Next Article in Journal
Quantification of Arsenic in Soil Samples Collected in an Industrial Area of Brindisi (Apulia, Italy): Speciation Analysis and Availability
Next Article in Special Issue
Enhancing Organizational Resilience: The Transformative Influence of Strategic Human Resource Management Practices and Organizational Culture
Previous Article in Journal
Quantitative Investigation of Fracture Apertures during Temporary Plugging and Diverting Fracturing
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sustainability
Volume 15
Issue 20
10.3390/su152014665
sustainability-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Antecedents and Consequences of Labor Relations Climate Perception: An Investigation of a Moderated Mediation Model

by
Lu Wu
1,
Lihua Wei
2,
Lei Zhao
3 and
Yimo Shen
1,*
1
Faculty of Psychology, Southwest University, Chongqing 400715, China
2
School of Literature and Journalism & Communication, Chongqing College of Humanities, Science & Technology, Chongqing 401524, China
3
School of Foreign Languages and Literatures, Chongqing University of Education, Chongqing 400065, China
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2023, 15(20), 14665; https://doi.org/10.3390/su152014665
Submission received: 24 August 2023 / Revised: 9 September 2023 / Accepted: 8 October 2023 / Published: 10 October 2023
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Leadership and Human Resource Management in Sustainable Economic Development)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Previous researchers have yet to examine the antecedents and consequences of labor relations climate perception. Drawing from social information processing theory, we utilize psychological contract breach (PCB) as a negative environment input that diminishes employees’ perceived harmonious labor relations climate, which in turn affects employee outcomes (task performance, organization identification, and turnover intention); meanwhile, this indirect relationship is moderated by benevolent leadership. The results of the analysis of 284 questionnaires obtained from a multi-time, multi-source field survey supported our proposed moderated mediation model. This research contributes to revealing the critical role of psychological contracts in developing a labor relations climate and expands knowledge and understanding of the labor relations climate.

1. Introduction

In recent years, China has witnessed frequent labor relations conflicts, including notable incidents such as Foxconn’s “Thirteen Jumps” and Honda’s “Strike”, which have prompted significant societal concern. These occurrences underscore the diverse subjects and interests within China’s labor relations landscape. The quality and harmony of labor relations are intricately linked to what we refer to as the labor relations climate—essentially, how employees perceive the state of labor relations within an organization [1,2]. A positive and harmonious labor relations climate has been proven to enhance organizational performance and reduce employee turnover [2,3]. Conversely, a hostile climate can have detrimental effects on employee attitudes and behaviors [4]. Hence, fostering and improving a harmonious labor relations climate is imperative for organizations aiming to achieve peace, cooperation, and sustainable development.
The backdrop of the knowledge economy and globalized competition has compelled organizations to adapt their hiring and management strategies. For instance, some scholars propose that promoting harmonious labor relations can be realized through strategies such as participatory management [5], union practices [6], and partnership approaches [7,8]. Nevertheless, the dynamic nature of the business environment introduces a sense of uncertainty. Failure to align employees’ expectations with evolving realities can lead to negative assessments, dissatisfaction, and conflicts, ultimately culminating in a breach of the psychological contract [9]. While scholars emphasize the significance of the psychological contract as the foundation for labor relations [10], and favor a subjective, dynamic, and personalized psychological contract over a regulated one for governing labor relations [11], empirical research exploring how psychological contracts affect employees’ perceptions of the labor relations climate remains scarce.
To address this gap, we draw upon the social information processing theory [12] to investigate how psychological contract breach (PCB) influences employees’ perceptions of the labor relations climate, subsequently impacting their attitudes and behaviors. Social information processing theory posits that environmental cues provide social information capable of shaping an individual’s psychology and behavior [12]. In the workplace context, PCB sends a message to employees that their efforts may not be adequately rewarded under the current reward system, leading to heightened uncertainty and a sense of losing control over their future [13]. This, in turn, can result in more negative attitudes toward the labor relations climate and manifest in negative behaviors, including reduced task performance, weakened organization identification, and an increased intention to leave. Consequently, we propose, within the framework of social information processing theory, that PCB represents a negative and disheartening work event [14] that diminishes employees’ perception of the labor relations climate, indirectly affecting their attitudes and behaviors (i.e., task performance, organization identification, and turnover intention).
In the Chinese context, labor relations often exhibit unique “Chinese characteristics” that differentiate them from labor relations in other nations [15,16]. Chinese trade unions frequently seek to build cooperative relationships with management to further the objectives of the Party state in promoting a harmonious society. Given their dual role as representatives of both management and the union, leaders play a pivotal role in shaping and maintaining a harmonious cognitive representation of labor relations, which subsequently translates into tangible outcomes in terms of employee attitudes and behavior [17,18,19]. Moreover, deeply entrenched cultural traits of Confucianism, such as high-power distance, a long-term orientation, an emphasis on “harmony”, and the importance of personal relationships and social obligations, continue to exert influence in Chinese society [20]. Benevolent leaders demonstrate care and support for employees’ work and personal lives, thereby cultivating an environment that instills a heightened sense of certainty and control among employees [21]. Consequently, this benevolent leadership style may serve to mitigate the adverse effects of PCB on employees’ perceptions of the labor relations climate.
To sum up, this article centers on the impact of PCB on employees’ perception of a harmonious labor relations climate within the Chinese context. It contributes to the literature by examining the formation of employees’ perceptions of the labor relations climate through the lens of the psychological contract. Additionally, it highlights the moderating role of benevolent leadership in alleviating the negative consequences of PCB on employees’ perceptions of the labor relations climate.

