本校學位論文庫
CITYU Theses & Dissertations
論文詳情
王琳
張冉
商學院
工商管理博士學位(DBA)課程(中文學制)
博士
2023
社會規範對製造業企業員工綠色行為的影響研究 : 基於面子意識和集體主義傾向的調節
Research on the Impact of Social Norms on Green Behavior of Manufacturing Enterprise Employees : The moderating effect based on face consciousness and collectivism
社會規範 ; 個人規範 ; 面子意識 ; 集體主義傾向 ; 員工綠色行為
social norms ; personal norms ; face consciousness ; collectivism ; employee green behavior
公開日期：14/5/2027
伴隨著經濟的快速增長，中國的環境問題日益凸顯，已成為可持續發展議題中無法規避的重要一環。越來越多的企業開始主動承擔起環境保護的責任，積極促進生態可持續發展。然而，企業綠色措施的推行與落地，需要依靠每一個員工的積極參與。在中國的社會關係結構下，員工日常工作時周邊領導和同事等社會互動會對員工產生影響。不同文化背景的個體在綠色行為及其影響因素上展現出巨大差異。基於以上背景，本研究從中國社會文化情境視角，探究社會規範對製造業企業員工綠色行為的影響及作用機制。本研究廣泛搜索國內外文獻，基於計畫行為理論、規範激活理論和規範行為焦點理論，構建了社會規範對製造業企業員工綠色行為影響的理論模型。
本研究採用混合研究方法。一方面，在質性研究階段，本研究採取半結構化訪談形式進行深度訪談，全面瞭解製造業企業員工的社會規範和綠色行為等特徵，對訪談資料深入挖掘，初步掌握變量間的關係。另一方面，在量化研究階段，本研究進行問卷調研，採用結構方程模型等多種實證方法，分析了社會規範、個人規範、責任感知和員工綠色行為之間的關係，並且研究了面子意識和集體主義傾向這兩個社會文化因素的作用。
研究結果顯示：（1）各變量在人口統計學上具有一定的差異性。員工的性別、年齡、學歷、工作年限、職位、所在企業性質和企業規模，在不同變量中存在一定的差異性。（2）社會規範對員工綠色行為有直接影響作用。命令性社會規範、描述性社會規範、個人規範和責任感知對員工的綠色行為均具有顯著的促進作用。在影響員工綠色行為的直接作用中，描述性社會規範的直接促進作用最大，其次為命令性社會規範。命令性社會規範和描述性社會規範兩者相比，命令性社會規範對責任感知的影響相對較大，而描述性社會規範對個人規範的影響更大。（3）責任感知和個人規範具有中介作用，面子意識和集體主義傾向具有調節作用。研究發現命令性社會規範和描述性社會規範都可以通過增強員工的責任感知和個人規範，間接促進員工的綠色行為。在社會規範影響責任感知的路徑中，面子意識均發揮正向調節作用。在社會規範影響個人規範的路徑中，集體主義傾向均發揮正向調節作用。因此，面子意識可促進社會規範向責任感知的轉化，集體主義傾向可促進社會規範向個人規範的轉化。
本研究具有一定的理論貢獻和實踐指導意義。一方面，本研究從社會規範和個人規範雙角度研究員工的綠色行為，豐富了員工綠色行為的研究視角；探索了社會規範對員工綠色行為的深層影響機制，豐富了員工綠色行為的現有理論分析框架；將面子意識和集體主義傾向這兩種社會文化因素引入員工綠色行為的研究，豐富了員工綠色行為的研究內容。另一方面，本研究從促進員工對綠色行為的社會規範感知，提升員工的責任感知，培育員工綠色行為的個人規範，激發員工的面子意識，重視集體主義文化的弘揚等方面提出了對策和建議，有助於提高製造業企業在綠色管理方面的實踐水準。
本研究採用混合研究方法。一方面，在質性研究階段，本研究採取半結構化訪談形式進行深度訪談，全面瞭解製造業企業員工的社會規範和綠色行為等特徵，對訪談資料深入挖掘，初步掌握變量間的關係。另一方面，在量化研究階段，本研究進行問卷調研，採用結構方程模型等多種實證方法，分析了社會規範、個人規範、責任感知和員工綠色行為之間的關係，並且研究了面子意識和集體主義傾向這兩個社會文化因素的作用。
研究結果顯示：（1）各變量在人口統計學上具有一定的差異性。員工的性別、年齡、學歷、工作年限、職位、所在企業性質和企業規模，在不同變量中存在一定的差異性。（2）社會規範對員工綠色行為有直接影響作用。命令性社會規範、描述性社會規範、個人規範和責任感知對員工的綠色行為均具有顯著的促進作用。在影響員工綠色行為的直接作用中，描述性社會規範的直接促進作用最大，其次為命令性社會規範。命令性社會規範和描述性社會規範兩者相比，命令性社會規範對責任感知的影響相對較大，而描述性社會規範對個人規範的影響更大。（3）責任感知和個人規範具有中介作用，面子意識和集體主義傾向具有調節作用。研究發現命令性社會規範和描述性社會規範都可以通過增強員工的責任感知和個人規範，間接促進員工的綠色行為。在社會規範影響責任感知的路徑中，面子意識均發揮正向調節作用。在社會規範影響個人規範的路徑中，集體主義傾向均發揮正向調節作用。因此，面子意識可促進社會規範向責任感知的轉化，集體主義傾向可促進社會規範向個人規範的轉化。
本研究具有一定的理論貢獻和實踐指導意義。一方面，本研究從社會規範和個人規範雙角度研究員工的綠色行為，豐富了員工綠色行為的研究視角；探索了社會規範對員工綠色行為的深層影響機制，豐富了員工綠色行為的現有理論分析框架；將面子意識和集體主義傾向這兩種社會文化因素引入員工綠色行為的研究，豐富了員工綠色行為的研究內容。另一方面，本研究從促進員工對綠色行為的社會規範感知，提升員工的責任感知，培育員工綠色行為的個人規範，激發員工的面子意識，重視集體主義文化的弘揚等方面提出了對策和建議，有助於提高製造業企業在綠色管理方面的實踐水準。
With the rapid economic growth, China's environmental problems have become increasingly prominent. It has become an important part of the sustainable development issue that cannot be avoided. More and more companies are taking the initiative to take responsibility for environmental protection and actively promote ecological sustainable development. However, the implementation of corporate green measures requires the active participation of every employee. Under China's social relationship structure, the social interactions between employees such as leaders and colleagues during daily work will have an impact on employees. Individuals with different cultural backgrounds exhibit significant differences in green behavior and its influencing factors. Based on the above background, this study explores the influence and mechanism of social norms on green behavior of manufacturing employees from the perspective of Chinese social and cultural context. This study extensively searched domestic and foreign literature, and constructed a theoretical model of the influence of social norms on green behavior of manufacturing employees based on planned behavior theory, norm activation theory, and normative behavior focus theory.
This study adopts a mixed research method. On the one hand, during the qualitative research stage, this study conducted in-depth interviews in the form of semi-structured interviews to comprehensively understand the social norms and green behavior characteristics of employees in manufacturing enterprises. The interview information was further explored to preliminarily grasp the relationship between variables. On the other hand, in the quantitative research stage, this study conducted a questionnaire survey and used various empirical methods such as structural equation modeling to analyze the relationship between social norms, personal norms, perception of responsibility and employee green behavior. The study also investigated the role of face awareness and collectivism as two social and cultural factors.
The research results show that: (1) There are certain differences in demographic characteristics among various variables. There are certain differences in variables such as gender, age, education level, years of work experience, employee position, enterprise quality and enterprise scale. (2) Social norms have a direct impact on employee green behavior. Imperative social norms, descriptive social norms, personal norms and sense of responsibility all have a significant promoting effect on employee green behavior. Among the direct effects on employee green behavior, descriptive social norms have the greatest promoting effect, followed by imperative social norms. Compared to descriptive social norms, imperative social norms have a relatively greater impact on the perception of responsibility, while descriptive social norms have a greater impact on individual norms. (3) Perception of responsibility and personal norms have a mediating effect, while face consciousness and collectivism have a moderating effect. Research has found that both injunctive and descriptive social norms can indirectly promote green behavior among employees by enhancing their sense of responsibility and personal norms. In social norms that influence the perception of responsibility, face consciousness plays a positive moderating role. In social norms that influence individual norms, collectivism play a positive moderating role. Therefore, face consciousness can promote the transformation of social norms into sense of responsibility, and collectivism can promote the transformation of social norms into individual norms.
This study has certain theoretical contributions and practical guidance significance. On the one hand, this study investigates the green behavior of employees from the perspective of social norms and personal norms, which enriches the research perspective of employee green behavior. This study reveals the deep impact mechanism of social norms and personal norms on employee behavior, enriching the existing theoretical analysis framework of employee green behavior. In addition, this study introduces two social and cultural factors, face consciousness and collectivism, into the study of employee green behavior, enriching the research content of employee green behavior. On the other hand, this study proposes some countermeasures and suggestions for enterprises, including: promoting employees' perception of social norms regarding green behavior, enhancing employees' sense of responsibility, cultivating personal norms for green behavior, stimulating employee face consciousness, and emphasizing the promotion of collectivist culture, which helps to improve the practical level of green management in enterprises.
This study adopts a mixed research method. On the one hand, during the qualitative research stage, this study conducted in-depth interviews in the form of semi-structured interviews to comprehensively understand the social norms and green behavior characteristics of employees in manufacturing enterprises. The interview information was further explored to preliminarily grasp the relationship between variables. On the other hand, in the quantitative research stage, this study conducted a questionnaire survey and used various empirical methods such as structural equation modeling to analyze the relationship between social norms, personal norms, perception of responsibility and employee green behavior. The study also investigated the role of face awareness and collectivism as two social and cultural factors.
