How economic activities influence the environment

Economic growth comes with clear societal benefits such as greater comfort of living, improved health, and increased life expectancy (He & Li, Reference He and Li2020; Weil, Reference Weil, Aghion and Durlauf2014). Yet, over time, these gains are at risk of reversing into the opposite due to the environmental damage that accompanies economic growth—a reality that has been known for decades. Already in 1972, researchers from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, commissioned by the Club of Rome, published The Limits to Growth (Meadows et al., Reference Meadows, Meadows, Randers and Behrens1972). They predicted that continued population growth, industrialization, environmental pollution, food production, and the exploitation of natural resources would lead to environmental degradation and, consequently, the collapse of the global economy and population. Since then, the detrimental impacts of economic activities on the environment have been widely documented (IPCC, Reference Lee and Romero2023; Jayachandran, Reference Jayachandran2022). Manufacturing, construction, and transport of goods and materials generate significant greenhouse gas emissions (United States Environmental Protection Agency, 2024a), deplete natural resources (Umweltbundesamt, 2019), lead to habitat destruction and biodiversity loss (Haddad et al., Reference Haddad, Araújo, Feltran-Barbieri, Perobelli, Rocha, Sass and Nobre2024), and cause water and air pollution (Abdeljaoued et al., Reference Abdeljaoued, Ruiz, Tecle, Langner, Bonakdar, Bleyer, Stenner and Vogel2024; Cohen et al., Reference Cohen, Brauer, Burnett, Anderson, Frostad, Estep, Balakrishnan, Brunekreef, Dandona and Dandona2017; Liu et al., Reference Liu, Li, Zhang, Saini, Li, Hung, Hao, Li, Lee and Wentzell2021). Thus, changes to economic processes are urgently needed to preserve the natural environment for future generations.Footnote ¹

The relevance of environmental sustainability for organizations

Organizations not only impact environmental sustainability but are also affected by environmental issues. First, environmental changes directly affect organizations via rising costs or scarcity of natural resources, damage to production sites, company buildings, and agricultural areas from extreme weather events, and poor employee health due to heat or malnutrition (e.g., Botzen et al., Reference Botzen, Deschenes and Sanders2019; De Winne & Peersman, Reference De Winne and Peersman2021).

Second, there is growing legislative pressure on organizations to increase organizational environmental reporting and performance. For example, in December 2019, the European Union launched the “Green Deal,” aiming for net-zero emissions by 2050 (European Commission, 2019). This package also incorporates the Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive, a standardized reporting obligation on sustainability in companies (European Union, 2022). In the United States, the Clean Air Act and the Clean Water Act implement and control industry standards for air pollution and wastewater (United States Environmental Protection Agency, 2023, 2024b).

Third, the workforce is changing in response to environmental crises. Employees are increasingly considering the environmental performance of potential employers when looking for jobs. According to the European Investment Bank’s Climate Survey (2023), 56% of people in Germany pay attention to a future employer’s stance on climate issues. For those aged 20–29, it was even 81%. Additionally, organizational environmental performance is positively related to organizational attractiveness ratings (Belinda et al., Reference Belinda, Westerman and Bergman2018; Bohlmann et al., Reference Bohlmann, Krumbholz and Zacher2018), suggesting that promoting and visibly enhancing environmental sustainability can attract job applicants. Furthermore, transforming the economy toward environmental sustainability creates new occupations (e.g., sustainability managers, energy auditors) that require specific skills (O*NET, 2024). Correspondingly, job postings requiring at least one green skill increased by 22.4% between 2022 and 2023 (LinkedIn, 2023).

Fourth, investing in environmental sustainability can be positively received by key stakeholders, including customers, employees, and shareholders, thereby strengthening organizational competitive advantage. The paradigm that the responsibility of business organizations is solely to increase profits (Friedman, Reference Friedman1970) is not timely anymore, and the opinion that organizations have an ethical obligation to improve organizational environmental performance is widespread (Mio et al., Reference Mio, Panfilo and Blundo2020; Unsworth et al., Reference Unsworth, Davis, Russell and Bretter2021). For example, consumers consider environmental sustainability in their purchasing decisions (e.g., Simon-Kucher, 2024), and studies show that organizational environmental sustainability initiatives contribute to employee well-being and job satisfaction (e.g., Kühner et al., Reference Kühner, Stein and Zacher2024; Pinzone et al., Reference Pinzone, Guerci, Lettieri and Huisingh2019; Shafaei et al., Reference Shafaei, Nejati and Yusoff2020). Furthermore, stock markets react positively to positive corporate environmental performance (Endrikat, Reference Endrikat2016).

Overall, enhancing environmental sustainability is a strategic and ethical imperative for organizations to maintain relevance, develop a competitive advantage, improve performance, and meet their societal responsibility. Company leaders widely acknowledge this reality. In a survey by the Capgemini Research Institute (2022), 64% of executives in corporate functions indicated that sustainability is on the agenda of each C-suite executive. According to a global CEO survey, 69% of respondents indicated that climate change has at least moderate impacts on their business (United Nations and Accenture, 2023). Against this backdrop, I-O psychology research that comprehensively informs on the motivators and barriers of environmentally sustainable behavior and decision-making in organizations is highly relevant.

Environmental sustainability—a high-priority topic in I-O psychology research?

Since the influential call to action by Ones and Dilchert (Reference Ones and Dilchert2012a), research on environmental sustainability at work has somewhat increased. Several special issues (e.g., Journal of Organizational Behavior; Cooper et al., Reference Cooper, Stokes, Liu and Tarba2017), reviews and meta-analyses (e.g., Francoeur et al., Reference Francoeur, Paillé, Yuriev and Boiral2021; Katz et al., Reference Katz, Rauvola, Rudolph and Zacher2022; Ren et al., Reference Ren, Tang and Jackson2018; Zacher et al., Reference Zacher, Kühner, Katz and Rudolph2023, Reference Zacher, Rudolph and Katz2024), books (e.g., Jackson et al., Reference Jackson, Ones and Dilchert2012; Robertson & Barling, Reference Robertson and Barling2015; Wells et al., Reference Wells, Gregory-Smith and Manika2018), and symposia (e.g., Dilchert & Hessen, Reference Dilchert and Hessen2023) were dedicated to the topic. However, in comparison, research on environmental sustainability remains underrepresented in I-O psychology research and is still not a high-priority topic. To illustrate this assertion, we conducted a Web of Science topic search across 10 “top-tier,” high-impact I-O psychology journals for studies focusing on environmental sustainability issues. This search revealed only 55 relevant hits, including 10 commentaries responding to the call to action by Ones and Dilchert (Reference Ones and Dilchert2012a).Footnote ² To provide context, we conducted two comparable searches in the same journals on other topics of societal importance. A search on workplace diversity produced 673 relevant results (including 54 commentaries),Footnote ³ and a search on COVID-19 in the context of work yielded 114 relevant hits.Footnote ⁴ This illustrates that environmental sustainability has yet to be established in terms of being featured as a relevant and continuous topic of interest in the most prestigious journals of our discipline.