2. Literature Review and Hypotheses

2.1. Social Information Processing Theory

Social information processing theory, centers on how individuals gather, interpret, and employ social cues to shape their perceptions, attitudes, and behaviors [12]. In an organizational context, employees rely on this information processing to assess and comprehend their work environment, encompassing social interactions with supervisors, colleagues, and the organization at large. By processing and deciphering these informational cues, employees establish the links between behavior and consequences, as well as between behavior and attitudes. This, in turn, allows them to grasp the norms prevailing in the workplace and anticipate the organization’s likely response to their actions [22]. Consequently, the information conveyed through PCB empowers employees to construct an understanding of the organizational climate and subsequently adapt their attitudes and behaviors accordingly.
Furthermore, in environments characterized by heightened ambiguity and uncertainty, individuals tend to proactively seek out relevant cues that can alleviate uncertainty and facilitate predictions about the future, enabling them to better adapt to external environmental shifts [12]. Given that leader behavior serves as the organization’s voice [23], it plays a pivotal role in shaping employees’ assessments of the information conveyed by the organization [24]. To sum up, grounded in the Social Information Processing Theory, this study delves into the repercussions of PCB on employees’ perceptions of the labor relations climate, subsequently influencing their attitudes and behaviors. Additionally, it scrutinizes the moderating impact of benevolent leadership within this indirect process.

2.2. PCB, Labor Relations Climate Perception, and Employee Outcomes

The labor relations climate pertains to the perceived level of harmony, respect, and openness in the relationship between trade unions and organizations [25]. In contrast to Western trade unions, Chinese trade unions adopt a hierarchical structure and function as an extension of the Party state [26]. They often seek to establish a cooperative rapport with management to advance the Party state’s objective of fostering a harmonious society [27]. According to Hu et al. [28], Chinese trade unions engage with management on a frequent and routine basis as an integral facet of their daily operations. These interactions primarily aim to bolster employee resources and motivation, ultimately enhancing the bond between employees and organizations and elevating perceptions of employment quality.
Within the realm of labor relations research, aspects such as organizational management practices, employment terms, labor organization, and work-related matters, including disputes and conflicts, are perceived by employees as sources of social information input. Through the process of information processing, these inputs evolve into perceptions of the labor relations climate, which significantly impact employees’ work attitudes and behaviors [4]. Employees establish expectations and obligations for both parties involved in labor relations, thus forging mutual agreements and constraints within the psychological contract. In the process of motivating employees, organizations typically operate on the premise of fulfilling specific employee needs. Consequently, employees determine their orientation toward the organization based on the extent to which their expectations and needs align with the organization’s actions, thereby influencing their work attitudes and behaviors [29].
PCB arises when a disparity emerges between the organization’s actual fulfillment of obligations and the employees’ expected obligations [30]. PCB conveys a clear message to employees: the organization neglects their well-being and value, disregarding their contributions [31]. This inevitably erodes employees’ trust in the organizational reward system [32]. Simultaneously, it fosters uncertainty, a sense of lost control over the future, and apprehensions about their current organizational standing [13]. Consequently, it hinders the establishment of a harmonious relationship between individuals and the organization and can exacerbate contradictions and conflicts in this relationship. This, in turn, leads to a more negative perception of the labor relations climate among employees [27].
Existing research suggests that individuals’ perceptions of the labor relations climate significantly influence their attitudes and behaviors [3]. The more harmonious the perceived relationship, the more motivated individuals are to align their personal goals (or expectations regarding the organization’s external and internal environment) with the organization’s objectives. This motivation prompts them to engage in behaviors congruent with management’s goals [3]. Employees who perceive a higher degree of harmonious labor relations climate are more likely to exhibit enhanced task performance, organization identification, and reduced turnover intention.
Hypothesis 1 (a–c).
Employees’ labor relations climate perception partially mediates the relationships between PCB and employee (a) task performance, (b) organization identification, and (c) turnover intention.

2.3. The Moderating Role of Benevolent Leadership

Since relationships form the bedrock of leadership, the leader’s proximity to and frequency of interactions with employees may influence whether the leader serves as a valuable resource for employees seeking information about their workplace [19]. Effective leadership behavior plays a pivotal role in diminishing role conflicts within organizations and kindling employees’ sustained work enthusiasm, a key factor in achieving outstanding organizational performance [33].
Notably, benevolent leaders, who serve as advocates for organizational interests [23], engage in individual, comprehensive, and enduring acts of grace and care (including individualized support and compassionate forgiveness, among other actions) toward subordinates and their families. This approach offers an avenue for redressing losses and reshaping attitudes toward the organization [21]. Consequently, we posit that benevolent leadership can ameliorate the detrimental effects of PCBs on employees’ perceptions of the labor relations climate.
From a cultural perspective deeply rooted in Confucianism, Chinese society still exhibits traditional cultural traits such as high-power distance, long-term orientation, the pursuit of harmony, and a strong emphasis on personal relationships and social obligations [20]. Benevolent leaders exhibit greater care and concern for employees’ work and personal lives, which elicits a sense of gratitude from the employees [21]. In situations where perceived PCB leads to negative emotional experiences, such as anger, frustration, or more broadly, feelings of aggression or mistrust [14], benevolent leaders create a safe psychological environment for employees, helping to alleviate negative emotions [27]. This minimizes the potential for misunderstandings, resentment, and conflicts between employees and employers. Secondly, benevolent leadership often encourages employees to tolerate and understand short-term company adjustments without questioning the quality of the employer-employee relationship. This approach discourages destructive behaviors and attitudes in response to PCB. Thirdly, in cases of PCB, benevolent leadership facilitates sound decision making that considers both individual members and the collective interest. Employees are more inclined to attribute the cause of PCB to external factors, viewing it as a result of circumstances beyond the organization’s control, rather than a failure to fulfill the psychological contract as promised [34].
In contrast, in environments with low levels of benevolent leadership, interactions between leaders and subordinates are purely transactional, focused solely on economic exchanges [35]. Compensation is based strictly on the terms of the labor contract, disregarding the psychological contract [36]. When employees experience PCB and leaders fail to provide timely care, support, and explanations, employees perceive a lack of value within the organization, leading to stronger blame placed on the organization. Consequently, employees experiencing PCB struggle to adjust their personal expectations, leading to negative judgments, dissatisfaction, reduced task performance, weakened organizational identification, and increased turnover intention. Consequently, this study proposes the following:
Hypothesis 2.
The relationship between PCB and labor relations climate perception is moderated by benevolent leadership, such that the relationship would be weaker when benevolent leadership is higher rather than lower.
Up to this point, we have developed a theoretical framework for the contingent effects of benevolent leadership as well as the mediating effect of perceptions of the labor relations climate. In order to combine PCB and employee outcomes, hypothesis 1 suggests that the perception of the labor relations climate plays a mediating role. In contrast, hypothesis 2 suggests that benevolent leadership can attenuate the negative correlation between PCB and labor relations climate perception. A moderated mediation model is suggested by the integration of the rationales for the hypotheses [37]. In particular, when benevolent leadership is higher rather than lower, the indirect impact of PCB on employee outcomes (i.e., task performance, turnover intention, and organizational identification) is less substantially negative.
Hypothesis 3 (a–c).
Benevolent leadership moderates the indirect effect of PCB on employee (a) task performance, (b) organization identification and, (c) turnover intention through labor relations climate perception, such that the indirect relationship is weaker when the benevolent leadership is relatively high.
The theoretical framework of this study is shown in Figure 1.

