Next Article in Journal
Sustainability Is Social Complexity: Re-Imagining Education toward a Culture of Unpredictability
Next Article in Special Issue
Redefining ‘Careers’ and ‘Sustainable Careers’: A Qualitative Study with University Students
Previous Article in Journal
The Experiences of Layoff Survivors: Navigating Organizational Justice in Times of Crisis
Previous Article in Special Issue
Facilitating Sustainable Career Development in Fragility: A Psycho-Linguistic Intervention for Employability of Individuals with Fragile Literacy Skills
 
 
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 24
10.3390/su152416718
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

Greening Organizations: The Relationship between Employee Environmental Concern, Perception of Advantages of Eco-Innovations, and Support for Innovation

by
Salvatore Zappalà
*,
Luca Radassao
and
Ferdinando Toscano
Department of Psychology, University of Bologna, 40126 Bologna, Italy
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2023, 15(24), 16718; https://doi.org/10.3390/su152416718
Submission received: 8 November 2023 / Revised: 5 December 2023 / Accepted: 6 December 2023 / Published: 11 December 2023
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Sustainable Career Development and Organizational Psychology)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Environmental sustainability is a relevant challenge for companies, and employees’ perceptions of the advantages of ecological innovation, or eco-innovation, introduced by the company represent an important driver of organizational change adoption. This study examines if employees’ environmental concerns, considered as a general attitude and a value orientation, are related to the perception of the advantages of eco-innovation. Building on climate literature, it also investigates if the climate of support for innovation moderates that relationship. A cross-sectional study was conducted with 130 Italian workers. A confirmatory factor analysis and a moderation model were tested. Results show a significant positive relationship between employees’ environmental concern and perceived benefits of eco-innovation. Intriguingly, the climate of support for innovation negatively, instead of positively, moderated this relationship. Results suggest that in order to increase the perception of the benefits of the introduced eco-innovations, organizations should consider the whole set of innovations undertaken and address, especially to very concerned and value oriented employees, the unique environmental benefits of those innovations.

1. Introduction

Organizations have increased their attention to environmental sustainability due to the escalating concerns about climate change and the collective recognition of the critical role that businesses play in mitigating environmental challenges and fostering a more sustainable future [1,2]. National governments and international agencies, such as the European Union, are currently implementing policies to encourage organizations to adopt sustainable practices [3,4]. As a result, organizations are paying close attention to the guidance on environmental sustainability provided by these bodies and are cultivating a heightened awareness of eco-innovations to meet established policy and consumption standards [5].
Innovations that have an environmental impact, and for this reason are named ecological innovations, or eco-innovations, encompass a wide range of initiatives. These include the development of environmentally friendly products, often called eco-products, and transformative ecological processes, known as eco-processes. Also, eco-innovations extend to the implementation of organizational changes and policies to promote environmental sustainability [1].
Eco-innovations represent a substantial advantage for organizations as they facilitate economic savings by reducing resource consumption, foster a circular economy via waste minimization, and increasingly resonate with consumer interests [6,7]. These factors create a competitive advantage and contribute to receiving state funding and incentives during the eco-innovation implementation [8].
Adopting eco-friendly organizational practices may bring advantages, but it also requires employees that are not passive recipients of the implemented changes. Workers play a crucial role in making organizational change happen and drive alongside organizational leaders the implementation of ecological practices [9]. In the workplace, they can either promote or oppose a new practice [10]. Moreover, they provide feedback on eco-innovations [11] and can even initiate eco-innovations through a bottom-up approach [12].
In short, employee contribution matters. For this reason, organizations focused on implementing eco-innovations should consider employees’ beliefs and experiences about sustainability, contributing to their understanding of organizational practices on sustainability [13]. When employees feel that their contributions and attitudes about sustainability are valued and integrated into organizational practices, they are more likely to engage actively in sustainability efforts [14]. Furthermore, this effort can help organizations to develop strategies that enhance the likelihood of successful adoption and integration of eco-friendly practices within the organizational culture.
However, measuring individuals’ attitudes and beliefs toward environmental sustainability and assessing how these attitudes influence individuals’ actions and perceptions [15,16,17,18] is a complex endeavor that requires substantial research efforts. Previous research has established that a robust indicator of employees’ attention to the environment is reflected in their environmental concerns [19]. Employees’ environmental Concern (EEC) has been shown to forecast individual engagement in sustainable behaviors, such as recycling [20], even in workplace settings [21,22]. Despite the importance of this topic for the prediction of sustainable actions, psychological processes through which environmental concern affects employees’ perceptions of the benefits of organizational investments in eco-innovation are still unclear and deserve research attention.
One of the factors that might explain when employees’ environmental concern leads to the positive perception of organizational eco-innovation practices, is psychological climate. Psychological climate refers to the perception that employees have about the attention, interest, and support that the organization devotes to some specific goal, procedure, or aspect of its functioning. This applies also to innovation processes related to sustainability because employees that perceive that the organization is interested in and is promoting and supporting innovations concerning environmental sustainability are more likely to consider eco-innovation and related practices as things that are important for the organization. For this reason, we consider in our research model Climate of Support for Innovation (CSI) as a variable that measures employees’ perception of how much leaders and organizations promote and support innovations [23].
Hence, the present study has two research objectives that, as shown in Figure 1 corresponds to the two study hypotheses. The first goal is to empirically investigate the relationship between employees’ environmental concern (EEC) that they may experience as individuals and their perception of the advantages associated with adopting sustainable eco-innovation within the organization. The second goal is to explore the potential moderating role of the CSI in the relationship between employees’ environmental concern and their perception of the advantages of eco-innovation.
From a theoretical standpoint, this study examines how, in an organizational setting, a personal and general attitude such as environmental concern is related to an attitude toward corporate choices regarding sustainable practices. This is distinct from most studies on environmental concern, which primarily measure how this attitude leads to behavior or, alternatively, focus only on the individual level without considering if this attitude modifies, or is related to, the way workers perceive organizational-level choices. Secondly, focusing on the moderating role of CSI, this study contributes to understanding if this organizational factor can either amplify or mitigate the impact of individual employees’ environmental concerns on attitudes towards corporate sustainability practices. In other words, exploring the influence of this climate on employees’ attitudes reveals the significance of the work context, and the perceptions acquired therein, in shaping how employees view the organization.
Finally, on a practical level, this study offers compelling cues for designing organization initiatives concerning eco-innovations. By considering employees’ attitudes, organizations can better integrate sustainable practices within their context, developing tailored strategies to enhance the likelihood of successful adoption and integration of eco-friendly practices. Furthermore, this study can represent first-hand knowledge in helping managers grasp the importance of climate of support for innovation, showing its relevance in improving the vision of eco-innovation practices as an added value for their organizations.

