How Does Environmentally Specific Servant Leadership Fuel Employees’ Low-Carbon Behavior? The Role of Environmental Self-Accountability and Power Distance Orientation
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Theory and Hypotheses
2.1. Environmentally Specific Servant Leadership and Low-Carbon Behavior
2.2. The Mediating Role of Environmental Self-Accountability
2.3. The Moderating Role of Power Distance Orientation
3. Methods
3.1. Sample and Procedure
3.2. Measures
4. Results
4.1. Confirmatory Factor Analysis
4.2. Descriptive Statistics
4.3. Hypotheses Testing
5. Discussion
5.1. Theoretical Contributions
5.2. Practical Implications
5.3. Limitations and Future Research
6. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Chen, H.; Long, R.; Niu, W.; Feng, Q.; Yang, R. How does individual low-carbon consumption behavior occur?—An analysis based on attitude process. Appl. Energy 2014, 116, 376–386. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Xu, X.M.; Ou, S.J. Research on low-carbon behavioural identity with the new environmental paradigm scale. In Proceedings of the IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science, Guangzhou, China, 8–10 March 2019; Volume 267, p. 022014. [Google Scholar]
- Bin, S.; Dowlatabadi, H. Consumer lifestyle approach to US energy use and the related CO2 emissions. Nat. Energy 2005, 33, 197–208. [Google Scholar]
- Jiang, P.; Chen, Y.; Xu, B.; Dong, W.; Kennedy, E. Building low carbon communities in China: The role of individual’s behaviour change and engagement. Energy Policy 2015, 60, 611–620. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Huang, Y.; Gao, L. Influence mechanism of commuter’s low-carbon literacy on the intention of mode choice: A case study in Shanghai, China. Int. J. Sustain. Transp. 2021, 1–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Huang, S.P.; Ma, S.Z.; Pan, Y.; Li, Y.; Yuan, Y.H.; Tsai, S.B. An empirical study on how climate and environmental issues awareness affects low carbon use behaviour. Ecol. Chem. Eng. S 2020, 27, 55–66. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Whitmarsh, L.; Seyfang, G.; O’Neill, S. Public engagement with carbon and climate change: To what extent is the public ‘carbon capable’? Glob. Environ. Change 2011, 21, 56–65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Robertson, J.L.; Barling, J. Greening organizations through leaders’ influence on employees’ pro-environmental behaviors. J. Organ. Behav. 2013, 34, 176–194. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Graves, L.M.; Sarkis, J.; Zhu, Q. How transformational leadership and employee motivation combine to predict employee proenvironmental behaviors in China. J. Environ. Psychol. 2013, 35, 81–91. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tuan, L.T. Activating tourists’ citizenship behavior for the environment: The roles of CSR and frontline employees’ citizenship behavior for the environment. J. Sustain. Tour. 2018, 26, 1178–1203. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wan, B.; Tian, L.; Zhu, N.; Gu, L.; Zhang, G. A new endogenous growth model for green low-carbon behavior and its comprehensive effects. Appl. Energy 2018, 230, 1332–1346. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ye, H.; Ren, Q.; Hu, X.; Lin, T.; Xu, L.; Li, X.; Zhang, G.; Shi, L.; Pan, B. Low-carbon behavior approaches for reducing direct carbon emissions: Household energy use in a coastal city. J. Clean. Prod. 2014, 141, 128–136. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Zhou, Z.; Nie, L.; Ji, H.; Zeng, H.; Chen, X. Does a firm’s low-carbon awareness promote low-carbon behaviors? Empirical evidence from China. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 244, 118903. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Du, Q.; Yan, Y.; Huang, Y.; Hao, C.; Wu, J. Evolutionary games of low-carbon behaviors of construction stakeholders under carbon taxes. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 508. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhang, J.; Zhang, L.; Qin, Y.; Wang, X.; Zheng, Z. Impact of residential self-selection on low-carbon behavior: Evidence from Zhengzhou, China. Sustainability 2019, 11, 6871. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Sun, H.; Yao, S.; Zhai, M. Enterprise low-carbon behavior, financial performance and economic transformation—Data from listed companies in China. In Proceedings of the E3S Web of Conferences, Qingdao, China, 27–29 August 2021; Volume 275, p. 02004. [Google Scholar]