3. Method

3.1. Participants and Procedure

This study collected data through a questionnaire survey conducted at a pharmaceutical manufacturing company. The biotechnology industry is often referred to as the “everlasting sunrise industry”, symbolizing technological excellence and talent. Since the onset of the pandemic, China has emerged as one of the most adept countries in addressing the COVID-19 crisis, leveraging its accumulated expertise in biomedicine. China effectively adapted to the challenges and repercussions of the pandemic. In the post-pandemic landscape, the Chinese pharmaceutical industry is compelled to transition from an imitation-based strategy to one centered on innovation, aimed at capturing a larger market share. In response to these challenges, pharmaceutical companies may need to make adjustments to their recruitment and management policies. Such adjustments can sometimes have a temporary impact on employee well-being, potentially leading to employee PCB.
Prior to administrating the survey, we initiated communication with the company’s human resources department personnel. Subsequently, we requested their assistance in contacting department heads. Upon receiving consent from each department head, we selected one to three employees from each department to participate in our questionnaire survey. To minimize the influence of common methodological bias, we administered the questionnaire at two separate time points. The first stage took place in March 2023. During this stage, employees were asked to complete scales assessing PCB, benevolent leadership, and labor relations climate perception. Additionally, they were requested to provide demographic information, including gender, age, education level, duration of working with their immediate supervisor, and length of tenure. The second stage occurred in June 2023, during which employees were asked to complete scales measuring turnover intention and organization identification. Each employee’s supervisor was also tasked with rating the employee’s task performance. As a token of appreciation for their participation, each subject received a small gift.
A total of 300 questionnaires were distributed, and after removing invalid samples (e.g., instances of mismatched supervisors and employees, missing critical variables), we obtained 284 valid responses. Of the valid responses, 48.2% were from male participants, 62.3% had specialized education or higher qualifications, 48.6% were under 30 years old, 65.5% had worked with their immediate supervisors for over a year, and 71.8% had been with the company for less than three years.

3.2. Measures

All measures were originally developed in English and underwent a double-blind back-translation procedure [38]. A consistent response scale was employed, ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree).
PCB: The PCB measure utilized a 5-item scale developed by Robinson and Wolfe Morrison [39], with statements such as “My employer has not fulfilled its promises to me effectively” (reverse coded; α = 0.95).
Labor relations climate perception: The measure for labor relations climate perception was adapted from Wu [40] and consisted of 7 items. Sample statements include “The relationship between workers and management in this organization is hostile” (reverse coded; α = 0.83).
Benevolent leadership: To assess benevolent leadership, a 5-item scale developed by Cheng et al. [21] was employed. This scale is commonly used in Chinese contexts [41]. An example statement is “My supervisor demonstrates concern about my daily life”. Benevolent leadership was considered an individual-level variable in the Chinese cultural context [34] (α = 0.85).
Turnover intention: Turnover intention was measured using a 3-item scale developed by Hom and Griffeth [42]. An example statement is “I frequently contemplate leaving my job” (α = 0.83).
Task performance: Task performance was assessed using a 3-item scale adapted from Farh et al. [43]. The criteria evaluated by supervisors included (1) work quality, (2) work efficiency, and (3) achievement of work objectives (α = 0.92).
Organization identification: Organizational identification was measured using a 6-item scale created by Mael and Ashford [44]. Sample items include “When discussing my organization, I generally use ‘we’ instead of ‘they’”. (α = 0.77).
Control variables: Control variables included gender, age, education level, work type, duration of working with supervisors, and organizational tenure. These variables were considered due to their known associations with task performance, organization identification, turnover intention [45,46,47], and labor relations climate [6].

4. Results

4.1. Confirmatory Factor Analyses

Confirmatory factor analyses were conducted using LISREL 8.8 to test the fit of the data to the model and the discriminant validity of the variables. The analysis results are shown in Table 1, and the six-factor model fits optimally (χ2 = 1045.15, df = 390, RMASE = 0.08, NNFI = 0.92, CFI = 0.93). The fit coefficients were better than those of the other several models, indicating good discriminant validity among the variables.
In this study, standardized factor loading, composite reliability (CR), and average variance extraction (AVE) were utilized as indicators of convergent validity. The analysis conducted using LISERL 8.8 software indicated that the standardized factor loading coefficients for all items were predominantly greater than 0.5. The AVE values for the six research variables were as follows: PCB (0.77), labor relations climate perception (0.46), benevolent leadership (0.55), task performance (0.80), organization identification (0.39), and turnover intention (0.63). Correspondingly, the CR values were 0.94, 0.85, 0.86, 0.92, 0.79, and 0.83, respectively. Following Fornell et al.’s [48] research, it is worth noting that if the AVE value is less than 0.5 but the corresponding CR exceeds 0.6, the model’s convergent validity is still considered satisfactory. Therefore, the convergent validity of the four variables is deemed acceptable.
To evaluate discriminant validity, this study employed LISERL 8.8 software. The absolute values of the correlation coefficients between the variables were found to be lower than the square root of the corresponding AVE values. This outcome, as shown in Table 2, confirms the presence of good discriminant validity. These findings provide a robust foundation for subsequent research.

