The Role of Sustainable Training and Reward in Influencing Employee Accountability Perception and Behavior for Corporate Sustainability

Abstract

This study explores whether employees’ perceptions of corporate human resource practices (training and rewards), and employees’ perceptions of corporate sustainability responsibility, affect their adoption of sustainable behaviors. In the past, there have been relevant studies to explore the impact of corporate sustainability education and training and sustainable rewards on employees’ sustainable behavior. However, the results were not significant. Thus, this study constructed a prediction model to examine the relationship between the abovementioned factors, moving beyond the previous related studies. Employees of Common Wealth Magazine’s Sustainable Citizenship Award-winning companies were selected as the research objects to verify whether employees’ perception of corporate sustainable responsibility has a mediating effect. The instrument was developed from a literature review and related survey items, which consisted of 35 items and four dimensions. The instrument’s validity and reliability passed the required standards. Through judgmental sampling, a total of 345 valid responses were collected. Through hierarchical regression analysis, we found that sustainability training and sustainable rewards have a significant impact on employees’ sustainable behavior. The scientific value of this study is the contribution of the framework model for employees’ perception of corporate sustainable responsibility, which has a mediating effect. It provides practical evidence that employees’ perception of corporate sustainable responsibility plays a partial mediation role. In general, facilitating employees’ sustainable behavior can be achieved through environmental and social aspects, as well as cooperative governance, to further enhance employees’ internal and external roles in relation to sustainable behavior.

1. Introduction

With the economic take-off and the rapid advancement of science and technology, there has been an increasing demand for the Earth’s resources, causing serious pollution and damage to the Earth and resulting in poor environmental quality, extreme changes in the global climate, severe persecution of diverse ecosystems, and resource shortages. People are increasingly focusing on environmental issues, organizations are facing the challenge of reducing their impact on the environment, and people are gradually realizing the importance of sustainable development. Many companies have invested in energy conservation and ecological environmental protection, increasing their pace with regards to sustainability. The concept of CSR (corporate social responsibility) was introduced in 1999 by the then-Secretary-General of the United Nations (UN), Kofi Anan. Anan’s initiative requires companies to implement CSR [1].

In 2004, the UN Global Compact proposed the concept of ESG for the first time, mainly to practice the principles of CSR and evaluate the sustainable development indicators of an enterprise from the perspective of the environment, society, and company operations. In 2015, the United Nations adopted the “2030 Sustainable Development Goals” (SDGs), which put forward 17 core goals and indicators for global sustainable development. The 17 core goals are poverty eradication, end hunger, health and well-being, quality education, net water and sanitation, energy burden, gender equality, employment and economic growth, innovation and infrastructure, reducing imbalances, ensuring sustainable consumption and production, climate action, conservation and preservation of marine resources, conservation of ecological territories, and sound institutions for peace and justice [1]. Business partners can jointly achieve the SDGs and share the benefits. The SDGs measure the levels required for global sustainable development from a more diverse perspective. Therefore, when setting goals, they clearly covered the three aspects of “economic growth”, “social progress”, and “environmental protection”. Item indicators are interlinked and inseparable from each other. Due to global environmental threats, including global warming and severe climate change, social problems are also becoming more and more obvious. Continued widening inequality between the rich and the poor has resulted in many social exclusions [2]. The goal of sustainable development is to achieve the common prosperity and well-being of society, so that people and future generations can enjoy all the rights to life [3]. Companies will need to solve environmental and social issues in a more active, faster, and comprehensive way [4]. While many corporates are developing sustainability policies, they are also faced with the problem of how to encourage employees to cooperate, and participate or demonstrate their sustainable behaviors [5]. Therefore, it is very important to find the factors that may affect the sustainable development of an enterprise within enterprises. Thus, corporate policies are established to promote employees’ sustainable awareness and intent to engage in behaviors.

Most studies also mention that employees’ supportive behavior is very important in the implementation of environmental [6] or socially friendly practices in enterprises [7]. Tosti-Kharas et al. [8] pointed out in their study that it is very important for employees to feel positive about the sustainable development of the organization. In the studies by Ong et al. [9] and Wellman [10], different individuals were found to place a different emphasis on the company’s environmental or social improvement projects, and were affected to different degrees. Therefore, employees’ perception of corporate sustainability responsibility may affect the sustainable behaviors they display. However, in recent years, as corporate social responsibility and sustainability issues have been recognized as corporate strategies, with a focus on improving corporate performance through economic, social, and environmental outputs, there has also been a growing need for HR departments to formulate relevant policies and programs to drive corporate social responsibility and sustainability [11]. Nonetheless, in the literature from Taiwan, there have been very few studies on the sustainable behavior of employees from the perspective of human resource management. Therefore, this study aimed to find the impact on the sustainable development of enterprises in employee governance and human resource management, and from the perspective of corporate sustainability education and training and rewards, with the hope of finding the relevant factors in the organization that can promote employees to develop their sustainable behavior.

In this context, this paper aims to be comprehensive in describing the empirical model of corporate employees’ sustainable behavior. This research mainly explored: (1) the impact of corporate sustainability training and corporate sustainability rewards on employees’ perception of corporate sustainability; (2) the impact of corporate sustainability training, corporate sustainability rewards, and employees’ perception of corporate sustainability responsibility on corporate employees’ sustainable behavior individually; (3) The mediating effect of employees’ perception of corporate sustainable responsibility in the relationship between corporate sustainable education and training and employees’ sustainable behaviors; and (4) the mediating effect of employees’ perception of corporate sustainability responsibility in the relationship between a corporate sustainability reward system and employees’ sustainability behavior.

2. Literature Review

2.1. Corporate Sustainable Training

In this era of fierce competition, enterprises must enhance their competitiveness and highlight their value to stand out. Employees are the most important assets of an enterprise. More and more enterprises are realizing that investment in human resources is more valuable than investment in materials. Therefore, many enterprises have invested a lot of resources in the education and training of employees, and through training, they can improve the abilities of organizational personnel, thus improving their competitiveness. In today’s society, the current method of economic development can no longer ensure enterprise growth. Therefore, the inclusion of sustainability issues in education and training courses is no longer optional, but a priority [12]. However, sustainability covers environmental, economic, and social dimensions, and some scholars point out that the term sustainability is often used instead of green or pro-environment [13]. The relevant content is explained below.

Matten and Moon [14] refer to sustainability training as covering sustainable development, environmental management, corporate governance, business ethics, etc. Some scholars believe that sustainable education and training should include social, economic, and environmental levels, and incorporate economics and social sciences to achieve the ultimate goal of global sustainable development [15]. McGehee and Thayer [16] define it as allowing employees to acquire relevant knowledge, skills, and attitudes before they perform a specific job. Jabbour and de Sousa Jabbour [17] believe that training is one of the main methods, and the basis for human resource management, to support environmental management. Bohari et al. [18] proposed that enterprises can improve employees’ environmental awareness and enthusiasm for participating in environmental protection practices through training. Wu and Shen’s [15] cognitive training included social, economic, and environmental dimensions, incorporating economics and social sciences to achieve the ultimate goal of sustainable global development.