- Ding, Z.; Jiang, X.; Liu, Z.; Long, R.; Xu, Z.; Cao, Q. Factors affecting low-carbon consumption behavior of urban residents: A comprehensive review. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2018, 132, 3–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liu, Y.; Liu, R.; Jiang, X. What drives low-carbon consumption behavior of Chinese college students? The regulation of situational factors. Nat. Hazards 2019, 95, 173–191. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yin, J.; Shi, S. Social interaction and the formation of residents′ low-carbon consumption behaviors: An embeddedness perspective. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2021, 164, 105116. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Biswas, S.R.; Uddin, M.A.; Bhattacharjee, S.; Dey, M.; Rana, T. Ecocentric leadership and voluntary environmental behavior for promoting sustainability strategy: The role of psychological green climate. Bus. Strategy Environ. 2022, 1–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Anser, M.K.; Shafique, S.; Usman, M.; Akhtar, N.; Ali, M. Spiritual leadership and organizational citizenship behavior for the environment: An intervening and interactional analysis. J. Environ. Plan. Manag. 2021, 64, 1496–1514. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chen, T.; Li, F.; Leung, K. When does supervisor support encourage innovative behavior? Opposite moderating effects of general self-efficacy and internal locus of control. Pers. Psychol. 2016, 69, 123–158. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mi, L.; Zhu, H.; Yang, J.; Gan, X.; Xu, T.; Qiao, L.; Liu, Q. A new perspective to promote low-carbon consumption: The influence of reference groups. Ecol. Econ. 2019, 161, 100–108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bandura, A. Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychol. Rev. 1977, 84, 191–215. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mi, L.; Xu, T.; Gan, X.; Chen, H.; Qiao, L.; Zhu, H. How to motivate employees’ environmental citizenship behavior through perceived interpersonal circle power? A new perspective from Chinese Circle Culture. Sustainability 2019, 11, 4549. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Hunter, E.M.; Neubert, M.J.; Perry, S.J.; Witt, L.A.; Penney, L.M.; Weinberger, E. Servant leaders inspire servant followers: Antecedents and outcomes for employees and the organization. Leadersh. Q. 2013, 24, 316–331. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Aboramadan, M.; Kundi, Y.M.; Farao, C. Examining the effects of environmentally-specific servant leadership on green work outcomes among hotel employees: The mediating role of climate for green creativity. J. Hosp. Market. Manag. 2021, 30, 929–956. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bandura, A. Social Learning Theory; Prentice Hall: Englewood Cliffs, NJ, USA, 1977. [Google Scholar]
- Kirkman, B.L.; Chen, G.; Farh, J.L.; Chen, Z.X.; Lowe, K.B. Individual power distance orientation and follower reactions to transformational leaders: A cross-level, cross-cultural examination. Acad. Manag. J. 2009, 52, 744–764. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Luu, T.T. Building employees’ organizational citizenship behavior for the environment: The role of environmentally-specific servant leadership and a moderated mediation mechanism. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 2019, 31, 406–426. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Robertson, J.L.; Barling, J. Contrasting the nature and effects of environmentally specific and general transformational leadership. Leadersh. Organ. Dev. J. 2017, 38, 22–41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tuan, L.T. Effects of environmentally-specific servant leadership on green performance via green climate and green crafting. Asia Pac. J. Manag. 2021, 38, 925–953. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Eva, N.; Robin, M.; Sendjaya, S.; Van Dierendonck, D.; Liden, R.C. Servant leadership: A systematic review and call for future research. Leadersh. Q. 2019, 30, 111–132. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Langhof, J.G.; Guldenberg, S. Servant leadership: A systematic literature review-toward a model of antecedents and outcomes. J. Inf. Technol. Manag. 2020, 28, 52–72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Stern, P. Toward a coherent theory of environmentally significant behavior. J. Soc. Issues 2000, 56, 407–424. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Li, W.; Zhao, S.; Ma, J.; Qin, W. Investigating regional and generational heterogeneity in low-carbon travel behavior intention based on a PLS-SEM approach. Sustainability 2021, 13, 3492. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liu, Y. Enacting a low-carbon economy: Policies and distrust between government employees and enterprises in China. Energy Policy 2019, 130, 130–138. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bai, Y.; Liu, Y. An exploration of residents’ low-carbon awareness and behavior in Tianjin, China. Energy Policy 2013, 61, 1261–1270. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Van Dierendonck, D.; Stam, D.; Boersma, P.; De Windt, N.; Alkema, J. Same difference? Exploring the differential mechanisms linking servant leadership and transformational leadership to follower outcomes. Leadersh. Q. 2014, 25, 544–562. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Greenleaf, R.K. The Power of Servant-Leadership; Berrett-Koehler: San Francisco, CA, USA, 1998. [Google Scholar]