4.2. Descriptive Statistics

Table 3 shows the variables’ standard deviation, mean, reliability, and correlation coefficients. As can be seen from Table 3, PCB is significantly related to labor relations climate perception (r = −0.37, p < 0.01), task performance (r = −0.16, p < 0.01), and organization identification (r = −0.22, p < 0.01) and positively correlated with turnover intention (r = 0.45, p < 0.01); labor relations climate perception was significantly positively correlated with task performance (r = 0.19, p < 0.01) and organization identification (r = 0.31, p < 0.01) and significantly negatively correlated with turnover intention (r = −0.41, p < 0.01).

4.3. Hypothesis Testing

To validate the full model, this study used MPLUS 8.3. It utilized the Edwards and Lambert’s [37] path analysis method to test the hypotheses and the Bootstrap method (bootstrap = 5000) to confirm the significance of the mediating effect and the mediating effect with moderation. The results are shown in Table 4. PCB had significant indirect effects on task performance (indirect effect = −0.05, SE = 0.02, 95% CI = [−0.09, −0.01]), organization identification (indirect effect = −0.05, SE = 0.02, 95% CI = [−0.08, −0.02]), and turnover intention (indirect effect = 0.09, SE = 0.03, 95% CI = [0.04, 0.13]) through labor relations climate perception. These findings support Hypothesis 1 (a–c).
In Hypothesis 2, this study hypothesized that benevolent leadership moderates the relationship between PCB and labor relations climate perception. The results are shown in Table 4. After controlling for employees’ gender, age, education, working time with supervisor, tenure, and the main effects of PCB and benevolent leadership, the interaction term between PCB and benevolent leadership was a significant predictor of labor relations climate perception (b = 0.10, SE = 0.04, t = 2.61, p < 0.01). Simple slope tests, as shown in Figure 2, demonstrate that when benevolent leadership is high (1 SD above the mean), the negative correlation between PCB and labor relations climate perception is weaker (b = −0.10, ns) than when benevolent leadership is low (1 SD below the mean; b = −0.29, p < 0.001).
Finally, Hypothesis 3 (a–c) proposed that the indirect relationship between PCB affect employee outcomes through labor relations climate perception would be moderated by benevolent leadership. The results of the analysis are shown in Table 5. From Table 5, it can be seen that when the level of benevolent leadership is high, the indirect relationships between labor relations climate perception in PCB and employee outcomes were not significant (task performance: indirect effect = −0.03, SE = 0.02, 95% CI = [−0.06, 0.01]; organization identification: indirect effect = −0.03, SE = 0.02, 95% CI = [−0.05, 0.01]; turnover intention: indirect effect = 0.04, SE = 0.02, 95% CI = [−0.004, 0.09]); and when the level of benevolent leadership was lower, the indirect relationships between labor relations climate perception in the PCB and work outcomes were stronger (task performance: indirect effect = −0.08, SE = 0.03, 95% CI = [−0.14, −0.02]; organization identification: indirect effect = −0.07, SE = 0.02, 95% CI = [−0.12, −0.02]. 95% CI = [−0.13, −0.04]; turnover intention: indirect effect = 0.13, SE = 0.04, 95% CI = [0.06, 0.20]); the difference between the high and low group indirect effects were equally significant (task performance: difference = 0.05, SE = 0.03, 95% CI = [0.00, 0.11]; organization identification: difference = 0.05, SE = 0.02, 95% CI = [0.01, 0.10]; and turnover intention: difference = −0.09, SE = 0.04, 95% CI = [−0.16, −0.01]). These findings support Hypothesis 3 (a–c).

5. Discussion

Based on the social information processing theory, this study employed the two-stage collection of 284 survey questionnaires from employees and their supervisors. This study identified PCB emerges as a detrimental social input that erodes employees’ perception of a harmonious labor relations climate, ultimately triggering a cascade effect on their attitudes and behaviors, encompassing task performance, organization identification, and turnover intention. Crucially, benevolent leadership, a hallmark of Chinese leadership styles, emerges as a potent moderator, mitigating the adverse effects of PCB on labor relations climate perception and, consequently, on these employee outcomes.

5.1. Theoretical Contributions

Firstly, this study illuminates the intricate dynamics between PCB and labor relations climate perception, contributing to a deeper understanding of the causes and implications of labor relations climate perception [49]. While prior research has acknowledged the significance of psychological contracts in shaping the perceived labor climate, there remains a paucity of studies that have directly scrutinized the impact of PCB on labor relations climate perception [50]. Our findings corroborate the assertions of scholars who argue that the labor relations climate is intrinsically intertwined with employees’ emotional states and fundamental needs [10,51]. By empirically demonstrating that unharmonious labor relations often stem from PCB, we shed light on the repercussions of this relationship, which encompass a dip in employee performance, a weakened sense of organizational identity, and an elevated propensity among employees to contemplate severing their labor relations.
Secondly, this study advances the literature by delving into the mediating role of labor relations climate perception in the relationship between PCB and crucial employee outcomes, namely task performance, organization identification, and turnover intention, all viewed through the lens of social information processing theory [52]. Departing from prior studies that primarily concentrated on the emotional fallout triggered by PCB [14], our research takes a distinctive perspective by focusing on the cognitive interpretations and information processing that occur in response to PCB. We provide empirical evidence to substantiate the premise that labor relations climate perceptions act as a conduit through which PCB exerts its influence on employee-related work outcomes. To our knowledge, this study represents an innovative extension to the existing body of work, enriching our comprehension of the underlying mechanisms that link PCB to employee-related work outcomes. Future research avenues may delve further into alternative mechanisms that shape the diverse repercussions of PCB.
Finally, our findings underscore the pivotal role of benevolent leadership, a quintessential leadership style in the Chinese context, in mitigating the adverse effects of PCB on labor relations climate and its subsequent consequences on task performance, organization identification, and turnover intention. This study builds upon the emerging discourse surrounding leaders’ responses to employees facing PCB, aligning with the call made by Lin et al. [53]. While earlier research has discerned that the quality of the leader-follower relationship (i.e., LMX) [23] and the provision of emotional support by leaders [53] can act as buffers against the detrimental impacts of PCB, our study spotlights the proactive role of benevolent leadership in nurturing a harmonious labor relations climate. Through the establishment of trust, the provision of support, and personalized care [36], benevolent leaders not only bolster their influence in shaping a harmonious labor relations climate but also underscore the strategic importance of leadership behavior in navigating organizational crises. This insight extends the spectrum of leadership behavior’s impact on organizational climate and underscores its value in crisis management [19,54].

