Wageningen University – Department of Social Sciences

MSc Thesis – Management Studies Group (MST-80433)

Joint thesis report

Part I - Scientific article

“Encouraging Sustainability in the Workplace
A Survey on the Pro-environmental Behaviour of University Employees”

Part II - MSc thesis

“Pro-environmental behaviour in the workplace”

Oldrich Studynka
870120-815-200
July 2013
Preface
This thesis report is the result of a research project with the aim of completing
my master’s studies of Management, Economics, and Consumer studies with the
specialisation Management at Wageningen University, The Netherlands.
The report consists of two parts. Part I presents an article written based
on the thesis report under a title: “Encouraging Sustainability in the Workplace. A
Survey on the Pro-environmental Behaviour of University Employees.” The article
is currently under a review for publication in a special issue of Journal of Cleaner
Production. Part II consists of the thesis report itself under a title: “Pro-
environmental behaviour in the workplace”.
 Part I

Scientific article

Encouraging Sustainability in the Workplace.

A Survey on the Pro-environmental Behaviour of
University Employees
 Encouraging Sustainability in the Workplace
A Survey on the Pro-environmental Behaviour of University
Employees

Oldrich Studynka1, Renate Wesselink2, Vincent Blok1* and Ron Kemp1

1 Wageningen University, Management Studies Group
2 Wageningen University, Education and Competence Studies
* Corresponding author, Wageningen University, Management Studies, P.O. BOX
8130, 6700 EW, Wageningen, the Netherlands, 0031 317 483623,
vincent.blok@wur.nl

Abstract
The aim of this study is to identify factors that could predict pro-environmental
behaviour in the workplace. Many studies focused on the behaviour of households, but
less attention was given to the workplace until now. Based on an extensive literature
review, two groups of factors were identified which could predict pro-environmental
behaviour in the workplace: internal factors and external factors. Next, the model was
tested among employees of a green university in the Netherlands (N=436). The
developed and tested model showed an overall pattern of relations between values, the
intention to act, perceived behaviour control, social and personal norms, and attitudes
towards pro-environmental behaviour. The findings have various managerial
implications for green universities.

Introduction
In the last four decades, many researchers have investigated the negative impact
of humankind on earth due to the experience of radical changes in nature.
Increasing pollution and population on the one hand and decreasing natural
resources on the other have had a considerable impact on the environment.
Overpopulation, overflowing landfills, global warming, ozone depletion, acid
rain, loss of green space, water pollution and species extinction are increasingly
acknowledged as caused by a human behaviour (Lehman and Geller, 2004). As a
response, governments of many countries in the world attempted to create
legislation in order to decrease the production of CO2 and change human

1
behaviour towards a more sustainable lifestyle in households, companies and
educational institutions.
This raised the question of how to enhance sustainable behaviour. To
investigate this, the research field of pro-environmental behaviour emerged. In
the past decades, various studies have been conducted with a focus on
sustainability and pro-environmental behaviour. Various scientists and
psychologists came up with different terms describing the same or similar types
of behaviour; responsible environmental behaviour (Cottrell and Graefe, 1997),
sustainable behaviour (Spence and Pidgeon, 2009), environmental sustainability
(Osbaldiston and Schott, 2012), environmentally significant behaviour (Wall et
al., 2007), pro-environmental practices (Hards, 2012), environmental
engagement (Milfont and Sibley, 2012), environmentalism (Mobley and
Kilbourne, 2012), environmental engagement (Milfont et al., 2012), sustainable
lifestyle (Barr and Gilg, 2006; Barr et al., 2011), environmentally friendly
behaviour (Dolnicar and Grun, 2009), ecological behaviour (Milfont and Duckitt,
2004), etc. All these studies focused on minimising the negative impact of human
behaviour on the environment. In this research, we adopt a definition of pro-
environmental behaviour (PEB) by Kollmuss and Agyeman (2002): Pro-
environmental behaviour can be seen as a kind of behaviour that consciously seeks
to minimise a negative impact of one’s actions on the natural and built world.
Over the last 30 years, various environmental psychologists and
sociologists have attempted to discover the factors that impact PEB in household
settings. In order to find and describe these factors, different models were
developed. Several of them were developed many years ago, such as linear
progression, altruism, empathy, pro-social behaviour (Kollmuss and Agyeman,
2002). Recently, some sociological models with regard to community social
marketing (McKenzie-Mohr, 2000) and deliberate inclusionary procedures
(DIPS)(Jacqueline, 1999) were developed.
The problem with regard to the existing models is that these models were
applied to explain PEB in relation to households. There is a paucity of models
and literature explaining PEB exclusively in the workplace. In order to enhance
sustainable behaviour in the workplace, more research is needed to identify the
factors that encourage PEB in such areas. An employee spends about 1/3 of their

2
time in an office, so it would be beneficial for the natural and living environment
to also have a look at factors influencing PEB in the workplace. That information
can contribute significantly to minimize the negative impact of employee
behaviour. In this study, we focus on factors that have an impact on PEB in the
workplace in general and in universities in particular. Based on an extensive
literature review, we will identify factors determining PEB in the workplace.
Furthermore, we will propose a model in which these factors are linked to PEB,
which is subsequently tested on employees of Wageningen University and
Research Centre in the Netherlands (N=436) (hereafter Wageningen UR).
Wageningen UR is one of the leading environmental education
institutions in the Netherlands. In the ‘SustainaBul’ ranking, in which higher
education institutes are assessed and ranked based on their sustainability and
transparency, Wageningen UR was ranked number 1 for 2013. The domain of
Wageningen UR consists of three interconnected core areas: 1. food and food
production, 2. living environment and 3. health, lifestyle and livelihood. Apart
from these core areas, the tendency of Wageningen UR is to be an example in the
field of sustainability.
Based on the results of this study, managers are able to focus their efforts
on the specific factors that have a positive impact on PEB in the workplace in
general, and at sustainable universities in particular.

Theoretical framework
In the past decades, researchers have tried to explain the reasoning why some
individuals engage in PEB and others do not. Due to different scientific
backgrounds, most research tried to explain these reasons from different
perspectives. For example, the economists investigated external influences such
as having an income, price of the product or social-economic characteristics in
relation to behaviour (Kip Viscusi et al., 2011; Swami et al., 2011). On the other
hand, psychologists tended to examine internal or psychological variables
related to behaviour, such as values, beliefs and attitudes (De Groot and Steg,
2009; Kaiser et al., 1999; Nordlund and Garvill, 2002).
By means of a systematic literature review, Kollmuss and Agyeman
(2002) examined PEB models in order to explain why people act or do not act

3
pro-environmentally. They used pro-environmental consciousness to describe
the complex structure of factors and their link to PEB. Derived from their review
and other studies (Grob, 1991; Rioux, 2011; Schultz et al., 1995; Steg and Vlek,
2009), three groups of factors can be distinguished: 1) demographic factors, 2)
external factors, and 3) internal factors. These factors can often be found in
proposed models in literature, which try to explain the relation between a
combination of one or more of these factors and PEB. As it is expected that
demographic factors are not as important in the context of PEB in the workplace,
we focus on internal and external factors in this research.

Internal factors
In the PEB literature, several internal factors are identified as social factors
(social norms, personal norms), cognitive factors (environmental awareness,
intention to act, perceived behavioural control), and affective factors (values,
attitudes toward the environment).

A. Social factors
Social factors consist of social and personal norms. Norms can be defined as
individual expectations about a person’s behaviour in a particular social
situation (Schwartz and Leonard, 1977). The personal norms represent one’s
own beliefs on how to act. The social norms represent group-shared beliefs
about how members of the group should act and behave, which are perceived to
be enforceable through reward or punishment (Thøgersen 1999). If a social
norm exists for a certain behaviour, people will normally employ this behaviour
and perform it (Liebrand et al., 1992). Norms may help to understand why
people diverge from acting in their own self-interest, like in theories such as the
Norm-Activation theory (Schwartz and Leonard, 1977) and the Theory of
Planned Behaviour (Ajzen, 1991). The Norm-activation theory states that
personal norms are the only direct determinants of pro-social behaviours.
According the Theory of Planned Behaviour, the attitude toward behaviour,
subjective norms, and perceived behavioural control all together shape an
individual's behavioural intentions and behaviours.
With regard to PEB, Borgstede (2002) found that personal and social
norms are related to the expectations people have with regard to PEB. Similarly,

4
Nordlund and Garvill (2002) found that personal norms could be viewed as an
important general predisposition to act pro-environmentally. Various studies
have shown a positive correlation between PEB and personal and social norms
(Bamberg and Schmidt, 2003; Bratt, 1999; Fornara et al., 2011; Harland et al.,
2007, 1999; Matthies et al., 2012; Ramayah et al., 2012; Stern et al., 1999;
Thøgersen 1999).

B. Cognitive factors
The second group of internal factors concerns cognitive factors, which comprise
environmental awareness, the intention to act and perceived behavioural
control.
Environmental awareness can be seen as environmental knowledge and
the recognition of environmental problems (Grob, 1995). Consequently, it is
expected that the more people know about environmental problems, the more
PEB they will show (Becker, 1978; Borden and Schettino, 1979; Hines et al.,
1987; Katzev and Johnson, 1984). This relation is also confirmed by van Birgelen
et al. (2009) who concluded that eco-friendly purchase and disposal decisions
for beverages were positively related to the environmental awareness of
consumers and the eco-friendliness of their attitude.
The Theory of Planned Behaviour and Theory of Reasoned Action suggest
that the intention to act is determined by perceived behavioural control,
attitudes and subjective norms. The Theory of Reasoned Action states that
behavioural intentions are determined by a person’s attitudes and the social
pressure created by social norms, which can influence whether or not a certain
behaviour is performed. According to Ajzen and Fishbein (1980, 1991), the
intention to act is the strongest predictor of actual behaviour.
In the contexts of PEB in households, Mannetti et al. (2004) found that the
most important predictor of intentions to recycle is perceived behavioural
control. Klöckner and Oppedal (2011) reported similar results. The Theory of
Planned Behaviour was applied by Rioux (2011), who found a positive
correlation between battery collecting behaviour and intention to act. Similarly,
when applying this theory, Kaiser and Gutscher (2003) confirmed that perceived
behaviour control is a significant direct predictor of ecological behaviour. The

5
Theory of Planned Behaviour was used in this research for the development of a
theoretical model.

C. Affective factors
The last group of internal factors is described by values and attitudes toward the
environment. In recent years, various studies (de Groot and Steg, 2008; Schultz
and Zelezny, 1998; Stern, 1999) used Schwartz’s model of human values to
classify and assess values (Schwartz, 1994; Schwartz and Mark, 1992). The
model presents ten types of universal values that were then collated into four
larger super-groups: 1) openness to change, 2) conservatism, 3) self-
transcendence (altruism), and 4) self-enhancement. In general, people who are
interested in other people beyond their own social circle are more altruistic or
self-transcendent. Research shows that self-transcendent people show more PEB
than people without this category of values (Dietz et al., 1998; Karp, 1996; Stern
et al., 1999; Stern and Dietz, 1994). Altruistic or self-transcendent values were
found to have a positive effect on personal norms to behave pro-environmentally
and also directly on PEB (de Groot and Steg, 2008; Stern et al., 1999; Wall et al.,
2007). Karp (1996) found that self-transcendence and openness to change,
among others, are strong predictors of PEB. On the contrary, values related to
self-enhancement and conservation are strong negative predictors of PEB. In a
study by Rioux (2011) pro-environmental values (measured by statements on
protecting the environment, unity with nature and respecting the earth)
predicted young people’s behaviour of collecting used batteries.
With regard to PEB, Clark et al. (2003) showed that both altruism and
pro-environmental values might be necessary conditions to promote PEB.
Meinhold and Malkus, (2005) found that PEB attitudes significantly predicted
PEB. Barr and Gilg (2006) showed that environmentalists clearly have a positive,
confident and responsible attitude toward environmental protection.

External factors
The second group of factors on which we focus in this study are external factors.
PEB can be performed only if the required conditions and infrastructure are
available, such as boxes for recycling in the workplace, a setting in which

6
individual employees are allowed to regulate heating, or the possibility to buy
sustainable products. The external factors related to the workplace are
situational factors and leadership support.
Fliegenschnee and Schelakovsky (1998) concluded that situational factors
play a key role in determining PEB. The less possibilities available to behave pro-
environmentally, the less people are likely to show PEB. In recent research for
instance, it became clear that access to kerbside recycling bins is an important
situational factor with a positive impact on recycling behaviour (Derksen and
Gartrell, 1993; Guagnano et al., 1995; Klöckner and Oppedal, 2011). Similarly, in
a study on household waste management, Barr et al. (2001) defined situational
factors related to PEB as ‘’an individual’s circumstances at a given time,
represented by access to or knowledge and experience of waste management’’. It
is assumed therefore, that PEB should not be too difficult; the more easy it is to
perform in a pro-environmental way, the more likely it is that people will
perform PEB. This is confirmed by research by Borgstede (2002), who showed
that people co-operate more frequently in situations in which fewer obstacles
have to be overcome. The results of Fujii (2006) showed that perceived ease of
implementation will have a significant positive effect on intention for PEB.
Companies and organizations are controlled by management, thus
leadership can also be considered as an external factor. The effectiveness of
environmental management depends on leadership according to Ramus and
Steger (2000) and Egri and Herman (2000). Environmental leadership should be
provided by a company’s top management (Subhabrata Bobby et al., 2003) and
the middle management is likely to have a critical impact on employees’ attitudes
and behaviour (Andersson et al., 2005; Daily et al., 2008; Ramus and Steger,
2000). Nye and Hargreaves (2010) also supported the well-recognized
combination of social support, deliberation and feedback by managers. Yen and
Yen (2012) concluded in their study that leadership is the primary driver of a
firm’s success in adopting green purchasing standards. Robertson and Barling
(2012) found that leaders’ environmental descriptive norms, leadership and PEB
played an important role in the greening of organisations. The study showed that
the leaders influence their employees in the workplace by sharing values,

7
inspirational motivation, intellectual stimulation, and establishing a relationship
with their employees.
Based on our literature review, we identified the following factors which
may have an impact on PEB in the workplace (see figure 1). Based on our
conceptual model, we will answer the main research question of this article:
which internal and external factors have an impact on PEB in the workplace.

Figure 1 Conceptual model

Method
Procedure and participants
Data was collected from the employees of different departments of Wageningen
UR (N=436), including scientific (42.7%) and non-scientific staff members
(57.3 %). Wageningen UR is a relatively small university in the life sciences in the
Netherlands (about 7.900 students and 1.900 PhD students). The respondents
were invited by email to participate in this study. After excluding 18 incomplete
questionnaires, our sample was 436 respondents leaving for further data
analyses. The gender distribution of the sample was almost equal, 49.1 % women
and 51.8 % men. The age of the respondents ranged between 18 to 77 years old.
The level of education was relatively high as the study was conducted at a
university; 43.30 % had a master degree and 29.30 % had a doctoral degree.

8
Questionnaire
In the questionnaire, PEB and the internal and external factors where
operationalized in 75 questions, composed of six parts (see the appendix for the
questionnaire). The first part focused on questions on actual PEB in the
workplace. The questions aimed to capture the actual behaviour that can be
performed by the respondents in the offices and in relation to their work.
Therefore, the questions measured how often they do certain activities related to
recycling, heating, computer use, light use, printing and copying, drinking hot
beverages, commuting, and sustainable shopping. The answers were captured on
a scale from 1 representing Never up to 5 representing Always. The lowest
number indicated poor PEB and the highest the best possible. The number 6
indicated that there were no facilities or no possibilities available to perform
pro-environmental.
Two scales measured social and personal norms at work. The scales were
created based on the study by Borgstede (2002). The social norms at work
measured the expectation of others to behave pro-environmentally in the
workplace. The strength of the norms was assessed by a respondent’s agreement
or disagreement with statements related to the norms measured on a scale from
1 (=absolutely not) up to 5 (=absolutely). The higher numbers indicated a higher
expectation of others to behave pro-environmentally at work. The personal
norms measured the expectation of one’s own behaviour to behave pro-
environmentally. The agreement or disagreement was measured on the same
scale as the social norms.
The environmental awareness scale consisted of 12 questions. The scale
was created by Steg (1999) and applied in a study by Gatersleben et al. (2002).
The answers were captured on a five-point Likert scale. An average score
showed the level of environmental awareness ranging from 1 (low awareness) to
5 (high awareness).
The constructs related to TPB where measured in the following way. The
intention to act was measured by cognitive representation of the respondent’s
readiness to perform PEB in the coming month. The intention was captured on
the scale from 1=Strongly disagree to 5=Strongly agree. A low score indicates a
low intention and a high score suggests high intention to act pro-

9
environmentally. Perceived behavioural control referred to people's perceptions
of their ability to perform pro-environmentally. The respondents indicated an
agreement or disagreement whether they can perform PEB on a scale from
1=Strongly disagree to 5=Strongly agree. A high score shows high perceived
behaviour control. The situational factors measured the conditions to show PEB
in the workplace. The answers were measured on a scale from 1=Strongly
disagree to 5=Strongly agree. A high average score represents good conditions to
show PEB at work.
The values were measured by the Value Inventory Scale (Schwartz, 1994;
Schwartz and Mark, 1992, Nordlund and Garvill, 2002; Rioux, 2011; Stern et al.,
1999.) The opinionnaire measuring respondents values consisting of 17 items
was divided into five scales: Self-transcendence - Environmentalism (preventing
pollution, unity with nature, respecting the earth, protecting the environment),
Self-transcendence - Altruism (social justice, equality, a world of peace),
Conservatism (self-discipline, family security, honouring parents and elders),
Self-interest (influential, wealth, authority, social power), and Openness to
change (curious, a varied life, an exciting life). The answers were captured by
a 9-point Likert scale from -1 representing Opposed to my values up to 7,
representing Of supreme importance. The average score of each group indicated
the strength of the values.
The attitude toward PEB was measured by the degree to which behaving
pro-environmentally was positively or negatively valued. The researcher created
12 different statements related to PEB in the workplace to measure this attitude.
The scales ranged from 1=Strongly disagree to 5=Strongly agree. An average low
score indicates low attitude and a high score a positive attitude.
The situational factors measured whether the employer provides good
possibilities to show PEB. The answers were recorded on the scale from
1=Strongly disagree to 5=Strongly agree. The leadership factors represented the
support from the management and organisation to show PEB in the workplace.
The questions focused on the support from the boss/head of the department and
the employer by agreeing or disagreeing with various statements. The scale was
presented as 1=Absolutely not to 5=Absolutely. A high average score shows
better support in showing PEB.

10
Lastly, the respondents were asked to indicate their gender (male or female) and
exact age in years. The education level was indicated on the scale from the lowest
compulsory education level to doctoral degree. The employees were also asked
whether they work as supportive or scientific personnel.

Data analysis
Initially, a principal component analysis (PCA) with orthogonal rotation
(varimax) method was used to extract factors from the questions on PEB. The
factorability was examined by inter-item correlations in a correlation matrix,
anti-image correlation matrix diagonals, and measures of sampling adequacy
(MSAs) tested by Kaiser-Myer-Olkin (KMO) and Bartlett's test of sphericity. The
reliability of the scales was tested by Cronbach’s alpha’s to confirm good internal
correlation of each item in the scale.
To assess the overall fit of a model to the data, several measurements
were used. One of the most common measurements is χ2 (Chi-square value). Chi-
square statistic is applied as a descriptive index of fit, rather than as a statistical
test. The χ2 is significant in all cases, which suggest that the model is not
consistent with the observed data. This was no surprise, as χ2 is sensitive to the
size of the sample; we used alternative indexes to assess the model fit.
CMIN/DF is the minimum discrepancy, divided by its degrees of freedom,
which with radio χ2/df >2.00 represents inadequate fit (Byrne and Byrne, 1989).
In our case, the model showed the ratio 1.84, which indicates an adequate fit. The
next measurement was the comparative fit index – CFI (Bentler, 1990). CFI
values close to 1 indicate a very good fit. Our results showed CFI=.9, which
indicates a good fit to the data. The last extensively used measurement method is
the root mean square error of approximation (RMSA). Practical experience
showed that a value of the RMSEA of about .05 or less would indicate a close fit of
the model in relation to the degrees of freedom ((Browne et al., 1993). The test
showed RMSA equalled .045 which indicates a close fit to the data.

11
Results
To extract factors from the questions, first, some questions had to be excluded
due to poor statistical indicators. The final principal component analysis has
been conducted on 14 items (leaving 12 items out of the analysis concerning
recycling, computer usage and commuting) in order to yield factors. The Kaiser-
Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy verified that sampling adequacy for
the analysis, KMO .714 [“good“ according to Kaiser (1974)] and all KMO values
for individual items were >.559, which is above the acceptable limit of .5 (Field,
2009). Bartlett's Test of Sphericity χ (91)=405.23, p < .001, indicated that
correlations between items were sufficiently large for PCA. We can also conclude
that multicollinearity in these data is not a problem. An initial analysis was
conducted to obtain eigenvalues for each component in the data. Five
components had eigenvalues over Kaiser’s criterion of 1 and in combination
explained 66.31 % of the variance. For the purpose of this article, we have
chosen to report two components based on the highest Eigen values and
variance explained by PCA analysis. We describe pro-environmental behaviour
related to specific types of PEB, namely heating and printing.
The first scale measured PEB related to heating. The variance explained
was 26.18 % (Eigen value 3.67). The employees reported PEB heating M=2.80
(SD=1.43) on a scale from 1 to 5. The second scale measured PEB represented by
printing behaviour. The variance explained was 12.68 % (Eigen value 1.78). The
scale also showed a high mean of 3.9 (SD=1.04) on a scale from 1 to 5.
The results of the measured factors are shown in Table 1 with their mean
values, standard deviations and scale reliability (Cronbach's α).

12
Table 1 Mean values, standard deviations, and scale reliability (Cronbach's α) for the applied measures

M SD Cronbach’s α
Pro-environmental behaviour – heating 2.8b 1.43 .742
Pro-environmental behaviour – printing 3.9b 1.04 .718
Social norms 4.04b .64 794
Personal norms 4.11b .67 .817
Environmental awareness 3.89b .53 .86
Intention to act 3.65b .93 -
Perceived behavioural control 3.19b 1.06 -
Attitude toward PEB 3.74 b .84 .89
Self-transcendence - Altruistic 5.15a 1.18 .769
Self-transcendence - Altruistic - environmentalism 4.82a 1.28 .833
Conservatism 4.72a 1.18 .634
Self-interest 2.23a 1.27 .793
Openness to change 4.51a 1.24 .746
Situational factors 3.01b .89 -
Leadership boss 2.82b .72 .700
Leadership company 2.45b .85 .851
a Measured on a 9-point scale -1 to 7.
b. Measured on a 5 point scale 1 to 5.

The strength of social and personal norms were trapped by two different scales.
The social norm scale showed a significantly high average of 4.04 (SD=.64). The
employees also reported high personal norms of a total average of 4.11 (SD=.67).
Environmental awareness was found to have a mean score of 3.89 (SD=.53). This
score showed that the environmental awareness of the respondents is
exceptionally high. The employees reported relatively high intention to act 3.65
(SD=.93). Attitude toward PEB was high and positive 3.74 (SD=.84). Perceived
behavioural control scored very close to the mid-point of the scale 3.19
(SD=1.06) with a relatively high standard deviation.
The value scale self-transcendence – altruistic showed the highest
average score 5.15 (SD=1.18) with relatively high standard deviations. The
second highest was altruistic - environmentalism with the score 4.82 (SD=1.28)
and the third highest was conservatism with an average of 4.72 (SD=1.18).
Openness to change had an average score of 4.51 (SD=1.24). The last scale, self-
enhancement (measuring self-interest), showed a low mean score of 2.23
(SD=1.27). This score however, should be as low as possible as people interested
only in their own are not willing to sacrifice for others.
The situational factors reported a mean above a mid-point of 3.01
(SD=.89). The first scale on the leadership factors related directly to the
boss/head of the department. The score averaged at M=2.82 (SD=.72).

13
The second scale measured the leadership support related to a company (in our
case the university). The average score was slightly below average M=2.45
(SD=.85).
The estimated values and their significance can be seen in Figure 2 and
Figure 3 below. Each figure shows a model with the direct effects drawn by the
bold lines, and the indirect effects by the dashed lines. The lines without effects
were shaded.
Figure 2 shows the factors that have a significant impact on specific PEB
Heating related to heating. As can be seen, the behaviour is directly influenced by
values related to self-interested and environmental values, the intention to act
and perceived behaviour control. These factors are indirectly influenced by other
factors in the model.

Figure 2 The direct and indirect effects on heating (*p<.05,**p<.01, ***p<.001)

14
We can see from Figure 3 that different factors have a significant impact on PEB
related to printing: conservative and altruistic values, personal and social norms,
leadership support from the boss and perceived behavioural control. Compared
to Figure 2 and contrary to the Theory of Planned Behaviour, intention to act did
not have a significant effect on PEB Printing. .

Figure 3 The direct and indirect effects on printing (*p< .05,**p< .01, ***p< .001)

Discussion
This paper aimed to investigate which internal and external factors have an
impact on PEB in the workplace. The results suggest an overall pattern of
relations between values, intention to act and perceived behaviour control.
PEB Heating showed to be influenced directly by intention to act, perceived
behavioural control, environmental values and self-interest values. Intention to
act was mediated by personal and social norms, attitudes toward PEB,
environmental awareness and perceived behavioural control. Perceived
behaviour control was influenced by situational factors and leadership support
from a boss and company.
The second behaviour PEB Printing was mediated directly by personal
and social norms, perceived behavioural control, altruism and conservative
values and leadership. Leadership support provided by a boss and company had

15
an effect on perceived behavioural control. Compared to PEB Heating, intention
to act did not have any effect on PEB Printing, therefore all mediating effect on
intention to act did not mediate the factor.

The outcomes show a similarity the model of Theory of Planned

Behaviour (Ajzen, 1991) as an important variable to behavioural change. The
model of Theory of Planned Behaviour was applied in other studies to explain
PEB such as car use (Abrahamse et al., 2009; Bamberg and Schmidt, 2003; Wall
et al., 2007), the use of public transportation (Heath and Gifford, 2002), recycling
(Boldero, 1995; Mannetti et al., 2004), ecological behaviour (Kaiser et al., 1999;
Kaiser and Gutscher (2003), PEB (Oreg and Katz-Gerro, 2006). The previous
studies demonstrated the practicality of the model, nevertheless, the model
showed to be incomplete in explaining PEB as other factors were not included
e.g. situational factors and various psychological variables (see Theoretical
framework for details). Despite the broad application and validation of the TPB
model, our results suggest that the model is not entirely applicable for all types
of pro-environmental behaviours.
We can see that intention to act reportedly had a direct and significant
effect on PEB Heating, but did not show a significant effect on PEB Printing. This
factor was confirmed as a predictor of PEB in previous studies, which became
clear in the literature review (Gagnon Thompson and Barton, 1994). Intention to
act was strongly mediated by attitude toward PEB and environmental
awareness. Additionally, this factor was affected by social and personal norms,
and perceived behavioural control. The strongest moderating effects are caused
by attitude toward PEB and environmental awareness. Attitude toward PEB was
found as a predictor having an effect on PEB by Schultz and Oskamp (1996) and
Gatersleben et al. (2002). These factors should be supported in order to see an
increase of PEB.
Perceived behavioural control showed a low and negative relationship to
heating behaviour and a significantly low and positive relationship towards
printing. Perceived behavioural control was fairly mediated by situational factors
and leadership provided by the boss. The results confirm that situational factors
have an influence on PEB. Similarly to our results, Derksen and Gartrell (1993)
found that an access to recycling boxes was important to recycling behaviour.

16
 Leadership support provided by a boss showed a positive effect, however
leadership support provided by a company factor unexpectedly showed a
negative effect. Future research should deeply investigate the role of the
management.
Values related to environmental awareness showed a direct and positive
effect on PEB Heating. These results are in agreement with previous studies,
where environmental values were found as a factor influencing PEB (Kaiser et
al., 1999), (Gagnon Thompson and Barton, 1994), (Barr and Gilg, 2006).
Altruistic values showed a positive effect only on printing behaviour alongside
with a negative effect on conservative values. Similar results were found by
(Clark et al., 2003), Rioux (2011). The self-interest values had a direct negative
effect on heating. This negative effect could be caused when the person seeks
own comfortableness. Therefore, the person is not likely to sacrifice in order to
show PEB. The results also showed that values related to the environment can be
increased by environmental awareness and attitude toward PEB.
Social norms showed a direct and mild effect on PEB Printing. Other
people can see this behaviour; therefore it could be mediated by the norms. A
significant relationship between social identity and environmental behaviour
was also reported by Dono et al. (2010). Additionally, personal norms showed a
direct effect on printing behaviour. Harland et al. (1999) also found personal
norms as an important part of behaving pro-environmentally.
This study demonstrates the importance of ethical values, environmental
awareness, social and personal norms, situational factors, and leadership
support provided by a company and managers. By supporting these factors, the
changes in PEB in the workplace can be expected. These variables should be used
in designing tools to promote development, leading to the increase of PEB.
To conclude, pro-environmental behaviour in the workplace is broad and
should be measured in relation to different types of behaviours. The outcome of
this study showed that it is important to distinguish between specific types of
PEB in the workplace. The Theory of Planned Behaviour showed to be
important, however, there are other factors that should be focused on such as
values, environmental awareness, and leadership support from a boss and
company as well.

17
Recommendations for future research
Future research should focus on investigating different types of pro-
environmental behaviour in the workplace. It seems that one single PEB is not
applicable for the workplace, thus factors influencing difference kinds of
behaviour should be studied.
We measured the independent variables by either a single question or
one scale consisting of various items. This method, however, does not necessary
capture a whole measured construct, thus the explained variance might be lower.
Future studies should use more scales to measure one variable in order to
increase the variance explained by one construct.
Limitation of study
The first limitation of the study is that not all factors that may have an influence
on PEB were included in this study. Future studies should investigate additional
factors related to the workplace e.g. locus of control, perceived health treats.
The tested model was comprised of a higher number of independent
variables. These variables were chosen to show the complex relationships. The
analysis revealed that it is necessary to distinguish different behaviours (i.e.
heating and printing etc.) and the behaviours are necessary to be measured by
different scales. We need to mention that the data was collected by self-reported
questionnaires and there was no possibility to control the respondents’ answers.
The respondents may have indicated socially desired answers. The respondents
were asked to provide true answers as there was no possibility to track down
individual answers. Therefore, the respondents did not have to worry about
sanctions from the employer.