Integrative conceptual framework of environmental sustainability at work

Although research on environmental sustainability is relatively scarce in the “top-tier” I-O psychology journals analyzed above, substantial contributions to the topic have been published in other journals related to I-O psychology (e.g., Human Relations) and in journals of related disciplines such as strategic human resource management (e.g., Human Resource Management), business and management (e.g., Business Strategy and the Environment), environmental psychology (e.g., Journal of Environmental Psychology), and broader sustainability-focused journals (e.g., Journal of Cleaner Production, Sustainability). To review the state of research on environmental sustainability at work, we conducted a comprehensive literature review spanning I-O psychology and related disciplines,Footnote ⁵ resulting in an integrative conceptual framework of environmental sustainability at work (see Figure 1). Although we do not intend to, and cannot exhaustively present, a systematic literature review in this focal article, we synthesize current research to provide a foundational basis for our framework and future research recommendations. The conceptual framework is not meant for holistic testing but organizes and maps the array of factors relevant to researching environmental sustainability at work (Rehfuess et al., Reference Rehfuess, Booth, Brereton, Burns, Gerhardus, Mozygemba, Oortwijn, Pfadenhauer, Tummers, Van Der Wilt and Rohwer2018).

Figure 1. Integrative Conceptual Framework of Environmental Sustainability at Work.

The basic assumption of the framework is that four interconnected levels (i.e., micro, meso, macro, and magno) jointly build the foundation of organizational environmental performance. The microlevel concerns individual antecedents and outcomes of green behavior, including both intra- and interindividual differences. The mesolevel considers the work environment and includes leader, work context, and team characteristics. The macrolevel concerns organization-level factors such as green human resource management (GHRM) and corporate social responsibility (CSR). The magno level extends beyond the organization itself to encompass economic, political, cultural, and environmental influences.

At the center of the framework are employee and leader green behavior. Employee green behavior (EGB) has been defined as “scalable actions and behaviors that employees engage in that are linked with and contribute to or detract from environmental sustainability” (Ones & Dilchert, Reference Ones, Dilchert, Jackson, Ones and Dilchert2012b, p. 87). The “Green Five” taxonomy (Ones & Dilchert, Reference Ones, Dilchert, Jackson, Ones and Dilchert2012b) comprises EGBs in five categories: conserving resources, transforming work products and processes toward greater environmental sustainability, avoiding negative environmental impact, spreading pro-environmental behavior to others, and proactively initiating environmental sustainability projects. Leader green behavior is conceptualized as EGB conducted by organizational members with leadership responsibility (Zacher et al., Reference Zacher, Kühner, Katz and Rudolph2024). Table 2 summarizes previous research on antecedents and outcomes of employee and leader green behavior across micro-, meso-, and macrolevels, including example variables and empirical studies. The table does not consider magnolevel factors because they have rarely been examined in relation to employee and leader green behaviors before.

Table 2. Summary of Previous Research on Antecedents and Outcomes of Employee and Leader Green Behavior Across Conceptual Levels

Note. For the sake of space, we provide references for the example variables in the online supplemental materials (OSM; https://osf.io/8yzn6/). Superscript numbers correspond with the reference numbering in the OSM.

Focus on high environmental impact as a fundamental premise

From the literature review, multiple avenues for future research emerge. In line with broader recommendations in the behavioral sciences (e.g., Nielsen et al., Reference Nielsen, Clayton, Stern, Dietz, Capstick and Whitmarsh2021; Reference Nielsen, Cologna, Bauer, Berger, Brick, Dietz, Hahnel, Henn, Lange and Stern2024), and in light of the severity of environmental crises, we argue that researchers should adopt an “impact-first” approach when selecting topics for future research, prioritizing those with the highest potential to catalyze meaningful environmental change. This necessitates a focus on (a) behaviors with substantial (positive or negative) environmental consequences, and (b) systemic changes at the meso, macro, and magnolevels that cause widespread behavior changes.

A narrow focus on individual-level antecedents (e.g., environmental attitudes) of low-impact EGBs (e.g., switching off lights, printing double sided) comes with two major concerns. First, low-impact behaviors lack the potential to significantly change organizational environmental performance. Thus, I-O psychology risks generating research with limited practical and societal relevance. For example, ExxonMobil, a US-based oil company, produced 98 million metric tons of CO² equivalents in 2023 (Statista, 2025), considering direct and indirect market-based emissions from company activities.Footnote ⁶ Even if all 70,000 employees engaged in daily conserving activities (e.g., switching off lights), the impact on the company’s overall environmental performance would be negligible. Instead, to improve environmental performance, employees and leaders need to engage in high-impact EGB, such as restructuring business strategies toward renewable energies. Second, focusing on individual-level antecedents of low-impact EGBs can misleadingly imply that the responsibility for improving organizational environmental performance rests primarily on individual employees’ everyday activities and that addressing environmental crises does not require substantial systemic change (Chater & Loewenstein, Reference Chater and Loewenstein2022). This may divert attention from, and undermine public support for, more impactful strategies and interventions at higher organizational levels. Thus, we argue that future research should focus on high-impact behaviors and expand research on contextual factors at the meso, macro, and magnolevels of the conceptual framework, which potentially influence widespread behavior changes.

Following this “impact-first” rationale, we identified 10 areas for future research across the four levels of the conceptual framework (see summary in Table 3). For each, we present relevant theoretical perspectives, methodological approaches, and connections to related disciplines. In line with calls for research adopting a dynamic-systems perspective considering the interplay between different levels of analysis (e.g., Felin et al., Reference Felin, Foss and Ployhart2015; Glavas, Reference Glavas2016; Strauss et al., Reference Strauss, Lepoutre and Wood2017; Unsworth et al., Reference Unsworth, Davis, Russell and Bretter2021), we also offer suggestions for research addressing interconnections across the four levels. Although we do not delve into detailed theory building and hypothesis development, nor claim our selection of topics, theories, and methods to be exhaustive, our intention is to offer I-O psychology researchers a valuable resource and a source of inspiration to advance research on environmental sustainability. We look forward to comments supplementing, advancing, and critically questioning our suggestions.

