34
Exploring the link between pro-environmental actions, work, travel and home Janine Chapman What women do:
Exploring the link between pro-environmental actions, work, travel and home
Janine Chapman
What women do:
© February 2012
Published by the Centre for Work + Life
University of South Australia
http://www.unisa.edu.au/hawkeinstitute/cwl/default.asp
Street Address
St Bernards Road
Magill SA 5072
Adelaide
Postal Address
GPO Box 2471
Adelaide, SA 5001 Australia
Author
Janine Chapman
Title
What women do: exploring the link between pro-environmental actions, work, travel and home
ISBN: 978-0-9808390-5-0
Citation
Chapman, J. (2012). What women do: exploring the link between pro-environmental actions, work,
travel and home. Adelaide: Centre for Work + Life, University of South Australia.
Acknowledgements
This report is part of a larger project ‘Work life and sustainable living: how work, household and
community life interact to affect environmental behaviours and outcomes’, funded by the Australian
Research Council (LP100200524) and industry partners Zero Waste SA, Urban Renewal Authority,
Community and Public Sector Union and State Public Services Federation.
Thanks to Melissa Donnelly (Community and Public Sector Union) and Barbara Pocock (Centre for
Work + Life) for their comments on the draft report. Responsibility for the final text rests with the
author.
i
Contents Tables ...................................................................................................................................................... ii
Figures .................................................................................................................................................... iii
Summary of findings ............................................................................................................................... 1
Introduction ............................................................................................................................................ 3
General demographics ............................................................................................................................ 4
Concern about environmental problems ............................................................................................ 6
Importance of environmental issues at home .................................................................................... 6
At a glance: what women do .................................................................................................................. 8
Pro-environmental action at work ...................................................................................................... 8
Pro-environmental action at home..................................................................................................... 9
Scope for improvement .................................................................................................................... 10
Pro-environmental action and working arrangements ........................................................................ 12
Hours of work.................................................................................................................................... 12
Flexible working arrangements......................................................................................................... 12
Behaviour of others at work ............................................................................................................. 14
Pro-environmental action and commuting ........................................................................................... 18
Main methods of commuting ........................................................................................................... 18
Length of commute ........................................................................................................................... 18
Pro-environmental action and home life .............................................................................................. 19
Caring responsibilities ....................................................................................................................... 19
Dependent children under 18 years ............................................................................................. 19
Number of dependent children under 18 years ........................................................................... 19
Regular caring responsibilities for others ..................................................................................... 20
Unpaid domestic work ...................................................................................................................... 21
Behaviour of others in the household .............................................................................................. 22
Pro-environmental action, time pressure and work-life balance ......................................................... 24
Feeling rushed or pressed for time ................................................................................................... 24
Work-life balance .............................................................................................................................. 24
Barriers to pro-environmental action ................................................................................................... 26
What would help? ................................................................................................................................. 27
Conclusion ............................................................................................................................................. 28
Reference .............................................................................................................................................. 29
ii
Tables Table 1. Overview of sample. .................................................................................................................. 4
Table 2. Overview of work arrangements, travel and home factors. ..................................................... 5
Table 3. Per cent of women who agree or strongly agree that they often take pro-environmental
action at work, by general demographics............................................................................................... 8
Table 4. Per cent of women who always or often take pro-environmental action at home, by age
group, educational attainment and annual earnings. .......................................................................... 10
iii
Figures Figure 1. Per cent of women who agree or disagree that they are concerned about environmental
problems, by age group. ......................................................................................................................... 6
Figure 2. Per cent of women who agree or disagree that environmental issues are an important
priority at home, by age group. .............................................................................................................. 7
Figure 3. Per cent of women who agree or disagree that they often take pro-environmental action at
work. ....................................................................................................................................................... 8
Figure 4. Frequency of pro-environmental action at home. .................................................................. 9
Figure 5. Per cent of women who are happy with, or would like to do more pro-environmental
action, by age group. ............................................................................................................................ 10
Figure 6. Scope for improvement in pro-environmental action at work and at home. ....................... 11
Figure 7. Frequency of pro-environmental action at home, by full-time or part-time work. .............. 12
Figure 8. Per cent of women who agree or disagree that they often take pro-environmental action at
work, by satisfaction with ability to access flexible working arrangements. ....................................... 13
Figure 9. Per cent of women who agree or disagree that they often take pro-environmental action at
work, by working at home, access to flexible hours, and access to leave. ........................................... 13
Figure 10. Frequency of recycling action at home, by working at home and access to leave. ............ 14
Figure 11. Frequency of reducing waste at home, by regularly working at home. .............................. 14
Figure 12. Per cent of women who agree or disagree that they often take pro-environmental action
at work, by the behaviour of others at work. ....................................................................................... 15
Figure 13. Frequency of pro-environmental action at home, by manager encouragement of action at
work. ..................................................................................................................................................... 16
Figure 14. Frequency of pro-environmental action at home, by manager action at work. ................. 16
Figure 15. Pro-environmental action at home, by co-worker action at work. ..................................... 17
Figure 16. Frequency of the main methods of transport used to get to work. .................................... 18
Figure 17. Frequency of pro-environmental action at home, by minutes spent commuting. ............. 18
Figure 18. Frequency of pro-environmental action at home, by dependent children at home........... 19
Figure 19. Frequency of recycling action at home, by number of dependent children under 18 years.
