The Influence of Public Servants’ Perceived Formalism and Organizational Environmental Strategy on Green Behavior in the Workplace

However, I am of the opinion that this paper can benefit greatly from an overall revision.

1) The aim of the paper perhaps is too broad for its length.

The text has tried to delete repetitive or less relevant discussions, and retains more relevant discussions with research framework.

Line 110-111, Add the following description to state the idea of this article:

This research mainly wants to explore how the personal, working environment and family life factors of civil servants affect his workplace green behavior. Personal factors adopt attitudes, intentions, and behaviors in the theory of planned behavior. Work environment factors adopt formalism and organizational environmental strategy. Family life is a factor that spans workplace and private life. This study specially introduces the formalism factor, which is an important influencing factor in public administration or green behavior research, but it has hardly been explored. This is a gap between academic research and practice. This article hopes to get preliminary research contributions.

2) The Abstract does not provide a clear window into the aim of the paper. I would suggest adding some empirical findings in this section to draw the reader’s attention to the importance of this topic, or objectives.

The following discussion has been added to the abstract:

Formalism is considered to be an important attribute of developing administration, and it is also considered to be a resistance to the adoption of administrative innovation. This study first confirmed the negative impact of formalism on the green behavior of civil servants.

3) The Introduction comprises of various constructs that are not clear to the reader and the relation between the constructs are also not given enough attention, please shorten the introduction.

Introduction has been deleted redundant description, please see “revision tracking file”.

4) In addition, it is not clear what the added value of this study is and what gaps it is filling. The development of a literature table contrasting this manuscript with previous studies may help you show your added value.

Line 227-229, Table 1: “Literature table” has been added.

It contains many past research results to highlight that formalism has not been explored.

5) More information about the study respondent is needed.

Line 561-565，add the following content:

A total of 430 questionnaires were distributed via convenience sampling and 315 samples were collected. The sample recovery rate was 73.26%. 7 samples with too many missing values were deleted, and finally 308 valid samples were adopted.

Line 576-594, add the following content:

We found the population distribution of public servants in 2020 from the Ministry of Civil Service of Taiwan. After statistically weighting the sample, perform a chi-square test on the population and the sample. The significance of chi-square test for sex, age, and education level were 1, 0.837, and 0.578, all of which were greater than 0.05. Confirm that the research sample is representative.

This study conducted a normality analysis for all items, the skewness statistics ranged from -1.20 to 0.10; the kurtosis statistics ranged from -1.09 to 1.96. The sample in this study conforms to the normal distribution.

This research uses G*Power software to calculate the sample size. When the effect size is set to 0.15; α err prob=0.05; Power (1-β err prob)=0.95. The sample required for calculation is 129, and the sample (308) in this study has exceeded.

In this study, the 50 samples collected at the earliest and 50 samples at the latest were selected for non-response analysis. After paired T test is used, it is found that the T value of all factors is between -0.8 to 1.17; the significance is between 0.25 and 0.78. The above values indicate that the non-response bias in this study did not occur.

6) I have some questions regarding the methodology, which for me there are not clear enough. It seems the authors are not familiar with SEM/AMOS,  For instance, please provide more information about the representatively of your sample. How many forms have been distributed? Response rate?  It seems the authors used SEM/AMOS for the data analysis purpose, if so, how can you use AMOS without conduction normality test? Common method bias is a major concern as it can be seen from Table 3? Effect size should be reported. Multicollinearity also is a major concern as it can be noticed from the study results, non-response bias? Please apply the marker variable technique (Lindell and Whitney, 2001) to check for common method bias. Please, apply the HTMT criterion to test for discriminant validity. This criterion has been shown recently to be most powerful in identifying problems with discriminant validity (Henseler et al. 2015 and Vorhees et al. 2016).

Line 576-581, Increase sample representative narrative:

We found the population distribution of public servants in 2020 from the Ministry of Civil Service of Taiwan. After statistically weighting the sample, perform a chi-square test on the population and the sample. The significance of chi-square test for sex, age, and education level were 1, 0.837, and 0.578, all of which were greater than 0.05. Confirm that the research sample is representative.