- Tuan, L.T. Environmentally-specific servant leadership and green creativity among tourism employees: Dual mediation paths. J. Sustain. Tour. 2020, 28, 86–109. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Peloza, J.; White, K.; Shang, J. Good and guilt-free: The role of self-accountability in influencing preferences for products with ethical attributes. J. Mark. 2013, 77, 104–119. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Lin, C.; Lai, X.; Yu, C. Switching intent of disruptive green products: The roles of comparative economic value and green trust. Front. Energy Res. 2021, 9, 691. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ali, A.; Xiaoling, G.; Sherwani, M.; Ali, A. Will you purchase green products? The joint mediating impact of environmental concern and environmental responsibility on consumers’ attitude and purchase intention. J. Econ. Trade Manag. 2015, 8, 80–93. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tran, T.T.H.; Paparoidamis, N.G. Taking a closer look: Reasserting the role of self-accountability in ethical consumption. J. Bus. Res. 2019, 126, 542–555. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhang, H.; Sun, S. Cognitive dissonance of self-standards: A negative interaction of green compensation and green training on employee pro-environmental behavior in China. Psychol. Res. Behav. Manag. 2021, 14, 1399. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chang, C. Effects of responsibility appeals for pro-environmental ads: When do they empower or generate reactance? Environ. Commun. 2021, 15, 546–569. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Schwarz, G.; Newman, A.; Cooper, B.; Eva, N. Servant leadership and follower job performance: The mediating effect of public service motivation. Public Admin. 2016, 94, 1025–1041. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Ying, M.; Faraz, N.A.; Ahmed, F.; Raza, A. How does servant leadership foster employees’ voluntary green behavior? A sequential mediation model. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 1792. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Han, Z.; Guan, Q.; Yan, X. How responsible leadership motivates employees to engage in organizational citizenship behavior for the environment: A double-mediation model. Sustainability 2019, 11, 605. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Jiang, Y.; Asante, D.; Zhang, J.; Cao, M. The effects of environmental factors on low-carbon innovation strategy: A study of the executive environmental leadership in China. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 266, 121998. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bower, G.H. Cognitive psychology: An introduction. In Handbook of Learning and Cognition; Estes, W.K., Ed.; Erlbaum: Hillsdale, NJ, USA, 1975; pp. 25–80. [Google Scholar]
- Neisser, U. Cognition and Reality: Principles and Implications of Cognitive Psychology; Freeman: San Francisco, CA, USA, 1976; pp. 605–610. [Google Scholar]
- Passyn, K.; Sujan, M. Self-accountability emotions and fear appeals: Motivating behavior. J. Consum. Res. 2006, 32, 583–589. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hofstede, G. Culture’s Consequences: International Differences in Work-Related Values; Sage Publications: Beverly Hils, CA, USA; London, UK, 1984. [Google Scholar]
- Mansour, J.; House, R.J. Cultural acumen for the global manager: Lessons from project globe. Organ. Dyn. 2001, 29, 289–305. [Google Scholar]
