Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-768dbb666b-wsxd2 Total loading time: 0.717 Render date: 2023-02-07T12:16:04.944Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "useRatesEcommerce": false } hasContentIssue true

When and Why Perceived Organizational Environmental Support Fails to Work: From a Congruence Perspective

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 June 2021

Yun Zhang
Affiliation:
Xi'an Jiaotong University, China
Zhe Zhang*
Affiliation:
Xi'an Jiaotong University, China
Ming Jia
Affiliation:
Northwestern Polytechnical University, China
*
Corresponding author: Zhe Zhang (zhangzhe220@sina.com)

Abstract

Environmental responsibility has been increasingly emphasized in the management field. Perceived organizational environmental support is generally considered desirable within organizations. Nonetheless, both scholars and practitioners doubt that it is a panacea for enhancing employee green behavior (EGB), an important workplace behavior benefiting the environment and corporate sustainability. From a congruence perspective, this research explores when and why perceived organizational environmental support fails to increase EGB effectively. Drawing upon cue consistency theory and the corporate hypocrisy literature, we propose that perceived organizational environmental support backfires when it is incongruent with another critical cue signaling an organization's environmental stance – perceived supervisory environmental support (particularly when perceived organizational environmental support is higher than perceived supervisory environmental support). This is because the inconsistent signals of environmental support from the organization (in the form of policy commitment) and supervisor (in the form of supportive behaviors) arouse employees’ perception of corporate hypocrisy, which in turn inhibits EGB. Both the scenario experiment results (Study 1) and the polynomial regression results of the field survey data (Study 2) support our hypotheses. Theoretical contributions and managerial implications are discussed.

摘要

随着环境问题的不断加剧,企业环境伦理成为管理学领域的一个重要话题。由于员工的绿色环保行为对企业可持续发展和环境保护的重要作用,越来越多的企业通过制定环保政策提供组织环保支持,以期促进员工的绿色行为。然而在现实中,组织环保支持的效果却存在很大的差别,学者开始质疑组织环保支持是否是提高员工绿色行为的“万能药”。为了探索组织环保支持何时以及为何无法带来理想的结果,我们采用一致性的视角来研究组织环保支持和上级环保支持如何共同影响员工绿色行为。基于线索一致理论和企业伪善文献,我们假设组织环保支持(以企业环保政策承诺的形式)和上级环保支持(以主管环保支持行为的形式)这两个传达企业环保立场的重要线索之间的不一致会导致员工感知到企业伪善(尤其是当二者的不一致以高组织支持和低上级支持的方式出现时),从而事与愿违地降低员工绿色行为。我们采用了多种方法验证假设。研究一通过情境实验表明组织环保支持和上级环保支持水平越不一致,员工感知到的企业伪善越高,尤其是当不一致是以高组织支持和低上级支持的方式产生时。研究二通过问卷调研的方式进行,基于多项式回归的数据结果与研究一的结果一致;此外,研究二还表明感知企业伪善在组织环保支持-上级环保支持一致性和员工绿色行为之间起中介作用。我们进一步讨论了本研究对理论的贡献和对企业管理实践的启示。

Аннотация

Ответственность за охрану окружающей среды приобретает все большее значение в сфере управления. Положительное впечатление об организационной экологической деятельности, как правило, высоко ценится в организациях. Тем не менее, как ученые, так и практические специалисты сомневаются, что это является панацеей для улучшения экологического поведения сотрудников (ЭПС), важной модели поведения на рабочем месте, которое благоприятно влияет на окружающую среду и корпоративную устойчивость. С точки зрения конгруэнтности, это исследование изучает, когда и почему восприятие организационной деятельности по защите окружающей среды не способствует улучшению экологического поведения сотрудников (ЭПС). На основании теории согласованности сигналов и научной литературы о корпоративном лицемерии, мы предполагаем, что восприятие организационной деятельности по защите окружающей среды имеет обратный эффект, когда оно несовместимо с другим критически важным сигналом, который указывает на экологическую позицию организации – восприятие экологической деятельности со стороны руководства (особенно когда впечатление об экологической деятельности со стороны организации сильнее, чем впечатление об экологической деятельности со стороны руководства). Это связано с тем, что непоследовательные сигналы об экологической деятельности со стороны организации (в виде приверженности на стратегическом уровне) и со стороны руководства (в виде моделей поведения) вызывают у сотрудников чувство корпоративного лицемерия, которое, в свою очередь, препятствует экологическому поведению сотрудников (ЭПС). Как результаты сценарного моделирования (Работа 1), так и результаты параболической регрессии данных полевых исследований (Работа 2) подтверждают наши гипотезы. В статье обсуждается вклад в теоретические исследования, а также практическое значение для сферы управления.