Line 582-585, Add normality test description:

This study conducted a normality analysis for all items, the skewness statistics ranged from -1.20 to 0.10; the kurtosis statistics ranged from -1.09 to 1.96. The sample in this study conforms to the normal distribution.

Table 4(table 3 becomes table 4) mainly describe the discriminative validity, including AVE, MSV, ASV, HTMT.

Line 586-589, Add Effect size description:

This research uses G*Power software to calculate the sample size. When the effect size is set to 0.15; α err prob=0.05; Power (1-β err prob)=0.95. The sample required for calculation is 129, and the sample (308) in this study has exceeded.

Line 740-744, Add the description of multicollinearity:

The tolerance value of all variables in the regression model is between 0.47-1.0, which is higher than 0.1; the VIF value is between 1.0-2.12, which is lower than 10. The above indicates that the regression model in this paper does not have the problem of multicollinearity.

Line 590-594, Add the description of non-response bias:

In this study, the 50 samples collected at the earliest and 50 samples at the latest were selected for non-response analysis. After paired T test is used, it is found that the T value of all factors is between -0.8 to 1.17; the significance is between 0.25 and 0.78. The above values indicate that the non-response bias in this study did not occur.

Line 646-653, Add the description of marker variable:

In this study, a retention factor that is not related to the research model was selected as the marker variable[102]. Connect the marker variable to all the factors in the research model, and find that the relationship between the marker variable and all the factors is not significant. The coefficient and significance of the research model have hardly changed, except that Formalism has dropped from -0.13 to -0.06. The analysis of marker variable proves once again that the conceptual model of this study does not have the problem of CMV.

Line 706-709 and table 4, Add the description of HTMT:

The Heterotrait-monotrait (HTMT) ratio of correlations in this study ranged from 0.00-0.77(table 4), and they did not exceed 0.85. These values once again confirm the discriminative validity of this study[109,110,111,112,113].

7) Overall, constructs need to be defined more clearly, etc. and their relationship with each other (Figure 1).

Figure 1. Conceptual framework has been marked as hypothetical relationship.

8) Certain conclusions are drawn from very few empirical findings, perhaps the paper can also benefit from a more thorough and comprehensive review of the relevant literature. This could build a stronger case for the set hypotheses.

Line 791-846, The empirical research literature has been cited.

The paper is well developed and structured, and the methodological approach is convincing. However, there are some serious changes that could further improve the relevance of the study:

• Theoretical background - The literature is well-reviewed and hypotheses somehow well supported. However, I think it is necessary to add more recent studies dealing with the concept of green human resource management and green behavior relationship. Some suggestions:

• Wu, T. J., Yuan, K. S., & Yen, D. C. (2021). Leader-member exchange, turnover intention and presenteeism–the moderated mediating effect of perceived organizational support. Current Psychology, 1-12.

• Gervasi, D., Faldetta, G., Pellegrini, M. M., & Maley, J. (2021). Reciprocity in organizational behavior studies: A systematic literature review of contents, types, and directions. European Management Journal.

• Naz, S., Jamshed, S., Nisar, Q. A., & Nasir, N. (2021). Green HRM, psychological green climate and pro-environmental behaviors: An efficacious drive towards environmental performance in China. Current Psychology, 1-16.

• Tian, H., Zhang, J., & Li, J. (2020). The relationship between pro-environmental attitude and employee green behavior: the role of motivational states and green work climate perceptions. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 27(7), 7341-7352.

• Saleem, M., Qadeer, F., Mahmood, F., Han, H., Giorgi, G., & Ariza-Montes, A. (2021). Inculcation of green behavior in employees: a multilevel moderated mediation approach. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 18(1), 331.