2. Theoretical Framework

2.1. Employees’ Environmental Concern and Eco-Innovation

An eco-innovation is a product, organizational process, service, or business method “novel to the organization … which results, throughout its life cycle, in a reduction of environmental risk, of pollution and other negative impacts of resources use (including energy use) compared to relevant alternatives” [24]. Innovations that have an ecological impact have been categorized into three main areas: (i) eco-products, such as eco-innovative goods or services; (ii) eco-processes, such as process innovations that carry on environmental benefits, and (iii) eco-organizations, consisting of organizational changes that generate environmental benefits [1]. Innovations that address the environmental impact of the company include, for instance, eco-processes that reduce air emissions, improve water efficiency, optimize energy use, effectively manage waste, and increase material efficiency [24]. Changes in the organization system, or eco-organizations, are, for example, the introduction of an environmental management system [25], the involvement of employees in eco-compatible practices [26], or the implementation of a green human resource management [27].
The adoption of eco-innovations has significant implications for organizational performance, especially when employees are involved in the implementation and usage of these innovations. For instance, the implementation of clean production technologies, such as the use of renewable energy, requires creating a knowledge system that, if properly implemented, builds a competitive advantage for the organization over time [28].
When assimilated by employees, these innovations may lead to other innovations, such as waste recycling, efficient water management, or energy efficiency, contributing to greater ecological efficiency [29]. Therefore, employees who adopt, implement, and develop innovations represent human capital that can play a crucial role in the adoption and implementation of eco-innovations [9]. Specialized skills and employees’ willingness to innovate are invaluable resources that further amplify the competitive advantages of eco-innovation [30,31]. They contribute to the intellectual capital of enterprises, which influences the effectiveness of the environmental organizational initiatives [32].
Not by chance, international political bodies such as the European Commission and the United Nations [3,33] incentivize policies for organizations implementing change involving the human side of organizations [3,4]. This call has led companies to focus on communicating the environmental impact of their products [34]. Moreover, maintaining transparent communication with stakeholders, including employees, has become crucial for attaining a competitive edge in the market [6,7].
Scientific literature underlines that individuals express concern over environmental issues [16]. The causes and the modality in which employees’ environmental concern manifests in individuals are still being studied and have great intraindividual variability. Causes of such concern have been identified in the awareness of the consequences of climate change for oneself, others, and nature [35] or the degeneration of the natural environment [36]. The same definition of this construct has also been the subject of a prolonged debate. From one perspective, EEC is considered by some scholars as a specific attitude towards environmentally relevant behaviors. Alternatively, other scholars have framed it as a general attitude and value orientation, for instance, concerning humanity’s role and preservation in the environment or post-materialistic values [18]. This study adopts the latter conceptualization of employees’ environmental concern. Numerous studies have investigated the capacity of employees’ environmental concern to generate relevant outcomes. For instance, individuals’ environmental concerns have been shown to be an important precursor of environmentally sustainable behaviors, such as recycling or energy saving [37,38].
A concern for the environment evidently pays off in everyday life. In this line of research, we applied the role of employees’ environmental concern in an organizational context, specifically by hypothesizing that this personal attitude relates positively to the evaluation that individuals make about specific organizational eco-innovations, thus playing a role in enhancing the outcomes of such organizational sustainable benefits.
The interplay between individual environmental consciousness and the evaluation of specific organizational practices on environmental sustainability can be explained through the lens of cognitive dissonance theory [39]. This theory, postulated by Festinger [39], suggests that individuals are inherently motivated to maintain internal cognitive consistency and experience discomfort or dissonance when faced with conflicting beliefs or attitudes. In the context of employees’ environmental concerns, an individual with a strong ecological ethos is inclined to actively seek out and support organizational practices that align with his or her deeply held values. This psychological process makes people feel good because, according to cognitive dissonance theory, it decreases the tension that may arise when an employee encounters discrepancies between his/her personal environmental stance and the sustainability efforts of the organization. This alignment promotes a sort of consonance between individuals and the environment where they work, thus improving the so-called fit between the person and the organization [40].
The improved person-organization fit constitutes an added value toward sustainability in organizations: when employees concerned for the environment find and evaluate positively organizational eco-innovations, it is possible that they will further sustain sustainability initiatives within the organization. This increased proactivity can lead to a virtuous cycle. Based on the above, we posit that:
Hypothesis 1 (H1):
Employees’ environmental concern is positively related to perception of the advantage of eco-innovations.