18
References
ABRAHAMSE, W., STEG, L., GIFFORD, R. & VLEK, C. 2009. Factors influencing car use for
commuting and the intention to reduce it: A question of self-interest or morality?
Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, 12, 317-324.
AJZEN, I. 1991. The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human
Decision Processes, 50, 179-211.
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, 295-305.
BAMBERG, S. & SCHMIDT, P. 2003. Incentives, Morality, Or Habit? Predicting Students’
Car Use for University Routes With the Models of Ajzen, Schwartz, and Triandis.
Environment and Behavior, 35, 264-285.
BARR, S. & GILG, A. 2006. Sustainable lifestyles: Framing environmental action in and
around the home. Geoforum, 37, 906-920.
BARR, S., GILG, A. W. & FORD, N. J. 2001. A conceptual framework for understanding and
analysing attitudes towards household-waste management. Environment and
Planning A, 33, 2025-2048.
BARR, S., SHAW, G. & COLES, T. 2011. Times for (Un)sustainability? Challenges and
opportunities for developing behaviour change policy. A case-study of consumers
at home and away. Global Environmental Change, 21, 1234-1244.
BECKER, L. J. 1978. Joint effect of feedback and goal setting on performance: a field study
of residential energy conservation. Journal Name: J. Appl. Psychol.; (United States);
Journal Volume: 63:4, Medium: X; Size: Pages: 428-433.
BENTLER, P. 1990. Comparative fit indices in structural models. Psychological Bulletin,
pages 238–246.
BOLDERO, J. 1995. The Prediction of Household Recycling of Newspapers: The Role of
Attitudes, Intentions, and Situational Factors1. Journal of Applied Social
Psychology, 25, 440-462.
BORDEN, R. J. & SCHETTINO, A. P. 1979. Determinants of Environmentally Responsible
Behavior. Journal of Environmental Education, 10, 35-39.
BORGSTEDE, C. V. B., ANDERS 2002. Pro-Environmental Behaviour: Situational Barriers
and Concern for the Good at Stake. Göteborg Psychological Reports, 32.
BRATT, C. 1999. The Impact of Norms and Assumed Consequences on Recycling
Behavior. Environment and Behavior, 31, 630-656.
BROWNE, M. W., CUDECK, R., BOLLEN, K. A. & LONG, J. S. 1993. Alternative ways of
assessing model fit. Sage Focus Editions, 154, 136-136.
BYRNE, B. M. & BYRNE, B. M. 1989. A primer of LISREL: Basic applications and
programming for confirmatory factor analytic models, Springer-Verlag New York.
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, 237-246.
COTTRELL, S. P. & GRAEFE, A. R. 1997. Testing a Conceptual Framework of Responsible
Environmental Behavior. The Journal of Environmental Education, 29, 17-27.
DAILY, B. F., BISHOP, J. W. & GOVINDARAJULU, N. 2008. A Conceptual Model for
Organizational Citizenship Behavior Directed Toward the Environment. Business
& Society.
DE GROOT, J. I. M. & STEG, L. 2008. Value Orientations to Explain Beliefs Related to
Environmental Significant Behavior. Environment and Behavior, 40, 330-354.

19
DE GROOT, J. I. M. & STEG, L. 2009. Mean or green: which values can promote stable pro-
environmental behavior? Conservation Letters, 2, 61-66.
DERKSEN, L. & GARTRELL, J. 1993. The Social Context of Recycling. American
Sociological Review, 58, 434-442.
DIETZ, T., STERN, P. C. & GUAGNANO, G. A. 1998. Social Structural and Social
Psychological Bases of Environmental Concern. Environment and Behavior, 30,
450-471.
DOLNICAR, S. & GRUN, B. 2009. Environmentally Friendly Behavior. Environment and
Behavior, 41, 693-714.
DONO, J., WEBB, J. & RICHARDSON, B. 2010. The relationship between environmental
activism, pro-environmental behaviour and social identity. Journal of
Environmental Psychology, 30, 178-186.
DUNLAP, R. E., VAN LIERE, K. D 1978. The “new environmental paradigm”: A proposed
measuring instrument and preliminary results. Journal of Environmental
Education, 9(1) 10-19.
EGRI, C. P. & HERMAN, S. 2000. Leadership in the North American Environmental Sector:
Values, Leadership Styles, and Contexts of Environmental Leaders and Their
Organizations. The Academy of Management Journal, 43, 571-604.
FLIEGENSCHNEE, M. & SCHELAKOVSKY, A. 1998. Umweltpsychologie und
Umweltbildung: eine Einführung aus humanökologischer Sicht, Facultas-Univ.-Verl.
FORNARA, F., CARRUS, G., PASSAFARO, P. & BONNES, M. 2011. Distinguishing the
sources of normative influence on proenvironmental behaviors. Group Processes
& Intergroup Relations, 14, 623-635.
FUJII, S. 2006. Environmental concern, attitude toward frugality, and ease of behavior as
determinants of pro-environmental behavior intentions. Journal of Environmental
Psychology, 26, 262-268.
GAGNON THOMPSON, S. C. & BARTON, M. A. 1994. Ecocentric and anthropocentric
attitudes toward the environment. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 14, 149-
157.
GATERSLEBEN, B., STEG, L. & VLEK, C. 2002. Measurement and Determinants of
Environmentally Significant Consumer Behavior. Environment and Behavior, 34,
335-362.
GROB, A. 1991. Meinung, Verhalten, Umwelt : ein psychologisches Ursachennetz-Modell
umweltgerechten Verhaltens, Bern; New York, P. Lang.
GROB, A. 1995. A structural model of environmental attitudes and behaviour. Journal of
Environmental Psychology, 15, 209-220.
GUAGNANO, G. A., STERN, P. C. & DIETZ, T. 1995. Influences on Attitude-Behavior
Relationships. Environment and Behavior, 27, 699-718.
HARDS, S. 2012. Tales of transformation: The potential of a narrative approach to pro-
environmental practices. Geoforum, 43, 760-771.
HARLAND, P., STAATS, H. & WILKE, H. A. M. 1999. Explaining Proenvironmental
Intention and Behavior by Personal Norms and the Theory of Planned Behavior1.
Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 29, 2505-2528.
HARLAND, P., STAATS, H. & WILKE, H. A. M. 2007. Situational and Personality Factors as
Direct or Personal Norm Mediated Predictors of Pro-environmental Behavior:
Questions Derived From Norm-activation Theory. Basic and Applied Social
Psychology, 29, 323-334.
HEATH, Y. & GIFFORD, R. 2002. Extending the theory of planned behavior: Predicting the
use of public transportation. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 32, 2154-2189.

20
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, 1 - 8.
JACQUELINE, O. R. T. B. 1999. Deliberative and inclusionary processes Norwich: CSERGE,
School of Environmental Sciences.
KAISER, F. G. & GUTSCHER, H. 2003. The proposition of a general version of the theory of
planned behavior: Predicting ecological behavior. Journal of Applied Social
Psychology, 33, 586-603.
KAISER, F. G., WÖLFING, S. & FUHRER, U. 1999. Environmental attitude and ecological
behaviour. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 19, 1-19.
KAISER, H. 1974. An index of factorial simplicity. Psychometrika, 39, 31-36.
KARP, D. G. 1996. Values and their Effect on Pro-Environmental Behavior. Environment
and Behavior, 28, 111-133.
KATZEV, R. D. & JOHNSON, T. R. 1984. Comparing the Effects of Monetary Incentives and
Foot-in-the-Door Strategies in Promoting Residential Electricity Conservation.
Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 14, 12-27.
KIP VISCUSI, W., HUBER, J. & BELL, J. 2011. Promoting recycling: Private values, social
norms, and economic incentives. American Economic Review, 101, 65-70.
KLÖCKNER, C. A. & OPPEDAL, I. O. 2011. General vs. domain specific recycling behaviour‚
Applying a multilevel comprehensive action determination model to recycling in
Norwegian student homes. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 55, 463-471.
KOLLMUSS, A. & AGYEMAN, J. 2002. Mind the Gap: Why do people act environmentally
and what are the barriers to pro-environmental behavior? Environmental
Education Research, 8, 239 - 260.
LEHMAN, P. K. & GELLER, E. S. 2004. Behavior analysis and environmental protection:
Accomplishments and potential for more. Behavior and Social Issues, 13, 13-32.
LIEBRAND, W. B. G., MESSICK, D. M. & WILKE, H. A. M. Social dilemmas : theoretical
issues and research findings. 1992 1992 Oxford; New York. Pergamon Press.
MALONEY, M. P. & WARD, M. P. 1973. Ecology: Let's hear from the people: An objective
scale for the measurement of ecological attitudes and knowledge. American
Psychologist, 28, 583-586.
MANNETTI, L., PIERRO, A. & LIVI, S. 2004. Recycling: Planned and self-expressive
behaviour. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 24, 227-236.
MATTHIES, E., SELGE, S. & KLöCKNER, C. A. 2012. The role of parental behaviour for
the development of behaviour specific environmental norms ‚The example of
recycling and re-use behaviour. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 32, 277-
284.
MCKENZIE-MOHR, D. 2000. New Ways to Promote Proenvironmental Behavior:
Promoting Sustainable Behavior: An Introduction to Community-Based Social
Marketing. Journal of Social Issues, 56, 543-554.
MEINHOLD, J. L. & MALKUS, A. J. 2005. Adolescent Environmental Behaviors.
Environment and Behavior, 37, 511-532.
MILFONT, T. L. & DUCKITT, J. 2004. The structure of environmental attitudes: A first-
and second-order confirmatory factor analysis. Journal of Environmental
Psychology, 24, 289-303.
MILFONT, T. L. & SIBLEY, C. G. 2012. The big five personality traits and environmental
engagement: Associations at the individual and societal level. Journal of
Environmental Psychology, 32, 187-195.

21
MILFONT, T. L., WILSON, J. & DINIZ, P. 2012. Time perspective and environmental
engagement: A meta-analysis. International Journal of Psychology, 47, 325-334.
MOBLEY, C. & KILBOURNE, W. 2012. Gender Differences in Pro-Environmental
Intentions: A Cross-National Perspective on the Influence of Self-Enhancement
Values and Views on Technology*. Sociological Inquiry, no-no.
NORDLUND, A. M. & GARVILL, J. 2002. Value structures behind proenvironmental
behavior. Environment and Behavior, 34, 740-756.
NYE, M. & HARGREAVES, T. 2010. Exploring the Social Dynamics of Proenvironmental
Behavior Change. Journal of Industrial Ecology, 14, 137-149.
OREG, S. & KATZ-GERRO, T. 2006. Predicting Proenvironmental Behavior Cross-
Nationally. Environment and Behavior, 38, 462-483.
OSBALDISTON, R. & SCHOTT, J. P. 2012. Environmental Sustainability and Behavioral
Science. Environment and Behavior, 44, 257-299.
PAPAGIANNAKIS, G. & LIOUKAS, S. 2012. Values, attitudes and perceptions of managers
as predictors of corporate environmental responsiveness. Journal of
Environmental Management, 100, 41-51.
RAMAYAH, T., LEE, J. W. C. & LIM, S. 2012. Sustaining the environment through
recycling: An empirical study. Journal of Environmental Management, 102, 141-
147.
RAMUS, C. A. & STEGER, U. 2000. The Roles of Supervisory Support Behaviors and
Environmental Policy in Employee "Ecoinitiatives" at Leading-Edge European
Companies. The Academy of Management Journal, 43, 605-626.
RIOUX, L. 2011. Promoting pro-environmental behaviour: collection of used batteries by
secondary school pupils. Environmental Education Research, 17, 353 - 373.
ROBERTSON, J. L. & BARLING, J. 2012. Greening organizations through leaders' influence
on employees' pro-environmental behaviors. Journal of Organizational Behavior,
n/a-n/a.
SCHULTZ, P. W. & OSKAMP, S. 1996. Effort as a Moderator of the Attitude-Behavior
Relationship: General Environmental Concern and Recycling. Social Psychology
Quarterly, 59, 375-383.
SCHULTZ, P. W., OSKAMP, S. & MAINIERI, T. 1995. Who recycles and when? A review of
personal and situational factors. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 15, 105-
121.
SCHULTZ, P. W. & ZELEZNY, L. C. 1998. Values and proenvironmental behavior a five-
country survey. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 29, 540-558.
SCHWARTZ, S. H. 1994. Are There Universal Aspects in the Structure and Contents of
Human Values? Journal of Social Issues, 50, 19-45.
SCHWARTZ, S. H. & LEONARD, B. 1977. Normative Influences on Altruism. Advances in
Experimental Social Psychology. Academic Press.
SCHWARTZ, S. H. & MARK, P. Z. 1992. Universals in the Content and Structure of Values:
Theoretical Advances and Empirical Tests in 20 Countries. Advances in
Experimental Social Psychology. Academic Press.
SPENCE, A. & PIDGEON, N. 2009. Psychology, Climate Change & Sustainable Bahaviour.
Environment: Science and Policy for Sustainable Development, 51, 8-18.
STEG, L. 1999. Verspilde energie? [Wasted energy?]. (SCP Report No. 126). The Hague,
the Netherlands:: Social and Cultural Planning Office of the Netherlands.
STEG, L. & VLEK, C. 2009. Encouraging pro-environmental behaviour: An integrative
review and research agenda. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 29, 309-317.

22
STERN, P. C. 1999. Information, Incentives, and Proenvironmental Consumer Behavior.
Journal of Consumer Policy, 22, 461-478.
STERN, P. C. & DIETZ, T. 1994. The Value Basis of Environmental Concern. Journal of
Social Issues, 50, 65-84.
STERN, P. C., DIETZ, T., ABEL, T., GUAGNANO, G. A. & KALOF, L. 1999. A value-belief-
norm theory of support for social movements: The case of environmentalism.
Human Ecology Review, 6, 81-97.
SUBHABRATA BOBBY, B., IYER, E. S. & KASHYAP, R. K. 2003. Corporate
Environmentalism: Antecedents and Influence of Industry Type. The Journal of
Marketing, 67, 106-122.
SWAMI, V., CHAMORRO-PREMUZIC, T., SNELGAR, R. & FURNHAM, A. 2011. Personality,
individual differences, and demographic antecedents of self-reported household
waste management behaviours. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 31, 21-26.
THØGERSEN , J. 1999. The Ethical Consumer. Moral Norms and Packaging Choice.
Journal of Consumer Policy, 22, 439-460.
VAN BIRGELEN, M., SEMEIJN, J. & KEICHER, M. 2009. Packaging and Proenvironmental
Consumption Behavior. Environment and Behavior, 41, 125-146.
WALL, R., DEVINE-WRIGHT, P. & MILL, G. A. 2007. Comparing and Combining Theories
to Explain Proenvironmental Intentions. Environment and Behavior, 39, 731-753.
WEIGEL, R. & WEIGEL, J. 1978. Environmental Concern: the development of measure.
Environment and Behavior, 10, 3-15.
YEN, Y.-X. & YEN, S.-Y. 2012. Top-management's role in adopting green purchasing
standards in high-tech industrial firms. Journal of Business Research, 65, 951-959.

23
Appendix
Response
Concept Survey Question (Variable)
Categories
Please indicate how you use the heating in your office. 1 = Never
 I check whether thermostats are set correctly in my office. (Note: the 2 = Rarely
optimal setting is minimum 16 degrees - maximum 19 degrees). 3 =Sometimes
 I wear more clothes instead of putting the heating on. 4 = Often
 I make sure that heating is off or reduced outside working hours. 5 = Always
 I reduce heating in unused rooms. 6 = N/A (no
Pro- facilities for
environmental influencing the
behaviour heating)
How often do you do following activities related to printing and copying at work. 1 = Never
 I print double-sided. 2 = Rarely
 I copy double-sided. 3 =Sometimes
 I try to get as much as possible on one sheet (e.g. by using narrow margins 4 = Often
or printing two pages on one A4 sheet). 5 = Always
6 = N/A
Please indicate whether you agree/disagree with the following statements. 1 = Strongly
 I’m in favour of behaving pro-environmentally in the workplace. disagree
 I think it’s a good idea for Wageningen UR as an employer to support the 2 = Disagree
pro-environmental behaviour in the workplace. 3 = Neutral
 The pro-environmental behaviour in the workplace is important to me. 4 = Agree
 I think too much attention is paid to the pro-environmental behaviour in 5 = Strongly
the workplace. (R) agree
 I think the pro-environmental behaviour in the workplace do good.
 I would like to have more recycling facilities.
Attitude toward  I want to be informed about the environmental impact of my behaviour at
PEB work.
 I want to be informed about the environmental policy of the
department/science group.
 I would like to learn environmental friendly behaviour at work.
 I would appreciate supervisory support for the environmental effort of the
employees.
 I want to be informed about the costs and amount of the
energy/water/paper used by my department/science group.
 I would like to be informed about projects on sustainability at Wageningen
UR.
Please rate to what extent these values are a guiding principle in your life: - 1 = opposed
Altruistic (self-transcendence) to my values
 Social justice (correcting injustice, care for the weak) 0 = not
 Preventing pollution (conserving natural resources) important
 Equality (equal opportunity for all) 1=
 Unity with nature (fitting into nature) 2=
 A world of peace (free of war and conflict) 3 = Important
 Respecting the earth (harmony with other species) 4=
 Protecting the environment (preserving nature) 5=
Traditional/Conservatism: 6 = Very
Values important
 Self-discipline (self-restraint, resistance to temptations)
7 = of supreme
 Family security (safety for loved ones)
importance
 Honouring parents and elders (showing respect)
Self-interest (self-enhancement):
 Influential (having an impact on people and events)
 Wealth (material possessions, money)
 Authority (the right to lead or command)
 Social power (control over others, dominance)
Openness to change:
 Curious (interested in everything, exploring)
 A varied life (filled with challenge, novelty and change)
 An exciting life (stimulating experiences)

24
  I am going to behave pro-environmentally in the coming month to reduce my 1 = Strongly
impact on the environment (e.g. by turning off the computer, printing less, disagree
using a mug etc.) 2 = Disagree
3 = Neutral
Intention to act
4 = Agree
5 = Strongly
agree

Please indicate whether you agree/disagree with the following statements. 1 = Strongly
 Environmental pollution affects my health disagree
 Environmental problems have consequences for my life 2 = Disagree
 I worry about environmental problems 3 = Neutral
 I can see with my own eyes that environment is deteriorating 4 = Agree
Environmental  Environmental problems are a risk for the future of my children 5 = Strongly
awareness  Environmental problems are exaggerated. (R) agree
 Too much attention is paid to environmental problems. (R)
 The attention given to the greenhouse effect is exaggerated. (R)
 Saving threatened species in unnecessary luxury. (R)
 I am optimistic about the environmental quality in the future. (R)
 A better environment starts with me.
 People who do not take the environment into account try to escape their
responsibility
What in your opinion should your colleagues do at work? 1 = Absolutely
 Print double-sided? not
Social norms at  Copy double-sided?
work  Recycle paper? 5 = Absolutely
 Turn off the computer/notebook when not in use?
 Arrange a telephone or video-conference instead of traveling to a business
meeting?
What do you think you have to do at work? 1 = Absolutely
 Print double-sided? not
Personal norms  copy double-sided?
 Recycle paper? 5 = Absolutely
 Turn off the computer/notebook when not in use?
 Arrange a telephone or video-conference instead of traveling to a business
meeting?
1 = Strongly
disagree
Perceived 2 = Disagree
 Whether I perform pro-environmentally is entirely up to me.
behavioural 3 = Neutral
control 4 = Agree
5 = Strongly
agree
1 = Strongly
disagree
 Wageningen UR as an employer provides good possibilities to show the pro- 2 = Disagree
Situational
environmental behaviour. 3 = Neutral
factors
4 = Agree
5 = Strongly
agree
Please indicate your agreement/disagreement with the following statements about 1 = Absolutely
the employer. not
 I show the pro-environmental behaviour, when my boss/head of the 2=
department behaves pro-environmentally in the workplace. 3=
 It is important to me that my boss/head of the department shows the pro- 4=
Leadership environmental behaviour at work. 5= Absolutely
boss  Seeing my boss/head of the department acting pro-environmentally
influences my own acting.

25
 1 = Absolutely
 My boss/head of the department supports me in showing pro- not
environmental behaviour at work. 2=
 My employer informs me about the environmental impact of my behaviour 3=
at work. 4=
 My employer informs me about projects on sustainability at Wageningen 5= Absolutely
Leadership UR.
company  My employer informs me about environmental policy of my
department/science group.
 I learn environmental friendly behaviour at work.
 There is a supervisory support for the environmental effort of the
employees.
 My boss/head of the department shows the pro-environmental behaviour
at work.

Based on the nature of this research, I would like to know your gender, age, education level, employment and
nationality.
The answers will allow me to find and describe differences between groups based on these attributes and explain
why some people behave pro-environmentally and some not.
 Gender Male
Gender
Female
 What is your age? Fill-in-the-
Age blank
number
 What is your highest education level? Less than high
school
graduate
High school
graduate or
equivalent
Specialized/Vo
cational/Techn
Education
ical training
(MBO)
Bachelor
degree (HBO)
Master's
degree
Doctoral
Degree
 Which kind of employment do you have in your department? Supportive
personnel
Employment Scientific
personnel

26
 Part II

Master thesis report

Pro-environmental behaviour in the workplace

MICRO2 Project - Sustainable employee

Pro-environmental behaviour
in the workplace

A Study Conducted Cooperatively by:

 Wageningen University & Research Centre
Department of Social Sciences
Management Studies Group

MICRO2 project - Sustainable employee

Pro-environmental behaviour in the

workplace

Student: Oldrich Studynka

870120-815-200
Supervisors: Dr. R Wesselink
Dr. V Blok
Commissioners: Mr. JGH Peeters
Ir. CJH van Kreij
MSc programme: MME - Management, Economics and Consumer Studies
Specialization Management Studies
Thesis code: MST- 80433
 Preface
This thesis is an outcome of a research project with the aim of completing my
master’s studies of Management, Economics, and Consumer studies with the
specialisation Management at Wageningen University, The Netherlands.
Hereby I would like to thank my commissioners Mr. JGH Peeters and Ir. CJH
van Kreij for giving me the opportunity to work on this thrilling topic about pro-
environmental behaviour. Secondly, I would like to thank and express my gratitude
to my supervisors Dr. Renate Wesselink and Dr. Vincent Blok for their valuable
comments, guidance and support. They also made it possible for me to attend a
conference in Istanbul which I am extremely grateful for. I would like to thank Ron
Kemp from Management department for his help and advice with a model
development and testing. My thanks also belong to Ing. HWA Houweling from Social
Sciences Group for his comments and Ir. EH Maters from Environmental Sciences
Group for providing her comments and a questionnaire as a starting point and
inspiration for my questionnaire. To both of them I want to thank for making it
possible to send out the questionnaire in their sciences groups. The study would not
be possible without all participants in a pilot study and their comments. I would like
to thank all the respondents who spend time on filling my questionnaire out. I also
appreciate support from my family and friends through difficult times. They always
gave me hope for the future and believed in my work and skills.
By conducting this research I have learnt a lot about research and pro-
environmental behaviour. Additionally I found new unseen abilities and skills in
myself.

Oldrich Studynka,
Wageningen, July 2013

i
 Management summary
Wageningen University and Research Centre is attempting to reduce the
environmental impact of its employees. Thus, Wageningen UR will become more
sustainable. This study is conducted for Sustainable employee taskforce. One of
the goals of Sustainable employee group is to encourage sustainable behaviour
on the micro level – the employees of Wageningen UR. Therefore, the MICRO2
project was drawn up to put sustainability in practice. The goal of MICRO2 is to
make both employees and management aware of the environmental impact, and
to support pro-environmental behaviour (PEB) in the workplace.
The research objective was to identify factors that have an impact on pro-
environmental behaviour in the workplace, and establish their relationship in
relation to PEB. The aim of this study was to eliminate the gap in existing
knowledge of pro-environmental behaviour in the workplace through literature
review and empirical study. This brought new knowledge toward understanding
the complexity of pro-environmental behaviour in the workplace. Many models
have been developed, nonetheless, these models were applied to explain pro-
environmental behaviour in relation to the households. The models and
literature explain exclusively pro-environmental behaviour in the workplace is
lacking, thus more research is needed to identify factors allowing the
encouragement of this behaviour. The lack of knowledge about pro-
environmental behaviour in the workplace gave a good starting point to bring
new knowledge by conducting this study.
The literature study revealed three main groups of factors that are likely to
influence pro-environmental behaviour in the workplace – demographic, external
and internal. The demographic factors included the following: gender, age,
education, and ethnic origin. The externals factors were related to situational
factors, and namely provided facilities for performing pro-environmental
behaviour and leadership support. Lastly, the internal factors were described as
social factors (social norms, personal norms), cognitive factors (environmental
awareness, intention to act, perceived behavioural control), and affective factors
(values, attitude toward the pro-environmental behaviour).
The data was collected by an online questionnaire. The employees were
contacted by email and asked to participate in this study. The online
questionnaire provided a short description of the project and aim of the study.
The total number of completed questionnaires for this study was 436.
The initial analysis described the sample by gender, age, place of living,
nationality, education, place of work and scientific group. The scales were
determined and tested for their reliability. Principal component analysis was
applied on questions related to pro-environmental behaviour. Firstly, five scales
were created, however only four scale showed acceptable reliability. Pro-
environmental behaviours were analysed in relation to heating, printing,
sustainable purchasing and drinking hot beverages. A conceptual model was
tested for its fit of data with significant outcomes. The path model test showed
the relationships between the factors and pro-environmental behaviours. The
employees reported good pro-environmental behaviour in relation to heating,
energy use, printing, sustainable purchasing and drinking hot beverages. Attitude

ii
toward PEB, values, intention to act, perceived behavioural control, situational
factors, environmental awareness, and social and personal norms showed
satisfactory scores. Leadership support from a boss and company was slightly
lower than expected.
The conclusion and recommendations are divided into two parts: scientific and
recommendations for Wageningen UR.
The results showed an overall pattern of relationships between values, intention
to act and perceived behavioural control. In general, the pro-environmental
behaviours related to heating, drinking, sustainable buying, and printing were
directly affected by perceived behaviour control, values, intention to act social
and personal norms, environmental awareness and leadership from a boss.
Intention to act was moderated by attitude toward PEB, perceived behavioural
control, social and personal norms. The moderators of perceived behavioural
control were situational factors, and leadership provided by a company and also
a boss. The study showed an important role of values, environmental awareness,
social and personal norms, situational factors, and leadership support provided
by a company and managers. These factors should be endorsed in order to see
more pro-environmental behaviour in the workplace.
Wageningen UR should provide more recycling facilities for the employees
especially for glass, plastic bottles, batteries and chemical office waste. A
considerably low number of the employees strongly agreed that current facilities
for recycling are sufficient. The work setting in many cases does not allow
employees to regulate temperature and light, therefore the possibility to
behave pro-environmentally is limited. Additionally, they cannot change the
settings according to their own needs and comfort. The computer energy use can
also be decreased by encouraging the employees to turn off or hibernate the
computers when they are not needed. Similarly, employees should be
encouraged to print and copy double sided, and print as much as possible on one
sheet and read documents on computers in order to lower paper use. Drinking
hot beverages, buying sustainable and bio food have some room for
improvements. The employees should use plastic cups less and use a mug
instead. A fair number of employees take a cup each time or often when they
drink hot beverages. The mug can be rinsed by cold water to endorse
sustainability. The results showed that the employees have really limited options
to buy bio and sustainable products in the workplace. The employees use
significantly often cars to get to work as they live far from the workplace.
However, they can share cars with other employees and students. Additionally,
they can be supported to use public transport to get to work or meetings and
conferences.

iii
 Table of Contents
1. Introduction ..................................................................................................... 9
1.1. CONCEPTUAL DESIGN .................................................................................................................. 10
1.1.1. Research objective........................................................................................................ 10
1.1.2. Research issues............................................................................................................. 11

2. Literature review............................................................................................ 12
2.1. PRO-ENVIRONMENTAL BEHAVIOUR ................................................................................................ 12
2.1.1. Defining pro-environmental behaviour ........................................................................ 12
2.1.2. Steps in changing pro-environmental behaviour ......................................................... 12
2.1.3. Measuring pro-environmental behaviour .................................................................... 13
2.2. LIMITATIONS OF SELF-REPORTED BEHAVIOUR ................................................................................... 14
2.3. SPILL OVER EFFECT OF PRO-ENVIRONMENTAL BEHAVIOUR .................................................................. 15
2.4. FACTORS INFLUENCING PRO-ENVIRONMENTAL BEHAVIOUR ................................................................. 15
2.4.1. Models of PEB .............................................................................................................. 15
2.4.2. Demographic factors .................................................................................................... 18
2.4.3. External factors ............................................................................................................ 20
2.4.4. Internal factors ............................................................................................................. 22
2.5. THEORETICAL MODEL .................................................................................................................. 26

3. Methodology ................................................................................................. 28
3.1. RESEARCH DESIGN ...................................................................................................................... 28
3.1.1. Research strategy and data collection ......................................................................... 28
a) Desk research ............................................................................................................... 28
b) Method of data collection ............................................................................................ 28
3.1.2. Sample .......................................................................................................................... 29
3.2. OPERATIONALISATION OF THE THEORETICAL MODEL .......................................................................... 29
3.2.1. Dependent variable ...................................................................................................... 29
3.2.2. Independent variables .................................................................................................. 31
3.3. QUESTIONNAIRE ADMINISTRATION ................................................................................................ 37
3.4. RELIABILITY AND VALIDITY ............................................................................................................ 37

4. Results ........................................................................................................... 38
4.1. DESCRIPTION OF THE SAMPLE ....................................................................................................... 38
4.1.1. Gender .......................................................................................................................... 38
4.1.2. Age ............................................................................................................................... 38
4.1.3. Place of living ............................................................................................................... 39
4.1.4. Nationality.................................................................................................................... 39
4.1.5. Education ..................................................................................................................... 39
4.1.6. Buildings ....................................................................................................................... 40
4.1.7. Type of employment..................................................................................................... 40
4.1.8. Science group ............................................................................................................... 41
4.2. MODEL DEVELOPMENT AND TESTING ............................................................................................. 41
4.2.1. Scale development and testing .................................................................................... 41
4.2.2. Principal component analysis ....................................................................................... 41
4.2.3. Pro-environmental behaviour ...................................................................................... 43
a) Heating ......................................................................................................................... 43
b) Energy .......................................................................................................................... 43
c) Printing ......................................................................................................................... 43
d) Sustainable purchasing ................................................................................................ 44
e) Drinking hot beverages ................................................................................................ 44
4.2.4. Attitude toward PEB ..................................................................................................... 44
4.2.5. The value opinionaire (brief inventory of values) ......................................................... 45
4.2.6. Intention to act ............................................................................................................. 46

iv
 4.2.7. Perceived behavioural control ...................................................................................... 46
4.2.8. Situational factors ........................................................................................................ 46
4.2.9. Environmental awareness ............................................................................................ 46
4.2.10. Social and personal norms at work .............................................................................. 47
4.2.11. Leadership .................................................................................................................... 48
4.3. PATH MODEL ............................................................................................................................ 50
4.3.1. Model fit and estimates ............................................................................................... 50

