Sustainability and employee motivation - The Sustainability Management Wiki

Authors: Karolin Wallmeier
Edited by: –
Last updated: January 3, 2026

Executive summary

Sustainability and employee motivation are closely linked, as organizations increasingly integrate social and environmental goals into their strategies. Employees seek meaningful work beyond financial incentives, and sustainability provides a sense of purpose, identity, and belonging. Research highlights that authentic sustainability initiatives enhance intrinsic motivation, job satisfaction, and commitment. Psychological theories such as Self-Determination Theory, Social Identity Theory, and Job Characteristics Model explain how sustainability fulfills basic needs for autonomy, competence, and relatedness, while promoting value alignment and organizational identification. Practical implementation requires strategic anchoring in leadership, HRM, and organizational structures, combined with operational measures that embed sustainability in daily work. Participation, transparent communication, and recognition are key drivers of motivation. Barriers include lack of authenticity, resource constraints, and conflicting priorities. Companies that create supportive conditions, provide resources, and foster a culture of trust and inclusion can transform sustainability from a compliance task into a source of long-term engagement and performance.

1 Definition and relevance

Sustainability has become a central topic in both academic and managerial discussions. Companies are faced with the challenge of reconciling their economic interests with social and environmental requirements.¹ It is no longer just a matter of complying with legal requirements or implementing technological innovations, but also of taking responsibility for the society and the environment.²^,³ As research on sustainability continues to expand, increasing attention is being paid to its organizational implications, particularly regarding employees and their motivation.⁴

At the organizational level, sustainability is no longer viewed solely as a strategic management tool but as a principle that increasingly shapes everyday work practices.⁵ Studies show that the success of sustainability initiatives depends less on technical innovations or formal guidelines but more on the behavior of employees.² Whether employees are motivated by sustainability initiatives and become motivated to actively promote sustainability depends on how they perceive the initiatives, their authenticity, and how they are integrated into everyday work.⁶ This brings the connection between sustainability and employees to the forefront of scientific and practical discussion.⁷^,⁸

A key driver of this interest is the changing world of work.⁹ Employees are increasingly looking for a meaning in their work that goes beyond financial incentives.¹ Sustainability broadens the concept of work by including social and ecological dimensions in addition to tasks and profit-oriented goals.¹ When employees perceive their company’s activities as responsible and value-oriented, pride, identification, and loyalty can develop.¹⁰ This leads to motivation, higher job satisfaction, and greater commitment.¹¹^,¹²

Against this background, the central research question arises:

How does the integration of sustainability into corporate management influence employee motivation, and what are the implications for the practical implementation of sustainability?

This question is scientifically relevant because in recent years, the focus of research has shifted increasingly from macroeconomic analyses to the psychological foundations of sustainability.⁸ The research no longer solely concentrates on the effects on corporate performance or reputation, but also on the experiences and behavior of employees.¹³ However, the state of research in this area is inconsistent, as different theoretical perspectives such as Self Determination Theory (SDT), Ability Motivation Opportunity Theory (AMO), and Social Identity Theory (SIT) are applied in parallel without systematic integration.¹⁴^,¹⁵

The research question is also highly relevant for business practice. In times of skills shortages, demographic change, and shifting values among younger generations, organizations are looking for ways to retain employees in the long term and boost their motivation.¹⁶^,¹⁷ Sustainability offers the opportunity to establish an employee-centered or person-centered approach that does not treat sustainability as an isolated project or superficial measure, but rather anchors it as an integral part of corporate culture.¹^,⁸^,¹⁸^,¹⁹^,²⁰ When employees recognize that sustainability is implemented authentically and reflects their own values, they are more likely to get involved and demonstrate sustainable behavior in their everyday work.²¹

This is also clearly underlined by a survey conducted in 2022, which shows that employees in companies with a high level of social responsibility are significantly more motivated, satisfied, and healthier than employees in organizations with a lower focus on sustainability. This emphasizes that sustainability is not only socially significant, but also has a direct impact on the motivation and performance of the workforce.²²^,²³

The aim of this thesis is to analyze the theoretical foundations and mechanisms of action in the relationship between sustainability and employee motivation, to systematically review the current state of research, and to derive implications for practice. A central concern of this thesis is also to provide a structured overview of a topic that is receiving increasing attention in the scientific literature.

2 Literature review

There is no common and universally accepted definition of employee motivation. Instead, scientific literature offers a variety of perspectives, which differ in particular according to the field of research. Locke & Latham (2004) describe motivation as “internal factors that impel action and external factors that can act as inducements to action” (p. 388), emphasizing the interplay between internal drives and external incentives.²⁴ Ryan & Deci (2000) define motivation more fundamentally as the state of “to be motivated means to be moved to do something” (p. 54), placing greater emphasis on the internal impulse to act.²⁵ Robbins & Judge (2013) on the other hand, understands motivation as “the processes that account for an individual’s intensity, direction, and persistence of effort toward attaining a goal” (p. 202), thus linking the individual need satisfaction with organizational goals.²⁶ Although researchers differ on where the energy for action comes from and which needs should be satisfied first, there is broad agreement that motivation requires a combination of willingness to act, ability to act, and a clear goal.²⁷ In addition, there is consensus on some basic characteristics. Motivation is understood as an individual phenomenon that reflects the uniqueness of each individual’s needs, expectations, values, and goals. It is usually described as intentional, as the employee’s behavior is based on a conscious decision. Finally, motivation is considered to be multifaceted, with particular emphasis on the activation and orientation of behavior, while the question of persistence has received comparatively less attention.²⁸

In this paper, sustainability is understood as an overarching concept that encompasses all business-related approaches aimed at integrating economic, social, and environmental goals into strategic and operational business processes. The term corporate social responsibility (CSR), which emphasizes the responsibility of companies toward various stakeholders and society, is often used as the central basis for scientific discussion. Aguinis (2011), whose definition, although originally addressing organizational responsibility (OR), has been adopted by numerous other studies as a basis for defining CSR, characterizes CSR as “context-specific organizational measures and guidelines that take into account stakeholder expectations and the triple bottom line of economic, social, and environmental performance” (p. 855).¹⁹^,²⁹^,³⁰^,³¹ This definition forms a central basis for micro-oriented research on the effects of sustainable corporate practices on individuals.⁸

While the term CSR has traditionally formed the central theoretical basis in research dealing with organizational responsibility towards stakeholders and society, other related concepts have emerged, including corporate sustainability (CS), sustainable development (SD), corporate social performance (CSP), corporate citizenship (CC), corporate responsibility (CR), and OR.³^,³¹^,³²^,³³^,³⁴^,³⁵^,³⁶ While CS and SD emphasize the strategic, long-term orientation framework by balancing current needs with the opportunities of future, CC, CR, and OR focus on the role of companies as social actors and drivers of social participation.³^,³⁵^,³⁷ The term corporate stakeholder responsibility (CStR) also emphasizes the central importance of stakeholders and views responsibility as a multidimensional concept that improves the well-being of various groups along the triple bottom line.¹³

Similar concepts can be found in the field of HRM, such as sustainable HRM and green HRM.³⁸ These terms illustrate that sustainable management is not only implemented at the strategic level, but also specifically in human resource (HR) and leadership practices. Thus, sustainability is not perceived by companies exclusively as a strategic task, but also as an approach that specifically targets employees and their motivation and leadership.¹⁷^,³⁹^,⁴⁰

Since the concepts mentioned above overlap considerably in terms of content and are often used synonymously in the literature, the term sustainability is used as an integrative overarching term in this thesis.⁴¹ It encompasses all forms of organizational responsibility that aim to

strike a balance between economic performance, social justice, and ecological integrity. This comprehensive understanding of the term takes into account the interdisciplinary nature of the field of research and makes it possible to consider different theoretical perspectives within a consistent framework. In this sense, sustainability is used in this thesis as a uniform analytical framework to examine how sustainability-related strategies, values, and practices in a corporate context influence the motivation and behavior of employees.

The following chapter presents the theoretical framework of the thesis and shows how sustainability can influence employee motivation through psychological, social, and organizational mechanisms. The structure is based on a logical sequence of ideas. First, Chapter 3.2 explains how sustainability acts as a source of meaning and identity. Theories such as sensemaking, meaningfulness, and SIT illustrate how employees interpret sustainability, derive meaning from it and identify with a sustainable organization. Building on this, Chapter 3.3 explores the mechanisms of sustainability-driven motivation and behavior, integrating central motivational and behavioral theories. It begins with fundamental motivational distinctions (intrinsic and extrinsic motivation) and psychological need theories (SDT), followed by work design and expectancy-based approaches (Job Characteristics Model (JCM), Expectancy Theory). Subsequently, structural and contextual facilitators are discussed through the AMO Theory, before shifting to social and reciprocal mechanisms explained by the Social Exchange Theory (SET) and Organizational Citizenship Behavior for the Environment (OCBE).

Table 1 summarizes the key theoretical frameworks discussed in this chapter, outlining their core mechanisms, analytical levels, and relevance for understanding how sustainability can influence employee motivation.

Table 1: Overview of theoretical frameworks.

Theory/Framework

Core Mechanism

Level of Analysis

Relevance for Sustainability and Motivation

Sensemaking

Individuals interpret and make sense of sustainability by integrating it into personal meaning frameworks.

Individual and Social

Sustainability narratives help employees to make sense of their work and align personal values with organizational goals, enhancing motivation.

Meaningfulness

Motivation arises when work perceives as significant, morally valuable, and aligned with personal values.

Individual

Sustainability enhances the experienced meaningfulness of work by providing a sense of purpose and moral significance, thereby deepening intrinsic motivation.

Social Identity Theory

Individuals derive motivation and self-esteem from group membership and identification.

Social

A sustainable organizational identity strengthens belonging and pride, fostering motivation through moral and value-based identification.

Self Determination Theory

Fulfilment of basic psychological needs (autonomy, competence, and relatedness).

Individual

Sustainable organizational practices can satisfy employees’ needs for autonomy, competence, and relatedness, thereby enhancing intrinsic motivation and well-being.

Job Characteristics Model

Core job dimensions (skill variety, task identity, significance, autonomy, feedback) create psychological meaning and responsibility.

Organizational and individual

Sustainability-related tasks enhance job significance and responsibility, strengthening intrinsic motivation and identification with work.

Expectancy Theory

Motivation arises when effort is expected to lead to performance and valued outcomes.

Cognitive and individual

Employees perceive sustainability goals as meaningful and achievable, which strengthens their expectancy that individual effort has real impact.

Ability Opportunity Motivation Theory

Employees perform best when they have the ability, motivation, and opportunity to contribute.

Organizational

Sustainability-oriented HRM provides opportunities for meaningful contribution, increasing engagement and motivation.

Social Exchange Theory

Motivation is based on reciprocal relationships between employees and organizations.

Social

When organizations authentically commit to sustainability, employees reciprocate with stronger trust, commitment, and sustained motivation.

Organizational Citizenship Behavior for the Environment

Voluntary, extra-role behaviors emerge from intrinsic and moral motivation.

Behavioral and Social

A strong sustainability culture encourages employees to engage in voluntary, environmentally oriented behaviors that go beyond formal job duties, reflecting moral identification with the organization.

2.1 Development of the research field

The field of research at the intersection of sustainability and employee motivation has developed dynamically over the past decades. In order to contextualize the current discussion, an historical overview of the emergence of sustainability and motivation research is provided first. The two strands of research are then brought together, illustrating the development towards a more micro-oriented approach. Building on the previously identified research gaps, an overview of related concepts is presented. Creating an understanding of the breadth and dynamics of the research field facilitates the classification of the following theoretical and practical considerations.

2.1.1 Historical background and research gap

The concept of sustainability or CSR was first discussed in the 1950s and has grown steadily in importance over the following decades. This is due to the society’s increased expectations of companies.⁴²^,⁴³ The implementation of the triple bottom line established by Elkington (1997) represents a significant milestone.⁴⁴ This concept emphasizes the equal consideration of economic, ecological, and social dimensions. Subsequent research initially focused on the macro level, i.e., on the question of what influence sustainability has on corporate success, competitiveness, and social welfare.¹ The focus of the studies at that time was particularly on financial indicators, corporate performance, and market reactions.⁴⁵ Nevertheless, there were already initial indications of the positive influence of sustainability on employees. Since the 2010s, a paradigm shift has been observed. Early sustainability research focused on the macro level, i.e., on the analysis of companies as a whole. Over time, however, the focus has increasingly shifted to the micro level and thus to the level of employees. This means that research concentrates on the perceptions, attitudes, and behaviors of employees.⁴⁶ In addition, the implementation of sustainability strategies in concrete measures is increasingly becoming the focus of scientific research.³

At the same time, motivation research continued to develop. Early theoretical approaches to motivation were strongly influenced by hedonistic instinct theories.⁴⁷ In the era of Taylorism, control through material incentives was prioritized.⁴⁸ Subsequently, classical content theories were developed, with Maslow’s hierarchy of needs receiving particular attention.⁴⁹^,⁵⁰ In the 1960s, process approaches such as expectancy theory were developed, which modeled motivation as a conscious decision.⁵¹ In the 1970s, JCM was developed as a counter-model to Taylorism. According to Hackman & Oldham (1975), it emphasizes motivating job characteristics.⁵² Since the 1980s, intrinsic motivation has gained importance, with SDT establishing itself as an influential foundation.⁵³^,⁵⁴ In this context, studies were conducted that aimed to classify employees into different categories based on specific characteristics. The goal of this approach was to identify specific motivational drivers.⁵⁵

The link between sustainability and employee motivation is classified as micro-level sustainability research and has been studied more intensively since the early 2000s. Research shows how employees develop perceptions about their organization’s sustainability orientation58 and how these perceptions shape their attitudes and behavior.⁴⁵^,⁵⁶ Of particular relevance in this context are the contributions of Glavas & Piderit (2009), who demonstrated a connection between sustainability and employee engagement.⁵⁷ Glavas (2012) also succeeded in establishing a connection to meaning making.⁴⁶ This topic previously played a central role in motivation research, but was subsequently transferred to the field of sustainability. In scientific literature, sustainability has increasingly been understood as a psychological mechanism that can influence motivation. In this context, concepts were developed that linked organizational psychology theories with the concept of sustainability.¹^,¹⁹ It was shown that sustainability has an impact on basic psychological needs and identity creation.¹³^,⁵⁸^,⁵⁹

Since the 2010s, numerous studies have demonstrated correlations between sustainability and employee engagement, OCBE, and organizational commitment. In addition, moderating factors such as values, leadership, and communication have been identified as relevant topics.⁴⁵ Initially, conceptual work was prioritized before the relevance of implementation was recognized.³ However, it should be noted that sustainability measures are not usually introduced with the primary goal of increasing employee motivation. Instead, external factors are the main focus. Thus, positive effects on motivation therefore often arise as a side effect, not as the original motivation.⁴⁹

Recent research has increasingly focused on prosocial motives. Glavas et al. (2024) show that employees with high prosocial motivation respond more strongly to sustainability initiatives, especially when these are supported by education and organizational learning.⁶⁰ This creates a link to research fields such as corporate culture and value alignment. At the same time, critical voices point to possible negative effects. For example, sustainability can lead to disengagement if it is perceived as greenwashing and is not implemented in a consistent, participatory, and value-based manner.⁶¹^,⁶²

Despite the progress made, there are still many gaps in the literature. The first key shortcoming is the insufficient investigation of causal relationships and complex interactions, for example between sustainability initiatives and intrinsic and extrinsic motivation, or in the interaction between different organizational levels.⁶³ This lack of clarity limits the derivation of practical implications. Second, the understanding of attribution processes and perceptions is only partly developed, especially with regard to the emergence and effect of sustainability attributions, the perception of organizational authenticity, and the processing of mixed sustainability or CSR and Corporate Social Irresponsibility (CsIR) signals.⁶⁴ These findings illustrate that sustainability does not automatically act as a motivational resource, but only under certain conditions. Third, there is a lack of differentiated considerations of different types of motivation, individual differences, and specific employee groups, which necessitates new approaches to the study of prosocial motivation, green intrinsic and extrinsic motivation, or the construct of calling work orientation.⁶^,¹⁶^,⁶⁰^,⁶²^,⁶³ This makes it difficult to precisely determine the conditions under which sustainability has motivational effects. Fourth, there are methodological and contextual challenges, which are reflected in the dominance of cross-sectional studies, limited generalizability, and the lack of validated measurement instruments for assessing psychological needs.³⁰^,⁵⁶^,⁶⁰ Overall, it is clear that sustainability presents both opportunities and risks for employee motivation. In the field of research, there is a need for a holistic approach that integrates various motivation theories and systematically examines the conditions for successful sustainability implementation in order to gain theoretical insights and practical implications.⁶⁰

2.1.2 Related concepts

The growing interest in the micro level of sustainability has led to an increased focus on concepts that shed light on employees’ perceptions of sustainability and the motivational processes this triggers. In this context, the concepts of sensemaking, meaningfulness, and employee engagement are particularly relevant. These concepts illustrate how sustainability can be interpreted by employees, translated into meaning, and ultimately translated into behavior.

The concept of sensemaking describes the process by which individuals interpret sustainability activities and integrate them into their self-image.⁶⁵ The concept was significantly integrated into motivation research in the context of sustainability through the work Aguinis & Glavas (2019).¹

The term meaningfulness was originally introduced in occupational psychology. According to Hackman & Oldham (1975), the concept was taken up in the context of the discussion on the JCM.⁵² Kahn (1986) also had a strong influence on the concept by formulating it as a psychological condition and at the same time relating it to practical factors.⁶⁶ In the course of an increased focus on a micro-level orientation in sustainability research, the concept was revisited and further developed. In this context, the work of Aguinis & Glavas (2019 & 2013) is particularly relevant, in which they consider the concept of meaningfulness as a link between sustainability and individual effects and motivation.¹^,⁶⁷

Finally, engagement is also closely linked to motivation research in the context of sustainability. It is defined by Schaufeli et al. (2002) as “a positive, fulfilling, work-related state of mind that is characterized by vigor, dedication, and absorption” (p. 74).⁶⁸ Increased engagement is often the result of meaningful work.¹⁴ The feeling of being able to show one’s whole self at work leads to an increased sense of meaning in one’s work, which serves as a central mediating mechanism between perceived sustainability and engagement.

These concepts show that research on sustainability and employee motivation is not only based on classical motivation theories but is also enriched by complementary psychological approaches. They form the basis for the in-depth analysis in the following sections of how sustainability in the workplace acts as a source of meaning, identity, and motivation. As they represent central points of reference for motivation, sensemaking, meaningfulness, and SIT are examined in more detail in the following chapter.

2.2 Sustainability of a source of psychological meaning and identity

Sustainability has not only an impact at the organizational level, but also shapes the psychological experiences of employees. Therefore, this chapter focuses on three key concepts: sensemaking as the process of interpreting and understanding sustainability, meaningfulness as the result of creating meaning, and social identity as the basis for organizational identification. Together, they illustrate how sustainability in the workplace becomes a source of psychological significance.

2.2.1 Sensemaking

The term sensemaking describes the process of assigning meaning by individuals based on their experiences. This leads to a reduction in uncertainty. In this process, coherent and plausible narratives are constructed that serve as a framework for future actions.⁶⁹^,⁷⁰ The process is not an onetime event, but rather an ongoing and dynamic process whose intensity can vary depending on the situation and context.⁶⁵ At its core, it is about forming a reality that guides action from a variety of information and impressions.

As part of this process, new evidence is linked to existing interpretative frameworks, known as frames.⁶⁵ These frames may originate from various social ideologies, individual life projects, or work-related norms. Employees actively shape their perceptions and are not mere recipients of organizational messages, but rather independent actors in the interpretation process.¹

Management can influence the process of sensemaking by interpreting events and assigning meanings. This process is referred to as sensegiving.¹^,⁶⁹ Sustainability initiatives are a key foundation in this context, as they extend work beyond a functional perspective to include ethical and social dimensions. These new experiences are interpreted by employees, reclassified, and compared with existing values and norms. Sustainability thus becomes an interactive social process in which new frames are continuously emerging and a common understanding of the goals, activities, and effects of sustainability is developed.⁷⁰ At the same time, sense-giving has an ambivalent nature. It can be a helpful tool for providing orientation, but there’s a chance that it might come across as condescending or patronizing. Especially when sustainability is enforced, the individual’s sensemaking process can compete with organizational sensegiving, which can be experienced as an additional burden.¹

In addition to individual sensemaking, there is also organizational sensemaking, which encompasses the interpretation of relationships between companies, stakeholders, and the environment. To illustrate how organizational sensemaking of sustainability can influence employee motivation, the Basu & Palazzo (2008) model was adapted and extended (Fig. 1). The model describes how organizations think about, communicate, and act upon their social responsibilities through the three dimensions of sensemaking: cognitive, linguistic, and conative.⁷¹

Figure 1: Adapted model linking sustainability sensemaking and employee motivation (own illustration based on Basu & Palazzo (2008)⁷¹).

These processes shape the characteristics of corporate responsibility and ultimately how employees perceive and internalize sustainability in their work context.⁷¹ On the one hand, there is the cognitive perspective, which describes how a company thinks, develops its identity, and establishes legitimacy.⁷¹^,⁷² On the other hand, there is the linguistic perspective, which refers to the justification and communication of organizational actions. Finally, there is the conative perspective, which describes concrete actions.⁷¹

As shown in Figure 1, each dimension contributes differently to employee motivation. The cognitive dimension establishes purpose and value alignment, the linguistic dimension builds authenticity and trust through transparent communication, and the conative dimension reinforces credibility through consistent and value-driven behavior. Together, these processes create a work environment in which employees experience sustainability as meaningful, fostering intrinsic motivation and engagement.⁷¹^,⁷² However, it should be noted that individual statements or actions by companies do not necessarily influence the assessment of individual employees, as individual values play a significant role.⁷³

Employees’ sensemaking with regard to sustainability is influenced by a variety of factors, which in turn affect motivation. Intra-individual factors such as moral identity, sustainable values, or work-related orientations mean that sustainability measures can have an identity-forming and motivating effect. Employees with strong ecological convictions often find sustainability initiatives particularly meaningful, which increases their motivation and loyalty to the company.¹ External factors such as the type of communication, the perceived authenticity of sustainability measures, and the role of managers also determine whether sustainability is processed positively or causes skepticism.²¹^,⁵⁹

Sensemaking thus illustrates that sustainability does not automatically have a motivating effect. Its impact depends on individual and organizational interpretation processes that can either create meaning or call it into question.⁶⁴ Depending on whether sustainability is perceived as credible, compatible, and consistent with the values of employees, it can promote motivation or elicit skepticism and cynicism.⁴⁶^,⁷⁴ Thus, sustainability can be understood less as an isolated organizational measure and more as a process of meaning creation. The motivational effect of this process arises from individual and collective interpretation.¹^,⁷¹

This perspective also makes clear that sensemaking is a basic function for further motivation theories. Only through sensemaking can basic psychological needs be met, opportunities for participation be recognized, and values be internalized. In this way, sensemaking acts as a link between sustainability and employee motivation, providing the basis for engagement and commitment.¹

2.2.2 Meaningfulness in and at work

Now that the process of sensemaking has been explained, the concept of meaningfulness will be discussed. There is a close connection between the two approaches, which are mutually dependent. While sensemaking describes the process of creating sense and focuses on the how, meaningfulness is the result of this process.¹ It describes the state that people can achieve through the sensemaking process and thus represents an area of sensemaking.⁷⁵

Meaningfulness is described as a fundamental human need. The meaningfulness of work has been identified in numerous studies as a positive factor that leads to increased job satisfaction, greater organizational commitment, and improved well-being.¹ Work that is perceived as meaningful enables individual employees to feel more holistic, to be more motivated, and to feel a stronger alignment with values.⁴⁶

The sources of meaningfulness can be divided into four areas.⁷⁶ One source is the self, which includes personal values and motivations. Another source arises from relationships with other people, such as family members or colleagues. The work context is highly relevant as well, as both the organization and the work performed can convey sense. Finally, spiritual life has been recognized as a source of meaning. Under the heading of the self, three orientations have been identified in which employees can find meaning.⁷⁶ The first orientation is job orientation, in which work is experienced as meaningful due to material aspects.⁴⁶ The second orientation is career orientation, in which professional success, recognition, and social status are paramount.¹

The third orientation is referred to as calling orientation. It describes the experience of understanding work as a contribution to the common good and experiencing it as socially valuable.⁷⁶

Pratt & Ashforth (2003) also distinguish between meaningfulness in work and meaningfulness at work.⁷⁵ Building on this, Glavas (2012) developed a matrix that represents four different constellations in relation to sustainability (Fig. 2).⁴⁶

Figure 2: Matrix meaningfulness in and at work (own illustration based on Glavas (2012)⁴⁶).