Table 3. Recommendations for Future Industrial and Organizational Psychology Research on Environmental Sustainability

(1) Classification and measurement of EGBs and organizational environmental performance

If future research is to prioritize high impact, we need orientation as to which EGBs potentially offer the highest “return on investment” in terms of environmental impact and to apply reliable methods for measuring both EGB and organizational environmental performance. A promising approach to classifying EGBs based on their potential environmental impact involves extending existing EGB taxonomies to include an “impact” dimension. For example, the performance-based “Green Five” taxonomy (Ones & Dilchert, Reference Ones, Dilchert, Jackson, Ones and Dilchert2012b) categorizes EGBs into five broad dimensions (i.e., conserving, transforming, avoiding harm, influencing others, and taking initiative), covering 17 narrower behavioral subdimensions. These could be further organized according to their environmental impact potential. Similarly, Francoeur et al. (Reference Francoeur, Paillé, Yuriev and Boiral2021) proposed a framework that categorizes different types of EGB across three continuous dimensions (i.e., direct vs. indirect, in role vs. extra role, low vs. high intensity). This framework could be expanded by adding a fourth dimension, arranging EGBs on the dimension of low versus high environmental impact. To inform such classification processes, insights from the environmental sciences could be useful, quantifying the mitigation potential of different pro-environmental behaviors (e.g., Ivanova et al., Reference Ivanova, Barrett, Wiedenhofer, Macura, Callaghan and Creutzig2020; Wolske & Stern, Reference Wolske, Stern, Clayton and Manning2018). Additionally, expert interviews (e.g., with sustainability experts) could provide guidance. Although the actual environmental impact of an employee’s green behavior depends on numerous factors (e.g., the hierarchical level of the person conducting the behavior), a rough classification of EGBs based on their potential environmental impact would serve as a critical tool.

To determine whether EGBs have a tangible environmental impact, future research needs to develop and establish valid and, if available, objective measures for EGB. Many studies currently rely on self-reports, which are prone to biases and inaccuracies (Kormos & Gifford, Reference Kormos and Gifford2014). Lange and Dewitte (Reference Lange and Dewitte2019) provide recommendations on how to reliably measure pro-environmental behavior. Among others, they discuss opportunities for field observations via informant reports (e.g., supervisors, coworkers), trained observers (e.g., researchers, student assistants), and device measurement (e.g., meter readings for energy consumption, GPS data for transportation choices). Although such approaches are rather rare in the measurement of EGB, there are some exceptions. For example, in an intervention study aiming to reduce energy consumption, Carrico and Riemer (Reference Carrico and Riemer2011) measured group-level energy use in kilowatt hours per building. In cases where objective measures are unavailable or impractical, validated measurement instruments for green behavior are essential. Several measures for EGB exist in the literature (see Francoeur et al., Reference Francoeur, Paillé, Yuriev and Boiral2021 for an overview), but rigorous validation studies are needed to ensure their reliability, validity, and measurement invariance across different organizational contexts and cultures.

Additionally, future research should establish objective measures to evaluate organizational environmental performance. Currently, the majority of studies fail to investigate whether employee and leader green behavior translates into tangible improvements in organizational environmental performance. To address this gap, researchers should develop and utilize green key performance indicators that encompass a broad spectrum of environmental outcomes, such as reductions in carbon emissions and waste as well as increases in renewable energy use, water conservation, and environmental certifications (Sharma, Reference Sharma2022). Potential sources for such information could be public organizational documents (e.g., annual environmental reports) or public secondary sources (e.g., newspaper and media items, data from NGOs; Barnett et al., Reference Barnett, Henriques and Husted2020). Additionally, databases such as the CSRHub environmental sustainability rating (https://www.csrhub.com) can provide valuable information on organizations’ environmental performance. Where more objective measures are unavailable, self-reports from informed organizational members (e.g., sustainability managers) could be used.

We acknowledge that obtaining objective data will require researchers to collaborate closely with organizations. This could present a significant challenge, as many organizations may be hesitant to disclose data, particularly if the results might reveal shortcomings in their environmental performance. To address this challenge, we encourage researchers with experience in building successful research partnerships with organizations to share their insights and recommendations on how to establish collaborations that facilitate the study of high-impact EGBs and organizational environmental performance.

(2) Individual-level motivators and barriers of high-impact EGB

Considerable research has examined the relationships between individual-level variables and EGB. However, these studies primarily rely on cross-sectional designs with self-report measures of conserving behaviors or very broad conceptualizations of EGB (e.g., task-related EGB; Bissing-Olson et al., Reference Bissing-Olson, Iyer, Fielding and Zacher2013), limiting the ability to draw causal conclusions on how individual differences are related to specific high-impact EGBs. Addressing this gap, future research could explore the individual-level motivators and barriers influencing diverse high-impact EGBs (e.g., proactively driving environmental sustainability initiatives, developing sustainable business processes). Leveraging theories from social and environmental psychology could provide valuable insights here. For example, the theory of planned behavior (Ajzen, Reference Ajzen, Kuhl and Beckmann1985) suggests that environmental attitudes, personal norms regarding environmental sustainability, and self-efficacy jointly shape intentions and actual engagement in EGB. This framework has been tested in the context of conserving and broader EGBs (e.g., Katz et al., Reference Katz, Rauvola, Rudolph and Zacher2022), but its applicability to specific high-impact EGBs remains underexplored.

Additionally, goal-setting theories have lately been applied to EGB research, especially in the context of interventions (see research area (8); e.g., Davis et al., Reference Davis, Unsworth, Russell and Galvan2020; Guo et al., Reference Guo, Unsworth, Bretter and Davis2024; Unsworth et al., Reference Unsworth, Dmitrieva and Adriasola2013). According to these theories, goal hierarchies and potential goal conflicts play a crucial role in shaping EGB. Employees who prioritize environmental sustainability and perceive EGB as aligned, rather than conflicting, with other important goals (e.g., maintaining positive workplace relationships) might engage in more high-impact EGB. Building on this line of theorizing, future research could systematically explore potential goal conflicts for high-impact green behaviors and strategies to resolve them.

Future studies could further investigate how high- and low-impact EGBs are interconnected within individual employees. Theorizing on environmental spillover (Carrico, Reference Carrico2021; Verfuerth & Gregory-Smith, Reference Verfuerth, Gregory-Smith, Wells, Gregory-Smith and Manika2018) suggests that engaging in pro-environmental behavior may either encourage further pro-environmental action via dynamic identity-building processes (Bem, Reference Bem and Berkowitz1972) or discourage it via moral licensing processes (Blanken et al., Reference Blanken, van de Ven and Zeelenberg2015). In this context, it would be interesting to explore whether low-impact EGBs, which are often easier to implement, serve as a gateway to high-impact, typically more challenging, EGBs (i.e., foot-in-the-door effect; Freedman & Fraser, Reference Freedman and Fraser1966). In contrast, it is also possible that engagement in low-impact EGBs leads employees to withdraw from high-impact EGBs due to a sense of having already fulfilled moral obligations.