5.2. Practical Implications

This study sheds light on the determinants and consequences of the labor relations climate, providing valuable insights for organizations seeking to cultivate and sustain positive labor relations. By implementing practical strategies, organizations can fortify the longevity of their employment practices and labor relations, thereby fostering increased employee satisfaction, engagement, and long-term success.
Firstly, organizations must prioritize the management of employees’ psychological contracts to foster a harmonious labor relations climate. Our findings underscore the significance of not only fulfilling tangible labor contracts but also nurturing the intangible psychological contracts. Effective management of these psychological contracts requires proactive and well-executed human resource practices. For instance, organizations should proactively communicate expectations and commitments to their employees, establish channels for open dialogue and feedback, nurture a workplace culture that is supportive and inclusive, and recognize and reward employee contributions.
Secondly, in response to the contemporary landscape of fierce competition and evolving external environments, many organizations must undergo changes in their management models, personnel structures, and employment relationships. These transformations elevate the risk of breaches in the psychological contract. Our study highlights the role of benevolent leadership in mitigating the adverse effects of PCB on employees’ perceptions of a harmonious labor relations climate, as well as their behavior and attitudes. Therefore, when fostering harmonious labor relations and addressing issues related to employees’ psychological contracts, organizations should not only focus on system establishment and implementation but also encourage leaders to cultivate enduring benevolence and care towards their subordinates. This is vital for establishing and nurturing a foundation of trust between the company and its employees, ultimately promoting the harmonious growth of the organization.

5.3. Limitations and Future Research Directions

Despite the valuable insights provided by our study, we must transparently address its limitations. Our research was conducted within the context of a single pharmaceutical manufacturing company in China. While this context allowed us to explore specific cultural nuances, it limits the generalizability of our findings to a broader context. Future research should strive to replicate these findings across diverse industries and cultural settings.
Moreover, although this study’s multi-time, multi-source approach reduced the risk of common method bias, this study could not make clear causal statements. Alternative research methods, such as interviews or observational studies, could provide a more comprehensive understanding of the phenomena under investigation.
Finally, this study did not explore the moderating role of personal traits. Individual differences (e.g., personality traits) are essential in the psychological contract process [55]. Future research could extend the results of the present study by exploring the critical role that other personal and contextual factors play in PCB and its attitudinal and behavioral changes.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, Y.S.; data curation, Y.S. and L.W. (Lu Wu); formal analysis, L.W. (Lu Wu); funding acquisition, Y.S.; investigation, Y.S.; methodology, Y.S.; project administration, Y.S.; resources, Y.S.; supervision, Y.S.; validation, Y.S.; writing—original draft preparation, L.W. (Lu Wu); writing—review and editing, Y.S., L.W. (Lu Wu), L.Z. and L.W. (Lihua Wei). All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was supported by the National Science Foundation of China (Grant Nos. 71872152), the Natural Science Foundation of Chongqing (Grant Nos. 2023NSCQ-MSX3303), the Social Science Foundation of Jiangxi Province (Grant Nos. 20GL06) and the Fundamental Research Funds for the Central University (Grant No. SWU2209241).

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in this study.