If sustainability plays no role in the company or its activities, it makes little meaning from this perspective, and the employee is disengaged. Additionally, If sustainability is strongly anchored at work, employees feel proud to work for a company that is committed to sustainability, even if their own tasks do not make a direct contribution. This is the peripheral state. In this constellation, a high level of identification with the organization can be observed, without this being reflected in daily work. Additionally, In contrast, sustainability can be strongly anchored in the workplace while not playing a strategic role at the organizational level. Here, employees find meaning in their own tasks, for example as sustainability managers, without the company as a whole pursuing a sustainable orientation. The employee acts as a lone ranger. Finally, the strongest form of meaningfulness arises when both the organization and individual activities are focused on sustainability. This is referred to as embedded. In this case, strategic and personal sources of meaning are combined, which promotes high motivation and commitment, in particular.⁴⁶

The concept of meaningfulness is closely linked to work motivation. Experiencing meaning in the work context is considered as a psychological factor that promotes self-motivated action among employees and is therefore closely linked to intrinsic motivation.⁷⁶ When a job or company is perceived as meaningful, this strengthens intrinsic motivation and promotes commitment.⁴⁶

However, the relationship is reciprocal. Intrinsically motivated employees often experience their work as an expression of a fit between their actions and their self-image. This can make even challenging tasks seem meaningful, provided they are connected to personal values or aspects of identity.⁷⁶ Calling orientation in particular is a significant source of meaningfulness, as it refers to the perception of a vocation.⁴⁶ Making a positive contribution through work, including in terms of sustainability, can motivate employees.⁴⁶ Employees who experience work as a calling are willing to forego extrinsic benefits, such as a higher salary, if moral aspects are more important to them.⁶⁰

Meaningfulness is therefore not a static state, but a dynamic process. Individual perception depends both on personal values and motivations and on organizational factors such as authenticity, leadership, and communication. Companies that implement credible sustainability initiatives create an environment in which employees can experience meaning. In doing so, they increase intrinsic motivation and promote long-term commitment.¹⁵^,⁴⁶

2.2.3 Social Identity Theory

While meaningfulness focuses on the individual attribution of meaning, SIT focuses on collective belonging. SIT describes how individuals derive their self-concept from belonging to social groups.⁵⁰^,⁷⁷^,⁷⁸ Identification with the respective organization can trigger a sense of belonging and thus influence employee motivation and behavior.⁷⁹ It is precisely this identification with a group or even a company that represents the dynamic process, which will be examined in more detail below.⁸⁰

SIT is particularly relevant to modern work contexts, as organizations represent central social groups. It has been found that employees experience the workplace not only as a place of work, but also as a source of belonging, status, and meaning.⁵⁰^,⁷⁹

SIT typically goes through three phases that are linked in a dynamic and reciprocal process (Fig. 3).⁵⁰ First, social categorization takes place, in which employees recognize themselves as part of the company. Through identification, they increasingly adopt the organization’s sustainability beliefs as their own. Finally, social comparison, which can generate pride when one’s own company acts more sustainably than others, can be evaluated positively.⁷⁷ This is because sustainability initiatives contribute to strengthening a company’s public image and external impact. This can instill a sense of pride in employees and motivate them to maintain this positive corporate image. Companies that are perceived by their employees as socially desirable and whose moral convictions are consistent with the values of the company promote a stronger identification with the organization.⁴⁵^,⁸⁰

Figure 3: SIT process (own illustration).

Identification with an organization shapes employees’ perceptions, thoughts, feelings, and behaviors.⁴⁵ Sustainability can have a positive effect on this identification, as sustainable engagement strengthens the company’s public image and creates a sense of pride and belonging.⁶² Value alignment is particularly relevant in this context. When employees’ values align with those of the organization, this can lead to increased identification, which can encompass both cognitive and emotional aspects.⁴⁵^,⁶² A lack of alignment, on the other hand, can lead to conflicts, either between individuals and the company or within the workforce.⁶² Organizations have the opportunity to promote this alignment by not only communicating sustainability, but also actively embedding it in everyday work. This can be achieved, for example, through sustainable leadership, sustainability projects supported by employees, or a credible corporate culture.⁶²^,⁸¹ However, if sustainability is perceived as inconsistent or purely symbolic, this can undermine identification and lead to cynicism and demotivation.⁸²

Value alignment is considered a critical success factor for motivation and commitment. It promotes work performance, organizational citizenship behavior (OCB), and intrinsic motivation.⁴⁶ Identification with an attractive company can also encourage solidarity and cooperative behavior.⁶² Motivation is thereby intrinsic in nature.⁴⁵

A central mechanism of SIT is the distinction between ingroup and outgroup members. Employees evaluate their organization in comparison to other groups and emphasize the positive characteristics of their own ingroup while highlighting differences from outgroups. This social comparison behavior serves not only as a guide, but also to strengthen self-esteem.⁵⁰^,⁷⁷ Sustainability initiatives can specifically reinforce this process by positioning the company in a morally and socially positive light. Employees who identify with a sustainability-oriented company perceive it as particularly responsible, ethically correct, and socially committed.⁴⁵ These are qualities that are perceived as superior to those of less sustainable companies. The perception of belonging to an organization that is considered morally not only strengthens the identity of the individual, but also the collective sense of unity within the organization.⁵⁰

These factors influence the behavior and motivation of individuals. Employees who perceive their organization as an expression of their own values demonstrate more loyal, engaged, and cooperative behavior.⁶² At the same time, these individuals tend to defend the positive image of the company to the outside world. This aspect in turn promotes motivation and commitment.⁵⁰^,⁷⁹ From the perspective of SIT, sustainability is therefore more than a strategic communication tool. It represents a source of organizational identification that strengthens intrinsic motivation, a sense of belonging, and emotional engagement. From the perspective of SIT, the effects of sustainability manifest themselves through three key psychological mechanisms. First, it enables social categorization and identification.⁵⁰^,⁷⁷ Second, value alignment strengthens emotional attachment.¹ Third, sustainability motivates loyal and committed behavior through social comparisons.⁵⁰

2.3 Mechanism of sustainability-driven motivations and behavior

While the previous chapter emphasized the psychological content of sustainability in terms of meaning, identity, and interpretation, the following chapter focuses more on the theoretical

mechanisms through which sustainability influences motivation and behavior. Building on established motivation theories such as SDT, expectancy theory, and JCM, it shows how sustainability acts as a contextual factor, reinforcing motivational processes and ultimately leading to committed behavior on the part of employees.

2.3.1 Intrinsic and extrinsic motivation

Organizations are increasingly recognizing that employee motivation is not solely determined by financial incentives, but can also be influenced by the perception and anchoring of sustainability.⁴⁹ For a comprehensive understanding of how sustainability works, it is important to differentiate between intrinsic and extrinsic motivation.

Intrinsic motivation refers to performing an activity for its own sake, for example, out of enjoyment, interest, or a sense of meaning and fulfillment.⁴⁵^,⁷⁴ Employees who are intrinsically motivated view their tasks as positive and enjoyable.⁸³ It is considered particularly valuable because it is associated with creativity, personal responsibility, and long-term commitment, and arises especially when employees experience autonomy, competence, and belonging.⁴⁵^,⁶³^,⁸⁴ In today’s working world, the relevance of this form of motivation is continuously increasing, as employees place greater value on intrinsic rewards.⁹

Extrinsic motivation is based on external incentives such as salary, bonuses, or status. An action is performed in order to achieve a result that is unrelated to the action itself.⁷⁴^,⁸⁵ While extrinsic motivation is often linked to short-term rewards and quickly fades when incentives are not forthcoming, intrinsic motivation is considered to be more stable and durable. Empirical studies show that employees who are emotionally engaged with sustainability also demonstrate a high level of commitment over longer periods of time.⁹^,⁷⁴

According to the results of several studies, sustainability contributes in particular to strengthening intrinsic motivation without neglecting the relevance of extrinsic incentives.⁶³^,⁷⁴ Employees report increased inner drive, while their receptivity to external rewards remains unchanged. Sustainability can therefore spark intrinsic motivation without substituting extrinsic motivation.⁶³

However, studies point to the so-called crowding-out effect. The use of highly controlling extrinsic incentives can therefore have a negative effect on intrinsic motivation. As a result, tasks that were previously perceived as a sense of purpose are now viewed merely as work.⁸⁵ External incentives are perceived as restrictive and controlling, which can undermine the feeling of self-determination.⁸³ Employees only act when there is the prospect of a reward.³⁸ In HRM, it has been shown that performance-oriented practices in companies without a focus on sustainability often promote a selfish climate. However, a strong sustainability culture can mitigate this correlation, as extrinsic incentives remain compatible with values in this case. Sustainability can therefore help to minimize potential tensions between extrinsic incentives and intrinsic motivations.³⁸

Sustainability initiatives primarily promote intrinsic motivation.⁴⁵^,⁶³ They work by conveying meaning, aligning values, promoting social well-being, and creating a sense of being part of something bigger.⁶³^,⁷⁴^,⁸⁶ The effects are reflected in higher levels of commitment, job satisfaction, and extra-role behavior.⁶³^,⁷⁴^,⁸⁷ The decisive factor is whether the company’s motives are perceived as authentic and value-oriented. Sustainability that is interpreted as intrinsically motivated strengthens identification and motivation, while extrinsically motivated sustainability activities remain ineffective or can even be counterproductive.¹³

Sustainability broadens the spectrum of incentives beyond monetary rewards.⁸⁴ Recognition, reputation, or value-oriented leadership can be linked to personal values and moral identity, thus creating sustainable motivation by addressing their search for meaning, moral identity, and prosocial motivation.⁹^,⁴⁵^,⁴⁶^,⁸⁴ Measures that are close to employees, such as health or participation offers and value-oriented leadership, are particularly effective because they enable appreciation and co-creation.⁸³^,⁸⁴ However, external sustainability measures can also promote pride and solidarity, thereby addressing intrinsic motivation.⁴⁵

2.3.2 Self Determination Theory

SDT originates from research into intrinsic and extrinsic motivation, and describes that people have three basic psychological needs that must be fulfilled in order for them to be motivated. These needs are autonomy, competence, and relatedness. It is considered a central theory of motivation and can also be applied to working life.⁸⁸

SDT makes a fundamental distinction between autonomous and controlled motivation. Studies show that autonomous motivation is associated with higher vitality, satisfaction, commitment, and performance, while controlled motivation is more likely to be associated with stress, exhaustion, and intention to resign.⁵⁴^,⁸⁸^,⁸⁹^,⁹⁰ Autonomous motivation occurs when individuals perform activities out of inner conviction, with personal freedom of choice and in accordance with their values.⁸⁸^,⁹¹ This form of motivation is closely related to positive work outcomes such as increased quality, greater willingness to learn, sustained perseverance, and increased well-being. Increased work engagement and higher job satisfaction can also be observed in this context.⁸⁸ In addition to intrinsic motivation, autonomous motivation also includes internalized extrinsic forms, as well as identified and integrated regulation. In identified regulation, actions are recognized as personally relevant, while in integrated regulation, they are completely fused with one’s own identity and in line with individual goals.²⁵^,⁸⁸ However, identified regulation already shows similarly strong positive outcomes in terms of engagement, job satisfaction, and commitment as intrinsic motivation.⁵⁴ This illustrates the transformative potential of sustainability. If sustainability initiatives are designed and communicated in such a way that their social or ecological benefits are comprehensible and consistent with the values of employees, extrinsically initiated motivation can be transformed into an autonomous, internalized form.⁵⁴^,⁸⁸ Thus, sustainability functions not only as a strategic imperative, but also as a means of promoting long-term stable, self-determined motivation.⁵⁴^,⁹²

In contrast, controlled motivation encompasses actions that are performed under external pressure or internal compulsion. External regulation is the least self-determined form and is based on rewards or punishments, which can reduce the feeling of self-determination and impair intrinsic motivation. Somewhat more internalized, but still externally determined, is introjected regulation, which is based on feelings of guilt, a need for recognition, or fear of rejection. Here, employees do not act out of inner conviction, but to meet expectations and stabilize their self-esteem.²⁵^,⁸⁸ It should be noted at this point, however, that extrinsic motivation is not fundamentally worse. There are significant differences depending on the degree of internalization. This point is the central statement of Organismic Integration Theory (OIT) (Fig. 4). It represents a continuum of self-determination, ranging from a complete absence of motivation to intrinsic motivation.

Figure 4: Continuum of self-determination (own illustration based on van den Broeck et al. (2021)⁵⁴).

The process of internalizing extrinsic motivation is gradual and can be positively influenced by targeted sustainability measures. Initially, employees can be motivated to act through external incentives, such as rewards for environmentally conscious behavior.⁸⁸ However, if these incentives are perceived as too controlling or restrictive, they may undermine intrinsic motivation by impairing the sense of self-determination.⁸³^,⁸⁸^,⁹¹ It is crucial that employees understand the sensemaking aspect of sustainability. When they understand its social benefits and connect them with their own values, identified regulation emerges. This transition is particularly promoted by transparent and value-oriented communication of corporate goals and visions.⁵⁴^,⁸⁸^,⁹³ In a further step, integrated regulation can arise when sustainability values are so strongly aligned with personal identity that work is no longer experienced as externally motivated, but as an expression of one’s own convictions.²⁵^,⁸⁸ Especially when personal environmental beliefs coincide with the goals of the company, employees perceive their work as meaningful and are highly motivated and strongly identified with their tasks.⁴⁶^,⁹⁴

These three basic needs, autonomy, competence, and relatedness, form the framework within which sustainability measures take effect and support the process of internalization. Fulfilling these three basic psychological needs is crucial for the development of autonomous motivation. Autonomy describes acting of one’s own free will, competence describes the experience of skills and goal achievement, and relatedness describes the feeling of connectedness.²⁵ The more these needs are met in the work context, the more likely employees are to develop autonomous and, in particular, intrinsic motivation, commitment, and well-being. Conversely, failure to meet these basic needs can lead to demotivated, passive, or even resistant behavior. This results in a lack of positive experiences, but also means that no stress is caused. The employee tends to be neutral and uninspired.⁸⁸^,⁹¹ In need frustration, basic needs are actively undermined, blocked, or violated, for example through systematic control, which frustrates the need for autonomy. This results in negative experiences.⁵³^,⁸⁸ Not only can this manifest itself in low autonomous motivation, increased controlling motivation, or amotivation, but it is also associated with an increased risk of burnout and emotional exhaustion.⁵³

Satisfying these three basic needs not only creates motivation, but also lays the cognitive and emotional foundation for active sensemaking. Only when employees experience autonomy, competence, and relatedness are they able to translate sustainability measures into a coherent personal understanding of meaning.⁵⁴^,⁷¹ Autonomy fosters the internalization of sustainability values because employees view their actions as an expression of their convictions rather than as external coercion. This process corresponds to a core aspect of sensemaking, in which external signals are translated into individual interpretations and linked to existing values.⁶^,²⁵^,⁹¹^,⁹⁴ Competence helps employees to experience their contributions as effective and to understand how their actions are embedded in the organizational context. This reinforces the perception that their work is not only effective, but also meaningful, which is closely linked to the concept of meaningfulness and, thus, also to sensemaking. For example, if it is communicated transparently how individual contributions to emissions reduction contribute to the company’s overall progress, employees develop a stronger understanding of the relevance of their actions and their work is experienced as meaningful.⁶ Relatedness manifests itself when sustainability conveys collective values with which employees can identify.⁴⁵^,⁵⁰ This process of relatedness is central to both SDT and sensemaking as it creates a sense of belonging, promotes identification with the organization, and thus strengthens intrinsic motivation.⁹^,²⁵^,⁷⁴^,⁹⁴ Especially, once regulation has been identified, motivation is achieved through the attribution of meaning. When employees understand why sustainability is being pursued, what values are associated with it, and how they themselves are part of it, sensemaking takes place.²⁵

The combination of these three dimensions creates favorable conditions for sensemaking, which promotes both individual experience and collective engagement.²⁵^,⁵⁰ Sustainability thus functions not only as a structural framework, but also as a catalyst for the mutual reinforcement of need satisfaction, sensemaking, and motivation.

2.3.3 Job Characteristics Model

The JCM according to Hackman & Oldham (1975) is one of the central theories of work motivation and explains how the design of workplaces influences motivation, satisfaction, and performance.⁵²^,⁹⁵ It was developed in response to Taylorism, which often led to monotonous tasks and one-sided strain.⁹⁶

The model (Fig. 5) describes the relationship between core job characteristics, the resulting psychological states, and subsequent job outcomes, taking into account the moderating role of an employee’s growth need strength.

Figure 5: Job Characteristics Model (own illustration based on Oldham & Hackman (1975)⁵²).

The focus is on five core dimensions:

Skill variety: This describes the extent to which a task requires different knowledge and skills. Tasks with a high degree of variety allow employees to contribute their various strengths. Such tasks also avoid monotonous processes, making work more appealing.
Task identity: The extent to which a task involves independently completing a clearly defined section of work. Employees experience the entire process, from planning to achieving tangible results, which strengthens their sense of wholeness and fulfillment.
Task significance: Refers to the extent to which one’s own work perceives as having an impact on the lives of others, both inside and outside the company. This dimension is particularly important in the context of sustainability, as it raises awareness of the social and societal value of one’s own work.
Autonomy: Employees have freedom and discretion in their work. This can lead to a sense of responsibility.
Feedback: Refers to the degree to which an activity allows conclusions to be drawn about the quality of one’s own work by providing clear and immediate indications of one’s own performance. Continuous feedback gives employees guidance on their effectiveness and enables them to work specifically on improvements.⁵²

The core dimensions have an effect via the following three psychological states, which promote intrinsic motivation and positive work outcomes. Motivation therefore arises not only from external incentives, but also from the structure and meaning of the work itself.

Experienced meaningfulness of the work: the perception of work as meaningful.⁵² This state is triggered in particular by the first three dimensions.⁹⁷
Experienced responsibility for work outcomes: the perceived responsibility for the results of one’s work.⁵² This state can be achieved primarily through a high degree of autonomy.⁹⁷
Knowledge of results: the extent to which employees can understand how effective their work is.⁵² This is enhanced by a high degree of feedback.⁹⁷

In the context of sustainability, task significance has a particularly powerful effect. Sustainability with prosocial objectives strengthens the perceived meaningfulness of work, as employees recognize that their actions have positive social or ecological effects beyond the work context.⁵²^,⁹⁷ This not only enhances the value of the individual task, but also strengthens the connection to larger contexts and interpersonal mechanisms of action. According to the concept of task significance, activities are perceived as particularly meaningful when they have a noticeable impact on the well-being or work of others.⁹⁷ Sustainability reinforces this effect by embedding prosocial dimensions and thus ties in directly with concepts such as meaningfulness, which explains why sustainability initiatives increase motivation and commitment.⁹⁸

In addition, sustainability can also expand skill variety by creating new tasks such as environmental reporting, social projects, or the integration of sustainability goals into processes.⁹⁵^,⁹⁹ These diverse requirements promote a sense of competence and self-efficacy, which can enhance employees’ belief in their ability to influence outcomes and achieve meaningful results.¹⁰⁰ Task identity can also be strengthened through sustainability, for example when employees take responsibility for sustainability projects that encompass a complete cycle from planning to implementation to evaluation.⁵²

Even though autonomy in JCM has a different focus than autonomy in SDT, they are comparable.⁸⁸ In JCM, autonomy is understood as an objective feature of work design through which a psychological state is to be achieved.⁹⁷ In SDT, on the other hand, autonomy is considered a basic psychological need, i.e., an inner state of self-determination.⁵³ Nevertheless, it is true that in a workplace with a high degree of autonomy in the sense of JCM, the feeling of autonomy in the sense of SDT can also be experienced.⁸⁸

JCM takes into account individual differences in response to demanding work content through the moderator variable growth need strength, which describes the need for personal development, challenge, and achievement.⁵² This means that the connection between the central dimensions, the resulting psychological states of experience, and the derived work outcomes such as motivation, performance level, and satisfaction depends on how strong the personal need for development is. Employees with a strong desire for growth find activities with high levels of job characteristics particularly motivating, while the same structure can lead to feelings of being overwhelmed or rejection in those employees with a lower desire for growth.⁵²

The core dimensions are measured in practice using the Job Diagnostic Survey (JDS) and the Motivating Potential Score (MPS), which are described in more detail in chapter 4.3.

In summary, it can be said that the JCM and sustainability complement each other synergistically in promoting employee motivation. Sustainability initiatives can reinforce all five core dimensions of the JCM, with task significance showing the strongest connection. The psychological mechanisms of identification, fairness, and meaningfulness explain why sustainability programs increase intrinsic motivation. In practice, this means that companies should not view sustainability as an isolated activity, but as an integral part of work design.⁶⁰ Strategically linking sustainability initiatives to the principles of JCM offers an evidence-based approach to sustainably increasing employee motivation.

Extension of the Model

New developments in the JCM call for more dynamic perspectives. One expansion concerns the prosocial component, as interpersonal relationships have become more important in everyday working life. The Relational Architecture of Jobs examines how work environments can create conditions that promote intrinsic motivation to make a positive contribution to others.⁹⁸ This state is evident when employees want to bring about noticeable improvements in the lives of others through their actions.⁹⁸^,¹⁰¹ Relational work design promotes prosocial motivation by strengthening two central psychological states. First, perceived impact on beneficiaries, and second, affective commitment to beneficiaries. These states motivate employees to demonstrate greater commitment, perseverance, and helpfulness, while supporting the development of a self-determined and socially recognized self-image.⁹⁸

The JCM has also been expanded to include the concept of green job design in order to add an ecological perspective. The five dimensions for sustainability-conscious employees have been modified.⁹⁷ Skill variety has become green skill variety. This refers to environmental skills and knowledge. This knowledge can be acquired not only in everyday working life, but also in private life. Green Task Significance focuses on the positive effects on the environment. An example of Green Task Identity is when employees consider a product throughout its entire life cycle in order to examine each step from an ecological perspective. Green Autonomy describes the fundamental need of people to feel a sense of freedom of choice and inner independence when performing environmentally friendly actions. Finally, Green Feedback describes the extent to which clear information about the environmental impact of actions is available.⁹⁷ CO2 reports can provide clear information in this regard. The MPS is also modified to include the green dimension, but its calculation logic remains unchanged. Value alignment is also an important moderator here. A green employee is generally more committed to and motivated by sustainability measures.⁹⁷

While the classic JCM is characterized by a top-down approach, recent research has shifted the focus to job crafting. This involves employees proactively designing their workplaces to improve the fit between the person and the job.¹⁰² Job crafting serves in particular to create meaning when existing structures do not meet this need.¹ Employees take the initiative to integrate new, meaningful tasks in order to actively make a positive contribution.⁹⁸

In summary, it can be said that JCM and sustainability complement each other synergistically in promoting employee motivation. Sustainability initiatives can strengthen all five core dimensions of JCM, with task significance showing the closest connection. The mechanisms of identification, fairness, and meaningfulness explain why sustainability increases intrinsic motivation. In practice, this means viewing sustainability not in isolation, but as an integral part of work design.⁶⁰ Linking sustainability with JCM thus offers an evidence-based approach to sustainably increasing motivation and engagement.

2.3.4 Expectancy Theory

Expectancy theory is a motivation theory that explains how decision-making processes and alternative courses of action are influenced by motivation.¹⁰³ It is based on three central components, expectancy, instrumentality, and valence, which interact to determine motivation (Fig. 6). According to this theory, motivation arises as the multiplicative product of these factors. A low score in one dimension can therefore significantly reduce overall motivation.¹⁰³^,¹⁰⁴

Figure 6: Expectancy Theory (own illustration).

The first component is expectancy. This describes the subjective probability that a behavior will translate into performance.¹⁰³ In the context of sustainability, it reflects the perceived self-efficacy of employees.¹⁰⁵ As outlined in the section on the JCM, sustainability-related tasks can expand employees’ skill variety and strengthen their sense of competence and self-efficacy.¹⁰⁰ These experiences directly support the expectancy component, as employees who perceive themselves as capable of handling diverse and meaningful sustainability tasks are more likely to believe that their efforts will lead to successful outcomes and, consequently, to successful performance.¹⁰⁴ This expectation is reinforced when sustainability measures are communicated transparently, linked to clearly defined goals, and underpinned by success stories or best practice examples.¹⁰⁴^,¹⁰⁵ Expectancy thus draws closely on the need for competence as described in SDT. Employees must feel that they have the ability to make a difference through their actions. HRM practices such as contingent rewards, which are recommended in the AMO framework to increase motivation, are also based on this mechanism.³⁸^,⁹⁸

The second component, instrumentality, refers to the perception of whether an achievement will lead to desired outcomes or rewards. Both extrinsic factors such as financial incentives, recognition, or career opportunities and intrinsic rewards such as a sense of purpose or a sense of achievement play a role here.¹⁰³ The perception of instrumentality is influenced by factors such as feedback culture, organizational identification, or the quality of the workplace.²⁰^,²⁷^,¹⁰³ The clearer and more extraordinary the objectives of a sustainability measure are formulated, the greater the perceived impact and the resulting commitment of employees, as concise initiatives offer more opportunities to pursue the goals of the employee.¹⁰⁵ It becomes critical when sustainability is demanded but not integrated into the official evaluation system.¹⁰³ If sustainability is seen as an additional task, while performance management primarily rewards short-term financial indicators, a tension arises. In such situations, there is often uncertainty about which expectations actually count.¹ Even a perceived low impact of the results reduces the instrumentality, especially if the effects achieved do not correspond to the individual goals of the employees.¹⁰⁵ This is consistent with SIT, according to which sustainability is perceived as an expression of shared values and thus promotes organizational identification. Employees link their performance more strongly to positive outcomes such as pride and belonging, which in turn strengthens their commitment to the organization.¹⁰⁶

Finally, there is the multiplier valence. This refers to the subjective value of the result that can be achieved through commitment.²⁷ This can include both personal and organizational values.¹⁰⁴ Sustainability can increase this valence if it addresses goals that go beyond individual interests, such as contributions to the common good, the environment, or internal fairness.¹⁰⁵ This links valence closely to the concept of meaningfulness, as employees experience meaning when their work aligns with their personal values.¹⁰⁴ In addition to intrinsic valence, extrinsic incentives such as career opportunities also play a role, although their significance can vary culturally.²⁷^,¹⁰⁷ In uncertain work environments, visionary leadership is key, as it inspires and motivates employees and strengthens their confidence in the success of organizational change.¹⁰⁴ Nevertheless, sustainability can also have a negative effect on valence. If sustainability-related tasks are additional tasks, participation in sustainability is perceived as a negative or undesirable experience, making the valence of engagement negative. Even if sustainability activities are perceived as inauthentic, this can lead to mistrust and reduced engagement, as employees may become part of it and feel that they are part of the problem.¹^,¹⁰⁷

In combination, it becomes apparent that high valence and instrumentality only lead to motivation if expectancy is also present, i.e., the conviction that one’s own actions have an effect. Conversely, strong expectations cannot compensate if results are perceived as worthless or are not rewarded. Sustainability therefore only has a lasting motivating effect if all three components are strengthened simultaneously.¹⁰³

Commitment has been identified as a key mediator between sustainability perception and outcomes. When sustainability strengthens all three motivational components, this leads to increased commitment, which in turn leads to positive behavior.¹⁶ In addition, task significance acts as a moderator. The higher the perceived importance of one’s own work, the more strongly employees respond to sustainability content, as the perceived instrumentality and valence are additionally strengthened.¹⁰³

Communication plays a special role. A high degree of clarity regarding objectives and clear communication of the strategy increase expectancy, while recognition and transparency strengthen instrumentality, and an emotional, value-based, and meaning-oriented Approach promotes valence. It can help employees to understand the significance of the measures and strengthen their confidence in the feasibility of the goals.¹⁰⁴^,¹⁰⁵

In summary, it is clear that sustainability measures can have a motivating effect in terms of expectancy theory if, on the one hand, employees are convinced that their sustainable behavior has a concrete effect and, on the other hand, they recognize that their commitment leads to recognized results or rewards and, finally, they recognize the personal meaning and value of these goals. Only when all three components are fulfilled sustainability will be perceived not as an additional burden, but as a meaningful opportunity to participate in shaping the future.