To address these questions, we propose employing several methodological approaches. High-impact EGBs should be measured objectively wherever possible to capture actual behaviors rather than subjective perceptions. At the same time, individual-level factors (e.g., goals, attitudes, norms) are subject to introspection, requiring subjective assessment using validated self-report measures and ensuring anonymity to reduce social desirability biases. Expanding upon the predominantly cross-sectional research designs in this area (Zacher et al., Reference Zacher, Rudolph and Katz2023), future research should incorporate daily and weekly diary methods to explore dynamics in behavior over time (Ohly et al., Reference Ohly, Sonnentag, Niessen and Zapf2010). Furthermore, full-panel longitudinal studies over longer time periods (i.e., months and years) are important for tracking changes in infrequent yet impactful EGBs (Ployhart & Vandenberg, Reference Ployhart and Vandenberg2010).

(3) Green jobs and careers

Transitioning to a green economy requires a highly skilled workforce to conduct emerging green jobs, particularly in key sectors like renewable energy, energy efficiency, and sustainable agriculture (Boone et al., Reference Boone, Bromaghim and Kapuscinski2023; Thake, Reference Thake, Grima, Sood, Özen and Gonzi2025). According to LinkedIn’s latest Green Skills Report (Kaura, Reference Kaura2024), the global demand for green talent grew at an annual rate of 5.9% between 2021 and 2024, but the supply of green talent has not kept pace with this rising demand. Thus, it could be an important and impactful future research area to explore what qualifies and motivates employees for green jobs (e.g., sustainability manager) and green careers (e.g., studying renewable energies; Boone et al., Reference Boone, Bromaghim and Kapuscinski2023). Theorizing on vocational choices and career development provides guidance here. For example, drawing on propositions of social cognitive career theory (Lent & Brown, Reference Lent, Brown, Brown and Lent2013; Lent et al., Reference Lent, Brown and Hackett1994), future research could investigate how self-efficacy beliefs (i.e., individuals’ confidence in their ability to perform green jobs or pursue green careers) and outcome expectations (i.e., the anticipated positive and negative consequences of engaging in such careers) interact to shape educational and vocational interests related to environmental sustainability. Research might further explore how person (e.g., environmental attitudes and values) and context factors (e.g., environmental legislation, social pro-environmental norms) may influence these processes. Additionally, future research could investigate potential challenges or barriers that may hinder long-term commitment to green career paths. For example, frustration or disappointment that environmental sustainability initiatives are not consistently pursued by the organization could play a role here, as evidenced in a study by Robertson et al. (Reference Robertson, Montgomery and Ozbilir2023), where corporate greenwashing was associated with increased turnover intentions for employees holding a graduate degree in environmental sciences.

The transition toward a green economy also relies on innovative new business ideas. Thus, future research might explore the motivators, barriers, and psychological success factors for founding green start-ups, thereby advancing understanding of green entrepreneurship, a field that is gaining increasing attention in the economic sciences (see Demirel et al., Reference Demirel, Li, Rentocchini and Tamvada2019). Applying the action theory process model of entrepreneurship (Frese & Gielnik, Reference Frese and Gielnik2023) to the context of environmental sustainability, studies could explore how green entrepreneurs set goals and seek information, as well as plan, execute, and monitor their actions in the different stages of the entrepreneurial process (i.e., prelaunch, launch, postlaunch) and how individual characteristics related to environmental sustainability (e.g., environmental attitudes and knowledge) influence these processes. Furthermore, economics research might provide insights into the contextual boundary conditions of these processes, such as environmental government regulations (Hall et al., Reference Hall, Matos and Bachor2019) and knowledge networks related to environmental sustainability (Sunny & Shu, Reference Sunny and Shu2019).

Regarding methodological approaches to researching green jobs and careers, longitudinal studies might be particularly valuable. These designs allow researchers to track individuals’ career and vocational decisions over time, offering insights into the dynamic interplay between personal and contextual factors. Such an approach would also enable the exploration of long-term influences, such as career success, labor market trends, and emerging environmental crises. Furthermore, qualitative research methods, such as semi-structured interviews, might be helpful to explore the experiences of individuals on green career paths and during the founding of green businesses. To conduct research focused on specific green occupations, future studies could draw on established classifications of green jobs, such as those provided by the O*NET Resource Center (O*NET, 2024).

(4) Team processes and EGB

As outlined in the literature review, insights into how dynamic team processes facilitate EGB and contribute to organizational environmental performance are limited. Findings from social and environmental psychology, however, underscore the importance of group dynamics and collective perceptions in promoting pro-environmental behavior (Barth et al., Reference Barth, Masson, Fritsche, Fielding and Smith2021). Thus, future research could systematically explore how cognitive (e.g., pro-environmental team norms), motivational (e.g., team green efficacy), affective (e.g., team members’ environmental passion), and behavioral (e.g., coworker green advocacy) team processes (Kozlowski & Chao, Reference Kozlowski and Chao2018) jointly contribute to employee and leader green behavior. This research could be informed by social-psychological theories such as the social identity model of pro-environmental action (SIMPEA; Fritsche et al., Reference Fritsche, Barth, Jugert, Masson and Reese2018), which has already been applied to private pro-environmental behaviors like resource conservation (Hoppe et al., Reference Hoppe, Fritsche and Chokrai2023) and environmental activism (Wallis & Loy, Reference Wallis and Loy2021). The model proposes that ingroup identification, collective efficacy beliefs, and ingroup norms jointly determine pro-environmental action. Applied to EGB, future research might explore how team identification, beliefs in the efficacy of the team in addressing environmental issues, and pro-environmental team norms jointly shape EGB.

Furthermore, building on social exchange theory (Cropanzano & Mitchell, Reference Cropanzano and Mitchell2005), future research could investigate how mutual support and perceived reciprocity within teams influence the likelihood and consistency of EGB. Employees in supportive teams that recognize green efforts may be more likely to sustain these behaviors, whereas an uneven distribution of environmental responsibilities could diminish motivation. Additionally, social comparison processes (Festinger, Reference Festinger1954) might play a role, with employees adjusting their EGB—either increasing or decreasing it—to align with the other team members’ behavior.

