Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

When sustainability managers' greenwash: SDG fit and effects on job performance and attitudes

When sustainability managers' greenwash: SDG fit and effects on job performance and attitudes INTRODUCTIONThe Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) represent an intergovernmental agreement (UN, 2015) based on multi‐stakeholder engagement processes that urge companies to help solve the world's most pressing environmental and social issues. As the SDGs currently represent a set of unenforceable internationally agreed‐upon goals, their voluntary nature and lack of sanctions provide substantial discretion to stakeholders in deciding which goals (if any) to act upon (Stevens & Kanie, 2016). This flexibility allows firms to respond in ways oriented toward “doing good” and to create stakeholder partnerships toward facilitating the systemic change necessary to achieve many of the SDGs (van Zanten & van Tulder, 2018). An alternative and unfortunate response for a firm would be to greenwash and disclose untruthful or misleading positive information on its environmental or social performance (Lyon & Maxwell, 2011; Parguel et al., 2011) to illegitimately maintain or expand a firm's competitive position in the minds of socially and environmentally oriented stakeholders. Sustainability managers represent a key stakeholder in implementing and diffusing a firm's sustainability initiatives. However, there is a significant gap in the literature examining the impact of greenwashing on sustainability managers. The purpose of this study is to examine the effects of greenwashing perceptions on sustainability managers' job satisfaction, commitment, turnover intentions, and job performance. This paper proceeds as follows. We first examine the importance of sustainability reporting and its effects on stakeholders; then discuss the problem of greenwashing and its potential effects of identity incongruence and organizational disidentification on sustainability managers; and explore the importance of various forms of identity fit with a series of hypotheses. Results of this research exploring these relationships are provided, and the implications are discussed.Sustainability reporting and the importance of employee stakeholdersCorporate social responsibility (CSR) reporting represents the primary method of multiple stakeholder (Freeman, 1984) disclosure (Fernandez‐Feijoo et al., 2014; Nielsen & Thomsen, 2007). According to KPMG (2017), 93% of the world's largest 250 companies issue CSR reports, and external, third‐party assurance of the information contained within them has risen to 67% of all reports. Further, as of 2017, 43% of all such reports specifically link to the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals.In a broader sense, organizations orient their aspirations toward causes and issues that are perceived as important by their multiple stakeholders and have the potential to improve the organizational image through sustainability reporting (Christensen et al., 2013). However, there are significant concerns raised about the validity and transparency of CSR/sustainability reporting (Smith et al., 2011). There exists a performative aspect to all corporate communication and even the potential for corporate messages to stimulate further proactive engagement and innovation in the sustainability arena. However, if stakeholders, including organizational members, find that CSR aspirations do not materialize, or the firm's actions are seen as inconsistent with espoused CSR principles, this can lead to employee cynicism (Shae & Hawn, 2019; Zyglidopoulos & Fleming, 2011). Employees are a key stakeholder crucial to the success of CSR (Bolton et al., 2011), and they are concerned about, contribute to, perceive, evaluate, and react to their firm's CSR activities (Aguinis & Glavas, 2012; El Akremi et al., 2018; Glavas & Godwin, 2013; Lange & Washburn, 2012; Rupp et al., 2006). Employees diffuse awareness, support, and engagement in CSR initiatives, communicate the efforts to stakeholders outside of their organization (Kolk et al., 2016), and can function as advocates or “reputation shields” in adjusting others' negative perceptions ((Bhattacharya et al., 2008). As a result, the negative effects of perceived greenwashing by employees can be substantial and have an impact on multiple stakeholders.Ultimately, the most important employee stakeholder in this regard may be the individual sustainability manager, who has the responsibility for sustainability reporting as part of their job description and the resultant accuracy in sustainability reporting and potential greenwashing. Although there exists a plethora of research on CSR at the organization level of analysis, examination of the importance of sustainability manager‐level perceptions of a firm's greenwashing and its effects on their engagement in CSR is nascent.Greenwashing and sustainability managersAlthough there is not a universally accepted definition of the term greenwashing (see Gatti et al., 2019 for a comprehensive discussion), most academics consider greenwashing as deliberate false advertising or misleading claims (e.g., Lane, 2010, 2013; Mills, 2009) unsubstantiated by evidence (e.g., Alves, 2009; Bazillier & Vauday, 2013), or representing a form of obfuscation—a selective disclosure of positive information without full disclosure of negative information (e.g., Kim & Lyon, 2011; Lyon & Maxwell, 2011; Mitchell & Ramey, 2011).Greenwashing, when exposed, can have profound negative effects in undermining multi‐stakeholder confidence in the claims of sustainability‐oriented firms, resulting in stakeholder reluctance to reward firm performance and increasing the incentives for firms to feel they can cheat on sustainability efforts while engaging in socially and environmentally detrimental behavior (Banerjee, 2008; Delmas & Burbino, 2011). Furlow (2010) notes the potential for a vicious cycle, whereby greenwashing leads to enhanced consumer skepticism of corporate sustainability efforts and the enhanced skepticism motivates firms to produce fewer sustainability‐oriented products and services (as firms do not perceive a return on their investment). Regardless of its objective reality, greenwashing is ultimately a perceptual phenomenon, in that it only exists in the eye of the beholder (Seele & Gatti, 2017). As a result, it is of immense significance to understand the antecedents and effects of greenwashing perceptions, particularly among sustainability managers who represent a critically important stakeholder due to their position in the organization in addressing the issue.Perceptions of greenwashing and organizational disidentificationIndividual‐level drivers of a manager's perceptions of greenwashing may include rationalization and cognitive elements (such as narrow decision framing, hyperbolic intertemporal discounting, and optimism bias) in addition to uncertainty as a result of imperfect information about their firm's environmental performance (Delmas & Burbino, 2011). Each of these elements represents a degree of cognitive dissonance on the part of a sustainability manager whose formal organizational role is to enhance the environmental and social performance of the firm. Research by Elsbach and Bhattacharya (2001) indicates that employees avoid cognitive discrepancies by actively disidentifying with organizations that are causing the discrepancies.Employees bring with them to organizations their individual values and identities, and these include perceptual and cognitive links to the identities of the groups and organizations to which they belong (Ashforth & Mael, 1989). Organizational disidentification is a self‐perception based on a cognitive separation between one's identity and the organization's identity and a negative relational categorization of oneself and the organization (Elsbach & Bhattacharya, 2001). Organizational disidentification is especially likely if values central to an individual's social identity are in conflict with the perceived values of the organization and/or the individual perceives that the organization's reputation may affect one's personal reputation.An organization that is perceived by a sustainability manager as participating in greenwashing may be a precursor to disidentification based on a perceived contrast with one's moral identity. Research indicates that individuals with high levels of moral identity are those for whom moral schemas are chronically available, readily primed, and easily activated for information processing (Lapsley & Lasky, 2001; Rupp et al., 2013). Such individuals are particularly likely to react to perceived violations of sociomoral norms such as CSR violations (e.g., Aquino et al., 2007; Reed & Aquino, 2003; Rupp et al., 2013; Skarlicki et al., 2008). Further, high moral identity individuals who perceived an organization as high CSR were more likely to respond in the form of job pursuit intentions and organizational citizenship. As noted by Elsbach and Bhattacharya (2001), “… defining who we are is often achieved by defining who we are not, and that being separated from a negatively perceived organization may be as enhancing to our social identities as is being connected to a positively perceived one” (p. 406). In other words, disidentification can lead to action which could take the form of cognitive and/or employment separation from an organization.Haski‐Leventhal et al. (2017) built on this moral identity component of individual‐level desires for CSR and proposed the construct of employee social responsibility (ESR), defined as the combination of an employee's socially responsible identity and socially responsible behavior aimed at the promotion of social good. The identity portion of ESR is described as an employee having strongly supportive opinions on sustainability, the desire for the employer to act responsibly and sustainably (Hemingway, 2005; Rodrigo & Arenas, 2008), manifested in universal and benevolent values (Schwartz, 1994). These employees may also exert socially responsible behaviors, including the initiation of and/or active participation in the CSR efforts of their firms.While engaging in CSR, or pretending to do so and then getting called out for greenwashing, may lead to important organizational level outcomes (and has been extensively studied), its effects on individual level outcomes on sustainability managers have not been given attention in the extant literature (Rupp & Mallory, 2015). Kolk et al. (2016) specifically note: “… what has remained underexposed is the micro level, i.e. the role of managers and employees in partnerships, and how their actions and interactions can have an effect on the spread and potential effectiveness of collaborative efforts” (p. 19). They call for empirical research to understand the perceptions of employees that underlie their willingness to participate in and advocate for CSR initiatives to help ensure CSR initiative viability and success. This study represents a response to this call and is the first micro‐CSR research to examine the impact of greenwashing perceptions on sustainability managers as a key stakeholder at the individual‐level using a practitioner sample. Given the formal role and responsibility of sustainability managers in enhancing the environmental and social outcomes of their firms, we suggest that perceptions of greenwashing on the part of their firm would exert negative effects on sustainability managers' job attitudes and performance. As a result, we propose the following:H1Sustainability managers' perceptions of their firm's greenwashing are negatively related to the managers' job satisfaction, commitment, and job performance and positively related to their turnover intentions.Identity fit and outcomes for sustainability managersOrganizations and employees each have particular values and attitudes with regard to social responsibility that may—or may not—be shared. Organizational identification is indicated by self‐perceptions of “oneness” with the organization (Mael & Ashforth, 1992). Glavas and Godwin (2013) suggest that the greater salience CSR has to an employee's personal identity, the stronger the relationship between a firm's perceived external and internal CSR messages and their organizational identification. Efforts at further understanding the consequences of this congruence between a firm's social responsibility on the part of the organization (i.e., CSR) and their employee's social responsibility (i.e., ESR) were advanced through empirically untested models by Haski‐Leventhal et al. (2017). Utilizing a person–organization (P‐O) fit orientation, Haski‐Leventhal et al. (2017) suggest that at both the individual (ESR) and firm (CSR) levels, socially responsible behavior has a bidirectional relationship with socially responsible identity. We, as individual employees, act upon self‐perceptions (Benabou & Tirole, 2010), with the resultant behavior and actions affecting the ways in which we perceive ourselves (Shamir et al., 1993). And through P‐O congruence (Chatman, 1989; Kristof, 1996), other positive attitudinal and performance outcomes are also likely (Kristof‐Brown et al., 2005; Westerman & Cyr, 2004). For example, when employees and employers both share similar visions of socially responsible identity, positive outcomes may emerge due to shared values, including enhanced organizational identification (Kim et al., 2010). As such, identity fit or congruence between the individual sustainability manager (ESR) and the firm (CSR) should manifest itself in terms of positive P‐O fit outcomes in terms of attitudes and behaviors. As we know from social identity theory and organizational disidentification, individuals seek not only to enhance their sense of self but also to avoid the cognitive dissonance created by activities that conflict with their desired identities (Gond et al., 2017; Hogg & Terry, 2000). Organizational identification enhances individual well‐being (self‐esteem, self‐distinctiveness, and self‐continuity) (Dutton et al., 1994; Hogg & Abrams, 1988) in addition to organizational outcomes (employee cooperation, long‐term commitment, and support for the organization) (Bhattacharya et al., 1995; Brewer & Kramer, 1986; Kramer & Brewer, 1984; Mael & Ashforth, 1992, 1995; O'Reilly & Chatman, 1986).For the purposes of this study, we operationalize socially responsible identity in terms of individual‐ versus firm‐level ratings of the importance of the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) (United Nations, 2015). Shared identity represents congruence or similarity in the ratings of the importance of the SDGs on the part of both the sustainability manager (ESR) and their firm (CSR). Accordingly, in addition to the overall value placed on social responsibility by individual managers and organizations, our measure of congruence also captures which specific SDGs are more or less important such that the congruence is considered low when different SDGs are prioritized by the manager and the company.H2Shared ESR‐CSR identity perceptions of the importance of the SDGs on the part of sustainability managers and their firm are positively related to the managers' job satisfaction, commitment, and job performance and negatively related to turnover intentions.Greenwashing and sustainability managers: Moderating effects of identity fitThe dual dimensions of socially responsible identity and behavior are not inherently connected. Individuals and organizations can identify with particular ethics and values while behaving in ways that do not reflect these ideals (Haski‐Leventhal et al., 2017). When a firm is greenwashing, it is attempting to project a positive CSR identity while actually participating in negative CSR behavior (Hill, 2004; Kallio, 2007). Many firms profess high levels of interest in social responsibility and sustainability as expressed in their sustainability reporting while failing to consistently enact socially responsible behavior.Haski‐Leventhal et al. (2017) note that if there exists incongruence in ESR–CSR identity (or behavior), the result will be organizational challenges including indifference, resentment, disengagement, and other negative outcomes (e.g., detachment, absenteeism, and intention to leave; see Kristof‐Brown et al., 2005). This ESR–CSR identity incongruence may also be a cause of low levels of trust (Wymer & Samu, 2003), which has been shown to play a mediating role between CSR and the attitudinal and behavioral outcomes of employees, including turnover intentions and organizational citizenship behaviors (Hansen et al., 2011).However, it is also possible that identity and behavioral congruence may exist in the case of ESR–CSR low social responsibility. In this situation, both the employee and the firm actually support greenwashing behaviors and do not prefer a social responsibility identity. It is suggested that the result of this specific identity–behavior congruence combination is disengaged employees (Rodrigo & Arenas, 2008), as social responsibility plays (in these companies) no part in the overall attitudinal or behavioral outcomes of such employees. As a result of this research, we propose the following hypothesis which suggests that greenwashing behavior has negative impacts on sustainability managers, but only in the circumstance whereby identity incongruence exists.H3SDG congruence will moderate the relationship between greenwashing and manager job satisfaction, commitment, job performance, and turnover intentions such that the relationship will be significant only when the ESR–CSR identity congruence is weak (i.e., SDG disagreement is high).Differing greenwashing effects: High and low SDG identity managersAnother unexamined question is what happens if a sustainability manager's SDG identity incongruence manifests itself as higher (or lower) than that of the firm while individually aware of a firm's greenwashing behavior. Rupp et al. (2013) suggest that a different pattern of relationships may exist in this high or low scenario. Individuals higher in moral identity tend to expand their circle of moral regard to unrelated others or out‐group members (Reed & Aquino, 2003), and their expanded moral regard may encompass humanity in general, as opposed to a narrow set of related others. As CSR reflects the firm's actions toward external groups, communities, and environments (Aguilera et al., 2007; Maignan & Ferrell, 2000; McWilliams & Siegel, 2001; Rupp et al., 2006; Waldman et al., 2006), it is likely that employees who are high in moral identity are more influenced by CSR initiatives. As a result, manager–high ESR identity employees, those higher than their firm on perceptions of moral identity, may be particularly likely to react to specific and egregious perceived violations of sociomoral norms like greenwashing (e.g., Aquino et al., 2007; Reed & Aquino, 2003; Skarlicki et al., 2008). Rupp et al. (2013) found support for this contention in that employees higher in moral identity had stronger OCB responses to CSR perceptions. We examine whether sustainability managers who possess a higher ESR identity than their firm (P‐O incongruent) on the SDGs, and who perceive organizational greenwashing behavior taking place, possess lower levels of job attitudes and behavior.H4aWhen manager–high ESR identity incongruence exists (a sustainability manager rates the SDGs more highly than their firm), perceived organizational greenwashing is negatively related to manager job satisfaction, commitment, and job performance and positively related to turnover intentions.Alternatively, Rupp et al. (2013) note that employees who are low on ESR moral identity are not as influenced by CSR initiatives and generally tend to care relatively less about justice, ethics, or morality as they navigate their daily lives. Their moral values are not central to their self‐concept or identity, and the moral self‐schema is neither available, primed, nor activated by observed sociomoral norm violations in their processing of social information. As a result, we anticipate that sustainability managers who possess a lower ESR identity than their firm on the SDGs, and who perceive organizational greenwashing behavior taking place, are relatively unaffected in terms of their job attitudes and behavior.H4bWhen manager–low ESR incongruence exists (a sustainability manager rates the SDGs lower than their firm), perceived organizational greenwashing is unrelated to manager job satisfaction, commitment, job performance, and turnover intentions.METHODParticipantsThe sample for the study consisted of 125 sustainability managers employed at organizations randomly selected for participation in an online survey by Qualtrics.com (a data collection and participant pool platform). Subjects were 61% male with a mean age of 38.87 (SD = 9.99), 80% White, 10% Black or African American, and 4% Asian. Seventy‐seven percent reported holding high‐level management positions, and 23% had mid‐level management jobs in a sustainability‐related position. The sample possessed an average tenure at their sustainability‐related job of 13.8 years (SD = 9.20).MeasuresThe 125 sustainability managers were measured to ascertain their perceptions of the importance of the SDGs, job performance, job satisfaction, commitment to the organization, turnover intentions, and perceived organizational greenwashing.Perceptions of SDG importanceParticipants were asked to report how important each SDG was for themselves personally, and separately for their organizations, on a 7‐point Likert‐type scale ranging from 1 (not at all important) to 7 (extremely important).Job satisfactionThe extent to which participants were satisfied with their jobs was measured with one item from the Job Satisfaction Composite Measure (Maurer & Chapman, 2013). The item was “How satisfied are you with your current job in general?” Seven Likert scale response options were provided, ranging from very unsatisfied to very satisfied.Turnover intentionsTurnover intentions were measured using two items from the Intention to Quit Measure (Wayne et al., 1997). A sample item was “As soon as I can find a better job, I will leave my company,” with seven Likert scale response options ranging from strongly disagree to strongly agree.Job performanceJob performance was measured with items from the Job Performance Measure (Onwezen et al., 2014). A representative sample item includes “In general, I achieve the objectives of my job,” and seven Likert scale response options ranged from never to always.Affective commitmentAffective commitment was measured by two items from the Affective Commitment Scale (Meyer & Allen, 1997). Seven Likert scale response options ranged from strongly disagree to strongly agree.Perceived greenwashingWe measured sustainability managers' perceptions of the degree to which their firm's CSR/Sustainability reporting was truthful—or not. This represents a parsimonious way to capture the firm's communication of sustainability efforts to its broad array of stakeholders. The extent to which participants believed their organizations were engaging in greenwashing was measured by three items adapted from the Global Reporting Initiative (2013) External Assurance of Sustainability Reporting. One sample item was “My firm's sustainability reporting and external communication of sustainability accomplishments is truthful.” The response options were seven Likert scale response options ranging from strongly disagree to strongly agree, with higher values indicating less greenwashing, and a not applicable option if their firm did not participate in sustainability reporting. This variable was reverse‐coded before analyses so that higher values indicated more greenwashing.RESULTSIn order to examine the congruence or disagreement between the sustainability managers' perceptions of the importance of the SDGs and their perceptions of the importance their organizations place on the SDGs, we leveraged the fit approach used by Haski‐Leventhal et al. (2017), and calculated difference scores between a manager and their organization for each SDG. In other words, the absolute values of the differences were added such that higher values would represent more disagreement between the manager and the organization in terms of the importance of the SDGs. Thus, incongruence was higher when the discrepancy between managers' ratings and their perceptions of how their firms rated SDGs was larger. We also calculated the difference between the overall importance of SDGs for managers and firms by determining the difference between their self‐ratings and organizational ratings. Positive values reflect a sustainability manager placing more importance on the SDGs than the firm and negative values indicating the opposite. Means, standard deviations, and correlations of the variables used in the current study are presented in Table 1.1TABLEMeans, standard deviations, and correlations for the study variables12345671. SDG Incongruence2. SDG Difference0.113. Greenwashing0.52**0.35**4. Job Satisfaction−0.45**−0.43**−0.56**5. Affective Commitment−0.22*−0.23**−0.41**0.56**6. Job Performance−0.14−0.02−0.41**0.28**0.28**7. Turnover Intentions0.21*0.120.26**−0.50**−0.44**−0.35**Mean14.41−1.012.166.405.936.392.38SD10.8912.221.191.011.210.641.79Notes: For the SDG Incongruence variable, higher values represent less congruence between manager and company perceptions of SDG importance. For the SDG Difference variable, positive values represent a manager values SDGs higher than the organization, and negative values indicate that the firm values SDGs higher than the manager.*p < 0.05.**p < 0.01.H1 suggested that sustainability managers' perceptions of their firm's greenwashing would be negatively related to the managers' job satisfaction, commitment, and job performance and positively related to their turnover intentions. As indicated by the results provided in Table 1, all the correlations between greenwashing and the other variables were significant, and in the predicted direction. H2 suggested that shared ESR–CSR identity perceptions (shared levels of importance of the SDGs on the part of sustainability managers and their firms) would be positively related to the managers' job satisfaction, commitment, and job performance and negatively related to turnover intentions. Table 1 indicates that, with the exception of job performance, all of the correlations were significant and in the expected direction. A series of multiple regression analyses were conducted to test the combined effects of greenwashing perceptions and SDG congruence on manager job satisfaction, organizational commitment, turnover intentions, and job performance (Table 2). Results indicate both greenwashing and SDG congruence were significant predictors of job satisfaction and collectively explained 35% of the variance. However, in predicting the other three outcomes, only greenwashing appeared to be significant despite the significant correlations between SDG congruence and three of the outcome variables (Table 1). This was likely caused by the strong multicollinearity between predictor variables in the model and indicates that perceived greenwashing is likely the more important predictor of job outcomes. These results provide strong support for H1 and partial support for H2.2TABLEResults of multiple regression analysesOutcome variablesJob SatisfactionAffective CommitmentTurnover IntentionsJob PerformanceSDG incongruenceβ = −0.23, p < 0.01β = −0.02, p = 0.838β = 0.10, p = 0.315β = 0.10, p = 0.301Greenwashingβ = −0.44, p < 0.001β = −0.40 p < 0.001β = 0.21, p < 0.05β = −0.46, p < 0.001FF(2,123) = 33.2F(2,123) = 12.4F(2,123) = 5.17F(2,123) = 12.9Model p‐value<0.001<0.001<0.01<0.001R20.350.170.080.17The interactive effects of SDG congruence and perceived greenwashing on manager job attitudes were also examined. H3 suggested that SDG congruence would moderate the relationship between greenwashing and manager job outcomes such that the relationship would be significant only when the ESR–CSR identity congruence is weak (i.e., SDG disagreement between a manager and her organization is high). This relationship was tested using the Model 1 of the PROCESS macro (Hayes, 2017) in SPSS, whereby greenwashing was the predictor variable, SDG congruence the moderator variable, and job attitudes as the outcome variables.Our results mostly support H3. The overall pattern that emerged is that the relationship between greenwashing and a manager's attitudes (satisfaction, commitment, and turnover intentions) is unaffected when there is a high level of shared SDG values congruence (B = −0.07, p = 0.445). However, if the manager and her firm differed significantly on their view of the importance of the SDGs, the moderating effect is significant, and a firm's greenwashing significantly and negatively affected the sustainability manager's job attitudes.For job satisfaction, the overall moderating effect of SDG congruence between a manager and her firm is significant, B = −0.02, p < 0.001. If the manager and her firm disagree and significantly differ on their view of the importance of the SDGs, the moderating effect is significant, and a firm's greenwashing significantly and negatively affects the sustainability manager's job satisfaction (B = −0.39, p < 0.001). However, the moderating effect of SDG congruence on the relationship between greenwashing and manager job satisfaction is unaffected when there is a high level of shared SDG values congruence (B = −0.07, p = 0.445).For affective commitment, a similar pattern of results is observed. The overall interaction term is significant (B = −0.01, p < 0.05), and greenwashing has a negative effect on sustainability manager commitment at lower congruence (high SDG difference) levels (B = −0.42, p < 0.001) and is non‐predictive at higher (shared) congruence levels (B = −0.21, p = 0.120).For turnover intentions, although the interaction term is nonsignificant (B = 0.02, p = 0.054), the same pattern emerges in that the relationship is significant at higher SDG disagreement levels (B = 0.34, p < 0.05) and nonsignificant at lower SDG disagreement (B = 0.04, p = 0.860).Finally, for job performance as the outcome, the interaction term is significant, B = 0.01, p < 0.01. However, the pattern of the relationship at different levels of the moderator is in the opposite direction of H3, in that the relationship between greenwashing and job performance is surprisingly stronger at higher levels of SDG congruence (B = −0.40, p < 0.001), but weaker (although still significant) at lower levels of congruence (B = −0.24, p < 0.001). Thus, contrary to H3, the data suggest that the stronger a manager's SDG overall fit or congruence with the firm, the lower their self‐rated performance when a firm is greenwashing, and vice versa (Figure 1).1FIGUREModeration effects of SDG identity congruence on the relationships between greenwashing and sustainability manager attitudes and performanceH4 reports a similar intriguing pattern of results. H4a suggests that when a sustainability manager rates the SDGs more highly than their firm (SDG‐high manager), perceived organizational greenwashing is negatively related to a manager's job satisfaction, commitment, and job performance and positively related to turnover intentions. H4b asserts there is no relationship between perceived organizational greenwashing and sustainability manager outcomes when a sustainability manager rates the SDGs lower than their firm (SDG‐low manager). Thus, H4 is tested by creating two groups of participants based on whether the manager or the organization rated the SDGs as more (or less) important. By using this grouping variable as the moderator, we test whether the relationship between greenwashing and the outcome variables would change for the two groups. Results indicate support for H4a, in that the relationship between greenwashing and job satisfaction is significantly and negatively moderated by this grouping variable, B = 0.37, p < 0.001, such that for the SDG‐high manager group, the relationship between greenwashing and outcomes is significantly stronger (B = −0.57, p < 0.005) compared to the SDG‐low manager group (B = −0.20, p < 0.05). However, the results indicate that while the relationship between greenwashing and job performance is consistently negative, contrary to H4a, it is stronger for SDG‐low manager group (B = −0.31, p < 0.001) compared to the SDG‐high manager group (B = −0.18, p < 0.001) (Figure 2).2FIGUREGreenwashing relationship with attitudes and performance, moderation by for ESR‐high versus ESR‐low managersTo further examine whether the nature of this interaction depends on the size of the incongruence, we tested the SDG difference as the moderator variable in the relationship between greenwashing and the outcome variables separately for SDG‐high and SDG‐low groups. For SDG‐high sustainability managers (who rate the SDGs to be more important compared to their organizations, n = 42), the effect of greenwashing on job satisfaction is moderated by level of congruence, B = −0.02, p < 0.01 (see Figure 3), such that at lower levels of disagreement, greenwashing does not have an effect (B = −0.26, p = 0.094), whereas at higher levels of disagreement, it is negatively related to job satisfaction (B = −0.61, p < 0.001). The effect of greenwashing on affective commitment is not moderated by SDG congruence and is non‐significant (B = −0.19, p = 0.474) for this SDG‐high group. For turnover intentions, a significant moderation is observed, B = 0.03, p < 0.05, such that at higher levels of disagreement, greenwashing is positively related to turnover intentions (B = 0.84, p < 0.01) with a nonsignificant relationship at lower levels of disagreement (B = 0.24, p = 0.376). Finally, the relationship by greenwashing and job performance is moderated by the level of disagreement for this group, B = 0.01, p < 0.05, such that greenwashing is negatively related to job performance at lower levels of disagreement (B = −0.29, p < 0.01), with a surprisingly nonsignificant relationship at higher disagreement levels (B = −0.08, p = 0.389).3FIGUREESR‐high SDG identity sustainability managers: greenwashing relationship with attitudes and performanceH4b proposed that when SDG‐low identity incongruence exists (a sustainability manager rates the SDGs lower than their firm), perceived organizational greenwashing is unrelated to manager job satisfaction, commitment, job performance, and turnover intentions. For sustainability managers who rate SDGs to be less important compared to their organizations (n = 66), the results support the hypothesis. The relationships between greenwashing and job satisfaction, affective commitment, and turnover intentions are not moderated by SDG congruence levels and are consistently nonsignificant. The lone exception, again, is the relationship between greenwashing and job performance, which is not moderated by congruence levels and remains significant and negative, B = −0.35, p < 0.05, across all levels of SDG congruence for this group. The results for H4b are illustrated in Figure 4.4FIGUREESR‐low SDG identity sustainability managers: greenwashing relationships with attitudes and performanceFinally, given the self‐report instruments utilized in the study, common method variance was assessed to ensure that it is not an alternative explanation to our findings. In order to test for common method bias, we utilized Harman's single factor test (Harman, 1967) with all of the self‐report variables utilized in the study. The results showed that a single factor explained 37.6% of the variance, well below the recommended threshold of 60%, suggesting that common method bias was not a major concern in the current study.DISCUSSIONSustainability managers may represent the key stakeholder in implementing and diffusing sustainability initiatives to the broader array of internal and external organizational stakeholders. We empirically examined the relationships between perceived greenwashing and SDG identity congruence on these sustainability managers' attitudes and behaviors. A summary of our findings provides mixed but overall support for our hypotheses. The data indicate that organizational greenwashing has negative relationships with sustainability managers' job satisfaction, affective commitment, job performance, and a positive relationship with turnover intentions. Further, when SDG identity congruence exists, sustainability managers have enhanced job satisfaction, commitment, and lower turnover intentions. These findings provide empirical support for theoretical models, indicating the existence of detrimental individual‐level employee effects of greenwashing by their organizations, and also support the importance of shared SDG identity (P‐O fit) on sustainability managers' attitudes.Our results also provide an intriguing pattern of relationships when examining the moderating effects of SDG identity congruence on the relationship between a firm's perceived greenwashing and employee attitudes. When SDG identity congruence was weak (low P‐O fit), perceived greenwashing was predictive of negative attitudinal outcomes (specifically job satisfaction and turnover intentions, and to a lesser extent affective commitment) of sustainability managers. However, this relationship only pertained to sustainability managers who possessed SDG‐high identities (rated the importance of the SDGs more highly than their firm). If the sustainability manager were SDG‐low (rated the SDGs lower than their firm), there was no relationship between the firm's perceived greenwashing and the manager's attitudinal outcomes. In other words, for these SDG‐low managers, the greenwashing seems to have no effect on their job satisfaction, affective commitment, or intention to leave the organization. These findings extend our understanding of the crucial role of sustainability managers in organizational greenwashing, indicating differential effects for those who are higher or lower in SDG identity than their respective firms'. For those with SDG‐high identities, greenwashing may represent an ideology‐infused psychological contract violation (Dixon‐Fowler et al., 2020), whereby the sustainability manager anticipated better behavior on the part of the organization due to their shared perceived valuing of the SDGs, yet the organization's behaviors reflect continued greenwashing.Further, an interesting pattern of results also emerged between greenwashing and sustainability manager self‐rated job performance. As anticipated, greenwashing had a negative overall relationship with self‐rated job performance. However, contrary to H3, the data indicate that the stronger a manager's SDG overall fit or congruence with her organization, the lower her self‐rated performance when a firm was greenwashing, and vice versa. It may be that if SDG congruence is weak between a manager and her firm, she feels that she is “doing her best and trying hard” to change an organization to her preferences and rates her job performance positively. On the other hand, if the SDG congruence between a manager and her firm is strong and the firm is still greenwashing, the manager may feel that she is failing in her job performance of accomplishing the SDGs within her firm.This interpretation receives additional support from our H4 results. When we examine the differences between managers who are SDG‐high and SDG‐low, we find that although both categories of managers rate their performance significantly lower when their firm is greenwashing, the SDG‐high managers have a much stronger negative relationship between greenwashing and self‐rated job performance. It seems that the net effect of this pattern is that when sustainability managers sense their firms' greenwashing in sustainability reporting, SDG fit matters in the following manner. If a manager has higher SDG values than their firm (SDG‐high), they are dissatisfied, perceive their performance more negatively, and have high turnover intentions. However, if a manager has lower SDG values than their firm (SDG‐low)—although they recognize their own poor job performance—there are no significant effects of greenwashing on their satisfaction, commitment, or intention to leave the organization (as illustrated in Figure 4).For SDG‐high manager identity misfit, these results fit nicely into Schneider's P‐O fit attraction–selection–attrition (ASA) framework (Schneider, 1987), in that these managers are more likely to leave the organization due to lack of perceived fit. However, for SDG‐low manager misfit, although we see their recognition of their own poor job performance, we do not see any effect on attitudes on the part of these sustainability managers. Taken together, this suggests a potentially troubling pattern, whereby those who are “voting with their feet” and leaving the organization due to greenwashing are the sustainability managers who have higher SDG identity and standards than their firms' and represent the best potential for positive CSR change. On the other hand, those sustainability managers with lower SDG identities than their firms are more likely to stay, which allows for the continuation and support of their firms' greenwashing efforts and the potential for detrimental long‐term effects on a firms' CSR.Haski‐Leventhal et al. (2017) and Cornelius et al. (2008) note the biirectional dynamic influence relationship between an organization and an employee which occurs through mutual affect, whereby organizations can influence the social responsibility position of their employees and vice versa. However, they also acknowledge the power imbalance that exists between employers and their employees, with organizations possessing a stronger influence through coercion, organizational socialization, or organizational HR policies and procedures which reward greenwashing a firm's less sustainable “business as usual” approaches for cynical or self‐serving reasons (Brammer et al., 2007; Fobrum, 2005; Husted & de Jesus Salazar, 2006). Future research could examine the degree to which the lack of attitudinal responses to greenwashing on the part of these SDG‐low identity sustainability managers are caused by such factors.There has also been the emergence of the term “bluewashing,” a form of greenwashing in which firms' creatively manage their reputations with stakeholders by attaching themselves to the United Nations in an effort to enhance their reputations beyond what their CSR behaviors indicate (Karliner, 1999; Quirola & Schlup, 2001). SDG‐low sustainability managers in our study represent those who rated the United Nations SDGs as lower in importance than their firm. These managers may rationalize their bluewashing managerial behavior as acceptable, since they do not identify as strongly as their firm with the United Nations SDGs and may seek to cynically utilize them to legitimize or justify CSR misrepresentations in their organization's greenwashed sustainability reporting. Perhaps this is why perceived greenwashing has no effect on attitudinal outcomes for SDG‐low “bluewashing managers.” These managers may believe that bluewashing is an acceptable behavior. This line of research may further benefit from an examination of what Kolk et al. (2016) refers to as “trickle effects” (which explore the conditions whereby a firm's employees engage in communicating the benefits of a firm's sustainability efforts with multiple stakeholders). SDG‐low sustainability managers may represent a potentially rich source of microlevel interaction information on the boundary conditions and impact of spillover effects on external stakeholders when one's sustainability self‐concept is actually below that of one's firm.Relatedly, it would be helpful for future research to explore the relative effects on sustainability managers of greenwashing different stakeholders. Does greenwashing the sustainability reporting for a firm's internal stakeholder performance (such as employees or investors) have the same effects on sustainability manager attitudes and performance as greenwashing one's external stakeholders (environment or community)? Finally, there is an emerging literature on “SDG‐washing,” whereby firms tout their positive effects on particular SDGs while ignoring negative impacts on other SDGs (Nieuwenkamp, 2017; van Zanten & van Tulder, 2018). Future research could examine such greenwashing behavior at the level of individual SDGs and the net effects of tradeoffs between them on sustainability manager attitudes and behaviors. An emerging approach that may be particularly useful in this regard is conducting a gap analysis of the materiality matrices of a firm to determine why some of these SDGs were, or more importantly, were not addressed (Van Tulder, 2018, p. 109). This could be a leading indicator of potential SDG‐washing. A comparative examination of the phenomena of greenwashing, bluewashing, and SDG‐washing at the individual sustainability manager level to determine if there are different antecedents and consequences of such behaviors would also be beneficial.As greenwashing has such negative effects on social welfare, it is critical to determine how best to counteract it. Our research suggests that focusing at the sustainability manager level has its limitations, as those with SDG‐high identities may be of constrained utility as their attitudes and intentions to leave the organization (instead of staying and working to enhance the organization's CSR) are higher. This illustrates the importance of examining more closely the organization‐level drivers and the external market and regulatory drivers that may be more effective over the long term in constraining greenwashing. From an external market perspective, the crucial role of an established and consistent regulatory and monitoring context (perhaps aided by recent advancements in blockchain technology for transparency) with an audit mandate could be crucial in reducing greenwashing and advancing CSR in a meaningful way. From a within‐firm perspective, by effectively aligning intra‐firm structures, processes, and incentives, and through the introduction of strong ethical cultures developed by CSR‐oriented leadership, training, and development, firms would more effectively retain high SDG managers capable of accomplishing CSR organizational change for meaningful long‐term sustainability outcomes (Westerman et al., 2020).Our study is the first to examine the impact of greenwashing on sustainability managers at the individual‐level using a practitioner sample. However, the study possesses several limitations. The use of cross‐sectional data and self‐report measures may have contributed to common method variance, although most of the outcomes included in the current study were either attitude or perception based, and therefore are most effectively measured by self‐report instruments. Relatedly, the most important constructs examined in this study were the discrepancies between sustainability managers' views of SDGs, how they perceived their organizations value them, and perceptions of organizational greenwashing. In this context, how organizations actually perform is not as relevant as perceptions generally drive attitudes (e.g., Clarkson et al., 2010). Accordingly, self‐report measures are theoretically more relevant and more appropriate (see Conway & Lance, 2010). In addition, Harman's single factor test did not indicate the presence of common method bias. Another potential limitation is that respondents may have engaged in socially desirable responding, considering the sensitive nature of the variables examined in the study. However, we do not believe it to be a major concern for the current study for two reasons. First, the data were collected through an online survey panel, and the responses were completely anonymous, reducing the need for the respondents to engage in socially desirable responding. Second, two of the variables we used in our analyses, perceived greenwashing and organizational SDG importance ratings, measured perceptions of organizational attitudes and may be more resistant to inflation due to an unclear basis or direction for socially desirable responses.The results of this study suggest that sustainability managers do not all react in the same way to a firm's greenwashing. The attitudinal and performance relationships are different based on a sustainability manager's SDG identity. Those managers with higher SDG identities than their firms' had negative attitudes and higher intentions to leave the organization perceived as greenwashing. However, sustainability managers who had lower SDG identity standards than their firm were attitudinally unaffected by greenwashing, although they recognized their poor job performance. The net effect may be a situation in which those who are in the best position to enhance a firm's CSR leave the firm, and vice versa. The challenge facing scholars and practitioners is to determine how to address this issue and flip the script so that higher SDG identity sustainability managers are more likely to stay with their organizations to more effectively address the pernicious environmental and social effects of greenwashing.CONFLICT OF INTERESTThe authors declare no conflict of interest.REFERENCESAguilera, R. V., Rupp, D. E., Williams, C. A., & Ganapathi, J. (2007). Putting the S back in corporate social responsibility: A multilevel theory of change in organizations. Academy of Management Review, 32(3), 836–863. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2007.25275678Aguinis, H., & Glavas, A. (2012). What we know and dont know about corporate social responsibility. A review and research agenda. Journal of Management, 38(4), 932–968. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206311436079Alves, I. M. (2009). Green spin everywhere: How greenwashing reveals the limits of the CSR paradigm. Journal of Global Change and Governance, 2(1), 1941–8760.Aquino, K., Reed, A. II, Thau, S., & Freeman, D. (2007). A grotesque and dark beauty: How moral identity and mechanisms of moral disengagement influence cognitive and emotional reactions to war. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 43(3), 385–392. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2006.05.013Reed, A., & Aquino, K. F. (2003). Moral identity and the expanding circle of moral regard towards out‐groups. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84(6), 1270–1286. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.84.6.1270Ashforth, B. E., & Mael, F. (1989). Social identity theory and the organization. Academy of Management Review, 14, 20–39. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1989.4278999Banerjee, S. B. (2008). Corporate social responsibility: The good, the bad and the ugly. Critical Sociology, 34(1), 51–79. https://doi.org/10.1177/0896920507084623Bazillier, R., & Vauday, J. (2013). The greenwashing machine: Is CSR more than communication? Sciences de lHomme et Société/Economies et Finances, 15(April, 1–57.Benabou, R., & Tirole, J. (2010). Individual and corporate social responsibility. Economica, 77(305), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0335.2009.00843.xBhattacharya, C. B., Rao, H., & Glynn, M. A. (1995). Understanding the bond of identification: An investigation of its correlates among art museum members. Journal of Marketing, 59, 46–57.Bhattacharya, C. B., Sen, S., & Korschun, D. (2008). Using corporate social responsibility to win the war for talent. MIT Sloan Management Review, 49(2), 37–44.Bolton, S. C., Kim, R., & OGorman, K. (2011). Corporate social responsibility as a dynamic internal organizational process: A case study. Journal of Business Ethics, 101(1), 61–74. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-010-0709-5Brammer, S., Millington, A., & Rayton, B. (2007). The contribution of corporate social responsibility to organizational commitment. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 18(10), 1701–1719. https://doi.org/10.1080/09585190701570866Brewer, M. B., & Kramer, R. M. (1986). Choice behavior in social dilemmas: Effects of social identity, group size, and decision framing. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50(3), 543–549. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.50.3.543Chatman, J. (1989). Improving interactional organizational research: A model of person‐organization fit. Academy of Management Review, 14, 333–349. https://doi.org/10.2307/258171Christensen, L. T., Morsing, M., & Thyssen, O. (2013). CSR as aspirational talk. Organization, 20(3), 372–393. https://doi.org/10.1177/1350508413478310Clarkson, J. J., Hirt, E. R., Jia, L., & Alexander, M. B. (2010). When perception is more than reality: The effects of perceived versus actual resource depletion on self‐regulatory behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 98(1), 29–46. https://doi-org.proxy006.nclive.org/10.1037/a0017539Conway, J. M., & Lance, C. E. (2010). What reviewers should expect from authors regarding common method bias in organizational research. Journal of Business and Psychology, 25(3), 325–334. https://doi-org.proxy006.nclive.org/10.1007/s10869-010-9181-6Cornelius, N., Todres, M., Janjuha‐Jivraj, S., Woods, A., & Wallace, J. (2008). Corporate social responsibility and the social enterprise. Journal of Business Ethics, 81(2), 355–370. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-007-9500-7Delmas, M., & Burbino, V. (2011). The drivers of greenwashing. California Management Review, 54(1), 64–87. https://doi.org/10.1525/cmr.2011.54.1.64Dixon‐Fowler, H., OLeary‐Kelly, A., Johnson, J., & Waite, M. (2020). Sustainability and ideology‐infused psychological contracts: An organizational‐ and employee‐level perspective. Human Resource Management Review, 30(3), 100690. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2019.100690Dutton, J. E., Dukerich, J. M., & Harquail, C. (1994). Organizational images and member identification. Administrative Science Quarterly, 39, 239–263. https://doi.org/10.2307/2393235El Akremi, A., Gond, J.‐P., Swaen, V., De Roeck, K., & Igalens, J. (2018). How do employees perceive corporate responsibility? Development and validation of a multidimensional corporate stakeholder responsibility scale. Journal of Management, 44(2), 619–657. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206315569311Elsbach, K. D., & Bhattacharya, C. B. (2001). Defining who you are by what Youre not: Organizational misidentification and the National Rifle Association. Organization Science, 12, 393–413. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.12.4.393.10638Fernandez‐Feijoo, B., Romero, S., & Ruiz, S. (2014). Effect of stakeholders pressure on transparency of sustainability reports within the GRI framework. Journal of Business Ethics, 122, 53–63. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-013-1748-5Fobrum, C. J. (2005). A world of reputation research, analysis and thinking—Building corporate reputation through CSR initiatives: Evolving standards. Corporate Reputation Review, 8(1), 7–12. https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.crr.1540235Freeman, R. E. (1984). Strategic management: A stakeholder approach. Prentice‐Hall.Furlow, N. E. (2010). Greenwashing in the new millennium. Journal of Applied Business and Economics, 10(6), 22–25.Gatti, L., Seele, P., & Rademacher, L. (2019). Grey zone in – Greenwash out. A review of greenwashing research and implications for the voluntary‐mandatory transition of CSR. International Journal of Corporate Social Responsibility, 4(6), 1–15.Glavas, A., & Godwin, L. (2013). Is the perception of ‘goodness’ good enough? Exploring the relationship between perceived corporate social responsibility and employee organizational identification. Journal of Business Ethics., 114(1), 15–27. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-012-1323-5Global Reporting Initiative. (2013). External Assurance of Sustainability Reporting. Available at https://www.globalreporting.org/resourcelibrary/GRI-Assurance.pdfGond, J., 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), 225–246. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.2170Hansen, S. D., Dunford, B. B., Boss, A. D., Boss, R. W., & Angermeier, I. (2011). Corporate social responsibility and the benefits of employee trust: A cross‐disciplinary perspective. Journal of Business Ethics, 102(1), 29–45. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-011-0903-0Harman, H. H. (1967). Modern factor analysis. University of Chicago Press.Haski‐Leventhal, D., Roza, L., & Meijs, L. C. P. M. (2017). Congruence in corporate social responsibility: Connecting the identity and behavior of employers and employees. Journal of Business Ethics, 143(1), 35–51. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-015-2793-zHayes, A. F. (2017). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression‐based approach. Guilford Publications.Hemingway, C. A. (2005). Personal values as a catalyst for corporate social entrepreneurship. Journal of Business Ethics, 60(3), 233–249. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-005-0132-5Hill, R. P. (2004). The socially‐responsible university: Talking the talk while walking the walk in the college of business. Journal of Academic Ethics, 2(1), 89–100. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:JAET.0000039009.48115.3dHogg, M. A., & Abrams, D. (1988). Social identification: A social psychology of intergroup relations and group processes. Routledge.Husted, B. W., & de Jesus Salazar, J. (2006). Taking Friedman seriously: Maximizing profits and social performance. Journal of Management Studies, 43(1), 75–91. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6486.2006.00583.xKallio, T. J. (2007). Taboos in corporate social responsibility discourse. Journal of Business Ethics, 74(2), 165–175. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-006-9227-xKarliner, J. (1999). UN Plan Fosters “Greenwash”. Journal of Commerce, (April 19), 8.Kim, E., & Lyon, T. P. (2011). Strategic environmental disclosure: Evidence from the DOEs voluntary greenhouse gas registry. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 61(3), 311–326. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeem.2010.11.001Kim, H. R., Lee, M., Lee, H. T., & Kim, N. M. (2010). Corporate social responsibility and employee–company identification. Journal of Business Ethics, 95(4), 557–569. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-010-0440-2Kolk, A., Vock, M., & van Dolen, W. (2016). Microfoundations of partnerships: Exploring the role of employees in trickle effects. Journal of Business Ethics, 135, 19–34. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-015-2727-9KPMG. (2017). The KPMG Survey of Corporate Responsibility Reporting 2017. Retrieved December 19, 2019: https://assets.kpmg/content/dam/kpmg/xx/pdf/2017/10/kpmg-survey-of-corporate-responsibility-reporting-2017.pdfKramer, R. M., & Brewer, M. B. (1984). Effects of group identity on resource use in a simulated commons dilemma. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46, 1044–1057.Kristof, A. (1996). Person–organization fit: An integrative review of its conceptualizations, measurement, and implications. Personnel Psychology, 49, 1–49. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.1996.tb01790.xKristof‐Brown, A. L., Zimmerman, R. D., & Johnson, E. C. (2005). Consequences of individuals fit at work: A meta‐analysis of person‐job, person‐group, person‐organization and person‐supervisor fit. Personnel Psychology, 58(2), 281–342. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.2005.00672.xLane, E. L. (2010). Consumer protection in the eco‐mark era: A preliminary survey and assessment of anti‐greenwashing activity and eco‐mark enforcement. John Marshall Review of Intellectual Property Law, 9(742), 742–773.Lane, E. L. (2013). Green marketing goes negative: The advent of reverse greenwashing. Intellectual Property and Technology Law Journal, 25(1), 20–26.Lange, D., & Washburn, N. (2012). Understanding attributions of corporate social responsibility. Academy of Management Review, 37(2), 300–326. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2010.0522Lapsley, D. K., & Lasky, B. (2001). Protoypic moral character. Identity: An International Journal of Theory and Research, 1(4), 345–363. https://doi.org/10.1207/S1532706XID0104_03Lyon, T. P., & Maxwell, J. W. (2011). Greenwash: Corporate environmental disclosure under threat of audit. Journal of Economics and Management Strategy, 20(1), 3–41. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1530-9134.2010.00282.xMael, F., & Ashforth, B. (1992). Alumni and their alma mater: A partial test of the reformulated model of organizational identification. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 13(2), 103–123. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.4030130202Mael, F., & Ashforth, B. (1995). Loyal from day one: Biodata, organizational identification, and turnover among newcomers. Personnel Psychology, 48(2), 309–332. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.1995.tb01759.xMaignan, I., & Ferrell, O. (2000). Measuring corporate citizenship in two countries: The case of the United States and France. Journal of Business Ethics, 23(3), 283–297. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1006262325211Maurer, T. J., & Chapman, E. F. (2013). Job satisfaction composite measure [Database record]. Retrieved from PsycTESTS. doi: https://doi.org/10.1037/t28608-000McWilliams, A., & Siegel, D. (2001). Corporate social responsibility: A theory of the firm perspective. Academy of Management Review, 26, 117–127. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2001.4011987Meyer, J., & Allen, N. (1997). Commitment in the workplace: Theory, research, and application. Sage Publications. 10.4135/9781452231556Mills, E. (2009). A global review of insurance industry responses to climate change. Geneva Papers on Risk and Insurance, 34(3), 323–359. https://doi.org/10.1057/gpp.2009.14Mitchell, L. D., & Ramey, W. D. (2011). Look how green I am! An individual‐level explanation for greenwashing. Journal of Applied Business and Economics, 12(6), 40–45.Nielsen, A. E., & Thomsen, C. (2007). Reporting CSR: What and how to say it? Corporate Communications, 12(1), 25–40. https://doi.org/10.1108/13563280710723732Nieuwenkamp, R. (2017). Ever heard of SDG washing? The urgency of SDG Due Diligence. Retrieved February 12, 2020, from https://oecd-development-matters.orgO'Reilly, C. A., & Chatman, J. (1986). Organizational commitment and psychological attachment: The effects of compliance, identification, and internalization on prosocial behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71(3), 492–499. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.71.3.492Onwezen, M. C., van Veldhoven, M. J. P. M., & Biron, M. (2014). The role of psychological flexibility in the demands–exhaustion–performance relationship. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 23(2), 163–176. https://doi.org/10.1080/1359432X.2012.742242Parguel, B., Benoît‐moreau, F., & Larceneux, F. (2011). How sustainability ratings might deter ‘greenwashing’: A closer look at ethical corporate communication. Journal of Business Ethics, 102(1), 15–28. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-011-0901-2Quirola, D., & Schlup, M. (2001). WS19‐Sustainability Reporting‐Beyond Greenwash. In Minutes of workshops of the 7th ERCP (may).Rodrigo, P., & Arenas, D. (2008). Do employees care about CSR programs? A typology of employees according to their attitudes. Journal of Business Ethics, 83(2), 265–283. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-007-9618-7Rupp, D., Ganapathi, J., Aguilera, R., & Williams, C. (2006). Employee reactions to corporate social responsibility: An organizational justice framework. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 27(4), 537–543. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.380Rupp, D., & Mallory, D. (2015). Corporate social responsibility: Psychological, person‐centric, and progressing. The Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 2(1), 211–236. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-032414-111505Rupp, D., Shao, R., Thornton, M., & Skarlicki, D. (2013). Applicants' and Employees' reactions to corporate social responsibility: The moderating effects of first‐party justice perceptions and moral identity. Personnel Psychology, 66(4), 895–933. https://doi.org/10.1111/peps.12030Schneider, B. (1987). The people make the place. Personnel Psychology, 40(3), 437–454. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.1987.tb00609.xSchwartz, S. H. (1994). Are there universal aspects in the structure and contents of human values? Journal of Social Issues, 50(4), 19–45. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4560.1994.tb01196.xSeele, P., & Gatti, L. (2017). Greenwashing revisited: In search of a typology and accusation‐based definition incorporating legitimacy strategies. Business Strategy and the Environment, 26(2), 239–252. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.1912Shae, C., & Hawn, O. (2019). Microfoundations of corporate social responsibility and irresponsibility. Academy of Management Journal, 62(5), 1609–1642. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2014.0795Shamir, B., House, R. J., & Arthur, M. B. (1993). The motivational effects of charismatic leadership: A self‐concept based theory. Organization Science, 4(4), 577–594. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.4.4.577Skarlicki, D., Van Jaarsveld, D., & Walker, D. (2008). Getting even for customer mistreatment: The role of moral identity in the relationship between customer interpersonal injustice and employee sabotage. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 93(6), 1335–1347. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0012704Smith, J., Haniffa, R., & Fairbrass, J. (2011). A conceptual framework for investigating ‘capture’ in corporate sustainability reporting assurance. Journal of Business Ethics, 99(3), 425–439. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-010-0661-4Stevens, C., & Kanie, N. (2016). The transformative potential of the sustainable development goals (SDGs). International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, 16(3), 393–396. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10784-016-9324-yUN General Assembly. (2015). Transforming our world: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, A/RES/70/1, available at: https://www.refworld.org/docid/57b6e3e44.html [accessed 6 October 2019]Van Tulder, R. (2018). Business & the sustainable development goals: A framework for effective corporate involvement. Rotterdam School of Management, Erasmus University. https://www.rsm.nl/fileadmin/Images_NEW/Positive_Change/Business_and_Sustainable_Development_Goals_-_Positive_Change_0_Rob_van_Tulder.pdfvan Zanten, J. A., & van Tulder, R. (2018). Multinational enterprises and the sustainable development goals: An institutional approach to corporate engagement. Journal of International Business Policy, 1(3–4), 208–233. https://doi.org/10.1057/s42214-018-0008-xWaldman, D. A., Siegel, D. S., & Javidan, M. (2006). Components of CEO transformational leadership and corporate social responsibility*. Journal of Management Studies, 43(8), 1703–1725. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6486.2006.00642.xWayne, S. J., Shore, L. M., & Liden, R. C. (1997). Intention to Quit Measure [Database record]. Retrieved from PsycTESTS. doi: https://doi.org/10.1037/t09423-000Westerman, J., & Cyr, L. (2004). An integrative analysis of person‐organization fit theories. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 12(3), 252–261. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0965-075X.2004.279_1.xWesterman, J., Rao, M., Vanka, S., & Gupta, M. (2020). Sustainable human resource management and the triple bottom line: Multi‐stakeholder strategies, concepts, and engagement. Human Resource Management Review., 30, 100742. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S105348221930720XWymer, W. W., & Samu, S. (2003). Dimensions of business and nonprofit collaborative relationships. Journal of Nonprofit & Public Sector Marketing, 11(1), 3–22. https://doi.org/10.1300/J054v11n01_02Zyglidopoulos, S., & Fleming, P. (2011). Corporate accountability and the politics of visibility in “Late Modernity”. Organization, 8(5), 691–706. https://doi.org/10.1177/1350508410397222 http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Business and Society Review Wiley

When sustainability managers' greenwash: SDG fit and effects on job performance and attitudes

Download PDF
23 pages

Loading next page...
 
/lp/wiley/when-sustainability-managers-greenwash-sdg-fit-and-effects-on-job-aqGP91TS0d

References (76)

Publisher
Wiley
Copyright
© 2022 W. Michael Hoffman Center for Business Ethics at Bentley University
ISSN
0045-3609
eISSN
1467-8594
DOI
10.1111/basr.12273
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

INTRODUCTIONThe Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) represent an intergovernmental agreement (UN, 2015) based on multi‐stakeholder engagement processes that urge companies to help solve the world's most pressing environmental and social issues. As the SDGs currently represent a set of unenforceable internationally agreed‐upon goals, their voluntary nature and lack of sanctions provide substantial discretion to stakeholders in deciding which goals (if any) to act upon (Stevens & Kanie, 2016). This flexibility allows firms to respond in ways oriented toward “doing good” and to create stakeholder partnerships toward facilitating the systemic change necessary to achieve many of the SDGs (van Zanten & van Tulder, 2018). An alternative and unfortunate response for a firm would be to greenwash and disclose untruthful or misleading positive information on its environmental or social performance (Lyon & Maxwell, 2011; Parguel et al., 2011) to illegitimately maintain or expand a firm's competitive position in the minds of socially and environmentally oriented stakeholders. Sustainability managers represent a key stakeholder in implementing and diffusing a firm's sustainability initiatives. However, there is a significant gap in the literature examining the impact of greenwashing on sustainability managers. The purpose of this study is to examine the effects of greenwashing perceptions on sustainability managers' job satisfaction, commitment, turnover intentions, and job performance. This paper proceeds as follows. We first examine the importance of sustainability reporting and its effects on stakeholders; then discuss the problem of greenwashing and its potential effects of identity incongruence and organizational disidentification on sustainability managers; and explore the importance of various forms of identity fit with a series of hypotheses. Results of this research exploring these relationships are provided, and the implications are discussed.Sustainability reporting and the importance of employee stakeholdersCorporate social responsibility (CSR) reporting represents the primary method of multiple stakeholder (Freeman, 1984) disclosure (Fernandez‐Feijoo et al., 2014; Nielsen & Thomsen, 2007). According to KPMG (2017), 93% of the world's largest 250 companies issue CSR reports, and external, third‐party assurance of the information contained within them has risen to 67% of all reports. Further, as of 2017, 43% of all such reports specifically link to the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals.In a broader sense, organizations orient their aspirations toward causes and issues that are perceived as important by their multiple stakeholders and have the potential to improve the organizational image through sustainability reporting (Christensen et al., 2013). However, there are significant concerns raised about the validity and transparency of CSR/sustainability reporting (Smith et al., 2011). There exists a performative aspect to all corporate communication and even the potential for corporate messages to stimulate further proactive engagement and innovation in the sustainability arena. However, if stakeholders, including organizational members, find that CSR aspirations do not materialize, or the firm's actions are seen as inconsistent with espoused CSR principles, this can lead to employee cynicism (Shae & Hawn, 2019; Zyglidopoulos & Fleming, 2011). Employees are a key stakeholder crucial to the success of CSR (Bolton et al., 2011), and they are concerned about, contribute to, perceive, evaluate, and react to their firm's CSR activities (Aguinis & Glavas, 2012; El Akremi et al., 2018; Glavas & Godwin, 2013; Lange & Washburn, 2012; Rupp et al., 2006). Employees diffuse awareness, support, and engagement in CSR initiatives, communicate the efforts to stakeholders outside of their organization (Kolk et al., 2016), and can function as advocates or “reputation shields” in adjusting others' negative perceptions ((Bhattacharya et al., 2008). As a result, the negative effects of perceived greenwashing by employees can be substantial and have an impact on multiple stakeholders.Ultimately, the most important employee stakeholder in this regard may be the individual sustainability manager, who has the responsibility for sustainability reporting as part of their job description and the resultant accuracy in sustainability reporting and potential greenwashing. Although there exists a plethora of research on CSR at the organization level of analysis, examination of the importance of sustainability manager‐level perceptions of a firm's greenwashing and its effects on their engagement in CSR is nascent.Greenwashing and sustainability managersAlthough there is not a universally accepted definition of the term greenwashing (see Gatti et al., 2019 for a comprehensive discussion), most academics consider greenwashing as deliberate false advertising or misleading claims (e.g., Lane, 2010, 2013; Mills, 2009) unsubstantiated by evidence (e.g., Alves, 2009; Bazillier & Vauday, 2013), or representing a form of obfuscation—a selective disclosure of positive information without full disclosure of negative information (e.g., Kim & Lyon, 2011; Lyon & Maxwell, 2011; Mitchell & Ramey, 2011).Greenwashing, when exposed, can have profound negative effects in undermining multi‐stakeholder confidence in the claims of sustainability‐oriented firms, resulting in stakeholder reluctance to reward firm performance and increasing the incentives for firms to feel they can cheat on sustainability efforts while engaging in socially and environmentally detrimental behavior (Banerjee, 2008; Delmas & Burbino, 2011). Furlow (2010) notes the potential for a vicious cycle, whereby greenwashing leads to enhanced consumer skepticism of corporate sustainability efforts and the enhanced skepticism motivates firms to produce fewer sustainability‐oriented products and services (as firms do not perceive a return on their investment). Regardless of its objective reality, greenwashing is ultimately a perceptual phenomenon, in that it only exists in the eye of the beholder (Seele & Gatti, 2017). As a result, it is of immense significance to understand the antecedents and effects of greenwashing perceptions, particularly among sustainability managers who represent a critically important stakeholder due to their position in the organization in addressing the issue.Perceptions of greenwashing and organizational disidentificationIndividual‐level drivers of a manager's perceptions of greenwashing may include rationalization and cognitive elements (such as narrow decision framing, hyperbolic intertemporal discounting, and optimism bias) in addition to uncertainty as a result of imperfect information about their firm's environmental performance (Delmas & Burbino, 2011). Each of these elements represents a degree of cognitive dissonance on the part of a sustainability manager whose formal organizational role is to enhance the environmental and social performance of the firm. Research by Elsbach and Bhattacharya (2001) indicates that employees avoid cognitive discrepancies by actively disidentifying with organizations that are causing the discrepancies.Employees bring with them to organizations their individual values and identities, and these include perceptual and cognitive links to the identities of the groups and organizations to which they belong (Ashforth & Mael, 1989). Organizational disidentification is a self‐perception based on a cognitive separation between one's identity and the organization's identity and a negative relational categorization of oneself and the organization (Elsbach & Bhattacharya, 2001). Organizational disidentification is especially likely if values central to an individual's social identity are in conflict with the perceived values of the organization and/or the individual perceives that the organization's reputation may affect one's personal reputation.An organization that is perceived by a sustainability manager as participating in greenwashing may be a precursor to disidentification based on a perceived contrast with one's moral identity. Research indicates that individuals with high levels of moral identity are those for whom moral schemas are chronically available, readily primed, and easily activated for information processing (Lapsley & Lasky, 2001; Rupp et al., 2013). Such individuals are particularly likely to react to perceived violations of sociomoral norms such as CSR violations (e.g., Aquino et al., 2007; Reed & Aquino, 2003; Rupp et al., 2013; Skarlicki et al., 2008). Further, high moral identity individuals who perceived an organization as high CSR were more likely to respond in the form of job pursuit intentions and organizational citizenship. As noted by Elsbach and Bhattacharya (2001), “… defining who we are is often achieved by defining who we are not, and that being separated from a negatively perceived organization may be as enhancing to our social identities as is being connected to a positively perceived one” (p. 406). In other words, disidentification can lead to action which could take the form of cognitive and/or employment separation from an organization.Haski‐Leventhal et al. (2017) built on this moral identity component of individual‐level desires for CSR and proposed the construct of employee social responsibility (ESR), defined as the combination of an employee's socially responsible identity and socially responsible behavior aimed at the promotion of social good. The identity portion of ESR is described as an employee having strongly supportive opinions on sustainability, the desire for the employer to act responsibly and sustainably (Hemingway, 2005; Rodrigo & Arenas, 2008), manifested in universal and benevolent values (Schwartz, 1994). These employees may also exert socially responsible behaviors, including the initiation of and/or active participation in the CSR efforts of their firms.While engaging in CSR, or pretending to do so and then getting called out for greenwashing, may lead to important organizational level outcomes (and has been extensively studied), its effects on individual level outcomes on sustainability managers have not been given attention in the extant literature (Rupp & Mallory, 2015). Kolk et al. (2016) specifically note: “… what has remained underexposed is the micro level, i.e. the role of managers and employees in partnerships, and how their actions and interactions can have an effect on the spread and potential effectiveness of collaborative efforts” (p. 19). They call for empirical research to understand the perceptions of employees that underlie their willingness to participate in and advocate for CSR initiatives to help ensure CSR initiative viability and success. This study represents a response to this call and is the first micro‐CSR research to examine the impact of greenwashing perceptions on sustainability managers as a key stakeholder at the individual‐level using a practitioner sample. Given the formal role and responsibility of sustainability managers in enhancing the environmental and social outcomes of their firms, we suggest that perceptions of greenwashing on the part of their firm would exert negative effects on sustainability managers' job attitudes and performance. As a result, we propose the following:H1Sustainability managers' perceptions of their firm's greenwashing are negatively related to the managers' job satisfaction, commitment, and job performance and positively related to their turnover intentions.Identity fit and outcomes for sustainability managersOrganizations and employees each have particular values and attitudes with regard to social responsibility that may—or may not—be shared. Organizational identification is indicated by self‐perceptions of “oneness” with the organization (Mael & Ashforth, 1992). Glavas and Godwin (2013) suggest that the greater salience CSR has to an employee's personal identity, the stronger the relationship between a firm's perceived external and internal CSR messages and their organizational identification. Efforts at further understanding the consequences of this congruence between a firm's social responsibility on the part of the organization (i.e., CSR) and their employee's social responsibility (i.e., ESR) were advanced through empirically untested models by Haski‐Leventhal et al. (2017). Utilizing a person–organization (P‐O) fit orientation, Haski‐Leventhal et al. (2017) suggest that at both the individual (ESR) and firm (CSR) levels, socially responsible behavior has a bidirectional relationship with socially responsible identity. We, as individual employees, act upon self‐perceptions (Benabou & Tirole, 2010), with the resultant behavior and actions affecting the ways in which we perceive ourselves (Shamir et al., 1993). And through P‐O congruence (Chatman, 1989; Kristof, 1996), other positive attitudinal and performance outcomes are also likely (Kristof‐Brown et al., 2005; Westerman & Cyr, 2004). For example, when employees and employers both share similar visions of socially responsible identity, positive outcomes may emerge due to shared values, including enhanced organizational identification (Kim et al., 2010). As such, identity fit or congruence between the individual sustainability manager (ESR) and the firm (CSR) should manifest itself in terms of positive P‐O fit outcomes in terms of attitudes and behaviors. As we know from social identity theory and organizational disidentification, individuals seek not only to enhance their sense of self but also to avoid the cognitive dissonance created by activities that conflict with their desired identities (Gond et al., 2017; Hogg & Terry, 2000). Organizational identification enhances individual well‐being (self‐esteem, self‐distinctiveness, and self‐continuity) (Dutton et al., 1994; Hogg & Abrams, 1988) in addition to organizational outcomes (employee cooperation, long‐term commitment, and support for the organization) (Bhattacharya et al., 1995; Brewer & Kramer, 1986; Kramer & Brewer, 1984; Mael & Ashforth, 1992, 1995; O'Reilly & Chatman, 1986).For the purposes of this study, we operationalize socially responsible identity in terms of individual‐ versus firm‐level ratings of the importance of the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) (United Nations, 2015). Shared identity represents congruence or similarity in the ratings of the importance of the SDGs on the part of both the sustainability manager (ESR) and their firm (CSR). Accordingly, in addition to the overall value placed on social responsibility by individual managers and organizations, our measure of congruence also captures which specific SDGs are more or less important such that the congruence is considered low when different SDGs are prioritized by the manager and the company.H2Shared ESR‐CSR identity perceptions of the importance of the SDGs on the part of sustainability managers and their firm are positively related to the managers' job satisfaction, commitment, and job performance and negatively related to turnover intentions.Greenwashing and sustainability managers: Moderating effects of identity fitThe dual dimensions of socially responsible identity and behavior are not inherently connected. Individuals and organizations can identify with particular ethics and values while behaving in ways that do not reflect these ideals (Haski‐Leventhal et al., 2017). When a firm is greenwashing, it is attempting to project a positive CSR identity while actually participating in negative CSR behavior (Hill, 2004; Kallio, 2007). Many firms profess high levels of interest in social responsibility and sustainability as expressed in their sustainability reporting while failing to consistently enact socially responsible behavior.Haski‐Leventhal et al. (2017) note that if there exists incongruence in ESR–CSR identity (or behavior), the result will be organizational challenges including indifference, resentment, disengagement, and other negative outcomes (e.g., detachment, absenteeism, and intention to leave; see Kristof‐Brown et al., 2005). This ESR–CSR identity incongruence may also be a cause of low levels of trust (Wymer & Samu, 2003), which has been shown to play a mediating role between CSR and the attitudinal and behavioral outcomes of employees, including turnover intentions and organizational citizenship behaviors (Hansen et al., 2011).However, it is also possible that identity and behavioral congruence may exist in the case of ESR–CSR low social responsibility. In this situation, both the employee and the firm actually support greenwashing behaviors and do not prefer a social responsibility identity. It is suggested that the result of this specific identity–behavior congruence combination is disengaged employees (Rodrigo & Arenas, 2008), as social responsibility plays (in these companies) no part in the overall attitudinal or behavioral outcomes of such employees. As a result of this research, we propose the following hypothesis which suggests that greenwashing behavior has negative impacts on sustainability managers, but only in the circumstance whereby identity incongruence exists.H3SDG congruence will moderate the relationship between greenwashing and manager job satisfaction, commitment, job performance, and turnover intentions such that the relationship will be significant only when the ESR–CSR identity congruence is weak (i.e., SDG disagreement is high).Differing greenwashing effects: High and low SDG identity managersAnother unexamined question is what happens if a sustainability manager's SDG identity incongruence manifests itself as higher (or lower) than that of the firm while individually aware of a firm's greenwashing behavior. Rupp et al. (2013) suggest that a different pattern of relationships may exist in this high or low scenario. Individuals higher in moral identity tend to expand their circle of moral regard to unrelated others or out‐group members (Reed & Aquino, 2003), and their expanded moral regard may encompass humanity in general, as opposed to a narrow set of related others. As CSR reflects the firm's actions toward external groups, communities, and environments (Aguilera et al., 2007; Maignan & Ferrell, 2000; McWilliams & Siegel, 2001; Rupp et al., 2006; Waldman et al., 2006), it is likely that employees who are high in moral identity are more influenced by CSR initiatives. As a result, manager–high ESR identity employees, those higher than their firm on perceptions of moral identity, may be particularly likely to react to specific and egregious perceived violations of sociomoral norms like greenwashing (e.g., Aquino et al., 2007; Reed & Aquino, 2003; Skarlicki et al., 2008). Rupp et al. (2013) found support for this contention in that employees higher in moral identity had stronger OCB responses to CSR perceptions. We examine whether sustainability managers who possess a higher ESR identity than their firm (P‐O incongruent) on the SDGs, and who perceive organizational greenwashing behavior taking place, possess lower levels of job attitudes and behavior.H4aWhen manager–high ESR identity incongruence exists (a sustainability manager rates the SDGs more highly than their firm), perceived organizational greenwashing is negatively related to manager job satisfaction, commitment, and job performance and positively related to turnover intentions.Alternatively, Rupp et al. (2013) note that employees who are low on ESR moral identity are not as influenced by CSR initiatives and generally tend to care relatively less about justice, ethics, or morality as they navigate their daily lives. Their moral values are not central to their self‐concept or identity, and the moral self‐schema is neither available, primed, nor activated by observed sociomoral norm violations in their processing of social information. As a result, we anticipate that sustainability managers who possess a lower ESR identity than their firm on the SDGs, and who perceive organizational greenwashing behavior taking place, are relatively unaffected in terms of their job attitudes and behavior.H4bWhen manager–low ESR incongruence exists (a sustainability manager rates the SDGs lower than their firm), perceived organizational greenwashing is unrelated to manager job satisfaction, commitment, job performance, and turnover intentions.METHODParticipantsThe sample for the study consisted of 125 sustainability managers employed at organizations randomly selected for participation in an online survey by Qualtrics.com (a data collection and participant pool platform). Subjects were 61% male with a mean age of 38.87 (SD = 9.99), 80% White, 10% Black or African American, and 4% Asian. Seventy‐seven percent reported holding high‐level management positions, and 23% had mid‐level management jobs in a sustainability‐related position. The sample possessed an average tenure at their sustainability‐related job of 13.8 years (SD = 9.20).MeasuresThe 125 sustainability managers were measured to ascertain their perceptions of the importance of the SDGs, job performance, job satisfaction, commitment to the organization, turnover intentions, and perceived organizational greenwashing.Perceptions of SDG importanceParticipants were asked to report how important each SDG was for themselves personally, and separately for their organizations, on a 7‐point Likert‐type scale ranging from 1 (not at all important) to 7 (extremely important).Job satisfactionThe extent to which participants were satisfied with their jobs was measured with one item from the Job Satisfaction Composite Measure (Maurer & Chapman, 2013). The item was “How satisfied are you with your current job in general?” Seven Likert scale response options were provided, ranging from very unsatisfied to very satisfied.Turnover intentionsTurnover intentions were measured using two items from the Intention to Quit Measure (Wayne et al., 1997). A sample item was “As soon as I can find a better job, I will leave my company,” with seven Likert scale response options ranging from strongly disagree to strongly agree.Job performanceJob performance was measured with items from the Job Performance Measure (Onwezen et al., 2014). A representative sample item includes “In general, I achieve the objectives of my job,” and seven Likert scale response options ranged from never to always.Affective commitmentAffective commitment was measured by two items from the Affective Commitment Scale (Meyer & Allen, 1997). Seven Likert scale response options ranged from strongly disagree to strongly agree.Perceived greenwashingWe measured sustainability managers' perceptions of the degree to which their firm's CSR/Sustainability reporting was truthful—or not. This represents a parsimonious way to capture the firm's communication of sustainability efforts to its broad array of stakeholders. The extent to which participants believed their organizations were engaging in greenwashing was measured by three items adapted from the Global Reporting Initiative (2013) External Assurance of Sustainability Reporting. One sample item was “My firm's sustainability reporting and external communication of sustainability accomplishments is truthful.” The response options were seven Likert scale response options ranging from strongly disagree to strongly agree, with higher values indicating less greenwashing, and a not applicable option if their firm did not participate in sustainability reporting. This variable was reverse‐coded before analyses so that higher values indicated more greenwashing.RESULTSIn order to examine the congruence or disagreement between the sustainability managers' perceptions of the importance of the SDGs and their perceptions of the importance their organizations place on the SDGs, we leveraged the fit approach used by Haski‐Leventhal et al. (2017), and calculated difference scores between a manager and their organization for each SDG. In other words, the absolute values of the differences were added such that higher values would represent more disagreement between the manager and the organization in terms of the importance of the SDGs. Thus, incongruence was higher when the discrepancy between managers' ratings and their perceptions of how their firms rated SDGs was larger. We also calculated the difference between the overall importance of SDGs for managers and firms by determining the difference between their self‐ratings and organizational ratings. Positive values reflect a sustainability manager placing more importance on the SDGs than the firm and negative values indicating the opposite. Means, standard deviations, and correlations of the variables used in the current study are presented in Table 1.1TABLEMeans, standard deviations, and correlations for the study variables12345671. SDG Incongruence2. SDG Difference0.113. Greenwashing0.52**0.35**4. Job Satisfaction−0.45**−0.43**−0.56**5. Affective Commitment−0.22*−0.23**−0.41**0.56**6. Job Performance−0.14−0.02−0.41**0.28**0.28**7. Turnover Intentions0.21*0.120.26**−0.50**−0.44**−0.35**Mean14.41−1.012.166.405.936.392.38SD10.8912.221.191.011.210.641.79Notes: For the SDG Incongruence variable, higher values represent less congruence between manager and company perceptions of SDG importance. For the SDG Difference variable, positive values represent a manager values SDGs higher than the organization, and negative values indicate that the firm values SDGs higher than the manager.*p < 0.05.**p < 0.01.H1 suggested that sustainability managers' perceptions of their firm's greenwashing would be negatively related to the managers' job satisfaction, commitment, and job performance and positively related to their turnover intentions. As indicated by the results provided in Table 1, all the correlations between greenwashing and the other variables were significant, and in the predicted direction. H2 suggested that shared ESR–CSR identity perceptions (shared levels of importance of the SDGs on the part of sustainability managers and their firms) would be positively related to the managers' job satisfaction, commitment, and job performance and negatively related to turnover intentions. Table 1 indicates that, with the exception of job performance, all of the correlations were significant and in the expected direction. A series of multiple regression analyses were conducted to test the combined effects of greenwashing perceptions and SDG congruence on manager job satisfaction, organizational commitment, turnover intentions, and job performance (Table 2). Results indicate both greenwashing and SDG congruence were significant predictors of job satisfaction and collectively explained 35% of the variance. However, in predicting the other three outcomes, only greenwashing appeared to be significant despite the significant correlations between SDG congruence and three of the outcome variables (Table 1). This was likely caused by the strong multicollinearity between predictor variables in the model and indicates that perceived greenwashing is likely the more important predictor of job outcomes. These results provide strong support for H1 and partial support for H2.2TABLEResults of multiple regression analysesOutcome variablesJob SatisfactionAffective CommitmentTurnover IntentionsJob PerformanceSDG incongruenceβ = −0.23, p < 0.01β = −0.02, p = 0.838β = 0.10, p = 0.315β = 0.10, p = 0.301Greenwashingβ = −0.44, p < 0.001β = −0.40 p < 0.001β = 0.21, p < 0.05β = −0.46, p < 0.001FF(2,123) = 33.2F(2,123) = 12.4F(2,123) = 5.17F(2,123) = 12.9Model p‐value<0.001<0.001<0.01<0.001R20.350.170.080.17The interactive effects of SDG congruence and perceived greenwashing on manager job attitudes were also examined. H3 suggested that SDG congruence would moderate the relationship between greenwashing and manager job outcomes such that the relationship would be significant only when the ESR–CSR identity congruence is weak (i.e., SDG disagreement between a manager and her organization is high). This relationship was tested using the Model 1 of the PROCESS macro (Hayes, 2017) in SPSS, whereby greenwashing was the predictor variable, SDG congruence the moderator variable, and job attitudes as the outcome variables.Our results mostly support H3. The overall pattern that emerged is that the relationship between greenwashing and a manager's attitudes (satisfaction, commitment, and turnover intentions) is unaffected when there is a high level of shared SDG values congruence (B = −0.07, p = 0.445). However, if the manager and her firm differed significantly on their view of the importance of the SDGs, the moderating effect is significant, and a firm's greenwashing significantly and negatively affected the sustainability manager's job attitudes.For job satisfaction, the overall moderating effect of SDG congruence between a manager and her firm is significant, B = −0.02, p < 0.001. If the manager and her firm disagree and significantly differ on their view of the importance of the SDGs, the moderating effect is significant, and a firm's greenwashing significantly and negatively affects the sustainability manager's job satisfaction (B = −0.39, p < 0.001). However, the moderating effect of SDG congruence on the relationship between greenwashing and manager job satisfaction is unaffected when there is a high level of shared SDG values congruence (B = −0.07, p = 0.445).For affective commitment, a similar pattern of results is observed. The overall interaction term is significant (B = −0.01, p < 0.05), and greenwashing has a negative effect on sustainability manager commitment at lower congruence (high SDG difference) levels (B = −0.42, p < 0.001) and is non‐predictive at higher (shared) congruence levels (B = −0.21, p = 0.120).For turnover intentions, although the interaction term is nonsignificant (B = 0.02, p = 0.054), the same pattern emerges in that the relationship is significant at higher SDG disagreement levels (B = 0.34, p < 0.05) and nonsignificant at lower SDG disagreement (B = 0.04, p = 0.860).Finally, for job performance as the outcome, the interaction term is significant, B = 0.01, p < 0.01. However, the pattern of the relationship at different levels of the moderator is in the opposite direction of H3, in that the relationship between greenwashing and job performance is surprisingly stronger at higher levels of SDG congruence (B = −0.40, p < 0.001), but weaker (although still significant) at lower levels of congruence (B = −0.24, p < 0.001). Thus, contrary to H3, the data suggest that the stronger a manager's SDG overall fit or congruence with the firm, the lower their self‐rated performance when a firm is greenwashing, and vice versa (Figure 1).1FIGUREModeration effects of SDG identity congruence on the relationships between greenwashing and sustainability manager attitudes and performanceH4 reports a similar intriguing pattern of results. H4a suggests that when a sustainability manager rates the SDGs more highly than their firm (SDG‐high manager), perceived organizational greenwashing is negatively related to a manager's job satisfaction, commitment, and job performance and positively related to turnover intentions. H4b asserts there is no relationship between perceived organizational greenwashing and sustainability manager outcomes when a sustainability manager rates the SDGs lower than their firm (SDG‐low manager). Thus, H4 is tested by creating two groups of participants based on whether the manager or the organization rated the SDGs as more (or less) important. By using this grouping variable as the moderator, we test whether the relationship between greenwashing and the outcome variables would change for the two groups. Results indicate support for H4a, in that the relationship between greenwashing and job satisfaction is significantly and negatively moderated by this grouping variable, B = 0.37, p < 0.001, such that for the SDG‐high manager group, the relationship between greenwashing and outcomes is significantly stronger (B = −0.57, p < 0.005) compared to the SDG‐low manager group (B = −0.20, p < 0.05). However, the results indicate that while the relationship between greenwashing and job performance is consistently negative, contrary to H4a, it is stronger for SDG‐low manager group (B = −0.31, p < 0.001) compared to the SDG‐high manager group (B = −0.18, p < 0.001) (Figure 2).2FIGUREGreenwashing relationship with attitudes and performance, moderation by for ESR‐high versus ESR‐low managersTo further examine whether the nature of this interaction depends on the size of the incongruence, we tested the SDG difference as the moderator variable in the relationship between greenwashing and the outcome variables separately for SDG‐high and SDG‐low groups. For SDG‐high sustainability managers (who rate the SDGs to be more important compared to their organizations, n = 42), the effect of greenwashing on job satisfaction is moderated by level of congruence, B = −0.02, p < 0.01 (see Figure 3), such that at lower levels of disagreement, greenwashing does not have an effect (B = −0.26, p = 0.094), whereas at higher levels of disagreement, it is negatively related to job satisfaction (B = −0.61, p < 0.001). The effect of greenwashing on affective commitment is not moderated by SDG congruence and is non‐significant (B = −0.19, p = 0.474) for this SDG‐high group. For turnover intentions, a significant moderation is observed, B = 0.03, p < 0.05, such that at higher levels of disagreement, greenwashing is positively related to turnover intentions (B = 0.84, p < 0.01) with a nonsignificant relationship at lower levels of disagreement (B = 0.24, p = 0.376). Finally, the relationship by greenwashing and job performance is moderated by the level of disagreement for this group, B = 0.01, p < 0.05, such that greenwashing is negatively related to job performance at lower levels of disagreement (B = −0.29, p < 0.01), with a surprisingly nonsignificant relationship at higher disagreement levels (B = −0.08, p = 0.389).3FIGUREESR‐high SDG identity sustainability managers: greenwashing relationship with attitudes and performanceH4b proposed that when SDG‐low identity incongruence exists (a sustainability manager rates the SDGs lower than their firm), perceived organizational greenwashing is unrelated to manager job satisfaction, commitment, job performance, and turnover intentions. For sustainability managers who rate SDGs to be less important compared to their organizations (n = 66), the results support the hypothesis. The relationships between greenwashing and job satisfaction, affective commitment, and turnover intentions are not moderated by SDG congruence levels and are consistently nonsignificant. The lone exception, again, is the relationship between greenwashing and job performance, which is not moderated by congruence levels and remains significant and negative, B = −0.35, p < 0.05, across all levels of SDG congruence for this group. The results for H4b are illustrated in Figure 4.4FIGUREESR‐low SDG identity sustainability managers: greenwashing relationships with attitudes and performanceFinally, given the self‐report instruments utilized in the study, common method variance was assessed to ensure that it is not an alternative explanation to our findings. In order to test for common method bias, we utilized Harman's single factor test (Harman, 1967) with all of the self‐report variables utilized in the study. The results showed that a single factor explained 37.6% of the variance, well below the recommended threshold of 60%, suggesting that common method bias was not a major concern in the current study.DISCUSSIONSustainability managers may represent the key stakeholder in implementing and diffusing sustainability initiatives to the broader array of internal and external organizational stakeholders. We empirically examined the relationships between perceived greenwashing and SDG identity congruence on these sustainability managers' attitudes and behaviors. A summary of our findings provides mixed but overall support for our hypotheses. The data indicate that organizational greenwashing has negative relationships with sustainability managers' job satisfaction, affective commitment, job performance, and a positive relationship with turnover intentions. Further, when SDG identity congruence exists, sustainability managers have enhanced job satisfaction, commitment, and lower turnover intentions. These findings provide empirical support for theoretical models, indicating the existence of detrimental individual‐level employee effects of greenwashing by their organizations, and also support the importance of shared SDG identity (P‐O fit) on sustainability managers' attitudes.Our results also provide an intriguing pattern of relationships when examining the moderating effects of SDG identity congruence on the relationship between a firm's perceived greenwashing and employee attitudes. When SDG identity congruence was weak (low P‐O fit), perceived greenwashing was predictive of negative attitudinal outcomes (specifically job satisfaction and turnover intentions, and to a lesser extent affective commitment) of sustainability managers. However, this relationship only pertained to sustainability managers who possessed SDG‐high identities (rated the importance of the SDGs more highly than their firm). If the sustainability manager were SDG‐low (rated the SDGs lower than their firm), there was no relationship between the firm's perceived greenwashing and the manager's attitudinal outcomes. In other words, for these SDG‐low managers, the greenwashing seems to have no effect on their job satisfaction, affective commitment, or intention to leave the organization. These findings extend our understanding of the crucial role of sustainability managers in organizational greenwashing, indicating differential effects for those who are higher or lower in SDG identity than their respective firms'. For those with SDG‐high identities, greenwashing may represent an ideology‐infused psychological contract violation (Dixon‐Fowler et al., 2020), whereby the sustainability manager anticipated better behavior on the part of the organization due to their shared perceived valuing of the SDGs, yet the organization's behaviors reflect continued greenwashing.Further, an interesting pattern of results also emerged between greenwashing and sustainability manager self‐rated job performance. As anticipated, greenwashing had a negative overall relationship with self‐rated job performance. However, contrary to H3, the data indicate that the stronger a manager's SDG overall fit or congruence with her organization, the lower her self‐rated performance when a firm was greenwashing, and vice versa. It may be that if SDG congruence is weak between a manager and her firm, she feels that she is “doing her best and trying hard” to change an organization to her preferences and rates her job performance positively. On the other hand, if the SDG congruence between a manager and her firm is strong and the firm is still greenwashing, the manager may feel that she is failing in her job performance of accomplishing the SDGs within her firm.This interpretation receives additional support from our H4 results. When we examine the differences between managers who are SDG‐high and SDG‐low, we find that although both categories of managers rate their performance significantly lower when their firm is greenwashing, the SDG‐high managers have a much stronger negative relationship between greenwashing and self‐rated job performance. It seems that the net effect of this pattern is that when sustainability managers sense their firms' greenwashing in sustainability reporting, SDG fit matters in the following manner. If a manager has higher SDG values than their firm (SDG‐high), they are dissatisfied, perceive their performance more negatively, and have high turnover intentions. However, if a manager has lower SDG values than their firm (SDG‐low)—although they recognize their own poor job performance—there are no significant effects of greenwashing on their satisfaction, commitment, or intention to leave the organization (as illustrated in Figure 4).For SDG‐high manager identity misfit, these results fit nicely into Schneider's P‐O fit attraction–selection–attrition (ASA) framework (Schneider, 1987), in that these managers are more likely to leave the organization due to lack of perceived fit. However, for SDG‐low manager misfit, although we see their recognition of their own poor job performance, we do not see any effect on attitudes on the part of these sustainability managers. Taken together, this suggests a potentially troubling pattern, whereby those who are “voting with their feet” and leaving the organization due to greenwashing are the sustainability managers who have higher SDG identity and standards than their firms' and represent the best potential for positive CSR change. On the other hand, those sustainability managers with lower SDG identities than their firms are more likely to stay, which allows for the continuation and support of their firms' greenwashing efforts and the potential for detrimental long‐term effects on a firms' CSR.Haski‐Leventhal et al. (2017) and Cornelius et al. (2008) note the biirectional dynamic influence relationship between an organization and an employee which occurs through mutual affect, whereby organizations can influence the social responsibility position of their employees and vice versa. However, they also acknowledge the power imbalance that exists between employers and their employees, with organizations possessing a stronger influence through coercion, organizational socialization, or organizational HR policies and procedures which reward greenwashing a firm's less sustainable “business as usual” approaches for cynical or self‐serving reasons (Brammer et al., 2007; Fobrum, 2005; Husted & de Jesus Salazar, 2006). Future research could examine the degree to which the lack of attitudinal responses to greenwashing on the part of these SDG‐low identity sustainability managers are caused by such factors.There has also been the emergence of the term “bluewashing,” a form of greenwashing in which firms' creatively manage their reputations with stakeholders by attaching themselves to the United Nations in an effort to enhance their reputations beyond what their CSR behaviors indicate (Karliner, 1999; Quirola & Schlup, 2001). SDG‐low sustainability managers in our study represent those who rated the United Nations SDGs as lower in importance than their firm. These managers may rationalize their bluewashing managerial behavior as acceptable, since they do not identify as strongly as their firm with the United Nations SDGs and may seek to cynically utilize them to legitimize or justify CSR misrepresentations in their organization's greenwashed sustainability reporting. Perhaps this is why perceived greenwashing has no effect on attitudinal outcomes for SDG‐low “bluewashing managers.” These managers may believe that bluewashing is an acceptable behavior. This line of research may further benefit from an examination of what Kolk et al. (2016) refers to as “trickle effects” (which explore the conditions whereby a firm's employees engage in communicating the benefits of a firm's sustainability efforts with multiple stakeholders). SDG‐low sustainability managers may represent a potentially rich source of microlevel interaction information on the boundary conditions and impact of spillover effects on external stakeholders when one's sustainability self‐concept is actually below that of one's firm.Relatedly, it would be helpful for future research to explore the relative effects on sustainability managers of greenwashing different stakeholders. Does greenwashing the sustainability reporting for a firm's internal stakeholder performance (such as employees or investors) have the same effects on sustainability manager attitudes and performance as greenwashing one's external stakeholders (environment or community)? Finally, there is an emerging literature on “SDG‐washing,” whereby firms tout their positive effects on particular SDGs while ignoring negative impacts on other SDGs (Nieuwenkamp, 2017; van Zanten & van Tulder, 2018). Future research could examine such greenwashing behavior at the level of individual SDGs and the net effects of tradeoffs between them on sustainability manager attitudes and behaviors. An emerging approach that may be particularly useful in this regard is conducting a gap analysis of the materiality matrices of a firm to determine why some of these SDGs were, or more importantly, were not addressed (Van Tulder, 2018, p. 109). This could be a leading indicator of potential SDG‐washing. A comparative examination of the phenomena of greenwashing, bluewashing, and SDG‐washing at the individual sustainability manager level to determine if there are different antecedents and consequences of such behaviors would also be beneficial.As greenwashing has such negative effects on social welfare, it is critical to determine how best to counteract it. Our research suggests that focusing at the sustainability manager level has its limitations, as those with SDG‐high identities may be of constrained utility as their attitudes and intentions to leave the organization (instead of staying and working to enhance the organization's CSR) are higher. This illustrates the importance of examining more closely the organization‐level drivers and the external market and regulatory drivers that may be more effective over the long term in constraining greenwashing. From an external market perspective, the crucial role of an established and consistent regulatory and monitoring context (perhaps aided by recent advancements in blockchain technology for transparency) with an audit mandate could be crucial in reducing greenwashing and advancing CSR in a meaningful way. From a within‐firm perspective, by effectively aligning intra‐firm structures, processes, and incentives, and through the introduction of strong ethical cultures developed by CSR‐oriented leadership, training, and development, firms would more effectively retain high SDG managers capable of accomplishing CSR organizational change for meaningful long‐term sustainability outcomes (Westerman et al., 2020).Our study is the first to examine the impact of greenwashing on sustainability managers at the individual‐level using a practitioner sample. However, the study possesses several limitations. The use of cross‐sectional data and self‐report measures may have contributed to common method variance, although most of the outcomes included in the current study were either attitude or perception based, and therefore are most effectively measured by self‐report instruments. Relatedly, the most important constructs examined in this study were the discrepancies between sustainability managers' views of SDGs, how they perceived their organizations value them, and perceptions of organizational greenwashing. In this context, how organizations actually perform is not as relevant as perceptions generally drive attitudes (e.g., Clarkson et al., 2010). Accordingly, self‐report measures are theoretically more relevant and more appropriate (see Conway & Lance, 2010). In addition, Harman's single factor test did not indicate the presence of common method bias. Another potential limitation is that respondents may have engaged in socially desirable responding, considering the sensitive nature of the variables examined in the study. However, we do not believe it to be a major concern for the current study for two reasons. First, the data were collected through an online survey panel, and the responses were completely anonymous, reducing the need for the respondents to engage in socially desirable responding. Second, two of the variables we used in our analyses, perceived greenwashing and organizational SDG importance ratings, measured perceptions of organizational attitudes and may be more resistant to inflation due to an unclear basis or direction for socially desirable responses.The results of this study suggest that sustainability managers do not all react in the same way to a firm's greenwashing. The attitudinal and performance relationships are different based on a sustainability manager's SDG identity. Those managers with higher SDG identities than their firms' had negative attitudes and higher intentions to leave the organization perceived as greenwashing. However, sustainability managers who had lower SDG identity standards than their firm were attitudinally unaffected by greenwashing, although they recognized their poor job performance. The net effect may be a situation in which those who are in the best position to enhance a firm's CSR leave the firm, and vice versa. The challenge facing scholars and practitioners is to determine how to address this issue and flip the script so that higher SDG identity sustainability managers are more likely to stay with their organizations to more effectively address the pernicious environmental and social effects of greenwashing.CONFLICT OF INTERESTThe authors declare no conflict of interest.REFERENCESAguilera, R. V., Rupp, D. E., Williams, C. A., & Ganapathi, J. (2007). Putting the S back in corporate social responsibility: A multilevel theory of change in organizations. Academy of Management Review, 32(3), 836–863. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2007.25275678Aguinis, H., & Glavas, A. (2012). What we know and dont know about corporate social responsibility. A review and research agenda. Journal of Management, 38(4), 932–968. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206311436079Alves, I. M. (2009). Green spin everywhere: How greenwashing reveals the limits of the CSR paradigm. Journal of Global Change and Governance, 2(1), 1941–8760.Aquino, K., Reed, A. II, Thau, S., & Freeman, D. (2007). A grotesque and dark beauty: How moral identity and mechanisms of moral disengagement influence cognitive and emotional reactions to war. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 43(3), 385–392. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2006.05.013Reed, A., & Aquino, K. F. (2003). Moral identity and the expanding circle of moral regard towards out‐groups. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84(6), 1270–1286. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.84.6.1270Ashforth, B. E., & Mael, F. (1989). Social identity theory and the organization. Academy of Management Review, 14, 20–39. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1989.4278999Banerjee, S. B. (2008). Corporate social responsibility: The good, the bad and the ugly. Critical Sociology, 34(1), 51–79. https://doi.org/10.1177/0896920507084623Bazillier, R., & Vauday, J. (2013). The greenwashing machine: Is CSR more than communication? Sciences de lHomme et Société/Economies et Finances, 15(April, 1–57.Benabou, R., & Tirole, J. (2010). Individual and corporate social responsibility. Economica, 77(305), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0335.2009.00843.xBhattacharya, C. B., Rao, H., & Glynn, M. A. (1995). Understanding the bond of identification: An investigation of its correlates among art museum members. Journal of Marketing, 59, 46–57.Bhattacharya, C. B., Sen, S., & Korschun, D. (2008). Using corporate social responsibility to win the war for talent. MIT Sloan Management Review, 49(2), 37–44.Bolton, S. C., Kim, R., & OGorman, K. (2011). Corporate social responsibility as a dynamic internal organizational process: A case study. Journal of Business Ethics, 101(1), 61–74. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-010-0709-5Brammer, S., Millington, A., & Rayton, B. (2007). The contribution of corporate social responsibility to organizational commitment. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 18(10), 1701–1719. https://doi.org/10.1080/09585190701570866Brewer, M. B., & Kramer, R. M. (1986). Choice behavior in social dilemmas: Effects of social identity, group size, and decision framing. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50(3), 543–549. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.50.3.543Chatman, J. (1989). Improving interactional organizational research: A model of person‐organization fit. Academy of Management Review, 14, 333–349. https://doi.org/10.2307/258171Christensen, L. T., Morsing, M., & Thyssen, O. (2013). CSR as aspirational talk. Organization, 20(3), 372–393. https://doi.org/10.1177/1350508413478310Clarkson, J. J., Hirt, E. R., Jia, L., & Alexander, M. B. (2010). When perception is more than reality: The effects of perceived versus actual resource depletion on self‐regulatory behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 98(1), 29–46. https://doi-org.proxy006.nclive.org/10.1037/a0017539Conway, J. M., & Lance, C. E. (2010). What reviewers should expect from authors regarding common method bias in organizational research. Journal of Business and Psychology, 25(3), 325–334. https://doi-org.proxy006.nclive.org/10.1007/s10869-010-9181-6Cornelius, N., Todres, M., Janjuha‐Jivraj, S., Woods, A., & Wallace, J. (2008). Corporate social responsibility and the social enterprise. Journal of Business Ethics, 81(2), 355–370. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-007-9500-7Delmas, M., & Burbino, V. (2011). The drivers of greenwashing. California Management Review, 54(1), 64–87. https://doi.org/10.1525/cmr.2011.54.1.64Dixon‐Fowler, H., OLeary‐Kelly, A., Johnson, J., & Waite, M. (2020). Sustainability and ideology‐infused psychological contracts: An organizational‐ and employee‐level perspective. Human Resource Management Review, 30(3), 100690. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2019.100690Dutton, J. E., Dukerich, J. M., & Harquail, C. (1994). Organizational images and member identification. Administrative Science Quarterly, 39, 239–263. https://doi.org/10.2307/2393235El Akremi, A., Gond, J.‐P., Swaen, V., De Roeck, K., & Igalens, J. (2018). How do employees perceive corporate responsibility? Development and validation of a multidimensional corporate stakeholder responsibility scale. Journal of Management, 44(2), 619–657. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206315569311Elsbach, K. D., & Bhattacharya, C. B. (2001). Defining who you are by what Youre not: Organizational misidentification and the National Rifle Association. Organization Science, 12, 393–413. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.12.4.393.10638Fernandez‐Feijoo, B., Romero, S., & Ruiz, S. (2014). Effect of stakeholders pressure on transparency of sustainability reports within the GRI framework. Journal of Business Ethics, 122, 53–63. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-013-1748-5Fobrum, C. J. (2005). A world of reputation research, analysis and thinking—Building corporate reputation through CSR initiatives: Evolving standards. Corporate Reputation Review, 8(1), 7–12. https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.crr.1540235Freeman, R. E. (1984). Strategic management: A stakeholder approach. Prentice‐Hall.Furlow, N. E. (2010). Greenwashing in the new millennium. Journal of Applied Business and Economics, 10(6), 22–25.Gatti, L., Seele, P., & Rademacher, L. (2019). Grey zone in – Greenwash out. A review of greenwashing research and implications for the voluntary‐mandatory transition of CSR. International Journal of Corporate Social Responsibility, 4(6), 1–15.Glavas, A., & Godwin, L. (2013). Is the perception of ‘goodness’ good enough? Exploring the relationship between perceived corporate social responsibility and employee organizational identification. Journal of Business Ethics., 114(1), 15–27. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-012-1323-5Global Reporting Initiative. (2013). External Assurance of Sustainability Reporting. Available at https://www.globalreporting.org/resourcelibrary/GRI-Assurance.pdfGond, J., 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), 225–246. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.2170Hansen, S. D., Dunford, B. B., Boss, A. D., Boss, R. W., & Angermeier, I. (2011). Corporate social responsibility and the benefits of employee trust: A cross‐disciplinary perspective. Journal of Business Ethics, 102(1), 29–45. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-011-0903-0Harman, H. H. (1967). Modern factor analysis. University of Chicago Press.Haski‐Leventhal, D., Roza, L., & Meijs, L. C. P. M. (2017). Congruence in corporate social responsibility: Connecting the identity and behavior of employers and employees. Journal of Business Ethics, 143(1), 35–51. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-015-2793-zHayes, A. F. (2017). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression‐based approach. Guilford Publications.Hemingway, C. A. (2005). Personal values as a catalyst for corporate social entrepreneurship. Journal of Business Ethics, 60(3), 233–249. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-005-0132-5Hill, R. P. (2004). The socially‐responsible university: Talking the talk while walking the walk in the college of business. Journal of Academic Ethics, 2(1), 89–100. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:JAET.0000039009.48115.3dHogg, M. A., & Abrams, D. (1988). Social identification: A social psychology of intergroup relations and group processes. Routledge.Husted, B. W., & de Jesus Salazar, J. (2006). Taking Friedman seriously: Maximizing profits and social performance. Journal of Management Studies, 43(1), 75–91. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6486.2006.00583.xKallio, T. J. (2007). Taboos in corporate social responsibility discourse. Journal of Business Ethics, 74(2), 165–175. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-006-9227-xKarliner, J. (1999). UN Plan Fosters “Greenwash”. Journal of Commerce, (April 19), 8.Kim, E., & Lyon, T. P. (2011). Strategic environmental disclosure: Evidence from the DOEs voluntary greenhouse gas registry. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 61(3), 311–326. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeem.2010.11.001Kim, H. R., Lee, M., Lee, H. T., & Kim, N. M. (2010). Corporate social responsibility and employee–company identification. Journal of Business Ethics, 95(4), 557–569. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-010-0440-2Kolk, A., Vock, M., & van Dolen, W. (2016). Microfoundations of partnerships: Exploring the role of employees in trickle effects. Journal of Business Ethics, 135, 19–34. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-015-2727-9KPMG. (2017). The KPMG Survey of Corporate Responsibility Reporting 2017. Retrieved December 19, 2019: https://assets.kpmg/content/dam/kpmg/xx/pdf/2017/10/kpmg-survey-of-corporate-responsibility-reporting-2017.pdfKramer, R. M., & Brewer, M. B. (1984). Effects of group identity on resource use in a simulated commons dilemma. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46, 1044–1057.Kristof, A. (1996). Person–organization fit: An integrative review of its conceptualizations, measurement, and implications. Personnel Psychology, 49, 1–49. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.1996.tb01790.xKristof‐Brown, A. L., Zimmerman, R. D., & Johnson, E. C. (2005). Consequences of individuals fit at work: A meta‐analysis of person‐job, person‐group, person‐organization and person‐supervisor fit. Personnel Psychology, 58(2), 281–342. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.2005.00672.xLane, E. L. (2010). Consumer protection in the eco‐mark era: A preliminary survey and assessment of anti‐greenwashing activity and eco‐mark enforcement. John Marshall Review of Intellectual Property Law, 9(742), 742–773.Lane, E. L. (2013). Green marketing goes negative: The advent of reverse greenwashing. Intellectual Property and Technology Law Journal, 25(1), 20–26.Lange, D., & Washburn, N. (2012). Understanding attributions of corporate social responsibility. Academy of Management Review, 37(2), 300–326. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2010.0522Lapsley, D. K., & Lasky, B. (2001). Protoypic moral character. Identity: An International Journal of Theory and Research, 1(4), 345–363. https://doi.org/10.1207/S1532706XID0104_03Lyon, T. P., & Maxwell, J. W. (2011). Greenwash: Corporate environmental disclosure under threat of audit. Journal of Economics and Management Strategy, 20(1), 3–41. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1530-9134.2010.00282.xMael, F., & Ashforth, B. (1992). Alumni and their alma mater: A partial test of the reformulated model of organizational identification. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 13(2), 103–123. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.4030130202Mael, F., & Ashforth, B. (1995). Loyal from day one: Biodata, organizational identification, and turnover among newcomers. Personnel Psychology, 48(2), 309–332. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.1995.tb01759.xMaignan, I., & Ferrell, O. (2000). Measuring corporate citizenship in two countries: The case of the United States and France. Journal of Business Ethics, 23(3), 283–297. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1006262325211Maurer, T. J., & Chapman, E. F. (2013). Job satisfaction composite measure [Database record]. Retrieved from PsycTESTS. doi: https://doi.org/10.1037/t28608-000McWilliams, A., & Siegel, D. (2001). Corporate social responsibility: A theory of the firm perspective. Academy of Management Review, 26, 117–127. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2001.4011987Meyer, J., & Allen, N. (1997). Commitment in the workplace: Theory, research, and application. Sage Publications. 10.4135/9781452231556Mills, E. (2009). A global review of insurance industry responses to climate change. Geneva Papers on Risk and Insurance, 34(3), 323–359. https://doi.org/10.1057/gpp.2009.14Mitchell, L. D., & Ramey, W. D. (2011). Look how green I am! An individual‐level explanation for greenwashing. Journal of Applied Business and Economics, 12(6), 40–45.Nielsen, A. E., & Thomsen, C. (2007). Reporting CSR: What and how to say it? Corporate Communications, 12(1), 25–40. https://doi.org/10.1108/13563280710723732Nieuwenkamp, R. (2017). Ever heard of SDG washing? The urgency of SDG Due Diligence. Retrieved February 12, 2020, from https://oecd-development-matters.orgO'Reilly, C. A., & Chatman, J. (1986). Organizational commitment and psychological attachment: The effects of compliance, identification, and internalization on prosocial behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71(3), 492–499. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.71.3.492Onwezen, M. C., van Veldhoven, M. J. P. M., & Biron, M. (2014). The role of psychological flexibility in the demands–exhaustion–performance relationship. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 23(2), 163–176. https://doi.org/10.1080/1359432X.2012.742242Parguel, B., Benoît‐moreau, F., & Larceneux, F. (2011). How sustainability ratings might deter ‘greenwashing’: A closer look at ethical corporate communication. Journal of Business Ethics, 102(1), 15–28. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-011-0901-2Quirola, D., & Schlup, M. (2001). WS19‐Sustainability Reporting‐Beyond Greenwash. In Minutes of workshops of the 7th ERCP (may).Rodrigo, P., & Arenas, D. (2008). Do employees care about CSR programs? A typology of employees according to their attitudes. Journal of Business Ethics, 83(2), 265–283. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-007-9618-7Rupp, D., Ganapathi, J., Aguilera, R., & Williams, C. (2006). Employee reactions to corporate social responsibility: An organizational justice framework. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 27(4), 537–543. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.380Rupp, D., & Mallory, D. (2015). Corporate social responsibility: Psychological, person‐centric, and progressing. The Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 2(1), 211–236. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-032414-111505Rupp, D., Shao, R., Thornton, M., & Skarlicki, D. (2013). Applicants' and Employees' reactions to corporate social responsibility: The moderating effects of first‐party justice perceptions and moral identity. Personnel Psychology, 66(4), 895–933. https://doi.org/10.1111/peps.12030Schneider, B. (1987). The people make the place. Personnel Psychology, 40(3), 437–454. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.1987.tb00609.xSchwartz, S. H. (1994). Are there universal aspects in the structure and contents of human values? Journal of Social Issues, 50(4), 19–45. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4560.1994.tb01196.xSeele, P., & Gatti, L. (2017). Greenwashing revisited: In search of a typology and accusation‐based definition incorporating legitimacy strategies. Business Strategy and the Environment, 26(2), 239–252. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.1912Shae, C., & Hawn, O. (2019). Microfoundations of corporate social responsibility and irresponsibility. Academy of Management Journal, 62(5), 1609–1642. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2014.0795Shamir, B., House, R. J., & Arthur, M. B. (1993). The motivational effects of charismatic leadership: A self‐concept based theory. Organization Science, 4(4), 577–594. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.4.4.577Skarlicki, D., Van Jaarsveld, D., & Walker, D. (2008). Getting even for customer mistreatment: The role of moral identity in the relationship between customer interpersonal injustice and employee sabotage. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 93(6), 1335–1347. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0012704Smith, J., Haniffa, R., & Fairbrass, J. (2011). A conceptual framework for investigating ‘capture’ in corporate sustainability reporting assurance. Journal of Business Ethics, 99(3), 425–439. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-010-0661-4Stevens, C., & Kanie, N. (2016). The transformative potential of the sustainable development goals (SDGs). International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, 16(3), 393–396. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10784-016-9324-yUN General Assembly. (2015). Transforming our world: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, A/RES/70/1, available at: https://www.refworld.org/docid/57b6e3e44.html [accessed 6 October 2019]Van Tulder, R. (2018). Business & the sustainable development goals: A framework for effective corporate involvement. Rotterdam School of Management, Erasmus University. https://www.rsm.nl/fileadmin/Images_NEW/Positive_Change/Business_and_Sustainable_Development_Goals_-_Positive_Change_0_Rob_van_Tulder.pdfvan Zanten, J. A., & van Tulder, R. (2018). Multinational enterprises and the sustainable development goals: An institutional approach to corporate engagement. Journal of International Business Policy, 1(3–4), 208–233. https://doi.org/10.1057/s42214-018-0008-xWaldman, D. A., Siegel, D. S., & Javidan, M. (2006). Components of CEO transformational leadership and corporate social responsibility*. Journal of Management Studies, 43(8), 1703–1725. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6486.2006.00642.xWayne, S. J., Shore, L. M., & Liden, R. C. (1997). Intention to Quit Measure [Database record]. Retrieved from PsycTESTS. doi: https://doi.org/10.1037/t09423-000Westerman, J., & Cyr, L. (2004). An integrative analysis of person‐organization fit theories. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 12(3), 252–261. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0965-075X.2004.279_1.xWesterman, J., Rao, M., Vanka, S., & Gupta, M. (2020). Sustainable human resource management and the triple bottom line: Multi‐stakeholder strategies, concepts, and engagement. Human Resource Management Review., 30, 100742. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S105348221930720XWymer, W. W., & Samu, S. (2003). Dimensions of business and nonprofit collaborative relationships. Journal of Nonprofit & Public Sector Marketing, 11(1), 3–22. https://doi.org/10.1300/J054v11n01_02Zyglidopoulos, S., & Fleming, P. (2011). Corporate accountability and the politics of visibility in “Late Modernity”. Organization, 8(5), 691–706. https://doi.org/10.1177/1350508410397222

Journal

Business and Society Review – Wiley

Published: Jun 1, 2022

Keywords: attitudes; greenwashing; organizational disidentification; performance; person–organization fit; social identity; Sustainable Development Goals

There are no references for this article.