Resumen

La responsabilidad ambiental ha venido siendo enfatizada en el campo de la gestión. El apoyo ambiental organizacional es generalmente considerado como deseable en las organizaciones. No obstante, tanto los académicos como los profesionales dudan que sea una panacea para mejorar el comportamiento ecológico de los empleados (EGB por sus iniciales en inglés), un comportamiento en el lugar de trabajo que beneficia el medio ambiente y la sostenibilidad corporativa. Desde una perspectiva de congruencia, esta investigación explora cuando y por qué el apoyo ambiental organizacional fracasa para aumentar efectivamente el comportamiento ecológico de los empleados. Aprovechando la teoría de la congruencia de las señales y la teoría de hipocresía corporativa, proponemos que el apoyo ambiental organizacional produce un efecto contraproducente cuando es incongruente con otra señal crítica que indica la postura ambiental de la organización -el apoyo ambiental percibido por los supervisores (particularmente cuando el apoyo ambiental organizacional es mayor que el apoyo ambiental percibido por los supervisores). Esto es debido a las señales inconsistentes de apoyo ambiental desde la organización (en la forma de compromiso político) y del supervisor (en la forma de comportamientos de apoyo) suscitan la percepción en los empleados de hipocresía corporativa, la cual, a su vez, inhibe el comportamiento ecológico de los empleados. Ambos resultados del experimento de escenarios (Estudio 1) y los resultados de la regresión polinómica de los datos de la encuesta de campo (Estudio 2) apoyan nuestra hipótesis. Las contribuciones teóricas y las implicaciones gerenciales son discutidas.

Type
Article
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2021. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of The International Association for Chinese Management Research.