2.2. The Role of Climate of Support for Innovation

The alignment of individuals’ environmental concern and perception of organizational eco-innovations as an advantage serves not only to avoid psychological conflict in the employees but also contributes to making employees involved actors of sustainable change. For this reason, it is crucial to investigate in what conditions an individual, general concern is related to the recognition of eco-innovation practices as an advantage in a specific organization.
Organizational psychology identifies psychological and organizational climates as intriguing variables capable of elucidating how the thoughts of individual members become intertwined with the collective mindset within organizations. Psychological climate, used to describe how single individuals perceive the organization, was the basis of developing the construct of the organizational climate, used to describe how teammates, or staff of entire departments, perceive the organization. Organizational climate allows us to comprehend how organizational contexts influence how workers perceive changes and the introduction of new practices [41], assimilate information [42], and value certain factors over others [43]. When climate concerns innovation, it is defined as employees’ perception of working in an environment that provides time, cooperation, practical support, and resources to implement new ideas and proposals [23]. Organizations that provide support for innovation tend to create a context in which ideas can be discussed, tested, and implemented. We argue that climate of support for innovation may create conditions in which employees’ environmental concern is related to the perception of eco-innovations as an advantage for the organization.
Despite the fact that the climate of support for innovation has received massive scholarly attention [44], to the best of our knowledge, its role as a moderator in the relationship between a personal attitude and the evaluation of organizational practices has received limited attention. Trying to fill this gap, in this study we examine if a climate of support for innovation can boost the relationship between employees’ environmental concern and their perception of the advantage of eco-innovation.
Building upon the theoretical mechanisms used in the previous hypothesis, we argue that working in an environment that fosters idea generation, stimulates innovative problem-solving, and encourages adaptability to change serves to align personal attitudes related to the environment with the changes implemented in the organization to pursue environmental sustainability. This creates fertile ground for reinforcing the relationship between personal employees’ environmental concern and the perception of eco-innovation as an advantage. In other words, climate enhances the alignment between a concern for the broader environment and the specific advantages resulting from eco-innovation which addresses employees’ individual concern.
This observation aligns with prior research, which suggests that employees tend to favor work environments that minimize cognitive dissonance between their own attitudes and those prevalent within their professional context [41]. Furthermore, it is confirmed by the potential activation of the cognitive process of selective exposure described by Freedman and Sears [45], which implies that a climate that supports innovation prompts employees to seek out information that aligns with their existing beliefs, consequently leading them to perceive the related practices as advantageous.
For these reasons, we hypothesize that CSI positively moderates the relationship between employees’ environmental concern and their perception of the advantage of eco-innovations. Specifically, it is expected that a high CSI strengthens this relationship, whereas a perceived low CSI weakens it. So, we posit that:
Hypothesis 2 (H2):
The CSI has a positive moderation effect on the relation between EEC and the perception of the advantages of eco-innovations.

3. Materials and Methods

3.1. Participants and Procedure

General managers, or managers with environmental responsibility, in companies that had an interest in environmental practices and that were expressing this interest on their company sites, were contacted via email and invited to participate in the study. The employees of these companies were then invited to participate in the study. A paper and pencil questionnaire was delivered to employees who returned their completed questionnaires by putting it into a box from which it was later collected by a member of the research staff. The survey was designed and administered following established ethical standards, ensuring confidentiality and voluntary participation. The study adhered to the social research guidelines and was conducted following the Helsinki declaration.
A total of 130 employees working in eight different organizations of three industry sectors (energy, plastic sector, and chemical sector) participated in the study. The sample was predominantly young, with 62% of the participants aged between 19 and 38. Most workers were male (76%); the majority had a high school diploma (63%) and had permanent employment contracts (79%).