Data Availability Statement

The raw data supporting the conclusions of this article will be made available by the authors, without undue reservation.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Angle, H.L.; Perry, J.L. Dual commitment and labor-management relationship climates. Acad. Manag. J. 1986, 29, 31–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Lee, J. Company and union commitment: Evidence from an adversarial industrial relations climate at a Korean auto plant. Int. J. Hum. Resour. Man. 2004, 15, 1463–1480. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Deery, S.; Iverson, R.; Erwin, P. Industrial relations climate, attendance behaviour and the role of trade unions. Br. J. Ind. Relat. 1999, 37, 533–558. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Pohler, D.; Luchak, A. Are unions good or bad for organizations? The moderating role of management’s response. Br. J. Ind. Relat. 2015, 53, 423–459. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Wu, W.; Lee, Y. Participatory Management and Industrial Relations Climate: A Study of Chinese, Japanese and US Firms in Taiwan. Int. J. Hum. Resour. Manag. 2001, 5, 827–844. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Yang, L.; Zhang, Q.; Gong, H.; Cheng, Y. Cross-level effects of union practices on extra-role behaviors: The mediating role of industrial relations climate, union commitment and union instrumentality. Int. J. Manpow. 2023, 44, 133–151. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Valizade, D.; Ogbonnaya, C.; Tregaskis, O.; Forde, C. A mutual gains perspective on workplace partnership: Employee outcomes and the mediating role of the employment relations climate. Acad. Manag. Rev. 2016, 26, 351–368. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Xi, M.; Xu, Q.; Wang, X.; Zhao, S. Partnership practices, labor relations climate, and employee attitudes: Evidence from China. ILR Rev. 2017, 70, 1196–1218. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Deery, S.J.; Iverson, R.D.; Walsh, J.T. Toward a better understanding of psychological contract breach: A study of customer service employees. J. Appl. Psychol. 2006, 91, 166. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. McDermott, A.M.; Heffernan, M.; Beynon, M.J. When the nature of employment matters in the employment relationship: A cluster analysis of psychological contracts and organizational commitment in the non-profit sector. Int. J. Hum. Resour. Manag. 2013, 24, 1490–1518. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Sels, L.; Janssens, M.; Van Den Brande, I. Assessing the nature of psychological contracts: A validation of six dimensions. J. Organ. Behav. Int. J. Ind. Occup. Organ. Psychol. Behav. 2004, 25, 461–488. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Salancik, G.R.; Pfeffer, J. A social information processing approach to job attitudes and task design. Adm. Sci. Q. 1978, 23, 224–253. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Morsch, J.; van Dijk, D.; Kodden, B. The Impact of Perceived Psychological Contract Breach, Abusive Supervision, and Silence on Employee Well-being. J. Appl. Bus. Econ. 2020, 22, 1–17. [Google Scholar]
  14. Zhao, H.; Wayne, S.J.; Glibkowski, B.C.; Bravo, J. The impact of psychological contract breach on work-related outcomes: A meta-analysis. Pers. Psychol. 2007, 60, 647–680. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Zhu, Y.; Warner, M.; Feng, T. Employment relations “with Chinese characteristics”: The role of trade unions in China. Labor Res. Rev. 2011, 150, 127–143. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Ge, Y. Do CHINESE unions have “real” effects on employee compensation? Contemp. Econ. Policy 2014, 32, 187–202. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Balser, D.B.; Winkler, A.E. Worker behavior on the job: A multi-methods study of labor cooperation with management. J. Labor Res. 2012, 33, 388–413. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Eaton, S.C.; Rubinstein, S.A. Tracking local union involved in managerial decision-making. Labor Stud. J. 2008, 31, 1–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Fortin-Bergeron, C.; Doucet, O.; Hennebert, M.A. The role of management and trade union leadership on dual commitment: The mediating effect of the workplace relations climate. Hum. Resour. Manag. J. 2018, 28, 462–478. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Zhang, Y.; Zhang, Z. Guanxi and organizational dynamics in China: A link between individual and organizational levels. J. Bus. Ethics 2006, 67, 375–392. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Cheng, B.S.; Chou, L.F.; Wu, T.Y.; Huang, M.P.; Farh, J.L. Paternalistic leadership and subordinate responses: Establishing a leadership model in Chinese organizations. Indigen. Psychol. Res. Chin. Soc. 2003, 20, 209–252. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Yam, K.C.; Christian, M.S.; Wei, W.; Liao, Z.; Nai, J. The mixed blessing of leader sense of humor: Examining costs and benefits. Acad. Manag. J. 2018, 61, 348–369. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Dulac, T.; Coyle-Shapiro, J.A.; Henderson, D.J.; Wayne, S.J. Not all responses to breach are the same: The interconnection of social exchange and psychological contract processes in organizations. Acad. Manag. J. 2008, 51, 1079–1098. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Boekhorst, J.A. The role of authentic leadership in fostering workplace inclusion: A social information processing perspective. Hum. Resour. Manag. 2015, 54, 241–264. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Snape, E.D.; Redman, T. Industrial relations climate and union commitment: An evaluation of workplace-level effects. Ind. Relat. 2012, 51, 11–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Han, M.; Zhang, M.; Hu, E.; Shan, H. Decent work among rural-urban migrant workers in China: Evidence and challenges. Pers. Rev. 2023, 52, 916–932. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Newman, A.; Cooper, B.; Holland, P.; Miao, Q.; Teicher, J. How do industrial relations climate and union instrumentality enhance employee performance? The mediating effects of perceived job security and trust in management. Hum. Resour. Manag. 