The research results show that: (1) There are certain differences in demographic characteristics among various variables. There are certain differences in variables such as gender, age, education level, years of work experience, employee position, enterprise quality and enterprise scale. (2) Social norms have a direct impact on employee green behavior. Imperative social norms, descriptive social norms, personal norms and sense of responsibility all have a significant promoting effect on employee green behavior. Among the direct effects on employee green behavior, descriptive social norms have the greatest promoting effect, followed by imperative social norms. Compared to descriptive social norms, imperative social norms have a relatively greater impact on the perception of responsibility, while descriptive social norms have a greater impact on individual norms. (3) Perception of responsibility and personal norms have a mediating effect, while face consciousness and collectivism have a moderating effect. Research has found that both injunctive and descriptive social norms can indirectly promote green behavior among employees by enhancing their sense of responsibility and personal norms. In social norms that influence the perception of responsibility, face consciousness plays a positive moderating role. In social norms that influence individual norms, collectivism play a positive moderating role. Therefore, face consciousness can promote the transformation of social norms into sense of responsibility, and collectivism can promote the transformation of social norms into individual norms.
This study has certain theoretical contributions and practical guidance significance. On the one hand, this study investigates the green behavior of employees from the perspective of social norms and personal norms, which enriches the research perspective of employee green behavior. This study reveals the deep impact mechanism of social norms and personal norms on employee behavior, enriching the existing theoretical analysis framework of employee green behavior. In addition, this study introduces two social and cultural factors, face consciousness and collectivism, into the study of employee green behavior, enriching the research content of employee green behavior. On the other hand, this study proposes some countermeasures and suggestions for enterprises, including: promoting employees' perception of social norms regarding green behavior, enhancing employees' sense of responsibility, cultivating personal norms for green behavior, stimulating employee face consciousness, and emphasizing the promotion of collectivist culture, which helps to improve the practical level of green management in enterprises.
2024
中文
195
致 謝 I
摘 要 IV
Abstract VI
圖目錄 XIII
表目錄 XIV
第一章 緒論 17
1.1 研究背景和意義 17
1.1.1研究背景 17
1.1.2研究意義 21
1.2 研究目標和內容 22
1.2.1 研究目標 22
1.2.2 研究對象 23
1.2.3 研究內容 24
1.3 研究方法和思路 26
1.3.1研究方法 26
1.3.2 研究思路 28
第二章 研究現狀及文獻綜述 31
2.1 研究現狀 31
2.1.1員工綠色行為研究現狀 31
2.1.2社會規範研究現狀 39
2.1.3個人規範研究現狀 42
2.1.4責任感知研究現狀 44
2.1.5面子意識研究現狀 46
2.1.6集體主義傾向研究現狀 49
2.1.7各變量之間的關係 51
2.2研究述評 54
第三章 理論基礎和研究假設 56
3.1 理論基礎 56
3.1.1 計畫行為理論 56
3.1.2 規範激活理論 57
3.1.3 規範行為焦點理論 60
3.2 研究假設與模型構建 61
3.2.1 概念界定與研究假設 61
3.2.2 研究模型 70
第四章 質性研究 72
4.1 訪談設計與樣本 72
4.2 訪談內容分析 75
4.2.1員工綠色行為分析 75
4.2.2 社會規範影響員工綠色行為分析 79
4.3各變量間關係的經驗性材料 82
4.3.1責任感知的中介作用 82
4.3.2個人規範的中介作用 85
4.3.3面子意識的調節作用 88
4.3.4集體主義傾向的調節作用 90
4.4訪談結果匯總 93
第五章 研究模型的定量分析 95
5.1 調查問卷與量表選用 95
5.1.1調查問卷設計 95
5.1.2調查問卷量表選用 95
5.2 預調研數據分析 100
5.2.1預調研樣本情況 100
5.2.2預調研樣本共同方法偏差檢驗 103
5.2.3預調研樣本信度和效度檢驗 104
5.3正式調研數據分析 111
5.3.1正式調研數據來源 111
5.3.2員工和企業基本特徵 112
5.3.3共同方法偏差檢驗 114
5.4數據質量分析 115
5.4.1信度和效度檢驗 115
5.4.2驗證性因子分析 124
5.5相關分析與人口統計學差異分析 120
5.5.1相關分析 120
5.5.2主要變量在人口統計學上的差異分析 122
5.6研究模型的假設檢驗 128
5.6.1直接效應檢驗 128
5.6.2中介效應檢驗 130
5.6.3調節效應檢驗 131
5.7假設檢驗結果匯總 147
第六章 研究結論及建議 149
6.1 研究結論 149
6.2 理論貢獻 151
6.3 管理啟示 153
6.3.1促進員工對綠色行為的社會規範感知 154
6.3.2發揮社會規範作用以提升員工的責任感知程度 155
6.3.3激發員工綠色行為的個人規範 156
6.3.4合理激發員工的面子意識 157
6.3.6重視集體主義文化的弘揚 158
第七章 研究不足與展望 160
參考文獻 162
作者簡歷 165
附錄A 185
附錄B 185
摘 要 IV
Abstract VI
圖目錄 XIII
表目錄 XIV
第一章 緒論 17
1.1 研究背景和意義 17
1.1.1研究背景 17
1.1.2研究意義 21
1.2 研究目標和內容 22
1.2.1 研究目標 22
1.2.2 研究對象 23
1.2.3 研究內容 24
1.3 研究方法和思路 26
1.3.1研究方法 26
1.3.2 研究思路 28
第二章 研究現狀及文獻綜述 31
2.1 研究現狀 31
2.1.1員工綠色行為研究現狀 31
2.1.2社會規範研究現狀 39
2.1.3個人規範研究現狀 42
2.1.4責任感知研究現狀 44
2.1.5面子意識研究現狀 46
2.1.6集體主義傾向研究現狀 49
2.1.7各變量之間的關係 51
2.2研究述評 54
第三章 理論基礎和研究假設 56
3.1 理論基礎 56
3.1.1 計畫行為理論 56
3.1.2 規範激活理論 57
3.1.3 規範行為焦點理論 60
3.2 研究假設與模型構建 61
3.2.1 概念界定與研究假設 61
3.2.2 研究模型 70
第四章 質性研究 72
4.1 訪談設計與樣本 72
4.2 訪談內容分析 75
4.2.1員工綠色行為分析 75
4.2.2 社會規範影響員工綠色行為分析 79
4.3各變量間關係的經驗性材料 82
4.3.1責任感知的中介作用 82
4.3.2個人規範的中介作用 85
4.3.3面子意識的調節作用 88
4.3.4集體主義傾向的調節作用 90
4.4訪談結果匯總 93
第五章 研究模型的定量分析 95
5.1 調查問卷與量表選用 95
5.1.1調查問卷設計 95
5.1.2調查問卷量表選用 95
5.2 預調研數據分析 100
5.2.1預調研樣本情況 100
5.2.2預調研樣本共同方法偏差檢驗 103
5.2.3預調研樣本信度和效度檢驗 104
5.3正式調研數據分析 111
5.3.1正式調研數據來源 111
5.3.2員工和企業基本特徵 112
5.3.3共同方法偏差檢驗 114
5.4數據質量分析 115
5.4.1信度和效度檢驗 115
5.4.2驗證性因子分析 124
5.5相關分析與人口統計學差異分析 120
5.5.1相關分析 120
5.5.2主要變量在人口統計學上的差異分析 122
5.6研究模型的假設檢驗 128
5.6.1直接效應檢驗 128
5.6.2中介效應檢驗 130
5.6.3調節效應檢驗 131
5.7假設檢驗結果匯總 147
第六章 研究結論及建議 149
6.1 研究結論 149
6.2 理論貢獻 151
6.3 管理啟示 153
6.3.1促進員工對綠色行為的社會規範感知 154
6.3.2發揮社會規範作用以提升員工的責任感知程度 155
6.3.3激發員工綠色行為的個人規範 156
6.3.4合理激發員工的面子意識 157
6.3.6重視集體主義文化的弘揚 158
第七章 研究不足與展望 160
參考文獻 162
作者簡歷 165
附錄A 185
附錄B 185
1. Afsar, B., Badir, Y., & Kiani, U. S. (2016). Linking spiritual leadership and employee pro-environmental behavior: The influence of workplace spirituality, intrinsic motivation, and environmental passion. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 45(2), 79-88.
2. Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. British Journal of Social Psychology, 40(4), 47-61.
3. Bauer, T. N., & Aiman-Smith, L. (1996). Green career choices: The influence of ecological stance on recruiting. Journal of Business and Psychology, 10(4), 445-458.
4. Bissing-Olson, M. J., Iyer, A., Fielding, K. S., & Zacher, H. (2013). Relationships between daily affect and pro-environmental behavior at work: The moderating role of pro-environmental attitude. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 34(2), 156-175.
5. Biswas, S. R., Dey, M., Bhattacharjee, S., & Uddin, M. A. (2021). How does corporate environmental strategy contribute to voluntary environmental behavior? Influence of psychological green climate, firms' size, and employees' age. SAGE Open, 11(1).
6. Blamey, R. (1998). The Activation of environmental norms extending schwartz's model. Environment & Behavior, 30(5), 676-708.
7. Boiral,O.,Paillé, P. & Raineri, N. (2015). The nature of employees' pro-environmental behaviors. NewYork: Oxford University Press.
8. Borden, R. J., & Schettino, A. P. (1979). Determinants of environmentally Responsible Behavior. Journal of Environmental Education, 10(4), 35-39.
9. Brown, P., & Levinson, S. C. (1987). Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
10. Carmeli, A., & Schaubroeck, J. (2007). The influence of leaders' and other referents' normative expectations on individual involvement in creative work. The Leadership Quarterly, 18(1), 35-48.
11. Chan, H. W., Pong, V., & Tam, K. P. (2019). Cross-national variation of gender differences in environmental concern: Testing the sociocultural hindrance hypothesis. Environment & Behavior, 51(1), 81-108.
12. Chen, J., Wang, L., & Tang, N. (2016). Half the sky: The moderating role of cultural collectivism in job turnover among Chinese female workers. Journal of Business Ethics, 133(3), 487-498.