5. Discussion ...................................................................................................... 54
6. Conclusion and recommendations ................................................................. 56
References ............................................................................................................ 58
List of Appendices ................................................................................................. 66
I. Email invitation sent to the employees .............................................................. 67
II. English version of the cover page and MICRO2 introduction ............................. 68
III. English version of the questionnaire ................................................................ 70
IV. Dutch version of the cover page and MICRO2 introduction .............................. 74
V. Dutch version of the questionnaire ................................................................... 76
VI. Additional information for Wageningen UR ..................................................... 80
A. PRO-ENVIRONMENTAL BEHAVIOUR IN RELATION TO RECYCLING ............................................................... 80
a) Paper ............................................................................................................................ 80
b) Glass ............................................................................................................................. 80
c) Plastic bottles ............................................................................................................... 81
d) Batteries ....................................................................................................................... 81
e) Chemical office waste .................................................................................................. 82
B. PRO-ENVIRONMENTAL BEHAVIOUR IN RELATION TO HEATING .................................................................. 83
f) Thermostats ................................................................................................................. 83
g) Clothes.......................................................................................................................... 83
h) Heating off or reduced outside working hours ............................................................. 84
i) Heating in unused ........................................................................................................ 84
C. PRO-ENVIRONMENTAL BEHAVIOUR IN RELATION TO COMPUTERS ............................................................. 85
j) Computer off – leaving office ....................................................................................... 85
k) Computer off – going home ......................................................................................... 86
D. PRO-ENVIRONMENTAL BEHAVIOUR IN RELATION TO LIGHTS ..................................................................... 86
l) Switching on lights morning – evening ........................................................................ 87
m) Switching off – leaving office ....................................................................................... 87
E. PRO-ENVIRONMENTAL BEHAVIOUR IN RELATION TO PRINTING ................................................................. 88
n) Printing double sided.................................................................................................... 88
o) Copying double-sided ................................................................................................... 88
p) Printing on one sheet ................................................................................................... 89
q) Reading digital versions of documents......................................................................... 89
F. PRO-ENVIRONMENTAL BEHAVIOUR IN RELATION TO DRINKING HOT BEVERAGES, BUYING SUSTAINABLE AND BIO
FOOD 90
r) Using a mug ................................................................................................................. 90
s) Washing a mug ............................................................................................................ 90
t) Taking a plastic cup and reusing .................................................................................. 91
u) Taking a new cup each time ......................................................................................... 91
v) Bio food ........................................................................................................................ 92
w) Buying sustainable ....................................................................................................... 92
G. PRO-ENVIRONMENTAL BEHAVIOUR IN RELATION TO COMMUTING ............................................................ 93

v
 x) Commuting by car ........................................................................................................ 93
y) Commuting by bike ...................................................................................................... 94
z) Walking to work ........................................................................................................... 94
aa) Using public transport .................................................................................................. 95
bb) Sharing cars with other employees .............................................................................. 95
cc) Working at home ......................................................................................................... 96
dd) Travelling to meetings .................................................................................................. 96

VII. Additional information from the questionnaire .............................................. 97

VIII. Demographic comparison of the groups......................................................... 99
IX. Recommendations for Wageningen UR .......................................................... 102

vi
List of Figures and Tables
Figure 1 A conceptual model of the factors related to PEB ..................................................... 26
Figure 2 Age ............................................................................................................................. 38
Figure 3 Home .......................................................................................................................... 39
Figure 4 Education ................................................................................................................... 40
Figure 5 Building ...................................................................................................................... 40
Figure 6 Percentage of employees per science group ............................................................. 41
Figure 7 Tested PEB model ...................................................................................................... 50
Figure 8 The direct and indirect effects on drinking ................................................................ 51
Figure 9 The direct and indirect effects on heating ................................................................. 51
Figure 10 The direct and indirect effect on buying .................................................................. 52
Figure 11 The direct and indirect effects on printing .............................................................. 52
Figure 12Pro-environmental behaviours compared by gender.............................................. 99
Figure 13 Pro-environmental behaviours compared by age ................................................ 100
Figure 14 Pro-environmental behaviours compared by science group ................................. 100
Figure 15 Pro-environmental behaviours compared by building .......................................... 101
Figure 16 Pro-environmental behaviours by compared kind of employment ...................... 101

Table 1 Four key issues for encouraging pro-environmental behaviour ................................. 13

Table 2: Rationalist or Linear Models ...................................................................................... 16
Table 3 Altruism, Empathy and Pro-social behaviour models ................................................. 16
Table 4 Sociological models ..................................................................................................... 17
Table 5 An overview of factors influencing PEB selected in this study.................................... 26
Table 6 Operationalising 'Pro-environmental behaviour' as dependent variable .................. 30
Table 7 Operationalising the concept 'demographic factors' as independent variables ........ 32
Table 8 Operationalising the concept 'external factors' as independent variables ................ 32
Table 9 Operationalising the concept 'Internal factors' as independent variables ................. 35
Table 10 Summary of exploratory factor analysis results for PEB ........................................... 42
Table 11 Means and standard deviation PEB related to heating ............................................ 43
Table 12 Means and standard deviation PEB related to energy ............................................. 43
Table 13 Means and standard deviation PEB related to printing ............................................ 43
Table 14 Means and deviation PEB related to sustainable purchasing ................................... 44
Table 15 Drinking ..................................................................................................................... 44
Table 16 The descriptive results of attitude toward PEB......................................................... 44
Table 17 The descriptive results of the value opinionative ..................................................... 45
Table 18 Mean and standard deviation - Intention to act ....................................................... 46
Table 19 Mean and standard deviation – Perceived behavioural control ............................... 46
Table 20 Mean and standard deviation - Situational factors................................................... 46
Table 21 Means and standard deviations - Environmental awareness ................................... 47
Table 22 Mean and standard deviation of social norms.......................................................... 47
Table 23 Mean and standard deviation of personal norms ..................................................... 48
Table 24 Means and standard deviation related to leadership boss....................................... 48
Table 25 Means and standard deviation related to leadership company ............................... 49
Table 26 The percentages of employees recycling paper per building ................................... 80

vii
Table 27 The percentages of employees recycling glass per building and total ..................... 81
Table 28 The percentages of employees recycling plastic bottles per building ...................... 81
Table 29 The percentages of employees recycling batteries per building .............................. 82
Table 30 The percentages of employees recycling chemical office waste per building .......... 82
Table 31 The percentages of employees checking thermostats per building ......................... 83
Table 32 The percentages of employees wearing more clothes per building ......................... 84
Table 33 The percentages of employees regulating heating outside working hours per
building .................................................................................................................................... 84
Table 34 The percentages of employees checking thermostats per building ......................... 85
Table 35 The percentages of employees switching a computer off per building .................... 86
Table 36 The percentages of employees switching a computer off – going home per building
................................................................................................................................................. 86
Table 37 The percentages of employees switching on lights mor-evening per building ........ 87
Table 38 The percentages of employees switching off lights – leaving office per building .... 87
Table 39 The percentages of employees printing double-sided – leaving office per building 88
Table 40 The percentages of employees copying double-sided – leaving office per building 88
Table 41 The percentages of employees printing on one sheet per building ......................... 89
Table 42 The percentages of employees printing on one sheet per building ......................... 89
Table 43 The percentages of employees using a mug per building ......................................... 90
Table 44 The percentages of employees washing a mug per building .................................... 91
Table 45 The percentages of employees taking a plastic cup per building ............................. 91
Table 46 The percentages of employees taking a new cup each time per building ................ 92
Table 47 The percentages of employees buying bio food per building ................................... 92
Table 48 The percentages of employees buying sustainably per building .............................. 93
Table 49 The percentages of employees commuting by car ................................................... 93
Table 50 The percentages of employees commuting by bike ................................................. 94
Table 51 The percentages of employees walking to work....................................................... 94
Table 52 The percentages of employees using public transport ............................................. 95
Table 53 The percentages of employees carpooling ............................................................... 95
Table 54 The percentages of employees working at home ..................................................... 96
Table 55 The percentages of employees Travelling for work .................................................. 96
Table 56 Informing about costs and amount of the energy/water/paper used by a
department .............................................................................................................................. 97
Table 57 Easiness to behave pro-environmentally in the workplace. ..................................... 97
Table 58 Sufficiency of the current facilities for recycling in the working place. .................... 98

viii
1. Introduction
In the last four decades, many researchers have been investigating the negative
impact of humankind on Earth due to experiencing radical changes in nature.
Decreasing natural resources, increasing pollution and population have considerable
influence on the environment. Many books and articles were published about global
warming which is caused by the accumulation of carbon dioxide (CO2) and other
types of gas in the Earth’s atmosphere. Overpopulation, overflowing landfills, global
warming, ozone depletion, acid rain, loss of green space, water pollution and species
extinction are caused by a human behaviour (Lehman and Geller, 2004). As a
response to these actions, the governments of many states in the world attempt to
create sufficient legislation to decrease the production of CO2 and change the ways
of human living and behaviour toward sustainability in the households, companies
and education institutes.
Following this trend, Wageningen University and Research Centre
(thereinafter Wageningen UR) attempts to reduce the impact of employees on the
environment. Wageningen UR is one of the leading environmental education
institutes with a focus on food, living and health. The Strategic Plan of Wageningen
UR sets the orientation toward these issues for years 2007–2010. The domain of
Wageningen UR consists of three interconnected core areas: 1. food and food
production, 2. living environment and 3. health, lifestyle and livelihood. A part from
these core areas, the tendency of Wageningen UR is to become more sustainable. In
order to put sustainability in practice, six working groups were created to fulfil this
goal. The groups focus on six sub-areas: construction, energy, mobility, procurement,
waste, and catering. This study is conducted for the sub-area Sustainable employee,
One of the goals of Sustainable employee group is to encourage sustainable
behaviour on the micro level – the employees of Wageningen UR. Therefore,
MICRO2 project was drawn up to put sustainability in practice. The goal of MICRO2 is
to make both employees and management aware of the environmental impact and
support showing pro-environmental behaviour in the workplace. As a side effect we
might see saving money due to less consumption of energy, printing paper, and
recycling etc. The problem that will be dealt with in this thesis is how to influence
the awareness of environmental behaviour of both employees and managers.
Over the last 30 years, various environmental psychologists and sociologists
have been attempting to discover the factors that have an impact on pro-
environmental behaviour. In order to find and describe the factors, which can
predict pro-environmental behaviour, different models were developed. Many
models were developed many years ago such as linear progression, altruism,
empathy, pro-social behaviour models (Kollmuss and Agyeman, 2002); and recently
some sociological models e.g. community social marketing (McKenzie-Mohr, 2000),
deliberate inclusionary procedures (Jacqueline, 1999) etc. Nonetheless, these
models were applied to explain pro-environmental behaviour in relation to the
households. The models and literature explaining exclusively pro-environmental
behaviour in the workplace lack, thus more research is needed to identify the factors
allowing to encourage the behaviour. The lack of knowledge about pro-
environmental behaviour in the workplace gives a good starting point to bring new
knowledge by conducting this study.

9
This study focuses on finding factors that have an impact on pro-environmental
behaviour in the workplace. Identified factors will be linked to the behaviour at work
and the interrelationship will be revealed by a proposed and tested model. Once the
factors that influence pro-environmental behaviour positively are known, we would
be able to stimulate them in order to increase pro-environmental behaviour in the
workplace.
In short, this study will be an important source of information about pro-
environmental behaviour in relation to the workplace with recommendations on
possible future developments in this scientific domain.
1.1. Conceptual design
The conceptual design starts with research objective (1.1.1) describing the aim of
this study with practical relevance and scientific objective. Following, research issues
(1.1.2.) are provided including the central research questions and sub-questions.
1.1.1. Research objective
The research objective of this research is postulated as:
To identify factors that have an impact on pro-environmental behaviour in the
workplace and establish their relationship in relation to PEB.
The practical and scientific objectives of the thesis are stated as below:
Practical relevance
The aim of MICRO2 is to make both employees and management aware of the
environmental impact and encourage pro-environmental behaviour in the workplace.
The outcomes of this thesis will provide an overview of employee’s current
environmental behaviour and identify factors that have an impact on the behaviour.
Knowing the factors will enable to provide recommendations toward improving the
factors that would lead to an increase of pro-environmental behaviour.
Scientific objective
The scientific objective is to find factors that have an impact on pro-environmental
behaviour in the workplace by measuring and analysing pro-environmental
behaviour of the employees of Wageningen UR.
The aim of the thesis is to contribute toward the gap in existing knowledge about
pro-environmental behaviour in the workplace. Firstly, the results will provide a
literature review of the factors that are likely to have an impact on pro-
environmental behaviour in the workplace. Secondly, the empirical part and analysis
will identify the factors that have an impact on pro-environmental behaviour and
their relationship. This will bring new knowledge toward understanding the
complexity of pro-environmental behaviour in the workplace.

10
 1.1.2. Research issues
The central research question is stated as:

What are the factors that are likely to have an impact on pro-environmental
behaviour in the workplace of the employees working at Wageningen UR?

The central research question can be divided into five main research questions:
1. What is pro-environmental behaviour?
2. What is pro-environmental behaviour in the workplace?
3. What are the factors that are likely to have an impact on pro-environmental
behaviour in the workplace according to the literature?
4. What is the relationship between actual pro-environmental behaviour and
found factors?
The first two main research questions deals with defining pro-environmental
behaviour in general and pro-environmental behaviour in the workplace. The third
question focuses on the factors that are likely to influence pro-environmental
behaviour. These questions will be answered by a literature review. The fourth
question was chosen to conclusively establish a relationship between found factors
and pro-environmental behaviour. The analysis will be run in order to confirm a
relationship between different factors (as the independent variables) linked to pro-
environmental behaviour in the workplace (as the dependent variable).

This study report is structured as follows:

Chapter 1: Introduction,
Chapter 2: Literature review,
Chapter 3: Methodology,
Chapter 4: Results,
Chapter 5: Discussion,
Chapter 6: Conclusion and recommendations,
Appendices,
Additional information for Wageningen UR.

11
2. Literature review
The literature review chapter is divided into four main sub-chapters. The first sup-
chapter (2.1) defines pro-environmental behaviour. The second sub-chapter (2.2)
gives limitations of self-reported behaviour followed by a sub-chapter about spill
over effect (2.3). The last subchapter describes different models and factors
influencing pro-environmental behaviour (2.4)
2.1. Pro-environmental behaviour
This subchapter gives a definition of pro-environmental behaviour (2.1.1) and steps
in changing toward more pro-environmental behaviour (2.1.2). This sub-chapter also
describes possible ways of measuring PEB (2.1.3) that were applied in similar studies.
2.1.1. Defining pro-environmental behaviour
In the past decades, various studies have been conducted with a focus on
sustainability and environmental behaviour. The scientists and psychologists came
up with different terms describing the same or similar activity. The following terms
have been mostly used: responsible environmental behaviour (Cottrell and Graefe,
1997), sustainable behaviour (Spence and Pidgeon, 2009), environmental
sustainability (Osbaldiston and Schott, 2012), environmentally significant behaviour
(Wall et al., 2007), pro-environmental practices (Hards, 2012), environmental
engagement (Milfont and Sibley, 2012), environmentalism (Mobley and Kilbourne,
2012), environmental engagement (Milfont et al., 2012), sustainable lifestyle (Barr
and Gilg, 2006), (Barr et al., 2011), environmentally friendly behaviour (Dolnicar and
Grun, 2009), ecological behaviour (Milfont and Duckitt, 2004) etc. All these studies
focused on minimising a negative impact of human behaviour on the environment.
We adopt a definition from Kollmuss and Agyeman (2002) stated as follows:
Pro-environmental behaviour can be seen as a kind of behaviour that consciously
seeks to minimise a negative impact of one’s actions on natural and built world.
This definition was chosen as it provides an easy idea what pro-environmental
behaviour is and people should do. People should focus on the type of behaviour
that would lead to a minimal impact on the environment and other people around
them.
2.1.2. Steps in changing pro-environmental behaviour
Geller (2002) described four key issues for encouraging and promoting a behavioural
change. The first step is a careful selection of behaviour that we want to change. We
need to select the type of behaviour that would improve the environmental quality.
Afterwards, the examination of relevant factors causing this behaviour is followed.
The third step requires an application of well-chosen interventions in order to
encourage pro-environmental behaviour and its antecedent. The last fourth phase
includes a systematic evaluation of the effects of the chosen interventions on
behaviour, its antecedent and the environmental and human quality of life. The four
key issues for encouraging pro-environmental behaviour can be seen in Tab 1.

12
Table 1 Four key issues for encouraging pro-environmental behaviour
I. Which behaviour should be changed to improve environmental quality?
1. Select behaviour having significant negative environmental impacts
2. Assess the feasibility of behaviour changes
3. Assess baseline levels of target behaviour
4. Identify groups to be targeted
II. Which factors determine the relevant behaviour?
1. Perceived costs and benefits
2. Moral and normative concerns
3. Affect
4. Contextual factors
5. Habits
III. Which interventions could best be applied to encourage pro/environmental behaviour?
1. Informational strategies (information, persuasion, social support and role models, public
participation)
2. Structural strategies (availability of products and services, legal regulation, financial strategies)
IV. What are the effects of interventions?
1. Changes in behavioural determinants
2. Changes in behaviour
3. Changes in environmental quality
4. Changes in individuals’ quality of life
Source: (Steg and Vlek, 2009)

This study focuses on selecting behaviour that should be changed and identifying
factors that would lead to the changes of behaviour.
2.1.3. Measuring pro-environmental behaviour
To reduce a human negative impact on the environment, behaviour that has a
notable effect on the environment, should be selected, focused on and changed.
Recently environmental scientists developed different methods for calculating the
environmental impact, such as an input-output energy analysis (Kok et al., 2006) or
life cycle analysis (Pennington et al., 2004). Stern et al. (1997) concluded in their
book that many studies focus on relatively uninteresting variables from the
environmental point of view - behaviour that has only a small effect on energy or
materials use e.g. reusing plastic bags in shops or buying recycled paper. Therefore,
the scientists and environmental psychologists should focus on changing behaviour
to pro-environmental behaviour that have a significant reducing impact on the
environment. Poortinga et al. (2004) also confirmed by their findings that it is
relevant to distinguish between different measures of environmental impact and
different types of environmental intent.
The measurement of environmental behaviour is needed to decide, which
groups of people should be focused on and whether interventions are worthwhile to
be applied. In addition, when environmental behaviour is tracked for a long time, the
success or failure of the interventions can be measured. The measurement methods
vary greatly in the literature.
In general, the environmental scientists and psychologists use a list of
activities related to pro-environmental behaviour to measure a level of pro-
environmental behaviour. The respondents are usually asked to indicate their
behavioural pattern - whether or how often they perform every behaviour from the
list. The indication is usually shown on the scale from never to always. For example
Kaiser(1998) (Kaiser, 1998)proposed a general ecological behaviour scale and also

13
argued that the scale is not only or the best possible solution to measure general
ecological behaviour.
The measurement of environmental behaviour can be also focused on the
outcome of specific behaviour. For instance, as a measurement tool is used a meter
reading in order to measure the consumption of electricity, gas, fuel or water. On
the other hand, the meter readings provide information about total numbers,
although particular behaviour causing the consumption is not reported. This might
be problematic for people with appropriate education, because they cannot know
which and whose behaviour affect the usage. Therefore, each person involved in
changing behaviour cannot get feedback on the results of own behavioural changes
(Gatersleben et al., 2002).
We can see that different measuring instruments can be applied to measure
a level of PEB. The level of pro-environmental behaviour in this study is measured by
a questionnaire method. The questionnaire will measure the frequency of activities
related to pro-environmental behaviour in the workplace performed by the
respondents. This approach is also used due to a large number of respondents, and
difficulty to track down individual’s consumption of resources in the workplace.
2.2. Limitations of self-reported behaviour
The measurement of PEB is mostly achieved by self-reports on the basis of the
questionnaire items. Some studies have shown that self-reports are an adequate
tool for indicating behaviour in reality e.g. a study from Warriner et al. (1984).
However, Corral-Verdugo (1997) reasoned against self-reporting, because a low
correlation was found between observed and selfreported behaviour. As Vining
(2002) arrgued, the methods, which provide valid and realiable measures of self-
reported behaviour should be studied particularly in the future research, since the
measurement of a large sample is not always feasible in practice.
Olsen (1981) attempted to explain factors which could explain the difference
between self-reported actions and the environmental impact of consumption (e.g.
energy or water). Four factors were found.
The first factor, an exact report of behaviour may not be given by the
respondents. The respondents are asked to self-report their own behaviour, which is
perceived by them. Therefore, they might misreflect or misbelief own actual
behavioural pattern. People might be influenced by social consequences, because
they know how they should behave, but they do not show this behaviour. Moreover,
other kinds of effects (conscious or unconscious) may influence the results of self-
reporting actual behaviour. On the other hand, some studies concluded that the
difference between self-reported and actual behaviour is no methodological
(Warriner et al., 1984). To support these studies, Kaiser (1999) showed in a study on
pro-environmental behaviour that people are only marginally tempted to provide
socially desirable answers.
The second reason for the differences can be observed due to relation to
environmental awareness [e.g. awareness of energy requirements/consumption of
familiar objects (Baird and Brier, 1981)]. People are not in every case aware of the
impact of their behaviour on the environment (e.g. energy, water, paper use etc.).
For this reason, people are not able to take actions to increase or decrease their
environmental impact. This study also indicated the importance of educating people
to know more about environmental consequences of their behaviour.

14
The third reason is the method of constructing scales. The scales do not always
demonstrate actual environmental impact represented by the scales. The
respondents receive a high score when they report many small conservations
activities, whereas actions with a significant impact are ranked as low energy
savings.
As the last factor Olsen (1981) stated that the sum of self-reported pro-
environmental behaviour is indicated without taking into account differences in their
environmental impact (e.g. energy-saving potential). Thus, this may lead to
constructing unrealistic scales. It is clear, that someone cannot be more
environmentally friendly, because they perform behaviour with the environmental
‘’sound’’, than somebody who performs less behaviour with the higher
environmental impact.
Despite these facts, the scientists commonly use the method of self-
reporting. The samples are usually large in order to generalise the outcomes of the
studies.
2.3. Spill over effect of pro-environmental behaviour
As it was stated above, the majority of the literature used in this thesis is to some
extent related to the households. Nevertheless, this literature can be used in this
study due to a spill over effect of pro-environmental behaviour at work and home.
Tudor et al. (2007) demonstrated in a study on this relationship that sustainable
environmental practices at home and work are strongly linked. The employees
practicing sustainable waste management at home were more likely to practice
sustainable behaviour at work. The strong link was primarily influenced by the
environmental values, attitudes and beliefs of the employees. Similarly, Thøgersen
and Ölander (2003) confirmed that environment-friendly behaviour can be
transferred. The study concluded that there is a spill over effect; nevertheless,
further research in this domain is needed in the future.
2.4. Factors influencing pro-environmental behaviour
This subchapter is divided into two parts. The first part (2.4.1) illustrates different
models, which attempted to explain PEB. The second part (2.4.2) gives an overview
of different factors that might influence pro-environmental behaviour in the
workplace.
2.4.1. Models of PEB
In the past decades, the researchers tried to explain the reasons why some
individuals engage pro-environmental behaviour and other not. Due to different
scientific disciplines and approaches, research studies try to explain the reason in
different ways. For example, the economists investigate the external influences such
as a price, income and social-economic characteristics in a relation to behaviour. On
the other hand, the psychologists tent to examine internal or psychological variables
to behaviour such as values, beliefs, and attitudes.
Kollmuss and Agyeman (2002) explored some of the theoretical models in
order to explain why people act or do not act pro-environmentally. An overview of
the analysed models is shown below in Tables 2. - 4. The tables are based on
Kollmuss and Agyeman (Kollmuss and Agyeman, 2002) and our conducted literature
search.

15
Table 2 Rationalist or Linear Models
Model/Researcher(s) Theory
Early 1970s US Linear Education automatically results in more
Models pro-environmental behaviour.
Deficit models of public
understanding and
action (Burgess et al.,
1998)
Explaining gap between attitude and
behaviour caused by:
 Direct versus indirect experience
Rajecki (1982)
 Normative influences
 Temporal discrepancy
 Attitude-behaviour measurement
Theory of Planned People are essentially rational.
Behaviour (TPA) ‘The ultimate determinants of any
(Fishbein and Ajzen, behaviour are the behavioural beliefs
concerning it consequences and
1975)
normative belief concerning the
prescriptions of others’
Theory of Reasoned (Ajzen and Fishbein, 1980)
Action (Dahlstrand and
Biel), (Ajzen and
Fishbein, 1980)
Found variables associated with
responsible pro-environmental
behaviour:
Model of responsible  Knowledge of issues
environmental  Knowledge of action strategies
behaviour  Locus of control
 Attitudes
 Verbal commitment
 Individual sense of responsibility
The table is based on Kollmuss and Agyeman (2002)
Table 3 Altruism, Empathy and Pro-social behaviour models
Model/Researcher(s) Theory
Norm Activation Theory When a person becomes aware of
other people’s suffering and the same
(Schwartz and Leonard,
time feels a responsibility of alleviating
1977) this suffering, altruistic behaviour
increases.
People with a strong selfish and
competitive orientation are less likely
to act ecologically;
People who have satisfied their
Borden and Francis personal needs are more likely to act
(1978) ecologically because they have more
resources (time, money, energy) to
care about bigger, less personal social
and pro-environmental issues.
Limitations
These models are proven wrong.
Increases in knowledge and
awareness did not lead to more
pro-environmental behaviour
The last two items point out
frequent flaws in research
methodology. This leads to
difficulty of designing valid studies
to measure and compare attitude
and behaviour.
The models are based on
assumption that people act
rationally. People not always act
rationally.
The identified factors do not
sufficiently explain pro-
environmental behaviour. There
seems to be more factors
influencing pro-environmental
behaviour.
Limitations
Altruistic motivation is driven by
attitudes toward three types of
suffering: social (the removal of
suffering of other people), egoistic
(the removal of suffering and harm
from oneself), and biospheric
orientation (the removal of
destruction and suffering in the non-
human world. All three ordinations
have different strengths). The
egoistic is the strongest and
biospheric the least. (Stern et al.,
1993)
Less affluent people not necessarily
behave less ecologically.
16
 Individuals must focus beyond
themselves and be concerned about
the community at large. State of
Geller (1995) ‘actively caring’ can only occur if the
need for self-esteem, belonging,
personal control, self-efficacy, and
optimism has been satisfied.
The table is based on Kollmuss and Agyeman (2002)
Self-esteem and belonging are not
related to PEB, but relationship
between personal control and
sympathy, their measure for ‘actively
caring’.
(Allen and Ferrand, 1999)

Table 4 Sociological models

Model/Researcher(s) Theory Limitations
Five variables influence PEB: People’s values are negotiated,
 Attitude and values transitory, and sometimes
 Possibilities to act ecologically contradictory.
 Behavioural incentives (Redclift and Benton, 1994)
Fietkau et al. (1981)
 Perceived feedback about ecological
behaviour
 Knowledge

Identification of three berries to action: The model does not account social
Value-Action Gap  Individuality factors (e.g. familial pressures,
(Blake, 1999)  Responsibility cultural norms).
 Practicality
The table is based on Kollmuss and Agyeman (2002)
As can be seen from Tables 2. – 4. there are different factors that influence pro-
environmental behaviour. Kollmuss and Agyeman (2002) used the environmental
conscience to describe the complex structure of factors and their link to pro-
environmental behaviour. Derived from the analysis of different models studied by
Kollmuss and Agyeman (2002) and other studies such as Stend and Vlek (2009),
Schulz et al. (1995), Rioux (2011), Grob (1991) , the authors mostly distinguished
between the following factors: demographic factors, external factors, and internal
factors. These factors are spread over the models as the authors tried to explain the
relationship between the factors and PEB by applying different approaches. The
difficulty in defining and delimiting the different factors is due to the fact that most
are broadly and vaguely defined, interrelated, and often do not have clear
boundaries.
Some researchers have tried to find how to influence environmental concern and
behaviour by sympathy for other people (Allen and Ferrand, 1999), emotional
affinity toward nature (Kals et al., 1999), and empathy with wild animals (Schultz,
2000). These factors and some others, however, are not included in this study as the
study focuses on the factors that are mostly investigated in relation to households.
We believe that these factors might have a significant effect on pro-environmental
behaviour in the workplace.