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

ACCEPTED BY Senior Editor Runtian Jing

References

REFERENCES

Anderson, N. H. 1981. Foundations of information integration theory. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Anderson, N. H. 1996. A functional theory of cognition. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Atwater, L. E., Ostroff, C., Yammarino, F. J., & Fleenor, J. W. 1998. Self-other agreement: Does it really matter? Personnel Psychology, 51(3): 577598.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bamberg, S. 2003. How does environmental concern influence specific environmentally related behaviors? A new answer to an old question. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 23(1): 2132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bissing-Olson, M. J., Iyer, A., Fielding, K. S., & Zacher, H. 2013. Relationships between daily affect and pro-environmental behavior at work: The moderating role of pro-environmental attitude. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 34(2): 156175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brislin, R. W. 1980. Translation and content analysis of oral and written material. In Triandis, H. C. & Berry, J. W. (Eds.), Handbook of cross-cultural psychology: 389444. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.Google Scholar
Cantor, D. E., Morrow, P. C., & Blackhurst, J. 2015. An examination of how supervisors influence their subordinates to engage in environmental behaviors. Decision Sciences, 46(4): 697729.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cantor, D. E., Morrow, P. C., & Montabon, F. 2012. Engagement in environmental behaviors among supply chain management employees: An organizational support theoretical perspective. Journal of Supply Chain Management, 48(3): 3351.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chen, Z., Hang, H., Pavelin, S., & Porter, L. 2020. Corporate social (ir)responsibility and corporate hypocrisy: Warmth, motive and the protective value of corporate social responsibility. Business Ethics Quarterly. Epub ahead of print 27 April 2020. doi: 10.1017/beq.2019.50CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Christensen, L. T., Morsing, M., & Thyssen, O. 2020. Timely hypocrisy? Hypocrisy temporalities in CSR communication. Journal of Business Research, 114: 327335.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cole, M. S., Carter, M. Z., & Zhang, Z. 2013. Leader–team congruence in power distance values and team effectiveness: The mediating role of procedural justice climate. Journal of Applied Psychology, 98(6): 962973.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Connors, S., Anderson-MacDonald, S., & Thomson, M. 2015. Overcoming the ‘window dressing’ effect: Mitigating the negative effects of inherent skepticism towards corporate social responsibility. Journal of Business Ethics, 145(3): 599621.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Roeck, K., & Farooq, O. 2018. Corporate social responsibility and ethical leadership: Investigating their interactive effect on employees’ socially responsible behaviors. Journal of Business Ethics, 151(4): 923939.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Roeck, K., El Akremi, A., & Swaen, V. 2016. Consistency matters! How and when does corporate social responsibility affect employees’ organizational identification? Journal of Management Studies, 53(7): 11411168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Edwards, J. R. 2002. Alternatives to difference scores: Polynomial regression analysis and response surface methodology. In Drasgow, F. & Schmitt, N. W. (Eds.), Advances in measurement and data analysis: 350400. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
Edwards, J. R., & Cable, D. M. 2009. The value of value congruence. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(3): 654677.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Edwards, J. R., & Parry, M. E. 1993. On the use of polynomial regression equations as an alternative to difference scores in organizational research. Academy of Management Journal, 36(6): 15771613.Google Scholar
Effron, D. A., Markus, H. R., Jackman, L. M., Muramoto, Y., & Muluk, H. 2018. Hypocrisy and culture: Failing to practice what you preach receives harsher interpersonal reactions in independent (vs. interdependent) cultures. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 76: 371384.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Effron, D. A., O'Connor, K., Leroy, H., & Lucas, B. J. 2018. From inconsistency to hypocrisy: When does ‘saying one thing but doing another’ invite condemnation? Research in Organizational Behavior, 38: 6175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Farooq, O., Rupp, D. E., & Farooq, M. 2017. The multiple pathways through which internal and external corporate social responsibility influence organizational identification and multifoci outcomes: The moderating role of cultural and social orientations. Academy of Management Journal, 60(3): 954985.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldman, B. M. 2001. Toward an understanding of employment discrimination claiming: An integration of organizational justice and social information processing theories. Personnel Psychology, 54(2): 361386.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gond, J. P., El Akremi, A., Swaen, V., & Babu, N. 2017. The psychological microfoundations of corporate social responsibility: A person-centric systematic review. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 38(2): 225246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Greenbaum, R. L., Mawritz, M. B., & Piccolo, R. F. 2015. When leaders fail to ‘walk the talk': Supervisor undermining and perceptions of leader hypocrisy. Journal of Management, 41(3): 929956.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Griffin, R. W. 1983. Objective and social sources of information in task redesign: A field experiment. Administrative Science Quarterly, 28(2): 184200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Guèvremont, A., & Grohmann, B. 2018. Does brand authenticity alleviate the effect of brand scandals? Journal of Brand Management, 25(4): 322336.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haidt, J. 2001. The emotional dog and its rational tail. Psychological Review, 108(4): 814834.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Haidt, J. 2003. The moral emotions. In Davidson, R. J., Scherer, K. R., & Goldsmith, H. H. (Eds.), Handbook of affective sciences: 852870. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hsu, G., Hannan, M. T., & Koçak, Ö. 2009. Multiple category memberships in markets: An integrative theory and two empirical tests. American Sociological Review, 74(1): 150169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huselid, M. A. 1995. The impact of human resource management practices on turnover, productivity, and corporate financial performance. Academy of Management Journal, 38(3): 635672.Google Scholar