EGBs could also spread through teams via social contagion (Christakis & Fowler, Reference Christakis and Fowler2013), where employees model and replicate green behaviors observed in others. This could potentially trigger “tipping points” where EGB becomes widespread throughout the team and the broader organization. Indeed, the concept of social tipping points has been considered in socioeconomic systems research, demonstrating how social tipping interventions (e.g., education on climate change, establishing pro-environmental norms and value systems) could cause rapid systemic change and, in turn, decrease greenhouse gas emissions (Otto et al., Reference Otto, Donges, Cremades, Bhowmik, Hewitt, Lucht, Rockström, Allerberger, McCaffrey and Doe2020). Applying this theoretical lens to team contexts could reveal similar dynamics, where targeted strategies lead to increases in EGBs across the workforce.

In terms of methodological approaches, observational studies are helpful for detecting interactional patterns, such as support and enactment of environmental norms. For instance, by combining observational data with assessments of EGB, studies could analyze how team interactions (e.g., during meetings on environmental issues) influence subsequent green behaviors. To explore the dynamic and reciprocal relationships between EGB, team processes, and organizational outcomes, full-panel longitudinal studies and multilevel modeling would be particularly useful, especially regarding potentially reciprocal relations between these levels (Lehmann-Willenbrock, Reference Lehmann-Willenbrock2024).

(5) Green leadership

A substantial body of research examined antecedents and employee-level outcomes of green leadership (see Zacher et al., Reference Zacher, Kühner, Katz and Rudolph2024, for a review). Building on this foundation, we propose two key directions for expanding research on green leadership. First, greater attention must be given to green decision-making and behavior of leaders at the top of the organizational hierarchy. According to upper echelons theory (Hambrick, Reference Hambrick2007), organizational performance is a reflection of an organization’s top management. Members of top management teams (TMTs) hold strategic authority to facilitate (or hinder) organizational change toward environmental sustainability (Arena et al., Reference Arena, Michelon and Trojanowski2018). This includes initiatives like transitioning to renewable energy sources, fostering sustainable innovation, and integrating environmental sustainability into business strategies and performance indicators. Consequently, it is important to understand the conditions under which TMTs prioritize environmental sustainability, how their decisions translate to lower management levels, and ultimately, how they influence EGB. For example, drawing on negotiation theories such as cooperation theory (Axelrod & Hamilton, Reference Axelrod and Hamilton1981; Deutsch, Reference Deutsch1973; Walton & McKersie, Reference Walton and McKersie1991), future research could explore how TMT members convince other members to engage (more) in environmental sustainability and which negotiation strategies they use to achieve their sustainability-related goals. Furthermore, upper echelons theory suggests that TMT characteristics, such as demographics, values, and team constellations, shape strategic decision-making (Edmondson et al., Reference Edmondson, Roberto and Watkins2003; Hambrick, Reference Hambrick2007; Liu et al., Reference Liu, Jarrett and Maitlis2022). Future research could explore which specific characteristics and team configurations foster environmental sustainability-oriented decisions. To explore these dynamics, observational studies or video analyses of TMT discussions could provide insights into their interaction patterns and decision-making processes. Additionally, publicly available data on organizational environmental performance (e.g., sustainability reports) and TMT characteristics (e.g., demographic data, education, experience) could be combined in comparative analyses across organizations to explore which TMTs most likely improve environmental performance.

A second critical area that requires further exploration is the (mis)match between leaders’ and employees’ environmental attitudes, motivations, intentions, and green behaviors. Research suggests that the alignment between employee and supervisor environmental values is positively associated with favorable job attitudes, such as job satisfaction (Kühner et al., Reference Kühner, Stein and Zacher2024). However, there is limited understanding of the ideal leader–follower dynamics that maximize the potential for high environmental impact. For instance, a scenario where a leader has visionary environmental sustainability ideas but faces resistance from employees can hinder progress. Conversely, employees who are eager to engage in green initiatives may face obstacles if their leaders oppose their initiatives. Drawing on theorizing on green leadership (Zacher et al., Reference Zacher, Kühner, Katz and Rudolph2024) and person–supervisor fit (Edwards et al., Reference Edwards, Caplan, Van Harrison and Cooper1998), future studies could provide valuable insights into how leader–follower (mis)alignments impact organizational environmental performance. Studies could also aim to identify strategies to address these challenges to foster effective green leadership dynamics. To achieve this, multilevel modeling is essential, incorporating data at the employee, leader, and organizational levels to capture the complexity of these interactions and their influence on environmental outcomes.

(6) Work design to facilitate EGB

Emerging evidence suggests that specific work characteristics, such as job demands and job autonomy, may contribute to higher levels of EGB (e.g., Katz et al., Reference Katz, Rudolph, Kühner and Zacher2023; Stein et al., Reference Stein, Kühner, Katz and Zacher2025). Guided by theorizing on work characteristics and work design (Hackman & Oldham, Reference Hackman and Oldham1975; Morgeson & Humphrey, Reference Morgeson and Humphrey2006; Parker et al., Reference Parker, Morgeson and Johns2017), future research should systematically examine how a broad range of work characteristics influences various forms of EGB. Importantly, traditional work characteristics may need to be adapted to incorporate elements specific to environmental sustainability (Stein et al., Reference Stein, Kühner, Katz and Zacher2025). For example, in terms of task characteristics, research could explore the role of autonomy in adopting environmentally sustainable work practices (e.g., choosing trains over planes for business travel, discretion in selecting eco-friendly input materials), the role of perceived significance of one’s job for environmental sustainability, and the impact of feedback mechanisms (e.g., dashboards showing daily energy use) on EGB. Furthermore, future studies could investigate how job demands such as task complexity, problem-solving requirements, or workload affect EGB.

Despite theoretical considerations that technology could facilitate EGB (e.g., Andrews et al., Reference Andrews, Klein, Forsman, Sachau, Huffman and Klein2013; Norton et al., Reference Norton, Parker, Davis, Russell, Ashkanasy, Wells, Gregory-Smith and Manika2018), empirical research on this topic remains limited. Building on insights from economics that digital and sustainable transformations can mutually reinforce each other, a phenomenon referred to as the “twin transition” (Christmann et al., Reference Christmann, Crome, Graf-Drasch, Oberländer and Schmidt2024; Veit et al., Reference Veit, Ehlen, Fasbender, Otto and Ruiner2024), future studies could investigate how technology can be designed to promote EGB. Technology-related theories provide promising theoretical frameworks for such investigations. For example, the task-technology-fit model (Goodhue & Thompson, Reference Goodhue and Thompson1995) proposes that compatibility between task requirements, individual abilities, and the functionality of a given technology determines effective utilization and associated performance outcomes. Applied to environmental sustainability, future research could explore how alignment between environmental sustainability tasks (e.g., reducing greenhouse gas emissions), employee abilities (e.g., environmental knowledge), and relevant technologies (e.g., a digital tracking tool of greenhouse gas emissions) might optimize EGB. Additionally, insights from human factors and ergonomics research could provide helpful insights. For example, studies on ecodriving assistance devices have shown that such tools can reduce CO² emissions. However, first-time use can also increase fatigue, underscoring the need for adequate support during the initial adoption of such technologies (e.g., Ruscio et al., Reference Ruscio, Caruso, Mussone and Bordegoni2018).

