The impact of perceived environmental corporate social responsibility on idea generation and idea implementation

China faces increasing pressures to improve energy efficiency and reduce waste, while firms’ activities contribute to environmental degradation. In this context, employees’ innovative behavior (EIB)—comprised of idea generation (IG) and idea implementation (II)—is critical for organizational success. Although prior research has identified various determinants of IG and II from non-environmental perspectives, less is known about how employees’ perceptions of environmental corporate social responsibility (ECSR) shape these innovation behaviors, particularly under environmental protection contexts. This study asks: (1) Does perceived ECSR foster IG? (2) Does perceived ECSR foster II? (3) Does psychological capital (PsyCap) moderate these relationships? Drawing on social identity theory (SIT) and stakeholder theory, the authors propose that perceived ECSR enhances IG and II and that these effects are stronger when employees’ PsyCap is higher. Focusing on Chinese construction firms—an industry tightly linked to environmental impacts—helps control for cross-industry heterogeneity and situates the inquiry in a setting where ECSR is salient. The study contributes by shifting attention from macro-level ECSR outcomes to micro-level employee innovation, clarifying direct effects on IG and II, and introducing PsyCap as a boundary condition.

ECSR perception: ECSR entails environmentally friendly behaviors integrating environmental concerns into stakeholder interactions. Perceived ECSR reflects employees’ subjective evaluations of their organization’s environmental responsibility. While macro-level ECSR research links ECSR to legitimacy, firm value, and environmental performance, micro-level work increasingly explores stakeholder responses. Yet antecedents of employee innovation from the ECSR perception perspective remain underexplored. Employees’ innovative behavior (EIB): EIB is discretionary behavior that includes IG and II. Prior work has examined organizational antecedents (e.g., hierarchy, social networks, HR systems, environmental dynamism) and individual antecedents (e.g., knowledge sharing, creative self-efficacy, voice). Some factors relate more to IG than II, and emerging evidence links environmental strategy perceptions to innovative behavior. However, direct predictors of IG and II from an environmental CSR perception lens are limited. Psychological capital (PsyCap): PsyCap, a higher-order construct (self-efficacy, hope, optimism, resilience), is a positive psychological state associated with performance, citizenship behaviors, engagement, well-being, and innovative behavior. While PsyCap benefits innovation, its moderating role in the perceived ECSR–innovation link is nascent. Employees with higher PsyCap may better perceive and respond to ECSR, enhancing IG and II. Theoretical framing: SIT explains how positive organizational perceptions foster identification, influencing behaviors like IG and II. Stakeholder theory posits that firms meeting stakeholder expectations gain access to resources necessary for innovation. Thus, perceived ECSR can drive IG and II through identity and resource mechanisms. Hypotheses: H1a Perceived ECSR → IG (positive). H1b Perceived ECSR → II (positive). H2a PsyCap positively moderates the ECSR → IG link. H2b PsyCap positively moderates the ECSR → II link.

Design and sample: Cross-sectional survey of employees from Chinese construction industry firms. Of 500 distributed questionnaires, 348 usable responses were obtained (response rate 69.60%). Sample characteristics: 87.93% male; 78.45% aged >30; 75.29% with bachelor’s degree or higher; positions included senior/professorate engineers (19.83%), engineers/assistant engineers (66.09%); varied firm sizes, team sizes, and tenure. Measures and procedures: Back-translation was used. All items rated on 5-point Likert scales (1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree). - Perceived ECSR: Three items adapted from Turker (2009) and De Roeck & Delobbe (2012) (e.g., participation in activities to protect/improve the environment). - Psychological capital (PsyCap): 24-item PCQ (Luthans et al., 2007); overall PsyCap score used. - Idea generation (IG) and idea implementation (II): Eight items total; four for IG and four for II from Scott & Bruce (1994) and Zhou & George (2001) (e.g., IG: finding new technologies, processes, and services; II: using new methods/techniques to reduce costs/improve efficiency). Controls: Gender, age, education, position, tenure, firm size (employees), team size, marital status, and ownership (state-owned dummy). Reliability and validity: Cronbach’s alpha ≥ 0.868 for all constructs. PCA indicated cumulative variance explained = 69.456%, KMO = 0.963, Bartlett’s test p < 0.001; four factors with eigenvalues > 1 and loadings > 0.5. CFA fit: χ²/df = 2.546, RMSEA = 0.067, CFI = 0.916, TFI = 0.910, IFI = 0.916; AVE 0.622–0.711, CR 0.868–0.983; discriminant validity supported. Common method variance: Addressed via anonymity, item reordering, and instructions. Harman’s single-factor test: first factor 45.865% (<50%); CFA showed four-factor model superior to one-factor model, suggesting CMV not a major concern. Analytic strategy: OLS regressions tested direct and moderating effects with all controls; multicollinearity acceptable (all VIF < 5). Interaction terms tested moderation. Robustness and sensitivity analyses compared alternative model specifications and curvilinear effects.