17
 2.4.2. Demographic factors
This paragraph provides an overview of demographic factors such as gender, age,
education, and ethnic origins.

a) Gender
Hines et al. (1987). found in their meta-analysis of four studies a very small positive
correlation between the gender and responsible environmental behaviour, which
indicated that there appears to be no relationship between these two variables.
Similarly to this study, (Schultz et al., 1995) Schultz et al. (1995)in a review
concluded that gender is not a good predictor of recycling behaviour. A positive
relationship was reported by a study of Van Liere and Dunlap (1981), however
negative relationship by Arcury (1987) et al. Dietz et al. (1998) found that women
have more strong pro-environmental beliefs than men and women are willing to
engage more in pro-environmental consumer behaviour than men. Likewise, Tindall
et al. (2003) (Tindall et al., 2003)found in a study on gender, environmental activism
and conservation that females engage in more environmental friendly behaviour. On
the other hand, (Rioux, 2011) Rioux (2011) found that socio-demographic variables
(e.g age, sex or level of studies) were not correlated with environmental behaviour in
relation to collecting used batteries. Similarly, Mobley and Kilbourne (2012) found
that the promotion of PEB may not depend so much on gender, but it depends more
on values. The study found the gender effect varied depending on values and belief.
We can see that various authors suggest that the environmentalism differs by
gender, but a systematic evidence for this assertion is limited. Some authors
hypothesised that these differences are a result of life experience and socialization
caused by different socialization of boys and girls (Arcury et al., 1987), (Braun, 1983),
but a deeper investigation of socialization aspects is needed.
b) Age
Van Liere and Dunlap (1981) supported the age hypothesis. The hypothesis stated
that younger people are more concerned about deterioration of the environment
than older people. Howell and Laska (1992) found in a cross-sectional study, that
younger people expressed more concern about deterioration of the environment
than older people. However, Schultz et al. (1995) in their paper reviewed empirical
studies of recycling. The results indicated that high income is a good predictor of
recycling, whereas gender and age are not. Similarly, (Dietz et al., 1998) Dietz et al.
(1998) concluded in their study that the age does not show a simple consistent
relationship.

c) Education
A hierarchy of human needs by Maslow (1970) consists of 7 levels psychological
needs, safety need, belongingness and love need, esteem needs, need to know and
understand, aesthetic needs, self-actualisation and transcendence (listed from the
lowest to highest level). The lowest levels must be satisfied first in order to satisfy
higher level. The upper and middle working classes can satisfy basic material needs,
therefore they can focus on satisfying other higher needs (in our case pro-
environmental behaviour). A correlation between education and environmental
concern was investigated in various studies and the positive correlation was

18
supported for example by (1998), Van Liere 1998), Van Liere and Dunlap (1981),
Howell and Laska (1992), Farmer et al. (2007).

d) Ethnic origins
The correlation between ethnic aspects and recycling behaviour was studied by
Howenstine (1993). The respondents were ethnically diverse representing the
community. The results indicated that the students with different ethnic origins
showed different behaviour toward recycling. Nevertheless, other variables such as
occupation, parent’s influence, or income were not considered and they might have
had an influence on the sample. Dietz et al. (1998) concluded in their study that
blacks are more pro-environmental than whites in behaviour but only on some
indicators. Researchers should focus on relationship between the ethnic aspects and
environmental behaviour due a limited number of the studies.

To summarise, the demographic factors can be seen as gender, age, education, and
ethnic origins.
Gender showed inconsistent effect on pro-environmental behaviour,
nevertheless in general we could conclude that women are likely to engage more
pro-environmental behaviour. Younger people were found to be more concern
about the environment than older people; and more educated people showed more
environmental concern. Similarly, people with different ethnic origins showed
different behaviour toward PEB.
To investigate a relationship between the demographic factors and pro-
environmental behaviour in the workplace, the hypotheses can be stated as:
H1: Females behave pro-environmentally more than men in the workplace
H2: Younger people show higher pro-environmental behaviour in the workplace.
H3: People with higher education show more pro-environmental behaviour in the
workplace.
H4: Nationality as ethnic origin has an influence on pro-environmental behaviour in
the workplace.

19
 2.4.3. External factors
This paragraph gives a description of external factors related to situational factors,
namely provided facilities for performing pro-environmental behaviour and
leadership.

Situational factors
a) Facilities available for performing pro-environmental behaviour
From a practical point of view, pro-environmental behaviour can be performed only
if the required conditions and infrastructure are available e.g. boxes for recycling,
heating control, paths for biking and so on. Similarly, the less possibilities to behave
pro-environmentally are available, logically the less likely people show ecological
behaviour. Fliegenschnee and Schelakovsky (1998) concluded that the situational
factors and other internal factors seem to play a key role in determining pro-
environmental or non-environmental behaviour. Barr et a. (2001) defined situational
factors as ‘’an individual’s person circumstances at a given time, represented by
access to or knowledge and experience of waste management’’. For example access
to kerbside recycling bins was found an important situational factor to perform
recycling behaviour (Derksen and Gartrell, 1993), (Guagnano et al., 1995), (Klöckner
and Oppedal, 2011). Therefore, showing recycling behaviour should not be too
difficult, when a new bind and mental awareness about throwing paper away are
available. On the other hand, changing commuting style from a car to public
transport seems to be more difficult. Collins and Chambers (2005) found that
situational factors effected pro-environmental behaviour related to shifting to public
transport. The easier a change of behaviour seems to be, a change to act pro-
environmentally is more likely to happen. Similarly, Borgstede (2002) showed that
people co-operate more frequently in situations with fewer obstacle to overcome.
The results of Fujii (2006) showed that perceived ease of implementation had a
significant positive effect on behavioural intention for PEB.
b) The leadership – support from the management
The leadership support to behave pro-environmentally can also be considered as one
of the situational factors. The leadership support is seen as an endorsement of the
company and management to show pro-environmental behaviour in the workplace.
The impact of leadership and employees motivation in relation to environment was
examined as well. The effectiveness of environmental management depends on
leadership (Ramus and Steger, 2000), (Egri and Herman, 2000). The environmental
leadership should be provided by company’s top management (Subhabrata Bobby et
al., 2003) and the middle management is likely to have a critical impact on
employees’ attitudes and behaviour (Ramus and Steger, 2000), (Daily et al., 2008),
(Andersson et al., 2005). Graves and Sarkis (2011) created a framework which
suggests that environmental leadership behaviour of managers and the motives of
employees are critical factors influencing whether employees behave pro-
environmentally. Nalini Govindarajulu (2008) provided an overview of current
literature related to the employee motivation for environmental improvement
efforts: a management commitment, employee empowerment, feedback and
review. The management commitment provides a framework for an environmental
improvement including e.g. communication of environmental goals, environmental
training, environmental management program, motivation, supervising etc. The

20
employee empowerment provides motivation and commotion to participate and
show environmental practices. It also includes a horizontal organizational structure,
employee involvement, and cross-functional teams. The rewards can be represented
by a well-designed reward system encouraging environmental practices. They can be
established as benefits, financial and recognition rewards. The rewards should not
be negative, because it was proven, that ‘’positive rewards’’ are more effective
motivators then negative ones (Lawler, 1973). Feedback and review are used in
order to achieve long-term success and continuous improvement for example by
environmental auditing or corrective actions. Nalini Govindarajulu (2004) concluded
that all these factors do not stand alone, but rewards in conjunction with feedback,
empowerment and clear communication can lead to environmental improvements.
Nye and Hargreaves (2010) also supported the well-recognized combination of social
support, deliberation and feedback is the winning driver of environmentally
responsible behaviour. The authors presented these all frameworks and theoretical
models, however, empirical testing is still needed to confirm these models.
Papagiannakis and Lioukas (2012) found that top managers’ personal values seem to
have an indirect effect on the level of corporate environmental responsiveness by
shaping their environmental attitudes. Robertson and Barling (2012) found that
leaders’ environmental descriptive norms and the leadership and PEB played an
important role in greening of organisations. The study showed that the leaders
influence their followers’ workplace PEB by sharing values, inspirational motivation,
intellectual stimulation, and establishing a relationship with their employees.
It should be noted that people are able to overcome situational factors, if they have
strong values on the environment and show environmental concern (Oskamp et al.,
1998).

In summary, the external factors are presented as situational factors. The situational
factors in the workplace are seen as facilities available to perform PEB and support
from a boss or employer.
The facilities seem to play an important part in PEB as they are essential to
perform certain behaviours e.g. recycling. Similarly, the support of management is an
important aspect in greening of organisations. Therefore, the hypotheses are derived
as:

H5: The facilities available to show pro-environmental behaviour have a positive on

pro-environmental behaviour in the workplace.

H6: The leadership support to behave pro-environmentally has a positive impact on

pro-environmental behaviour in the workplace.

21
 2.4.4. Internal factors
The last paragraph of this section describes internal factors as social factors (social
norms, personal norms); cognitive factors (environmental awareness, intention to
act, perceived behavioural control); and affective factors (values, attitude toward the
pro-environmental behaviour).

D. Social factors
The norms can be defined as an individual expectation about his or her acting in a
particular social situation (Schwartz and Leonard, 1977). If a social norm exists for
certain behaviour, people will employ this behaviour and perform it (Liebrand et al.,
1992). Borgstede (2002) found that personal and social norms were related to the
expectation of others to co-operate, and co-operation rate was higher when the
expectation was there. Similarly, Nordlund and Garvill (2002) found that the
personal norm can be viewed as an important general predisposition to act pro-
environmentally. Abrahamse et al (2009) suggested that policies aiming at reducing a
car use for commuting should focus on feeling of moral obligation e.g. personal
norms. Behavioural changes can be done if peoples’ environmental values are
increased. Some studies have showed a positive correlation between environmental
behaviour and personal and social norms (Bamberg and Schmidt, 2003), (Harland et
al., 1999, Stern et al., 1999), (Thøgersen 1999), (Bratt, 1999), (Harland et al., 2007),
(Fornara et al., 2011), (Ramayah et al., 2012), (Matthies et al., 2012). The norms
represent shared beliefs about how to act, which are perceived to be enforceable
through a reward or punishment (Thøgersen 1999). The norms were used to help
with the explanation why people diverge from acting and own self-interest in
theories such as the Norm-Activation theory (Schwartz and Leonard, 1977) and
Theory of Planned Behaviour (Ajzen, 1991).

E. Cognitive factors
Cognitive, the second group of internal factors, is comprised of environmental
awareness, intention to act and perceived behavioural control.

a. Environmental awareness
Grob (1995) proposed a model where environmental awareness was represented by
environmental knowledge and the recognition of environmental problems. The
model assumed that the more people know about their environment, the more
appropriately they behave. The thesis was supported by environmental survey data
(Borden and Schettino, 1979), a meta-analysis (Hines et al., 1987) and experimental
evidence (Katzev and Johnson, 1984, Becker, 1978). Grob (1995) concluded that
environmental awareness and other factors such as personal-philosophical values,
emotional involvement, perceived behavioural control are the most important
predictors of environmental behaviour. Similarly, Van Birgelen (2009) et al. et al
found that eco-friendly purchase and disposal decisions for beverages were related
to the environmental awareness and eco-friendly attitude.
b. Intention to act and perceived behavioural control
The Theory of Reasoned action and the Theory of Planned Behaviour Ajzen and
Fishbein (1980) and Ajzen (1991) argued that the intention to act is the strongest
predictor of actual behaviour. The theory of planned Behaviour also suggests that

22
intention to act is determined by perceived behavioural control with attitudes and
subjective norms. Mannetti et al. (2004) found that the most important predictor of
intentions to recycle is perceived behavioural control. Klöckner and Oppedal (2011)
reported similar results. The Theory of Reasoned Action stated that the behavioural
intentions are determined by person’s attitudes and the social pressure set to
perform or not perform certain behaviour. According to Ajzen and Fishbein (1980)
attitude theory, global attitudes are poor predictors of specific behaviour - more
specific attitude toward an object, the stronger predictor of behaviour is found. The
Theory of Planned Behaviour applied by Rioux (2011) found a positive correlation
between battery collecting behaviour and intention to act.

F. Affective factors
The last group of internal factors is described by values and attitude toward pro-
environmental behaviour. .
a. Values
In the recent years, various studies used Schwartz’s model of human values
(Schwartz, 1994, Schwartz and Mark, 1992). The model had 56 value items and 10
universal value types. Based on cross-cultural research, 10 value types can be
reduced to 4 value categories: openness to change (values of self-direction,
stimulation, hedonism); conservatism (tradition, conformity, security); self-
transcendence (universalism, benevolence) and the last self-enhancement (power,
achievement). In general, people who are interested in people beyond own social
circle, hold values altruistic or self-transcendent show pro-environmental behaviour
more than people without these values (Dietz et al., 1998), (Karp, 1996), (Stern and
Dietz, 1994), (Stern et al., 1999). The usefulness of this model was demonstrated in a
variety of studies (Oishi et al., 1998), (Schwartz, 1994, Schwartz and Mark, 1992),
(Karp, 1996), (Spini, 2003), (Milfont and Sibley, 2012). Moreover, Schwartz and Mark
(1992) presented a new theory of values and methodology, which divided
individuals’ values in any culture into self-enhancement and self-transcendence
dimension.
Altruistic or self-transcendent values take a part in activating pro-
environmental personal norms and pro-environmental behaviour (Stern et al.,
1999),(Stern, 1999), (Wall et al., 2007), (de Groot and Steg, 2008). Karp (1996)found
that self-transcendence/openness to change and universalism/biospheric are a
strong predictor of PEB and values related to self-enhancement/conservation is a
strong negative predictor. Similarly, Barr and Gilg (2006) found that biospheric and
ecocentric values were held by people who were committed environmentalists,
however, anthropocentric and technocentric values were held by non-
environmentalists. This finding corroborated much of the evidence from work of
Dunlap (1978), (2000), Gagnon Thompson and Barton (1994). Mobley and Kilbourne
(2012) indicated that self-enhancement and technological values moderated the
effect of gender on environmental intentions. Therefore, the promotion of
environmentalism may show better results if we target these values. In a study by
Rioux (2011) ethical (pro-environmental values) predicted young people’s
behaviour of collecting used batteries.

23
 b. Attitudes toward pro-environmental behaviour
Different measuring instruments were developed to measure the association of
environmental concern with general attitude toward the environment (Weigel and
Weigel, 1978) e.g. attitude scales including the ecological attitude-knowledge scale
(Maloney and Ward, 1973), ecocentric-anthropocentric scale (Weigel and Weigel,
1978, Gagnon Thompson and Barton, 1994), the environmental concern scale
(Weigel and Weigel, 1978), and new environmental paradigm (Dunlap, 1978). Many
measures were developed, however, researchers use two of them frequently -
ecological attitude scale developed by Maloney and Ward (1973) and New
environmental paradigm developed by Dunlap and Van Liere (1978). The method
was reduced, revised and used by other researchers e.g. (Arcury and Christianson,
1990), (Thapa, 1999) (Dunlap et al., 2000), (Bostrom et al., 2006). Clark et al. (2003)
showed that the internal variables such as altruistic and environmental attitudes
have a significant influence on PEB. The analysis suggested that these two variables
might be necessary conditions to promote pro-environmental behaviour. (Meinhold
and Malkus, 2005) Meinhold and Malkus (2005) found that PEB attitudes
significantly predicted pro-environmental behaviour. Barr and Gilg (2006) found that
the environmentalists clearly had a positive, confident and responsible attitude
toward environmental protection. Gagnon Thompson and Barton (1994) concluded
in their study that ecocentric attitudes and values may take an important part in
peoples’ decisions, because environmental issues come out from a conflict between
individual and collective interests (Axelrod, 1994), (Karp, 1996). Some researchers
suggested that environmental behaviour and environmental attitudes are related to
people’s values (Dunlap et al., 1983), (Karp, 1996), (Wesley Schultz and Zelezny,
1999), (Stern, 2000). These methods were developed to measure a general attitude
reflecting the environmental concern, but were used to measure specific attitudes
toward specific behaviours (Fransson and Gӓrling, 1999). Applied in this way, the
predictive validity of the measures may be low, but higher construct validity may be
measured. Therefore, research should focus on explaining the gap between general
attitudes and value orientations and specific pro-environmental behaviour.
An indirect influence of attitudes on pro-environmental behaviour was also found. A
study among college students’ willingness to show pro-environmental behaviour
found that students, who believed that technology and growth will solve ecological
problems, were less willing to make personal sacrifices. Thus, people with these
strong beliefs are less likely to engage pro-environmental behaviour with obvious
changes in a lifestyle (Gigliotti, 1992) (Gigliotti, 1994). McCarty and Shrum (2001)
found that specific beliefs about the importance of recycling had both a direct
influence on recycling behaviour and an effect that is mediated by beliefs about the
inconvenience of recycling. Similarly, Truelove and Parks (2012) found that belief
about certain behaviour mitigated global warming was strongly related to intention
to perform that behaviour.
Attitudes to the environment were investigated from a different point of
view as well. Diekmann (1998) used a low cost/high cost model to explain
differences between environmental attitudes and pro-environmental behaviour. The
costs are not only understood as an economic value, but also psychological and
other factors are included such as time and effort needed to perform pro-
environmental behaviour. The study showed that low-cost pro-environmental

24
behaviour for example recycling and environmental attitudes have a significant
correlation. This model explained why people with environmental interests take part
in easy activities such as already mentioned recycling, but fail to engage more costly
activities e.g. buying less or driving. Similar approach was applied by Schultz and
Oskamp (1996), where a measurement of effort was used instead of costs. Schultz
and Oskamp (1996) found that the attitudes are strongly and positively related to
the effort required for behaving pro-environmentally. In the studies about recycling
behaviour it was concluded that when a high amount of effort is required for
showing PEB, only people with strong pro-environment attitudes would do so.
Consequently, when a small effort is required, small moderate environmental
concern might provide enough support to show behaviour. The same hypothesis was
suggested in an empirical study by Bagozzi et al. (1990).
To sum up, the last group of factors were investigated from a psychological point of
view as internal factors. The internal factors can be divided into social, cognitive,
and affective group.
Social norm factors are given by personal and social norms related to pro-
environmental behaviour in the workplace. The higher own exception and
expectation of other’s to behave pro-environmentally, the more PEB can be
observed. Cognitive factors consist of environmental awareness, intention to act
and perceived behavioural control. High scores of these three factors indicate
positive pro-environmental behaviour. Lastly, the affective factors are values of each
individual and attitudes toward pro-environmental behaviour. A positive correlation
was confirmed from these factors.
The hypotheses regarding internal factors were postulated as:
H7: The social norms influence positively pro-environmental behaviour in the
workplace.
H8: The personal norms influence positively pro-environmental behaviour in the
workplace.
H9: A high level of environmental awareness influences positively pro-environmental
behaviour.
H10: The intention to act has a positive effect on pro-environmental behaviour in the
workplace.
H11: The values influence positively pro-environmental behaviour in the workplace.
H12: The attitude toward PEB influence positively pro-environmental behaviour in the
workplace.

25
 2.5. Theoretical model
The literature review chapter described different factors that might have an impact
on pro-environmental behaviour in the workplace. Based upon the literature review
and its outcomes, three main groups of factors have been identified - demographic,
external and internal factors. A provided overview of the factors investigated in this
study can be seen in Table 5 below.
Table 5 An overview of factors influencing PEB selected in this study
Factors Sub factors Sub-subfactors
Gender
Age
Demographic
Education
Ethnic origins
Facilities
External factors Situational factors
Leadership
Social norms
Social
Personal norms
Environmental awareness
Internal factors Cognitive
Intention to act
Values
Affective
Attitude toward PEB

Derived from Table 5, a conceptual model can be designed. The conceptual model
combines the possible relationship between demographic, external and internal
factors as independent variables; while the dependent variable is pro-environmental
behaviour. Figure 1 represents a conceptual model below.

Figure 1 A conceptual model of the factors related to PEB

26
The conceptual model shows factors that we expect to have an impact on pro-
environmental behaviour in the workplace. Due to lack of the literature related
exclusively to pro-environmental behaviour in the workplace, we investigate
whether the selected factors have an effect on PEB in the workplace. The first group
of factors - demographic factors are represented by gender, age, education, and
ethnic origins. The second group - the external factors were defined as situational
factors related to available facilities for performing pro-environmental behaviour
and leadership. Lastly, the internal factors are seen as social (social norms and
personal norms), cognitive (environmental knowledge, environmental awareness
and intention to act), and affective factors (values, attitude toward the
environment).

27
3. Methodology
This chapter describes methodology for carrying out this research work in this study.
The chapter is divided into five sections. The first section describes research design.
(3.1) explaining the research strategy and data collection (3.1.1) and sample (3.1.2).
The following section illustrates operationalisation of the theoretical model (3.2).
The last two sections give insights into questionnaire design (3.3) and reliability and
validity of the study (3.4).
3.1. Research design
The following sub-chapter about research design is divided into two parts. The first
paragraph discusses research strategy and data collection. The following paragraph
describes the sample.
3.1.1. Research strategy and data collection
Desk research and survey were chosen as the most suitable research strategies and
their combination was used in this study.
a) Desk research
Desk research was carried out by the following research projects – a literature survey
in the first stage of the research process. The literature survey was dependent on
existing specialist literature. The literature in these study were scientific articles,
books and documents about pro-environmental behaviour, motivation, values,
attitudes etc. A quick survey was done to look through a large number and varieties
of the literature related to the content of the study. In the second step, we chose
from the searched literature relevant information for this study. By this search,
theoretical knowledge was gained to develop a conceptual model.
b) Method of data collection
The method chosen in this study for a data collection is a primary source method
with a collection by a questionnaire. The questionnaire consists of many questions
and a large number of employees participated in the study. Therefore, this method
was chosen to be appropriate in this study. A questionnaire is a written list of
questions, with answers which are recorded by respondents (Kumar, 2011). The
administration of the questionnaire was by e-mail. The respondents received an
email with an invitation to participate in the study and a link to an online version of
the questionnaire. The invitation was in English and Dutch and the respondents
could choose either Dutch or English version of the questionnaire based on their
preferences. The invitation email can be seen in Appendix I and both versions of the
questionnaire in Appendix III. (English) and Appendix V (Dutch). The questionnaire
method was chosen as the sample was expected to consisted of a large number of
respondents. Thus, it would not be possible to collect data by interviews or
observations. The questionnaire was anonymous, therefore it is not possible to track
and identify the respondents.

28
 3.1.2. Sample
(Kumar, 2011) describes sampling as the process of selecting a sample from a bigger
group (the sampling population) to become the basis for estimating or predicting the
prevalence of an unknown piece of information, situation or outcome regarding the
bigger group. The study population in our case are the employees of Wageningen
UR. Non-probability sampling design was chosen for this study with commonly used
a quota sampling. The quota sampling is used for selecting a sample from a location
convenient to the researcher (Kumar, 2011). The employees working in different
scientific groups such as Corporate, Environmental Sciences Group and Social
sciences were asked to participate in this study.
3.2. Operationalisation of the theoretical model
The literature review chapter showed the factors that are likely to be influencing PEB
in the workplace. The dependent (pro-environmental behaviour) and independent
variables (the factors) shown in a conceptual model are presented in the following
paragraphs with their operationalisation.
3.2.1. Dependent variable
The dependent variable in this study is pro-environmental behaviour in the
workplace. The construct PEB is measured by sets of questions related to different
behaviours that can be performed in the workplace or behaviour that is related to
PEB. The questions were based on the questionnaire from Environmental Science
Group, a study by Wastebusters (1997) . Extra questions were formulated and
added to the questionnaire. The questions were divided into seven groups –
recycling; heating; computer use; lights use; printing; drinking hot beverages, buying
sustainable and bio food; and commuting The answers were captured by the scale
1=Never, 2=Rarely, 3=Sometimes, 4=Often, 5=Always, 6=N/A. The lowest number
indicated poor PEB and the highest the best possible. The number 6 indicated no
available facilities or possibilities to perform the behaviour e.g. no heating or light
control.
Operationalising of the concept ‘Pro-environmental behaviour’ can be seen in
Table 6 on the following page.

29
Table 6 Operationalising 'Pro-environmental behaviour' as dependent variable

Determinative Underlying
factor variables Indicator/Measure Questions Scale
Please indicate how often you recycle office waste at work when you need to throw out the waste: 1 = Never
 Paper (e.g. newspaper, junk mail, cardboard, magazines) 2 = Rarely
 Glass 3 =Sometimes
 Plastic bottles 4 = Often
 Recycling  Batteries 5 = Always
 Chemical office waste 6 = N/A (no facilities for recycling)
Please indicate how you use the heating in your office. 1 = Never
 I check whether thermostats are set correctly in my office. (Note: the optimal setting is minimum 16 °C - maximum 19 °C). 2 = Rarely
 I wear more clothes instead of putting the heating on. 3 =Sometimes
 Heating
 I make sure that heating is off or reduced outside working hours. 4 = Often
 I reduce heating in unused rooms. 5 = Always
6 = N/A (no facilities for influencing the heating)
Please indicate how you use a computer/notebook in your office: 1 = Never
 I switch off my computer/notebook when I leave my office for a considerable period of time. 2 = Rarely
 Computer use  I switch off my computer/notebook when I go home. 3 =Sometimes
4 = Often
5 = Always
6 = N/A
Pease indicate how you manage lights in your office: 1 = Never
 I switch on the lights when I come to the office in the morning and switch them off when I leave in the evening. 2 = Rarely
 When I leave my office for a considerable period of time, and there is no one else in the room, I switch off the lights. 3 =Sometimes
 Lights use
Pro- Indication how often the respondents do 4 = Often
5 = Always
environmental a certain activity
6 = N/A (the lights in my office are controlled automatically)
behaviour How often do you do following activities related to printing and copying at work. 1 = Never
 I print double-sided. 2 = Rarely
 I copy double-sided. 3 =Sometimes
 Printing
 I try to get as much as possible on one sheet (e.g. by using narrow margins or printing two pages on one A4 sheet). 4 = Often
 I read my documents (e.g. articles, emails etc.) on my screen and work with digital versions. 5 = Always
6 = N/A
To what extent do following statements suit you? 1 = Never
 Drinking hot  I use a mug for drinking coffee/tea. 2 = Rarely
beverages,  I wash the mug in a sustainable way (e.g. cold water, no use of washing-up liquids). 3 =Sometimes
buying  When I take a plastic /carton cup for drinking coffee/tea, I reuse it for the rest of the day. 4 = Often
sustainable and  I take a new plastic/carton cup each time I have coffee or tea. 5 = Always
 I choose bio food when if it is offered in a cafeteria at my workplace. 6 = N/A
bio food
 When I purchase goods or services, I pay attention to sustainability.
Please indicate your commuting habits: 1 = Never
 I go to work by car. 2 = Rarely
 I go to work by bike. 3 =Sometimes
 I walk to work. 4 = Often
 Commuting  I use public transportation to get to work. 5 = Always
 I use a car to get to work and share with others (carpooling). 6 = N/A
 I choose to work at home, when I can.
 If I have to travel for my work (e.g. a business meeting, conference), I make use of public transport as much as possible.

30
 3.2.2. Independent variables
Independent variables are operated as demographic factors (a), external factors (b), and
Internal factors (c).

a) Demographical factors
The demographical factors are gender, age, education, employment, building, scientific
group, place of living and nationally.
The respondents were asked to indicate their gender (male or female) and exact age
in years. The education level was indicated on the scale from the lowest compulsory
education level to doctoral degree. The employees were also asked whether they work as
supportive or scientific personnel. The respondent typed the place of work, which was a
name of the building where they work e.g. Atlas, Lumen, Leeuwenborch etc. Similarly, they
provided the name of the scientific group, which they work in. The place of living was
possible to indicate by three possible answers - if the respondent lives in Wageningen, close
(less than 10 km), between 10 and 30 km or more than 30 km far. The employees were also
asked to provide their nationality.
Operationalising of the concept ‘Pro-environmental behaviour’ can be found
in Table 7 on the following page.

b) External factors
The external factors were represented by situational factors as facilities available for
performing PEB and leadership support.
The facilities factor measured conditions to show pro-environmental behaviour in the
workplace. The respondents were asked to agree or disagree with two statements. The
answers were measured on the scale from 1=Strongly disagree to 5=Strongly agree. The high
average score represent good conditions to show PEB at work.
The leadership factors represented support from management to show pro-
environmental behaviour. The questions focused on indicating support from the boss/head
of the department and the employer by agreeing or disagreeing with various statements.
The scale was presented as 1=Absolutely not to 5=Absolutely with the high average score
showing better support in showing PEB.
Operationalising of the concept ‘External factors’ can be found in Table 7 on the
following page below Table 8.

31
Table 7 Operationalising the concept 'demographic factors' as independent variables
Underlying
Determinative factor Indicator/Measure Questions Scale
variables
Male
Gender  Gender or the respondent Gender
Female
Age  Age in years What is your age? Fill-in-the- blank number
Less than a high school graduate
High school graduate or equivalent
Specialized/Vocational/Technical training (MBO)
Education  Level of education What is your highest education level?
Bachelor degree (HBO)
Master's degree
Doctoral Degree
 Type of employment Supportive personnel
Employment Which kind of employment do you have in your department?
Demographical Scientific personnel
factors  Place of work Which building do you work in?
Building Fill-in-the-blank response
Please type the name of the building where you officially work. (e.g. Leeuwenborch, Atlas, Lumen etc.)
 Name of the group
Scientific group Which group do you work in? Please type the full name of the science group. Fill-in-the-blank response

I live in Wageningen.
 Place of living I live close by (less than 10 km).
Place of living Where do you live?
I live between 10 and 30 km from work.
I live more than 30 km from work
 Nationality
Nationality What is your nationality? Please write your nationality. Fill-in-the-blank response

Table 8 Operationalising the concept 'external factors' as independent variables

Determinative Underlying
Indicator/Measure Questions Scale
factor variables
 Wageningen UR as an employer provides good possibilities to show the pro-environmental behaviour. 1 = Strongly disagree
 The current facilities for recycling are sufficient at my working place. 2 = Disagree
 Availability of facilities to
Situational factors 3 = Neutral
show PEB
4 = Agree
5 = Strongly agree
 My boss/head of the department supports me in showing pro-environmental behaviour at work.
 My employer informs me about the environmental impact of my behaviour at work. 1 = Absolutely not
 My employer informs me about projects on sustainability at Wageningen UR. 2=
External factors  My employer informs me about environmental policy of my department/science group. 3=
 I learn environmental friendly behaviour at work. 4=
 Support from management 5= Absolutely
Leadership factors  There is a supervisory support for the environmental effort of the employees.
to show PEB
 I show the pro-environmental behaviour, when my boss/head of the department behaves pro-environmentally in the
workplace.
 It is important to me that my boss/head of the department shows the pro-environmental behaviour at work.
 My boss/head of the department shows the pro-environmental behaviour at work.
 Seeing my boss/head of the department acting pro-environmentally influences my own acting..

32
 c) Internal factors
i. Social
Social variable was measured by social and personal norms at work. The scales were
based on a study by Borgstede (2002) (Borgstede, 2002) with additional questions
created by the researcher.
The social norms at work measured the expectation of other’s to behave pro-
environmentally in the workplace. The strength of the norms was trapped by an
agreement or disagreement of statements related to the norms measured on the scale
1=Absolutely not, 2, 3, 4, 5=Absolutely. Higher scores indicated a high expectation of
other’s to behave pro-environmentally at work.
The personal norms measured the expectation of own behaviour to behave pro-
environmentally. The agreement or disagreement was measured on the same scale as
the social norms. A high number revealed a high own expectation to behave pro-
environmentally in the workplace.
ii. Cognitive
Cognitive variable was measured by environmental awareness, intention to act and
perceived behavioural control.
Environmental awareness measured a level of environmental awareness. The
scale was based on Steg (1999) and Gatersleben et al. (2002). The respondents were
asked to indicate whether they agree or disagree with various statements on the scale
1=Strongly disagree, 2=Disagree, 3=Neutral, 4=Agree, 5=Strongly agree. The average
score of the scale showed the level of environmental awareness ranging from 1 – low
awareness to 5 – high awareness.
Intention to act measured an indication of a respondent’s readiness to perform
pro-environmental behaviour by reducing an impact on the environment in the coming
month. The intention was captured on the scale from 1=Strongly disagree to 5=Strongly
agree. A low score indicates a low intention and a high score suggests high intention to
act pro-environmentally.
Perceived behavioural control referred to people's perception of their ability to
perform pro-environmental behaviour. This variable was based on the Theory of Planned
Behaviour created by Ajzen (1991). The respondents indicated an agreement or
disagreement whether they can perform PEB on a scale from 1=strongly disagree to
5=strongly agree. The high number showed high perceived behaviour control.

iii. Affective
Affective variable was measured in a relation to values and attitude toward PEB.
Values were divided into five groups of ethical values: Self-transcendence –
Altruistic; Self-transcendence - Altruistic – environmentalism; Environmentalist,
Conservatism; Self-enhancement (Self-interest) and Openness to change . The groups
were measured by various statements indicted on the scale from - 1=opposed to my
values, 0=not important, 1, 2, 3=Important, 4, 5, 6=Very important, 7=of supreme
importance. This concept was used for example by (Dietz et al., 1998) and applied by
Stern (1999) or (Rioux, 2011) etc. in their studies to capture the values of the
respondents. The average score of each group indicated the strength of the values.

33
Attitude toward PEB measured the degree to which behaving pro-environmentally was
positively or negatively valued. The attitude was measured by different statements
related to PEB in the workplace. The scale ranged from 1=Strongly disagree to 5=Strongly
agree. An average low score indicated negative attitude and a high score positive
attitude.
Operationalising of the concept ‘Internal factors’ can be found in Table 9 on the
following page.

34
 Table 9 Operationalising the concept 'Internal factors' as independent variables
Determinative Underlying
Indicator/Measure Questions Scale
factor variables
What in your opinion should your colleagues do at work? 1 = Absolutely not
 Print double-sided?
Social norms at work
 Copy double-sided? 5 = Absolutely
 Measuring expectation of
 Recycle paper?
other’s to behave
 Turn off the computer/notebook when not in use?
 Arrange a telephone or video-conference instead of traveling to a business meeting?
Social What do you think you have to do at work? 1 = Absolutely not
 Print double-sided?
Personal norms
 Copy double-sided? 5 = Absolutely
 Measuring expectation of own
 Recycle paper?
behaviour
 Turn off the computer/notebook when not in use?
 Arrange a telephone or video-conference instead of traveling to a business meeting?
Please indicate whether you agree/disagree with the following statements. 1 = Strongly disagree
 Environmental pollution affects my health 2 = Disagree
 Environmental problems have consequences for my life 3 = Neutral
 I worry about environmental problems 4 = Agree
 I can see with my own eyes that environment is deteriorating 5 = Strongly agree
Environmental awareness
 Environmental problems are a risk for the future of my children
 Level of environmental
 Environmental problems are exaggerated
awareness
 Too much attention is paid to environmental problems
 The attention given to the greenhouse effect is exaggerated
 Saving threatened species in unnecessary luxury
 I am optimistic about the environmental quality in the future
Cognitive  A better environment starts with me.
 People who do not take the environment into account try to escape their responsibility
1 = Strongly disagree
Intention to act 2 = Disagree
 I am going to behave pro-environmentally in the coming month to reduce my impact on the environment
 Measuring intention to behave 3 = Neutral
Internal (e.g. by turning off the computer, printing less, using a mug etc.)
pro-environmentally 4 = Agree
factors 5 = Strongly agree
1 = Strongly disagree
Perceived behavioural control
 If I wanted to, I could easily behave pro-environmentally in the workplace. 2 = Disagree
 Measuring people's
 Whether I perform pro-environmentally is entirely up to me. 3 = Neutral
perceptions of their ability to
4 = Agree
perform PEB
5 = Strongly agree
Please rate to what extent these values are a guiding principle in your life: - 1 = opposed to my values
Self-transcendence - Altruistic 0 = not important
 Social justice (correcting injustice, care for the weak) 1=
 Equality (equal opportunity for all) 2=
 A world of peace (free of war and conflict) 3 = Important
Self-transcendence - Altruistic - Environmentalism 4=
 Preventing pollution (conserving natural resources) 5=
 Unity with nature (fitting into nature) 6 = Very important
 Respecting the earth (harmony with other species) 7 = of supreme importance
 Protecting the environment (preserving nature)
Values (ethical) Conservatism:
Affective  Measuring human values  Self-discipline (self-restraint, resistance to temptations)
divided into 5 sub- groups  Family security (safety for loved ones)
 Honouring parents and elders (showing respect)
Self-interest (self-enhancement):
 Influential (having an impact on people and events)
 Wealth (material possessions, money)
 Authority (the right to lead or command)
 Social power (control over others, dominance)
Openness to change:
 Curious (interested in everything, exploring)
 A varied life (filled with challenge, novelty and change)
 An exciting life (stimulating experiences)

35

Affective
*Note: (R)=Reversed question.
Attitude toward PEB
 Measuring attitude toward
behaving pro-environmentally
Please indicate whether you agree/disagree with the following statements. 1 = Strongly disagree
 I’m in favour of behaving pro-environmentally in the workplace. 2 = Disagree
 I think it’s a good idea for Wageningen UR as an employer to support the pro-environmental behaviour in the workplace. 3 = Neutral
 The pro-environmental behaviour in the workplace is important to me. 4 = Agree
 I think too much attention is paid to the pro-environmental behaviour in the workplace. (R) * 5 = Strongly agree
 I think the pro-environmental behaviour in the workplace do good.
 I would like to have more recycling facilities.
 I want to be informed about the environmental impact of my behaviour at work.
 I want to be informed about the environmental policy of the department/science group.
 I would like to learn environmental friendly behaviour at work.
 I would appreciate supervisory support for the environmental effort of the employees.
 I want to be informed about the costs and amount of the energy/water/paper used by my department/science group.
 I would like to be informed about projects on sustainability at Wageningen UR.
36
 3.3. Questionnaire administration
The questionnaire for this study was created on the basis of the theoretical
framework derived from a literature review and a questionnaire created by
Environmental Science Group. The employees were asked by an email with an
invitation to participate in this study. The invitation email in Dutch and English can
be found in Appendix I. The questionnaire was available online on the website
www.surveymonkey.net with an image on the opening page and a short description
of pro-environmental behaviour and the aim of the project. English version can be
found in Appendix II. and Dutch version in Appendix IV. All the questions and scales
can be found in Appendix III for English version and Appendix V for Dutch.
3.4. Reliability and validity
Reliability is a central concept in measurement which means consistency (Punch,
2005). Two main aspects can be found: stability and internal consistency. Using
already tested scales with adjustments and adding new questions by the researcher
achieve the stability. Thus, the scales can be used and replicated in future research
to measure the same content. Internal consistency will be accomplished by testing
the scales. The scales consist of multiple items, therefore the scales will be tested
using Cronbach’s alpha and internal consistency within the scale (Field, 2009).
Measurement validity is the extent to which an instrument measures what it
is claimed to measure (Punch, 2005). The validity of the questionnaire was increased
by a pilot test. The questionnaire was pre-tested by employees working for
Corporate, and Education and Competence Studies Group. The comments and
suggestions were revised and incorporated into the questionnaire. The
questionnaire was also revised by the commissionaires, the author of the original
questionnaire from Environmental Sciences group and by a member of Department
of Communication in Leeuwenborch. They acted as experts in this study.

37
4. Results
This chapter provides results of the analysis. Firstly, the sample is described by
descriptive statistics (4.1). Model development and testing of the scales is followed
(4.2), and lastly path model is tested and validated (4.3).
4.1. Description of the sample
The participants of the study were the employees of Wageningen University and
Research Centre. 508 participants began the questionnaire, however some
respondents did not answer all questions. 72 respondents were excluded from the
data analysis due to missing data. If the questions about gender, age, education
level, department, group, place of living, nationality and building were omitted, the
respondents were excluded as it is not possible to group the results based on these
variables. Thus in total 436 respondents were included in the further analysis.
4.1.1. Gender
In total 214 respondents were men, which constitutes 49.1 % of the sample and 222
respondents were women, which accounted for 51.8% of the respondents.
According to Annual report 20111, 42.4 % of all employees were women and 57.6 %
were men. In general, the sample ration between male and female is similar to the
ratio of all employees. The number of employees in 20111 was 6495. Due to difficulty
to track numbers of contacted respondents, we assume that 2465 employees of
WUR were contacted to participate. The Chi-square test confirms that the response
group is a reliable representation of the sample [χ2 (2)=1491, p < .05].
4.1.2. Age
The age of the respondents was in a range between years 18 to 77. To illustrate the
results, 6 categories were created to group the age of the participants. The first
category age 0-20 was only .2 % (1 person); age 21-30 was 18.8 % (82 people); age
31-40 was 23.4 % (102 people): 41-50 was 26.6 % (116 people), 51-60 was 24.8 %
(108 people) and greater were 6.2 % (27). It can be seen from Figure 2 below that
the respondents belongs mostly to the 31-40, 41-50, and 51-60 age categories.

Age
30% 26.6% (116)
24.8% (108)
25% 23.4% (102)
18.8% (82)
20%
15%
10% 6.2% (27)
5%
0.2% (1)
0%
0-20 21-30 31-40 41-50 51-60 greater
Figure 2 Age

1
The report available: http://www.wageningenur.nl/upload_mm/7/8/b/5c371a5c-3fd1-4904-8465-
97672991894a_Annual%20report%20Wageningen%20UR%202011.pdf

38
 4.1.3. Place of living
The employees are mostly living in Wageningen 37 % of the sample and 21.6 % live
close by, which is less than 10 km far from Wageningen. However, a large
percentage of the employees 23.4 % live more than 30 km from work.

40%
37.6% (164) Place of living
30%
21.6% (94) 23.4% (102)
17.4% (76)
20%
10%
0%
I live in Wageningen. I live close by (less than I live between 10 and I live more than 30 km
10 km). 30 km from work. from work

Figure 3 Home

4.1.4. Nationality
The respondents were asked about their nationality. By far the large percentage of
the sample was Dutch compared with any other nationalities. In fact, 399 Dutch
respondents represent 91.5 % of the sample. Other nationalities were American (1;
.2%), Armenian (1; .2%), Belgian (2; .5%), Beninese (1; .2%), British (2; .5%), Bulgarian
(1; .2%), Canadian (1; .2%), Colombian (2; .5%), Czech (2; .5%), Finish (1; .2%), French
(3; .7%), German (4; .9%), Greek (1; .2%), Hungarian (1; .2%), India (1; .2%),
Indonesian (1; .2%), Italian (1; .2%), Mexican (1; .2%), Nepali (1; .2%), Peruvian (1;
.2%), Polish (2; .5%), Portuguese (2; .5%), Spanish (1; .2%), Swedish (1; .2%),
Ukrainian (1; .2%), Vietnamese (1; .2%).
As can be seen from the results, the majority of the respondents were Dutch.
The results would not be possible to generalize to a large group. Therefore, the
nationality as a variable is not included in further analysis.
4.1.5. Education
Figure 4 represents data related to the level of education. As can be seen 43.3 % of
the respondents have been awarded Master’s degree, 29.8 % have Doctoral Degree,
17.20 % received Bachelor degree (HBO), 7.80% have Specialized/ Vocational/
Technical training (MBO) and the smallest group consisted of High school graduate
or equivalent representing 1.8 % of the respondents. A relatively high number of
supportive personnel and current PhD students participated, therefore the
percentage of Masters seems to be higher as they currently hold a master degree.
The higher number of educated people was expected as this study is conducted at an
educational institution.

39
 Education
50%
43.30% (189)
40%
29.80% (130)
30%

20% 17.20% (75)

10% 7.80% (34)

1.80% (8)
0%

Figure 4 Education

4.1.6. Buildings
The sample can be also described based on the place of work (building). The
respondents were divided into 8 groups – Actio, Aqua Atlas, Bestuurscentrum, Gaia,
Leeuwenborch, Lumen and Other. The division can be seen in Figure 6. The largest
group is Leeuwenborch with 25.7 % (112 people) and the second largest is Gaia,
which constitutes 22.9 % (100 people). The remaining buildings are Actio, which
represents 2.5 % (11 people) of all respondents; Aqua 6 % (26); Atlas 9.6 % (42);
Bestuurscentrum 12.8 % (56); Lumen 14.9 % (65); and Other buildings 5.5 % (24). The
category Other includes Alterra, Atrium, Biotechnion, Forum, Ijmuiden, LEI - Den
Haag, Lelystad, ASG, Radix, Technotron. These buildings were grouped to one
category, as the number of respondents was low for each building.

30%
Building
25.70% (112)
25%
22.90% (100)
20%
14.90% (65)
15%
12.80% (56)
9.60% (42)
10%
6.00% (26) 5.50% (24)
5%
2.50% (11)
0%
Actio Aqua Atlas Bestuur Gaia Leeuwen Lumen Other

Figure 5 Building

4.1.7. Type of employment

The employees were also asked to indicate their type of employment. Supportive
personnel accounted for 57.3 % (250 people) and Scientific personnel 42.7 % (186
people).

40
 4.1.8. Science group
Figure 6 below shows the sample divided into science groups. As can be seen the
largest group was Environmental Sciences with 52.98%. The second group was Social
Sciences represented by 25.69 % and the third was Corporate group. The last group
accounted for 5.28 % of the sample and was label as Other. This group consists of
the employees working at Agricultural Economics Institute foundation,
Agrotechnology and Food Sciences, Animal Sciences, Education and Research, ISRIC,
Plant Sciences, Wageningen Business School and Wageningen International.

5.28% Science group

16.06% (23)
Environmental
(70) Sciences
Social Sciences

52.98% Corporate
(231)
25.69% Other
(112)
Figure 6 Percentage of employees per science group

4.2. Model development and testing

4.2.1. Scale development and testing
Despite a large number of questions, not all questions were included into the model
test. Various criteria were applied to ensure that only valid data are included. The
questions that showed highest (not acceptable) skewness were excluded from the
further analysis (Filed, 2009). Additionally the questions that had generally high
number of answers N/A were also excluded. The list of questions included in further
analysis can be seen in the paragraphs below.
The following set of questions about recycling was excluded from further
analysis. The question I recycle Paper, Batteries and Chemical office waste showed
high skewness and kurtosis and the questions on Glass and Plastic bottles yielded a
low number of positive responses to perform this behaviour. Similarly following
question were excluded due to high skewness I switch off my computer/notebook
when I go home. Applying the same rule the questions I switch off my
computer/notebook when I go home, I take a new plastic/carton cup each time I
have coffee or tea; I use a car to get to work and share with others (carpooling).
Furthermore, the questions I go to work by car, I go to work by bike, I walk to work, I
use public transportation to get to work were not included as the questions showed
to be impractical and not possible to analyse as a scale due to respondents working
in different regions of The Netherlands and living in different cities.
4.2.2. Principal component analysis
A principal component analysis (PCA) method was used to extract factors from the
questions on pro-environmental behaviour. The initial run of PCA led to exclusion of
following questions I read my documents (e.g. articles, emails etc. ) on my screen and
work with digit versions. When I take a plastic/carton cup for drinking coffee/tea, I
reuse it for the rest of the day; I choose to work at home, when I can; If I have to

41
travel for my work (e.g. a business meeting, conference); I make use of public
transport as much as possible due to low anti-image correlation.
The final principal component analysis was conducted on 14 items (see items
in Table 10) with orthogonal rotation (varimax) in order to yield factors. The Kaiser-
Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy verified that sampling adequacy for the
analysis, KMO .714 [“good“ according to (Kaiser, 1974)] and all KMO values for
individual items were >.559, which is above the acceptable limit of .5 (Field, 2009).
Bartlett's Test of Sphericity χ (91)=405.23, p < .001, indicated that correlations
between items were sufficiently large for PCA. Based on these scores, we can also
conclude that multicollinearity in these data is not a problem (Field, 2009).
An initial analysis was run to obtain eigenvalues for each component in the
data. Five components had eigenvalues over Kaiser’s criterion of 1 and in
combination explained 66.34 % of the variance. Table 10 shows the factor loading
with values above required threshold .4 after rotation.
Table 10 Summary of exploratory factor analysis results for PEB
Rotated Component Matrix
Component
1 2 3 4 5
I check whether thermostats are set correctly in my
.631
office.
I wear more clothes instead of putting the heating on. .528 .414
I make sure that heating is off or reduced outside
.825
working hours.
I reduce heating in unused rooms. .843
I switch off my computer/notebook when I leave my
.808
office for a considerable period of time.
I switch on the lights when I come to the office in the
morning and switch them off when I leave in the .,505
evening.
When I leave my office for a considerable period of time,
and there is no one else in the room, I switch off the .616
lights.
I print double-sided. .859
I copy double-sided. .821
I try to get as much as possible on one sheet (e.g. by
using narrow margins or printing two pages on one A4 .535
sheet).
I use a mug for drinking coffee/tea. .775
I wash the mug in a sustainable way (e.g. cold water, no
.832
use of washing-up liquids).
I choose bio food when if it is offered in a cafeteria at my
.797
workplace.
When I purchase goods or services, I pay attention to
.882
sustainability.
Eigen values 3.67 1.78 1.48 1.19 1.17
% of variance 26.18 12.68 10.58 8.5 8.4

Five scales were created based on the factors loadings of PCA. The scale were further
tested. The scales are described in the paragraph below (4.2.3).

42
 4.2.3. Pro-environmental behaviour
This paragraph present five pro-environmental behaviour scales related to heating
(a), energy (b), printing (c), sustainable purchasing (d), and lastly drinking hot
beverages (e). The scales show the mean scores and standard deviations for each
question and test of reliability.
a) Heating
The scale in relation to heating measured the first behaviour. The employees
reported generally good pro-environmental behaviour in relation to heating. The
mean was equal to 2.80 (SD=1.59). The questions showed slightly high standard
deviations in all cases. The scale reported Cronbach’s alpha .742.
Table 11 Means and standard deviation PEB related to heating
Mean (SD)
I check whether thermostats are set correctly in my office. 2.87 (1.39)
I wear more clothes instead of putting the heating on. 3.30 (1.24)
I make sure that heating is off or reduced outside working hours. 2.80 (1.59)
I reduce heating in unused rooms. 2.23 (1.51)
Total 2.80 (1.43)

b) Energy
The second scale was labelled as energy. The total scale mean was 4, which indicates
high pro-environmental behaviour regarding saving energy. The scale showed low
Cronbach’s alpha. Therefore, this scale is not included into model testing. Scores for
each item can be seen in Table 12.
Table 12 Means and standard deviation PEB related to energy
Mean (SD)
I switch off my computer/notebook when I leave my office for a considerable
3.07 (1.54)
period of time.
I switch on the lights when I come to the office in the morning and switch them off
4.47 (.96)
when I leave in the evening.
When I leave my office for a considerable period of time, and there is no one else in
4.45 (1.01)
the room, I switch off the lights.
Total 4 (1.17)

c) Printing
The printing scale also showed a high mean of 3.9 (SD=1.04). The score indicates that
pro-environmental behaviour related to printing is high among the employees.
Individual scores can be seen in the table below.
Table 13 Means and standard deviation PEB related to printing
Mean (SD)
I print double-sided. 4.55 (.81)
I copy double-sided. 4.12 (1.04)
I try to get as much as possible on one sheet (e.g. by using narrow margins or
3.3 (1.28)
printing two pages on one A4 sheet).
Total 3.9 (1.04)

43
The scale showed a low Cronbach’s alpha .550, which is not acceptable for further
analysis. Therefore, the third question (I try to get as much as possible on one sheet)
was removed in order to improve Cronbach’s alpha. The final Cronbach’s alpha was
.718, which meets the requirements.
d) Sustainable purchasing
The forth scale sustainable purchasing reported a slightly higher score than average.
The total mean was 2.92 (SD=1.16). The scores scan be seen in Table 14. The
Cronbach’s alpha was acceptably high .746.
Table 14 Means and deviation PEB related to sustainable purchasing
Mean (SD)
I choose bio food when if it is offered in a cafeteria at my workplace. 2.75 (1.19)
When I purchase goods or services, I pay attention to sustainability. 3.09 (1.12)
Total 2.92 (1.16)

e) Drinking hot beverages

Lastly, the drinking scale also showed good pro-environmental behaviour (M=3.82).
The highest average gave the first question (M=4.2) (see Table 15). Lower average
was reported by the second question (M=3.44). Drinking scale reported reliability of
Cronbach’s α .67
Table 15 Drinking
Mean (SD)
I wash the mug in a sustainable way (e.g. cold water, no use of washing-up liquids). 4.2 (1.22)
I use a mug for drinking coffee/tea. 3.44 (1.5)
Total 3.82 (1.19)

As can be seen the scales related to heating, printing, sustainable purchasing and
drinking showed desired Cronbach’s α (min .7 - .8 (Field, 2009)). The second scale
energy showed too low score, therefore this scale is not included into further
analysis. The questions also showed good internal correlation within each scale.
4.2.4. Attitude toward PEB
The attitude scale showed exceptionally high Cronbach’s α .89. The average mean of
this scale was 3.74 (SD=.84), which show high and positive attitude toward PEB. All
the items of the scale with means and standard deviation can be seen in Table 16.
Table 16 The descriptive results of attitude toward PEB
Mean (SD)
I'm in favour of behaving pro-environmentally in the workplace. 4.23 (.58)
I think it's a good idea for Wageningen UR as an employer to support the pro-
4.4 (.55)
environmental behaviour in the workplace.
The pro-environmental behaviour in the workplace is important to me. 4.17 (.64)
I think too much attention is paid to the pro-environmental behaviour in the
3.81 (.87)
workplace.(R)
I think the pro-environmental behaviour in the workplace do good. 4.08 (.58)
I would like to have more recycling facilities. 3.82 (.89)
I want to be informed about the environmental impact of my behaviour at work. 3.25 (1)
I want to be informed about the environmental policy of the department/science group. 3.35 (.94)
I would like to learn environmental friendly behaviour at work. 3.3 (.97)
I would appreciate a supervisory support for the environmental effort of the employees. 3.69 (.9)

44
I would like to be informed about projects on sustainability at Wageningen UR. 3.53 (1.06)
I want to be informed about the costs and amount of the energy/water/paper used by 3.28 (1.06)
my department/science group
Total 3.74 (.84)

4.2.5. The value opinionaire (brief inventory of values)

The results of the value opinionnaire are shown in Tab 17. The scale self-
transcendence – Altruistic showed the highest average score 5.15 (SD=1.18) (all
scales measured on a scale from - 1=opposed to my values to 7=of supreme
importance) with relatively high standard deviations. Following highest was Altruistic
environmentalism with the score 4.82 (SD=1.28) and the third highest was
Conservatism with an average 4.72 (SD=1.18). Openness to change scale measured
an average of 4.51 (SD=1.24). The last scale self-enhancement (measuring self-
interest) showed a low mean of 2.23 (SD=1.27). This score was good as the average
should be as low as possible.
Table 17 The descriptive results of the value opinionative
Self-transcendence - Altruistic Mean (SD)
Social justice (correcting injustice, care for the weak) 5.18 (1.33)
Equality (equal opportunity for all) 5.04 (1.35)
A world of peace (free of war and conflict) 5.25 (1.57)
Total altruistic 5.15 (1.18)
Self-transcendence - Altruistic - environmentalism Mean (SD)
Preventing pollution (conserving natural resources) 5.41 (1.27)
Unity with nature (fitting into nature) 3.5 (1.96)
Respecting the earth (harmony with other species) 5.12 (1.56)
Protecting the environment (preserving nature) 5.25 (1.40)
Total altruistic- environmentalism 4.82 (1.28)
Conservatism Mean (SD)
Self-discipline (self-restraint, resistance to temptations) 4.12(1.61)
Family security (safety for loved ones) 5.38 (1.38)
Honouring parents and elders (showing respect) 4.64 (1.60)
Total traditional/conservation 4.72 (1.18)
Self-enhancement (Self-interest) Mean (SD)
Influential (having an impact on people and events) 3.16 (1.65)
Wealth (material possessions, money) 2.35 (1.49)
Authority (the right to lead or command) 2.14 (1.68)
Social power (control over others, dominance) 1.26 (1.54)
Total self-enhancement 2.23 (1.27)
Openness to change Mean (SD)
Curious (interested in everything, exploring) 4.88 (1.37)
A varied life (filled with challenge, novelty and change) 4.74 (1.47)
An exciting life (stimulating experiences) 3.91 (1.69)
Total openness to change 4.51 (1.24)

Almost all scale showed desired Cronbach’s α namely self-transcendence – altruistic

.769, self-transcendence –altruistic-environmentalism .833, self-enhancement .793,
and openness to change .746. Conservatism scale reported a slightly lower
Cronbach’s α of .634. This value is however acceptable for our purposes. The scales
also indicated a good internal consistency within the scales.

45
 4.2.6. Intention to act
The employees reported relatively high intention to act. As we can see in Tab. 18 the
mean was 3.65 with SD of .93 on a 5 point scale. On the whole, the intention to act is
relatively high which indicates that the employees are willing to behave pro-
environmentally in the upcoming month to reduce their impact on the environment.
Table 18 Mean and standard deviation - Intention to act
Mean (SD)
Whether I am going to behave pro-environmentally in the coming month to reduce
my impact on the environment (e.g. by turning off the computer, printing less, using 3.65 (.93)
a mug etc.)

4.2.7. Perceived behavioural control

Perceived behavioural control scored very close to the mid-point of on a 5 point
scale with a relatively high standard deviation. The number can be found in Tab 19.
Table 19 Mean and standard deviation – Perceived behavioural control
Mean (SD)
Whether I perform pro-environmentally is entirely up to me. 3.19 (1.06)

Perceived behavioural control was originally measured by two questions. The

question If I wanted to, I could easily behave pro-environmentally in the workplace
was excluded from the analysis as the questions showed low Cronbach’s α and low
internal correlation. The outcome of the question can be found in Appendix VII.
More research is needed to develop a scale to measure perceived behavioural
control in the workplace.
4.2.8. Situational factors
Table 20 Mean and standard deviation - Situational factors
Mean (SD)
Wageningen UR as an employer provides good possibilities to show the pro-
3.01 (.89)
environmental behaviour.

Situational factors were also measured by two questions. The question “The current
facilities for recycling are sufficient at my working place.” was excluded from the
analysis due to low Cronbach’s α and the internal correlation within the scale. The
outcome of the question can be found in Appendix VII.
4.2.9. Environmental awareness
The employees reported on average a high environmental awareness. The mean was
3.89 on the scale ranging from 1 to 5. The internal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha) of
this scale was .86.

46
Table 21 Means and standard deviations - Environmental awareness
Mean (SD)
Environmental pollution affects my health. 4.06 (.72)
Environmental problems have consequences for my life. 4 (.72)
I worry about environmental problems. 3.92 (.81)
I can see with my own eyes that environment is deteriorating. 3.5 (.92)
Environmental problems are a risk for the future of my children. 4.11 (.79)
Environmental problems are exaggerated.(R) 3.87 (.89
Too much attention is paid to environmental problems.(R) 4.05 (.85)
The attention given to the greenhouse effect is exaggerated.(R) 3.86 (.95)
Saving threatened species in unnecessary luxury.(R) 4.1 (.84)
I am optimistic about the environmental quality in the future. (R) 3.36 (.91)
A better environment starts with me. 4.14 (.8)
People who do not take the environment into account try to escape their
3.68 (.91)
responsibility.
Total 3.89 (.53)
Note: (R) reversed questions
It is important to note that some items in the scale showed lower internal
correlation within the scale. (Field, 2009) suggests all items should correlate with the
total above .3). None of the questions was removed in order to improve correlation.
This scale was used by (Steg, 1999) with good results. The results might have been
influenced by the working environment as Wageningen UR supports suitability. More
research is needed to explain whether the scale is consistent with respondents with
different working environments.
4.2.10. Social and personal norms at work
The strength of social and personal norm were tapped by two different scales. The
social norm scale showed a significantly high average of 4.04 (SD=.64). The high
average shows that the employees generally hold a high expectation that other
colleagues should behave pro-environmentally at work. The scale reported
Cronbach’s α of .794. The items and all scores can be seen in Tab. 22 below.
Table 22 Mean and standard deviation of social norms
What in your opinion should your colleagues do at work Mean (SD)
print double-sided? 4.31 (.73)
copy double-sided? 4.24 (.76)
recycle paper? 4.09 (.86)
turn off the computer/notebook when not in use? 4.00 (.90)
arrange a telephone or video-conference instead of traveling to a business meeting? 3.58 (1.02)
Total 4.04 (.64)

The employees also reported high personal norms of a total average 4.11. The score
indicate that the employees hold an expectation that they should personally behave
pro-environmentally at work. Cronbach’s α of .817 confirmed reliability.

47
Table 23 Mean and standard deviation of personal norms
What do you think you have to do at work? Mean (SD)
print double-sided? 4.36 (.75)
copy double-sided? 4.31 (.77)
recycle paper? 4.18 (.86)
turn off the computer/notebook when not in use? 4.06 (.95)
arrange a telephone or video-conference instead of traveling to a business meeting. 3.61 (1.02)
Total 4.11 (.67)

The lowest score in both scales had the last question about arrange a telephone or
videoconference instead of travelling to a business meeting.
We can conclude that the employees hold high expectation of behaving pro-
environmentally at work. Similarly, they expect from other colleagues to behave pro-
environmentally.
4.2.11. Leadership
The leadership factor was originally measured by one scale. However, the PCA
analysis revealed two dimensions within the scale. This enabled to create two scales
with a good internal validity (Cronbach’s α .7 and .87) and good internal correlation
within the scales. The first scale measured leadership factors related directly to the
boss/head of the department. The score was above average 2.82 (SD=.72). The mean
indicates that the boss is not particularly important to the employees in all cases.
However, the second item scored a value of 3.2 (SD=.98) on a 5 point scale, which
indicates that it is important for the employees that their boss shows pro-
environmental behaviour.
Table 24 Means and standard deviation related to leadership boss
Mean (SD)
I show the pro-environmental behaviour, when my boss/head of the department
2.67 (.87)
behaves pro-environmentally in the workplace.
It is important to me that my boss/head of the department shows pro-environmental
3.20 (.98)
behaviour at work.
Seeing my boss/head of the department acting pro-environmentally influences my
2.59 (.89)
own acting.
Total 2.82 (.72)

The second scale measured the leadership factors related to company (in our case
the university). The average score was slightly below average 2.45 (SD=.85). All the
scores can be seen in Tab. 16. The highest score 2.87 (SD=.82) obtained a the last
questions about a boss/head of the department showing pro-environmental
behaviour at work. The lowest score 2.2 (SD=.83) reported the second question on
whether the employees are informed about the impact of their behaviour on the
environment at work.

48
Table 25 Means and standard deviation related to leadership company
Mean (SD)
My boss/head of the department supports me in showing pro-environmental
2.46 (.89)
behaviour at work.
My employer informs me about the environmental impact of my behaviour at work. 2.20 (.83)
My employer informs me about projects on sustainability at Wageningen UR. 2.66 (.88)
My employer informs me about environmental policy of my department/science
2.26 (.83)
group.
I learn environmental friendly behaviour at work. 2.33 (.84)
There is a supervisory support for the environmental effort of the employees. 2.34 (.84)
My boss/head of the department shows the pro-environmental behaviour at work. 2.87 (.82)
Total 2.45(.85)

To sum up, the leadership factors were measured on two scales related to the
support from a boss and a company. Both scales reported lower average scores.

49
 4.3. Path model
The outcomes of the principal component analysis and created scales were used to
test our model. The model tested the relationships between the factors and
explored the effect of the factors using confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) with
maximum likelihood method. The analysis was conducted in a statistical program
suitable for CFA - AMOS 20. The final model solution can be seen in Fig. 7.

Figure 7 Tested PEB model

The tested model is based on the literature part of this thesis. As can be seen from
Figure 7, the model consisted of factors such as intention to act and perceived
behavioural control that are based on the Theory of Planned Behaviour. Other
factors were added to see whether they have any direct or indirect effect on pro-
environmental behaviour.
4.3.1. Model fit and estimates
To assess the overall fit of a model to data, several measurements were developed.
One of the most common measurements is χ2 (Chi-square value). Chi-square statistic
is applied as a descriptive index of fit, rather than as a statistical test. The χ2 is
significant in all cases, which suggest that the model is not consistent with the
observed data. The χ2 is sensitive to the size of the sample; therefore, any model
would be rejected if a large sample was used. Alternative indexes were developed to
assess a model fit. CMIN/DF is the minimum discrepancy, divided by its degrees of
freedom, which with radio χ2/df >2.00 represents inadequate fit (Byrne and Byrne,
1989). In our case, the model showed the ratio lower than 2 that indicates adequate
fit. Next measurement is the comparative fit index – CFI (Bentler, 1990). CFI values
close to 1 indicate a very good fit. Our results showed CFI= .9 that indicates good fit
to the data. The last extensively used measurement method is the root mean square
error of approximation (RMSA). Practical experience showed that a value of the
RMSEA of about .05 or less would indicate a close fit of the model in relation to the

50
degrees of freedom (Browne et al., 1993). The test showed RMSA equal .045 which
indicate a close fit to the data.
The models for each specific type of pro-environmental behaviour can be
found illustrated below. Each figure shows a model with the direct effects drawn by
the bold lines, and the indirect effects by the dashed lines. The lines without effects
were shaded.

Figure 8 The direct and indirect effects on drinking

Figure 9 The direct and indirect effects on heating

51
Figure 10 The direct and indirect effect on buying

Figure 11 The direct and indirect effects on printing

Derived from the regression weights and significant outcomes we can reject our
hypotheses. As can be seen from Figures 8-11 intention to tact (H10), perceived
behavioural control, social (H7) and personal norms (H8), environmental awareness
(H9), values related to altruism environment and self-interest (H11), leadership boss
influence directly and also indirectly pro-environmental behaviour in the workplace.
Additionally, the situational factors (H5) and attitude toward PEB (H12) have an
indirect effect on pro-environmental behaviour. Therefore, the hypotheses cannot

52
be rejected. Unfortunately, the hypotheses H1 – H4 related to demographic factors
were not tested, due to complexity and difficulty of the analysis.

53
 5. Discussion
This chapter provides a discussion on the investigated factors and tested models.
The results suggest an overall patter of relations between values, intention to
act and perceived behaviour control. In case of heating and drinking behaviour both
were directly influenced by intention to act and perceived behavioural control. The
outcomes confirm the resemblance to the model Theory of Planned Behaviour
(Ajzen, 1991) as an important variable to behavioural change. This model was
applied in other studies to explain pro-environmental behaviour such as car use
(Abrahamse et al., 2009), (Wall et al., 2007), the use of public transportation (Heath
and Gifford, 2002), recycling (Boldero, 1995), (Mannetti et al., 2004), ecological
behaviour (Kaiser et al., 1999) (Kaiser and Gutscher, 2003), pro-environmental
behaviour (Oreg and Katz-Gerro, 2006). The studies demonstrated the practicality of
the model, nevertheless, the model showed to be incomplete in explaining PEB as
other factors were not included. e.g. situational factors and various psychological
variables.
Intention to act reported a direct and significant effect on heating and
drinking. This factor was confirmed as a predictor of pro-environmental behaviour in
previous studies (Gagnon Thompson and Barton, 1994). Intention to act was strongly
mediated by attitude toward PEB and environmental awareness. Additionally, this
factor was affected by social, personal norms and perceived behavioural control. As
the regression estimates show in Figures 8 - 11 the strongest moderating effects are
caused by attitude toward PEB and environmental awareness. Attitude toward PEB
was found as a predictor having an effect on PEB by Schultz and Oskamp (1996), and
Gatersleben et al. (2002). This factors should be endorsed in order to see an increase
of pro-environmental behaviour. Buying and printing behaviour was not influenced
by intention to act. Therefore all the indirect effects do not have any effect on the
behaviour.
Perceived behavioural control showed a low negative relationship to heating
and drinking behaviour and significantly low and positive toward printing. Perceived
behavioural control was fairly mediated by situational factors and leadership
provided by a boss. Situational factors were also reported as a predicting factor by
Derksen and Gartrell (1993), where access to recycling boxes was important to
recycling behaviour.
Leadership boss showed a positive effect, however, leadership company
factor unexpectedly showed a negative effect. Future research should deeply
investigate the role of the management. The role of the management has not been
explained in relation to pro-environmental behaviour.
Values related to environmental showed a direct and positive effect on
heating, drinking and buying behaviour. These results are in line with previous
studies, where environmental values were found as a factor influencing PEB (Kaiser
et al., 1999), (Gagnon Thompson and Barton, 1994), (Barr and Gilg, 2006). Altruistic
values showed only an effect on printing behaviour alongside with a negative effect
of conservative values. Similar results were found by Clark et al. (2003) and Rioux
(2011). Self-interest values had a direct negative effect on heating. This negative
effect could be caused when a person seeks own comfortableness. Therefore, the
person is not likely to sacrifice in order to show PEB. The results also showed that

54
values related to the environment can be increased by environmental awareness
and attitude toward PEB.
Social norms showed a direct and medium effect on drinking behaviour and
mild effect on printing behaviour. Other people can see these two behaviours,
therefore, they could be mediated by the norms. A significant relationship between
social identity and environmental behaviour was also reported by Dono et al. (2010).
Additionally, personal norms showed a direct effect on printing behaviour. Harland
et al. (1999) also found personal norms as an important part of behaving pro-
environmentally.
Environmental awareness showed a medium effect on buying behaviour and
unexpectedly negative on drinking. The positive effect was expected, as some
awareness is needed when buying biological or sustainable products. The negative
effect could have been caused by a statistical artefact and should be further
investigated.
We can see from Figures 8 -11 that the variables explained varied from 16 % to
44 %. The numbers might seem to be low. However, other studies in this domain
reported similar explained variances e.g. Dietz et al. (1998) reported R2=.04-.32,
Gatersleben et al. (2002) showed R2=.09-.43, Tindall et al. (2003) (Tindall et al., 2003)
R2=.07-17, (Bamberg and Schmidt, 2003) R2=.14-.46, (Poortinga et al., 2004) reported
R2=.02-.35. These studies and our study showed that the factors and their
relationships are highly complex and hard to include in one single study. Therefore,
the lower R2 suggests that there are other factors that have an impact on pro-
environmental behaviour.
The process of analysis showed that it is necessary to distinguish between
different types of pro-environmental behaviour. The remaining questions stays
whether it is possible to create one model with a large number of factors explaining
pro-environmental behaviour. We agree with Kollmuss and Agyeman (2002)
developing a model that incorporates all the factors behind pro-environmental
behaviour might be neither feasible nor useful. The complexity of the model is
caused by direct and indirect relationships; therefore it is difficult to establish all of
them in one single study.

55
 6. Conclusion and recommendations
The aim of this master thesis was to identify factors likely influencing pro-
environmental behaviour and establish their relationship in regard to PEB by
answering the research questions. Pro-environmental behaviour in this study was
seen as a kind of behaviour that consciously seeks to minimise a negative impact of
one’s actions on natural and built world.
The literature review showed three groups of factors that were likely to
influence PEB as demographic, external factors and internal factors. Demographic
factors were gender, age, education and ethnic origins. External factors were found
as situational factors divided into facilities to show pro-environmental behaviour and
leadership. The last group were internal factors described as social, cognitive, and
affective sub-group. Social factors were social and personal norms. Cognitive factors
were identified as environmental awareness and intention to act. Lastly, affective
were categorised as values and attitude toward the environment.
Pro-environmental behaviour in the workplace was measured in relation to
recycling, heating, computer use, light use, printing and copying, drinking hot
beverages, commuting, and sustainable shopping. Remaining factors were measured
by corresponding questions and scale. A path model was proposed and tested.
The confirmatory factor analysis revealed intricate relationship within tested
models. The results showed an overall patter of relations between values, social and
personal norms, intention to act and perceived behavioural control. The pro-
environmental behaviours related to heating, drinking, sustainable buying, and
printing had a direct effect on intention to act, perceived behaviour control, values,
social and personal norms, environmental awareness and leadership from a boss.
Intention to act was moderated by attitude toward PEB, perceived behavioural
control, social and personal norms. The moderators of perceived behavioural
control were situational factors, leadership provided by a company and also a boss.

Implications
This study has important theoretical and practical implications. The results
demonstrate the importance of ethical values, environmental awareness, social and
personal norms, situational factors, and leadership support provided by a company
and managers. These variables should be used in designing tools to promote the
development leading to the increase of pro-environmental behaviours.

Limitation of study
The first limitation of the study is that not all possible factors, which could influence
PEB, were investigated. Future studies should focus on additional factors such as
locus of control, place attachment, empathy, stress, work pressure, habits,
awareness of consequences, habits, material costs and rewards, environmental and
personal responsibility, perceived health treats and empathy. The complexity of the
analysis did not enable to include demographic variables identified as gender, age,
and education into a model testing. Additionally ethnic origins could not be analysed
as the sample showed to be consisted mostly of Dutch respondents.

56
The tested model comprised of a higher number of independent variables. These
variables were chosen to show the complex relationship. Nonetheless, the analysis
process showed that it is difficult to fit a significant model with many variables and
test their relationships. Also initially the idea was to measure PEB by one scale. In
this way there were no significant effects. The analysis revealed that it is necessary
to distinguish different behaviours and they are necessary to be measured by
different scales. We need to mention again that the data was collected by self-
reported questionnaire and there was no possibility to control their answers. The
respondents may have indicated social desired answers.

Recommendations for future research

The study has showed that a strong methodological approach is required. The first
step in this type of study should be conducting a literature review in depth. Next, the
theoretical model should be drawn and design appropriate ways to measure
identified factors. The measurement method (e.g. scales) should be statistically
tested to show whether the scales measure aimed phenomena and are statistically
acceptable. An application of advanced statistical method should follow. With
statistical techniques using such as multilevel regression modelling and programing,
and structural equation analysis (modelling), the complex relationships can be found.
We have measured the independent variables by either a single question or
one scale consisting of various items. This method, however, does not necessary
capture a whole measured construct and the explained variance might be thus
lower. Future studies should use more scales to measure one variable in order to
increase the variance explained by one construct. Additionally, future research
should focus on developing better methods to measure pro-environmental
behaviour in the workplace.
The complexity of the analysis showed that it is difficulty to include a large
number of factors (variables) within one single model and study. The future studies
should aim at using less independent variables, and only one type of pro-
environmental behaviour as dependent in one study. This approach would help
better understanding of the variables and deeper investigation.

57
References
ABRAHAMSE, W., STEG, L., GIFFORD, R. & VLEK, C. 2009. Factors influencing car use
for commuting and the intention to reduce it: A question of self-interest or
morality? Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour,
12, 317-324.
AJZEN, I. 1991. The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human
Decision Processes, 50, 179-211.
AJZEN, I. & FISHBEIN, M. 1980. Understanding attitudes and predicting social
behavior, Englewood Cliffs, Prentice-Hall.
ALLEN, J. B. & FERRAND, J. L. 1999. Environmental Locus of Control, Sympathy, and
Proenvironmental Behavior. Environment and Behavior, 31, 338-353.
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, 295-305.
ARCURY, T. A., SCOLLAY, S. J. & JOHNSON, T. P. 1987. Sex differences in
environmental concern and knowledge: The case of acid rain. Sex Roles, 16,
463-472.
AXELROD, L. J. 1994. Balancing personal needs with environmental preservation:
Identifying the values that guide decisions in ecological dilemmas. Journal of
Social Issues, 50, 85-104.
BAGOZZI, R. P., YI, Y. & BAUMGARTNER, J. 1990. The level of effort required for
behaviour as a moderator of the attitude-behaviour relation. European
Journal of Social Psychology, 20, 45-59.
BAIRD, J. C. & BRIER, J. M. 1981. Perceptual awareness of energy requirements of
familiar objects. Journal of Applied Psychology, 66, 90-96.
BAMBERG, S. & SCHMIDT, P. 2003. Incentives, Morality, Or Habit? Predicting
Students’ Car Use for University Routes With the Models of Ajzen, Schwartz,
and Triandis. Environment and Behavior, 35, 264-285.
BARR, S. & GILG, A. 2006. Sustainable lifestyles: Framing environmental action in and
around the home. Geoforum, 37, 906-920.
BARR, S., GILG, A. & SHAW, G. 2011. Helping People Make Better Choices’:
Exploring the behaviour change agenda for environmental sustainability.
Applied Geography, 31, 712-720.
BARR, S., GILG, A. W. & FORD, N. J. 2001. A conceptual framework for understanding
and analysing attitudes towards household-waste management. Environment
and Planning A, 33, 2025-2048.
BECKER, L. J. 1978. Joint effect of feedback and goal setting on performance: a field
study of residential energy conservation. Journal Name: J. Appl. Psychol.;
(United States); Journal Volume: 63:4, Medium: X; Size: Pages: 428-433.
BENTLER, P. 1990. Comparative fit indices in structural models. Psychological
Bulletin, pages 238–246.
BLAKE, J. 1999. Overcoming the ‘value-action gap’ in environmental policy: Tensions
between national policy and local experience. Local Environment: The
International Journal of Justice and Sustainability, 4, 257 - 278.

58
BOLDERO, J. 1995. The Prediction of Household Recycling of Newspapers: The Role
of Attitudes, Intentions, and Situational Factors1. Journal of Applied Social
Psychology, 25, 440-462.
BORDEN, R. J. & FRANCIS, J. L. 1978. Who cares about ecology? Personality and sex
differences in environmental concern. Journal of Personality, 46, 190-203.
BORDEN, R. J. & SCHETTINO, A. P. 1979. Determinants of Environmentally
Responsible Behavior. Journal of Environmental Education, 10, 35-39.
BORGSTEDE, C. V. B., ANDERS 2002. Pro-Environmental Behaviour: Situational
Barriers and Concern for the Good at Stake. Göteborg Psychological Reports,
32.
BOSTROM, A., BARKE, R., TURAGA, R. M. R. & O'CONNOR, R. E. 2006. Environmental
Concerns and the New Environmental Paradigm in Bulgaria. The Journal of
Environmental Education, 37, 25-40.
BRATT, C. 1999. The Impact of Norms and Assumed Consequences on Recycling
Behavior. Environment and Behavior, 31, 630-656.
BRAUN, A. 1983. Umwelterziehung zwischen Anspruch und Wirklichkeit : eine
vergleichende Betrachtung theoretischer Erziehungspostulate mit
Kenntnissen, Einstellungen und praktizierten Handlungsweisen 15- bis 16-
jähriger Schüler, Frankfurt am Main, Haag + Herchen.
BROWNE, M. W., CUDECK, R., BOLLEN, K. A. & LONG, J. S. 1993. Alternative ways of
assessing model fit. Sage Focus Editions, 154, 136-136.
BURGESS, J., HARRISON, C. M. & FILIUS, P. 1998. Environmental communication and
the cultural politics of environmental citizenship. Environment and Planning
A, 30, 1445-1460.
BYRNE, B. M. & BYRNE, B. M. 1989. A primer of LISREL: Basic applications and
programming for confirmatory factor analytic models, Springer-Verlag New
York.
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, 237-246.
COLLINS, C. M. & CHAMBERS, S. M. 2005. Psychological and Situational Influences on
Commuter-Transport-Mode Choice. Environment and Behavior, 37, 640-661.
CORRAL-VERDUGO, V. 1997. Dual 'realities' of conservation behavior: Self-reports vs
observations of re-use and recycling behavior. Journal of Environmental
Psychology, 17, 135-145.
COTTRELL, S. P. & GRAEFE, A. R. 1997. Testing a Conceptual Framework of
Responsible Environmental Behavior. The Journal of Environmental
Education, 29, 17-27.
DAHLSTRAND, U. & BIEL, A. 1997. Pro-Environmental Habits: Propensity Levels in
Behavioral Change1. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 27, 588-601.
DAILY, B. F., BISHOP, J. W. & GOVINDARAJULU, N. 2008. A Conceptual Model for
Organizational Citizenship Behavior Directed Toward the Environment.
Business & Society.
DE GROOT, J. I. M. & STEG, L. 2008. Value Orientations to Explain Beliefs Related to
Environmental Significant Behavior. Environment and Behavior, 40, 330-354.
DERKSEN, L. & GARTRELL, J. 1993. The Social Context of Recycling. American
Sociological Review, 58, 434-442.

59
DIEKMANN, A. & PREISENDOERFER, P. 1998. Umweltbewusstsein und
Umweltverhalten in Low- und High-Cost-Situationen. Eine empirische
Ueberpruefung der Low-Cost-Hypothese. Zeitschrift fur soziologie 27, 438-
453.
DIETZ, T., STERN, P. C. & GUAGNANO, G. A. 1998. Social Structural and Social
Psychological Bases of Environmental Concern. Environment and Behavior,
30, 450-471.
DOLNICAR, S. & GRUN, B. 2009. Environmentally Friendly Behavior. Environment and
Behavior, 41, 693-714.
DONO, J., WEBB, J. & RICHARDSON, B. 2010. The relationship between
environmental activism, pro-environmental behaviour and social identity.
Journal of Environmental Psychology, 30, 178-186.
DUNLAP, R. E., GRIENEEKS, J. K. & ROKEACH, M. 1983. Human values and pro-
environmental behavior In, , CO: Westview. In: (ED.), W. D. C. (ed.) Energy
and material resources: Attitudes, values, and public policy. Boulder, Colo:
Westview Press.
DUNLAP, R. E., VAN LIERE, K. D., MERTIG, A. G. & JONES, R. E. 2000. New Trends in
Measuring Environmental Attitudes: Measuring Endorsement of the New
Ecological Paradigm: A Revised NEP Scale. Journal of Social Issues, 56, 425-
442.
DUNLAP, R. E., VAN LIERE, K. D 1978. The “new environmental paradigm”: A
proposed measuring instrument and preliminary results. Journal of
Environmental Education, 9(1) 10-19.
EGRI, C. P. & HERMAN, S. 2000. Leadership in the North American Environmental
Sector: Values, Leadership Styles, and Contexts of Environmental Leaders and
Their Organizations. The Academy of Management Journal, 43, 571-604.
FARMER, J., KNAPP, D. & BENTON, G. M. 2007. An Elementary School Environmental
Education Field Trip: Long-Term Effects on Ecological and Environmental
Knowledge and Attitude Development. The Journal of Environmental
Education, 38, 33-42.
FIETKAU, H.-J., KESSEL, H. & INTERNATIONALES INSTITUT FÜR UMWELT UND, G.
1981. Umweltlernen : Veränderungsmöglichkeiten des Umweltbewusstseins :
Modelle, Erfahrungen, Königstein/Ts., Hain.
FISHBEIN, M. & AJZEN, I. 1975. Belief, attitude, intention and behavior : an
introduction to theory and research, Reading [etc.], Addison-Wesley.
FLIEGENSCHNEE, M. & SCHELAKOVSKY, A. 1998. Umweltpsychologie und
Umweltbildung: eine Einführung aus humanökologischer Sicht, Facultas-Univ.-
Verl.
FORNARA, F., CARRUS, G., PASSAFARO, P. & BONNES, M. 2011. Distinguishing the
sources of normative influence on proenvironmental behaviors. Group
Processes & Intergroup Relations, 14, 623-635.
FUJII, S. 2006. Environmental concern, attitude toward frugality, and ease of
behavior as determinants of pro-environmental behavior intentions. Journal
of Environmental Psychology, 26, 262-268.
GAGNON THOMPSON, S. C. & BARTON, M. A. 1994. Ecocentric and anthropocentric
attitudes toward the environment. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 14,
149-157.

60
GATERSLEBEN, B., STEG, L. & VLEK, C. 2002. Measurement and Determinants of
Environmentally Significant Consumer Behavior. Environment and Behavior,
34, 335-362.
GELLER, E. S. 1995. Actively Caring for the Environment. Environment and Behavior,
27, 184-195.
GELLER, E. S. 2002. The challenge of increasing proenvironmental behavior.
Handbook of environmental psychology, 525-540.
GIGLIOTTI, L. M. 1992. Environmental Attitudes: 20 Years of Change? The Journal of
Environmental Education, 24, 15-26.
GIGLIOTTI, L. M. 1994. Environmental Issues: Cornell Students' Willingness to Take
Action, 1990. The Journal of Environmental Education, 26, 34-42.
GRAVES, L. M. & SARKIS, J. 2011. Fostering employee proenvironmental behavior:
The Impact of Leadership and Motivation, Worcester, Sage Publicatons.
GROB, A. 1991. Meinung, Verhalten, Umwelt : ein psychologisches Ursachennetz-
Modell umweltgerechten Verhaltens, Bern; New York, P. Lang.
GROB, A. 1995. A structural model of environmental attitudes and behaviour.
Journal of Environmental Psychology, 15, 209-220.
GUAGNANO, G. A., STERN, P. C. & DIETZ, T. 1995. Influences on Attitude-Behavior
Relationships. Environment and Behavior, 27, 699-718.
HARDS, S. 2012. Tales of transformation: The potential of a narrative approach to
pro-environmental practices. Geoforum, 43, 760-771.
HARLAND, P., STAATS, H. & WILKE, H. A. M. 1999. Explaining Proenvironmental
Intention and Behavior by Personal Norms and the Theory of Planned
Behavior1. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 29, 2505-2528.
HARLAND, P., STAATS, H. & WILKE, H. A. M. 2007. Situational and Personality Factors
as Direct or Personal Norm Mediated Predictors of Pro-environmental
Behavior: Questions Derived From Norm-activation Theory. Basic and Applied
Social Psychology, 29, 323-334.
HEATH, Y. & GIFFORD, R. 2002. Extending the theory of planned behavior: Predicting
the use of public transportation. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 32,
2154-2189.
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, 1 - 8.
HOWELL, S. E. & LASKA, S. B. 1992. The Changing Face of the Environmental
Coalition. Environment and Behavior, 24, 134-144.
HOWENSTINE, E. 1993. Market segmentation for recycling. Environment & Behavior,
25, 86-102.
JACQUELINE, O. R. T. B. 1999. Deliberative and inclusionary processes Norwich:
CSERGE, School of Environmental Sciences.
KAISER, F. G. 1998. A general measure of ecological behavior. Journal of Applied
Social Psychology, 28, 395-422.
KAISER, F. G. & GUTSCHER, H. 2003. The proposition of a general version of the
theory of planned behavior: Predicting ecological behavior. Journal of Applied
Social Psychology, 33, 586-603.
KAISER, F. G., WÖLFING, S. & FUHRER, U. 1999. Environmental attitude and
ecological behaviour. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 19, 1-19.

61
KAISER, H. 1974. An index of factorial simplicity. Psychometrika, 39, 31-36.
KALS, E., SCHUMACHER, D. & MONTADA, L. 1999. Emotional affinity toward nature
as a motivational basis to protect nature. Environment and Behavior, 31, 178-
202.
KARP, D. G. 1996. Values and their Effect on Pro-Environmental Behavior.
Environment and Behavior, 28, 111-133.
KATZEV, R. D. & JOHNSON, T. R. 1984. Comparing the Effects of Monetary Incentives
and Foot-in-the-Door Strategies in Promoting Residential Electricity
Conservation. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 14, 12-27.
KLÖCKNER, C. A. & OPPEDAL, I. O. 2011. General vs. domain specific recycling
behaviour—Applying a multilevel comprehensive action determination
model to recycling in Norwegian student homes. Resources, Conservation and
Recycling, 55, 463-471.
KOK, R., BENDERS, R. M. J. & MOLL, H. C. 2006. Measuring the environmental load of
household consumption using some methods based on input-output energy
analysis: A comparison of methods and a discussion of results. Energy Policy,
34, 2744-2761.
KOLLMUSS, A. & AGYEMAN, J. 2002. Mind the Gap: Why do people act
environmentally and what are the barriers to pro-environmental behavior?
Environmental Education Research, 8, 239 - 260.
KUMAR, R. 2011. Research methodology : a step-by-step guide for beginners, London
[etc.], SAGE.
LAWLER, E. E. 1973. Motivation in work organizations, Monterey, Calif., Brooks/Cole
Pub. Co.
LEHMAN, P. K. & GELLER, E. S. 2004. Behavior analysis and environmental protection:
Accomplishments and potential for more. Behavior and Social Issues, 13, 13-
32.
LIEBRAND, W. B. G., MESSICK, D. M. & WILKE, H. A. M. Social dilemmas : theoretical
issues and research findings. 1992 1992 Oxford; New York. Pergamon Press.
MALONEY, M. P. & WARD, M. P. 1973. Ecology: Let's hear from the people: An
objective scale for the measurement of ecological attitudes and knowledge.
American Psychologist, 28, 583-586.
MANNETTI, L., PIERRO, A. & LIVI, S. 2004. Recycling: Planned and self-expressive
behaviour. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 24, 227-236.
MASLOW, A. H. 1970. Motivation and personality, New York, Harper.
MATTHIES, E., SELGE, S. & KLöCKNER, C. A. 2012. The role of parental behaviour for
the development of behaviour specific environmental norms – The example
of recycling and re-use behaviour. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 32,
277-284.
MCCARTY, J. A. & SHRUM, L. J. 2001. The Influence of Individualism, Collectivism, and
Locus of Control on Environmental Beliefs and Behavior. Journal of Public
Policy & Marketing, 20, 93-104.
MCKENZIE-MOHR, D. 2000. New Ways to Promote Proenvironmental Behavior:
Promoting Sustainable Behavior: An Introduction to Community-Based Social
Marketing. Journal of Social Issues, 56, 543-554.
MEINHOLD, J. L. & MALKUS, A. J. 2005. Adolescent Environmental Behaviors.
Environment and Behavior, 37, 511-532.

62
MILFONT, T. L. & DUCKITT, J. 2004. The structure of environmental attitudes: A first-
and second-order confirmatory factor analysis. Journal of Environmental
Psychology, 24, 289-303.
MILFONT, T. L. & SIBLEY, C. G. 2012. The big five personality traits and environmental
engagement: Associations at the individual and societal level. Journal of
Environmental Psychology, 32, 187-195.
MILFONT, T. L., WILSON, J. & DINIZ, P. 2012. Time perspective and environmental
engagement: A meta-analysis. International Journal of Psychology, 47, 325-
334.
MOBLEY, C. & KILBOURNE, W. 2012. Gender Differences in Pro-Environmental
Intentions: A Cross-National Perspective on the Influence of Self-
Enhancement Values and Views on Technology*. Sociological Inquiry, no-no.
NALINI GOVINDARAJULU, B. F. D. 2004. Motivating employees for environmental
improvement. Industrial Management & Data Systems, 104, 364-372.
NORDLUND, A. M. & GARVILL, J. R. 2002. Value Structures behind Proenvironmental
Behavior. Environment and Behavior, 34, 740-756.
NYE, M. & HARGREAVES, T. 2010. Exploring the Social Dynamics of Proenvironmental
Behavior Change. Journal of Industrial Ecology, 14, 137-149.
OISHI, S., SCHIMMACK, U., DIENER, E. & SUH, E. M. 1998. The Measurement of
Values and Individualism-Collectivism. Personality and Social Psychology
Bulletin, 24, 1177-1189.
OLSEN, M. E. 1981. Consumers' attitudes toward energy conservation ( Americans).
Journal of Social Issues, 37, 108-131.
OREG, S. & KATZ-GERRO, T. 2006. Predicting Proenvironmental Behavior Cross-
Nationally. Environment and Behavior, 38, 462-483.
OSBALDISTON, R. & SCHOTT, J. P. 2012. Environmental Sustainability and Behavioral
Science. Environment and Behavior, 44, 257-299.
OSKAMP, S., BURKHARDT, R. L., SCHULTZ, P. W., HURIN, S. & ZELEZNY, L. 1998.
Predicting Three Dimensions of Residential Curbside Recycling: An
Observational Study. The Journal of Environmental Education, 29, 37 - 42.
PAPAGIANNAKIS, G. & LIOUKAS, S. 2012. Values, attitudes and perceptions of
managers as predictors of corporate environmental responsiveness. Journal
of Environmental Management, 100, 41-51.
PAUL C. STERN, T. D., VERNON W. RUTTAN, ROBERT H. SOCOLOW, JAMES L.
SWEENEY 1997. Environmentally Significant Consumption: Research
Directions, Washington, D.C., National Academy Press.
PENNINGTON, D. W., POTTING, J., FINNVEDEN, G., LINDEIJER, E., JOLLIET, O.,
RYDBERG, T. & REBITZER, G. 2004. Life cycle assessment Part 2: Current
impact assessment practice. Environment International, 30, 721-739.
POORTINGA, W., STEG, L. & VLEK, C. 2004. Values, environmental concern, and
environmental behavior: A study into household energy use. Environment
and Behavior, 36, 70-93.
PUNCH, K. F. 2005. Introduction to social research : quantitative and qualitative
approaches, London [etc.], SAGE.
RAJECKI, D. W. 1982. Attitudes: Themes and Advances. Sinawer Associates
Sunderland, Mass.

63
RAMAYAH, T., LEE, J. W. C. & LIM, S. 2012. Sustaining the environment through
recycling: An empirical study. Journal of Environmental Management, 102,
141-147.
RAMUS, C. A. & STEGER, U. 2000. The Roles of Supervisory Support Behaviors and
Environmental Policy in Employee "Ecoinitiatives" at Leading-Edge European
Companies. The Academy of Management Journal, 43, 605-626.
REDCLIFT, M. & BENTON, T. 1994. Social theory and the global environment, London
[etc.], Routledge.
RIOUX, L. 2011. Promoting pro-environmental behaviour: collection of used batteries
by secondary school pupils. Environmental Education Research, 17, 353 - 373.
ROBERTSON, J. L. & BARLING, J. 2012. Greening organizations through leaders'
influence on employees' pro-environmental behaviors. Journal of
Organizational Behavior, n/a-n/a.
SCHULTZ, P. W. 2000. New Environmental Theories: Empathizing With Nature: The
Effects ofPerspective Taking on Concern for Environmental Issues. Journal of
Social Issues, 56, 391-406.
SCHULTZ, P. W. & OSKAMP, S. 1996. Effort as a Moderator of the Attitude-Behavior
Relationship: General Environmental Concern and Recycling. Social
Psychology Quarterly, 59, 375-383.
SCHULTZ, P. W., OSKAMP, S. & MAINIERI, T. 1995. Who recycles and when? A review
of personal and situational factors. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 15,
105-121.
SCHWARTZ, S. H. 1994. Are There Universal Aspects in the Structure and Contents of
Human Values? Journal of Social Issues, 50, 19-45.
SCHWARTZ, S. H. & LEONARD, B. 1977. Normative Influences on Altruism. Advances
in Experimental Social Psychology. Academic Press.
SCHWARTZ, S. H. & MARK, P. Z. 1992. Universals in the Content and Structure of
Values: Theoretical Advances and Empirical Tests in 20 Countries. Advances in
Experimental Social Psychology. Academic Press.
SPENCE, A. & PIDGEON, N. 2009. Psychology, Climate Change & Sustainable
Bahaviour. Environment: Science and Policy for Sustainable Development, 51,
8-18.
SPINI, D. 2003. Measurement Equivalence Of 10 Value Types From The Schwartz
Value Survey Across 21 Countries. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 34, 3-
23.
STEG, L. 1999. Verspilde energie? [Wasted energy?]. (SCP Report No. 126). The
Hague, the Netherlands:: Social and Cultural Planning Office of the
Netherlands.
STEG, L. & VLEK, C. 2009. Encouraging pro-environmental behaviour: An integrative
review and research agenda. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 29, 309-
317.
STERN, P. C. 1999. Information, Incentives, and Proenvironmental Consumer
Behavior. Journal of Consumer Policy, 22, 461-478.
STERN, P. C. 2000. New Environmental Theories: Toward a Coherent Theory of
Environmentally Significant Behavior. Journal of Social Issues, 56, 407-424.
STERN, P. C. & DIETZ, T. 1994. The Value Basis of Environmental Concern. Journal of
Social Issues, 50, 65-84.

64
STERN, P. C., DIETZ, T., ABEL, T., GUAGNANO, G. A. & KALOF, L. 1999. A value-belief-
norm theory of support for social movements: The case of environmentalism.
Human Ecology Review, 6, 81-97.
STERN, P. C., DIETZ, T. & KALOF, L. 1993. Value Orientations, Gender, and
Environmental Concern. Environment and Behavior, 25, 322-348.
SUBHABRATA BOBBY, B., IYER, E. S. & KASHYAP, R. K. 2003. Corporate
Environmentalism: Antecedents and Influence of Industry Type. The Journal
of Marketing, 67, 106-122.
THØGERSEN , J. 1999. The Ethical Consumer. Moral Norms and Packaging Choice.
Journal of Consumer Policy, 22, 439-460.
THØGERSEN, J. & ÖLANDER, F. 2003. Spillover of environment-friendly consumer
behaviour. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 23, 225-236.
TINDALL, D. B., DAVIES, S. & MAUBOULÈS, C. 2003. Activism and Conservation
Behavior in an Environmental Movement: The Contradictory Effects of
Gender. Society & Natural Resources: An International Journal, 16, 909 - 932.
TRUELOVE, H. B. & PARKS, C. 2012. Perceptions of behaviors that cause and mitigate
global warming and intentions to perform these behaviors. Journal of
Environmental Psychology, 32, 246-259.
TUDOR, T., BARR, S. & GILG, A. 2007. A Tale of Two Locational Settings: Is There a
Link Between Pro-Environmental Behaviour at Work and at Home? Local
Environment: The International Journal of Justice and Sustainability, 12, 409-
421.
VAN BIRGELEN, M., SEMEIJN, J. & KEICHER, M. 2009. Packaging and
Proenvironmental Consumption Behavior. Environment and Behavior, 41,
125-146.
VAN LIERE, K. D. & DUNLAP, R. E. 1981. Environmental concern - does it make a
difference how it's measured ( Washington State)? Environment & Behavior,
13, 651-676.
VINING, J. A., EBREO 2002. Emerging theoretical and methodological perspectives on
conservation behavior, New York: Wiley.
WALL, R., DEVINE-WRIGHT, P. & MILL, G. A. 2007. Comparing and Combining
Theories to Explain Proenvironmental Intentions. Environment and Behavior,
39, 731-753.
WARRINER, G. K., MCDOUGALL, G. H. & CLAXTON, J. D. 1984. Any data or none at
all? Living with inaccuracies in self-reports of residential energy consumption.
Environment and Behavior, 16, 503-526.
WASTEBUSTERS 1997. The green office manual : a guide to responsible practice,
London, Earthscan.
WESLEY SCHULTZ, P. & ZELEZNY, L. 1999. VALUES AS PREDICTORS OF
ENVIRONMENTAL ATTITUDES: EVIDENCE FOR CONSISTENCY ACROSS 14
COUNTRIES. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 19, 255-265.

65
List of Appendices
I. EMAIL INVITATION SENT TO THE EMPLOYEES………………………………………………………67
II. ENGLISH VERSION OF THE COVER PAGE AND MICRO2 INTRODUCTION……………..68
III. ENGLISH VERSION OF THE QUESTIONNAIRE………………………………………………………70
IV. DUTCH VERSION OF THE COVER PAGE AND MICRO2 INTRODUCTION………………74
V. DUTCH VERSION OF THE QUESTIONNAIRE………….………………………………………………76
VI. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION FOR WAGENINGEN UR…………………………………………80
VII. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION FROM THE QUESTIONNAIRE……………………………….97
VIII. DEMOGRAPHIC COMPARISON OF THE GROUPS………………………………………………99
IX. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR WAGENINGEN UR …………………102

66
I. Email invitation sent to the employees
Subject: Uitnodiging om een vragenlijst in te vullen naar duurzaam gedrag op de werkplek.
Survey Invitation Wageningen UR - Sustainable behaviour in the workplace.

Beste collega,
Zoals je wellicht weet wil Wageningen UR voorloper zijn op het gebied van duurzaamheid. Er is een speciale taskforce
ingesteld om duurzaamheid op medewerkersniveau te verbeteren. Met deze vragenlijst wordt onderzocht hoe
duurzaam het gedrag van medewerkers op de werkvloer is en welke factoren dit gedrag beïnvloeden. Met de resultaten
kunnen we de duurzaamheid van onze organisatie verbeteren.
Ik wil je vriendelijk vragen om mee te doen aan dit onderzoek van Oldrich Studynka, een masterstudent van de Social
Sciences Group.
De vragenlijst start je met (ctrl+)click op de link https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/MICRO2_NL of door de link te
copiëren in je browser. Het invullen duurt ongeveer 12 tot 15 minuten.
Je antwoorden blijven volledig anoniem en de ingevulde lijst gaat rechtstreeks naar de onderzoeker. Behalve de
onderzoeker heeft niemand toegang tot de gegevens, de privacy is gegarandeerd. De werkgever ontvangt alleen een
rapport met de groepsresultaten.
Wil je de vragen spontaan en zonder overleg met anderen beantwoorden? Er zijn geen goede of foute antwoorden. Als
je besluit de vragenlijst in te vullen wil je dat dan doen voor vrijdag 2 december 2011?
Als je geïnteresseerd bent in het rapport zal de student dat graag naar je sturen. Wanneer je vragen hebt over het
onderzoek, dan kun je kontakt opnemen met Oldrich Studynka (oldrich.studynka@wur.nl) of zijn begeleiders dr. Renate
Wesselink (renate.wesselink@wur.nl) en dr. Vincent Blok (vincent.blok@wur.nl).

Met vriendelijke groet,

Tineke Tromp
Corporate Director Human Resources

Dear colleague,
As you might know, Wageningen UR wants to become a front-runner in the field of sustainability. A special taskforce
has been set up to improve sustainability at employee level. This survey wants to measure the sustainable behaviour of
Wageningen UR employees and wants to find the factors that are influencing this behaviour. With this information we
can improve the sustainability of our organisation.
I kindly ask you to participate in this research study conducted by Oldrich Studynka, a masterstudent at the Social
Sciences Group.
The survey can be found at https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/MICRO2_en. To complete this survey, just (ctrl+)click
the link or copy and paste it into your browser. It will take only approximately 12 – 15 minutes of your time.
Your responses will be completely anonymous and the completed survey will go directly to the researcher. Except for
the researcher no one will have access to any individual responses. Your employer will only be provided with a collation
of all responses.
Please answer the questions without a discussion with anyone else and do not think too much about the answers. There
are no correct or wrong answers. Please complete the survey before Friday, December 2 2011.
If you are interested, the student will be happy to provide you with the results of the survey.
If you have any questions about the project or results, please contact Oldrich Studynka (oldrich.studynka@wur.nl)
or his supervisors Dr. Renate Wesselink (renate.wesselink@wur.nl) and Dr. Vincent Blok (vincent.blok@wur.nl).

Kind regards,

Tineke Tromp
Corporate Director Human Resources

67
II. English version of the cover page and MICRO2 introduction

68
Explanation of pro-environmental behaviour and MICRO2 project in
English
What is the pro-environmental behaviour and why it is important in our life?
The pro-environmental behaviour (PEB) can be defined as a kind of behaviour that
consciously seeks to minimise the negative impact of one’s actions on natural and
built world (e.g. to minimise resources and energy consumption; use of non-toxic
substances; reduce waste production). The pro-environmental behaviour is
demonstrated in different parts of everyday life such as recycling, transport use,
household consumption, everyday environmental behaviour, conservation
behaviour, and household energy use. The sustainable behaviour can be seen as a
synonym to the pro-environmental behaviour in this project.
Without a doubt the human behaviour directly and proximally causes the
environmental change such as land transformation (through cropping, forestry, and
urbanization), water use, and CO2 concentration. Recently various environmental
psychologists and sociologists have been attempting to discover the factors, which
influence the pro-environmental behaviour.
The aim of the project MICRO 2 is to find factors which influence the pro-
environmental behaviour in the workplace. For that reason, the presented
questionnaire is focused on the aspects of working environment, psychological and
social factors, which can be influenced and changed by every individual. Knowing the
factors would help to encourage the behaviour leading to the reduction of CO2
production.

69
III. English version of the questionnaire
Response
Concept Survey Question (Variable)
Categories
Please indicate how often you recycle office waste at work when you need to 1 = Never
throw out the waste: 2 = Rarely
3 =Sometimes
 Paper (e.g. newspaper, junk mail, cardboard, magazines)
4 = Often
 Glass
5 = Always
 Plastic bottles
6 = N/A (no
 Batteries
facilities for
 Chemical office waste recycling)
1 = Never
2 = Rarely
Please indicate how you use the heating in your office.
3 =Sometimes
 I check whether thermostats are set correctly in my office. (Note: the
4 = Often
optimal setting is minimum 16 degrees - maximum 19 degrees).
5 = Always
 I wear more clothes instead of putting the heating on.
6 = N/A (no
 I make sure that heating is off or reduced outside working hours.
facilities for
 I reduce heating in unused rooms.
influencing
the heating)
1 = Never
Please indicate how you use a computer/notebook in your office: 2 = Rarely
 I switch off my computer/notebook when I leave my office for a 3 =Sometimes
considerable period of time. 4 = Often
 I switch off my computer/notebook when I go home. 5 = Always
6 = N/A
1 = Never
2 = Rarely
3 =Sometimes
Pro- Please indicate how you manage lights in your office:
4 = Often
environme  I switch on the lights when I come to the office in the morning and
5 = Always
ntal switch them off when I leave in the evening.
6 = N/A
behaviour  When I leave my office for a considerable period of time, and there is no
(the lights in
(dependent one else in the room, I switch off the lights.
my office are
variable) controlled
automatically)
How often do you do following activities related to printing and copying at work.
1 = Never
 I print double-sided.
2 = Rarely
 I copy double-sided.
3 =Sometimes
 I try to get as much as possible on one sheet (e.g. by using narrow
4 = Often
margins or printing two pages on one A4 sheet).
5 = Always
 I read my documents (e.g. articles, emails etc.) on my screen and work
6 = N/A
with digital versions.
To what extent do following statements suit you?
 I use a mug for drinking coffee/tea. 1 = Never
 I wash the mug in a sustainable way (e.g. cold water, no use of washing- 2 = Rarely
up liquids). 3 =Sometimes
 When I take a plastic /carton cup for drinking coffee/tea, I reuse it for 4 = Often
the rest of the day. 5 = Always
 I take a new plastic/carton cup each time I have coffee or tea. 6 = N/A
 I choose bio food when if it is offered in a cafeteria at my workplace.
 When I purchase goods or services, I pay attention to sustainability.
Please indicate your commuting habits:
 I go to work by car. 1 = Never
 I go to work by bike. 2 = Rarely
3 =Sometimes
4 = Often
 I walk to work. 5 = Always
 I use public transportation to get to work. 6 = N/A
 I use a car to get to work and share with others (carpooling).

70
  I choose to work at home, when I can.
 If I have to travel for my work (e.g. a business meeting, conference), I
make use of public transport as much as possible.
Please indicate whether you agree/disagree with the following statements.
 I’m in favour of behaving pro-environmentally in the workplace.
 I think it’s a good idea for Wageningen UR as an employer to support
the pro-environmental behaviour in the workplace.
 The pro-environmental behaviour in the workplace is important to me.
 I think too much attention is paid to the pro-environmental behaviour in
the workplace. (R)
 I think the pro-environmental behaviour in the workplace do good. 1 = Strongly
 I would like to have more recycling facilities. disagree
Attitude  I want to be informed about the environmental impact of my behaviour 2 = Disagree
toward at work. 3 = Neutral
PEB  I want to be informed about the environmental policy of the 4 = Agree
department/science group. 5 = Strongly
 I would like to learn environmental friendly behaviour at work. agree
 I would appreciate supervisory support for the environmental effort of
the employees.
 I want to be informed about the costs and amount of the
energy/water/paper used by my department/science group.
 I would like to be informed about projects on sustainability at
Wageningen UR.
Please rate to what extent these values are a guiding principle in your life: (Stern,
1998 #273)
Note: This set of questions is asked to find which values are related to the pro-
environmental behaviour and to explain why some people behave pro-
environmentally and some not. Answering these questions is optional. If you do
not want to answer these questions, skip this page by clicking on the ''next'' box.
Although providing answers is optional, I would highly appreciate your answers
for the contribution to this research. Thank you very much. - 1 = opposed
Altruistic (self-transcendence) to my
 Social justice (correcting injustice, care for the weak) values
 Preventing pollution (conserving natural resources) 0 = not
 Equality (equal opportunity for all) important
 Unity with nature (fitting into nature) 1=
Values  A world of peace (free of war and conflict) 2=
(ethical )  Respecting the earth (harmony with other species) 3 = Important
4=
 Protecting the environment (preserving nature)
5=
Traditional/Conservatism:
6 = Very
 Self-discipline (self-restraint, resistance to temptations)
important
 Family security (safety for loved ones)
7 = of
 Honouring parents and elders (showing respect)
supreme
Self-interest (self-enhancement):
importance
 Influential (having an impact on people and events)
 Wealth (material possessions, money)
 Authority (the right to lead or command)
 Social power (control over others, dominance)
Openness to change:
 Curious (interested in everything, exploring)
 A varied life (filled with challenge, novelty and change)
 An exciting life (stimulating experiences)
1 = Strongly
disagree
 I am going to behave pro-environmentally in the coming month to reduce 2 = Disagree
Intention my impact on the environment (e.g. by turning off the computer, 3 = Neutral
to act printing less, using a mug etc.) 4 = Agree
5 = Strongly
agree

71
 Please indicate whether you agree/disagree with the following statements.
Note: Answering these questions is optional. If you do not want to answer these
questions, skip this page by clicking on the ''next'' box.
Although providing answers is optional, I would highly appreciate your answers
for the contribution to this research. Thank you very much.
 Environmental pollution affects my health
 Environmental problems have consequences for my life 1 = Strongly
Environ-
 I worry about environmental problems disagree
mental
2 = Disagree
aware-  I can see with my own eyes that environment is deteriorating
3 = Neutral
ness  Environmental problems are a risk for the future of my children
4 = Agree
 Environmental problems are exaggerated
5 = Strongly
 Too much attention is paid to environmental problems
agree
 The attention given to the greenhouse effect is exaggerated
 Saving threatened species in unnecessary luxury
 I am optimistic about the environmental quality in the future
 A better environment starts with me.
 People who do not take the environment into account try to escape
their responsibility
What in your opinion should your colleagues do at work?
Social  Print double-sided?
1 = Absolutely
norms  Copy double-sided?
not
at work  Recycle paper?
(Perceived  Turn off the computer/notebook when not in use?
5 = Absolutely
norm)  Arrange a telephone or video-conference instead of traveling to a
business meeting?
What do you think you have to do at work?
 Print double-sided?
Personal 1 = Absolutely
 copy double-sided?
norms not
 Recycle paper?
 Turn off the computer/notebook when not in use?
5 = Absolutely
 Arrange a telephone or video-conference instead of traveling to a
business meeting?
1 = Strongly
disagree
Perceived
 If I wanted to, I could easily behave pro-environmentally in the workplace. 2 = Disagree
behavio
 Whether I perform pro-environmentally is entirely up to me. 3 = Neutral
ural
4 = Agree
control
5 = Strongly
agree
1 = Strongly
disagree
 Wageningen UR as an employer provides good possibilities to show the 2 = Disagree
Situational
pro-environmental behaviour. 3 = Neutral
factors
 The current facilities for recycling are sufficient at my working place. 4 = Agree
5 = Strongly
agree
Please indicate your agreement/disagreement with the following statements
about the employer.
 My boss/head of the department supports me in showing pro-
environmental behaviour at work.
 My employer informs me about the environmental impact of my
1 = Absolutely
behaviour at work.
not
Leadership  My employer informs me about projects on sustainability at
2=
factors Wageningen UR.
3=
 My employer informs me about environmental policy of my
4=
department/science group.
5= Absolutely
 I learn environmental friendly behaviour at work.
 There is a supervisory support for the environmental effort of the
employees.
 I show the pro-environmental behaviour, when my boss/head of the
department behaves pro-environmentally in the workplace.

72
  It is important to me that my boss/head of the department shows the
pro-environmental behaviour at work.
 My boss/head of the department shows the pro-environmental
behaviour at work.
 Seeing my boss/head of the department acting pro-environmentally
influences my own acting..
Based on the nature of this research, I would like to know your gender,
age, education level, employment and nationality. The answers will
allow me to find and describe differences between groups based on
Gender
these attributes and explain why some people behave pro- Male
environmentally and some not. Female
 Gender
Fill-in-the-
Age  What is your age? blank
number
Less than high
school
graduate
High school
graduate or
equivalent
Specialized/V
ocational/Tec
Education  What is your highest education level?
hnical training
(MBO)
Bachelor
degree (HBO)
Master's
degree
Doctoral
Degree
Supportive
Employme personnel
 Which kind of employment do you have in your department?
nt Scientific
personnel
 Which building do you work in?
Building Please type the name of the building where you officially work. (e.g. Fill-in-the-
and Leeuwenborch, Atlas, Lumen etc.) blank
group  Which group do you work in? response
Please type the full name of the science group.
I live in
Wageninge
n.
I live close by
(less than 10
Place of  Where do you live? km).
living I live between
10 and 30 km
from work.
I live more
than 30 km
from work
Fill-in-the-
 What is your nationality?
Nationality blank
Please write your nationality.
response

73
IV. Dutch version of the cover page and MICRO2 introduction

74
Explanation of pro-environmental behaviour and MICRO2 project in
Dutch
Wat wordt bedoeld met duurzaam gedrag en waarom is het belangrijk?
Duurzaam gedrag vertoont sterke overeenkomst met milieubewust gedrag en wordt
in deze vragenlijst als gelijk beschouwd. Milieubewust gedrag komt tot uiting op
verschillende manieren: recycling, vervoer, consumptie en energiegebruik.
Duurzaam gedrag wordt in dit onderzoek als een synoniem gezien van milieubewust
gedrag.
Zonder twijfel veroorzaakt het menselijke gedrag direct en indirect veranderingen in
het milieu, zoals landtransformatie (verbouwen van gewassen, bosbouw,
verstedelijking), gebruik van water en CO2 concentratie. De laatste tijd proberen
omgevingspsychologen en sociologen te ontdekken welke factoren milieubewust
gedrag beïnvloeden.
Eén van de doelen van MIRCO2 is om te onderzoeken welke factoren milieubewust
gedrag op kantoor beïnvloeden en derhalve gaat deze vragenlijst over factoren op de
werkplek. Daarnaast worden ook psychologische en sociale factoren aan de orde
gesteld. Als we deze factoren weten, kunnen we gerichter mensen aanmoedigen
milieubewust ofwel duurzaam gedrag te laten zien en hiermee CO2 uitstoot te
reduceren.

75
V. Dutch version of the questionnaire
Response
Concept Vragenlijst (Variabele)
Categorieen
Geef aan of en zo ja hoe vaak u op kantoor het afval scheidt. 1 = Nooit
1. Papier (zoals kranten, karton, tijdschriften) 2 = Zelden
2. Glas 3 =Regelmatig
3. Plastic flessen 4 = Vaak
4. Batterijen 5 = Altijd
5. Chemisch kantoor afval (cardrigdges bijvoorbeeld) 6 = Niet van
toepassing
(geen
mogelijkheden tot
recyclen)
Geef aan of en zo ja hoe u de verwarming gebruikt op kantoor: 1 = Nooit
6. Ik controleer of de thermostaat goed is ingesteld (aanbevolen 2 = Zelden
minimum 16 C – maximum 19C) 3 =Regelmatig
7. Ik draag meer kleren i.p.v. de verwarming hoger in te stellen 4 = Vaak
8. Ik zorg ervoor dat de verwarming uit of lager gezet wordt buiten 5 = Altijd
kantooruren. 6 = Niet van
9. Ik zet de verwarming laag in kamers die minder worden gebruikt. toepassing (geen
invloed op de
thermostaat)
Geef aan hoe u uw computer/laptop gebruikt op kantoor : 1 = Nooit
10. Ik zet mijn computer/laptop uit als ik voor een langere tijd mijn 2 = Zelden
kantoor verlaat. 3 =Regelmatig
11. Ik zet mijn computer/laptop uit als ik naar huis ga. 4 = Vaak
5 = Altijd
6 = Niet van
toepassing
Geef aan hoe u omgaat met de verlichting op uw kantoor: 1 = Nooit
Milieu-bewust
12. Ik doe de lichten aan bij binnenkomst en doe ze weer uit bij het 2 = Zelden
gedrag
verlaten van kantoor. 3 =Regelmatig
(afhankelijke
13. Wanneer ik mijn kantoor verlaat voor langere tijd en er is niemand 4 = Vaak
variablele)
anders aanwezig, doe ik de lichten uit. 5 = Altijd
6 = Niet van
toepassing
(de lichten van
het kantoor gaan
automatisch aan
en uit)
Hoe voert u de volgende handelingen m.b.t. printen en kopiëren op het 1 = Nooit
werk uit? 2 = Zelden
14. Ik print dubbelzijdig. 3 =Regelmatig
15. Ik kopieer dubbelzijdig. 4 = Vaak
16. Ik probeer zo veel mogelijk op één vel te krijgen (door b.v. smalle 5 = Altijd
marges te gebruiken of twee pagina’s per vel) 6 = Niet van
17. Ik lees documenten (zoals artikelen, emails etc.) van mijn scherm en toepassing
werk met digitale versies.
Geef aan in hoeverre de onderstaande uitspraken op u van toepassing 1 = Nooit
zijn. 2 = Zelden
18. Ik gebruik een mok voor het drinken van koffie/thee. 3 =Regelmatig
19. Ik was mijn mok af op een verantwoorde wijze (met koud water en 4 = Vaak
zonder afwasmiddel). 5 = Altijd
20. Wanneer ik een bekertje van plastic/karton gebruik voor 6 = Niet van
koffie/thee, hergebruik ik dat de rest van de dag. toepassing
21. Voor elk kopje koffie/thee gebruik ik een nieuw bekertje van
plastic/karton.
22. Als het in onze kantine wordt aangeboden, kies ik voor biologisch
eten en drinken.
23. Als ik goederen of diensten inkoop, let ik op duurzaamheid.

76
 Geef aan hoe u zich verplaatst van uw huis naar uw werk? 1 = Nooit
24. Ik ga met de auto naar het werk. 2 = Zelden
25. Ik ga met de fiets naar het werk. 3 =Regelmatig
26. Ik loop naar het werk. 4 = Vaak
27. Ik ga met het openbaar vervoer naar het werk 5 = Altijd
28. Ik carpool. 6 = Niet van
29. Als het mogelijk is, kies ik ervoor om thuis te werken toepassing
30. Als ik voor mijn werk op reis moet (vergaderingen, conferenties),
kies ik zoveel mogelijk voor het openbaar vervoer.
Geef aan in hoeverre u het eens of oneens bent met de onderstaande 1 = Sterk oneens
stellingen: 2 = Oneens
31. Ik ben ervoor om milieuvriendelijk te werk te gaan op de werkvloer. 3 = Neutraal
32. Ik vind het een goed idee wanneer Wageningen UR als werkgever 4 = Mee eens
milieuvriendelijk gedrag op de werkvloer ondersteunt. 5 = Sterk mee
33. Ik vind een milieuvriendelijke houding op de werkvloer belangrijk. eens
34. Ik vind dat er te veel aandacht wordt besteed aan milieuvriendelijk
gedrag op de werkvloer. (R)
35. Ik vind het goed als collega’s milieuvriendelijk gedrag laten zien.
36. Ik zou graag meer faciliteiten voor afvalscheiding willen hebben.
Attitude
37. Ik wil graag worden geïnformeerd over de belasting van het milieu
richting PEB
door mijn gedrag op het werk.
38. Ik wil graag worden geïnformeerd over het milieubeleid van de
afdeling/vakgroep.
39. Ik wil graag voorgelicht worden over milieuvriendelijk gedrag op het
werk.
40. Ik zou het waarderen als er ondersteuning zou zijn voor het
stimuleren van milieubewust gedrag van medewerkers.
41. Ik wil graag worden geïnformeerd over de kosten en het verbruik
van energie/water/papier van mijn afdeling.
42. Ik wil graag worden geïnformeerd over duurzaamheidsprojecten
van Wageningen UR.
Beoordeel in welke mate u de volgende stellingen belangrijk of - 1 = Staat haaks
onbelangrijk vindt. op mijn
Nota bene: deze vragen worden gesteld om uit te zoeken welke waarden waarden
van mensen samenhangen met duurzaam gedrag. Deze informatie is 0 = Niet belangrijk
belangrijk om te kunnen verklaren waarom sommige mensen zich wel en 1=
anderen zich niet duurzaam gedagen. Echter het beantwoorden van deze 2=
vragen is optioneel. Wilt u de vragen niet beantwoorden, klik dan op 3 =Belangrijk
‘volgende’. Hoewel beantwoording optioneel is, willen we u t.b.v. het 4=
onderzoek toch vragen antwoorden in te vullen. 5=
Altruistisch 6 = Heel erg
43. Sociale gerechtigheid(onrecht bestrijden, zorgen voor de belangrijk
zwakkeren) 7 = Van primair
44. Vervuiling voorkomen (behouden van natuurlijke bronnen) . belang
45. Gelijkheid (gelijke kansen voor iedereen)
46. Eén zijn met de natuur (opgaan in de natuur)
Waarden
47. Wereldvrede (vrij van oorlog en conflicten)
(ethisch)
48. De aarde respecteren (balans met alle andere organismen)
49. Beschermen van het milieu (behouden van natuur)
Traditioneel/conservativisme:
50. Zelfdiscipline (jezelf beperkingen opleggen, weerstand tegen
verleiding)
51. Familiare zekerheid (veiligheid voor geliefden).
52. Waarderen van ouders en ouderen (respect tonen).
Self-interest (self-enhancement):
53. Invloed (invloed hebben op mensen en situaties)
54. Rijkdom (materieel bezit, geld)
55. Autoriteit (het recht om te leiden en te sturen)
56. Sociale macht (controle over anderen, dominantie)
Openheid voor verandering:
57. Nieuwsgierigheid (geïnteresseerd in alles, onderzoekend)
58. Een gevarieerd leven (gevuld met uitdaging, vernieuwing en
verandering)

