# Good intentions, negative Outcomes: Environmental consciousness and ambidexterity toward environmental performance in the resource-intensive mining industry

William Limousin, Laurent Scaringella, Morgane Scaringella

► To cite this version:

William Limousin, Laurent Scaringella, Morgane Scaringella. Good intentions, negative Outcomes: Environmental consciousness and ambidexterity toward environmental performance in the resource-intensive mining industry. Resources Policy, 2025, 107, 10.1016/j.resourpol.2025.105656. hal-05153187

HAL Id: hal-05153187

https://hal.science/hal-05153187v1

Submitted on 9 Jul 2025

HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access
archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci-
entific research documents, whether they are pub-
lished or not. The documents may come from
teaching and research institutions in France or
abroad, or from public or private research centers.

L'archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est
destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents
scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non,
émanant des établissements d'enseignement et de
recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires
publics ou privés.

<figure><img src="image_1.png" /></figure>
# Good intentions, negative outcomes: Environmental consciousness and ambidexterity toward environmental performance in the resource-intensive mining industry

William Limousin<sup>a</sup>, Laurent Scaringella<sup>a,b,*</sup>, Morgan Scaringella<sup>c,†</sup>

ARTICLE INFO

Keywords:

Individual ambidexterity

Environmental consciousness

Environmental performance

Mining sector

ABSTRACT

We examine the link between environmental consciousness and individual ambidexterity and how these constructs enhance firm environmental performance in the mining sector. This study is based on responses from 243 employees and organizational data from a leading lime producer's 10 plants. We find that environmental consciousness does not significantly influence either CO2 combustion total emissions/number of people or CO2 combustion per ton of lime. However, the more individuals develop environmental consciousness, the more they use biomass, which is beneficial to the environment; at the same time, they use less gas, which could be harmful, since gas is cleaner than coal. Contrary to our expectations, we find that increased individual ambidexterity leads to higher CO2 combustion (both total emissions/number of people and per ton of lime) and lower biomass use in kilns. Therefore, our results indicate that individual ambidexterity is harmful to environmental performance. First, we contribute to the microfoundations perspective by showing that individual environmental consciousness does not directly lead to better organizational environmental performance. Second, we reveal that individual ambidexterity can have negative environmental effects, challenging the view that it always supports sustainability. Third, we extend existing research by applying a bottom-up lens to worker behavior in the lime industry, a traditional yet underexplored high-impact sector.

1. Introduction

Operations in mining companies necessarily involve resource extraction, energy consumption, and CO₂ emissions (Jung et al., 2001). Such firms currently face multiple challenges, including strict regulations for CO₂ reduction and a shift in market preferences toward more sustainable and low-carbon-emitting products (Bansal et al., 2024). The Paris Agreement (which aims to limit global warming to below 2 °C) has been reinforced by the European Fit for 55 agreement, which targets a 55 % reduction in CO₂ emissions by 2030 and carbon neutrality by 2050 (European Council, 2019). In addition, while the European Union Emissions Trading System (EU ETS) allocates free CO₂ quotas to European emitters, such as lime producers, the allowances for these quotas are being reduced annually and will be phased out by 2034. Firms will have to purchase CO₂ quotas – with the price already increasing from 5

euros per ton in 2017 to around 80 euros per ton by the end of 2024; projections are that the price will exceed hundreds of euros per ton by 2030. Within this context, lime production must remain stable at approximately 430 million metric tons per year (Statista, 2024), given its widespread application in other sectors: agriculture (fertilizer production, soil and wastewater treatment), environmental protection (flue gas treatment, water purification), manufacturing (the production of high-performance materials), and chemical processes (the production of calcium carbide) (Hanak and Manovic, 2018). Therefore, reducing CO₂ emissions is not just a goal but a necessity for the lime industry, as mining companies must balance their economic performance and environmental stewardship, and demonstrate their commitment to reducing their carbon footprint, wastewater rejects, and environmental incidents to maintain their operating licenses (Vesal et al., 2022).

Firms may engage their employees to help the organization reach

<footnote><sup>a</sup> Rennes School of Business 2 Rue Robert D'Arbrissel, 35065 Rennes, France</footnote>

<footnote><sup>b</sup> Kozminski University Jagiellońska 57, 03-301, Warszawa, Poland</footnote>

<footnote><sup>c</sup> Excelia Business School, CERIIM 102 Rue de Coureilles, Les Minimes, 17024 La Rochelle, Cedex 1, France</footnote>

<footnote>* Corresponding author. Rennes School of Business 2 Rue Robert d'Arbrissel, 35065, Rennes, France.</footnote>

<footnote>E-mail addresses: william.limousin@rennes-sb.com (W. Limousin), laurent.scaringella@rennes-sb.com (L. Scaringella), scaringellam@excelia-group.com (M. Scaringella).</footnote>
these challenging targets. As a well-established stream of research, the "microfoundation movement" seeks to understand how micro-level (e. g., individual) actions and interactions lead to macro-level (e.g., organizational) outcomes. Felin and Foss (2005) posited that the essence of an organization lies in its individuals. This view that the lower level can influence higher level outcomes is related to the notion of embedded objects, in the sense that an individual operational focus contributes to collective behaviors, as argued by Bennett et al. (2024). From this perspective, organizational environmental performance may be rooted in employees' behavior. To demonstrate the importance of the individual level of analysis, Foss (2011) suggested that while knowledge is controlled and guided by firms at the macro level, the organization's ability to generate, incorporate, and share that knowledge is critically dependent on the skills, efforts, knowledge, and behaviors of individuals.

In the same vein, Lee and Meyer-Doyle (2017) explained that individual involvement in both exploratory and exploitative activities – also known as ambidexterity – affects the capabilities of the firm. The importance of individual ambidexterity has also been highlighted by Birkinshaw and Gupta (2013) and Raisch et al. (2009). Individual ambidexterity (Mom et al., 2015) encompasses an individual's ability to engage in both exploratory and exploitative activities at work (Raisch et al., 2009). Performing equally well in both types of activities presents a challenge for individuals and organizations (Benner and Tushman, 2003; Gupta et al., 2006; Jansen et al., 2008). To understand how individual ambidexterity contributes to greater organizational outcomes, Pertusa-Ortega et al. (2020) called for additional studies in this area. In particular, limited attention has been paid to firm environmental performance as an outcome of individual ambidexterity (Maletić et al., 2014). Therefore, Schnellbächer et al. (2019) called for further research on the role of individual ambidexterity in different types of firm performance – such as environmental – at the organizational level.

Along with individual ambidexterity, individual environmental consciousness may also play a role in organizational environmental performance. Environmental consciousness is a psychological disposition that encompasses individuals' beliefs, evaluations, and tendencies to act in environmentally responsible ways (Zelezny and Schultz, 2000; Chang and Chen, 2012). It includes evaluative judgments about environmental protection and concrete actions (Chang and Chen, 2012), and reflects a broader commitment to sustainability through awareness, concern, and proactive attitudes toward environmental issues (Köhler and Kauffeld, 2024). As individuals become more aware of their surroundings and the consequences of their actions, this awareness can significantly influence their behavior, leading to more deliberate and environmentally responsible choices and actions (Laheri et al., 2024; Gupta and Sheth, 2024).

Although environmental consciousness has been widely explored in consumer behavior research, particularly in relation to green purchasing intentions (Alam et al., 2023; Mkhize and Ellis, 2020; Laheri et al., 2024), it has remained relatively underexplored in the field of organizational management. Our study addresses this gap by uncovering how environmental consciousness shapes individuals' engagement in preserving the planet by taking actions that nurture organizational change (Saifulina et al., 2023). Bridging both the micro and macro levels, individual ambidexterity and environmental consciousness may play a role in strengthening organizational environmental performance – by reducing negative impacts in terms of CO₂ emissions and/or by catalyzing the transition toward better alternatives such as gas or biomass.

However, the integrative perspective on corporate sustainability, as conceptualized by Hahn et al. (2015), highlights the tensions inherent in the interplay between individual and organizational environmental dimensions. Indeed, a key source of tension in corporate sustainability lies in its inherently multi-level nature (Whiteman et al., 2013). For instance, a sustainability response deemed appropriate by an individual decision-maker may not be supported at the organizational level. At the same time, as society becomes more aware of threats to the

environment, employees are becoming more and more engaged in preserving the environment (Chen et al., 2015), and individuals are taking daily environmental actions (Banerjee et al., 2003) from companies. Individual engagement is essential for shaping organizational environmental responses, and personal commitment can play a central role in achieving corporate environmental goals. Previous research has demonstrated that employee participation in environmentally responsible practices can enhance a company's environmental performance (del Brío et al., 2007). In this regard, we argue that employees can make meaningful contributions to organizational objectives in terms of performance on key environmental performance indicators.