- Luo, S.; Wang, J.; Tong, D.Y.K. Does power distance necessarily hinder individual innovation? A moderated-mediation model. Sustainability 2020, 12, 2526. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Van Dierendonck, D. Servant leadership: A review and synthesis. J. Manag. 2011, 37, 1228–1261. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Peltokorpi, V.; Ramaswami, A. Abusive supervision and subordinates’ physical and mental health: The effects of job satisfaction and power distance orientation. Int. J. Hum. Resour. Manag. 2021, 32, 893–919. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, H.; Guan, B. The positive effect of authoritarian leadership on employee performance: The moderating role of power distance. Front. Psychol. 2018, 9, 357. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Brislin, R.W. Back-translation for cross-cultural research. J. Cross.-Cult. Psychol. 1970, 1, 185–216. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liden, R.C.; Wayne, S.J.; Zhao, H.; Henderson, D. Servant leadership: Development of a multidimensional measure and multi-level assessment. Leadersh. Q. 2008, 19, 161–177. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Howell, J.P.; Dorfman, P.W.; Kerr, S. Moderator variables in leadership research. Acad. Manag. Rev. 1986, 11, 88–102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yang, Y.; Guo, Y.; Luo, S. Consumers’ intention and cognition for low-carbon behavior: A case study of Hangzhou in China. Energies 2020, 13, 5830. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Robertson, J.L. The nature, measurement and nomological network of environmentally specific transformational leadership. J. Bus. Ethics 2018, 151, 961–975. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Afsar, B.; Cheema, S.; Javed, F. Activating employee’s pro-environmental behaviors: The role of CSR, organizational identification, and environmentally specific servant leadership. Corp. Soc. Responsib. Environ. Manag. 2018, 25, 904–911. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Faraz, N.A.; Ahmed, F.; Ying, M.; Mehmood, S.A. The interplay of green servant leadership, self-efficacy, and intrinsic motivation in predicting employees’ pro-environmental behavior. Corp. Soc. Responsib. Environ. Manag. 2021, 28, 1171–1184. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zheng, S.; Jiang, L.; Cai, W.; Xu, B.; Gao, X. How can hotel employees produce workplace environmentally friendly behavior? The role of leader, corporate and coworkers. Front. Psychol. 2021, 12, 725170. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Zhang, Y.; Yang, F. How and when spiritual leadership enhances employee innovative behavior. Pers. Rev. 2020. ahead-of-print. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kwak, W.J.; Shim, J.H. Effects of Machiavellian ethical leadership and employee power distance on employee voice. Soc. Behav. Personal. 2017, 45, 1485–1498. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Duan, J.; Bao, C.; Huang, C.; Brinsfield, C.T. Authoritarian leadership and employee silence in China. J. Manag. Organ. 2018, 24, 62–80. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Neo, S.M.; Choong, W.W.; Ahamad, R.B. Differential environmental psychological factors in determining low carbon behaviour among urban and suburban residents through responsible environmental behaviour model. Sustain. Cities Soc. 2017, 31, 225–233. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chen, W.; Li, J. Who are the low-carbon activists? Analysis of the influence mechanism and group characteristics of low-carbon behavior in Tianjin, China. Sci. Total Environ. 2019, 683, 729–736. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Poruschi, L.; Ambrey, C.L. On the confluence of city living, energy saving behaviours and direct residential energy consumption. Environ. Sci. Policy. 2016, 66, 334–343. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yang, S.; Zhang, Y.; Zhao, D. Who exhibits more energy-saving behavior in direct and indirect ways in China? The role of psychological factors and socio-demographics. Energy Policy 2016, 93, 196–205. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Robertson, J.L.; Barling, J. Toward a new measure of organizational environmental citizenship behavior. J. Bus. Res. 2017, 75, 57–66. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, T.; Shen, B.; Springer, C.H.; Hou, J. What prevents us from taking low-carbon actions? A comprehensive review of influencing factors affecting low-carbon behaviors. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 2021, 71, 101844. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wood, B.P.; Eid, R.; Agag, G. A multilevel investigation of the link between ethical leadership behaviour and employees green behaviour in the hospitality industry. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 2021, 97, 102993. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Asif, M.; Miao, Q.; Jameel, A.; Manzoor, F.; Hussain, A. How ethical leadership influence employee creativity: A parallel multiple mediation model. Curr. Psychol. 2020, 1–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Li, B.; Geng, Y.; Xia, X.; Qiao, D. The impact of government subsidies on the low-carbon supply chain based on carbon emission reduction level. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 7603. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Model | χ2 | df | χ2/df | CFI | TLI | RMSEA | SRMR |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Six-factor model: ESTL, PDO, ESSL, ESA, PrLCB, PuLCB | 952.287 | 804 | 1.184 | 0.983 | 0.981 | 0.020 | 0.035 |