This research investigated the current implementation and satisfaction of sustainable training and sustainable rewards in enterprises. The research results will provide a reference for general enterprises to carry out this concept.

Therefore, based on the above viewpoints, this study defined sustainable training as “enterprises through courses at the social, economic, and environmental levels to impart knowledge on sustainability to employees”.

Glerum and Judge [19] believed that education and training can provide employees with employment skills and support their development. If the enterprise conducts education and training regularly, its overall benefits will be revealed. If the organization continuously implements employee education and training, employees will not only achieve a better performance, but may also help enterprises solve problems arising from weaknesses and negative events at work. With more and more attention being paid to sustainability issues, many scholars have proposed training related to sustainability.

Some scholars believe that education and training not only increases employees’ knowledge and skills, but also represents a commitment to environmental and social issues [16]. Furthermore, some scholars have pointed out that environmental education and training can improve employees’ awareness and sense of responsibility for environmental problems, and can improve their technical knowledge and skills in dealing with environmental problems [20].

Sustainability education and training can improve employees’ concern for sustainability issues [21]. It makes employee aware of the complexity of sustainability in their daily lives [22]. By improving employees’ ability to deal with sustainability decisions, education and training is also considered to be the best way to help enterprises promote sustainable development. Through education and training, new thinking can be shaped to stimulate employees’ sustainable behavior [23]. With continued training, employees will perform better and be more committed to achieving sustainability goals [24].

2.2. Corporate Sustainable Rewards

Dessler [25] proposed that rewarding employee morale and demand will produce higher productivity, force, and job performance. French et al. [26] explained that rewarding behavior prompts people to act or develop in certain ways; the motivation of actions could be from external stimuli or personal internal thinking.

Scholars have defined green and sustainable rewards. Zoogah [27] believes that a green reward system refers to employees being active in environmental management and advocating sustainable behaviors, and obtaining benefits from them. There are many forms of rewards, such as increasing wages, praise, etc., that are considered by scholars to be effective in motivating employees to establish good environmental behaviors [28,29,30,31]. Green rewards are divided into two parts for this discussion [21]: monetary and non-monetary incentives. Monetary incentives include bonuses and cash. Non-monetary incentives include vacations, publicity, praise, compliments, and feedback, etc.

Therefore, based on the above viewpoints, this study defined corporate sustainable rewards as “a system that an enterprise uses to benefit employees and encourage employees to adopt sustainable behaviors”.

In the past, many researchers have confirmed that rewards can enhance employees’ environmental responsibility [28,31]. Rewarding employees for fulfilling their commitment to the environment can promote the goal of greening organizations [17]. However, the green reward system also reflects the management’s commitment to environmental behavior, while strengthening and motivating employees’ environmental conservation behaviors [7]. Commitment to employees is closely related to participation in environmental issues [32]. It is believed to have a significant impact on the willingness of employees to generate ecological initiatives through daily praise. This has resulted in an open communication method that encourages staff to discuss their philosophies on environmental conservation in an honest and unfettered manner [33].

Some scholars have also mentioned that a green reward system can motivate employees to be environmentally friendly and improve the success rate [34]. Rewarding employees who are committed to environmental contributions and accomplishing environmental goals through the abovementioned rewards can also achieve the goal of employee implementation of green practices [35]. Additionally, it can encourage some green creativity and innovation, by asking employees to share innovative green ideas related to their personal work [36].

Therefore, sustainable development goals can motivate employees’ attitudes and motivation through a sound reward system, and individual efforts and dedication can help organizations achieve related sustainable goals [37] and have a positive impact on sustainable performance impact [38].

2.3. Employees’ Perception of Corporate Sustainable Accountability

Vlachos et al. [39] pointed out that corporate social responsibility is the most commonly used strategy for social and environmental improvement in business circles. Corporate social responsibility is a practical approach to embedding environmental and social issues into corporate culture and/or activities, and trying to find solutions. CSR is also often used by scholars as a synonym for corporate sustainability [40,41]. This section explores employees’ perception of corporate sustainability responsibility, and therefore will discuss sustainability as well as corporate sustainability and corporate social responsibility, considering the definition and employees’ perception of corporate sustainability responsibility.

Employees’ perception of corporate sustainable accountability is their awareness that the company is responsible for improving the economy, environment, and society [42,43]. The term sustainability is often used in place of green or pro-environment [13]. Sharma [11] also mentioned that “For organizations, corporate sustainability should be about improving social and human well-being, while also reducing the impact on the ecology and ensuring the achievement of organizational goals” (p. 31). Dyllick and Hockerts [42] also defined corporate sustainability as: “Meeting the needs of the company’s direct and indirect stakeholders, such as shareholders, employees, customers; the ability to pressure groups and communities, etc., without compromising and meeting the needs of future stakeholders, can be called business sustainability” (p. 133). In addition, they also believed that, in meeting this definition, companies must strive for economic and social development and environmental capital, and to contribute to sustainable development. The principle of accountability implies that an organization accepts responsibility for its policies (e.g., supporting sport; contributing to repairing local roads due to the activities of the organization), decisions, and actions, and is willing to be held accountable for these [44].

In addition, Vlachos et al. [39] pointed out that CSR is the most commonly used strategy for social or environmental improvement in the corporate world. It is the practice of trying to find a solution within a culture or activity. The term is also often used by scholars as a synonym for corporate sustainability [40,41]. Corporate social responsibility (CSR) generally refers to the responsibility of business operations to the environment, society, and governance; that is, while creating profits and being responsible for the interests of shareholders, also undertaking to meet social responsibilities to employees, society, and the environment, including compliance with business ethics, production safety, occupational health, protection of the legitimate rights and interests of workers, and resource conservation. As far as companies are concerned, this includes issues such as corporate social responsibility, corporate citizenship, improving the management of the company’s impact on society and the environment, and improving the participation of stakeholders.

Per the World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD), corporate social responsibility is a company’s commitment to continue to abide by ethics, contribute to economic development, and improve employees and their families and local communities’ quality of life. The World Bank defines corporate social responsibility as a collection of policies and practices related to the relationship, values, compliance with laws and regulations, and respect for people, communities, and the environment of an enterprise with key stakeholders, and a set of policies and practices that enterprises can use to improve the quality of life of stakeholders. It is a commitment to contribute to sustainable development. Chen [43] defines employees’ perceptions of corporate sustainability as employees’ feeling that the company takes care of them and takes responsibility for its sustainable economic, environmental, and social development.

Based on the above definitions, we defined employees’ perception of corporate sustainable accountability as: “Employees feel that the company takes care of them, and promotes the progress and sustainable development of the economy, society, and environment”.