13. Chen, Z., Li, H., & Wong, C. T. C. (2002). An application of bar-code system for reducing construction wastes. Automation in Construction, 11(5), 521-533.
14. Cheng, T. M., & Wu, H. C. (2015). How do environmental knowledge, environmental sensitivity, and place attachment affect environmentally responsible behavior? An integrated approach for sustainable island tourism. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 23(4), 557-576.
15. Cialdini, R. B., Kallgren, C. A., & Reno, R. R. (1991). A focus theory of normative conduct: A theoretical refinement and reevaluation of the role of norms in human behavior. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 24(1), 201-234.
16. Cialdini, R. B., Reno, R. R., & Kallgren, C. A. (1990). A focus theory of normative conduct: Recycling the concept of norms to reduce littering in public places. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58(6), 1015-1026.
17. Cordano, M., Welcomer, S., Scherer, R., Pradenas, L., & Parada, V. (2010). Understanding cultural differences in the antecedents of pro-environmental behavior: A comparative analysis of business students in the United States and Chile. Journal of Environmental Education, 41(4), 224-238.
18. Daily, B., F., Bishop, J., W., & Govindarajulu, N. (2009). A conceptual model for organizational citizenship behavior directed toward the environment. Business and Society. 48,243-256.
19. Dewi, R. C., & Riantoputra, C. D. (2019). Felt accountability: The role of personality and organizational factors. Journal of Management Development, 38(4), 312-322.
20. Diamond, W. D., & Kashyap, R. K. (2010). Extending models of prosocial behavior to explain university alumni contributions. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 27(10), 915-928.
21. Donagan, A. (1996). The encyclopedia of philosophy. The philosophical Review, 79(1):83-138.
22. Doney, P. M., Cannon, J. P., & Mullen, M. R. (1998). Understanding the influence of national culture on the development of trust. Academy of Management Review, 23(3), 601-620.
23. Dorfman.P.W, & Howell.J.P. (1988). Dimensions of national culture and effective leadership patterns: hofstede revisited. Advances in International Comparative Management, 10(3), 127-150.
24. Dunlapa, R. E., & Liereb, K. D. V. (1978). The new environmental paradigm. Journal of Environmental Education, 9, 10-19.
25. Ellickson, R. C. (1991). Order without law: How neighbors settle disputes. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
26. Felin, T., Foss, N. J., & Ployhart, R. E. (2015). The microfoundations movement in strategy and organization theory. Academy of Management Annals, 9(1), 575-632.
27. Fishbein, M. (1963). An investigation of the relationships between beliefs about an object and the attitude toward that object. Human Relations, 16, 233-240.
28. Frink, D. D., & Klimoski, R. J. (1998). Toward a theory of accountability in organizations and human resource management. Research in Personnel & Human Resources Management, 16, 1-51.
29. Gao, L., Wang, S., Li, J., & Li, H. (2017). Application of the extended theory of planned behavior to understand individual's energy saving behavior in workplaces. Resources Conservation & Recycling, 127, 107-113.
30. Ghanem, K. A., & Castelli, P. A. (2019). Accountability and moral competence promote ethical leadership. The Journal of Values-Based Leadership, 12(1), 1-26.
31. Granovetter, M. S. (1984). Economic action and social structure: the problem of embeddedness. Administrative Science Quarterly, 19, 481-510.
32. Graves, L. M., Sarkis, J., & Zhu, Q. (2013). How transformational leadership and employee motivation combine to predict employee proenvironmental behaviors in China. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 35(9), 81-91.
33. Groot, J. I. M. D., & Steg, L. (2009). Morality and prosocial behavior: The role of awareness, responsibility, and norms in the norm activation model. Journal of Social Psychology, 149(4), 425-449.
34. Hall, A. T., Frink, D. D., & Buckley, M. R. (2017). An accountability account: A review and synthesis of the theoretical and empirical research on felt accountability. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 38(2), 204-224.
35. Hall, A. T., Royle, M. T., Brymer, R. A., Perrewé, P. L., & Hochwarter, W. A. (2006). Relationships between felt accountability as a stressor and strain reactions: The neutralizing role of autonomy across two studies. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 11(1), 87-99.
36. Han, H., Hwang, J., Kim, J., & Jung, H. (2015). Guests' pro-environmental decision-making process: Broadening the norm activation framework in a lodging context. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 47, 96-107.
37. Han, H., & Hyun, S. S. (2017). Drivers of customer decision to visit an environmentally responsible museum: merging the theory of planned behavior and norm activation theory. Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing, 34(9), 1155-1168.
38. Harland, P., Staats, H., & Wilke, H. a. M. (1999). Explaining proenvironmental intention and behavior by personal norms and the theory of planned behavior. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 29(12), 2505-2528.
39. Ho, D. Y-F. (1976). On the concept of face. American Journal of Sociology, 81(4), 867-884.
40. Hochwarter, W. A., Perrewé, P. L., Haall, A. T., & Ferris, G. R. (2005). Negative affectivity as a moderator of the form and magnitude of the relationship between felt accountability and job tension. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 26, 517-534.
41. Hofstede.G. (1980). Culture's consequences. CA: Beverly Hills.
42. Honnold, & Julie, A. (1984). Age and environmental concern some specification of effects. Journal of Environmental Education, 16(1), 4-9.
43. Hu, H. C. (1944). The chinese concepts of "face". American Anthropologist, 46(1), 45-64.
44. Huang, Q., Davison, R. M., & Gu, J. (2008). Impact of personal and cultural factors on knowledge sharing in China. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 25(3), 451-471.
45. Jacobson, R. P., Mortensen, C. R., & Cialdini, R. B. (2011). Bodies obliged and unbound: differentiated response tendencies for injunctive and descriptive social norms. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 100(3), 433-448.
46. Jessica, R., Mesmer-Magnus, Chockalingam, Viswesvaran, Brenton, M., & Wiernik. (2013). Book highlight-the role of commitment in bridging the gap between organizational and environmental sustainability. Global Business and Organizational Excellence, 32(5), 86-104.
47. Jin, T., & Li, M. (2020). Does education increase pro-environmental willingness to pay? Evidence from chinese household survey. Journal of Cleaner Production, 275, 122713.
48. John, & Kaler. (2002). Responsibility, accountability and governance. Business Ethics: A European Review, 11(4), 327-334.
49. Kim, A., Kim, Y., Han, K., Jackson, S.E., & Ployhart, R.E. (2017). Multilevel influences on voluntary workplace green behavior. Journal of Management, 43, 1335-1358.
50. King, Y. C., & Myers, J. T. (1977). Shame and an incomplete conception of chinese culture: a study of face. Hong Kong, China: Chinese University of Hong Kong Social Research Center.
51. Kollmuss, A., & Agyeman, J. (2002). Mind the gap: why do people act environmentally and what are the barriers to pro-environmental behavior? Environmental Education Research, 8(3), 239-260.
52. Li, Q., Zhang, L., Liu, T., & Qian, Q. (2021). How engineering designers' social relationships influence green design intention: the roles of personal norms and voluntary instruments. Journal of Cleaner Production, 278, 123470.
53. Li, Q., Zhang, L., Zhang, L., & Jha, S. (2020). Exploring multi-level motivations towards green design practices: a system dynamics approach. Sustainable Cities and Society, 64, 102490.
54. Lingyun, M., Rui, N., & Hualong, L. (2011). Empirical research of social norms affecting urban residents low carbon energy consumption behavior. Energy Procedia, 5(1), 229-234.
55. Liu, D., Du, H., Southworth, F., & Ma, S. (2017). The influence of social-psychological factors on the intention to choose low-carbon travel modes in Tianjin, China. Transportation Research Part A Policy & Practice, 105(11), 42-53.
56. Mackey, J. D., Brees, J. R., Mcallister, C. P., Zorn, M. L., Martinko, M. J., & Harvey, P. (2018). Victim and culprit? The effects of entitlement and felt accountability on perceptions of abusive supervision and perpetration of workplace bullying. Journal of Business Ethics, 153(3), 659-673.
57. Mcadams, R. H. (1997). The origin, development, and regulation of norms. Michigan Law Review, 96(2):338-433.
58. Muralidharan, S., & Sheehan, K. (2018). The role of guilt in influencing sustainable pro-environmental behaviors among shoppers: Differences in response by gender to messaging about england's plastic-bag levy. Journal of advertising research, 58(3), 349-362.
59. Murtagh, N., Roberts, A., & Hind, R. (2016). The relationship between motivations of architectural designers and environmentally sustainable construction design. Construction Management & Economics, 34(1), 61-75.
60. Norton, T. A., Parker, S. L., Zacher, H., & Ashkanasy, N. M. (2015). Employee green behavior. Organization & Environment, 28(1), 103-125.
61. Ones, D. S., & Dilchert, S. (2012). Environmental sustainability at work: A call to action. Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 5(4), 444-466.
62. Osbaldiston, R., & Sheldon, K. M. (2003). Promoting internalized motivation for environmentally responsible behavior: A prospective study of environmental goals. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 23(4), 349-357.
63. Owens, & Susan. (2000). Engaging the public: information and deliberation in environmental policy. Environment & Planning A, 32(7), 1141-1148.
64. Paillé, P., & Raineri, N. (2015). Linking perceived corporate environmental policies and employees eco-initiatives: The influence of perceived organizational support and psychological contract breach. Journal of Business Research, 68(11), 2404-2411.
65. Park, H. S., & Smith, S. W. (2007). Distinctiveness and influence of subjective norms, personal descriptive and injunctive norms, and societal descriptive and injunctive norms on behavioral intent: A case of two behaviors critical to organ donation. Human Communication Research, 33(2), 194-218.
66. Parsons.T, & Shills.E.A. (1951). Toward a general theory of action. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
67. Pate, J., Martin, G., & Mcgoldrick, J. (2003). The impact of psychological contract violation on employee attitudes and behaviour. Employee Relations, 25(6), 557-573.
68. Peloza, J., White, K., & Shang, J. (2013). Good and guilt-free: The role of self-accountability in influencing preferences for products with ethical attributes. Journal of Marketing, 77(1), 104-119.
69. Ramus, C. A. (2000). The roles of supervisory support behavios and environmental policy in employee "econitiatives" at leading-edge European companies. Academy of Management Journal, 43(4), 605-626.
70. Ratliff, K. A., Howell, J. L., & Redford, L. (2017). Attitudes toward the prototypical environmentalist predict environmentally friendly behavior. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 51(8), 132-140.
71. Robertson, J. L., & Barling, J. (2013). Greening organizations through leaders' influence on employees' pro-environmental behaviors. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 34(2), 176-194.
72. Schlenker, B. R., Britt, T. W., Pennington, J., Murphy, R., & Al, E. (1994). The triangle model of responsibility. Psychological Review, 101(4), 632-652.
73. Schwartz, S. H. (1977). Normative influences on altruism. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 10, 221-279.
74. Secchi, D. (2009). The cognitive side of social responsibility. Journal of Business Ethics, 88(3), 565-581.
75. Shi, H., Fan, J., & Zhao, D. (2017). Predicting household PM2.5-reduction behavior in Chinese urban areas: An integrative model of Theory of Planned Behavior and Norm Activation Theory. Journal of Cleaner Production, 145(3), 64-73.
76. Smith, A. M., & O'sullivan, T. (2012). Environmentally responsible behaviour in the workplace: An internal social marketing approach. Journal of Marketing Management, 28(3-4), 469-493.
77. Smith, J. R., Louis, W. R., Terry, D. J., Greenaway, K. H., Clarke, M. R., & Cheng, X. (2012). Congruent or conflicted? The impact of injunctive and descriptive norms on environmental intentions. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 32(4), 353-361.
78. Stern, P., Dietz, T., Abel, T. D., Guagnano, G., & Kalof, L. (1999). A Value-Belief-Norm Theory of support for social movements: The case of environmentalism. Human Ecology Review, 6(2), 81-97.
79. Stone, R. N., & Grønhaug, K. (1993). Perceived risk: Further considerations for the marketing discipline. European Journal of Marketing, 27(3), 39-50.
80. Sui, Y., & Wang, H. (2013). Relational evaluation, organization-based self-esteem, and performance: The moderating role of allocentrism. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 21(1), 17-28.
81. Triandis, H. C. (1995). Individualism and collectivism. Boulder: Westview Press.
82. Triandis, H. C., & Gelfand, M. J. (1998). Converging measurement of horizontal and vertical individualism and collectivism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74(1), 118-128.
83. Wagner, J. A. (1995). Studies of individualism-collectivism: Effects on cooperation in groups. The Academy of Management Journal, 38(1), 152-173.
84. Wagner, J. A., & Moch, M. K. (1986). Individualism-collectivism: Concept and measure. Group & Organization Studies, 11(3), 280-304.
85. Wang, W., Wu, J., Wu, M. Y., & Pearce, P. L. (2018). Shaping tourists' green behavior: the hosts' efforts at rural Chinese B&Bs. Journal of Destination Marketing & Management, 9(9), 194-203.
86. Weber, M. (1947). The theory of social and economic organization. New York: Free Press.
87. Wiernik, B. M., Dilchert, S., & Ones, D. S. (2016). Age and employee green behaviors: A meta-analysis. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, 194.
88. Yang, Z., Zhou, X., & Zhang, P. (2015). Discipline versus passion: Collectivism, centralization, and ambidextrous innovation. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 32(3), 745-769.
89. Zhang, C. X., Pearce, P., & Chen, G. (2019). Not losing our collective face: Social identity and Chinese tourists' reflections on uncivilised behaviour. Tourism Management, 73, 71-82.
90. Zhang, X. A., Cao, Q., & Grigoriou, N. (2011). Consciousness of social face: The development and validation of a scale measuring desire to gain face versus fear of losing face. Journal of Social Psychology, 151(2), 129-149.
91. 寶貢敏, & 趙卓嘉. (2009). 面子需要概念的維度劃分與測量——一項探索性研究. 浙江大學學報(人文社會科學版), 39(02), 82-90.
92. 陳倩倩, 樊耘, 張旭, & 於維娜. (2017). 領導者資料共用與集體主義對員工促進性建言的影響機制研究. 管理學報, 14(10), 9.
93. 陳文平, 段錦雲, & 田曉明. (2013). 員工為什麼不建言:基於中國文化視角的解析. 心理科學進展, 21(05), 905-913.
94. 鄧志華, 肖小虹, & 陸竹. (2020). 精神視角下研發團隊創新績效的動力機制研究. 科技進步與對策, 37(21), 127-135.
95. 翟學偉. (2016). 恥感與面子:差之毫釐,失之千裏. 社會學研究, 31(01), 1-25+242.
96. 葛萬達, & 盛光華. (2020). 社會規範對綠色消費的影響及作用機制. 商業研究, (01), 26-34.
97. 郭華, & 李後建. (2017). 能源節約行為影響因素的實證研究. 宏觀經濟研究, (09), 171-183.
98. 郭沁. (2019). 健康行為的社會規範性影響和從眾心理. 浙江大學學報(人文社會科學版), 49(01), 80-92.
99. 郭清卉. (2020). 基於社會規範和個人規範的農戶親環境行為研究. (博士). 西北農林科技大學.
100. 郭清卉, 李昊, & 李世平. (2022). 農戶親環境行為心理驅動因素分析. 乾旱區資源與環境, 36(06), 56-64.
101. 郭清卉, 李昊, 李世平, & 劉麗. (2019). 個人規範對農戶親環境行為的影響分析——基於拓展的規範激活理論框架. 長江流域資源與環境, 28(05), 1176-1184.
102. 郭清卉, 李世平, & 李昊. (2022). 描述性和命令性社會規範對農戶親環境行為的影響. 中國農業大學學報, 27(01), 235-247.
103. 洪學婷, & 張宏梅. (2016). 國外環境責任行為研究進展及對中國的啟示. 地理科學進展, 35(12), 13.
104. 胡冬青, & 顧琴軒. (2022). 團隊權力距離和集體主義對團隊創造力影響：基於共用領導視角. 管理評論, 34(05), 167-175.
105. 胡繼然, & 姚娟. (2023). 居民節水行為的驅動因素研究——基於拓展TPB-NAM的整合框架. 乾旱區資源與環境, 37(08), 32-41.
106. 胡意平, & 餘敬. (2019). 環境知識對員工綠色行為的影響——蓄電池企業的實證. 資源開發與市場, 35(8), 10.
107. 黃華婷, 董雪旺, & 智瑞芝. (2022). 雙碳背景下城鎮居民低碳消費行為及其影響因素研究——來自浙江省的調查數據. 乾旱區資源與環境, 36(11), 27-33.
108. 賈竣雲, 張淑潔, 唐貴瑤, & 張忠昊. (2022). 個體-情境交互視角下的員工綠色行為激發路徑組態分析. 管理學報, 19(09), 1316-1324.
109. 薑平, & 張麗華. (2021). 委屈可以求全嗎？自我表現視角下職場排斥對個體績效的影響機制. 心理學報, 53(04), 400-412.
110. 解學梅, & 朱琪瑋. (2021). 企業綠色創新實踐如何破解“和諧共生”難題？. 管理世界, 37(01), 128-149+129.
111. 金輝, 刁品昊, & 楊川. (2022). “雙主體”面子取向驅動下知識共享意願生成機理——兼論團隊成員交換的調節作用. 江蘇大學學報(社會科學版), 24(03), 103-113.
112. 金輝, 董春燕, & 劉曉彥. (2021). 領導集體主義取向對員工創新行為的跨層影響機理——基於兩類知識共享的中介效應. 研究與發展管理, 33(03), 58-72.
113. 金輝, 段光, & 李輝. (2019). 面子、人情與知識共享意願間關係的實證研究:基於知識隱性程度的調節效應. 管理評論, 31(05), 147-162.
114. 李廣培, & 吳金華. (2017). 個體視角的綠色創新行為路徑:知識共享的調節效應. 科學學與科學技術管理, 38(02), 100-114.
115. 李昊, 曹辰, & 李林哲. (2022). 綠色認知能促進農戶綠色生產行為嗎?——基於社會規範鎖定效應的分析. 乾旱區資源與環境, 36(09), 18-25.
116. 李晉, & 化冰妍. (2023). 環保真實型領導對員工綠色主動行為的影響研究：基於自我決定的視角. 中國礦業大學學報(社會科學版), 25(06), 93-104.
117. 李民祥, & 楊建君. (2015). 領導風格對組織創新模式的影響——集體主義導向的調節作用. 軟科學, 29(10), 83-87.
118. 李晴. (2022). 責任視角下組織規範對設計人員綠色設計行為影響研究. (博士). 天津大學.
119. 李燕萍, & 徐嘉. (2014). 基於組織認同中介作用的集體主義對工作幸福感的多層次影響研究. 管理學報, 11(02), 198-205.
120. 李原, & 孫健敏. (2006). 雇用關係中的心理契約:從組織與員工雙重視角下考察契約中"組織責任"的認知差異. 管理世界, (11), 101-110+152.
121. 梁瀟傑, 於桂蘭, & 付博. (2019). 與上級關係好的員工一定會建言嗎?基於資源保存理論的雙中介模型. 管理評論, 31(04), 128-137.
122. 藺琳, 金家飛, & 賈進. (2015). 環保組織公民行為的概念、測量及實證發現. 學術論壇, 38(09), 92-97.
123. 劉佳, & 王煥真. (2020). 旅遊者環境責任行為驅動機制研究——基於我國海濱風景區的案例分析. 地域研究與開發, 39(06), 84-90+97.
124. 劉松博, 潘靜洲, 唐貴瑤, 王亞楠, & 李金. (2021). “大材小用”也有積極效應?團隊集體主義取向對資質過度感和創造力關係的調節作用. 管理評論, 33(04), 205-214.
125. 劉宗華, & 李燕萍. (2020). 綠色人力資源管理對員工綠色創新行為的影響:綠色正念與綠色自我效能感的作用. 中國人力資源開發, 37(11), 75-88.
126. 盧超, 薑宇陽, 蔣璐, & 徐振亭. (2023). 基於TPB-NAM整合模型的員工責任式創新行為研究——以人工智慧企業為例. 上海大學學報(社會科學版), 40(03), 37-54.
127. 蘆慧, 劉霞, & 陳紅. (2016). 企業員工親環境行為的內涵、結構與測量研究. 軟科學, 30(8), 69-71.
128. 蘆慧, 劉嚴, 鄒佳星, 陳紅, & 龍如銀. (2020). 多重動機對中國居民親環境行為的交互影響. 中國人口·資源與環境, 30(11), 160-169.
129. 蘆慧, 鄒佳星, 陳紅, 劉嚴, & 龍如銀. (2021). 組織親環境價值觀及其對員工親環境行為的影響研究. 管理評論, 33(04), 225-235.
130. 呂榮勝, 盧會寧, & 洪帥. (2016). 基於規範激活理論節能行為影響因素研究. 乾旱區資源與環境, 30(09), 14-18.
131. 羋淩雲, 丁超瓊, 俞學燕, 叢金秋, & 喬麗潔. (2020). 不同資料框架對城市家庭節電行為干預效果的縱向實驗研究. 管理評論, 32(05), 292-304.
132. 潘楚林, & 田虹. (2017). 環境領導力、綠色組織認同與企業綠色創新績效. 管理學報, 14(06), 832-841.
133. 彭堅, 尹奎, 侯楠, 鄒豔春, & 聶琦. (2020). 如何激發員工綠色行為？綠色變革型領導與綠色人力資源管理實踐的作用. 心理學報, 52(09), 1105-1120.
134. 秦鵬, & 徐海俊. (2021). 快遞包裝物回收利用的制度困境與規範進路. 南通大學學報(社會科學版), 37(02), 109-121.
135. 邱宏亮. (2016). 道德規範與旅遊者文明旅遊行為意願——基於TPB的擴展模型. 浙江社會科學, (03), 96-103+159.
136. 盛光華, 戴佳彤, & 龔思羽. (2020). 空氣品質對中國居民親環境行為的影響機制研究. 西安交通大學學報(社會科學版), 40(02), 95-103.
137. 盛光華, 解芳, & 龐英. (2019). 認知與情感交互效應對消費者綠色購買意願的影響. 商業研究, (06), 1-8.
138. 石洪景. (2015). 基於Logistic模型的城市居民低碳消費意願研究. 北京理工大學學報(社會科學版), 17(05), 25-35.
139. 宋國學, 王嘉欣, & 陳慧群. (2023). “雙碳”目標下員工自我調節對其自願型綠色行為影響機理研究. 商業經濟與管理, (10), 36-47.
140. 孫娟, & 李豔軍. (2018). 農戶農資產品鎖定購買行為形成機理的實證研究——基於山東省、湖北省和四川省的差異分析. 管理評論, 30(02), 146-158.
141. 唐貴瑤, 陳琳, 孫瑋, & 陳夢媛. (2021). 如何讓員工“愛司所愛，行司所行”？基於社會資料處理理論的綠色人力資源管理與員工綠色行為關係研究. 南開管理評論, 24(05), 185-193.
142. 田虹, & 薑春源. (2021). 社會責任型人力資源管理對旅遊企業員工親環境行為的影響研究. 旅遊學刊, 36(11), 133-144.
143. 田虹, & 田佳卉. (2020). 源清流潔:環境變革型領導對員工親環境行為的影響機制研究. 南京工業大學學報：社會科學版, 19(04), 76-89+116.
144. 田虹, & 田佳卉. (2021). 企業環境責任感知影響員工親環境行為的雙路徑機制研究. 經濟與管理研究, 42(11), 117-128.
145. 汪明月, 李穎明, & 王子彤. (2022). 工業企業綠色技術創新績效傳導及政府市場規制的調節作用研究. 管理學報, 19(07), 1026-1037+1091.
146. 王群偉, 周波, & 張成. (2023). “減規模”還是“增綠色”?異質性環保政策工具下的企業環保行為回應. 中國管理科學, 31(01), 256-266.
147. 王軼楠, & 楊中芳. (2007). 小我爭(護)面子與大我爭面子導向之關係的探討. 西南大學學報(社會科學版), (06), 20-27.
148. 吳建興. (2019). 社會互動、面子與旅遊者環境責任行為研究. (博士). 浙江大學.
149. 邢璐, 林鈺瑩, 何欣露, & 彭堅. (2017). 理性與感性的較量:責任型領導影響下屬綠色行為的雙路徑探討. 中國人力資源開發,34(1), 31-40.
150. 徐嘉祺, & 佘升翔. (2022). 鄉村振興背景下農戶綠色農資產品購買意願的影響因素研究. 廣西社會科學,(07), 136-145.
151. 徐林, 淩卯亮, & 盧昱傑. (2017). 城市居民垃圾分類的影響因素研究. 公共管理學報, 14(01), 142-153+160.
152. 楊德鋒, 馬穎傑, & 馬寶龍. (2014). 社會互動、代際文化價值觀傳遞與品牌體驗的形成——基於“美國女孩”的案例研究. 管理評論, 26(03), 70-80.
153. 弋亞群, 劉怡, & 穀盟. (2018). 高管團隊認知衝突對創新導向的雙刃劍效應. 管理學報, 15(11), 1663-1670.
154. 易淩峰, 劉思婷, 宋婕, & 李騰. (2021). 員工文化價值取向、跨文化互動能力與創新績效——基於上海跨國研發企業的實證. 華東師範大學學報(哲學社會科學版), 53(01), 155-168+174.
155. 於亢亢, 趙華, 錢程, & 高健. (2018). 環境態度及其與環境行為關係的文獻評述與元分析. 環境科學研究, 31(06), 1000-1009.
156. 張福德. (2016). 環境治理的社會規範路徑. 中國人口·資源與環境, 26(11), 10-18.
157. 張靖昊, 張燕, 劉翠婷, & 李芳敏. (2022). 自主氛圍對不同文化價值觀員工建言行為的影響機制研究. 管理學報, 19(01), 36-45.
158. 張瑞增, 唐若迪, 姚瑤, 王玉玲, 施宇恬, 花茜, & 季國軍. (2023). TPB-NAM框架下規模農戶綠色優質農產品生產意願研究——基於江蘇省的調查數據. 中國農業資源與區劃, 44(04), 184-194.
159. 張珊珊, 周明潔, 陳爽, & 張建新. (2012). 本土化人格特質與工作績效的關係:線性與非線性. 心理科學, 35(06), 1440-1444.
160. 張淑潔. (2023). 動機視角下員工綠色行為的前因與結果研究. (博士). 山東大學.
161. 張夏然, 王自然, 藍傳曉, & 孟慶春. (2022). 供應商資金約束下考慮政府補貼的供應鏈綠色生產決策研究. 管理學報, 19(02), 280-288.
162. 張長江, 張玥, 施宇寧, & 陳瑤. (2020). 綠色文化、環境經營與企業可持續發展績效——基於文化與行為的交互視角. 科技管理研究, 40(20), 232-240.
163. 張征, & 閆春. (2020). 團隊學習氛圍對員工積極情緒和創新績效的跨層次影響:集體主義導向的調節作用. 預測, 39(02), 27-33.
164. 張忠. (2022). 當代中國社會的人際信任特徵與建設路徑——基於第七波WVS數據的實證研究. 浙江社會科學(02), 59-69+157.
165. 趙鋒. (2016). 面子、羞恥與權威的運作. 社會學研究, 31(01), 26-48+242-243.
166. 趙黎明, 張海波, & 孫健慧. (2015). 酒店企業低碳經營影響因素研究——基於天津市酒店的調查數據. 乾旱區資源與環境, 12, 25-30.
167. 趙亞飛, 盛靚, 彭海雲, 邱凡碩, & 辛素飛. (2022). 親環境行為影響因素的系統整合模型及啟示. 應用心理學, 28(01), 49-58.
168. 鐘熙、王甜、宋鐵波、付曄. (2020). 心理契約破裂會引致員工非倫理行為嗎?——基於道德推脫的中介作用和馬基雅維利主義的調節作用. 管理工程學報, 34(06), 38-45.
169. 周金帆, & 張光磊. (2018). 綠色人力資源管理實踐對員工綠色行為的影響機制研究——基於自我決定理論的視角. 中國人力資源開發, 35(07), 20-30.
170. 周可, & 張新安. (2023). 面子傾向促進還是阻礙員工越軌創新行為？基於獨特性需求的理論視角. 中國人力資源開發, 40(11), 56-69.
171. 周豔菊, 胡鳳英, & 周正龍. (2020). 零售商主導下促進綠色產品需求的聯合研發契約協調研究. 管理工程學報, 34(02), 194-204.
172. 朱清海, & 雷雲. (2018). 社會資本對農戶秸稈處置親環境行為的影響研究——基於湖北省L縣農戶的調查數據. 乾旱區資源與環境, 32(11), 15-21.
2. Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. British Journal of Social Psychology, 40(4), 47-61.
3. Bauer, T. N., & Aiman-Smith, L. (1996). Green career choices: The influence of ecological stance on recruiting. Journal of Business and Psychology, 10(4), 445-458.
4. Bissing-Olson, M. J., Iyer, A., Fielding, K. S., & Zacher, H. (2013). Relationships between daily affect and pro-environmental behavior at work: The moderating role of pro-environmental attitude. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 34(2), 156-175.
5. Biswas, S. R., Dey, M., Bhattacharjee, S., & Uddin, M. A. (2021). How does corporate environmental strategy contribute to voluntary environmental behavior? Influence of psychological green climate, firms' size, and employees' age. SAGE Open, 11(1).
6. Blamey, R. (1998). The Activation of environmental norms extending schwartz's model. Environment & Behavior, 30(5), 676-708.
7. Boiral,O.,Paillé, P. & Raineri, N. (2015). The nature of employees' pro-environmental behaviors. NewYork: Oxford University Press.
8. Borden, R. J., & Schettino, A. P. (1979). Determinants of environmentally Responsible Behavior. Journal of Environmental Education, 10(4), 35-39.
9. Brown, P., & Levinson, S. C. (1987). Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
10. Carmeli, A., & Schaubroeck, J. (2007). The influence of leaders' and other referents' normative expectations on individual involvement in creative work. The Leadership Quarterly, 18(1), 35-48.
11. Chan, H. W., Pong, V., & Tam, K. P. (2019). Cross-national variation of gender differences in environmental concern: Testing the sociocultural hindrance hypothesis. Environment & Behavior, 51(1), 81-108.
12. Chen, J., Wang, L., & Tang, N. (2016). Half the sky: The moderating role of cultural collectivism in job turnover among Chinese female workers. Journal of Business Ethics, 133(3), 487-498.
13. Chen, Z., Li, H., & Wong, C. T. C. (2002). An application of bar-code system for reducing construction wastes. Automation in Construction, 11(5), 521-533.
14. Cheng, T. M., & Wu, H. C. (2015). How do environmental knowledge, environmental sensitivity, and place attachment affect environmentally responsible behavior? An integrated approach for sustainable island tourism. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 23(4), 557-576.
15. Cialdini, R. B., Kallgren, C. A., & Reno, R. R. (1991). A focus theory of normative conduct: A theoretical refinement and reevaluation of the role of norms in human behavior. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 24(1), 201-234.
16. Cialdini, R. B., Reno, R. R., & Kallgren, C. A. (1990). A focus theory of normative conduct: Recycling the concept of norms to reduce littering in public places. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58(6), 1015-1026.
17. Cordano, M., Welcomer, S., Scherer, R., Pradenas, L., & Parada, V. (2010). Understanding cultural differences in the antecedents of pro-environmental behavior: A comparative analysis of business students in the United States and Chile. Journal of Environmental Education, 41(4), 224-238.
18. Daily, B., F., Bishop, J., W., & Govindarajulu, N. (2009). A conceptual model for organizational citizenship behavior directed toward the environment. Business and Society. 48,243-256.
19. Dewi, R. C., & Riantoputra, C. D. (2019). Felt accountability: The role of personality and organizational factors. Journal of Management Development, 38(4), 312-322.
20. Diamond, W. D., & Kashyap, R. K. (2010). Extending models of prosocial behavior to explain university alumni contributions. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 27(10), 915-928.
21. Donagan, A. (1996). The encyclopedia of philosophy. The philosophical Review, 79(1):83-138.
22. Doney, P. M., Cannon, J. P., & Mullen, M. R. (1998). Understanding the influence of national culture on the development of trust. Academy of Management Review, 23(3), 601-620.
23. Dorfman.P.W, & Howell.J.P. (1988). Dimensions of national culture and effective leadership patterns: hofstede revisited. Advances in International Comparative Management, 10(3), 127-150.
24. Dunlapa, R. E., & Liereb, K. D. V. (1978). The new environmental paradigm. Journal of Environmental Education, 9, 10-19.
25. Ellickson, R. C. (1991). Order without law: How neighbors settle disputes. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
26. Felin, T., Foss, N. J., & Ployhart, R. E. (2015). The microfoundations movement in strategy and organization theory. Academy of Management Annals, 9(1), 575-632.
27. Fishbein, M. (1963). An investigation of the relationships between beliefs about an object and the attitude toward that object. Human Relations, 16, 233-240.
28. Frink, D. D., & Klimoski, R. J. (1998). Toward a theory of accountability in organizations and human resource management. Research in Personnel & Human Resources Management, 16, 1-51.
29. Gao, L., Wang, S., Li, J., & Li, H. (2017). Application of the extended theory of planned behavior to understand individual's energy saving behavior in workplaces. Resources Conservation & Recycling, 127, 107-113.
30. Ghanem, K. A., & Castelli, P. A. (2019). Accountability and moral competence promote ethical leadership. The Journal of Values-Based Leadership, 12(1), 1-26.
31. Granovetter, M. S. (1984). Economic action and social structure: the problem of embeddedness. Administrative Science Quarterly, 19, 481-510.
32. Graves, L. M., Sarkis, J., & Zhu, Q. (2013). How transformational leadership and employee motivation combine to predict employee proenvironmental behaviors in China. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 35(9), 81-91.
33. Groot, J. I. M. D., & Steg, L. (2009). Morality and prosocial behavior: The role of awareness, responsibility, and norms in the norm activation model. Journal of Social Psychology, 149(4), 425-449.
34. Hall, A. T., Frink, D. D., & Buckley, M. R. (2017). An accountability account: A review and synthesis of the theoretical and empirical research on felt accountability. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 38(2), 204-224.
35. Hall, A. T., Royle, M. T., Brymer, R. A., Perrewé, P. L., & Hochwarter, W. A. (2006). Relationships between felt accountability as a stressor and strain reactions: The neutralizing role of autonomy across two studies. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 11(1), 87-99.
36. Han, H., Hwang, J., Kim, J., & Jung, H. (2015). Guests' pro-environmental decision-making process: Broadening the norm activation framework in a lodging context. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 47, 96-107.
37. Han, H., & Hyun, S. S. (2017). Drivers of customer decision to visit an environmentally responsible museum: merging the theory of planned behavior and norm activation theory. Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing, 34(9), 1155-1168.
38. Harland, P., Staats, H., & Wilke, H. a. M. (1999). Explaining proenvironmental intention and behavior by personal norms and the theory of planned behavior. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 29(12), 2505-2528.
39. Ho, D. Y-F. (1976). On the concept of face. American Journal of Sociology, 81(4), 867-884.
40. Hochwarter, W. A., Perrewé, P. L., Haall, A. T., & Ferris, G. R. (2005). Negative affectivity as a moderator of the form and magnitude of the relationship between felt accountability and job tension. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 26, 517-534.
41. Hofstede.G. (1980). Culture's consequences. CA: Beverly Hills.
42. Honnold, & Julie, A. (1984). Age and environmental concern some specification of effects. Journal of Environmental Education, 16(1), 4-9.
43. Hu, H. C. (1944). The chinese concepts of "face". American Anthropologist, 46(1), 45-64.
44. Huang, Q., Davison, R. M., & Gu, J. (2008). Impact of personal and cultural factors on knowledge sharing in China. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 25(3), 451-471.
45. Jacobson, R. P., Mortensen, C. R., & Cialdini, R. B. (2011). Bodies obliged and unbound: differentiated response tendencies for injunctive and descriptive social norms. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 100(3), 433-448.
46. Jessica, R., Mesmer-Magnus, Chockalingam, Viswesvaran, Brenton, M., & Wiernik. (2013). Book highlight-the role of commitment in bridging the gap between organizational and environmental sustainability. Global Business and Organizational Excellence, 32(5), 86-104.
47. Jin, T., & Li, M. (2020). Does education increase pro-environmental willingness to pay? Evidence from chinese household survey. Journal of Cleaner Production, 275, 122713.
48. John, & Kaler. (2002). Responsibility, accountability and governance. Business Ethics: A European Review, 11(4), 327-334.
49. Kim, A., Kim, Y., Han, K., Jackson, S.E., & Ployhart, R.E. (2017). Multilevel influences on voluntary workplace green behavior. Journal of Management, 43, 1335-1358.
50. King, Y. C., & Myers, J. T. (1977). Shame and an incomplete conception of chinese culture: a study of face. Hong Kong, China: Chinese University of Hong Kong Social Research Center.
51. Kollmuss, A., & Agyeman, J. (2002). Mind the gap: why do people act environmentally and what are the barriers to pro-environmental behavior? Environmental Education Research, 8(3), 239-260.
52. Li, Q., Zhang, L., Liu, T., & Qian, Q. (2021). How engineering designers' social relationships influence green design intention: the roles of personal norms and voluntary instruments. Journal of Cleaner Production, 278, 123470.
53. Li, Q., Zhang, L., Zhang, L., & Jha, S. (2020). Exploring multi-level motivations towards green design practices: a system dynamics approach. Sustainable Cities and Society, 64, 102490.
54. Lingyun, M., Rui, N., & Hualong, L. (2011). Empirical research of social norms affecting urban residents low carbon energy consumption behavior. Energy Procedia, 5(1), 229-234.
55. Liu, D., Du, H., Southworth, F., & Ma, S. (2017). The influence of social-psychological factors on the intention to choose low-carbon travel modes in Tianjin, China. Transportation Research Part A Policy & Practice, 105(11), 42-53.
56. Mackey, J. D., Brees, J. R., Mcallister, C. P., Zorn, M. L., Martinko, M. J., & Harvey, P. (2018). Victim and culprit? The effects of entitlement and felt accountability on perceptions of abusive supervision and perpetration of workplace bullying. Journal of Business Ethics, 153(3), 659-673.
57. Mcadams, R. H. (1997). The origin, development, and regulation of norms. Michigan Law Review, 96(2):338-433.
58. Muralidharan, S., & Sheehan, K. (2018). The role of guilt in influencing sustainable pro-environmental behaviors among shoppers: Differences in response by gender to messaging about england's plastic-bag levy. Journal of advertising research, 58(3), 349-362.
59. Murtagh, N., Roberts, A., & Hind, R. (2016). The relationship between motivations of architectural designers and environmentally sustainable construction design. Construction Management & Economics, 34(1), 61-75.
60. Norton, T. A., Parker, S. L., Zacher, H., & Ashkanasy, N. M. (2015). Employee green behavior. Organization & Environment, 28(1), 103-125.
61. Ones, D. S., & Dilchert, S. (2012). Environmental sustainability at work: A call to action. Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 5(4), 444-466.
62. Osbaldiston, R., & Sheldon, K. M. (2003). Promoting internalized motivation for environmentally responsible behavior: A prospective study of environmental goals. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 23(4), 349-357.
63. Owens, & Susan. (2000). Engaging the public: information and deliberation in environmental policy. Environment & Planning A, 32(7), 1141-1148.
64. Paillé, P., & Raineri, N. (2015). Linking perceived corporate environmental policies and employees eco-initiatives: The influence of perceived organizational support and psychological contract breach. Journal of Business Research, 68(11), 2404-2411.
65. Park, H. S., & Smith, S. W. (2007). Distinctiveness and influence of subjective norms, personal descriptive and injunctive norms, and societal descriptive and injunctive norms on behavioral intent: A case of two behaviors critical to organ donation. Human Communication Research, 33(2), 194-218.
66. Parsons.T, & Shills.E.A. (1951). Toward a general theory of action. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
67. Pate, J., Martin, G., & Mcgoldrick, J. (2003). The impact of psychological contract violation on employee attitudes and behaviour. Employee Relations, 25(6), 557-573.
68. Peloza, J., White, K., & Shang, J. (2013). Good and guilt-free: The role of self-accountability in influencing preferences for products with ethical attributes. Journal of Marketing, 77(1), 104-119.
69. Ramus, C. A. (2000). The roles of supervisory support behavios and environmental policy in employee "econitiatives" at leading-edge European companies. Academy of Management Journal, 43(4), 605-626.
70. Ratliff, K. A., Howell, J. L., & Redford, L. (2017). Attitudes toward the prototypical environmentalist predict environmentally friendly behavior. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 51(8), 132-140.
71. Robertson, J. L., & Barling, J. (2013). Greening organizations through leaders' influence on employees' pro-environmental behaviors. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 34(2), 176-194.
72. Schlenker, B. R., Britt, T. W., Pennington, J., Murphy, R., & Al, E. (1994). The triangle model of responsibility. Psychological Review, 101(4), 632-652.
73. Schwartz, S. H. (1977). Normative influences on altruism. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 10, 221-279.
74. Secchi, D. (2009). The cognitive side of social responsibility. Journal of Business Ethics, 88(3), 565-581.
75. Shi, H., Fan, J., & Zhao, D. (2017). Predicting household PM2.5-reduction behavior in Chinese urban areas: An integrative model of Theory of Planned Behavior and Norm Activation Theory. Journal of Cleaner Production, 145(3), 64-73.
76. Smith, A. M., & O'sullivan, T. (2012). Environmentally responsible behaviour in the workplace: An internal social marketing approach. Journal of Marketing Management, 28(3-4), 469-493.
77. Smith, J. R., Louis, W. R., Terry, D. J., Greenaway, K. H., Clarke, M. R., & Cheng, X. (2012). Congruent or conflicted? The impact of injunctive and descriptive norms on environmental intentions. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 32(4), 353-361.
78. Stern, P., Dietz, T., Abel, T. D., Guagnano, G., & Kalof, L. (1999). A Value-Belief-Norm Theory of support for social movements: The case of environmentalism. Human Ecology Review, 6(2), 81-97.
79. Stone, R. N., & Grønhaug, K. (1993). Perceived risk: Further considerations for the marketing discipline. European Journal of Marketing, 27(3), 39-50.
80. Sui, Y., & Wang, H. (2013). Relational evaluation, organization-based self-esteem, and performance: The moderating role of allocentrism. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 21(1), 17-28.
81. Triandis, H. C. (1995). Individualism and collectivism. Boulder: Westview Press.
82. Triandis, H. C., & Gelfand, M. J. (1998). Converging measurement of horizontal and vertical individualism and collectivism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74(1), 118-128.
83. Wagner, J. A. (1995). Studies of individualism-collectivism: Effects on cooperation in groups. The Academy of Management Journal, 38(1), 152-173.
84. Wagner, J. A., & Moch, M. K. (1986). Individualism-collectivism: Concept and measure. Group & Organization Studies, 11(3), 280-304.
85. Wang, W., Wu, J., Wu, M. Y., & Pearce, P. L. (2018). Shaping tourists' green behavior: the hosts' efforts at rural Chinese B&Bs. Journal of Destination Marketing & Management, 9(9), 194-203.
86. Weber, M. (1947). The theory of social and economic organization. New York: Free Press.
87. Wiernik, B. M., Dilchert, S., & Ones, D. S. (2016). Age and employee green behaviors: A meta-analysis. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, 194.
88. Yang, Z., Zhou, X., & Zhang, P. (2015). Discipline versus passion: Collectivism, centralization, and ambidextrous innovation. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 32(3), 745-769.
89. Zhang, C. X., Pearce, P., & Chen, G. (2019). Not losing our collective face: Social identity and Chinese tourists' reflections on uncivilised behaviour. Tourism Management, 73, 71-82.
90. Zhang, X. A., Cao, Q., & Grigoriou, N. (2011). Consciousness of social face: The development and validation of a scale measuring desire to gain face versus fear of losing face. Journal of Social Psychology, 151(2), 129-149.
91. 寶貢敏, & 趙卓嘉. (2009). 面子需要概念的維度劃分與測量——一項探索性研究. 浙江大學學報(人文社會科學版), 39(02), 82-90.
92. 陳倩倩, 樊耘, 張旭, & 於維娜. (2017). 領導者資料共用與集體主義對員工促進性建言的影響機制研究. 管理學報, 14(10), 9.
93. 陳文平, 段錦雲, & 田曉明. (2013). 員工為什麼不建言:基於中國文化視角的解析. 心理科學進展, 21(05), 905-913.
94. 鄧志華, 肖小虹, & 陸竹. (2020). 精神視角下研發團隊創新績效的動力機制研究. 科技進步與對策, 37(21), 127-135.
95. 翟學偉. (2016). 恥感與面子:差之毫釐,失之千裏. 社會學研究, 31(01), 1-25+242.
96. 葛萬達, & 盛光華. (2020). 社會規範對綠色消費的影響及作用機制. 商業研究, (01), 26-34.
97. 郭華, & 李後建. (2017). 能源節約行為影響因素的實證研究. 宏觀經濟研究, (09), 171-183.
98. 郭沁. (2019). 健康行為的社會規範性影響和從眾心理. 浙江大學學報(人文社會科學版), 49(01), 80-92.
99. 郭清卉. (2020). 基於社會規範和個人規範的農戶親環境行為研究. (博士). 西北農林科技大學.
100. 郭清卉, 李昊, & 李世平. (2022). 農戶親環境行為心理驅動因素分析. 乾旱區資源與環境, 36(06), 56-64.
101. 郭清卉, 李昊, 李世平, & 劉麗. (2019). 個人規範對農戶親環境行為的影響分析——基於拓展的規範激活理論框架. 長江流域資源與環境, 28(05), 1176-1184.
102. 郭清卉, 李世平, & 李昊. (2022). 描述性和命令性社會規範對農戶親環境行為的影響. 中國農業大學學報, 27(01), 235-247.
103. 洪學婷, & 張宏梅. (2016). 國外環境責任行為研究進展及對中國的啟示. 地理科學進展, 35(12), 13.
104. 胡冬青, & 顧琴軒. (2022). 團隊權力距離和集體主義對團隊創造力影響：基於共用領導視角. 管理評論, 34(05), 167-175.
105. 胡繼然, & 姚娟. (2023). 居民節水行為的驅動因素研究——基於拓展TPB-NAM的整合框架. 乾旱區資源與環境, 37(08), 32-41.
106. 胡意平, & 餘敬. (2019). 環境知識對員工綠色行為的影響——蓄電池企業的實證. 資源開發與市場, 35(8), 10.
107. 黃華婷, 董雪旺, & 智瑞芝. (2022). 雙碳背景下城鎮居民低碳消費行為及其影響因素研究——來自浙江省的調查數據. 乾旱區資源與環境, 36(11), 27-33.
108. 賈竣雲, 張淑潔, 唐貴瑤, & 張忠昊. (2022). 個體-情境交互視角下的員工綠色行為激發路徑組態分析. 管理學報, 19(09), 1316-1324.
109. 薑平, & 張麗華. (2021). 委屈可以求全嗎？自我表現視角下職場排斥對個體績效的影響機制. 心理學報, 53(04), 400-412.
110. 解學梅, & 朱琪瑋. (2021). 企業綠色創新實踐如何破解“和諧共生”難題？. 管理世界, 37(01), 128-149+129.
111. 金輝, 刁品昊, & 楊川. (2022). “雙主體”面子取向驅動下知識共享意願生成機理——兼論團隊成員交換的調節作用. 江蘇大學學報(社會科學版), 24(03), 103-113.
112. 金輝, 董春燕, & 劉曉彥. (2021). 領導集體主義取向對員工創新行為的跨層影響機理——基於兩類知識共享的中介效應. 研究與發展管理, 33(03), 58-72.
113. 金輝, 段光, & 李輝. (2019). 面子、人情與知識共享意願間關係的實證研究:基於知識隱性程度的調節效應. 管理評論, 31(05), 147-162.
114. 李廣培, & 吳金華. (2017). 個體視角的綠色創新行為路徑:知識共享的調節效應. 科學學與科學技術管理, 38(02), 100-114.
115. 李昊, 曹辰, & 李林哲. (2022). 綠色認知能促進農戶綠色生產行為嗎?——基於社會規範鎖定效應的分析. 乾旱區資源與環境, 36(09), 18-25.
116. 李晉, & 化冰妍. (2023). 環保真實型領導對員工綠色主動行為的影響研究：基於自我決定的視角. 中國礦業大學學報(社會科學版), 25(06), 93-104.
117. 李民祥, & 楊建君. (2015). 領導風格對組織創新模式的影響——集體主義導向的調節作用. 軟科學, 29(10), 83-87.
118. 李晴. (2022). 責任視角下組織規範對設計人員綠色設計行為影響研究. (博士). 天津大學.
119. 李燕萍, & 徐嘉. (2014). 基於組織認同中介作用的集體主義對工作幸福感的多層次影響研究. 管理學報, 11(02), 198-205.
120. 李原, & 孫健敏. (2006). 雇用關係中的心理契約:從組織與員工雙重視角下考察契約中"組織責任"的認知差異. 管理世界, (11), 101-110+152.
121. 梁瀟傑, 於桂蘭, & 付博. (2019). 與上級關係好的員工一定會建言嗎?基於資源保存理論的雙中介模型. 管理評論, 31(04), 128-137.
122. 藺琳, 金家飛, & 賈進. (2015). 環保組織公民行為的概念、測量及實證發現. 學術論壇, 38(09), 92-97.
123. 劉佳, & 王煥真. (2020). 旅遊者環境責任行為驅動機制研究——基於我國海濱風景區的案例分析. 地域研究與開發, 39(06), 84-90+97.
124. 劉松博, 潘靜洲, 唐貴瑤, 王亞楠, & 李金. (2021). “大材小用”也有積極效應?團隊集體主義取向對資質過度感和創造力關係的調節作用. 管理評論, 33(04), 205-214.
125. 劉宗華, & 李燕萍. (2020). 綠色人力資源管理對員工綠色創新行為的影響:綠色正念與綠色自我效能感的作用. 中國人力資源開發, 37(11), 75-88.
126. 盧超, 薑宇陽, 蔣璐, & 徐振亭. (2023). 基於TPB-NAM整合模型的員工責任式創新行為研究——以人工智慧企業為例. 上海大學學報(社會科學版), 40(03), 37-54.
127. 蘆慧, 劉霞, & 陳紅. (2016). 企業員工親環境行為的內涵、結構與測量研究. 軟科學, 30(8), 69-71.
128. 蘆慧, 劉嚴, 鄒佳星, 陳紅, & 龍如銀. (2020). 多重動機對中國居民親環境行為的交互影響. 中國人口·資源與環境, 30(11), 160-169.
129. 蘆慧, 鄒佳星, 陳紅, 劉嚴, & 龍如銀. (2021). 組織親環境價值觀及其對員工親環境行為的影響研究. 管理評論, 33(04), 225-235.
130. 呂榮勝, 盧會寧, & 洪帥. (2016). 基於規範激活理論節能行為影響因素研究. 乾旱區資源與環境, 30(09), 14-18.
131. 羋淩雲, 丁超瓊, 俞學燕, 叢金秋, & 喬麗潔. (2020). 不同資料框架對城市家庭節電行為干預效果的縱向實驗研究. 管理評論, 32(05), 292-304.
132. 潘楚林, & 田虹. (2017). 環境領導力、綠色組織認同與企業綠色創新績效. 管理學報, 14(06), 832-841.
133. 彭堅, 尹奎, 侯楠, 鄒豔春, & 聶琦. (2020). 如何激發員工綠色行為？綠色變革型領導與綠色人力資源管理實踐的作用. 心理學報, 52(09), 1105-1120.
134. 秦鵬, & 徐海俊. (2021). 快遞包裝物回收利用的制度困境與規範進路. 南通大學學報(社會科學版), 37(02), 109-121.
135. 邱宏亮. (2016). 道德規範與旅遊者文明旅遊行為意願——基於TPB的擴展模型. 浙江社會科學, (03), 96-103+159.
136. 盛光華, 戴佳彤, & 龔思羽. (2020). 空氣品質對中國居民親環境行為的影響機制研究. 西安交通大學學報(社會科學版), 40(02), 95-103.
137. 盛光華, 解芳, & 龐英. (2019). 認知與情感交互效應對消費者綠色購買意願的影響. 商業研究, (06), 1-8.
138. 石洪景. (2015). 基於Logistic模型的城市居民低碳消費意願研究. 北京理工大學學報(社會科學版), 17(05), 25-35.
139. 宋國學, 王嘉欣, & 陳慧群. (2023). “雙碳”目標下員工自我調節對其自願型綠色行為影響機理研究. 商業經濟與管理, (10), 36-47.
140. 孫娟, & 李豔軍. (2018). 農戶農資產品鎖定購買行為形成機理的實證研究——基於山東省、湖北省和四川省的差異分析. 管理評論, 30(02), 146-158.
141. 唐貴瑤, 陳琳, 孫瑋, & 陳夢媛. (2021). 如何讓員工“愛司所愛，行司所行”？基於社會資料處理理論的綠色人力資源管理與員工綠色行為關係研究. 南開管理評論, 24(05), 185-193.
142. 田虹, & 薑春源. (2021). 社會責任型人力資源管理對旅遊企業員工親環境行為的影響研究. 旅遊學刊, 36(11), 133-144.
143. 田虹, & 田佳卉. (2020). 源清流潔:環境變革型領導對員工親環境行為的影響機制研究. 南京工業大學學報：社會科學版, 19(04), 76-89+116.
144. 田虹, & 田佳卉. (2021). 企業環境責任感知影響員工親環境行為的雙路徑機制研究. 經濟與管理研究, 42(11), 117-128.
145. 汪明月, 李穎明, & 王子彤. (2022). 工業企業綠色技術創新績效傳導及政府市場規制的調節作用研究. 管理學報, 19(07), 1026-1037+1091.
146. 王群偉, 周波, & 張成. (2023). “減規模”還是“增綠色”?異質性環保政策工具下的企業環保行為回應. 中國管理科學, 31(01), 256-266.
147. 王軼楠, & 楊中芳. (2007). 小我爭(護)面子與大我爭面子導向之關係的探討. 西南大學學報(社會科學版), (06), 20-27.
148. 吳建興. (2019). 社會互動、面子與旅遊者環境責任行為研究. (博士). 浙江大學.
149. 邢璐, 林鈺瑩, 何欣露, & 彭堅. (2017). 理性與感性的較量:責任型領導影響下屬綠色行為的雙路徑探討. 中國人力資源開發,34(1), 31-40.
150. 徐嘉祺, & 佘升翔. (2022). 鄉村振興背景下農戶綠色農資產品購買意願的影響因素研究. 廣西社會科學,(07), 136-145.
151. 徐林, 淩卯亮, & 盧昱傑. (2017). 城市居民垃圾分類的影響因素研究. 公共管理學報, 14(01), 142-153+160.
152. 楊德鋒, 馬穎傑, & 馬寶龍. (2014). 社會互動、代際文化價值觀傳遞與品牌體驗的形成——基於“美國女孩”的案例研究. 管理評論, 26(03), 70-80.
153. 弋亞群, 劉怡, & 穀盟. (2018). 高管團隊認知衝突對創新導向的雙刃劍效應. 管理學報, 15(11), 1663-1670.
154. 易淩峰, 劉思婷, 宋婕, & 李騰. (2021). 員工文化價值取向、跨文化互動能力與創新績效——基於上海跨國研發企業的實證. 華東師範大學學報(哲學社會科學版), 53(01), 155-168+174.
155. 於亢亢, 趙華, 錢程, & 高健. (2018). 環境態度及其與環境行為關係的文獻評述與元分析. 環境科學研究, 31(06), 1000-1009.
156. 張福德. (2016). 環境治理的社會規範路徑. 中國人口·資源與環境, 26(11), 10-18.
157. 張靖昊, 張燕, 劉翠婷, & 李芳敏. (2022). 自主氛圍對不同文化價值觀員工建言行為的影響機制研究. 管理學報, 19(01), 36-45.
158. 張瑞增, 唐若迪, 姚瑤, 王玉玲, 施宇恬, 花茜, & 季國軍. (2023). TPB-NAM框架下規模農戶綠色優質農產品生產意願研究——基於江蘇省的調查數據. 中國農業資源與區劃, 44(04), 184-194.
159. 張珊珊, 周明潔, 陳爽, & 張建新. (2012). 本土化人格特質與工作績效的關係:線性與非線性. 心理科學, 35(06), 1440-1444.
160. 張淑潔. (2023). 動機視角下員工綠色行為的前因與結果研究. (博士). 山東大學.
161. 張夏然, 王自然, 藍傳曉, & 孟慶春. (2022). 供應商資金約束下考慮政府補貼的供應鏈綠色生產決策研究. 管理學報, 19(02), 280-288.
162. 張長江, 張玥, 施宇寧, & 陳瑤. (2020). 綠色文化、環境經營與企業可持續發展績效——基於文化與行為的交互視角. 科技管理研究, 40(20), 232-240.
163. 張征, & 閆春. (2020). 團隊學習氛圍對員工積極情緒和創新績效的跨層次影響:集體主義導向的調節作用. 預測, 39(02), 27-33.
164. 張忠. (2022). 當代中國社會的人際信任特徵與建設路徑——基於第七波WVS數據的實證研究. 浙江社會科學(02), 59-69+157.
165. 趙鋒. (2016). 面子、羞恥與權威的運作. 社會學研究, 31(01), 26-48+242-243.
166. 趙黎明, 張海波, & 孫健慧. (2015). 酒店企業低碳經營影響因素研究——基於天津市酒店的調查數據. 乾旱區資源與環境, 12, 25-30.
167. 趙亞飛, 盛靚, 彭海雲, 邱凡碩, & 辛素飛. (2022). 親環境行為影響因素的系統整合模型及啟示. 應用心理學, 28(01), 49-58.
168. 鐘熙、王甜、宋鐵波、付曄. (2020). 心理契約破裂會引致員工非倫理行為嗎?——基於道德推脫的中介作用和馬基雅維利主義的調節作用. 管理工程學報, 34(06), 38-45.
169. 周金帆, & 張光磊. (2018). 綠色人力資源管理實踐對員工綠色行為的影響機制研究——基於自我決定理論的視角. 中國人力資源開發, 35(07), 20-30.
170. 周可, & 張新安. (2023). 面子傾向促進還是阻礙員工越軌創新行為？基於獨特性需求的理論視角. 中國人力資源開發, 40(11), 56-69.
171. 周豔菊, 胡鳳英, & 周正龍. (2020). 零售商主導下促進綠色產品需求的聯合研發契約協調研究. 管理工程學報, 34(02), 194-204.
172. 朱清海, & 雷雲. (2018). 社會資本對農戶秸稈處置親環境行為的影響研究——基於湖北省L縣農戶的調查數據. 乾旱區資源與環境, 32(11), 15-21.
