INTRODUCTION:

It is now universally recognized that heavy industrialization is one of major causes of environmental degradation (Suganthi, 2019). Accelerated deterioration of environment and climate change because of industrial toxic, wastage, and excessive use of natural resources have urged many business organizations to protect the environment through CSR practices (Robertson and Barling 2015; Suganthi, 2019; Omnamasivaya et al., 2021; Rao and Naik, 2022). CSR practices are treated as noncommercial activities or programs that bring both social and environmental benefits (Henderson, 2007; Hemantha, 2023). It is viewed as an organization’s strategic tool of improving both environmental and financial performance (Gond et al., 2009. In another word, CSR is described as corporate behaviours which aim to benefit multiple stakeholders, such as employees, shareholders, government, and natural environment (Turker, 2009). The outcomes of CSR are also beneficial to the organizations when it is found that CSR positively affects corporate image or reputation, consumer trust, employee loyalty, and investors’ confidence (Barkay, 2012). Furthermore, the recent studies advocate that CSR practices contribute to the development of employee’s proenvironmental behaviors and attitudes (Tian and Robertson, 2019; Afsar et al., 2019; Shah et al., 2020). It is now argued that when an organization designs environment-oriented CSR, it triggers pro-environmental behaviors among the employees (Robertson and Barling 2015; Shah et al., 2020; Afsar et al., 2018; Afsar and Umrani, 2020). Once the employees perceive that their organization is socially and environmentally responsible in addition to generating revenue, they also tend to engage themselves in pro-environmental activities in order to support their organizational efforts of protecting environment (Bommer, Miles, and Grover, 2003). In another word, when the employees find that their individual values match with the organizational values, they tend to be engaged in proenvironmental activities more ((Vallaster, 2017).

In relation to CSR and its effects on employee’s proenvironmental behavior, academics and practitioners have paid more attention either on workplace proenvironmental behavior (Shah et al., 2021; Maldonado Astudillo et al., 2021; Gkorezis and Petridou, 2017; Suganthi, 2019; Afsar and Umrani, 2020; Ahmed et al., 2020), voluntary proenvironmental behavior (Tian et al., 2019; Afsar et al., 2020; Raza et al., 2021) or organizational citizenship behaviors towards the environment (Hammed et al., 2019; Das and Dash, 2023). Nevertheless, no study has been found to investigate the effects of CSR practices on employee’s green behavior outside the workplace. But it is essential to know what value the organizations are creating for the society as a whole because of their engagement in CSR practices. Furthermore, given that many green behaviors displayed outside of the workplace, such as in personal lives, are similar to those displayed inside the workplace, it is assumed that employees' proenvironmental behavior displayed outside the organization may be a result of workplace learning and experiences (Paillé et al., 2017). Consequently, this study fills the research gap by investigating the effects of CSR practices on employee’s green behavior both inside and outside the organization.

The study makes several contributions. Firstly, the study contributes to the existing literature of CSR by addressing the question of how employees’ perception of CSR activities can influence their green behaviors displayed both on-the-job settings and off-the-job settings. Secondly, the study incorporates moderating role of employee’s environmental commitment on the relationship between CSR and employee’s green behavior since it is assumed that environmentally committed employees are more likely to display an emotional attachment towards the natural environment and participate in proenvironmental activities. Prior studies examined the moderating role of empathy (Raza, 2021; Islam, 2018), CSR authenticity and CSR skepticism (Latif, 2022), environmentally specific servant leadership (Afsar, 2018). Henceforth, the current study is first one to explore the moderating role of employee’s environmental commitment in examining the association between CSR and employee’s green behavior. Thirdly, the study selects the employees of banking sector which is understudied in the arena of CSR and employee’s green behavior. Previously, most of the studies relating CSR to employee’s proenvironmental behavior have been conducted either in hospitality industry (Islam et al., 2019; Hameed et al., 2019; Ahmed et al., 2020; Raza et al., 2021) or manufacturing industry (Suganthi, 2019; Ahamd et al., 2021; Latif et al., 2022). Few studies considered banking industry to explore the role of CSR practices in shaping employee’s green behavior. Finally, the current study enhances CSR literature by adding new insights from a developing country like Bangladesh since the past studies relating CSR to employee’s proenvironmental behavior have been explored within the context of developed countries. Even in Bangladesh, the previous scholars mainly explored the effects of CSR on brand equity (Hafez, 2018), financial performance (Mahbuba and Farzana, 2013; Rahman et al., 2014), job satisfaction, and organizational commitment (Rahman, 2016; Tripathy, 2022). Consequently, this study is the attempt to measure the impact of CSR on employee’s green behavior in the banking industry of Bangladesh.

HYPOTHESES DEVELOPMENT:

Corporate Social Responsibility

Corporate social responsibility (CSR) refers to those organizational policies and actions which incorporate environmental, social, ethical, and legal concerns into business operations (Crifo and Forget, 2015). In another word, CSR is one kind of company’s responsibility to protect the environment and the society in which it operates in addition to earning profit (Jeon et al., 2020). Consequently, CSR is the combination of triple bottom line performances; economic, environmental, and societal performance (Aguinis and Glavas 2012; Supriya and Sudharani, 2023). Moreover, there is an expectation of the business stakeholders that organizations operate in a responsible way which ultimately enhances organizational reputation, employee satisfaction, and customer loyalty (Afsar and Umrani, 2020; Asrar-ul-Haq et al., 2017; Narayanan and Chandrasekaran, 2023). According to the stakeholders’ viewpoint, CSR has been defined as those corporate behaviors which aim to affect stakeholders positively in addition to protecting its economic interests (Turker, 2009). Stakeholders approached CSR practices primarily focus on four groups of stakeholders: CSR towards environment which includes protecting and preserving natural environment; CSR towards employees, such as ensuring good working environment, participation in decision making process, and fair promotion system; CSR towards customers where customer satisfaction, respecting for customer rights, and providing accurate product information get priority; and CSR towards government which covers complying with government rules and regulations, supporting government to achieve sustainable goals or paying taxes (Turker, 2009; Debnath and Chellasamy, 2022). The outcomes of CSR practices are numerous. CSR initiatives, such as donation to a charity organization or support to the community development programs (Sen and Bhattacharya, 2001, and Jeon et al., 2020) not only create a positive image to its stakeholders but also increases employee engagement in proenvironmental activities (Afsar and Umrani, 2020; Montgomery and Ramus, 2003). Furthermore, organizational capability for achieving competitive advantage increases once the organizations get engaged in CSR practices aiming to reduce environment pollution and carbon emission (Yu and Huo, 2019; Sprinkle and Maines, 2010; Gorski, 2017).

Employee’s Green Behavior (on-the-job and off-the-job):

Green behavior denotes an individual’s behavior that contributes to the sustainability of the environment (Ones and Dilchert, 2012). Green behavior theory developed by Steg and Vlek (2009) states that green behavior of any individual can protect the environment since the environment is affected by every individual’s actions. Accordingly, employee’s green behavior has been defined as those behaviors which increase environmental performance of the organization rather than producing any harmful effects on environment (Unsworth et al., 2013; Stern, 2000). Norton et al. (2015) has divided employees’ green behavior into two segments: task related green behavior and voluntary green behavior. Task related green behavior refers to those behaviors that the employees need to perform according to the requirement of job descriptions, such as saving energy, turning off light while out of office, printing double side etc. Voluntary employee green behavior refers to actions that employees voluntarily take that go above and beyond what is required of them by their employer. Examples include avoiding resource waste, recycling, and assisting other firms in putting green policies into practice. (Norton et al., 2015; Blok et al., 2015). Employee green behavior has also been divided into in-role and extra-role categories by Dumont et al. (2017). Similar to task-related green behavior, in-role green behavior is regarded as a component of the job description, whereas extra-role green behavior is the behavior that is not anticipated by the organization but is generated by the individual initiatives of the employee (Dumont et al., 2017).

In the current study, we have classified employee’s green behavior into on-the-job and off-the-job green behavior. On-the-job green behavior has been conceptualized as those behaviors that happen inside the organization, such as switching off office equipment after office hour, conserving water or electricity, reducing use of papers in office, bringing new ideas to address the environmental issues, and sharing environmental knowledge with co-workers (Dumont et al., 2017; Safari et al., 2018; Chaudhary, 2019; Saeed et al., 2019). Conversely, off-the-job Green behavior has been conceptualized as environmentally friendly behaviors that are displayed outside of the organization, such as purchasing organic fruits and vegetables, avoiding plastic-wrapped products, reusing or recycling the products, avoiding unnecessary energy, water, or gas use at home, and promoting others to adopt such behaviors (Paillé et al., 2017).

CSR and Employee’s Green Behavior (on-the-job and off-the-job)

CSR is gaining more attention to the organizations because of its effects on employee's green attitudes and behaviors, such as recycling, efficient use of water, electricity or energy, reducing unnecessary consumption of natural resources, purchasing green products, and avoiding environmentally harmful products and practices (Blok, et al., 2015; Wesselink et al., 2017; Vallaster, 2017). According to theory of stakeholder and social contract, this has been proved that perceived CSR practices upsurge proenvironmental behaviors of the employees (Norton, et al., 2015; Pfarrer, 2010; Mordi et al., 2012). It is claimed that when an organization engages in CSR activities in order to address the environmental issues, positive behaviors trigger among the employees of that organization (Afsar et al., 2018). Employees who find their organization as socially responsible are more likely to be involved in organizational citizenship behavior at the workplace (Gkorezis and Petridou, 2017). Moreover, CSR not only encompasses environmental and social responsibilities but also incorporates a high concern for the employees and their needs (McWilliams et al., 2006; Rupp et al., 2006). Consequently, employees are expected to reciprocate this favorable attitude by supporting and participating in their organization’s environmental management practices since it is claimed that individuals who receive benefits from other individuals indirectly feel obliged to them (Blau, 1964; Gouldner, 1960).

Employees can know about how their organizations are contributing to save the natural environment when the organizations share their CSR practices with the employees through e-mails, newsletters, seminars, and so on (Arnuad and Sekerka, 2010). This awareness and knowledge encourage the employees to participate in green behavioral activities which ultimately help implement eco-friendly initiatives taken by their organizations (Afsar and Umrani, 2020). Consequently, CSR develops an organizational climate in which organizations share their proenvironmental values with the employees and employees also try to match their won environmental values with that of the organizations; which eventually enhances organization’s environmental performance (Vallaster, 2017; Zientara and Zamojska (2018). Rupp et al., (2006) and Bhatia and Satija (2022) also argued that since employees’ perceptions of CSR policies and practices describe an organization’s social, environmental, moral and ethical standards, CSR can develop pertinent values among the employees which in the long run promote them to exhibit green behaviors at the workplace. So, the more an organization engage in socially responsible activities, the more the employees are likely to be engaged in green behaviors at the workplace (Cantor et al., 2012; Gkorezis and Petridou, 2017). Furthermore, it has been found that many pro-environmental behavior displayed at the workplace or inside the organization are analogous to green behaviors demonstrated outside the organization (Lewin, et al., 2020; Paillé et al., 2017). The daily habits of employees, such as eating organic foods, avoiding plastic packaging, recycling, and conserving energy and water, may be influenced by their experiences at work. As a result, CSR is anticipated to influence employees' green behaviors both on and off the workplace. Thus, the authors propose the following:

H1: CSR has a significant influence on employee’s on-the-job green behavior.

H2: CSR has a significant influence on employee’s off-the-job green behavior.

Employee’s Environmental Commitment as a Moderator:

Employee attitudes and behaviors toward the environment are thought to be significantly influenced by environmental commitment (Steg and Vlek, 2009; Ajzen, 2002). Environmental commitment refers to a person's devotion to the environment, including their desire to use ecologically friendly products, reduce waste, and abide by environmental laws (Yu et al., 2019). Furthermore, it is defined as a person's emotional attachment, affiliation, and involvement with environmental practices (Perez et al., 2009). Raineri and Paillé (2016) described environmental commitment in the context of an organization as an employee’s sense of obligation and attachment to environmental issues.

Environmentally committed employees are more likely to display an emotional attachment towards the natural environment. Their participation in proenvironmental activities at the workplace increases when they perceive that their organization is socially responsible (Afsar and Umrani, 2020; Cantor et al., 2012). Afsar et al. (2018) also reported that voluntary green behaviors inside the organization largely depends on employee’s emotional attachment to the environment and employee’s awareness about environmental issues and environmental management systems. Employees who are highly concerned for the environment contribute in a better way to the environmental performance (Tariq et al., 2020). An employee with a positive mindset towards the environment voluntarily manages the environmental problems, does not break the environmental rules and regulations during job performance, and encourages his /her co-workers to display green behavior at the workplace (Paillé and Meija-Morelos, 2019; Islam et al., 2022). Conversely, in the absence of internal attachment to environmental concern, employees are less likely to be engaged in proenvironmental initiatives outside of formal assignments (Paillé, et al., 2014). Accordingly, it can be concluded that organizational and environmental sustainability can be achieved if the employees are committed to the environment (Mesmer-Magnus, 2012). Thus, the study hypothesizes the following statements.

H3: Environmental commitment moderates the impact of CSR on employees' on-the-job green behavior, making it stronger when employees have more environmental commitment and weaker when they have less.

H4: Environmental commitment moderates the impact of CSR on employees' off-the-job green behavior, making it stronger when employees have more environmental commitment and weaker when they have less.

Figure 1: Conceptual Research Model.

METHODOLOGY: Participants and Procedure:

A quantitative research approach has been used in the current study in order to examine the connection between CSR practices and employees' green behavior both within and outside of the workplace. Moderation effects of employees’ environmental commitment on the aforesaid relationship has been also studied. Data were collected through a questionnaire survey which took place in Khulna city of Bangladesh. Employees working at the managerial level of banking sector in Khulna city took part in the survey. The questionnaire used in the survey had two parts. First part was designed with 30 close ended items over CSR, employees’ on-the job green behavior, employees’ off-the job behavior and employee’s environmental commitment. Second part of the questionnaire was designed with the demographic information of the respondents, such as name, age, gender, income, working experience and designation. A total of 300 questionnaires were distributed to the bank employees. Out of 300 questionnaires, 270 were found completely fulfilled, flawless and thus used in the data analysis process. Approximately, 72% of the respondents were male and 28% were female. In terms of age, a maximum number of respondents (53%) were aged between 31 and 40 years. As to the job experience, 37% of the respondents worked less than 5 years, around 32% worked 6 to 10 years, 20% worked 11 to 15 years and the rest had the job experience of more than 15 years. The details of the demographic information of the respondents are presented in Table 1.

Table 1. Demographic Characteristics of the Respondents (n = 270)

Characteristics	Classification	Frequency	Percentage
Gender	Male	194	71.9
Gender	Female	76	28.1
Age	21-30	46	17.0
	31-40	143	53.0
	41-50	66	24.4
	Above 50	15	5.6
Income	21000-30000	47	17.4
	31000-40000	63	23.3
	41000-50000	47	17.4
	50000-above	112	41.5
Job experience	less-5	100	37.0
	6-10	87	32.2
	11-15	54	20.0
	15-More	29	10.7

Measures:

Practices of Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) were measured by a ten-item index developed by Turker (2009). The items were somewhat modified as per the research context and focused on the practices, such as minimizing negative impacts on the environment, protecting well-being of the employees, designing voluntary activities to promote the well-being of the society, respecting consumer rights, providing full and accurate information to the customers, emphasizing on customer satisfaction, and complying with legal rules and regulations. A typical scale item was “Our organization takes part in actions designed to safeguard and enhance the quality of the environment”. Employee’s on-the-job green behavior was assessed by a seven-item scale adapted from Safari et al., (2018). Employee behaviors, such as turning off lights, avoiding wasting water and electricity, sharing environmentally friendly information with co-worker, taking stairs instead of elevators were treated as employee’s on-the-job green behavior. A typical scale item was “I print double sided whenever possible”. Employee’s off-the-job green behaviors - the behaviors that the employees show outside the organization, but in their personal lives, such as buying organic food, avoiding buying a plastic package, buying products that can be recycled, reducing the use of cars etc. were measured using a seven-item index developed by Paillé et al. (2019). A sample item was “I avoid unnecessary consumption of energy like electricity, gas or water at my home”. For measuring environmental commitment of the employees, a six-item scale was used. This scale adopted from Afsar and Umrani (2020) primarily focused on employees’ commitment towards the environment and typical item was “I feel obligated to assist my organization's environmental efforts”. Respondents were asked to express their opinions on corporate social responsibility, employees’ on-the-job green behavior, off-the-job green behaviors, and environmental commitment on a 5-point Likert scale (1 = Strongly Disagree to 5 = Strongly Agree).

DATA ANALYSIS AND RESULTS:

Descriptive Analysis:

Table 2 of descriptive statistics represents means, standard deviations, and inter-correlations of all the constructs used in the study. As illustrated in the table, it is found that CSR is positively related to employee’s on-the-job green behavior (r = 0.479, p < 0.01), off-the-job green behavior (r = 0.465, p < 0.01), and environmental commitment (r = 0.553, p < 0.01). Findings of the correlation analysis partially support our hypotheses indicating that CSR practices positively correlate with the employee’s on-the-job and off-the-job green behavior. Moreover, moderated regression analysis was used to test the study hypotheses.

RESULT DISCUSSION:

This research endeavor aims to explore the relationship between CSR practices and employee’s green behavior both inside and outside the organization.

In line with the hypothesized relationships, the current study supported the direct influence of CSR practices on employee’s on-the-job green behavior. This can be attributed to the fact that when an organization becomes engaged in CSR practices in addition to profit-generating activities, its employee perceives that the organization is contributing to society and its environment; as they also live in the society and through CSR organizations is indirectly improving their life, therefore, they also support their organization’s social and environmental efforts by participating in green behavioral activities at the workplace. This finding is in line with the findings of Tian and Robertson (2019) and according to Afsar et al. (2018), employees' task-related green behaviors are triggered when companies develop and implement socially responsible policies because employees' personal values are aligned with the company's values of protecting the environment. And having values that are aligned with each other motivates and encourages employees to act in a way that is good for the environment. Because of this, CSR activities in organizations improve employees' green behavior on the job.

Similarly, the direct influence of CSR practices on employee’s off-the-job green behavior is also supported by the study findings. This can be put down to the fact that CSR initiatives shared with employees through e-mails, newsletters, conferences, and seminars increase employees’ knowledge about the social and environmental situation which ultimately stimulates positive environmental behaviors outside the organization. It indicates that learnings and experiences from an environmentally responsible organization create a sense of duty among the employees to give back to society. Being aware of how to behave in an environmentally friendly manner and knowing its positive outcomes; as members of society, they would like to bring those positive changes to their society as well as to their personal lives. As a result, they participate in pro-environmental activities in their personal lives also. This significant influence of CSR practices on employee’s off-the-job green behavior is consistent with the study of Lewin, et al. (2020) who suggested that employer’s CSR activities affect employee citizenship behavior outside of work.

In order to get a better understanding in relation to CSR and employee’s green behavior, we also examined the moderating role of employee’s environmental commitment. Our results revealed that environmental commitment moderates the relationship between CSR and employee’s green behavior indicating that environmentally committed employees have a higher tendency to participate in pro-environmental activities within and beyond the workplace. Aligned values help and motivate individuals to take more actions for environmental development. Environmentally committed employees who are already motivated and encouraged, take extra initiative beyond their job-related tasks in organizations that already support and are flexible to their employees' environmentally friendly activities. Emotional attachment to the environment influences employees to get involved in activities, such as minimizing waste, generating new ideas to solve environmental problems, teaching and encouraging others to save the environment. Thus, environmentally committed employees utilize their organization's CSR activities through their green behavior. Similar type of findings is found in the study of Arsar and Umrani (2018) who reported that environmentally committed employees are more likely to show pro-environmental behaviors.

Our study contributed to the existing literature of CSR in several ways. First, the study contributed by exploring the effects of CSR practices on employee’s on-the-job green behavior that is the behavior inside the organization. E.g., Green initiative side by side their job-related tasks. Second, the study contributed whether the CSR practices influences employee’s off-the-job green behavior that is the behavior displayed outside the organization. E.g., green behavior in their social and personal life. Third, our study contributed by examining the moderating role of employee’s environmental commitment in relationship between CSR and employee’s on-the-job and off-the-job green behavior which added a new direction to the literature; enhancing employee's environmental commitment organizations can improve employees on the job and of the job green behavior. Finally, the study made additional contribution by selecting sample employees from banking industry which is understudied in relation to CSR and its effects on employee’s green behavior.

CONCLUSION AND MANAGERIAL IMPLICATIONS:

This study findings carry significant implications for managers, practitioners, and policymakers in the banking industry. Firstly, the study found that CSR has a positive and significant influence on employee’s on-the-job green behavior. Therefore, the top management in the banking sector who is concerned with the enhancement of environmental performance through the employee engagement in proenvironmental activities can consider CSR initiatives of the current study for promoting employee green behavior within the organization. CSR practices aiming to protect the environment or reducing negative impacts on the environment create a sense of accountability in the minds of employees. Such type of accountability towards the environment enables the employees to display green behavior at the workplace. Similarly, CSR activities like respecting customers’ rights, avoiding deceptive advertisements, complying with legal rules and regulations help the organizations achieve trust of customers and employees who ultimately support the organizational efforts of being a socially and environmentally responsible organizations. Therefore, top managers and policy makers working in the banking sector may initiate such type CSR initiatives in order to encourage employee participation in the green behavioral activities within the organization.

Secondly, the study proved that an organization’s CSR practices affects employee’s off-the-job green behavior which is meant by the green behavior demonstrated outside of work. This finding of the study suggests that organizational learnings and experiences inspire the employees to display proenvironmental behavior in their personal lives, such as purchasing green products, avoiding unnecessary consumption of natural resources, sharing green knowledge with others etc. So, the proenvironmental behaviors of employees benefit not only the employer but also the society in which the employer operates. Consequently, the policymakers can view the current study framework as a strategic tool of improving the environmental performance of the entire society.

Thirdly, in order to be environmentally responsible organization, employees must be committed to the environment since environmentally committed employees are more likely to be involved in the green behavioral activities. It is evident that employees’ participation in proenvironmental activities within and beyond the organization essentially depends on their emotional attachment to the environment. Given that our study advances the knowledge of policymakers, practitioners, and managers in understanding how the environmentally committed employees moderate the relationship between CSR practices and green behavioral activities. Accordingly, managers of banking industry need to give emphasize on hiring environmentally committed employees so that they can contribute more on achieving environmental performance through their engagement in green behavioral activities.

LIMITATIONS AND FUTURE RESEARCH:

Though the study contributed to the relationship between CSR and employee’s green behavior, there are some limitations in this study that can create new room for future research. Firstly, only 270 employees working in the banking sector of Khulna city, Bangladesh participated in the current study. So, in future, it is suggested to conduct the same research over large number of employees in other industries, such as automobiles industry, telecommunication industry, tobacco industry etc. in order to increase the generalizability of the study findings. Secondly, although the study explored the moderation effects of environmental commitment to understand the contingencies of the relationship between CSR and employee green behavior, it is important to explore the moderation effects of variables like employee personality, gender, organizational support, organizational green climate etc. Finally, no mediation effects have been shown in this study. So, mediating effects of other variables must be explored with a view to enhancing the explanatory power of the current research model.

REFERENCES:

1. Afsar, B., and Umrani, W. A. Corporate social responsibility and pro‐environmental behavior at workplace: The role of moral reflectiveness, coworker advocacy, and environmental commitment. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management. 2020; 27(1): 109-125.

2. Afsar, B., Cheema, S., and Javed, F. Activating employee's pro‐environmental behaviors: The role of CSR, organizational identification, and environmentally specific servant leadership. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management. 2018; 25(5): 904-911.

3. Afsar, B., Cheema, S., and Javed, F. Activating employee's pro‐environmental behaviors: The role of CSR, organizational identification, and environmentally specific servant leadership. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management. 2018; 25(5): 904-911.

4. Aguinis, H., and Glavas, A. What we know and don’t know about corporate social responsibility: A review and research agenda. Journal of Management. 2012; 38(4): 932-968.

5. Ahmed, M., Zehou, S., Raza, S. A., Qureshi, M. A., and Yousufi, S. Q. Impact of CSR and environmental triggers on employee green behavior: The mediating effect of employee well‐being. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management. 2020; 27(5): 2225-2239.

6. Ahmed, M., Zehou, S., Raza, S. A., Qureshi, M. A., and Yousufi, S. Q. Impact of CSR and environmental triggers on employee green behavior: The mediating effect of employee well‐being. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management. 2020; 27(5): 2225-2239.

7. Ahmed, M., Zehou, S., Raza, S. A., Qureshi, M. A., and Yousufi, S. Q. Impact of CSR and environmental triggers on employee green behavior: The mediating effect of employee well‐being. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management. 2020; 27(5): 2225-2239.

8. Ajzen, I. Perceived behavioral control, self-efficacy, locus of control, and the theory of planned behavior 1. Journal of Applied Social Psychology. 2002; 32(4): 665–683.

9. Asrar-ul-Haq, M., Kuchinke, K. P., and Iqbal, A. The relationship between corporate social responsibility, job satisfaction, and organizational commitment: Case of Pakistani higher education. Journal of Cleaner Production. 2017; 142: 2352-2363.

10. Bhatia, S., and Satija, M. A Study on factors affecting job seekers’ perception and behavioural intention towards e-recruitment. Asian Journal of Management. 2022; 13(1): 63-68.

11. Blau, P.M. Exchange and Power in Social Life, Transaction Publishers, New Brunswick, NJ. 1964

12. Blok, V., Wesselink, R., Studynka, O., and Kemp, R. Encouraging sustainability in the workplace: A survey on the pro-environmental behaviour of university employees. Journal of Cleaner Production. 2015; 106: 55-67. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.07.063

13. Cantor, D. E., Morrow, P. C., and Montabon, F. Engagement in environmental behaviors among supply chain management employees: An organizational support theoretical perspective. Journal of Supply Chain Management. 2012; 48(3): 33-51.

14. Chaudhary, R. Green Human Resource Management and Employee Green Behavior: An Empirical Analysis. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management. 2019; 27(2): 630-641. https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.1827

15. Crifo, P., and Forget, V. D. The economics of corporate social responsibility: A firm‐level perspective survey. Journal of Economic Surveys. 2015; 29(1): 112-130.

16. Das, S., and Dash, M. Adoption of Green HRM practices by healthcare sector for Increasing Organizational Citizenship Behavior and its impact on Environmental sustainability. Asian Journal of Management. 2023; 14(3): 178-184.

17. Debnath, P., and Chellasamy, P. Impact of New Digi-Banking Services on Customer Satisfaction in Private Sector Banks in The City of Coimbatore. Asian Journal of Management. 2022; 13(4): 293-298.

18. Dumont, J., Shen, J., and Deng, X. Effects of green HRM practices on employee workplace green behavior: The role of psychological green climate and employee green values. Human Resource Management. 2017; 56(4): 613-627.

19. Gkorezis, P., and Petridou, E. Corporate social responsibility and pro environmental behaviour: Organisational identification as a mediator. European Journal of International Management. 2017; 11(1): 1‐18.

20. Gkorezis, P., and Petridou, E. Corporate social responsibility and pro-environmental behaviour: Organisational identification as a mediator. European Journal of International Management, 2017; 11(1): 1-18.

21. Gkorezis, P., and Petridou, E. Corporate social responsibility and proenvironmental behaviour: Organisational identification as a mediator. European Journal of International Management. 2017; 11(1): 1‐18.

22. Gond, J.P., El Akremi, A., Swaen, V. and Babu, N. The psychological micro foundations of corporate social responsibility: A person‐centric systematic review. Journal of Organizational Behavior. 2017; 38(2): 225-246.

23. Gorski, H. Leadership and corporate social responsibility. Int. Conf. Knowl. Based Organizations. 2017; 23: 372-377.

24. Gouldner, A.W. The norm of reciprocity: a preliminary statement. American Sociological Review. 1960; 25(2): 161–178.

25. Hafez, M. Measuring the impact of corporate social responsibility practices on brand equity in the banking industry in Bangladesh: The mediating effect of corporate image and brand awareness. International Journal of Bank Marketing. 2018; 36(5): 806-822.

26. Hameed, Z., Khan, I. U., Islam, T., Sheikh, Z., and Khan, S. U. Corporate social responsibility and employee pro-environmental behaviors: The role of perceived organizational support and organizational pride. South Asian Journal of Business Studies. 2019

27. Hameed, Z., Khan, I. U., Islam, T., Sheikh, Z., and Khan, S. U. Corporate social responsibility and employee pro-environmental behaviors: The role of perceived organizational support and organizational pride. South Asian Journal of Business Studies. 2019; 8(3): 246-265.

28. Hameed, Z., Khan, I. U., Islam, T., Sheikh, Z., and Khan, S. U. Corporate social responsibility and employee pro-environmental behaviors: The role of perceived organizational support and organizational pride. South Asian Journal of Business Studies. 2019; 8(3): 246-265.

29. Hemantha, Y. Exploring the antecedent factors of curated shopping in Social Commerce among luxury consumers. Asian Journal of Management. 2023; 14(1): 76-80.

30. Islam, Z., Asrafujjaman, S., and Hosen, S. Factors Influence the Performance of Training Organizations: A Study on Bangladesh Public Administration Training Centre. Asian Journal of Management. 2022; 13(4): 269-278.

31. Jeon, M. M., Lee, S., and Jeong, M. Perceived corporate social responsibility and customers’ behaviors in the ridesharing service industry. International Journal of Hospitality Management. 2020; 84: 102341.

32. Journal of Organizational Behavior. 34(2): 211–229.

33. Latif, B., Ong, T. S., Meero, A., Abdul Rahman, A. A., and Ali, M. Employee-Perceived Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) and Employee Pro-Environmental Behavior (PEB): The Moderating Role of CSR Skepticism and CSR Authenticity. Sustainability. 2022; 14(3): 1380.

34. Lewin, L. D., Warren, D. E., and AlSuwaidi, M. Does CSR make better citizens? The influence of employee CSR programs on employee societal citizenship behavior outside of work. Business and Society Review. 2020; 125(3): 271-288.

35. Mahbuba, S. and Farzana, N. (), “Corporate social responsibility and profitability: a case study on Dutch Bangla Bank Ltd.”, International Journal of Business and Social Research. 2013; 3(4): 139-145.

36. Maldonado Astudillo, R. I., Astudillo, Y. P. M., Zavala, J. A. M., Jiménez, C. L. M., and Miller, M. X. A. Corporate Social Responsibility and Proenvironmental Behaviour in Employees: Evidence in Acapulco, Mexico. Sustainability. 2021; 13(9): 4597.

37. McWilliams, A., Siegel, D.S., Wright, P.M.,. Corporate social responsibility: strategic implications. J. Manag. Stud. 2006; 43: 18. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467- 6486.2006.00580.x

38. Mesmer-Magnus, J., Viswesvaran, C., and Wiernik, B. M. The role of commitment in bridging the gap between organizational sustainability and environmental sustainability. In S. Jackson, D. Ones, and S. Dilchert (Éds.), Managing Human Resources for Environmental Sustainability. 2012: 155-186.

39. Montgomery, D., and Ramus, C. Corporate social responsibility reputation effects on MBA job choice. Research Paper Series.2003: 1–15.

40. Mordi, C., Opeyemi, I.S., Tonbara, M., Ojo, S. Corporate social responsibility and the legal regulation in Nigeria. Econ. Insights-Trends Challenges. 2012; LXIV: 1e8.

41. Narayanan, M., and Chandrasekaran, S. A Study on Public Sector Banks and Private Sector Banks: Customer Usage of Green Banking Initiatives–A Special Reference TO Internet Banking. Asian Journal of Management. 2023; 14(1): 65-70.

42. Norton, T. A., Parker, S. L., Zacher, H., and Ashkanasy, N. M. Employee green behavior: A Theoretical framework, multilevel review, and future research agenda. Organization and Environment. 2015; 28(1): 103–125.

43. Omnamasivaya, B., Murthy, R. L. N., and Ramesh, P. Is Ownership structure really Influence Environmental Accounting and Disclosure Practices. Asian Journal of Management. 2021; 12(3): 317-320.

44. Ones, D. S., and Dilchert, S. Environmental sustainability at work: A call to action. Industrial and Organizational Psychology. 2012; 5(4): 444-466.

45. Paillé, P., and Meija-Morelos, J. H. Organisational support is not always enough to encourage employee environmental performance. The moderating role of exchange ideology. Journal of Cleaner Production. 2019; 220: 1061–1070.

46. Paillé, P., Chen, Y., Boiral, O., and Jin, J. The impact of human resource management on environmental performance: An employee-level study. Journal of Business Ethics. 2014; 121(3): 451-466.

47. Paillé, P., Raineri, N., and Boiral, O. Environmental Behavior on and Off the Job: A Configurational Approach. Journal of Business Ethics. 2017; 158(1): 253-268. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-017-3758-1

48. Paillé, P., Raineri, N., and Boiral, O. Environmental behavior on and off the job: A configurational approach. Journal of Business Ethics. 2019; 158(1): 253-268.

49. Perez, O., Amichai‐Hamburger, Y., and Shterental, T. The dynamic of corporate self‐regulation: ISO 14001, environmental commitment, and organizational citizenship behavior. Law and Society Review. 2009; 43(3): 593-630.

50. Pfarrer, M. D. What is the purpose of the firm? Shareholder and stakeholder theories. J. O'Toole D. Mayer and Institute for Enterprise Ethics Good business: Exercising effective and ethical leadership, 86 –93. New York, NY: Routledge. 2010

51. Rahman, M.M., Rashid, M.M. and Haque, M.R. Corporate social responsibility and financial performance: a case study of Jamuna Bank Limited, Bangladesh. Asian Journal of Finance and Accounting. 2014; 6(2): 351-361.

52. Rahman, S., Haski-Leventhal, D., and Pournader, M. (2016). The effect of employee CSR attitudes on job satisfaction and organizational commitment: evidence from the Bangladeshi banking industry. Social Responsibility Journal. 12 (2), 228-246.

53. Raineri, N., and Paillé, P. (2016). Linking corporate policy and supervisory support with environmental citizenship behaviors: The role of employee environmental beliefs and commitment. Journal of Business Ethics, 137(1), 129-148.

54. Ramus, C. A., and Steger, U. (2000). The roles of supervisory support behaviors and environmental policy in employee “Ecoinitiatives” at leading-edge European companies. Academy of Management journal, 43(4), 605-626.

55. Rao, Y. N., and Naik, R. H. (2022). A study on impact of competency based hr practices on fostering organisational change and development in selected bpo companies in Shivamogga. Asian Journal of Management, 13(2), 160-164.

56. Raza, A., Farrukh, M., Iqbal, M. K., Farhan, M., and Wu, Y. (2021). Corporate social responsibility and employees' voluntary pro‐environmental behavior: The role of organizational pride and employee engagement. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 28(3), 1104-1116.

57. Rupp, D.E., Ganapathi, J., Aguilera, R.V. and Williams, C.A. (2006). Employee reactions to corporate social responsibility: an organizational justice framework. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 27(4), pp. 537-543.

58. Saeed, B. B., Afsar, B., Hafeez, S., Khan, I., Tahir, M., and Afridi, M. A. (2019). Promoting employee's proenvironmental behavior through green human resource management practices. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 26(2), 424-438. https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.1694

59. Safari, A., Salehzadeh, R., Panahi, R., and Abolghasemian, S. (2018). Multiple pathways linking environmental knowledge and awareness to employees’ green behavior. Corporate Governance: The International Journal of Business in Society, 18(1), 81-103. https://doi.org/10.1108/CG-08-2016-0168

60. Sen, S., and Bhattacharya, C. B. (2001). Does doing good always lead to doing better? Consumer reactions to corporate social responsibility. Journal of marketing Research, 38(2), 225-243.

61. Shah, S. H. A., Cheema, S., Al‐Ghazali, B. M., Ali, M., and Rafiq, N. (2021). Perceived corporate social responsibility and pro‐environmental behaviors: The role of organizational identification and coworker pro‐environmental advocacy. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 28(1), 366-377.

62. Sprinkle, G. B., and Maines, L. A. (2010). The benefits and costs of corporate social responsibility. Business Horizons, 53(5), 445-453.

63. Steg, L., and Vlek, C. (2009). Encouraging pro-environmental behaviour: An integrative review and research agenda. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 29(3), 309–317. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2008. 10.004

64. Stern, P. C. (2000). Toward a Coherent Theory of Environmentally Significant Behavior. Journal of Social Issues, 407-424.

65. Suganthi, L. (2019). Examining the relationship between corporate social responsibilities, performance, employees’ pro-environmental behavior at work with green practices as mediator. Journal of cleaner production, 232, pp.739-750.

66. Suganthi, L. (2019). Examining the relationship between corporate social responsibility, performance, employees’ pro-environmental behavior at work with green practices as mediator. Journal of cleaner production, 232, 739-750.

67. Supriya, B., and Sudharani, R. (2023). A study on impact corporate social responsibility on profitability of companies listed in National stock exchange. Asian Journal of Management, 14(1), 6-10.

68. Tariq, M., Yasir, M., and Majid, A. (2020). Promoting employees' environmental performance in hospitality industry through environmental attitude and ecological behavior: Moderating role of managers' environmental commitment. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management. 2014; 27(6): 3006-3017.

69. Tian, Q., and Robertson, J. L. How and when does perceived CSR affect employees’ engagement in voluntary pro-environmental behavior? Journal of Business Ethics. 2019; 155(2): 399-412.

70. Tripathy, S. Impact of Total Quality Management Practice on Employees Retention and Satisfaction. Asian Journal of Management. 2022; 13(1): 47-50.

71. Turker, D. Measuring corporate social responsibility: A scale development study. Journal of Business Ethics. 2009; 85(4): 411-427.

72. Unsworth, K., Dmitrieva, A., and Adriasola, E. Changing behaviour: increasing the effectiveness of workplace interventions in creating pro‐environmental behaviour change. Vallaster C (2017) Managing a company crisis through strategic corporate social responsibility: a practice-based analysis. Corp Soc Responsib Environ Manag. 2013; 24(6): 509–523

73. Vallaster, C. Managing a company crisis through strategic corporate social responsibility: A practice-based analysis. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management. 2017; 24: 509–523.

74. Wesselink, R., Blok, V., and Ringersma, J. Pro-environmental behav- iour in the workplace and the role of managers and organisation. Jour- nal of Cleaner Production. 2017; 168: 1679–1687.

75. Yu, T. K., Lin, F. Y., Kao, K. Y., and Yu, T. Y. Encouraging environmental commitment to sustainability: An empirical study of environmental connectedness theory to undergraduate students. Sustainability. 2019; 11(2): 342. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11020342

76. Yu, Y., and Huo, B. The impact of environmental orientation on supplier green management and financial performance: The moderating role of relational capital. Journal of Cleaner Production. 2019; 211: 628-639.

77. Zientara, P., and Zamojska, A. Green organizational climates and employee pro-environmental behaviour in the hotel industry. Journal of Sustainable Tourism. 2018; 26(7): 1142-1159.

Received on 21.02.2024 Revised on 23.08.2024

Accepted on 24.01.2025 Published on 29.07.2025

Available online from August 05, 2025

Asian Journal of Management. 2025;16(3):203-212.

DOI: 10.52711/2321-5763.2025.00031

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License. Creative Commons License.

Variables	Mean	SD	1	2	3	4
Corporate Social Responsibility	4.22	0.6	1
Employee’s on-the-job Green Behavior	4.29	0.4	0.479^**	1
Employee’s off-the-job Green Behavior	4.29	0.42	0.465^**	0.655^**	1
Environmental Commitment	4.21	0.45	0.553^**	0.522^**	576^**	1

Dependent Variable: Employee On-the-Job Green Behavior
	βeta	t-value	p-value	F-value Change	R²	Change in R²
Control Variables
Gender of the Employee	-0.011	-0.177	0.860	0.786	0.012	0.012
Age of the employee	0.079	0.957	0.339
Income of the employee	0.078	1.122	0.263
Years in Job experience	-0.037	-0.430	0.668
Main Effects
Corporate Social Responsibility	0.274	4.511	0.000	62.348	0.330	0.318
Environmental Commitment	0.375	6.093	0.000
Interaction Effects
Corporate Social Responsibility x Environmental Commitment	1.850	4.743	0.000	22.491	0.383	0.053

Dependent Variable: Employee Off-the-Job Green Behavior
	βeta	t-value	p-value	F-valueChange	R²	Change in R²
Control Variables
Gender of the Employee	-0.061	-0.996	0.320	0.728	0.011	0.011
Age of the employee	0.066	0.796	0.427
Income of the employee	0.069	0.994	0.321
Years in Job experience	-0.045	-0.516	0.606
Main Effects
Corporate Social Responsibility	0.208	3.526	0.000	73.459	0.365	0.355
Environmental Commitment	0.466	7.788	0.000
Interaction Effects
Corporate Social Responsibility x Environmental Commitment	1.386	3.591	0.000	12.893	0.395	0.030