3.2. Measures

Employees’ environmental concern was measured using three items of the New Environmental Paradigm (NEP) scale [46]. The scale measures individuals’ perceptions of global environmental issues. The items focused on the negative consequences of climate change and a pessimistic view of the earth’s future. They were “If things continue on their present course, we will soon experience a major ecological catastrophe”, “When humans interfere with nature, it often results in disastrous consequences” and “Plants and animals have the same right as humans to exist”. Participants rated their dis/agreement with these statements using a 5-point Likert scale, ranging from 1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree. The omega index of reliability in this study was 0.61.
Perception of advantage of eco-innovation was evaluated using three questions constructed explicitly for this study. Participants had to assess on a 5-point Likert scale (1 = “Not at all”; 5 = “Very much”) how much “reduction of consumption (energy, raw materials)”, “waste and scrap reduction”, and “economic and financial incentives, as well as ease of access to credit” were an advantage for the company. The omega index of reliability in this study was 0.93.
Climate of support for innovation was measured using the eight items of the climate of support for innovation subscale of the Team Climate Inventory (TCI) by Anderson and West [23]. The items measure the perception of working in an environment that provides time, cooperation, practical support and resources to implement new ideas and proposals. An example of an item is: “The company is constantly oriented towards developing new solutions”. It was possible to answer using a 5-point Likert scale, ranging from 1 = “Strongly disagree” to 5 = “Strongly agree”. The omega index of reliability was 0.81.

3.3. Data Analysis

To assess the dimensionality of the scales, a Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) was conducted using the JAMOVI software (version 2.3.21) [47]. A model with the expected three-factor structure was compared with a model on which all the items were loaded in a single factor. Descriptive statistics and correlations were then calculated. Lastly, after centering the variables involved in moderation, the research model was tested using regression techniques. All the analyses of this study were performed using JAMOVI v 2.3.

4. Results

To evaluate the dimensionality of the scales, two CFAs were conducted. A three-factor model, reflecting the three underlying constructs of the measured items, was compared with a single-factor model in which all the items were loaded into a singular factor. The three-factor model (minimum item saturation = 0.44) demonstrated an acceptable fit to the data, in accordance to the standard cut-offs suggested by Hair and colleagues [48]: chi-square (74) = 193.37; chi-square/df = 2.61; Comparative Fit Index (CFI) = 0.90; TLI (Tucker-Lewis Index) = 0.88; Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA) = 0.10; and Standardized Root Mean Square Residual (SRMR) = 0.06. Conversely, the one-factor model showed a poorer fit: chi-square (65) = 268.10; chi-square/df = 4.12; CFI = 0.81; TLI = 0.77; RMSEA = 0.14; and SRMR = 0.09.
In addition to the three-factor model without covariances, another three-factor model in which two coupled items of the climate of support for innovation scale were related among them was tested, showing an excellent fit: chi-square (72) = 134.66; chi-square/df = 1.87; CFI = 0.95; TLI = 0.93; RMSEA = 0.07; and SRMR = 0.05. This further test made even more evident that a three-factor model gives sufficient evidence of the structural validity of our research model.
Table 1 shows the study’s descriptive statistics, highlighting relatively high employee environmental concern and perception of the advantage of eco-innovation, which were also positively and significantly correlated (r = 0.17, p < 0.05). In contrast, no significant relationship was observed between CSI and perception of the advantage of eco-innovation.
Table 2 and Figure 2 report the results related to the test of our hypotheses. In particular, the direct relationship between employees’ environmental concern and climate of support for innovation was positive and significant (B = 0.17, p < 0.05), thus confirming Hypothesis 1. Furthermore, the moderating effect of CSI in the relationship between employees’ environmental concern and perception of advantage of eco-innovation was also significant, although with an unexpected negative sign (B = −0.31, p < 0.01), which only partially supports Hypothesis 2.
As depicted in Table 3 and Figure 3, the moderating effect was higher at lower levels of CSI (B = 0.41, p < 0.001), and moderate at an intermediate level (B = 0.16, p < 0.05), whereas it was non-significant at high levels of CSI (B = −0.08, p = 0.47).

