Complementing formal sustainability training with green informal learning

The focal article by Kühner et al. (Reference Kühner, Hüffmeier and Zacher2025) comprehensively discusses formal training and development for increasing green knowledge, skills, abilities, and other characteristics (KSAO). Although this is certainly important, it overlooks the fact that most work-related learning does not occur formally, but informally, with estimates suggesting that 70–90% of learning in the workplace is informal (Cerasoli et al., Reference Cerasoli, Alliger, Donsbach, Mathieu, Tannenbaum and Orvis2018; Tannenbaum & Wolfson, Reference Tannenbaum and Wolfson2022). Informal workplace learning encompasses non curricular, intentional learning in work-related situations that is neither institutionally organized nor pedagogically accompanied, but controlled by the learner and aimed at solving problems (Cerasoli et al., Reference Cerasoli, Alliger, Donsbach, Mathieu, Tannenbaum and Orvis2018; Decius et al., Reference Decius, Decius and Beausaert2025). Typically, this learning manifests in behavioral and cognitive activities such as experimentation, feedback seeking, reflection, and modeling (Decius et al., Reference Decius, Schaper and Seifert2019; Tannenbaum & Wolfson, Reference Tannenbaum and Wolfson2022). Interestingly, these characteristics closely parallel those of informal environmental learning, which has been studied particularly in the context of higher education (e.g., Hopkinson et al., Reference Hopkinson, Hughes and Layer2008; see Decius et al., Reference Decius, Dannowsky and Schaper2024, for an overview). This type of learning involves free-choice experiences in settings such as science centers, nature parks, or botanical gardens—experiences that are likewise self-directed, experiential, and socially embedded (Ballantyne & Packer, Reference Ballantyne and Packer2005).

We therefore assume that informal learning contributes not only to general and task-specific KSAO development, but also to the acquisition of green KSAO. Green KSAO are a multidimensional construct that includes green knowledge, green skills, green abilities, green attitudes, green behaviors, and green awareness (Cabral & Lochan Dhar, Reference Cabral and Lochan Dhar2019). Green knowledge refers to system knowledge (e.g., knowledge about how water use by manufacturing affects local water resources), action knowledge (e.g., knowledge of actions that can be taken to minimize waste generation in the office), and effective knowledge (e.g., knowing which type of office supplies has the lowest environmental impact; Janmaimool & Khajohnmanee, Reference Janmaimool and Khajohnmanee2019). However, theoretical understanding of environmental principles alone is inadequate for meaningful involvement in environmental protection. Therefore, it is crucial that individuals acquire green skills (e.g., sustainable procurement, which involves assessing and selecting eco friendly materials) that embody the hands-on application of this knowledge in real-world scenarios. Green abilities (e.g., the capacity to develop and implement a corporate sustainability strategy) are the capacity to perform tasks related to sustainability. Green attitudes reflect values and beliefs toward environmental stewardship, whereas green behaviors are the actions taken to support sustainability. Green awareness encompasses consciousness of environmental impacts and sustainability issues (Cabral & Lochan Dhar, Reference Cabral and Lochan Dhar2019).

Indeed, informal learning—especially experimentation, reflection, and feedback—can contribute to acquiring green KSAO beyond what structural initiatives like training can offer. First, in line with Bandura (Reference Bandura1997), experimenting with sustainable practices can be an influential source of efficacy information by providing the most authentic evidence of one’s capability to contribute to environmental protection. A belief in one’s ability to succeed in a particular domain, such as sustainability, is crucial for proactive goal generation. This is especially important because proactive green behavior involves psychological risks for the individual, as sustainable practices are often met with resistance and skepticism from others.

Second, complementing experimentation, reflection reinforces learning by helping individuals make sense of their experiences and internalize the importance of sustainable practices. Such reflection on work tasks and processes can occur before as well as after task completion (Decius et al., Reference Decius, Schaper and Seifert2019)—for instance, to identify potential waste during the planning of a production task. Reflection on intrinsic rewards from green behavior can further lead to a warm glow effect, making employees feel good about their sustainability contributions, which in turn encourages further green behavior beyond their core responsibilities (Wang et al., Reference Wang, Jin and YahiaMarzouk2023).