When companies implement greening projects, the results are shared with internal employees in various ways, so when employees receive information, they also acquire knowledge related to environmental protection [45]. Researchers found that when employees feel the social and environmental responsibility of the company they belong to, they are willing to contribute more opinions and participate in the organization’s projects [39]. Employees in the organization will make recommendations to the organization on factors such as better industrial relations and safer and financially secure workplaces, etc. [46]. Enterprises need employees to create value, and at the same time, they must take care of employees and provide them with a safe working environment. In addition, employees are encouraged to assist enterprises to practice social responsibility [47]. Furthermore, enterprises should not underestimate the ability and opportunity to turn corporate citizenship into a competitive advantage [48]. Employees’ behaviors, such as pro-social behaviors, also play important roles in CRS, because they are value-creating actions that employees choose to make in order to change organizational practices to promote organizational well-being [49]. When companies need to improve their environmental and social issues through practice, such as the use of corporate social responsibility projects to develop corporate sustainability, employees play an indispensable role. At the same time, when the organization to which they belong is willing to participate in these activities, it will also trigger employees’ positive behaviors and generate more voluntary actions [50,51,52]. In addition, companies share the results of sustainability projects with employees in a variety of ways. Therefore, when employees receive information, they will also acquire knowledge related to environmental or social issues [53]. Tosti-Kharas et al. [8] also linked sustainability to employees in their research, and argued that how employees view an organization’s sustainability practices is very important. They also believe that employees have an ethical and business perspective in order to understand what actions an organization is taking in terms of sustainability, such as protecting natural resources or supporting operations through cost savings. When a company has built its reputation based on fulfilling its corporate social responsibility, it can be protected from some negative news or business crises, which will also make employees feel more attuned to the company [54].

2.4. Employees’ Sustainable Behavior

Employees play an important role in achieving certain goals [55]; therefore, it is very helpful for enterprises to pay attention to the issues related to employees in the implementation of sustainability [56]. Because of this, employees’ efforts to manage the environment at work [57,58] and research on social problem behaviors [59] have received increasing attention.

Researchers have placed the concept of environmental issues into organizational citizenship behavior, which is called “organizational environmental citizenship behavior” [49,60]; this term is defined by scholars as reducing the depletion of organizational and individual resources for sustainable development efforts [61]. Thus, employees voluntarily engage in pro-environmental behaviors beyond the scope of work [45]. Employee sustainability behavior includes a wide range of behaviors, such as participating in corporate social responsibility projects (CSR), showing a positive attitude in the workplace, actively participating in environmental responsibility actions, and promoting green products to customers, etc. Corral-Verdugo et al. [62] and Gond et al. [63] also believe that sustainable behavior usually includes a series of behaviors to protect the natural and social environment, which are expressed through eco-friendly, frugal, altruistic, and fair behaviors. When employees are willing to assist companies in carrying out beneficial environmental behaviors, companies can more easily achieve sustainable environmental goals [64].

In recent years, more and more business organizations have been seeking to meet economic and environmental goals, while also addressing social issues. Therefore, Pellegrini et al. [65] defined employee sustainability as employees adopting pro-environmental and pro-social behaviors, while targeting pro-environmental goals. Behavior is considered by scholars to be the conscious use of behavior that has the most negative impact on the natural world [66]. Pro-social behavior is defined as voluntary behavior that helps others or benefits society, such as assisting, donating, voluntary services, etc. In the process of pro-social behavior, people will experience positive emotions and satisfaction [67].

Therefore, taking the above viewpoints into consideration, this study defined employees’ sustainable behavior as “the way companies teach employees about sustainability through courses at the social, economic, and environmental level”.

Studies have found that when employees are willing to assist companies with environmentally friendly behaviors, it can make companies more likely to achieve sustainable environmental goals [63]. Borman and Motowidlo [68] also believe that green behaviors displayed by employees in the workplace have a relationship with performance which is equivalent to employers requiring employees to perform these behaviors, and directly and indirectly contributes to the core of the enterprise.

In addition, employees can choose to engage in environmentally friendly behaviors that exceed corporate expectations, and they view them as better than organizational expectations and with strong personal initiative, such as prioritizing environmental interests, proactively initiating environmental programs and policies, conducting lobbying and actions related to environmental improvements, and encouraging others. Ferguson et al. [69] found that, in a study of the willingness to practice perpetual behaviors among groups, the perception of perpetual behavior through the comparison between groups will affect employees’ sustainable behaviors.

2.5. Hypothesis Development

Akdere and Egan [70] pointed out that education and training can not only help employees learn new knowledge and improve organizational efficiency, but can also enhance employees’ centripetal force and sense of identity with the organization. In addition to increasing employees’ knowledge and skills, education and training also represent corporate commitment to environmental and social issues [17]. Therefore, in this study, we proposed that corporate sustainable education and training has a positive impact on employees’ perception of corporate sustainable responsibility, and we posited Hypothesis 1.

H1. 

Corporate sustainable training will impact employees’ perception of corporate sustainable accountability positively.

Rewards must reflect an organization’s commitment to integrating sustainability into all aspects of work [7]. Rewards and incentives are one of the most important factors in promoting organizational change success [71], and positively impacting sustainability performance [72,73]. A good reward can strengthen employees’ attitudes and show that the organization attaches importance to sustainability issues [37]. Therefore, in this research, we proposed that corporate sustainability rewards have a positive impact on employees’ perception of corporate sustainable responsibility, and we posited the second hypothesis.

H2. 

Corporate sustainable rewards will impact employees’ perception of corporate sustainable accountability positively.

In their research, Tosti-Kharas et al. [8] pointed out that when employees believe that their organization values sustainability, they also actively implement environmental organizational citizenship behaviors. Pellegrini et al. [65] believe that, in addition to green issues, employees will try to improve corporate welfare and show many pro-social behaviors to help companies achieve sustainable goals. In the study by Ong et al. [9], it was found that different individuals attach different degrees of importance to the environmental or social improvement projects of enterprises, and the degree of impact will also be different. Employees’ perceptions of corporate sustainability responsibility may influence their displayed sustainability behaviors. Therefore, in this study, we proposed that employees’ perception of corporate sustainable responsibility has a positive impact on employees’ sustainability behavior, and we posited the third hypothesis.

H3. 

Employees’ perception of corporate sustainable accountability will impact employees’ sustainable behavior positively.

Educational training is one of the oldest and most effective practices in human resources, providing knowledge, competencies, and skills [74]. Early environmental education believes that teaching knowledge about the human environment and its related issues can change human behavior [75]. Modern humans not only pay attention to the environment, but are more broadly concerned about society, the economy, and the environment, so sustainable education and training emerged. In shaping new thinking to motivate employees’ sustainable behaviors [23], some research has found that through sustainable training, employees will perform better and be more committed to achieving sustainable goals [24]. Therefore, sustainable education and training affects employees’ sustainable behavior. In this research, we proposed that corporate sustainable education and training will have a positive impact on employees’ sustainable behavior, and we posited the fourth hypothesis.

H4. 

Corporate sustainable training will impact employees’ sustainable behavior positively.