Viewed through a microfoundational lens, the corporate social responsibility literature suggests that micro-level factors underpin macro-level outcomes. In line with Felin and Foss (2005) and Foss et al. (2010), we investigate the microfoundation mechanisms to better understand how ambidexterity and environmental consciousness incorporate the micro level to explain environmental performance at the macro level. In doing so, we shed further light on the bottom-up relationships between individuals and organizations (Coleman, 1990), also known as transformational mechanisms as per Hedström and Swedberg (1998), in a case study of a single multi-plant company in France.

Based on these theoretical gaps and this relevant empirical context, we investigate the following question: "What is the role played by environmental consciousness and individual ambidexterity in firm environmental performance?"

First, we contribute to the microfoundations literature by investigating how individual environmental consciousness enhances organizational environmental performance. Second, we refine the understanding of individual ambidexterity by revealing its role in environmental outcomes. Third, we broaden the scope of environmental management research by introducing a bottom-up perspective focused on worker behaviors in a traditional, high-impact sector (i.e., the lime industry).

## 2. Hypothesis development

### 2.1. *Environmental consciousness and firm environmental performance*

Consistent with Elkington's (1997) triple-bottom-line concept, the multidimensional nature of organizational performance includes non-financial indicators related to the environment. Environmental performance is one of the strategic outcomes expected from business activity. The urgency of fighting climate change, the increase in market demand, and increasingly restrictive environmental regulations have motivated corporations to take action to improve their environmental performance. As Aldieri et al. (2023) argued, innovation enables firms to produce differently and to reduce damage to the planet. Environmental initiatives have been widely developed in both commercial and non-commercial organizations across industries; the mining sector has not been left behind (Tian and Wang, 2024), as firms attempt to mitigate their short-term environmental impact and improve their environmental stewardship for longer term outcomes (Orlitzky et al., 2003; Schultze and Trommer, 2012).

Although external forces remain prominent, initiatives aligned with environmental strategic objectives must be implemented internally to improve organizational environmental performance. Today, companies face pressure from both external and internal stakeholders to adopt sustainable practices and improve their overall environmental performance (Banerjee, 2002). However, achieving superior environmental outcomes requires an in-depth understanding of the microfoundations that must align with organization-level phenomena (Felin et al., 2015).

Previous empirical studies have demonstrated that environmental consciousness, concerns, and attitudes significantly influence individuals' behavioral intentions and actual behaviors (Fu et al., 2020). Individuals who express greater concern for environmental issues are more inclined to adopt environmentally sustainable practices.
Environmental consciousness, understood as an individual's awareness of how their actions affect the environment (Fu et al., 2020), is widely recognized as a critical antecedent of pro-environmental behavior (Du et al., 2018). In this vein, Uz Zaman et al. (2024) conducted a comprehensive review to characterize environmental consciousness and energy efficiency in the mining sector.

In their empirical study of 427 employees in a steel industry company, Köhler and Kauffeld (2024) investigated the role of individual environmental consciousness in an industrial decarbonization transition. Their findings showed that employees' effective environmental consciousness had a positive impact on their involvement in the company's decarbonization process. These results underline the relevance of fostering individual environmental consciousness to support the effective management of industrial decarbonization transitions. This study builds on previous research by examining how environmental consciousness shapes employees' readiness to engage in and support decarbonization efforts. Individuals with increased awareness and concern for environmental issues will engage more readily in pro-environmental behaviors (Lin and Niu, 2018) and support sustainable initiatives within their company (Paillé et al., 2020), thereby contributing to organizational environmental performance goals (Banerjee, 2002). We therefore suggest.

H1. Individual environmental consciousness is positively related to firm environmental performance.

## 2.2. Individual ambidexterity and firm environmental performance

Organizational ambidexterity has been understood as a firm's capacity to simultaneously manage the exploration of new opportunities through innovation and testing, and exploitation of its capabilities through optimizing existing products, services, and manufacturing (Andriopoulos and Lewis, 2010; March, 1991). Ambidexterity has been extensively studied in terms of its relationship with firm financial performance (He and Wong, 2004; Tushman and O'Reilly, 1996). However, according to Maletić et al. (2014), the relationship between ambidexterity and environmental performance has remained understudied. We nevertheless acknowledge a few studies that have focused primarily on green innovation ambidexterity's impact on environmental performance at the organizational level (L.-H. Lin and Ho, 2016; Übeda-García et al., 2022; Vesal et al., 2022). While these dual activities – exploratory and exploitative activities – have been studied in organizations, there is a need to investigate the individual mechanisms impacting those organizations (Bonesso et al., 2014; Schnellbächer et al., 2019).

Recent studies adopting the microfoundations perspective (Felin et al., 2015; Foss, 2011) have highlighted the importance of understanding ambidexterity at the individual level (Birkinshaw and Gupta, 2013; Raisch et al., 2009; Turner et al., 2013), as firms comprise individuals who undertake essential tasks and activities. Scholars, such as Schnellbächer et al. (2019), have claimed that individual ambidexterity helps organizations become ambidextrous and achieve improved performance. Individual ambidexterity involves an individual's ability to focus on refining existing knowledge and developing new knowledge and capabilities (Mom et al., 2009; Rogan and Mors, 2014). In short, ambidextrous individuals can alternate effectively between divergent mindsets, knowledge fields, and behavioral expectations to engage in the conflicting activities related to exploration and exploitation (Smith and Lewis, 2011). We observe that existing research on individual ambidexterity has tended to focus on managers or top management. However, a study of non-managerial employees (Kauppila and Tempeelaar, 2016) and their proficiency in mastering this dual behavior (Raisch et al., 2009b) could help organizations to adjust their practices.

Le et al. (2024) conducted a systematic review of the literature on sustainability-oriented ambidexterity published from 1976 to 2023. Of the 60 articles investigating the relationship between ambidexterity and environmental sustainability, only three were conducted at the

individual level, including studies on the environmental awareness of executives (Zhao et al., 2021), the leadership of individuals (Lyu et al., 2022), and top management learning (Dhir et al., 2023). Zhao et al.'s (2021) results suggest that executives' environmental awareness and their combined ambidexterity play an important role in the integration of sustainable suppliers and sustainable performance. Furthermore, based on 307 responses from Chinese manufacturing firms, Lyu et al. (2022) argued that ambidextrous leadership favors employee creativity, improving firms' sustainability performance. Finally, Dhir et al. (2023) considered top management's exploratory and exploitative learning and the drivers of sustainable business model innovation. We note that while senior management members have been surveyed, there is a lack of empirical evidence on the role of workers. This represents a significant shortcoming of the scholarship in this area, because employees' ambidextrous behaviors can contribute to the development and implementation of sustainable practices within organizations. Studying ambidexterity – and its relationship to firm environmental performance – would complement Pertusa-Ortega et al.'s (2020) work by promoting a deeper understanding of the outcomes of individual ambidexterity.

As Wang et al. (2020) argued, individuals with ambidextrous abilities can innovate by developing new environmentally friendly products, processes, and services through exploratory activities. At the same time, they can improve existing practices as part of mitigation strategies through exploitative activities. Organizations have an increased chance of survival and growth when their employees can develop a dual capacity to better adapt to potential changes in environmental regulations or market requests for sustainable products (Ajayi et al., 2017). Employee engagement through an ambidextrous capacity can help a firm to be ecologically responsive (Bansal and Roth, 2000; Vesal et al., 2022). Because ambidexterity can be a way to use resources more efficiently and adapt more quickly to environmental demands, firms with ambidextrous employees can more easily improve their environmental performance. We posit that.

H2. Individual ambidexterity is positively related to firm environmental performance.

We present our conceptual model based on this hypothesis development in Fig. 1.

## 3. Survey development and methods

A questionnaire was developed for employees in the lime industry (part of the mining sector) using a multi-step procedure (Anderson and Gerbing, 1988; Churchill, 1979; Hazan and Shaver, 1994; Hazan and Zeifman, 1999). After translating the draft questionnaire from English into French, we sent it to five employees to identify items that may be unclear to the respondents and in need of improvement. In addition, we

<figure><img src="image_2.png" /><figcaption>Fig. 1. Conceptual model.</figcaption></figure>
gathered feedback on the time needed to complete the questionnaire and its ease of response.