• Ying, M., Faraz, N. A., Ahmed, F., & Raza, A. (2020). How does servant leadership foster employees’ voluntary green behavior? A sequential mediation model. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 17(5), 1792.

• Moon, S. J. (2021). Investigating beliefs, attitudes, and intentions regarding green restaurant patronage: An application of the extended theory of planned behavior with moderating effects of gender and age. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 92, 102727.

This article found that the methodology of these several studies, including CMV, normality test, effect size, marker variable, HTMT, discriminant validity, are all enlightening and constructive. This article has quoted the methods used in these articles and modified many of the methodologies in this article.

At the same time, these cited articles are included in the references.

Hypotheses development: I thought you should to evident the mediation effect in your model, and to arrange all hypotheses totally for TPB theory.

Line 341-408, Add Mediation hypothesis inference:

H2b: Green behavior intention mediates the relationship between green attitude and green behavior

Line 602-607, Define mediating variables:

4.2.2. Mediating Variables

Green behavioral intention is modified from the scale of Ajzen’s theory of planned behavior[49]. Subjects rated their responses on a seven-point scale, ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). The internal reliability Cronbach’s α of the scale was 0.93.

Line 760-766, Add the description of mediating analysis:

The results of mediation estimates used in this study are shown in Table 5. The direct effect from attitude to intention is 0.24 (p<0.01), and the mediation percentage is 42.4%; the indirect effect is 0.32 (p<0.01), and the mediation percentage is 57.6%. The Total effect from attitude to intention is 0.56 (p<0.01), which confirms that green intention partially mediates the relationship between green attitude and green behavior. According to the above mediation analysis, H1b has been accepted.

Also add Table 5. Mediation Estimates

Figure: The figure represents the support to appreciate both conceptually and empirically appreciate results from the study. I would suggest authors revise texts in the figure to make more readable variables and latent dimensions investigated by the study.

Line789 adds Figure 2. CFA Path Coefficients.

Figure 2 contains estimates of latent factor coefficients, as well as factor loading values.

Methodology: It could be upgraded by integrating a table with the items and the related literature used for the questionnaire. 

Line 689, "Table 3. Item loading and model fits" has put all items in.

Result: The author should be to show the results of CFA in figure, and the coefficient in Table 3 is stand for what? Do they significant?

Line789 adds "Figure 2. CFA Path Coefficients", the reader can see the estimated coefficients.

Table 4(table 3 becomes table 4) mainly describe the discriminative validity, including AVE, MSV, ASV, HTMT.

Line 699-714 has been explained.

The contribution seems relevant. However, there is not enough evidence for the research model developed in this study. There is not enough theoretical evidence to explain the connection among 4 main variables in this study. It is recommended that theories or concepts be presented that may explain the relevance of the entire research model through literature review.

Line 791-846, The empirical research literature has been cited.

Line 879-885, Add the following description:

In terms of practical suggestions, the green behavior of civil servants is the same as that of employees of private enterprises. Under the influence of organizational environmental strategy and green lifestyle, the linear relationship between green attitude, green intention, and green behavior still exists. Especially under the negative influence of formalism cognition, the influencing factors of green behavior have not changed much.

There are many grammars and typing error in this manuscript. There is a lot of passive voice throughout. In many cases active voice would be clearer and less wordy.

This article has checked the full text to minimize repetitive statements and grammatical errors.

Reviewer 1:

You have an integrated conceptual model which is fine, however, the model hasn't been developed according to the TPB theoretical framework. This is a major issue as your model doesn't make much sense to me without this theoretical grounding. Namely, I can't see how Formalism, Organizational Environmental Strategy and Green Family life wouldn't impact on attitude or intention before green behavior. 

Line 477-488, This study adds the following description:

There are not many empirical studies on Formalism in public administration field. Does the formalism of civil servants affect green behavior through green behavior intention? Or does formalism directly affect green behavior? So far, there is no theoretical and empirical evidence to prove it. The current generalization of formalism from literature review, including obstruction of policy implementation, lack of administrative efficiency, rejection of innovation, resistance to change, and low self-efficacy, all tend to be behavior-oriented. The path through which individual behavior affects behavioral intentions has conflicted with the TPB theory's intentions affecting actions[46,47]. Therefore, this study establishes the hypothesis that formalism negatively affects green behavior.

