Introduction
To gain a greater competitive advantage against other enterprises, contemporary enterprises must not only adopt the environmental policy but also require employees to demonstrate pro-environmental behaviors, which are important sources of sustainable competitive advantage (Wu et al., 2021; Xu et al., 2021; Zhou et al., 2021). Pro-environmental behavior refers to the extent to which individuals engage in environmental protection-related behaviors to improve environmental sustainability (Jia et al., 2021; Li et al., 2020; Zhu et al., 2021). Environmental policy refers to the extent to which companies mitigate the negative impacts of their business activities and operations on the natural environment (Bertolotti and Catellani, 2021; Huang et al., 2022; Maeda et al., 2021). However, previous surveys have always predicted the adoption of environmental policy from an institutional perspective (Blakeney et al., 2020; Chen et al., 2021), which has created the first literature gap. Next, previous surveys have predicted pro-environmental behaviors through three perspectives. The first perspective is to adopt institutional variables to explain pro-environmental behaviors, such as institutional norms (Perry et al., 2021). The second perspective is to adopt personal perceptions to explain pro-environmental behaviors (Handoyo et al., 2021). The third perspective is to adopt the personal ability to explain pro-environmental behaviors, such as state (Uren et al., 2021). Although the above-mentioned surveys have promoted the development of the adoption of environmental policy and pro-environmental behaviors, surveys of antecedents on the two important are still insufficient (Moore and Boldero, 2017; He et al., 2020), which has created the second literature gap. Indeed, the problem of environmental pollution has caused problems such as global warming and air pollution (Farrow et al., 2020), so exploring the psychological mechanisms of pro-environmental behavior and environmental policy should be a big issue.
To fill the above literature gaps, this paper proposes a new mediation model of pro-environmental behaviors with its antecedents, consequences, and moderating factors, to open up a new paradigm for pro-environmental behaviors. In other words, based on the theory of meaning management (Smircich and Morgan, 1982) and the upper-echelon theory (Hambrick, 2016), the environmental leadership of the chief executive officer (CEO) has a positive impact on the pro-environmental behaviors of the top management team (TMT) and then leads to the adoption of environmental policy, which is moderated by social pressure. Upper-echelon theory states that an upper-echelon manager should influence his or her enterprise to adopt a strategy that is consistent with the values preferred by the upper-echelon manager. Meaning management theory states that leaders will engage with meaning management theory to shape followers’ behaviors to meet organizational expectations. Many businesses have indeed adopted pro-environmental behaviors and environmental policy to achieve sustainable performance (Robertson and Barling, 2015; Xu et al., 2021), but few studies have explored which organizational management mechanisms can enhance the pro-environmental behaviors and environmental policy. Furthermore, this paper takes social pressure as the boundary condition between the pro-environmental behaviors of the TMT and the adoption of environmental policy, because the TMT faces higher social pressure and should show more intention to adopt environmental policy caused by pro-environmental behaviors based on institutional theory.
Literature reviewing
This paper states a novel moderating mediation model of pro-environmental behaviors (
Figure 1).
1) CEO Environmental Leadership and TMT pro-environmental behaviors
FIGURE 1
Research model of this paper.
This article draws on the theory of meaningful management (Smircich and Morgan, 1982) to connect the environmental leadership of CEOs with the environmental behavior of TMTs. In other words, leaders who transmit organizational value to followers also shape followers’ self-worth to achieve meaningful management (Huang et al., 2021; Huang et al., 2022). The CEO’s environmental leadership may transmit the values of environmental concerns to the TMT, and the CEO’s environmental leadership will also shape the TMT’s behaviors to be consistent with environmental concerns, similar to the content of pro-environmental behaviors.
Proposition 1
CEO Environmental Leadership will increase TMT pro-environmental behaviors
2) TMT pro-environmental behaviors and environmental policy adoption
Proposition 2
TMT pro-environmental behaviors will increase environmental policy adoption.
3) The moderating role of social pressure
Proposition 3Social pressure will moderate the relationship between TMT pro-environmental behaviors and environmental policy adoption.
Discussion
Based on meaning management theory and upper echelons theory, the present paper provides a theoretically combined perspective to explain a CEO-TMT linkage, and the combined perspective also guides future research to include the CEO-TMT linkage in the pro-environmental behaviors field.
To assist enterprises to implement pro-environmental behaviors and environmental policy adoption, these enterprises must incorporate environmental leadership into their education and training, because it can increase pro-environmental behaviors and environmental policy adoption.
To establish a novel moderating mediation model of pro-environmental behavior, this paper uses meaning management theory and upper-echelon theory to describe why CEO environmental leadership positively affects environmental policy adoption through the mediating role of TMT pro-environmental behavior, and this relationship is moderated by social pressure. Previous surveys have not explored this avenue to address the literature gap, and this paper fills the gap with a novel moderating mediation model of pro-environmental behaviors, thereby making an incremental contribution to sustainable development.
Based on meaning management theory and upper-echelon theory, this paper provides a theoretically integrated perspective for explaining CEO-TMT linkage and also guides future research to incorporate CEO-TMT linkage into the field of pro-environmental behaviors.
To help enterprises implement pro-environmental behaviors and environmental policy adoption, these enterprises must incorporate environmental leadership into their education and training, as it can increase pro-environmental behaviors and environmental policy adoption.
Statements
Author contributions
T-WC contribution: Conceptualization and Writing—original draft. K-HC and corresponding author contribution: Project administration, Supervision, and Writing—revised draft. Y-SL contribution: Literature collection, Idea Generation, Writing, review and editing—revised draft. S-JY contribution: Literature collection, Idea Generation, and Writing, review and editing—revised draft.
Conflict of interest
The author declares that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
Publisher’s note
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.
References
1
BertolottiM.CatellaniP. (2021). Going green, but staying in the black: How framing impacts the agreement with messages on the economic consequences of environmental policies. Front. Psychol.12, 624001. 10.3389/fpsyg.2021.624001
2
BlakeneyM.KrishnankuttyJ.RajuR. K.SiddiqueK. H. M. (2020). Agricultural innovation and the protection of traditional rice varieties: Kerala a case study. Front. Sustain. Food Syst.3, 116. 10.3389/fsufs.2019.00116
3
ChenB.RenM.ChenL. (2021). Impact analysis of large-scale environmental spot inspection policy on green innovation: Evidence from China. Front. Environ. Sci.9, 676413. 10.3389/fenvs.2021.676413
4
ChenY.TangG.CookeF. L.JinJ. (2016). How does executive strategic resource management link to organizational am-bidexterity? An empirical examination of manufacturing firms in China. Hum. Resour. Manage.55, 919–943.
5
FarrowS.MillerK. A.MyllyvirtaL.2020Toxic air: The price of fossil fuels greenspace (Available from: https://www.greenpeace.org/static/planet4-southeastasia-stateless/2020/02/21b480fa-toxic-air-report-110220.pdf)
6
HambrickD. C. (2016). “Upper echelons theory,” in The palgrave encyclopedia of strategic management. Editors AugierM.TeeceD. J. (Newyork, NY: Palgrave Macmillan), 1–5.
7
HandoyoB.AstinaI. K.MkumbachiR. L. (2021). Students' environmental awareness and pro-environmental behaviour: Preliminary study of geography students at state University of malang. IOP Conf. Ser. Earth Environ. Sci.683, 012049. 10.1088/1755-1315/683/1/012049
8
HeJ.LeiY.FuX.LinC-H.ChangC-H. (2020). How can manufacturers promote green innovation in food supply chain? Cost sharing strategy for supplier motivation. Front. Psychol.11, 574832. 10.3389/fpsyg.2020.574832
9
HuangS. Y. B.HuangC-H.ChangT-W. (2022). A new concept of work engagement theory in cognitive engagement, emotional engagement, and physical engagement. Front. Psychol.12, 663440. 10.3389/fpsyg.2021.663440
10
HuangS. Y. B.LiM-W.ChangT-W. (2021). Transformational leadership, ethical leadership, and participative leadership in predicting counterproductive work behaviors: Evidence from financial technology firms. Front. Psychol.12, 658727. 10.3389/fpsyg.2021.658727
11
JiaY.TianJ.LiuH. (2021). The roles of mental construal level theory in the promotion of university students' pro-environmental behaviors. Front. Psychol.12, 735837. 10.3389/fpsyg.2021.735837
12
LiZ.XueJ.LiR.ChenH.WangT. (2020). Environmentally specific transformational leadership and employee’s pro-environmental behavior: The mediating roles of environmental passion and autonomous motivation. Front. Psychol.11, 1408. 10.3389/fpsyg.2020.01408
13
LičenM.HartmannF.RepovšG.SlapničarS. (2016). The impact of social pressure and monetary incentive on cognitive control. Front. Psychol.7, 93. 10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00093
14
LvY.MaC.WuM.LiX.HaoX. (2022). Assessment of preschool’s inclusive participation in social responsibility program under institutional pressure: Evidence from China. Front. Psychol.13, 810719. 10.3389/fpsyg.2022.810719
15
MaedaE. E.HaapasaariP.HelleI.LehikoinenA.VoinovA.KuikkaS.et al (2021). Black boxes and the role of modeling in environmental policy making. Front. Environ. Sci.9, 629336. 10.3389/fenvs.2021.629336
16
MooreH. E.BolderoJ. (2017). Designing interventions that last: A classification of environmental behaviors in relation to the activities, costs, and effort involved for adoption and maintenance. Front. Psychol.8, 1874. 10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01874
17
PerryG. L.RichardsonS. J.HarréN.HodgesD.LyverP. O.MaseykF. J.et al (2021). Evaluating the role of social norms in fostering pro-environmental behaviors. Front. Environ. Sci.9, 620125. 10.3389/fenvs.2021.620125
18
RobertsonJ. L.BarlingJ. (2015). “The role of leadership in promoting workplace pro-environmental behaviors,” in The psychology of green organizations, Editors RobertsonJ. L.BarlingJ. (New York, NY: Oxford University Press).
19
ScottW. R. (2004). “Institutional theory,” in Encyclopedia of social theory. Editor GeorgeRitzer (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage), 408–414.
20
ShahzadF.DuJ.KhanI.WangJ. (2022). Decoupling institutional pressure on green supply chain management efforts to boost organizational performance: Moderating impact of big data analytics capabilities. Front. Environ. Sci.10, 911392. 10.3389/fenvs.2022.911392
21
SmircichL.MorganG. (1982). Leadership: The management of meaning. J. Appl. Behav. Sci.18, 257–273. 10.1177/002188638201800303
22
UrenH. V.RobertsL. D.DzidicP. L.LevistonZ. (2021). High-status pro-environmental behaviors: Costly, effortful, and visible environ. Behav53, 5 455–484.
23
WangH.LuX.HuC.WangH. (2022). Institutional pressures and servitization paradox: The moderating effect of organizational identity orientations. Front. Psychol.13, 901732. 10.3389/fpsyg.2022.901732
24
WuJ.ZhangW.PengC.LiJ.ZhangS.CaiW.et al (2021). The trickle-down effect of leaders’ VWGB on employees’ pro-environmental behaviors: A moderated mediation model. Front. Psychol.12, 623687. 10.3389/fpsyg.2021.623687
25
XuF.JiQ.YangM. (2021). The pitfall of selective environmental information disclosure on stock price crash risk: Evidence from polluting listed companies in China. Front. Environ. Sci.9, 622345. 10.3389/fenvs.2021.622345
26
ZhouJ.SawyerL.SafiA. (2021). Institutional pressure and green product success: The role of green transformational leadership, green innovation, and green brand image. Front. Psychol.12, 704855. 10.3389/fpsyg.2021.704855
27
ZhuY.WangY.LiuZ. (2021). How does social interaction affect pro-environmental behaviors in China? The mediation role of conformity. Front. Environ. Sci.9, 690361. 10.3389/fenvs.2021.690361
Summary
Keywords
environmental leadership, environmental policy, social pressure, proenvironmental behaviors, sustainable development
Citation
Chang T-W, Chen K-H, Lee Y-S and Yen S-J (2022) How does environmental leadership cause adoption of environmental policy?. Front. Environ. Sci. 10:928463. doi: 10.3389/fenvs.2022.928463
Received
05 May 2022
Accepted
15 July 2022
Published
29 August 2022
Volume
10 - 2022
Edited by
Alex Oriel Godoy, Universidad del Desarrollo, Chile
Reviewed by
Muhammad Ikram, Al Akhawayn University, Morocco
Updates
Copyright
© 2022 Chang, Chen, Lee and Yen.
This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
*Correspondence: Kuei-Hsien Chen, khchen@mail.chihlee.edu.tw
This article was submitted to Environmental Economics and Management, a section of the journal Frontiers in Environmental Science
Disclaimer
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.