1 Introduction
Management scholars increasingly stress the need to investigate how organizations can help address grand challenges such as environmental degeneration and climate change (Stephan et al.
2016; Schaltegger et al.
2020; Wickert et al.
2021; Gümüsay et al.
2022; Jastram et al.
2022; Voegtlin et al.
2022). The view that these challenges require significant change in consumption and lifestyle patterns is gaining support in various research fields (Dauvergne
2010; Nyborg et al.
2016; Kallis et al.
2018; Díaz et al.
2019; Otto et al.
2020). In this context, scholars highlight the pivotal role of social norms in guiding behaviour by reinforcing shared understandings of what is acceptable and what is not (Ostrom
2000; Nyborg et al.
2016; Farrow et al.
2017). Accordingly, social norms have been identified as a critical factor in determining individuals’ pro-environmental behaviour (PEB), which refers to behaviour that harms the environment as little as possible and/or intentionally benefits the environment (Steg and Vlek
2009). However, despite extensive research on social norm compliance, “relatively little is known about how norms develop, are learned, and change over time” (Van Kleef et al.
2019, p. 4). In addition, the role of businesses as contexts in which social norms are frequently experienced and potentially internalized has received surprisingly little attention in the existing literature (Blay et al.
2018). These shortcomings hamper our ability to develop a comprehensive understanding of the dissemination of social norms and of how organizations shape this process. Against this background, our research aims to examine whether businesses are able to drive social change across institutional boundaries. Specifically, we are interested in examining whether corporate environmental management practices can translate into private sphere PEB of employees via the influence of social norms.
For this purpose, this study draws on the Focus Theory of Normative Conduct (FTNC) (Cialdini et al.
1990) which has been widely applied to examine social norms and PEB (Kallgren et al.
2000; Schultz et al.
2008; Hamann et al.
2015; Stok and de Ridder
2019). The FTNC distinguishes between two types of social norms: injunctive social norms, referring to perceptions of what others approve or disapprove of, and descriptive social norms, relating to perceptions of the actual behaviour of others (Cialdini et al.
1990; Kallgren et al.
2000). Norton et al. (
2014) identified corporate environmental management practices (EMP), defined as all managerial measures aiming to reduce the ecological impact of an organization (Cramer
1998), as injunctive social norms which imply that the organization approves environmental protection. Several studies have verified that injunctive social norms are associated with individuals’ PEB (Cialdini et al.
1990; Norton et al.
2014; Farrow et al.
2017). Moreover, organizational scholars have revealed that organizational engagement in environmental protection positively affects employees’ PEB at work (Rasmus and Steger
2000; Paillé and Raineri
2015; Raineri and Paillé
2016; Fanghella et al.
2022). This, in turn, can increase pro-environmental descriptive social norms at work, since PEB becomes more observable among co-workers.
However, according to Norton et al. (
2015), it remains unclear whether employees internalize pro-environmental social norms at work or merely follow company expectations. In fact, it has been widely shared in the literature that the influence of injunctive social norms remains essentially restricted to contexts in which the norm is currently salient (Miller et al.
1999; Kallgren et al.
2000; Schultz et al.
2008; Jacobson et al.
2011). Yet, we argue that a thus far neglected interaction between injunctive and descriptive social norms may support their internalization. We assume that if social norms become internalized as intrinsic motivations, they could provide a basis for contextual spillover (Nash et al.
2017), referring to the effects of one context on the subsequent behaviour in other, independent contexts (Nilsson et al.
2017). Following previous investigations on PEP we use employee self-reports as an indicator of individual behaviour (Kormos and Gifford
2014) and hypothesize that perceived EMP may have a positive effect on employees’ private sphere PEB. Furthermore, we argue that this phenomenon could be supported through the interaction of injunctive and descriptive social norms.
Based on these considerations, our core research questions are whether injunctive social norms related to perceived EMP positively affect employees’ self-reported private sphere PEB and whether this relationship is mediated by descriptive social norms among co-workers. In order to examine these questions, we utilized a mixed methods approach (Mitchell and Ambrose
2012; Thau et al.
2015; Oreg and Berson
2015; Lude and Prügl
2018,
2019) employing a cross-sectional analysis (
N = 206) and a quasi-experimental field study (
N = 61). Our methodology meets recent calls for experimental designs in research on corporate sustainability (Barnett et al.
2020), contextual spillover (Xu et al.
2020), and organizational behaviour (Eden
2017). The majority of studies in these research fields build on correlational data and therefore lack causal persuasiveness. Against this background, organizational scholars have advocated for quasi-experimental field studies (Grant and Wall
2009), because they allow the detection of plausible causality while preserving internal and external validity without interrupting the real-world experimental setting through artificial interventions (Cook and Campbell
1979).
