmental norm (r=.414), motivation (r=.498). Another significant interaction effect of organizational and psychological factor was obtained between organizational citizenship behavior and environmental identity (r=.436). Also, it should be noted that there is a significant relationship between organizational factors: organizational citizenship behavior and corporate environmental responsibility (r=.468).

To check whether psychosocial variables predicts PEB, multiple regressionpresent analysis was conducted. Results of multiple regression analysis presented in Table 7, indicatethe presence of four significant predictors of PEB: corporate environmental responsibility (в=.38), environmental identity (в=.68), motivation (в=.48), OCB (в=.38 in Model 1, в=.43 in Model 2, в=.47 in Model 4) and, to a lesser extent, thepersonal environmental norm (в=.17).

Н2: Organizational citizenship behavior will enhance the effect on the relationship between psychosocial variables and pro-environmental behavior at work.

For testing the moderation effect of organisational citizenship behavior (OCB) we performed multiple regression analysis by using Hayes' Process macro version 3.5 (Hayes, 2018).

As Table 7 shows, although OCB alone was a strong significant predictor of PEB in most cases, interactions with OCB did not predict PEB, apart from the interaction with motivation. What stands out, is the negative, albeit close to zero, interaction effect of motivation and organizational citizenship behavior on PEB at workplace (p<.05).

Table 7. Multiple regression analysis of predictors of pro-environmental behavior at work

Note.B = unstandardized coefficient. SE = Standard Error.

Decomposition of the motivation and organizational citizenship behavior (Model 4) interplay showed that the effect of environmental motivation on workplace pro- environmental behavior decreased (Fig. 1), thus there is a negative interaction. However, it was strongest when OCB was lowest (M-1SD; B=.28, p< .001), weaker at moderate levels of OCB (M; B=.29, p< .001) and weakest when OCB was highest (M+1SD; B=.10, p< .001).

Fig. 1Simple slopes for motivation on pro-environmental behavior by organizational citizenship behavior

Table 8. Conditional effects of the focal predictor at values of the moderator(s)

Due to the fact that the negative interaction effect is close to zero, it is more meaningful to describe the absence of the moderation effect of OCB to other factors. We can also see from the Table 7 that, even if non-significant, all beta-coefficients among interactions were close to zero.

Chapter 4: Discussion

This was one of the first studies in Russia to examine pro-environmental behaviour at work and, in particular, to use the combination of such psychosocial factors as corporate environmental responsibility, environmental identity and norms, motivation and organizational citizenship behavior. To our knowledge, these factors have not been previously studied together as determinants of pro-environmental behavior at the workplace.

The role of the examined determinants of employees' pro-environmental behavior (i.e., corporate environmental responsibility, environmental identity and motivation) is consistent with the past studies (Ruepert et al, 2017; Kashima et al, 2014; Graves et at, 2019). Interestingly, we found thatpersonal environmental norms were a weak predictor of pro-environmental behavior at the workplace, but in studies of other forms of pro-environmental behavior it is considered as a strong behavioral determinant (Keizer & Schultz, 2018). Also, an interesting finding is the absence of an amplifying effect of OCB on the relationship between psychosocial factors and environmental behavior at work. Below we consider the results of the study in the relation to the hypotheses testing in more detail.

We have hypothesized that, pro-environmental behavior in organizations will be determined by personal environmental norms, motivation, environmental identity, organizational citizenship behavior and corporate environmental responsibility.This first hypothesis was confirmed. The environmental behavior of employees depends to a large extent on the psychosocial factors: corporate environmental responsibility, environmental identity and personal environmental norms. At the same time, personal environmental norms have less impact on environmental behavior at work. Next, we present the extended interpretation of the roles of each factor in pro-environmental behavior at work.

Organizational citizenship behavior (OCB) was found to be an important factor in determining PEB at workplace. A possible reasonwhy OCB influences PEB is the close sense of these concepts. The meaning of OCB underlines voluntary, helping, prosocial actions at work (Rebzuyev, 2009), meanwhile PEB is frequently seen as a self-transcendent behavior (Terrier, Kim & Fernandez, 2016). This idea is consistent with past research in which more self-transcendent people are likely to adopt pro-environmental behavior (De Groot, Thogersen & Schuber, 2016; Steg & De Groot 2012). Consequently, we can assume that if employees are inclined to voluntarily help at work, they are more likely to engage in other types of self-transcendent behaviours, i.e. pro-environmental behavior, perhaps as an additional way of helping their organization.

Corporate environmental responsibility (CER) contributed to the PEB of employees in a significant way. CER can have a normative influence on employees ' pro-environmental behavior, because they perceive it as a requirement that they need to follow. This conclusion is consistent with studies of environmental behavior, according to which employees adopt environmental practices because they strive to fit the work context (Graves, Sarkis & Gold, 2019). Also, the influence of CER can be interpreted from the perspective of social categorization. So, the employee perceives himself as part of the group begins to accept the behavior that is common in the team. In accordance with study of normative influence, a person who identifies as a member of a certain group begins to share the behavior of other group members (Hogg, 2003). Another possible explanation for this link between CER and PEB might be that today people are more likely to choose a profession in accordance with their principles. Thus, strong environmental policy of the company can be seen as an opportunity for employees to make a positive contribution to environment. In this case, employees can follow the CER not out of necessity, but rather out of strong moral obligation.

Environmental identity was found to bea significant determinant of PEB. If an employee perceives pro-environmental behavior as an important part of life, then they adhere to the consistent behavior at work. This finding is consistent with research on the impact of identity on pro-environmental behavior (Gatersleben & van der Werff, 2018; Kashima, Paladino & Margetts, 2014).The strong effect in our study is explained by the fact that a person strives to achieve a stable psychological identity by performing actions that are in accordance with it. From this perspective, PEB at work is a good opportunity for employees to reinforce their environmental identity.

Motivation towards pro-environmental behavior is found as a significant predictor of PEB at work. In the scale we used to measure it, motivation is closely related to the desire to achieve a positive image in the work team. This finding is consistent with studies in which people who seek to make a positive impression tend to report more pro-environmental behavior (Gatersleben, & van der Werff, 2018). From this perspective, pro-environmental behavior is an image attribute of a decent employee. At the same time, it is important to keep in mind the possible bias in these responses. Thus, due to social desirability bias, employees could report more PEB than they really do as has been shown in the past studies (Chao & Lam, 2011).

Personal environmental norm. Our results show thatpersonal environmental norms were a non-significant predictor. In fact, personal norms have been found to bemore effective in the context of private behavior. Also, such a weak significance of personal norms can be considered through factors that influence the personal environmental norms formation: problem awareness, ascription of responsibility, outcome efficacy, and self?efficacy(Steg & Nordlund, 2018). In regard to organizational context, if an employee does not feel that their pro-environmental behavior can decrease the negative effects on the environment, personal environmental norms can be a relatively weak predictor (Keizer & Schultz, 2018). For example, one of the most spread pro-environmental initiatives at work is the organization of the separate waste collection, but employees can see that the cleaning worker collects all separately collected waste in one bag. Results of our interview study show that such an issue make employees feel that a desirable outcome cannot be achieved thus personal environmental norms becomes weaker (Lapina & Sautkina, 2019). We can assume that in our sample employees might be not aware of the positive outcomes of PEB at the workplace.

Next, we proceed to discuss our second hypothesis:

H2: Organizational citizenship behavior will enhance the effect on the relationship between psychosocial variables and pro-environmental behavior at work.

Our results show that the moderation effect of OCB is close to zero. In other words, there is no significant interaction between psychosocial factors (CER, motivation, environmental identity, orpersonal norm) and organizational citizenship behavior, which means the absence of the moderation effect. Thus, our second hypothesis was not confirmed. However, the lack of effect is an interesting finding for discussion. We assume, this result indicates that willingness to help the organization is in discordance with striving to reduce the negative impact on the environment. From this perspective, employees may not perceive environmental behavior as something that benefits their work. During the interviews with some managers of companies in which employees participated in our research we met the opinion that environmental behavior can distract from the main work duties and it is indeed to adopt it at work (Ones & Dilchert, 2012).This probably occurs when employees perceive a disconnection of the two spheres: work and the environment. Another possible reason can relate to the negative experience of environmental practices implementation when environmental initiatives did not logically align with workflow(Ones & Dilchert, 2012).

Empathize that the main result of the second hypothesis is the absence of the OCB amplification effect, we also noted that the relatively significant link between motivation and OCB is negative. These results therefore need to be interpreted with caution. However, we make our assumptions based on the idea that OCB to some extent can reduce the effects of environmental norm and motivation on PEB.

Motivation and OCB. The motivation we examined was related to the enhancement of self-image, and implied PEB as a socially desirable behavior. Thus, such motives are based on self-enhancement principles. This idea corresponds to the impression management approach when people do socially beneficial actions in order to be approved by others (Baumeister, 2005). At the same time, OCB is referred to as self-transcendence based actions, since it underlines the voluntary assistance at work. Thus, self-enhancement motivation is in discordance with self-transcendent organizational citizenship behavior, and when the interaction between these is considered, it decreases (albeit, in a very minor way) PEB in our study.

Conclusion

This study focused on pro-environmental behavior in the workplace. The aim of the study was to identify psychosocial factors that influence pro-environmental behavior at work. Research objectives were achieved by reviewing the literature on environmental behavior and conducting a quantitative survey among company employees. The selected psychosocial factors (corporate environmental responsibility, environmental norm, environmental identity, motivation, organizational c...