We used Boiral and Paille's (2012) adapted 10-item scale (5-point Likert scale) to measure individual environmental consciousness – a scale also used by Baldassari et al. (2023) and Manuel et al. (2024). Individual ambidexterity was assessed with Mom et al.'s (2007) scale, which was also used by Rosing and Zacher (2017). This scale comprises two distinct constructs representing exploratory and exploitative activities. Five items were used for exploration, and six were used for exploitation. The respondents rated their level of agreement with each item on a Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). Following Gibson and Birkinshaw's (2004) and Mom et al.'s (2009) studies, we multiplied the average of the two scales for exploration and exploitation to assess individual ambidexterity.

Firm environmental performance represents stakeholders' environmental expectations in empirical studies, as proposed by Schultze and Trommer (2012). Using Jung et al.'s (2001) operational measures framework, we selected output measures related to CO₂ emissions and input measures related to the type of energy source used in lime production. We categorized these measures as harmful to the environment (CO₂ emissions related to the combustion of a plant/number of people working in the plant, and CO₂ combustion per ton of lime) or beneficial to the environment compared to the use of high-emitting fossil fuels (percentage of biomass, percentage of gas).

At the individual level, we controlled for six variables: gender, age, job position, education, company experience, and industry experience. We also introduced two organizational control variables: natural logarithm of plant size in terms of the number of employees, as this could affect group dynamics and the ability to access a broader range of knowledge (Brewer and Kramer, 1986; Lane et al., 2006), and natural logarithm of firm age.

Data were collected from 165 workers (in factories), 71 employees (in offices), and 7 managers of an international lime producer's 10 plants. The questionnaire was designed to collect information at the individual level. The data collection was performed from September to December 2023 using paper-based questionnaires. Prior to distribution, introductory meetings were held at each plant, attended by the plant manager and department managers, to present the study's objectives. The 10 production plants had a total population of 383 employees. Two reminders were sent to the plant and department managers during the data collection period. A total of 243 responses were obtained, resulting in a response rate of 63.45 %. No data were missing from the dataset, and no outliers or unengaged respondents (i.e., those providing similar responses to all questions) were detected. Non-response bias was checked by comparing the first 10 % and 20 % of respondents with the last 10 % and 20 %, which revealed no significant issue (Armstrong and Overton, 1977). Table 1 presents descriptive statistics for the 243 questionnaire respondents.

In addition, objective measures of organizational environmental performance, such as CO₂ combustion total emissions/number of people, CO₂ combustion per ton of lime, percentage of biomass, and percentage of gas, were collected from the 10 directors of the plants. These data are shown in Table 2 as of December 31, 2023.

# 4. Analysis

## 4.1. Validity

First, two academic experts assessed the content validity. Both deemed the measurement scales appropriate for measuring the constructs. Second, content validity was evaluated considering the literature (Babbie, 2001). All scales have been well-established in the literature and were sourced from leading academic journals: Journal of Management Studies and Journal of Business Ethics. Third, Cronbach's alphas exceeded .70 for all factors: individual environmental consciousness (.911), individual exploration (.956), and individual

<table><caption>**Table 1**
Individual employees' descriptive statistics.</caption><thead><tr><th>Dimension</th><th>Items</th><th>Frequency</th><th>Percentage</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td rowspan="2">Gender</td><td>Male</td><td>229</td><td>94.2</td></tr><tr><td>Female</td><td>14</td><td>5.8</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="5">Age</td><td>16-24</td><td>27</td><td>11.1</td></tr><tr><td>25-34</td><td>54</td><td>22.2</td></tr><tr><td>35-44</td><td>74</td><td>30.5</td></tr><tr><td>45-54</td><td>57</td><td>23.5</td></tr><tr><td>55 or above</td><td>31</td><td>12.8</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="3">Job Type</td><td>Worker</td><td>165</td><td>67.9</td></tr><tr><td>Employee</td><td>71</td><td>29.2</td></tr><tr><td>Manager</td><td>7</td><td>2.9</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="4">Education</td><td>No diploma</td><td>33</td><td>13.6</td></tr><tr><td>BTEC or GNVQ equivalent</td><td>81</td><td>33.3</td></tr><tr><td>High-school diploma</td><td>65</td><td>26.7</td></tr><tr><td>Bachelor's degree</td><td>58</td><td>23.9</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="3">Company Experience (in years)</td><td>Master's degree</td><td>6</td><td>2.5</td></tr><tr><td>Doctorate</td><td>0</td><td>.0</td></tr><tr><td>Less than 1</td><td>0</td><td>.0</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="3">Industry Experience (in years)</td><td>1-4.9</td><td>80</td><td>32.9</td></tr><tr><td>5-14.9</td><td>82</td><td>33.7</td></tr><tr><td>15 or more</td><td>81</td><td>33.3</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="3">Plant's size (no. of employees)</td><td>1-30</td><td>5</td><td>50</td></tr><tr><td>31-51</td><td>1</td><td>10</td></tr><tr><td>52-71</td><td>2</td><td>20</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="4">Annual lime production (in 1000 tons)</td><td>72 or more</td><td>2</td><td>20</td></tr><tr><td>Less than 100 kt</td><td>4</td><td>40</td></tr><tr><td>100 kt-200kt</td><td>3</td><td>30</td></tr><tr><td>201 kt-300kt</td><td>1</td><td>10</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="5">Annual sales (in 1000 euros)</td><td>301 kt or more</td><td>2</td><td>20</td></tr><tr><td>0-10,000</td><td>2</td><td>20</td></tr><tr><td>10,001-15,000</td><td>2</td><td>20</td></tr><tr><td>15,001-40,000</td><td>3</td><td>30</td></tr><tr><td>40,001-100,000</td><td>2</td><td>20</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="4">Annual CO₂ emissions (in 1000 tons)</td><td>100,001 or above</td><td>1</td><td>10</td></tr><tr><td>Less than 100 kt</td><td>4</td><td>40</td></tr><tr><td>100 kt-200kt</td><td>3</td><td>30</td></tr><tr><td>201 kt-300kt</td><td>1</td><td>10</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>301 kt or more</td><td>2</td><td>20</td></tr></tbody></table>

N = 243.

<table><caption>**Table 2**
Plants' descriptive analysis.</caption><thead><tr><th>Dimension</th><th>Items</th><th>Frequency</th><th>Percentage</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td rowspan="5">Plant's age</td><td>0-50</td><td>2</td><td>20</td></tr><tr><td>51-100</td><td>5</td><td>50</td></tr><tr><td>101-150</td><td>2</td><td>20</td></tr><tr><td>151-200</td><td>1</td><td>10</td></tr><tr><td>201 or above</td><td>0</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="4">Plant's size (no. of employees)</td><td>1-30</td><td>5</td><td>50</td></tr><tr><td>31-51</td><td>1</td><td>10</td></tr><tr><td>52-71</td><td>2</td><td>20</td></tr><tr><td>72 or more</td><td>2</td><td>20</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="4">Annual lime production (in 1000 tons)</td><td>Less than 100 kt</td><td>4</td><td>40</td></tr><tr><td>100 kt-200kt</td><td>3</td><td>30</td></tr><tr><td>201 kt-300kt</td><td>1</td><td>10</td></tr><tr><td>301 kt or more</td><td>2</td><td>20</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="5">Annual sales (in 1000 euros)</td><td>0-10,000</td><td>2</td><td>20</td></tr><tr><td>10,001-15,000</td><td>2</td><td>20</td></tr><tr><td>15,001-40,000</td><td>3</td><td>30</td></tr><tr><td>40,001-100,000</td><td>2</td><td>20</td></tr><tr><td>100,001 or above</td><td>1</td><td>10</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="4">Annual CO₂ emissions (in 1000 tons)</td><td>Less than 100 kt</td><td>4</td><td>40</td></tr><tr><td>100 kt-200kt</td><td>3</td><td>30</td></tr><tr><td>201 kt-300kt</td><td>1</td><td>10</td></tr><tr><td>301 kt or more</td><td>2</td><td>20</td></tr></tbody></table>

N = 10.

exploitation (.905) (Nunnally and Bernstein, 1994). These results show an acceptable level of consistency for all measurement items; Table 3 presents our construct means, standard deviations, and correlations.