Our findings contribute to the literature in at least two ways. First, they extend the state of knowledge of the dynamic relationships between injunctive and descriptive social norms. Previous research in this field has focused mainly on interactions where norms are contradictory or congruent in a given setting and point in time (Lapinski and Rimal
2005; Rimal and Lapinski
2015). Our results instead illustrate an evolving dynamic in which injunctive norms first increase the corresponding descriptive norms, which then mediate the context-bridging effects of the injunctive norms. This study thus further develops the FTNC by demonstrating how dynamic normative processes over time shape norm emergence and shifts (Eriksson et al.
2015; Van Kleef et al.
2019).
Secondly, our findings add to research on how organizational practices can contribute to society’s transition towards ecological sustainability (Schor
2004; Stephan et al.
2016; Hörisch
2018; Jaich et al.
2023) and they illustrate a pathway for how businesses can help tackle societal grand challenges (Wickert et al.
2021; Gümüsay et al.
2022; Voegtlin et al.
2022). Our study thus responds to recent criticism regarding analyses on corporate environmental sustainability that employ mainly inward-looking perspectives and neglect impacts beyond organizational boundaries (Barnett et al.
2020). In this vein, this study is also contributing to research on contextual spillovers (Nilsson et al.
2017; Xu et al.
2020) by providing quasi-experimental support for the proposition that social norms can constitute a pathway for spillover (Nash et al.
2017).
Based on these contributions, our study also provides insights for managers as we demonstrate potential effects of corporate environmental practices beyond institutional boundaries which can have relevant impacts for corporate reputation, legitimacy, and stakeholder support. The rest of the article is structured in the following way: the next section provides the theoretical background of the analysis and derives the hypotheses; subsequently, the data, method, and results of our empirical study are presented; finally, we discuss the theoretical, managerial, and societal implications of our results and outline possible opportunities for future research.
2 Theoretical Background and Hypotheses
Every social group holds expectations for what is “normal” and “appropriate” to think and do (Stok and de Ridder
2019). These shared standards are referred to as social norms. They indicate how individuals should behave in certain social contexts and can be enforced through sanctions (Dequech
2009). The influence of social norms is considered to be one of the critical drivers of human behaviour (Stok and de Ridder
2019). However, scholars have also been criticizing the vagueness of the construct (Schwartz
1973; Marini
1984). In response to these concerns, Cialdini et al. (
1990) developed the FTNC, a theoretical refinement of the concept of social norms. The FTNC draws on the proposition that individual behaviour in social situations stems from different motivational sources (Deutsch and Gerard
1955). This argument established the prominent distinction between injunctive and descriptive social norms, which has been widely adopted in the existing literature (e.g., Schultz et al.
2008; Jacobson et al.
2011; Morris et al.
2015; Stok and de Ridder
2019). Injunctive and descriptive norms differ in the information they communicate: injunctive norms indicate the social approval of a behaviour, while descriptive norms refer to the typicality or prevalence of a behaviour (Schultz et al.
2008; Jacobson et al.
2011).
According to the FTNC, distinguishing between these two types of information is important because they are relevant for different human motives. Individuals conform to injunctive social norms through their desire to gain social approval and to avoid disapproval by others (Jacobson et al.
2011). Thus, the influence of injunctive social norms is particularly powerful if specific contextual prerequisites like observability and normative expectations are met (Schultz et al.
2008; Farrow et al.
2017). A social context that fulfils both prerequisites, such as organizations, also contains the threat of sanctions for nonconforming behaviour, which maintains the corresponding norm (Dequech
2009). Descriptive social norms refer to the perception of what is commonly done in a particular situation (Schultz et al.
2008; Jacobson et al.
2011). This type of information exhibits an epistemic authority that shapes individuals’ understanding of how things are done (Van Kleef et al.
2019) and provides guidance for behaving effectively or accurately (Jacobson et al.
2011). Thus, conforming to descriptive social norms is less motivated by concerns about the evaluation of other group members but rather through a desire to behave correctly (Schultz et al.
2008).
2.1 Internalization of Social Norms
The capacity of humans to internalize social norms is an important factor in sustaining social cooperation (Ostrom
2000; Gavrilets and Richerson
2017). The more a norm is internalized, the less important are contextual factors for behavioural conformity (Farrow et al.
2017). If a social norm evolves into a personal norm, it becomes self-enforceable and thus independent of expectations by others (Manstead
2000; Thøgersen
2006; White et al.
2009; Leung and Morris
2015). In this case, conformity is still motivated by emotional rewards or sanctions. These, however, are individually enforced through internal disapproval or approval in the form of guilt, shame, or pride (Elster
1989; Farrow et al.