Kehoe, R. R., & Han, J. H. 2020. An expanded conceptualization of line managers’ involvement in human resource management. Journal of Applied Psychology, 105(2): 111129.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Klein, R., D'Mello, S., & Wiernik, B. 2012. Demographic characteristics and employee sustainability. In Jackson, S., Ones, D., & Dilchert, S. (Eds.), Managing human resource for environmental sustainability: 117154. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
Kozlowski, S. W., & Doherty, M. L. 1989. Integration of climate and leadership: Examination of a neglected issue. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74(4): 546553.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lee, F., Edmondson, A. C., Thmke, S., & Worline, M. 2004. The mixed effects of inconsistency on experimentation in organizations. Organization Science, 15(3): 310326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leroy, H., Segers, J., Van Dierendonck, D., & Den Hartog, D. N. 2018. Managing people in organizations: Integrating the study of HRM and leadership. Human Resource Management Review, 28(3): 249257.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maheswaran, D., & Chaiken, S. 1991. Promoting systematic processing in low-motivation settings: Effect of incongruent information on processing and judgment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61(1):1325.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Matta, F. K., Scott, B. A., Koopman, J., & Conlon, D. E. 2015. Does seeing ‘eye to eye’ affect work engagement and organizational citizenship behavior? A role theory perspective on LMX agreement. Academy of Management Journal, 58(6): 16861708.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCarthy, A., Darcy, C., & Grady, G. 2010. Work-life balance policy and practice: Understanding line manager attitudes and behaviors. Human Resource Management Review, 20(2): 158167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meyer, A. D., Tsui, A. S., & Hinings, C. R. 1993. Configurational approaches to organizational analysis. Academy of Management Journal, 36(6): 11751195.Google Scholar
Miyazaki, A. D., Grewal, D., & Goodstein, R. C. 2005. The effect of multiple extrinsic cues on quality perceptions: A matter of consistency. Journal of Consumer Research, 32(1): 146153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Monin, B., & Merritt, A. 2011. Moral hypocrisy, moral inconsistency, and the struggle for moral integrity. In Mikulincer, M. & Shaver, P. R. (Eds.), The social psychology of morality: Exploring the causes of good and evil: 167184. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.Google Scholar
Norton, T. A., Zacher, H., Parker, S. L., & Ashkanasy, N. M. 2017. Bridging the gap between green behavioral intentions and employee green behavior: The role of green psychological climate. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 38(7): 9961015.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ones, D. S., & Dilchert, S. 2012. Employee green behaviors. In Jackson, S. E., Ones, D. S., & Dilchert, S. (Eds.), Managing human resources for environmental sustainability: 85116. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
Paillé, P., Chen, Y., Boiral, O., & Jin, J. 2014. The impact of human resource management on environmental performance: An employee-level study. Journal of Business Ethics, 121(3): 451466.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Paillé, P., Morelos, J. H. M., Raineri, N., & Stinglhamber, F. 2019. The influence of the immediate manager on the avoidance of non-green behaviors in the workplace: A three-wave moderated-mediation model. Journal of Business Ethics, 155(3): 723740.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Peng, H., & Wei, F. 2018. Trickle-down effects of perceived leader integrity on employee creativity: A moderated mediation model. Journal of Business Ethics, 150(3): 837851.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Piening, E. P., Baluch, A. M., & Ridder, H. G. 2014. Mind the intended-implemented gap: Understanding employees' perceptions of HRM. Human Resource Management, 53(4): 545567.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Podsakoff, P. M., Mackenzie, S. B., & Podsakoff, N. P. 2012. Sources of method bias in social science research and recommendations on how to control it. Annual Review of Psychology, 63: 539569.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Purcell, J., & Hutchinson, S. 2007. Front-line managers as agents in the HRM-performance causal chain: Theory, analysis and evidence. Human Resource Management Journal, 17(1): 320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Qin, X., Huang, M., Hu, Q., Schminke, M., & Ju, D. 2018. Ethical leadership, but toward whom? How moral identity congruence shapes the ethical treatment of employees. Human Relations, 71(8): 11201149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Raineri, N., & 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): 129148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ramus, C. A. 2001. Organizational support for employees: Encouraging creative ideas for environmental sustainability. California Management Review, 43(3): 85105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ramus, C. A. 2002. Encouraging innovative environmental actions: What companies and managers must do. Journal of World Business, 37(2): 151164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ramus, C. A., & Montiel, I. 2005. When are corporate environmental policies a form of greenwashing? Business and Society, 44(4): 377414.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ramus, C. A., & 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): 605626.Google Scholar