Third, informal feedback—often characterized by spontaneous, non structured communication aimed at promoting sustainable practices within the organization—can activate personal norms and green values, thereby encouraging green behavior (see Beier et al., Reference Beier, Saxena, Kraiger, Costanza, Rudolph, Cadiz, Petery and Fisher2025; Tannenbaum & Wolfson, Reference Tannenbaum and Wolfson2022). From an industrial and organizational (I-O) perspective, informal feedback can be more effective than formal organizational mechanisms (e.g., scheduled performance evaluations) because it is perceived as more genuine and less coercive, allowing employees to internalize green values and act upon them voluntarily (Van der Rijt et al., Reference Van der Rijt, van de Wiel, Van den Bossche, Segers and Gijselaers2012). Moreover, engaging with colleagues who share similar values can create a sense of community and shared purpose, which can be a powerful motivator for change toward environmental sustainability (Lee et al., Reference Lee, Enzhu and Sun2025). In fact, people often underestimate others’ pro-environmental views, leading to own inaction (Mildenberger & Tingley, Reference Mildenberger and Tingley2019). Informal feedback and discussions can be leveraged by I-O professionals to help employees correct misconceptions by showcasing that many of their colleagues share green values, resulting in support for sustainable practices.

Taking detrimental informal learning dynamics into account

Informal learning is associated with benefits for individuals and organizations, such as KSAO acquisition, well-being, and performance improvement (Cerasoli et al., Reference Cerasoli, Alliger, Donsbach, Mathieu, Tannenbaum and Orvis2018; Smet et al., Reference Smet, Grosemans, De Cuyper and Kyndt2022). However, informal learning falls along a spectrum ranging from constructive to detrimental (Tannenbaum & Wolfson, Reference Tannenbaum and Wolfson2022). Constructive learning tends to produce positive outcomes for learners or organizations, whereas detrimental learning can lead to negative outcomes, such as career disadvantages or safety risks—scholars speak of the dark side of informal learning (Cerasoli et al., Reference Cerasoli, Alliger, Donsbach, Mathieu, Tannenbaum and Orvis2018).

In the context of environmental sustainability, the term constructive signifies a favorable influence on the ecological system, whereas detrimental denotes adverse effects on the ecological system. For instance, employees may inadvertently adopt environmentally harmful practices through informal cues, such as the habitual use of single-use plastics, influenced by peer convenience and workplace culture. Likewise, informal exchanges that normalize frequent electronic upgrades can lead to the premature disposal of functioning devices, exacerbating the problem of electronic waste. If every single worker focuses narrowly on their own tasks and assumes environmental standards are being upheld elsewhere, individual-level detrimental learning can go unnoticed and aggregate at the organizational level. Even if each employee is unaware of the overall harm, the cumulative impact of different departments or production steps can be substantial and might even accumulate in unintended organizational greenwashing (i.e., false or misleading claims about a company’s environmental practices).

To fully understand how environment-harming practices develop and proliferate within organizations, it is essential to examine the underlying mechanisms, including detrimental informal learning. By engaging in informal discussions and sharing experiences with like-minded people, employees can reinforce pre-existing beliefs, some of which may conflict with sustainability goals (Itkonen, Reference Itkonen2015). Like-minded coworkers may perpetuate misinformation due to reduced exposure to corrective information and limited access to diverse perspectives—an effect that has already been discussed in the context of climate change (Geiger et al., Reference Geiger, Middlewood and Swim2024). Within organizations, such polarization can hinder constructive dialogue and even foster consensus building that runs counter to sustainability initiatives. Furthermore, if employees perceive that the opposing side is more vocal or active in resisting pro-environmental actions, this perceived imbalance in organizational discourse may contribute to pluralistic ignorance (see Sparkman et al., Reference Sparkman, Geiger and Weber2022).

In light of these potential detrimental outcomes of informal learning, and in line with the magnolevel of economic, political, cultural, and environmental influences on sustainability outlined by Kühner et al. (Reference Kühner, Hüffmeier and Zacher2025), a merely organizational perspective may be insufficient for effective green KSAO development. Given that organizational sustainability is embedded in social discourse, psychological research must take greater account of the influence of media landscapes and information dissemination on the individual employee (see Vespa et al., Reference Vespa, Schweizer-Ries, Hildebrand and Kortsch2022). Organizations cannot fully shape the environmental attitude of their employees, because employees already hold pre-existing beliefs and values influenced by external societal factors (Wagner et al., Reference Wagner, van der Werff and Steg2025). Kühner et al. (Reference Kühner, Hüffmeier and Zacher2025) mainly take a Eurocentric perspective here, which implicitly presumes a universal consensus regarding the intrinsic value of sustainability and the anthropogenic nature of climate change, thus advocating for urgent action. In contrast, the discourse surrounding these issues in countries such as Indonesia, Egypt, or the United States is marked by considerable diversity and contention (Buchholz, Reference Buchholz2020). Research has indicated, for instance, that between 12% and 26% of Americans deny the existence of anthropogenic climate change (Leiserowitz et al., Reference Leiserowitz, Roser-Renouf, Marlon and Maibach2021; McDonald et al., Reference McDonald, MacInnis and Krosnick2020). Furthermore, there are organized groups and movements that have propagated misinformation regarding climate science and have lobbied against environmental policies they perceive as economically unfavorable (Hilson, Reference Hilson2024). This polarization of beliefs highlights a complex landscape where stakeholders do not universally agree on the benefits of sustainability efforts. Complementing the focal article, it is essential to acknowledge these divergent perspectives—often reinforced through employees’ informal learning and workplace discussions—when designing interventions for green KSAO development.

