FOSTERING ORGANISATIONAL CITIZENSHIP B ENVIRONMENT E … Piacun Thesis.pdf · and practice green...

FOSTERING ORGANISATIONAL

CITIZENSHIP BEHAVIOUR FOR THE

ENVIRONMENT EMPLOYEE DISCRETIONARY GREEN

BEHAVIOUR IN A SCHOOL-BASED SETTING

Dominic James Piacun

Bachelor of Creative Industries Bachelor of Education

Submitted in fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of

Masters of Business (Research)

School of Management

QUT Business School

Queensland University of Technology

2017

Fostering Organisational Citizenship Behaviour for the Environment i

Keywords

Corporate sustainability, employee green behaviour, management, organisational

citizenship behaviour for the environment (OCBE), organisation citizenship

behaviour, education management, schools.

ii Fostering Organisational Citizenship Behaviour for the Environment

Abstract

Organisational Citizenship Behaviour for the Environment (OCBE) is an

emerging construct that is increasingly being utilised to explain employee voluntary

green behaviours. Performance of OCBEs by employees has been associated with

numerous favourable outcomes including increased environmental sustainability of

organisations. Fostering more of these behaviours is therefore pertinent for schools

both from an education and corporate sustainability perspective. However, due the

voluntary nature of these behaviours, effectively engaging employees to perform

OCBEs—such as being energy efficient, recycling effectively, reducing water or

paper use, or performing other context appropriate OCBEs in their day-to-day duties

at work—is proving to be a challenge. Indeed, the majority of work (teaching)

undertaken in schools is quite intensive and, at times stressful, hence the

performance of OCBEs is often prioritised behind other seemingly more important

parts of the job.

This research explored how employees in a school-based workplace perceive

and practice green behaviour at work, the barriers and drivers to OCBE, and what

schools as organisations can do to foster these behaviours. A single explanatory case

study was undertaken of employees within a large independent school in Australia.

The study involved semi-structured interviews of 13 teaching and non-teaching

employees as well as informal observations of employee green behaviours. The

results indicate four key findings. First, employees interpret green behaviours

differently, which has implications for the way these behaviours could be

encouraged. Second, while OCBEs are widely performed, the specific types of

OCBE are dependent on the relative availability of green opportunities; instigating

eco-initiatives are the most commonly performed OCBEs. Third, most barriers to

OCBEs stem from the organisation while the drivers mostly originate from within

the individual employee. Finally, the management approaches that organisations

could implement to foster OCBEs are varied but require a holistic approach across

the organisation.

Fostering Organisational Citizenship Behaviour for the Environment iii

Table of Contents

Keywords .................................................................................................................................. i Abstract .................................................................................................................................... ii Table of Contents .................................................................................................................... iii List of Figures ........................................................................................................................... v List of Tables ............................................................................................................................ v List of Abbreviations .............................................................................................................. vi Statement of Original Authorship .......................................................................................... vii Acknowledgements ............................................................................................................... viii

Chapter 1: Introduction ...................................................................................... 1 1.1 Research Background ...................................................................................................... 1 1.2 Research Context ............................................................................................................. 3 1.3 Research Purpose ............................................................................................................. 4 1.4 Thesis Outline .................................................................................................................. 5

Chapter 2: Literature Review ............................................................................. 7 2.1 Corporate Sustainability .................................................................................................. 7 2.2 Employee Green Behaviour ............................................................................................. 8 2.3 Organisational Citizenship behaviour ............................................................................ 16 2.4 Theoretical Approach .................................................................................................... 19 2.5 Organisational Citizenship Behaviour for the Environment (OCBE) ........................... 23 2.6 Summary ........................................................................................................................ 34

Chapter 3: Research Design .............................................................................. 37 3.1 Methodology and Research Design ............................................................................... 37 3.2 Research Instruments ..................................................................................................... 42 3.3 Case Profile and Participants ......................................................................................... 45 3.4 Procedure, Timeline and Ethics ..................................................................................... 49 3.5 Analysis ......................................................................................................................... 51

Chapter 4: Results .............................................................................................. 55 4.1 How do employees perceive and practice employee green behaviour? ........................ 55 4.2 What drives or hinders individual OCBE? .................................................................... 63 4.3 How can the organisation foster OCBE? ....................................................................... 79 4.4 Summary ........................................................................................................................ 84

Chapter 5: Discussion and Conclusion ............................................................ 87 5.1 Employee perceptions of green behaviour .................................................................... 88 5.2 Organisational Citizenship Behaviour for the Environment .......................................... 91

iv Fostering Organisational Citizenship Behaviour for the Environment

5.3 Practical implications .................................................................................................... 97 5.4 Directions for future research ....................................................................................... 99 5.5 Conclusion .................................................................................................................. 100

Reference List ......................................................................................................... 101

Fostering Organisational Citizenship Behaviour for the Environment v

List of Figures

Figure 2.1 The Green Five Taxonomy (Ones & Dilchert, 2012a, ch. 5) ................... 14

Figure 2.2 Integrated Multilevel Model for Employee Green Behaviours. (Norton, et al., 2015, p. 104) ........................................................................ 15

Figure 2.3 Relationship between OCBE and associated constructs and theories ...... 32

Figure 3.1 Coding structure for research question 1 .................................................. 52

Figure 3.2 Coding structure for research question 2 ................................................ 53

Figure 3.3 Coding structure for research question 3 ................................................ 54

Figure 4.1 Themes associated with employee perceptions of green behaviours ....... 56

Figure 4.2 Themes associated with eco-initiative behaviour ..................................... 58

Figure 4.3 Themes associated with eco-helping behaviour ....................................... 60

Figure 4.4 Themes associated with eco-civic engagement ........................................ 62

List of Tables

Table 2.1. Dimensions of OCB ................................................................................. 18

Table 2.2. Dimensions of OCBE ................................................................................ 26

Table 3.1. Criteria for Assessing the Trustworthiness of Qualitative Research ........ 41

Table 3.2. Sample of Questions used in Semi-Structured Interviews ......................... 44

Table 3.3. Case Study Participant Demographics ..................................................... 48

Table 4.1. Barriers inhibiting OCBE within the Context sub-category ..................... 65

Table 4.2. Drivers of OCBE within the Context sub-category ................................... 65

Table 4.3. Barriers inhibiting OCBE within the Person sub-category ...................... 74

Table 4.4. Drivers of OCBE in the Person sub-category ........................................... 74

Table 4.5. Employee ideas to foster more OCBE....................................................... 79

vi Fostering Organisational Citizenship Behaviour for the Environment

List of Abbreviations

CEO Chief Executive Officer

ISO International Standards Organisation

LED Light emitting diode

NGO Non-Governmental Organisation

OCB Organisational Citizenship Behaviour

OCBE Organisational Citizenship Behaviour for the Environment

OECD Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development

QUT Queensland University of Technology

SET Social Exchange Theory

Fostering Organisational Citizenship Behaviour for the Environment vii

Statement of Original Authorship

The work contained in this thesis has not been previously submitted to meet

requirements for an award at this or any other higher education institution. To the

best of my knowledge and belief, the thesis contains no material previously

published or written by another person except where due reference is made.

Signature: QUT Verified Signature

Date: 7th December 2017

viii Fostering Organisational Citizenship Behaviour for the Environment

Acknowledgements

My amazing and beautiful wife, Peppa, thank you for encouraging, cajoling,

supporting and believing in me. You are my rock. To the two energetic little people

in my life, Cleave and Odee, for providing me with endless laughs, joy, love and

perspective.

Mum, Dad, Stephen, Katrina and Daniel. Words cannot express my love and

admiration for my family who have all given me so much throughout my life. Errol

and Jo, my second parents. I am a lucky man; you both have been, and continue to

be, such a positive influence in my life. To my extended family and close friends,

what a cracking bunch of humans! I am grateful for your support.

I also would like to thank the amazing people with whom I work and the

emotional support they have provided, even when they have not realised it! Thank

you to the staff who volunteered to be participants, I could not have completed the

study without you.

A big shout out goes to two awesome humans, my supervisors; Professor

Cameron Newton and Dr Deanna Grant-Smith. Your advice, humour, understanding

and support throughout this process has been invaluable. The process of this research

was ‘relatively’ straightforward because of your experience and guidance.

Chapter 1: Introduction 1

Chapter 1: Introduction

1.1 RESEARCH BACKGROUND

As the world faces increasing pressures from rising population, climate change and

resource scarcity, the concept of corporate sustainability has gained considerable

attention from both academia and governments (Bansal & Roth, 2000; Benn,

Dunphy, & Griffiths, 2014; Doppelt, 2009; Linnenluecke & Griffiths, 2013). In the

business world, executives and business leaders have expressed the need to be more

strategic regarding their approach to corporate sustainability, but are daunted by the

massive task that lies in front of them (Doppelt, 2009). It could be that senior

executives are not sure how to approach the myriad challenges associated with

implementing a corporate sustainability strategy. These challenges include engaging

staff to be more mindful of their individual impact and actions, implementing

initiatives aimed at reducing waste to landfill, or increasing eco-efficiencies up and

down the supply chain. Despite the challenges inherent in pursuing corporate

sustainability, it has been documented that a well-defined, communicated and

executed sustainability strategy can have a positive impact on financial outcomes, the

social welfare of stakeholders, and the organisation’s ecological footprint (KPMG,

2011).

Corporate sustainability is advocated as a better way to do business; one that

can increase profits and also positively impact the environment through more

efficient business models (McKinsey on Sustainability & Resource Productivity,

Number 2, 2014). A global survey of 378 senior executives across North America

found that corporate environmental sustainability is increasingly being viewed by

organisations less as an add-on activity and more as a strategic direction and “source

of innovation” (KPMG, 2011, p. 13). However, it is also apparent that some business

leaders are struggling to operationalise this concept and engage internal stakeholders

around the need to adopt or accept corporate sustainability principles. The majority

of 1,000 CEOs questioned during a global survey conducted on behalf of the United

Nations reported that they thought that the business sector was not doing enough to

overcome “global sustainability challenges” (McKinsey on Sustainability & Resource

Productivity, Number 2, 2014, p. 6) and a 2016 study completed by global

2 Chapter 1: Introduction

professional services company, Accenture, on the UN Global Compact, found 97%

of businesses believe that sustainability is paramount to their survival (Accenture,

2016). Although increasingly recognised as important, and the opportunities

available to businesses and organisations that are strategically aligned to a

sustainable business model are well documented (Hart & Milstein, 2003), the

corporate sustainability challenge is not necessarily a priority within a crowded

agenda for executives and business leaders.

Businesses and organisations that are committed to making inroads into

corporate sustainability need not look far to find proven technological interventions

to even the most challenging issues. There are advanced technological solutions to

improve energy efficiency through energy monitoring and power-factor correction or

an organisation can reduce reliance on traditional energy sources by using

photovoltaic solar; decrease water usage by installing water efficient fittings and leak

detection, or even move toward a zero-waste business through a lifecycle approach to

manufacturing and waste management. The academic and business literature

covering corporate sustainability has focused on the actions of, and outcomes from,

these technological solutions for organisations (Boiral, Paille, & Raineri, 2015).

These actions and outcomes include organisational compliance (e.g. compliance with

government regulations or ISO14001 environmental management protocols), the

impact of building or user interface interventions (e.g. the use of LED lights,

occupancy sensors, and energy efficient building design to reduce environmental

impact), or industry specific solutions to improve eco-efficiency or minimize

environmental and social impacts of business operations (e.g. enhancing supply

chain management to improve efficiency, implementing recycling and waste

management initiatives or a lifecycle approach to manufacturing goods to minimize

waste and resource consumption).

It has been argued that to become sustainable, businesses must view their

approach to corporate sustainability from a systems perspective (Lozano, 2015).

Thus, in addition to technological interventions such as those described above, the

extant literature on corporate sustainability also foregrounds the importance of

creating a supportive strategic direction (Bertels, Papania, & Papania, 2010) and

sustainability culture within the organisation (Linnenluecke, Russell, & Griffiths,

2009), and demonstrating leadership in sustainability matters (Metcalf & Benn,


2013). However, there is more limited academic research or industry case studies

which focus on nurturing individual employee green behaviours (e.g. turning off

lights when leaving a room or recycling waste in the correct receptacle) within the

organisation to achieve corporate sustainability goals (Russell & Griffiths, 2008).

Engaging employees to be able to respond to the corporate sustainability challenge is

paramount to the success of corporate sustainability initiatives (KPMG, 2011;

Linnenluecke & Griffiths, 2010).

1.2 RESEARCH CONTEXT

Education institutions are defined as organisations “that provide instructional

services to individuals or education-related services to individuals” (OECD, 2002, p.

64). Private schools (a type of education institution which is funded in whole or in

part by charging tuition fees to attend) can operate in a very similar manner to

business (McDonald, Pini, & Mayes, 2012). Businesses sell a product or service for a

profit and provide employment opportunities, and in-turn, employees help that

business meet its goals. Schools may not aim to make a profit but they do provide a

product; aiming to enhance the education provided to students (and parents) and, in

turn, provide employment (e.g. teachers, support staff, grounds staff, business

managers, accountants, coaches and counsellors). Like any business, schools face

challenges associated with the cost of doing their business (cost of energy, resources,

staff wages and maintenance). Analogous to business leaders who need to provide

leadership for employees across the business, school executive committees and

principals must lead and manage school employees so that they are engaged in all

facets of the school (not just what happens in the classroom or office).

Individual employees within a business or organisation can have a significant

impact (positive or negative) on the overall outcomes of their employing

organisation’s sustainability strategy. All businesses and organisations (including

schools) need to promote staff engagement of employee green behaviours if they are

to become a “sustaining organization” (Benn, et al., 2014, p. 3), focussed on

improving the health of the natural environment and meeting the needs of

stakeholders while at the same time meeting organisational objectives.

The extant research on corporate sustainability suggests that failing to

communicate effectively with employees will negatively impact the success of


corporate sustainability initiatives (Lauring & Thomsen, 2009). Furthermore, the

level of personal commitment of individual employees to the organisation’s

sustainability goals contributes to the success or otherwise of said sustainability goals

(Mesmer�Magnus, Viswesvaran, & Wiernik, 2013). Indeed, individual employee

green behaviours have been found to significantly contribute to the wider

environmental sustainability outcomes of the organisation, particularly when

combined with established environmental management systems and innovations

(Norton, Zacher, & Ashkanasy, 2014; Ones & Dilchert, 2012b). In other words, a

business or organisation might direct resources towards improving efficiencies in

their supply chain (e.g. a manufacturer) or their built environment (e.g. a school) but

if at the same time they are not changing staff attitudes and behaviours, that business

or organisation will not realise the full potential of their capital improvements. On

the basis of such findings, researchers investigating corporate environmental

sustainability have emphasised the need for more research at the individual employee

level (Andersson, Jackson, & Russell, 2013; Ones & Dilchert, 2012b) and this

individual employee level includes school employees. Moreover, exploration of

environmental sustainability in schools (relative to the higher education sector) more

generally is under-explored.

1.3 RESEARCH PURPOSE

Encouraging employees to participate in green behaviours, especially those

behaviours that sit outside their actual jobs, is a challenging task confronting

managers, business executives and educational leaders. These discretionary green

behaviours can make up at least 70% of overall employee green behaviours (Ones &

Dilchert, 2012b). This study aims to better understand the adoption and performance

of discretionary green behaviours by employees in a school-based setting by seeking

answers to the following three research questions:

Research question 1. How do employees perceive and practice employee

green behaviour?

Research question 2. What drives or hinders OCBE for the individual

employee?

Research question 3. How can the organisation facilitate OCBE?


To achieve the stated aim, this study applies a critical realist approach through a

qualitative methodology. Specifically, this study will utilise a single case study

method to better understand the drivers and barriers to individual employee

citizenship behaviour for the environment and what factors best facilitate these

behaviours within a school-based setting. This research project intends to improve

the knowledge transfer specific to employee green behaviour in schools, which is the

gap that exists between academic theory and practice (Van de Ven & Johnson, 2006).

Hence an explanatory case study, using semi-structured interviews and observations,

has been selected which requires the researcher to become immersed within the case

to fully comprehend and in turn explain how “patterns related to the phenomenon in

question” manifest themselves within the case under study (Marshall & Rossman,

2011, p. 69). Such an approach is designed to illuminate links between theory and

practice by establishing practical solutions to foster more organisational citizenship

behaviour for the environment within the school-based context. Although most

academic studies of organisational citizenship behaviour for the environment have

been completed in traditional businesses or higher education institutions, the school-

based focus of this study is currently under-explored in the extant literature.

1.4 THESIS OUTLINE

This thesis is organised into five chapters. Chapter One introduces the background,

context and purpose of the research. Chapter Two discusses and synthesises the

relevant literature in the field, beginning with an explanation of the general concept

of corporate sustainability and the specific definition of corporate sustainability that

frames this study. This is followed by a discussion of the relevant constructs and

theories that help to explain organisational citizenship behaviour for the

environment, which is a distinct contemporary extension of the construct,

organisational citizenship behaviour. Social exchange theory (Emerson, 1976) and

the theory of psychological ownership (Pierce, Kostova, & Dirks, 2001) are utilised

to provide a fuller understanding of the construct organisational citizenship

behaviour for the environment. The literature review then discusses employee green

behaviour and its distinctiveness from green behaviours that take place in the home

or in public. Two models of employee green behaviour are then compared to provide

the foundation for a discussion of organisational citizenship behaviour for the

environment.


Chapter Three outlines the research design. This chapter is divided into sub-

sections that provide information on the methodology, research instruments, the case

profile and participants of the study, the procedure and timeline, and the analytical

approach applied. It concludes with a discussion of the ethical considerations and the

limitations associated of the study. Chapter Four highlights significant results while

Chapter Five discusses the implications of the key findings which include the

employee perceptions of green behaviour, the drivers and barriers to organisational

citizenship behaviours for the environment and some possible practical solutions to

foster them within a workplace.

Chapter 2: Literature Review 7

Chapter 2: Literature Review

Employee attitudes and behaviours have a central role to play in assisting

organisations to reduce their impact on the environment and, in turn, help the

organisation to become more sustainable. This chapter commences with a discussion

and definition of corporate sustainability appropriate for this study, followed by a

discussion of green behaviours. Organisational Citizenship Behaviour (OCB) is

outlined next, leading to the theoretical underpinnings of the research. Social

Exchange Theory underpins OCB but has also been used to explain other constructs

and theories; Theory of Psychological Ownership has only recently been linked to

OCB but may explain some links to employee behaviour and shared spaces.

Organisational Citizenship Behaviour for the Environment (OCBE) is an emerging

construct that describes discretionary employee green behaviour. Relevant literature

that investigates OCBE in the education sector is analysed and discussed. This

chapter concludes by highlighting the implications of the literature and develops the

conceptual framework for the study.

2.1 CORPORATE SUSTAINABILITY

Corporate sustainability has gained significant interest from academics over recent

years. Researchers are increasingly focusing on the role of the organisation in

improving the natural environment but there is room for more research around the

role of the individual employee in achieving corporate sustainability. The concept of

corporate sustainability has its roots in the pro-environmental movement that began

in the 1960s (Daly, 1974). Although not a new concept, there is not widespread

agreement among academics and businesses of an exact definition of corporate

sustainability (Rego, e Cunha, & Polónia, 2015). This may be in part due to the

complex and multifaceted nature of the concept or the different interpretations of

corporate sustainability by industry groups, academics, non-governmental

organisations (NGO) and governments. Likewise, managerial expectations and

application of sustainability practices vary between organisations and industry

sectors and this complexity can lead to confusion (Linnenluecke & Griffiths, 2010).

This confusion exists even at the top of the corporate hierarchy, as when senior

8 Chapter 2: Literature Review

executives discuss sustainability, they can “mean different things” (Rego, et al.,

2015, p. 17).

Bansal (2005) states that an appropriate definition of corporate sustainability

must balance the traditional social, environmental and economic perspectives of

sustainability. However, not all existing definitions are balanced across the three

perspectives. Some definitions of corporate sustainability emphasise maintaining

economic value for current stakeholders (IISD, 1992) while others frame corporate

sustainability from a risk management perspective (S&P & RobecoSAM, 2016) or in

the context of corporate social responsibility (Lauring & Thomsen, 2009). This thesis

applies a definition of sustainability framed as the need for organisations to

contribute to “…the continuing health of the planet, the survival of humans and other

species, the development of a just and humane society, and the creation of work that

brings dignity and self-fulfilment to those undertaking it” (Benn, et al., 2014, p. 4).

This approach to corporate sustainability balances all three perspectives of

sustainability, articulating that businesses must be overall cognisant of their impacts

and, over time, continue to work to minimize the negative impacts from their

business on people and the planet.

Achieving corporate sustainability requires a clear and measured approach to

numerous areas including but not limited to; organisational strategy with principles

of corporate sustainability as a cornerstone of the strategy, directed application of

resources (both financial and human) toward achieving corporate sustainability,

leadership both from within the organisation and from the organisation, as well as

employee commitment to the organisation’s sustainability goals and the employee’s

own green behaviours. Over the past two decades many of these areas have been

addressed enumerate within the literature (Benn, et al., 2014; Doppelt, 2009; Dyllick

& Hockerts, 2002; Kollmuss & Agyeman, 2002; Linnenluecke & Griffiths, 2010;

Metcalf & Benn, 2013; Shrivastava, 1995), however, one area that has not received

the same level of attention is employee green behaviour.

2.2 EMPLOYEE GREEN BEHAVIOUR

2.2.1 Pro-Environmental Behaviour

Interest in the pro-environmental behaviours of individuals has increased as society

continues to grapple with the consequences of ecological degradation, climate


change and increasing population. Individuals have a large role to play, along with

governments and business, in mitigating the aforementioned issues. There is a

considerable body of literature on individual pro-environmental behaviour at home

and in public (Bamberg & Möser, 2007; Halpenny, 2010; Hines, Hungerford, &

Tomera, 1987; Kollmuss & Agyeman, 2002). This literature uses a wide range of

terms that describe individual behaviours that are oriented toward positively

benefiting the environment. These terms include ecological behaviours,

environmental behaviours, environmental actions, responsible environmental

behaviours, sustainable behaviours and green behaviours. Despite this diversity in

nomenclature, these terms essentially describe the same idea. For the purposes of this

thesis the terms described above are subsumed under the general term, pro-

environmental behaviour. Pro-environmental behaviour describes an individual’s

day-to-day actions that support the environment or are oriented toward reducing the

individual’s ecological footprint (Kollmuss & Agyeman, 2002). Such actions could

include reducing electricity use, recycling or being involved in an activity that

improves the natural environment such as habitat restoration.

The barriers and drivers of individual pro-environmental behaviours in the

private or in the public arena are well established (Kollmuss & Agyeman, 2002).

Two theories commonly used to explain individual pro-environmental behaviour are

the Theory of Planned Behaviour (Bamberg, 2003; De Groot & Steg, 2007) and the

more specific Model of Responsible Environmental Behaviour (Hines, et al., 1987).

The Theory of Planned Behaviour has been found to be a more reliable predictor

than the Model of Responsible Environmental Behaviour of an individual’s intention

to engage in pro-environmental behaviours (Chao, 2012). The Theory of Planned

Behaviour is based on the perceived consequences of a behaviour and the normative

value of that behaviour to others (Ajzen, 1985). Despite its use to explain a range of

behaviours in a variety of contexts, the Theory of Planned Behaviour has been

critiqued on the basis of its underlying assumption that individuals act rationally

(Kollmuss & Agyeman, 2002). It has also been suggested that the Theory of Planned

Behaviour does not take into consideration situational factors that may impact an

individual’s capacity or willingness to engage in pro-environmental behaviour

(Kollmuss & Agyeman, 2002).


By contrast, the Model of Responsible Environmental Behaviour explicitly

identifies a range of situational factors that may impact an individual’s willingness

and/or capacity to engage in pro-environmental behaviour, such as economic

constraints and social pressures. The model also highlights the variables associated

with pro-environmental behaviour such as knowledge of issues and action strategies,

locus of control, attitudes, verbal commitment and personal responsibility (Hines, et

al., 1987). The Model of Responsible Environmental Behaviour is more focussed

toward understanding individual’s behaviour outside of the workplace.

Individual pro-environmental behaviour at home or in public is a complex area

of social science that relies on different explanations of different drivers to validate

these pro-environmental behaviours (Clark, Kotchen, & Moore, 2003; Faruqui,

Sergici, & Sharif, 2010; Gadenne, Sharma, Kerr, & Smith, 2011; Tabernero &

Hernández, 2011). For example, the Theory of Planned Behaviour explains an

individual’s choice to engage in pro-environmental behaviour in their home, maybe

to save money by replacing halogen light bulbs with LEDs or because a neighbour

has completed a similar lighting retrofit. Alternatively, the Model of Responsible

Environmental Behaviour rationalises an individual’s choice to retrofit LEDs

because they are concerned about the effects of climate change and feel that reducing

their electricity use at home is behaviour that they can control which has a positive

effect on the environment. Although a sizeable body of the research conducted to

predict pro-environmental behaviour has been centred on those behaviours that take

place in the private or public sphere, the same research cannot wholly explain pro-

environmental behaviour at work. This is because the behaviours take place in

different contexts. There are competing demands placed on individuals while at work

as well as other contextual factors including organisational values and norms that

may impact an employee’s ability or desire to engage in pro-environmental

behaviour (Andersson, Shivarajan, & Blau, 2005). Indeed, until relatively recently,

pro-environmental behaviours have been under-explored in a work context (Lo,

Peters, & Kok, 2012a; Ones & Dilchert, 2012b).

2.2.2 Employee Green Behaviour

Employee green behaviour is the term that is most appropriate when describing pro-

environmental behaviours specific to a work context (Ones & Dilchert, 2012b).

Employee green behaviours have the potential to create value for the organisation,


through reduced operational costs, improving reputation, pollution prevention, waste

reduction and/or eco-innovations (Boiral, 2005; Paillé, Chen, Boiral, & Jin, 2014;

Tilley & Young, 2006). Employee green behaviours have been defined as actions

and behaviours that employees can actually perform that either support or undermine

the environmental sustainability goals of an organisation (Ones & Dilchert, 2012a).

This definition places employee green behaviours on a continuum whereby some

employees will perform behaviours to reduce pressure on the environment (e.g.

choosing not to print a document to save paper) and some employee will perform

negligent behaviours that harm the environment (e.g. disposing of harmful chemicals

in a waterway). Both behaviours need attention from the organisation; the first

behaviour should be encouraged and the second behaviour needs correction (Pfaff &

Sanchirico, 2000). However, the above definition encompasses only those actions

and behaviours that are quantifiable or can be traced back to an individual. Ones and

Dilchert’s (2012a) definition of employee green behaviour fails to account for ‘tacit

knowledge’ that is shared between individual employees, which cannot be readily

quantifiable (Boiral, Paille, et al., 2015). Boiral, Paille and Raineri (2015) build upon

the extant knowledge of employee green behaviour by further developing the

definition to include tacit knowledge with a focus on two important characteristics;

the scope and diversity (i.e. employee green behaviours in different contexts) of the

behaviour and explicitly separating whether the behaviour is voluntary or prescribed

by the organisation.

The actions and outcomes of employee green behaviours have similarities with

those of pro-environmental behaviours engaged in at home or in public. These

outcomes can include reducing waste to landfill, increasing use of renewable energy

or increased rates of recycling. However, some of the drivers and barriers of

employee green behaviours differ from the drivers and barriers of general pro-

environmental behaviour because they take place in a different context, a workplace.

Within the workplace context, individuals are bound by a different set of norms and

expectations than they would otherwise be at home (Parker, 2011). Indeed, an

employee’s green behaviour cannot necessarily be predicted based upon the extent to

which they engage in pro-environmental behaviour outside of their workplace (Lo,

Peters, & Kok, 2012b).


Two possible explanations exist for this incongruity in green behaviours at

work and at home. First, the drivers to engage in pro-environmental behaviour at

home might be different to the drivers of a similar behaviour at work. If an individual

decides to open some windows instead of using air-conditioning while at home, the

main driver might be to save money with a secondary driver a concern for the impact

on the environment. Because this individual does not necessarily have personal

responsibility to pay the bills while at work their behaviour might be different (or

differently motivated). Second, the structure of an organisation (physical and

management hierarchy), the nature of an individual’s role, and the stated goals of the

organisation, organisational culture and availability of relevant infrastructure (e.g.

sorting bins) might impede an individual’s opportunity to engage in a pro-

environmental behaviour that they would otherwise engage at home (Kollmuss &

Agyeman, 2002; Lee, De Young, & Marans, 1995). The opposite is also true, in that

an employee might recycle paper at work due to organisational expectations but not

do the same at home.

Categories of Employee Green Behaviour

Employee green behaviours can be categorised as either task-based or voluntary.

Task-based green behaviours are those behaviours that employees are required to do

as part of their duties at work (Norton, Parker, Zacher, & Ashkanasy, 2015). These

behaviours can exist where required by laws and regulations or where formally

required as part of an individual’s job. Examples of task-based green behaviours

include complying with ISO14001 environmental management systems, setting

printing double sided as the default print option, moving paper files to the cloud for

electronic storage, or engaging in video conferencing over travelling to face to face

meetings. These task-based pro-environmental behaviours can be fostered through a

range of managerial interventions (Daily, Bishop, & Steiner, 2007) including

formalising required behaviours in role descriptions, providing workplace training or

professional development for employees and publishing internal policy regarding

expected behaviours and required benchmarks. Many of these task-based green

behaviours are quantified within an organisation’s sustainability reporting (Kolk,

2008) and in certain circumstances, there are sanctions for the organisation for non-

compliance with environmental regulations or failure to reach required benchmarks

from government or local councils (Environmental Protection Act, 1994).


On the other hand, employee voluntary green behaviours sit outside formal role

or task descriptions. These behaviours have not received much attention in the pro-

environmental literature and are classified as those discretionary individual pro-

environmental behaviours that employees do that “exceed organisational

expectations” (Norton et al., 2015, p. 105). In this sense, these behaviours can be

considered citizenship behaviours. Employee voluntary green behaviours can work

together with in-role, task or compliance-based green behaviours to fill the gap

between what an employee must do and what they could do for the environment

while at work. However, because employee voluntary green behaviours are

considered extra-role, perceived as time consuming and difficult to manage, it means

that they rarely are given much attention within an organisation (Boiral, 2009).

The Green Five Taxonomy (Figure 2.1) was developed to identify those green

behaviours employees engage in that further the corporate sustainability goals of

their place of work (Ones & Dilchert, 2012a). The taxonomy places employee green

behaviours into five separate categories: Avoiding harm; conserving (resources);

working sustainably; influencing others; and taking initiative. Although each

category has a defined list of behaviours that employees do, it should be noted that

the categories are not mutually exclusive. For example, an employee might engage in

a behaviour that reduces waste (working sustainably) by using a reusable coffee cup

when purchasing a coffee that, in-turn, sets an example for a colleague to do the

same thing (influencing others). Despite the clarity of categories outlined in The

Green Five Taxonomy of employee green behaviours and the high likelihood they

would require different management strategies to elicit support from employees, the

taxonomy does not delineate between task-based and voluntary workplace

behaviours.


Figure 2.1 The Green Five Taxonomy (Ones & Dilchert, 2012a, ch. 5)

There is a growing body of research that demonstrates a difference between in-

role, task-based employee green behaviour and voluntary employee green behaviour

(Daily, Bishop, & Govindarajulu, 2009; Lamm, Tosti-Kharas, & Williams, 2013;

Norton, et al., 2015). Norton et al. (2015) propose a more inclusive model for

employee green behaviours (Figure 2.2) that separates the suspected antecedents and

mechanisms for task-based green behaviours (e.g. operating within an ISO14001

environmental management framework) from voluntary green behaviours (e.g.

turning off the light to their office when leaving for a meeting). The Integrated

Multilevel Model for Employee Green Behaviours is based on a multi-level review

of 54 quantitative and 15 qualitative studies and illustrates the complex web of

factors that determine the prospects and outcomes of employee green behaviour. The

model features three main categories; antecedents of employee green behaviour,

contextual factors that both moderate and mediate the relationship between employee

green behaviour and possible outcomes, and the possible outcomes of employee

green behaviour.

Preventing Pollution

Monitoring environmental

impact

Strengthening ecosystems

Avoiding harm

Reducing use

Reusing

Repurposing

Conserving

Recycling

Changing how work is done

Choosing responsible alternatives

Creating sustainable

products and process

Working sustainably

Embracing innovative for sustainability

Encouraging and supporting

others

Influencing others

Putting environmental interests first

Taking Initiative

Initiating programs and

policies

Lobbying and activism

Embracing innovation for sustainability

Educating and training for

sustainability


Figure 2.2 Integrated Multilevel Model for Employee Green Behaviours. (Norton, et al., 2015, p. 104)

The Integrated Multilevel Model for Employee Green Behaviours highlights

the existence of different factors within and between employees and different states

of motivation (controlled and autonomous) for green behaviours for individual

employees. Depending on the combination of person factors and individual

motivation states the result could be either task-based or voluntary green behaviours.

The model asserts that the actual performance of employee green behaviours depends

largely on the moderating or mediating effect of contextual factors (institutional,

organisational, leader and team). Hence, there are varying levels of employee green

behaviour and, even if an employee is intrinsically motivated to perform task-based

or voluntary green behaviours, the organisation in which they work has a large role

to play in determining whether that green behaviour is enacted (Norton, et al., 2015).

Theories of exchange underpin the Integrated Multilevel Model for Employee

Green Behaviours and can explain the nature of the relationship between the

organisation (acting through the manager) and employee. The main principle behind

this relationship is the notion of reciprocity (Cropanzano & Mitchell, 2005) in which

both parties participate in a quid pro quo exchange. Specifically, Social Exchange

Theory (SET) is an appropriate theoretical explanation to better understand employee

willingness to engage in green behaviour, especially those behaviours that are


considered extra-role (Paillé & Mejía-Morelos, 2014). Social Exchange Theory will

be further discussed in Section 2.4.1.

The Integrated Multilevel Model for Employee Green Behaviours is a

promising lens through which to view employee green behaviour but the

relationships within the model are yet to be empirically tested. There are many

avenues for future studies to examine. Indeed, Norton et al. (2015) state that more

research needs to be completed which examines the impact of the contextual factors

on the likelihood of employee green behaviour for task-based and voluntary

employee green behaviour respectively. Consequently, building on the current

understandings of employee green behaviour from the Integrated Multilevel Model

for Employee Green Behaviours, it is necessary to determine barriers and drivers of

voluntary employee green behaviours and which contextual factors might foster

these citizenship behaviours.

2.3 ORGANISATIONAL CITIZENSHIP BEHAVIOUR

Outside the corporate sustainability sphere, it has been well documented that

individual employee voluntary behaviours contribute to effective organisational

outcomes (Organ & Ryan, 1995; Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Paine, & Bachrach, 2000).

Voluntary employee workplace behaviours can work in tandem with formal task-

based workplace behaviours to help the organisation to function more effectively.

Voluntary workplace behaviours largely fall under the construct of organisational

citizenship behaviour (OCB), which has been covered extensively in the literature

over the last three decades (Bateman & Organ, 1983; Hoffman, Blair, Meriac, &

Woehr, 2007; Organ, 1997; Organ & Ryan, 1995; Podsakoff, Podsakoff, MacKenzie,

Maynes, & Spoelma, 2014). Organisational citizenship behaviour and related

constructs have been the focus of over 650 articles since the emergence of OCB in

the early 1980s (Podsakoff, Whiting, Podsakoff, & Blume, 2009).

OCBs have been defined as those optional ‘things’ employees do within their

day-to-day jobs that are not found on a role description but which help an

organisation to function more effectively and to achieve its goals (Organ & Ryan,

1995). Through this definition, Organ and Ryan suggest that an employee has the

choice to engage or disengage in these citizenship behaviours. If an employee

chooses to engage in the behaviour the employee does not have the expectation of a


reward and conversely, if they decide to not engage in these voluntary behaviours, a

negative consequence is not enforceable (Organ, 1988).

The original definition of OCB reflected the nature of business operations at

the time (pre-1990s). At this time, workplace roles tended to be more rigid with

clearly prescribed duties. However, over the intervening three decades, business

models, technology, management techniques and employee behaviour has changed

and this is reflected in a more dynamic and flexible workplace. With this in mind,

Organ set about “cleaning up” the definition of OCB to one that fits more

comfortably within a modern business model, as behaviours that contribute “to the

maintenance and enhancement of the social and psychological context that supports

task performance” (Organ, 1997, p. 91). This refined definition realigns OCBs as

those employee behaviours that create a better workplace atmosphere, allow

employees to do their job better, and removes the reference to a formal role

description.

It is important to note that quantitative analysis of the OCB literature has

shown that OCB is distinct from other task related behaviours (Hoffman, et al.,

2007). The OCB construct is based on the combined ideas of Barnard’s “willingness

to cooperate” and Katz’s “innovative and spontaneous behaviors” (Podsakoff, et al.,

2000, p. 513). Cooperation and spontaneous behaviour hold a key to better

understand OCB, as OCBs may not necessarily be planned for and generally take

place to assist other employees or the organisation more broadly, when needed

throughout the day. OCB was originally defined as a five-factor model, consisting of:

altruism, courtesy, conscientiousness, civic virtue, and sportsmanship (Organ, 1988).

More recently, a review of the OCB literature by Podsakoff et al. (2000) identified

seven separate OCB factors: helping behaviour, organisational loyalty, individual

initiative, organisational compliance, self-development, sportsmanship, and civic

virtue. Podsakoff et al. have not deviated significantly from Organ’s original OCB

model but there are some differences between the two models. Podsakoff’s first

factor, helping behaviour, is an extension of Organ’s altruism factor. The factors of

courtesy and conscientiousness in Organ’s model have been divided into

organisational loyalty, individual initiative and organisational compliance. Self-

development is a factor in Podsakoff’s model that is born from other areas of the

OCB literature but the factors sportsmanship and civic virtue are found in both


models. Importantly, it should be noted that these voluntary organisational

citizenship behaviours could be directed toward the organisation or directed towards

individuals within the organisation (Williams & Anderson, 1991).

Table 2.1.

Dimensions of OCB

OCB Dimensions OCB definitions OCB examples

Helping Behaviour Assisting a colleague to overcome a job-related problem or helping to prevent the problem occurring.

Helping a colleague to navigate an internal process.

Organisational Loyalty

Recommending one’s workplace to non-employees, demonstrating reliance during time of uncertainty and being dependable and committed.

Positively discussing the organisation to non-employees at a dinner party.

Organisational Compliance

Demonstrating compliance and obedience to internal processes even if there is a seeming lack of adherence from other employees.

Arriving on time and ready to positively engage in team meetings.

Self-Development Employees willingly taking steps to improve their work performance.

Undertaking professional development that improves work related tasks, outside of work hours.

Sportsmanship Rising above the inevitable machinations of workplace politics, putting aside ego when discussing or debating workplace processes or initiatives and generally being cordial when dealing with stakeholders.

Demonstrating resilience when passed over for a promotion

Civic Virtue Demonstrating a unique interest in or commitment to the organisation.

Demonstrating professionalism when others are negatively discussing rumours during a round of redundancy.

Personal Initiative Voluntarily doing things that need to be done that benefit other employees or the organisation.

Tidying a communal kitchen space.

Adapted from Podsakoff, et al. (2000, pp. 520-524)

Organisational citizenship behaviours are an important element for the success

of organisations. Contemporary businesses and organisations must respond to a

dynamic regulatory environment, increasing global competition, increasing

stakeholder expectations around sustainability and social responsibility, while

attempting to improve operational efficiencies and decrease operational expenditure.

Within this dynamic environment, employees are being increasingly relied upon to

do whatever necessary (within reason) during their day at work to get the job done

(Organ, 1997). An effective manager should be generally aware of the breadth of

work an employee might do (both task-based behaviours and OCBs) and reward


them appropriately. Mutual commitment has the potential to develop as a result of

this interchange between employer and employee. This mutual commitment may be

established through a simple positive acknowledgment of the employee behaviour or,

depending on the behaviour, more tangible compensation for the employee. Mutual

commitment has been found to significantly influence the degree to which an

employee views the boundaries of their job and the degree to which they may engage

in OCB (Coyle�Shapiro, Kessler, & Purcell, 2004).

Performance of an individual OCB may not add significant value to the

organisation. However, it has been hypothesized that employees who repeatedly

engage in OCBs can add to the overall success of an organisation in several ways.

These include freeing up resources, improving productivity, and improving manager

co-worker relationships (Organ, 1997; Podsakoff et al., 2000). OCBs can be

performed by an individual within one unit of the organisation or by all members of

the organisation. Through a meta-analysis of workplace effectiveness measures,

Podsakoff et al. (2009) confirmed a positive relationship between OCBs and

organisational effectiveness measures as well as customer satisfaction. Interestingly,

managers who focus on improving staff morale tend to create an environment that is

more likely to lead to OCB (Organ & Ryan, 1995), which in turn may lead a more

effective business or business unit. Finally, consistent performance of OCBs by

individuals can lead to the formation of group OCB norms within an organisation

through social reinforcement (Ehrhart & Naumann, 2004) rather than from

managerial intervention. Ultimately, the existence of OCBs is a positive sign that a

business unit or the business as a whole is generally well managed where staff are

committed and customers have higher satisfaction.

2.4 THEORETICAL APPROACH

Credible and dependable constructs like OCB only exist when built upon good

theories (Shenton, 2004). A good theory “guides research toward crucial questions

and enlightens the profession of management” (Van de Ven, 1989, p. 486). Two

‘good’ theories will be used to guide the questions and constructs used within this

research: Social Exchange Theory and the Theory of Psychological Ownership. Use

of these two theories maintains a clear focus of direction for the questions within the

data collection and credibility within the research design and aids data analysis

leading to clearer conclusions. Social Exchange Theory is an established theory


dating back to the 1970s and while the Theory of Psychological Ownership has been

developed more recently, they are both equally important to better understand

discretionary employee green behaviour.

2.4.1 Social Exchange Theory

An exchange perspective of behaviour underpins the theorisation of OCB. Organ

(1988) first proposed that positive actions by a manager towards an employee could

develop into a social exchange relationship, which could lead to OCBs. Social

Exchange Theory is a much-loved paradigm used by academics as a basis to explain

workplace relationships (Cropanzano & Mitchell, 2005). In short, Social Exchange

Theory proposes that a series of exchanges create obligations between individuals

and/or groups (Emerson, 1976) and that interdependent mutually rewarding

transactions, involving at least two (or more) people, are required for these exchange

relationships to exist (Blau, 1964). The resultant obligations then have the potential

to lead to meaningful relationships (Cropanzano & Mitchell, 2005). These exchange

relationships form the foundation from which OCB is built. Social Exchange Theory

has been defined by Emerson as a “frame of reference that takes the movement of

valued things (resources) through social process as its focus” (Emerson, 1976, p.

359). The main principle behind this transaction between the two parties is the notion

of reciprocity (Cropanzano & Mitchell, 2005). In other words, both parties

participate in a quid pro quo exchange to achieve a beneficial outcome such as the

performance of employee green behaviour. Empirical studies (Cardona, Lawrence, &

Bentler, 2004; Konovsky & Pugh, 1994) have confirmed that Social Exchange

Theory explains significant variance in OCB.

In the context of business, SET explains those positive exchanges between

employees and the organisation that facilitate the development and strengthening of

relationships over time. Employees engage in social exchange at work for both

“intrinsic” and “extrinsic” benefits (Love & Forret, 2008, p. 343). SET has been used

to explain behaviour in various business fields such as leadership, organisational

psychology and governance (Cropanzano & Mitchell, 2005). Since its original

incarnation, SET has been further developed to include a series of rules that are

required to establish the conditions for an exchange to take place. Researchers have

begun to unpack these rules to lessen the ambiguity around their application.


To better understand the rules for exchange, researchers are using a framework

developed by Meeker (1971) that includes six specific rules. These are reciprocity,

negotiated rules, rationality, altruism, status consistency, competition and group gain.

Under Meeker’s (1971) framework, reciprocity refers to the positive interdependent

exchanges between two people that flow from one act to the next. A simple example

would be a person who might open the office door for a colleague whose arms are

full. This person may then exchange the favour by making the helpful colleague a

cup of coffee. It is in this way that reciprocity is understood to develop positive

relationships between colleagues, which can improve staff morale and in turn

workplace effectiveness. In contrast to these informal exchanges, negotiated rules

refer to the negotiations that can sometimes take place between two parties in order

for an exchange to take place. Such an exchange might occur as a new employee

accepts a new job and the negotiation of salary takes place. Negotiated rules differ

from reciprocity, as the two parties involved are explicit in defining what they want

before the exchange takes place.

Diverging from the acts of formal or informal exchanges are the rules of

rationality, status consistency and competition. Rationality is defined as the use of

reasoned judgment to determine the likely benefit and consequences of the exchange,

focuses on understanding decision-making. In contrast to the self-interest that is

often typified by rationality, altruism is understood as the act of doing something for

another party without any benefit to oneself. This could be seen in an action such as

covering the shift of a colleague who must pick their sick child from school.

Individuals maintain status consistency when they assign benefits based on the rank

order of the social group. This might occur at a team meeting when an employee

gives up her seat for a manager who was late. Competition arises when individuals

cause mischief to others to the detriment of themselves. In contrast to the previous

five exchange rules that are focused on benefits for the individual, the sixth rule is

group gain and refers to those benefits that are held in common and then used by

individuals at their will. There is then the expectation that the individual will repay

the commons when able so others can then access them. Cropanzo and Mitchell

(2005) lament the dearth of more research around this framework, as it is a useful

model in which researchers can better understand the nature of exchange

relationships.


It has been established that SET underpins OCBs and that these behaviours can

have a positive impact on organisational outcomes. The rules that establish these

exchanges are further enriching our understandings of traditional OCBs. However,

an aspect of organisational behaviour that has not typically been included in

traditional understandings of OCB is those behaviours directed towards the

environment. Organisational Citizenship Behaviours for the Environment (OCBE)

has been recently espoused as a feasible construct that encompasses those voluntary

workplace behaviours that have a positive impact on the environment. OCBE is a

form of employee green behaviour.

2.4.2 Theory of Psychological Ownership

Ideas relating to ownership have been referred to in the literature since the 1930s.

Pierce, et al. (2001) were the first to specifically outline the Theory of Psychological

Ownership and its focus on the feelings of ownership an individual might have over

an idea, a physical object or space. Pierce et al. (2003) theorise that psychological

ownership is based somewhat on an individual’s innate desire to feel useful within

their work environment. Further to this, employees can feel a sense of ownership

over objects, spaces, ideas or processes and this sense of ownership can have

emotional or behavioural impacts (O’Driscoll, Pierce, & Coghlan, 2006; Pierce, et

al., 2001).

Employees will be more motivated and connected to their workplace when

they feel a sense of ownership (O’Driscoll, et al., 2006). Managers often use the

notion of ownership when trying to motivate a direct report to complete a specific

task (e.g. “I want you to take ownership of…”) or to motivate a group of employees

to look after a physical space (e.g. “We must all own this communal space and tidy

up after ourselves”). What they are referring to is not necessarily economic

ownership but “psychological ownership – a feeling on the part of the employees that

they have a responsibility to make decisions that are in the long term interest of the

company” (O’Reilly, 2002, p. 19).

The notions of commitment and ownership are often used interchangeably.

Notably though, there is a distinction between an individual’s commitment to the

organisation and feelings of ownership of the organisation (Van Dyne & Pierce,

2004). Indeed, ownership refers to the extent that an employee feels the organisation

or something within the organisation such as a task, physical space, idea or team is


theirs. Conversely, commitment refers to whether an employee feels as though the

organisation or a part of the organisation such as a task, physical space, idea or team

aligns with the employee’s intrinsic values and thus whether they maintain their

membership within the organisation (Avey, Avolio, Crossley, & Luthans, 2009).

Employees who feel more ownership of either their specific job or the organisation

as a whole will more likely engage in citizenship behaviours (O’Driscoll, et al.,

2006; Van Dyne & Pierce, 2004). Although this link between the Theory of

Psychological Ownership and traditional OCBs needs further investigation, it has

been theorised that when individuals feel ownership toward their job or the

organisation, higher levels of commitment are exhibited. As discussed earlier

(Section 2.3), when employees experience high levels of commitment at work they

are more likely to engage in citizenship behaviours (Coyle�Shapiro, et al., 2004).

While this relationship is important to note, further exploration is outside the scope

of this thesis. In the context of an organisation, the Theory of Psychological

Ownership could be used to understand an individual’s behaviour (positive or

negative) that relates to the space around the individual’s desk, the use of a piece of

machinery, a teacher’s classroom or even the organisation in its entirety.

The Theory of Psychological Ownership has previously not been linked to

behaviours related to corporate sustainability or more specifically, employee green

behaviours. However, based on the established link between traditional

organisational citizenship behaviours and Theory of Psychological Ownership, it is

theorised that when employees feel ownership toward the organisation (or part

thereof), they are more likely to engage in discretionary green behaviours that

support the sustainability aims of the organisation.

2.5 ORGANISATIONAL CITIZENSHIP BEHAVIOUR FOR THE ENVIRONMENT (OCBE)

2.5.1 Definition of OCBE

Despite the attention OCB has received in the literature, until recently one area of

OCB that has been largely ignored is those behaviours directed toward the

environment (Boiral, 2009). Organisational Citizenship Behaviour for the

Environment (OCBE) has been developed from the traditional OCB framework.

OCBEs occur in the workplace and are a crucial aspect of corporate sustainability

(Daily, et al., 2009). The OCBE construct is in its infancy but is a promising


approach that captures those individual employee green behaviours that sit outside

traditional task or compliance based green behaviours. Most studies do not delineate

between required and voluntary actions or behaviours by employees to reduce the

ecological footprint of the organisation (Boiral & Paillé, 2012). Employee green

behaviours that sit outside formal task specific duties within the organisation need

further exploration (Boiral, 2009).

OCBE has been broadly defined as those voluntary actions by employees

within an organisation “that are directed toward environmental improvement” (Daily,

et al., 2009, p. 246). Boiral and Paille (2012) have expanded the definition of OCBE

by also stating that OCBEs are voluntary, and may not be “explicitly recognised by

the formal reward system and contribute to more effective environmental

management by the organization” (p. 431). This definition of OCBE aligns with

Organ’s (1988 & 1997) definition of OCB, which emphasises that an employee’s

citizenship behaviour goes above and beyond what is required by a formal role

description and adds to the preservation and development of the context in which

their work takes place.

Boiral and Paille’s (2012) definition of OCBE presents a case that these

behaviours demonstrate preparedness and an ability to perform green behaviours,

without the driver of formal recognition that also might add to the effective

functioning of the organisation. It is worth noting that even though OCBE is derived

from OCB, the two constructs have been determined as being reliably distinct from

each other (Lamm, et al., 2013; Paillé & Boiral, 2013). In other words, OCBE

describes those less common voluntary behaviours that specifically benefit the

environment while OCB covers those behaviours that benefit the organisation more

broadly. An example of OCB, could be the active decision by an employee to arrive

early to a meeting with a positive mindset, ready to engage with colleagues.

Conversely, an example of OCBE would be the same employee ensuring the lights to

the communal meeting room are switched off after the meeting to limit electricity

use. The first behaviour benefits the organisation while the second behaviour

specifically benefits the environment and any benefit to the organisation is

secondary. Hence, the two behavioural constructs are distinct from one another thus

existing OCB measures would not be appropriate to identify dimensions of OCBE

(Paillé, Boiral, & Chen, 2013).


2.5.2 OCBE Measurement

Researchers have begun to develop and test applicable measurement scales of OCBE

as, currently, there are only a limited number of measurement scales that outline the

scope and function of OCBE’s. Initially, six factors of OCBE were proposed (Boiral,

2009). These were identified as helping behaviour, organisational loyalty, individual

initiative, organisational compliance, self-development and sportsmanship. These six

initial proposed factors share the same names, as six of the seven factors found in the

original OCB construct, although the types of behaviours they describe are specific

to the natural environment. However, this early model of OCBE was considered too

broad (Boiral, Paille, et al., 2015). A later quantitative study established and

validated a measure of OCBE through exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis

(a quantitative process by which dimensions of new constructs are discovered and

verified), confirming three dimensions: eco-initiatives, eco-civic engagement and

eco-helping (Boiral & Paillé, 2012). A later separate quantitative study by Paillé and

Boiral (2013) further confirmed the existence of these three dimensions. An

important outcome of the three dimensions identified by Boiral and Paillé (2012) is

that the example behaviours within each dimension can be specific to an

organisational context (Lamm, et al., 2013).

The examples outlined in Table 2.2 emphasise that the type of OCBE an

individual can actually engage in is determined by the type of organisation in which

they work. For example, an individual who works predominantly within an office

space may not have the opportunity to become involved in the implementation of

ISO14001 environment management procedures compared with an individual who

works onsite at a mining company where the opportunity to contribute to

implementation of ISO14001 standards would be far more likely. This table also

provides examples of the types of behaviours that sit within each dimension.


Table 2.2.

Dimensions of OCBE

(Boiral & Paillé, 2012, p. 442)

Eco-initiatives refer to employee discretionary behaviour and suggestions toward

improving environmental performance. Eco-civic engagement is an employee’s

voluntary involvement in the organisation’s environmental programs. Eco-helping

Eco-Initiatives Eco-Civic Engagement Eco-Helping

Definition

Discretionary behaviour and suggestions to improve environmental practices or performance

Voluntary participation in an organisation’s environmental programmes and activities

Voluntarily helping colleagues to better integrate environmental concerns in the organisation

Main Focus

Personal initiatives in the organisation

Support for the organisation’s commitments

Mutual support among employees

Items

In my work, I weigh the consequences of my actions before doing something that could affect the environment

I actively participate in environmental events organised in and/or by my company

I spontaneously give my time to help my colleagues take the environment into account in everything they do at work

I voluntarily carry out environmental actions and initiatives in my daily work activities

I stay informed of and/or volunteer for any of my company’s environmental initiatives or events

I encourage my colleagues to adopt more environmentally conscious behaviour

I make suggestions to my colleagues about ways to protect the environment more effectively, even when it is not my direct responsibility

I undertake environmental actions that contribute positively to the image of my organisation

I encourage my colleagues to express their ideas and opinions on environmental issues

Relevance & Usefulness

Improve internal practices Achieve the environmental objectives of the organisation

Promote discussion, cooperation and resolution of complex problems

Reduce environmental impacts Improve the image of the organisation

Empower new employees

Promote green innovation and reduce costs

Eliminate contradictions between words and actions

Examples

Make suggestions to reduce paper consumption

Participate in a green committee Help the environmental service identify sources of pollution

Place recyclable materials in the proper container

Meet with stakeholders Explain environmental procedures to new employees

Turn off lights and reduce heating before leaving the office

Become involved in the implementation of ISO 14001

Ask colleagues to be involved in a new green committee

Establish a ride-sharing programme

Update environmental procedures Help colleagues to clean up an accidental spill

Contribute to the annual sustainability report

Limitations

Motivation can drop if eco-initiatives are ignored by the organisation

Presupposes actual organisational activities or commitments

Presupposes a climate of mutual aid and the existence of environmental practices

Depends on the organisational context: corporate culture, attitudes of senior management, etc.

Conflicts can arise between the environmental values of individuals and those of the organisation

Some colleagues may show a lack of awareness or openness


involves voluntarily supporting colleagues to reduce their ecological impact (Boiral

& Paillé, 2012; Paillé, et al., 2013). Similar to the effect of traditional citizenship

behaviour by an employee toward to the organisation, a single one-off OCBE

performed by an employee may not make a noticeable difference to the sustainability

of the organisation, however, the cumulative effect of many instances of OCBE will

have a positive effect on the natural environment (Boiral & Paillé, 2012; Lamm, et

al., 2013) and the culture of the organisation. This is similar to the positive effect at

the group level of an organisation from performance of OCBs (Podsakoff, et al.,

2009). It could also be argued that there would be a positive normative effect on the

culture of an organisation from continued performance of OCBEs by employees. As

employees engage in more OCBEs, the principles of social exchange dictate

relationships between employees would improve which should lead to more OCBEs

and, in time, these types of behaviours would become the norm.

Eco-initiatives involve employees using their initiative to complete tasks that

have not been explicitly directed by their organisation, and which have a positive

effect on their environment. This may involve a manager taking the initiative to

establish end of trip facilities for those wishing to walk or ride a bike to work, an

employee making suggestions to management to improve energy efficiency or an

employee choosing to use a reusable coffee cup rather than a disposable one. The

choice to use a reusable coffee cup also relies on the availability of washing and

storage facilities as well as the allowance of the coffee vendor to allow the use of a

reusable cup. Therefore, for an employee to engage in eco-initiatives, it would

involve a certain amount of flexibility from the organisation to facilitate

implementation of such initiatives, so it can be assumed that organisational context is

a factor for eco-initiatives to occur (Boiral & Paillé, 2012; Lamm, et al., 2013).

Eco-civic engagement refers to an employee committing to corporate

sustainability programs or espousing to both internal stakeholders and people outside

the organisation (such as friends and acquaintances) the company’s efforts to reduce

its ecological impact. For example, this may be directly through involvement in a

sustainability workplace committee or attending lunchtime seminars on reducing

waste. It could even include speaking positively about the efforts the organisation is

making toward the environment to people not connected to the organisation at a

social engagement. Eco-civic engagement is an important dimension of OCBE as it


demonstrates an employee’s willingness to be part of the cultural fabric of their

workplace. It must be said though, without clear communication and support from

the organisation outlining the details and goals of the corporate sustainability

program, there would likely be less engagement from employees. This lack of

engagement could range from being unaware of the program or from a lack of

alignment between the company’s sustainability goals and the environmental values

of the individual (Boiral & Paillé, 2012). Essentially, this would require managers to

‘walk the talk’ by ensuring that their own discretionary behaviours reflect the green

values of the organisation which, in turn, would positively influence their employees

to demonstrate eco-civic engagement.

Eco-helping involves employees assisting colleagues or the organisation to

become more sustainable. For example, an employee might help a colleague to sort

their waste into the appropriate receptacle, identify a source of inefficient water use

or recruit colleagues to be part of a sustainability workplace committee. This third

OCBE dimension requires a culture of collaboration between individuals and the

sharing of ‘tacit knowledge’ between departments to thrive (Boiral & Paillé, 2012).

Tacit knowledge “is knowledge gained from experience” (Stake, 2009, p. 19). This

knowledge is not found in manuals and job descriptions but refers to the context

specific workplace knowledge that employees acquire through their interactions with

the physical space and other colleagues. As mentioned above, there would be a

normative effect from this type of behaviour, as experienced employees assist new

employees to be greener in their day-to-day activities at work. However, if a

collaborative culture does not exist, it would be difficult for eco-helping behaviours

to flourish.

Consistent with the general notion of corporate sustainability, OCBE is a multi-

faceted construct that requires a multi-disciplinary approach from management to

ensure these behaviours are better understood and performed more often within an

organisation. Workplace flexibility, clear communication, managers walking the talk

and a collaborative culture would create more favourable conditions for OCBE to be

manifested (Boiral, Raineri, & Talbot, 2016; Raineri & Paillé, 2015; Tsai, Stritch, &

Christensen, 2016). Despite the validation of the three factors of OCBE by Boiral

and Paillé (2012), OCBE is still an emerging area of study; hence further research is

required to broaden understandings of OCBE.


2.5.3 Antecedents of OCBE

As OCBE is a relatively new area of study, antecedents to these behaviours are still

being uncovered. It is believed that extrinsic incentives do not foster long-term

changes in employee green behaviour (Oke, 2015) and the spontaneous instances of

OCBE that employees would perform throughout the day cannot, realistically, be

guaranteed by including these behaviours in an employee’s role description unless

the employee works in a role where green behaviours are formally required by

environmental regulations or are specific to the task (Ones & Dilchert, 2012b). In

this case, these employee green behaviours would be considered task-based (Paillé &

Boiral, 2013), outside the scope of OCBE and requiring different managerial

techniques. The nature of OCBE is such that an employee is voluntarily making the

decision to engage in behaviour, which sits outside of the formal requirements of

their job. Having an awareness of the antecedents of OCBE further strengthens our

understanding of OCBE.

As is the case with task-based employee green behaviour, organisational

context is believed to be vital to the existence of certain OCBEs (Lamm, et al.,

2013). Many contemporary studies of OCBE take place in different industries within

different cultures including service and health industries in Canada (Paillé & Boiral,

2013), business graduates in France (Raineri & Paillé, 2015), undergraduate students

in Switzerland (Terrier, Kim, & Fernandez, 2016), the public sector in the USA

(Tsai, et al., 2016), and the construction, IT and financial industries in South Korea

(Kim, Kim, Han, Jackson, & Ployhart, 2014). However, at the time of writing there

are no studies that compare OCBEs across different industries or which highlight

how specific industries may foster certain types of OCBEs.

Based on the extant studies. it is not clear whether the culture of the country or

the type of industry has a greater influence on OCBE. However, what is clear is that

for an employee to engage in OCBE, some operational system must be in place for

the behaviour to occur and that this is likely to be affected by the type of industry the

organisation operates within. For instance, to provide employees the opportunity to

recycle their waste if they so choose, the organisation must first provide recycling

receptacles. Without the appropriate recycling receptacle in place, the organisation

cannot hope to encourage this form of OCBE. Furthermore, there must also be some

degree of flexibility within the industry to allow employees to engage in OCBE


(Boiral & Paillé, 2012). Using the recycling example, it would be a simpler process

for organisations operating in office-based industries (e.g. education, retail,

accounting and finance) to foster this OCBE compared with those organisations

operating within industries with tighter controls around waste management (e.g.

health, mining). Hence, organisation context (i.e. type of industry or even department

within the organisation) has a clear impact on the performance of employee OCBE.

The explicit values inherent within the organisation are also believed to have a

significant impact on employee OCBE. When the organisation (through

management) values and demonstrates commitment towards sustainability and caring

for the environment, employees are more likely to perform OCBEs (Raineri, Mejía-

Morelos, Francoeur, & Paillé, 2015; Raineri & Paillé, 2015). To demonstrate

commitment towards sustainability, management would establish formal

organisational policy regarding processes to limit impact on the environment or work

with the supply chain to improve efficiencies. These formal role-based actions

demonstrate a level of commitment toward the environment and hence create an

atmosphere that should encourage OCBE amongst employees. In this situation, the

performance of OCBEs would be spontaneous, as it would involve employees

voluntarily performing green behaviours separate from the formal requirements of

the organisation. The positive relationship between the required and voluntary green

behaviours by employees would further enhance the green commitments of the

organisation (Ones & Dilchert, 2012a).

In addition to the importance of organisational values, managers’ OCBE

performance has also been found to have a marked influence on the sustainability of

an organisation and on employee performance of OCBE (Boiral, et al., 2016; Boiral,

Talbot, & Paillé, 2015). In this regard, a manager refers to any person who has power

or official influence over others in the organisation. Managers, who have a strong

social conscience or a specific concern for the environment, can use their own OCBE

as an instrument to positively influence the OCBE of others more junior in the

organisation. It has been found that the OCBE dimensions eco-helping and eco-

initiatives are the types of OCBE significantly influenced by managers’ OCBE

(Boiral, et al., 2016).

A recent study has also identified certain employee personality traits as

trustworthy predictors of OCBE (Terrier, et al., 2016). The personality traits of


conscientiousness, openness and extraversion have been positively associated with

performance of OCBE. More precisely, if an employee is open to new experiences,

results suggest they are more likely to perform eco-helping behaviour whereas an

employee’s level of conscientiousness is positively linked to eco-initiatives, while

extroversion was found to be a valid predictor of eco-civic engagement (Terrier, et

al., 2016). Conscientiousness, openness and extraversion form three parts of the five-

factor model of personality with the other two factors being agreeableness and

neuroticism (McCrae & Costa, 1987). Agreeableness was not found to be a reliable

antecedent of OCBE with conflicting results regarding its use as a predictor.

Neuroticism, which is defined generally as the “propensity to experience a variety of

negative affects, such as anxiety, depression, anger, and embarrassment”, (McCrae &

Costa, 1987, p. 87) has been linked to poor job performance and was not included in

Terrier, et al. (2016) study.

The influence of managers’ OCBE and the inherent values of the organisation

on performance of employee OCBEs aligns with research that suggests the quality of

the social exchange relationships an employee enjoys at work further reinforces the

tendency of employees to engage in OCBEs (Paillé, et al., 2013). For example, an

employee’s propensity to engage in eco-initiatives (a dimension of OCBE) is

correlated with the quality of the relationships the individual has with their

colleagues (Raineri, et al., 2015). These findings support the earlier discussion

highlighting the link between OCB and Social Exchange Theory; the better the

reciprocal relationships within an organisation, the more likely OCBE will be

present. Additionally, employees are more likely to perform OCBEs when they feel

supported by their organisation (Lamm, et al., 2013), but this has been found to be

secondary to the effect of the quality of the relationships within the organisation

(Raineri, et al., 2015).

Ultimately, OCBE is an indicator that an employee is willing to, and can, go

above and beyond their day-to-day duties to have a positive impact on the

environmental sustainability of the organisation. However, building on the findings

of the studies described above, further qualitative research needs to be completed

investigating the underlying reasons for the existence of OCBEs.


2.5.4 Relationship between OCBE and related constructs and theories

The extant research on OCBE has only scratched the surface of this complex

concept. It is still a theoretical concept and further qualitative research is needed

around the drivers and barriers of OCBE (Boiral, Talbot, et al., 2015) and its

connection with other constructs. For example, there is a correlation between

psychological ownership of individual employees and traditional organisational

citizenship behaviours (Avey, et al., 2009) but the relationship between

psychological ownership and OCBE has not yet been explored. If psychological

ownership does have an impact on an employee’s propensity to engage in OCBE, it

will be important to determine the magnitude of the impact it has compared with

other internal drivers. In the context of this study, it is expected that certain levels of

feelings of ownership from employees combined with clear reciprocal exchanges

between employee and the organisation will increase participation in OCBEs.

Therefore, both Social Exchange Theory and Theory of Psychological Ownership

will be used as the theoretical framework to guide the research to discover what

motivates and hinders OCBE for individual employees. Figure 2.3 outlines the

relationship between OCBE and the associated constructs and theories used for this

study.

Figure 2.3 Relationship between OCBE and associated constructs and theories

Theory of Psychological

Ownership

Organisational Citizenship Behaviour

Social Exchange

Theory

Established theoretical basis Expected relationship

Home

Public

Work

Work


2.5.5 OCBE in Education Institutions

Evidence from the literature suggests that organisational context affects the ability of

employees to perform OCBEs (Boiral & Paillé, 2012; Lamm, et al., 2013). Despite

this, there has not been an extensive focus on the specific impact of different

organisational contexts on the existence of OCBEs. The form of organisational

context that may affect employee OCBE could be macro (e.g. specific government

regulations related to an industry such as mining and health sectors) or micro (e.g.

the job requirements of employees in different industries such as retail versus factory

workers). The impact of workplace context on OCBE may vary for employees

working within the same organisation who are required to perform vastly different

roles. For example, the education sector (higher education, schools and vocational

education) comprises a broad range of job types often within the same organisation

(academic, office based roles, management, ancillary staff). However, there is a gap

in the literature specifically exploring the performance of OCBEs in an education

context. Recent studies (Boiral & Paillé, 2012; Paillé, et al., 2013; Terrier, et al.,

2016) have utilised undergraduate and postgraduate students as participants.

However, these studies involved participants who were past and present students

from education institutions, and were focused on the individual perspective rather

than the specific context in which these behaviours took place.

The performance of traditional OCBs within schools has had some attention

from researchers with the results suggesting that leadership contributes significantly

to the performance of OCBs within a school based setting (DiPaola & Tschannen-

Moran, 2014; Somech & Ron, 2007). Employees within schools (especially teachers)

are faced with competing priorities within a dynamic workplace environment. In the

absence of role modelling of OCBs from school leaders, other job-related pressures

would distract employees leading to lower rates of OCB (DiPaola & Tschannen-

Moran, 2014). It has been established that if school leaders can foster a culture of

collegiality, there is a likelihood that performance of OCBs by staff will increase

(DiPaola & Tschannen-Moran, 2014; Organ, Podsakoff, & MacKenzie, 2006). The

general nature of employees (especially teachers) within schools are “strongly related

to Organisational Citizenship Behaviours” (DiPaola & Tschannen-Moran, 2014, p.

15), hence it is important to study whether this extends to OCBE and what,

specifically, are the drivers and barriers to OCBE in schools. The importance and


likely benefits of OCBEs in a school-based setting are comparable to that in any

similar sized organisation. For example, higher rates of OCBE are connected to the

impact the organisation has on the environment, but may also have ancillary

economic benefits such as the potential for lower operational expenditure through

decreased energy bills. Moreover, for schools in the private sector, high rates of

OCBE could also be a source of competitive and promotional advantage.

2.6 SUMMARY

Corporate sustainability is gaining more attention from management as business

leaders aim to position their organisations to gain a competitive advantage over

rivals. Depending on the type of organisation, this increased response to corporate

sustainability is being driven from multiple sources including specific environmental

impact legislation, stakeholder expectations, or an increased awareness of the

ecological impact from the activities associated with the business. The outcome of

the increased focus on corporate sustainability from management is an expectation of

increased employee green behaviours. Through material interventions (e.g. LEDs or

automated building services), cloud based energy management, better supply chain

management or even legislated environmental impact thresholds, leaders can target

and manage certain green behaviours from their employees. The impact resulting

from these formally managed behaviours can be quantified within a company’s

sustainability report. However, employee discretionary green behaviours are far more

difficult to manage due to their voluntary nature. This does not make them any less

important as they have the potential to work in tandem with required task-based

green behaviours to significantly improve the sustainability credentials of any

business (Lamm, et al., 2013).

OCBE has been proposed as construct to understand employee discretionary

green behaviours. Studies have demonstrated that although OCBE is distinct from

Organisational Citizenship Behaviour (OCB) more generally, both are underpinned

by Social Exchange Theory (Paillé, et al., 2013; Raineri, et al., 2015). Multiple

studies have investigated, through quantitative methods, antecedents of OCBE.

These antecedents include the impact of high quality relationships, employee

personality traits, the existence of corporate policy, the level of commitment from the

organisation, attitudes of managers and perceived organisational support on the

penchant of employees to engage in OCBE (Boiral, et al., 2016; Kim, et al., 2014;


Lamm, Tosti-Kharas, & King, 2015; Raineri, et al., 2015; Raineri & Paillé, 2015).

However, perhaps due to the emerging nature of this construct, there is a lack of

qualitative research conducted to investigate the underlying reasons why OCBE is

correlated with the aforementioned constructs and antecedents. The organisation also

needs to be aware what exactly constitutes OCBE within the specific organisational

context in which it operates. This is important because if an organisation can find

ways to increase and/or encourage OCBE from its employees, it can expect increased

employee engagement (Paillé & Boiral, 2013). In the case of schools, more engaged

staff (e.g. teachers) leads to better student outcomes (Skinner & Belmont, 1993).

In summary, although OCBE has been confirmed and validated as a reliable

construct with an associated measurement, more qualitative research needs to be

completed to further the current knowledge provided by the quantitative research.

There is a gap in the research around what drives or hinders OCBE, the role the

organisation plays in fostering OCBE in individual employees and what examples of

OCBE exist within a specific organisational context (e.g. a school). This study

intends to begin bridging this gap in the current understandings of OCBE by seeking

answers to the research questions stated in Section 1.3.

Chapter 3: Research Design 37

Chapter 3: Research Design

This chapter describes the research design adopted to achieve the aims and objectives

stated in Section 1.3. Specifically, the aims of this research are to better understand

the drivers and barriers to individual employee Organisational Citizenship Behaviour

for the Environment (OCBE) and what factors facilitate these behaviours within the

work place. Section 3.1 discusses the methodology applied in the study, and the

research design. Section 3.2 details the instruments and measurements and justifies

their use. Section 3.3 outlines the case profile and provides details of the participants

in the study. Section 3.4 outlines the procedure employed to gather data and the

timeline for completion of each stage of the study. Finally, Section 3.5 discusses how

data was analysed.

3.1 METHODOLOGY AND RESEARCH DESIGN

3.1.1 Epistemology & Ontology

This research has been positioned under a depth realist ontological and a neo-realism

epistemological paradigm. Depth realist ontology suggests that social structures are

not permanent and are linked to the activities they influence or our notions of what

we are doing in these activities (Blaikie, 2009). A depth realist ontological paradigm

is appropriate for this research as the study aims to explain what drives or hinders

green behaviour of the employees in the case under study and what these employees

feel the organisation (management) could do to better facilitate green behaviour

among its employees. Following a similar rationale, Neo-realism epistemology

asserts that knowledge of the triggers of ‘observed regularities’ is derived from the

structures and/or mechanisms that produce them. As discussed in Section 2.5.3,

organisational context has a significant influence on the performance of OCBEs

therefore, understanding OCBE can only be understood if we first understand the

organisation in which these behaviours take place and accept that the driving and

hindering influences on these behaviours are not perpetual and hence can be altered.

3.1.2 Research Methodology

The research design of this study employs a retroductive strategy which aims to

uncover latent mechanisms to justify ‘observed regularities’ (Blaikie, 2009). In

38 Chapter 3: Research Design

relation to this research, the intention of the retroductive strategy is to understand the

underlying drivers and barriers to OCBE and to understand how the organisation can

better facilitate these employee behaviours. An intermediate state of research is a

research archetype that allows for either qualitative or quantitative methodology and

where the research questions aim to establish relationships between new and

established constructs (Edmondson & McManus, 2007). An intermediate state of

research (Edmondson & McManus, 2007) surrounds the construct of OCBE and, as

such, has resulted in some informative quantitative studies that have elucidated

interesting results (Section 2.5). However, as was explained in Section 2.6, there

have been limited qualitative studies of OCBE. Due to the open-ended nature of

OCBE and the current intermediate state of research in the literature, the most

appropriate methodological fit to answer the proposed research questions is a

qualitative research methodology. The use of a qualitative methodology under a

retroductive strategy allows the researcher to “elicit tacit knowledge and subjective

understandings and interpretations” (Marshall & Rossman, 2011, p. 91) of the

underlying barriers and drivers of OCBE within a school-based setting.