2017). Eventually, a fully internalized norm becomes associated with individual moral values and beliefs and is then followed unconditionally (Farrow et al.
2017). Thus, the internalization of social norms can also become a pathway for spillovers across contexts (Nash et al.
2017).
In this context, however, injunctive social norms are considered as being less likely to become internalized than descriptive social norms (Schultz et al.
2008; Bertoldo and Castro
2016). Descriptive social norms provide standards against which individuals can compare their own behaviour. The influence of such normative benchmarks can transcend both time and contexts, which, in turn, supports their internalization (Schultz et al.
2008). Injunctive social norms, instead, derive their influence from individuals’ desire to gain approval, which is why compliance is particularly high in settings where reputational concerns are salient (Jacobson et al.
2011; Van Kleef et al.
2019). This proposition concerning the influence of injunctive social norms primarily in contexts in which the norm is salient and behaviour can be witnessed is widely shared in the academic literature (Miller et al.
1999; Kallgren et al.
2000; Schultz et al.
2008; Jacobson et al.
2011). However, this perspective might be too narrow as dynamic interactions between injunctive and descriptive social norms could carry their effects across time and contexts. We will further elaborate on these considerations in the following sections.
2.2 Pro-Environmental Injunctive Social Norms at Work
When entering a social setting, individuals need to decide how to behave, and contextual cues help them to interpret the situation by making social norms salient (Cialdini and Trost
1998). They provide information about what the appropriate behaviour is, how others can be expected to behave, and how one is supposed to act oneself (Bicchieri
2006).
In an organizational context, employees derive the expected behaviour from cues such as managerial practices, organizational procedures, or work routines (Thornton
2004; Blay et al.
2018). EMP, such as environmental reporting, sustainable work routines, or recycling procedures, make injunctive social norms salient and imply that the organization approves PEB (Norton et al.
2014). Employees who desire social approval are motivated to conform to such norms by behaving in an environmentally friendly way at work. This influence of injunctive norms on the behaviour of individuals within the context of their employing organization has been widely discussed in the existing literature (Rasmus and Steger
2000; Norton et al.
2014; Paillé and Raineri
2015; Raineri and Paillé
2016). Furthermore, the impact of injunctive social norms can increase the role of pro-environmental descriptive social norms within the organization, since PEB among co-workers becomes more observable.
Descriptive social norms have been identified as a strong influence on PEB. In their seminal study, Cialdini et al. (
1990) found that individual littering depends on the perceived littering behaviour of others. Similarly, Schultz et al. (
2007) showed that information on the energy consumption of their neighbours reduced consumption among individuals who had been using comparably more energy before. Likewise, research that tracked household recycling revealed that individuals are sensitive to what others do and that those perceptions predict their own recycling behaviour (Huber et al.
2020). Moreover, recent research on drives of pro-environmental activism of young people demonstrated that perceiving peers participating in the so-called Fridays for Future movement was strongly related to one’s own participation in the movement (Wallis and Loy
2021). Furthermore, Lindström et al. (
2018) experimentally demonstrated how common behaviour followed by many can gain normative status. Together, these findings support the proposition that perceptions of what is commonly done by others shape the behaviour of the observer (Gross and Vostroknutov
2022). This influence can transcend both time and contexts if the corresponding norms are internalized as intrinsic motivations (Schultz et al.
2008). Accordingly, we assume that pro-environmental descriptive social norms at work may positively affect employees’ self-reported private sphere PEB.
Where the descriptive social norms have been increased beforehand through injunctive social norms (such as perceived EMP), the descriptive social norms serve as a mediator for the influence of the injunctive social norms. EMP at work imply that an organization approves PEB (Norton et al.
2014) and, thus, provide important cues about which behaviour will allow one to affiliate with his/her work environment (Stok and de Ridder
2019). In line with these thoughts, recent research has demonstrated that corporate pro-environmental policies, sustainability practices or perceived organizational support for the environment increase the PEB of employees at work (Wesselink et al.
2017; Afsar et al.
2018; Sabbir and Taufique
2022). This, in turn, increases pro-environmental descriptive social norms within the organization as more employees increasingly behave environmentally friendly at work (Norton et al.
2014).
When co-workers are acting in an environmentally friendly way at work, they exemplify normative standards recognizable for their associates. If the corresponding norms are internalized by the observer as intrinsic motivations, conformity becomes self-enforceable, which can provide a pathway for contextual spillover on employees’ private sphere PEB.
Based on this reasoning, our study is based on the following research hypotheses:
Hypothesis 1: Perceived EMP have a positive effect on employees’ self-reported private sphere PEB.
Hypothesis 2: Descriptive social norms among co-workers mediate the positive effect of perceived EMP on employees’ self-reported private sphere PEB.