How can we promote constructive informal learning for sustainability?

Although risks exist, the potential benefits of informal learning through experimentation, reflection, and feedback in promoting organizational sustainability should be acknowledged, as especially informal discussions and knowledge exchange also can encourage dialogue and consensus-building. However, it is important to consider that not all employees may engage in (constructive) informal learning naturally. Some may require additional support or incentives. One way to facilitate constructive sustainability-related informal learning may involve taking a work design perspective. The work design growth model (Parker, Reference Parker, Ellingson and Noe2017), for example, illustrates how structured work environments can enhance employee learning. It connects motivational, social, cognitive, and physical work characteristics with learning processes and their outcomes.

First, motivational characteristics, such as autonomy and task significance, can encourage informal learning. Managers may support this by assigning environmentally relevant tasks and allowing employees flexibility in how to approach them (Kühner et al., Reference Kühner, Stein and Zacher2024). This autonomy plays a major role for pro-environmental behavior at work (Bentler et al., Reference Bentler, Kadi and Maier2023) and can foster experimentation, such as trying alternative materials or proposing greener methods.

Second, in terms of social characteristics, it becomes imperative to explore team interaction and psychological safety. Integrating informal interactions through team-building activities and social gatherings can bring employees with different views on environmental initiatives together, leveraging informal communication as a tool for developing broader perspectives and engagement in sustainable practices. Managers play a crucial role here by exemplifying a safe psychological climate and providing social support, creating an atmosphere where employees feel secure to raise both new ideas and concerns (Razali & Jamil, Reference Razali and Jamil2023).

Third, cognitive characteristics, including task identity and variety, encourage engagement with diverse sustainability information, enhancing learning. For example, rotating employees through different sustainability-focused initiatives (e.g., waste reduction, green procurement) can prompt spontaneous insights and sharing of best practices. Using approaches to measuring environmental impacts, such as carbon footprints, can connect decisions with tangible outcomes, which can enhance reflection and further learning.

Fourth, physical characteristics (i.e., workspace, environmental conditions, and sensory input) affect attention and comfort, influencing cognitive and motivational engagement with sustainable issues. Certain professional groups such as agricultural workers inherently interact with the natural environment, which likely makes environmental concerns seem urgent and personal—whether through favorable (e.g., observing thriving biodiversity or untouched landscapes) or unfavorable experiences (e.g., experiencing challenging conditions like extreme temperatures or inadequate air quality). However, even for occupational groups that do not directly engage with natural settings such as software developers, organizations have the ability to foster positive experiences for their staff. Biophilic work design (i.e., embedding nature elements into the workplace) is associated with enhanced nature connectedness and employees’ cognitive, emotional, prosocial, and physical reserves of energy (Klotz & Bolino, Reference Klotz and Bolino2021), all of which are vital for effective learning. Moreover, generally comfortable and low-distraction spaces further enhance attention and promote informal collaboration.

Toward a holistic learning culture for sustainable organizations

In sum, our commentary underscores the need to broaden the frame by which green KSAO development in organizations is understood—from a focus primarily on formal, structural interventions (as highlighted by Kühner et al., Reference Kühner, Hüffmeier and Zacher2025), toward a holistic approach that encompasses both formal and informal learning domains. However, as we argued in our second main point, informal learning is a double-edged sword: It can both nurture and undermine sustainability, depending on the work environment and the wider societal discourses permeating the workplace. Looking ahead, fostering a constructive learning culture for sustainability requires not only well-designed formal training, but also intentional shaping of the informal learning environment across its motivational, social, cognitive, and physical dimensions (Parker, Reference Parker, Ellingson and Noe2017; Razali & Jamil, Reference Razali and Jamil2023). This includes creating psychologically safe spaces for critical dialogue, granting autonomy, and providing opportunities for employees to see the tangible impacts of sustainability efforts within and beyond the organization. It also requires that organizations actively acknowledge and address external influences, supporting employees in navigating polarized informal discourses and challenging misinformation.