## 4.2. Normality, multicollinearity

We performed skew and kurtosis tests to assess the distribution of our data. For normally distributed data, the skew index should be below 3 (or above -3) and the kurtosis index should be below 10 (or above -10)
<table><caption>Table 3
Means, standard deviations, and correlations.</caption><thead><tr><th></th><th>Mean</th><th>Std dev</th><th>1</th><th>2</th><th>3</th><th>4</th><th>5</th><th>6</th><th>7</th><th>8</th><th>9</th><th>10</th><th>11</th><th>12</th><th>13</th><th>14</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>1. Individual environmental consciousness</td><td>3.77</td><td>1.367</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>2. Individual exploration</td><td>4.37</td><td>1.263</td><td>.360<sup>a</sup></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>3. Individual exploitation</td><td>5.01</td><td>.833</td><td>.378<sup>a</sup></td><td>.551<sup>a</sup></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>4. CO<sub>2</sub> combustion total emissions/number of people</td><td>997.708</td><td>488.906</td><td>-.045</td><td>.076</td><td>.140<sup>b</sup></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>5. CO<sub>2</sub> combustion per ton of lime</td><td>.296</td><td>.163</td><td>-.127<sup>b</sup></td><td>.001</td><td>.091</td><td>.836<sup>c</sup></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>6. Percentage of biomass</td><td>.166</td><td>.341</td><td>.182<sup>a</sup></td><td>-.045</td><td>-.139<sup>b</sup></td><td>-.747<sup>a</sup></td><td>-.778<sup>a</sup></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>7. Percentage of gas</td><td>.281</td><td>.201</td><td>-.181<sup>a</sup></td><td>-.071</td><td>.008</td><td>.287<sup>a</sup></td><td>.012</td><td>.444<sup>a</sup></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>8. Natural log plant size</td><td>3.987</td><td>.534</td><td>-.097</td><td>-.044</td><td>.022</td><td>.817<sup>a</sup></td><td>.707<sup>a</sup></td><td>-.556<sup>a</sup></td><td>.184<sup>a</sup></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>9. Natural log plant age</td><td>4.468</td><td>.389</td><td>-.198<sup>a</sup></td><td>-.159<sup>b</sup></td><td>-.036</td><td>.484<sup>a</sup></td><td>.644<sup>a</sup></td><td>-.487<sup>a</sup></td><td>.034</td><td>.763<sup>a</sup></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>10. Individual gender</td><td>1.058</td><td>.233</td><td>-.012</td><td>.032</td><td>.005</td><td>-.096</td><td>-.054</td><td>.089</td><td>-.108</td><td>-.022</td><td>-.004</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>11. Individual age</td><td>39.807</td><td>11.384</td><td>.054</td><td>-.069</td><td>-.149<sup>b</sup></td><td>.028</td><td>.114</td><td>-.086</td><td>-.026</td><td>.063</td><td>.121</td><td>-.111</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>12. Individual job type</td><td>1.35</td><td>.535</td><td>.139<sup>b</sup></td><td>.189<sup>a</sup></td><td>.124</td><td>.124</td><td>.091</td><td>-.031</td><td>-.03</td><td>.146<sup>b</sup></td><td>.054</td><td>.202<sup>a</sup></td><td>.109</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>13. Individual education</td><td>2.683</td><td>1.057</td><td>.12</td><td>.185<sup>a</sup></td><td>.241<sup>a</sup></td><td>.069</td><td>-.063</td><td>.057</td><td>.022</td><td>.008</td><td>-.148<sup>b</sup></td><td>.124</td><td>-.316<sup>a</sup></td><td>.430<sup>a</sup></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>14. Individual experience in company</td><td>1.56</td><td>9.061</td><td>-.022</td><td>-.067</td><td>-.146<sup>b</sup></td><td>-.066</td><td>.019</td><td>-.03</td><td>-.02</td><td>.032</td><td>.133<sup>b</sup></td><td>-.117</td><td>.570<sup>a</sup></td><td>.132<sup>b</sup></td><td>-.273<sup>a</sup></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>15. Individual experience in industry</td><td>13.811</td><td>1.14</td><td>.028</td><td>-.002</td><td>-.109</td><td>.065</td><td>.095</td><td>-.065</td><td>-.001</td><td>.101</td><td>.130<sup>b</sup></td><td>-.165<sup>b</sup></td><td>.678<sup>a</sup></td><td>.232<sup>b</sup></td><td>-.158<sup>b</sup></td><td>.760<sup>a</sup></td></tr></tbody></table>

N = 243.

a Correlation is significant at the .01 level (2-tailed).

b Correlation is significant at the .05 level (2-tailed).

(Kline, 1998). We did not detect normality issues in our data collection. We assessed the absence of multicollinearity with bivariate correlations and the variance inflation factor, which was below the cut-off point of 5 (O'Brien, 2007).

## 5. Results

Results are presented in Table 4. In Models 1 and 2, we find that environmental consciousness is not significantly related to either CO₂ combustion total emissions/number of people (−.055 n.s.) or CO₂ combustion per ton of lime (−.082 n.s.), meaning that environmental consciousness does not prevent negative outcomes in the firm's environmental performance. However, the more individuals develop environmental consciousness, the greater the percentage of biomass used in the kilns (Model 3; .200**), which is beneficial to the environment. Plant operators with a strong environmental consciousness might prioritize the use of biomass despite its challenges, understanding its positive long-term impact on the environment. However, we note that the more individuals develop environmental consciousness, the lower the percentage of gas used in the kilns (Model 4; −.211**), which is harmful to the environment. Highly environmentally conscious operators might be skeptical about replacing coal with gas, which would still be a positive step in terms of environmental impact. This example highlights the complexity of environmental decision-making in heavy industry. Therefore, our data only partially support H1 concerning the positive role of environmental consciousness in environmental

<table><caption>Table 4
Results.</caption><thead><tr><th></th><th>Model 1</th><th>Model 2</th><th>Model 3</th><th>Model 4</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td><strong>Dependent variable</strong></td><td>CO<sub>2</sub> combustion total emissions/ number of people</td><td>CO<sub>2</sub> combustion per ton of lime</td><td>Percentage of biomass</td><td>Percentage of gas</td></tr><tr><td>Effect on environment</td><td>Negative</td><td>Negative</td><td>Positive</td><td>Positive</td></tr><tr><td><strong>Independent variables</strong></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Environmental consciousness</td><td>-.055 n.s.</td><td>-.082 n.s.</td><td>.200**</td><td>-.211**</td></tr><tr><td>Ambidexterity</td><td>.110**</td><td>.114*</td><td>-.209***</td><td>.022 n.s.</td></tr><tr><td><strong>Control variables</strong></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Natural log plant size</td><td>1042***</td><td>.504***</td><td>-.448***</td><td>.402***</td></tr><tr><td>Natural log plant age</td><td>-.306***</td><td>.248**</td><td>-.122 n.s.</td><td>-.308**</td></tr><tr><td>Individual gender</td><td>-.074*</td><td>-.042 n.s.</td><td>.075 n.s.</td><td>-.099 n.s.</td></tr><tr><td>Individual age</td><td>.028 n.s.</td><td>.097 n.s.</td><td>-.107 n.s.</td><td>-.003 n.s.</td></tr><tr><td>Individual job type</td><td>-.011 n.s.</td><td>.024 n.s.</td><td>.022 n.s.</td><td>-.036 n.s.</td></tr><tr><td>Individual education</td><td>-.004 n.s.</td><td>-.048 n.s.</td><td>.028 n.s.</td><td>.022 n.s.</td></tr><tr><td>Individual experience in company</td><td>-.131*</td><td>-.110 n.s.</td><td>.021 n.s.</td><td>.011 n.s.</td></tr><tr><td>Individual experience in industry</td><td>.077 n.s.</td><td>.017 n.s.</td><td>.050 n.s.</td><td>-.006 n.s.</td></tr><tr><td><strong>Model fit statistics</strong></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>R</td><td>.859</td><td>.741</td><td>.613</td><td>.336</td></tr><tr><td>R2</td><td>.737</td><td>.548</td><td>.375</td><td>.113</td></tr><tr><td>Adjusted R2</td><td>.726</td><td>.529</td><td>.349</td><td>.075</td></tr></tbody></table>

*p < .05.

**p < .01.

***p < .001.

n.s.: not significant.
performance. This finding therefore is only partially aligned with Banerjee's (2002) empirical study stating that environmental consciousness can influence individual actions and choices, which in turn contribute to improved firm environmental performance.

Contrary to our hypothesis, we note that increased individual ambidexterity is harmful to the environment at the organizational level because it implies greater CO₂ combustion total emissions/number of people (Model 1; .110**), greater CO₂ combustion per ton of lime (Model 2; .114**), and lower percentage of biomass used in the kilns (Model 3; -.209**). Therefore, H2 regarding the expected positive relationship between individual ambidexterity and firm environmental performance is not supported. Our results indicate counterintuitive findings, suggesting that employees' ambidextrous behaviors are negatively related to firm environmental performance.