.............................................................................................................................................................. 20
Figure 20. Per cent of women who agree or disagree that they often take pro-environmental action
at work, by caring responsibilities for others. ...................................................................................... 20
Figure 21. Frequency of pro-environmental action at home, by caring responsibilities for others. .... 21
Figure 22. Per cent of women who agree or disagree that they often take pro-environmental action
at work, by hours spent doing unpaid domestic work last week. ........................................................ 21
Figure 23. Frequency of pro-environmental action at home, by hours spent doing unpaid domestic
work last week. ..................................................................................................................................... 22
Figure 24. Per cent of women who agree or disagree that they often take pro-environmental action
at work, by whether other people in their household often take pro-environmental action. ............ 22
Figure 25. Frequency of pro-environmental action at home, by whether other people in the
household often take pro-environmental action. ................................................................................ 23
Figure 26. Frequency of pro-environmental action at home, by feeling rushed or pressed for time. . 24
Figure 27. Per cent of women who agree or disagree that they often take pro-environmental action
at work, by satisfaction with work-life balance. ................................................................................... 25
Figure 28. Frequency of pro-environmental action at home, by satisfaction with work-life balance. 25
Figure 29. Barriers to pro-environmental action. ................................................................................. 26
Figure 30. Facilitators to pro-environmental action. ............................................................................ 27
1
Summary of findings Environmental concern and pro-environmental actions
12872 women aged 20 years or over* completed the 2011 CPSU What Women Want survey,
including a number of questions about environmental issues at work and at home. 76% of
women were concerned about environmental problems, and 84% agreed that
environmental issues were an important priority.
72% of women agreed that they often take pro-environmental action at work. This increased
for older women, those with higher educational attainment and higher earners. Technician
and trades workers and community and personal service workers reported the highest and
lowest pro-environmental action at work, respectively.
At home, 74% of women always or often took steps to reduce energy; 61% saved water;
90% recycled; 76% reduced waste, and 42% cut back on driving cars. This differed by age
group, with older women taking more action.
Over half of the women said they would like to take more pro-environmental action. On
average, 62% of women said that there was a lot or some scope for improvement in pro-
environmental action at work, and 67% said there was scope for improvement at home.
Work arrangements
Hours of work were associated with frequency of pro-environmental action at home.
Women who worked part-time had better outcomes on saving water, recycling and reducing
waste. Full-time workers had better outcomes for cutting back on driving.
Being satisfied with access to flexible working arrangements was associated with better
environmental outcomes at work. Women who regularly worked at home, had access to
flexible working hours and had access to leave as needed had better outcomes. Working at
home and having access to leave as needed were also associated with higher recycling and
waste reduction at home.
There was a strong association between pro-environmental action at work and the
behaviour of others at work. 81% of women often take pro-environmental action at work
when managers encourage action in comparison to 69% when managers are not
encouraging. Over 90% take action at work when managers and co-workers take pro-
environmental action, in comparison with approximately 50% when managers and co-
workers do not take action at work.
The behaviour of others at work was also associated with the frequency of pro-
environmental action at home. In particular, management encouragement at work was
associated with higher frequencies of water and waste-related action; the pro-
environmental action of managers at work was associated with saving energy, water, and
waste reduction, and the pro-environmental action of co-workers was associated with
better outcomes on all pro-environmental actions at home.
Travel
Over two thirds of women use driving as the typical way to get to work. Women who had
longer commutes generally had higher frequencies of pro-environmental action at home.
* Overall response number with response category ‘prefer not to respond’ removed
2
Home life
Having dependent children at home was associated with the frequency of pro-
environmental action at home. Women with dependent children had worse outcomes for
cutting back on driving than women without dependent children, and slight differences were
also found for saving energy, water, and waste reduction. Women with 3 or more children
had worse outcomes for recycling at home.
Women with regular caring responsibilities for others had marginally better pro-
environmental outcomes at work and took more frequent pro-environmental action in all
areas at home.
Women who spent the most hours doing unpaid domestic work per week had slightly worse
pro-environmental outcomes at work, but a higher frequency of pro-environmental actions
at home, particularly energy and water curtailment, recycling and waste reduction.
The pro-environmental action of others in the household was strongly associated with
action at work and at home. 77% of women take pro-environmental action at work when
others at home also take action, in comparison to 43% when others at home do not. At
home, 75% of women on average take action at home when others at home do the same, in
comparison to 30% when others at home do not take pro-environmental action.
Work-life balance
Women who felt rushed or pressed for time reported higher frequencies of pro-
environmental action at home than women who did not feel rushed or pressed for time,
although this pattern was not found for cutting back on driving.
Women who were satisfied with their work-life balance had better pro-environmental
outcomes at work, but lower frequencies of action at home in comparison to women who
were dissatisfied with their work-life balance.
Barriers and facilitators
The most frequently selected barriers to pro-environmental action were the demands of
commuting, being unable to work from home, and having poor transport options.
The most frequently selected facilitators to pro-environmental action were having greater
financial incentives, greater availability of green technology, and having more time.
Implications for action
Target younger workers to encourage participation
Provide employee-centred flexibility, especially around access to leave, access to flexible
hours and working from home
Build ‘green’ workplace cultures, with supportive and pro-active managers
Provide efficient transport options or alternatives that reduce time, money, and the
environmental effects of car use
Provide incentives and green technologies where possible.
3
Introduction The Community Public Sector Union (CPSU) is committed to representing members and campaigning
for their rights. To find out what women members want, the CPSU carries out an annual survey. The
What Women Want survey was carried out in 2011 for the sixth time in conjunction with the
University of Queensland’s Institute for Social Science Research (ISSR) and the Centre for Work +
Life, University of South Australia.
In 2011, a new section called ‘The Environment’ was added to the What Women Want survey, asking
about women’s beliefs and actions in relation to the environment. This new section explores how
working women manage sustainable living at work and at home, and the factors that can facilitate or
hinder pro-environmental action. The broad aim of this survey is to investigate how work and home
life can be best configured to support pro-environmental action, and to inform decision-making
regarding working arrangements that best promote wellbeing and improve environmentally
sustainable outcomes.
This report outlines the findings from the survey questions, taking a closer look at the pro-
environmental actions that women do; the potential influence of work, travel and home-related
factors, and what women say would help them to reduce their environmental impact.
The report covers demographic information and the frequency of pro-environmental action at work
and at home, followed by four main sections: the association between pro-environmental action and
working arrangements; commuting; home life, and work-life balance. All contrasts discussed in the
main sections are significant (i.e. not likely to be due to chance) at p < .05. The report then considers
women’s views on barriers and facilitators to pro-environmental action and concludes with a general
summary and implications for action.
4
General demographics In 2011, 12872 women aged 20 or over completed the CPSU What Women Want survey.† An
overview of the sample is shown in Table 1. Variations in response numbers occur across the survey
depending on whether individual questions were answered.
Table 1. Overview of sample.
% N
Age (12872) 20-24 4.0 509 25-34 23.8 3068 35-44 27.2 3500 45-54 30.8 3969 55-64 13.5 1745 65+ 0.6 81
Highest level of education (12708) University degree or higher 46.4 5895 College/TAFE 28.8 3661 Secondary school 24.8 3152
Annual earnings (12591) $10,000-$39,999 $40,000-$79,999 $80,000+
6.0 70.9 23.1
751 8921 2919
Occupation (12872) Clerical and administrative worker 59.7 7690 Community and personal service worker 1.5 197 Professional 30.3 3897 Manager 6.4 825 Technician and trades worker 1.9 240 Other 0.2 23
One third of respondents were in the 45-54 age range, which made up the largest age group. Nearly
half of women held a university degree or higher postgraduate qualification, and over two thirds
(70.9%) of women were in the mid-income bracket. Women were asked to identify their occupation
as described by the Australian Bureau of Statistics in the Australian and New Zealand Standard
Classification of Occupations (ANZSCO). Clerical and administrative workers made up the highest
proportion of respondents at 59.7%, followed by one-third of professional workers (30.3%).
† The overall response number and other response numbers presented throughout this report may differ from
those collected in the 2011-2012 CPSU survey. This is because response categories of ‘prefer not to respond’, ‘not applicable’, and ‘don’t know’ were removed in the current analyses for simplicity and ease of comparison across variables.
5
Table 2. Overview of work arrangements, travel and home factors.
% N
Work status by usual hours Part-time (≤34 hours) 22.6 2908 Full-time (≥35 hours) 77.4 9939
Flexible working arrangements Very satisfied or satisfied with flexible working arrangements
75.8 3729
Accessed leave as needed* 59.9 2569 Accessed flexible work hours* 61.1 2580 Worked from home during normal working hours* 10.5 343
Behaviour of others at work Manager encourages pro-environmental action 46.1 5710 Manager often takes pro-environmental action 41.0 4684 Co-workers often take pro-environmental action 57.2 6954
Length of commute on a typical day <30 mins 55.9 7193 30 mins-60 mins 35.5 4562 >60 mins 8.6 1112
Caring responsibilities Has dependent children <18 38.2 4894 Number of dependent children - -
One 40.6 1987 Two 44.4 2171 Three or more 15.0 736
Has regular caring responsibilities for others 23.6 3018 Hours spent on unpaid domestic work
<5 hours 25.7 3302 5-14 hours 47.4 6107 >15 hours 25.9 3338
Behaviour of others in the household Others in the household often take pro-environmental action
85.0 10908
Time pressure Almost always or often feels rushed or pressed for time
67.4 8656
Work-life balance Very satisfied or satisfied with work-life balance 57.6 7396
*per cent of women who indicated that they had used the flexible working arrangement regularly, if
applicable.
Table 2 shows the frequency of work, travel and home-related factors in the current sample. In
relation to work, 77.4% of women were in full-time employment, and 75.8% said they were satisfied
or very satisfied with flexible working arrangements. Accessing flexible work hours was the most
common flexible arrangement used regularly. Just under half of women agreed that managers at
work both encourage (46.1%) and participate (41%) in pro-environmental action, and slightly more
agreed that their co-workers participate in pro-environmental action (57.2%).
Over half of respondents spent less than 30 minutes travelling to work, approximately one third
spent 30 minutes to one hour, and only 8.6% of women commuted for longer than one hour.
6
In relation to home factors, 38.2% of women had dependent children under the age of 18 years, and
most women had one (40.6%) or two (44.4%) children at home. Nearly one quarter (23.6%) of
women had regular caring responsibilities for others (e.g. parents, adult children, partner, other
relatives, or friends and neighbours). The majority of women (47.4%) spent between 5 and 14 hours
doing unpaid domestic work in the previous week. A large per cent of women agreed that other
people in their household often take pro-environmental action (85%). Two thirds (67.4%) of women
reported often or almost always feeling rushed or pressed for time, and 57.6% said that they were
satisfied with their work-life balance in general.
Concern about environmental problems Women were asked if they were concerned about environmental problems. 76.2% agreed or
strongly agreed that they were, 18.6% were neutral, and 5.2% disagreed or strongly disagreed.
Figure 1 shows the frequency of concern by age group. Concern about environmental problems
increases by age, with 67.2% of 20-24 year olds agreeing or strongly agreeing in comparison to
86.3% of women aged 65 or over. This pattern is consistent with findings from an earlier report in
this series analysing national data from the Australian Bureau of Statistics 2007-08 Multipurpose
Household Survey, which showed that 18-29 year olds are significantly less likely to report concern
about environmental problems than older age groups.1
Figure 1. Per cent of women who agree or disagree that they are concerned about environmental
problems, by age group.
Importance of environmental issues at home Women were also asked whether environmental issues were an important priority at home. 84%
agreed or strongly agreed, 12.4% were neutral, and 3.5% disagreed or strongly disagreed. Again, the
clear pattern is that the priority of environmental issues increases by age. 67.4% of women aged 20-
24 agreed or strongly agreed, in comparison to 90.2% of women aged 55-64, and 92.5% of women
aged 65 or over (Figure 2).
24.0
43.2
23.6
5.8 3.4
23.9
51.8
18.7
4.5 1.2
26.4
54.4
14.6
3.8 0.8
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Strongly agree Agree Neutral Disagree StronglyDisagree
%
Concerned about environmental problems
20-24
25-34
35-44
45-54
55-64
65+
7
Figure 2. Per cent of women who agree or disagree that environmental issues are an important
priority at home, by age group.
22.0
45.4
24.4
7.4
0.8
31.6
53.6
11.3
2.9 0.6
39.2
51.0
7.7
1.9 0.2 0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Strongly agree Agree Neutral Disagree StronglyDisagree
%
Environmental issues are an important priority
20-24
25-34
35-44
45-54
55-64
65+
8
At a glance: what women do The following section reports the frequencies of pro-environmental action at work and at home.
Pro-environmental action at work Women were asked if they often took pro-environmental action at work. 72% agreed or strongly
agreed, 20.5% were neutral and 7.5% disagreed or strongly disagreed.
Figure 3. Per cent of women who agree or disagree that they often take pro-environmental action at
work.
Table 3. Per cent of women who agree or strongly agree that they often take pro-environmental
action at work, by general demographics.
%
Age 20-24 65.9 25-34 68.5 35-44 71.4 45-54 73.6 55-64 77.1 65+ 79.5
Highest level of education University degree or higher 74.3 College/TAFE 71.2 Secondary school 68.9
Annual earnings $10,000-$39,999 $40,000-$79,999 $80,000+
68.7 71.1 75.4
Occupation Clerical and administrative worker 70.1 Community and personal service worker 67.4 Professional 74.8 Manager 75.8 Technician and trades worker 77.4
Strongly agree 13.4%
Agree 58.6%
Neutral 20.5%
Disagree 6.8% Strongly disagree
0.7%
Strongly agree
Agree
Neutral
Disagree
Strongly disagree
9
Table 3 shows the pro-environmental action at work by general demographics. Pro-environmental
action at work steadily increases by age group, with 65.9% of 20-24 year olds taking action
compared to 79.5% of women over 65 years. Action also increases by educational attainment (74.3%
of university-educated in comparison to 68.9 of school) and annual earnings (75.4% in the highest
earnings bracket in comparison to 68.7% in the lowest). Pro-environmental action at work was
generally similar across occupations, although technician and trades workers reported the highest
action at 77.4%, and community and personal service workers reported the lowest action at 67.4%.
Pro-environmental action at home In response to questions regarding the frequency of pro-environmental action at home, 74.4% of
women always or often reduced energy or fuel, 61% always or often saved or re-used water, 89.7%
always or often made a special effort to recycle, 76.3% always or often made a special effort to
reduce waste, and 42.3% cut back on driving.
Figure 4. Frequency of pro-environmental action at home.
Table 4 shows the frequency of pro-environmental action at home by age group, education and
earnings. Across all actions in the home, older women have better outcomes, particularly in the
areas of saving water (41.1% of 20-24 year olds in comparison to 72.5% of women over 65) and
waste reduction (58.7% of 20-24 year olds in comparison to 87.7% of women over 65). Although the
items used in the surveys are not directly comparable, this pattern again reflects the findings from
the national 2007-08 Multipurpose Household Survey, which show that older age groups take
significantly more action to reduce water, recycle and reduce waste than 18-29 year olds.1
Little difference was found for educational attainment, although those with university degrees or
higher reported more frequently cutting back on driving than the other groups. No difference in
frequency of pro-environmental action at home was found between income groups.
16.8
40.0
64.1
24.0
30.1
25.5
36.3
25.6
37.0
44.3
41.7
20.0
7.8
29.2
22.4
16.0
3.7
2.5
9.8
3.2
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Cut back ondriving
Reducewaste
Recycle
Save water
Save energy
%
Always
Often
Sometimes
Never
10
Table 4. Per cent of women who always or often take pro-environmental action at home, by age
group, educational attainment and annual earnings.
Reduce energy
%
Save water
%
Recycle
%
Reduce waste
%
Cut back on driving
%
Age 20-24 61.1 41.1 77.8 58.7 34.6 25-34 68.1 51.5 85.6 68.9 42.5 35-44 74.4 63.2 90.1 76.7 41.2 45-54 77.4 65.3 92.1 79.5 42.4 55-64 81.8 68.7 93.7 85.8 45.8 65+ 86.4 72.5 92.4 87.7 49.3
Education University or higher 75.2 60.9 91.5 77.3 46.4 College / TAFE 74.0 61.7 88.0 75.9 40.4 Secondary school 73.7 60.4 88.5 74.7 36.6
Annual earnings $10,000-$39,000 75.1 65.3 92.8 77.6 38.7 $40,000-$79,000 74.6 60.4 88.5 75.9 42.7 $80,000+ 73.6 61.9 92.6 76.8 41.6
Scope for improvement Women were asked to describe how they felt about their current lifestyle and the environment.
48.3% of women were happy with the amount of pro-environmental action they currently engage in,
and 51.7% said they would like to do a bit or a lot more. Figure 5 shows how women in different age
groups responded. In general, approximately two thirds (65.4%) of women aged 65 or over were
happy with their current action in comparison with under half of 20-24 year olds (43.8%) and 25-34
year olds (40.7%).
Figure 5. Per cent of women who are happy with, or would like to do more pro-environmental
action, by age group.
Figure 6 shows responses to the questions: ‘how much scope is there to reduce environmental
impact at work /at home in the following areas?’ The biggest areas for improvement at work were
recycling and reducing waste (73.7% and 73.6% answered ‘a lot of scope’ or ‘some scope’,
respectively), and the biggest areas for improvement at home were saving energy (72.2%) and
reducing waste (71.4%).
43.8
50.5
5.7
40.7
50.0
9.3
48.3
42.6
9.1
51.5
39.5
9.0
53.8
40.0
10.2
65.4
21.8
12.8
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
Happy with action Like to do a bit more Like to do a lot more
%
20-24
25-34
35-44
45-54
55-64
65+
11
Figure 6. Scope for improvement in pro-environmental action at work and at home.
15.9
14.5
28.1
34.3
38.8
40.0
20.9
15.7
19.7
21.9
39.7
29.8
43.3
39.3
30.0
33.7
47.1
34.7
52.5
46.3
29.1
23.7
23.4
18.2
17.9
16.4
24.2
22.3
23.2
20.5
15.3
32.0
5.2
8.2
13.3
7.8
27.3
4.6
11.3
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Home
Work
Home
Work
Home
Work
Home
Work
Home
Work
Car
use
Red
uce
was
teR
ecyc
leSa
ve w
ater
Save
en
ergy
%
A lot
Some
A little
None
12
Pro-environmental action and working arrangements This section investigates the association between pro-environmental action at work and at home
and working arrangements. The work factors are hours of work, flexible working arrangements, and
the behaviour of others at work.
Hours of work No differences in pro-environmental action at work were found between full and part-time workers,
but working full or part-time was associated with differences in pro-environmental action at home.
Figure 7 shows the frequency of pro-environmental action at home by part or full-time hours. Part-
time workers reported better outcomes for saving water, recycling and waste reduction than full-
timers. Full-time workers cut back on driving slightly more than often than part-timers.
Figure 7. Frequency of pro-environmental action at home, by full-time or part-time work.
Other factors in relation to hours of work were investigated. There was no connection between
working additional hours (including extra hours worked at work, while travelling or at home) and
pro-environmental action, or being contacted outside of work hours for work-related matters in the
last 6 months.
Flexible working arrangements Women were asked whether, in the last 12 months, they had been satisfied with the ability to access
flexible working arrangements and leave entitlements.
Being satisfied with the ability to access flexible working arrangements was not associated with
better pro-environmental action in the home, but it was associated with better outcomes in the
workplace. 73.3% of women who were satisfied with their access to flexible working arrangements
agreed or strongly agreed that they take pro-environmental action at work in comparison to 66.3%
of those who were dissatisfied (Figure 8).
14.7
17.4
40.8
39.8
67.2
63.1
25.8
23.5
25.0
25.7
38.1
35.7
24.5
26.0
37.8
36.7
44.6
40.8
20.0
20.5
6.7
8.1
28.1
29.5
15.7
16.1
1.1
4.0
1.6
2.8
8.2
10.3
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
PT
FT
PT
FT
PT
FT
PT
FT
Car
use
Red
uce
was
teR
ecyc
leSa
ve w
ater
%
Always
Often
Sometimes
Never
13
Figure 8. Per cent of women who agree or disagree that they often take pro-environmental action at
work, by satisfaction with ability to access flexible working arrangements.
The associations between pro-environmental action and specific flexible working arrangements
were then explored.
Regularly having access to leave, having access to flexible working hours, and regularly working at
home were significantly associated with taking more pro-environmental action at work. 80.6% of
those regularly working from home, 72.9% accessing flexible working hours, and 72.8% of those with
access to leave as needed agreed or strongly agreed that they often take pro-environmental action
at work in comparison to 68.8%, 67.1% and 58.7% of women without access to these arrangements
(Figure 9).
Figure 9. Per cent of women who agree or disagree that they often take pro-environmental action at
work, by working at home, access to flexible hours, and access to leave.
14.2 11.8
59.1 54.5
19.2 21.6
6.8 10.2
0.6 1.8
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
Satisfied Dissatisfied
%
Strongly agree
Agree
Neutral
Disagree
Strongly disagree
14.7
13.9
11.0
15.0
12.6
18.9
44.0
58.9
56.1
57.9
56.2
61.7
30.2
19.7
21.9
19.7
21.6
14.2
10.3
7.3
9.7
6.8
8.9
4.4
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
Acc
ess
to le
ave
Acc
ess
tofl
exib
le h
ou
rsW
ork
ing
ath
om
e
%
Strongly agree
Agree
Neutral
Disagree
Strongly disagree
14
Regularly having access to leave as needed and working from home was also associated with better
recycling outcomes at home, and working from home was associated with better waste reduction at
home (Figure 10 & 11).
Figure 10. Frequency of recycling action at home, by working at home and access to leave.
Figure 11. Frequency of reducing waste at home, by regularly working at home.
Behaviour of others at work Women were asked if managers encouraged staff to take pro-environmental action in their
workplace; if managers often took pro-environmental action at work themselves, and if their co-
workers often took pro-environmental action at work.
A very strong association was found between the actions of others at work and pro-environmental
action at work. Figure 12 shows that 80.6% of women agreed or strongly agreed that they take
action at work when their managers encourage it, in comparison to 68.8% when managers are not
encouraging. 96.4% of women agreed or strongly agreed that they take action at work when their
managers also take action, in comparison to just over half (54.2%) whose managers do not take
62.7
63.8
61.8
70.8
22.0
26.2
27.7
20.9
14.4
7.4
8.1
6.5
0.8
2.6
2.4
1.8
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
No
Yes
No
Yes
Acc
ess
to le
ave
Wo
rkin
g at
ho
me
%
Always
Often
Sometimes
Never
45.2 38.5 37.2 37.6
14.4 20.3
3.2 3.6
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Works at home Does not work at home
%
Always
Often
Sometimes
Never
15
action. In relation to co-workers, 94.8% of women agreed or strongly agreed that they take action at
work when their co-workers also take action, in comparison to 46.9% when they do not.
Figure 12. Per cent of women who agree or disagree that they often take pro-environmental action
at work, by the behaviour of others at work.
Management encouragement, management action and the pro-environmental action of co-workers
were also associated with pro-environmental action at home. Women who reported that their
managers encouraged pro-environmental action at work had better water, waste-reduction and car
use outcomes at home, with marginal differences for recycling (Figure 13). Women who reported
that their managers took pro-environmental action at work had better outcomes at home for
energy, water and waste than those with no-action managers, although again there was less
variation in frequencies of recycling (Figure 14). Figure 15 shows that women with co-workers who
take pro-environmental action had higher frequencies of energy, water and waste reduction and
recycling at home. Women with co-workers who do not take pro-environmental action were also
more likely to report never cutting back on time spent driving than women with pro-active co-
workers.
9.1
19.3
8.8
22.9
12.6
18.9
37.8
75.5
45.4
73.5
56.2
61.7
16.1
4.1
18.6
3.0
21.6
14.2
33.0
24.3
8.9
4.4
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
Co
-wo
rker
s ta
keac
tio
nM
anag
ers
take
acti
on
Man
ager
sen
cou
rage
acti
on
%
Strongly agree
Agree
Neutral
Disagree
Strongly disagree
16
Figure 13. Frequency of pro-environmental action at home, by manager encouragement of action at
work.
Figure 14. Frequency of pro-environmental action at home, by manager action at work.
64.5 61.7
90.8 91.4
79.9 76.6
44.0 44.2
27.1 27.5
7.1 6.0
17.3 18.9
41.1 38.9
8.5 10.8
2.1 2.7 2.8 4.5
14.9 17.0
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Encourage Does notencourage
Encourage Does notencourage
Encourage Does notencourage
Encourage Does notencourage
%
Always oroftenSometimes
Never
78.4 76.7
65.3 63.4
90.8 91.0
80.9 77.7
19.5 19.7
26.4 26.6
7.1 6.4
16.5 18.9
2.1 3.6 8.3 10.1
2.0 2.6 2.7 3.9
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Takes action No action Takes action No action Takes action No action Takes action No action
%
Always oroftenSometimes
Never
Save water Recycle Reduce waste Car use
Save water Recycle Reduce waste Save energy
17
Figure 15. Pro-environmental action at home, by co-worker action at work.
77.9 76.3
64.8 60.7
91.6 89.6
80.4 76.4
44.8 44.3
19.8 19.7
26.9 27.9
6.6 6.8
17.0 18.8
40.8 38.9
2.3 4.1 8.3
11.4
1.8 3.4 2.7 4.4
14.4 16.9
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Takesaction
No action Takesaction
No action Takesaction
No action Takesaction
No action Takesaction
No action
%
Always oroftenSometimes
Never
Save water Recycle Reduce waste Car use Save energy
18
Pro-environmental action and commuting This section addresses the association between pro-environmental action at work and at home, and
the time taken to commute to work.
Main methods of commuting Figure 16 shows the main methods of transport that women used to get to work. The most common
transport option was driving or being driven at 66.7%, and carpooling was the least common (1.9%).
Figure 16. Frequency of the main methods of transport used to get to work.
Length of commute Women were asked how long it took them to get to work on a typical day (less than 30 minutes; 30
to 60 minutes, and more than 60 minutes). The length of commute was not associated with pro-
environmental action at work. All pro-environmental actions at home were associated with the
length of commute, but surprisingly, people who had the longest commutes generally had better
outcomes (Figure 17).
Figure 17. Frequency of pro-environmental action at home, by minutes spent commuting.
Drive 66.7%
Carpool 1.9%
Walk/jog 4.4%
Public transport 24.7%
Bicycle 2.3%
Drive
Carpool
Walk/jog
Public transport
Bicycle
Other
73.7 75.2 75.8
57.0 52.7
66.7
89.4 90.6 88.4
75.9 76.9 76.0
40.0 45.1 45.5
23.1 21.9 20.6
30.4 28.5 24.6
7.9 7.1 9.6
20.1 19.6 21.2
43.4 39.6 39.3
3.2 2.9 3.6
10.6 8.8 8.7
2.7 2.3 2.0 3.9 3.4 2.8
16.6 15.3 15.2
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
<30 30-60 >60 <30 30-60 >60 <30 30-60 >60 <30 30-60 >60 <30 30-60 >60
%
Always oroftenSometimes
Never
Save energy Save water Reduce waste Recycle Car use
19
Pro-environmental action and home life This section investigates the association between pro-environmental action at work and at home
and home life. The home factors are caring responsibilities in relation to dependent children and
others, time spent in unpaid domestic work, and the behaviour of others in the household.
Caring responsibilities
Dependent children under 18 years
Women were asked whether they had any dependent children aged 18 years or younger. Having
dependent children at home was not associated with pro-environmental action at work.
Figure 18 shows the frequency of pro-environmental action at home, by whether dependent
children were present. Slight differences were found for those with children in saving energy, saving
water, and reducing waste. The biggest difference was for car use. 45.1% of women without
dependent children reported always or often cutting back on driving in comparison to 37.7% of
women with dependent children at home.
Figure 18. Frequency of pro-environmental action at home, by dependent children at home.
Number of dependent children under 18 years
The number of dependent children in the household was also investigated. The number of children
had no association with pro-environmental action at work, and only one pro-environmental action in
the home. Women with three or more children reported recycling slightly less frequently than
women with one or two children (Figure 19).
18.9
13.4
40.7
39.1
23.7
24.6
31.0
28.7
26.2
24.3
35.5
37.5
36.2
38.2
43.5
45.6
39.8
44.9
19.9
20.1
29.6
28.5
22.2
22.9
15.1
17.4
3.9
3.2
10.5
8.7
3.3
2.8
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
No children
Children
No children
Children
No children
Children
No children
Children
Car
use
Red
uce
was
teSa
ve w
ater
Save
en
ergy
%
Always
Often
Sometimes
Never
20
Figure 19. Frequency of recycling action at home, by number of dependent children under 18 years.
Regular caring responsibilities for others
Women were asked whether they had regular caring responsibilities for others, for example parents,
adult children, partners. There was little difference between action at work and having regular
caring responsibilities, although women with caring responsibilities had slightly better outcomes
(Figure 20). However, women with regular caring responsibilities for others more frequently
engaged in all pro-environmental actions at home than women without caring responsibilities
(Figure 21).
Figure 20. Per cent of women who agree or disagree that they often take pro-environmental action
at work, by caring responsibilities for others.
61.1
63.7
63.7
25.6
28.1
25.6
9.3
6.5
8.4
4.0
1.6
2.2
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
3+ Children
2 Children
One Child
Rec
ycle
%
Always
Often
Sometimes
Never
14.7 13.0
59.0 58.5
19.2 20.8
6.2 7.0 0.9 0.7
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Caring responsibilities for others No caring responsibilities for others
%
Strongly agree
Agree
Neutral
Disagree
Strongly disagree
21
Figure 21. Frequency of pro-environmental action at home, by caring responsibilities for others.
Unpaid domestic work The number of hours spent doing unpaid domestic work in the home in the previous week (less than
5 hours; 5 to 14 hours, or more than 15 hours) was associated with pro-environmental action at
work and in the home. For action at work, women who spent 15 hours or more per week on
domestic work had slightly worse outcomes (Figure 22). Spending longer on unpaid domestic work
was associated with higher frequencies of all pro-environmental actions in the home, although only
slight differences were found for cutting back on driving (Figure 23).
Figure 22. Per cent of women who agree or disagree that they often take pro-environmental action
at work, by hours spent doing unpaid domestic work last week.
16.0
19.5
38.2
46.1
63.3
66.8
22.1
30.1
28.4
35.5
24.6
28.1
36.7
34.8
26.0
24.7
36.5
38.5
44.4
44.3
42.6
38.8
21.2
16.4
8.0
6.9
30.7
24.6
23.7
18.2
16.8
13.6
4.0
2.7
2.8
1.6
10.7
6.9
3.5
2.0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
No caring for others
Caring for others
No caring for others
Caring for others
No caring for others
Caring for others
No caring for others
Caring for others
No caring for others
Caring for others
Car
use
Red
uce
was
teR
ecyc
leSa
ve w
ater
Save
en
ergy
%
Always
Often
Sometimes
Never
13.3 13.3 13.9
59.0 59.5 56.7
20.9 19.8 20.8
6.2 6.8 7.5
0.6 0.6 1.2
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
<5 hours 5-14 hours >15 hours
%
Strongly agree
Agree
Neutral
Disagree
Strongly disagree
22
Figure 23. Frequency of pro-environmental action at home, by hours spent doing unpaid domestic
work last week.
Behaviour of others in the household Women were asked whether other people in their households often took pro-environmental action.
The behaviour of others in the household was strongly associated with pro-environmental action at
work and at home. Figure 24 shows that 77.2% of women agreed or strongly agreed that they took
action at work if other people in their household took action, in comparison to less than half (42.5%)
if the others in their household did not.
Figure 24. Per cent of women who agree or disagree that they often take pro-environmental action
at work, by whether other people in their household often take pro-environmental action.
This difference was greater at home. Averaging across the five pro-environmental actions, 74.7% of
women indicated that they always or often took pro-environmental action in the home if others in
their household also took action, in comparison to just 30% of women whose household members
did not take action. The biggest difference was found for waste reduction, where 83.9% always or
often took action if others at home did, compared to 27.2% whose household members didn’t.
70.9 73.9
78.2
55.6
61.4 65.8
86.9 90.4 91.4
70.9
77.5 79.5
42.1 42.5 42.3
25.3 22.7
19.2
31.8 29.1
26.7
9.5 7.5 6.7
23.9 19.5
17.2
40.8 42.2 41.5
3.8 3.1 2.6
12.6 9.5 7.5
3.7 2.2 1.9 5.2
3.0 3.3
17.1 15.2 16.4
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
<5 5-14 >15 <5 5-14 >15 <5 5-14 >15 <5 5-14 >15 <5 5-14 >15
%
Always oroftenSometimes
Never
15.0
6.6
62.2
35.9
16.8
26.7
5.4
27.5
0.6 3.3
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
Others at home take action Others at home do not take action
%
Strongly agree
Agree
Neutral
Disagree
Strongly disagree
Save energy Save water Recycle Reduce waste Car use
23
Figure 25. Frequency of pro-environmental action at home, by whether other people in the
household often take pro-environmental action.
5.8
19.0
8.2
45.5
27.6
70.3
5.9
27.2
8.0
34.0
8.9
28.0
19.0
38.4
27.6
24.2
17.2
39.9
21.7
47.2
31.3
40.8
36.8
14.7
19.3
4.6
36.5
26.0
44.3
17.5
54.0
12.1
35.9
1.4
25.4
40.4
6.8
25.9
1.3
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Others don't take action
Others take action
Others don't take action
Others take action
Others don't take action
Others take action
Others don't take action
Others take action
Others don't take action
Others take action
Car
use
Red
uce
was
teR
ecyc
leSa
ve w
ater
Save
en
ergy
%
Always
Often
Sometimes
Never
24
Pro-environmental action, time pressure and work-life balance This section investigates the association between pro-environmental action at work and at home,
perceptions of time pressure and satisfaction with work-life balance.
Feeling rushed or pressed for time Feeling rushed and pressed for time was not associated with pro-environmental action at work, but
it was associated with specific actions at home. Surprisingly, women who always or often felt rushed
and pressed for time had better outcomes for saving energy and water and reducing waste than
women who seldom or never felt rushed. Women who seldom or never felt rushed or pressed for
time were more likely to report never cutting back on driving (22.7%) than women who always or
often felt rushed (16.1%) (Figure 26).
Figure 26. Frequency of pro-environmental action at home, by feeling rushed or pressed for time.
Work-life balance Women were asked if they were satisfied with their work-life balance. Women who were satisfied or
very satisfied reported better pro-environmental outcomes at work. 75% of satisfied women agreed
or strongly agreed that they often took pro-environmental action at work, in comparison to 69% of
dissatisfied women (Figure 27). Differences in pro-environmental actions at home were not as
strong, but surprisingly, women who were dissatisfied with their work-life balance reported higher
frequencies of all actions taken at home (Figure 28).
75.7
68.8
63.1
53.5
77.9
70.8
42.7 43.5
21.2
27.2 27.7 29.9
18.8 21.9
41.2
33.9
3.1 4.0 9.1
16.7
3.5 7.2
16.1
22.7
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Rushed Not rushed Rushed Not rushed Rushed Not rushed Rushed Not rushed
%
Always oroften
Sometimes
Never
Save energy Save water Reduce waste Car use
25
Figure 27. Per cent of women who agree or disagree that they often take pro-environmental action
at work, by satisfaction with work-life balance.
Figure 28. Frequency of pro-environmental action at home, by satisfaction with work-life balance.
14.4 13.8
60.6 55.2
18.1 20.5
6.3 9.0
0.5 1.5
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Satisfied Dissatisfied
%
Strongly agree
Agree
Neutral
Disagree
Strongly disagree
19.2
16.3
44.4
39.4
67.1
64.2
28.6
22.6
33.7
29.8
25.9
25.5
34.0
36.6
23.0
26.0
36.1
36.7
43.8
44.3
39.3
41.8
17.6
20.3
7.3
7.3
25.9
30.3
19.3
22.8
15.6
16.5
4.0
3.6
2.6
2.4
9.4
10.4
3.1
3.1
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Dissatisfied
Satisfied
Dissatisfied
Satisfied
Dissatisfied
Satisfied
Dissatisfied
Satisfied
Dissatisfied
Satisfied
Car
use
Red
uce
was
teR
ecyc
leSa
ve w
ater
Save
en
ergy
%
Always
Often
Sometimes
Never
26
Barriers to pro-environmental action This section addresses what women think represent barriers to them engaging in pro-environmental
action in general. Respondents were given a list of potential barriers and asked whether they agreed
or disagreed that they posed a barrier for them personally (Figure 29).
57% of women agreed or strongly agreed that the demands of commuting were a barrier to pro-
environmental action; 51.4% agreed that being unable to work from home was a barrier, and 50.9%
agreed that poor transport options in their area hindered pro-environmental action.
44.3% of women agreed or strongly agreed that the demands of home and family responsibilities
acted as barrier; 37.1% said demands of job or jobs, and 16.2% agreed that the demands of their
community responsibilities made it harder for them to engage in pro-environmental action.
Figure 29. Barriers to pro-environmental action.
16.2
37.1
44.3
50.9
51.4
57.0
48.4
34.5
30.4
23
28.4
21.6
35.4
28.4
25.3
26.1
20.2
21.4
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Demands of communityresponsibilities
Demands of job
Demands of home andfamily responsibilities
Poor transport options
Unable to work from home
Demands of commuting
%
Stronglyagree /agreeNeutral
Stronglydisagree /disagree
27
What would help? Women were also asked what would help them to take pro-environmental action. Respondents
chose 3 items from a list of 10. The selected facilitators to pro-environmental action are ranked by
popularity in Figure 30. Financial incentives, green technology and having more time were chosen as
the most important facilitators.
Figure 30. Facilitators to pro-environmental action.
47.7 44.0 42.0
28.6 25.7
14.6 10.0 8.1
4.3 3.0
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
%
28
Conclusion This report shows that many women are undertaking pro-environmental action at work and at
home, especially in the areas of recycling, waste and energy reduction. However, many women –
over half – would like to do more, showing significant scope for improvement. In particular, younger
women engage in less pro-environmental action than older respondents, and express a greater
desire to do more. In relation to pro-environmental behaviour in the household, this finding may be
a reflection of the increasing number of young people remaining in the parental home, where
responsibility for action typically lies with the parents.1 However, as younger age groups also have
poorer outcomes for pro-environmental action at work, young women may benefit from tailored
communications to encourage improved participation.
Flexibility at work helps. Satisfaction with flexible working arrangements, regularly working from
home, and having access to leave and flexible hours are associated with better pro-environmental
outcomes at work. In addition, having access to leave and regularly working from home is associated
with increased action at home. These findings suggest that giving workers: (1) encouragement to
take their leave; (2) some say over adjusting work time to fit their needs, and (3) the opportunity to
work at home when feasible are important for any workplace aiming to support environmentally
sustainable futures, as well as healthy work-life relationships for their employees.
The actions of others also matter. Management encouragement of pro-environmental action, the
pro-environmental action of managers, and the action of co-workers are all important for positive
outcomes at work, which seem to spill over to influence positive action at home. Similarly, the pro-
environmental action of others in the household is clearly associated with better outcomes at work
as well as at home. This shows the central role of shared social context, and how pro-environmental
action is ‘normed’ by colleagues and fellow householders. Workplace culture appears to be a central
factor warranting further investigation.
Some of the findings were surprising. Although working part-time was associated with better pro-
environmental outcomes than working full-time, other factors relating to increased time constraints
were not. In general, having longer commutes, regular caring responsibilities, spending longer hours
doing unpaid domestic work and feeling rushed or pressed for time were associated with more
frequent pro-environmental action. Similarly, satisfaction with work-life balance was associated with
better pro-environmental outcomes at work, but not at home. These are intriguing and seemingly
counter-intuitive findings that will be investigated by multivariate and deeper qualitative analysis in
our future research.
To summarise, our analysis points to five main issues of significance to pro-environmental action:
1. Target younger workers to encourage participation
2. Provide employee-centred flexibility, especially around access to leave, access to flexible
hours and working from home
3. Build ‘green’ workplace cultures, with supportive and pro-active managers
4. Provide efficient transport options or alternatives that reduce time, money, and the
environmental effects of car use
5. Provide incentives and green technologies where possible.
Each of these suggest lines of policy responses that governments can pursue to improve pro-
environmental outcomes at work, at home, and when travelling between.
29
Reference 1. Chapman, J. (2011). Who does what? The pro-environmental behaviours of Australian
workers. Adelaide: Centre for Work + Life, University of South Australia.