Descriptive and preliminary results: - Means (SD): Perceived ECSR 3.518 (1.106), PsyCap 3.857 (0.824), IG 4.046 (0.676), II 3.992 (0.747). One-sample t-tests vs. 3 indicated all four constructs significantly above normative value (p < 0.01). - Correlations: Perceived ECSR with IG r = 0.512 (p < 0.01); with II r = 0.568 (p < 0.01). PsyCap with IG r = 0.318 (p < 0.01); with II r = 0.316 (p < 0.01). Hypothesis tests (OLS with controls): - H1a supported: Perceived ECSR → IG β = 0.309, p < 0.01 (Model 3; Adjusted R² = 0.289). - H1b supported: Perceived ECSR → II β = 0.371, p < 0.01 (Model 4; Adjusted R² = 0.373). - H2a supported: Interaction (Perceived ECSR × PsyCap) → IG β = 0.106, p < 0.05 (Model 5); simple slopes indicated stronger ECSR–IG effect at high PsyCap. - H2b supported: Interaction (Perceived ECSR × PsyCap) → II β = 0.085, p < 0.10 (Model 6); stronger ECSR–II effect at high PsyCap. - Selected controls: For IG, team size (β ≈ −0.063, p < 0.05) and marital status (β ≈ 0.047, p < 0.10) were associated; for II, tenure (β ≈ 0.125, p < 0.01), position (β ≈ 0.068, p < 0.05), and marital status (β ≈ 0.071, p < 0.01) significant. Robustness checks: - Alternative specifications (e.g., swapping roles of PsyCap and ECSR, using only interaction) yielded lower R² than the proposed model, supporting model fit. - Curvilinear tests (ECSR squared) were not significant for II; moderation effects remained when removing ownership controls. Overall, perceived ECSR directly and positively predicts both IG and II, and PsyCap strengthens these relationships.

The findings align with social identity theory by showing that when employees perceive their firm as environmentally responsible, they experience greater identification and pride, which translates into innovative behaviors—both generating and implementing ideas. Stakeholder theory further explains that perceived ECSR signals alignment with stakeholder expectations, facilitating access to resources (knowledge, skills, networks) that support innovation, particularly the resource-intensive implementation phase. Psychological capital amplifies these processes: employees high in self-efficacy, hope, optimism, and resilience are more likely to interpret ECSR activities positively, mobilize resources, persist through obstacles, and thereby enhance the translation of ECSR perceptions into IG and II. The results underscore the micro-level pathways linking ECSR to employee innovation and highlight PsyCap as a key boundary condition. Practically, firms can foster employee innovation by visibly engaging in ECSR, communicating ECSR strategies internally, and developing PsyCap through training and supportive organizational climates.

This study advances understanding of how perceived ECSR drives employees’ innovative behavior by demonstrating direct, positive effects on both idea generation and idea implementation and by identifying psychological capital as a moderator that strengthens these links. The work shifts attention from macro-level ECSR outcomes to micro-level employee innovation, integrates SIT and stakeholder theory to explain mechanisms, and provides actionable guidance for cultivating innovation via ECSR perception and PsyCap development. Future research should test these relationships across industries and countries, employ longitudinal or experimental designs to strengthen causal inference, and explore additional moderators (e.g., organizational culture, work climate) and broader innovation constructs beyond IG and II.

- Industry and country context: Data drawn solely from Chinese construction firms, limiting generalizability to other industries and contexts. - Cross-sectional design: Limits causal inference and may contribute to relatively modest R² values. - Scope of moderators: Only PsyCap examined; other contextual or organizational moderators (e.g., culture, climate) were not tested. - Innovation dimensions: Focused on IG and II; other innovation outcomes or stages were not examined.