## 6. Discussion

Environmental consciousness does not appear to have a significant influence on reducing overall CO₂ emissions. This suggests that increased awareness of environmental issues among individuals does not automatically translate into improved environmental outcomes at the firm level. In effect, individual environmental consciousness may not lead to an immediate reduction of an organization's carbon footprint – a finding that complements previous studies by Orlitzky et al. (2003) and Schultze and Trommer (2012). The microfoundational roots of organizational environmental performance might require more time to permeate higher levels. While marketing studies have highlighted the importance of environmental consciousness for green purchasing intentions (Alam et al., 2023; Mkhize and Ellis, 2020; Laheri et al., 2024), the impact of workers in a firm tends to be more diluted. This finding may also be explained by a misalignment of and potential multi-level mismatch between individual beliefs and organizational trajectories, as mentioned by Whiteman et al. (2013). Therefore, we question the belief that environmental consciousness is a predictor of ecofriendly conduct (Du et al., 2018). Indeed, in contrast to Lin and Niu (2018) and Paillé et al. (2020), we suggest that it is not easy for employees to initiate sustainability efforts within their organizations.

Our results complement those of Köhler and Kauffeld (2024), who also studied the decarbonization process in a heavy industry. While they argued that fostering individual environmental consciousness enhances employees' readiness to engage in and support the company's decarbonization efforts, we add that it depends on the alternatives: gas versus biomass. Our results suggest that greater environmental consciousness is associated with a higher use of biomass in kiln operations, which represents a more sustainable practice. Interestingly, increased environmental consciousness also corresponds with reduced reliance on gas in kiln operations. This may indicate a reluctance among environmentally conscious individuals to embrace gas as a transitional fuel. These mixed outcomes underscore the nuanced nature of environmental decision-making in the mining sector and contributes to the work of Uz Zaman et al. (2024) by further investigating environmental consciousness specifically in the mining sector.

Ambidextrous employees might focus on both improving current processes and exploring new technologies. However, this dual focus can temporarily lead to increased adjustments of kiln parameters during alternative fuel trials, potentially resulting in higher CO₂ emissions (CO₂ combustion total emissions/number of people and CO₂ combustion per ton of lime) due to less efficient fuel use during these testing periods. It takes several years for workers to fully master the operation of traditional vertical kilns and be able to adjust the various parameters (pressure, temperature, airflow, energy input, etc.) required for the calcination of limestone. During testing, use of biomass can lead to instability and variable quality. Furthermore, poor combustion generates harmful emissions, such as NOx, SOx, and CO, which also have negative environmental impacts. Moreover, the lime produced during testing periods could potentially be out of specification for the final

application, as the decarbonation of the limestone will be incomplete. These batches then become waste or disposals that consume more energy and resources than necessary. In the case of an improper energy input, the kiln could be damaged due to the limestone overheating, potentially requiring its replacement, which in turn would lead to significant economic and environmental costs. To recover from these trial periods, a switch to less environmentally friendly options, such as gas, is the only option for re-establishing process stability before restarting experimentation.

Consequently, pressure on individuals to perform well in both exploration and exploitation may prove ineffective because individuals will assign priority to exploiting high-emission fossil fuels over exploring novel solutions. Such priorities might be incentive-driven, based mainly on production volume, quality delivery, and cost efficiency in the mining sector; in effect, short-term pressure overrides long-term gains – including environmental performance. As a result, turning to more sustainable solutions at plant level requires drastic changes (i.e., structural organizational ambidexterity), instead of relying on individuals with limited capabilities, time, and qualifications.

Although previous research has suggested a positive relationship between individual ambidexterity and environmental performance (Zhao et al., 2021; Lyu et al., 2022; Dhir et al., 2023; Loquen and Scaringella, 2024), we argue that individual ambidexterity is detrimental to environmental performance in the mining sector. Our empirical study of mining sector workers yields different outcomes than studies of executives (Dhir et al., 2023; Zhao et al., 2021).

Our results suggest that, depending on the context and industry, the relationship between individual ambidexterity and environmental performance may be more complex and nuanced than initially proposed. To the best of our knowledge, no study has presented the negative environmental outcomes of individual ambidexterity. The closest related finding was suggested by Dranev et al. (2020), who addressed the potential negative outcomes of organizational ambidexterity on firms' sustainable performance in pharmaceutical and energy companies. Surprisingly, the most polluting industries have been underrepresented in the research on sustainability-oriented ambidexterity (Le et al., 2024).

The lime industry shares similarities with other industries, such as the energy, pharmaceutical, and raw materials industries, in terms of their resource dependency, energy consumption, and critical environmental impacts. These industries are all energy-intensive in their production processes. While the lime industry involves the heating of limestone using fossil fuels or other alternative energy sources such as biomass, in the energy industry, prospecting, extracting, and refining coal, oil, and gas require a significant amount of energy (fossil and renewable), which is harmful to the environment. Likewise, producing renewable energy (such as bioenergy) also involves energy-intensive processes for cultivating, harvesting, and processing crops for biomass. Finally, in the pharmaceutical industry, synthesizing, sterilizing, and packaging require energy-intensive processes. These industries also have a negative impact on the environment, particularly due to CO₂ emissions and chemical waste. Considering these aspects of the lime, energy, and pharmaceutical industries, we argue that Dranev et al.'s (2020) results and our empirical results could be applied to other industries with similar characteristics, such as the cement, steel, paper, and chemical industries.

The cement industry requires a plethora of resources and consumes a substantial amount of energy while contributing to global industrial emissions. In such a context, individuals may also be willing to optimize their existing production processes while experimenting with new materials and low-carbon cement, which could lead to negative environmental performance. The steel industry may also obtain similar outcomes to the lime industry. The steel industry uses between 50 kg and 120 kg of lime per ton of steel. The trade-offs between improving energy efficiency in blast furnaces and conducting trials with electric arc furnaces may be highly complex for individuals to manage alone and are
likely better addressed at the team or organizational level.

Although the paper industry relies on different resources, such as wood and water, it nevertheless consumes energy and produces CO2. In this context, it is unlikely that workers would perform equally well in improving the energy efficiency of paper mills and advancing projects on paper recycling or closed-loop water systems development. The existing industrial path dependency could be detrimental to significant improvements in environmental performance. Finally, the chemical industry is one of the more harmful industries in terms of not only CO2 emissions, but also toxic waste, contamination, and pollution. Specialized workers can face difficulties in improving existing well-established chemical processes while dedicating sufficient time and energy to developing alternatives.

# 7. Conclusion

## 7.1. Contributions

First, our research extends the microfoundations perspective from Felin et al. (2015) and Foss (2011) by exploring how individual-level behavioral factors, such as environmental consciousness and ambidexterity, contribute to environmental performance at the firm level. We challenge the microfoundational assumption of environmental consciousness by revealing the difficulties for environmentally conscious individuals to significantly modify organizational trajectories to improve environmental performance and the differential behavior of individuals in favoring biomass instead of gas. We contribute to Lin and Niu (2018) and Paillé et al. (2020), by questioning the assumption that environmental consciousness at the individual level leads to improved organizational environmental outcomes and by stating that this link is neither direct nor guaranteed – especially in resource-intensive and path-dependent industries like those in the mining sector.

Second, in contrast to the established literature arguing that ambidextrous individuals foster innovation and sustainability (Zhao et al., 2021; Lyu et al., 2022), we reveal the dark side of individual ambidexterity in the rigid operational contexts of heavy industry. Contrary to the prevailing consensus that ambidexterity enhances environmental performance (Loquen and Scaringella, 2024; Zhao et al., 2021), our findings reveal a paradox: ambidextrous behaviors at the individual level in the mining sector are associated with poorer environmental performance. While Dranev et al. (2020) exposed comparable results at the organizational level, we reveal that simultaneously pursuing exploratory and exploitative activities may have unintended negative consequences for environmental outcomes. In doing so, we contribute to the discourse on sustainability-oriented ambidexterity (Le et al., 2024).

Third, we expand the scope of previous studies, advancing the boundary conditions of ambidexterity and environmental management research by applying these concepts to underexplored, high-impact industries (i.e., the lime industry). While previous studies have focused on executive decision-makers or firms in innovation-intensive sectors (e.g., high-tech, pharmaceuticals), we tackled a worker-level analysis in a traditional industry, adopting a bottom-up approach (Coleman, 1990) to document transformational mechanisms (Hedström and Swedberg, 1998) in environmental decision-making in a multi-plant company.