2.3.5 Ability Motivation Opportunity Theory

AMO theory describes HRM practices that aim to empower and motivate employees and give them opportunities to participate.¹⁰⁰^,¹⁰⁸ The combination of these three factors is central to employee motivation and behavior, as well as to the successful implementation of sustainability initiatives.¹⁰⁰ While theories such as SDT or SIT primarily explain psychological processes, AMO offers a complementary framework by applying them to specific HRM practices, thus bridging the gap between psychological mechanisms and organizational structures.²⁵^,⁷⁷^,¹⁰⁰ The basic principles are shown in the following figure (Fig. 7) and are explained in more detail below.

Figure 7: AMO framework (own illustration).

Ability refers to the capacity to help shape sustainable practices. Sustainability-related training courses, information campaigns, or training programs not only impart technical skills, but also promote awareness of environmental and social responsibility.¹⁰⁰^,¹⁰⁹ This empowerment enables employees to recognize sustainable options for action and strengthens their sense of competence, which is considered as a fundamental psychological need in SDT. Those who perceive themselves as competent actors develop greater confidence in their own effectiveness, which is a key factor in motivation and commitment.⁴^,¹⁰⁹ This illustrates the interface between ability and the competence dimension of SDT.¹⁰⁹

Motivational practices primarily target extrinsic motivation, but can also appeal to intrinsic motivation. Extrinsic incentives such as monetary rewards or development opportunities can be effective, but there is a risk that purely self-serving incentive systems will promote a selfish working atmosphere, undermine ethical behavior, and encourage demotivation.³⁷^,³⁸ This ties in with the crowding-out debate, which has already been discussed in the context of SDT (Chapter 3.3.2). Excessive external control can weaken intrinsic motivation.³⁸^,⁸⁵ Sustainability activities, on the other hand, can promote intrinsic motivation if they are perceived as an expression of organizational values and are consistent with the beliefs of employees.³⁷ This process corresponds to the logic of sensemaking, in which employees not only understand sustainability as an external measure, but also integrate it into their own value system.¹

The opportunity component emphasizes the creation of opportunities for participation.¹⁰⁰ Participatory sustainability projects, employee surveys, or green teams open up spaces for participation and simultaneously strengthen the need for autonomy.³⁷^,¹¹⁰ At the same time, they promote connectedness and group identification by addressing both the relatedness described in SDT and the belonging and pride emphasized in SIT.⁶²^,⁹¹ Even if motivation represents an inner drive, opportunity is crucial for its implementation. When employees perceive their company as purpose-driven and thus understand the why of sustainability, but at the same time are given the autonomy to integrate sustainability into their work, the motivating effect is reinforced. This creates psychological ownership or sustainability ownership of the initiatives, which in turn promotes stronger ethical behavior and creates meaning.¹¹¹

For a sustainable impact, AMO practices must be strategically anchored in HRM. Only when sustainability is understood not as an isolated activity but as an integral part of corporate strategy motivation and sustainable behavior can be promoted in the long term.³⁷^,¹⁰¹ Cultural and leadership-related factors act as moderators in this process. Value-based leadership, a participatory culture, and transparent communication create the necessary climate to exploit the potential of AMO theory.¹⁰⁰^,¹⁰⁹

There are also links to JCM. The component ability in AMO theory complements skill variety. While skill variety captures the extent to which a job requires a range of different skills, ability refers to the actual skills of employees and measures for developing them.¹⁰⁰^,¹¹² AMO practices, especially those that promote abilities, ensure that employees possess the necessary abilities to meet the requirements of a job with a high degree of skill variety.¹⁰⁰^,¹⁰²

Thus, the effect of AMO theory unfolds both at the individual level, through increased motivation and commitment, and at the organizational level, through positive effects such as increased innovation capacity, lower turnover, and higher employer attractiveness.³⁷^,⁷⁹^,⁸⁵ The AMO model thus combines micro-psychological motivation theory with macro-economic business practice.

3.3.6 Social Exchange Theory

SET is a fundamental concept in sociology and organizational psychology that explains human behavior in social and organizational relationships.¹⁰^,²⁹ Social interactions are understood as exchange processes in which individuals seek to maximize benefits and minimize costs.¹¹³^,¹¹⁴ Relationships arise when both parties benefit from the interaction and mutual added value is created that would not be achievable alone.¹⁰ The central principle of the theory is reciprocity.¹¹⁵ It states that receiving support, care, or positive treatment creates an obligation to reciprocate in an appropriate manner.³⁷^,¹⁰⁷ Stable, trusting relationships are based on this principle.¹¹⁶ Trust arises when individuals assume that the other party is acting fairly and reliably. If this trust is violated, the relationship is reevaluated, which can reduce commitment and cooperation.¹⁹ In an organizational context, employees base their attitudes and behavior on how they perceive their treatment by the company. If they experience appreciation, fairness, and support, they feel the need to reciprocate, for example through higher performance, loyalty, or voluntary commitment.²⁹^,⁸⁰ If recognition or fairness are lacking, their willingness to work hard decreases accordingly.¹¹⁷

Another central component of the theory is the relationship between inputs and outcomes. Inputs include contributions such as work performance, experience, time, or commitment, while outcomes refer to the rewards received, such as salary, appreciation, or development opportunities. If this relationship is perceived as unbalanced, there is a need to restore justice.²⁷ SET is therefore closely related to concepts such as organizational justice and fairness.¹³

The theory has been further developed over time and expanded to include emotional dimensions. The Affect Theory of Social Exchange emphasizes that emotions arising from social exchange processes influence the strength of relationships.¹¹⁸ Positive emotional experiences strengthen bonds and trust, while negative emotions weaken relationships.¹⁰⁷ SET thus expands its original rational utility model to include affective components that are particularly important for working relationships.¹³

SET has become a central explanatory approach for understanding how sustainability affects employee attitudes and motivation.⁸ In this context, sustainability initiatives are understood as valuable resources that organizations make available to their internal and external stakeholders.¹⁰⁷ When employees perceive that their company is taking social responsibility, pursuing environmental goals, or promoting fair working conditions, they interpret this behavior as an expression of care and goodwill.⁶³^,¹¹⁹ Thus, sustainability acts as a signal that the organization is not only oriented toward economic profit, but also takes the well-being of its stakeholders seriously.¹²⁰ This perception triggers the principle of reciprocity among employees.⁸ They feel obliged to reciprocate the positive treatment they have experienced through their own commitment and increased motivation.¹²¹

This reciprocal relationship manifests itself in various forms. Employees who view their employer’s commitment to sustainability positively often show stronger identification with the organization, higher job satisfaction, and stronger affective commitment.¹³ They become more involved in voluntary activities that go beyond their formal duties and exhibit what is known as OCB.¹²² Perceived organizational support is also increased by sustainability.⁴ Employees who feel that their company cares about social issues experience greater appreciation and develop a higher motivation to work toward the company’s goals.³⁷^,⁸⁷

Another relevant mechanism is the concept of third-party justice. It describes how employees can respond positively to sustainability activities even if these do not directly affect them.³⁰^,¹¹⁹ When they observe that their organization treats other stakeholders, such as society or the environment, fairly and responsibly, they conclude that the company acts in a generally fair and moral manner.¹⁹^,¹⁰⁷ This perception promotes trust, pride, and loyalty and strengthens their attachment to the organization.¹¹⁶ Employees reciprocate by demonstrating proactive behavior and actively supporting the company’s goals.¹⁰⁷

SIT complements SET by broadening the focus from reciprocal exchange relationships to employees’ social belonging and self-definitions. While SET explains how perceived fairness and care promote reciprocity and commitment, SIT emphasizes that sustainability acts as a basis for identification and pride in the organization. Employees who identify with a responsible company experience a strengthening of their self-esteem and intrinsic motivation. Together, SET and SIT show that sustainability can positively influence employee motivation through both exchange mechanisms and collective identity processes.¹⁶

3.3.7 Organizational citizenship behavior for the environment

The OCBE concept offers a central theoretical approach to understanding how sustainability can have a motivating effect within organizations. Originally developed as an extension of general OCB, OCBE describes voluntary employee behaviors that are not rewarded by formal reward systems and that aim to improve the company’s environmental performance.¹²³ While OCB generally encompasses prosocial behavior toward the organization, OCBE specifically focuses on environmental aspects and commitment to environmental goals.⁸⁷

Traditionally, OCBE is understood as the result of positive motivation.⁹¹ Employees who are intrinsically or prosocially motivated engage in voluntary, environmentally friendly actions.⁵⁹ However, for the purpose of this thesis, it is important to note that engaging in such behaviors itself can lead to motivation. OCBE can thus be viewed as a feedback mechanism through which sustainability in the company not only drives behavior but also generates new energy, commitment, and meaning.²¹

OCBE typically manifests itself in three dimensions. The first is eco-initiative, i.e., individual suggestions and initiatives to improve environmental performance, such as resource conservation or process optimization. The second is eco-civic engagement, which encompasses voluntary participation in environment-related projects or activities. The third dimension is eco-helping, which describes mutual support among employees in sustainable behavior.¹²³ These three forms of voluntary engagement illustrate how sustainability can be anchored in everyday working life while strengthening intrinsic motivation at the same time.

The emergence of motivation in the context of OCBE can be explained by several psychological mechanisms that are closely linked to SDT, the concept of meaningful work, and organizational identification. OCBE is voluntary, discretionary, and unrewarded. It is therefore based on forms of autonomous motivation, i.e., intrinsic or internalized motives.¹⁸^,²⁵

Sustainable behaviors such as OCBE enable employees to experience their work as meaningful.⁵⁹ When employees perceive the positive effects of their actions on the environment and society, a sense of meaning emerges that strengthens commitment and emotional attachment.²⁰ This perceived meaning increases commitment, strengthens emotional attachment, and conveys the impression of being part of a larger, meaningful movement.¹ Companies that actively involve employees in sustainability initiatives not only promote ecological behavior, but also create work contexts in which meaning and motivation grow.¹¹⁰

SDT explains that motivation arises especially when the three basic needs for autonomy, competence, and relatedness are met.²⁵ OCBE addresses all three needs, as employees decide for themselves how to implement sustainable actions, thereby strengthening autonomy, self-determination, and a sense of responsibility.³⁰^,⁶² At the same time, voluntary engagement offers the opportunity to contribute skills and achieve visible improvements, which promotes competence, self-efficacy, and pride.⁶ Furthermore, sustainability initiatives strengthen social relationships and promote collective responsibility, creating relatedness and allowing employees to experience belonging and mutual support.⁶^,³⁰ These mechanisms show that OCBE is not only an expression of existing motivation, but also generates motivational energy itself by satisfying central psychological needs.

Motivation through OCBE also arises from the alignment between individual and organizational values. When employees experience sustainability and social responsibility as part of the corporate identity, they can identify with their own beliefs and values.⁸⁷ This fit leads to affective commitment, an emotional attachment to the organization that is associated with pride, identification, and loyalty.²⁰ OCBE reinforces this process because it enables employees to actively live and embody values.⁴

OCBE generates positive affective experiences that reinforce motivation. Employees often report feelings of joy, pride, and fulfillment when they voluntarily contribute to sustainability.⁵⁹^,¹⁰⁷ These positive emotions act as internal rewards and lead to a cycle of reinforcement. Voluntary engagement generates positive feelings, which in turn increase the willingness to remain active.²¹^,⁸⁸ This principle of affective feedback explains how sustainability in the work context can become a self-reinforcing source of intrinsic motivation.⁹⁸

Collective processes also play a role. OCBE creates social norms that establish sustainability as a natural part of corporate culture.³⁹^,⁵⁹ Employees orient themselves toward the behavior of their colleagues and experience that sustainable action is valued.⁵⁹ Positive feedback, whether formal through recognition or informal through social confirmation, acts as a feedback loop that stabilizes motivation.³⁹^,⁸⁷ Managers reinforce this effect when they themselves act as role models and actively exemplify sustainability.⁵⁹

For the purpose of this thesis, OCBE is relevant not only as a result of motivated employees, but also as a mechanism of organizational motivation.¹^,¹⁸ It shows how sustainability practices within companies create psychological conditions that foster motivation.⁹¹ OCBE illustrates that voluntary commitment to ecological goals strengthens the perception of meaning, self-efficacy, and belonging, thereby stabilizing motivation in the long term.¹⁴

OCBE thus provides a theoretical link between sustainability management and employee motivation. It shows that sustainable behavior can be not only an expression but also a source of motivation.⁶³^,¹²⁴ This is especially true when organizations create an environment that enables autonomy, competence, value alignment, and relatedness.

In summary, OCBE is a concept that impressively illustrates the reciprocal relationship between sustainability and motivation. Although OCBE was originally conceived as a consequence of motivation, it can also be understood as a mechanism that generates new motivation. By satisfying basic psychological needs, creating meaning, and strengthening social connectedness, sustainability becomes a source of intrinsic energy that promotes both individual commitment and organizational performance.

Building on the theoretical foundations outlined above, the following model (Fig. 8) summarizes how sustainability influences employee motivation through various psychological, social, and organizational mechanisms. It integrates key findings from SDT, JCM, Expectancy Theory, and the AMO framework and shows how these approaches complement each other to explain the motivational processes triggered by sustainability.

Figure 8: Impact model of sustainability on employee motivation (own illustration).

At its core, the model assumes that sustainability acts as a contextual influence that shapes the cognitive, emotional, and behavioral responses of employees. Sustainability initiatives can create meaning, promote identification, and fulfill basic psychological needs. This creates a form of autonomous motivation that goes beyond a sense of duty or extrinsic incentives. In addition, sustainability measures improve work-related characteristics such as task significance, job variety, and responsibility, which in turn strengthens the sense of competence and self-efficacy. These experiences are closely related to expectancy theory, as employees who perceive sustainability goals as achievable and valuable are more willing to commit to them.

At the organizational level, sustainability-oriented HR practices, leadership, and communication create the structural and cultural conditions for motivation and engagement. Engagement acts as a cross-level construct that links psychological meaning-making processes with social and emotional mechanisms. When these elements are in harmony, sustainability can evolve from a strategic goal to a source of personal and collective motivation. The impact model thus illustrates the interplay between individual perceptions, psychological mechanisms, and organizational conditions and shows how sustainability becomes a key driver of motivation and commitment in the workplace.

3 Practical implementation

After presenting the theoretical foundations and key explanatory approaches to the connection between sustainability and employee motivation in the previous chapter, this chapter focuses on practical implementation in an organizational context. It shows how sustainability measures can be designed and anchored in such a way that they have a motivational effect on employees. The analysis takes into account both a strategic top-down perspective, which examines the embedding of sustainability in management structures, governance, and HRM, and an operational bottom-up perspective, which focuses on the concrete design of everyday work, participation, and the individual experiences of employees. This demonstrates that the effectiveness of sustainability depends as much on clear strategic anchoring as it does on tangible implementation in everyday activities.

The practical implementation of sustainability requires a coherent integration of strategic and operational measures. Strategic implementation provides direction, legitimacy, and resources, while operational practices translate these intentions into employees’ daily work experiences. Figure 9 presents an integrated framework that links these two levels, highlighting how sustainability implementation can foster employee motivation and organizational performance. The subsequent sections elaborate on each level in detail.

Figure 9: Integrated framework for the strategic and operational implementation of sustainability and its effects on employee motivation (own illustration).

As illustrated above, the strategic dimension establishes the basis for sustainable practices at the operational level. The following section discusses the main components of implementing strategic sustainability.

3.1 Strategic implementation

This chapter examines how the strategic, top-down integration of sustainability influences employee motivation and which organizational mechanisms promote this connection. Anchoring sustainability in management, HR, and organizational structures is a key lever for strengthening commitment and motivation, thereby ensuring long-term corporate success.¹²⁵^,¹²⁶ It is crucial that sustainability is authentically and structurally deeply embedded in the organization and does not merely serve as an image-building tool.¹²⁶

3.1.1 Strategic anchoring of sustainability in leadership and governance

The role of leadership forms the foundation for the motivational effect of sustainability. Through their value orientation, credibility, and strategic focus, managers have a decisive influence on whether sustainability perceives as meaningful within the company. Their behavior determines whether employees perceive sustainability as an authentic guiding principle or as a symbolic obligation.

Managers at all levels play a central role in implementing sustainability.⁷⁴ When top management exemplifies sustainability and recognizes it as a strategic tool, it provides orientation for employees.¹²⁷ This is achieved through a clear vision, corporate mission, or communication of values.¹²⁸ It enables employees to understand the company’s course, classify goals, and place their own tasks in a larger context.³³ The crucial factor is consistency between communicated values and actual actions. If this is lacking, employee trust dwindles, meaning that sustainability measures are no longer perceived as meaningful.¹^,¹¹^,⁵⁹ Managers influence employee motivation by setting a personal example, designing institutional control mechanisms, and shaping governance and stakeholder structures.⁴^,¹²⁵

The decisions made by top management regarding sustainability also impact the actions of other managers. This trickle-down effect describes how the strategic values and priorities of top management permeate the organization.¹²⁹ Direct supervisors act as mediators of these values and influence the perception of sustainability within the team through their own behavior. This process is based on mechanisms such as identification, value adoption, and social orientation.¹³⁰ This becomes problematic when the commitment of managers remains superficial and is primarily aimed at external impact.⁵⁹ In such cases, a tension arises between strategic communication and actual action, which reduces credibility and can have demotivating effects.⁶⁴^,⁸²

The impact of managers is not only influenced by formal control mechanisms, but also by personal role modelling. Leading by example is a central component of strategic leadership culture, as it makes sustainability visible and generates credibility.⁵⁹^,¹³¹^,¹³² When managers embody sustainability principles in their own actions, they create orientation and promote an organizational climate that fosters intrinsic motivation.⁵⁹ In doing so, managers are not only the architects of sustainability strategies, but also part of the organizational community.¹³³ Their own motivation is closely linked to the way sustainability is anchored in the company and lived out culturally, which illustrates the reciprocal nature of leadership and motivation.³^,¹⁰⁹^,¹³⁴

In addition to leadership and role modeling, the institutional anchoring of sustainability in management processes is crucial.³⁹^,¹²⁶ Many companies integrate sustainability goals into management processes and management control systems, for example through key performance indicators (KPIs) in target agreements or variable remuneration systems.¹³⁵^,¹³⁶ Such mechanisms complement cultural role models, as they also structurally secure sustainability and strategically control it through clear incentive systems.¹⁹^,⁶³ Studies show that almost half of board members are in favor of fully or partially integrating sustainability goals into performance evaluations and compensation. Companies with high climate performance are significantly more likely to have such incentive systems in place.¹³⁵ Experts recommend that such incentives be given significant financial weight, ideally accounting for more than 20% of the variable compensation element, in order to clearly and credibly underscore the strategic relevance of sustainability.¹³⁵ In this way, managers take responsibility for sustainability as part of their performance targets and send a clear signal that sustainable action is desired and valued at all levels.³⁹^,⁷⁹ This creates an organizational culture that strengthens identification and motivation.¹³⁷

Furthermore, an increasing number of companies are establishing sustainability committees at executive board level, or incorporating sustainability issues into existing management bodies.⁷² A typical model is the establishment of a separate sustainability committee within the supervisory or administrative board, which receives regular reports and monitors the implementation of the sustainability strategy.³⁹ This governance structure firmly anchors sustainability in the management structures and ensures transparency and accountability to stakeholders.⁷² Overall, a value-oriented management culture in which sustainability is exemplified from the top down and integrated into control processes promotes pride, trust, and meaningfulness in the work of employees.⁶^,⁸^,¹¹¹

External stakeholder committees can contribute to legitimacy as well. For instance, an industry organization established a forum with non-governmental organizations and rating agencies to provide feedback on sustainability activities. The combination of external feedback and internal credibility motivates employees by showing them that sustainability is a strategic guiding principle, not just a tool for enhancing reputation.³³

This shows that integrating sustainability into management processes has a dual effect. It anchors sustainability structurally and emotionally, thereby promoting a sense of purpose, trust, and identification, which are central dimensions of employee motivation. Embedding sustainability in visions, mission statements, and control mechanisms creates a clear framework of orientation for employees.³³^,¹³⁸ This strategic orientation signals that sustainability is not just an additional communication topic, but is understood as an integral part of the business model.¹³³ For the employees, this means that their own tasks are part of a larger, value-oriented context, which promotes a sense of purpose, identification, and a higher degree of intrinsic motivation.¹^,⁸⁰

3.1.2 Integration of sustainability into human resource management

Once the management dimension has established the normative framework, HRM ensures that sustainability is strategically anchored in key management processes.⁴⁹ It acts as an intermediary between corporate strategy and employees.¹²⁸ Close coordination with the overall strategy is necessary to ensure that personnel-related measures have their full effect on the ethical climate. At the same time, close cooperation between HR managers and executives from other areas is crucial to ensure that ethical values are consistently communicated and anchored in all areas of the company.³⁸ HRM is responsible for integrating sustainability throughout the entire employee life cycle, from recruitment and training to performance appraisal.¹³⁹

When HRM acts as a driver of sustainability, this begins with the recruitment of new employees.¹¹⁰ More and more companies are using their sustainability goals and achievements in a targeted manner to be perceived as attractive employers.⁶⁴ Younger applicants are paying increasing attention to a company’s social and environmental responsibility and how it integrates this into its business practices when choosing a career.¹⁴⁰^,¹⁴¹ Job advertisements and interviews also specifically integrate the company’s sustainability values in order to appeal to applicants who have a strong ethical awareness or can identify with social and environmental goals.¹⁴²

Strategically oriented recruitment processes examine not only professional suitability but also the value orientation and social commitment of applicants to ensure that the workforce shares the company’s sustainability vision.⁹⁷^,¹³⁹

This orientation lays the foundation for later sense making and identification, thereby promoting long-term motivation.⁶^,¹³⁹ It is consistent with the ability dimension of AMO theory, which emphasizes that suitable skills and attitudes should be identified as early as the selection phase.³⁸ Strategically planned training and development programs then promote sustainability competence and value-oriented leadership behavior.⁷⁴^,¹⁰⁰ In this way, HRM contributes to building a credible and committed workforce that actively shapes sustainability.¹²⁶

Motivational measures in line with AMO theory are also important for integrating sustainability and promoting sustainable behavior. They should specifically link performance evaluation, compensation, and incentive systems to responsible and ethical behavior.³⁸ Long-term recognition such as promotions are particularly effective in this regard, as they emphasize the importance of moral action without relativizing its value through short-term financial incentives.³⁸^,³⁹ This is also in line with the assumptions of SDT, according to which people act with particular commitment, perseverance, and performance when their behavior is self-motivated. Actions based on inner conviction and voluntary decision-making are therefore more likely to be initiated and performed with higher quality than those that arise solely from external pressure or the desire for reward.³⁹ This avoids negative effects where external rewards supplant internal motivation.⁵⁴ Organizations can, for example, develop customized training programs that specifically address sustainability issues.⁵⁹ Examples include workshops on sustainable procurement, event management, or promoting biodiversity at the company’s location.¹⁴³ Green benefits such as subsidies for public transport tickets or bicycle programs can also boost motivation. Competitions and gamification approaches, for example, CO2 pricing and upcycling challenges, are also beneficial when combined with recognition and appreciation without displacing intrinsic motivation.³⁸^,¹⁴³

These measures make HRM a key lever that links sustainability with the basic psychological needs of employees, thereby building lasting motivation. Through value alignment and meaning creation, employees experience their work as meaningful.¹⁴⁴ Training and continuing education strengthen the feeling of competence and self-efficacy.³⁸^,¹⁴⁵ Fair recognition and incentive systems satisfy the need for autonomy and justice, while participatory programs promote belonging and connectedness.⁵^,²⁷^,⁹¹ It is crucial that sustainability measures are designed in such a way that they not only provide external incentives but also appeal to inner convictions.

This creates motivation that is not based on short-term rewards but rather fosters long-term commitment, identification, and willingness to perform.⁸⁸

3.1.3 Organizational structures and systems

Organizational structures and systems are just as important as leadership and HRM when it comes to putting effective sustainability measures in place. They create the formal and informal framework conditions in which sustainable motivation can arise.¹⁴⁶ This includes not only the formal organizational structure with specific departments and roles, but also cultural norms.¹⁴⁷ Sustainability can be effectively anchored through both centralized and decentralized organizational structures.

One option is to create special positions that bear overall responsibility for sustainability. This signals strategic relevance and promotes company-wide implementation across departmental boundaries.³⁹ Alternatively, participatory, decentralized structures can be effective, in which employees take personal responsibility for sustainability.¹⁴⁸ When companies are transparent in their discussion of moral issues, employees tend to act responsibly.⁷⁰ A combination of decentralized structures and individual sustainability officers can also unlock area-specific potential.⁷²^,¹⁴⁸ Institutionalized, cross-departmental exchange ensures that sustainability initiatives are coordinated and integrated across the organization.¹⁴³

Organizational development in the context of sustainability means systematically and permanently integrating sustainability-related practices into the core processes of the company.³⁷^,⁹¹ This includes the strategic alignment of operational sustainability and health management systems and the integration of procedures for assessing mental stress into organizational processes.¹⁴⁹^,¹⁵⁰ Such measures not only influence formal structures, but also promote a value-oriented corporate culture that strengthens transparency and participation.³^,¹⁵¹ Employees experience this change not as a purely top-down initiative, but as a collective learning and development process that creates meaning and contributes to the long-term anchoring of sustainable motivation.⁸⁸^,⁹¹ By acting authentically and responsibly, companies enable employees to align their personal values with their work.¹⁰⁷^,¹⁵² This promotes pride, a sense of meaning, and belonging.⁴⁶^,⁵⁸^,¹⁵³ It increases intrinsic motivation and loyalty to the company, and leads to greater commitment.¹⁰⁷^,¹³⁷^,¹⁴⁶

In addition, corporate culture plays an important role as an informal structure.¹⁴⁷^,¹⁵² In this context, a shift in culture towards more sustainable values often also requires change management.¹⁴⁴ Managers must exemplify the values, raise awareness, and win employees over to the meaning of the change.⁵⁹^,¹²⁵ Strategic internal communication supports this process by creating transparency, promoting dialogue, and systematically incorporating feedback into the further development of the sustainability strategy. In this way, sustainability is experienced as a shared concern rather than a purely top-down initiative.¹¹¹^,¹⁴³^,¹⁵⁴

A structural measure closely linked to culture is the embedding of sustainability in internal control and reporting systems.³⁸ Sustainability goals should be measured and communicated internally in a similar way to financial indicators.¹³¹ The development of transparent reporting systems and company-wide communication mechanisms helps to make progress on sustainability goals visible and to anchor their importance in the organizational consciousness.¹⁴³ In this way, sustainability is established as an ongoing component of corporate management and perceived as a common concern.⁹ Regular internal and external reporting also creates transparency about progress and areas where action is needed.³⁶^,⁷¹

At the strategic level, organizational structures act as a translating agent between abstract sustainability goals and everyday work. By firmly integrating sustainability into roles, processes, and reporting systems, employees experience sustainability not as an external add-on project, but as part of the organizational logic.¹ Transparent control mechanisms, participatory structures, and a value-oriented culture create orientation and commitment, which strengthens trust and identification.¹⁶^,¹⁷^,³³^,¹⁰⁷ This makes sustainability a collective frame of reference that conveys meaning and belonging, thereby promoting intrinsic motivation in the long term.²⁰ However, it should be noted that the introduction of sustainability in companies is rarely done with a view to motivating the workforce, but primarily serves to meet external requirements, which can limit its effectiveness as a motivational lever.⁴⁹

In summary, it can be said that the strategic anchoring of sustainability in leadership, HRM, and organizational structures creates the basis for sustainability to be perceived not as a superficial PR tool, but as a lived corporate value.¹^,³ Managers who credibly exemplify sustainability and strategically manage it, HR departments that integrate sustainability into all phases of the employee life cycle, and organizational structures that firmly embed sustainability in decision-making processes collectively strengthen employee motivation.³⁸^,⁵⁹^,¹²²^,¹⁴⁶ This is beneficial for the company itself, as employees support sustainability goals out of conviction and their motivation to perform increases.⁶^,¹⁴⁶ This creates a consistent framework in which sustainability is both structurally anchored and emotionally experienced. In this way, sustainability is not only communicated strategically, but can also be experienced in everyday working life. The following section analyzes key strategic drivers and barriers that determine how effectively this integration can be implemented in practice.

3.1.4 Drivers and barriers of strategic implementation

The following section analyzes the key drivers and obstacles to this integration in order to clarify the conditions under which sustainability actually becomes a source of intrinsic motivation and when it loses its effect. Sustainability only unleashes its motivational potential when strategic, cultural, and structural conditions are consistently interlinked. It does not function as an isolated measure, but rather as an integral design process in which leadership, culture, and control systems establish the connection between strategic orientation and individual motivation.¹ A summary is provided in the table below (Table 2), followed by a more detailed explanation of the individual points.

Table 2: Drivers and barriers of strategic implementation.

Drivers

Barriers

Visible top management commitment: Executives consistently position sustainability as a strategic priority, reinforcing organizational legitimacy and credibility.

Symbolic leadership: Commitment is communicated but not reflected in decisions or behavior, creating employee skepticism.

Integration into governance and management control systems: Sustainability targets are embedded in KPIs, performance reviews, budgeting, and reporting systems.

Lack of systematic control: Missing or inconsistent sustainability metrics reduce accountability and strategic coherence.

Value-based corporate culture: Shared ethical principles and long-term orientation create normative alignment and credibility.

Disconnection between sustainability strategy and management systems: Lack of institutional integration across governance, HR, and control systems leads to inconsistent behavioral reinforcement.

Top-down communication of sustainability vision: Consistent and credible communication links sustainability to corporate purpose and long-term strategy.

Cultural fragmentation: Conflicting departmental logics and short-term priorities hinder consistent implementation.

Strategic HRM and incentive alignment: Leadership development, performance management, and incentive structures are strategically linked to sustainability objectives.

Information asymmetry or weak credibility: Vague or inconsistent messages reduce clarity and employee trust.

One of the key strategic drivers is the role of corporate management, which acts as a translator between vision, values, and organizational structures.¹³⁴ The organization’s primary objective is not the management of individual initiatives from an operational perspective. Instead, its mission is to establish a coherent framework that integrates sustainability as a fundamental component of its corporate identity.⁵⁹^,¹¹¹^,¹⁵⁵ A visible commitment from top management strengthens the legitimacy of sustainability goals and signals that they are not seen as an add-on, but as an integral part of the strategic logic.¹²⁸^,¹³⁴ The perceived internal sustainability orientation is crucial in this regard. This means there should be consistency between the communicated guidelines and actual corporate practice.⁴¹^,¹⁴⁴ On this basis, sustainability becomes a management principle that addresses basic psychological needs for meaning, competence, and belonging, thereby promoting intrinsic motivation.¹²⁸

In addition to leadership and strategic orientation, corporate culture forms a crucial basis for anchoring sustainability in the organization and reinforcing motivational effects.¹³⁴ Where sustainability is anchored in the core business and does not appear as a supplementary peripheral issue, identification and commitment increase.⁶¹ A pro-ecological climate, understood as a shared perception of policies, procedures, and practiced routines, promotes willingness to learn, innovation, and sustainable performance.⁵⁹^,¹⁵⁰ Culture makes expectations tangible and lends plausibility to desired behavior, which stabilizes motivation in the long term.³⁹^,¹³³ In addition, a sustainability strategy and a corporate purpose that goes beyond profit maximization play a key role.¹³^,¹¹¹ Thus, sustainability can serve as a strategic management tool to develop a lasting competitive advantage through human capital.⁴¹ A clearly articulated social purpose is the first step in this process.⁶⁰^,⁸⁶ Culture acts as a collective motivational mechanism by institutionalizing ethical values, thereby increasingly rendering extrinsic control superfluous.⁶³^,⁹¹

In order for aspiration and reality to come together, strategic control systems are needed that combine direction and learning.³ Management control systems can operationalize sustainability strategies, make progress measurable, and enable adjustments. Belief systems clarify attitudes and aspirations, while diagnostic systems identify deviations from targets and initiate corrections. This makes the strategic anchoring of sustainability manageable and verifiable.³³ This interaction becomes effective when sustainability is coherently embedded in leadership, HRM, and organizational structures, and when motivational conditions are systematically designed.⁴¹^,¹³⁴ Strategic communication mechanisms should be designed to promote meaning orientation and address intrinsic motivations, while HRM and leadership should be aware of and balance different motivation patterns among the workforce.¹⁰⁷^,¹²⁹ Work contexts that enable autonomy, competence, and relatedness strengthen autonomous motivation, performance quality, and well-being.⁶³^,¹⁵⁶ Leadership that supports autonomy, takes up perspectives, opens up choices, and provides meaningful feedback is a central prerequisite for this.⁸⁸ Participatory formats in which employees are involved in planning and decision-making on sustainable practices increase the feeling of self-efficacy and strengthen the acceptance of change.⁹¹ As already explained in the section on leadership, the exemplary behavior of top management in particular sends a strong signal. Managers translate sustainability goals into tangible values, and thus act as cultural amplifiers, making the normative claim of sustainability visible and strengthening trust.¹⁵⁰

Furthermore, sustainability is a strategic tool for recruiting and retaining employees.⁴⁹ Companies can strengthen their attractiveness as employers in a targeted manner through credible sustainability initiatives and differentiate themselves from competitors and other companies.³³^,¹⁵⁷ A visible focus on sustainability signals moral integrity, future viability, and a sense of responsibility to potential applicants and can thus be a key criterion in their choice of employer.¹⁴² At the same time, a consistent sustainability strategy makes it clear to existing employees that the company takes its social and environmental responsibility toward internal stakeholders seriously. This strengthens trust, organizational commitment, and long-term loyalty.⁵ Sustainability becomes an integral part of the strategic employer brand and contributes to the emotional identification of the workforce with the company.

While these factors act as drivers, in practice there are numerous structural and psychological barriers that can limit the effectiveness of sustainability in motivating employees.

Strategic barriers arise primarily where direction, resources, and signals are inconsistent. If there is no clear commitment from top management or if the strategic direction remains unclear, sustainability loses priority and effectiveness.²⁰ If the focus is too strongly on technical or procedural measures, while behavioral and communication aspects are neglected, motivational potential remains untapped.⁹¹ A lack of integration between sustainability and corporate strategy can also inhibit innovation processes and hinder the organizational learning process.³³^,⁸⁴

Conflicting goals between short-term economic constraints and long-term sustainability goals are among the classic obstacles as well.¹ A selfish ethical climate, sometimes fostered by inappropriate HRM, suppresses benevolent and principle-driven orientations.³⁸ If economic success is systematically placed above social or environmental responsibility, this undermines the perception of organizational integrity and, thus, intrinsic motivation.¹¹^,⁶⁴

External conditions such as market pressure, regulatory uncertainty, or cultural differences further complicate consistent implementation.³^,⁴¹ Added to this are deficits in communication and participation. A purely top-down approach rarely motivates and can exacerbate resistance.¹ If there are no suitable participation mechanisms, there is a risk that employees will perceive sustainability measures as externally imposed or as competition for scarce resources, which promotes demotivation.³³^,⁹¹ Monetary incentives prove to be double-edged in this context. They can achieve short-term effects, but in the long term they undermine intrinsic motivation.⁸⁸

Another key strategic barrier is a lack of authenticity and credibility. If sustainability activities are primarily reputation-driven or designed in response to external pressure, they lose their motivational power.¹ Empirical studies underscore the ambivalent effect of extrinsic motivations. On the one hand, work performance and voluntary engagement can increase when sustainability is linked to both intrinsic and extrinsic motives.¹⁰⁷ On the other hand, studies show that extrinsic attributions have little positive effect on certain outcomes such as job satisfaction or organizational commitment, while intrinsic motives are decisive.¹²⁹ What is decisive is therefore not the combination of intrinsic and extrinsic reasons, but the absence of self-serving motives. Only when moral conviction is evident does sustainability have a lasting effect on motivation and commitment. Otherwise, there is a risk of a discrepancy between message and behavior, which weakens credibility and trust.⁵⁴^,¹²⁹

Another strategic challenge lies in the difficulty of measuring the motivational effect of sustainability.³³ These effects are often indirect, unfold over longer periods of time, and are influenced by contextual factors such as industry, location, and organizational culture.¹³^,⁴⁹^,¹⁵⁸ Empirical findings also show that the impact of external sustainability measures depends heavily on cultural and economic conditions.⁵⁸ A study found that external sustainability activities had no direct influence on employees’ environmental commitment in developing countries, though a positive correlation was found in developed countries. One possible reason for this is that employees in economically less stable regions perceive voluntary and ecological measures as less relevant, as existential needs such as job security and financial stability are more important.⁵⁸ However, other studies show that sustainability initiatives aimed at external stakeholders can promote voluntary engagement among employees in both the social and ecological spheres. These findings illustrate that the impact of external sustainability depends heavily on the cultural and economic environment as well as on individual perceptions.¹⁵³ As a result, it remains unclear to what extent individual measures actually contribute to engagement, loyalty, or performance.⁵⁸ This makes it more difficult for managers to transparently demonstrate the achievement of goals, secure budgets, and permanently anchor sustainability in management control logic.³³ Consequently, attention often shifts toward easily quantifiable activities, which, however, have only a limited motivational effect. At the same time, the low comparability between areas and locations makes it difficult to scale successful approaches and hinders their integration into management control systems.³³

However, it should be noted that not every sustainability measure has the same effect on all employees.¹⁴ In particular, the transition to integrated regulation has been little studied empirically to date, so further research is needed to better understand the long-term impact of sustainability on deeply rooted motivation and organizational commitment.⁵⁴

Finally, there is an implementation gap between theoretical knowledge and practical application. While research provides numerous reasons why sustainability can have a motivational effect, it often remains unclear how it can actually be successfully integrated into organizational structures and processes.¹⁵^,²⁹^,⁴¹ A structural bias in favor of financial indicators reduces the attractiveness of environmental and social goals unless they are closely linked to economic results.¹⁶^,³³ Perceived discrepancies between proclaimed values and actual practices weaken trust in strategic integrity and reduce motivation.¹⁰^,³³ In extreme cases, this leads to a reorientation toward short-term economic targets, causing sustainability to lose its motivational and strategic effect.³³

Overall, it is clear that integrating sustainability into corporate management only has an effective impact on motivation if it is strategically coherent, culturally anchored, and communicated credibly. Where there are conflicting goals, a lack of resources, or a lack of authenticity, sustainability loses its motivational power. The key is to strike a balance between strategic management and lived values. However, strategic decisions alone are not enough to embed sustainability in the organizational reality. There remains a gap between intention and implementation, which determines whether sustainability is actually embedded in routines, processes, and behaviors.

Ultimately, the motivational effect arises where strategic principles are translated into tangible structures and actions. The following chapter on operational implementation examines how this translation can be achieved in everyday work and how it can unleash the motivational power of sustainability.

3.2 Operational implementation

While the strategic section described the structural and normative anchoring of sustainability, the focus now shifts to its operational implementation in everyday work. The decisive factor is how sustainability is specifically experienced and practiced, as this is where its motivational effect arises.¹²³ Strategic guidelines form the foundation, but motivation only arises when employees experience sustainability integrated into their daily work context.⁵⁰ The focus is therefore on internal measures such as personnel policy, equal opportunities, corporate culture, and occupational safety.⁴⁹ These levers create an environment in which employees experience security, effectiveness, and belonging. The goal is to systematically fulfill key psychological needs through operational, cultural, and procedural practices in order to stabilize motivation in the long term.⁵⁸ In the following, these framework conditions are specified along the dimensions of participation and communication, integration into work and organization, and social and creating supportive social, psychological, and resource conditions.

3.2.1 Participation and communication

Participation and voluntariness

Participation is a key mechanism through which sustainability has a motivating effect in everyday working life. Employees who are actively involved in decision-making and implementation processes do not experience sustainability as an externally imposed program, but as a shared space in which they can exert influence and experience effectiveness.⁵⁹^,¹⁴⁶ Companies that promote flat hierarchies, offer workshops, and establish an open culture of error management create a climate of psychological security that encourages initiative and responsibility.³⁸^,¹⁴³^,¹⁵² This creates trust, a sense of belonging, and identification with the organization, which strengthens intrinsic motivation.¹⁵³

HRM translates the strategic sustainability orientation into concrete participation formats and creates real opportunities for co-creation in line with the opportunity dimension of AMO theory.³⁸^,¹⁴⁶ Initiatives such as internal sustainability teams, idea competitions, or innovation budgets create opportunities to take responsibility and implement one’s own ideas.¹³²^,¹⁵¹ This results in projects that promote exchange and cooperation and motivate colleagues to get involved.¹³² However, idea competitions should be used with caution, as they do not have the same motivational effect on all employees and may also have undesirable side effects.¹⁴³ Some companies go even further by promoting social engagement and actively supporting volunteer work.¹⁵⁹ Such measures convey an appreciation for social responsibility and show that sustainable action is part of the lived culture.¹⁸^,¹³⁹ Employees whose values align with those of the company experience meaning, self-efficacy, and thus higher intrinsic motivation.¹^,¹⁶⁰

Participation is particularly effective when employees are involved in the planning and implementation of sustainability initiatives from the outset.⁵⁹^,¹⁴⁶ Early involvement promotes transparency and shared responsibility, which in turn strengthens trust and credibility.⁶⁴^,¹⁶¹ Tools such as employee surveys or sustainability forums promote dialogue and create shared responsibility.¹³³^,¹⁴³ The authenticity of the commitment to sustainability is crucial. Measures must be visible in everyday work and consistently supported and exemplified by management in order to have a motivational effect.¹²⁵ Employees perceive sustainability as credible when they recognize that environmental and social goals are actually embedded in structures, processes, and decisions.¹³³

The experience of autonomy is also central. When employees can independently integrate sustainability goals into their work, ownership and intrinsic motivation arise.¹¹¹ This is particularly effective when employees can develop their own ideas, implement them on their own responsibility, and use their scope for action within clear goals. However, companies should also understand the different motivational patterns of their employees (e.g., autonomous vs. controlled motivation) in order to implement sustainability initiatives in their daily work.¹⁰⁷ Participatory formats support self-determined and meaningful work experiences by considering individual perspectives and giving employees a voice.²⁵

A practical example is provided by participatory interventions that actively involve employees in the development of sustainable measures. Typically, these consist of three phases. In the recognition phase, challenges and potential for improvement are identified, in the decision-making phase, joint solution strategies are developed, and in the implementation phase, the agreed measures are integrated into the work processes. Through this co-creation, employees experience autonomy and competence, which strengthens motivation and a sense of responsibility.⁹¹

This principle is particularly evident in the format of green hackathons. Here, the three components of AMO theory come together. Employees contribute their skills to interdisciplinary teams, acquire new knowledge, and at the same time experience meaningfulness and creative freedom. Recognition and implementation options activate both intrinsic and extrinsic sources of motivation. Formats such as those used by the Renault Group or Bosch, which held hackathons on decarbonization and social impact, illustrate how employees voluntarily contribute to sustainability in a meaningful and cross-team manner, thereby strengthening both motivation and organizational learning.¹⁶²^,¹⁶³

Overall, it is clear that participation is more than just a means of implementing sustainability. It is itself a source of motivation. Through co-creation, autonomy, and shared responsibility, sustainability becomes a tangible part of everyday working life.

Feedback culture

Building on the active involvement of employees, a culture of feedback reinforces the motivational effect of sustainability by promoting exchange, appreciation, and a willingness to learn. A lively feedback culture is a key component of sustainable motivation.¹³⁴ It combines appreciation, transparency, and dialogue into a continuous learning process.³³^,⁵⁹^,¹³³ This process provides orientation, promotes engagement, and enables innovation.⁵⁹^,¹⁴⁶^,¹⁵² Regular, constructive feedback gives employees recognition and a sense of purpose, which are key prerequisites for intrinsic motivation.¹⁴⁶^,¹⁵²

Recognition and praise signal that contributions are seen and appreciated. Visibly acknowledged successes strengthen self-esteem and a sense of belonging and increase the willingness to continue to be committed.¹³⁹ It is equally important to deal with mistakes constructively. When mistakes are understood as learning opportunities, psychological safety is created, which in turn is a key element for creativity, innovation, and sustainable commitment.³³^,¹⁵²

Feedback should be understood as a two-way process. Employees must have the opportunity to contribute their own perspectives and suggestions for improvement.⁵⁹^,¹⁵⁰ Such bidirectional exchange formats correspond to the opportunity dimension of AMO theory, as they enable participation and co-creation.³⁷^,³⁸ Operationally, this is achieved through regular team meetings, open dialogue formats, or feedback workshops, which create space for reflection and joint adaptation of sustainability measures.¹³²^,¹⁴³ This allows ideas from different departments to be brought together and tailored to local requirements.³⁹^,¹⁴⁶ This not only increases the quality of the measures, but also strengthens the sense of shared responsibility and self-efficacy, further increasing motivation and commitment.¹¹¹

In everyday work, performance reviews and annual appraisals serve as key feedback tools for highlighting and specifically promoting sustainable behavior. Positive side effects here can include improved company performance and enhanced public image.¹⁸ When managers actively take sustainability performance into account in discussions or target agreements, employees recognize that their commitment is noticed and valued.¹⁸^,¹³² This recognition can be supplemented by awards, public praise, or small material incentives.⁵⁹ Competitions on CO₂ reduction or energy efficiency also increase the visibility of sustainable performance and promote team spirit.¹⁴³ This creates a culture in which sustainability is not only expected but also rewarded and reinforced in daily activities.

A culture of feedback that is put into practice has an impact beyond communication by expressing the organizational attitude.³³ In this way, sustainability is experienced not as an additional task, but as a natural part of daily activities.¹³³ Managers play a key operational role in this by actively supporting feedback processes, promoting openness, and visibly exemplifying recognition.⁵⁹

Communication in daily practice and employee voice

Communication forms the bridge between sustainability strategy and daily work practices. It translates abstract goals into concrete actions and conveys meaning, orientation, and belonging.⁵^,¹⁶⁴ This makes it a key lever through which sustainability becomes tangible and motivating in everyday work.¹³² Open, consistent, and dialogue-oriented communication strengthens trust, orientation, and identification with the corporate vision.¹⁶⁴ To achieve this effect, communication should be firmly embedded in the organizational culture, anchored at all levels, and designed as a continuous process so that goals, progress, and challenges remain transparent.¹⁶⁴^,³⁹

Operationally, communication is effective when information and dialogue are in balance.¹⁶⁴ In addition to traditional channels such as intranet, email, and employee magazines, interactive formats are gaining in importance, such as workshops, internal forums, sustainability days, and onboarding programs with a focus on sustainability.¹³³^,¹⁴³^,¹⁵³ These formats not only enable the transfer of information, but also promote exchange and collaborative learning. In this way, employees are actively involved in the sustainability discourse and experience that their perspectives are heard and taken into account. This increases perceived self-efficacy, which strengthens intrinsic motivation.¹³¹^,¹⁵²

A key principle of effective communication is transparency. This includes openly sharing successes as well as identifying difficulties and learning processes.¹³⁴ When companies disclose where they stand and how they deal with difficulties, this creates credibility and appreciation.⁴¹ Employees feel part of a shared development process and are motivated to actively contribute to achieving goals.¹⁵⁰ Regular and clear communication also strengthens the needs for belonging, competence, and meaning in the sense of SDT, as employees understand their role in the bigger picture and experience how their work contributes to the company’s goals.³⁰^,¹⁶⁴

Managers bear operational responsibility in this regard. Their daily communication shapes how credible and motivating sustainability is perceived to be. They can specifically promote motivation by providing regular updates, explaining decisions transparently, answering questions openly, and actively seeking feedback.⁵⁹^,⁷²^,¹⁵³ Authenticity arises when this communication is consistent with actual actions and sustainability is visibly anchored in decisions, language, and priorities.¹⁴² Consequently, sustainability is not merely articulated but also embodied.

Overall, it is clear that internal communication in the context of sustainability goes far beyond the mere transfer of information. It provides orientation, makes values tangible, and enables dialogue. When employees are regularly informed, involved, and seriously listened to, sustainability becomes part of everyday communication and thus a source of meaning, trust, and motivation. Therefore, the next section addresses the question of how this motivational effect can be further strengthened when sustainability is directly integrated into work processes and structures.

3.2.2 Integration in work and organization

Embedding sustainability into daily work

The design of tasks, roles, and processes determines whether sustainability goals are effectively implemented in everyday work and experienced as motivating.¹⁴⁷^,¹⁶⁵ According to the JCM, motivation increases when activities are varied, have a recognizable impact on the overall result, and open up the scope for creativity. Regular feedback that makes progress and effectiveness visible is equally important.⁵² In operational terms, this means structuring work content in such a way that sustainability is experienced not as an additional task, but as a natural part of everyday work.⁶¹ In product development, for example, ecological criteria can be integrated into every project, while purchasing selects suppliers based on social and ecological standards.¹³^,¹⁶⁴ Logistics, sales, and customer service can also embed sustainable goals into their processes, for example through resource-saving procedures or the promotion of environmentally conscious customer decisions.¹³⁴^,¹⁴⁴

Varied tasks that require different skills and offer creative freedom prevent monotony and promote engagement.¹⁴⁵ When employees recognize that their work makes a visible contribution to overarching sustainability goals, it creates a sense of purpose and responsibility.⁷⁶^,¹⁶⁶ Autonomy in implementation supports creativity and initiative, while regular feedback, for example through project reviews or sustainability indicators, provides orientation and highlights progress.⁵²^,⁸⁵^,⁸⁸ Companies that specifically design their work in this way create conditions in which sustainability is experienced as part of one’s own work and not just perceived as a strategic goal.⁴⁶

In addition to jobs tasks, the physical working environment also shapes how credibly sustainability is experienced in everyday life.¹⁵⁰ Operational measures such as home office regulations, digital document processes, or flexible workplace concepts not only reduce emissions but also signal trust and personal responsibility. Sustainable office equipment, ergonomic workstations, and waste separation systems combine ecological responsibility with employee well-being.¹⁴³ Such visible structures make sustainability tangible and demonstrate that ecological goals are actually implemented.¹⁶⁷

The decisive factor here is not the measure itself, but rather the company’s perceived attitude.⁵⁶ When employees recognize that sustainability is being pursued seriously, their identification with the organization and their intrinsic motivation to actively contribute to its overall success increase.¹¹^,⁶³ Diversity and inclusion measures also contribute significantly to anchoring sustainable employee motivation.¹⁶⁸

A diverse workforce brings different perspectives, experiences, and skills that promote innovation in the area of sustainability. Measures such as participatory design processes that take diversity into account in decision-making processes, or the adaptation of training and health offerings to different learning requirements and needs, strengthen the sense of fairness and belonging. At the same time, rules and routines that make disadvantages visible and reduce them promote an inclusive climate. Employees who perceive the company as embracing diversity and equal opportunities develop greater trust and commitment. This anchors sustainability not only ecologically but also socially, which intensifies identification with the organization and sustainably strengthens motivation to participate.¹⁶⁸

Action plans are another operational tool for embedding sustainability in everyday work. They give concrete form to sustainability goals by defining responsibilities, timetables, and specific steps for action, thereby bridging the gap between intention and actual behavior. This creates clarity about who is implementing which measures and by when. Public declarations of commitment, such as the signing of team or departmental plans, further increase accountability. In the context of sustainability, action plans help to ensure that initiatives do not remain abstract, but are integrated into daily work. They provide guidance, facilitate performance review, and strengthen motivation, as progress becomes visible and interim goals can be celebrated together.⁹¹

Experiencing meaning, purpose and impact

A motivating organizational design requires sustainability and social responsibility to be integrated into daily work processes as a matter of course. The starting point is a clearly defined corporate purpose that credibly anchors sustainability in the values and goals of the organization.¹⁶¹ A credible and meaningful corporate purpose encourages employees to engage holistically with environmental and social issues and strengthens their psychological personal responsibility.¹¹¹ Authentic sustainability initiatives not only appeal to potential applicants, but also convey a consistent image of culture and values to existing employees.¹⁴² Employees are more committed when they see that their work contributes to the environment and society beyond economic goals and that their results visibly contribute to the progress of sustainable corporate goals.¹^,⁵⁹^,⁷¹

For this sense of meaning to emerge, tasks and projects must be closely linked to sustainable corporate goals.⁶ It should be clear how each role contributes to the achievement of these goals.¹³² Activities that enable personal development and highlight the relevance of individual skills to overarching sustainability goals promote meaning and self-efficacy.¹⁰⁵ Operationally, formats such as thematic action months, eco-mapping, or innovation budgets can make this connection visible and strengthen awareness of one’s own effectiveness in the context of sustainability.¹³²

A high degree of value alignment between individual and organizational beliefs strengthens identification with the company and long-term commitment.⁸ This is especially true for younger generations, who increasingly view meaning and social impact as key motivators at work.¹⁴² Sustainability becomes a bridge that connects personal beliefs with professional responsibility.¹⁰⁷ However, it is crucial that this sense of purpose is not only communicated, but also experienced in everyday work through structures, processes, and decision-making logic.¹³³ Only when sustainability is visibly lived out in daily activities it unfolds its full motivational potential.⁴⁶^,¹⁴⁶

This shows that integrating sustainability into tasks, structures, and the work environment not only has an organizational impact, but also motivates employees by addressing their psychological needs for meaning, effectiveness, and belonging.

3.2.3 Creating supportive social, psychological and resource condition

Social recognition and belonging

Social and psychological working conditions form a central basis for sustainability to unfold its motivational effect. While structures and processes create the organizational framework, the social quality of the working environment determines whether sustainability is experienced as meaningful, supportive, and authentic.¹⁹^,⁴⁶ Social recognition and belonging are particularly crucial, as they tie in with the fundamental psychological needs of employees and promote well-being, commitment, and intrinsic motivation.¹⁹

When employees experience that their values and beliefs are in line with those of the company, a sense of belonging, pride, and meaning emerges that sustainably strengthens motivation and loyalty.⁵^,⁴⁶^,⁵⁰ Authentic sustainability initiatives promote this identification because they show that values are not only communicated but actually lived. At the same time, the principle of reciprocity applies. Those who experience care and responsibility on the part of the organization respond with trust, voluntary commitment, and motivation.¹⁰ Sustainability thus has not only a structural but also a social impact by strengthening relationships and making meaning tangible.

In terms of operational implementation, this means that companies should specifically integrate social recognition and belonging into their sustainability strategies. This includes clear communication of values, visible appreciation of contributions, opportunities for participatory involvement, and a culture of respect.¹⁸^,¹⁹^,²¹^,³⁷^,⁵⁹ Managers play a key role here, as their behavior shapes the degree of appreciation and social support.³⁹^,¹⁶⁹ When sustainability is tangible in everyday interactions, it creates an atmosphere of trust that strengthens motivation, loyalty, and commitment in the long term.¹⁴⁶

A practical example is provided by the US insurance company Aflac. There, social recognition is used specifically to promote motivation and solidarity. Initiatives such as the Employee Appreciation Week publicly acknowledge the achievements of employees and strengthen social cohesion. In addition, Aflac invests in training programs, on-site childcare, and a no-layoff policy. These measures address key psychological needs for security, belonging, and self-esteem.¹⁴⁵ The combination of recognition, development, and care creates a work environment in which employees identify with sustainability values, commit to the company for the long term, and remain intrinsically motivated because they experience their well-being and the company’s goals as being in harmony.

Physical and psychological safety

Physical and psychological safety are fundamental prerequisites for sustainability to have a motivating effect in everyday working life. They address central needs for protection, trust, and well-being, which are closely linked to intrinsic motivation.¹⁹^,¹⁰⁵ Sustainability becomes effective when companies take responsibility for the health and safety of their employees and shape this care as an expression of a value-oriented attitude.¹⁷⁰

Physical safety includes healthy and ergonomically designed workplaces.¹⁵⁴^,¹⁷¹ Consistent occupational safety and preventive measures to avoid hazards, regular training, preventive medical checkups, and appropriate protective clothing show that companies take the safety of their employees seriously.¹⁴³^,¹⁷¹ Health protection is not only a legal obligation, but also an expression of CR that has a direct impact on motivation and performance.¹⁷⁰ Employees who can work without worrying about health risks are more likely to commit to the company in the long term.¹⁶⁹^,¹⁷¹ A culture that prioritizes physical safety also contributes to trust and loyalty toward the company and promotes employee well-being.⁵⁸^,¹⁷¹

Closely linked to physical safety is psychological safety, which describes whether employees feel confident enough to express their own ideas, admit mistakes, or voice criticism without fear of negative consequences.¹⁷² It is created by a climate of respect, openness, and inclusion, which is particularly influenced by the behavior of managers.¹²⁵^,¹⁷⁰

Companies can specifically promote this form of security by visibly valuing diversity, establishing clear rules for respectful behavior, and ensuring fair opportunities.¹⁶⁴^,¹⁴³^,¹⁷³ Supportive structures such as mentoring, supervision, or open conflict resolution procedures further strengthen trust in the organization and promote identification.¹⁵⁶ Psychological safety is therefore not just a working condition, but a direct lever for how sustainability contributes to increasing employee motivation in daily practice.

Sustainability measures also have an effect on the emotional level of employees.¹⁰⁷ They can create meaning, but they can also trigger pressure or feelings of guilt if expectations do not match one’s own convictions.¹^,³⁰ To prevent this, companies should promote a culture that strengthens motivation through support and recognition rather than control or moral pressure.¹¹¹^,¹³⁴ When employees experience that safety, fairness, and inclusion are genuinely guaranteed, a climate of trust is created that fulfills the basic psychological needs for competence, autonomy, and belonging, thereby promoting intrinsic motivation in the long term.¹⁹^,¹⁷¹

Resource conditions

Lasting motivation can only be achieved if companies create the necessary conditions and provide sufficient resources.¹⁵⁰ In the context of sustainability, this includes not only financial resources, but also time, information, suitable work equipment, and continuous training.¹⁷^,³⁹^,¹⁰⁵^,¹⁴³^,¹⁵⁰^,¹⁷⁴ It is crucial that employees feel well equipped and empowered to perform their tasks successfully.⁵⁹ This experience of self-efficacy is a key driver of intrinsic motivation.¹⁰⁵^,¹¹¹

For sustainability initiatives to be effective in everyday work, companies must create spaces where sustainable behavior can be practiced.¹⁴⁶ Fixed time slots for sustainability activities make it clear that sustainable engagement is part of the job and not an additional task. Realistic goals and a balanced workload are equally important to prevent overload and demotivation.¹⁵⁰ Sustainable action can only succeed if the necessary resources are available.¹⁷⁵ These include suitable work equipment, digital solutions, environmentally friendly technologies, and, where appropriate, budgets for small innovation projects.⁵⁹^,¹³²^,¹⁴³ This enables employees to independently implement ideas that combine sustainability and efficiency.¹²³

Learning and development opportunities are also crucial for the motivational effect of sustainability. Training, coaching, and qualification programs promote skills and at the same time strengthen the feeling of personal effectiveness.³⁸^,⁵⁹ Job rotation or job enrichment create variety and expand the scope for action.²⁷^,⁹⁶^,¹⁴⁷ Companies that invest in the development of their employees also practice sustainability internally and promote long-term loyalty and commitment.⁸

Comprehensive resource management in the context of sustainability also includes fair and healthy working conditions. Protection from overload, a good work-life balance, and a culture of appreciation are basic prerequisites for motivation and performance.⁵^,⁵⁹^,¹⁵⁰ Sustainable workplace design, such as energy-efficient IT, ergonomic equipment, or resource-saving infrastructure, combines environmental responsibility with a positive work experience.¹⁴³ However, sustainability resource planning is not a onetime process.¹⁶⁴ Companies should regularly check whether time budgets, training opportunities, and material resources are sufficient and take targeted action where sustainability goals would otherwise be unachievable.⁴¹ Transparent performance monitoring builds trust and shows where additional support is needed.¹⁴³

Overall, it is clear that sustainable motivation arises where companies consistently invest in people.¹⁵⁴ This means not only providing financial resources, but above all creating time, knowledge, equipment, and opportunities for co-creation.⁵⁹^,¹⁵¹^,¹⁷⁶ In this way, sustainability becomes anchored in everyday work and is experienced by employees not as an additional task, but as a meaningful and feasible part of their work.¹¹¹^,¹⁵⁰

3.2.4 Drivers and barriers of operational implementation

The following table (Table 3) summarizes the drivers and barriers to operational implementation. These are explained in more detail below.

Table 3: Drivers and barriers of operational implementation.

Drivers

Barriers

Employee participation and empowerment: Active involvement in sustainability initiatives enhances ownership and intrinsic motivation.

Resource constraints and competing operational demands: Limited structural capacity and conflicting priorities hinder active engagement in sustainability initiatives.

Sustainability-oriented leadership: Authentic and supportive leadership fosters trust, responsibility, and psychological safety.

Lack of leadership support: Inconsistent or absent guidance reduces trust and weakens sustainability engagement.

Open communication and feedback: Transparent dialogue enables mutual understanding and continuous learning on sustainability goals.

One-way communication or overload: Top-down messaging or lack of feedback fosters passivity and resistance.

Social dynamics and peer culture: Collaborative exchange and shared reflection strengthen collective engagement and reinforce individual motivation through shared purpose.

Perceived inconsistency or lack of authenticity: Sustainability is seen as symbolic, causing frustration and disengagement.

Recognition and appreciation: Visible acknowledgment of sustainability engagement reinforces moral commitment and intrinsic motivation.

Meaning and purpose at work: Employees experience sustainability as meaningful and morally aligned with their personal values.

At the operational level, everyday work determines participation, feasibility, and quality of experience.⁹¹ Here, leadership, HRM practices, social dynamics, and individual experiences have a direct impact on motivation and behavior.⁵⁹^,⁸⁸^,¹⁰⁹^,¹⁵⁰ In contrast to the strategic level, the focus is not on structure, but on the concrete actions and experiences of employees.

Direct managers are a key operational driver. They represent the organization during daily interactions and significantly influence attitudes, motivation, and behavior.⁵⁹ Supportive and transformation-oriented leadership behavior promotes psychological safety and meaning.⁷⁹^,¹⁵⁵ Authentic leadership creates trust and inspires employees to take responsibility for sustainability goals.⁶^,¹⁵⁰

Green HRM practices directly influence this understanding of leadership. They translate attitudes into structures, for example through recruitment, training, and performance appraisal, which promote sustainability skills and prosocial behavior.¹¹⁰ Training and qualification build human capital, promote socialization and acceptance of new ideas.²²^,⁵⁹^,⁹¹^,¹⁰⁰ Recognition systems, development programs, and participation formats reinforce this commitment.¹¹⁰^,¹⁵¹ Reward systems can support attitudes and stimulate innovation search processes.⁷⁹^,¹¹⁰ Normative influence from colleagues, knowledge sharing, and joint reflection stabilize sustainable practices.¹²⁸ Communication via meetings and workshops as well as via vision, mission, and goals keeps information and dialogue flowing.⁹¹^,¹⁰⁴ Competitions or challenges such as bike to work also create visible incentives, but should focus on long-term, non-monetary recognition rather than short-term rewards.¹⁴³^,¹⁵⁵ While leadership and HRM create the structural framework for sustainable behavior, individual experiences in everyday working life determine whether this leads to motivation and commitment.

In addition to these general mechanisms, operational levers shape the experience of motivation in everyday work. Participation, voluntariness, and experiencing the impact of one’s own actions are among the key factors.⁹⁸^,¹⁴⁶^,¹⁵⁰ Social recognition and belonging reinforce this effect, as they fulfill fundamental psychological needs for connection, competence, and autonomy.⁶³

Freedom of design plays a decisive role in this. Green autonomy, i.e., the ability to independently design tasks in an environmentally friendly way or to reject non-ecological practices, promotes engagement.⁹⁷ Job crafting allows activities to be adapted to environmental preferences and combines required behaviors with voluntary ones.¹⁵⁰ Job design that supports perceived meaningfulness strengthens the motivation to make a prosocial difference.²⁷^,⁹⁸^,¹⁴⁵ Tasks that are challenging and development-oriented strengthen self-efficacy and motivation.⁹⁴ Social interactions act as a buffer against stress, and competence development increases individual capacity for action, which supports intrinsically motivated sustainability behavior.⁸⁸^,⁹¹^,¹⁷⁷

These mechanisms are effective because they address fundamental psychological needs and promote a climate of psychological safety that enables learning behavior, information exchange, creativity, and civic engagement while protecting against resource loss.¹⁶⁹^,¹⁷⁰ Sustainability measures can convey security, belonging, self-esteem, and meaning, thereby significantly increasing motivation.¹⁹ Security is created, for example, through fair working conditions and appropriate remuneration, while belonging is created through a clear value orientation and a shared commitment to ecological or social goals.⁴^,⁵^,¹⁹ When employees experience that their work contributes to social progress, they feel a deeper sense of meaning, for example through participation in community or volunteer projects.¹⁵⁹

Operational barriers arise wherever support and practicability are lacking.¹²⁸^,¹⁷⁵ Without backing from superiors, initiatives peter out. Vague support signals disinterest, and abusive behavior undermines commitment and positive morale, resulting in a lack of voluntary contributions.¹⁵⁰ Mismatches in HRM also have a dampening effect. A strongly transactional logic of incentives and punishments falls short when it comes to voluntary behavior, and external control reduces personal responsibility.⁸⁸^,⁹¹ If there is also a lack of leadership role models, training measures remain ineffective.¹⁴⁴

Excessive moral pressure or controlled motivation lead to lower performance and well-being, while excessive involvement in sustainability initiatives ties up personal resources and can interfere with the fulfillment of core tasks.⁴^,⁵⁴^,⁶³^,¹⁵⁰ If employees are not given the opportunity to participate in environmental management systems, they lack the opportunity to get involved.¹⁴⁶

A lack of practicality also leads to resistance. Ecological measures often fail if they are difficult to implement in everyday life or cause a loss of comfort.⁹¹ Since sustainable actions are often difficult to monitor or reward, they should be voluntary and self-determined.³⁸^,⁹¹ If the psychological contract is perceived as being violated or if there is a lack of opportunities for participation, trust and motivation decline.¹⁵⁰

On the employee side, conflicts of competence, time, and values have a particularly inhibiting effect.⁵⁹ Knowledge gaps, time constraints, lack of resources, and stress dampen participation.²²^,¹⁴⁶^,¹⁵⁰ Heavy workloads make implementation difficult in everyday life.¹⁵⁰ Value preferences moderate the effects, strong material orientations, and pronounced green values can influence the indirect effect of responsible leadership via the green climate.⁸^,⁵⁴^,⁹¹^,¹³⁸^,¹⁵⁰ Interpersonal tensions arise when interventions in the work area of others are perceived as transgressions or when individual and organizational values collide.¹⁵⁰

At this point, cultural and individual factors become particularly apparent.⁶³ Employees with a low moral identity and those working in contexts with a high level of uncertainty avoidance often react more cautiously to sustainability initiatives at the outset.¹⁶⁹ However, if psychological security is established through appropriate measures, the positive effects in such contexts are noticeably enhanced. Engagement, task performance, learning behavior, and commitment then increase above average because a secure environment compensates for low risk appetite and facilitates investment in work. Initial reluctance can thus be understood as an implementation hurdle that, once overcome, can turn into a pronounced positive effect.¹⁶⁹ At the same time, unintended side effects must be kept in mind. If employees want to prove their affiliation with a socially responsible organization through excessive effort, workaholism and self-sacrifice can arise. In the long term, this increases the risk of stress and burnout.¹⁵⁰

A lack of indicators and feedback mechanisms for sustainability performance has a direct impact on the experience of employees. If success in the context of sustainability is hardly measurable or visible, uncertainty arises as to whether and how one’s own actions contribute to the company’s success.⁹¹ This lack of transparency reduces the sense of meaning and effectiveness, which are among the central sources of intrinsic motivation.⁸⁸ Where key figures remain unclear or sustainability performance is given little weight in operational evaluation practices, the impression arises that sustainability is only important for the organization externally, but not in everyday internal operations.³ The result is a loss of motivation due to a lack of transparency, inconsistent requirements, and the feeling that contributions to sustainability are given too little weight in operational evaluation practices.³^,¹⁷⁸

Overall, it is clear that strategic sustainability provides meaning and direction, while operational implementation determines feasibility, participation, and perceived effectiveness. Successful implementation combines both levels, strengthens intrinsic motives, creates opportunities for participation, and ensures a realistic balance between aspirations, resources, and incentives.

Meaningfulness plays a significant and recurring role at both the strategic and operational levels within organizations, shaping long-term direction and daily practices. In summary, Figure 10 visually integrates the key organizational practices identified as fostering meaningfulness at work, in work, and through transcendence.

Figure 10: Organizational practices fostering meaningfulness and motivation (own illustration based on Pratt & Ashforth (2003)⁷⁵).

The model illustrates how targeted interventions, ranging from participatory formats and a feedback culture to inclusive leadership and creating purpose frameworks, synergistically contribute to individual and collective meaningfulness. This model provides a comprehensive overview of the mechanisms through which organizations can promote sustained motivation, identification, and engagement among employees.

Various analysis and measurement tools can be used to systematically record and control the promoting and inhibiting factors described in the previous section. Methods and other diagnostic approaches help to reveal operational drivers and barriers, understand interactions, and derive targeted support measures.⁹¹

3.3 Measuring instruments

The impact of sustainability on employee motivation and behavior can only be understood if these processes are systematically recorded as far as possible. Measurement tools help organizations to visualize cause-and-effect relationships, support change processes, and manage measures in an evidence-based manner. The following section presents key instruments that have proven themselves in research and practice. Table 4 summarizes key instruments that can be used to analyze, measure, and manage the motivational and structural effects of sustainability in a corporate context.

Table 4: Overview measuring instruments.

Instrument/ Tool

Objectiv

Process

Advantages

Disadvantages

Force field analysis

Visualization of factors promoting and inhibiting sustainability changes.

Identification of internal and external influencing factors; assessment of their strength; derivation of concrete measures and action plans.

Promotes participation, transparency, mutual understanding, and autonomy; qualitative assessment of soft factors.

Higher effort than top-down methods.

Job Diagnostic Scale

Recording the motivational quality of workplaces.

Measurement of demand variety, task significance, autonomy, feedback, and collaboration; calculation of the MPS.

Provides measures for affective reactions (e.g., general satisfaction, internal work motivation).

Job characteristics are dynamic and subject to change.¹⁶⁵ A deeper understanding of the diverse relational characteristics of jobs is required.⁹⁸

Motivating Potential Score

Quantitative assessment of the motivational quality of a workplace based on the JDS.

Calculation according to formula MPS = ((Skill variety + Task identity + Task significance) / 3) × Autonomy × Feedback.

Provides quantifiable measures for evaluating and comparing jobs.

Multiplicative structure means that weakly pronounced dimensions significantly reduce the overall value.

Multidimensional Work Motivation Scale

Measuring the quality of different forms of motivation.

Questionnaire survey using Likert scale; classification into forms of regulation according to SDT.

Measures not only the extent but also the quality of motivation; takes into account both material (e.g., money) and social rewards (e.g., praise).

Intrinsic motivation and identified regulation are empirically difficult to distinguish from one another;⁹⁰ risk of multicollinearity in the analysis;⁵⁴ based largely on self-reports

Utrecht Work Engagement Scale

Recording of engagement, understood as a psychological state that promotes motivation.

Survey on vigor, dedication, and absorption.

Consistent across different countries and occupational groups.

High correlation between the three dimensions.

Force field analysis

Force field analysis is a practical tool for diagnosing and structuring organizational change by identifying its driving and restraining forces. In the context of sustainability, this method is not a direct psychometric measurement tool for motivation. Rather, it is a participatory intervention that assesses and clarifies the readiness of employees and the factors that influence their behavior. Internal and external influencing factors are systematically recorded and evaluated in terms of their strength and impact. The aim is to strengthen driving forces and reduce inhibiting factors in order to facilitate change processes.⁹¹

In the context of sustainability, this method reveals which organizational routines promote motivation. The analysis identifies the driving forces that extend beyond extrinsic incentives, such as cost savings or reward systems. At the same time, inhibiting factors, such as perceived extra work, uncertainty, or lack of resources, are revealed and can be reflected upon and addressed in the spirit of reasoned resistance. When carried out with employees, the analysis creates transparency, participation, and a common understanding of the influencing factors. This increases acceptance of the measures and makes it more likely that sustainability will be understood as a collective learning and development process that is actively shaped. Force field analysis can also serve as a basis for action plans, providing a framework for deriving concrete steps and responsibilities and translating sustainability goals into daily work. In this way, it supports qualitative analyses in employee workshops and subsequent prioritization of action areas. This makes the method particularly well-suited for capturing soft influencing factors that are often overlooked in quantitative analyses.⁹¹

Job Diagnostic Survey and Motivating Potential Score

The JDS was developed as part of the JCM to identify job characteristics that influence motivation, satisfaction, and performance. It is used for the systematic analysis of jobs and their motivational potential.⁵² It measures the five core dimensions of the model (task variety, task identity, task significance, autonomy, and feedback from the work itself) as well as supplementary aspects such as feedback from colleagues or supervisors and the degree of cooperation with others. In addition, the JDS records the psychological states of employees (meaningfulness, sense of responsibility, knowledge of results), affective reactions such as job satisfaction, internal motivation, and satisfaction with specific aspects of work, as well as the individual’s need for growth. The survey is conducted using seven-point scales and is based on well-founded development work with several revisions.

The dimensions surveyed with the JDS can then be used to calculate the MPS in order to quantitatively assess the motivational quality of a workplace. Empirically, the JDS shows good psychometric properties, although the agreement between external and self-assessments remains moderate. To ensure objectivity, a combination of surveys and independent workplace assessments is recommended.

However, the JDS should not be used for selection decisions, as conscious distortions cannot be ruled out.⁵²

The MPS reflects the strength of motivational job design. The model serves as a tool for analyzing existing workplaces in order to identify the extent to which redesign would be useful in increasing employee motivation and performance. At the same time, it enables an assessment of how changes in job design could affect the experience and behavior of employees. It is important to note that any improvement in the core dimensions fundamentally contributes to an increase in the MPS. However, due to the multiplicative link in the model, this also means that a low score in just one of the main components, be it in the average of the first three dimensions (task variety, task identity, task significance), in autonomy, or in feedback, can significantly lower the overall MPS. The formula for calculation is: MPS = ((task variety + task identity + task significance) / 3) × autonomy × feedback.⁵²

Multidimensional Work Motivation Scale

The Multidimensional Work Motivation Scale (MWMS) is an instrument for measuring work motivation based on SDT.⁸⁹ The aim of the scale is to capture the different forms of motivation in a differentiated manner and to reveal both their extent and their quality.⁵⁴ In accordance with SDT, the MWMS distinguishes between different types of behavioral regulation. Motivation ranges from intrinsic motivation to identified, introjected, and external regulation to amotivation.⁸⁹^,⁹⁰

The MWMS has been validated in various linguistic and cultural contexts and generally uses a seven-point Likert scale based on self-reported information from employees. Depending on the version, it comprises a varying number of items that reflect different facets of the forms of regulation.⁸⁹^,⁹⁰

The MWMS offers significant added value for application in the context of sustainability. It makes it possible to determine whether employees experience sustainability measures as intrinsically meaningful or as controlling.⁸⁹ This makes it possible to understand whether sustainability in the company promotes genuine meaning and personal responsibility or rather generates pressure, role conflicts, and excessive demands.⁸⁸ The results provide insights into how communication and participation strategies should be designed to strengthen autonomous motivation.

Utrecht Work Engagement Scale

The Utrecht Work Engagement Scale (UWES) is based on the three correlating core dimensions of vigor, dedication, and absorption.⁶⁸^,¹⁷⁹ The original version comprises 17 items that are rated on a seven-point Likert scale.¹⁷⁹ Over time, shortened versions with nine or even six items have been developed, which also exhibit high reliability and validity.¹⁸⁰ The scale has been widely validated internationally, and its factorial structure has proven to be invariant across different countries, industries, and occupational groups, underscoring its comparability and applicability.

Work engagement, as measured by the UWES, describes a positive and fulfilling psychological state characterized by vigor, dedication, and absorption. It reflects high levels of energy, enthusiasm, and intrinsic motivation, which foster a lasting sense of meaning and commitment to one’s work.⁶⁸^,⁹⁴ In contrast to the MWMS, which directly measures the various forms of motivation regulation, the UWES does not measure motivation itself, but rather the motivational state of engagement, which is considered a key indicator of autonomous motivation.⁹⁰^,¹⁸¹

Challenges in measurability

Despite the availability of instruments, measuring motivation in the context of sustainability remains a challenge. Although scales such as the JDS or the MWMS allow for a differentiated assessment of motivational dimensions, the effects of sustainability on employee motivation often remain indirect and long-term.¹⁶^,⁵⁸ Motivation is a dynamic construct that is strongly influenced by individual perceptions, organizational climate, and cultural factors.⁸⁹ This makes it difficult to clearly attribute changes to individual sustainability initiatives.¹⁴^,⁶² In addition, many effects only become visible in the medium or long-term, for example in the form of increased loyalty, greater commitment, or reduced turnover.⁸^,¹⁶ A systematic combination of different measurement instruments and continuous, long-term evaluation are therefore necessary to validly map the contribution of sustainability to employee motivation.¹^,⁸⁵ The insights gained in this way can then be integrated into management control systems in order to strategically manage sustainability, promote learning processes, and make the effectiveness of motivational measures visible.¹⁶⁴

References

1
Aguinis, H. & Glavas, A. On Corporate Social Responsibility, Sensemaking, and the Search for Meaningfulness Through Work. Journal of Management 45, 1057-1086 (2019).
2
Jabbour, C. J. C. & de Sousa Jabbour, A. B. L. Green Human Resource Management and Green Supply Chain Management: linking two emerging agendas. Journal of Cleaner Production 112, 1824-1833 (2016).
3
Engert, S. & Baumgartner, R. J. Corporate sustainability strategy – bridging the gap between formulation and implementation. Journal of Cleaner Production 113, 822-834 (2016).
4
Lamm, E., Tosti-Kharas, J. & King, C. E. Empowering Employee Sustainability: Perceived Organizational Support Toward the Environment. Journal of Business Ethics 128, 207-220 (2015).
5
Flammer, C. & Luo, J. Corporate social responsibility as an employee governance tool: Evidence from a quasi-experiment. Strategic Management Journal 38, 163-183 (2017).
6
Wang, Z., Carroll, S. & Wang, E. H. Bridging Employees’ Perceptions of Corporate Social Responsibility, Sense-Making for Meaningfulness, and Work Engagement for Successful Self-Regulation. Behavioral Sciences 14, 1014 (2024).
7
Tekleab, A. G., Reagan, P. M., Do, B., Levi, A. & Lichtman, C. Translating Corporate Social Responsibility into Action: A Social Learning Perspective. Journal of Business Ethics 171, 741-756 (2021).
8
Gond, J.-P., El Akremi, A., Swaen, V. & Babu, N. The psychological microfoundations of corporate social responsibility: A person-centric systematic review. Journal of Organizational Behavior 38, 225-246 (2017).
9
Tschelisnig, G. & Westerlaken, R. The impact of sustainability at the workplace on the employee’s motivation and satisfaction. Research in Hospitality Management 12, 177-181 (2022).
10
Brieger, S. A., Anderer, S., Fröhlich, A., Bäro, A. & Meynhardt, T. Too Much of a Good Thing? On the Relationship Between CSR and Employee Work Addiction. Journal of Business Ethics 166, 311-329 (2020).
11
Story, J. & Neves, P. When corporate social responsibility (CSR) increases performance: exploring the role of intrinsic and extrinsic CSR attribution. Business Ethics: A European Review 24, 111-124 (2015).
12
Lee, Y.-K., Choi, J., Moon, B.-y. & Babin, B. J. Codes of ethics, corporate philanthropy, and employee responses. International Journal of Hospitality Management 39, 97-106 (2014).
13
El Akremi, A., Gond, J.-P., Swaen, V., De Roeck, K. & Igalens, J. How Do Employees Perceive Corporate Responsibility? Development and Validation of a Multidimensional Corporate Stakeholder Responsibility Scale. Journal of Management 44, 619-657 (2018).
14
Rupp, D. E. et al. Corporate social responsibility and employee engagement: The moderating role of CSR-specific relative autonomy and individualism. Journal of Organizational Behavior 39, 559-579 (2018).
15
Glavas, A. Corporate Social Responsibility and Organizational Psychology: An Integrative Review. Frontiers in Psychology 7, 144 (2016).
16
Yassin, Y. & Beckmann, M. CSR and employee outcomes: a systematic literature review. Management Review Quarterly 75, 595-641 (2025).
17
Staniškienė, E. & Stankevičiūtė, Ž. Social sustainability measurement framework: The case of employee perspective in a CSR-committed organisation. Journal of Cleaner Production 188, 708-719 (2018).
18
Zhao, H., Zhou, Q., He, P. & Jiang, C. How and When Does Socially Responsible HRM Affect Employees’ Organizational Citizenship Behaviors Toward the Environment? Journal of Business Ethics 169, 371-385 (2021).
19
Bauman, C. W. & Skitka, L. J. Corporate social responsibility as a source of employee satisfaction. Research in Organizational Behavior 32, 63-86 (2012).
20
Rodrigo, P., Aqueveque, C. & Duran, I. J. Do employees value strategic CSR? A tale of affective organizational commitment and its underlying mechanisms. Business Ethics: A European Review 28, 459-475 (2019).
21
Carmeli, A., Brammer, S., Gomes, E. & Tarba, S. Y. An organizational ethic of care and employee involvement in sustainability-related behaviors: A social identity perspective. Journal of Organizational Behavior 38, 1380-1395 (2017).
22
Stecker, C. Verantwortung übernehmen durch Kompetenzentwicklung und Weiterbildung. in Fehlzeiten-Report (ed. Badura, B., Ducki, A., Meyer, M. & Schröder, H.) 261-274 (Springer, 2022). doi: 10.1007/978-3-662-65598-6_17.
23
Waltersbacher, A., Meschede, M., Klawisch, H. & Schröder, H. Unternehmerische Sozialverantwortung und gesundheitsorientierte Führung. in Fehlzeiten-Report (ed. Badura, B., Ducki, A., Meyer, M. & Schröder, H.) 85-121 (Springer, 2022). doi: 10.1007/978-3-662-65598-6_6.
24
Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. What Should We Do About Motivation Theory? Six Recommendations for the Twenty-First Century. The Academy of Management Review 29, 388-403 (2004).
25
Ryan, R. M. & Deci, E. L. Intrinsic and Extrinsic Motivations: Classic Definitions and New Directions. Contemporary Educational Psychology 25, 54-67 (2000).
26
Robbins, S. P. & Judge, T. A. Organizational Behavior. (Pearson Education, Inc., 2013).
27
Ramlall, S. & University of St. Thomas. A Review of Employee Motivation Theories and their Implications for Employee Retention within Organizations. The Journal Of American Academy Of Business, Cambridge 52 (2004).
28
Mitchell, T. R. Motivation: New Directions for Theory, Research, and Practice.
29
John, A., Qadeer, F., Shahzadi, G. & Jia, F. Getting paid to be good: How and when employees respond to corporate social responsibility? Journal of Cleaner Production 215, 784-795 (2019).
30
Raineri, N., Hericher, C., Mejía-Morelos, J. H. & Paillé, P. A deontic perspective on organizational citizenship behavior toward the environment: The contribution of anticipated guilt. Business Ethics, the Environment & Responsibility 31, 923-936 (2022).
31
Aguinis, H. Organizational responsibility: Doing good and doing well. in APA Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 3: Maintaining, Expanding, and Contracting the Organization (ed. Zedeck, S.) 855-879 (American Psychological Association, 2011). doi: 10.1037/12171-024.
32
Ji, Y. G., Tao, W. & Rim, H. Theoretical Insights of CSR Research in Communication from 1980 to 2018: A Bibliometric Network Analysis. Journal of Business Ethics 177, 327-349 (2022).
33
Arjaliès, D.-L. & Mundy, J. The use of management control systems to manage CSR strategy: A levers of control perspective. Management Accounting Research 24, 284-300 (2013).
34
Carroll, A. B. A Three-Dimensional Conceptual Model of Corporate Performance. The Academy of Management Review 4, 497-505 (1979).
35
Maignan, I. & Ferrell, O. C. Measuring Corporate Citizenship in Two Countries: The Case of the United States and France. Journal of Business Ethics 23, 283-297 (2000).
36
Hillenbrand, C., Money, K. & Pavelin, S. Stakeholder-Defined Corporate Responsibility for a Pre-Credit-Crunch Financial Service Company: Lessons for How Good Reputations are Won and Lost. Journal of Business Ethics 105, 337-356 (2012).
37
Rincon-Roldan, F. & Lopez-Cabrales, A. Linking organisational values and sustainability: the role of AMO practices. Personnel Review 51, 1651-1671 (2021).
38
Guerci, M., Radaelli, G., Siletti, E., Cirella, S. & Shani, A. B. R. The Impact of Human Resource Management Practices and Corporate Sustainability on Organizational Ethical Climates: An Employee Perspective. Journal of Business Ethics 126, 325-342 (2015).
39
Norton, T. A., Parker, S. L., Davis, M. C., Russell, S. V. & Ashkanasy, N. M. A virtuous cycle: how green companies grow green employees (and vice versa). in Research Handbook on Employee Pro-Environmental Behaviour (eds. Wells, V., Gregory-Smith, D. & Manika, D.) 210-228 (Edward Elgar Publishing, 2018).
40
Ciocirlan, C. E. Environmental Workplace Behaviors: Definition Matters.
41
Fatima, T. & Elbanna, S. Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) Implementation: A Review and a Research Agenda Towards an Integrative Framework. Journal of Business Ethics 183, 105-121 (2023).
42
Frerichs, I. M. & Teichert, T. Research streams in corporate social responsibility literature: a bibliometric analysis. Management Review Quarterly 73, 231-261 (2023).
43
Carroll, A. B. & Shabana, K. M. The Business Case for Corporate Social Responsibility: A Review of Concepts, Research and Practice. International Journal of Management Reviews 12, 85-105 (2010).
44
Elkington, J. Cannibals with Forks: The Triple Bottom Line of 21st Century Business.
45
Hur, W.-M., Moon, T.-W. & Ko, S.-H. How Employees’ Perceptions of CSR Increase Employee Creativity: Mediating Mechanisms of Compassion at Work and Intrinsic Motivation. Journal of Business Ethics 153, 629-644 (2018).
46
Glavas, A. Employee Engagement and Sustainability: A Model for Implementing Meaningfulness at and in Work. The Journal of Corporate Citizenship, 13-29 (2012).
47
Steers, R. M., Mowday, R. T. & Shapiro, D. L. Introduction to Special Topic Forum: The Future of Work Motivation Theory. The Academy of Management Review 29, 379-387 (2004).
48
Lorincová, S., Štarchoň, P., Weberová, D., Hitka, M. & Lipoldová, M. Employee Motivation as a Tool to Achieve Sustainability of Business Processes. Sustainability 11, 3509 (2019).
49
Kim, C. H. & Scullion, H. The effect of Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) on employee motivation : a cross-national study. Economics and Business Review 13, 5-30 (2013).
50
Ellemers, N., de Gilder, D. & Haslam, S. A. Motivating Individuals and Groups at Work: A Social Identity Perspective on Leadership and Group Performance. The Academy of Management Review 29, 459-478 (2004).
51
Vroom, V., Porter, L. & Lawler, E. Expectancy Theories. in Organizational Behavior 1: Essential Theories of Motivation and Leadership (ed. Miner, J. B.) 94-113 (M.E. Sharpe, 2005). doi: 10.4324/9781315702018.
52
Hackman, J. R. & Oldham, G. R. Development of the Job Diagnostic Survey. Journal of Applied Psychology 60, 159-170 (1975).
53
Olafsen, A. H., Halvari, H. & Frølund, C. W. The Basic Psychological Need Satisfaction and Need Frustration at Work Scale: A Validation Study. Frontiers in Psychology 12, 697306 (2021).
54
Van den Broeck, A., Howard, J. L., Van Vaerenbergh, Y., Leroy, H. & Gagné, M. Beyond intrinsic and extrinsic motivation: A meta-analysis on self-determination theory’s multidimensional conceptualization of work motivation. Organizational Psychology Review 11, 240-273 (2021).
55
Kovach, K. A. What motivates employees? Workers and supervisors give different answers. Business Horizons 30, 58-65 (1987).
56
Jerónimo, H. M., Henriques, P. L., Lacerda, T. C. d., da Silva, F. P. & Vieira, P. R. Going green and sustainable: The influence of green HR practices on the organizational rationale for sustainability. Journal of Business Research 112, 413-421 (2020).
57
Glavas, A. & Piderit, S. K. How Does Doing Good Matter? Effects of Corporate Citizenship on Employees. The Journal of Corporate Citizenship, 51-70 (2009).
58
Abdelmotaleb, M. & Saha, S. K. Corporate Social Responsibility, Public Service Motivation and Organizational Citizenship Behavior in the Public Sector. International Journal of Public Administration 42, 929-939 (2019).
59
Afsar, B., Shahjehan, A. & Shah, I. Leadership and Employee Pro-environmental Behaviors. in Research Handbook on Employee Pro-Environmental Behaviour (eds. Wells, V., Gregory-Smith, D. & Manika, D.) 185-209 (Edward Elgar Publishing, 2018).
60
Glavas, A., Hahn, T., Jones, D. A. & Willness, C. R. Predisposed, Exposed, or Both? How Prosocial Motivation and CSR Education Are Related to Prospective Employees’ Desire for Social Impact in Work. Business & Society 63, 1252-1291 (2024).
61
Glavas, A. & Willness, C. Employee (dis)engagement in corporate social responsibility. in Employee engagement in corporate social responsibility. (eds D. Haski-Leventhal, L. Roza, & S. Brammer) 10-27 (Sage Publications Ltd, 2020).
62
Hejjas, K., Miller, G. & Scarles, C. “It’s Like Hating Puppies!” Employee Disengagement and Corporate Social Responsibility. Journal of Business Ethics 157, 319-337 (2019).
63
Kunz, J. Corporate Social Responsibility and Employees Motivation—Broadening the Perspective. Schmalenbach Business Review 72, 159-191 (2020).
64
Bachrach, D. G., Vlachos, P. A., Irwin, K. & Morgeson, F. P. Does “how” firms invest in corporate social responsibility matter? An attributional model of job seekers’ reactions to configurational variation in corporate social responsibility. Human Relations 75, 532-559 (2022).
65
Weick, K. E. Sensemaking in Organizations. (Sage Publications 1995).
66
Kahn, W. A. Psychological Conditions of Personal Engagement and Disengagement at Work. Academy of Management Journal 33, 692-724 (1990).
67
Aguinis, H. & Glavas, A. Embedded versus peripheral corporate social responsibility: Psychological foundations. Industrial and Organizational Psychology 6, 314-332 (2013).
68
Schaufeli, W. B., Salanova, M., González-romá, V. & Bakker, A. B. The Measurement of Engagement and Burnout: A Two Sample Confirmatory Factor Analytic Approach. Journal of Happiness Studies 3, 71-92 (2002).
69
Daft, R. L. & Weick, K. E. Toward a Model of Organizations as Interpretation Systems.
70
Nijhof, A. & Jeurissen, R. Editorial: A sensemaking perspective on corporate social responsibility: introduction to the special issue. Business Ethics: A European Review 15, 316-322 (2006).
71
Basu, K. & Palazzo, G. Corporate Social Responsibility: A Process Model of Sensemaking. Academy of Management Review 33, 122-136 (2008).
72
Richter, U. H. & Arndt, F. F. Cognitive Processes in the CSR Decision-Making Process: A Sensemaking Perspective. Journal of Business Ethics 148, 587-602 (2018).
73
Merriman, K. K., Sen, S., Felo, A. J. & Litzky, B. E. Employees and sustainability: the role of incentives. Journal of Managerial Psychology 31, 820-836 (2016).
74
Graves, L. M. & Sarkis, J. The role of employees’ leadership perceptions, values, and motivation in employees’ provenvironmental behaviors. Journal of Cleaner Production 196, 576-587 (2018).
75
Pratt, M. G. & Ashforth, B. E. Fostering meaningfulness in working and at work. in Positive Organizational Scholarship: Foundations of a New Discipline (eds. Cameron, K. S., Dutton, J. E. & Quinn, R. E.) 309-327 (Berrett-Koehler Publishers, 2003).
76
Rosso, B. D., Dekas, K. H. & Wrzesniewski, A. On the meaning of work: A theoretical integration and review. Research in Organizational Behavior 30, 91-127 (2010).
77
Tajfel, H. & Turner, J. C. The Social Identity Theory of Intergroup Behavior. In Political psychology: Key readings (eds. Jost, J. T., Sidanius, J.) 276-293 (Psychology Press, 2004).
78
Marique, G., Stinglhamber, F., Desmette, D., Caesens, G. & De Zanet, F. The Relationship Between Perceived Organizational Support and Affective Commitment:A Social Identity Perspective. Group & Organization Management 38, 68-100 (2013).
79
Casey, D. & Sieber, S. Employees, sustainability and motivation: Increasing employee engagement by addressing sustainability and corporate social responsibility. Research in Hospitality Management 6, 69-76 (2016).
80
Moon, T.-W., Hur, W.-M., Ko, S.-H., Kim, J.-W. & Yoon, S.-W. Bridging corporate social responsibility and compassion at work: Relations to organizational justice and affective organizational commitment. The Career Development International 19, 49-72 (2014).
81
PwC. The Keys to Corporate Responsibility Employee Engagement. https://www.pwc.com/us/en/about-us/corporate-responsibility/assets/pwc-employeeengagement.pdf (2014).
82
Lyon, T. P., Delmas, M. A. & Maxwell, J. W. CSR needs CPR: Corporate sustainability and politics. California Management Review 60, 5-24 (2018).
83
Li, W. et al. Unlocking employees’ green creativity: The effects of green transformational leadership, green intrinsic, and extrinsic motivation. Journal of Cleaner Production 255, 120229 (2020).
84
Suto, M. & Takehara, H. Employee-oriented corporate social responsibility, innovation, and firm value. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management 29, 765-778 (2022).
85
Delmas, M. A. & Pekovic, S. Corporate Sustainable Innovation and Employee Behavior. Journal of Business Ethics 150, 1071-1088 (2018).
86
Nazir, O. & Islam, J. U. Effect of CSR activities on meaningfulness, compassion, and employee engagement: A sense-making theoretical approach. International Journal of Hospitality Management 90, 102630 (2020).
87
Temminck, E., Mearns, K. & Fruhen, L. Motivating employees towards sustainable behaviour. Business Strategy and the Environment 24, 402-412 (2015).
88
Deci, E. L., Olafsen, A. H. & Ryan, R. M. Self-determination theory in work organizations: The state of a science. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior 4, 19-43 (2017).
89
Gagné, M. et al. The Multidimensional Work Motivation Scale: Validation evidence in seven languages and nine countries. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology 24, 178-196 (2015).
90
Trépanier, S.-G. et al. Revisiting the Multidimensional Work Motivation Scale (MWMS). European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology 32, 157-172 (2023).
91
Endrejat, P. C. & Kauffeld, S. in Chapter 13: Motivation towards “green” behaviour at the workplace: facilitating employee pro-environmental behaviour through participatory interventions. in Research Handbook on Employee Pro-Environmental behavior (eds Victoria Wells, Diana Gregory-Smith, & Danae Manika) 267-286 (Edward Elgar Publishing, 2018).
92
Pope, S. & Lim, A. Why companies practice corporate social responsibility. Sloan Management Review, 1-3 (2022).
93
Gagné, M. & Deci, E. L. Self-determination theory and work motivation. Journal of Organizational Behavior 26, 331-362 (2005).
94
van Dam, K., van Vuuren, T. & Kemps, S. Sustainable employment: the importance of intrinsically valuable work and an age-supportive climate. The International Journal of Human Resource Management 28, 2449-2472 (2017).
95
Blanz, M. Employees’ job satisfaction: A test of the Job Characteristics Model among social work practitioners. Journal of Evidence-Informed Social Work 14, 35-50 (2017).
96
Yan, M., Peng, K. Z. & Francesco, A. M. The differential effects of job design on knowledge workers and manual workers: A quasi-experimental field study in China. Human Resource Management 50, 407-424 (2011).
97
Ciocirlan, C. E. Have me do, and I’ll always be true: Exploring the match between green employees and their jobs. Journal of Cleaner Production 383, 135471 (2023).
98
Grant, A. M. Relational Job Design and the Motivation to Make a Prosocial Difference.
99
Hsieh, Y.-C., Weng, J., Pham, N. T. & Yi, L.-H. What drives employees to participate in corporate social responsibility? A personal characteristics – CSR capacity – organizational reinforcing model of employees’ motivation for voluntary CSR activities. The International Journal of Human Resource Management 33, 3703-3735 (2022).
100
Chin, T. L., Yean, T. F. & Leow, H. W. Ability, Motivation, Opportunity-Enhancing HRM Practices and Corporate Environmental Citizenship: Revisiting the Moderating Role of Organisational Leraning Capability im Malaysian Construction Companies. International Journal of Business and Society 24, 100-118 (2023).
101
Shao, D., Zhou, E., Gao, P., Long, L. & Xiong, J. Double-Edged Effects of Socially Responsible Human Resource Management on Employee Task Performance and Organizational Citizenship Behavior: Mediating by Role Ambiguity and Moderating by Prosocial Motivation. Sustainability 11, 2271 (2019).
102
Li, J., Sekiguchi, T. & Qi, J. When and why skill variety influences employee job crafting: Regulatory focus and social exchange perspectives. Employee Relations 42, 662-680 (2020).
103
Lawler, E. E. 3. JOB DESIGN AND EMPLOYEE MOTIVATION. Personnel
104
Zhang, Y., Zhou, X., Zhang, H. & Khanagha, S. Mechanisms of vision communication and employees’ change-supportive behavior from the perspective of expectancy theory. Journal of Business Research 188, 115116 (2025).
105
Opoku-Dakwa, A., Chen, C. C. & Rupp, D. E. CSR initiative characteristics and employee engagement: An impact-based perspective. Journal of Organizational Behavior 39, 580-593 (2018).
106
Lin, C.-P. Modeling corporate citizenship and turnover intention: social identity and expectancy theories. Review of Managerial Science 13, 823-840 (2019).
107
Asante Boadi, E., He, Z., Boadi, E. K., Bosompem, J. & Avornyo, P. Consequences of corporate social responsibility on employees: The moderating role of work motivation patterns. Personnel Review 49, 231-249 (2019).
108
Harrell-Cook, G., Appelbaum, E., Bailey, T., Berg, P. & Kalleberg, A. L. Manufacturing Advantage: Why High-Performance Work Systems Pay off. Academy Of Management Review 26, 459 (2001).
109
Salas-Vallina, A., Pasamar, S. & Donate, M. J. Well-being in times of ill-being: how AMO HRM practices improve organizational citizenship behaviour through work-related well-being and service leadership. Employee Relations 43, 911-935 (2021).
110
Anwar, N. et al. Green Human Resource Management for organisational citizenship behaviour towards the environment and environmental performance on a university campus. Journal of Cleaner Production 256, 120401 (2020).
111
Bhattacharya, C. B., Sen, S., Edinger-Schons, L. M. & Neureiter, M. Corporate Purpose and Employee Sustainability Behaviors. Journal of Business Ethics 183, 963-981 (2023).
112
Hackman, J. R. Work redesign and motivation. Professional Psychology 11, 445-455 (1980).
113
Blau, P. M. Justice in Social Exchange. Sociological Inquiry 34, 193-206 (1964).
114
Homans, G. C. Social Behavior as Exchange. American Journal of Sociology 63, 597-606 (1958).
115
Gouldner, A. W. The Norm of Reciprocity: A Preliminary Statement. American Sociological Review 25, 161-178 (1960).
116
Memon, K., Ghani, B. & Khalid, S. The relationship between corporate social responsibility and employee engagement -A social exchange perspective. International Journal of Business Science and Applied Management 15, 1-16 (2020).
117
He, H. & Brown, A. D. Organizational Identity and Organizational Identification:A Review of the Literature and Suggestions for Future Research. Group & Organization Management 38, 3-35 (2013).
118
Lawler, E. J. An affect theory of social exchange. American Journal of Sociology 107, 321-352 (2001).
119
Rupp, D. E., Ganapathi, J., Aguilera, R. V. & Williams, C. A. Employee reactions to corporate social responsibility: an organizational justice framework. Journal of Organizational Behavior 27, 537-543 (2006).
120
Lin-Hi, N. & Blumberg, I. The Link Between (Not) Practicing CSR and Corporate Reputation: Psychological Foundations and Managerial Implications. Journal of Business Ethics 150, 185-198 (2018).
121
Zhao, L., Lee, J. & Moon, S. Employee response to CSR in China: the moderating effect of collectivism. Personnel Review 48, 839-863 (2019).
122
Gao, Y. & He, W. Corporate social responsibility and employee organizational citizenship behavior: The pivotal roles of ethical leadership and organizational justice. Management Decision 55, 294-309 (2017).
123
Boiral, O. & Paillé, P. Organizational Citizenship Behaviour for the Environment: Measurement and Validation. Journal of Business Ethics 109, 431-445 (2012).
124
Mastria, S., Vezzil, A. & De Cesarei, A. Going Green: A Review on the Role of Motivation in Sustainable Behavior. Sustainability 15, 15429 (2023).
125
Tourigny, L., Han, J., Baba, V. V. & Pan, P. Ethical Leadership and Corporate Social Responsibility in China: A Multilevel Study of Their Effects on Trust and Organizational Citizenship Behavior. Journal of Business Ethics 158, 427-440 (2019).
126
n.a. Corporate Social Responsibility als Motor der Personalentwicklung – Roth Institut. Roth Institut https://roth-institut.de/allgemein/corporate-social-responsibility-als-motor-der-personalentwicklung.
127
Han, Z., Wang, Q. & Yan, X. How Responsible Leadership Motivates Employees to Engage in Organizational Citizenship Behavior for the Environment: A Double-Mediation Model. Sustainability 11, 605 (2019).
128
Paillé, P., Chen, Y., Boiral, O. & Jin, J. The Impact of Human Resource Management on Environmental Performance: An Employee-Level Study. Journal of Business Ethics 121, 451-466 (2014).
129
Vlachos, P. A., Panagopoulos, N. G. & Rapp, A. A. Feeling Good by Doing Good: Employee CSR-Induced Attributions, Job Satisfaction, and the Role of Charismatic Leadership. Journal of Business Ethics 118, 577-588 (2013).
130
Kelman, H. C. Compliance, identification, and internalization three processes of attitude change. Journal of Conflict Resolution 2, 51-60 (1958).
131
PwC. The Keys to Corporate Responsibility Employee Engagement. https://www.pwc.com/us/en/about-us/corporate-responsibility/assets/pwc-employee-engagement.pdf (2014).
132
Grundig, S. Motivation für Nachhaltigkeit im Unternehmen schaffen. Plant Values https://plant-values.de/motivation-fuer-nachhaltigkeit-im-unternehmen/.
133
Tourky, M., Kitchen, P. & Shaalan, A. The role of corporate identity in CSR implementation: An integrative framework. Journal of Business Research 117, 694-706 (2020).
134
Roche, K. E. & Baumgartner, R. J. Corporate sustainability strategy deployment: A case study on the implementation of corporate sustainability using hoshin kanri. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management 32, 927-946 (2025).
135
Bolton, A. & Soonieus, R. Seven Ways to Get Sustainability Incentives Right, https://www.bcg.com/publications/2024/seven-ways-to-get-sustainability-incentives-right (2024).
136
Glemser, S. & Hausmann, R. Nachhaltige Incentives in Unternehmen: Vier Details im Fokus. KPMG Klardenker (2024). https://www.kpmg.com/de/publications/2024/12/nachhaltige-incentives
137
Does CSR improve employees’ perception of their workplace? HEC Paris (2024). https://www.hec.edu/en/institutes-and-centers-expertise/sustainability-organiza-tions/think/executive-factsheets/does-csr-improve-employees-perception-their-work-place
138
Zhang, J., Ul-Durar, S., Akhtar, M. N., Zhang, Y. & Lu, L. How does responsible leadership affect employees’ voluntary workplace green behaviors? A multilevel dual process model of voluntary workplace green behaviors. Journal of Environmental Management 296, 113205 (2021).
139
Ma, Y., Teng, Y. & Yan, B. Bring more than green? The impact of green human resource management on hospitality employees’ organizational citizenship behaviors. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management 31, 2537-2556 (2024).
140
Waples, C. J. & Brachle, B. J. Recruiting millennials: Exploring the impact of CSR involvement and pay signaling on organizational attractiveness. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management 27, 870-880 (2020).
141
Klimkiewicz, K. & Oltra, V. Does CSR Enhance Employer Attractiveness? The Role of Millennial Job Seekers’ Attitudes. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management 24, 449-463 (2017).
142
Kim, K., Jhang, J. & Oh, S.-H. Genuine CSR motive and organizational attractiveness: The effects of a Company’s inconsistent CSR behaviors on moral jobseekers. Business Ethics, the Environment & Responsibility 34, 1684-1698 (2025).
143
Schreiber, J. 50 Ideen zur Motivation Ihrer Mitarbeitenden für mehr Nachhaltigkeit. (Baloise Group, 2024). https://www.baloise.ch/dam/baloise-ch/unternehmenskunden/nachhaltigkeit/mitarbeitermotivation/50-Ideen-zur-Motivation-Ihrer-Mitarbeitenden-für-mehr-Nachhaltigkeit.pdf
144
Pellegrini, C., Rizzi, F. & Frey, M. The role of sustainable human resource practices in influencing employee behavior for corporate sustainability. Business Strategy and the Environment 27, 1221-1232 (2018).
145
Nohria, N., Groysberg, B. & Lee, L. E. Employee motivation: a powerful new model.
146
Benn, S., Teo, S. T. T. & Martin, A. Employee participation and engagement in working for the environment. Personnel Review 44, 492-510 (2015).
147
Wrzesniewski, A., Dutton, J. E. & Debebe, G. INTERPERSONAL SENSEMAKING AND THE MEANING OF WORK. Research in Organizational Behavior 25, 93-135 (2003).
148
Shahzad, I. A., Farrukh, M., Ahmed, N. O., Lin, L. & Kanwal, N. The role of transformational leadership style, organizational structure and job characteristics in developing psychological empowerment among banking professionals. Journal of Chinese Human Resource Management 9, 107-122 (2018).
149
Pfaff, H. & Schubin, K. Verantwortung und Gesundheit. in Fehlzeiten-Report (ed. Badura, B., Ducki, A., Meyer, M. & Schröder, H.) 3-19 (Springer, 2022). doi: 10.1007/978-3-662-65598-6_1.
150
Francoeur, V. & Paillé, P. Green Behaviors in the Workplace: Nature, Complexity, and Trends. (Palgrave Macmillan Cham, 2022).
151
Pinzone, M., Guerci, M., Lettieri, E. & Redman, T. Progressing in the change journey towards sustainability in healthcare: the role of ‘Green’ HRM. Journal of Cleaner Production 122, 201-211 (2016).
152
Florea, L., Cheung, Y. H. & Herndon, N. C. For All Good Reasons: Role of Values in Organizational Sustainability. Journal of Business Ethics 114, 393-408 (2013).
153
Newman, A., Nielsen, I. & Miao, Q. The impact of employee perceptions of organizational corporate social responsibility practices on job performance and organizational citizenship behavior: evidence from the Chinese private sector. The International Journal of Human Resource Management 26, 1226-1242 (2015).
154
Ybema, J. F., van Vuuren, T. & van Dam, K. HR practices for enhancing sustainable employability: implementation, use, and outcomes. The International Journal of Human Resource Management 31, 886-907 (2020).
155
Graves, L. M., Sarkis, J. & Gold, N. Employee proenvironmental behavior in Russia: The roles of top management commitment, managerial leadership, and employee motives. Resources, Conservation and Recycling 140, 54-64 (2019).
156
Frazier, M. L. & Tupper, C. Supervisor Prosocial Motivation, Employee Thriving, and Helping Behavior: A Trickle-Down Model of Psychological Safety. Group & Organization Management 43, 561-593 (2018).
157
Zhang, Q., Cao, M., Zhang, F., Liu, J. & Li, X. Effects of corporate social responsibility on customer satisfaction and organizational attractiveness: A signaling perspective. Business Ethics: A European Review 29, 20-34 (2020).
158
Yin, C., Ma, H., Gong, Y., Chen, Q. & Zhang, Y. Environmental CSR and environmental citizenship behavior: The role of employees’ environmental passion and empathy. Journal of Cleaner Production 320, 128751 (2021).
159
Lewin, L. D., Warren, D. E. & AlSuwaidi, M. Does CSR make better citizens? The influence of employee CSR programs on employee societal citizenship behavior outside of work. Business and Society Review 125, 271-288 (2020).
160
Meyer, J. P., Becker, T. E. & Vandenberghe, C. Employee Commitment and Motivation: A Conceptual Analysis and Integrative Model. Journal of Applied Psychology 89, 991-1007 (2004).
161
Does CSR improve employees’ perception of their workplace? HEC Paris (2024). https://www.hec.edu/en/institutes-and-centers-expertise/sustainability-organizations/think/executive-factsheets/does-csr-improve-employees-perception-their-workplace
162
Renault Group. „HACKATHON CO2 INDUSTRY“: Renault Group beschleunigt Dekarbonisierung ihrer Werke. (2021). https://media.renault.at/article/2252
163
Bosch GmbH. Hacking for a good cause: The Social Impact Challenge at Bosch ConnectedWorld shows how the Internet of Things can tackle social and ecological challenges. (2019). https://www.bosch.com/stories/social-impact-hackathon/
164
Arjaliès, D.-L. & Mundy, J. The use of management control systems to manage CSR strategy: A levers of control perspective. Management Accounting Research 24, 284-300(2013).
165
Zaman, U., Nawaz, S., Javed, A. & Rasul, T. Having a whale of a time: Linking self-determination theory (SDT), job characteristics model (JCM) and motivation to the joy of gig work. Cogent Business & Management 7, 1807707 (2020).
166
Glavas, A. & Kelley, K. The Effects of Perceived Corporate Social Responsibility on Employee Attitudes. Business Ethics Quarterly 24, 165-202 (2014).
167
Sonntag, K. „Gesundheit“ im Wertekanon verantwortungsvoller Unternehmensführung – auch in der digitalen Transformation. in Fehlzeiten-Report (ed. Badura, B., Ducki, A., Meyer, M. & Schröder, H.) 123-133 (Springer, 2022). doi: 10.1007/978-3-662-65598-6_7.
168
Kutzner, E. Verantwortung für Vielfalt in der Belegschaft – ein arbeitspolitischer Ansatz. in Fehlzeiten-Report (ed. Badura, B., Ducki, A., Meyer, M. & Schröder, H.) 151-164 (Springer 2022). doi: 10.1007/978-3-662-65598-6_9.
169
Frazier, M. L., Fainshmidt, S., Klinger, R. L., Pezeshkan, A. & Vracheva, V. Psychological Safety: A Meta-Analytic Review and Extension. Personnel Psychology 70, 113-165 (2017).
170
Newman, A., Donohue, R. & Eva, N. Psychological safety: A systematic review of the literature. Human Resource Management Review 27, 521-535 (2017).
171
Beus, J. M., McCord, M. A. & Zohar, D. Workplace safety:A review and research synthesis. Organizational Psychology Review 6, 352-381 (2016).
172
Edmondson, A. Psychological Safety and Learning Behavior in Work Teams.
173
Singh, B., Winkel, D. E. & Selvarajan, T. T. Managing diversity at work: Does psychological safety hold the key to racial differences in employee performance? Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology 86, 242-263 (2013).
174
Jiang, K., Lepak, D. P., Hu, J. & Baer, J. C. How Does Human Resource Management Influence Organizational Outcomes? A Meta-analytic Investigation of Mediating Mechanisms. Academy of Management Journal 55, 1264-1294 (2012).
175
Paillé, P. Dare to care in environmental sustainability context: how managers can encourage employee pro-environmental behaviour. in Research Handbook on Employee Pro-Environmental Behaviour (eds. Wells, V., Gregory-Smith, D. & Manika, D.) 168-184 (Edward Elgar Publishing, 2018).
176
Turner, M. R., McIntosh, T., Reid, S. W. & Buckley, M. R. Corporate implementation of socially controversial CSR initiatives: Implications for human resource management. Human Resource Management Review 29, 125-136 (2019).
177
Van den Broeck, A., Vansteenkiste, M., De Witte, H. & Lens, W. Explaining the relationships between job characteristics, burnout, and engagement: The role of basic psychological need satisfaction. Work & Stress 22, 277-294 (2008).
178
Hollstein, B. & Rosa, H. Perspektive – Betriebliche Verantwortung und Unverfügbarkeit. in Fehlzeiten-Report (ed. Badura, B., Ducki, A., Meyer, M. & Schröder, H.) 69-81 (Springer 2022). doi: 10.1007/978-3-662-65598-6_5.
179
Schaufeli, W. B. & Bakker, A. B. Work Engagement Scale: Preliminary Manual.
180
Schaufeli, W. B., Bakker, A. B. & Salanova, M. The Measurement of Work Engagement With a Short Questionnaire:A Cross-National Study. Educational and Psychological Measurement 66, 701-716 (2006).
181
Schaufeli, W. B. & Bakker, A. B. Work engagement: A handbook of essential theory and research. 10-24 (Psychology Press, 2010).

1
Aguinis, H. & Glavas, A. On Corporate Social Responsibility, Sensemaking, and the Search for Meaningfulness Through Work. Journal of Management 45, 1057-1086 (2019).
2
Jabbour, C. J. C. & de Sousa Jabbour, A. B. L. Green Human Resource Management and Green Supply Chain Management: linking two emerging agendas. Journal of Cleaner Production 112, 1824-1833 (2016).
3
Engert, S. & Baumgartner, R. J. Corporate sustainability strategy – bridging the gap between formulation and implementation. Journal of Cleaner Production 113, 822-834 (2016).
4
Lamm, E., Tosti-Kharas, J. & King, C. E. Empowering Employee Sustainability: Perceived Organizational Support Toward the Environment. Journal of Business Ethics 128, 207-220 (2015).
5
Flammer, C. & Luo, J. Corporate social responsibility as an employee governance tool: Evidence from a quasi-experiment. Strategic Management Journal 38, 163-183 (2017).
6
Wang, Z., Carroll, S. & Wang, E. H. Bridging Employees’ Perceptions of Corporate Social Responsibility, Sense-Making for Meaningfulness, and Work Engagement for Successful Self-Regulation. Behavioral Sciences 14, 1014 (2024).
7
Tekleab, A. G., Reagan, P. M., Do, B., Levi, A. & Lichtman, C. Translating Corporate Social Responsibility into Action: A Social Learning Perspective. Journal of Business Ethics 171, 741-756 (2021).
8
Gond, J.-P., El Akremi, A., Swaen, V. & Babu, N. The psychological microfoundations of corporate social responsibility: A person-centric systematic review. Journal of Organizational Behavior 38, 225-246 (2017).
9
Tschelisnig, G. & Westerlaken, R. The impact of sustainability at the workplace on the employee’s motivation and satisfaction. Research in Hospitality Management 12, 177-181 (2022).
10
Brieger, S. A., Anderer, S., Fröhlich, A., Bäro, A. & Meynhardt, T. Too Much of a Good Thing? On the Relationship Between CSR and Employee Work Addiction. Journal of Business Ethics 166, 311-329 (2020).
11
Story, J. & Neves, P. When corporate social responsibility (CSR) increases performance: exploring the role of intrinsic and extrinsic CSR attribution. Business Ethics: A European Review 24, 111-124 (2015).
12
Lee, Y.-K., Choi, J., Moon, B.-y. & Babin, B. J. Codes of ethics, corporate philanthropy, and employee responses. International Journal of Hospitality Management 39, 97-106 (2014).
13
El Akremi, A., Gond, J.-P., Swaen, V., De Roeck, K. & Igalens, J. How Do Employees Perceive Corporate Responsibility? Development and Validation of a Multidimensional Corporate Stakeholder Responsibility Scale. Journal of Management 44, 619-657 (2018).
14
Rupp, D. E. et al. Corporate social responsibility and employee engagement: The moderating role of CSR-specific relative autonomy and individualism. Journal of Organizational Behavior 39, 559-579 (2018).
15
Glavas, A. Corporate Social Responsibility and Organizational Psychology: An Integrative Review. Frontiers in Psychology 7, 144 (2016).
16
Yassin, Y. & Beckmann, M. CSR and employee outcomes: a systematic literature review. Management Review Quarterly 75, 595-641 (2025).
17
Staniškienė, E. & Stankevičiūtė, Ž. Social sustainability measurement framework: The case of employee perspective in a CSR-committed organisation. Journal of Cleaner Production 188, 708-719 (2018).
18
Zhao, H., Zhou, Q., He, P. & Jiang, C. How and When Does Socially Responsible HRM Affect Employees’ Organizational Citizenship Behaviors Toward the Environment? Journal of Business Ethics 169, 371-385 (2021).
19
Bauman, C. W. & Skitka, L. J. Corporate social responsibility as a source of employee satisfaction. Research in Organizational Behavior 32, 63-86 (2012).
20
Rodrigo, P., Aqueveque, C. & Duran, I. J. Do employees value strategic CSR? A tale of affective organizational commitment and its underlying mechanisms. Business Ethics: A European Review 28, 459-475 (2019).
21
Carmeli, A., Brammer, S., Gomes, E. & Tarba, S. Y. An organizational ethic of care and employee involvement in sustainability-related behaviors: A social identity perspective. Journal of Organizational Behavior 38, 1380-1395 (2017).
22
Stecker, C. Verantwortung übernehmen durch Kompetenzentwicklung und Weiterbildung. in Fehlzeiten-Report (ed. Badura, B., Ducki, A., Meyer, M. & Schröder, H.) 261-274 (Springer, 2022). doi: 10.1007/978-3-662-65598-6_17.
23
Waltersbacher, A., Meschede, M., Klawisch, H. & Schröder, H. Unternehmerische Sozialverantwortung und gesundheitsorientierte Führung. in Fehlzeiten-Report (ed. Badura, B., Ducki, A., Meyer, M. & Schröder, H.) 85-121 (Springer, 2022). doi: 10.1007/978-3-662-65598-6_6.
24
Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. What Should We Do About Motivation Theory? Six Recommendations for the Twenty-First Century. The Academy of Management Review 29, 388-403 (2004).
25
Ryan, R. M. & Deci, E. L. Intrinsic and Extrinsic Motivations: Classic Definitions and New Directions. Contemporary Educational Psychology 25, 54-67 (2000).
26
Robbins, S. P. & Judge, T. A. Organizational Behavior. (Pearson Education, Inc., 2013).
27
Ramlall, S. & University of St. Thomas. A Review of Employee Motivation Theories and their Implications for Employee Retention within Organizations. The Journal Of American Academy Of Business, Cambridge 52 (2004).
28
Mitchell, T. R. Motivation: New Directions for Theory, Research, and Practice.
29
John, A., Qadeer, F., Shahzadi, G. & Jia, F. Getting paid to be good: How and when employees respond to corporate social responsibility? Journal of Cleaner Production 215, 784-795 (2019).
30
Raineri, N., Hericher, C., Mejía-Morelos, J. H. & Paillé, P. A deontic perspective on organizational citizenship behavior toward the environment: The contribution of anticipated guilt. Business Ethics, the Environment & Responsibility 31, 923-936 (2022).
31
Aguinis, H. Organizational responsibility: Doing good and doing well. in APA Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 3: Maintaining, Expanding, and Contracting the Organization (ed. Zedeck, S.) 855-879 (American Psychological Association, 2011). doi: 10.1037/12171-024.
32
Ji, Y. G., Tao, W. & Rim, H. Theoretical Insights of CSR Research in Communication from 1980 to 2018: A Bibliometric Network Analysis. Journal of Business Ethics 177, 327-349 (2022).
33
Arjaliès, D.-L. & Mundy, J. The use of management control systems to manage CSR strategy: A levers of control perspective. Management Accounting Research 24, 284-300 (2013).
34
Carroll, A. B. A Three-Dimensional Conceptual Model of Corporate Performance. The Academy of Management Review 4, 497-505 (1979).
35
Maignan, I. & Ferrell, O. C. Measuring Corporate Citizenship in Two Countries: The Case of the United States and France. Journal of Business Ethics 23, 283-297 (2000).
36
Hillenbrand, C., Money, K. & Pavelin, S. Stakeholder-Defined Corporate Responsibility for a Pre-Credit-Crunch Financial Service Company: Lessons for How Good Reputations are Won and Lost. Journal of Business Ethics 105, 337-356 (2012).
37
Rincon-Roldan, F. & Lopez-Cabrales, A. Linking organisational values and sustainability: the role of AMO practices. Personnel Review 51, 1651-1671 (2021).
38
Guerci, M., Radaelli, G., Siletti, E., Cirella, S. & Shani, A. B. R. The Impact of Human Resource Management Practices and Corporate Sustainability on Organizational Ethical Climates: An Employee Perspective. Journal of Business Ethics 126, 325-342 (2015).
39
Norton, T. A., Parker, S. L., Davis, M. C., Russell, S. V. & Ashkanasy, N. M. A virtuous cycle: how green companies grow green employees (and vice versa). in Research Handbook on Employee Pro-Environmental Behaviour (eds. Wells, V., Gregory-Smith, D. & Manika, D.) 210-228 (Edward Elgar Publishing, 2018).
40
Ciocirlan, C. E. Environmental Workplace Behaviors: Definition Matters.
41
Fatima, T. & Elbanna, S. Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) Implementation: A Review and a Research Agenda Towards an Integrative Framework. Journal of Business Ethics 183, 105-121 (2023).
42
Frerichs, I. M. & Teichert, T. Research streams in corporate social responsibility literature: a bibliometric analysis. Management Review Quarterly 73, 231-261 (2023).
43
Carroll, A. B. & Shabana, K. M. The Business Case for Corporate Social Responsibility: A Review of Concepts, Research and Practice. International Journal of Management Reviews 12, 85-105 (2010).
44
Elkington, J. Cannibals with Forks: The Triple Bottom Line of 21st Century Business.
45
Hur, W.-M., Moon, T.-W. & Ko, S.-H. How Employees’ Perceptions of CSR Increase Employee Creativity: Mediating Mechanisms of Compassion at Work and Intrinsic Motivation. Journal of Business Ethics 153, 629-644 (2018).
46
Glavas, A. Employee Engagement and Sustainability: A Model for Implementing Meaningfulness at and in Work. The Journal of Corporate Citizenship, 13-29 (2012).
47
Steers, R. M., Mowday, R. T. & Shapiro, D. L. Introduction to Special Topic Forum: The Future of Work Motivation Theory. The Academy of Management Review 29, 379-387 (2004).
48
Lorincová, S., Štarchoň, P., Weberová, D., Hitka, M. & Lipoldová, M. Employee Motivation as a Tool to Achieve Sustainability of Business Processes. Sustainability 11, 3509 (2019).
49
Kim, C. H. & Scullion, H. The effect of Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) on employee motivation : a cross-national study. Economics and Business Review 13, 5-30 (2013).
50
Ellemers, N., de Gilder, D. & Haslam, S. A. Motivating Individuals and Groups at Work: A Social Identity Perspective on Leadership and Group Performance. The Academy of Management Review 29, 459-478 (2004).
51
Vroom, V., Porter, L. & Lawler, E. Expectancy Theories. in Organizational Behavior 1: Essential Theories of Motivation and Leadership (ed. Miner, J. B.) 94-113 (M.E. Sharpe, 2005). doi: 10.4324/9781315702018.
52
Hackman, J. R. & Oldham, G. R. Development of the Job Diagnostic Survey. Journal of Applied Psychology 60, 159-170 (1975).
53
Olafsen, A. H., Halvari, H. & Frølund, C. W. The Basic Psychological Need Satisfaction and Need Frustration at Work Scale: A Validation Study. Frontiers in Psychology 12, 697306 (2021).
54
Van den Broeck, A., Howard, J. L., Van Vaerenbergh, Y., Leroy, H. & Gagné, M. Beyond intrinsic and extrinsic motivation: A meta-analysis on self-determination theory’s multidimensional conceptualization of work motivation. Organizational Psychology Review 11, 240-273 (2021).
55
Kovach, K. A. What motivates employees? Workers and supervisors give different answers. Business Horizons 30, 58-65 (1987).
56
Jerónimo, H. M., Henriques, P. L., Lacerda, T. C. d., da Silva, F. P. & Vieira, P. R. Going green and sustainable: The influence of green HR practices on the organizational rationale for sustainability. Journal of Business Research 112, 413-421 (2020).
57
Glavas, A. & Piderit, S. K. How Does Doing Good Matter? Effects of Corporate Citizenship on Employees. The Journal of Corporate Citizenship, 51-70 (2009).
58
Abdelmotaleb, M. & Saha, S. K. Corporate Social Responsibility, Public Service Motivation and Organizational Citizenship Behavior in the Public Sector. International Journal of Public Administration 42, 929-939 (2019).
59
Afsar, B., Shahjehan, A. & Shah, I. Leadership and Employee Pro-environmental Behaviors. in Research Handbook on Employee Pro-Environmental Behaviour (eds. Wells, V., Gregory-Smith, D. & Manika, D.) 185-209 (Edward Elgar Publishing, 2018).
60
Glavas, A., Hahn, T., Jones, D. A. & Willness, C. R. Predisposed, Exposed, or Both? How Prosocial Motivation and CSR Education Are Related to Prospective Employees’ Desire for Social Impact in Work. Business & Society 63, 1252-1291 (2024).
61
Glavas, A. & Willness, C. Employee (dis)engagement in corporate social responsibility. in Employee engagement in corporate social responsibility. (eds D. Haski-Leventhal, L. Roza, & S. Brammer) 10-27 (Sage Publications Ltd, 2020).
62
Hejjas, K., Miller, G. & Scarles, C. “It’s Like Hating Puppies!” Employee Disengagement and Corporate Social Responsibility. Journal of Business Ethics 157, 319-337 (2019).
63
Kunz, J. Corporate Social Responsibility and Employees Motivation—Broadening the Perspective. Schmalenbach Business Review 72, 159-191 (2020).
64
Bachrach, D. G., Vlachos, P. A., Irwin, K. & Morgeson, F. P. Does “how” firms invest in corporate social responsibility matter? An attributional model of job seekers’ reactions to configurational variation in corporate social responsibility. Human Relations 75, 532-559 (2022).
65
Weick, K. E. Sensemaking in Organizations. (Sage Publications 1995).
66
Kahn, W. A. Psychological Conditions of Personal Engagement and Disengagement at Work. Academy of Management Journal 33, 692-724 (1990).
67
Aguinis, H. & Glavas, A. Embedded versus peripheral corporate social responsibility: Psychological foundations. Industrial and Organizational Psychology 6, 314-332 (2013).
68
Schaufeli, W. B., Salanova, M., González-romá, V. & Bakker, A. B. The Measurement of Engagement and Burnout: A Two Sample Confirmatory Factor Analytic Approach. Journal of Happiness Studies 3, 71-92 (2002).
69
Daft, R. L. & Weick, K. E. Toward a Model of Organizations as Interpretation Systems.
70
Nijhof, A. & Jeurissen, R. Editorial: A sensemaking perspective on corporate social responsibility: introduction to the special issue. Business Ethics: A European Review 15, 316-322 (2006).
71
Basu, K. & Palazzo, G. Corporate Social Responsibility: A Process Model of Sensemaking. Academy of Management Review 33, 122-136 (2008).
72
Richter, U. H. & Arndt, F. F. Cognitive Processes in the CSR Decision-Making Process: A Sensemaking Perspective. Journal of Business Ethics 148, 587-602 (2018).
73
Merriman, K. K., Sen, S., Felo, A. J. & Litzky, B. E. Employees and sustainability: the role of incentives. Journal of Managerial Psychology 31, 820-836 (2016).
74
Graves, L. M. & Sarkis, J. The role of employees’ leadership perceptions, values, and motivation in employees’ provenvironmental behaviors. Journal of Cleaner Production 196, 576-587 (2018).
75
Pratt, M. G. & Ashforth, B. E. Fostering meaningfulness in working and at work. in Positive Organizational Scholarship: Foundations of a New Discipline (eds. Cameron, K. S., Dutton, J. E. & Quinn, R. E.) 309-327 (Berrett-Koehler Publishers, 2003).
76
Rosso, B. D., Dekas, K. H. & Wrzesniewski, A. On the meaning of work: A theoretical integration and review. Research in Organizational Behavior 30, 91-127 (2010).
77
Tajfel, H. & Turner, J. C. The Social Identity Theory of Intergroup Behavior. In Political psychology: Key readings (eds. Jost, J. T., Sidanius, J.) 276-293 (Psychology Press, 2004).
78
Marique, G., Stinglhamber, F., Desmette, D., Caesens, G. & De Zanet, F. The Relationship Between Perceived Organizational Support and Affective Commitment:A Social Identity Perspective. Group & Organization Management 38, 68-100 (2013).
79
Casey, D. & Sieber, S. Employees, sustainability and motivation: Increasing employee engagement by addressing sustainability and corporate social responsibility. Research in Hospitality Management 6, 69-76 (2016).
80
Moon, T.-W., Hur, W.-M., Ko, S.-H., Kim, J.-W. & Yoon, S.-W. Bridging corporate social responsibility and compassion at work: Relations to organizational justice and affective organizational commitment. The Career Development International 19, 49-72 (2014).
81
PwC. The Keys to Corporate Responsibility Employee Engagement. https://www.pwc.com/us/en/about-us/corporate-responsibility/assets/pwc-employeeengagement.pdf (2014).
82
Lyon, T. P., Delmas, M. A. & Maxwell, J. W. CSR needs CPR: Corporate sustainability and politics. California Management Review 60, 5-24 (2018).
83
Li, W. et al. Unlocking employees’ green creativity: The effects of green transformational leadership, green intrinsic, and extrinsic motivation. Journal of Cleaner Production 255, 120229 (2020).
84
Suto, M. & Takehara, H. Employee-oriented corporate social responsibility, innovation, and firm value. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management 29, 765-778 (2022).
85
Delmas, M. A. & Pekovic, S. Corporate Sustainable Innovation and Employee Behavior. Journal of Business Ethics 150, 1071-1088 (2018).
86
Nazir, O. & Islam, J. U. Effect of CSR activities on meaningfulness, compassion, and employee engagement: A sense-making theoretical approach. International Journal of Hospitality Management 90, 102630 (2020).
87
Temminck, E., Mearns, K. & Fruhen, L. Motivating employees towards sustainable behaviour. Business Strategy and the Environment 24, 402-412 (2015).
88
Deci, E. L., Olafsen, A. H. & Ryan, R. M. Self-determination theory in work organizations: The state of a science. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior 4, 19-43 (2017).
89
Gagné, M. et al. The Multidimensional Work Motivation Scale: Validation evidence in seven languages and nine countries. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology 24, 178-196 (2015).
90
Trépanier, S.-G. et al. Revisiting the Multidimensional Work Motivation Scale (MWMS). European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology 32, 157-172 (2023).
91
Endrejat, P. C. & Kauffeld, S. in Chapter 13: Motivation towards “green” behaviour at the workplace: facilitating employee pro-environmental behaviour through participatory interventions. in Research Handbook on Employee Pro-Environmental behavior (eds Victoria Wells, Diana Gregory-Smith, & Danae Manika) 267-286 (Edward Elgar Publishing, 2018).
92
Pope, S. & Lim, A. Why companies practice corporate social responsibility. Sloan Management Review, 1-3 (2022).
93
Gagné, M. & Deci, E. L. Self-determination theory and work motivation. Journal of Organizational Behavior 26, 331-362 (2005).
94
van Dam, K., van Vuuren, T. & Kemps, S. Sustainable employment: the importance of intrinsically valuable work and an age-supportive climate. The International Journal of Human Resource Management 28, 2449-2472 (2017).
95
Blanz, M. Employees’ job satisfaction: A test of the Job Characteristics Model among social work practitioners. Journal of Evidence-Informed Social Work 14, 35-50 (2017).
96
Yan, M., Peng, K. Z. & Francesco, A. M. The differential effects of job design on knowledge workers and manual workers: A quasi-experimental field study in China. Human Resource Management 50, 407-424 (2011).
97
Ciocirlan, C. E. Have me do, and I’ll always be true: Exploring the match between green employees and their jobs. Journal of Cleaner Production 383, 135471 (2023).
98
Grant, A. M. Relational Job Design and the Motivation to Make a Prosocial Difference.
99
Hsieh, Y.-C., Weng, J., Pham, N. T. & Yi, L.-H. What drives employees to participate in corporate social responsibility? A personal characteristics – CSR capacity – organizational reinforcing model of employees’ motivation for voluntary CSR activities. The International Journal of Human Resource Management 33, 3703-3735 (2022).
100
Chin, T. L., Yean, T. F. & Leow, H. W. Ability, Motivation, Opportunity-Enhancing HRM Practices and Corporate Environmental Citizenship: Revisiting the Moderating Role of Organisational Leraning Capability im Malaysian Construction Companies. International Journal of Business and Society 24, 100-118 (2023).
101
Shao, D., Zhou, E., Gao, P., Long, L. & Xiong, J. Double-Edged Effects of Socially Responsible Human Resource Management on Employee Task Performance and Organizational Citizenship Behavior: Mediating by Role Ambiguity and Moderating by Prosocial Motivation. Sustainability 11, 2271 (2019).
102
Li, J., Sekiguchi, T. & Qi, J. When and why skill variety influences employee job crafting: Regulatory focus and social exchange perspectives. Employee Relations 42, 662-680 (2020).
103
Lawler, E. E. 3. JOB DESIGN AND EMPLOYEE MOTIVATION. Personnel
104
Zhang, Y., Zhou, X., Zhang, H. & Khanagha, S. Mechanisms of vision communication and employees’ change-supportive behavior from the perspective of expectancy theory. Journal of Business Research 188, 115116 (2025).
105
Opoku-Dakwa, A., Chen, C. C. & Rupp, D. E. CSR initiative characteristics and employee engagement: An impact-based perspective. Journal of Organizational Behavior 39, 580-593 (2018).
106
Lin, C.-P. Modeling corporate citizenship and turnover intention: social identity and expectancy theories. Review of Managerial Science 13, 823-840 (2019).
107
Asante Boadi, E., He, Z., Boadi, E. K., Bosompem, J. & Avornyo, P. Consequences of corporate social responsibility on employees: The moderating role of work motivation patterns. Personnel Review 49, 231-249 (2019).
108
Harrell-Cook, G., Appelbaum, E., Bailey, T., Berg, P. & Kalleberg, A. L. Manufacturing Advantage: Why High-Performance Work Systems Pay off. Academy Of Management Review 26, 459 (2001).
109
Salas-Vallina, A., Pasamar, S. & Donate, M. J. Well-being in times of ill-being: how AMO HRM practices improve organizational citizenship behaviour through work-related well-being and service leadership. Employee Relations 43, 911-935 (2021).
110
Anwar, N. et al. Green Human Resource Management for organisational citizenship behaviour towards the environment and environmental performance on a university campus. Journal of Cleaner Production 256, 120401 (2020).
111
Bhattacharya, C. B., Sen, S., Edinger-Schons, L. M. & Neureiter, M. Corporate Purpose and Employee Sustainability Behaviors. Journal of Business Ethics 183, 963-981 (2023).
112
Hackman, J. R. Work redesign and motivation. Professional Psychology 11, 445-455 (1980).
113
Blau, P. M. Justice in Social Exchange. Sociological Inquiry 34, 193-206 (1964).
114
Homans, G. C. Social Behavior as Exchange. American Journal of Sociology 63, 597-606 (1958).
115
Gouldner, A. W. The Norm of Reciprocity: A Preliminary Statement. American Sociological Review 25, 161-178 (1960).
116
Memon, K., Ghani, B. & Khalid, S. The relationship between corporate social responsibility and employee engagement -A social exchange perspective. International Journal of Business Science and Applied Management 15, 1-16 (2020).
117
He, H. & Brown, A. D. Organizational Identity and Organizational Identification:A Review of the Literature and Suggestions for Future Research. Group & Organization Management 38, 3-35 (2013).
118
Lawler, E. J. An affect theory of social exchange. American Journal of Sociology 107, 321-352 (2001).
119
Rupp, D. E., Ganapathi, J., Aguilera, R. V. & Williams, C. A. Employee reactions to corporate social responsibility: an organizational justice framework. Journal of Organizational Behavior 27, 537-543 (2006).
120
Lin-Hi, N. & Blumberg, I. The Link Between (Not) Practicing CSR and Corporate Reputation: Psychological Foundations and Managerial Implications. Journal of Business Ethics 150, 185-198 (2018).
121
Zhao, L., Lee, J. & Moon, S. Employee response to CSR in China: the moderating effect of collectivism. Personnel Review 48, 839-863 (2019).
122
Gao, Y. & He, W. Corporate social responsibility and employee organizational citizenship behavior: The pivotal roles of ethical leadership and organizational justice. Management Decision 55, 294-309 (2017).
123
Boiral, O. & Paillé, P. Organizational Citizenship Behaviour for the Environment: Measurement and Validation. Journal of Business Ethics 109, 431-445 (2012).
124
Mastria, S., Vezzil, A. & De Cesarei, A. Going Green: A Review on the Role of Motivation in Sustainable Behavior. Sustainability 15, 15429 (2023).
125
Tourigny, L., Han, J., Baba, V. V. & Pan, P. Ethical Leadership and Corporate Social Responsibility in China: A Multilevel Study of Their Effects on Trust and Organizational Citizenship Behavior. Journal of Business Ethics 158, 427-440 (2019).
126
n.a. Corporate Social Responsibility als Motor der Personalentwicklung – Roth Institut. Roth Institut https://roth-institut.de/allgemein/corporate-social-responsibility-als-motor-der-personalentwicklung.
127
Han, Z., Wang, Q. & Yan, X. How Responsible Leadership Motivates Employees to Engage in Organizational Citizenship Behavior for the Environment: A Double-Mediation Model. Sustainability 11, 605 (2019).
128
Paillé, P., Chen, Y., Boiral, O. & Jin, J. The Impact of Human Resource Management on Environmental Performance: An Employee-Level Study. Journal of Business Ethics 121, 451-466 (2014).
129
Vlachos, P. A., Panagopoulos, N. G. & Rapp, A. A. Feeling Good by Doing Good: Employee CSR-Induced Attributions, Job Satisfaction, and the Role of Charismatic Leadership. Journal of Business Ethics 118, 577-588 (2013).
130
Kelman, H. C. Compliance, identification, and internalization three processes of attitude change. Journal of Conflict Resolution 2, 51-60 (1958).
131
PwC. The Keys to Corporate Responsibility Employee Engagement. https://www.pwc.com/us/en/about-us/corporate-responsibility/assets/pwc-employee-engagement.pdf (2014).
132
Grundig, S. Motivation für Nachhaltigkeit im Unternehmen schaffen. Plant Values https://plant-values.de/motivation-fuer-nachhaltigkeit-im-unternehmen/.
133
Tourky, M., Kitchen, P. & Shaalan, A. The role of corporate identity in CSR implementation: An integrative framework. Journal of Business Research 117, 694-706 (2020).
134
Roche, K. E. & Baumgartner, R. J. Corporate sustainability strategy deployment: A case study on the implementation of corporate sustainability using hoshin kanri. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management 32, 927-946 (2025).
135
Bolton, A. & Soonieus, R. Seven Ways to Get Sustainability Incentives Right, https://www.bcg.com/publications/2024/seven-ways-to-get-sustainability-incentives-right (2024).
136
Glemser, S. & Hausmann, R. Nachhaltige Incentives in Unternehmen: Vier Details im Fokus. KPMG Klardenker (2024). https://www.kpmg.com/de/publications/2024/12/nachhaltige-incentives
137
Does CSR improve employees’ perception of their workplace? HEC Paris (2024). https://www.hec.edu/en/institutes-and-centers-expertise/sustainability-organiza-tions/think/executive-factsheets/does-csr-improve-employees-perception-their-work-place
138
Zhang, J., Ul-Durar, S., Akhtar, M. N., Zhang, Y. & Lu, L. How does responsible leadership affect employees’ voluntary workplace green behaviors? A multilevel dual process model of voluntary workplace green behaviors. Journal of Environmental Management 296, 113205 (2021).
139
Ma, Y., Teng, Y. & Yan, B. Bring more than green? The impact of green human resource management on hospitality employees’ organizational citizenship behaviors. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management 31, 2537-2556 (2024).
140
Waples, C. J. & Brachle, B. J. Recruiting millennials: Exploring the impact of CSR involvement and pay signaling on organizational attractiveness. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management 27, 870-880 (2020).
141
Klimkiewicz, K. & Oltra, V. Does CSR Enhance Employer Attractiveness? The Role of Millennial Job Seekers’ Attitudes. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management 24, 449-463 (2017).
142
Kim, K., Jhang, J. & Oh, S.-H. Genuine CSR motive and organizational attractiveness: The effects of a Company’s inconsistent CSR behaviors on moral jobseekers. Business Ethics, the Environment & Responsibility 34, 1684-1698 (2025).
143
Schreiber, J. 50 Ideen zur Motivation Ihrer Mitarbeitenden für mehr Nachhaltigkeit. (Baloise Group, 2024). https://www.baloise.ch/dam/baloise-ch/unternehmenskunden/nachhaltigkeit/mitarbeitermotivation/50-Ideen-zur-Motivation-Ihrer-Mitarbeitenden-für-mehr-Nachhaltigkeit.pdf
144
Pellegrini, C., Rizzi, F. & Frey, M. The role of sustainable human resource practices in influencing employee behavior for corporate sustainability. Business Strategy and the Environment 27, 1221-1232 (2018).
145
Nohria, N., Groysberg, B. & Lee, L. E. Employee motivation: a powerful new model.
146
Benn, S., Teo, S. T. T. & Martin, A. Employee participation and engagement in working for the environment. Personnel Review 44, 492-510 (2015).
147
Wrzesniewski, A., Dutton, J. E. & Debebe, G. INTERPERSONAL SENSEMAKING AND THE MEANING OF WORK. Research in Organizational Behavior 25, 93-135 (2003).
148
Shahzad, I. A., Farrukh, M., Ahmed, N. O., Lin, L. & Kanwal, N. The role of transformational leadership style, organizational structure and job characteristics in developing psychological empowerment among banking professionals. Journal of Chinese Human Resource Management 9, 107-122 (2018).
149
Pfaff, H. & Schubin, K. Verantwortung und Gesundheit. in Fehlzeiten-Report (ed. Badura, B., Ducki, A., Meyer, M. & Schröder, H.) 3-19 (Springer, 2022). doi: 10.1007/978-3-662-65598-6_1.
150
Francoeur, V. & Paillé, P. Green Behaviors in the Workplace: Nature, Complexity, and Trends. (Palgrave Macmillan Cham, 2022).
151
Pinzone, M., Guerci, M., Lettieri, E. & Redman, T. Progressing in the change journey towards sustainability in healthcare: the role of ‘Green’ HRM. Journal of Cleaner Production 122, 201-211 (2016).
152
Florea, L., Cheung, Y. H. & Herndon, N. C. For All Good Reasons: Role of Values in Organizational Sustainability. Journal of Business Ethics 114, 393-408 (2013).
153
Newman, A., Nielsen, I. & Miao, Q. The impact of employee perceptions of organizational corporate social responsibility practices on job performance and organizational citizenship behavior: evidence from the Chinese private sector. The International Journal of Human Resource Management 26, 1226-1242 (2015).
154
Ybema, J. F., van Vuuren, T. & van Dam, K. HR practices for enhancing sustainable employability: implementation, use, and outcomes. The International Journal of Human Resource Management 31, 886-907 (2020).
155
Graves, L. M., Sarkis, J. & Gold, N. Employee proenvironmental behavior in Russia: The roles of top management commitment, managerial leadership, and employee motives. Resources, Conservation and Recycling 140, 54-64 (2019).
156
Frazier, M. L. & Tupper, C. Supervisor Prosocial Motivation, Employee Thriving, and Helping Behavior: A Trickle-Down Model of Psychological Safety. Group & Organization Management 43, 561-593 (2018).
157
Zhang, Q., Cao, M., Zhang, F., Liu, J. & Li, X. Effects of corporate social responsibility on customer satisfaction and organizational attractiveness: A signaling perspective. Business Ethics: A European Review 29, 20-34 (2020).
158
Yin, C., Ma, H., Gong, Y., Chen, Q. & Zhang, Y. Environmental CSR and environmental citizenship behavior: The role of employees’ environmental passion and empathy. Journal of Cleaner Production 320, 128751 (2021).
159
Lewin, L. D., Warren, D. E. & AlSuwaidi, M. Does CSR make better citizens? The influence of employee CSR programs on employee societal citizenship behavior outside of work. Business and Society Review 125, 271-288 (2020).
160
Meyer, J. P., Becker, T. E. & Vandenberghe, C. Employee Commitment and Motivation: A Conceptual Analysis and Integrative Model. Journal of Applied Psychology 89, 991-1007 (2004).
161
Does CSR improve employees’ perception of their workplace? HEC Paris (2024). https://www.hec.edu/en/institutes-and-centers-expertise/sustainability-organizations/think/executive-factsheets/does-csr-improve-employees-perception-their-workplace
162
Renault Group. „HACKATHON CO2 INDUSTRY“: Renault Group beschleunigt Dekarbonisierung ihrer Werke. (2021). https://media.renault.at/article/2252
163
Bosch GmbH. Hacking for a good cause: The Social Impact Challenge at Bosch ConnectedWorld shows how the Internet of Things can tackle social and ecological challenges. (2019). https://www.bosch.com/stories/social-impact-hackathon/
164
Arjaliès, D.-L. & Mundy, J. The use of management control systems to manage CSR strategy: A levers of control perspective. Management Accounting Research 24, 284-300(2013).
165
Zaman, U., Nawaz, S., Javed, A. & Rasul, T. Having a whale of a time: Linking self-determination theory (SDT), job characteristics model (JCM) and motivation to the joy of gig work. Cogent Business & Management 7, 1807707 (2020).
166
Glavas, A. & Kelley, K. The Effects of Perceived Corporate Social Responsibility on Employee Attitudes. Business Ethics Quarterly 24, 165-202 (2014).
167
Sonntag, K. „Gesundheit“ im Wertekanon verantwortungsvoller Unternehmensführung – auch in der digitalen Transformation. in Fehlzeiten-Report (ed. Badura, B., Ducki, A., Meyer, M. & Schröder, H.) 123-133 (Springer, 2022). doi: 10.1007/978-3-662-65598-6_7.
168
Kutzner, E. Verantwortung für Vielfalt in der Belegschaft – ein arbeitspolitischer Ansatz. in Fehlzeiten-Report (ed. Badura, B., Ducki, A., Meyer, M. & Schröder, H.) 151-164 (Springer 2022). doi: 10.1007/978-3-662-65598-6_9.
169
Frazier, M. L., Fainshmidt, S., Klinger, R. L., Pezeshkan, A. & Vracheva, V. Psychological Safety: A Meta-Analytic Review and Extension. Personnel Psychology 70, 113-165 (2017).
170
Newman, A., Donohue, R. & Eva, N. Psychological safety: A systematic review of the literature. Human Resource Management Review 27, 521-535 (2017).
171
Beus, J. M., McCord, M. A. & Zohar, D. Workplace safety:A review and research synthesis. Organizational Psychology Review 6, 352-381 (2016).
172
Edmondson, A. Psychological Safety and Learning Behavior in Work Teams.
173
Singh, B., Winkel, D. E. & Selvarajan, T. T. Managing diversity at work: Does psychological safety hold the key to racial differences in employee performance? Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology 86, 242-263 (2013).
174
Jiang, K., Lepak, D. P., Hu, J. & Baer, J. C. How Does Human Resource Management Influence Organizational Outcomes? A Meta-analytic Investigation of Mediating Mechanisms. Academy of Management Journal 55, 1264-1294 (2012).
175
Paillé, P. Dare to care in environmental sustainability context: how managers can encourage employee pro-environmental behaviour. in Research Handbook on Employee Pro-Environmental Behaviour (eds. Wells, V., Gregory-Smith, D. & Manika, D.) 168-184 (Edward Elgar Publishing, 2018).
176
Turner, M. R., McIntosh, T., Reid, S. W. & Buckley, M. R. Corporate implementation of socially controversial CSR initiatives: Implications for human resource management. Human Resource Management Review 29, 125-136 (2019).
177
Van den Broeck, A., Vansteenkiste, M., De Witte, H. & Lens, W. Explaining the relationships between job characteristics, burnout, and engagement: The role of basic psychological need satisfaction. Work & Stress 22, 277-294 (2008).
178
Hollstein, B. & Rosa, H. Perspektive – Betriebliche Verantwortung und Unverfügbarkeit. in Fehlzeiten-Report (ed. Badura, B., Ducki, A., Meyer, M. & Schröder, H.) 69-81 (Springer 2022). doi: 10.1007/978-3-662-65598-6_5.
179
Schaufeli, W. B. & Bakker, A. B. Work Engagement Scale: Preliminary Manual.
180
Schaufeli, W. B., Bakker, A. B. & Salanova, M. The Measurement of Work Engagement With a Short Questionnaire:A Cross-National Study. Educational and Psychological Measurement 66, 701-716 (2006).
181
Schaufeli, W. B. & Bakker, A. B. Work engagement: A handbook of essential theory and research. 10-24 (Psychology Press, 2010).

Executive summary

1 Definition and relevance

2 Literature review

2.1 Development of the research field

2.1.1 Historical background and research gap

2.1.2 Related concepts

2.2 Sustainability of a source of psychological meaning and identity

2.2.1 Sensemaking

2.2.2 Meaningfulness in and at work

2.2.3 Social Identity Theory

2.3 Mechanism of sustainability-driven motivations and behavior

2.3.1 Intrinsic and extrinsic motivation

2.3.2 Self Determination Theory

2.3.3 Job Characteristics Model

2.3.4 Expectancy Theory

2.3.5 Ability Motivation Opportunity Theory

3.3.6 Social Exchange Theory

3.3.7 Organizational citizenship behavior for the environment

3 Practical implementation

3.1 Strategic implementation

3.1.1 Strategic anchoring of sustainability in leadership and governance

3.1.2 Integration of sustainability into human resource management

3.1.3 Organizational structures and systems

3.1.4 Drivers and barriers of strategic implementation

3.2 Operational implementation

3.2.1 Participation and communication

3.2.2 Integration in work and organization

3.2.3 Creating supportive social, psychological and resource condition

3.2.4 Drivers and barriers of operational implementation

3.3 Measuring instruments

References

Your feedback on this article