A good reward can strengthen employees’ attitudes and show that the organization attaches importance to sustainability issues, so it can motivate employees to practice sustainability behaviors [37]. Therefore, rewarding employees will affect their sustainability. In this study, we proposed that corporate sustainability rewards will have a positive impact on employee sustainability behavior, and we posited Hypothesis 5.

H5. 

Corporate sustainable rewards will impact employees’ sustainable behavior positively.

When companies need to improve their environmental and social issues through practice, such as the use of corporate social responsibility projects to develop corporate sustainability, employees play an indispensable role. When the organization to which they belong is willing to participate in these activities, it will also trigger employees’ positive behaviors and generate more voluntary actions [50,51,52]. In addition, companies often share the results of sustainability projects with employees in a variety of ways. Therefore, when employees receive information, they will also acquire knowledge related to environmental or social issues [53]. Tosti-Kharas et al. [8] also linked sustainability to employees in their research, and argued that how employees view an organization’s sustainability practices is very important. They believe that employees have an ethical and business perspective of what actions an organization is taking in terms of sustainability, such as protecting natural resources or supporting operations through cost savings. When a company has built its reputation on the basis of fulfilling its corporate social responsibility, it can be protected from negative news or business crises, which can also make employees feel more attuned to the company [54]. Based on this, the sixth and seventh hypotheses were posited.

H6. 

Employees’ perception of corporate sustainable accountability plays a mediation role between corporate sustainable training and employees’ sustainable behavior.

H7. 

Employees’ perception of corporate sustainable accountability plays a mediation role between corporate sustainable rewards and employees’ sustainable behavior.

3. Research Design

3.1. Framework

The research variables of this study included: corporate sustainability education and training, corporate sustainability reward, employees’ perception of corporate sustainability responsibility, and employees’ sustainable behavior. The research structure explored whether corporate sustainability education and corporate sustainability rewards affect employee sustainability behavior, and whether employees’ perception of corporate sustainability responsibility will affect employee sustainability behavior and produce a mediating effect in the aforementioned relationship. The research framework is as Figure 1.

3.2. Instrument

The questionnaire consisted of 37 items from the reviewed literature and related studies (Appendix A). A Likert-type six-point scale was employed in the instrument design. In order to avoid the tendency of Chinese participants to answer in the middle [76], potentially invalidating the questionnaires due to checking too many intermediate values, all the questions in this study were measured by a Likert-type six-point scale filled in by the subjects’ single-choice self-assessment. The original Cronbach’s α coefficients and the sources of the instrument are summarized in

Table 1. The sources of the designed instrument items.

Scales	Items	Original Cronbach’s α	Sources
Corporate Sustainable Training	7	0.86	Liu et al. (2020) [77]
Corporate Sustainable Reward	12	0.79	Shah et al. (2019) [78]
Employees’ Perception of Corporate Sustainable Accountability	12	0.91	Chen (2020) [43]
Employees’ Sustainable Behavior	6	0.95	Chen (2020) [43]
Total	37	—

.

3.2.1. Corporate Sustainable Training Scale

This study used the green education and training scale of Liu et al. [77], with changes to its wording to sustainable, with a total of seven items. An example item of the Corporate Sustainable Training Scale is: “Provides sustainability education and training for all employees in your company”. In terms of the reliability of the original scale, Cronbach’s α overall item reliability coefficient was 0.86, indicating that the questionnaire has good reliability.

3.2.2. Corporate Sustainable Reward Scale

This study used the green reward scale from Shah [78], changing its wording to sustainable, with a total of 12 items. An example item of the Corporate Sustainable Reward Scale is: “There are incentives for environmental protection behaviors in your company”. In terms of reliability of the original scale, Cronbach’s α overall item reliability coefficient was 0.79, indicating that the questionnaire has good credibility.

3.2.3. Employees’ Perception of Corporate Sustainable Accountability Scale

This research adopted Chen’s scale of employees’ perception of corporate sustainable responsibility, which includes the environmental, social, and employee questions on the Turker CSR scale [79], and the economic questions on the Maignan and Ferrell CSR scale [80], with a total of 12 items. An example item of the Employees’ Perception of Corporate Sustainable Accountability Scale is: “In your company, activities are held to protect and improve the natural environment”. In terms of reliability of the original scale, Cronbach’s α overall item reliability coefficient was 0.905, indicating that the questionnaire has good reliability.

3.2.4. Employees’ Sustainable Behavior Scale

In this research, we adopted Chen’s scale of Employee Sustainability Behavior, which refers to the Employee Green Behavior Scale, changing the word environment to society and environment, and developing the measurement items for this study, with a total of six items. An example item of the Employees’ Sustainable Behavior Scale is: “In the workplace, I will perform the work assigned by the organization in a way that is beneficial to society and the environment”. The overall scoring method was a Likert five-point scale. In terms of the reliability of the original scale, the Cronbach’s α overall item reliability coefficient is 0.946, indicating that the questionnaire has good reliability.

3.3. Participants and Sampling

The object of this research was the 2021 “World Sustainable Citizenship Award” survey conducted by CommonWealth Magazine. With reference to international indicators and evaluation methods, it integrated four major dimensions: “Corporate Governance”, “Corporate Commitment”, “Society Engagement”, and “Environmental Sustainability”. Taiwan’s most sustainable corporate employees were the research objects. According to the public information observatory, at the time this research was conducted, the number of employees at these companies was approximately 550. We contacted the person in charge of the Corporate Sustainability or Human Resources Department by phone or e-mail, and then issued a questionnaire when the response was approved. This avoided the situation where respondents fill in the questionnaire repeatedly due to the snowballing sampling method.

3.3.1. Sampling

In the sample selection, the formal questionnaire was distributed with an intentional sampling method, and the employees of the most sustainable companies in the 2021 “World Sustainable Citizenship Award” by CommonWealth Magazine were the research objects. The aim was to explore whether corporate sustainability education and training, corporate sustainability rewards, and employees’ perception of corporate sustainability responsibility will affect employees’ sustainable behavior. The employees of the Corporate Sustainability Department assisted in distributing links to respondents. The researchers checked and compared them one by one, and removed invalid questionnaires and respondents who filled in the pre-test questionnaires. All questionnaires were anonymous.

3.3.2. Pilot Test

After the preparation of the pre-test questionnaires for this research, the distribution of the questionnaires started in mid-December 2021 for a 2-week test period. The pre-test list contained some foreign-funded enterprises with annual revenues of less than CNY 10 billion, which we termed “background enterprises”. Employees of companies whose annual revenue was less than CNY 5 billion, termed “Little Giant” winners, were the research objects. The total number of people in the pre-exam was based on the principle of three to five times the “subscale” that contains the most items in the questionnaire. This questionnaire had a maximum of 12 questions, and at least 60 pre-test questionnaires were sent out in an online format.