3.1.3 Research Design

It is postulated that the organisation can motivate or hinder OCBEs within employees

but there is a gap in the literature exploring this relationship (Chapter 2). In other

words, contextual factors have been shown to influence employee engagement in

employee green behaviour (Norton, et al., 2015) but it must be determined which

contextual factors actually facilitate OCBE. With the previous discussion outlining

the relevant literature in mind and considering the overarching aims of this research

stated in Section 1.3 to better understand the adoption and performance of

discretionary green behaviours by employees in a school-based setting; the research

questions this study aims to address are as follows:

Research question 1. How do employees perceive and practice employee

green behaviour?

Research question 2. What drives or hinders OCBE for the individual

employee?

Research question 3. How can the organisation facilitate OCBE?


The research questions for this study are attempting to determine the drivers

and barriers for OCBE for individual employees and how the organisation can best

facilitate OCBE within employees. To collect thick and rich data in response to the

research questions, an explanatory single case study method was used. A

combination of semi-structured interviews and participant observations were

employed within the case study as the primary and secondary data collection tools

respectively. A case study method is used for purpose of discovering something that

is not necessarily solely observable (Stake, 2010).

Many of the elements of OCBE are not always directly observable. For

example, it may not be able to observe momentary behaviour, such as a participant

helping a colleague to sort their waste or understand why an employee might decide

to turn lights off or actively decide to open a window instead of using the air-

conditioning. However, a facilitated interview allows the participant to tell his or her

own story in a way that is sensitive to the context of the organisation. The single

explanatory case study also allows the phenomenon to be understood and explained

from the viewpoints of the participants (Eisenhardt & Graebner, 2007). The unit of

analysis for this case study is the individual employees of the case under study.

Case study method has been used successfully in previous corporate

sustainability related research (Hargreaves, 2011; Lo, et al., 2012a; Perron, Côté, &

Duffy, 2006; Schelly, Cross, Franzen, Hall, & Reeve, 2010) as it allows the

researcher to develop in-depth understanding of a unique phenomenon and the

organisational context (Gomm, Hammersley, & Foster, 2009; Yin, 2013). This is

opposed to Action Research or Q-Methodology, which are also used extensively in

sustainability research but require participants to work alongside the researcher and

does not allow such in-depth study of relationships between a phenomenon and the

organisation (Marshall & Rossman, 2011). The unique phenomenon in this instance

is organisational citizenship behaviour for the environment and how it is manifested

within the case.

A potential issue associated with single explanatory case studies can be that the

case selected may not turn out to be the type of case initially expected by the

researcher (Yin, 2013). This issue was considered prior to selecting the case and thus

led to the selection of employees from a variety of departments within the

organisation to ensure multiple employee viewpoints. Selection of a wide cross


section of employees from multiple departments better enables a true reflection of

staff behaviour. Especially in this case where there is little interaction between some

of the departments within the school and the duties of the individual employee within

these departments are quite different. Another issue stated by Yin (2013) is the

possibility of becoming too focused on the sub-unit, in this instance the OCBE

construct, as opposed to the individual employees. To overcome this possible issue,

semi-structured interviews were selected as the primary research instrument to give

the employees the opportunity to tell their own ‘unfolding narrative’ with regards to

their perceptions of their own and others green behaviour. Additionally, during the

research period, participant observations (Marshall & Rossman, 2011) were used as a

secondary research instrument to help clarify the types of green behaviours

employees within the case actually perform. Not all employees can recall the

moments when they did or did not perform a specific green behaviour (especially

voluntary behaviours). Furthermore, some employees may not be aware they have

performed a green behaviour (e.g. reminding a colleague to sort waste into the

correct recycling receptacle), this became apparent during the first interview.

3.1.4 Quality of Design

Some critiques of qualitative methodology are based on perceptions about its

trustworthiness when compared with a quantitative methodology (Cunliffe, 2010;

Shenton, 2004). However, this perception is not correct as a qualitative methodology

aims to achieve a different outcome than a quantitative methodology. Qualitative

methodology forces the researcher into natural settings and grounds itself “within the

lived experiences of people” (Marshall & Rossman, 2011, p. 2). In some part, this

increase in acceptance of qualitative methodology as a rigorous research

methodology can be attributed to the work of Shenton (2004) who expanded upon a

criteria of trustworthiness for qualitative researchers originally created by Guba

(1981). This model has four distinct criteria that parallel to criteria employed by

quantitative researchers as listed below in Table 3.1.


Table 3.1.

Criteria for Assessing the Trustworthiness of Qualitative Research

Arguably the most important criterion to assess the trustworthiness of

qualitative research is credibility. Meeting the credibility criteria ensures the study

produces findings that are similar to reality and that the phenomenon under scrutiny

has been “accurately recorded” (Shenton, 2004, p. 64). To improve the credibility of

this study, several processes were followed regarding research design. First, a well-

established research method was chosen to collect data (single case study). A single

case study design was selected due to successful use in previous studies involving

corporate sustainability as discussed in Section 3.1.3. Second, a cross-section of

employees were invited to participate in the research (discussed in Section 3.3.3).

This created triangulation, a process by which multiple data sources are used in a

case study to produce better understanding of the behaviour of the participants

(Shenton, 2004, p. 66). Third, participants were asked to be frank and forthcoming in

the interviews and were given the opportunity to withdraw from the study if required,

without penalty (as discussed in Section 3.4.2). This adds to the credibility of the

study, as participants are more likely to be honest in their responses if they feel that,

upon reflection, they can withdraw their participation (Shenton, 2004). Finally,

frequent emails and meetings with the researcher’s supervisors and a ‘thick

description’ (Marshall & Rossman, 2011) of the phenomenon ensured the project

remained true to the intentions of the study.

The second criterion used to assess the trustworthiness of a qualitative study is

transferability. This criterion involves the researcher providing rich and thick

descriptions of the processes and participants involved to allow future readers of the

study to determine whether the results of the study are applicable or ‘transferable’ to

Qualitative criteria Quantitative Criteria

Credibility Internal Validity

Transferability Generalisability

Dependability Reliability

Confirmability Objectivity


another context (Shenton, 2004). Although the criterion of transferability is difficult

to establish in a single case study design as the results are specific to the case under

study, detailed information about the case and the employee participants has been

included, to assist assessment of the relevance of the findings to a different context or

school. In this way, the research findings provide a starting point for discussion

around how to best foster OCBE.

Shenton (2004) describes the third criterion, dependability, whereby the

researcher accurately describes the processes used within the study, so any future

researcher may repeat the study (not necessarily to achieve the same results as with

positivist based research). Chapter 3 of this study provides detailed information of

the methodology, research design, research instruments, interview questions as well

as the case profile and participant information, thus ensuring this study meets

dependability criteria.

The fourth criterion, confirmability, aims to ensure the objectivity of the

researcher so the results are based on “experiences and ideas of the informants, rather

than the characteristics and preferences of the researcher” (Shenton, 2004, p. 72). As

Shenton notes, true objectivity is difficult to establish. However, within this thesis,

an in-depth methodology has been outlined, the process of triangulation is described

above and a clear outline of the limitations of the study is included in Section 5.3.1.

Inclusion of these processes aims to increase the confirmability of this study by

effectively being as transparent as possible with regards to the processes involved.

3.2 RESEARCH INSTRUMENTS

3.2.1 Research Instruments

The research instrument employed to gather data was semi-structured interviews

ranging between 25-35 minutes in duration. Semi-structured interviews were chosen

as the most appropriate instrument to gather data as they allow the “researcher to

understand the meaning that everyday activities hold for people” (Marshall &

Rossman, 2011, p. 145). The aim of this research is to better understand the adoption

and performance of discretionary green behaviours by employees in a school-based

setting, thus the semi-structured interviews allowed the researcher to be flexible

throughout the interview and follow certain leads when they arose during the

interview. This is known as probing (Marshall & Rossman, 2011), and provided


richer responses from participants regarding their own and others green behaviour

within the organisation. Within the safe space of the interview, participants were able

to tell an “unfolding” narrative (Galletta & Cross, 2013, p. 76). Specifically, the

researcher clarified statements of interest and delved further into participant’s ideas

while maintaining a focus on the overall research questions.

To support the data gathered from the semi-structured interviews, participant

observations were used as a secondary source of data (Baxter & Jack, 2008). Due to

the nature of green behaviours and the complexity of a school day for employees, it

was impossible to only observe those employees who agreed to be interviewed.

When the researcher identified a green behaviour performed by any employee during

the workday that behaviour was recorded in a notebook (as close as practicable to the

temporal performance of the green behaviour). Although the Headmaster of the

school provided permission to access all areas and employees of the school, the

researcher made sure not to record the name of the employee performing the

behaviour nor any identifying features. Observations were discreet as the staff were

not aware they were being observed. The purpose of these observations was in

determining the context of green behaviours performed. Using participant

observations as a secondary form of data gathering “permitted the researcher to hear,

see, and begin to experience reality as the participant do” (Marshall & Rossman,

2011, p. 140).

3.2.2 Interview Questions

Participants were asked to provide professional and personal opinions regarding

barriers and drivers focussing on individual green behaviour in the workplace, their

support for the organisation’s green commitments and any mutual support they might

provide colleagues to better integrate environmental concerns in the workplace. A

mix of the relevant literature and the existing gaps in the research surrounding

employee green behaviour informed the questions used within the semi-structured

interviews. For example, all participants were asked to provide their interpretation of

green behaviour to open each interview. As discussed in the Literature Review, there

are multiple explanations of corporate sustainability and the researcher was

interested in determining if different interpretations existed for green behaviour at the

employee level. Furthermore, the first six interview questions were developed from

the extant OCBE literature, which included influence from Social Exchange Theory


and Theory of Psychological Ownership. For example, while it is recognised that

OCBE is based on SET, the researcher was interested to know if an individual’s

relationships with colleagues influences the individual’s OCBE. At the same time,

Theory of Psychological Ownership has been linked to traditional citizenship

behaviours but a link between ownership and performance of OCBE has yet to be

established. Participants were asked whether they felt ownership toward a location

within the organisation; if the answer was affirmative, probing questions enquired as

to whether participants felt that they were more likely to perform green behaviours in

the space they felt ownership of.

At all times, the three research questions were used to guide the flow of the set

interview questions (and the observations). As the interviews were semi-structured in

nature, the researcher used discretion by choosing to probe certain responses that

needed further clarification. Some examples of questions and probes used within the

semi-structured interview are illustrated below in Table 3.2.

Table 3.2.

Sample of Questions used in Semi-Structured Interviews

Examples of Question & Probes

• Describe any pro-environmental initiatives that have been implemented at [organisation] that you are aware of. • Please describe how satisfied you are with your job at [organisation]. • How much do you feel [organisation], as an organisation, values or does not value the environment? Can you provide an example? • Based on your interactions at work, how much do you feel your line manager values the environment?

• How much do you feel obligated to engage in pro-environmental or green behaviour while at work?

• Can you describe a time when you did something green that you believe was someone else’s responsibility? (for example; turning a colleague’s classroom or office lights off, helping a colleague to sort their waste, closing a door to an office or classroom when the AC was on, reporting a water leak, not printing a set of documents to save paper etc.).

• Can you describe any barriers that you feel prevent you from engaging voluntary pro-environmental behaviour at work?

• To what extent do you feel individual employee pro-environmental or green behaviours at work can reduce the overall environmental impact of [organisation]?


3.3 CASE PROFILE AND PARTICIPANTS

3.3.1 Case Organisation

The case under study is an elite independent boys’ boarding school located in

Brisbane, Australia. The school caters for students from the ages of 5-18 (Prep –

Year 12). The school has a current enrolment of approximately 1560 students and

230 full time equivalent staff (not including volunteers or contractors). The school

has many large facilities (buildings and sports infrastructure) on a single 20-hectare

campus, separated into three distinct precincts: the Junior school which caters for

students aged 5–11 years (Prep – Year 6); the Middle school for students aged 12–14

years (Year 7 – Year 9); and the Senior school for students aged 15–18 years (Year

10 – Year 12).

The school has made some progress toward integrating elements of corporate

sustainability into its operations and corporate structure. A teacher has been granted

time release to take on the role of Sustainability Officer. The school has partnered

with a government program to capture baseline energy, water and waste data. Other

initiatives previously implemented include a campus-wide green office program, e-

waste recycling, a campus-wide energy efficiency audit with an external consulting

firm, installation of a cloud-based innovative energy monitoring program, installation

of water saving technology in toilets and bathrooms and installation of occupancy

sensors in offices and classroom. There are regular reminders for staff to perform

green behaviours in the form of payslip messages, signs and posters and a green

behaviour online module is part of the new staff induction process.

These initiatives suggest that the school leadership are keen continue

progressing down the corporate sustainability path. However, like any large

organisation attempting to weave sustainability principles into existing operations,

progress is slow and littered with obstacles. Currently, there are no formal policies

regarding: staff behaviour toward the environment, efficient building design,

environmentally friendly material use or efficient supply chain administration from

the school management, school council or the governing body.

Variations in employee duties exist throughout the organisation (e.g.

corporate/administration non-teaching roles, academic roles, support services,

maintenance/cleaning roles) along with varying levels of responsibility. There are

also different levels of education between staff (e.g. school certificates, trade


qualifications, under-graduate and post-graduate degrees). Although an increased

level of education does not necessarily mean more individual employee green

behaviours (Kollmuss & Agyeman, 2002), recording levels of education among staff

allows a deeper level of analysis and comparison between staff. Senior management

of the school is supportive of the research as they see the potential benefit of the

findings for their staff and the ongoing environmental sustainability of the case study

organisation.

3.3.2 Researcher Relationship to Case Organisation

A potential limitation of this study relates to the researcher’s relationship and

potential bias as an employee of the case organisation. This relationship is known as

insider research whereby insiders are those researchers who have intimate knowledge

of the group of people under study through a direct relationship such as a contractor,

employee or volunteer (Dwyer & Buckle, 2009; Mercer, 2007). Insiders have a

greater understanding of the participants but this can also lead to bias and

preconceptions from the participants and the researcher (Mercer, 2007). This

potential for bias was reduced, as the researcher was explicit, both in recruiting

participants and during the interviews, regarding his role as a researcher under

guidance from QUT. Additionally, potential and actual interview participants were

assured that their views were confidential and that their employing organisation (the

school) would not be given access to the raw data.

There was also the possibility of data being affected based on the relationships

the researcher might have with the employee participants. For example employee

participants may have felt obliged to answer questions based on the relative seniority

(within the organisation) of the researcher or whether there was a pre-existing

friendly relationship between employee and researcher (Brannick & Coghlan, 2007).

To reduce the possibility of this occurring, none of the researcher’s direct team

members were involved in the study. Additionally, based on the researcher’s current

position within the school, a formal hierarchical relationship did not exist with any

participant. Furthermore, triangulation was used to reduce the impact of this

limitation by selecting a wide variety of participants and employing different data

collection methods (semi-structured interviews and informal observations).

Within the interviews there was the distinct possibility of self-report bias,

which involves participants responding to questions in a manner that increases a


positive perception from the interviewer and decreases the negative perception

(Donaldson & Grant-Vallone, 2002; Moorman & Podsakoff, 1992). In other words,

participants may exaggerate the performance of green behaviours and limit

discussion of non-green behaviours. In this study, self-report bias was managed by

employing two data sources (Donaldson & Grant-Vallone, 2002); semi-structured

interviews with participants from across the organisation and researcher observations

as a secondary data collection method.

The final potential limitation of the study relates to the possibility of conflict

between the researcher and the case. Brannick and Coghlan (2007) state that what the

organisation expects to gain from the project and what the researcher wants to

achieve may not be the same thing. This incongruence may impact the integrity of

the study if clearly defined expectations are not established prior to the study. The

possibility of this occurring was considered prior to the beginning of the study.

Hence, the researcher explained the intentions of the research to the Headmaster of

the school and both came to an agreement that throughout the study and associated

thesis, the school would not be mentioned by name. Furthermore, the only contact

the leadership of school was to have with the study is when the study is published.

This was to ensure clear demarcation of boundaries and reduce the possible impact of

friction between organisation and employee in his role as researcher for QUT.

3.3.3 Participants

This study investigated employee OCBE, hence students attending the school were

not involved in the research. The selected sample of interview respondents was

purposive (Marshall & Rossman, 2011) and represented a cross section of the entire

staff body of the school in terms of role. Thirteen participants self-nominated for this

study and all were selected to ensure an adequate representation of responses and

opinions from the entire staff body (Guest, Bunce, & Johnson, 2006). One of the

recommendations to emerge from the study by Guest, et al. (2006) is that if the intent

of a study is to describe and better understand a specific type of behaviour and if the

participants are interviewed separately, twelve participants are sufficient to achieve

research aims (Guest, et al., 2006).


Table 3.3.

Case Study Participant Demographics

Participant demographics

Leadership Senior School

teachers

Middle School

teachers

Junior School

teachers

Ancillary staff TOTAL

Highest level of education

Certificate or Diploma

K

Trade J

Undergraduate degree

G, F E

Postgraduate degree

A, B, M D, H, I, L

C

Gender

Male A, B H, I, L F E J 8

Female M D C, G NA K 5

TOTAL 3 4 3 1 2 13

note – letter denotes participant

Table 3.3 provides an overview of the thirteen participants interviewed from each

department of the entire school. Letters are used as pseudonyms to protect participant

identity. Within this table, participants have been described using three key

categories: leadership staff; ancillary staff; and teachers. The category of leadership

staff includes employees from the executive team, finance and business management

areas of the school. Ancillary staff refers to those staff who work in a support role

(e.g. personal assistant, reception, teacher aide), in maintenance or in the grounds

departments. Teachers were categorised based on the area of the school they

predominantly work within (Senior, Middle or Junior), as each of these areas has

different job requirements. For example, teachers working in the Junior school have

one class of students, with whom they spend most their time with throughout the

workday. By contrast, teachers in the Senior school see multiple classes throughout a

given day. Yet, they have more spare periods where the teacher spends the time

within an office environment planning lessons, writing curriculum or correcting

student work. Finally, teachers in the Middle school have teaching loads that range

between a single class and multiple classes.


3.4 PROCEDURE, TIMELINE AND ETHICS

3.4.1 Procedure and Timeline

Permission was granted by the Headmaster of the school for any interested staff to

participate in the study. The study was promoted through two brief presentations at

whole school staff meetings and two follow up emails.

To maintain participant confidentiality, staff were not asked to volunteer in

front of other colleagues but rather to send a short email or to approach the

researcher in private to confirm their interest in participating in the project. Once 15

employees registered an interest, no other employees were invited to participate nor

did any additional staff register an interest to participate. Employees from all areas of

the school and across levels of management registered their participation in the

study, which ensured the participants represented the full spectrum of staff within the

school. The final number of participants per area is roughly representative of the

overall number of staff in that area within the school. As such, there are more

teachers than leadership and ancillary staff involved in the study. Employees were

not excluded or selected based on their age as age is not considered to be a defining

characteristic of an individual’s propensity to engage in voluntary green behaviour at

work (Wiernik, Dilchert, & Ones, 2016).

Participants had the opportunity to discuss the project with the researcher prior

to the interview. After deciding they were comfortable with the research process

(including electronic and written recording of their interview) and the measures for

protecting their confidentiality (including de-identification of data post collection,

during analyses, write up and within any possible future publications), they were

asked to sign a consent form which adhered to the QUT Human Research Ethics

Committee guidelines (QUT, 2016). Participants had the option to request their

interview not be audiotaped; however all participants agreed to be audiotaped.

Participants were advised that they were providing their own personal and

professional opinion rather than speaking on behalf of the organisation. Participants

were reminded that they had the right to withdraw from the research without penalty

at any time during the interview or up to two weeks from the date of the interview.

At the participant’s request, any identifiable information already obtained could be

destroyed. Participants were given the contact details of the researcher’s supervisors

if they wished to raise any concerns regarding the conduct of the interviews or the


research project more broadly. Fortunately, all participants were happy with the

confidentiality of the study and proceeded with their involvement.

Thirteen interviews were conducted over a six-week period, during the second

term of the school year. The semi-structured interviews were conducted at an agreed

time and location during work hours. Although all interviews were conducted on

campus, the location of the interviews was dependent on the preference of the

participant. Interviews with participants A, B, F, I, K and M were conducted in their

office with the door closed. All other interviews took place in an appropriate on-

campus meeting room.

The interviews were recorded using the application Evernote on an iPhone 6

device. Immediately after each interview, the recording of the interview was saved

with the participant number and date of the interview. It was then transferred to

secure storage on the QUT server. All interviews were transcribed verbatim using an

external transcription company. In addition to the recording of each interview, field

notes were taken detailing participant reactions to questions, mannerisms and other

non-verbal responses.

Additionally, as the researcher is an employee of the case, an observation of

behaviours of all staff was undertaken during the same 6-week period as the

interviews were taking place. This was generally of an informal nature and involved

simply observing employee green behaviours of all staff when going about their day-

to-day activities. For example, sitting in the staff kitchen and common area, the

researcher was able to observe staff as they sorted their waste between different

waste receptacles or, indeed, when they did not engage in these behaviours. Also, I

observed academic staff as they exited classrooms after periods and noticed when

lights and projectors were not switched off. Due to the spontaneous nature of these

behaviours a checklist was not used, as it was not possible to have the checklist

available whenever an example of green behaviour became apparent. However, notes

were taken as soon as possible after the event to record the details of the behaviour.

3.4.2 Ethical Consideration

This research has been granted ethical clearance by the QUT Office of Research

Ethics and Integrity. The research is considered low risk and has been assigned

approval number 1600000203. It was anticipated there would be only minor

discomfort for participants due to the appropriate controls that were put in place to


maintain participant confidentiality. It was also anticipated that participants could

potentially experience some minor anxiety during the interview process, especially

being interviewed by another member of staff and/or if they had not engaged in any

pro-environmental behaviour. These risks were mitigated through the following

actions:

• Participant responses were de-identified in reporting to ensure confidentiality.

• Participant and interviewer agreed upon a safe and comfortable setting for the

interview.

• The purpose of the research, the role of participants and the role of the

researcher were clearly explained in person and within the participant consent

form.

• Participants could choose not to answer a question in the interview.

• Participants had the opportunity to withdraw from the research without

penalty at any time during the interview or up to two weeks after the

interview.

The benefits of this research far outweigh the minimal risks described above.

Businesses are struggling with engaging staff regarding pro-environmental behaviour

and yet this is an issue that is increasingly becoming a focus area for business. Better

understanding the barriers and drivers for OCBE will allow managers to foster these

behaviours which have been demonstrated to form an integral part of organisational

environmental sustainability (Ones & Dilchert, 2012a).

3.5 ANALYSIS

NVivo (v11 for Mac) was used to assist the data analysis process. Full immersion in

the data occurred as each interview was analysed line by line. During a research team

meeting, it was decided that it would be best practice to organise the data under each

research question. Hence, inductive open coding was employed in the first instance

to generate conceptual categories (Marshall & Rossman, 2011; Qualitative analysis

and interpretation, 2002). Inductive analysis involves “discovering patterns, themes

and categories in one’s data” (Qualitative analysis and interpretation, 2002, p. 457).

Open codes were generated that categorised employee responses around their

behaviours and their opinions of different facets of the organisation as well as

employee understanding of green behaviour. From these initial categories, axial

coding was then used to cluster codes around main headings of commonality


(Marshall & Rossman, 2011). These initial headings were loosely linked to the

research questions and were initially titled ‘employee perceptions of green

behaviour’, ‘drivers’, ‘barriers’, ‘examples of employee green behaviour’ and

‘sustainability initiatives’.

Following the axial coding, deductive analysis (Qualitative analysis and

interpretation, 2002) was then applied to codes under the heading ‘examples of

employee green behaviour’. Deductive analysis involves using a predetermined

framework from the literature to organise the data. In this instance, the three

validated factors for OCBE were used to organise the responses. This resulted in a

refinement of the original coding structure with the heading ‘examples of employee

green behaviour’ split into three separate headings: ‘eco-civic engagement’, ‘eco-

helping’ and ‘eco-initiative’. It was then decided that the three OCBE dimensions, as

well as the heading ‘employee perceptions of green behaviour’, would be organised

under the first research question: How do employees perceive and practice employee

green behaviour? (Figure 3.1).

Figure 3.1 Coding structure for research question 1

Next, the antecedents of green behaviour that form the first part of the

Multilevel Model for Employee Green Behaviours (Norton, et al., 2015) were used

as a conceptual framework to organise employee responses not yet categorised.

Using NVivo, parent categories labelled ‘drivers’ and ‘barriers’ were created and

under each of these categories, two sub-categories were established; ‘context factors’

and ‘person factors’. These two sub-categories were then apportioned further for

both ‘drivers’ and ‘barriers’. The sub-category labelled ‘context factors’ included


levels for ‘institution’, ‘organisation’, ‘team’ and ‘leader’ while the sub-category

labelled ‘person factors’ was divided into levels labelled ‘between person’ and

‘within person’. Themes then emerged under each of the levels within each category.

The parent categories labelled ‘drivers’ and ‘barriers’ and associated sub-categories,

levels and themes were positioned under research question two: What drives or

hinders employee green behaviour for the individual? (Figure 3.2).


Inductive analysis was employed for responses that sat outside the priori

categories but were still considered pertinent to the research. Inductive analysis aims

to unearth relevant latent themes to make connections across the data set (Qualitative

analysis and interpretation, 2002). These latent themes were originally coded under

the category ‘sustainability initiatives’ and included responses from employees about

current organisation sustainability initiatives (that they were aware of) as well as

future initiatives the employee believed the organisation could implement to better

foster green behaviours. Further refinement and analysis of these initial themes

coded the responses separately as either ‘context factors’ or ‘person factors’, once

again using the Multilevel Model for Employee Green Behaviours as a guide.

Essentially, employees spoke of sustainability initiatives that were driven by the

organisation (context factors) or initiatives that were linked to motivation within the

individual employee (person factors). These two codes were then established as

parent categories with associated levels and themes and positioned under the third

research question: How can the organisation facilitate employee green behaviour?

(Figure 3.3).



The themes and sub-themes that became apparent from the process of analysis

evolved and were refined over time. Completing the literature review prior to

conducing the case study allowed the researcher to have a clearer understanding of

possible themes that began to emerge from the interviews. Referring back to the

literature during the analysis phase was also a valuable step within the process that

assisted the data to be refined and coded methodically (Marshall & Rossman, 2011).

As both a deductive and inductive approach to analysis was utilised, overlapping

sub-themes were revealed and made for a truer reflection of staff behaviours and

attitudes. Additionally, using deductive analysis followed with an inductive approach

lessens the possibility that the researcher attempts to place participant views and

opinions into the existing framework when some connections may not exist. The

inductive approach forces the researcher to see new themes and patterns within the

data and code these separately.

Chapter 4: Results 55

Chapter 4: Results

Employee green behaviour can be categorised as either voluntary (i.e. at the

discretion of the employee) or task-based (i.e. green behaviours necessary to do the

job). Organisational Citizenship Behaviour for the Environment (OCBE) has been

established as an appropriate construct to describe employee voluntary green

behaviour. Previous research has established the importance of organisational

context, supervisor support, employee personality traits and a positive collegial

organisational culture as antecedents of OCBE. The findings reported in this chapter

partially support the previously discussed studies and are organised around the three

research questions: How do employees perceive and practice employee green

behaviour? What drives or hinders OCBE for the individual? How can the

organisation facilitate OCBE? Under each research question the pertinent themes that

emerged are presented as subheadings. The chapter concludes with a summary of the

key findings.

4.1 HOW DO EMPLOYEES PERCEIVE AND PRACTICE EMPLOYEE GREEN BEHAVIOUR?

The extant literature states that employee green behaviours comprise those accessible

actions and behaviours that either support or detract from the environmental

sustainability goals of the organisation (Ones & Dilchert, 2012a). This includes

behaviours associated with formal duties or voluntary environmental citizenship type

behaviours and should also take into account ‘tacit knowledge’ that is shared among

employees but not readily quantifiable (Boiral, Paille, et al., 2015; Ones & Dilchert,

2012a). Building on this understanding of employee green behaviours, Norton, et al.

(2015), created the integrated model for employee green behaviours that provides a

clear illustration of the antecedents and outcomes of both task-based and voluntary

employee green behaviours. However, the literature is not explicit regarding exactly

how employees perceive the concept of green behaviour. Additionally, quantitative

research has found that the relatively new construct OCBE has three dimensions

(Boiral, 2009; Boiral & Paillé, 2012; Paillé & Boiral, 2013) but more research is

required to understand the actual green behaviours employees perform. Following

detailed analysis of the data combined with informal observations of employee

56 Chapter 4: Results

behaviours, several themes emerged and are discussed below under the respective

headings: 4.4.1 Employee perceptions of green behaviour; 4.1.2 Eco-Initiative

behaviour; 4.1.3 Eco-Helping behaviour; and 4.1.4 Eco-Civic engagement.

4.1.1 Employee perceptions of green behaviour

The themes that emerged from employee perceptions of green behaviour are

discussed below and are illustrated in figure 4.1.

Figure 4.1 Themes associated with employee perceptions of green behaviours

During the data collection phase of the case study, it became apparent that

many of the participants had varying understandings of employee green behaviour.

All participants were optimistic in their views of green behaviour, in that in theory,

they indicated that performing green behaviours was a positive action that benefited

the environment for future generations. Participants generally expressed the view that

employee green behaviour involved “being sustainable” by “looking after the

environment and making sure that it's in good order for the next generation and the

generation after” (participant F – teacher). More specifically, and in addition to the

general view of green behaviour positively benefiting the environment, four

participants (representing teachers and ancillary staff) specifically said that being

sustainable at work could involve reducing energy use or increasing recycling rates.

No mention of other green behaviours was present in these four responses. This may

be because energy efficiency and increasing recycling have been a recent focus

across the organisation.

Employee perceptions of

green behaviours

Intergenerational thinking

Energy efficiency and recycling

Positively influencing colleagues

Awareness of impact

Cynicism toward employee green

behaviour

Themes


Four teachers and one ancillary staff went further still in their description of

employee green behaviour by including a reference to an intentional positive

influence over their colleagues in the workplace. These five participants indicated

that green behaviour involves personally ensuring your actions have a positive

impact on the environment but that an employee should also attempt to positively

influence others to increase their green behaviour. This intentional positive influence

of one employee over their colleagues could be considered eco-helping behaviour

within the OCBE construct.

Some participants went beyond the simple understanding of employee green

behaviour provided by most participants to reference an awareness of their individual

impact. While they shared colleagues’ views that employee green behaviours

encompass actions that positively benefit the environment, three participants (two

teachers and one leadership staff member) also added that employee green behaviour

is also about being “consciously aware, most of the time, of your environmental

responsibility”. Hence, not only do these three participants feel that employee green

behaviour involves actions that benefit the environment but that it also involves

being aware of the impact your actions have on the environment. This is an important

difference from the other participant definitions because it suggests these participants

have higher awareness of their impact on the environment. All participants

understood that employee green behaviours should benefit the environment but these

participants went further to demonstrate that being aware of their responsibility

toward the environment is more important. Some participants know what green

behaviour at work is but this does not mean they perform green behaviours or are

aware of the environment. Having an awareness of the environment while at work

shows that, for some participants, green behaviours go beyond simple one-off

actions. It also demonstrates that only some employees understand the need to be

cognisant of their environmental responsibility especially when completing tasks at

work under their own volition.

There was a distinctive response from participant H regarding views of green

behaviour. Contrasting the optimistic descriptions of green behaviour from all

employees (including his own) was the response (both verbal and physical) from a

teacher (participant H). His response suggested a level of cynicism directed towards

the term employee green behaviour and the “political connotations” the expression


Eco-initiative behaviour

Voluntarily carrying out green actions and

initiatives

Actively weighing environmental

consequences of actions

Suggest or advocate for green processes

has, especially to the “Greens Party” or “lefties”. Thus, although all staff interviewed

demonstrated a clear view that green behaviour positively benefits the environment,

some staff may question the motivations behind green behaviours, which may lead

them to disengage.

4.1.2 Eco-Initiative behaviour

Eco-initiative behaviour was the most common form of employee green behaviour to

emerge from the data. Eco-initiative behaviour is a dimension within the OCBE

construct which refers to occasions when employees use their initiative to carry out

voluntary green behaviours and actions to positively benefit the environment. During

the interviews, twelve of the thirteen participants described examples of their own

voluntary green behaviour that can be considered eco-initiative behaviour. According

to the measurement of OCBE produced by Paillé and Boiral (2013), eco-initiative

behaviour has three distinct items which were used as priori themes during the data

analysis. The three themes within this dimension of OCBE are illustrated in Figure

4.2 and elaborated in the following paragraphs.

Figure 4.2 Themes associated with eco-initiative behaviour

The most prominent theme to emerge from the data was the occasions when

employees voluntarily carried out actions that reduced the environmental impact of

the organisation. For example, a teacher spoke of the times,

“When I bring my lunch, it's rarely got GLAD Wrap and other just

disposable waste on it. I take things home and wash things again. I unplug at

the end of the day, log off, don't leave things plugged in.” (participant I)

There are two behaviours within this example. The first section describing her

reusing of materials refers to this employee’s individual impact on the waste output

Themes


of the organisation and the other section refers to reducing energy use. Only this

employee described examples in this detail, suggesting that either other employees

do not consider the environmental impact of some of their actions or they could not

link the behaviour of reusing materials as necessarily benefiting the environmental

sustainability of the organisation. The remaining eleven of the twelve examples of

eco-initiative behaviour identified in the data involved participant description of

energy efficient related initiatives such as, “turning off an air conditioning, turning

off the lights, turning off the fans”.

The second form of eco-initiative behaviour described by participants was

those moments where employees actively weighed up the impact of their actions on

the environment before they completed the action. Three participants (two teachers

and one from the leadership team) explicitly stated that they actively evaluated the

potential impact of actions on the environment when deciding about behaviour at

work. However, through analysis of the data, it became clear that more than three

participants thought about the environmental impact of their behaviours. Examples of

these behaviours varied from reusing office file folders instead of disposing of them

(teacher) to making their own lunch in reusable containers instead of purchasing food

from a cafe (ancillary). On each of these occasions, the participant referred to

actively considering the potential environmental impact when making their decision.

Only one participant (Middle school teacher) mentioned awareness in her definition

of employee green behaviour and explicitly stated this as an example when

describing her green behaviour at work. The other two participants to cite awareness

in their definition of green behaviour did not reference awareness in any of their

personal examples of green behaviour at work.

The third form of eco-initiative involved participants making suggestions about

ways in which the organisation could more effectively manage its impact on the

environment. The first instance was specific to a certain area of the organisation and

was a suggestion by an ancillary staff member to install plastic curtains in front of a

doorway to prevent cooling loss. The second instance was the suggestion by a

participant from the leadership group to install fly screens and screen doors on the

office windows and external doors of a particular administration staff area. The

participant from the leadership group made this suggestion so staff members could

choose to keep the windows and doors open to encourage natural air to flow through


Eco-helping behaviour

Help colleagues to take the environment

into account

Encourage colleagues to adopt green

practices at work

the office and reduce the reliance on artificial cooling. Both suggestions were

enacted by the organisation after the completion of the interview stage of the case

study.

4.1.3 Eco-Helping behaviour

The second type of employee green behaviour, which emerged from within the

case, was the dimension of OCBE identified as eco-helping behaviour. Eco-helping

behaviour involves colleagues supporting one another to better integrate

environmental practices within the workplace. Eco-helping does not necessarily

encompass undertaking a green action for a colleague (this would be eco-initiative

behaviour) but involves supporting or encouraging colleague/s to incorporate more

green behaviours into their daily routine at work. The data from the semi-structured

interviews revealed that five participants mentioned positively influencing (or

helping) colleagues when describing their understanding of green behaviour at work.

However, only two participants provided examples where they had actively helped

colleagues to take the environment into consideration. It should be noted however

that informal observations of other employees, who were not necessarily participants

in the semi-structured interviews, revealed further examples of eco-helping

behaviour. The emergent themes are illustrated below in Figure 4.3 and discussed in

the paragraphs following.

Figure 4.3 Themes associated with eco-helping behaviour

A participant from the leadership group described providing “…support to

other people who've wanted to do things” (participant B). For him, this involved

making it easier for staff to be greener at work rather than him showing them ways to

be greener. Conversely, a participant from the teacher group specifically showed

colleagues (other teachers) how they could reduce paper use. This participant

demonstrated efficient utilisation of digital technologies and she then, voluntarily,

ran a short professional development session for the members of her department to

Themes


do the same. Furthermore, employees in other departments began to enquire about

this process. She then took it upon herself to instruct others from outside her

department in this greener process.

The above example could also be positioned under the second theme in the

eco-helping dimension, encourage colleagues to adopt green practices at work. If

someone is helping a colleague to be greener at work by specifically showing him or

her green process as described in the previous section, then they are also encouraging

that colleague to adopt said green practice. The encouragement may not be explicit,

but through the physical display of the green process, the encouragement of a green

practice takes place. On the other hand, when someone offers encouragement to a

colleague (e.g. I think you are so good at separating your waste), they may not

necessarily help that colleague to perform that action. Hence, for this thesis, the two

themes (helping and encouraging) are considered separately within the eco-helping

dimension.

The first example for encourage colleagues to adopt green practices at work

involved informal observations of emails from a staff member reminding other

departments of ways they can reduce their paper use through adoption of digital

technologies. This voluntary email was addressed to all staff in the organisation from

an employee in the ancillary group. Through this email, he took the initiative and

reminded all staff of the collective ability of the staff body to moderate individual

paper use across the organisation to reduce the impact on the environment.

Effectively, this employee was encouraging his colleagues to adopt greener practices

at work via the most practical means available to him. Another example involved

numerous staff (teachers) on different occasions making suggestions to the

sustainability officer regarding specific ideas they had which they believed, if

implemented could make the organisation greener. These suggestions included ways

to increase rates of recycling or decrease energy use. Finally, team meetings seemed

to be an avenue for one staff member (teacher) to exhibit eco-helping behaviour. He

infrequently encouraged staff to be greener at work through short speeches at a

weekly morning meeting. The general nature of his speeches (to other teachers from

different departments) involved reminding other employees to close doors when they

used the air-conditioning in their classrooms.


4.1.4 Eco-Civic engagement

The third form of green behaviour identified in the data is the third dimension of

OCBE: eco-civic engagement. This form of OCBE specifically involves employees

demonstrating support for the organisation’s green commitments. Examples of eco-

civic engagement include participating in green events or green initiatives, promoting

the green credentials of the organisation and/or volunteering for sustainability

committees or green projects. Two themes emerged under this dimension, which are

illustrated in figure 4.4 and discussed below.

Figure 4.4 Themes associated with eco-civic engagement

There was only one specific comment related to eco-civic engagement in the

interviews; participant J from the ancillary staff group referenced several occasions

he actively worked through some visible garden areas to pick up litter prior to a large

school event. This action could be considered an eco-initiative and eco-civic

engagement. It has been categorised as eco-civic engagement in this instance as the

employee stated that he picks up the litter to ensure the organisation maintains its

green credentials to external stakeholders who were attending the event. He did not

mention the effect the eco-civic engagement would also have on internal

stakeholders but his behaviour demonstrates clear support for the environment which

has been shown to have a positive impact on the green behaviour of other staff

(Paillé, Mejía-Morelos, Marché-Paillé, Chen, & Chen, 2015). The informal

observations of employee behaviours revealed another example of eco-civic

engagement from an employee within the school. Observations consisted of viewing

an individual staff member discussing with prospective parents some of the green

initiatives implemented within the school. The above examples were not formally

required as part of the employee’s duties but something, which once completed,

Eco-civic engagement

Undertaking environmental actions that contribute

positively to the image of the organisation

Volunteering for projects, endeavours or events that

address environmental issues in the organisation

Themes


helped to maintain the green credentials of the school in accordance with the

espoused corporate sustainability values.

Within the semi-structured interviews, there were no references from

participants of actively volunteering for green projects or events within the

organisation. However, several instances were informally observed during the

research project. The first example involved a staff member actively volunteering to

assist a tree-planting project. Another example involved four staff members

volunteering to be a part of a green committee that would help facilitate green

projects within the school. Both examples demonstrate a desire from some

employees to actively participate in green projects within the school that are neither

associated with their job nor accrue any formal benefits to the individual.

4.2 WHAT DRIVES OR HINDERS INDIVIDUAL OCBE?

The drivers and barriers to OCBE that emerged during the case study have been

categorised using a framework adopted from The Integrated Multilevel Model For

Employee Green Behaviours (Norton, et al., 2015), as described in Section 2.2. The

drivers and barriers to OCBE that emerged were recorded as parent categories and

beneath both driver and barrier sit two sub-categories, context factors or person

factors. Within the context theme, four nodes were used to further categorise

employee responses: the higher-level nodes ‘institutional’ and ‘organisational’ as

well as the more specific nodes ‘leader’ and ‘team’. The two former nodes refer to

the drivers and barriers to OCBE the employee has little control over such as

industry guidelines or internal policy. The two latter nodes include those drivers and

barriers to OCBE that stem from interactions the employee would have the most

frequent contact with during a normal workweek. The sub-category labelled ‘person

factors’ is divided into two nodes: ‘between person’ and ‘within person’. The former

signifies an employee’s personality and environmental attitude while the latter node

includes an employee’s motivation and intentions. Under both parent categories,

associated sub-categories and nodes emerged applicable themes. The following

section outlines the results of the case study by detailing and describing the

associated drivers and barriers that are classified under each theme.


4.2.1 Context Factors Driving and Hindering OCBE

The contextual factors that operate as drivers or barriers to OCBE were categorised

using the Multilevel Model for Employee Green Behaviours (Norton, et al., 2015)

and include four separate levels. These are institutional, organisational, team and

leader. The institutional level represents the regulatory, competitive and socio-

economic environment within which the organisation operates. The organisational

level includes internal policies, human resource practices and incentives. The leader

level refers to the influence a person in management wields over an employee and

the team level includes “factors that relate to groups of employees, such as collective

self-efficacy and group goal setting” (Norton, et al., 2015, p. 107). The themes that

emerged from each contextual level for both barriers and drivers of OCBE are

presented in Table 4.1 and Table 4.2 respectively.


Table 4.1.

Barriers inhibiting OCBE within the Context sub-category

Level Theme

Organisational

Different priorities

Saving money

Competing systems

Inconsistency from others in the organisation between words and actions

Extra individual events that impede green behaviour

Lack of transparency

Green system or process not in place

Demotivational effect from identifying waste in other areas of the organisation

Leader Perceived negative attitude towards green behaviour

No leader OCBE

Low support toward green behaviour leadership style

Team Lack of knowledge of green behaviours

Lack of ownership over workplace space

Negative green behaviour norms

Reliance on others

Table 4.2.

Drivers of OCBE within the Context sub-category

Level Theme

Institutional Concerned about reputation

Organisational

Information and awareness

Ownership over space

Prior or existing green intervention

Saving money

Visible green initiatives from the organisation

Leader

Perceived positive attitudes towards green behaviour

Explicit leader OCBE

High support toward green behaviour leadership style

Team Positive green behaviour norms


OCBE at the institutional level

Drivers of OCBE at the institutional level

The theme, ‘concerned about reputation’, was the single theme that emerged as a

driver while no themes emerged at the institutional level as barrier. The participants

of this study clearly did not identify variables at the institutional level as a

noteworthy driver or barrier to OCBE. Regarding the one driver at the institutional

level, seven participants across the hierarchy of the school (three leaders, three

teachers and one ancillary staff member) referred to enhancing the school’s

reputation within their interviews. Four of the seven participants (two leaders, one

teacher and one ancillary staff member) explicitly stated that the organisation’s

reputation was a personal driver for their own green behaviour. Participant A from

the leadership group specifically stated that there exists a “great opportunity” for the

school to enhance their reputation in the broader community by becoming a

sustainable organisation. One participant even went as far as stating that as a leading

education institution “we have that sort of responsibility to ensure we are setting a

good example” (participant M, leadership group). On the other hand, the remaining

three participants (one leader and two teachers) implied that reputation was not a

personal driver but felt that the need to enhance reputation underpinned some

“cosmetic” (participant B, leadership group) environmental actions by some areas of

the organisation that take place “for the purpose of selling” the school (participant

B). Hence, more than half of the thirteen participants mentioned reputation as a

driver. Four of these employees felt that enhancing the school’s reputation was

something they were personally invested in while the other three employees stated

that reputation drove certain green decisions from management and implied that

these decisions were not necessarily for the betterment of the natural environment.

OCBE at the organisational level

When compared with the institutional level, variables at the organisational level

played a larger role in driving or hindering OCBE. Furthermore, participants felt the

factors situated at the organisational level created more barriers (eight themes from

148 coding references) to employee green behaviour than drivers (five themes from

122 coding references). These eight themes; green system or process not in place,

demotivational effect from identifying inefficiencies in other areas, saving money,

competing systems, lack of transparency, inconsistency from others in the


organisation between words and actions, external events that impede green behaviour

and different priorities emerged as barriers and these five emerged as drivers; prior or

existing green intervention, visible green initiatives from the organisation, ownership

over space, saving money, information and awareness.

Barriers to OCBE at the organisational level

The theme ‘different priorities’ was the biggest barrier to employee green behaviour

within the organisation. Ten of the thirteen participants felt that environmental

sustainability is “not high on that priority list” (participant C, teacher) within the

organisation. The data shows that having environmental sustainability down the list

of priorities for this organisation can hinder an employee’s ability to perform green

behaviours. With regards to specific roles within the organisation, participant C goes

on to explain, “as a teacher, (it seems) the expectation is to do the dead set opposite

environmental thing. (Especially) printing paper. Because, if you walk around…

there are piles of paper on everyone's desk.”

At the organisational level, participants also described the frustration of a

‘green system or process not in place’, which specifically referred to recycling bins

not accessible in all areas of the school. Participants spoke of the ‘demotivational

effect from identifying inefficiencies in other areas’ of the organisation (e.g.

automatic sprinklers being used in the rain) or witnessing the inconsistency from

other employees in the organisation between words and actions (e.g. colleagues

publicly supporting sustainability initiatives but their actions do not necessarily

always reflect that support).

A Senior School teacher also spoke of the frustration of ‘competing systems’

that seemed to prevent green behaviour. An example described attempting to turn off

air-conditioning in her classroom but the remote was in locked box in a cupboard to

prevent student theft. She queried the facilities department regarding access to the

remote and they seemed to understand the need to access the remote but they were

directed to limit theft or loss of remotes in this area. This meant she did not bother to

turn off the air-conditioning at all as she could not easily access the remote control.

Another teacher from the Middle School questioned whether his efforts to recycle

actually meant his waste was recycled, as he described a ‘lack of transparency’ in the

waste management process. He had previous negative experiences with waste

management at a former job and he said that it was not clear, within the current


organisation, where the waste streams actually ended up. The two latter examples

were also categorised as the ‘extra-individual events that impede green behaviour’.

Considering the above views of the participants, it seems that the decisions and

behaviours of others (both management and other employees) have large part to play

in hindering an employee’s ability to perform voluntary green behaviour at work.

In addition to the barriers described above, participants referred to ‘money’ as

both a barrier and a driver to OCBE. Participants felt that saving money was a driver

for the organisation for implementation of certain sustainability measures, but not

necessarily a driver for the individual employees as one teacher stated, “senior admin

values it (energy efficiency) perhaps more highly than average teachers, because

they pay the bills for it” (participant D). Conversely, money was also a considered a

barrier to implementation of sustainability initiatives as participant B from the

leadership group pondered that, “maybe there's priorities that outweigh our focus on

the environment when perhaps there's a lack of realisation that the two could work

together”. This employee finishes by stating that this focus on saving money comes

at the detriment to the realisation of other initiatives and “that becomes an increasing

frustration… for everyone in the organisation”.

Drivers of OCBE at the organisational level

Overwhelmingly, participants described being able to see the positive impact of their

behaviours as a driver to their individual behaviour, which was categorised as

‘information and awareness’. Ten participants (two from leadership group and eight

teachers) spoke positively of being able to see meaningful data or having clear

information regarding the organisation’s environmental impact. “By seeing the level

of improvement - seeing something tangible in front of us will help us and does help

us do the next little bit more.” (participant B, leadership group). In other words,

participants reacted encouragingly when they could see the results of their collective

actions. Specifically, this related to energy use and increased rates of waste material

diverted to recycling streams. This is probably due to the focus these two areas have

within the organisation in terms of current organisation wide initiatives (e.g. cloud

based accessible electricity monitoring and green office recycling program).

Other notable drivers of OCBE included a participant having ‘ownership over a

space’. This was particularly related to the teachers; “for my own room I would turn

the air con off more” yet “in another random room, you'd think well there's probably


another class coming. I'll leave it on” or “You may not know where the switch is”

(participant D). Another participant (H - senior school teacher) spoke of the ease in

taking up a green initiative that was already in place prior to employment; “it wasn't

a change which happened when I was there, it was already there before, so I didn’t

worry too much about it”. Additionally, two teachers stated that it was nice to see

some of the visible green initiatives implemented by the organisation, which had a

positive impact on their own behaviours; “this school has gone at a great deal of

cost to provide this….well, it, it's important” (participant F).

OCBE and the leader level

Like the barriers categorised at the organisational level, barriers situated at the leader

level (three themes from 26 coding references) outweighed the drivers in the same

level (three themes from 14 coding references). Both barriers and drivers contained

similar but opposing themes. The barriers included: perceived negative attitude

towards green behaviour, no leader green behaviour and low support for green

behaviour leadership style. While the drivers at the leader level included: perceived

positive attitude towards green behaviour, explicit leader green behaviour and high

support for green behaviour leadership style. The themes to emerge within the leader

level as either barriers or drivers are interlinked; as the overt attitudes of the school’s

leaders will impact the amount of OCBE that leader performs, which in turn, would

be manifested through their individual leadership style. The results show that much

of the employee OCBE within the case is driven or hindered by the attitudes towards

the environment, individual OCBEs and leadership style of the leaders with whom an

employee has direct contact.

Barriers to OCBE at the leader level

The lack of noticeable green behaviour from the school’s leaders was highlighted by

five participants as having a clear negative influence on their own propensity to

engage in green behaviour. The common perception among these five employees is

that “they (the executive) approve of getting things done (environmental

sustainability), but they're not really right into it. From where I'm standing”

(participant K, teacher). Participants also felt that collective management attitudes

regarding the environment were low as there were no noticeable green behaviours

exhibited from management. This perception from employees of no evidence of

leaders’ green behaviour and a lack of support for the environment from their leaders


was coded as themes ‘perceived negative attitude towards green behaviour’ and ‘no

leader green behaviour’. These themes began to emerge when participants were

asked two questions related to perceived organisation support for the environment.

The responses to both questions demonstrated that employees feel that organisational

support from management toward the environment is low; “you don't see much

evidence that it's important”. This negative perception may be connected to the

perceived organisation support from their direct line manager. All thirteen

participants felt that their line manager did not outwardly value the environment, as

“it has never come up in a conversation” (teacher). The third theme to emerge within

this level was ‘low support towards green behaviour leadership style’ as two teacher

participants felt there needed to be more of a “top-down” approach from the school’s

leaders regarding expectations of employee behaviours toward the environment.

Drivers to OCBE at the leader level

Four participants felt that if their leaders did engage in more ‘explicit leader green

behaviour’ or the school leaders’ expressed attitudes toward the environment were

more overt, this would be a driver for their own behaviour,

“… if they saw him being that way, well, then they might be a bit more like,

oh, (he’s) got so much on his plate and he still will flick off his light and turn

it off, or see a piece of paper on playground duty and pick it up and put it in

the bin, and, well, you know, maybe I should do that” (participant K,

ancillary staff).

The above quote was also coded as theme ‘high support towards green

behaviour leadership style’. It highlights the unifying effect that simple acts of

leadership can have over employees. In other words, “anything that interests my

boss, interests me” (participant G, teacher), which was coded as ‘perceived positive

attitude toward green behaviour’. Regarding this quote, this teacher intimates that he

would be more interested in the environment if his manager demonstrates interest in

the environment. The above two quotes suggest that participants believe that the

actions of the school’s leaders have the potential for significant positive influence on

their own and others behaviour. Not only do the participants believe that an

unambiguous approach toward the environment from management would positively

affect their own behaviour but that they also want to see more explicit leadership

from management in this area.


OCBE at the team level

Like the other three levels that define context factors, the data shows that employees

feel factors at the team level are responsible for more barriers for green behaviour

than drivers. Four themes emerged as barriers (lack of knowledge of green

behaviours, lack of ownership over workplace space, negative green behaviour

norms, reliance on others) as opposed to one theme considered both a driver (positive

green behaviour norms). Through the interviews, it emerged that employees are

encouraged or discouraged by the behaviours of their colleagues and this can

manifest into positive or negative outcomes for environment.

Barriers and driver to OCBE at the team level

For some participants, ‘negative green behaviour norms’ emerged as a barrier but the

positive effect associated with the visibility of individuals’ actions emerged as a

driver under theme titled ‘positive green behaviour norms’. Green behaviour norms

refer to the typical green behaviours that are exhibited or not exhibited by members

of a team. Six employees (one leader, four teachers and one ancillary staff member)

referenced green behaviour norms as positive influence of their own behaviour while

three different employees (one leader and two teachers) stated that normative

behaviours was a barrier to their green behaviour. A participant from the teaching

group clearly articulates the affirming nature of green behaviour norms, “when

everybody's doing the right thing, it makes it easier for you to do the right thing”

(participant G). The green behaviour norm or ‘right thing’ mentioned in this quote

refers to energy efficient behaviours such as turning off lights or closing doors to

rooms with air-conditioning on. Participant G was making the point that when you

see other teachers turning off lights when leaving a classroom, it acts as a reminder

for you to do the same. Conversely, the frustration could be heard in the voice of

another teacher as he describes his efforts to perform green behaviours at work in the

context of the demotivating factor of “…trying to do the right thing, (when) a dozen

others are not doing the right thing” (participant F).

Another barrier to emerge at the team level was coded as ‘reliance on others’.

A participant from the leadership group feels that as a society we are too reliant on

others to clean up after us and this has resulted in selfish behaviour in the workplace.

He seemed despondent when describing his observation that we pay others to clean

our homes, iron clothes, pick up rubbish in our public spaces or to perform other


perceived menial tasks and this propensity to rely on others to perform menial tasks

then flows into the workplace. This participant was making the connection with

OCBE, in that employees are less likely to perform voluntary green behaviours if

they have developed a reliance on others to complete tasks they don’t feel are

important.

According to four employees (one leader, two teachers and one ancillary staff

member), a lack of ownership of a workplace space also has an impact on an

employee’s tendency to turn off lights or air-conditioning. If an individual shares

their office or classroom with other employees, there is a negative impact on that

employee’s proclivity to perform an OCBE as “they’re less willing to engage in

those types of behaviours” (participant I - teacher). This could either be due to the

uncertainty around when that space will be used next as an participant does not want

to cause discomfort for their colleagues (participant G) or it could simply be that

employees “care more about the one (room) I’m in more often” (participant I -

teacher). This theme is positioned under team level as a barrier but under the

organisational level as a driver. It was decided that the organisation can foster

(driver) more ownership from employees over a space but if employees must share

spaces (as teachers often do), the team around them can become a barrier to

individual OCBE.

Finally, eight participants felt they simply did not have enough knowledge

regarding actions that positively effect the environment. Although most stated they

would like to do more by “knowing what other things that (one) could do to make an

impact” (participant K - teacher), an ancillary staff member felt that there is not

enough information provided regarding possible green behaviours and hence, this

hinders the employee from engaging in more green behaviours at work. Confusion

over correct procedures created barriers, such as contaminated recycling bins,

“people need to be educated in what goes in the yellow bin [laughs], there's a lot of

stuff that goes in there that shouldn't ” (participant I).

4.2.2 Person Factors Driving and Inhibiting OCBE

Norton, et al. (2015) found that most variables measured within the extant employee

green behaviour literature (including the OCBE literature) are at the employee level.

Accordingly, at this level, these variables have been categorised within the Integrated

Multilevel Model for Employee Green Behaviours as either between person factors


or within person factors. The difference between the two categories is the relative

stability of the variable driving or inhibiting the behaviour. Between person factors

are those that are generally stable (e.g. environmental attitude, job factors or

personality) and these can vary between employees. Within person factors can vary

within the individual and include motivational states or intentions. The data that

emerged from the case aligns with the findings of Norton, et al. (2015), in that there

were more coding references for both drivers and barriers to OCBE at the person

(employee) level (301) compared with coding references at the context level (246).

Furthermore, the data shows that person factors create more drivers for OCBE than

barriers. Table 4.3 presents the barriers to emerge from the data while table 4.4

presents the drivers.


Table 4.3.

Barriers inhibiting OCBE within the Person sub-category

Level Theme

Between person Maintaining comfort Convenience

Habit

Lack of time

New to role

Lazy

Within person High perceived difficulty

Negative affect

Not mindful

Too much to do

Unaware of impact

Table 4.4.

Drivers of OCBE in the Person sub-category

Level Theme

Between person Against waste Concern for Environment

Green behaviours at home

Leading by example Role model to children

Role model to students

Parental influence

Individual actions have a positive influence

Religious influence

Right thing to do

Within person Positive affect

Control over actions


OCBE at the Between person level

Ten themes and 183 coding references were categorised as drivers as opposed to six

themes and 34 coding references as barriers. The data suggests that the generally

stable personality traits of an employee, their upbringing and/or a strong moral

compass provide the biggest driver to perform voluntary green behaviour at work.

Codes such as “role model – students”, “role model – children” or “right thing to do”

demonstrates the intrinsic, more stable nature of the drivers for employee green

behaviour. Whereas codes such “comfort”, “time” and “habits” highlight that the

barriers are less stable and could be an area for the organisation to target to reduce

barriers at this level.

Barriers to OCBE at the between person level

All thirteen participants responded optimistically when asked if individual’s actions

at work can have a positive impact on the organisation. “Every tiny little bit makes a

difference” (participant C, teacher) was a common statement among participants.

However, this positive view of the impact of individual employee actions did not

necessarily translate into a driver of OCBE at work. Perhaps individuals believe that

although individual actions can make a difference, there is a greater influence of

barriers on behaviour at different levels. For example, as discussed earlier, the

demotivating factor of negative green behaviour norms at the team level.

Barriers to OCBE specifically related to the between person level were varied.

Being to ‘new to role’ can negatively impact an employee’s ability to perform

OCBEs. One teacher stated that while he believed little green actions do make a

difference, he was a new employee and was trying to learn the practical realities of

his job and, currently, this negatively impacted his ability to think about performing

OCBEs. ‘Habits’ seem to play a large role in preventing OCBE at the between

person level. Participants B (leader) and G (teacher), who did not cite a concern for

the environment as a specific driver for OCBE, did cite existing habits as a barrier to

OCBE. “It's very hard to go to someone who's been here for 15 years…and expect

great change in behaviours and what they're going to adopt” (participant B). Added

to ingrained habits is the desire by some employees’ to maintain their individual

level of ‘comfort’ at work. It can be assumed that these employees feel justified in

using air-conditioning at a sub-optimal level to maintain their comfort despite the

negative impact this action has on the environment. This was evident within the


interviews through the incorrect perception of some participants that reducing the air-

conditioning to 16 degrees (as opposed to leaving at 23 or 24) will cool a room faster

because “it’s a comfort thing” (participant G, teacher). Another example that some

employees would rather remain comfortable than perform OCBEs; not sorting waste

into different waste and recycling receptacles was justified because some individuals

just “don't want to get their hands dirty” (participant K, ancillary staff). Some

participants felt that they did not think about recycling due to a ‘lack of time’ during

their workday. Specifically, this related to teachers who teach in multiple classrooms

and must travel to different areas of the school through the day. ‘Convenience’ was

another theme to emerge from the data. Some participants felt that if it required too

much perceived effort to complete an OCBE, then this would act as a deterrent.

Again, this related to recycling their waste in the correct receptacle or turning off

lights and air-conditioning at the end of the school day. The previously mentioned

quotes in this paragraph are also nested within the final theme ‘lazy’. Participant I

(teacher) might have summed all the points in this paragraph up perfectly by saying,

“this is people's workplace…it's not their homes, they're lazier.”

Drivers to OCBE at the between person level

Nine participants cited a concern for the environment as a driver to engage in OCBE

at work with the justification from participant F (teacher), “if we look after it (the

environment), it would look after us”. Interestingly, seven of the same participants

who cited a concern for the environment also said they perform green behaviours at

home, which was coded as a separate driver, ‘green behaviours at home’. Finally,

four of the original seven participants who had a concern for the environment and

perform green behaviours at home also just “don't like to be wasteful” (participant I).

This was coded as ‘against waste’ and is positioned at this level due to the link with

the intrinsic morals of the participant. This does not mean that these participants use

every opportunity to be green at work, as lack of time (discussed in previous

tiontion) was woven through the responses as a barrier for six of the participants

whom originally cited a concern for the environment as a major driver.

The specific context of this organisation, a school, played some part in driving

the behaviour of at least five of the participants (one leader and four teachers).


“… as educators, it really is a responsibility of us to educate our students,

the next generations in how to better manage the environment.” (participant

A, leadership group)

The above quote, coded as ‘role model – students’, demonstrated that some

participants want to ensure their OCBE is a positive influence to the students with

whom they work. Seven participants stated that role modelling to their own children

(coded as ‘role model – children’) was an important driver to their green behaviour at

home, which then carried over to their behaviour at work, “I feel more drive coming

from myself and my children than work” (participant I, teacher). Interestingly, out of

these seven participants, only two stated that they also were driven to role model

OCBE for their students in the classroom. The two categories ‘role model – students’

and ‘role model – children’ were positioned within the broader category ‘leading by

example’. Eight participants simply stated that their behaviours were partly driven by

the desire to “lead by example” (participant K, ancillary staff). Moreover, participant

I and H stated that there is significant ‘parental influence’ on their behaviours as they

were “…brought up with those values and I think that's just sort of carried through

naturally” (participant H, teacher).

Two linked comments by two different participants were coded as ‘religious

influence’ and ‘right thing to do’. Essentially these comments demonstrate that some

employees are driven by what they feel is morally correct. The first comment from

participant H stated that currently his biggest driver to perform OCBE was from the

Pope; his faith provided him with moral guidance. “As a good Catholic, you've got

your spiritual leader who's pushing these things…and that extends through”. Linked

to this statement was the simple declaration by participant B, that for him performing

OCBEs is “morally…the right thing to do”.

OCBE at the Within Person level

Going against the current trend, responses at this level showed that there were more

barriers (five themes from 42 coding references) as opposed to drivers (two themes

from 32 coding references). Essentially, the impact of factors (barriers or drivers) at

the within person category vary within an individual depending upon other

moderating influences. But importantly, despite being unique to the individual the

factors can be altered.


Barriers to OCBE at the within person level

Coded as ‘unaware of impact’, the following comment from participant C goes to the

heart of barriers at the within person category, “…Most people don’t realise their

individual impact” (participant C, teacher). People can be caught up with whatever is

occupying their attention on a given day or, it seems, can be influenced by the type

of mood they may be in. Coded as ‘negative affect’, participant B revealed that,

“…on a bad day, if I get down the corridor and I go, shit the lights are still on, I keep

walking”. For this participant, the drive to be green at work is sometimes

overweighed by negative experiences related to his job. Other barriers to emerge at

this level included the codes ‘too much to do’ - “there have been times where I've

left things plugged in, because I've had to run out”, ‘high perceived difficulty’ –

“You have to invest time and effort, and if you were all tired and pushed for time,

then …take a path of least resistance”, and simply ‘not mindful’. In regards to this

final theme, participant L (teacher) states that sometimes “if you're distracted about

whatever - you might walk out of a room and not have turned things off and that's

just sort of inexcusable in a way”. The barriers at this level are superficial in terms of

the employee’s attachment to them. All participant statements coded as barriers at

this level can be influenced in some way by the organisation. Section 4.3 discusses

responses from employees that detail how the organisation can foster more OCBEs.

Drivers to OCBE at the within person level

Drivers of OCBE at this level can also be heavily influenced by the organisation. The

comments from employees clearly show that the organisation has a significant part to

play in shaping OCBE. “It comes back to being happy at work…I want to add value

to the school”, this comment from participant J (ancillary staff member), illustrates

that some employees are driven by their ‘positive affect’, which refers to the positive

feelings they have toward the organisation. Only participant B mentioned that if he

was in a negative mindset about work and he forgot to turn off his lights when he left

the office for the day, he wouldn’t bother going back to his office to turn them off.

Furthermore, it seems that if people are “informed and educated and given an

opportunity” (participant L, teacher) and the organisation tries to ensure that this

opportunity “takes minimal time, minimal effort” (participant E, teacher), then

positive OCBE habits can form such as “turning off an air conditioning…turning off

the lights, turning off the fans” (participant C, teacher). The three comments outlined


above were wrapped up under the theme, ‘control over actions’ as they intimate that

the participants need to have some semblance of control in order to actually perform

an OCBE.

4.3 HOW CAN THE ORGANISATION FOSTER OCBE?

The data related to the third research question is organised using the four contextual

levels of the Multilevel Model for Employee Green Behaviour (Norton, et al., 2015).

The themes that emerged relating to RQ3 were organised using the levels of the

context sub-category, as the third research question specifically aims to uncover

ways in which the organisation can foster organisational citizenship behaviours for

the environment. If the organisation can utilise management techniques and

implement green initiatives that relate to context factors, then it is expected that this

will have a positive impact on barriers that exist at the levels within the Person

factors (e.g. environmental attitude or motivation state). Each section of this chapter

corresponds to a specific contextual level from the model. The four sections that

follow are titled 4.3.1 Institutional level, 4.3.2 Organisational level, 4.3.3 Leader

level and 4.3.4 Team level. Table 4.5 below illustrates the themes that emerged from

the data related to research question three.

Table 4.5.

Employee ideas to foster more OCBE

Category Level Theme

Context

Institutional No apparent themes at this level

Organisational

Policy

Incentives

Direct feedback

Induction and training

Prioritise environment

Leader

More explicit leadership

Accountability for behaviours

Team Collective action and responsibility

Mindfulness


4.3.1 Fostering OCBE at the Institutional level

The institutional level represents the macro-level environment that may influence

employee behaviour such as industry guidelines or the socio-economic environment

in which the organisation operates. Within this study, employees did not feel that the

institutional level was the ideal level in which to increase OCBEs as no apparent

themes emerged from the data. This may be because the case organisation is an

independent school that, although governed by a school body, operates

autonomously.

4.3.2 Fostering OCBE at the Organisational level

The majority of ideas suggested by participants within the interviews for the case

organisation to develop more OCBEs are nested within the organisational level. The

organisational level includes internal policies, human resource practices and

incentives. It was clear from the data that participants felt many of the barriers to

OCBE exist at that organisation level.

Policy

Regarding reference to policy, participant H (teacher) felt that clear policies needed

to be established and communicated, either from the school’s executive committee or

governing body, to ensure staff were doing the correct things at the correct times.

Currently, no formal policy documents exist within this school or even the school’s

governing body, which outline macro level expectations of employee green

behaviours. Policies regarding closing doors when the air-conditioning is on or only

setting air-conditioning to a certain level, using recycling receptacles correctly or

even reporting water leaks or broken equipment when noticed were mentioned.

Participant H discussed the idea that, “proper procedures in order to be able to do

those sort of things…so that you're not fighting it by yourself”, the expectation being

that appropriate, well-constructed policy would develop more OCBE from

employees.

Incentives

Only two participants specifically discussed incentives. The incentives discussed by

the two participants (H & I) only to refer to financial incentives (extrinsic rewards)

as opposed to intrinsic rewards. These two teachers thought that employee OCBE

might “save $20,000 in electricity” through reduced electricity costs which could

then be “split it up at the end of the year”. The resultant savings from reduced


electricity could be used as an incentive, as a small percentage of the savings could

be shared equally among all staff within the organisation. Quantifying the savings

and attributing them solely to employee behaviour would be complicated and time

consuming. For a large non-profit organisation that relies on school fees from parents

and carers, this type of arrangement would probably cause conflict as parents and

carers may feel aggrieved if the savings from the electricity budget were not used to

keep downward pressure on school fees or invested in new resources. Moreover, any

campus wide financial incentive arrangement would have to be voted upon by all

employees, as staff are employed under conditions set by a three-year enterprise

bargaining agreement.

Direct feedback

Within this level ‘direct feedback’ was referenced by eight participants, all of them

citing this as a factor that would better foster employee green behaviour within the

case organisation. Participant G articulated that,

People need to see that they're making a difference. So, if there's a way to

quantify that or give a picture of what difference they're making I reckon you

might get a handful more on board.

The above quote and similar from over half the thirteen participants suggests

that for employees to effectively engage in OCBEs at work, they need to be able to

see the nett benefit of their behaviours. This comes down to the fact that “most

people don't realise their individual impact” (participant C, teacher) and if there

could be ways to quantify the results of employee actions and make those results

easily interpreted, more employees may engage with OCBEs.

Induction and Training

Linked to the ‘direct feedback’ node is the second most referenced node titled,

‘induction and training’. Six of the eight participants (one leader, four teachers, one

ancillary staff member) who suggested direct feedback also suggested that improving

the specificity of the induction process for new staff and targeting behaviours

through training would be an achievable way to increase OCBEs. Participant B stated

that it needs to be made more explicit that, “this is what we want you to live and

breathe while you're here”. The common thread among the six responses was that as

new staff move through the organisation, and as additional new staff are trained in

environmental sustainability embedded in the induction process, one could expect an


increase in OCBEs over time. An interesting idea from participant F (teacher) was

for the organisation to initiate specific staff meetings at various points in the year

where various speakers (internal and external) would address certain issues and

perhaps provide solutions to specific environmental challenges identified by the

organisation. This would be a form of ongoing training and would allow staff to

collectively focus their efforts and maintain some momentum. These meetings might

be especially pertinent for those staff who stated that, at times, they would like to

engage in more green actions but do not have the knowledge to do more than they

are already doing.

Prioritise environment

Finally, six participants (one leader, four teachers and one ancillary staff member)

simply noted that the school needed to make environmental sustainability more of a

“priority” and this would foster more OCBEs. In reality, if the organisation were to

develop better feedback processes to demonstrate the impact of certain employee

behaviours (positive and negative) and focus environmental sustainability within the

training and induction process, this would be a significant statement that the

organisation does indeed see environmental sustainability as a priority. As such, one

would expect an increase in OCBEs to ensue.

4.3.3 Fostering OCBE at the Leader level

More explicit leadership

Ten of the thirteen participants stated that they would like to see more explicit

leadership from senior management or their line manager to help foster OCBE within

the organisation. Participant F (teacher) was direct in his statement that discussions

of, or consideration towards, the environment did not come up in conversations with

his manager; although if it did “come up in a lot of our discussions, then we'd be a lot

more familiar with it and we probably tend to do (OCBE) more”. Surprisingly, one

of the ten participants (participant A) is from the leadership staff group and he stated

that higher levels of leadership are required from within his own leadership group

regarding environmental sustainability. It seems ironic that an employee who is

advocating for more leadership regarding the environment is in a position within the

organisation to demonstrate leadership himself. Participant C was more thoughtful

during her response vis-à-vis leadership. Although she too stated that a more

consistent message needed to come “from high above” regarding the school’s


expectations of staff behaviour, she also stated (with a clear sense of frustration in

her voice and body language) that staff “need to see it come from multiple sources”,

suggesting that more staff need to take more initiative regarding their own behaviour

when opportunities to be green present themselves.

Accountability

Four participants raised the theme of ‘accountability’ (one leader, two teachers and

one ancillary staff member). This theme was nested within the leadership level as the

notion of being “accountable” stems from either management or other employees

demonstrating leadership regarding a particular area of the organisation. The four

participants highlighted the need to “make them (staff) accountable” regarding

individual green behaviours. Yet, they could not identify exactly how the level of

accountability could be increased regarding green behaviours within the

organisation, especially when it came to individual OCBEs.

4.3.4 Fostering OCBE at the Team level

Collective action and responsibility

Three participants (all teachers) spoke of the need for a more collective approach to

OCBE or environmental sustainability in general. Instead of the “lone ranger”

approach, the organisation should enact “extra steps that people could be involved in

that were part of a collective approach to sustainability” (participant L, teacher). An

interesting idea to generate collective staff movement was floated by a teacher

participant,

“Can we have people who are testing a couple of things (green processes) as

alternatives, who can get rid of the bugs and then roll it out? And…you do

have those little beacons across the school always who are advocates for

change, and will make little things happen, and then it kind of spreads out”.

(participant C).

She is suggesting that if the organisation can engage individuals to test

processes in small stages across the organisation, these individuals could then speak

of the green behaviour or initiative they are trialling, which would then engage the

staff around them. Furthermore, it allows the organisation to ensure the behaviour or

initiative is workable in different contexts prior to implementing the initiative across

the organisation.


Mindfulness

Participants L (teacher) and M (leadership), within their interviews, referred to the

concept of mindfulness. These two employees felt that individual employees should

be more ‘mindful’ or ‘conscious’ of their own actions within their departments.

Participant L discussed the “first step” to being more sustainable or performing more

OCBEs “is kind of the mindfulness around it”. This is something that would have a

longer lasting impact on staff behaviour if it were combined with perceived easy

opportunities to perform OCBEs as well as an ongoing information and awareness

program. The concept of individual employee mindfulness, as discussed above by

participants L and M, is linked to other participant comments directed towards

management to prioritise environmental sustainability (discussed in Section 4.3.2). In

that, if there were a focus on organisational sustainability from management across

the organisation, this might prompt individual staff to be more mindful of their own

actions and increase individual responsibility over the impact on the environment.

Hence this theme has been situated at the team level.

4.4 SUMMARY

The results discussed in this chapter reveal the Multilevel Model for Employee

Green Behaviour (Norton, et al., 2015) as a relevant sense making tool for organising

and understanding employee green behaviour; especially those behaviours that are

performed under an individual’s own volition (OCBE). The model provided a clear

and empirically tested framework for categorising and interpreting employee

behaviour collected as part of this study. The results establish that employees of this

organisation interpret green behaviour quite differently but that they all view their

individual green behaviour as voluntary or OCBE. Some employees are superficial in

their views of the meaning of green behaviour while other employees view green

behaviour as a complex phenomenon. This difference in employee interpretations of

green behaviour has implications for the organisation if they wish to further motivate

employees to engage in OCBE.

Other results to emerge from the analysis are that the barriers to OCBE are

mostly created by Context factors, with the organisation and leadership levels

responsible for most of these barriers. On the other hand, the majority of drivers are

created by Person factors with both the Between Person and Within Person levels

quite even in the drive they create for employees to engage in OCBE. This is not to


say that there are neither drivers at the Context level nor barriers at the Person level.

Indeed, barriers at the Within Person levels were much higher than expected.

Participants were clear in their views that employees see themselves as individuals

and thus, do not consider the combined negative impact of their non-green

behaviours. This is a barrier that exists at the Within Person level. Conversely,

participants discussed being able to see the results of their green efforts as a

significant motivating factor for OCBE at the Organisation level in the Context sub-

category.

The results suggest that the organisation can have a positive impact on

employee OCBE if they were to implement some of the suggestions from the

participants of the study. Maintaining clear communication regarding sustainability

information, providing specific training in green behaviours or ongoing reminders

regarding possible OCBEs, increasing visibility of feedback on the impact of OCBEs

and increasing the notion of corporate sustainability as an organisation wide priority

were all suggested as initiatives for fostering more OCBE.

Chapter 5: Discussion and Conclusion 87

Chapter 5: Discussion and Conclusion

Current understanding of employee green behaviours, and OCBE in particular, is

underdeveloped in the extant research. The current research in this area has only

briefly touched on the education context with all of this focus on tertiary level

institutions. Even then, the extant research has focussed more on the individual level

as opposed to the specific organisational context that fosters or inhibits OCBEs. This

study has advanced the field of knowledge associated with the emerging construct

OCBE in relation to a school-based context. This single case study demonstrates how

OCBEs are manifested in a school-based setting by describing the drivers and

barriers for said behaviours. Additionally, the study highlights how the Multilevel

Model for Employee Green Behaviour (Norton, et al., 2015) may be used to

categorise and better understand OCBEs within an education institution.

Employees can perform either task-based or voluntary green behaviours.

Interestingly, over 70% of the green behaviours employees engage in, day to day, are

of their own volition (Ones & Dilchert, 2012b). OCBE is an emerging construct that

describes and defines employee discretionary green behaviour, which has gained

attention in recent years from academics. Essentially, OCBE emerged from a well-

known construct, OCB and, currently contains three dimensions: eco-helping, eco-

initiative and eco-civic engagement (Boiral & Paillé, 2012). OCBE is underpinned

by SET, which proposes that employees are more likely to engage in positive

behaviours at work when there exists a mutually beneficial relationship between

employee and employer. This exchange relationship is usually formed after series of

positive exchanges between employee and employer (Emerson, 1976). Despite the

emerging conceptual understanding of OCBE, it is still a developing area of research.

Effectively mobilising employees to engage in OCBEs is a challenge faced by

managers, across all organisation types, who are also dealing with a myriad of other

issues vying for their attention. However, it is imperative that managers have the

knowledge and skills to confront the challenge of engaging staff to perform more

OCBEs if organisations are to improve corporate sustainability outcomes.

Organisations cannot simply implement only technological solutions if they aim to

become more sustainable; all staff must be engaged to adopt more green behaviours

88 Chapter 5: Discussion and Conclusion

(task-based and OCBE). Yet, the drivers and barriers to OCBE are under explored in

different contexts. Developing and enhancing knowledge of OCBE is important as

OCBEs have the potential to reduce operating costs, improve public perception,

improve staff morale and help the organisation to become more sustainable by filling

the gaps left by required or task-based green behaviours and green technological

interventions (Boiral, 2005; Paillé, et al., 2014; Tilley & Young, 2006).

The aim of this single explanatory case study is to better understand what

drives or hinders OCBE and what organisational factors best facilitate these

behaviours within a school-based context. Specifically, the three research questions

sought to understand how employees of a school perceive and practice workplace

green behaviour, explain the drivers and barriers to OCBEs identified and describe

which management techniques and organisation initiatives the organisation may

develop or implement to increase employee engagement with OCBEs within a

specific school-based context.

This chapter discusses results of the case study by arranging them under the

following sections. Section 5.1 Employee perceptions of green behaviour considers

how employees of this organisation understand the concept of employee green

behaviour. Section 5.2 Organisational Citizenship Behaviour for the Environment

discusses how employees practice green behaviours in the workplace and the major

barriers and drivers to OCBE within the case organisation. Section 5.3 discusses the

practical implications to emerge from the data, the limitations of the study and

directions for future research. Section 5.4 highlights the beneficiaries and Section 5.5

outlines the contribution this study has made in this field of research. The thesis is

concluded in Section 5.6.

5.1 EMPLOYEE PERCEPTIONS OF GREEN BEHAVIOUR

Employees from the case organisation interpret the concept of green behaviour in

different ways. Hence, the school should be wary of supposing that all employees

will assume the same things when management advocates the performance of green

behaviours. The results indicate that, like the definition of corporate sustainability

discussed in Section 2.1, the concept of employee green behaviour provokes diverse

responses from employees, stemming from different interpretations. When the

thirteen employees agreed to participate in this case study, the researcher had a naïve


assumption that there would be little variation in interpretation of employee green

behaviour. However, as the interviews progressed, it was evident that there were

clear dissimilarities in the interpretation from individuals of employee green

behaviour.

Some participants described employee green behaviour as behaviours that

reduce the impact on the environment or involve the individual employee being more

sustainable. Whereas, other participants went further by explaining that employee

green behaviour also involves employees being aware of their own impact on the

environment or even may involve influencing others behaviour. Specifically, an

awareness of your impact combined with specific actions is better than simply doing

the action. The results show that an employee who is aware of their impact and pro-

active in their actions and behaviours is likely to prioritise environmental

sustainability as highly as other work matters. Furthermore, influencing other

employees is a notable and noble perception of workplace green behaviour from

some participants but these perceptions do not necessarily translate in to actual

behaviour. For example, informal observations of participant G (teacher) revealed

that she would often turn her shared office space air-conditioning to 19 degrees

Celsius, despite protests from her colleagues and information from the organisation

that 19 degrees is an sub-optimal temperature setting. Perhaps she was more

comfortable with the cooler setting. Interestingly, she was one of the participants

whose description of employee green behaviour included an element of influencing

others. In this instance, it seems that the need to be comfortable overrode her desire

to be green. In this situation it could be argued that there is a lack of an internal

incentive for this individual participant to perform the desired green behaviour. This

furthers previous research by Kollmuss and Agyeman (2002) who found that a lack

of internal incentives and previous habits are a significant barrier to pro-

environmental behaviours outside of the workplace. It is clear that simply because

an employee understands the concept of workplace green behaviours, it does not

mean that the employee will always perform desired green behaviours. This type of

non-green behaviour demonstrated by participant G speaks to a lack of leadership as

a barrier to fostering more OCBEs within the case organisation which is discussed in

Section 5.2.


The literature with regards to studies on employee perceptions of green

behaviour is relatively sparse. Linnenluecke, et al. (2009) found that different levels

of employee understanding of the corporate sustainability can exist across an

organisation and this can affect the uptake of sustainability practices in general.

Following on from this, Raineri and Paillé (2016) found that individual differences in

enviromental commitment and beliefs can affect peformance of OCBEs. The study

by Raineri and Paillé (2016) also found that clear environmental policy and

managerial support was a greater influence on employee OCBE when environmental

views are not well developed. Hence, this difference from employees of

interpretation of green behaviour seems to be a new finding but it supports previous

studies findings on employee understandings of corporate sustainability and

employee environmental views. The differences in employee interpretation of green

behaviour could be problematic for managers within this case organisation. If

employees are not on the same page regarding their understandings of green

behaviour, then the school cannot expect to foster more of these behaviours and, in

turn, improve the organisation’s corporate sustainability credentials.

There was no discernible difference between the three groups in the study

(leadership, teaching and ancillary) regarding perceptions of green behaviour. This

reinforces that the difference in perception of green behaviour is between the

individual employees, not between groups of employees. With the difference in

employee interpretation of green behaviour in mind, management would be wise to

clearly articulate (through appropriate channels) a shared understanding of employee

green behaviour to ensure that there is no room for variation in the interpretation of

these behaviours (Ciocirlan, 2016). Linnenluecke, et al. (2009) refer to this as the

‘diffusion of knowledge’ and that this diffusion must “be tailored to different

understandings, and should explain the various dimensions of the concept so that

employees with different understandings can relate to it” (p. 448).

The results also indicate that the participants need and expect well-defined

examples of employee green behaviour. Moreover, participants expect that more

should be done from management to facilitate this understanding. Previous studies

have found that if management demonstrates more leadership regarding the

environment by being more conscious of and prioritizing the environment within the

organisation, this can have a significant influence on employee green behaviour


(Boiral, et al., 2016; Lamm, et al., 2015; Lo, et al., 2012b). Hence, to ensure

managers effectively communicate a shared understanding of green behaviours and

demonstrate more leadership, some level of training of management would be

required. However, the results of this case study also show that an employee’s level

of understanding of green behaviours does not necessarily translate into green

behaviours. This aligns with a meta-study which found that knowledge of green

behaviours does not necessarily translate into actions within the workplace

(Kollmuss & Agyeman, 2002). Therefore, once management has clearly articulated a

shared understanding of green behaviour that is specific to the context of the school,

it should then suggest ways in which individuals can be greener at work. Again,

training for management should cover the behaviours employees can do within the

context of the organisation and the employees’ day-to-day duties. In this case, it

would involve behaviour specific to the education setting; for example, the actions

teachers can perform as well as the actions of more office-based employees of the

school.

5.2 ORGANISATIONAL CITIZENSHIP BEHAVIOUR FOR THE ENVIRONMENT

The most conspicuous behavioural theme to emerge from the data is that, within this

case, participants viewed their green behaviour as voluntary. Despite the school

providing the “opportunities” to perform green behaviours, the majority of

participants (nine) were unequivocal in their responses that performing green

behaviours at work was “not (an) explicit” requirement of this school or the school

sector more generally. As discussed in Section 2.2, there is a clear difference

between OCBE and task-based green behaviour (Daily, et al., 2009; Norton, et al.,

2015). Analogous to task-based green behaviours, OCBEs are behaviours that

employees engage in that have a positive effect on the sustainability outcomes of the

organisation. The differentiating feature of OCBEs compared to task-based green

behaviours is that OCBEs are not explicitly prescribed by the organisation and so are

performed by employees under their own volition and may even “exceed

organisational expectations” (Norton et al., 2015, p. 105). In other words, the

motivational state for OCBE is “I want to”, as opposed to task-based green

behaviours, “I have to”. The motivational state “I want to” is linked to exchange

relationships and employee views of ownership (Rioux & Penner, 2001), which is


further discussed in the following Section 5.2.1. Although employees of this school

performed the green behaviours because they wanted to, for some of the participants

from the teaching group there was an educational philosophy related to the core

responsibilities associated with their chosen vocation, which underpinned their

motivation to perform OCBEs at work. While the motivations may be different, this

finding supports previous studies from the OCB literature, which found that OCB

can be considered a proactive behaviour that is driven by different motives for

individual employees (Rioux & Penner, 2001). Regarding participants of the case

study, some were motivated to perform OCBE to role-model desired behaviours for

their students while others were motivated by other, equally important, reasons.

Therefore, for employees to perform OCBE, there must exist a motivation to do so.

The non-academic staff did not echo the educational philosophy in their

responses related to understandings of employee green behaviour. However, this

individual educational philosophy of many of the academic staff is not an explicit

policy requirement of the school. It can be said then, that although there are

opportunities for staff to engage in green behaviours (e.g. recycling) and that some of

the green behaviours may be driven from an educational philosophy to set a good

example for students, there is no “pressure” on staff from management. “It's more of

an opportunity. If you can do it, it's there for you” (participant J). With the above in

mind and based on current accepted definitions of OCBE, the behaviours referred to

by staff within this case can be categorised as OCBE. The final part of the above

statement by participant J indicates a clear contextual driving factor of OCBE. The

opportunity must be available for participants to actually perform an OCBE and the

type of OCBE an employee can perform is dependent on the type of organisation to

which they belong. This aligns with findings from Lamm, et al. (2013) that

organisational context has an impact on the existence of certain OCBEs. However, as

discussed in Section 2.5.3, a gap exists in the literature that needs to explain the

specific influence of different organisational contexts on OCBE. In this instance, the

educational context of the case organisation allows the employees some flexibility

within their role to perform OCBEs and the school provides some opportunities for

employees to perform OCBEs.

Eco-initiatives were the most often performed factor of OCBE as described by

the participants and from data gathered during the informal observations. Eco-


initiatives refer to those green behaviours that employees perform of their own

volition and which have a positive effect on the environmental impact of the

organisation (Boiral & Paillé, 2012). Seemingly, the driving force behind the

performance of eco-initiatives within this organisation compared with the other two

validated OCBE factors (eco-helping behaviour and eco-civic engagement) is that

eco-initiatives are the easiest OCBE an employee can perform (Section 2.5). This

deviates slightly from the findings by Raineri, et al. (2015) who found that eco-

initiatives were best predicted by the quality of relationships an employee enjoys

with colleagues.

Employees of the case organisation may enjoy positive relationships with each

other but the data shows that generally, employees do not have to take time out of

their day to sort waste into the correct receptacle, turn off a light when leaving a

room or adjust an air-conditioning unit temperature to a more efficient 24 degrees.

Thus, clear opportunities exist for employees to perform eco-initiative OCBEs, but

the employee must demonstrate some initiative to perform them. On the other hand,

eco-helping behaviour and eco-civic engagement involve employees taking extra

time out of their day to either help a colleague to be green or volunteer themselves to

be part of a green committee. Due to the extra time required and the distinct lack of

managerial support for the environment within this school (as discussed in the

following section), eco-helping and eco-civic engagement were performed

significantly less than eco-initiatives. So, in line with the current literature on

OCBEs, if reducing the impact on the environment is not an explicit priority within

the organisation or if an employee’s direct line manager does not exhibit OCBE, an

employee will only perform eco-helping behaviour and eco-civic engagement

because of the individual’s intrinsic drivers (Boiral, et al., 2016).

5.2.1 Barriers and Drivers to OCBE

There were clear drivers and barriers to employee OCBE within the participant

responses. Using the Multilevel Model for Employee Green Behaviour (Norton, et

al., 2015), the drivers and barriers will be discussed in the following section,

separated into contextual factor and person factor sub-sections.


Contextual Factors

Within the Multilevel Model of Employee Green Behaviour (Norton, et al.,

2015), context factors refer to the elements within the organisation that influence an

employee’s behaviour. There are four levels within the context category: institution,

organisation, leader and team. The institutional level might include industry

guidelines or political, social or cultural pressures. The results showed that

participants believe that there are no institutional level barriers to green behaviour

within the case organisation. At the organisational level, there is a distinct lack of

policy from the governing body or the school council related to expectations of

employee green behaviour or corporate sustainability more broadly. The data from

the interviews shows that this lack of policy is a barrier for employee OCBE within

the case organisation. The lack of a sustainability or green policy demonstrates that

the governing body or even management do not believe green behaviours to be a

priority, and this failure to prioritise the environment filters from the organisational

to the team levels. An interesting pair of related comments from participants B and D

respectively described the value of “public perception” regarding sustainability,

within levels of management and the “mismatch between rhetoric and practice”.

Essentially these comments related to statements from management regarding

organisational sustainability initiatives within the organisation. This is linked to the

absence of a clear policy from the case organisation delineating what is expected

from employees regarding green behaviours. The literature clearly articulates that a

sustainability policy has a positive effect on employee perceptions of green

behaviour (Linnenluecke, et al., 2009; Norton, et al., 2014). It seems the perception

from employees is that management clearly value the positive perception from

external stakeholders but this does not necessarily translate into action from

management within the organisation. All participants stated that the environment was

something they had never discussed with their line manager which seemed to have a

negative effect on the performance of OCBE for participants in the case study.

Schools operating within other school systems have clear environmental policies.

Hence, it would be necessary to examine employee OCBE within the different school

systems that have explicit policies to determine that actual impact of a sustainability

policy on employee OCBE.


The perception from employees regarding the behaviours of management could

be an injunctive norm, where management feel that they should do or promote

something green because of external pressures (reputation or community

expectation) rather than it being driven from a core policy of the organisation

(Cialdini, Reno, & Kallgren, 1990). This external pressure can lead to

‘greenwashing’ and is a common pitfall that organisations make. Greenwashing

refers to occasions when the organisation overstates their commitment to

sustainability when attempting to espouse their green credentials to potential clients

and staff (Doppelt, 2009). In this instance, the case organisation runs the risk of

alienating those employees who see their individual voluntary green actions as

contributing to the reputation of the organisation. If these employees feel that the

management of organisation is not actually committed to becoming more sustainable

and is only paying lip service to organisational sustainability initiatives, then

employees may cease their voluntary OBCEs, which could have a negative impact on

the school’s reputation in the longer term. Moreover, the OCBE construct is

underpinned by Social Exchange Theory, which as discussed in Section 2.4.1, relies

on a quid pro quo exchange between employee and management. If an employee

who is driven by a concern for the environment feels that management within the

organisation is not valuing the environment, the exchange process cannot evolve and

therefore, neither can the employee’s OCBE. This finding from the case organisation

is consistent with previous studies investigating the role of management in driving or

hindering employee green behaviour (Boiral, Baron, & Gunnlaugson, 2014; Kim, et

al., 2014). Specifically, managers who overtly display instances of OCBE would

develop greener advocacy within their direct employees. The increased visibility of a

manager’s OCBE and combined green advocacy from team members would create

“social pressure to engage” in OCBE across the organisation (Kim, et al., 2014, p.

17). Additionally, a study by Raineri, et al. (2015) found that employees are more

likely to perform OCBEs when the organisation they work for overtly values the

environment. Although the findings from this case study are consistent with previous

studies, the previous studies are not specific to employees within an educational

setting. There is a gap in the current literature that specifically investigates whether

managers’ performance of OCBE has a significant influence over employees’ OCBE

within a school-based setting. The findings of this case study suggests that managers’


OCBE do have some influence but more research needs to be completed to develop

further knowledge in this area.

Evidently, many barriers described by participants are evident at the

organisational and team levels. Conversely, the drivers to employee OCBE exist

more at the person level (discussed in the following section). In other words, the

organisation creates the barriers to OCBE, while the drivers stem from the individual

employee. This finding is in line with previous quantitative studies that highlight the

role of the organisation (both through management and lack of opportunity) in

hindering specific employee OCBEs (Boiral, et al., 2016; Lamm, et al., 2015; Lo, et

al., 2012b).

Person factors

Person factors refer to the influencers of behaviour that exist within the individual

employee. These can either be either stable (e.g. personality) or more dynamic

(motivation or intention). It seems that employees of the case organisation generally

want to do the right thing with regards to OCBE. Yet the results demonstrate the

actual drivers and barriers to OCBE and the effect of the drivers and barriers varied

between individuals. The following two sub-sections outline the theoretical impact of

this study. They are situated under Person factors as both SET and TPO relate to

individuals within the organisation.

Social Exchange Theory and OCBE

The relationship between SET and OCBE is well established empirically (Boiral &

Paillé, 2012; Raineri, et al., 2015), so not unexpectedly, the results showed that an

employee’s attitude toward the organisation in general or more specifically their

team, affected the individual’s propensity to engage in OCBE. This finding supports

a recent study, which found that quality social exchange relationships, within an

organisation from a traditional non-green industry, have a significant impact on an

employee’s desire to perform OCBEs, especially eco-helping (Paillé, et al., 2015).

Theory of Psychological Ownership and OCBE

Another theoretical implication of the results that emerged from the person factors

was the importance of psychological ownership on an employee’s propensity to

perform OCBEs. In the context of a school, this is an important finding. The results

suggested that if employees do not feel they have ownership over their office space


or their teaching space, they will not engage in as much OCBE simply because there

may be other teachers or staff who will use the space after them. The first employee

justifies the non-green behaviour by justifying that the next person will turn off the

lights, close windows or turn off the air-conditioning. This is similar to the

connection between OCB and theory of psychological ownership found in separate

studies by O’Driscoll, et al. (2006); Van Dyne and Pierce (2004). Essentially, the

studies by O’Driscoll, et al. (2006); Van Dyne and Pierce (2004) found that

employees are more likely to engage in OCB when they feel a sense of ownership

over a space within or the organisation. The data from this case study suggests that

the same could also be said of the relationship between OCBE and psychological

ownership, although this specific relationship needs to be empirically tested.

Specifically, more research needs to be completed to test the mediators and

moderators of the relationship between physiological ownership and OCBE.

Developing more knowledge regarding the relationship between psychological

ownership and OCBE would allow managers to cultivate strategies to foster more

OCBE among employees in shared spaces.

It may be difficult for a school to increase employee ownership over

classrooms. Classrooms are often shared spaces and can be frequented by different

teachers throughout a given day who may have different teaching methods and

different student groups. However, managers could attempt to foster better social

exchange relationships between teachers who share certain classrooms. This may in

turn improve an employee’s desire to switch lights off when they leave, place litter in

the bin or close the door to stop the air-conditioning from escaping as they may want

to do the right thing in the eyes of the next teacher. Paillé, et al. (2015) describes this

as a process of mutual aid, which was found to be a vital mechanism for driving

employee voluntary green behaviour. Basically, this involves employees assisting

one another by performing actions, which are voluntary and benefit either specific

employees or the organisation in general.

5.3 PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS

First and foremost, this research finds that the leadership team of the organisation

must outwardly value the environment if they would like all employees to do the

same by exhibiting OCBEs. All participants spoke of the importance of leadership in

fostering OCBE in some form during the interviews. Although the participants spoke


of the importance of leadership, they did not articulate exactly how they would like

this to be manifested. Hence, strategies to develop buy-in from senior leaders,

regarding OCBEs, are outside the scope of this study.

All study participants spoke of green initiatives regarding the need for higher

levels of leadership, more information and training, reduction of waste, increased

recycling rates and energy efficiency interventions. The participants did not mention

ideas involving water saving behaviours. This may be due to the ‘invisibility’ of

water within an education institution (Cheng & Hong, 2004), as there is little an

individual can do to reduce his or her own water use that would have a noticeable

impact on the water use of the entire organisation. However, the impact of the entire

organisation was not mentioned as a criterion that participants used when deciding to

engage in OCBEs. The impact of the entire organisation in individual OCBEs may

also be linked to organisational context and/or policy discussed in Section 5.2.1. But

more research is needed in this area. Therefore, the organisation needs to focus on

behaviours that employees have direct control over. In line with the findings of other

studies, if the leadership team is not highlighting the environment as a specific

priority for this school, then competing priorities for employees will overwhelm the

need for the individual to be green (Boiral, Talbot, et al., 2015; Paillé, et al., 2013;

Raineri & Paillé, 2015). This does not mean that employees should be instructed to

perform OCBEs through explicit policy or instruction but, as stated previously,

management needs to delineate a shared understanding of green behaviour and make

this part of the professional conversations they have with their employees.

After a shared understanding of green behaviour has been accepted, the

organisation needs to ensure that employees can participate in green actions by

having control over lighting and air-conditioning as well as access to recycling

receptacles. A steady stream of information about specific OCBEs employees can do

during the day needs to be communicated across the organisation both from

management and among employees themselves. This information should aim to

remind staff of the shared understanding of green behaviour as well as provide

practical strategies that employees can do to be green during their day at work

(Norton, Zacher, Parker, & Ashkanasy, 2017; Oke, 2015). However, as discussed

previously, more information does not equal greener behaviours (Kollmuss &

Agyeman, 2002). The main finding that comes out of the data is that multiple


initiatives are required across the organisation to foster more OCBE from employees.

These initiatives should include more explicit leadership, more information about the

impacts of employee behaviour, increased training about what employees can do day

to day and improved social exchange relationships among employees (especially

those staff who share work spaces).

5.3.1 Limitations of the study

As discussed in Section 3.1.4, the criteria to judge the trustworthiness of qualitative

research were applied to the design of this study. However, as with any academic

research design, there are limitations that need to be considered to enhance the

credibility of the study and ensure transparency of design. The major limitation of

this study revolves around the concept of insider research and the potential for bias,

which is discussed in detail Section 3.3.2.

A limitation of this study not previously mentioned is the choice of a single

exploratory case study method. The use of a single exploratory case study does not

allow for transferability of findings due to the specific nature of the phenomenon, as

it exists within the case under study. To overcome this limitation, the researcher

could have considered comparing statements, opinions and observations from the

employees within this school to those found in other educational institutions which

would have provided for a richer dataset. This in turn would have allowed the

findings to be transferable. However, in this instance, time and resources prevented

the researcher from accessing data from another educational institution.

5.4 DIRECTIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH

OCBE is a construct that clearly exists within the case organisation, despite the

absence of overarching policy from the governing body. A future study could aim to

establish the effect of macro level policy on employee OCBEs in an education

institution. In other words, does creating policy impact individual employee’s OCBE

in an education institution? Furthermore, it would be interesting to examine whether

OCBE is more prevalent in a school-based setting, a university-based setting or a

vocational education-based setting. Or perhaps the performance of OCBE depends

more on the specific context (social-cultural, management structure, governance) of

the education institution rather than the type of institution.


5.5 CONCLUSION

“All organizational actions with an impact on environmental sustainability can be

traced to organizational members. It is not the organization that acts or behaves, but

rather it is employees who do.” (Ones & Dilchert, 2012a. ch. 5, para. 4). Schools

have a fundamental role to play in reducing pressure on the natural environment by

developing behaviours among employees, which have a positive impact on the

natural environment or at the very least, lessen the negative impact. Furthermore, if

employees within schools role model desired OCBEs, the students of the school

could then develop said behaviours. Schools cannot hope to meet the sustainability

challenges that are currently being presented and will continue to manifest, relying

on technological solutions alone. There is a need for green technological

interventions within the built environment of an organisation. However, people are at

the heart of all organisations and it is the behaviour and decisions of employees

which has the largest impact on the environmental sustainability of the organisation.

This study has shed light on the importance of developing shared

understandings of employee green behaviour within a large school-based setting. It

has demonstrated that OCBE is the dominant form of green behaviour that exists

within this organisation and that eco-initiatives are the most performed OCBE.

Moreover, evidence suggests that the school would benefit from providing staff with

more information and feedback regarding the impact of their green behaviours as

well as disseminating a shared understanding of what green behaviour at work

means, improving the buy-in from managers regarding their own green behaviour,

and improving the exchange relationships among employees to develop more OCBE.

The emerging construct of OCBE is a complex area of employee behaviour and,

unfortunately, a silver bullet does not exist to better foster these behaviours.

Evidence shows that OCBEs occur as a result of a combination of personal attitudes

towards the environment and towards the organisation with specific organisational

drivers. Hence, organisations must make a concerted effort to develop these

behaviours among staff using an array of management techniques.

Reference List 101

Reference List

Accenture. (2016). Valuing Sustainability: Making the Business Case for Investment. UN Global Compact—Accenture Strategy CEO Study. Retrieved 22/06/2017, from

Accenture, https://www.accenture.com/us-en/insight-ungc-valuing-sustainability

Ajzen, I. (1985). From Intentions to Actions: A Theory of Planned Behavior. Berlin

Heidelberg: Springer. Andersson, L., Jackson, S. E., & Russell, S. V. (2013). Greening organizational

behavior: An introduction to the special issue. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 34(2), 151-155.

Andersson, L., Shivarajan, S., & Blau, G. (2005). Enacting ecological sustainability

in the MNC: A test of an adapted value-belief-norm framework. Journal of Business Ethics, 59(3), 295-305.

Avey, J. B., Avolio, B. J., Crossley, C. D., & Luthans, F. (2009). Psychological

ownership: Theoretical extensions, measurement and relation to work outcomes. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 30(2), 173-191.

Bamberg, S. (2003). How does environmental concern influence specific

environmentally related behaviors? A new answer to an old question. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 23(1), 21-32.

Bamberg, S., & Möser, G. (2007). Twenty years after Hines, Hungerford, and

Tomera: A new meta-analysis of psycho-social determinants of pro-environmental behaviour. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 27(1), 14-25.

Bansal, P., & Roth, K. (2000). Why companies go green: A model of ecological

responsiveness. Academy of Management Journal, 43(4), 717-736. Bateman, T. S., & Organ, D. W. (1983). Job satisfaction and the good soldier: The

relationship between affect and employee “citizenship”. Academy of Management Journal, 26(4), 587-595.

Baxter, P., & Jack, S. (2008). Qualitative case study methodology: Study design and

implementation for novice researchers. The Qualitative Report, 13(4), 544-559.

Benn, S., Dunphy, D., & Griffiths, A. (2014). Organizational Change for Corporate

Sustainability. New York, NY: Routledge. Bertels, S., Papania, L., & Papania, D. (2010). Systematic Review Sustainability and

Corporate Culture. Retrieved from http://www.nbs.net/wp-content/uploads/Systematic-Review-Sustainability-and-Corporate-Culture.pdf

102 Reference List

Blaikie, N. (2009). Strategies for Answering Research Questions. In N. Blaikie (Ed.),

Designing Social Research (pp. 79-109). London: Polity. Blau, P. M. (1964). Exchange and Power in Social Life. New Brunswick, New

Jersey: Transaction Publishers. Boiral, O. (2005). The impact of operator involvement in pollution reduction: case

studies in Canadian chemical companies. Business Strategy and the Environment, 14(6), 339-360.

Boiral, O. (2009). Greening the corporation through organizational citizenship

behaviors. Journal of Business Ethics, 87(2), 221-236. Boiral, O., Baron, C., & Gunnlaugson, O. (2014). Environmental leadership and

consciousness development: A Case study among Canadian SMEs. Journal of Business Ethics, 123(3), 363-383.

Boiral, O., & Paillé, P. (2012). Organizational Citizenship Behaviour for the

Environment: Measurement and validation. Journal of Business Ethics, 109(4), 431-445.

Boiral, O., Paille, P., & Raineri, N. (2015). The Nature of Employees' Pro-

Envrionmental Behaviour. In J. L. Robertson & J. Barling (Eds.), The Pscychology of Green Organizations. New York, USA: Oxford University Press.

Boiral, O., Raineri, N., & Talbot, D. (2016). Managers’ Citizenship Behaviors for the

Environment: A Developmental Perspective. Journal of Business Ethics, 1-15.

Boiral, O., Talbot, D., & Paillé, P. (2015). Leading by example: A model of

organizational citizenship behavior for the environment. Business Strategy and the Environment, 24(6), 532-550.

Brannick, T., & Coghlan, D. (2007). In defense of being “native”: The case for

insider academic research. Organizational Research Methods, 10(1), 59-74. Cardona, P., Lawrence, B. S., & Bentler, P. M. (2004). The influence of social and

work exchange relationships on organizational citizenship behavior. Group & Organization Management, 29(2), 219-247.

Chao, Y.-L. (2012). Predicting people’s environmental behaviour: Theory of planned

behaviour and model of responsible environmental behaviour. Environmental Education Research, 18(4), 437-461.

Cheng, C., & Hong, Y. (2004). Evaluating water utilization in primary schools.

Building and Environment, 39(7), 837-845.

Reference List 103

Cialdini, R. B., Reno, R. R., & Kallgren, C. A. (1990). A focus theory of normative conduct: Recycling the concept of norms to reduce littering in public places. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58(6), 1015.

Ciocirlan, C. E. (2016). Environmental Workplace Behaviors Definition Matters.

Organization & Environment, 30(1), 51-70. Clark, C. F., Kotchen, M. J., & Moore, M. R. (2003). Internal and external influences

on pro-environmental behavior: Participation in a green electricity program. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 23(3), 237-246.

Coyle�Shapiro, J., Kessler, I., & Purcell, J. (2004). Exploring Organizationally

Directed Citizenship Behaviour: Reciprocity or ‘It's my Job’? Journal of Management Studies, 41(1), 85-106.

Cropanzano, R., & Mitchell, M. S. (2005). Social exchange theory: An

interdisciplinary review. Journal of Management, 31(6), 874-900. Cunliffe, A. L. (2010). Crafting qualitative research: Morgan and Smircich 30 years

on. Organizational Research Methods, 14(4), 647-673. Daily, B. F., Bishop, J. W., & Govindarajulu, N. (2009). A conceptual model for

organizational citizenship behavior directed toward the environment. Business & Society, 48(2), 243-256.

Daily, B. F., Bishop, J. W., & Steiner, R. (2007). The mediating role of EMS

teamwork as it pertains to HR factors and perceived environmental performance. Journal of Applied Business Research 23(1).

Daly, H. E. (1974). The economics of the steady state. The American Economic

Review, 64(2), 15-21. De Groot, J., & Steg, L. (2007). General beliefs and the theory of planned behavior:

The role of environmental concerns in the TPB. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 37(8), 1817-1836.

DiPaola, M., & Tschannen-Moran, M. (2014). Organizational Citizenship Behavior

in Schools and its Relationship to School Climate. Journal of School Leadership, 11, 424-447.

Donaldson, S. I., & Grant-Vallone, E. J. (2002). Understanding self-report bias in

organizational behavior research. Journal of Business and Psychology, 17(2), 245-260.

Doppelt, B. (2009). Leading Change Toward Sustainability: A Change-Management

Guide for Business, Government and Civil Society. Sheffield: Greenleaf Publishing.

104 Reference List

Dwyer, S. C., & Buckle, J. L. (2009). The space between: On being an insider-outsider in qualitative research. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 8(1), 54-63.

Dyllick, T., & Hockerts, K. (2002). Beyond the business case for corporate

sustainability. Business Strategy and the Environment, 11(2), 130-141. Edmondson, A. C., & McManus, S. E. (2007). Methodological fit in management

field research. Academy of Management Review, 32(4), 1246-1264. Ehrhart, M. G., & Naumann, S. E. (2004). Organizational citizenship behavior in

work groups: a group norms approach. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(6), 960-974.

Eisenhardt, K. M., & Graebner, M. E. (2007). Theory building from cases:

opportunities and challenges. Academy of Management Journal, 50(1), 25-32. Emerson, R. M. (1976). Social Exchange Theory. Annual Review of Sociology, 2(1),

335-362. . Environmental Protection Act. (1994) Brisbane, Queensland: Department of

Environment and Heritage Protection. Faruqui, A., Sergici, S., & Sharif, A. (2010). The impact of informational feedback

on energy consumption—A survey of the experimental evidence. Energy, 35(4), 1598-1608.

Gadenne, D., Sharma, B., Kerr, D., & Smith, T. (2011). The influence of consumers'

environmental beliefs and attitudes on energy saving behaviours. Energy Policy, 39(12), 7684-7694.

Galletta, A., & Cross, W. E. (2013). Mastering the semi-structured interview and

beyond: From research design to analysis and publication. New York: New York University Press.

Gomm, R., Hammersley, M., & Foster, P. (2009). Introduction. R. Gomm, M.

Hammersley & P. Foster (Eds.), Case Study Method (pp. 1-116).Retrieved from http://methods.sagepub.com/book/case-study-method

Guba, E. G. (1981). Criteria for assessing the trustworthiness of naturalistic inquiries.

Educational Technology Research & Development Journal, 29(2), 75-91. Guest, G., Bunce, A., & Johnson, L. (2006). How many interviews are enough? An

experiment with data saturation and variability. Field Methods, 18(1), 59-82. Halpenny, E. A. (2010). Pro-environmental behaviours and park visitors: The effect

of place attachment. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 30(4), 409-421.

Reference List 105

Hargreaves, T. (2011). Practice-ing behaviour change: Applying social practice theory to pro-environmental behaviour change. Journal of Consumer Culture, 11(1), 79-99.

Hart, S. L., & Milstein, M. B. (2003). Creating sustainable value. The Academy of

Management Executive, 17(2), 56-67. Hines, J. M., Hungerford, H. R., & Tomera, A. N. (1987). Analysis and Synthesis of

Research on Responsible Environmental Behavior: A Meta-Analysis. The Journal of Environmental Education, 18(2), 1-8.

Hoffman, B. J., Blair, C. A., Meriac, J. P., & Woehr, D. J. (2007). Expanding the

criterion domain? A quantitative review of the OCB literature. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(2), 555-566.

IISD. (1992). Business Strategy for Sustainable Development. Retrieved 27/03/2016,

from https://www.iisd.org/business/pdf/business_strategy.pdf Kim, A., Kim, Y., Han, K., Jackson, S. E., & Ployhart, R. E. (2014). Multilevel

influences on voluntary workplace green behavior individual differences, leader behavior, and coworker advocacy. Journal of Management, 43(5), 1335-1358.

Kolk, A. (2008). Sustainability, accountability and corporate governance: exploring

multinationals' reporting practices. Business Strategy and the Environment, 17(1), 1-15.

Kollmuss, A., & Agyeman, J. (2002). Mind-Gap - why do people act

environmentally and what the barriers to pro-environmental behaviour. Environmental Education Research, 8(3), 239-260.

Konovsky, M. A., & Pugh, S. D. (1994). Citizenship Behavior and Social Exchange.

Academy of Management Journal, 37(3), 656-669. KPMG. (2011). Corporate sustainability - A progress report. Retrieved 28/02/2016,

from http://www.kpmg.com/nz/en/issuesandinsights/articlespublications/pages/corp-sustainability-progress.aspx

Lamm, E., Tosti-Kharas, J., & King, C. E. (2015). Empowering employee

sustainability: Perceived organizational support toward the environment. Journal of Business Ethics, 128(1), 207-220.

Lamm, E., Tosti-Kharas, J., & Williams, E. G. (2013). Read this article, but don’t

print it: Organizational citizenship behavior toward the environment. Group & Organization Management, 38(2), 163-197.

Lauring, J., & Thomsen, C. (2009). Collective ideals and practices in sustainable

development: Managing corporate identity. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 16(1), 38-47.

106 Reference List

Lee, Y.-J., De Young, R., & Marans, R. W. (1995). Factors influencing individual

recycling behavior in office settings: A study of office workers in Taiwan. Environment and Behavior, 27(3), 380-403.

Linnenluecke, M. K., & Griffiths, A. (2010). Corporate sustainability and

organizational culture. Journal of World Business, 45(4), 357-366. Linnenluecke, M. K., & Griffiths, A. (2013). Firms and sustainability: Mapping the

intellectual origins and structure of the corporate sustainability field. Global Environmental Change, 23(1), 382-391.

Linnenluecke, M. K., Russell, S. V., & Griffiths, A. (2009). Subcultures and

sustainability practices: The impact on understanding corporate sustainability. Business Strategy and the Environment, 18(7), 432-452.

Lo, S. H., Peters, G. J. Y., & Kok, G. (2012a). Energy�Related Behaviors in Office

Buildings: A Qualitative Study on Individual and Organisational Determinants. Applied Psychology, 61(2), 227-249.

Lo, S. H., Peters, G. J. Y., & Kok, G. (2012b). A review of determinants of and

interventions for proenvironmental behaviors in organizations. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 42(12), 2933-2967.

Love, M. S., & Forret, M. (2008). Exchange Relationships at Work An Examination

of the Relationship Between Team-Member Exchange and Supervisor Reports of Organizational Citizenship Behavior. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 14(4), 342-352.

Lozano, R. (2015). A holistic perspective on corporate sustainability drivers.

Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 22(1), 32-44.

Marshall, C., & Rossman, G. B. (2011). Designing Qualitative Research (5th ed.).

Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications. McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T. (1987). Validation of the five-factor model of

personality across instruments and observers. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52(1), 81.

McDonald, P., Pini, B., & Mayes, R. (2012). Organizational rhetoric and the

prospectuses of elite private schools. Retrieved from research-repository.griffith.edu.au.

McKinsey on Sustainability & Resource Productivity, Number 2. (2014). Retrieved

28/02/2016, from http://www.mckinsey.com/business-functions/sustainability-and-resource-productivity/our-insights/mckinsey-on-sustainability-and-resource-productivity-number-2

Reference List 107

Mercer, J. (2007). The challenges of insider research in educational institutions: Wielding a double�edged sword and resolving delicate dilemmas. Oxford Review of Education, 33(1), 1-17.

Mesmer�Magnus, J. R., Viswesvaran, C., & Wiernik, B. M. (2013). Book

Highlight—The Role of Commitment in Bridging the Gap Between Organizational and Environmental Sustainability. Global Business and Organizational Excellence, 32(5), 86-104.

Metcalf, L., & Benn, S. (2013). Leadership for sustainability: An evolution of

leadership ability. Journal of Business Ethics, 112(3), 369-384. Moorman, R. H., & Podsakoff, P. M. (1992). A meta�analytic review and empirical

test of the potential confounding effects of social desirability response sets in organizational behaviour research. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 65(2), 131-149.

Norton, T. A., Parker, S. L., Zacher, H., & Ashkanasy, N. M. (2015). Employee

Green Behavior A Theoretical Framework, Multilevel Review, and Future Research Agenda. Organization & Environment, 28(1), 103-125.

Norton, T. A., Zacher, H., & Ashkanasy, N. M. (2014). Organisational sustainability

policies and employee green behaviour: The mediating role of work climate perceptions. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 38, 49-54.

Norton, T. A., Zacher, H., Parker, S. L., & Ashkanasy, N. M. (2017). Bridging the

gap between green behavioral intentions and employee green behavior: The role of green psychological climate. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 38(7), 996.

O’Driscoll, M. P., Pierce, J. L., & Coghlan, A.-M. (2006). The psychology of

ownership work environment structure, organizational commitment, and citizenship behaviors. Group & Organization Management, 31(3), 388-416.

O’Reilly, C. E. (2002). The wrong kind of ownership. Across the Board, 39(5), 19-

20. OECD, U. E. (2002). Data Collection on Education Systems: Definitions,

Explanations, and Instructions. Retrieved 15/06/2017, from http://www.oecd.org/edu/1841883.pdf

Oke, A. (2015). Workplace waste recycling behaviour: A meta-analytical review.

Sustainability, 7(6), 7175-7194. Ones, D. S., & Dilchert, S. (2012a). Managing HR for environmental sustainability.

The professional practice series., S. E Jackson, D. S. Ones & S. Dilchert (Eds.), Chapter 5: Employee Green Behaviors (pp. xl, 456).Retrieved from http://library.books24x7.com.ezp01.library.qut.edu.au/assetviewer.aspx?bookid=49667&chunkid=500061378&rowid=87

108 Reference List

Ones, D. S., & Dilchert, S. (2012b). Environmental sustainability at work: A call to action. Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 5(4), 444-466.

Organ, D. W. (1988). Organizational citizenship behavior: The good soldier

syndrome. Lexington, Mass: Lexington Books. Organ, D. W. (1997). Organizational citizenship behavior: It's construct clean-up

time. Human Performance, 10(2), 85-97. Organ, D. W., Podsakoff, P. M., & MacKenzie, S. B. (2006). Organizational

citizenship behavior: Its nature, antecedents, and consequences. Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications.

Organ, D. W., & Ryan, K. (1995). A meta-analytic review of attitudinal and

dispositional predictors of organizational citizenship behavior. Personnel Psychology, 48(4), 775-802.

Paillé, P., & Boiral, O. (2013). Pro-environmental behavior at work: Construct

validity and determinants. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 36, 118-128.

Paillé, P., Boiral, O., & Chen, Y. (2013). Linking environmental management

practices and organizational citizenship behaviour for the environment: A social exchange perspective. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 24(18), 3552-3575.

Paillé, P., Chen, Y., Boiral, O., & Jin, J. (2014). The impact of human resource

management on environmental performance: An employee-level study. Journal of Business Ethics, 121(3), 451-466.

Paillé, P., & Mejía-Morelos, J. H. (2014). Antecedents of pro-environmental

behaviours at work: The moderating influence of psychological contract breach. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 38, 124-131.

Paillé, P., Mejía-Morelos, J. H., Marché-Paillé, A., Chen, C. C., & Chen, Y. (2015).

Corporate Greening, Exchange Process Among Co-workers, and Ethics of Care: An Empirical Study on the Determinants of Pro-environmental Behaviors at Coworkers-Level. Journal of Business Ethics, 136(3), 1-19.

Parker, R. (2011). Green organisational performance: Behavioural change

interventions based on the theory of planned behaviour. Going Green: The psychology of sustainability in the workplace, 36, 36-90.

Perron, G. M., Côté, R. P., & Duffy, J. F. (2006). Improving environmental

awareness training in business. Journal of Cleaner Production, 14(6), 551-562.

Pfaff, A. S., & Sanchirico, C. W. (2000). Environmental self-auditing: Setting the

proper incentives for discovery and correction of environmental harm. Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, 16(1), 189-208.

Reference List 109

Pierce, J. L., Kostova, T., & Dirks, K. T. (2001). Toward a theory of psychological

ownership in organizations. Academy of Management Review, 26(2), 298-310.

Podsakoff, N. P., Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Maynes, T. D., & Spoelma, T.

M. (2014). Consequences of unit�level organizational citizenship behaviors: A review and recommendations for future research. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 35(S1), S87-S119.

Podsakoff, N. P., Whiting, S. W., Podsakoff, P. M., & Blume, B. D. (2009).

Individual-and organizational-level consequences of organizational citizenship behaviors: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(1), 122.

Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Paine, J. B., & Bachrach, D. G. (2000).

Organizational citizenship behaviors: A critical review of the theoretical and empirical literature and suggestions for future research. Journal of Management, 26(3), 513-563.

. Qualitative analysis and interpretation. (2002). In M. Q. Patton (Ed.), Qualitative

Research and Evaluation Methods (Vol. 3, pp. 431-539). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications Inc.

QUT. (2016). Code of Conduct for Research. Retrieved 13/02/2016, from

http://www.orei.qut.edu.au/ Raineri, N., Mejía-Morelos, J. H., Francoeur, V., & Paillé, P. (2015). Employee eco-

initiatives and the workplace social exchange network. European Management Journal, 34(1), 47-58.

Raineri, N., & Paillé, P. (2015). Linking Corporate Policy and Supervisory Support

with Environmental Citizenship Behaviors: The Role of Employee Environmental Beliefs and Commitment. Journal of Business Ethics, 137(1), 1-20.

Rego, A., e Cunha, M. P., & Polónia, D. (2015). Corporate sustainability: A view

from the top. Journal of Business Ethics, 143(1), 1-25. Rioux, S. M., & Penner, L. A. (2001). The causes of organizational citizenship

behavior: A motivational analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(6), 1306-1314.

Russell, S., & Griffiths, A. (2008). Chapter 4 The role of emotions in driving

workplace pro-environmental behaviors. In W. Zerbe, C. Härtel & N. Ashkanasy (Eds.), Emotions, Ethics and Decision-Making (pp. 83-107): Emerald Group Publishing Limited.

110 Reference List

S&P, & RobecoSAM. (2016). Dow Jones Sustainability Indices. Retrieved 27th March, 2016 from S&P RobecoSAM, http://www.sustainability-indices.com/sustainability-assessment/corporate-sustainability.jsp

Schelly, C., Cross, J. E., Franzen, W. S., Hall, P., & Reeve, S. (2010). Reducing

Energy Consumption and Creating a Conservation Culture in Organizations: A Case Study of One Public School District. Environment and Behavior, 43(3), 316-343.

Shenton, A. K. (2004). Strategies for ensuring trustworthiness in qualitative research

projects. Education for Information, 22(2), 63-75. Shrivastava, P. (1995). The role of corporations in achieving ecological

sustainability. Academy of Management Review, 20(4), 936-960. Skinner, E. A., & Belmont, M. J. (1993). Motivation in the classroom: Reciprocal

effects of teacher behavior and student engagement across the school year. Journal of Educational Psychology, 85(4), 571.

Somech, A., & Ron, I. (2007). Promoting Organizational Citizenship Behavior in

Schools: The impact of individual and organizational characteristics. Educational Administration Quarterly, 43(1), 38-66.

Stake, R. E. (2009). The Case Study Method in Social Inquiry. In R. Gomm, M.

Hammersley & P. Foster (Eds.), Case Study Method (pp. 19-26). London: SAGE Publications Ltd.

Stake, R. E. (2010). Qualitative Research: Studying How Things Work (Vol. 1). New

York: Guilford Press. Tabernero, C., & Hernández, B. (2011). Self-efficacy and intrinsic motivation

guiding environmental behavior. Environment and Behavior, 43(5), 658-675. Terrier, L., Kim, S., & Fernandez, S. (2016). Who are the good organizational

citizens for the environment? An examination of the predictive validity of personality traits. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 48, 185-190.

Tilley, F., & Young, W. (2006). Sustainability Entrepreneurs. Greener Management

International(55), 79-93. Tsai, C.-C., Stritch, J. M., & Christensen, R. K. (2016). Eco-Helping and Eco-Civic

Engagement in the Public Workplace. Public Performance & Management Review, 40(2), 336-360.

Van de Ven, A. H. (1989). Nothing is quite so practical as a good theory. Academy of

Management Review, 14(4), 486-489. Van de Ven, A. H., & Johnson, P. E. (2006). Knowledge for theory and practice.

Academy of Management Review, 31(4), 802-821.

Reference List 111

Van Dyne, L., & Pierce, J. L. (2004). Psychological ownership and feelings of possession: Three field studies predicting employee attitudes and organizational citizenship behavior. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25(4), 439-459.

Wiernik, B. M., Dilchert, S., & Ones, D. S. (2016). Age and employee green

behaviors: A meta-analysis. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, 1-15. Williams, L. J., & Anderson, S. E. (1991). Job satisfaction and organizational

commitment as predictors of organizational citizenship and in-role behaviors. Journal of Management, 17(3), 601-617.

Yin, R. K. (2013). Case Study Research: Design and Methods. Thoasand Oaks: Sage

publications.

113

Date post:	05-Oct-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	4 times
Download:	0 times

FOSTERING ORGANISATIONAL CITIZENSHIP B ENVIRONMENT E … Piacun Thesis.pdf · and practice green...

Documents