Five-factor model: ESTL, PDO, ESSL, ESA, PrLCB + PuLCB | 1269.251 | 809 | 1.569 | 0.946 | 0.942 | 0.034 | 0.043 |
Four-factor model: ESTL, PDO, ESSL, ESA + PrLCB + PuLCB | 1510.117 | 813 | 1.857 | 0.918 | 0.913 | 0.042 | 0.048 |
Three-factor model: ESTL, ESSL, PDO + ESA + PrLCB + PuLCB | 2308.742 | 816 | 2.829 | 0.824 | 0.815 | 0.062 | 0.081 |
Two-factor model: ESTL, ESSL + PDO + ESA + PrLCB + PuLCB | 3563.175 | 818 | 4.356 | 0.677 | 0.660 | 0.083 | 0.107 |
One-factor model: ESTL + ESSL + PDO + ESA + PrLCB + PuLCB | 5596.765 | 819 | 6.834 | 0.438 | 0.409 | 0.110 | 0.138 |
Mean | SD | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1. Age | 30.99 | 7.27 | - | ||||||||
2. Gender | 0.40 | 0.49 | −0.072 | - | |||||||
3. Education level | 2.09 | 0.93 | 0.189 ** | 0.123 ** | - | ||||||
4. ESTL | 4.74 | 0.86 | −0.027 | −0.003 | −0.065 | (0.922) | |||||
5. PDO | 3.79 | 0.92 | −0.070 | −0.010 | −0.069 | −0.098 * | (0.859) | ||||
6. ESSL | 4.85 | 0.85 | −0.118 ** | −0.007 | −0.048 | 0.283 ** | −0.041 | (0.911) | |||
7. ESA | 4.97 | 0.74 | −0.051 | −0.008 | 0.058 | 0.227 ** | −0.159 ** | 0.331 ** | (0.754) | ||
8. PrLCB | 4.62 | 0.91 | −0.061 | 0.038 | 0.034 | 0.233 ** | −0.306 ** | 0.299 ** | 0.391 ** | (0.754) | |
9. PuLCB | 4.74 | 0.87 | −0.070 | −0.067 | −0.088 | 0.303 ** | −0.336 ** | 0.296 ** | 0.311 ** | 0.393 ** | (0.806) |
Predictor | Effect | S.E. | 95% CI | Significance |
---|---|---|---|---|
M: Environmental self-accountability | ||||
X: ESS leadership | 0.274 | 0.036 | [0.202, 0.345] | <0.001 |
W: Power distance orientation | −0.129 | 0.036 | [−0.198, −0.059] | <0.001 |
Interaction: X × W | 0.082 | 0.036 | [0.011, 0.153] | <0.050 |
Y1: Private low-carbon behavior | ||||
X: ESS leadership | 0.163 | 0.035 | [0.095, 0.232] | <0.001 |
M: Environmental self-accountability | 0.307 | 0.050 | [0.209, 0.405] | <0.001 |
W: Power distance orientation | −0.274 | 0.039 | [−0.350, −0.198] | <0.001 |
Interaction: X × W | 0.186 | 0.041 | [0.105, 0.267] | <0.001 |
Y2: Public low-carbon behavior | ||||
X: ESS leadership | 0.163 | 0.035 | [0.095, 0.232] | <0.001 |
M: Environmental self-accountability | 0.191 | 0.049 | [0.094, 0.288] | <0.001 |
W: Power distance orientation | −0.292 | 0.039 | [−0.367, −0.216] | <0.001 |
Interaction: X × W | 0.087 | 0.042 | [0.005, 0.168] | <0.050 |
Indirect effect of X on Y1 via M | ||||
M: Environmental self-accountability | 0.084 | 0.018 | [0.049, 0.119] | <0.001 |
Conditional indirect effect(s) at values of power distance orientation (X → M → Y1) | ||||
W: Power distance orientation | ||||
−1 SD | 0.059 | 0.020 | [0.019, 0.099] | <0.010 |
+1 SD | 0.109 | 0.022 | [0.066, 0.152] | <0.001 |
Difference | 0.050 | 0.023 | [0.004, 0.096] | <0.050 |
Indirect effect of X on Y2 via M | ||||
M: Environmental self-accountability | 0.052 | 0.015 | [0.023, 0.082] | <0.001 |
Conditional indirect effect(s) at values of power distance orientation (X → M → Y2) | ||||
W: Power distance orientation | ||||
−1 SD | 0.037 | 0.015 | [0.008, 0.065] | <0.050 |
+1 SD | 0.068 | 0.019 | [0.030, 0.106] | <0.001 |
Difference | 0.031 | 0.016 | [0.000, 0.063] | n.s. |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2022 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/).
Share and Cite
Xia, Y.; Liu, Y.; Han, C.; Gao, Y.; Lan, Y. How Does Environmentally Specific Servant Leadership Fuel Employees’ Low-Carbon Behavior? The Role of Environmental Self-Accountability and Power Distance Orientation. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 3025. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19053025
Xia Y, Liu Y, Han C, Gao Y, Lan Y. How Does Environmentally Specific Servant Leadership Fuel Employees’ Low-Carbon Behavior? The Role of Environmental Self-Accountability and Power Distance Orientation. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2022; 19(5):3025. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19053025
Chicago/Turabian StyleXia, Yuhuan, Yubo Liu, Changlin Han, Yang Gao, and Yuanyuan Lan. 2022. "How Does Environmentally Specific Servant Leadership Fuel Employees’ Low-Carbon Behavior? The Role of Environmental Self-Accountability and Power Distance Orientation" International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 19, no. 5: 3025. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19053025