3.3.3. Survey

According to the official questionnaire and a public information website, there were about 550,000 employees of “large enterprises” with an annual revenue of more than CNY 10 billion in the “World Sustainable Citizenship Award” in 2021. Therefore, the number of valid questionnaires for this study needed to be at least 550,000. A total of 384 copies were recovered, and the official questionnaire listed the winners of the “World Sustainable Citizenship Award” by CommonWealth Magazine in 2021.

3.4. Data Analysis

Regression analysis determines whether the independent variable has an influence on the dependent variable on the basis of exploring the linear combination between both variables. It provides the percentage of the total variance in the regression model that can be explained by the independent variable. Generally speaking, a coefficient of determination greater than 0.5 is preferred. In this study, regression analysis was used to test the validity of each hypothesis.

With the development of academic research, many researchers have developed complex research structures; consequently, the existing SPSS statistical software was not sufficient for this work. The PROCESS analysis module uses bootstrapping to estimate the confidence interval of indirect effects through 5000 repeated samplings. A mediating effect is indicated as long as its 95% confidence interval does not contain 0. In addition, this software can not only be directly applied to the original SPSS software to assist researchers in analyzing complex structures, but can also overcome the limitations of the BK method designed by Baron and Kenny in the test of the mediation effect. The mediating effect can be tested using the research hypothesis of bar prediction. Therefore, this study used PROCESS to test whether the mediating effect of Hypotheses 6 and 7 was established.

4. Results and Discussion

4.1. Framework

4.1.1. Constructive Reliability

The KMO value of the Corporate Sustainable Training Scale was 0.879, the Bartlett coefficient was 323.847 (p < 0.001), and the factor loading ranged from 0.674 to 0.842. The KMO value of the Corporate Sustainable Reward Scale was 0.881, the Bartlett coefficient was 457.513 (p < 0.001), and the factor loading ranged from 0.633 to 0.837. Furthermore, this scale separated into two dimensions, “Material Reward” and “Non-Material Reward”, in the exploratory factor analysis.

The KMO value of the Employees’ Perception of Corporate Sustainable Accountability Scale was 0.762, the Bartlett coefficient was 505.939 (p < 0.001), and the factor loading ranged from 0.529 to 0.886. In addition, the scale separated into three dimensions, “Environmental and Social Aspect”, “Economic Aspect”, and “Corporate Governance”.

The KMO value of the Employees’ Sustainable Behavior Scale was 0.806, the Bartlett coefficient was 240.633 (p < 0.001), and the factor loading ranged from 0.698 to 0.871. In addition, the scale separated into two dimensions, “Internal Role of Sustainable Behavior” and “External Role of Sustainable Behavior”.

4.1.2. Reliability

The Cronbach’s α coefficient of the Corporate Sustainable Training Scale was 0.880, Corporate Sustainable Reward Scale was 0.878, the Employees’ Perception of Corporate Sustainable Accountability Scale was 0.831, and the Employees’ Sustainable Behavior Scale was 0.829. All of the scales passed the reliability check criteria.

4.2. Demographic Variables

A total of 345 valid samples were obtained, and the analysis results are shown in

Table 2. Descriptive analysis of the demographic variables (n = 345).

Background	Category	Sample	Percentage (%)
Age	Under the age of 25	4	1.16
	26 to 35 years old	129	37.39
	36 to 45 years old	124	35.94
	46 to 55 years old	65	18.84
	Over 56 years old	23	6.67
Education	Below high school	9	2.61
	Junior	29	8.41
	Bachelor	139	40.29
	Master	156	45.22
	PhD	12	3.48
Position	Non-supervisor	234	67.83
	Supervisor	111	32.17
Current company seniority	1 to 5 years	153	44.35
	6 to 10 years	79	22.90
	11 to 15 years	38	11.01
	16 to 20 years	29	8.41
	More than 20 years	46	13.33
Industry	Service	179	51.88
	Financial Services	61	17.68
	Manufacturing	105	30.43

. Among them, in the age category, four respondents were under the age of 25, accounting for 1.16%, 129 respondents were 26–35 years old, accounting for 37.39%, and 124 respondents were 36–45 years old, accounting for 35.94%. For the age range 46–55 years, there were 65 respondents, accounting for 18.84%, and 23 respondents were over the age of 56, accounting for 6.67%. Respondents aged 26–35 made up most of the working population. In terms of education, 12 respondents had doctoral degrees, accounting for 3.48%, 156 had master’s degrees, accounting for 45.22%, 139 had bachelor’s degrees, accounting for 40.29%, and nine had high school or lower education qualifications, accounting for 2.61%. In terms of seniority, 153 respondents had 1–5 years of service, accounting for 44.35%, 79 had 6–10 years of service, accounting for 22.90%, and 38 had 11–15 years of service, accounting for 11.01%. A further 29 had 16–20 years of service, accounting for 8.41%, and 46 more than 20 years of service, accounting for 13.33%. A total of 234 respondents were in non-supervisory positions, accounting for 67.83%, and 111 were in supervisory positions, accounting for 32.17%. The industries to which the respondents of the questionnaire belonged were the service industry (179), accounting for 51.88%, followed by 105 in the manufacturing industry, accounting for 30.43%, and 61 in the financial services industry, accounting for 17.68%.

4.3. Correlation of Variables

Pearson’s correlation analysis is used to test whether there is a correlation between the independent variable and the dependent variable, and thus to determine whether it is suitable to progress with regression analysis. This study conducted correlation analysis on four variables: sustainable education and training, sustainable rewards, employees’ perception of corporate sustainable responsibility, and employees’ sustainable behavior. The results show that there was a significant positive correlation between each of the research variables. The detailed test results, such as the correlation coefficients and significance levels, are shown in

Table 3. The mean scores, standard deviations, and correlation summary (n = 345).

Scales	Average	SD	1	2	2-1	2-1	3	3-1	3-2	3-3	4	4-1
1	4.229	0.798	-
2	3.953	0.919	0.564 **	-
2-1	3.674	1.091	0.448 **	0.903 **	-
2-2	4.231	0.972	0.565 **	0.877 **	0.586 **	-
3	4.411	0.693	0.501 **	0.550 **	0.414 **	0.576 **	-
3-1	4.451	0.896	0.456 **	0.479 **	0.309 **	0.559 **	0.877 **	-
3-2	4.664	0.853	0.210 **	0.166 **	0.122 *	0.177 **	0.518 **	0.232 **	-
3-3	4.077	1.081	0.362 **	0.485 **	0.453 **	0.408 **	0.701 **	0.409 **	0.152 **	-
4	4.442	0.745	0.257 **	0.339 **	0.229 **	0.385 **	0.427 **	0.412 **	0.132 *	0.309 **	-
4-1	4.473	0.811	0.276 **	0.338 **	0.208 **	0.405 **	0.410 **	0.423 **	0.114 *	0.260 **	0.864 **	-
4-2	4.411	0.890	0.180 **	0.261 **	0.194 **	0.275 **	0.342 **	0.304 **	0.117 *	0.281 **	0.888 **	0.535 **

Note: * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01; 1, Sustainable Education and Training; 2, Perpetual Reward; 2-1, Monetary; 2-2, Non-Monetary; 3, Corporate Social Responsibility and Sustainable Operation; 3-1, Environment and Society; 3-2, Economical; 3-3, Corporate Governance; 4, Sustainable Behavior; 4-1, In-Role Sustainable Behavior; 4-2, Out-of-Role Sustainable Behavior.