2019, 58, 35–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Hu, E.; Han, M.; Zhang, M.; Huang, L.; Shan, H. Union influence on change oriented organizational citizenship behavior: Evidence from China. Empl. Relat. 2023, 45, 387–401. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Aselage, J.; Eisenberger, R. Perceived organizational support and psychological contracts: A theoretical integration. J. Organ. Behav. J. Ind. Occup. Organ. Psychol. Behav. 2003, 24, 491–509. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Morrison, E.W.; Robinson, S.L. When employees feel betrayed: A model of how psychological contract violation develops. Acad. Manag. Rev. 1997, 22, 226–256. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Zagenczyk, T.J.; Gibney, R.; Few, W.T.; Scott, K.L. Psychological contracts and organizational identification: The mediating effect of perceived organizational support. J. Labor. Res. 2011, 32, 254–281. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Cantisano, G.T.; Domínguez, J.F.M.; Depolo, M. Psychological contract breach and outcomes: Combining meta-analysis and structural equation models. Psicothema 2008, 20, 487–496. [Google Scholar]
  33. Coyle-Shapiro, J.A.M.; Shore, L.M. The employee-organization relationship: Where do we go from here? Hum. Resour. Manag. J. 2007, 17, 166–179. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Wang, A.C.; Cheng, B.S. When does benevolent leadership lead to creativity? The moderating role of creative role identity and job autonomy. J. Organ. Behav. 2010, 31, 106–121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Peng, J.; Wang, X.; Ran, Y.X.; Han, X.L. When does positive followership characteristics promote work outcomes? The activation effect of benevolent leadership. Nankai Bus. Rev. Int. 2016, 19, 135–146. [Google Scholar]
  36. Chan, S.C.H.; Mak, W.M. Benevolent leadership and follower performance: The mediating role of leader-member exchange (LMX). Asia Pac. J. Manag. 2012, 29, 285–301. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Edwards, J.R.; Lambert, L.S. Methods for integrating moderation and mediation: A general analytical framework using moderated path analysis. Psychol. Methods 2007, 12, 1–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  38. Brislin, R.W.; Lonner, W.J.; Thorndike, R.M. Cross-Cultural Research Methods; John Wiley & Sons: New York, NY, USA, 1973. [Google Scholar]
  39. Robinson, S.L.; Wolfe Morrison, E. The development of psychological contract breach and violation: A longitudinal study. J. Organ. Behav. 2000, 21, 525–546. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Wu, J.D. A Study of Newspaper Industry Employee Participation in Labor Unions in China—A Case Study; Chinese Culture University: Taipei, China, 1999. [Google Scholar]
  41. Zhang, Y.; Huai, M.Y.; Xie, Y.H. Paternalistic leadership and employee voice in China: A dual process model. Leadersh. Q. 2015, 26, 25–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Hom, P.W.; Griffeth, R.W. Structural equations modeling test of a turnover theory: Cross-sectional and longitudinal analyses. J. Appl. Psychol. 1991, 76, 350–366. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Farh, J.L.; Dobbins, G.H.; Cheng, B.S. Cultural relativity in action: A comparison of self-ratings made by Chinese and US workers. Pers. Psychol. 1991, 44, 129–147. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Mael, F.; Ashford, B.E. Alumni and their Alma matter: A partial test of the reformulated model of organizational identification. J. Organ. Behav. 1992, 13, 103–123. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Alkahtani, A.H. Investigating factors that influence employees’ turnover intention: A review of existing empirical works. Int. J. Bus. Manag. 2015, 10, 152. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Chen, X.P.; Eberly, M.B.; Chiang, T.J.; Farh, J.L.; Cheng, B.S. Affective trust in Chinese leaders: Linking paternalistic leadership to employee performance. J. Manag. 2014, 40, 796–819. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Lee, E.S.; Park, T.Y.; Koo, B. Identifying organizational identification as a basis for attitudes and behaviors: A meta-analytic review. Psychol. Bull. 2015, 141, 1049. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Fornell, C. Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. J. Mark. Res. 1981, 18, 39–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. De Prins, P.; Stuer, D.; Gielens, T. Revitalizing social dialogue in the workplace: The impact of a cooperative industrial relations climate and sustainable HR practices on reducing employee harm. Int. J. Hum. Resour. Manag. 2020, 31, 1684–1704. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Xi, M.; Zhou, L.; Zhang, X.; Zhao, S. Labor relations conflict in China: An analysis of conflict measure, conflict solution and conflict outcomes. Int. J. Hum. Resour. Manag. 2022, 33, 3414–3450. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Turnley, W.H.; Bolino, M.C.; Lester, S.W.; Bloodgood, J.M. The effects of psychological contract breach on union commitment. J. Occup. Organ. Psychol. 2004, 77, 421–428. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Griep, Y.; Vantilborgh, T. Let’s get cynical about this! Recursive relationships between psychological contract breach and counterproductive work behaviour. J. Occup. Organ. Psychol. 2018, 91, 421–429. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Lin, X.; Wu, C.H.; Dong, Y.; Chen, G.Z.X.; Wei, W.; Duan, J. Psychological contract breach and destructive voice: The mediating effect of relative deprivation and the moderating effect of leader emotional support. J. Vocat. Behav. 2022, 135, 103720. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Chi, D.; Duan, S.; Zhang, Y. Power of Harmony: The Impact of Labor Relation Climate on Organizational Resilience. Foreign Econ. Manag. 2023, 45, 88–103. [Google Scholar]
  55. Shen, Y.; Yuan, D. Review on psychological contract breach. Adv. Psychol. Sci. 2006, 14, 912–917. [Google Scholar]
Sustainability 15 14665 g001
Figure 1. Theoretical framework.
Figure 1. Theoretical framework.
Sustainability 15 14665 g001
Sustainability 15 14665 g002
Figure 2. The interaction of PCB and benevolent leadership on labor relations climate perception. Note. Simple slopes are for low benevolent leadership −0.29 (p < 0.001) and −0.10 (n.s.) For high benevolent leadership.
Figure 2. The interaction of PCB and benevolent leadership on labor relations climate perception. Note. Simple slopes are for low benevolent leadership −0.29 (p < 0.001) and −0.10 (n.s.) For high benevolent leadership.
Sustainability 15 14665 g002
Table 1. Validated factor analysis of core variables.
Table 1. Validated factor analysis of core variables.
Modelχ2dfNNFICFIRMASEΔχ2 (Δdf)
Model 1: PCB, IRCP, BL, TP, OI, TI804.723620.920.930.07
Model 2: PCB, IRCP + BL, TP, OI, TI1424.103670.900.910.10619.38 ** (5)
Model 3: PCB, IRCP + TI, TP, OI, BL1140.363670.910.920.09335.64 ** (5)
Model 4: PCB + TI, IRCP, TP, OI, BL1290.513670.900.910.09485.79 ** (5)
Model 5: PCB + LRCP, BL, TP, OI, TI2020.243670.860.880.131215.52 ** (5)
Model 6: PCB + LRCP + BL + TP + OI + TI4721.243770.650.680.203916.52 ** (15)
Note: N = 284. PCB = psychological contract breach; IRCP = labor relations climate perception; BL = benevolent leadership; TP = task performance; OI = organizational identification; TI = turnover intention. NNFI, the non-normed fit index; CFI, the comparative fit index; RMSEA, the root-mean-square error of approximation; ** p < 0.01 (two tailed).
Table 2. Results of the discriminant validity analysis.
Table 2. Results of the discriminant validity analysis.
PCBLabor Relations
Climate Perception		Benevolent LeadershipTask
Performance		Organization IdentificationTurnover
Intention		CR
PCB(0.88) 0.94
Labor relations climate perception−0.40 **(0.68) 0.85
Benevolent leadership−0.25 **0.51 **(0.74) 0.86
Task performance−0.18 **0.23 **0.18 **(0.89) 0.92
Organization identification−0.27 **0.37 **0.31 **0.17 *(0.62) 0.79
Turnover intention0.48 **−0.49 **−0.18 **−0.13−0.28 **(0.79)0.83
Note: N = 284; * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, and the “( )” number is the square root of AVE.
Table 3. Descriptive statistics of the variables.
Table 3. Descriptive statistics of the variables.
VariablesMSD12345678910
1. Gender0.540.52
2. Age1.680.760.02
3. Education2.301.240.040.17 **
4. Working time with supervisor3.071.50 −0.26 **0.43 **0.12 *
5. Tenure2.571.32−0.21 **0.51 **0.060.72 **
6. PCB3.101.040.04−0.02−0.06−0.070.01
7. Labor relations climate perception4.650.680.00−0.10−0.03−0.19 **−0.21 **−0.37 **
8. Benevolent leadership3.981.02−0.17 **−0.13 *0.04−0.10−0.18 **−0.23 **0.43 **
9. Task performance4.951.080.05−0.060.040.050.02−0.16 **0.19 **0.15 **
10. Organization identification3.510.39−0.05−0.00−0.10−0.06−0.09−0.22 **0.31 **0.26 **0.13 *
11. Turnover intention 2.670.96−0.02−0.15 *0.03−0.08−0.050.45 **−0.41 **−0.15 *−0.12 *−0.22 **
Note: N = 284; gender: 0 = male and 1 = female; education: 1 = specialized and below, 2 = Bachelor’s degree, 3 = Master’s degree, and 4 = Doctoral degree; age: 1 = 20~29 years old, 2 = 30~39 years old, 3 = 40~49 years old, and 4 = 50 years old and above; time with supervisor: 1 = less than 6 months, 2 = 6 months ~1 year, 3 = 1~2 years, 4 = 3~4 years, 5 = 5~6 years, and 7 = 7 years or above; tenure: 1 = less than 1 year, 2 = 1~3 years old, 3 = 3~5 years old, 4 = 5~10 years old, and 5 = 10 years old or above. * p < 0.05 and ** p < 0.01.
Table 4. Path analysis results.
Table 4. Path analysis results.
VariablesLabor Relations Climate PerceptionTask PerformanceOrganization IdentificationTurnover Intention
b (SE)b (SE)b (SE)b (SE)
Gender0.03 (0.07)0.22 (0.13)−0.09 (0.08)−0.10 (0.10)
Age0.04 (0.05)−0.20 * (0.09)0.09 (0.06)−0.19 * (0.08)
Education−0.03 (0.03)0.04 (0.05)−0.07 (0.04)0.05 (0.04)
Working time with supervisor−0.06 (0.04)0.07 (0.06)0.01 (0.04)−0.04 (0.06)
Tenure−0.03 (0.04)0.06 (0.06)−0.04 (0.05)−0.00 (0.07)
PCB−0.20 *** (0.04)−0.10 (0.07)−0.09 (0.05)−0.44 *** (0.09)
Labor relations climate perception 0.27 ** (0.10)0.25 *** (0.07)−0.31 *** (0.06)
Benevolent leadership0.22 *** (0.04)
PCB × benevolent leadership0.10 ** (0.04)
Note: N = 284. * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001. b = unstandardized path coefficient; SE = standard error.
Table 5. Indirect effects via labor relations climate perception at high and low levels of the benevolent leadership.
Table 5. Indirect effects via labor relations climate perception at high and low levels of the benevolent leadership.
Outcome VariablesModerator: Benevolent LeadershipPCB (x) → Labor Relations Climate Perception (m) → Work Outcomes (y)Indirect Effect 95% CI
PhaseEffect
Phase I (PMX)Phase II (PYM)Direct Effect (PYX)Indirect Effects (PMXPYM)
Task performanceHigh benevolent leadership −0.10(0.05)0.27 ** (0.10)−0.10 (0.07)−0.03 (0.02)[−0.06, 0.01]
Low benevolent leadership −0.30 *** (0.06)0.27 ** (0.10)−0.10 (0.07)−0.08 ** (0.03)[−0.14, −0.02]
Difference between groups0.19 ** (0.07)0.27 ** (0.10)−0.10 (0.07)0.05 * (0.03)[0.00, 0.11]
Organization identificationHigh benevolent leadership −0.10 (0.05)0.25 ** (0.07)−0.09 (0.05)−0.03 (0.02)[−0.05, 0.01]
Low benevolent leadership −0.30 *** (0.06)0.25 ** (0.07)−0.09 (0.05)−0.07 ** (0.03)[−0.12, −0.02]
Difference between groups0.19 ** (0.07)0.25 ** (0.07)−0.09 (0.05)0.05 * (0.02)[0.00, 0.10]
Turnover intentionHigh benevolent leadership −0.10 (0.05)−0.44 ** (0.09)0.31 *** (0.06)0.04 (0.02)[−0.004, 0.09]
Low benevolent leadership −0.30 *** (0.06)−0.44 ** (0.09)0.31 *** (0.06)0.13 ** (0.04)[0.06, 0.20]
Difference between groups0.19 ** (0.07)−0.44 ** (0.09)0.31 *** (0.06)−0.09 * (0.04)[−0.16, −0.01]
Note: N = 284. p * < 0.05, p ** < 0.01, and p *** < 0.001.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Wu, L.; Wei, L.; Zhao, L.; Shen, Y. Antecedents and Consequences of Labor Relations Climate Perception: An Investigation of a Moderated Mediation Model. Sustainability 2023, 15, 14665. https://doi.org/10.3390/su152014665

AMA Style

Wu L, Wei L, Zhao L, Shen Y. Antecedents and Consequences of Labor Relations Climate Perception: An Investigation of a Moderated Mediation Model. Sustainability. 2023; 15(20):14665. https://doi.org/10.3390/su152014665

Chicago/Turabian Style

Wu, Lu, Lihua Wei, Lei Zhao, and Yimo Shen. 2023. "Antecedents and Consequences of Labor Relations Climate Perception: An Investigation of a Moderated Mediation Model" Sustainability 15, no. 20: 14665. https://doi.org/10.3390/su152014665

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop