Perceived Organizational Environmental Support–Perceived Supervisory Environmental Support Congruence and Perceived Corporate Hypocrisy

In this research, we first propose that the degree of congruence between perceived organizational environmental support and perceived supervisory environmental support influences employees’ perceived corporate hypocrisy.

Scholars in the corporate greening field indicate that firms send signals of environmental support to employees in two forms – organizational support (environmental policies) and supervisory support (daily behaviors aimed at encouraging environmental actions) (e.g., Cantor et al., Reference Cantor, Morrow and Montabon2012; Ramus, Reference Ramus2002; Ramus & Steger, Reference Ramus and Steger2000). First, employees perceive organizational environmental support in the form of corporate environmental policy. Perceived organizational environmental support reflects an organization's green ‘talk’ because it refers to the claims about and commitment to environmental protection that an organization makes through its environmental policy statements (e.g., Norton et al., Reference Norton, Zacher, Parker and Ashkanasy2017; Ramus, Reference Ramus2002; Ramus & Montiel, Reference Ramus and Montiel2005; Ramus & Steger, Reference Ramus and Steger2000). Second, employees perceive supervisory environmental support in the form of supervisors’ daily behaviors aimed at supporting environmental actions, such as rewarding ideas for environmental improvements, providing environmental competence-building opportunities, and being open to employees’ ideas (e.g., Cantor et al., Reference Cantor, Morrow and Blackhurst2015; Ramus, Reference Ramus2001; Ramus, Reference Ramus2002). Immediate supervisors are more proximal to employees and primarily responsible for policy implementation in daily management (Kehoe & Han, Reference Kehoe and Han2020; Leroy et al., Reference Leroy, Segers, Van Dierendonck and Den Hartog2018; McCarthy et al., Reference McCarthy, Darcy and Grady2010; Peng & Wei, Reference Peng and Wei2018), and they are important organizational representatives and agents whose behaviors embody the organization's stance (Kozlowski & Doherty, Reference Kozlowski and Doherty1989; Peng & Wei, Reference Peng and Wei2018; Sikora & Ferris, Reference Sikora and Ferris2014; Tourigny, Han, Baba, & Pan, Reference Tourigny, Han, Baba and Pan2019). Hence, supervisors are the key people whose actions represent the organization's ‘walk’. Perceived supervisory environmental support reflects an organization's green ‘walk’ because it is through supervisors’ support behavior that organizational environmental policy commitment can be implemented, conveyed to, and ultimately interpreted by employees as actual ‘walk’ of the organization. In short, employees perceive environmental support from the organization (in the form of policy commitment) and the supervisor (in the form of supportive behaviors), which represent a firm's words and deeds of corporate environmental responsibility, respectively.

In our context, when perceived organizational environmental support and perceived supervisory environmental support are congruent (i.e., both are high or low), the two cues of environmental support communicate consistent information to employees. Specifically, when perceived organizational environmental support and perceived supervisory environmental support are both high, the organization not only claims a strong commitment to environmental causes through its environmental policy, but also demonstrates practical actions encouraging environmental protection through its agents (i.e., supervisors). Similarly, when perceived organizational and supervisory environmental support are both low, the organization neither signals a strong commitment to environmental issues through environmental policy nor demonstrates practical deeds supporting environmental protection through supportive behaviors of supervisors. In both cases of congruence, employees receive consistent signals of environmental support from the organization (in the form of policy commitment) and the supervisor (in the form of supportive behaviors). As a result, employees form a belief that the organization's words and deeds regarding environmental protection are consistent, which is unlikely to arouse the perception of corporate hypocrisy.

By contrast, when perceived organizational environmental support and perceived supervisory environmental support are incongruent (i.e., higher perceived organizational than supervisory environmental support, and vice versa), the two cues of environmental support communicate inconsistent information to employees. In both cases of incongruence, employees perceive a misalignment between the organization's commitment to environmental issues in the form of organizational environmental policy and its practical deeds supporting environmental protection in the form of supervisors’ supportive behaviors. Thus, the incongruent environmental support from the organization and the supervisor leads to employees’ belief that the organization's claims and actions regarding environmental protection are inconsistent, which arouses their perception of corporate hypocrisy. This assumption also resonates with previous findings that incongruent signals inhibit employees’ positive evaluations and even result in negative responses (De Roeck, El Akremi, & Swaen, Reference De Roeck, El Akremi and Swaen2016; Hsu, Koçak, & Hannan, Reference Hsu, Hannan and Koçak2009).

Based on the argument above, we propose that the degree of congruence between perceived organizational environmental support and perceived supervisory environmental support is negatively related to employees’ perception of corporate hypocrisy.

Differentiating Two Types of Incongruence

We further assume that the incongruence effect is asymmetrical and differentiate between two types of incongruence: when perceived organizational environmental support is higher than perceived supervisory environmental support, and vice versa. Based on cue consistency theory (e.g., Anderson, Reference Anderson1981, Reference Anderson1996; Maheswaran & Chaiken, Reference Maheswaran and Chaiken1991; Miyazaki, Grewal, & Goodstein, Reference Miyazaki, Grewal and Goodstein2005) and Wagner et al.'s (Reference Wagner, Korschun and Troebs2020) multifaceted definition of perceived corporate hypocrisy, we propose that perceived corporate hypocrisy will be higher when perceived organizational environmental support is high but perceived supervisory environmental support is low rather than the reverse.

Cue consistency theory indicates that employees rely on multiple cues in work settings and assess their consistency to form a judgement of the work environment and decide their responses accordingly (Anderson, Reference Anderson1981, Reference Anderson1996; Maheswaran & Chaiken, Reference Maheswaran and Chaiken1991). Specifically, when multiple sources of information or cues about an object are consistent, they are used jointly to form employees’ cognitive evaluations and their influence can be linearly integrated (Anderson, Reference Anderson1981; Maheswaran & Chaiken, Reference Maheswaran and Chaiken1991; Miyazaki et al., Reference Miyazaki, Grewal and Goodstein2005). By contrast, when multiple cues transmit inconsistent information, the less favorable cue is given greater weight than the more positive one and dominates employees’ cognitive processing of information (Anderson, Reference Anderson1981, Reference Anderson1996; De Roeck & Farooq, Reference De Roeck and Farooq2018; Miyazaki et al., Reference Miyazaki, Grewal and Goodstein2005; Skowronski & Carlston, Reference Skowronski and Carlston1989). Furthermore, according to Wagner et al.'s (Reference Wagner, Korschun and Troebs2020) multifaceted definition of perceived corporate hypocrisy, behavioral hypocrisy and moral hypocrisy are two independent and orthogonal facets of corporate hypocrisy, which are two conceptual routes that contribute to stakeholders’ perceptions of corporate hypocrisy. Specifically, behavioral hypocrisy is defined as the belief that actions demonstrated by a firm are inconsistent with its statements (Wagner et al., Reference Wagner, Korschun and Troebs2020: 4). According to Wagner et al. (Reference Wagner, Korschun and Troebs2020: 4), behavioral hypocrisy is rooted in inconsistency and explicitly focuses on word–deed (mis)alignment and not (im)morality so a perception of behavioral hypocrisy will be formed when word–deed inconsistency exists. Moral hypocrisy is defined as the belief that a firm is trying to appear more virtuous than it actually is (Wagner et al., Reference Wagner, Korschun and Troebs2020: 4). According to Wagner et al. (Reference Wagner, Korschun and Troebs2020), moral hypocrisy perceptions emerge when a firm makes statements about its ethical nature and values but avoids the cost of actually having these qualities, and the perceptions are particularly strong when the firm makes claims of morality out of an ulterior self-serving motive.

In our research context, when perceived organizational environmental support is high but perceived supervisory environmental support is low, the more negative piece of information – low perceived supervisory environmental support – is given more weight and dominates employees’ evaluation of the organization's environmental stance (Anderson, Reference Anderson1981, Reference Anderson1996; Miyazaki et al., Reference Miyazaki, Grewal and Goodstein2005; Skowronski & Carlston, Reference Skowronski and Carlston1989). In this case, employees pay more attention to the fact that the supervisor, as the agent of an organization, demonstrates insufficient behavior supporting environmental issues. Thus, employees will make a judgement that the organization does not take practical actions or exert effort to support environmental protection in daily management through supportive behaviors of supervisors. Meanwhile, high perceived organizational environmental support transmits official and externally directed CSR messages that the organization claims a strong commitment to environmental sustainability in its environmental policy (Christensen, Morsing, & Thyssen, Reference Christensen, Morsing and Thyssen2020; Ramus & Montiel, Reference Ramus and Montiel2005). In this situation, the incongruence between the firm's green ‘talk’ (in the form of organizational policy commitment) and ‘walk’ (in the form of supervisory supportive behaviors) leads to employees’ perception of behavioral hypocrisy – a belief that the organization's words and deeds are inconsistent (Wagner et al., Reference Wagner, Korschun and Troebs2020). More importantly, this form of incongruence (i.e., higher ‘talk’ than ‘walk’) also leads to a perception of moral hypocrisy – a belief that the organization is trying to appear more environmentally responsible than it actually is. In this case, employees perceive moral hypocrisy because the organization makes statements about its environmental commitment while avoiding the costs of supporting environmental causes through actual deeds, and the perception of moral hypocrisy is particularly strong if employees believe the organization's talk–walk incongruence is out of an ulterior, self-serving motivation (Effron et al., Reference Effron, Markus, Jackman, Muramoto and Muluk2018; Wagner et al., Reference Wagner, Korschun and Troebs2020). That is, this situation leads to both behavioral hypocrisy and moral hypocrisy perceptions. Therefore, we argue that employees will perceive strong corporate hypocrisy when perceived organizational environmental support is higher than perceived supervisory environmental support.

By contrast, when perceived organizational environmental support is low but perceived supervisory environmental support is high, employees give more weight to the less favorable cue – low perceived organizational environmental support – when evaluating the organization's environmental stance (Anderson, Reference Anderson1981; Maheswaran & Chaiken, Reference Maheswaran and Chaiken1991; Miyazaki et al., Reference Miyazaki, Grewal and Goodstein2005). In this case, employees pay more attention to the low perceived organizational environmental support, which transmits official and externally directed CSR messages that the organization does not make a strong commitment to environmental causes through its environmental policy (Christensen et al., Reference Christensen, Morsing and Thyssen2020; Ramus & Montiel, Reference Ramus and Montiel2005). Thus, employees will make a judgement that the organization does not project an environmentally responsible image to gain the favor of stakeholders. Meanwhile, high perceived supervisory environmental support reflects that the organization takes actual actions to support environmental causes in daily management through supervisors’ supportive behaviors. In this situation, the incongruence between the firm's environmental ‘talk’ (in the form of organizational policy commitment) and ‘walk’ (in the form of supervisory supportive behaviors) leads to employees’ perception of behavioral hypocrisy – a belief that the organization's words and deeds are inconsistent (Wagner et al., Reference Wagner, Korschun and Troebs2020). However, this form of incongruence (i.e., higher ‘walk’ than ‘talk’) does not lead to a perception of moral hypocrisy because in this case, employees are unlikely to form a belief that the organization is trying to appear more environmentally friendly than it actually is or to earn undeserved moral benefits (Effron et al., Reference Effron, Markus, Jackman, Muramoto and Muluk2018; Wagner et al., Reference Wagner, Korschun and Troebs2020). That is, this situation only leads to behavioral hypocrisy without arousing moral hypocrisy perceptions. Therefore, we argue that employees will perceive lower corporate hypocrisy in this case compared with when perceived organizational environmental support is higher than perceived supervisory environmental support.

Mediating Effect of Perceived Corporate Hypocrisy

We further propose that perceived organizational environmental support–perceived supervisory environmental support (in)congruence indirectly affects EGB via perceived corporate hypocrisy. According to Wagner et al. (Reference Wagner, Korschun and Troebs2020), corporate hypocrisy has two conceptual facets – behavioral hypocrisy and moral hypocrisy. On the basis of the multifaceted nature of corporate hypocrisy, we first argue that perceived corporate hypocrisy negatively affects EGB for the following reasons.

First, based on the behavioral perspective of corporate hypocrisy, we argue that when employees perceive corporate hypocrisy, they are less likely to engage in EGB because they feel uncertain whether this action is really expected in the organization and feel distrust toward the organization. Specifically, behavioral hypocrisy reflects a belief of misalignment between statements and demonstrated actions, which is the opposite of behavioral integrity (word–deed alignment) (e.g., Greenbaum, Mawritz, & Piccolo, Reference Greenbaum, Mawritz and Piccolo2015; Simons, Reference Simons2002; Wagner et al., Reference Wagner, Korschun and Troebs2020). From the behavioral perspective, previous research has shown that when employees perceive corporate or leader hypocrisy, they find it difficult to understand and predict the morality and true intentions of the organization or the leader (e.g., Greenbaum et al., Reference Greenbaum, Mawritz and Piccolo2015; Lee et al., Reference Lee, Edmondson, Thmke and Worline2004; Peng & Wei, Reference Peng and Wei2018). Thus, in the situation of corporate hypocrisy, on the one hand, the ambiguity and unpredictability of the organizational environment make employees feel uncertain about which signal to follow to decide their engagement in relevant behavior, which leads to a tendency of risk aversion and behavioral inhibition (Lee et al., Reference Lee, Edmondson, Thmke and Worline2004). On the other hand, the hypocrisy perception results in employees’ distrust toward the organization, which undermines their motivation to contribute to the organization (Effron et al., Reference Effron, Markus, Jackman, Muramoto and Muluk2018; Simons, Reference Simons2002; Simons, Leroy, Collewaert, & Masschelein, Reference Simons, Leroy, Collewaert and Masschelein2015). In our context, when employees perceive corporate hypocrisy, they regard the organization's true intention and stance of environmental protection as ambiguous and unpredictable. On the one hand, employees are unsure which cue of environmental support (i.e., organizational policy or supervisory behaviors) they should follow to decide their engagement in EGB, who are thus less likely to engage in EGB in case such behavior is undesirable in the organization. On the other hand, employees feel distrust toward the organization, which undermines their motivation to engage in EGB to contribute to the organization. This assumption is also consistent with existing findings that corporate hypocrisy or low behavioral integrity leads to employees’ distrust and thus negative responses such as higher turnover, lower organizational commitment, performance, and citizenship behavior (e.g., Greenbaum et al., Reference Greenbaum, Mawritz and Piccolo2015; Simons, Reference Simons2002; Simons et al., Reference Simons, Leroy, Collewaert and Masschelein2015).

Second, based on the moral perspective of corporate hypocrisy, we argue that perceived corporate hypocrisy negatively influences EGB because perceptions of moral hypocrisy can elicit avoidance behaviors directly (Haidt, Reference Haidt, Davidson, Scherer and Goldsmith2003; Wagner et al., Reference Wagner, Korschun and Troebs2020). Specifically, corporate moral hypocrisy perception is the belief that a firm is trying to appear more virtuous than it is out of an ulterior, self-serving motivation (Effron et al., Reference Effron, Markus, Jackman, Muramoto and Muluk2018; Wagner et al., Reference Wagner, Korschun and Troebs2020). From the moral perspective, scholars have noted that perceived corporate hypocrisy can drive stakeholders’ behavioral reactions directly without elaborate cognitive processing, particularly in the form of avoidance behaviors (Haidt, Reference Haidt2001; Wagner et al., Reference Wagner, Korschun and Troebs2020). Existing research shows that perceived corporate hypocrisy leads to a series of avoidance behaviors, including withdrawal actions, such as lower consumer willingness to pay for a product (Guèvremont & Grohmann, Reference Guèvremont and Grohmann2018) and higher employee turnover intentions (Scheidler, Edinger-Schons, Spanjol, & Wieseke, Reference Scheidler, Edinger-Schons, Spanjol and Wieseke2019), and even oppositional behaviors, including consumer and public negative word-of-mouth (e.g., Connors et al., Reference Connors, Anderson-MacDonald and Thomson2015; Shim, Chung, & Kim, Reference Shim, Chung and Kim2017). In our context, given that EGB contributes to organizational sustainable goals and requires employees’ input of personal resources such as time and energy (Ones & Dilchert, Reference Ones, Dilchert, Jackson, Ones and Dilchert2012; Paillé et al., Reference Paillé, Morelos, Raineri and Stinglhamber2019), we expect that when employees perceive corporate hypocrisy, their avoidance behavior is likely to occur in the form of lower engagement in EGB.

In summary, perceived corporate hypocrisy negatively relates to EGB. Taken together, Hypothesis 3 proposes an integrative model that perceived corporate hypocrisy mediates the (in)congruence effect on EGB. Specifically, higher inconsistency between perceived organizational environmental support and perceived supervisory environmental support leads to lower EGB through a higher level of perceived corporate hypocrisy. By contrast, congruent perceived organizational environmental support and perceived supervisory environmental support are less likely to arouse perceived corporate hypocrisy, thereby leading to higher EGB. Figure 1 presents the theoretical framework of this research.

Figure 1. Theoretical framework

Participants and Experiment Design

The experiment used a 2 (perceived organizational environmental support: high vs. low) × 2 (perceived supervisory environmental support: high vs. low) between-group design. Perceived organizational environmental support and perceived supervisory environmental support were the stimulus variables, and perceived corporate hypocrisy was the response variable. We recruited 200 upper-level undergraduate and graduate business students with previous work experience as participants, who were from two universities in northwestern China. Participants voluntarily participated in this experiment and received a small gift as reward. Participants were randomly assigned to one of the four experimental conditions. After excluding 32 questionnaires that missed important data, the final valid sample included 168 individuals (84% response rate), with 42 individuals in each group. The average age of the participants was 22 years old (SD = 1.79) and 71 participants (42.3%) were female.

The scenario experiment comprised three parts. Part one was a role-playing scenario, in which the participants were asked to imagine themselves as employees of a fictitious company called the P&P company. P&P company is a paper-making company because the paper-making industry is a pollution industry highly relevant to environmental issues. This part began with a brief introduction of P&P company: ‘Founded in the 1970s, P&P company is a large-scale paper-making company in China. As environmental problems become increasingly severe, like other manufacturers that cause environmental pollution, P&P is facing increasing pressure from the Chinese government and the public to reduce its negative impact on the environment in its daily production and operations’. Then, perceived organizational environmental support was manipulated as either high or low through a paragraph describing the environmental policy of P&P because we followed Ramus and Steger (Reference Ramus and Steger2000) and Ramus (Reference Ramus2002) to use perceived corporate environmental policy as a proxy for perceived organizational environmental support. The specific content was based on the thirteen items of Ramus and Steger's (Reference Ramus and Steger2000) perceived corporate environmental policy scale (see Appendix I). Perceived supervisory environmental support was manipulated through a paragraph describing the degree to which Simon, the immediate supervisor of the role that participants played in the scenario, supports them to engage in pro-environmental actions. The specific content was based on the five items of Raineri and Paillé's (Reference Raineri and Paillé2016) perceived supervisory environmental support scale, which was adapted from Ramus's (Reference Ramus2001) six categories of supervisory behaviors supporting eco-initiatives (see Appendix I). In part two, participants answered the manipulation check questions and filled in the scale of perceived corporate hypocrisy. We used the following questions, respectively, to check whether our manipulations on perceived organizational environmental support and perceived supervisory environmental support were successful: ‘If you were an employee of P&P company, according to the information you have learned above, to what degree do you think your company has issued a well-formulated environmental policy to the public’? and ‘If you were an employee of P&P company, according to the information you have learned above, to what degree do you think your supervisor Simon has given you enough support to engage in environmentally friendly behavior at work’? The participants scored from 1 (very disagree) to 5 (very agree) points on the questions. Perceived corporate hypocrisy was measured using Wagner et al.'s (Reference Wagner, Korschun and Troebs2020) three-item scale (see Appendix I), and the Cronbach's alpha was 0.89. In part three, participants reported their demographic information including age, gender, educational level, and work experience.

Manipulation Check

The results showed that the manipulations of perceived organizational environmental support and perceived supervisory environmental support were successful. Participants in the low perceived organizational environmental support condition rated P&P company's environmental policy as lower (Mean = 1.73, SD = 0.70) compared with those in the high perceived organizational environmental support condition (Mean = 3.88, SD = 0.59), and the difference was significant (F(1, 166) = 11.48, p < 0.001). Similarly, participants in the low perceived supervisory environmental support condition reported lower supervisory environmental support (Mean = 1.64, SD = 0.71) compared with those in the high perceived supervisory environmental support condition (Mean = 4.11, SD = 0.47), and the difference was significant (F(1, 166) = 40.37, p < 0.001).

Hypotheses Tests

Table 1 presents the ANOVA and post-hoc comparison results. As shown in Table 1, perceived corporate hypocrisy in the two groups of congruence (groups 1 and 4, Mean = 2.63, SD = 0.78) was lower than that in the two groups of incongruence (groups 2 and 3, Mean = 3.67, SD = 0.60) significantly (F (1, 166) = 10.85, p < 0.001). Thus, Hypothesis 1 was supported. In addition, perceived corporate hypocrisy of group 2 (high perceived organizational environmental support and low perceived supervisory environmental support, Mean = 3.85, SD = 0.47) was higher than that of group 3 (low perceived organizational environmental support and high perceived supervisory environmental support, Mean = 3.48, SD = 0.67) significantly (F(1, 166) = 5.52, p < 0.01), which supported Hypothesis 2.

Table 1. ANOVA results for the effect of perceived organizational environmental support and perceived supervisory environmental support on perceived corporate hypocrisy (Study 1)

Notes: Dependent variable = perceived corporate hypocrisy. SD = standard deviation. *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001.

Participants and Procedure

To alleviate the potential influence of common method variance (CMV), in Study 2, we followed Podsakoff, Mackenzie, and Podsakoff's (Reference Podsakoff, Mackenzie and Podsakoff2012) recommendations and collected data from different sources (i.e., employees and their supervisors) in two waves. The time interval was two weeks, which was sufficiently long to clear short-term memory and decrease CMV and sufficiently short to reduce respondent attrition (Podsakoff et al., Reference Podsakoff, Mackenzie and Podsakoff2012).

The participants comprise 380 employees and their supervisors. The employees were attending a part-time master's degree program at two universities in northwestern China, and all of them were full-time workers from different companies. Participants were working in 15 industries, which ensured the generalizability of our sample. The questionnaires were codified in advance to match the employee–supervisor pairs. At time 1, employees reported their demographic information, perceived organizational environmental support, perceived supervisory environmental support, and their environmental attitude. At time 2 (two weeks later), employees were requested to complete a questionnaire themselves and distribute another questionnaire to their supervisors. Both questionnaires were sealed in independent envelops to ensure the confidentiality of responses. Those supervisors who were willing to participate in the survey completed and mailed the questionnaire to the authors directly. Thus, at time 2, perceived corporate hypocrisy was reported by employees and EGB was reported by supervisors. In total, 311 pairs of employees and supervisors completed the survey, among which 21 pairs were excluded due to missing or illegible data. The final valid sample included 290 employee–supervisor dyads (total response rate of 76.3%). The employees ranged between 22 and 52 years old, with an average age of 31 (SD = 5.96) and an average tenure of 5.8 years (SD = 5.35). 144 employees (49.7%) were female, 124 employees (42.8%) were junior staff in their company and 166 were in managerial position.

Measures

All measures used in our survey were originally in English, so we followed Brislin's (Reference Brislin, Triandis and Berry1980) ‘translation and back-translation’ procedure to translate the items into Chinese. We assessed all the scales using a five-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree; 5 = strongly agree). The scales are shown in Appendix I.

Analytical Strategy

To test the effects of perceived organizational environmental support–perceived supervisory environmental support (in)congruence on perceived corporate hypocrisy, we followed previous congruence studies in the management field and adopted polynomial regression and response surface methodology (Edwards & Cable, Reference Edwards and Cable2009; Edwards & Parry, Reference Edwards and Parry1993). Specifically, we estimated the following equation to test Hypotheses 1 and 2 (control variables were omitted for simplicity):

$$M = b_0 + b_1O + b_2S + b_3O^2 + b_4O \times S + b_5S^2 \eqno(1)$$

where M represents the mediator (i.e., perceived corporate hypocrisy) and O and S represent perceived organizational environmental support and perceived supervisory environmental support, respectively. Following previous studies that used polynomial regression and response surface analysis, we mean-centered O and S before calculating the second-order terms to facilitate the interpretation of results (e.g., Cole, Carter, & Zhang, Reference Cole, Carter and Zhang2013; Matta, Scott, Koopman, & Conlon, Reference Matta, Scott, Koopman and Conlon2015; Qin, Huang, Hu, Schminke, & Ju, Reference Qin, Huang, Hu, Schminke and Ju2018).

Following Edwards and Cable (Reference Edwards and Cable2009), we first examined the incongruence line (O = –S) on the response surface to test Hypothesis 1. The curvature along the incongruence line (calculated as b ₃−b ₄+b ₅) should be positive and significant to support Hypothesis 1. We then tested Hypothesis 2 (i.e., the asymmetrical incongruence effect) following recent congruence research. Specifically, if there is not a significant curvature along the incongruence line, then the slope of the incongruence line (calculated as b ₁−b ₂) should be significantly positive so that perceived corporate hypocrisy is higher when perceived organizational environmental support exceeds perceived supervisory environmental support rather than vice versa. If there is a significant curvature along the incongruence line, then the lateral shift quantity (calculated as [b ₂−b ₁]/[2×(b ₃−b ₄+b ₅)]), which specifies the magnitude and direction of a lateral shift of the response surface along the incongruence line (Atwater, Ostroff, Yammarino, & Fleenor, Reference Atwater, Ostroff, Yammarino and Fleenor1998), should be positive to support Hypothesis 2 (e.g., Matta et al., Reference Matta, Scott, Koopman and Conlon2015; Qin et al., Reference Qin, Huang, Hu, Schminke and Ju2018; Wilson, Baumann, Matta, Ilies, & Kossek, Reference Wilson, Baumann, Matta, Ilies and Kossek2018). The 95% bias-corrected confidence intervals (CI) for the lateral shift quantity is estimated using 10,000 bootstrapped samples (e.g., Cole et al., Reference Cole, Carter and Zhang2013; Edwards, Reference Edwards, Drasgow and Schmitt2002; Matta et al., Reference Matta, Scott, Koopman and Conlon2015).

To test Hypothesis 3 (i.e., the mediating role of perceived corporate hypocrisy), we adopted the block variable approach (Edwards & Cable, Reference Edwards and Cable2009). We first regressed the mediator (i.e., perceived corporate hypocrisy) on the block variable (calculated as the weighted linear composite of five estimated regression coefficients in Equation 1) to obtain the regression coefficient ‘α’. Thereafter, we regressed EGB on the mediator and the block variable to obtain the coefficients for perceived corporate hypocrisy ‘β’. The indirect effect was calculated as the multiplication of the ‘α’ and ‘β’ paths and the significance of the indirect effects was tested by 95% bias-corrected CI using 10,000 bootstrapped samples.

Preliminary Analysis and Descriptive Statistics

Before testing the hypotheses, we conducted a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) to examine the distinctiveness between the research variables. Table 2 presents the CFA results. We observed that the hypothesized four-factor model fit the data well (χ² = 216.29, df = 165, χ²/df < 2, CFI = 0.99, TLI = 0.99, IFI = 0.99, RMSEA = 0.03, p < 0.01), whereas the five alternative models in which we combined some of the focal variables into one factor all yielded poorer fit indices (see Table 2). Therefore, the research variables were distinguishable from one another. Table 3 shows the descriptive statistics and correlations among research variables.

Table 2. Confirmatory factor analysis results (Study 2)

Notes: N = 290. EGB = employee green behavior. *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001.

χ2 = normal theory weighted least-squares Chi-square, CFI = comparative fit index, TLI = Tucker–Lewis fit index, IFI = incremental fit index, RMSEA = root-mean-square error of approximation.

Table 3. Means, standard deviations, and zero-order correlation (Study 2)

Notes: N = 290. *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001.

Hypotheses Tests

Table 4 presents the polynomial regression results. Model 3 in Table 4 showed that the curvature along the incongruence line was significantly positive (b ₃−b ₄+b ₅ = 0.79, p < 0.001, 95% bias-corrected CI = 0.64, 0.95), indicating that perceived corporate hypocrisy increases when perceived organizational environmental support and perceived supervisory environmental support differ from each other in either direction. Thus, Hypothesis 1 was supported. Figure 2 shows the three-dimensional response surfaces plotted using the polynomial regression coefficients. Accordingly, we observed a concave response surface that curved upward along the incongruence (dashed) line in Figure 2.

Figure 2. Congruence and incongruence effects of perceived organizational environmental support and perceived supervisory environmental support on perceived corporate hypocrisy (Study 2)

Table 4. Polynomial regression results for perceived corporate hypocrisy (Study 2)

Notes: N = 290. Dependent variable = perceived corporate hypocrisy. *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001. 95% bias-corrected bootstrapped confidence intervals are given in parentheses.

Given that the curvature along the incongruence line was significant (b ₃−b ₄+b ₅ = 0.79, p < 0.001), we examined the lateral shift quantity to test Hypothesis 2 (e.g., Qin et al., Reference Qin, Huang, Hu, Schminke and Ju2018; Wilson et al., Reference Wilson, Baumann, Matta, Ilies and Kossek2018). As Table 4 showed, the lateral shift quantity was significantly positive ([b ₂−b ₁]/[2×(b ₃−b ₄+b ₅)] = 1.58, p < 0.001, 95% bias-corrected CI = 1.27, 1.89), thereby indicating that perceived corporate hypocrisy is higher when the direction of the discrepancy is such that perceived organizational environmental support is higher than perceived supervisory environmental support rather than vice versa. Thus, Hypothesis 2 was supported. Accordingly, we observed in Figure 2 that the region to the left of the congruence (solid) line was visibly steeper than the region to the right of the congruence line.

Table 5 presents the results for the indirect effects. First, the block variable positively related to perceived corporate hypocrisy (path α = 1.00, p < 0.001). After controlling for the block variable, perceived corporate hypocrisy negatively predicted EGB (path β = −0.23, p < 0.001). The indirect effect was significant (αβ = −0.23) with 95% bias-corrected CI (–0.36, –0.11) excluding zero. Therefore, the mediating effect proposed in Hypothesis 3 was supported.

Table 5. Results of indirect effects tests (Study 2)

Notes: N = 290. EGB = employee green behavior. CI = confidence intervals.

Theoretical Contributions

Theoretically, our research has made several important contributions to the existing literature. First, this research introduces a new research perspective to the micro-level corporate greening literature by investigating the antecedents of EGB from the congruence perspective for the first time. Scholars in the corporate greening field note that perceived organizational environmental support and perceived supervisory environmental support are two crucial cues that signal an organization's environmental stance and affect employees’ engagement in environmental actions (e.g., Ramus, Reference Ramus2002; Ramus & Steger, Reference Ramus and Steger2000). However, previous studies have generally adopted a single perspective to examine the effect of perceived organizational or supervisory environmental support independently (e.g., Norton et al., Reference Norton, Zacher, Parker and Ashkanasy2017; Paillé et al., Reference Paillé, Morelos, Raineri and Stinglhamber2019). To the best of our knowledge, the present research is the first to study the antecedents of EGB from the congruence perspective by shedding light on how the (in)congruence between the two forms of environmental support affects EGB. Hence, this work introduces a new research perspective to the micro-level CSR literature. This research's focus on perceived organizational and supervisory environmental support simultaneously also responds to scholars’ call for examining the joint effect of signals of organizational and supervisory environmental support (Cantor et al., Reference Cantor, Morrow and Blackhurst2015; Ramus & Steger, Reference Ramus and Steger2000). Furthermore, by adopting a congruence perspective, this research contributes to the extremely limited knowledge of when perceived organizational environmental support fails to work. Although perceived organizational environmental support has been considered desirable within organizations, scholars and practitioners doubt that it is a panacea for enhancing EGB and corporate sustainability (e.g., Purcell & Hutchinson, Reference Purcell and Hutchinson2007; Raineri & Paillé, Reference Raineri and Paillé2016; Winn & Angell, Reference Winn and Angell2000). From the congruence perspective, our research determines that the effectiveness of perceived organizational environmental support depends on the degree to which it is congruent with another crucial cue of environmental support–perceived supervisory environmental support. That is, perceived organizational environmental support will backfire and inhibit EGB when employees fail to perceive a consistent level of environmental support from the organization (in the form of policy commitment) and the supervisor (in the form of supportive behaviors).

Second, this research opens the ‘black box’ of why perceived organizational environmental support fails to work by determining the causal relationship between the perceived organizational environmental support–perceived supervisory environmental support (in)congruence and perceived corporate hypocrisy. This work demonstrates that employees will form a perception of corporate hypocrisy when the levels of perceived organizational environmental support (green ‘talk’) and perceived supervisory environmental support (green ‘walk’) are incongruent, which consequently hinders EGB. Thereby, this research reveals the mechanism of why perceived organizational environmental support fails to work. Based on cue consistency theory and Wagner et al.'s (Reference Wagner, Korschun and Troebs2020) multifaceted definition of perceived corporate hypocrisy, this research views organizational and supervisory environmental support as cues transmitting CSR information to employees and explains why their (in)consistency affects employee perceptions of corporate hypocrisy (i.e., behavioral and moral hypocrisy). Specifically, when the incongruence takes the form of higher perceived supervisory environmental support (green ‘walk’) than perceived organizational environmental support (green ‘talk’), employees will perceive corporate hypocrisy because the word–deed misalignment leads to a perception of behavioral hypocrisy. In comparison, when the incongruence takes the form of higher green ‘talk’ than ‘walk’, employees will perceive stronger corporate hypocrisy because this incongruence leads to perceptions of moral hypocrisy in addition to behavioral hypocrisy. In a more extensive sense, our work also provides theoretical explanations for the puzzling but prevailing managerial phenomenon that a policy with good intentions counter-intuitively leads to unfavorable outcomes by determining the crucial role of employee perceived corporate hypocrisy aroused by inconsistency. Moreover, drawing on cue consistency theory and the corporate hypocrisy literature, this research also goes beyond the theoretical perspectives commonly used to explain how organizational and supervisory factors influence EGB, such as social exchange theory (e.g., Raineri & Paillé, Reference Raineri and Paillé2016), social identity theory (e.g., Farooq, Rupp, & Farooq, Reference Farooq, Rupp and Farooq2017; Tian & Robertson, Reference Tian and Robertson2019), organizational support theory (e.g., Cantor et al., Reference Cantor, Morrow and Blackhurst2015), the theory of planned behavior (e.g., Norton et al., Reference Norton, Zacher, Parker and Ashkanasy2017), and social learning theory (e.g., Robertson & Barling, Reference Robertson and Barling2013).

Third, this research contributes to the corporate hypocrisy literature in several ways by demonstrating that perceived corporate hypocrisy mediates the relationship between perceived organizational environmental support–perceived supervisory environmental support (in)congruence and EGB. To the best of our knowledge, our research links the hypocrisy literature with the corporate greening literature at the micro level for the first time. Previous research in the corporate greening field has primarily analyzed the hypocrisy phenomenon at the organizational level (i.e., greenwashing; Ramus & Montiel, Reference Ramus and Montiel2005) and studied its effect on corporate financial performance and reputation (e.g., Walker & Wan, Reference Walker and Wan2012). By contrast, this research sheds light on individual employees’ perception of corporate hypocrisy and identifies perceived corporate hypocrisy as another psychological antecedent of EGB, thereby contributing to the micro-level understanding of corporate hypocrisy in the environmental field. In addition, our research adds to the knowledge of the consequences of perceived corporate hypocrisy. Although perceived corporate hypocrisy has been found to cause a series of unfavorable stakeholder responses, existing studies have mostly focused on its negative effects on firms’ external stakeholders such as consumers (e.g., Shim et al., Reference Shim, Chung and Kim2017; Wagner et al., Reference Wagner, Lutz and Weitz2009) and the public (e.g., Shim & Yang, Reference Shim and Yang2016), and neglected the internal stakeholder (i.e., employees). This study is among the first that look ‘inward’ to investigate how perceived corporate hypocrisy influences internal employees’ reactions by demonstrating that it negatively affects EGB (Scheidler et al., Reference Scheidler, Edinger-Schons, Spanjol and Wieseke2019). Furthermore, the focus on the POES-PSES (in)congruence of this research also extends the understanding of the predictors of perceived corporate hypocrisy beyond the known ones, such as inconsistent internal and external CSR (Scheidler et al., Reference Scheidler, Edinger-Schons, Spanjol and Wieseke2019), bad corporate reputation, and an occurrence of crisis (Shim & Yang Reference Shim and Yang2016).

Practical Implications

Organizations are often confused about why a policy with good intentions often fails to reach expected results. From a congruence perspective, the current research provides firms with insightful managerial implications to avoid such problems.

First, our research shows that higher perceived organizational environmental support does not necessarily lead to more EGB. Instead, it is the consistency between perceived organizational and supervisory environmental support that ensures a favorable outcome. This observation provides important policy-making implications. When organizations pursue corporate greening, policymakers need to realize that high organizational environmental support in the form of a well-formulated corporate environmental policy is insufficient. This is because perceived organizational environmental support may backfire via employees’ perception of corporate hypocrisy when immediate supervisors are not supportive of employees’ green efforts in practice. In particular, a higher perception of organizational environmental support that is regarded as ‘loud thunder but small raindrops’ is even worse than the case in which employees perceive lower but consistent levels of organization and supervisory environmental support. Therefore, organizations should tailor the degree of organizational environmental support to their current management situation and make sure that the published environmental policy is actually implemented with corresponding supervisory supportive behaviors. In this case, organizational policy and supervisory behavior communicate consistent messages to employees, thereby minimizing perceived corporate hypocrisy and avoiding unfavorable consequences that run contrary to the expectations of policymakers.

Second, this research suggests that when undertaking corporate social responsibilities such as environmental responsibility, organizations should not only look ‘outward’ to focus on how the communicated environmental policy improves corporate image and prestige in the eyes of external stakeholders, but also look ‘inward’ to ensure that the internal stakeholder (i.e., employees) really ‘buy’ their environmental policy. Organizations must realize that high perceived organizational environmental support will backfire if employees do not perceive a corresponding level of supervisory environmental support because employees can detect corporate hypocrisy easily and decrease their EGB in response. Therefore, to avoid the unfavorable influence of perceived corporate hypocrisy on corporate sustainability and better fulfill corporate environmental responsibility, organizations should internally practice (via supervisory support behaviors) what they externally preach (via organizational policy commitment).

Last, given that the effectiveness of perceived organizational environmental support also depends on the level of perceived supervisory environmental support, another implication for organizations is to attach importance to motivating supervisors to support employees’ environmental behavior in daily management, so that perceived organizational environmental support can maximize its positive influence on EGB and corporate sustainability. This advice also resonates with previous findings that the successful implementation of organizational policies relies considerably on the support of line managers (e.g., Sikora & Ferris, Reference Sikora and Ferris2014). Therefore, the first step for an organization is to convince supervisors regarding the determination and authenticity of its commitment to environmental sustainability so that supervisors can internalize organizational policy commitment. Only when supervisors themselves are concerned with corporate sustainability will they become more likely to provide their subordinates with sufficient support to engage in EGB. And only when employees receive enough support from their supervisors will they actually ‘buy’ the firm's environmental policy instead of regarding it as a hypocritical move. Specifically, organizations can motivate supervisors’ supportive behaviors through a series of practices. For instance, firms can praise and reward the most supportive supervisors and sufficiently empower them to provide support for employees’ pro-environmental efforts in daily management.

Limitations and Directions for Future Research

Despite its contributions and strengths, this work unexceptionally bears several limitations that should be addressed in future research.

First, the field survey (Study 2) did not address the endogeneity problem, because it did not include any instrumental variables. However, the potential influence of endogeneity on our empirical results was minimized because we also conducted an experiment study (Study 1). The experiment results supported Hypotheses 1 and 2 as well, which effectively excluded the possibility of reverse causality. Nevertheless, future studies should consider the endogeneity issue in advance and exclude its influence as much as possible. In addition, although Study 1 excluded the possibility of endogeneity and exhibited good internal reliability, it had two drawbacks. The first drawback is that some of the experimental subjects in Study 1 were undergraduate students. Although all the participants in our experiment had experiential knowledge of the simulated context (i.e., previous part-time work experience), full-time company employees are more desirable than undergraduate students as subjects. Therefore, we encourage future research to use full-time employees as experimental subjects. The second drawback is that the dependent variable (i.e., EGB) was not included in the experiment. Thus, future studies should try to examine the complete research framework in a well-designed experiment.

Second, the generalizability of the findings is limited by the use of Chinese samples in both studies. For instance, scholars have indicated that word–deed misalignment is condemned more harshly in independent cultures (e.g., the US) than in interdependent ones (e.g., Japan and Indonesia) (Effron et al., Reference Effron, Markus, Jackman, Muramoto and Muluk2018; Effron, Jackman, Markus, Muramoto, & Muluk, Reference Effron, Markus, Jackman, Muramoto and Muluk2018). Therefore, we encourage future researchers to collect cross-cultural data to determine whether and how employees’ reactions vary across cultures. In addition, the strength of the relationships observed in our research may vary depending on the features of the samples. For example, it is possible that frontline workers who experience many environmental issues in their daily job and need more organizational and supervisory support may react more intensely to cue inconsistency and corporate hypocrisy. Future research can examine whether it is the case empirically.

Third, although this research determines that the (in)congruence between perceived organizational environmental support and perceived supervisory environmental support affects EGB via perceived corporate hypocrisy, alternative mechanisms underlying the relationship may exist. For example, the (in)consistency may also influence EGB through certain emotional mechanisms beyond the cognitive mechanism of perceived corporate hypocrisy (e.g., Greenbaum et al., Reference Greenbaum, Mawritz and Piccolo2015). Therefore, exploring other mediators (i.e., employees’ negative affects) can facilitate our understanding of this issue.

Fourth, this research primarily focuses on the different implications of the two types of incongruence on employees. However, examining a 2×2 quadrifid model can provide a more comprehensive understanding of the (in)congruence effects. Thus, future studies can compare the two forms of perceived organizational environmental support–perceived supervisory environmental support congruence to determine whether employees respond to the two conditions differently, which has been neglected in the current research. Furthermore, scholars have called for investigation on the dark side of CSR (e.g., Gond, El Akremi, Swaen, & Babu, Reference Gond, El Akremi, Swaen and Babu2017). Given that lower EGB engagement is not a real detrimental consequence, we encourage future studies to answer this call and examine the real dark side of CSR by focusing on outcomes such as employees’ retaliatory or counterproductive behaviors.

Last, considering possible moderating effects for the congruence–hypocrisy link that is ignored by the present research can contribute to a more complete understanding of this topic. In particular, scholars have paid attention to construal level theory and applied it to research on ethics and hypocrisy (e.g., Monin & Merritt, Reference Monin, Merritt, Mikulincer and Shaver2011; Wiesenfeld, Reyt, Brockner, & Trope, Reference Wiesenfeld, Reyt, Brockner and Trope2017). For instance, Tumasjan, Strobel, and Welpe (Reference Tumasjan, Strobel and Welpe2011) indicated that higher construal level led to more harsh judgments of moral transgressions. Therefore, we encourage future studies to explore the moderating role of employees’ construal level to enhance the overall contribution of this research. Furthermore, recent studies have highlighted differentiating inconsistency that arises from a lack of capability (e.g., strength, willpower, or resources) and inconsistency occurs because a firm lacks a genuine CSR motive and uses its CSR engagement to claim undeserved moral benefits (Chen, Hang, Pavelin, & Porter, Reference Chen, Hang, Pavelin and Porter2020; Effron et al., Reference Effron, Markus, Jackman, Muramoto and Muluk2018; Monin & Merritt, Reference Monin, Merritt, Mikulincer and Shaver2011; Wagner et al., Reference Wagner, Korschun and Troebs2020). However, our research has neglected the exact motives behind perceived organizational environmental support–perceived supervisory environmental support incongruence. Therefore, we encourage future research to address this limitation by examining the specific motives underlying the incongruence–hypocrisy link.