This article attempts to connect formalism to green behavior intention, and the estimated coefficient is 0.02 (t=0.22), which is not statistically significant. At the same time, because formalism is connected to green behavior intention, the coefficients of green attitude and green behavior intention become insignificantly negative (b=-0.01, t=0.19). H1 was accidentally rejected.

Line 534-539, This study adds the following description:

This study attempts to explore the relationship between organizational environmental strategy and green behavior intention. There is no literature on the relationship between organizational environmental strategy and green behavior intention has been found, and most of the literature discusses the relationship between organizational environmental strategy and green behavior[79,83].

Line 559-569, This study adds the following description:

From the perspective of social learning theory, the main object of learning and imitation is behavior[51,52]. Therefore, this study directly connects green lifestyle to green behavior, and does not consider the relationship between green lifestyle and green behavior intention. From the perspective of Cognition–Affect–Conation Model, behavior includes three time evolution stages: cognitive (thinking), affective (feeling), and conative (doing) [87]. Green lifestyle and green behavior in this study are both measures of conative stage’s behavior. It is more reasonable for green lifestyle to directly connect to green behavior, rather than to green behavior intention.

Line 597-605, This study adds the following description:

According to border theory, the content that affects each other in family and work includes value, skills, and behavior [58]. Border theory believes that when the behaviors of the workplace and the family are very similar, the behaviors in one area will spillover to the other. Border theory links behaviors in different fields, and does not link the relationship between value, skill, and behavior. Therefore, this study directly connects green family life behavior to green behavior, and does not connect the relationship between green family life and green behavior intention.

Line 1000-1003, This study adds the following description:

This research only links formalism, organizational environmental strategy, and green lifestyle to green behavior. Future research can link the three factors to green attitude or green behavior intention to explore whether there will be different research findings.

In the TPB, Attitude, Subjective Norm and Perceived Behavioral Control are all predictors to Intention but not in your model. I see that you put this as a limitation but this is a major theoretical flaw.

Line 263-272, This study adds the following description:

Subjective norms refer to important people and groups in the organization that will support and recognize green behavior. Individuals will feel the perceived social pressure, so they must obey the expectations of these people and perform these expected behaviors[47]. In other words, subjective norms are more applicable to compulsive green behaviors, rather than voluntary green behaviors defined in this study. In addition, Taiwan’s government agencies have not incorporated green performance into human resource management, nor have they implemented green employment, this study does not include subjective normative factors.

Line 273-287, This study adds the following description:

Perceived behavioral control refers to how easy and difficult it is for an individual to perform a certain behavior. Perceived behavioral control will vary as the environment changes. The study of Bouarar and Mouloudj pointed out that perceived behavioral control is not an important factor in predicting behavioral intention[48]. Ajzen himself has pointed out that in the absence of problem of volitional control over the performance of the behavior, TPB theory cannot predict behavioral intentions and actual behaviors[49]. Volition is a mental state oriented towards achieving goals. When individuals can control their volition and reduce environmental barriers, they can successfully achieve their goals. However, this research has always defined the green behavior of civil servants as voluntary behaviors, not compulsive behaviors. Civil servants do not implement green behavior in order to achieve their job goals. Therefore, this study excludes the use of perceived behavioral control factor.

2. The second issue I have is with some of your items, specifically:

My biggest issue is that Green Behavior has been measured with Intention items rather than items that measure actual behavior. I understand that in survey research measuring actual behavior can be tricky, but essentially you have two intention measures (one for Green Behavior Intention and the other for Green Behavior).

Perhaps the translation of “green behavior” items has caused some misunderstandings. For the original Chinese questionnaire, we used "我會.......", which became "I will ......." after being translated into English. The Chinese "我會" means that I have done it ……; "明日我將" is what I will do in the future. This gap in language translation makes “green behavior” similar to “green behavior intention”.

For the green behavior intention items, this study uses "Tomorrow I will..." to measure the respondents' future behavior intentions. The Chinese terms used to prove that green behavior intention and green behavior are different. Therefore, we decided to delete the "will" of green behavior items to avoid misunderstanding similar to green behavior intention.

Line 994-999, This study adds the following description:

Since green behavior intention is a proxy variable of green behavior, the design of items in this study is still somewhat similar. Although the discriminant validity between green behavior intention and green behavior in this study has been passed, future research should still pay attention to the discriminant validity of these two factors.

Some of your Green Attitude items seem more like cognition rather than affect. For example, "I understand the pollution of drinking water" is more reflective of an awareness or knowledge measure.

According to Rosenberg & Hovland (1960), attitude includes three components: an affective component (feelings), a behavioral component (the effect of the attitude on behavior), and a cognitive component (belief and knowledge).

Line 681-683, This study adds the following description:

For items whose content validity is obviously poor, even though they have passed reliability and validity tests, this study deletes them.

Table 3, the following item has been deleted, and all statistical analysis has been run again.

"I understand the pollution of drinking water" has been deleted.

The item "I buy food smartly by reading labels and Nutrition facts" isn't related to green consumption but rather considerate of health or well-being.

Line 681-683, This study adds the following description:

For items whose content validity is obviously poor, even though they have passed reliability and validity tests, this study deletes them.

Table 3, the following item has been deleted, and all statistical analysis has been run again.

"I buy food smartly by reading labels and Nutrition facts" has been deleted.

I hope this feedback above is not too discouraging but I think it's important that our research has a theoretical grounding.

Thanks for all the review comments, which will make this article a more publishable manuscript.

Reviewer 2:

Thanks for all the review comments, which will make this article a more publishable manuscript.

Reviewer 3:

There are minor typing error and format noncompliance.

The problem of typing error and format noncompliance has been checked and revised.

Thanks for all the review comments, which will make this article a more publishable manuscript.

Reviewer 1:

Thanks for the responses. I understand the translation issue on the scales.

Thank you reviewer for your understanding.

I'm still not fully convinced on the model as theoretically, intention comes before behaviour according to the TPB. I think by measuring it directly on behaviour as a workaround, we are looking at a data-driven result rather than a result that has theoretical support. You have provided some arguments for your model and ran an alternative model which seemingly doesn't work according to theory.

Line 1046-1059, This study adds the following description:

According to TPB, formalism, organizational environmental strategy, and green lifestyle may affect green behavior through green behavior intention. This study was limited by the fact that the collected data did not reach statistical significance, and the literature review was not very sufficient. Therefore, this study cannot verify the mediating role of green behavior intention. Future research can link the three factors to green attitude or green behavior intention to explore whether there will be different research findings.

Because this research mainly discusses voluntary green behavior, it did not adopt the two factors of subjective norms and performed behavioral control, which will make the theoretical basis of this research relatively insufficient. Future research can adopt all the factors of TPB to make the theoretical basis of the results more sufficient.

I also tried to link formalism, organizational environmental strategy, and green lifestyle to green behavior intention. The t value of formalism is only 0.538, which is not statistically significant. The t value from green attitude to green behavior intention drops to 0.187, which is not statistically significant.

When I connected formalism, organizational environmental strategy, and green lifestyle to green behavior intention and green behavior. The t value of fomalism is 0.319, which is not statistically significant. The t value of green attitude is also reduced to 0.044, which is not statistically significant.

After changing the model path, 2 out of 5 hypotheses are not significant. This makes the SEM model worse, and this article decides not to make such a change now. Perhaps it is the reason for the sample collection. In the future, we can try to explore the relationship between different factors.

Some minor spelling and readability updates needed.

The spelling and terms have been checked again.