Robertson, J. L., & Barling, J. 2013. Greening organizations through leaders' influence on employees' pro-environmental behaviors. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 34(2): 176194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Salancik, G. R., & Pfeffer, J. 1978. A social information processing approach to job attitudes and task design. Administrative Science Quarterly, 224253.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Scheidler, S., Edinger-Schons, L. M., Spanjol, J., & Wieseke, J. 2019. Scrooge posing as Mother Teresa: How hypocritical social responsibility strategies hurt employees and firms. Journal of Business Ethics, 157(2): 339358.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schuler, D., Rasche, A., Etzion, D., & Newton, L. 2017. Guest editors’ introduction: Corporate sustainability management and environmental ethics. Business Ethics Quarterly, 27(2): 213237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shim, K., Chung, M., & Kim, Y. 2017. Does ethical orientation matter? Determinants of public reaction to CSR communication. Public Relations Review, 43(4): 817828.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shim, K. J., & Yang, S. U. 2016. The effect of bad reputation: The occurrence of crisis, corporate social responsibility, and perceptions of hypocrisy and attitudes toward a company. Public Relations Review, 42(1): 6878.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sikora, D. M., & Ferris, G. R. 2014. Strategic human resource practice implementation: The critical role of line management. Human Resource Management Review, 24(3): 271281.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Simons, T. 2002. Behavioral integrity: The perceived alignment between managers’ words and deeds as a research focus. Organization Science, 13(1): 1835.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Simons, T., Leroy, H., Collewaert, V., & Masschelein, S. 2015. How leader alignment of words and deeds affects followers: A meta-analysis of behavioral integrity research. Journal of Business Ethics, 132(4): 831844.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Skowronski, J. J., & Carlston, D. E. 1989. Negativity and extremity biases in impression formation: A review of explanations. Psychological Bulletin, 105(1): 131142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Strauss, K., Lepoutre, J., & Wood, G. 2017. Fifty shades of green: How microfoundations of sustainability dynamic capabilities vary across organizational contexts. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 38(9): 13381355.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thomas, J. G., & Griffin, R. W. 1989. The power of social information in the workplace. Organizational Dynamics, 18(2): 6375.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tian, Q., & Robertson, J. L. 2019. How and when does perceived CSR affect employees’ engagement in voluntary pro-environmental behavior? Journal of Business Ethics, 155(2): 399412.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tourigny, L., Han, J., Baba, V. V., & Pan, P. 2019. Ethical leadership and corporate social responsibility in China: A multilevel study of their effects on trust and organizational citizenship behavior. Journal of Business Ethics, 158(2): 427440CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tumasjan, A., Strobel, M., & Welpe, I. M. 2011. Ethical leadership evaluations after moral transgression: Social distance makes the difference. Journal of Business Ethics, 99(4): 609622.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wagner, T., Korschun, D., & Troebs, C. C. 2020. Deconstructing corporate hypocrisy: A delineation of its behavioral, moral, and attributional facets. Journal of Business Research, 114: 385394.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wagner, T., Lutz, R. J., & Weitz, B. A. 2009. Corporate hypocrisy: Overcoming the threat of inconsistent corporate social responsibility perceptions. Journal of Marketing, 73(6): 7791.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Walker, K., & Wan, F. 2012. The harm of symbolic actions and green-washing: Corporate actions and communications on environmental performance and their financial implications. Journal of Business Ethics, 109(2): 227242.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wayne, S. J., Shore, L. M., & Liden, R. C. 1997. Perceived organizational support and leader-member exchange: A social exchange perspective. Academy of Management Journal, 40(1): 82111.Google Scholar
Wiesenfeld, B. M., Reyt, J. N., Brockner, J., & Trope, Y. 2017. Construal level theory in organizational research. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 4(1): 367400.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilson, K. S., Baumann, H. M., Matta, F. K., Ilies, R., & Kossek, E. E. 2018. Misery loves company: An investigation of couples’ interrole conflict congruence. Academy of Management Journal, 61(2): 715737.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Winn, M. L., & Angell, L. C. 2000. Towards a process model of corporate greening. Organization Studies, 21(6): 11191147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
1
Cited by

Save article to Kindle

To save this article to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

When and Why Perceived Organizational Environmental Support Fails to Work: From a Congruence Perspective
Available formats
×

Save article to Dropbox

To save this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Dropbox account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

When and Why Perceived Organizational Environmental Support Fails to Work: From a Congruence Perspective
Available formats
×

Save article to Google Drive

To save this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Google Drive account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

When and Why Perceived Organizational Environmental Support Fails to Work: From a Congruence Perspective
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response

Please enter your response.

Your details

Please enter a valid email address.

Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *