https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9210-3477
Figures
Abstract
Recent research seeks to investigate the influence of employees’ understanding of sustainability on sustainable corporate performance, utilizing independent variables such as environmental knowledge, awareness, and concern, along with dependent variables including environmental, financial and social performance. The total sample for this study is 230, collected from current employees of the airline industry in Korea. CFA (Confirmatory Factor Analysis) and SEM (Structural Equation Modeling) were employed for statistical analysis. The findings reveal that employees’ environmental concern positively influences ecological behavior, which in turn contributes to corporate sustainability performance across environmental, financial, and social dimensions. By contrast, environmental awareness has a negative effect on ecological behavior, and environmental knowledge shows no significant impact. The results offer meaningful insights and contribute to the understanding of corporate sustainability within the airline industry.
Author summary
The author’s academic and professional trajectory reflects a sustained engagement with business strategy, organizational behavior, and the global aviation industry. The author developed a strong analytical foundation for examining organizational dynamics, strategic decision-making, and sustainable management practices. This academic preparation is complemented by professional experience with international airlines, including British Airways and Alitalia, where the author contributed to passenger transport and logistics. These roles provided first-hand insight into the operational, financial, and strategic challenges faced by one of the world’s most complex industries. Building on this combined background, the author’s research interests focus on sustainability in business and organizational behavior, with particular attention to the aviation sector as a critical domain for global connectivity, economic development, and environmental responsibility. By integrating empirical analysis with professional experience, the author seeks to generate insights that advance scholarly understanding while also supporting practical approaches to sustainable growth and responsible management in complex organizational contexts.
Citation: Jang J, Park J-W, Chung S (2025) The influence of environmental knowledge, awareness, and concern on corporate sustainability performance by the mediating variable of ecological behavior—A case study of airlines in Korea. PLOS Sustain Transform 4(10): e0000204. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pstr.0000204
Editor: Ana Delicado, Universidade de Lisboa Instituto de Ciencias Sociais, PORTUGAL
Received: November 13, 2024; Accepted: September 23, 2025; Published: October 10, 2025
Copyright: © 2025 Jang et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
Data Availability: All relevant data are within the manuscript.
Funding: The author(s) received no specific funding for this work.
Competing interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.
1. Introduction
The Airline Deregulation Act (ADA) in 1978 significantly transformed the industry by removing government control over pricing and route decisions, thereby granting airlines greater strategic freedom [1,2]. While deregulation enabled open market entry, pricing autonomy, and inter-airline alliances, market dominance and power have persisted. Consequently, factors beyond regulatory intervention continue to shape airline efficiency and profitability in the post-deregulation era [3].
In more recent years, sustainability has emerged as a key strategic imperative across industries, including aviation. Since 2019, it has become both a driver of social change and a critical factor in corporate success [4]. High Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) ratings consistently correlate with market outperformance, as reported by McKinsey [5]. Although sustainability strategies often involve initial costs, they yield substantial long-term benefits. Talal [6] emphasizes the integration of sustainability into corporate strategy, with many Fortune 500 companies appointing Chief Sustainability Officers to meet investor, consumer, and regulatory demands while enhancing organizational performance.
The aviation industry has not remained unaffected by this trend. Recognizing its substantial environmental footprint, the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) began establishing sustainability guidelines in 2016 [7], notably through the adoption of the Carbon Offsetting and Reduction Scheme for International Aviation (CORSIA). Accordingly, airlines are increasingly pursuing sustainable management strategies that incorporate environmental and social considerations beyond operational efficiency [8].
Improving operational eco-efficiency has become a core focus, promoting resource optimization and reducing the risk of future regulatory penalties. Sustainability in aviation must address both CO₂ and non-CO₂ effects, including transitions away from fossil-based fuels, and assess broader implications across environmental, economic, and societal dimensions [9].
Aviation generates a significant amount of CO₂ emissions and, if current trends continue, it could account for up to 22% of total global CO₂ emissions by 2050—posing a major challenge to climate goals such as the 1.5 °C limit [9]. Efforts to reduce emissions include Sustainable Aviation Fuel (SAF), fuel-efficient aircraft design, and alternative fuels like ammonia, hydrogen, and battery-electric systems [10]. For instance, Korean Air is enhancing its fleet with fuel-efficient aircraft such as the A220-300, A321neo, B787-9, and B737-8, which reduce carbon emissions per seat by 15–25% compared to previous models. The airline plans to introduce 90 new aircraft—including 30 A321neos, 10 B787-9s, and 30 B737-8s—by 2028 [11].
Beyond CO₂, the aviation sector also contributes to climate change through non-CO₂ effects. Ground operations, for example, produce local air pollutants and noise, with studies linking noise pollution near airports to sleep disturbances, psychological stress, and adverse physiological outcomes among local communities [9].
Ultimately, sustainable aviation requires balancing environmental impacts, economic feasibility, and societal needs. This includes ensuring access to clean energy, maintaining affordability, and prioritizing the well-being of communities affected by air transportation.
Despite technological advancements and strategic efforts by airline operators, achieving the sustainability objectives also depends heavily on the actions of employees. As research shows, employees significantly influence corporate sustainability outcomes [12]. Within airlines, ecological behavior—shaped by environmental knowledge, awareness, and concern—plays a critical role in implementing eco-friendly practices and aligning with green management initiatives. To improve environmental performance and corporate image, organizations may benefit from recruiting individuals with strong environmental values and offering regular environmental training [13]. Studies further demonstrate that employee environmental behavior enhances overall organizational performance [14], and voluntary initiatives can help guide the industry toward sustainability—provided that significant shifts in mindset and processes are implemented [15]. Furthermore, everyday pro-environmental actions, such as effective resource and waste management, have a direct and measurable impact on organizational sustainability [16].
Based on the broader background of this research, some research questions have arisen:
- How does employee behavior in the airlines influence corporate sustainability?
- Is there consistency between airline employees and the corporate sustainability goals of their respective airlines?
- What components contribute to differences in employee behaviors among employees of the airlines?
- Do airlines provide consistent sustainability training for their employees, and if not, what strategic approaches can be taken to achieve this goal of the airlines?
Prior research in aviation sustainability has mainly focused on technological solutions—such as Sustainable Aviation Fuels (SAF) [17–19] and aircraft design improvements [20]—to address climate change [9,10,21]. Approximately 11–18 significant technology-oriented studies [22,23] are found in 2024. While these efforts are important, they often view sustainability as a technical issue and pay little attention to the human factors involved. In particular, the role of employee understanding and behavior in shaping corporate sustainability has been largely overlooked. There is still a clear gap in the literature regarding how airline employees perceive sustainability and how their actions affect sustainable outcomes within organizations.
This investigation aims to examine how the understanding and behavior of employees regarding corporate sustainability within the aviation industry influence the corporate sustainability performance. Specifically, this study is designated to verify whether the environmental knowledge, awareness, and concern of airline employees impact their actual ecological behavior. Subsequently, this research explores the overall impact of these changes on the sustainability performance of corporate.
This study consists of four main sections. Firstly, a literature review explores factors shaping ecological behavior, emphasizing that environmental knowledge, awareness, and concern are crucial for corporate sustainability across environmental, financial, and social realms. Secondly, it discusses the research framework, including survey design, Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) for data analysis technique and Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) with emphasis on hypothesis outcomes. Lastly, it thoroughly examines research findings pertinent to academic inquiry and practical managerial application.
2. Literature review
2.1 Environmental knowledge
Environmental knowledge, research by Angreani [24] and Zsóka [25], encompasses understanding environmental issues and potential remedies. In addition, Tirno [26] asserts that environmental knowledge involves comprehending and evaluating how individual actions impact the ecosystem. Specifically, it is asserted by Kaplan [27] that environmental knowledge encompasses an individual’s comprehensive awareness of factors like the environment’s condition, climate change, and ecological repercussions on consumption and production. Furthermore, individual decision-making is substantially influenced by their understanding of specific environmental aspects. Cheng [28] explored the positive correlation between environmental knowledge and environmental performance, demonstrating that environmental knowledge enables individuals to reduce harmful environmental influences and contributes to green innovation. In exploring methods to foster environmental knowledge, the researchers, Otto and Pensini [29] emphasize the significance in positively shaping ecological behavior. They assert that environmental knowledge plays an essential role in encouraging ecological behaviors, supporting individuals to recognize proactive actions in advance. It has been established that environmental knowledge significantly influences pro-environmental attitudes, subsequently driving environmentally responsible actions, as indicated by Amyx [30], Corral-Verdugo [31], and Mostafa [32]. The study conducted by Lu [33], focusing on individual intention, establishes a correlation between environmental knowledge and ecological behavior, demonstrating that heightened environmental knowledge enhances individuals’ inclination to participate in carbon offsetting initiatives. Hence, based on the literature, this research study posits the following hypothesis.
H1. Environmental knowledge positively influences on the ecological behavior of airline employees.
2.2 Environmental awareness
Dabbous [34] describes environmental awareness as encompassing an understanding of diverse environmental challenges and advocating responsible actions that contribute to environmental preservation. Han & Kim [35] and Paco & Rapaco [36] expound upon environmental awareness, defining it as an individual’s acknowledgment and concern for various environmental issues. Moreover, Daziano [37] and Wang [38] assert that this comprehension represents a pivotal factor in steering individuals toward environmentally sustainable behaviors, and it proves that environmental awareness is in a crucial role in shaping environmental behaviors [39,40] and in guiding individuals toward adopting more environmentally friendly lifestyles [41]. Research carried by Darvishmotevali and Altinay [42] emphasizes its critical function in mediating the impact of green HRM (Human Resource Management on employees’ proactive environmental performance. In addition, Zhang [43] argues that this concept intricately intertwines with psychological determinants that configure individuals’ predispositions toward pro-environmental activities, attitudes, and behaviors. It is possibly considered that a heightened level of environmental awareness leads to a deeper understanding of the crucial role environmental preservation plays in human well-being. The “4 R’s,” encapsulating principles of reducing, reusing, recycling, and rethinking as elucidated by Gabarda-Mallorquí [44]. It epitomizes environmental awareness, and it signifies an acknowledgment of the environment’s vulnerability and the imperative need for its conservation. Related to this, promoting environmental awareness effectively relies on a comprehensive grasp of environmental issues and serves as a potent strategy in fostering environmentally responsible behaviors and advancing sustainable practices. Additionally, environmental awareness stands as a fundamental concept due to its inherent connection to sustainability and its pivotal role in heightening awareness and cultivating green initiatives across entire organizations [45]. Hence, considering stated literature, this research study posits the following hypothesis.
H2. Environmental awareness positively influences ecological behavior of airline employees.
2.3 Environmental concern
Research carried out by Goh & Balaj [46] describes environmental concern measures an individual’s involvement with environmental issues. Another study conducted by Dunlap and Van Liere [47] suggests that environmental concern is essential to grasp the intentions behind purchasing green products, and it has been observed that customers’ environmental concerns influence their behavior when it comes to green purchases. Moreover, customers with heightened environmental concerns are more inclined to invest in renewable energy at premium prices compared to those with lower levels of environmental concern [48]. The degree of environmental concern among individuals not only indicates their awareness of environmental issues but also reflects their support for addressing them and their willingness to personally contribute to their solutions, highlighting the prioritization of environmental matters and the readiness to invest efforts in resolving them [49]. The study conducted by Bamberg [50] insists that environmental concern among students leads to significant differences in the perception and evaluation of identical decision scenarios. Furthermore, people who have a strong environmental concern are more likely to adopt eco-friendly behaviors due to their favorable attitudes and beliefs towards such actions. Additionally, customers with heightened environmental awareness were more well-versed in green products and technologies, showed increased vigilance in avoiding environmentally detrimental purchases, and exhibited enhanced understanding of the reliability and safety of green products. Another study from Newton [51] suggests that the complex interplay between environmental concern and ecological behavior underscores that environmental concern serves as a pivotal indirect factor in shaping intentions towards environmental behavior. Although environmental concern may not directly dictate environmental behavior, it can inspire individuals to seek out more information regarding the environmental impacts of their actions. Hence, considering stated literature, this research study posits the following hypothesis.
H3. Environmental concern positively influences ecological behavior of airline employees.
2.4 Ecological behavior and sustainability
2.4.1 Employee’s ecological behavior in the corporate environment.
A study by Axelrod [52] defines ecological behavior as positive engagement in the preservation and conservation of the environment. In addition, Krajhanzl [53] argues that environmental behavior encompasses actions perceived within a society as conducive to environmental protection or as a demonstration to fostering a healthier environment. At the organizational level, it is imperative for corporations to embrace environmentally conscious decision-making practices to fulfill their green objectives and safeguard the environment. Consequently, companies integrate eco-friendly initiatives into their operational and HRM strategies to gain sustainable advantages [54,55]. Recent research carried out by Whitburn [56] found that employees’ organizational alignment correlates with their ecological conduct, influencing them to mitigate detrimental impacts on nature and champion green practices within the workplace. These environmentally conscious behaviors encompass activities such as energy conservation, transportation choices, waste management, and community engagement [57].
Additionally, Arshad [58] proposes that employees’ environmental attitudes serve as catalysts for their ecological conduct and satisfaction within the organizational context. The findings affirm that employees’ dedication to the organization fosters their environmental attitudes, thus driving ecological behaviors and sustainable practices. Algarni [59] explores the direct and indirect links between environmental actions and company performance through corporate sustainability measures. Paillé and Boiral [60] examine the impact of environmental conduct within workplace settings to enhance sustainability practices and performance. Moreover, Ronnenberg [61] indicates that the sustainability strategies of corporate contribute to enhanced environmental performance via standardized organizational procedures. Likewise, Kim [62] investigates the correlation between eco-friendly behavior of employees and environmental performance, while Hameed [55] emphasizes the necessity of aligning environmental actions from employees with sustainable management practices of the corporate.
2.4.2 Sustainability in the corporate.
Corporate sustainability is commonly defined as a company’s capacity to meet the needs of its stakeholders while managing environmental, social, and economic impacts responsibly and proactively, ensuring long-term organizational resilience and societal value [63]. Corporate sustainability is also described as a new paradigm requiring businesses to align with environmental and societal trends, emphasizing the need for a coherent concept to guide effective sustainable practices [64]. Corporate sustainability is defined here as the implementation of environmental protection measures, adherence to ecological regulations, adoption of pollution prevention technologies, and practices promoting waste reduction. Recognizing the imperative nature of integrating environmental, financial, and social considerations into decision-making steps is fundamental for achieving successful sustainable corporate performance [65,66]. Contemporary business achievements hinge upon the integration of enduring sustainability principles that encompass environmental, financial, and social dimensions within executive operations [66].
Research by González-García [67] introduced an evaluation framework firmly grounded in the triad of sustainability pillars: social, economic, and environmental dimensions. This framework aims to establish methodologies that preserve resources, ensure societal well-being, and advance sustainable progress. Additionally, leveraging these three pillars enables the adoption of sustainable corporate practices, leading to sustainable performance [68]. Algarni [59] emphasizes the integration of sustainability principles into core corporate strategies to achieve their sustainability performance.
This research explores the intricate relationship between individual employee-level environmental behavior and its contribution to measurable corporate sustainability performance. To strengthen this connection, the study considers how aggregated behavioral patterns—resulted from employee’s knowledge, awareness, concern in environment —can translate into tangible corporate-level outcomes, including reduce emissions, improve energy efficiency, and promote recycling; steady growth in revenue, profit, and market share; and policies supporting business ethics, employee well-being, and stakeholder welfare.
The evaluation of environmental sustainability performance often relies on indicators such as scores for resource, emissions, and environmental innovation, provided by Thomson Reuters, to assess firms’ environmental contributions [69]. Environmental performance signifies a company’s positive influence on both its internal and external environment, necessitating reductions in air pollution, material, and energy utilization while emphasizing adherence to environmental standards [68].
Examining financial performance involves considerations such as reducing capital costs, improving financial resources, impacting capital structure, risk exposure, and enhancing profit margins [70]. Algarni [59] highlight the correlation between initiative-taking environmental protection by companies and the associated benefits, emphasizing the harmonization between environmental preservation and economic gains. They stress the importance of investigating the interplay between corporate sustainability practices, including sustainable operations, environmental preservation, regulatory compliance, technology adoption for pollution prevention, waste reduction, and their influence on financial performance [71,72]. Enhanced financial performance occurs as a business solidifies its standing in the market, improves market share, generates a ROI (Return on Investment), and accrues more earnings [73].
Socially sustainable performance revolves around a business’s capability to enhance social Note: by ensuring the safety and well-being of its workforce and the broader community [74]. It involves fostering better stakeholder and community interactions, promoting job security, improving the working environment, and raising community living standards [75]. In addition, social performance within firms encompasses the adherence to human rights, equity, and ethical standards [76,77]. Mani and Gunasekaran [78] delved into factors such as behavioral pressures, a culture inclined towards sustainability which significantly mold a firm’s adoption of social sustainability, particularly in emerging economies.
Hence, considering stated literature, this research study posits the following hypotheses.
H4. Ecological behavior positively influences environmental performance of airline sustainability.
H5. Ecological behavior positively influences financial performance of the airline sustainability.
H6. Ecological behavior positively influences social performance of airline sustainability.
3. Methodology
3.1 Survey design
Utilizing the conceptual framework depicted in Fig 1, a set of 28 survey items was devised for the quantitative methodology, drawing insights from prior studies in various industries concerning environmental knowledge, awareness, concern, ecological behavior, and sustainability performance (environmental, financial, social), as outlined in Table 1. All questionnaires underwent meticulous revision to align with the specific objectives of the study, utilizing a 5-point Likert scale. Subsequently, they were translated into the local language in Korea with the aid of two experienced translators to ensure the clarity of the survey questions for the participants. The translation process adhered to Ruvio & Shoham’s guidelines [79] to maintain cultural and linguistic equivalence in the scales. Moreover, a convenience sampling method [80], employing a non-probabilistic, self-participation approach, was implemented following Tarhini’s guidelines [81]. Moreover, a convenience sampling method [80], employing a non-probabilistic, self-participation approach, was implemented following Tarhini’s guidelines [81]. This method facilitated data collection; however, it may constrain the generalizability of the findings beyond the study sample. Five pilot tests were conducted 10 volunteers, and feedback from most participants guided the necessary adjustments to the survey questionnaires.
3.2 Data analysis
The primary survey utilized a Google survey tool and was specifically allocated to existing Airlines staff members via a widely used Korean social media platform. Over a period of 16 weeks, a total of 230 completed samples were gathered. Data analysis involved the use of SPSS version 25 for tasks like descriptive statistics and internal reliability assessment (Cronbach’s alpha). Furthermore, AMOS 23 was employed to conduct CFA encompassing convergent reliability, discriminant reliability, model fit analysis, and SEM path analysis to validate the proposed hypotheses [86,87]. Additionally, to evaluate multicollinearity among independent variables across factors and confirm their suitability for SEM analysis, a correlation analysis was performed using AMOS version 23 [88].
3.2.1 Descriptive statistics.
Table 2 illustrates the demographic distribution of the 230 employees working across various airline sectors. Among these, 63.5% were female while 36.5% were male. The participant distribution within this study encompassed 55.2% employed by full-service carriers within Korea, 26.1% with low-cost carriers in Korea, 16.1% from full-service carriers outside Korea, and 2.6% with low-cost carriers outside Korea. Regarding tenure in service, the majority had 6–10 years and above category, constituting 23.5% of the cohort, followed by individuals with over 20 years of experience at 22.6%. Participants with service durations of 1–5 years accounted for 21.7%, while those with 11–15 years comprised 18.7%. The 16–20 years category represented 10.4%, and those with less than one year of service accounted for 3.0%. Furthermore, in terms of occupational distribution, office-based personnel, inclusive of head office staff within the airlines, constituted 37.4% of the sample. Cabin crew members represented 27%, while individuals working in airport-related roles, comprised 23.9%. Cockpit crew members, technicians, facility support, and others each accounted for 3.9% of the total participant distribution.
3.2.2 CFA (Confirmatory Factor Analysis).
Prior to examining the hypotheses, a measurement model underwent validation using confirmatory factor analysis. During the data analysis, it was determined that seven questionnaires from the variables of environmental knowledge, environmental awareness, environmental concern, and ecological behavior fell below the recommended SMC threshold at 0.4. To enhance the quality of this research, the seven items including E.K1, E.K2, E.A2, E.C2, E.C4, E.B1, E.B4 were subsequently excluded from the analysis, leaving 21 items for further examination. The remaining 21 questionnaire items achieved an acceptable level of SMC at 0.4 and above, ensuring the reliability of each questionnaire. Additionally, to address other internal consistency issues and uphold reliability, Cronbach’s alpha analysis was performed [80]. As presented by Table 3, a total 20 questionnaires out of 21 exceeded the recommendation level of Cronbach alpha at 0.7 while mediating variable of ecological behavior’ was computed at 0.657 which is slightly lower than the recommended value at 0.7. Based on a study conducted by Helmstadter [89], the present research retained the mediating variable despite its Cronbach’s alpha value being under 0.7 of Cronbach Alpha.
Evaluations of AVE (Average Variance Extracted) and CR (Composite Reliability) were conducted to examine correlations among the provided variables, as depicted in Table 3. Typically, AVE and CR values exceeding 0.5 and 0.7, respectively, are considered acceptable [90]. Nevertheless, the perspective of Fornell and Larcker [91] was also taken into account to accommodate certain items that fell slightly below the thresholds of 0.5 for AVE and 0.7 for CR in this study. According to their argument [84], if the AVE value is below 0.5 but the CR value exceeds 0.6, the construct’s convergent validity remains satisfactory. Furthermore, this research also considered the perspective of Helmstadter [82], who suggests that while a Cronbach alpha value above 0.5 can be acceptable, the generally accepted threshold is higher, at 0.7 [83]. Drawing from the literature reviewed, pairs of CR and AVE values were computed: [0.680 (CR), 0.519 (AVE)] for environmental knowledge, [0.772 (CR), 0.532 (AVE)] for environmental awareness, [0.666 (CR), 0.500 (AVE)] for environmental concern, [0.702 (CR), 0.544 (AVE)] for ecological behavior, [0.900 (CR), 0.692 (AVE)] for environmental performance, [0.890 (CR), 0.674 (AVE)] for financial performance, and [0.924 (CR), 0.754 (AVE)] for social performance. It is noted that the CR and AVE results for all variables in this study surpassed the acceptable thresholds of 0.5 for AVE and 0.6 for CR. Furthermore, a discriminant validity examination was carried out, as illustrated in Table 4.
3.2.3 Model fit indices.
Table 5 presents the computed fit indices for this conceptual framework. It was observed that the majority of the fit index indicators either met acceptable standards or closely approached them. Through CFA, the factors within the absolute fit index surpassed the recommended thresholds, registering MIN/DF = 1.860, RMR = 0.037, GFI = 0.903, AGFI = 0.848, and RMSEA = 0.061. The factors within the incremental fit index achieved acceptable levels, demonstrating NFI = 0.916 and CFI = 0.958.
The outcomes of the goodness-of-fit assessment using the CFA approach were within acceptable ranges, indicating an elevated level of accuracy. These findings suggest that the model adequately meets the prescribed criteria for goodness of fit in CFA analysis without encountering any notable issues.
3.2.4 SEM (Structural Equation Modelling) analysis.
Table 6 displays the synthesis of the anticipated conceptual framework alongside outcomes derived from path analysis. Fig 2 depicts results indicating a substantial impact of environmental concern on ecological behavior (β = 0.875, SE = 0.248, CR = 4.811, p < 0.001). Conversely, the influence of environmental knowledge on ecological behavior was found to be no substantial (β = -0.035, SE = 0.058, CR = -0.131). Consequently, hypothesis H3 gains support, while H1 is rejected.
The hypothesis concerning the relationship between environmental awareness and ecological behavior (β = -0.484, SE = 0.075, CR = -5.008, and p < 0.001), revealed an unexpected negative effect, indicating that as awareness increases, ecological behavior tends to decrease. Nevertheless, as the result is statistically significant (p < 0.001), the hypothesis is considered supported. The structural paths from ecological behavior to environmental (β = 1, SE = 0.364, CR = 6.459, p < 0.001), financial (β = 1, SE = 0.243, CR = 6.049, p < 0.001), and social performance (β = 1, SE = 0.404, CR = 6.637, p < 0.001) are all statistically significant, indicating robust relationships. Thus, hypotheses H4, H5, and H6 collectively receive support.
4. Discussion and conclusion
Airlines have recognized the imperative to enhance environmental sustainability as the responses to consumer demands, market changes, and government regulations by focusing on reducing carbon emissions, exemplified by initiatives such as the ICAO CORSIA (Carbon Offsetting and Reduction Scheme for International Aviation) and restrictions on short domestic flights [93]. The significant contribution to global Carbon emissions in the airline industry, near 2.1%, highlights the urgency to address its environmental impact amidst climate change concerns [94]. This research explored the effects of three environmental stimuli including environmental knowledge, environmental awareness, and environmental concern on employees’ ecological behavior and how the behavior influences sustainability performance in the airlines of Korea. The results of this investigation present meaningful insights into the airline sustainability by understanding and behavior of the employees in the airline industry. Based on Fig 2, the findings are presented below.
First, regarding the relationship between environmental knowledge, awareness, concern, and ecological behavior, this study revealed that environmental knowledge was not a significant predictor of ecological behavior. While prior literature often positions knowledge as a key driver of pro-environmental practices, this finding suggests that information alone—without emotional engagement or supportive infrastructure—may not be sufficient to drive behavioral change. This perspective departs from earlier studies and offers a new understanding of how environmental stimuli shape employee behavior in workplace contexts [16].
At a theoretical level, the study contributes by clarifying the distinct roles of environmental attitude components. Environmental concern consistently fosters ecological behavior, while environmental awareness was found to have an unexpected negative association, and knowledge showed no significant relationship with behavior. These distinctions highlight the need for more nuanced training approaches that prioritize emotional engagement, behavioral reinforcement, and practical enablement, rather than focusing solely on the dissemination of knowledge.
Importantly, it is also important to acknowledge that the ecological behaviors of individual employees may influence, and potentially contribute to, the overall sustainability performance of the organization. When employee-led sustainability efforts are rooted in strong environmental concern and supported by the corporate structure, they can generate positive outcomes across all dimensions of sustainability—environmental, financial, and social. This insight advances theoretical models by demonstrating how differentiated environmental attitudes can translate into organizational-level sustainability performance.
Second, both environmental awareness and environmental concern showed significant relationships with ecological behavior, albeit in opposite directions. Environmental concern was positively associated, reinforcing its role as an emotional and value-based driver of sustainable action. Environmental awareness, however, showed an unexpected negative relationship, suggesting that high awareness might not always result in behavior change—possibly due to psychological fatigue, perceived lack of motivation, or organizational barriers. This outcome reflects the awareness–action gap—a concept well established in environmental and behavioral studies—which describes the discrepancy between recognizing environmental issues and acting on them [95].
These findings also point to overlooked motivational gaps in many organizations. Airlines in Korea benefit from a comprehensive mix of sustainability incentives—including SAF blending mandates, airport fee waivers, and corporate SAF programs—designed to promote low-carbon aviation practices [96,97]. These collectively create compelling support for SAF adoption as one of the sustainability management. However, these incentives target corporate rather than individuals, and globally, employee-level ecological incentive programs remain rare or undocumented [98]. This reveals a policy-to-practice gap between corporate environmental objectives and frontline employee motivation—an area that merits attention in future sustainability management [99].
Third, building on the structural equation modeling results, this study reinforces that ecological behavior acts as a key mediating mechanism—especially in linking environmental concern to sustainability outcomes across environmental, financial, and social dimensions. While the potential negative influence of awareness warrants further investigation, these findings suggest that fostering pro-environmental behavior among employees may serve as an important mechanism for advancing sustainability goals. This frames ecological behavior not merely as a possible outcome of attitudes but as a strategic entry point for organizational transformation.
Extending from this, these findings emphasize the importance of differentiating cognitive and emotional components of environmental attitude when designing sustainability strategies. Concern, as a form of affective engagement, appears to be more behaviorally influential than either awareness or knowledge. Therefore, training that cultivates concern—rather than simply delivering information—may prove more effective in fostering ecological practices. This insight is further supported by practical cases: for example, British Airways and Delta Air Lines have launched internal initiatives—“Sustainability Champions” and “Green Up,” respectively—to embed ecological consciousness throughout their workforce [100,101]. These peer-led, participatory models demonstrate that bottom-up employee involvement is both feasible and effective, and could be adapted within Korean aviation contexts to build a more participatory environmental culture.
From a managerial perspective, the study offers valuable implications for sustainability-focused leadership. Among the 230 survey respondents, 29% were employees of Low Cost Carriers (LCCs), and 71% of them reported never receiving any form of environmental training. This indicates a critical opportunity for LCCs to implement employee-focused environmental education programs to support sustainability objectives. However, such programs must move beyond knowledge delivery alone. As highlighted earlier, ecological behavior is most effectively fostered through emotional concern, reinforcement structures, and aligned organizational culture.
In this context, the ecological behavior of airline employees continues to serve as a mediating force, shaping environmental, financial, and social performance outcomes. Enhanced green practices at the individual level may increase the likelihood of broader corporate sustainability success, underscoring the important role of employees in advancing sustainability transitions.
As observed in other studies, this research is bound by several limitations that offer suggestions for future inquiry. One such limitation arises from the scarcity of existing studies on ecological behavior within the aviation industry. Consequently, this study relied on a constrained pool of literature from other sectors and employed a limited set of mediators, thereby yielding restricted findings.
The second limitation is the relatively small sample size of the survey. With additional samples over 150 survey responses per job positions or levels, it could segmentize the employee’s diverse capacity to act on their ecological awareness or concern. Also, as the Table 2 demographic table shows, about 81.3% of subjects are working in Korean flag airlines. It could aid in increasing the understanding of airlines in Korea, but this constraint presents a promising opportunity for future research to extend its reach, potentially by including a more expansive selection of respondents from airlines out of Korea. Factors such as organizational culture, leadership commitment, and managerial support—particularly empowering leadership—are also known to influence employee behavior and innovation. It has shown that empowering leadership fosters innovation by energizing employees and enhancing their capacity to learn, with participative decision-making playing a central role. While these variables were beyond the scope of the current study, we acknowledge their relevance and suggest that future research could incorporate these factors to further enrich the understanding of sustainability-related performance outcomes [102].
This study encompassed various service categories and durations, prompting inquiry into the transferability of these findings across differing service categories and years. Expanding the green environmental concept and optimizing the management of diverse workforces necessitates an understanding of how environmental stimuli shape employees’ ecological behavior and the sustainability among corporate airlines.
Consequently, conducting research within specific demographic backgrounds holds potential in evaluating the universal applicability of environmental triggers and sustainability. Subsequent studies might explore additional variables that could impact the efficacy of implementing green practices. A further limitation concerns the potential for reverse causality between employees’ ecological behaviour and organizational sustainability performance. Future studies should address this possibility explicitly, as stronger sustainability performance (e.g., through leadership signalling or environmental policies) may itself foster greater employee concern and awareness, thereby constraining the generalisability of the present findings.
References
- 1. Baik Y-S, Kwak B, Lee J. Deregulation and earnings management: the case of the U.S. airline industry. JAPP. 2011;30(6):589–606.
- 2. Johnson NB, Anderson JR. Airline employment, productivity, and working conditions following deregulation. Res Transp Econ. 2004;10:79–108.
- 3. Liu Z, Lynk EL. Evidence on market structure of the deregulated US airline industry. Appl Econ. 1999;31(9):1083–92.
- 4.
Chladek N. Why you need sustainability in your business strategy. Harvard Business School Online; 2019.
- 5. Pérez L, et al. Does ESG really matter—and why. McKinsey Q. 2022;60(1).
- 6.
Rafi T. Why sustainability is crucial for corporate strategy. World Economic Forum [Internet]; 2022 [cited 2023 Jul 20. ]. Available from: https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2022/06/why-sustainability-is-crucial-for-corporate-strategy
- 7.
ICAO. ICAO environmental report 2016. ICAO; 2016 [cited 2025 Jun 10. ]. Available from: https://www.icao.int/environmental-protection/pages/env2016.aspx
- 8.
Gössling S, Upham P, editors. Climate change and aviation: issues, challenges and solutions; 2009. p. 27–68.
- 9. Delbecq S. Sustainable aviation in the context of the Paris Agreement: a review of prospective scenarios and their technological mitigation levers. Prog Aerosp Sci. 2023;141:100920.
- 10. Ansell PJ. Review of sustainable energy carriers for aviation: benefits, challenges, and future viability. Prog Aerosp Sci. 2023;141:100919.
- 11.
Korean Air. To participate in hydrogen fuel infrastructure development [Internet]. Korean Air; [cited 2023 Aug 10. ]. Available from: https://www.koreanair.com/ca/en/footer/about-us/newsroom/list/220210-korean-air-to-participate-in-hydrogen-fuel-infrastructure
- 12. Ruiz-Pérez F, Lleo A, Ormazabal M. Employee sustainable behaviors and their relationship with Corporate Sustainability: A Delphi study. J Clean Prod. 2021;329:129742.
- 13. Chan ESW, Hon AHY, Chan W, Okumus F. What drives employees’ intentions to implement green practices in hotels? The role of knowledge, awareness, concern and ecological behaviour. Int J Hosp Manag. 2014;40:20–8.
- 14. Mousa SK, Othman M. The impact of green human resource management practices on sustainable performance in healthcare organisations: a conceptual framework. J Clean Prod. 2020;243:118595.
- 15. Paton B. Voluntary environmental initiatives and sustainable industry. BSE. 2000;9(5):328–38.
- 16. Lülf R, Hahn R. Sustainable behavior in the business sphere: a comprehensive overview of the explanatory power of psychological models. Organ Environ. 2014;27(1):43–64.
- 17. Gunerhan A, Altuntas O, Caliskan H. Utilization of renewable and sustainable aviation biofuels from waste tyres for sustainable aviation transport sector. Energy. 2023;276:127566.
- 18. Burov NO, Savelenko VD, Ershov MA, Vikhritskaya AO, Tikhomirova EO, Klimov NA, et al. Knowledge contribution from science to technology in the conceptualization model to produce sustainable aviation fuels from lignocellulosic biomass. Renew Energy. 2023;215:118898.
- 19. Hamdan S, Jouini O, Cheaitou A, Jemai Z, Granberg TA, Josefsson B. Air traffic flow management under emission policies: analyzing the impact of sustainable aviation fuel and different carbon prices. Transp Res Part A: Policy Pract. 2022;166:14–40.
- 20. Gao Z, Kampezidou SI, Behere A, Puranik TG, Rajaram D, Mavris DN. Multi-level aircraft feature representation and selection for aviation environmental impact analysis. Transp Res Part C: Emerg Technol. 2022;143:103824.
- 21. Ficca A, Marulo F, Sollo A. An open thinking for a vision on sustainable green aviation. Prog Aerosp Sci. 2023;141:100928.
- 22.
Calderon OR, Staples MD, Pavlenko N, Searle S. Sustainable Aviation Fuel (SAF) state-of-industry report: state of SAF production process. National Renewable Energy Laboratory; 2024.
- 23. Soleymani M, Mostafavi V, Hebert M, Kelouwani S, Boulon L. Hydrogen propulsion systems for aircraft, a review on recent advances and ongoing challenges. Int J Hydrogen Energy. 2024;91:137–71.
- 24. Angreani A, Saefudin S, Solihat R. Virtual laboratory based online learning: improving environmental literacy in high school students. JPBI. 2022;8(1):10–21.
- 25. Zsóka Á, et al. Greening due to environmental education? Environmental knowledge, attitudes, consumer behavior and everyday pro-environmental activities of Hungarian high school and university students. J Clean Prod. 2013;48:126–38.
- 26. Tirno RR, Islam N, Happy K. Green HRM and ecofriendly behavior of employees: relevance of proecological climate and environmental knowledge. Heliyon. 2023;9(4):e14632. pmid:37082624
- 27.
Kaplan S. Beyond rationality: clarity-based decision making; 1991.
- 28. Cheng JH, et al. Open innovation: the role of organizational learning capability, collaboration, and knowledge sharing. Int J Organ Innov. 2019;1(3).
- 29. Otto S, Pensini P. Nature-based environmental education of children: environmental knowledge and connectedness to nature, together, are related to ecological behaviour. Glob Environ Change. 2017;47:88–94.
- 30.
Amyx DA, et al. Influencers of purchase intentions for ecologically safe products: an exploratory study. Marketing Theory and Applications, Proceedings of the 1994 American Marketing Association Winter Educators Conference. Chicago, IL, USA: AMA Chicago; 1994. p. 341–7.
- 31. Corral-Verdugo V. A structural model of reuse and recycling in Mexico. Environ Behav. 1996;28(5):665–96.
- 32. Mostafa MM. Antecedents of Egyptian consumers’ green purchase intentions: a hierarchical multivariate regression model. J Int Consum Mark. 2006;19(2):97–126.
- 33. Lu J-L, Wang C-Y. Investigating the impacts of air travellers’ environmental knowledge on attitudes toward carbon offsetting and willingness to mitigate the environmental impacts of aviation. Transp Res Part D: Transp Environ. 2018;59:96–107.
- 34. Dabbous A, Horn M, Croutzet A. Measuring environmental awareness: an analysis using google search data. J Environ Manage. 2023;346:118984. pmid:37717397
- 35. Han H, Kim Y. An investigation of green hotel customers’ decision formation: developing an extended model of the theory of planned behavior. Int J Hosp Manag. 2010;29(4):659–68.
- 36. Paco A, Raposo M. Green segmentation: an application to the Portuguese consumer market. Mark Intell Plan. 2009;27(3):364–79.
- 37. Daziano RA, Bolduc D. Incorporating pro-environmental preferences towards green automobile technologies through a Bayesian hybrid choice model. Transportmetrica A: Transp Sci. 2011;9(1):74–106.
- 38. Wang S. Predicting consumers’ intention to adopt hybrid electric vehicles: using an extended version of the theory of planned behavior model. Transp. 2016;43:123–43.
- 39. Conrad CC, Hilchey KG. A review of citizen science and community-based environmental monitoring: issues and opportunities. Environ Monit Assess. 2011;176(1–4):273–91. pmid:20640506
- 40. Giudici G, Guerini M, Rossi-Lamastra C. The creation of cleantech startups at the local level: the role of knowledge availability and environmental awareness. Small Bus Econ. 2017;52(4):815–30.
- 41. von Borgstede C, Andersson M, Johnsson F. Public attitudes to climate change and carbon mitigation—Implications for energy-associated behaviours. Energy Policy. 2013;57:182–93.
- 42. Darvishmotevali M, Altinay L. Green HRM, environmental awareness and green behaviors: the moderating role of servant leadership. Tour Manag. 2022;88:104401.
- 43. Zhang Y. Predicting residents’ pro-environmental behaviors at tourist sites: the role of awareness of disaster’s consequences, values, and place attachment. J Environ Psychol. 2014;40:131–46.
- 44. Gabarda-Mallorquí A, Fraguell R, Ribas A. Exploring environmental awareness and behavior among guests at hotels that apply water-saving measures. Sustainability. 2018;10(5):1305.
- 45. Benevene P, Buonomo I. Green human resource management: an evidence-based systematic literature review. Sustainability. 2020;12(15):5974.
- 46. Goh SK, Balaji MS. Linking green skepticism to green purchase behavior. J Clean Prod. 2016;131:629–38.
- 47. Dunlap RE, Van Liere KD. The “new environmental paradigm”. J Environ Educ. 1978;9(4):10–9.
- 48. Bang HK, et al. Consumer concern, knowledge, belief, and attitude toward renewable energy: an application of the reasoned action theory. Psychol Mark. 2000;17(6):449–63.
- 49.
Dunlap RE. Environmental concern: conceptual and measurement issues. In: Handbook of environmental sociology; 2002. p. 482–524.
- 50. Bamberg S. How does environmental concern influence specific environmentally related behaviors? A new answer to an old question. J Environ Psychol. 2003;23(1):21–32.
- 51. Newton JD, et al. Environmental concern and environmental purchase intentions: the mediating role of learning strategy. J Bus Res. 2015;68(9):1974–86.
- 52. Axelrod LJ, Lehman DR. Responding to environmental concerns: What factors guide individual action? J Environ Psychol. 1993;13(2):149–57.
- 53. Krajhanzl J. Environmental and proenvironmental behavior. Sch Health. 2010;21(1):251–74.
- 54. Shen J, Dumont J, Deng X. RETRACTED: employees’ perceptions of green HRM and non-green employee work outcomes: the social identity and stakeholder perspectives. Group Organ Manag. 2016;43(4):594–622.
- 55. Hameed Z. Do green HRM practices influence employees’ environmental performance? Int J Manpow. 2020;41(7):1061–79.
- 56. Whitburn J, Linklater WL, Milfont TL. Exposure to urban nature and tree planting are related to pro-environmental behavior via connection to nature, the use of nature for psychological restoration, and environmental attitudes. Environ Behav. 2019;51(7):787–810.
- 57. Kaiser FG, Wilson M. Goal-directed conservation behavior: the specific composition of a general performance. Pers Individ Dif. 2004;36(7):1531–44.
- 58. Arshad M, et al. Greening the hospitality sector: employees’ environmental and job attitudes predict ecological behavior and satisfaction. Int J Hosp Manag. 2022;102:103173.
- 59. Algarni MA, et al. Make green, live clean! Linking adaptive capability and environmental behavior with financial performance through corporate sustainability performance. J Clean Prod. 2022;346:131156.
- 60. Paillé P, Boiral O. Pro-environmental behavior at work: construct validity and determinants. J Environ Psychol. 2013;36:118–28.
- 61. Ronnenberg SK, Graham ME, Mahmoodi F. The important role of change management in environmental management system implementation. Int J Oper Prod Manag. 2011;31(6):631–47.
- 62. Kim YJ, et al. The effect of green human resource management on hotel employees’ eco-friendly behavior and environmental performance. Int J Hosp Manag. 2019;76:83–93.
- 63. Dyllick T, Hockerts K. Beyond the business case for corporate sustainability. Bus Strat Env. 2002;11(2):130–41.
- 64. Pazienza M, de Jong M, Schoenmaker D. Clarifying the concept of corporate sustainability and providing convergence for its definition. Sustainability. 2022;14(13):7838.
- 65. Mokbel Al Koliby IS, Abdullah HH, Mohd Suki N. Linking entrepreneurial competencies, innovation and sustainable performance of manufacturing SMEs. Asia Pac J Bus Adm. 2022.
- 66. Silvius G. Sustainability as a new school of thought in project management. J Clean Prod. 2017;166:1479–93.
- 67. González-García S. Embedding environmental, economic, and social indicators in the evaluation of the sustainability of municipalities of Galicia (northwest of Spain). J Clean Prod. 2019;234:27–42.
- 68. Yadegaridehkordi E. Determinants of environmental, financial, and social sustainable performance of manufacturing SMEs in Malaysia. Sustain Prod Consum. 2023;35:129–40.
- 69. Rajesh R. Predicting environmental sustainability performances of firms using trigonometric grey prediction model. Environ Dev. 2023;45:100830.
- 70. Wang S, Wang H, Wang J, Yang F. Does environmental information disclosure contribute to improve firm financial performance? An examination of the underlying mechanism. Sci Total Environ. 2020;714:136855. pmid:32018986
- 71. Latan H, et al. Effects of environmental strategy, environmental uncertainty and top management’s commitment on corporate environmental performance: the role of environmental management accounting. J Clean Prod. 2018;180:297–306.
- 72. Song H, Zhao C, Zeng J. Can environmental management improve financial performance: an empirical study of A-shares listed companies in China. J Clean Prod. 2017;141:1051–6.
- 73. Eltayeb TK, Zailani S, Ramayah T. Green supply chain initiatives among certified companies in Malaysia and environmental sustainability: investigating the outcomes. Resour Conserv Recycl. 2011;55(5):495–506.
- 74. Paulraj A. Understanding the relationships between internal resources and capabilities, sustainable supply management and organizational sustainability*. J Supply Chain Manag. 2011;47(1):19–37.
- 75. Abdul-Rashid SH. The impact of sustainable manufacturing practices on sustainability performance: empirical evidence from Malaysia. Int J Oper Prod Manag. 2017;37(2):182–204.
- 76. Khan SAR, et al. Evaluating barriers and solutions for social sustainability adoption in multi-tier supply chains. Int J Prod Res. 2021;59(11):3378–97.
- 77. Huq AN, Stevenson M, Zorzini M. Social sustainability in developing country suppliers: an exploratory study in the ready-made garments industry of Bangladesh. Int J Oper Prod Manag. 2014;34(5):610–38.
- 78. Mani V, Gunasekaran A. Four forces of supply chain social sustainability adoption in emerging economies. Int J Prod Econ. 2018;199:150–61.
- 79. Ruvio A, Shoham A. Innovativeness, exploratory behavior, market mavenship, and opinion leadership: an empirical examination in the Asian context. Psychol Mark. 2007;24(8):703–22.
- 80.
Hair JF. Multivariate data analysis. 6th ed. Upper Saddle River: Pearson Prentice Hall; 2006.
- 81. Tarhini A, Teo T, Tarhini T. A cross-cultural validity of the E-learning Acceptance Measure (ElAM) in Lebanon and England: a confirmatory factor analysis. Educ Inf Technol. 2016;21:1269–82.
- 82. Okumus F, Köseoglu MA, Chan E, Hon A, Avci U. How do hotel employees’ environmental attitudes and intentions to implement green practices relate to their ecological behavior? J Hosp Tour Manag. 2019;39:193–200.
- 83. Dey M, et al. Ethical leadership for better sustainable performance: role of employee values, behavior, and ethical climate. J Clean Prod. 2022;337:130527.
- 84. Le TT. How do corporate social responsibility and green innovation transform corporate green strategy into sustainable firm performance? J Clean Prod. 2022;362:132228.
- 85. Yu Y. The impact of supply chain social responsibility on sustainable performance. J Clean Prod. 2023;385:135666.
- 86. Hair JF, Ringle CM, Sarstedt M. PLS-SEM: indeed a silver bullet. J Mark Theory Pract. 2011;19(2):139–52.
- 87. Leontitsis A, Pagge J. A simulation approach on Cronbach’s alpha statistical significance. Math Comput Simul. 2007;73(5):336–40.
- 88.
Yamamoto K, Onodera T. Structural equation modelling by amos and case analyses. Kyoto: Nakanishiya Syuppan; 1999.
- 89.
Helmstadter GC. Principles of psychological measurement. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts; 1964.
- 90. Geldhof GJ, Preacher KJ, Zyphur MJ. Reliability estimation in a multilevel confirmatory factor analysis framework. Psychol Methods. 2014;19(1):72–91. pmid:23646988
- 91. Fornell C, Larcker DF. Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. J Mark Res. 1981;18(1):39–50.
- 92. Schermelleh-Engel K, Moosbrugger H, M üller H. Evaluating the fit of structural equation models: tests of significance and descriptive goodness-of-fit measures. Methods Psychol Res Online. 2003;8(2):23–74.
- 93. Merkert R, Swidan H. Flying with(out) a safety net: financial hedging in the airline industry. Transp Res Part E: Logist Transp Rev. 2019;127:206–19.
- 94.
IATA. IATA carbon offset program [Internet]. Montreal: International Air Transport Association; 2022 [cited 2023 Aug 23. ]. Available from: https://www.iata.org/contentassets/922ebc4cbcd24c4d9fd55933e7070947/icop_faq_general-for-airline-participants.pdf
- 95. Gifford R. The dragons of inaction: psychological barriers that limit climate change mitigation and adaptation. Am Psychol. 2011;66(4):290–302. pmid:21553954
- 96.
Hussain FS. Korea’s Incheon Airport announces SAF incentive scheme [Internet]. London: SAF Investor; 2025 [cited 2025 Jun 10. ]. Available from: https://www.safinvestor.com/news/147466/incheon/
- 97.
Korean Air Cargo. Cargo SAF program [Internet]. Seoul: Korean Air Cargo. [cited 2025 Jun 16. ]. Available from: https://cargo.koreanair.com/en/SAF?utm_source
- 98. Vatankhah S, Fejes OF, Karatepe OM, Nosrati S. Fly green: environmentally specific servant leadership and its impact on green performance outcomes. Curr Issues Tour. 2023;27(24):4594–609.
- 99.
Bhattacharya CB, Jekielek R. Sustainability progress is stalled at most companies [Internet]. MIT Sloan Management Review; 2023 [cited 2025 Jun 19]. Available from: https://sloanreview.mit.edu/article/sustainability-progress-is-stalled-at-most-companies
- 100.
British Airways. 2021 sustainability report [Internet]. London: British Airways; 2021 [cited 2025 Jun 16. ]. Available from: https://mediacentre.britishairways.com/factsheets/details/86/Fact-sheets-12/16503
- 101.
Delta Air Lines. 2023 ESG report [Internet]. Atlanta (GA): Delta Air Lines; 2023 [cited 2025 Jun 19. ]. Available from: https://www.delta.com/content/dam/delta-www/pdfs/about-delta/citizenship/2023-esg-report.pdf
- 102. Fatfouta R, Schröder-Abé M, Merkl A. Forgiving, fast and slow: validity of the implicit association test for predicting differential response latencies in a transgression-recall paradigm. Front Psychol. 2014;5:728. pmid:25071688