.

4.4. The Hypotheses Checks

4.4.1. Corporate Sustainable Training Will Impact Employees’ Perception of Corporate Sustainable Accountability

The regression analysis results for sustainable education and training and employees’ perception of corporate sustainable responsibility show that the β value of the environmental and social aspects of sustainable education and training and employees’ perception of corporate sustainable responsibility was 0.456 (p < 0.001), which is a significant effect, indicating that the enterprise is sustainable. Continuing education and training has a positive impact on employees’ perception of the company’s sustainable responsibilities towards the environment and society. Therefore, the more a company attaches importance to sustainable education and training, the more employees are aware of the company’s sustainable responsibilities to the environment and society. There was a significant relationship between sustainable education and training and the economic dimension of employees’ perception of corporate sustainable responsibility. The β value was 0.49 (p < 0.001), which means that when the company attaches more importance to sustainable education and training, the employees better perceive the company’s sustainable responsibility at the economic level. The corporate governance level of sustainable education and training and employees’ perception of corporate sustainable responsibility was also significant, with a β value of 0.362 (p < 0.001). The more a company attaches importance to sustainable education and training, the more employees perceive the company’s sustainable responsibility in corporate governance. Therefore, H1 of this study was verified: corporate sustainable education and training has a significant positive impact on employees’ perception of corporate sustainable responsibility (see

Table 4. The regression parameters of corporate sustainable training predict employees’ perception of corporate sustainable accountability (n = 345).

	Employees’ Perception of Corporate Sustainability Responsibility
	Environment and Society			Economical			Corporate Governance			Total
	B	SE B	β	B	SE B	β	B	SE B	β	B	SE B	β
Sustainable Education and Training	0.512 ***	0.054	0.456 ***	0.224 ***	0.056	0.210 ***	0.49S0 ***	0.068	0.362 ***	0.434 ***	0.041	0.501 ***
$R^2$	0.208			0.044			0.131			0.251
$Adj{R}^2$	0.206			0.041			0.129			0.249
F	90.175 ***			15.755 ***			51.741 ***			114.762 ***

Note: *** p < 0.001.

).

4.4.2. Corporate Sustainable Rewards Will Impact Employees’ Perception of Corporate Sustainable Accountability

The regression analysis results for sustainable rewards and employees’ perceived corporate sustainable responsibility show that monetary sustainable rewards have no significant relationship with the environmental and social aspects of employees’ perceived corporate sustainable responsibility. The β value was −0.028 and the p value did not reach the significance level. Non-monetary sustainable rewards had a significant relationship with the environmental and social aspects of employees’ perception of corporate sustainable responsibility. Rewards have a positive impact on employees’ perception of the company’s environmental and social responsibilities. Therefore, the more non-monetary sustainable rewards the company provides, the more employees are aware of the company’s environmental and social responsibilities. There was no significant relationship between monetary perpetual rewards and employees’ perception of the economic level of corporate perpetual responsibility. There was, however, a significant relationship with the economic level of responsibility; the β value was 0.161 (p < 0.05), which means that when the company attaches more importance to non-monetary sustainable rewards, the employees also perceive the company’s sustainable responsibility at the economic level. Monetary sustainable rewards and employees’ perception of corporate sustainable responsibility had a significant effect on corporate governance, with a β value of 0.326 (p < 0.001), while non-monetary sustainable rewards and employees’ perception of corporate sustainable responsibility had no significant effect on corporate governance. The β value was 0.218 and the p value was greater than 0.05, which means that the more the company attaches importance to monetary sustainable rewards, the better the employees perceive the company’s sustainable responsibility at the corporate governance level. Therefore, H2 of this study was verified: corporate sustainability rewards have a significant positive impact on employees’ perception of corporate sustainability responsibility (see

Table 5. The regression parameters of corporate sustainable rewards predict employees’ perception of corporate sustainable accountability (n = 345).

		Employees’ Perception of Corporate Sustainability Responsibility
		Environment and Society			Economical			Corporate Governance			Total
		B	SE B	β	B	SE B	β	B	SE B	β	B	SE B	β
Sustainable Rewards	Monetary	−0.023	0.045	−0.028	0.022	0.051	0.028	0.323 ***	0.058	0.326 ***	0.075 *	0.034	0.117 *
	Non-Monetary	0.531 ***	0.051	0.576 ***	0.141 *	0.058	0.161 *	0.242	0.065	0.218	0.361 ***	0.039	0.507 ***
$R^2$		0.314			0.032			0.237			0.340
$Adj{R}^2$		0.309			0.026			0.232			0.336
F		78.095 ***			5.624 **			52.985 ***			88.199 ***

Note: * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001.

).

4.4.3. Employees’ Perception of Corporate Sustainable Accountability Impacts Employees’ Sustainable Behavior

Employees’ perception of corporate environmental and social responsibility and the sustainable behavior of employee participation had a positive and significant impact, with a β value of 0.049 (p < 0.001) to achieve a significant effect, and employees’ perception of corporate economic responsibility and employee participation in sustainable behavior had no significant positive impact; the β value was 0.010 (p > 0.05). Employees’ perception of corporate governance responsibility and sustainable behavior in employee roles had no significant impact; the β value was 0.104 (p > 0.05). This indicated that the higher the employees’ perception of the company’s environmental and social responsibility, the higher the employee’s participation in sustainable behavior. Employees’ perception of corporate environmental and social responsibility had a positive and significant impact on employees’ sustainable behavior; the β value was 0.219 (p < 0.001), achieving a significant effect. Employees’ perception of corporate economic responsibility and sustainable behavior outside of employee roles had no significant impact; the β value was 0.038 (p > 0.05). Employees’ perception of corporate governance responsibility and sustainable behavior outside the role of employees had a positive and significant impact; the β value was 0.186 (p < 0.01), which was a significant effect, indicating that employees perceive the environment. The higher the sustainable responsibility in social and corporate governance, the more it can influence employees’ attitudes towards sustainable behavior. Therefore, H3 was verified: employees’ perception of corporate sustainability responsibility has a significant positive impact on employee sustainability behavior (see

Table 6. The regression parameters of corporate sustainable rewards predict employees’ perception of corporate sustainable accountability (n = 345).

		Employee Sustainability
		In-Role Sustainable Behavior			Out-of-Role Sustainable Behavior			Total
		B	SE B	β	B	SE B	β	B	SE B	β
Employees’ Perception of Corporate Sustainability Responsibility	Environment and Society	0.343 ***	049	0.249 ***	0.218 ***	0.056	0.219 ***	0.280 ***	0.045	0.337 ***
	Economical	0.010	0.048	0.010	0.039	0.054	0.038	0.024	0.044	0.028
	Corporate Governance	0.078	0.040	0.104	0.153 **	0.046	0.186 **	0.116 **	0.037	0.168 **
$R^2$		0.188			0.123			0.194
$Adj{R}^2$		0.181			0.116			0.187
F		26.388 ***			15.996 ***			27.388 ***

Note: ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001.

).

4.4.4. Corporate Sustainable Training Impacts Employees’ Sustainable Behavior

The regression analysis results for sustainable education and training and employee behavior provided a β value for sustainable education and training and employee role sustainable behavior of 0.276 (p < 0.001). This indicates that enterprise-funded sustainable education and training has a significant impact on employee role behavior. Sustainable behavior has a positive impact; hence, the more companies attach importance to sustainable education and training, the more employees are willing to participate in sustainable behavior and responsibility. Perpetual education and training and employees’ sustainable behavior outside their roles also had a significant effect, with a β value of 0.180 (p < 0.01). The more companies attach importance to sustainable education and training, the better the employees’ sustainable behavior outside their roles. Therefore, H4 was verified: corporate sustainable education and training has a significant positive impact on employees’ sustainable behavior (see

Table 7. The regression parameters of corporate sustainable training predict employees’ sustainable behavior (n = 345).

	Employee Sustainability
	In-Role Sustainable Behavior			Out-of-Role Sustainable Behavior			Total
	B	SE B	β	B	SE B	β	B	SE B	β
Sustainable Education and Training	0.280 ***	0.053	0.276 ***	0.200 **	0.059	0.180 **	0.24 **	0.0490	0.257 **
$R^2$	0.076			0.032			0.066
$Adj{R}^2$	0.73			0.029			0.064
F	28.281 ***			11.443 **			24.234 ***

Note: ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001.

).

4.4.5. Corporate Sustainable Rewards Impact Employees’ Sustainable Behavior

The regression analysis results for perpetual rewards and employee perpetual behavior show that monetary perpetual rewards had no significant relationship with perpetual behavior in employee roles. Non-monetary perpetual rewards had a significant relationship with perpetual behavior in the employee role; the β value was 0.246 (p < 0.001), with a significant effect. Therefore, the more non-monetary perpetual rewards offered by enterprises, the more employees tend to actively participate in sustainable behaviors at work. Monetary perpetual rewards had no significant relationship with perpetual behavior outside employee roles; the β value was −0.044 (p > 0.05), with no significant effect. Non-monetary rewards had no significant effect on perpetual behavior outside employee roles. There was a significant relationship; the β value was 0.431 (p < 0.001), which means that when the company attaches more importance to non-monetary sustainable rewards, the employee’s sustainable behavior outside the role is better. Non-monetary rewards have a positive impact on employee perpetual behavior. H5 was verified: A corporate perpetual reward system has a significant positive impact on employee perpetual behavior (see

Table 8. The regression parameters of corporate sustainable rewards predict employees’ sustainable behavior (n = 345).

		Employee Sustainability
		In-Role Sustainable Behavior			Out-of-Role Sustainable Behavior			Total
		B	SE B	β	B	SE B	β	B	SE B	β
Sustainable Rewards	Monetary	0.040	0.052	0.049	−0.033	0.045	−0.044	0.004	0.042	0.006
	Non-Monetary	0.226 ***	0.059	0.246 ***	0.360 ***	0.051	0.431 ***	0.293 ***	0.047	0.381 ***
$R^2$		0.077			0.165			0.148
$Adj{R}^2$		0.072			0.160			0.143
F		14.341 ***			33.865 ***			29.695 ***

Note: *** p < 0.001.

).

4.4.6. The Verification of Mediating Effects

The confidence interval of 0.240 for the total effect of sustainable education and training on employees’ sustainable behavior did not include 0, meaning that it reached a significant level. The confidence interval for the direct effect of 0.054 also did not include 0, reaching a significant level. The indirect effect of sustainable education and training on employees’ perception of corporate sustainable responsibility impacting employees’ sustainable behavior was 0.186. The results show that in the 95% confidence interval, the upper and lower bounds did not contain 0, and there was an indirect effect. H6 was verified: employees’ perception of corporate sustainability responsibility has a mediating effect on the relationship between corporate sustainability education and employee sustainability behavior.

For employees’ perception of corporate sustainability responsibility impacting sustainable rewards and sustainable behaviors, the confidence interval of the total effect of 0.275 did not include 0, reaching a significant level, and the confidence interval of the direct effect of 0.121 did not include 0, reaching a significant level. The indirect effect of sustainable rewards on employees’ sustainable behavior through employees’ perception of corporate sustainable responsibility was 0.154. The results show that in the 95% confidence interval, the upper and lower bounds did not contain 0, and there was an indirect effect. H7 was verified: employees’ perception of corporate sustainability responsibility has a mediating effect on the relationship between corporate sustainability rewards and employee sustainability behavior (see Figure 2).

Hypothesis 1: After data analysis and verification, we found that there was a significant positive relationship between sustainable education and training and employees’ perception of corporate sustainable responsibility. The results of this study are similar to the findings of [17], who suggested that, in addition to providing sustainable knowledge, green-related education and training also represents a company’s commitment to the environment and society. Education and training can improve employees knowledge of sustainability, which strengthens their awareness of sustainability. Attaching importance to sustainability education and training integrates it into corporate culture, not only to achieve knowledge dissemination, but also to make employees feel that the future goal of the company is to create a better environment, society, and economic vision, and to contribute and assist.

Hypothesis 2: The positive and significant relationship between sustainable rewards and employees’ perception of corporate sustainable responsibility was verified. The more emphasis on sustainable rewards, the higher the employees’ perception of corporate sustainable responsibility. When companies establish good policies to reward employees, non-monetary rewards in particular can make employees more aware of the sustainable responsibility of the company. Modern people are less responsive to monetary rewards; non-monetary rewards are more effective. Offering vacations, showing appreciation, etc., means that employees can achieve a balance between life and work, and also gain recognition and a sense of accomplishment at work.

Hypothesis 3: There is a positive and significant relationship between employees’ perception of corporate sustainability and sustainable behavior. When employees feel more strongly about corporate sustainability, they demonstrate sustainable behavior. The research results also reveal that employees’ perception of corporate sustainable responsibility has a positive and significant impact on both in-role and out-of-role sustainable behavior, indicating that when employees of an enterprise deeply feel the enterprise’s sustainable responsibility, it not only affects their sustainable behavior within the role, but also affects their persistent behavior outside of the role. The results of this study are not only consistent with those of Chen [43], but are also similar to those demonstrated by Tosti-Kharas et al. [8]. When employees believe that their organization values sustainability, they also actively implement environment organizational citizenship behavior. Therefore, when employees feel more strongly about the sustainable responsibility of the company, they are more willing to ask the company to show sustainable behavior.

Hypothesis 4: Sustainable education and training have a positive and significant relationship with sustainable behavior. This result is consistent with Ramsey and Ricksen [75], who found that environmental education can change human behavior, in addition to teaching human-related knowledge; the result is also consistent with Pellegrini et al. However, the results of the different studies do not exhibit a positive significant relationship, which may be due to them being derived from different research objects.

Hypothesis 5: Sustainable rewards had a positive and significant relationship with sustainable behavior. If a company implements a good reward policy in terms of sustainability, employees show increased sustainable behavior. This result is consistent with Dahlmann et al. [37]. Rewards can motivate employees to practice sustainable behaviors. The results of the analysis showed that non-monetary rewards can significantly affect employees’ sustainable behaviors. This result is similar to the research results of Ramus [33], who found that daily encouragement and praise is important to prompt employees to solve environmental problems. Recognition and appreciation by supervisors or peers at work can provide employees with a strong sense of accomplishment, and offering employees travel subsidies can also help employees build good interpersonal relationships and increase their quality of life, which may be more attractive to employees than bonuses.

Hypothesis 6 and Hypothesis 7: Employees’ perception of corporate sustainability had a mediating effect on sustainable education and training and sustainable behavior, as well as sustainable rewards and sustainable behavior. This indicates that both sustainable education and training and sustainable rewards will be perceived by workers, and that sustainable responsibility affects sustainable behavior.

5. Conclusions and Suggestions

5.1. Conclusions

• Employee training has a positive impact on sustainable behavior, and non-monetary rewards have a more positive impact on employees’ sustainable behavior than monetary rewards. These are important findings of this study, and no such effects have been found in previous studies.
• Investing in sustainable training and sustainable rewards has a correlation with employees’ perception of corporate sustainable responsibility, indicating that enterprises should attach great importance to sustainable education and training and rewards. They can also fulfil their commitment to employees and the environment by offering incentives.
• In exploring the impact of corporate sustainability training, corporate sustainability rewards, and employees’ perception of corporate sustainability responsibility on corporate employees’ sustainable behavior individually, we found positive associations for all of the abovementioned variables. According to the impact of sustainable training, sustainable rewards, and employees’ perception of corporate sustainable responsibility on employees’ sustainable behavior, we found that if enterprises use complete and systematic training activities, from needs assessment to effectiveness evaluation, they can improve employee sustainable behavior. Both monetary and non-monetary rewards support employees’ sustainable behavior. The corporate sustainability responsibility perceived by employees, and the motivation for employees’ sustainable behavior at the level of psychological cognition, are important influencing factors.
• Sustainability training measures and sustainable incentive measures, both of which affect employees’ sustainable behavior through employees’ perception of corporate sustainability responsibility, show that sustainable training and sustainable incentives not only directly affect employees’ sustainable behavior, but also improve employees’ awareness of corporate sustainability. The sustainable sense of responsibility of the enterprise further improves the sustainable behavior of employees. Therefore, the perception of employees’ establishment of sustainable responsibility in the enterprise can have a great effect, enhancing employees’ sustainable behavior. This highlights the influential effect of an important intermediary, and is worthy of further application in practice.

5.2. Suggestions

5.2.1. Future Research

We suggest that further research could expand the scope of the firm size, so that the research results can be generalized to different industries’ statuses. Past studies have found concrete evidence that better regulatory actions towards the performance of managers are rewarded with fewer financial defaults [81]. The cross-sectional design used in this study was not able to take the company’s implementation of sustainability into consideration. This study could be added to other research in the future to explore whether the implementation time can affect the performance of employees’ sustainability behavior. The issue of sustainable development has attracted increasing attention from enterprises. The issue of carbon neutrality has also become a hot topic. Employees could play an important role in supporting sustainability. Therefore, connecting internal stakeholders with corporate sustainability has become important, and the results of this study could be used as a reference for subsequent related research. Furthermore, sequential processes of qualitative methodology were followed to obtain the hierarchical levels of CSF [82]. Adopting qualitative methods to explore the critical influence factors of employees’ sustainable behavior, such as collecting employees’ opinion with in-depth interviews, could be of value.

Through this research, enterprises can realize the importance of human resource management to achieve sustainability, allowing them to establish good strategies based on human resources to encourage employees’ sustainable behavior. Employees are the most important stakeholders of enterprises, and the sustainable operation of enterprises requires long-term efforts on behalf of the employees to form a culture of sustainable values.

5.2.2. Management Practice Impact

The findings of our study have several practical implications for different dimensions. We discussed the theoretical implications, as well as practical implications, for managers seeking to encourage sustainability behavior in organizations. Since CSR and ESG transformation have been emphasized in the media, branding, including the employer’s brand, to establish a sharing culture within the enterprise, represents the transformation of the enterprise into a more sustainable context. An important issue is how to truly implement sustainability in enterprises, which will test enterprise managers and human resources departments.

For an enterprise to operate sustainably, employees play a key role. A company’s human capital development, talent cultivation, and other aspects are all assessed by DJSI for their sustainable development capability. Many employees do not think that sustainability has anything to do with them. If a company incorporates sustainability into training, it can help employees understand the importance of sustainability. Sustainable responsibility, in this way, can also affirm the practice of sustainable development of enterprises. In addition to creating a friendly workplace to attract talented individuals to stay, business operators can cultivate colleagues’ awareness of sustainability through education and training, so that it can be internalized into everyone’s practice in the workplace and life, which will help organizations achieve more with less effort in terms of promoting sustainability.

In recent years, many companies have put a lot of effort into the implementation of sustainability issues, adhering to the vision of improving the corporate sustainability of society, and many large companies continue to bring positive changes to the world through concrete actions. The results of this study show that monetary rewards are more attractive to employees than non-monetary rewards to encourage engagement in sustainable behaviors. The reason for this may be that with the rise of people’s awareness of sustainability, employees are also more aware of the importance of work–life balance. Therefore, it is recommended that enterprises provide travel subsidies and/or increase the number of employee vacation days to encourage employees to participate in sustainable activities, such as beach cleaning, volunteering, etc. Companies could also hold more activities or competitions related to sustainable performance, so that employees can also implement sustainable development in their daily work. When employees are praised and recognized in public, it makes employees feel more fulfilled, which not only enhances their willingness to stay, but also builds a good corporate image.

5.3. Limitations

This research was constrained by time and practical feasibility. According to the 2021 “World Sustainable Citizenship Award” survey conducted by CommonWealth Magazine, with reference to international indicators and evaluation methods, it integrates four major dimensions, “Corporate Governance”, “Corporate Commitment” “, “Social Participation”, and “Environmental Sustainability”, selecting Taiwan’s Best Sustainable Enterprise as the parent.

This research invited the head of the Corporate Sustainability Department, including the writer of the social responsibility report, and their colleagues in the sustainability management consulting industry, to respond to the online questionnaire. The division of responsibilities of employees in each company may vary due to different work content or situation, and the job titles are also different. It was impossible to take into account all industries and positions.

For this study, we adopted a cross-sectional design because the interviewed companies had different introduction timings, and it was impossible to control the impact of the introduction duration of different companies.