The DOI matches its Crossref record; 61 of the 61 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Examining Structural Relationships between Work Engagement, Organizational Procedural Justice, Knowledge Sharing, and Innovative Work Behavior for Sustainable Organizations
Open accessAbstract
Despite the importance of the human/social dimension of organizational sustainability, this area of scholastic endeavor has received relatively little attention when compared to the economic and environmental dimensions of sustainability. On the basis of social exchange theory, this study posited the important role that employee work engagement is a key component for improving human performance for organizational sustainability. In order to do so, it suggests the important role that employee work engagement has on the relationships among various factors in the organization, including organizational procedural justice, knowledge sharing, and innovative work behaviors. A total of 400 complete responses from full-time employees in Korean organizations were used for the purpose of data analysis with structural equation modeling (SEM). The results demonstrated that organizational procedural justice is positively related with employee work engagement, knowledge sharing, and innovative work behavior. In addition, work engagement enhances employee knowledge sharing and innovative work behavior, and knowledge sharing enhances innovative work behavior. With regard to the mechanisms of these relationships, work engagement and knowledge sharing acted as significant mediators. Based on the findings, we suggested relevant research implications and recommendations for future research on sustainable organizations.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999) · Structural Equation Modeling A Multidisciplinary Journal · doi:10.1080/10705519909540118 · Cited by 108,788
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J.-Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003) · Journal of Applied Psychology · doi:10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879 · Cited by 82,194
Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2008) · Behavior Research Methods · doi:10.3758/brm.40.3.879 · Cited by 34,117
Alternative Ways of Assessing Model Fit
Browne, M. W., & Cudeck, R. (1992) · Sociological Methods & Research · doi:10.1177/0049124192021002005 · Cited by 27,200
Social Exchange Theory: An Interdisciplinary Review
Cropanzano, R., & Mitchell, M. S. (2005) · Journal of Management · doi:10.1177/0149206305279602 · Cited by 10,068
The measurement of engagement and burnout: a two sample confirmatory factor analytic approach.
Schaufeli, W. B., Salanova, M., González-romá, V., & Bakker, A. B. (2002) · Journal of Happiness Studies · doi:10.1023/a:1015630930326 · Cited by 10,014
The Measurement of Work Engagement With a Short Questionnaire: A Cross-National Study
Schaufeli, W. B., Bakker, A. B., & Salanova, M. (2006) · Educational and Psychological Measurement · doi:10.1177/0013164405282471 · Cited by 7,403
Justice at the millennium: A meta-analytic review of 25 years of organizational justice research.
Colquitt, J. A., Conlon, D. E., Wesson, M. J., Porter, C. O. L. H., & Ng, K. Y. (2001) · Journal of Applied Psychology · doi:10.1037/0021-9010.86.3.425 · Cited by 5,942
Antecedents and consequences of employee engagement
Saks, A. M. (2006) · Journal of Managerial Psychology · doi:10.1108/02683940610690169 · Cited by 5,577
Bock, G.-W., Zmud, R. W., Kim, Y.-G., & Lee, J.-N. (2005) · MIS Quarterly · doi:10.2307/25148669 · Cited by 4,333
Cited by
Li, H., Sajjad, N., Wang, Q., Muhammad Ali, A., Khaqan, Z., & Amina, S. (2019) · Sustainability · doi:10.3390/su11061594 · Cited by 284
Trust, knowledge sharing, and innovative work behavior: empirical evidence from Poland
Kmieciak, R. (2021) · European Journal of Innovation Management · doi:10.1108/ejim-04-2020-0134 · Cited by 267
Metadata
- Authors
- Kim, W., & Park, J.
- Venue
- Sustainability
- Publisher
- MDPI AG
- Published
- 2017-02-02
- Volume
- 9
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 205
- ISSN
- 2071-1050 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2585556386
- Cited by
- 334
- References
- 61
- FWCI
- 41.23
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Examining Structural Relationships between Work Engagement, Organizational Procedural Justice, Knowledge Sharing, and Innovative Work Behavior for Sustainable Organizations. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.3390/su9020205
- The paper
- Kim, W., & Park, J. (2017). Examining Structural Relationships between Work Engagement, Organizational Procedural Justice, Knowledge Sharing, and Innovative Work Behavior for Sustainable Organizations. Sustainability. https://doi.org/10.3390/su9020205
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.