Sustainability 13 07958 v2

sustainability
Article
The Effect of Socially Responsible HRM on Organizational
Citizenship Behavior for the Environment: A Proactive
Motivation Model
Junqian He and Hyosun Kim *
Chung-Ang Business School, Chung-Ang University, Seoul 06974, Korea; reta2897@163.com

* Correspondence: hkim3@cau.ac.kr
Abstract: Many organizations face the important challenges of motivating employees effectively
to participate in corporate social responsibility initiatives and maintaining socially responsible
human resource management practices. We examine whether socially responsible human resource
management (SRHRM) practices can affect employees’ social responsibility-related behaviors, such
as organizational citizenship behavior for the environment (OCBE). Based on proactive motivation
theory, we propose a multiple-mediation model, selecting moral efficacy, felt obligation, and empathy
as the mediators. We analyzed data from a sample of 535 employees from 23 manufacturing
companies in China. The results show that SRHRM practices have a significant positive effect on
OCBE. We also found that moral efficacy, felt obligation, and empathy significantly mediate the effect
of SRHRM practices on OCBE and that there is no significant difference among the three mediation
paths. Our study suggests that organizational pursuit of the socially responsible human resource

management practices is an effective pathway to make employees feel more responsible toward
global sustainability.
Citation: He, J.; Kim, H. The Effect of
Socially Responsible HRM on Keywords: socially responsible human resource management; organizational citizenship behavior
Organizational Citizenship Behavior for the environment; moral efficacy; felt obligation; empathy; proactive motivation theory
for the Environment: A Proactive
Motivation Model. Sustainability 2021,
13, 7958. https://doi.org/10.3390/
su13147958 1. Introduction
As environmental sustainability has become central to the survival and development
Academic Editor: Francisco J. Gracia
of organizations in the 21st century, corporate environmental responsibility (CER), an
important area of corporate social responsibility (CSR), has become an issue of widely
Received: 1 June 2021
shared concern in academia [1,2]. Where the specific CER implementation process is con-
Accepted: 13 July 2021
cerned, given that employees are usually the direct creators and producers of organizations’
Published: 16 July 2021
products and services, their environmental behavior is crucial for success [1]. Ones and
Dilchert [2] found that only 13% to 29% of employees’ environmental behaviors in Europe
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral
with regard to jurisdictional claims in
and the United States were based on organizational requirements, indicating that CER
published maps and institutional affil-
implementation depends not only on the organization’s rules and regulations but also on
iations.
employees’ proactive participation in environmental behaviors [3]. As such, the concept
of organizational citizenship behavior for the environment (OCBE), which emphasizes
proactive environmental behaviors beyond the scope of formal work, has increasingly
attracted scholars’ attention [1,3–5]. As environmental behavior is closely related to CER at
the individual level, it is highly important to study the formation mechanism of OCBE for
Copyright: © 2021 by the authors.
the sustainable development of both organizations and the environment.
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
This article is an open access article
Previous empirical studies focusing on the antecedents of OCBE at the organizational
distributed under the terms and
level have found that corporate environmental policy, environmental management prac-
conditions of the Creative Commons
tices, and strategic human resource management have a positive impact on employees’
Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// performance of OCBE [3,6,7]. As a practical policy for organizations carrying out CSR
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ initiatives, socially responsible human resource management (SRHRM) emphasizes the
4.0/). organization’s concerns for the triple bottom lines of economic, social, and environmental
Sustainability 2021, 13, 7958. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13147958 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability

Sustainability 2021, 13, 7958 2 of 21
performance [8,9]. Shen and Zhu [10] introduced the CSR concept into HRM practices and
defined SRHRM as a new HRM practice aimed at improving employees’ participation
in CSR initiatives. SRHRM is recognized as an integral part of CSR initiatives and an
important tool for its successful implementation [9]. SRHRM and OCBE are both positive
responses to the sustainable development challenges and are highly compatible in terms of
values. Thus, we explore whether organizations’ SRHRM practices can promote employees’
performance of OCBE in the workplace.
Furthermore, this study attempts to explore the mechanisms by which organizational
SRHRM practices affect OCBE. In accordance with the proactive motivation theory [11],
generating individual proactive action is a “motivated, conscious and goal-directed” pro-
cess, which is driven by three proximal states that can stimulate individual proactive goal
generation and striving: “can do” (expectancy), “reason to” (valence), and “energized to”
(affect). When individuals’ proactive motivational states are stimulated and enhanced by
various contextual factors in the organization, they will be more likely to take positive
behavioral responses [11]. This study captures the three proximal motivational states using
constructs including moral efficacy (“can do”), felt obligation (“reason to”), and empa-
thy (“energized to”) and examines whether and how they mediate the SRHRM practices’
impact on OCBE.
In summary, we explore the role of SRHRM practices on OCBE from the perspective of
proactive motivation theory. We propose a multiple-mediation model with moral efficacy,
felt obligation, and empathy as the mediators. We conducted empirical research in the
Chinese organizational management context to explore the relationships among SRHRM,
OCBE, moral efficacy, felt obligation, and empathy. We aim to offer practical guidance for
organizations in promoting CSR initiatives in HRM practice and managing employees’
green behavior more effectively.
2. Literature Review and Hypothesis Development

2.1. Organizational Citizenship Behavior for the Environment
Climate change is a global problem, perhaps the most urgent and the greatest chal-
lenge facing humanity. Scientists believe that the main cause of climate change is human
activities, and organizations are a major channel of such activities. In response, organi-
zations have begun to adopt formal and informal environmental management systems;
however, merely relying on these systems is not enough. Rather, the successful implemen-
tation of organizational environmental protection projects depends largely on employees’
voluntary participation and active cooperation [2]. Environmentally engaged employees
can act as a social innovator and take part in a wide range of activities, such as participating
in intrapreneurial innovation to promote environmental sustainability and creating part-
nerships with other stakeholders [12], hence the need to understand employees’ voluntary
behaviors directed toward the environment.
OCBE is a voluntary environmental behavior that has recently gained interest in this
light. Extending the concept of organization citizenship behavior (OCB), Daily et al. [1] de-
fined OCBE as “environmental efforts that are discretionary acts, within the organizational
setting, not rewarded or required from the organization.” Later, Boiral and Paillé [4] divided
OCBE into the three categories of eco-initiatives, eco-civic engagement, and eco-helping.
Eco-initiatives aim at improving environmental practice and performance. Eco-civic en-
gagement refers to employees’ voluntary participation in the organization’s environmental
projects and activities. Eco-helping refers to employees’ willingness to help colleagues in
the workplace to foster their concern about environmental issues. Paillé et al. [3] verified
the feasibility of this classification through an empirical study.
There are alternative conceptualizations of employees’ pro-environmental behavior,
including employee green behavior proposed by Ones and Dilchert [13]. Their taxonomy of
green behaviors includes (1) avoiding harm, such as prevention of pollution, (2) conserving,
such as recycling, (3) working sustainably, such as changing how work is done, (4) influenc-
ing others, such as educating and training for sustainability and (5) taking initiative, such
as initiating programs and policies. Although closely related to OCBE, employee green
behaviors are different from OCBE in that they are not confined to extra-role behavior and
may include behaviors in task performance. Although employee green behaviors are a
meaningful construct to be studied in the context of environmental sustainability, they may
differ by job and by industry considerably. For example, creating eco-friendly products may
constitute regular task performance behavior in green industries. As such, employee green
behaviors are not well suited to our setting covering corporations in diverse industries.
Several factors affect OCBE. First, organizational environmental policy can stimulate
employees’ OCBE through their environmental commitment [7]. Paillé et al. [3] found that
environmental management practices increase subordinates’ perceptions of organizational
support and supervisor support and enhance organizational commitment, which then
generates stronger OCBE through reciprocity norms. Empowerment and training can also
improve enthusiasm about the environment, leading to OCBE [14,15]. In a manufacturing
firm with high level of green activities, Hameed et al. [16] found that employees’ perception
of green HRM practice resulted in higher OCBE through green employee empowerment.
Pham et al. [17] also found that green training improves OCBE among employees in
the hotel industry. Erdogan et al. [15] also showed that organizations’ environmental
enthusiasm promotes environmental protection attitudes and OCBE.
Second, leadership may affect subordinates’ OCBE as well. Higher levels of con-
sciousness among managers entail greater employee participation in ecological initiatives
and ecological help [18,19]. Graves et al. [20] demonstrated that environmental transfor-
mational leadership can promote employees’ environmental behaviors. Han et al. [19]
also found that responsible leadership promoted OCBE through identification with the
leader. Luu [21] found that environmentally specific servant leadership strengthens the
relationship between green HR practices and OCBE.
Finally, individual characteristics may also affect OCBE. Employees may differ in terms
of environmental awareness [22], environmental passion [23], and value orientation toward
environmental problems [24], which could lead to different degrees of OCBE. Individual
differences are often found to moderate the relationship between environment management
practice and OCBE [25] and the relationship between leadership and OCBE [26].
2.2. Employee Perception of SRHRM

Since Bowen [27] first proposed the concept of corporate social responsibility (CSR)
in the 1950s, it has attracted much attention from academics and practitioners. Per Car-
roll’s [28] definition, CSR means that an organization should not only achieve economic
goals and fulfill legal responsibilities but also consider their ethical and discretionary
responsibilities to employees and external stakeholders, including shareholders, suppliers,
customers, communities, governments, and NGOs in the process. With the extensive
conceptual development of CSR and numerous relevant studies, it has increasingly been
regarded as a mechanism by which organizations can achieve success and sustainable
development in the long term [29,30]. Externally, the fulfillment of CSR not only can
improve organizations’ social reputation and corporate image but can also help them
enter the international market and improve long-term profitability [31,32]. Internally,
in the knowledge-based economy where human capital is considered the core driver of
organizational competitive advantage, actively fulfilling CSR and establishing a good
CSR image can help organizations attract and retain excellent talent [33–36]. Thus, the
active fulfillment of CSR has far-reaching significance for organizations’ long-term survival
and development.
Employees are not only the object of CSR initiatives but also the backbone of organiza-
tional attempts to fulfill CSR. Organizations can promote CSR initiatives by encouraging
employees’ enthusiasm; concentrating their intelligence, attitude, and willpower; and
building up the conducive work environment and procedures. Firms can achieve these
goals by integrating the CSR concept into their human resource management practices. The
concept of socially responsible human resource management (SRHRM) has gradually de-
veloped from these needs [10,37]. There are three major components in an SRHRM system:
legal compliance HRM (LCHRM), employee-oriented HRM (EOHRM), and general CSR
facilitation HRM (GFHRM) [10]. LCHRM requires firms to comply with local labor laws
and meet the standards set by the International Labor Organization, relating mainly to
equal opportunity, working hours, health and safety, minimum wages, and the prohibitions
against forced labor and child labor [38]. EOHRM emphasizes satisfying the employees’
personal and family needs, going beyond the minimum legal requirements as much as
possible, such as providing organizational support to employees, ensuring justice in the
workplace, and satisfying employees’ need for personal development. GSHRM involves
the application of HRM policy and practice that enables participation in general CSR
initiatives, such as recruiting CSR-oriented employees, evaluating them, and rewarding
them for their CSR contributions.
It should be noted that we focus on the employee perception of SRHRM in our
empirical investigation. Ahmad et al. [39] emphasized the importance of studying CSR as
perceived at the individual employee level, which they dubbed as micro-level CSR (MCSR).
Zhang et al. [40] studied employees at 50 companies in China and demonstrated that the
effect of SRHRM on employee wellbeing varied depending on employees’ attribution of
corporate motives in the implementation of SRHRM. In a meta analysis, Wang et al. [41]
also showed that employee’s perceived CSR were related to various outcome, including
organizational identification, organizational trust, and organizational commitment.
Why would employee perception of SRHRM affect OCBE? There are at least three
theoretical perspectives that we can adopt to answer this question: social exchange theory,
social identity theory, and conservation of resources theory. First, when firms support
socially responsible practices that transcend organizational boundaries, they are more
likely to be perceived as benevolent and caring, and have its actions reciprocated by
employees [42]. Social exchange theory proposes that reciprocity norms are a powerful
motivator for employee behavior [43]. For example, Rainerie and Paille [7] found that
pro-environment management policy increased OCBE.
Second, when employees recognize that their company benefits various stakeholders
through CSR initiatives, they will be more likely to identify with the company and be
motivated to perform environmentally friendly behaviors in line with the company’s
goals, mission, and values [44], which is in line with social identity theory [45]. In a
meta-analysis, Riketta [46] found that organizational identification was closely related to
extra-role behavior. In a study of a major Israeli airline carrier, Mozes et al. [47] found
that active participants of volunteering activities showed higher level of organizational
identification than non-active participants. Tian and Robertson [48] found that employees’
perceptions of CSR can affect their participation in voluntary environmental behaviors
through organizational identification.
Third, SRHRM may encourage employees to engage in OCBE by providing necessary
resources, such as knowledge and skills, that could enable socially responsible employee
behavior. Conservation of resources theory proposes that resource acquisition could be
a strong motivating factor for employee behavior, as individuals try to avoid stress that
comes from resource loss [49]. In a study of tour operators in Vietnam, Luu [21] argued that
green HRM may create an atmosphere of green learning among members, which could be
utilized as organizational resources for green behavior. They indeed found that green HRM
increased OCBE through collective green crafting. In a study of top management teams and
frontline workers in China, Paille et al. [6] found that strategic HRM increased OCBE more
strongly when employees perceive that the organization grants them the decision-making
latitude and necessary resources to engage in pro-environmental behavior.
Based on these considerations, we propose the following hypothesis:
Hypothesis 1. SRHRM will have a positive effect on OCBE.

2.3. Proactive Motivation Model for SRHRM

Scholars have always recognized that exploring the antecedents and psychological
mechanisms of employee initiative is crucial for guiding the practice of organizational
change [11]. Parker et al. [11] proposed proactive motivation theory and pointed out
that generating individual proactive behavior is a process of cognition and motivation,
and contextual variables in an organization can influence employees’ personal initiative
through the mediation of three proximal motivational states: “can do,” “reason to,” and
“energized to” motivation.
First, performing proactive behaviors, which usually means setting higher goals
to change the status quo, requires individuals’ firm belief that they “can do” it. “Can
do” motivation refers to an individuals’ belief in their ability to change or adapt to the
environment, which stems mainly from their self-efficacy. Just as others are likely to doubt
and resist employees when they take initiative to improve their work processes in response
to changing demands, individuals’ proactive behaviors in the workplace often entail high
psychological risks, while strong self-efficacy will enhance individuals’ will to overcome
these obstacles [50].
Second, a “can do” mentality may not lead to proactive behavior absent a compelling
“reason to” act. In general, when there is strong regulatory guidance in the organizational
context, individuals are likely to take initiative to achieve organizational goals. However,
when the organizational context is fuzzy and lacks well-defined goals, individuals’ proac-
tive behavior requires greater internal drive—namely, “reason to” motivation. According
to temporal construal theory, the desirability of future goals (the “why” of an action) is
a stronger determinant than feasibility (the “how” of an action) when goals concern the
longer term rather than the near term [51].
Lastly, to be “energized to” take initiative, individuals also must activate “hot” af-
fective states in addition to the “cold” motivational states of “can do” and “reason to.”
Previous studies have shown that positive affect can broaden individuals’ momentary
action-thought repertoires and help them solve problems creatively, weigh the advantages
and disadvantages flexibly, set more challenging proactive goals, and take the initiative to
achieve these goals [11,52].
Despite the potential to explain complex problems regarding employee behavior in
an organization, the role of human resource management practice in promoting employee
proactivity has not been explored until recently [53]. Hong et al. [54] established an
integrative multilevel model to explicate how contextual factors influence employees’
subsequent personal initiative by shaping their proactive motivational states. They found
that initiative-enhancing human resource management systems interact with empowering
leadership to create a climate of initiative, which stimulates employees’ motivational states
of “can do” (role-breadth self-efficacy), “reason to” (intrinsic motivation), and “energized
to” (activated positive affect), thereby driving personal initiative. Lee et al. [53] also
examined how HRM practices promote three motivational states, namely, role breadth
self-efficacy, felt responsibility for change, and trust in management and increase employee
innovative behavior as a result.
We propose that SRHRM practices provide an important social process that affects
proactive motivational states of employees, antecedents to OCBE. We further propose
that SRHRM practices will evoke proactive motivational states that are moral and other-
centered in nature, as SRHRM encourages employees to go beyond the narrow pursuit
of self-interest. Hence, we chose moral efficacy, rather than self-efficacy, as a “can do”
motivation. In the same logic, we chose felt obligation, rather than intrinsic motivation,
as a “reason to” motivation. Finally, we chose empathy, which is other-centered in nature,
rather than positive affectivity, as a “energized to” motivation.
Moral Efficacy: Moral efficacy refers to “the belief of individuals that they can effectively
sustain moral performance and behave in accordance with moral requirements when faced
with moral dilemmas” [55]. Hannah et al. [55] posited that individuals may rely on their
own moral judgment to find solutions to moral dilemmas, but that they may not necessarily
put them into practice, which may be due to a lack of confidence, thus reducing their moral
intentions. The concept of moral efficacy bridges the gap between moral judgment and
moral behavior and provides a new perspective on the latter’s roots.
Moral efficacy can help individuals commence the series of actions needed to make
correct moral decisions under specific conditions [50]. Even in facing moral dilemmas,
individuals with high moral efficacy believe that they can effectively address achieve high
moral performance, behaving in accordance with moral requirements [55]. Moreover, moral
efficacy can give individuals the confidence to engage in prosocial behavior, facilitating
belief in their ability to help others and thereby increasing their willingness to behave
prosocially (e.g., OCB) [56]. Hannah et al. [55] found that moral efficacy has a positive
impact on individuals’ moral cognition and propensity, encouraging them to behave
ethically. Xu et al. [56] found that employees’ moral efficacy positively predicts their
voice behavior when faced with abusive supervision. Thus, it is likely that moral efficacy
encourages ethical behaviors in organizational settings, including OCBE.
Research has also shown that moral efficacy mediates the relationship between ethical
leadership and various prosocial employee behaviors. Schaubroeck et al. [57] found that
ethical leadership enhanced employees’ moral efficacy, which led to courageous displays of
ethical behaviors. Moreover, Kim and Vandenberghe [58] found that ethical leadership can
have a positive impact on team ethical voice and OCB directed at the individual and the
organization through team moral efficacy. In line with this, Owens et al. [56] found that a
leader’s moral humility can increase employees’ moral efficacy, thus increasing employees’
prosocial behaviors and reducing their unethical behaviors. These findings show that
there is a broad consensus among scholars that moral efficacy can enhance individuals’
moral behaviors.
We suggest that SRHRM will have a positive impact on OCBE, as SRHRM improves
employees’ moral efficacy. First, SRHRM practices link the recruitment, promotion, remu-
neration, and performance appraisal process with employees’ social contributions, provid-
ing generous rewards and work benefits to employees with strong social performance [9].
By strengthening rewards, the organization encourages employees to behave ethically,
which helps them gain more moral confidence and experience and thereby enhances their
moral efficacy. Second, SRHRM provides employees with CSR-related systematic training
programs, yielding opportunities to accumulate knowledge about and experience with
fulfilling CSR roles [9]. Such training, including business ethics education, can increase
employees’ confidence in their ability to handle ethical problems in their work and can
enhance their moral efficacy [59]. Third, SRHRM conveys the message to employees that
the organization attaches importance to external stakeholders, including the natural envi-
ronment [60]. Therefore, we expect that this practice will increase employees’ willingness
to engage in OCBE, which is closely related to environmental protection and sustainable
organizational development.
Felt Obligation: Felt obligation refers to “the prescriptive belief regarding whether one
should care about the organization’s well-being and should help the organization reach
its goals” [61]. This definition includes two major components: The first is the belief that
employees make business contributions and help to achieve organizational objectives, and
the second is the belief that employees pay attention to and value the interests and welfare
of the organization. Thus, felt obligation embodies the principle of reciprocity, which is a
culturally universal social interaction principle [62,63].
Employees with strong felt obligation are more likely to believe that they owe the
organization and to strive their best to help the organization achieve its goals [63,64]. When
employees feel that the organization cares about them and demonstrates preferential treat-
ment toward their interests, they may feel obligated to repay the organization and thus
actively strive to improve their work [61]. Stronger feelings of obligation entail more active
work efforts by employees, as well as their taking initiative to advance organizational
interests and strategic goals. Further, Yu and Frenkel [65] found that perceived organi-
zational support can enhance employees’ task performance and creativity through felt
obligation. Based on job demands–resources (JD–R) theory, Albrecht and Su [66] found
that job resources can affect employees’ work engagement through felt obligation.
Felt obligation also encourages employees to go “above and beyond” job requirements,
engaging in extra-role behaviors that are beneficial to the organization and overall public
welfare [61]. Felt obligation often influences employees to adopt constructive behaviors that
will benefit others or other organizations and motivates employees to be “good citizens”
who protect stakeholders [67]. Eisenberger et al. [61] found that perceived organizational
support can enhance employees’ felt obligation, inducing them to care about organizational
welfare and help their organizations achieve their goals; in turn, they found that this
promotes employees’ affective commitment, spontaneity, and in-role performance.
SRHRM focuses on the interests of employees as important internal stakeholders and
cares about their personal development needs and work-life balance [10]. In accordance
with social exchange theory and reciprocity norms, when an organization adopts HRM
practices that benefit its employees, employees will feel obligated to give back to the
organization and will continue to conduct reciprocal social exchange [68]. Moreover,
SRHRM clearly conveys to employees the significance of CSR for the organization and
themselves, as well as the organization’s expectations that employees contribute to CSR
initiatives [9]. Such a clear responsibility-oriented value system will lead employees to
believe that their work is not only for creating organizational benefits but also for benefiting
society at large, thereby promoting employees’ felt obligation. Thus, we argue that SRHRM
practice strengthens employees’ feelings of obligation to the organization.
Felt obligation may be an important psychological mechanism to explain the mo-
tivation behind employees’ OCBE initiatives. Han et al. [19] empirically verified that
felt obligation for constructive change, stimulated by responsible leadership, motivates
employees to engage in OCBE. In fact, several scholars have explored the mediating role
of perceived obligation in the relationship between leadership factors and employees’
work behavior. Tian and Li [69] found that self-sacrificial leadership can promote employ-
ees’ proactive behavior indirectly through felt obligation. Additionally, Basit [70] found
that employees’ trust in their supervisors can enhance their feelings of obligation and
further improve work engagement. Lorinkova and Perry [71] found that group-focused
transformational leadership is more likely to enhance working group members’ feelings
of obligation, thereby motivating helping behaviors and enhancing group performance.
Therefore, we reason that SRHRM practice will promote employees’ feelings of obligation
to the organization and encourage them to engage in OCBE.
Empathy: Empathy refers to “the reaction of one individual to the observed experiences
of another” [72]. More specifically, empathy is conceptualized as “an individual difference
that involves sharing other people’s feelings related to other people’s well-being” [73],
which comprises cognitive and emotional components [74]. Cognitive empathy refers
to “an individual’s ability to take the perspective of those in need,” while emotional
empathy refers to “an other-oriented emotional response elicited by and congruent with
the perceived welfare of someone in need” [74]. Empathy is conceptually different from
sympathy and compassion. Sympathy can be defined as “an emotional response stemming
from the apprehension of another’s emotional state or condition, which is not the same
as the other’s state or condition but consists of feelings of sorrow or concern for the
other” [61]. Hence managers may feel sympathetic toward outraged employees without
feeling outraged themselves, while taking on these actual feelings is characteristic of
empathy [75]. Moreover, compassion is described as “a process involving both feeling and
action” [76], which we can distinguish from empathy by its action component.
As an other-oriented affective reaction, empathy can arouse an individual’s attention
to others’ needs and generate motivation to act in ways that benefit others [74]. Therefore,
empathy has always been regarded as an important motivator of prosocial and altruistic
behaviors [77,78]. Compared to employees with low empathy, who are insensitive to the
needs of others, employees with high empathy are more likely to define OCB as an in-role
behavior [79]. They will make efforts to understand other people’s ideas and are more
willing exhibit OCB. Supporting this assertion, Eisenberg et al. [61] found that individuals
with high empathy tend to engage in more prosocial behaviors. Batson et al. [80] also found
that empathy not only can construct a universal connection between oneself and others’
emotional experience and well-being but also can enhance helping and sharing behaviors.
Shao et al. [81] found that SRHRM can stimulate employees’ affective empathy. Moreover,
Berenguer [82] found that empathy can promote individuals’ pro-environment attitudes
and behaviors.
Organizations’ SRHRM practices may trigger employees’ empathic reactions. Affec-
tive events theory posits that specific affective events in the workplace, such as praise,
will trigger specific affective reactions in employees [83]. First, SRHRM advocacy of social
responsibility values may help employees pay attention to others’ needs and interests and
consider the social impact of their work behaviors on external stakeholders, thus generating
empathy [81]. Additionally, as mentioned previously, SRHRM practice rewards employees
for good social performance [9]. In this way, CSR activities can meet several psychological
needs and practical interests of employees such that employees will be motivated to re-
spond positively to SRHRM practice and show more empathy [81]. Based on this, we infer
that employees will accept and support the caring values advocated by SRHRM practice,
enabling them to empathize with those in need.
Considering that the social responsibility values transmitted to employees by SRHRM
emphasize the environment as an important stakeholder, empathy can facilitate environ-
mentally friendly attitudes and behaviors. We therefore infer that employees with empathy
aroused by SRHRM practices will be more likely to fully consider the environmental impact
of their behaviors and therefore will engage in OCBE, which is conducive to environmental
protection. Based on this reasoning, we propose the following hypotheses:
Hypothesis 2. Moral efficacy will partially mediate the positive relationship between SRHRM
and OCBE.
Hypothesis 3. Felt obligation will partially mediate the positive relationship between SRHRM
and OCBE.
Hypothesis 4. Empathy will partially mediate the positive relationship between SRHRM and9OCBE.
Sustainability 2021, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW of 22
Figure 1 summarizes the hypotheses tested in this study.
Figure 1. Research model. SRHRM: Socially responsible human resource management. OCBE:
Organizational
Figure citizenship
1. Research behaviorSocially
model. SRHRM: for the responsible
environment.human resource management. OCBE:
Organizational citizenship behavior for the environment.
3. Research Methodology
3.3.1. Participants
Research and Procedure
Methodology
We selected
3.1. Participants andemployees
Procedureworking for companies that actively engage in social responsi-
bility initiatives as our survey participants so that employees could obtain more objective
We selected employees working for companies that actively engage in social respon-
sibility initiatives as our survey participants so that employees could obtain more objec-
tive information about the company’s SRHRM practice. To recruit eligible participants,
we first contacted the HR managers of 30 companies to check their SRHRM practices.
Seven of the companies either had no adequate knowledge of SRHRM or were otherwise
information about the company’s SRHRM practice. To recruit eligible participants, we first
contacted the HR managers of 30 companies to check their SRHRM practices. Seven of the
companies either had no adequate knowledge of SRHRM or were otherwise disinclined to
participate in the study, leaving us with 23 companies.
The HR managers reviewed the content and procedures and granted permission to
conduct the survey during working hours, providing us with the email addresses of ran-
domly selected employees from each department. Ultimately, we recruited 656 employees
from 23 manufacturing companies in Beijing, Shanghai, Guangzhou, Jiangsu, Zhejiang,
and Anhui provinces in China to participate in our survey.
We used a self-report questionnaire method of data collection. To reduce potential
common variance, we separated the independent variable and the dependent variables and
used a longitudinal research design, distributing and collecting questionnaires over a two-
week interval [84] during October and November 2020. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic,
we conducted the whole survey process online.
At Time 1, we emailed participants a link to the first questionnaire, which measured
variables including SRHRM, moral efficacy, empathy, demographic characteristics, and
other control variables. Two weeks later, at Time 2, we emailed participants another link
to the second questionnaire, which measured OCBE. To match the two questionnaires,
we asked participants to fill in the last four digits of their primary phone number. We
recovered a total of 584 successfully matched questionnaires, from which we excluded 49 as
invalid. The remaining 535 valid questionnaires constituted the final sample, giving 81.55%
valid questionnaire returns. We compared the final sample and the sample of observations
lost due to attrition and found no significant difference.
Table 1 displays the demographic characteristics of the final sample. In general, the
sample data were reasonably distributed on various characteristics, which is conducive for
subsequent research.
Table 1. Sample characteristics (n = 535).
Variable Dimension Frequency Percent (%)

Male 280 52.3%
Gender
Female 255 47.7%
Less than 20 61 11.4%
20~30 159 29.7%
Age 31~40 189 35.3%
41~50 118 22.1%
More than 50 8 1.5%
High school graduate or below 40 7.5%
College degree 213 39.8%
Education Level
Bachelor’s degree 229 42.8%
Master’s degree or above 53 9.9%
Less than 1 year 81 15.1%
1~3 years 156 29.2%
Organizational Tenure 4~6 years 211 39.4%
7~10 years 72 13.5%
More than 10 years 15 2.8%
General staff 357 66.7%
Junior manager 142 26.5%
Job Position
Intermediate manager 29 5.4%
Senior manager 7 1.3%
3.2. Operational Definitions and Measurements

OCBE: In this study, organizational citizenship behavior for the environment (OCBE)
is defined as “individual and discretionary social behaviors that are not explicitly recog-
nized by the formal reward system and that contribute to a more effective environmental
management by organizations” [4]. We used Boiral and Paillé’s [4] 10-item OCB-E scale,
which has been used in the Chinese cultural context. Sample items include “I voluntarily
carry out environmental actions and initiatives in my daily work activities,” “I actively par-
ticipate in environmental events organized in and/or by my company,” and “I encourage
my colleagues to adopt more environmentally conscious behavior.” All items utilized a
7-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree).
Perceived SRHRM: Socially responsible human resource management (SRHRM) is
defined as “a series of human resource management practices initiated by organizations to
promote and reward employees’ active participation in CSR activities beneficial to external
stakeholders, including recruiting and retaining socially responsible employees, providing
CSR training, and taking account of employees’ social contributions in promotion, perfor-
mance appraisal, and remuneration” [9,10]. We used the six-item SRHRM scale adapted
and validated by Shen and Benson [9]. Sample items include “My company considers
employee social performance in performance appraisals,” “My company considers candi-
dates’ general attitudes toward CSR in selection,” and “My company provides CSR training
to develop employees’ skills in stakeholder engagement and communication.” All items
utilized a 7-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree).
Moral Efficacy: Moral efficacy is defined as “an individual’s belief in his/her abilities
to actively and positively address ethical issues that may arise in the workplace and to
overcome obstacles encountered in developing and implementing ethical solutions to
ethical dilemmas” [55]. We used the nine-item moral efficacy scale adapted and validated
by May et al. [59]. Sample items include “I am confident in my ability to analyze an ethical
problem to find a solution,” “I am confident in my ability to formulate an evaluation of the
different sides of an ethical issue,” and “I am confident in my ability to formulate strategies
for overcoming resistance to your proposed solutions to ethical problems at work.”
Felt Obligation: Felt obligation is defined as “an individual’s prescriptive belief re-
garding whether he or she should care about the organization’s well-being and should
help the organization achieve its goals” [61]. To measure felt obligation, we administered
the seven-item felt obligation scale developed and validated by Eisenberger et al. [61].
Participants rated whether they feel obligated to care about the organization and to help it
achieve its goals on a 7-point Likert scale. Sample items include “I feel a personal obligation
to do whatever I can to help the organization achieve its goals,” “I have an obligation to the
organization to ensure that I produce high-quality work,” and “I would feel an obligation
to take time from my personal schedule to help the organization if it needed my help.”
Eisenberger et al. [61] reported a Cronbach’s alpha value of 0.88 for this scale.
Empathy: Empathy is defined as “an other-oriented emotional response that is elicited
by and congruent with the perceived welfare of someone in need when taking the per-
spective of those in need” [73]. We administered the 10-item abbreviated empathy scale
adapted and validated by Dietz and Kleinlogel [75] to measure empathy. Participants
rated their ability to put themselves in the shoes of someone in need and their actual
feelings when seeing those in need on a 7-point Likert scale. Sample items include “Before
criticizing somebody, I try to imagine how I would feel if I were in their place,” “When
I’m upset at someone, I usually try to ‘put myself in his shoes’ for a while,” and “I often
have tender, concerned feelings for people less fortunate than me.” Tian and Robertson [48]
have demonstrated strong evidence of the scale’s reliability and validity in the Chinese
cultural context.
Since the original scales were in English and the survey participants were Chinese, the
back translation procedure recommended by Brislin [85] was adopted to translate the scales
into Chinese and then back into English to ensure the accuracy of the scales’ meaning.
3.3. Control Variables

We measured several demographic variables based on previous studies, including
gender, age, education level, organizational tenure, and job position, as they may affect
individuals’ willingness to engage in extra-role behaviors [86].
3.4. Analysis Methods

We used SPSS 25.0 (including the PROCESS macro, version 3.4) and AMOS 23.0 to
analyze the valid sample data. First, we conducted the Harman single-factor test to check
for common method variance. Second, we performed exploratory factor analysis (EFA)
and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) to test the construct validity of the measures used
in this study. Then, we computed Cronbach’s alpha coefficients to confirm the measures’
internal consistency. Finally, we used hierarchical multiple regression to test all research
hypotheses, as well as to confirm whether our proposed moderated multiple-mediation
model was tenable. To test the multiple mediating mechanism between SRHRM and OCBE,
we utilized Model 4 in the PROCESS [87]. We entered all control variables into the model
and set the number of bootstrap samples to 5000. Then, we utilized the bias-corrected
bootstrapping method to conduct tests at the 95% confidence level.
4. Results
4.1. Common Method Variance Test
Common method variance (CMV) is defined as “systematic error variance shared
among variables measured with, and introduced as, a function of the same method and/or
source” [88]. We used the Harman single-factor test to check for common method variance.
The principal component analysis extracted a total of seven factors with eigenvalues greater
than 1, and the total variance extracted by the first principal factor was 31.097%, which is
less than the threshold of 50% recommended by Hair et al. [89]. These results indicated
that there were no common method variance issues in this study.
4.2. Validity and Reliability Analysis

We conducted KMO and Bartlett’s test of sphericity on the sample data. As illustrated
in Table 2, the KMO value was 0.943 (much greater than 0.5), statistically significant at
p < 0.001. This indicated that the sample data were suitable for factor analysis.
Table 2. KMO and Bartlett’s Test.
Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy 0.943

Approx. Chi-Square 13384.452
Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity df 780
Significance 0.000
Next, we conducted EFA with the varimax rotation method to obtain the rotated
component matrix for interpretation. Consequently, we eliminated one moral efficacy scale
item and one empathy scale item. Then, to further confirm the fit between the measured
data and the theoretical frameworks of the measurements, we conducted CFA.
As shown in Table 3, the standardized factor loadings for all items exceeded 0.50,
and the loadings of eco-initiatives, eco-civic engagement, and eco-helping on the first-
order dimension of the second-order variable OCBE exceeded 0.70. Moreover, the CR
and AVE values for each construct exceeded 0.70 and 0.50, respectively. The CR values
of all constructs exceeded the corresponding AVE values. These results indicated that all
constructs had good internal consistency and convergent validity.
Table 3. Results of Confirmatory Factor Analysis.
Construct Indicator Factor Loading SMC t-Value p-Value CR AVE

Eco-initiatives 0.775 0.595 — —
OCB-E Eco-civic Engagement 0.705 0.497 11.315 *** 0.795 0.564
Eco-helping 0.771 0.600 11.899 ***
SH1 0.783 0.613 — —
SH2 0.805 0.648 19.802 ***
SH3 0.752 0.566 18.370 ***
SRHRM 0.904 0.612
SH4 0.726 0.527 17.507 ***
SH5 0.815 0.664 20.233 ***
SH6 0.809 0.654 20.252 ***
ME1 0.774 0.599 — —
ME2 0.839 0.705 20.834 ***
ME3 0.631 0.398 14.908 ***
ME4 0.800 0.641 19.624 ***
Moral Efficacy 0.911 0.562
ME5 0.768 0.590 18.703 ***
ME6 0.699 0.489 16.628 ***
ME7 0.745 0.556 18.102 ***
ME9 0.722 0.521 17.392 ***
FO1 0.841 0.707 — —
FO2 0.687 0.472 17.876 ***
FO3 0.731 0.534 19.498 ***
Felt Obligation FO4 0.881 0.776 26.213 *** 0.925 0.641
FO5 0.820 0.672 23.226 ***
FO6 0.834 0.695 23.721 ***
FO7 0.792 0.628 21.873 ***
EP1 0.713 0.508 — —
EP2 0.672 0.451 14.947 ***
EP3 0.678 0.460 15.196 ***
EP5 0.797 0.635 17.731 ***
Empathy EP6 0.718 0.515 16.036 *** 0.917 0.553
EP7 0.883 0.779 19.525 ***
EP8 0.702 0.493 15.676 ***
EP9 0.794 0.631 17.770 ***
EP10 0.712 0.507 15.781 ***
OE1 0.832 0.692 — —
Eco-initiatives OE2 0.873 0.762 22.183 *** 0.863 0.679
OE3 0.763 0.582 19.235 ***
OE4 0.860 0.740 — —
OE5 0.763 0.582 20.437 ***
Eco-civic Engagement 0.890 0.670
OE6 0.871 0.759 25.264 ***
OE7 0.775 0.601 21.030 ***
OE8 0.807 0.651 — —
Eco-helping OE9 0.809 0.654 18.785 *** 0.845 0.645
OE10 0.794 0.631 18.657 ***
*** p < 0.001.
Based on Jackson et al.’s [90] recommendations, we used the 10 most frequently re-
ported fit indices in previous CFA studies to evaluate the overall model fit in the present
study, including the chi-square (χ2 ), degrees of freedom (df ), χ2 /df ratio, standardized
root mean square residual (RMSR), root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA),
goodness-of-fit index (GFI), adjusted goodness-of-fit index (AGFI), normed fit index (NFI),
non-normed fit index (NNFI), and comparative fit index (CFI). Generally, χ2 /df ratio be-
tween 1 and 3 indicates that the model fits the data well. RMSEA values in the 0–0.08 range
and SRMR values in the 0–0.05 range are considered as evidence of good fit, with smaller
values indicating better model fit. Values of the other fit indices—including GFI, AGFI,
NFI, NNFI, and CFI—in the 0.90–1.0 range represent good model fit, with larger values
indicating better model fit [91].
Table 4 reports the values of the fit indices for the CFA model (χ2 = 927.214; df = 727;
2
χ /df = 1.275; RMSEA = 0.023; SRMR = 0.033; GFI = 0.922; AGFI = 0.912; NFI = 0.933;
NNFI = 0.983; CFI = 0.985). All fit indices conformed to the common criteria of SEM
research. Thus, we concluded that the measurement model fit the sample data well.
Table 4. Measurement Model Fit Statistics.
Fit Index χ2 df χ2 /df RMSEA SRMR GFI AGFI NFI NNFI CFI
Common
— — <3 <0.08 <0.05 >0.90 >0.90 >0.90 >0.90 >0.90
Criterion
Measured Value 927.214 727 1.275 0.023 0.033 0.922 0.912 0.933 0.983 0.985
Table 5 shows the reliability analysis results for all scales. Cronbach’s alpha coefficients
ranged between 0.890 and 0.924, indicating good internal consistency for all scales.
Table 5. Reliability Analysis Results.
Variable Cronbach’s Alpha n of Items

Perceived SRHRM 0.902 6
Moral Efficacy 0.910 8
Felt Obligation 0.924 7
Empathy 0.916 9
OCBE 0.890 10
4.3. Correlational Analysis

As shown in Table 6, SRHRM (the independent variable in the research model) had
significant positive correlations with moral efficacy (r = 0.482, p < 0.001), felt obligation
(r = 0.446, p < 0.001), empathy (r = 0.402, p < 0.001), and OCBE (r = 0.442, p < 0.001).
All mediating variables—moral efficacy, felt obligation, and empathy—were significantly
positively correlated with the dependent variable OCBE (respectively, r = 0.422, p < 0.001;
r = 0.440, p < 0.001; r = 0.409, p < 0.001). These significant correlations among the variables
of interest preliminarily supported our general hypothesis and provided a solid foundation
for specific hypothesis testing.
Table 6. Means, Standard Deviations, and Correlations (n = 535).
Variable M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6
1. Gender 0.477 0.500 1
2. Perceived SRHRM 4.630 1.621 0.074 1
3. Moral Efficacy 4.890 1.361 0.004 0.482 *** 1
4. Felt Obligation 4.561 1.631 0.007 0.446 *** 0.346 *** 1
5. Empathy 4.267 1.524 0.031 0.402 *** 0.269 *** 0.279 *** 1
6. OCB-E 4.757 1.314 0.021 0.442 *** 0.422 *** 0.440 *** 0.409 *** 1
*** p < 0.001.
4.4. Hypothesis Testing

4.4.1. Main Effect of SRHRM on OCB-E
To examine the relationship between SRHRM and OCBE, the hierarchical multiple
regression method was adopted and processed via SPSS 25.0 in this study. The results
are presented in Table 7. All control variables were transformed into dummy variables
and then entered into model 1 of hierarchical regression analysis. Then, the independent
variable SRHRM was added into Model 2 to identify the effects of SRHRM on the outcome
variable OCBE. After adding SRHRM into Model 2, the results in Table 2 show that SRHRM
had a significant positive effect on OCBE (β = 0.436, p < 0.001) and the R2 of the model also
increased from 0.037 to 0.222, which supported Hypothesis 1.
Table 7. Hierarchical Regression Results (n = 535).
OCBE
Variable
Model 1 Model 2
Control Variable
Gender (Female) 0.020 −0.008
Age_under 20 0.072 0.047
Age_20s 0.110 0.083
Age_40s −0.010 −0.004
Age_above 50 0.012 0.004
Edu_High −0.112 * −0.104 *
Edu_College −0.019 −0.014
Edu_MA −0.012 −0.007
Tenure_less 1 −0.065 −0.054
Tenure_1 to 3 −0.123 * −0.098 *
Tenure_7 to 10 0.047 0.028
Tenure_more 10 0.034 0.062
Position_JuniorMgr 0.026 0.019
Position_IntermMgr −0.009 0.010
Position_SeniorMgr −0.062 −0.031
Independent Variable
Perceived SRHRM 0.436 ***
R2 0.037 0.222
Adjusted R2 0.009 0.198
R2 Change 0.037 0.185
F 1.339 9.244 ***
F Change 1.339 123.099 ***
Omitted variables are Age_30s, Edu_BA, Tenure_4 to 6, Position_staff. * p < 0.05, *** p < 0.001.
4.4.2. Multiple Mediating Effect in Relationship between SRHRM and OCBE

Table 8 and Figure 2 report the coefficients of all paths in the multiple-mediator model
between SRHRM and OCB-E. SRHRM had significant positive effects on moral efficacy
(β = 0.402, t = 13.753, p < 0.001), felt obligation (β = 0.447, t = 12.032, p < 0.001), and empathy
(β = 0.374, t = 10.516, p < 0.001). Likewise, moral efficacy (β = 0.212, t = 5.175, p < 0.001),
felt obligation (β = 0.195, t = 5.776, p < 0.001), and empathy (β = 0.206, t = 5.796, p < 0.001)
all had significant positive effects on OCBE. Moreover, SRHRM had a significant positive
effect on OCBE (β = 0.357, t = 11.806, p < 0.001), and upon entering moral efficacy, felt
obligation, and empathy into the model, the direct positive effect of SRHRM on OCBE was
reduced considerably (β = 0.107, t = 2.789, p < 0.01), indicating the mediating effects of each
variable. Thus, Hypothesis 1 was supported.
Table 8. Path Coefficients of the Multiple-Mediator Model between SRHRM and OCB-E (n = 535).
95% CI
Path B S.E. t-Value R2 F
LLCI ULCI
SRHRM → Moral Efficacy 0.402 0.029 13.753 *** 0.345 0.460 0.307 48.674 ***
SRHRM → Felt Obligation 0.447 0.037 12.032 *** 0.374 0.520 0.222 26.752 ***
SRHRM → Empathy 0.374 0.036 10.516 *** 0.304 0.444 0.208 25.855 ***
Moral Efficacy → OCB-E 0.212 0.041 5.175 *** 0.131 0.292
Felt Obligation → OCB-E 0.195 0.034 5.776 *** 0.129 0.262
0.355 43.183 ***
Empathy → OCB-E 0.206 0.036 5.796 *** 0.136 0.276
SRHRM → OCB-E (direct) 0.107 0.038 2.789 ** 0.032 0.182
SRHRM → OCB-E (total) 0.357 0.030 11.806 *** 0.297 0.416 0.210 26.821 ***
*** p < 0.001. CI = Confidence Interval; LLCI = Lower Limit Confidence Interval; ULCI = Upper Limit Confidence Interval.
Moral Efficacy → OCB-E 0.212 0.041 5.175 *** 0.131 0.292
Felt Obligation → OCB-E 0.195 0.034 5.776 *** 0.129 0.262
0.355 43.183 ***
Empathy → OCB-E 0.206 0.036 5.796 *** 0.136 0.276
SRHRM → OCB-E (direct) 0.107 0.038 2.789 ** 0.032 0.182
SRHRM
Sustainability → 13,
2021, OCB-E
7958 (total) 0.357 0.030 11.806 *** 0.297 0.416 0.210 26.821 ***
15 of 21
*** p < 0.001. CI = Confidence Interval; LLCI = Lower Limit Confidence Interval; ULCI = Upper Limit Confidence Interval.
Figure 2. Multiple-Mediator Model of Relationship between SRHRM and OCBE. ** p < 0.01,
Figure 2. 0.001.
*** p < Multiple-Mediator Model of Relationship between SRHRM and OCBE. ** p < 0.01, *** p <
( ): Direct effect.
0.001. ( ): Direct effect.
Table 9 reports the analysis results of the multiple mediating effects of moral efficacy,
felt obligation, and empathy on the relationship between SRHRM and OCBE. The bootstrap
95% confidence interval (0.200–0.304) of the total indirect effects (β = 0.250) did not contain
0, indicating that the total mediating effects in the model were significant. Further, the
bootstrap 95% confidence intervals corresponding to the indirect effects of SRHRM on
OCBE through moral efficacy (β = 0.085), felt obligation (β = 0.087), and empathy (β = 0.077)
did not contain 0 (respectively, 0.052–0.121, 0.057–0.120, and 0.051–0.109), indicating that
mediating effects of each were statistically significant. When comparing the effect sizes
of the three mediating paths in pairs, the bootstrap 95% confidence intervals of the effect
differences all contained 0 (respectively, −0.050–0.045, −0.037–0.055, and −0.036–0.054),
indicating that there were no significant differences in the mediating effects of moral
efficacy, felt obligation, and empathy; these effects accounted for 23.81%, 24.37%, and
21.57% of the total mediating effect (70.03%), respectively. Therefore, Hypotheses 2, 3, and
4 all were supported.
Table 9. Multiple Mediating Effects in Relationship between SRHRM and OCBE (n = 535).
95% CI Proportion Via

Path Effect S.E. t-Value
LLCI ULCI Mediation
Total Effects
SRHRM → OCB-E 0.357 0.030 11.806 *** 0.297 0.416 —
Direct Effects
SRHRM → OCB-E 0.107 0.038 2.789 ** 0.031 0.182 —
Indirect Effects
SRHRM → Moral efficacy → OCB-E 0.085 0.017 — 0.052 0.121 23.81%
SRHRM → Felt obligation → OCB-E 0.087 0.016 — 0.057 0.120 24.37%
SRHRM → Empathy → OCB-E 0.077 0.015 — 0.051 0.109 21.57%
Total Indirect Effects 0.250 0.027 — 0.200 0.304 70.03%
Contrasts
Mediation 1 versus Mediation 2 −0.002 0.024 — −0.050 0.045 —
Mediation 1 versus Mediation 3 0.008 0.022 — −0.037 0.055 —
Mediation 2 versus Mediation 3 0.010 0.023 — −0.036 0.054 —
** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001. CI = Confidence Interval; LLCI = Lower Limit Confidence Interval; ULCI = Upper Limit Confidence Interval. Mediation
1 = SRHRM → Moral efficacy → OCB-E; Mediation 2 = SRHRM → Felt obligation → OCB-E; Mediation 3 = SRHRM → Empathy → OCB-E.
5. Discussion
5.1. Results Summary
From the perspective of proactive motivation theory, this study proposed a multiple-
mediation model to explore the effect of employee perception of SRHRM practice on
employees’ OCBE and its mechanisms. Based on data from 535 employees of 23 manu-
facturing companies in China, we uncovered the mediating effects of moral efficacy, felt
obligation, and empathy in the relationship between perceived SRHRM and OCBE and
can draw several conclusions.
First, this study verified employee perception of SRHRM had significant positive
effect on OCBE. Specifically, when employees perceive that their organizations practice
SRHRM well, it can encourage employees to engage in socially responsible behaviors such
as OCBE. This finding is consistent with the view proposed by Slack et al. [92] that the
degree of CSR embedding within an organization will affect employees’ participation in
CSR initiatives. When organizations clearly convey the value of CSR to employees through
SRHRM practice, employees, as the main purveyors of organizations’ CSR initiatives, will
naturally take initiative to participate in organizational CSR and then engage in more
socially responsible behaviors such as OCBE. This conclusion also echoes the view of
Ellis [93] that employees’ perceptions of CSR impact personal social action.
Second, this study confirmed that moral efficacy, felt obligation, and empathy signifi-
cantly mediate the influence of perceived SRHRM on OCBE, with no significant differences
among the three mediation paths. More specifically, when the organization practices
SRHRM effectively, this will enhance employees’ belief that they can execute socially re-
sponsible behaviors in line with ethical norms, make employees feel obligated to perform
socially responsible behaviors as feelings of obligation to the organization increase, and
energize employees to engage in further socially responsible behaviors vis-à-vis caring for
other stakeholders as their empathy increases. Through the three motivational states for
proactive participation in socially responsible behaviors inspired by SRHRM, employees
become more willing to engage in socially responsible behaviors such as OCBE.
5.2. Implications
This study’s findings have several theoretical implications. First, this study expands
on existing work on the consequences of SRHRM by exploring the impact of organizations’
SRHRM practices on employees’ OCBE. In contrast to earlier human resource management
systems promoting only organizational interests (e.g., high-performance HRM systems),
SRHRM as an organizational policy assumes responsibility for society and promotes
social welfare, aiming to improve the organization’s overall social performance. In existing
studies, scholars have only discussed the notion that SRHRM positively impacts employees’
attitudes and behaviors at work, such as organizational commitment, task performance,
organizational citizenship behavior, and extra-role helping behavior [9,10,81,93]. However,
there has been little research exploring the relationship between SRHRM and employees’
social performance. This study fills this gap and demonstrates that SRHRM can promote
employees’ engagement in socially responsible behaviors such as OCB-E. Additionally,
this study widened the theoretical basis for SRHRM’s mechanism by integrating proactive
motivation theory in verifying the mediating effects of moral efficacy, felt obligation, and
empathy in the relationship between SRHRM and OCBE.
Second, this study expands current research on the antecedents of OCBE by verifying
the positive influence of employee perception of SRHRM practice. This is in line with
Luu [94], who found that employees’ perceptions of CSR can positively affect their OCBE
in a study of employees from the Vietnamese hotel industry; however, there is no research
exploring whether SRHRM, as an important practical policy for organizations to fulfill
CSR, can promote employees’ engagement in OCBEs.
This study’s results also have implications for organizational management practice.
First, there are implications for CSR and HRM. Nowadays, organizational managers have
realized that active CSR initiatives not only can bring considerable financial benefits but
also have become an important source of competitive advantage. However, many managers
still focus on CSR fulfillment only with regard to external stakeholders, thereby ignoring
employees’ role as the most important internal stakeholders. As organizational CSR
initiative participants, practitioners, and observers, employees’ initiative and cooperation
in CSR activities will directly affect their success and thus the realization of strategic goals
for sustainable development [12]. Thus, conveying the importance of CSR and guiding
employees to actively participate in CSR initiatives will help organizations gain competitive
advantages and achieve strategic sustainability goals. This study’s findings suggest that
the development and implementation of SRHRM practice are of great significance for
addressing this issue. SRHRM practice combines the interests of employees and external
stakeholders and constructs an “employee-organization social interest community” system.
This is not only important for the successful implementation of CSR projects for external
stakeholders but also clearly conveys CSR information to employees, improving their social
responsibility awareness and mobilizing their enthusiasm and initiative to participate in
workplace CSR activities. Specifically, organizational managers must recruit employees
with a strong sense of social responsibility, provide employees with CSR-related training,
consider employees’ social performance in the performance evaluation process, and link
their social performance to promotions and compensation increases. When employees
recognize their responsibility and obligation to engage in CSR initiatives through such
socially responsible HRM practices, they will naturally perform behaviors like OCBE,
creating a win-win situation for employees, the organization, and society.
Second, this study provides implications for organizations’ environmentally sustain-
able development. Nowadays, it is self-evident that environmental protection and ethical
issues have an important impact on the survival and development of organizations. Thus,
organizations should pay close attention to the issue of how to increase employees’ envi-
ronmental protection behaviors in the workplace. Our results show that SRHRM practice
can improve employees’ moral efficacy, felt obligation, and empathy, encouraging them
to engage in beneficial environmental behaviors beyond job requirements, such as OCBE.
Therefore, in daily management practice, organizations can encourage employees’ environ-
mental behaviors and discourage unethical behaviors by adopting SRHRM, advancing the
organization’s sustainable development.
5.3. Limitations and Directions for Future Studies

Despite efforts to ensure the theoretical grounding and precision of the overall research
process, this study has several limitations, some of which the authors hope can be addressed
in future research. First, the sample selection was limited. Practice of SRHRM is not yet
universal in China, and it was difficult for us to persuade HR managers of non-practicing
firms to join our study. Even though the number of companies we lost due to this reason
was not too large (7 out of 30), there is no denying that the resulting sample selection
clearly limits generalizability of our findings to the wider universe of all manufacturing
companies in China.
Second, the attraction-selection-attrition (ASA) theory suggests a fundamental diffi-
culty in causal interpretation of our findings. According to ASA, individuals are drawn to
firms that have values similar to their own. At the same time, firms select applicants that
share their values [95]. Thus, it is unclear whether cross-organizational correlation between
SRHRM and OCBE reflects a causal impact from the former on the latter or represents
the result of a sorting-and-matching process. We note that we are focusing on micro-level
SRHRM or employee perceptions of SRHRM, and that there are within-organization vari-
ations in the perceptions as well as between-organization variations. To the extent our
finding reflects the impacts of the within-organization variations in perceived SRHRM, we
may as well claim a causal impact, but we are aware that our finding is confounded by the
cross-organizational variations. Perhaps one way to overcome this difficulty is to conduct
a longitudinal study with a sufficient interval to trace the impacts of within-company
evolutions in the practice of SRHRM.
Third, we collected data through self-reports of respondents, so it is difficult to com-

pletely eliminate the influence of common method variance on the results. Although a
longitudinal research design was used, the interval between the two data collection phases
was relatively short, potentially distorting the relationships among the variables of interest.
Considering that the effects of SRHRM and employees’ motivational states and behaviors
are usually dynamic, future studies should adopt a more comprehensive longitudinal re-
search design to explore these variables’ trends and clarify the causal relationships among
them. For example, as recommended by Shen and Benson [9], longitudinal data should
be collected at three different timepoints, including before the introduction of any new
SRHRM practice, to examine the impact of the introduction and change of SRHRM prac-
tices on employees’ workplace behaviors. Future research should also adopt experimental
designs to more rigorously assess the impact of dynamic changes in SRHRM on employees’
workplace behavior.
Fourth, to our regret, our data does not allow us to measure SRHRM practices at the
company level. To assuage privacy-related concerns of the respondents, we did not gather
information on what company they work for, and as a result, cannot identify groups of
workers working for a given company. This means that we are unable to decouple the
potentially separate impacts of company-level SRHRM practices and employee perceptions
(micro-level SRHRM). Future research should be designed to overcome this weakness.
Finally, this study took place in the Chinese organizational management context, with
all data collected from Chinese manufacturing company employees, so there may be some
limitations in the generalizability of the findings. Although the degree of openness and
contact among countries is increasing with globalization, there remain great differences
among countries in terms of CSR norms, SRHRM policies and practices, and culture
and values (Shen and Benson, 2016). Therefore, the influencing mechanism of SRHRM
on employee behavior revealed in the present study might differ considerably in other
countries or cultural contexts. Thus, in future research, it would be desirable to integrate
the trend of diversified development and replicate this study in different cultural contexts,
such as western countries with small power distance and strong individualism.
Author Contributions: Conceptualization, J.H. and H.K.; methodology and formal analysis, J.H.;
writing-original draft preparation, J.H.; writing-review and editing, H.K.; supervision, H.K. All
authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research received no external funding.
Institutional Review Board Statement: Ethical review and approval were waived for this study, as
the survey conducted in the study does not include ethically sensitive content.
Informed Consent Statement: Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.
Data Availability Statement: Data is available from authors upon request.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.
References
1. Daily, B.F.; Bishop, J.W.; Govindarajulu, N. A conceptual model for organizational citizenship behavior directed toward the
environment. Bus. Soc. 2009, 48, 243–256. [CrossRef]
2. Ones, D.S.; Dilchert, S. Environmental sustainability at work: A call to action. Ind. Organ. Psychol. 2012, 5, 444–466. [CrossRef]
3. 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. [CrossRef]
4. Boiral, O.; Paillé, P. Organizational citizenship behaviour for the environment: Measurement and validation. J. Bus. Ethics 2011,
109, 431–445. [CrossRef]
5. Lamm, E.; Tosti-Kharas, J.; Williams, E.G. Read this article, but don’t print it: Organizational citizenship behavior toward the
environment. Group Organ. Manag. 2013, 38, 163–197. [CrossRef]
6. Paillé, P.; Chen, Y.; Boiral, O.; Jin, J. The impact of human resource management on environmental performance: An employee-
level study. J. Bus. Ethics 2014, 121, 451–466. [CrossRef]
7. Raineri, N.; Paillé, P. Linking corporate policy and supervisory support with environmental citizenship behaviors: The role of
employee environmental beliefs and commitment. J. Bus. Ethics 2016, 137, 129–148. [CrossRef]
8. Aguinis, H.; Glavas, A. What we know and don’t know about corporate social responsibility: A review and research agenda. J.
Manag. 2012, 38, 932–968. [CrossRef]
9. Shen, J.; Benson, J. When CSR is a social norm: How socially responsible human resource management affects employee work
behavior. J. Manag. 2016, 42, 1723–1746. [CrossRef]
10. Shen, J.; Zhu, J. Effects of socially responsible human resource management on employee organizational commitment. Int. J. Hum.
Resour. Manag. 2011, 22, 3020–3035. [CrossRef]
11. Parker, S.K.; Bindl, U.K.; Strauss, K. Making things happen: A model of proactive motivation. J. Manag. 2010, 36, 827–856.
[CrossRef]
12. Mirvis, P.; Googins, B. Engaging employees as social innovators. Calif. Manag. Rev. 2018, 60, 25–50. [CrossRef]
13. Ones, D.S.; Dilchert, S. Employee green behaviors. Manag. Hum. Resour. Environ. Sustain. 2012, 32, 85–116.
14. Daily, B.F.; Bishop, J.W.; Massoud, J.A. The role of training and empowerment in environmental performance. Int. J. Oper. Prod.
Manag. 2012, 32, 631–647. [CrossRef]
15. Erdogan, B.; Bauer, T.N.; Taylor, S. Management commitment to the ecological environment and employees: Implications for
employee attitudes and citizenship behaviors. Hum. Relat. 2015, 68, 1669–1691. [CrossRef]
16. Hameed, Z.; Khan, I.U.; Islam, T.; Sheikh, Z.; Naeem, R.M. Do green HRM practices influence employees’ environmental
performance? Int. J. Manpow. 2020, 41, 1061–1079. [CrossRef]
17. Pham, T.N.; Phan, Q.P.T.; Tučková, Z.; Vo, T.N.; Nguyen, L.H. Enhancing the organizational citizenship behavior for the
environment: The roles of green training and organizational culture. Manag. Mark. Chall. Knowl. Soc. 2018, 13, 1174–1189.
[CrossRef]
18. Boiral, O.; Raineri, N.; Talbot, D. Managers’ citizenship behaviors for the environment: A developmental perspective. J. Bus.
Ethics 2018, 149, 395–409. [CrossRef]
19. Han, Z.; Wang, Q.; Yan, X. How responsible leadership predicts organizational citizenship behavior for the environment in China.
Leadersh. Organ. Dev. J. 2019, 40, 305–318. [CrossRef]
20. Graves, L.M.; Sarkis, J.; Zhu, Q. How transformational leadership and employee motivation combine to predict employee
proenvironmental behaviors in China. J. Environ. Psychol. 2013, 35, 81–91. [CrossRef]
21. Luu, T.T. Green human resource practices and organizational citizenship behavior for the environment: The roles of collective
green crafting and environmentally specific servant leadership. J. Sustain. Tour. 2019, 27, 1167–1196. [CrossRef]
22. Afsar, B.; Badir, Y.; Kiani, U.S. Linking spiritual leadership and employee pro-environmental behavior: The influence of workplace
spirituality, intrinsic motivation, and environmental passion. J. Environ. Psychol. 2016, 45, 79–88. [CrossRef]
23. Gousse-Lessard, A.S.; Vallerand, R.J.; Carbonneau, N.; Lafrenière, M.A.K. The role of passion in mainstream and radical behaviors:
A look at environmental activism. J. Environ. Psychol. 2013, 35, 18–29. [CrossRef]
24. Tahir, R.; Athar, M.R.; Afzal, A. The impact of greenwashing practices on green employee behaviour: Mediating role of employee
value orientation and green psychological climate. Cogent Bus. Manag. 2020, 7, 1781996. [CrossRef]
25. Gilal, F.G.; Ashraf, Z.; Gilal, N.G.; Gilal, R.G.; Channa, N.A. Promoting environmental performance through green human
resource management practices in higher education institutions: A moderated mediation model. Corp. Soc. Responsib. Environ.
Manag. 2019, 26, 1579–1590. [CrossRef]
26. Wang, X.; Zhou, K.; Liu, W. Value congruence: A study of green transformational leadership and employee green behavior. Front.
Psychol. 2018, 9, 1946. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
27. Bowen, H.R. Social Responsibilities of the Businessman; Harper: New York, NY, USA, 1953.
28. Carroll, A.B. Corporate social responsibility: Evolution of a definitional construct. Bus. Soc. 1999, 38, 268–295. [CrossRef]
29. Basu, K.; Palazzo, G. Corporate social responsibility: A process model of sensemaking. Acad. Manag. Rev. 2008, 33, 122–136.
[CrossRef]
30. Porter, M.E.; Kramer, M.R. The competitive advantage of corporate philanthropy. Harv. Bus. Rev. 2002, 80, 56–68. [PubMed]
31. Lii, Y.-S.; Lee, M. Doing right leads to doing well: When the type of CSR and reputation interact to affect consumer evaluations of
the firm. J. Bus. Ethics 2012, 105, 69–81. [CrossRef]
32. Wang, T.; Bansal, P. Social responsibility in new ventures: Profiting from a long-term orientation. Strateg. Manag. J. 2012, 33,
1135–1153. [CrossRef]
33. Carnahan, S.; Kryscynski, D.; Olson, D. When does corporate social responsibility reduce employee turnover? Evidence from
attorneys before and after 9/11. Acad. Manag. J. 2017, 60, 1932–1962. [CrossRef]
34. Jones, D.A.; Willness, C.R.; Madey, S. Why are job seekers attracted by corporate social performance? Experimental and field tests
of three signal-based mechanisms. Acad. Manag. J. 2014, 57, 383–404. [CrossRef]
35. Greening, D.W.; Turban, D.B. Corporate social performance as a competitive advantage in attracting a quality workforce. Bus.
Soc. 2000, 39, 254–280. [CrossRef]
36. Voegtlin, C.; Greenwood, M. Corporate social responsibility and human resource management: A systematic review and
conceptual analysis. Hum. Resour. Manag. Rev. 2016, 26, 181–197. [CrossRef]
37. Morgeson, F.P.; Aguinis, H.; Waldman, D.A.; Siegel, D.S. Extending corporate social responsibility research to the human resource
management and organizational behavior domains: A look to the future. Pers. Psychol. 2013, 66, 805–824. [CrossRef]
38. Rowan, J.R. The moral foundation of employee rights. J. Bus. Ethics 2000, 24, 355–361. [CrossRef]
39. Ahmad, N.; Ullah, Z.; Mahmood, A.; Ariza-Montes, A.; Vega-Muñoz, A.; Han, H.; Scholz, M. Corporate social responsibility
at the micro-level as a “new organizational value” for sustainability: Are females more aligned towards it? Int. J. Environ. Res.
Public Health 2021, 18, 2165. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
40. Zhang, Z.; Wang, J.; Jia, M. Multilevel Examination of How and When Socially Responsible Human Resource Management
Improves the Well-Being of Employees. J. Bus. Ethics 2021, 1–17. [CrossRef]
41. Wang, Y.; Xu, S.; Wang, Y. The consequences of employees’ perceived corporate social responsibility: A meta-analysis. Bus. Ethics
A Eur. Rev. 2020, 29, 471–496. [CrossRef]
42. Aguilera, R.V.; Rupp, D.E.; Williams, C.A.; Ganapathi, J. Putting the S back in corporate social responsibility: A multilevel theory
of social change in organizations. Acad. Manag. Rev. 2007, 32, 836–863. [CrossRef]
43. Blau, P.M. Exchange and Power in Social Life; John Wiley & Sons: New York, NY, USA, 1964.
44. 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.
45. Ashforth, B.E.; Mael, F. Social identity theory and the organization. Acad. Manag. Rev. 1989, 14, 20–39. [CrossRef]
46. Riketta, M. Organizational identification: A meta-analysis. J. Vocat. Behav. 2005, 66, 358–384. [CrossRef]
47. Mozes, M.; Josman, Z.; Yaniv, E. Corporate social responsibility organizational identification and motivation. Soc. Responsib. J.
2011, 7, 310–325. [CrossRef]
48. Tian, Q.; Robertson, J.L. How and when does perceived CSR affect employees’ engagement in voluntary pro-environmental
behavior? J. Bus. Ethics 2017, 155, 399–412. [CrossRef]
49. Hobfoll, S.E. The influence of culture, community, and the nested-self in the stress process: Advancing conservation of resources
theory. Appl. Psychol. 2001, 50, 337–421. [CrossRef]
50. Bandura, A. Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychol. Rev. 1977, 84, 191–215. [CrossRef]
51. Liberman, N.; Trope, Y. The role of feasibility and desirability considerations in near and distant future decisions: A test of
temporal construal theory. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 1998, 75, 5–18. [CrossRef]
52. Ilies, R.; Judge, T.A. Goal regulation across time: The effects of feedback and affect. J. Appl. Psychol. 2005, 90, 453–467. [CrossRef]
53. Lee, H.W.; Pak, J.; Kim, S.; Li, L.Z. Effects of human resource management systems on employee proactivity and group innovation.
J. Manag. 2019, 45, 819–846. [CrossRef]
54. Hong, Y.; Liao, H.; Raub, S.; Han, J.H. What it takes to get proactive: An integrative multilevel model of the antecedents of
personal initiative. J. Appl. Psychol. 2016, 101, 687–701. [CrossRef]
55. Hannah, S.T.; Avolio, B.J.; May, D.R. Moral maturation and moral conation: A capacity approach to explaining moral thought and
action. Acad. Manag. Rev. 2011, 36, 663–685.
56. Xu, S.; Van Hoof, H.; Serrano, A.L.; Fernandez, L.; Ullauri, N. The role of coworker support in the relationship between moral
efficacy and voice behavior: The case of hospitality students in Ecuador. J. Hum. Resour. Hosp. Tour. 2017, 16, 252–269. [CrossRef]
57. Schaubroeck, J.M.; Hannah, S.T.; Avolio, B.J.; Kozlowski, S.W.; Lord, R.G.; Treviño, L.K.; Peng, A.C. Embedding ethical leadership
within and across organization levels. Acad. Manag. J. 2012, 55, 1053–1078. [CrossRef]
58. Kim, D.; Vandenberghe, C. Ethical leadership and team ethical voice and citizenship behavior in the military: The roles of team
moral efficacy and ethical climate. Group Organ. Manag. 2020, 45, 514–555. [CrossRef]
59. May, D.R.; Luth, M.T.; Schwoerer, C.E. The influence of business ethics education on moral efficacy, moral meaningfulness, and
moral courage: A quasi-experimental study. J. Bus. Ethics 2014, 124, 67–80. [CrossRef]
60. Kundu, S.C.; Gahlawat, N. Effects of CSR-focused HRM on employees’ satisfaction: A study of Indian organisations. J. Strateg.
Hum. Resour. Manag. 2015, 4, 42–48. [CrossRef]
61. Eisenberger, R.; Armeli, S.; Rexwinkel, B.; Lynch, P.D.; Rhoades, L. Reciprocation of perceived organizational support. J. Appl.
Psychol. 2001, 86, 42–51. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
62. Cropanzano, R.; Mitchell, M.S. Social exchange theory: An interdisciplinary review. J. Manag. 2005, 31, 874–900. [CrossRef]
63. Paillé, P.; Valéau, P. “I don’t owe you, but I am committed”: Does felt obligation matter on the effect of green training on employee
environmental commitment? Organ. Environ. 2021, 34, 123–144. [CrossRef]
64. Shore, L.M.; Barksdale, K. Examining degree of balance and level of obligation in the employment relationship: A social exchange
approach. J. Organ. Behav. 1998, 19, 731–744. [CrossRef]
65. Yu, C.; Frenkel, S.J. Explaining task performance and creativity from perceived organizational support theory: Which mechanisms
are more important? J. Organ. Behav. 2013, 34, 1165–1181. [CrossRef]
66. Albrecht, S.L.; Su, M.J. Job resources and employee engagement in a Chinese context: The mediating role of job meaningfulness,
felt obligation and positive mood. Int. J. Bus. Emerg. Mark. 2012, 4, 277–292. [CrossRef]
67. Fuller, J.B.; Marler, L.E.; Hester, K. Promoting felt responsibility for constructive change and proactive behavior: Exploring aspects
of an elaborated model of work design. J. Organ. Behav. 2006, 27, 1089–1120. [CrossRef]
68. He, H.; Pham, H.Q.; Baruch, Y.; Zhu, W. Perceived organizational support and organizational identification: Joint moderating
effects of employee exchange ideology and employee investment. Int. J. Hum. Resour. Manag. 2014, 25, 2772–2795. [CrossRef]
69. Tian, X.; Li, R. Can self-sacrificial leadership promote employee proactive behavior? The mediating effect of felt obligation and its
boundary conditions. Acta Psychol. Sin. 2015, 47, 1472–1485. [CrossRef]
70. Basit, A.A. Trust in supervisor and job engagement: Mediating effects of psychological safety and felt obligation. J. Psychol. 2017,
151, 701–721. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
71. Lorinkova, N.M.; Perry, S.J. The importance of group-focused transformational leadership and felt obligation for helping and
group performance. J. Organ. Behav. 2019, 40, 231–247. [CrossRef]
72. Davis, M.H. Measuring individual differences in empathy: Evidence for a multidimensional approach. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol.
1983, 44, 113–126. [CrossRef]
73. Batson, C.D.; Shaw, L.L. Encouraging words concerning the evidence for altruism. Psychol. Inq. 1991, 2, 159–168. [CrossRef]
74. Duan, C.; Hill, C.E. The current state of empathy research. J. Couns. Psychol. 1996, 43, 261–274. [CrossRef]
75. Dietz, J.; Kleinlogel, E.P. Wage cuts and managers’ empathy: How a positive emotion can contribute to positive organizational
ethics in difficult times. J. Bus. Ethics 2014, 119, 461–472. [CrossRef]
76. Atkins, P.W.; Parker, S.K. Understanding individual compassion in organizations: The role of appraisals and psychological
flexibility. Acad. Manag. Rev. 2012, 37, 524–546. [CrossRef]
77. Eisenberg, N.; Miller, P.A. The relation of empathy to prosocial and related behaviors. Psychol. Bull. 1987, 101, 91–119. [CrossRef]
78. Hoffman, M.L. Empathy and justice motivation. Motiv. Emot. 1990, 14, 151–172. [CrossRef]
79. Joireman, J.; Kamdar, D.; Daniels, D.; Duell, B. Good citizens to the end? It depends: Empathy and concern with future
consequences moderate the impact of a short-term time horizon on organizational citizenship behaviors. J. Appl. Psychol. 2006, 91,
1307–1320. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
80. Batson, C.D.; Lishner, D.A.; Cook, J.; Sawyer, S. Similarity and nurturance: Two possible sources of empathy for strangers. Basic
Appl. Soc. Psychol. 2005, 27, 15–25. [CrossRef]
81. Shao, D.; Zhou, E.; Gao, P.; Long, L.; Xiong, J. Double-edged effects of socially responsible human resource management on
employee task performance and organizational citizenship behavior: Mediating by role ambiguity and moderating by prosocial
motivation. Sustainability 2019, 11, 2271. [CrossRef]
82. Berenguer, J. The effect of empathy in proenvironmental attitudes and behaviors. Environ. Behav. 2007, 39, 269–283. [CrossRef]
83. Weiss, H.M.; Cropanzano, R. Affective events theory: A theoretical discussion of the structure, causes and consequences of
affective experiences at work. Res. Organ. Behav. Annu. Ser. Anal. Essays Crit. Rev. 1996, 18, 1–74.
84. Podsakoff, P.M.; MacKenzie, S.B.; Podsakoff, N.P. Sources of method bias in social science research and recommendations on how
to control it. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 2012, 63, 539–569. [CrossRef]
85. Brislin, R.W. Back-translation for cross-cultural research. J. Cross-Cult. Psychol. 1970, 1, 185–216. [CrossRef]
86. Kish-Gephart, J.J.; Harrison, D.A.; Treviño, L.K. Bad apples, bad cases, and bad barrels: Meta-analytic evidence about sources of
unethical decisions at work. J. Appl. Psychol. 2010, 95, 1–31. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
87. Hayes, A.F. Introduction to Mediation, Moderation, and Conditional Process. Analysis: A Regression-Based Approach; Guilford Press:
New York, NY, USA, 2013.
88. Richardson, H.A.; Simmering, M.J.; Sturman, M.C. A tale of three perspectives: Examining post hoc statistical techniques for
detection and correction of common method variance. Organ. Res. Methods 2009, 12, 762–800. [CrossRef]
89. Hair, J.F.; Black, W.C.; Babin, B.J.; Anderson, R.E.; Tatham, R.L. Multivariate Data Analysis, 5th ed.; Prentice Hall: Hoboken, NJ,
USA, 1998.
90. Jackson, D.L.; Gillaspy, J.A., Jr.; Purc-Stephenson, R. Reporting practices in confirmatory factor analysis: An overview and some
recommendations. Psychol. Methods 2009, 14, 6–23. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
91. Bentler, P.M.; Bonett, D.G. Significance tests and goodness of fit in the analysis of covariance structures. Psychol. Bull. 1980, 88,
588–606. [CrossRef]
92. Slack, R.; Corlett, S.; Morris, R. Exploring employee engagement with corporate social responsibility: A social exchange
perspective on organisational participation. J. Bus. Ethics 2015, 127, 537–548. [CrossRef]
93. Newman, A.; Miao, Q.; Hofman, P.S.; Zhu, C.J. The impact of socially responsible human resource management on employees’
organizational citizenship behaviour: The mediating role of organizational identification. Int. J. Hum. Resour. Manag. 2016, 27,
440–455. [CrossRef]
94. Luu, T.T. CSR and organizational citizenship behavior for the environment in hotel industry. Int. J. Contemp. Hosp. Manag. 2017,
29, 2867–2900. [CrossRef]
95. Zhang, L.; Gowan, M.A. Corporate social responsibility, applicants’ individual traits, and organizational attraction: A person–
organization fit perspective. J. Bus. Psychol. 2012, 27, 345–362. [CrossRef]

Sustainability 13 07958 v2

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Sustainability 13 07958 v2

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Sustainability 13 07958 v2

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

sustainability

Chung-Ang Business School, Chung-Ang University, Seoul 06974, Korea; reta2897@163.com

Sustainability 2021, 13, 7958. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13147958 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability

2. Literature Review and Hypothesis Development

2.2. Employee Perception of SRHRM

Hypothesis 1. SRHRM will have a positive effect on OCBE.

2.3. Proactive Motivation Model for SRHRM

Figure 1 summarizes the hypotheses tested in this study.

Table 1. Sample characteristics (n = 535).

Variable Dimension Frequency Percent (%)

3.2. Operational Definitions and Measurements

3.3. Control Variables

3.4. Analysis Methods

4.2. Validity and Reliability Analysis

Table 2. KMO and Bartlett’s Test.

Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy 0.943

Table 3. Results of Confirmatory Factor Analysis.

Construct Indicator Factor Loading SMC t-Value p-Value CR AVE

Table 4. Measurement Model Fit Statistics.

Table 5. Reliability Analysis Results.

Variable Cronbach’s Alpha n of Items

4.3. Correlational Analysis

Table 6. Means, Standard Deviations, and Correlations (n = 535).

4.4. Hypothesis Testing

Table 7. Hierarchical Regression Results (n = 535).

4.4.2. Multiple Mediating Effect in Relationship between SRHRM and OCBE

95% CI Proportion Via

5.3. Limitations and Directions for Future Studies

Third, we collected data through self-reports of respondents, so it is difficult to com-

You might also like

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.