To further explore how job characteristics and technological aspects of the work environment are related to EGB, we recommend that future research advances beyond previous cross-sectional survey studies by employing methods suited for drawing stronger causal conclusions, such as (quasi-/field-)experimental studies with control-group designs. For example, perceived job significance regarding environmental sustainability could be enhanced through an intervention on “environmental impact” (similar to prosocial impact interventions in the context of work design, Grant, Reference Grant2008) that highlights how employees’ daily tasks contribute to environmental sustainability goals. The behavior of participants receiving this intervention could then be compared to those of a control group. Similarly, field experiments could help evaluating the effectiveness of digital feedback tools that visualize energy consumption. In addition, experience sampling methods (Fisher & To, Reference Fisher and To2012) and longitudinal studies could deepen the understanding of dynamic short- and longer term within-person relations between EGB and work characteristics. This way, it could also be explored whether proactive forms of EGB contribute “bottom-up” to changes in work characteristics related to environmental sustainability (e.g., increasing green task autonomy), thereby “greening” the workplace through pro-environmental job crafting (Norton et al., Reference Norton, Parker, Davis, Russell, Ashkanasy, Wells, Gregory-Smith and Manika2018; Stein et al., Reference Stein, Kühner, Katz and Zacher2025). Random intercept cross-lagged panel models (RI-CLPM; Hamaker et al., Reference Hamaker, Kuiper and Grasman2015) might be helpful in studying such reciprocal relations as they not only account for temporal stability but also for stable trait-like individual differences by including a random intercept.

(7) Green human resource management

A substantial body of research demonstrates that GHRM practices are positively related to organizational environmental performance and EGB. However, these studies predominantly examine “a complete bundle of GHRM practices,” leaving our understanding of the relative impact of specific GHRM practices underdeveloped (Jackson, Reference Jackson and Paillé2022, p. 207). Furthermore, the mechanisms underlying these positive associations remain largely unclear. We selected two specific GHRM practices for future research that are deeply rooted in psychological research: recruiting and selection, as well as training and development. It is important to note, however, that other GHRM practices (e.g., rewards and benefits) also warrant further exploration. For a more detailed outlook on the future of GHRM research, Jackson (Reference Jackson and Paillé2022) provides a timely overview, including important considerations on the interplay of different GHRM practices and optimal sequencing for the introduction of GHRM practices.

An important future research question is how green recruiting and selection processes contribute to organizational environmental performance. Current findings provide limited insights into the mechanisms linking green recruiting and selection strategies to specific environmental outcomes. Building on established theories (e.g., signaling theory; Connelly et al., Reference Connelly, Certo, Reutzel, DesJardine and Zhou2024; Spence, Reference Spence1973) and methodological approaches (i.e., validation studies) commonly applied in psychological research on recruiting and selection, future research should produce actionable knowledge on how to design, implement, and evaluate green recruiting and selection strategies. For example, in times of a “war for green talent” (LinkedIn, 2023), organizations need to attract employees with critical green skills. To guide practice on how to achieve this effectively, experimental studies among graduates of environmental disciplines (e.g., environmental management, green energy) could investigate the effectiveness of different recruitment messages.

Additionally, organizations need guidance on how to select employees who are motivated and equipped to contribute to organizational environmental sustainability goals. This necessitates the development and validation of novel selection tools such as environmental knowledge tests or environmental case studies. Given the large sample sizes required for validation studies exploring the effectiveness of such tools, which are often limited by low selection rates, collaborative multilab studies could be a practical solution. Beyond individual-level research, comparative analyses across organizations could enhance understanding at the organizational level. For example, studies could match data on green recruiting and selection practices, obtained from chief human resource officers or similar sources, with objective measures of organizational environmental performance, such as metrics from sustainability reports. Finally, longitudinal studies could assess whether the implementation of green recruiting and selection practices fosters changes in organizational environmental culture and norms, as well as the underlying processes facilitating this transformation.

Future research should further explore which training and development practices are most effective for increasing green knowledge, skills, and abilities and, in turn, fostering EGB. These efforts could begin with comprehensive training needs analyses (Noe et al., Reference Noe, Clarke and Klein2014), defining target groups (e.g., sustainability managers, HR professionals), establishing green learning objectives (e.g., knowledge regarding environmental regulations, ability to conduct carbon footprint analysis), and outline key success indicators for green training and development (e.g., measurable improvements in organizational environmental performance). In a second step, integrating findings on environmental education (e.g., van de Wetering et al., Reference van de Wetering, Leijten, Spitzer and Thomaes2022) and applying meta-frameworks of training effectiveness and transfer from the field of strategic human resource management to the context of environmental sustainability (e.g., Blume et al., Reference Blume, Ford, Baldwin and Huang2010; Cheng & Hampson, Reference Cheng and Hampson2008; Colquitt et al., Reference Colquitt, LePine and Noe2000), future research could systematically explore how trainee characteristics (e.g., environmental attitudes, self-efficacy beliefs regarding environmental issues), training design (e.g., case studies, serious games), and situational factors (e.g., environmental supervisor and coworker support) interact to determine the effectiveness and transfer of environmental sustainability-related training and development initiatives. For example, combining on-the-job training with peer support could be particularly effective in helping production workers reduce material usage, whereas case studies might be better suited for training managerial staff on implementing an environmentally sustainable strategy. Comprehensive intervention studies are needed to rigorously test the effectiveness of various training approaches. These should include control groups, long-term follow-up assessments, and evaluations of how training outcomes translate into broader organizational environmental performance improvements.