## 7.2. Managerial implications

Managers in resource-intensive and path-dependent industries (e.g., mining) should be cautious in assuming that individual environmental consciousness will lead to improved environmental performance at the organizational level. Environmentally conscious individuals may hold perceptions about what constitutes a good alternative to coal, such as biomass, and what constitutes a poor one, such as gas, even though these views may not always be based on scientific evidence. These results should encourage managers to foster technology awareness among employees.

This study has shown that the development of ambidextrous behaviors, with employees alternating between exploratory and exploitative activities, is negatively related to organizational environmental performance in the mining sector. Companies should instead focus on employee specialization, supporting their employees to develop expertise in exploratory or exploitative activities to minimize cognitive overload. Clear role assignments must be established. Key performance indicators (KPIs) for individuals can be developed to assess the contribution of employees to production plants' environmental performance. In addition, we recommend that firms associate KPIs with individual incentives, which should ensure a trade-off between short-term productivity and long-term environmental performance. Long-term assessment is particularly crucial, as we highlight the potential temporary negative effect of ambidexterity on environmental performance. Therefore, some indicators, such as return on ambidexterity, could show that short-term costs are mitigated by long-term benefits. Ambidexterity should not be pursued at the individual level but could be envisaged in pairs, with one person monitoring the current production process and a second person experimenting with something new. Ambidexterity could also be promising at the team or organizational level through structural ambidexterity by creating separate structures for different types of activities. In short, we argue that mining workers who intend to perform exploration and exploitation equally well can be detrimental to their production plants' environmental performance because of temporary inefficiencies, such as unstable combustion and suboptimal energy usage.

## 7.3. Implications for policymakers

We encourage policymakers to develop the assessment of environmental performance not only at the macro level, but also at the micro level, as individuals matter for turning the industry toward greater sustainability. To increase the environmental consciousness of the younger generation and adults, educational programs may be useful to drive change, for instance by explaining the advantages of using biomass and gas. Since our results show that ambidextrous people lead to greater CO2 combustion total emissions/number of people, greater CO2 combustion per ton of lime, and a lower percentage of biomass used in the kilns, policymakers should encourage individuals to specialize in either exploration or exploitation, but not both. Therefore, incentives should be given for individuals to pursue specialized training programs that prioritize operational efficiency or innovation goals.

In line with our empirical research design, we encourage policymakers to monitor not only the negative environmental performance of firms, such as their CO2 combustion total emissions/number of people or CO2 combustion per ton of lime, but also positive environmental performance indicators, such as the percentage of biomass and gas, in an integrative view. Policymakers should ensure that firms reduce CO2 emissions in the short term, but encourage them to plan for massive investments to completely rethink the production process, acknowledging the potential for transitory extra pollution during the deployment.

Our results indicate that environmentally conscious individuals reject gas in favor of biomass and prioritize ideal solutions over realistic improvements. This all-or-nothing mindset can hinder progress in reducing emissions, especially when a full transition to renewables is not immediately feasible. Efforts to improve environmental performance should therefore promote a pragmatic approach that values incremental improvements alongside long-term goals. Policymakers should foster greater awareness about the use of gas instead of coal, since gas suffers from a negative perception. In more general terms, policymakers should further promote best available technologies to improve energy efficiency in heavy industries – not only the most environmentally friendly solution.
## 7.4. Limitations and future research paths

This empirical study investigated a single multi-plant company in France and followed a cross-sectional research design, which limits the generalizability of the results and the assessment of causal relationships between constructs, as Kline (2005) argued. We cannot rule out that firm environmental performance influences individual ambidexterity and bi-directional relationships exist. In the paper, the hypotheses and the derived research model indicate a clear direction of the relationships between constructs – grounded in the existing body of knowledge – to draw meaningful conclusions from our confirmatory analysis (Bollen, 1989). Following Podsakoff et al. (2003), we mitigated the risk of common method variance through an ex ante approach, using two separate questionnaires – one for individuals measuring the independent variables and one for production plant directors measuring the dependent variables at the organizational level. This approach introduces a form of logical separation between the levels of analysis, which reduces the likelihood of reverse causality and strengthens the argument for causal inference (Hitt et al., 2007; Kozlowski and Klein, 2000). As recommended by Podsakoff et al. (2003), we used objective measures, such as CO₂ emissions, at the organizational level to mitigate – but not eliminate – potential reverse causality.

As a direction for future research, we propose conducting longitudinal quantitative analyses to evaluate the causal link between individual ambidexterity and organizational environmental performance (Nielsen and Nielsen, 2009). Longitudinal research designs would account for the time required for an individual's ambidextrous behavior to manifest tangible environmental performance outcomes at the organizational level. Incorporating a time lag between the antecedents and outcomes would provide a better understanding of the temporal dynamics of ambidexterity and its effects. In addition, qualitative research methods such as cross-case analysis could also help to provide a richer context in which to explore the relationship between individual ambidexterity and organizational environmental performance.

Our study focused only on environmental performance. We believe that it would be of great research interest, as encouraged by Wagner (2005) and Albertini (2017), to study the full spectrum of Elkington's (1997) triple-bottom-line framework, including economic and social performance alongside environmental performance. This research was conducted exclusively in the mining sector's lime production industry. Therefore, our results cannot be generalized to other industries. However, extending the scope of research to other industries would contribute to Juo and Wang's (2022) and our call for further research.

### CRediT authorship contribution statement

**William Limousin:** Writing – original draft, Validation, Resources, Project administration, Investigation, Data curation, Conceptualization.
**Laurent Scaringella:** Writing – original draft, Supervision, Project administration, Methodology, Formal analysis.
**Morgane Scaringella:** Writing – original draft, Supervision, Methodology.

### Declaration of competing interest

The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.

### Data availability

Data will be made available on request.

### References

Ajayi, O.M., Odusanya, K., Morton, S., 2017. Stimulating employee ambidexterity and employee engagement in SMEs. Manag. Decis. 55 (4), 662-680. https://doi.org/10.1108/MD-02-2016-0107.

Alam, S.S., Wang, C.-K., Masukujjaman, M., Ahmad, I., Lin, C.-Y., Ho, Y.-H., 2023. Buying behaviour towards eco-labelled food products: mediation moderation analysis. Sustainability (Basel) 15 (3), 2474. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15032474.

Albertini, E., 2017. What we know about environmental policy: an inductive typology of the research. Bus. Strat. Environ. 26 (3). https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.1913.

Alldieri, L., Bruno, B., Makkonen, T., Vinci, C.P., 2023. Environmental innovations, geographically mediated knowledge spillovers, economic and environmental performance. Resour. Policy 81. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resourpol.2023.103423.

Anderson, J.C., Gerbing, D.W., 1988. Structural equation modeling in practice: a review and recommended two-step approach. Psychol. Bull. 103 (3), 411-423. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.103.3.411.

Andriopoulos, C., Lewis, M.W., 2010. Managing innovation paradoxes: ambidexterity lessons from leading product design companies. Long. Range Plan. 43 (1). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lrp.2009.08.003.

Armstrong, J.S., Overton, T.S., 1977. Estimating nonresponse bias in mail surveys. J. Mark. Res. 14 (3). https://doi.org/10.1177/002224377701400320.

Babbie, E., 2001. The Practice of Social Research, ninth ed. Wadsworth Thomson Learning.

Baldassari, P., Eberhard, S., Jiang, Y., Muller-Camen, M., Obereder, L., Schiffinger, M., Thiele, R., 2023. Looking up and fitting in: team leaders' and members' behaviors and attitudes toward the environment in an MNC. Hum. Resour. Manag. 62 (3). https://doi.org/10.1002/hrm.22163.

Banerjee, S.B., 2002. Corporate environmentalism: the construct and its measurement. J. Bus. Res. 55 (3). https://doi.org/10.1016/S0148-2963(00)00135-1.

Banerjee, S.B., Iyer, E.S., Kashyap, R.K., 2003. Corporate environmentalism: antecedents and influence of industry type. J. Market. 67 (2), 106-122. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkg.67.2.106.18604.

Bansal, P., Roth, K., 2000. Why companies go Green: a model of ecological responsiveness. Acad. Manag. J. 43 (4), 717-736. https://doi.org/10.2307/1556363.

Bansal, S., Singh, S., Nangia, P., Chanaliya, N., Sala, D., 2024. Sustaining the mining industry through the lens of corporate social responsibility: a review research. Resour. Policy 99, 105387. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resourpol.2024.105387.

Benner, M.J., Tushman, M.L., 2003. Exploitation, exploration, and process management: the productivity dilemma revisited. Acad. Manag. Rev. 28 (2). https://doi.org/10.5465/AMR.2003.9416096.

Bennett, H., McCracken, M., O'Kane, P., Brown, T., 2024. The elusiveness of strategic HR partnering: using paradox theory to understand tensions surrounding the HR business partnering role. Hum. Resour. Manag. J. 34 (4), 942-959. https://doi.org/10.1111/1748-8583.12538.

Birkinshaw, J., Gupta, A.K., 2013. Clarifying the distinctive contribution of ambidexterity to the field of organization studies. Acad. Manag. Perspect. 27 (4), 287-298. https://doi.org/10.5465/amp.2012.0167.

Boiral, O., Paillé, P., 2012. Organizational citizenship behaviour for the environment: measurement and validation. J. Bus. Ethics 109 (4). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-011-1138-9.

Bollen, K.A., 1989. Structural Equations with Latent Variables. John Wiley & Sons, New York. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118619179.

Bonesso, S., Gerli, F., Scapolan, A., 2014. The individual side of ambidexterity: do individuals' perceptions match actual behaviors in reconciling the exploration and exploitation trade-off? Eur. Manag. J. 32 (3). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.emj.2013.07.003.

Brewer, M.B., Kramer, R.M., 1986. Choice behavior in social dilemmas. Effects of social identity, group size, and decision framing. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 50 (3). https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.50.3.543.

Chang, C., Chen, Y., 2012. The determinants of green intellectual capital. Manag. Decis. 50 (1), 74-94. https://doi.org/10.1108/00251741211194886.

Chen, Y., Tang, G., Jin, J., Li, J., Paillé, P., 2015. Linking market orientation and environmental performance: the influence of environmental strategy, employee's environmental involvement, and environmental product quality. J. Bus. Ethics 127 (2), 479-500. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-014-2059-1.

Churchill, G.A. Jr., 1979. A paradigm for developing better measures of marketing constructs. J. Mark. Res. 16 (1), 64-73. https://doi.org/10.1177/002224377901600110.

Coleman, J.S., 1990. Foundations of Social Theory. Social Forces. Belknap Press of Harvard University.

del Brío, J.À., Fernández, E., Junquera, B., 2007. Management and employee involvement in achieving an environmental action-based competitive advantage: an empirical study. Int. J. Hum. Resour. Manag. 18 (4), 491-522. https://doi.org/10.1080/09585190601178687.

Dhir, A., Khan, S.J., Islam, N., Ractham, P., Meenakshi, N., 2023. Drivers of sustainable business model innovations. An upper echelon theory perspective. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 191, 122409. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2023.122409.

Dranev, Y., Izosimova, A., Meissner, D., 2020. Organizational ambidexterity and performance: assessment approaches and empirical evidence. J. Knowl. Econ. 11 (2). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13132-018-0560-y.

Du, J., Shen, J., Park, K., Wang, Y.P., Yu, X., 2018. Worsened physical condition due to climate change contributes to the increasing hypoxia in Chesapeake Bay. Sci. Total Environ. 630, 707-717. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.02.265.

Elkington, J., 1997. Cannibals with Forks: the Triple Bottom Line of 21st Century Business. Capstone.
European council, 2019. https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/policies/fit-for-55/.

Felin, T., Foss, N.J., 2005. Strategic organization: a field in search of microfoundations. *Strateg. Organ.* 34 (4), 441–455. https://doi.org/10.1177/1476127005505796.

Felin, T., Foss, N.J., Ployhart, R.E., 2015. The microfoundations movement in strategy and organization theory. *Acad. Manag. Ann.* 9 (1). https://doi.org/10.1080/19416520.2015.1007651.

Foss, N.J., 2011. Why micro-foundations for resource-based theory are needed and what they may look like. *J. Manag.* 37 (5), 1413–1428. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206310390218.

Foss, N.J., Husted, K., Michailova, S., 2010. Governing knowledge sharing in organizations: levels of analysis, governance mechanisms, and research directions. *Journal of Management Studies* 47 (3), 455–482. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6486.2009.00870.x.

Fu, L., Sun, Z., Zha, L., Liu, F., He, L., Sun, X., Jing, X., 2020. Environmental awareness and pro-environmental behavior within China's road freight transportation industry: moderating role of perceived policy effectiveness. *J. Clean. Prod.* 252, 119796. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.119796.

Gibson, C.B., Birkinshaw, J., 2004. The antecedents, consequences, and mediating role of organizational ambidexterity. *Acad. Manag.* J. 47 (2). https://doi.org/10.2307/20159573.

Gupta, A.K., Smith, K.G., Shalley, C.E., 2006. The interplay between exploration and exploitation. *Acad. Manag.* J. 49 (4). https://doi.org/10.5465/AMJ.2006.22083026.

Gupta, S., Sheth, J., 2024. Mindful consumption: its conception, measurement, and implications. *J. Acad. Market. Sci.* 52 (5), 1531–1549. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-023-00970-2.

Hahn, T., Pinkse, J., Preuss, L., Figge, F., 2015. Tensions in corporate sustainability: towards an integrative framework. *J. Bus. Ethics* 127 (2), 297–316. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-014-2047-5.

Hanak, D.P., Manovic, V., 2018. Combined heat and power generation with lime production for direct air capture. *Energy Convers. Manag.* 160, 455–466. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2018.01.037.

Hazan, C., Shaver, P., 1994. Attachment as an organizational framework for research on close relationships. *Psychol. Inq.: An International Journal for the Advancement of Psychological Theory* 5 (1), 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327965pli0501_1.

Hazan, C., Zeifman, D., 1999. Pair bonds as attachments: evaluating the evidence. In: *Cassidy, J.*, Shaver, P.R. (Eds.), *Handbook of Attachment: Theory, Research, and Clinical Applications*. Guilford Press, pp. 336–354.

He, Z.L., Wong, P.K., 2004. Exploration vs. exploitation: an empirical test of the ambidexterity hypothesis. *Organ. Sci.* 15 (4). https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1040.0078.

Hedström, P., Swedberg, R., 1998. *Social Mechanisms: an Analytical Approach to Social Theory*. Cambridge University Press.

Hitt, M.A., Beamish, P.W., Jackson, S.E., Mathieu, J.E., 2007. Building theoretical and empirical bridges across levels: multilevel research in management. *Acad. Manag.* J. 50 (6), 1385–1399. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2007.28166219.

Jansen, J.J.P., George, G., Van Den Bosch, F.A.J., Volberda, H.W., 2008. Senior team attributes and organizational ambidexterity: the moderating role of transformational leadership. *Journal of Management Studies* 45 (5). https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6486.2008.00775.x.

Jung, E.J., Kim, J.S., Rhee, S.K., 2001. The measurement of corporate environmental performance and its application to the analysis of efficiency in oil industry. *J. Clean. Prod.* 9 (6). https://doi.org/10.1016/S0959-6526(01)00011-7.

Juo, W.J., Wang, C.H., 2022. Does green innovation mediate the relationship between green relational view and competitive advantage? *Bus. Strat. Environ.* 31 (5). https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.3037.

Kauppila, O.P., Tempelaar, M.P., 2016. The social-cognitive underpinnings of employees' ambidextrous behaviour and the supportive role of group managers' leadership. *Journal of Management Studies* 53 (6). https://doi.org/10.1111/joms.12192.

Kline, R., 1998. *Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling*. The Guilford Press, New York.

Kline, R.B., 2005. Principles and practice of structural equation modelling: methodology in the social science. In: *Methodology in the Social Sciences*.

Köhler, A., Kauffeld, S., 2024. Role of individual environmental consciousness in industrial decarbonization transition. *Sustainability (Basel)* 16 (13). https://doi.org/10.3390/su16135462.

Kozlowski, S.W., Klein, K.J., 2000. A multilevel approach to theory and research in organizations: contextual, temporal, and emergent processes. In: Klein, K.J., Kozlowski, S.W.J. (Eds.), *Multilevel Theory, Research, and Methods in Organizations: Foundations, Extensions, and New Direction*. Jossey-Bass/Wiley, pp. 3–90.

Laheri, V.K., Lim, W.M., Arya, P.K., Kumar, S., 2024. A multidimensional lens of environmental consciousness: towards an environmentally conscious theory of planned behavior. *J. Consum. Market.* 41 (3), 281–297. https://doi.org/10.1108/JCM-03-2023-5875.

Lane, P.J., Koka, B.R., Pathak, S., 2006. The reification of absorptive capacity: a critical review and rejuvenation of the construct. *Acad. Manag. Rev.* 31 (4). https://doi.org/10.5465/AMR.2006.22527456.

Le, Q., Scaringella, L., Tronvoll, B., 2024. Environmental Outcomes of Ambidexterity: A Systematic Literature Review. *European Academy of Management Annual Meeting, Bath, United Kingdom*.

Lee, S., Meyer-Doyle, P., 2017. How performance incentives shape individual exploration and exploitation: evidence from microdata. *Organ. Sci.* 28 (1), 19–38. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2016.1104.

Lin, L.-H., Ho, Y.-L., 2016. Institutional pressures and environmental performance in the global automotive industry: the mediating role of organizational ambidexterity. *Long. Range Plan.* 49 (6), 764–775. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lrp.2015.12.010.

Lin, S.T., Niu, H.J., 2018. Green consumption: environmental knowledge, environmental consciousness, social norms, and purchasing behavior. *Bus. Strat. Environ.* 27 (8). https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.2233.

Loquen, M., Scaringella, L., 2024. Multilevel Ambidexterity's Triple Bottom Line in the Algae Industry: Individuals', Companies', and Interorganizational Ties Matter. *European Academy of Management Annual Meeting, Bath, United Kingdom*.

Lyu, C., Peng, C., Li, R., Yang, X., Cao, D., 2022. Ambidextrous leadership and sustainability performance: serial mediation effects of employees' green creativity and green product innovation. *Leader. Organ. Dev.* J. 43 (8), 1376–1394. https://doi.org/10.1108/LODJ-01-2021-0037.

Maletić, M., Maletić, D., Dahlgård, J.J., Dahlgård-Park, S.M., Gomišček, B., 2014. Sustainability exploration and sustainability exploitation: from a literature review towards a conceptual framework. *J. Clean. Prod.* 79. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.05.045.

Manuel, C.D., Magalhães, C.R., Huber, C.M., Smerek, L., Costa, A.F., Alves, J.R., 2024. Cross-cultural adaptation of a questionnaire measuring organizational citizenship behavior towards the environment. *Adm. Sci.* 14 (3). https://doi.org/10.3390/adsci14030057.

March, J.G., 1991. Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning. *Organ. Sci.* 2 (1), 71–87. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2.1.71.

Mkhize, S., Ellis, D., 2020. Creativity in marketing communication to overcome barriers to organic produce purchases: the case of a developing nation. *J. Clean. Prod.* 242, 118415. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.118415.

Mom, T.J.M., Fourné, S.P.L., Jansen, J.J.P., 2015. Managers' work experience, ambidexterity, and performance: the contingency role of the work context. *Hum. Resour. Manag.* 54. https://doi.org/10.1002/hrm.21663.

Mom, T.J.M., Van Den Bosch, F.A.J., Volberda, H.W., 2007. Investigating managers' exploration and exploitation activities: the influence of top-down, bottom-up, and horizontal knowledge inflows. *Journal of Management Studies* 44 (6), 910–931. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6486.2007.00697.x.

Mom, T.J.M., van den Bosch, F.A.J., Volberda, H.W., 2009. Understanding variation in managers' ambidexterity: investigating direct and interaction effects of formal structural and personal coordination mechanisms. *Organ. Sci.* 20 (4). https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1090.0427.

Nielsen, B.B., Nielsen, S., 2009. Learning and innovation in international strategic alliances: an empirical test of the role of trust and tacitness. *Journal of Management Studies* 46 (6). https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6486.2009.00840.x.

Nunnally, J.C., Bernstein, I.H., 1994. *Psychometric Theory*, third ed. McGraw-Hill.

O'Brien, R.M., 2007. A caution regarding rules of thumb for variance inflation factors. *Qual. Quantity* 41 (5), 673–690. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-006-9018-6.

Orlitzky, M., Schmidt, F.L., Rynes, S.L., 2003. Corporate social and financial performance: a meta-analysis. *Organ. Stud.* 24 (3). https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840603024003910.

Paillé, P., Valéau, P., Renwick, D.W., 2020. Leveraging green human resource practices to achieve environmental sustainability. *J. Clean. Prod.* 260. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.121137.

Pertusa-Ortega, E.M., Molina-Azorín, J.F., Tarí, J.J., Pereira-Moliner, J., López-Gamero, M.D., 2020. The microfoundations of organizational ambidexterity: a systematic review of individual ambidexterity through a multilevel framework. *Business Research Quarterly* 24 (4). https://doi.org/10.1177/2340944420929711.

Raisch, S., Birkinshaw, J., Probst, G., Tushman, M.L., 2009. Organizational ambidexterity: balancing exploitation and exploration for sustained performance. *Organ. Sci.* 20 (4), 685–695. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1090.0428.

Rogan, M., Mors, M.L., 2014. A network perspective on individual-level ambidexterity in organizations. *Organ. Sci.* 25 (6). https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2014.0901.

Rosing, K., Zacher, H., 2017. Individual ambidexterity: the duality of exploration and exploitation and its relationship with innovative performance. *Eur. J. Work. Organ. Psychol.* 26 (5). https://doi.org/10.1080/1359432X.2016.1238358.

Saifulina, N., Carballo-Penela, A., Ruzo-Sanmartín, E., 2023. Effects of personal environmental awareness and environmental concern on employees' voluntary pro-environmental behavior: a mediation analysis in emerging countries. *Baltic J. Manag.* 18 (1), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1108/BJM-05-2022-0195.

Schnellbächer, B., Heidenreich, S., Wald, A., 2019. Antecedents and effects of individual ambidexterity – a cross-level investigation of exploration and exploitation activities at the employee level. *Eur. Manag. J.* 37 (4). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.emj.2019.02.002.

Schultze, W., Trommer, R., 2012. The concept of environmental performance and its measurement in empirical studies. *Journal of Management Control* 22 (4). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00187-011-0146-3.

Smith, W., Lewis, M., 2011. Toward a theory of paradox: a dynamic equilibrium model of organizing. *Acad. Manag.* Rev. 36 (2). https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2009.0223.

Statista, 2024. *Production of Lime Worldwide* from 2010 to 2023.

Tian, L., Wang, Q., 2024. Improving mineral mining enterprises environmental performance through corporate social responsibility practices in China: implications for minerals policymaking. *Resour. Policy* 88. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resourpol.2023.104442.

Turner, N., Swart, J., Maylor, H., 2013. Mechanisms for managing ambidexterity: a review and research agenda. *Int. J. Manag. Rev.* 15 (3). https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2370.2012.00343.x.

Tushman, M.L., O'Reilly, C.A.I., 1996. Ambidextrous organizations: managing evolutionary and revolutionary change. *Calif. Manag. Rev.* 38 (4), 8–30. https://doi.org/10.2307/41165852.

Úbeda-García, M., Marco-Lajara, B., Zaragoza-Sáez, P.C., Manresa-Marhuenda, E., Poveda-Pareja, E., 2022. Green ambidexterity and environmental performance: the role of green human resources. *Corp. Soc. Responsib. Environ. Manag.* 29 (1). https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.2171.
Uz Zaman, Q., Zhao, Y., Zaman, S., Batool, K., Nasir, R., 2024. Reviewing energy efficiency and environmental consciousness in the minerals industry amidst digital transition: a comprehensive review. Resour. Policy 91. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resourpol.2024.104851.

Vesal, M., Siahtiri, V., O'Cass, A., 2022. Do senior managers hold the keys to unlock innovation and environmental sustainability? Ind. Mark. Manag. 103. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2022.03.010.

Wagner, M., 2005. How to reconcile environmental and economic performance to improve corporate sustainability: corporate environmental strategies in the European paper industry. J. Environ. Manag. 76 (2). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2004.11.021.

Wang, J., Xue, Y., Sun, X., Yang, J., 2020. Green learning orientation, green knowledge acquisition and ambidextrous green innovation. J. Clean. Prod. 250. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.119475.

Whiteman, G., Walker, B., Perego, P., 2013. Planetary boundaries: ecological foundations for corporate sustainability. Journal of Management Studies 50 (2), 307–336. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6486.2012.01073.x.

Zelezny, L.C., Schultz, P.W., 2000. Psychology of promoting environmentalism: promoting environmentalism. J. Soc. Issues 56 (3), 365–371. https://doi.org/10.1111/0022-4537.00172.

Zhao, W., Feng, T., Xin, X., Hao, G., 2021. How to respond to competitors’ green success for improving performance: the moderating role of organizational ambidexterity. Bus. Strat. Environ. 30 (1), 489–506. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.2633.