To Be or Not to Be Green? The Double‐Edged Sword of Pro‐Environmental Pressure in the Workplace

ABSTRACT Contemporary organizations are paying greater attention to improving environmental sustainability. Recognizing the value of employee engagement in enhancing sustainability, organizations emphasize the involvement of employees in environmental protection. Academic literature and anecdotal evidence have suggested that employees may come to work with pressure to engage in pro‐environmental behavior (PEB). However, researchers have overlooked how employees experience pro‐environmental pressure, leaving fundamental questions unanswered in theory building. In this paper, we introduce the concept of pro‐environmental pressure and examine the broader functioning of pro‐environmental pressure at the individual level. Drawing on the transactional theory of stress, we elucidate how this pressure could be experienced as a double‐edged sword that induces both positive and negative responses from employees. We first develop a scale of pro‐environmental pressure and assess its psychometric properties. We then conduct a field study to test the theoretical model, arguing that individuals with different stress mindsets have divergent responses. Employees with a stress‐is‐enhancing mindset are likely to appraise pro‐environmental pressure as a challenge, whereas employees with a stress‐is‐debilitating mindset are likely to appraise it as a threat. Our findings reveal that pro‐environmental pressure could have both functional and dysfunctional implications depending on employee appraisals. When pro‐environmental pressure is appraised as a challenge, employees use a problem‐focused coping strategy and respond with positive behavioral reactions, including engagement in PEB and constructive green voice. However, when pro‐environmental pressure is appraised as a threat, employees use an emotion‐focused coping strategy and respond with negative behavioral reactions, including disengagement from PEB and destructive green voice. We discuss the theoretical and practical implications of our findings.