(8) Organizational environmental sustainability policies and interventions

Enhancing organizational environmental performance necessitates the implementation of organizational environmental sustainability policies. These policies encompass a wide array of actions, ranging from transforming business and production processes (e.g., adopting circular economy practices, green product design) to more employee-focused policies, such as transitioning fleet vehicles to electric, banning short-distance flights for business travel, introducing plant-based meal options in cafeterias, and implementing waste separation systems. For such policies to succeed, acceptance and support for green organizational change among employees are essential. However, little is known about the specific conditions under which employees oppose versus support such policies. To address this gap, future research could draw upon insights from political psychology and behavioral economics. For example, a large-scale survey study by Kukowski et al. (Reference Kukowski, Hofmann, Roozenbeek, van der Linden, Vandenbergh and Nielsen2023) found that perceptions of the necessity for systemic change and trust in governments were key predictors of acceptance for climate policies, such as taxes on red meat and subsidies for long-distance train travel. Furthermore, in a meta-analysis, Bergquist et al. (Reference Bergquist, Nilsson, Harring and Jagers2022) found that perceived fairness and effectiveness of climate change policies were the most important determinants of support. Building on these findings, future research could conduct vignette studies with employees, systematically varying factors such as perceived necessity for organizational environmental policies, trustworthiness of organizational leaders, perceived policy effectiveness, and fairness, to examine how these elements influence employee acceptance of organizational environmental policies. Regarding fairness, equity theory (Adams & Freedman, Reference Adams and Freedman1976) or theorizing on organizational justice (Colquitt et al., Reference Colquitt, Conlon, Wesson, Porter and Ng2001; Reference Colquitt, Scott, Rodell, Long, Zapata, Conlon and Wesson2013) might provide helpful frameworks.

Besides the implementation of policies, the large-scale adoption of interventions could cause widespread increases in employee and leader green behavior. Current intervention research is mainly focused on conserving EGBs, often relying on university samples, and has yielded partly inconsistent findings (Unsworth, Reference Unsworth, Robertson and Barling2015; Reference Unsworth, Dmitrieva and Adriasola2013). Thus, future research should conduct robust intervention studies (i.e., control group designs, employee samples) to identify effective interventions to increase different kinds of EGB, especially high-impact EGB. Building on theorizing on goal setting, goal hierarchy, and self-concordance, Unsworth et al. (Reference Unsworth, Dmitrieva and Adriasola2013) provide an insightful framework explaining when, why, and how organizational interventions should effectively increase EGB. Specifically, they suggest that the degree to which the intervention goal (e.g., commuting to work by bike) is perceived as efficacious and attractive, aligns with important goals of the employee (e.g., improving physical fitness), conflicts with other goals (e.g., minimizing commute time), and is perceived as complete determines short- and long-term changes in EGB. Although there is already some support for the model (e.g., intervention study by Unsworth & McNeill, Reference Unsworth and McNeill2017), more research is needed here.

Additionally, future research could draw on findings from environmental psychology regarding the effectiveness and mechanisms of various interventions to increase pro-environmental behavior. Building on multiple theoretical frameworks such as value-belief-norm theory (Stern et al., Reference Stern, Dietz, Abel, Guagnano and Kalof1999) and theory of planned behavior (Ajzen, Reference Ajzen, Kuhl and Beckmann1985), van Valkengoed et al. (Reference van Valkengoed, Abrahamse and Steg2022) proposed a classification system of interventions in six categories (i.e., information provision, commitment, feedback, incentives, goal setting, and choice architecture), linking them to the determinants of specific target behaviors. They emphasize that interventions should be tailored to address the primary determinants of the pro-environmental behavior in question. For instance, following this framework, if perceived self-efficacy is identified as the key determinant of a given EGB, interventions combining goal setting with information provision may be most effective. Future research could build on this framework by systematically investigating the effectiveness of various interventions designed to target specific determinants of EGB. To this end, previous theorizing (e.g., Zacher et al., Reference Zacher, Rudolph and Katz2023) and meta-analyses on EGB (e.g., Katz et al., Reference Katz, Rauvola, Rudolph and Zacher2022) could offer valuable insights into identifying the most critical determinants of EGB.

(9) Organizational communication related to environmental sustainability

As highlighted in our literature review, research on how organizational communication related to environmental sustainability impacts employee and leader green behavior is very limited. Given that organizational communication can reach a broad audience of employees, future research should systematically explore how such communication affects the extent, content, and continuity of employees’ engagement with environmental issues.

Behavioral integrity theory (Simons et al., Reference Simons, Leroy and Nishii2022) could be a helpful theoretical lens in this context. Behavioral integrity refers to employees’ perceptions of organizations’ and managers’ consistency between words and actions. When employees perceive a misalignment between managerial statements and actions, it can erode trust and, in turn, reduce willingness to support organizational change, diminish organizational citizenship behaviors, and lower performance. Thus, an actual or perceived disconnect between organizational environmental strategies and the communication about them could undermine employees’ perceptions of organizational integrity, thereby potentially limiting their willingness to contribute to environmental sustainability and engage in EGB. Individual-level factors, such as environmental attitudes and values, may influence these dynamics.

Based on media richness theory (Daft & Lengel, Reference Daft and Lengel1984; Ishii et al., Reference Ishii, Lyons and Carr2019), future research could further explore how the medium of communication affects EGB. The theory suggests that communication channels differ in their richness, particularly in the nonverbal cues they provide. For example, face-to-face communications such as town halls or CEO speeches on environmental issues might have a greater impact on employees than addressed documents (e.g., an email about the organizational environmental footprint) or unaddressed documents (e.g., environmental sustainability claims on company websites). Understanding these differences could inform the design of more effective communication strategies.

Finally, applying insights from framing theory developed in communication science (Entman, Reference Entman1993), future research could explore how organizational communication about environmental issues should be contextualized to increase EGB. Framing theory posits that the context or perspective in which a message is presented (i.e., the “frame”) can shape how the audience interprets and responds to the communication. Prior research has applied framing theory to environmental communication, suggesting that gain framing (i.e., highlighting the benefits of climate change mitigation) is more effective than loss framing (i.e., emphasizing the consequences of inaction) in fostering positive attitudes toward climate action (Spence & Pidgeon, Reference Spence and Pidgeon2010). Future studies should explore how different framing approaches could be leveraged to encourage EGB.

In terms of methodological approaches, experimental studies could be employed to explore causal relations between different forms of organizational communication and EGB. Participants could be presented with videos or other communication materials (e.g., flyer, emails) that systematically differ in framing and integrity gap of the messages. Intentions to engage in EGB within the presented organization could be measured using surveys. To capture EGB more objectively, behavioral paradigms could be used, such as allowing participants to donate part of their study compensation to support the organization’s environmental initiatives. To test these hypotheses in field settings, content analysis of organizational communication materials (e.g., marketing campaigns, CEO speeches, company websites) could be combined with surveys and observational data of EGB.