5. Discussion

The present study, based on cognitive dissonance theory [39], aimed to investigate the association between employees’ environmental concern (EEC) and the perception of the advantages of eco-innovation, as well as the moderating role of climate of support for innovation (CSI) in this relationship. Results only partially confirmed the proposed hypotheses.
In particular, findings show a positive correlation between employees’ environmental concern (EEC) and perception of advantages of eco-innovation, confirming Hypothesis 1. On the contrary, the data do not support Hypothesis 2, since they indicate that the climate of support for innovation (CSI) exerted a negative moderating effect, contrary to the expected positive moderation, on the relationship between EEC and the perceived advantages of eco-innovation.
Considering the direct relationship between EEC and perception of advantages of eco-innovation, this study underlines the coherence between the private, personal feeling of concern toward the environment and the recognition of the benefits associated with eco-friendly innovations in the workplace. In practical terms, this correlation suggests that fostering and acknowledging employees’ environmental concerns could potentially contribute to a more favorable perception of eco-innovations in the organizational context, with relevant consequences in terms of change acceptance and, in general, in terms of positive reception of organizational choices related to environmental initiatives. Since employees can become more sensible to environmental concerns, this study suggests that positive attitudes toward environmental-related innovations can be supported through specific training or educational interventions. On the other hand, the buffering effect of the CSI in the relationship between EEC and perception of advantages of eco-innovation needs more attention.
Our results show that the climate of support for innovation changes the perception of eco-innovations in employees, making the contribution of employees’ environmental concern relevant in the case of a low CSI, while nullifying the relationship in higher CSI cases. The reasons why this unexpected result occurs may be numerous. For instance, in contexts with higher CSI, it may be likely that a variety of innovations, including eco-innovations, are already in place, and so these innovations may be perceived as a component of a broader innovation culture, thus making the specific influence of environmental concern less relevant. Another possibility lies in the fact that, as shown in a recent study [49], organizations’ actions promoting environmental-oriented changes can generate rigidity in workers, and thus lead them, as in this case, to perceive fewer benefits of eco-innovation or, as in the study cited above, to perform worse. Alternatively, a high CSI may shift the focus of attention from an individual responsibility to a collective responsibility, making the role of individual concern less salient in determining how much eco-innovation is needed and useful within and outside the organization. Finally, high CSI values may also suggest the existence of multiple organizational priorities and concerns, among which the environmental ones may represent only a part of them and may contrast with the others.

5.1. Theoretical and Practical Implications

The findings of this study offer significant theoretical implications for scholars and practitioners interested in work and organizational psychology and environmental sustainability. The identified interaction between employees’ environmental concern and support for innovation introduces an additional understanding of the factors influencing employee perceptions of eco-innovation advantages. Furthermore, it emphasizes the role of climate of support for innovation in giving rise to the intricate interplay between individual environmental attitudes and organizational strategies, suggesting the need to integrate both psychological and organizational perspectives. Hence, this study enriches theoretical discussions by emphasizing the intertwined role of employees’ environmental attitudes and organizational strategies in shaping perceptions of eco-innovations.
On a practical side, the study emphasizes the coherence between employees’ personal environmental concerns and their perceptions of the advantages of eco-innovations in the workplace. Proper attitudes and perceptions of both managers and employees facilitate the acceptance of green innovation [50]. Hence, in practical terms, organizations can benefit from fostering and acknowledging these concerns by implementing strategic sensitization programs on environmental issues with the aim to create a more environmentally conscious workforce, potentially leading to a more positive reception of eco-friendly initiatives. At the same time, the unexpected result highlighting the nullification of the relationship between environmental concern and eco-innovation perception in higher CSI cases suggests the importance of context-specific communication strategies. Communication facilitates organization-wide acceptance of sustainability initiatives [51]. In contexts with established innovation climates, communication efforts should be tailored to highlight the unique benefits of eco-innovations. Organizations may need to emphasize how environmental concerns align with broader innovative cultures or showcase the distinct advantages of eco-friendly initiatives within the existing innovative framework. Finally, this study suggests that in contexts with higher CSI values, where multiple priorities and concerns exist, including environmental ones, organizations may need to carefully balance and prioritize their initiatives. Understanding that eco-innovations might be perceived as routine or less relevant in such environments, organizations should consider integrating environmental initiatives into broader strategic narratives that align with employees’ collective responsibilities. This requires a thoughtful approach to ensure that environmental concerns are not overshadowed by competing organizational priorities, fostering a more balanced and supportive organizational environment.

5.2. Study Limitations

While this study offers valuable preliminary insights into the interplay between employees’ environmental concern and their perception of the advantages of eco-innovation, it is relevant to recognize and address several inherent limitations. First, respondents belong to organizations already committed to environmental sustainability. In some sense, they were exposed to positive environmental initiatives, hence requiring that the generalizability of the results be verified in future studies. Second, a generic scale of climate of support for innovation was used instead of a specific scale of climate of support for eco-innovations, as recommended in the existing literature [52]. Furthermore, considering the scales adopted in this paper, the reliability of the employees’ environmental concern scale is only acceptable, and thus results should be considered cautiously and, hopefully, tested in future studies. Third, the study has a cross-sectional design, preventing us from making causal inferences. Fourth, we focused on individual and subjective determinants of the positive attitudes of employees towards organizational environmental initiatives; the next step would be to test if employees who perceive the benefits of eco-initiatives actually support and adopt those initiatives, allowing the companies to fully realize their contribution to environmental sustainability. Finally, we acknowledge that we did not consider potentially influential control variables, such as the organizational sector or employees’ role within the organizations, which may have led to a loss of significant insights in terms of differences in results among different groups of workers. We recognize this as a significant limitation of this research, which, in turn, is contingent upon the relatively small sample size of participants in this study. We believe that acknowledging and tracking these factors constitute important points for future studies of employees’ perception of eco-innovation. In addition, looking ahead to future studies, we suggest that they consider the relationship between other types of employee concerns—such as health and safety or the maintenance of occupational roles—and the perceived organizational benefits arising from eco-innovation. This represents a promising avenue for research, particularly within the broader context of organizational change, albeit with a sustainability-oriented focus.

6. Conclusions

This study explored and found a direct and positive relationship between employees’ environmental concern (EEC) and the perception of advantages of eco-innovation. Furthermore, it was observed that this relationship is moderated by the climate of support for innovation, indicating that the correlation between EEC and the perception of advantage is lower in the presence of stronger support for innovation. These findings highlight the interconnectedness of individual attitudes with employees’ perceptions of organizational choices and underscore the importance of considering both individual attitudes and organizational support when examining the dynamics of corporate environmental initiatives and their perceived benefits. While we acknowledge that the discourse addressed in this paper is only in its nascent stages, we hope to have provided a meaningful contribution to the understanding of the perception of eco-innovation within organizations and useful initial suggestions for organizations dealing with eco-innovation, offering at least a foundation for further exploration and practical guidance in this evolving field.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, S.Z., F.T. and L.R.; methodology, S.Z.; investigation, S.Z.; data curation, F.T.; writing—original draft preparation, L.R.; writing—review and editing, S.Z. and F.T.; supervision, S.Z.; project administration, S.Z. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

The study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki. Ethical review and approval were waived for this study due to the fact that the questionnaire only measured general attitudes and opinions and did not address personal inquiries of the participants. Additionally, the questionnaire was designed to ensure the anonymity of participants, with no possibility of identifying individuals by name.

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent, outlining study content, participation procedures, data collection purposes, participant rights, and contact information, was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.

Data Availability Statement

The dataset can be obtained upon timely request to the corresponding author.

Acknowledgments

Authors wish to acknowledge the contribution of Chiara Provvedi for reaching out to the firms and collecting the data used in this study.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Biscione, A.; Caruso, R.; de Felice, A. Environmental Innovation in European Transition Countries. Appl. Econ. 2021, 53, 521–535. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Jo, J.-H.; Roh, T.; Kim, S.; Youn, Y.-C.; Park, M.; Han, K.; Jang, E. Eco-Innovation for Sustainability: Evidence from 49 Countries in Asia and Europe. Sustainability 2015, 7, 16820–16835. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. European Commission Europa 2020: A Strategy for Smart, Sustainable and Inclusive Growth. 2010. Available online: https://ec.europa.eu/eu2020/pdf/ (accessed on 21 August 2023).
  4. European Environment Agency. Using the Market for Cost-Effective Environmental Policy: Market-Based Instruments in Europe; European Environment Agency: Luxembourg, 2006.
  5. Gatersleben, B.; Steg, L.; Vlek, C. Measurement and Determinants of Environmentally Significant Consumer Behavior. Environ. Behav. 2002, 34, 335–362. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Joyce, A.; Paquin, R.L. The Triple Layered Business Model Canvas: A Tool to Design More Sustainable Business Models. J. Clean. Prod. 2016, 135, 1474–1486. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Tyl, B.; Vallet, F.; Bocken, N.M.P.; Real, M. The Integration of a Stakeholder Perspective into the Front End of Eco-Innovation: A Practical Approach. J. Clean. Prod. 2015, 108, 543–557. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Roberts, P.W.; Dowling, G.R. Corporate Reputation and Sustained Superior Financial Performance. Strateg. Manag. J. 2002, 23, 1077–1093. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Díaz-García, C.; González-Moreno, Á.; Sáez-Martínez, F.J. Eco-Innovation: Insights from a Literature Review. Innovation 2015, 17, 6–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Ramus, C.A.; Steger, U. The Roles of Supervisory Support Behaviors and Environmental Policy in Employee “Ecoinitiatives” at Leading-Edge European Companies. Acad. Manag. J. 2000, 43, 605–626. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Ormazabal, M.; Sarriegi, J.M.; Rich, E.; Viles, E.; Gonzalez, J.J. Environmental Management Maturity: The Role of Dynamic Validation. Organ. Environ. 2021, 34, 145–170. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Boiral, O.; Paillé, P.; Raineri, N. The Nature of Employees’ pro-Environmental Behaviors. In The Psychology of Green Organizations; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 2015; pp. 12–32. ISBN 978-0-19-999748-0. [Google Scholar]
  13. Ramus, C.A. Encouraging Innovative Environmental Actions: What Companies and Managers Must Do. J. World Bus. 2002, 37, 151–164. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Renwick, D.W.S.; Redman, T.; Maguire, S. Green Human Resource Management: A Review and Research Agenda*. Int. J. Manag. Rev. 2013, 15, 1–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Schaffrin, A. No Measure without Concept. A Critical Review on the Conceptualization and Measurement of Environmental Concern. Int. Rev. Soc. Res. 2011, 3, 11–31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Takacs-Santa, A. Barriers to Environmental Concern. Hum. Ecol. Rev. 2007, 14, 26–38. [Google Scholar]
  17. Cruz, S.M.; Manata, B. Measurement of Environmental Concern: A Review and Analysis. Front. Psychol. 2020, 11, 363. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  18. Fransson, N.; Gärling, T. Environmental Concern: Conceptual Definitions, Measurement Methods, and Research Findings. J. Environ. Psychol. 1999, 19, 369–382. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Dunlap, R.E.; Jones, R.E. Environmental Concern: Conceptual and Measurement Issues. In Handbook of Environmental Sociology; Greenwood Press: Westport, CL, USA, 2002; Volume 3, pp. 482–524. [Google Scholar]
  20. Jekria, N.; Daud, S. Environmental Concern and Recycling Behaviour. Procedia Econ. Financ. 2016, 35, 667–673. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Kura, K.M. Linking Environmentally Specific Transformational Leadership and Environmental Concern to Green Behaviour at Work. Glob. Bus. Rev. 2016, 17, 1S–14S. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Tian, H.; Zhang, J.; Li, J. The Relationship between Pro-Environmental Attitude and Employee Green Behavior: The Role of Motivational States and Green Work Climate Perceptions. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2020, 27, 7341–7352. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Anderson, N.R.; West, M.A. Measuring Climate for Work Group Innovation: Development and Validation of the Team Climate Inventory. J. Organ. Behav. Int. J. Ind. Occup. Organ. Psychol. Behav. 1998, 19, 235–258. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Kemp, R.; Pearson, P. MEI Project about Measuring Eco-Innovation. Final Report; UM-MERIT: Maastricht, The Netherlands, 2007; Available online: https://www.oecd.org/env/consumption-innovation/43960830.pdf (accessed on 21 August 2023).
  25. Rennings, K.; Ziegler, A.; Ankele, K.; Hoffmann, E. The Influence of Different Characteristics of the EU Environmental Management and Auditing Scheme on Technical Environmental Innovations and Economic Performance. Ecol. Econ. 2006, 57, 45–59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Paillé, P.; Boiral, O.; Chen, Y. Linking Environmental Management Practices and Organizational Citizenship Behaviour for the Environment: A Social Exchange Perspective. Int. J. Hum. Resour. Manag. 2013, 24, 3552–3575. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Cherian, J.P.; Jacob, J. A Study of Green HR Practices and Its Effective Implementation in the Organization: A Review. Int. J. Bus. Manag. 2012, 7, 25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Tu, Y.; Wu, W. How Does Green Innovation Improve Enterprises’ Competitive Advantage? The Role of Organizational Learning. Sustain. Prod. Consum. 2021, 26, 504–516. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Choi, Y.; Yu, Y. The Influence of Perceived Corporate Sustainability Practices on Employees and Organizational Performance. Sustainability 2014, 6, 348–364. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Chong, J.L.; Olesen, K. A Technology-Organization-Environment Perspective on Eco-Effectiveness: A Meta-Analysis. Australas. J. Inf. Syst. 2017, 21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Prokop, V.; Stejskal, J.; Hudec, O. Collaboration for Innovation in Small CEE Countries. Econ. Manag. 2019, 22, 130–144. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Li, X.; Liu, X.; Huang, Y.; Li, J.; He, J. Theoretical Framework for Assessing Construction Enterprise Green Innovation Efficiency and Influencing Factors: Evidence from China. Environ. Technol. Innov. 2023, 32, 103293. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. United Nations. Transforming Our World: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development; United Nations: New York, NY, USA, 2015. [Google Scholar]
  34. Robertson, J.L.; Barling, J. Greening Organizations through Leaders’ Influence on Employees’ pro-Environmental Behaviors. J. Organ. Behav. 2013, 34, 176–194. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Hansla, A.; Gamble, A.; Juliusson, A.; Gärling, T. The Relationships between Awareness of Consequences, Environmental Concern, and Value Orientations. J. Environ. Psychol. 2008, 28, 1–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Howell, S.E.; Laska, S.B. The Changing Face of the Environmental Coalition: A Research Note. Environ. Behav. 1992, 24, 134. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Han, P.; Tong, Z.; Sun, Y.; Chen, X. Impact of Climate Change Beliefs on Youths’ Engagement in Energy-Conservation Behavior: The Mediating Mechanism of Environmental Concerns. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 7222. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  38. Goldenhar, L.M.; Connell, C.M. Understanding and Predicting Recycling Behavior: An Application of the Theory of Reasoned Action. J. Environ. Syst. 1992, 22, 91–103. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Festinger, L. A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance; Row Peterson: Evanstone, IL, USA, 1957. [Google Scholar]
  40. Kristof-Brown Amy, L.; Zimmerman, R.D.; Johnson, E.C. Consequences of Individuals’ Fit at Work: A Meta-analysis of Person–Job, Person–Organization, Person–Group, and Person–Supervisor Fit. Pers. Psychol. 2005, 58, 281–342. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Burnes, B.; James, H. Culture, Cognitive Dissonance and the Management of Change. Int. J. Oper. Prod. Manag. 1995, 15, 14–33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Guzley, R.M. Organizational Climate and Communication Climate Predictors of Commitment to the Organization. Manag. Commun. Q. 1992, 5, 379–403. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Schneider, B.; Ehrhart, M.G.; MacEy, W.H. Organizational Climate and Culture. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 2013, 64, 361–388. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  44. Newman, A.; Round, H.; Wang, S.; Mount, M. Innovation Climate: A Systematic Review of the Literature and Agenda for Future Research. J. Occup. Organ. Psychol. 2020, 93, 73–109. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Freedman, J.L.; Sears, D.O. Selective Exposure. In Advances in Experimental Social Psychology; Academic Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 1965; pp. 57–97. [Google Scholar]
  46. Dunlap, R.E.; Van Liere, K.D. The “New Environmental Paradigm”. J. Environ. Educ. 1978, 9, 10–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. The Jamovi Project. Jamovi (Version 2.3) [Computer Software]. 2023. Available online: https://www.jamovi.org (accessed on 10 July 2023).
  48. Hair, J.; Black, W.; Babin, B.; Anderson, R. Multivariate Data Analysis: A Global Perspective, 8th ed.; Pearson Education: Upper Saddle River, NJ, USA, 2018; Volume 8, ISBN 9353501350. [Google Scholar]
  49. Valero-Gil, J.; Surroca, J.A.; Tribo, J.A.; Gutierrez, L.; Montiel, I. Innovation vs. standardization: The conjoint effects of eco-innovation and environmental management systems on environmental performance. Res. Policy 2023, 52, 104737. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Abdullah, M.; Zailani, S.; Iranmanesh, M.; Jayaraman, K. Barriers to Green Innovation Initiatives among Manufacturers: The Malaysian Case. Rev. Manag. Sci. 2016, 10, 683–709. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Worley, J.M.; Doolen, T.L. The Role of Communication and Management Support in a Lean Manufacturing Implementation. Manag. Decis. 2006, 44, 228–245. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Norton, T.A.; Zacher, H.; Parker, S.L.; Ashkanasy, N.M. Bridging the Gap between Green Behavioral Intentions and Employee Green Behavior: The Role of Green Psychological Climate. J. Organ. Behav. 2017, 38, 996–1015. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Sustainability 15 16718 g001
Figure 1. The proposed research model.
Figure 1. The proposed research model.
Sustainability 15 16718 g001
Sustainability 15 16718 g002
Figure 2. Results of the moderation model with significant relationships (* p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01).
Figure 2. Results of the moderation model with significant relationships (* p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01).
Sustainability 15 16718 g002
Sustainability 15 16718 g003
Figure 3. Interaction effect of CSI in the relationship between EEC and perception of advantages of eco-innovation.
Figure 3. Interaction effect of CSI in the relationship between EEC and perception of advantages of eco-innovation.
Sustainability 15 16718 g003
Table 1. Descriptive statistics, correlations between variables, and Cronbach’s alphas.
Table 1. Descriptive statistics, correlations between variables, and Cronbach’s alphas.
MeanStand.Dev.123
1. Employee’s environmental concern4.160.79(0.60)
2. Climate of support for innovation3.450.81−0.20 *(0.93)
3. Perception of advantage of Eco-innovation3.910.730.17 *0.02(0.78)
Note: n = 130; * p < 0.05. Cronbach’s alphas in the diagonal, within parentheses.
Table 2. Results of the moderating effect of CSI on the relationship between EEC and perception of advantages of eco-innovation.
Table 2. Results of the moderating effect of CSI on the relationship between EEC and perception of advantages of eco-innovation.
VariablesBSEzp
Employees’ environmental concern0.170.082.290.02
Climate of Support for Innovation (CSI)0.040.110.540.59
Environmental concern × CSI−0.310.11−3.01<0.01
Note: n = 130; B = Unstandardized regression coefficient; SE = Standard Error.
Table 3. Conditional effects of the indirect relationship between EEC and perception of advantage of eco-innovation at different values of CSI.
Table 3. Conditional effects of the indirect relationship between EEC and perception of advantage of eco-innovation at different values of CSI.
Moderator ValuesBBootSEzp
Low CSI (−1 SD)0.410.113.60<0.001
Average CSI (M)0.160.082.080.04
High CSI (+1 SD)−0.080.11−0.720.47
B = Unstandardized regression coefficient; BootSE= Bootstrapp Standard Error. Z = z-score is a statistics, M = mean and both of them should not be clarified.
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

Zappalà, S.; Radassao, L.; Toscano, F. Greening Organizations: The Relationship between Employee Environmental Concern, Perception of Advantages of Eco-Innovations, and Support for Innovation. Sustainability 2023, 15, 16718. https://doi.org/10.3390/su152416718

AMA Style

Zappalà S, Radassao L, Toscano F. Greening Organizations: The Relationship between Employee Environmental Concern, Perception of Advantages of Eco-Innovations, and Support for Innovation. Sustainability. 2023; 15(24):16718. https://doi.org/10.3390/su152416718

Chicago/Turabian Style

Zappalà, Salvatore, Luca Radassao, and Ferdinando Toscano. 2023. "Greening Organizations: The Relationship between Employee Environmental Concern, Perception of Advantages of Eco-Innovations, and Support for Innovation" Sustainability 15, no. 24: 16718. https://doi.org/10.3390/su152416718

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