(10) Magnolevel factors and EGB

Previous research on environmental sustainability at work largely overlooked the role of magnolevel factors, including political, economic, cultural, and environmental contexts. Such magnolevel factors could be important boundary conditions, shaping how other factors of our conceptual framework interact. In line with theorizing on the interconnections between organizational actions and economic and political contexts (e.g., DiMaggio & Powell, Reference DiMaggio and Powell1983; Meyer & Rowan, Reference Meyer and Rowan1977), political and economic preconditions such as government regulations, market structures, and industry developments may set the stage for opportunities and barriers for environmental sustainability at work (Cormier, Reference Cormier2018; Egri & Herman, Reference Egri and Herman2000; Etzion, Reference Etzion2007; Strauss et al., Reference Strauss, Lepoutre and Wood2017). Incorporating knowledge from political sciences and economics (e.g., Hu et al., Reference Hu, Chen, Chang and Chu2021), future research should systematically explore opportunities and barriers to environmental sustainability at work specific to different political and economic systems. This could be achieved by comparative studies, combining secondary data on economic and political indicators (e.g., provided by the World Bank or the United Nations) with assessments of EGB and organizational environmental performance.

Furthermore, future research should compare antecedents and consequences of employee and leader green behavior across cultural contexts. Established cultural theories such as Hofstede’s cultural dimensions (Hofstede, Reference Hofstede1984) and Schwartz’ values theory (Schwartz, Reference Schwartz and Zanna1992) suggest that employees’ (work-related) values vary depending on the cultural context. For example, variations in cultural dimensions like individualism and long-term orientation and in self-transcendence values (i.e., caring for the welfare of others and nature) could determine whether employees prioritize collective environmental goals, consider environmental sustainability as a timely issue, and care about environmental integrity. Such cultural differences may moderate how employees perceive and react to green team and leader behavior, organizational environmental sustainability policies and interventions, and GHRM practices. To systematically explore such cultural differences, cross-cultural survey studies are needed, necessitating international collaboration.

Finally, future research should explore dynamic interactions between environmental events and EGB. Event system theory (Morgeson et al., Reference Morgeson, Mitchell and Liu2015) suggests that broader environmental events (i.e., events happening in the broader societal context an organization is embedded in) trickle down to the organizational, team, and individual levels, influencing individual behavior. These effects are particularly strong for novel, disruptive, and critical events. In line with this theorizing, events related to the natural environment such as environmental disasters (e.g., oil spills, mass extinction) and extreme weather events (e.g., floods, hurricanes, heat waves), could raise awareness for environmental issues and motivate employees and leaders to contribute to environmental sustainability. For example, theorizing and empirical research from environmental psychology suggest that personal experience of extreme weather events increases the perceived risk of environmental crises and, in turn, pro-environmental behavior (Bradley et al., Reference Bradley, Babutsidze, Chai and Reser2020; van der Linden, Reference van der Linden2015). By analyzing longitudinal data that enable researchers to examine the effects of infrequent yet significant events at the magnolevel, such as extreme weather events (Jenny & Betsch, Reference Jenny and Betsch2022), future research could explore the dynamic relations between environmental events, EGB, and organizational environmental sustainability efforts.

Recommendations for practice transfer and I-O practitioners

Known as the science–practice gap, relevant scientific findings often do not find their way into large-scale application in practice (Zhou et al., Reference Zhou, Campbell and Fyffe2024). This can have multiple reasons, such as communication challenges, resource constraints, or limited accessibility of research. However, I-O psychology research on environmental sustainability at work can only unfold its potential when findings are transferred into organizational practice. There are several steps researchers can take to support successful science–practice transfer. First, researchers can develop tools that can be directly applied in organizational practice, such as performance evaluation systems for green behavior, green personal recruitment and selection tools, or “ready-to-use” interventions to increase EGB. For example, Endrejat et al. (Reference Endrejat, Baumgarten and Kauffeld2017) developed and evaluated a 2-hour participative workshop intervention to increase energy saving behavior in the workplace.

Second, researchers could actively reach out to practitioners by publishing in practice-oriented journals, organizing scientist–practitioner conferences, and distributing research findings in (online) professional networks (e.g., Lubin & Esty, Reference Lubin and Esty2010). Third, scholars could continuously inform the broader public about latest research findings on environmental sustainability at work via science communication. Disseminating research findings through podcasts, newspaper articles, and interviews could inspire individuals to adopt green behaviors in their work routines or to start environmental sustainability initiatives in their work environment. Fourth, researchers should keep policymakers up to date about the current state of research. A useful approach, originally suggested for clinical settings, could be “living evidence syntheses” (Elliott et al., Reference Elliott, Lawrence, Minx, Oladapo, Ravaud, Tendal Jeppesen, Thomas, Turner, Vandvik and Grimshaw2021). These are ready-to-go evidence summaries that rigorously summarize the current state of research on a subject in a way that is easily understandable for policymakers and provides direct recommendations for action.

Based on previous research on environmental sustainability at work, we developed several recommendations to guide I-O practitioners in driving environmental sustainability. First, human resource specialists and coaches could design and implement training and coaching programs for employees and leaders. These programs could strengthen key individual-level antecedents of green behavior such as environmental knowledge, skills, and self-efficacy while also fostering environmental attitudes and values. Leadership trainings could equip managers to foster EGB by providing tangible support, resources, and time to their teams, ensuring that contributing to environmental sustainability is both achievable and prioritized.

Second, team and change consultants could incorporate environmental sustainability into team-building activities, thereby establishing EGB as a collective norm and encouraging collaborative learning and support. For example, practical activities like tree planting, sustainable cooking workshops, or team-wide discussions on reducing environmental footprints could build commitment and foster a sense of shared responsibility.

Third, I-O practitioners could play a pivotal role in redesigning work processes and workplaces that create opportunities and reduce barriers for EGB. For instance, structuring work processes to allow employees the autonomy to make eco-friendly choices and providing essential infrastructure (e.g., recycling stations, bike and car sharing programs) could facilitate EGB.

Fourth, personnel selection experts can implement green recruiting and selection strategies to attract and hire employees who are motivated and equipped to contribute to environmental sustainability goals. Fifth, I-O psychologists can tailor interventions that have been successful in previous research such as self-concordance interventions (Unsworth & McNeill, Reference Unsworth and McNeill2017) or green goal cards (Davis et al., Reference Davis, Unsworth, Russell and Galvan2020) to specific organizational needs and accompany and evaluate their implementation. Finally, change management experts can support organizations in creating a green organizational climate and establishing a culture for environmental sustainability. This, for example, could include designing communication campaigns that clearly articulate the company’s environmental vision.