77
 59. Een spannend leven (stimulerende ervaringen)
60. Ik ga me aankomende maand milieubewust gedragen, om mijn 1 = Sterk oneens
belasting van het milieu te verkleinen (bv. door de computer uit te 2 = Oneens
Neiging tot zetten, minder te printen, mok te gebruiken, etc.) 3 = Neutraal
handelen 4 = mee eens
5 = Sterk mee
eens
Geef aan of u het eens of oneens bent met de volgende stellingen. 1 = Sterk oneens
Nota bene: deze vragen worden gesteld om uit te zoeken in hoeverre 2 = Oneens
milieubewustzijn van mensen samenhangt met duurzaam gedrag. Deze 3 = Neutraal
informatie is belangrijk om te kunnen verklaren waarom sommige mensen 4 = Mee eens
zich wel en anderen zich niet duurzaam gedagen. Echter het 5 = Sterk mee
beantwoorden van deze vragen is optioneel. Wilt u de vragen niet eens
beantwoorden, klik dan op ‘volgende’. Hoewel beantwoording optioneel
is, willen we u t.b.v. het onderzoek toch vragen antwoorden in te vullen.
61. Milieuvervuiling heeft invloed op mijn gezondheid.
62. Milieuproblemen hebben gevolgen voor mijn leven.
Milieubewustzi 63. Ik maak mij zorgen over milieuproblemen.
jn 64. Ik kan met eigen ogen zien dat het milieu achteruit gaat.
65. Milieuproblemen zijn een risico voor de toekomst van mijn
kinderen.
66. Milieuproblemen worden overdreven.
67. Er wordt te veel aandacht geschonken aan milieuproblemen.
68. De aandacht voor het broeikas-effect wordt overdreven.
69. Redden van bedreigde dier- en plantensoorten is een overbodige
luxe.
70. Ik ben optimistisch over de kwaliteit van het milieu in de toekomst.
71. Een beter milieu begint bij jezelf.
72. Mensen die geen rekening houden met het milieu proberen hun
verantwoordelijkheid te ontlopen.
Wat denk jij dat je collega’s zouden moeten doen op de werkvloer? 1 = Sterk oneens
73. Dubbelzijdig printen. 2 = Oneens
Sociale normen
74. Dubbelzijdig kopiëren. 3 = Neutraal
op het werk
75. Papier hergebruiken. 4 = Mee eens
(waargenomen
76. Computer/laptop uitzetten wanneer deze niet gebruikt wordt. 5 = Sterk mee
normen)
77. Telefoon- of video-conferences organiseren i.p.v. reizen naar een eens
vergadering.
Wat denk je dat je zelf zou moeten doen? 1 = Sterk oneens
78. Dubbelzijdig printen. 2 = Oneens
Persoonlijke 79. Dubbelzijdig kopiëren. 3 = Neutraal
normen 80. Papier hergebruiken. 4 = Mee eens
81. Computer/laptop uitzetten wanneer deze niet gebruikt wordt. 5 = Sterk mee
82. Telefoon- of video-conferences organiseren i.p.v. reizen naar een eens
vergadering.
83. Als ik zou willen zou ik mij best milieubewust kunnen gedragen op 1 = Sterk oneens
Opgevallen de werkvloer. 2 = Oneens
gedragscont 84. Of ik milieubewust handel is volledig afhankelijk van mezelf. 3 = Neutraal
role 4 = Mee eens
5 = Sterk mee
eens
85. Wageningen UR als werkgever biedt goede mogelijkheden om jezelf 1 = Sterk oneens
Situatie milieubewust te gedragen. 2 = Oneens
factoren 86. De huidige mogelijkheden op mijn werkplek voor afvalscheiding zijn 3 = Neutraal
fasciliteiten toereikend. 4 = Mee eens
5 = Sterk mee
eens
Geef aan of je het oneens of oneens bent over de volgende stellingen 1 = Sterk oneens
inzake leiderschap. 2 = Oneens
Leiderschap 87. Ik word door mijn afdelingshoofd gestimuleerd om milieubewust te 3 = Neutraal
factors handelen. 4 = Me eens
88. Ik word geïnformeerd over de impact op het milieu van mijn gedrag 5= Sterk mee
op de werkvloer. eens
89. Ik word geïnformeerd over duurzaamheidsprojecten van

78
 Wageningen UR.
90. Ik word geïnformeerd over het milieubeleid van mijn
afdeling/vakgroep/kenniseenheid.
91. Ik leer milieubewust te handelen op mijn werk.
92. De leidinggevenden ondersteunen medewerkers om duurzaam
gedrag te laten zien. .
93. Als mijn afdelingshoofd milieubewust handelt op de werkvloer zal ik
dat ook doen.
94. Het is voor mij belangrijk dat mijn afdelingshoofd milieubewust
handelt.
95. Mijn afdelingshoofd laat milieubewust gedrag zien.
96. Het feit dat mijn afdelingshoofd milieubewust gedrag laat zien,
beïnvloed vervolgens mijn gedrag.
Gezien de achtergrond van dit onderzoek, willen wij u graag enkele vragen
stellen over uw geslacht, leeftijd, opleidingsniveau, betrekking en
nationaliteit. De resultaten bieden mogelijkheden om eventuele Man
Geslacht
verschillen tussen groepen te identificeren en dit kan mogelijk tot Vrouw
verklaringen leiden waarom bepaalde mensen zich wel milieubewust
en anderen zich niet milieubewust gedragen.
97. Geslacht?
Leeftijd 98. Wat is uw leeftijd? Vul een getal in
99. Wat is uw hoogst genoten opleiding? Lager dan
middelbare
school
Middelbare
school
Middelbaar
Opleiding
beroepsonderwijs
(MBO)
Bachelor degree
(HBO)
Master's degree
Doctoral Degree
100. Tot welke functiecategorie behoort u? Wetenschappelijk
Werkzaamhed personeel
en Ondersteunend
personeel
101. In welk gebouw bent u werkzaam? Vul in response
Kunt u de naam aangeven van het gebouw waar u officieel werkt? (b.v.
Gebouw Leeuwenborch, Atlas, Lumen etc.)
102. Bij welke science group/afdeling bent u werkzaam
(environmental, social sciences / corporate)
103. Waar woont u? Ik woon in
Wageningen.
Ik woon dichtbij
(< 10 km).
Ik woon tussen
Woonplaats
10-30 km van
mijn werk
Ik woon meer dan
30 km van mijn
werk
104. Wat is uw nationaliteit? Vul de naam van
Nationaliteit uw
nationaliteit..

79
VI. Additional information for Wageningen UR
This appendix presents results on actual pro-environmental behaviour. Paragraph A.
shows the outcome of questions about recycling paper, glass, plastic bottles,
batteries and office chemical office waste. Paragraph B presents the results related
to heating and paragraph C computers. Paragraph D give PEB behaviour related to
light use, paragraph E is about printing and copying. Paragraph F elaborates on
drinking hot beverages, bio food and buying sustainable and last paragraph G on
commuting behaviour.

A. Pro-environmental behaviour in relation to recycling

This paragraph presents results of pro-environmental behaviour related to paper
(subparagraph a), glass (subparagraph b), plastic bottles (subparagraph c), batteries
(subparagraph d), and lastly chemical office waste (subparagraph e).
a) Paper
The employees were asked how often they recycle paper such as newspaper, junk
mail, cardboard, and magazines. The data related to recycling behaviour are
reported in Tab. 26. It can be observed that 83.9 % of all respondents recycle paper
always and 7.3 % often. However, 2.3 % of the employees indicated that that they do
not have facilities available for recycling paper in the workplace. The highest
deficiency of recycling facilities for recycling paper are in Actio and Other buildings.
Table 26 The percentages of employees recycling paper per building
Actio Aqua Atlas Bestuur Gaia Leeuwen Lumen Other Total
% % % % % % % % %
N N N N N N N N N
9.1% 3.8% 2.4% 0.0% 2.0% 2.7% 1.5% 4.2% 2.3%
N/A 1 1 1 0 2 3 1 1 10
0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 1.5% 0.0% 0.2%
Never 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1
0.0% 3.8% 4.8% 5.4% 1.0% 3.6% 3.1% 0.0% 3.0%
Rarely 0 1 2 3 1 4 2 0 13
0.0% 3.8% 2.4% 1.8% 3.0% 4.5% 3.1% 4.2% 3.2%
Sometimes 0 1 1 1 3 5 2 1 14
0.0% 19.2% 7.1% 3.6% 9.0% 7.1% 6.2% 4.2% 7.3%
Often 0 5 3 2 9 8 4 1 32
90.9% 69.2% 83.3% 89.3% 85.0% 82.1% 84.6% 87.5% 83.9%
Always 10 18 35 50 85 92 55 21 366
100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
Total 11 26 42 56 100 112 65 24 436
Note: N/A = no facilities for recycling

b) Glass
The second question related to recycling behaviour was about glass in the
workplace. No ideal situation was observed. It can be seen in Tab. 27 that 63 % of
the respondents have no facilities for recycling glass at all, which gives the constraint
on pro-environmental behaviour. Only 17.7 % of the respondents always recycle and
5 % recycle often. As evident from the figures, the facilities for recycling glass are
insufficient in all buildings. The highest deficiency of the recycling facilities are in
Leeuwenborch 68.8 %, Other buildings 66.7%, Bestuurcentrum 66.1 %, and Lumen
64.7 % of the employees working in the particular building have no facilities.

80
Table 27 The percentages of employees recycling glass per building and total
Actio Aqua Atlas Bestuur Gaia Leeuwen Lumen Other Total
% % % % % % % % %
N N N N N N N N N
63.6% 53.8% 52.4% 66.1% 60.0% 68.8% 64.6% 66.7% 63.1%
N/A 7 14 22 37 60 77 42 16 275
0.0% 11.5% 4.8% 8.9% 13.0% 14.3% 3.1% 4.2% 9.6%
Never 0 3 2 5 13 16 2 1 42
0.0% 3.8% 4.8% 7.1% 2.0% 5.4% 1.5% 0.0% 3.7%
Rarely 0 1 2 4 2 6 1 0 16
0.0% 0.0% 4.8% 0.0% 2.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.9%
Sometimes 0 0 2 0 2 0 0 0 4
0.0% 15.4% 4.8% 5.4% 6.0% 0.9% 6.2% 8.3% 5.0%
Often 0 4 2 3 6 1 4 2 22
36.4% 15.4% 28.6% 12.5% 17.0% 10.7% 24.6% 20.8% 17.7%
Always 4 4 12 7 17 12 16 5 77
100% 99.9% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
Total 11 26 42 56 100 112 65 24 436
Note: N/A = no facilities for recycling.

c) Plastic bottles
Compared with the question on glass (subparagraph b), a similar situation was
observed in recycling plastic bottles. 55.3 % of the employees reported that they do
not have recycling facilities for plastic bottles. Only 13.1 % recycle plastic bottles
always and 5% often. In addition, 15.8 % never recycle, even though they have
access to recycling facilities. It can be seen from Tab. 28 that in Actio 72.7 %, Atlas
59.5 %, Bestuurscentrum 59 %, Gaia 59 %, Lumen 55.4 %, and Leeuwenborch 51.8 %
of the employees have no facilities for recycling plastic bottles.
Table 28 The percentages of employees recycling plastic bottles per building
Actio Aqua Atlas Bestuur Gaia Leeuwen Lumen Other Total
% % % % % % % % %
N N N N N N N N N
72.7% 42.3% 59.5% 58.9% 59.0% 51.8% 55.4% 45.8% 55.3%
N/A 8 11 25 33 59 58 36 11 241
9.1% 15.4% 7.1% 10.7% 17.0% 24.1% 10.8% 16.7% 15.8%
Never 1 4 3 6 17 27 7 4 69
0.0% 3.8% 4.8% 3.0% 8.0% 1.5% 12.5% 6.2%
Rarely 0 1 2
14.3% 8
3 9 1 3 27
0.0% 3.8% 4.8% 3.6% 8.0% 0.9% 6.2% 8.3% 4.6%
Sometimes 0 1 2 2 8 1 4 2 20
0.0% 15.4% 9.5% 1.8% 3.0% 3.6% 6.2% 5.0%
Often 8.3% 2
0 4 4 1 3 4 4 22
18.2% 19.2% 14.3% 10.7% 10.0% 11.6% 20.0% 8.3% 13.1%
Always 2 5 6 6 10 13 13 2 57
100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
Total 11 26 42 56 100 112 65 24 436
Note: N/A = no facilities for recycling.

d) Batteries
In the majority of cases, 48.4 % of respondents do not have recycling facilities for
batteries in their workplace. On the other hand, 37.8% of employees recycle
batteries always and 3.9% often. Only 6.9 % never recycle. Tab 30. illustrates
recycling behaviour per building. It can be seen that 81.8 % of employees working in
Actio do have recycling facilities. A similar situation was observed in the remaining
buildings where about 40 to 55 % do not have access to recycling facilities in the
workplace.

81
Table 29 The percentages of employees recycling batteries per building
Actio Aqua Atlas Bestuur Gaia Leeuwen Lumen Other Total
% % % % % % % % %
N N N N N N N N N
81.8 46.2% 35.7% 48.2% 46.0% 52.7% 46.2% 54.2% 48.4%
N/A 9 12 15 27 46 59 30 13 211
0.0% 11.5% 2.4% 3.6% 7.0% 9.8% 7.7% 4.2% 6.9%
Never 0 3 1 2 7 11 5 1 30
0.0% 3.8% 0.0% 5.4% 1.0% 2.7% 0.0% 4.2% 2.1%
Rarely 0 1 0 3 1 3 0 1 9
0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 1.0% 1.8% 1.5% 0.0% 0.9%
Sometimes 0 0 0 0 1 2 1 0 4
0.0% 7.7% 7.1% 5.4% 2.0% 4.5% 1.5% 4.2% 3.9%
Often 0 2 3 3 2 5 1 1 17
18.2% 30.8% 54.8% 37.5% 43.0% 28.6% 43.1% 33.3% 37.8%
Always 2 8 23 21 43 32 28 8 165
100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
Total 11 26 42 56 100 112 65 24 436
Note: N/A = no facilities for recycling.

e) Chemical office waste

The last question about recycling behaviour was on chemical office waste. According
to Tab 31., 34.6 % of the employees always recycle chemical office waste. However
8.3% never recycle chemical office waste. In addition, over half of all respondents -
52.8 % indicated that they do not have recycling facilities in the work place at all. The
deficiencies in providing recycling facilities for chemical office waste can be observed
in all buildings The biggest deficits are in Aqua 61.5 %, Atlas 59.5 %, Leeuwenborch
and Actio 54.5 %, and Gaia 54%. The numbers per each building are presented in
Tab. 30 below.
Table 30 The percentages of employees recycling chemical office waste per building
Actio Aqua Atlas Bestuur Gaia Leeuwen Lumen Other Total
% % % % % % % % %
N N N N N N N N N
54.5% 61.5% 59.5% 41.1% 54.0% 54.5% 53.8% 41.7% 52.8%
N/A 6 16 25 23 54 61 35 10 230
0.0% 19.2% 2.4% 3.6% 11.0% 10.7% 3.1% 12.5% 8.3%
Never 0 5 1 2 11 12 2 3 36
0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 5.4% 1.0% 3.6% 0.0% 0.0% 1.8%
Rarely 0 0 0 3 1 4 0 0 8
0.0% 3.8% 2.4% 0.0% 1.0% 0.9% 1.5% 0.0% 1.1%
Sometimes 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 5
0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 1.8% 2.0% 2.7% 0.0% 0.0% 1.4%
Often 0 0 0 1 2 3 0 0 6
45.5% 15.4% 35.7% 48.2% 31.0% 27.7% 41.5% 45.8% 34.6%
Always 5 4 15 27 31 31 27 11 151
100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
Total 11 26 42 56 100 112 65 24 436
Note: N/A = no facilities to recycle.
This subchapter presented results of questions on recycling behaviour on paper,
glass, plastic and chemical office waste. From the results we can see significantly
different situations. Paper is recycled by most of the employees and they also have
adequate recycling facilities in the workplace. On the other hand, the employees
reported that there are no facilities to recycle glass, plastic and chemical office to
over half of all respondents. It could be concluded that more recycling facilities for
glass, plastic and chemical office waste are required.

82
 B. Pro-environmental behaviour in relation to heating
This paragraph describes results related to controlling thermostats in offices
(subparagraph f), wearing warm clothes (subparagraph g), controlling heating
outside working hours (subparagraph h), and reducing heating in unused rooms
(subparagraph i).
f) Thermostats
The employees were asked to indicate whether they check if thermostats are set
correctly in their offices. The respondents were informed that the optimal setting is
between 16 and 19 degrees. 13.3% of the employees always check the thermostats,
15.1 % often and 18.1 % sometimes. Nonetheless, 15.4 % of the employees never
check the thermostats and 23.4 % cannot regulate thermostats due to the workplace
setting, which makes impossible for the employees to behave pro-environmentally.
The remaining figures can be found in Tab 31. The employees working in Other
(45.8 %), Aqua (38.5 %) and Leeuwenborch (26.8 %) cannot mostly regulate
temperature in their offices.
Table 31 The percentages of employees checking thermostats per building
Actio Aqua Atlas Bestuur Gaia Leeuwen Lumen Other Total
% % % % % % % % %
N N N N N N N N N
9.1% 38.5% 7.1% 26.8% 17.0% 26.8% 23.1% 45.8% 23.4%
N/A 1 10 3 15 17 30 15 11 102
45.5% 11.5% 7.1% 8.9% 13.0% 18.8% 21.5% 12.5% 15.4%
Never 5 3 3 5 13 21 14 3 61
18.2% 19.2% 9.5% 17.9% 16.0% 12.5% 13.8% 16.7% 14.7%
Rarely 2 5 4 10 16 14 9 4 64
9.1% 11.5% 38.1% 14.3% 18.0% 17.0% 18.5% 8.3% 18.1%
Sometimes 1 3 16 8 18 19 12 2 79
9.1% 15.4% 26.2% 16.1% 21.0% 8.0% 10.8% 16.7% 15.1%
Often 1 4 11 9 21 9 7 4 66
9.1% 3.8% 11.9% 16.1% 15.0% 17.0% 12.3% 0.0% 13.3%
Always 1 1 5 9 15 19 8 0 58
100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
Total 11 26 42 56 100 112 65 24 436
Note: N/A = no facilities for influencing the heating.

g) Clothes
The second question from this group was on wearing more clothes instead of putting
the heating on. In general, the employees wear more clothes instead of putting the
heating on in the workplace, which shows positive pro-environmental behaviour.
18.1 % of the employees indicated that they always wear more clothes; 30.7 % do so
often and 23.9 % sometimes. The figures can be found in Table 32..

83
Table 32 The percentages of employees wearing more clothes per building
Actio Aqua Atlas Bestuur Gaia Leeuwen Lumen Other Total
% % % % % % % % %
N N N N N N N N N
0.0% 7.7% 0.0% 7.1% 4.0% 8.0% 9.2% 20.8% 6.9%
N/A 0 2 0 4 4 9 6 5 30
27.3% 7.7% 4.8% 8.9% 8.0% 7.1% 7.7% 0.0% 7.6%
Never 3 2 2 5 8 8 5 0 33
0.0% 7.7% 19.0% 14.3% 13.0% 11.6% 13.8% 12.5% 12.8%
Rarely 0 2 8 8 13 13 9 3 56
9.1% 26.9% 33.3% 16.1% 22.0% 29.5% 20.0% 20.8% 23.9%
Sometimes 1 7 14 9 22 33 13 5 104
45.5% 11.5% 28.6% 39.3% 34.0% 27.7% 27.7% 37.5% 30.7%
Often 5 3 12 22 34 31 18 9 134
18.2% 38.5% 14.3% 14.3% 19.0% 16.1% 21.5% 8.3% 18.1%
Always 2 10 6 8 19 18 14 2 79
100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
Total 11 26 42 56 100 112 65 24 436

h) Heating off or reduced outside working hours

The third question was about turning off or reducing heating outside working hours
in the workplace. Fairly 23.6 % of the employees always turn off or reduce heating
and 11.5 % often do so. Noteworthy 22.7 % never pay attention to the heating and
16.3 % of the employees do not have any means to influence the heating.
Table 33 The percentages of employees regulating heating outside working hours per building
Actio Aqua Atlas Bestuur Gaia Leeuwen Lumen Other Total
% % % % % % % % %
N N N N N N N N N
18.2% 15.4% 28.6% 17.9% 11.0% 10.7% 18.5% 33.3% 16.3%
N/A 2 4 12 10 11 12 12 8 71
54.5% 3.8% 26.2% 28.6% 14.0% 21.4% 35.4% 16.7% 22.7%
Never 6 1 11 16 14 24 23 4 99
0.0% 15.4% 11.9% 16.1% 17.0% 11.6% 13.8% 25.0% 14.4%
Rarely 0 4 5 9 17 13 9 6 63
18.2% 26.9% 11.9% 12.5% 13.0% 9.8% 6.2% 4.2% 11.5%
Sometimes 2 7 5 7 13 11 4 1 50
0.0% 11.5% 9.5% 7.1% 16.0% 15.2% 7.7% 4.2% 11.5%
Often 0 3 4 4 16 17 5 1 50
9.1% 26.9% 11.9% 17.9% 29.0% 31.3% 18.5% 16.7% 23.6%
Always 1 7 5 10 29 35 12 4 103
100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
Total 11 26 42 56 100 112 65 24 436
Note: N/A =no facilities for influencing the heating

i) Heating in unused
The last question on behaviour toward controlling heating in the workplace was
whether the employees reduce heating in unused rooms. Only 10.6 % always reduce
heating in the unused rooms and 6.2 % do often. Over a third of all respondents
reported that they never reduce heating in unused rooms. Also 34.2 % of all
respondents cannot control the temperate in unused rooms.

84
Table 34 The percentages of employees checking thermostats per building
Actio Aqua Atlas Bestuur Gaia Leeuwen Lumen Other Total
% % % % % % % % %
N N N N N N N N N
36.4% 30.8% 35.7% 26.8% 33.0% 31.3% 41.5% 25.0% 34.2%
N/A (4) (8) (15) (15) (33) (35) (27) (12) (149)
36.4% 15.4% 42.9% 39.3% 28.0% 33.0% 32.3% 12.5% 32.1%
Never (4) (4) (18) (22) (28) (37) (21) (6) (140)
0.0% 19.2% 14.3% 14.3% 13.0% 10.7% 3.1% 4.2% 11.2%
Rarely (0) (5) (6) (8) (13) (12) (2) (3) (49)
27.3% 15.4% 2.4% 5.4% 5.0% 4.5% 4.6% 4.2% 5.7%
Sometimes (3) (4) (1) (3) (5) (5) (3) (1) (25)
0.0% 7.7% 4.8% 5.4% 6.0% 7.1% 7.7% 4.2% 6.2%
Often (0) (2) (2) (3) (6) (8) (5) (1) (27)
0.0% 11.5% 0.0% 8.9% 15.0% 13.4% 10.8% 0.0% 10.6%
Always (0) (3) (0) (5) (15) (15) (7) (1) (46)
100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 50% 100%
Total (11) (26) (42) (56) (100) (112) (65) (24) (436)
Note: N/A =no facilities for influencing the heating
The employees were asked about their behaviour toward heating in the workplace.
The results indicate that the employees are concern about heating. In general, we
can conclude that the employees check the setting of heating systems, wear more
clothes instead of turning the heating up and turn the heating down outside working
hours. Still, the employees mostly do not check heating in other unused rooms. It
should, however, be noted that a considerable number of employees cannot
regulate the heating system, thus they are not able to behave pro-environmentally.
In line with this limitation, the employees cannot regulate the heating system
according to own needs and comforts.

C. Pro-environmental behaviour in relation to computers

This chapter gives findings on questions about behaviour toward computer usage.
The first subparagraph j) shows results related to turning off the computers when
leaving the office for some time and the second subparagraph k) presents results on
switching off the computers when the employees go home.
j) Computer off – leaving office
The behaviour related to switching off the computers when leaving the office for a
considerable time varied largely. 27.1 % of the respondents always and 14.7 % often
switch their computer off. However, 22.7% of the employees indicated that they
rarely switch the computer off and 20.9 % of all employees never do it. The
employees have been provided with modern computer, thus they are able to turn
off/hibernate the computer easily and anytime in order to behave pro-
environmentally.

85
Table 35 The percentages of employees switching a computer off per building
Actio Aqua Atlas Bestuur Gaia Leeuwen Lumen Other Total
% % % % % % % % %
N N N N N N N N N
0.0% 0.0% 2.4% 1.8% 3.0% 2.7% 0.0% 4.2% 2.1%
N/A 0 0 1 1 3 3 0 1 9
27.3% 15.4% 21.4% 23.2% 19.0% 21.4% 23.1% 16.7% 20.9%
Never 3 4 9 13 19 24 15 4 91
27.3% 19.2% 16.7% 28.6% 23.0% 22.3% 18.5% 33.3% 22.7%
Rarely 3 5 7 16 23 25 12 8 99
0.0% 19.2% 14.3% 8.9% 12.0% 12.5% 15.4% 12.5% 12.6%
Sometimes 0 5 6 5 12 14 10 3 55
9.1% 3.8% 11.9% 12.5% 20.0% 9.8% 20.0% 25.0% 14.7%
Often 1 1 5 7 20 11 13 6 64
36.4% 42.3% 33.3% 25.0% 23.0% 31.3% 23.1% 8.3% 27.1%
Always 4 11 14 14 23 35 15 2 118
100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
Total 11 26 42 56 100 112 65 24 436

k) Computer off – going home

The second question on behaviour toward the computer usage gave a positive
outcome. The employees showed excellent pro-environment behaviour toward
turning the computers off when they go home. 84.9 % of the employees switch their
computers off and 4.8 % often do the same when going home. Table 36 illustrates
the percentages per building.
Table 36 The percentages of employees switching a computer off – going home per building
Actio Aqua Atlas Bestuur Gaia Leeuwen Lumen Other Total
% % % % % % % % %
N N N N N N N N N
0.0% 0.0% 2.4% 0.0% 1.0% 0.9% 0.0% 0.0% 0.7%
N/A 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 3
0.0% 3.8% 7.1% 5.4% 6.0% 0.9% 1.5% 4.2% 3.7%
Never 0 1 3 3 6 1 1 1 16
0.0% 7.7% 11.9% 1.8% 2.0% 1.8% 0.0% 0.0% 2.8%
Rarely 0 2 5 1 2 2 0 0 12
0.0% 0.0% 2.4% 3.6% 7.0% 2.7% 1.5% 0.0% 3.2%
Sometimes 0 0 1 2 7 3 1 0 14
9.1% 7.7% 2.4% 0.0% 11.0% 2.7% 4.6% 0.0% 4.8%
Often 1 2 1 0 11 3 3 0 21
90.9% 80.8% 73.8% 89.3% 73.0% 91.1% 92.3% 95.8% 84.9%
Always 10 21 31 50 73 102 60 23 370
100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
Total 11 26 42 56 100 112 65 24 436

The results of the questions about computer usage suggest positive pro-
environmental behaviour. It is apparent that in most cases, the employees shut
down their computer when they leave the office with intention of going home.
Nevertheless, the employees fairly failed to pay attention to their computers when
they leave for a considerable period of time.

D. Pro-environmental behaviour in relation to lights

Other type of pro-environmental behaviour is related to lights in the workplace. The
subparagraph l) presents results of leaving lights on a whole day and the
subparagraph m) give results of switching off lights when leaving the office for some
time.

86
 l) Switching on lights morning – evening
The employees were asked to indicate if they switch on the lights when they come to
the office in the morning and switch them off when they leave in the evening. In
most cases, the employees behave in this way. Over half of the respondents - 59.2 %
of the employees come to the workplace switch the lights on and do not pay
attention to them a whole day. Moreover, 16.5 % of the employees cannot control
the lights in the workplace due to given settings.
Table 37 The percentages of employees switching on lights mor-evening per building
Actio Aqua Atlas Bestuur Gaia Leeuwen Lumen Other Total
% % % % % % % % %
N N N N N N N N N
9.1% 0.0% 88.1% 1.8% 4.0% 2.7% 20.0% 54.2% 16.5%
N/A 1 0 37 1 4 3 13 13 72
0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 3.0% 1.8% 1.5% 4.2% 1.6%
Never 0 0 0 0 3 2 1 1 7
0.0% 7.7% 2.4% 3.6% 6.0% 2.7% 1.5% 4.2% 3.7%
Rarely 0 2 1 2 6 3 1 1 16
9.1% 3.8% 0.0% 8.9% 11.0% 10.7% 9.2% 0.0% 8.3%
Sometimes 1 1 0 5 11 12 6 0 36
36.4% 11.5% 0.0% 8.9% 12.0% 12.5% 12.3% 4.2% 10.8%
Often 4 3 0 5 12 14 8 1 47
45.5% 76.9% 9.5% 76.8% 64.0% 69.6% 55.4% 33.3% 59.2%
Always 5 20 4 43 64 78 36 8 258
100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
Total 11 26 42 56 100 112 65 24 436
Note: N/A = The lights in my office are controlled automatically.

m) Switching off – leaving office

The second question related to the lights was about indicating if the employees
switch off the lights when they leave their offices for a considerable period of time,
and there is no one else in the room. In the majority of cases, 58.9 % always switch
the lights off and 12.6 % often do so. However, 16.7 % of the respondents cannot
control the lights in their offices. It is important to note that 88.1 % of the employees
wokring in Atlas cannot conrol their lights as indicated in Table 38.
Table 38 The percentages of employees switching off lights – leaving office per building
Actio Aqua Atlas Bestuur Gaia Leeuwen Lumen Other Total
% % % % % % % % %
N N N N N N N N N
18.2% 0.0% 88.1% 1.8% 4.0% 2.7% 20.0% 54.2% 16.7%
N/A 2 0 37 1 4 3 13 13 73
0.0% 3.8% 0.0% 3.6% 2.0% 3.6% 1.5% 4.2% 2.5%
Never 0 1 0 2 2 4 1 1 11
0.0% 3.8% 2.4% 16.1% 1.0% 1.8% 1.5% 4.2% 3.7%
Rarely 0 1 1 9 1 2 1 1 16
9.1% 7.7% 2.4% 12.5% 4.0% 5.4% 4.6% 0.0% 5.5%
Sometimes 1 2 1 7 4 6 3 0 24
18.2% 15.4% 2.4% 16.1% 18.0% 10.7% 10.8% 8.3% 12.6%
Often 2 4 1 9 18 12 7 2 55
54.5% 69.2% 4.8% 50.0% 71.0% 75.9% 61.5% 29.2% 58.9%
Always 6 18 2 28 71 85 40 7 257
100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
Total 11 26 42 56 100 112 65 24 436
Note: N/A = The lights in my office are controlled automatically.
This paragraph discrabed results of the quesitons about the lights in the workplace.
The employees mostly indicated that they come to work, switch the lights on and do
not pay attention to them. However, a relatively high percentige of the employees
turn the lights off when they leave for a considerable period of time and there is no

87
one else in the room. The results also showed that a fair percentige of the
employees cannot control light in their workplace.
E. Pro-environmental behaviour in relation to printing
Significant part of pro-environmental behaviour in the workplace can be linked to
printing and copying. This paragraph elaborates on printing double-sided
subparagraph n) copying double-sided (subparagraph o), printing on one sheet
(subparagraph p), reading on a screen (subparagraph q).
n) Printing double sided
The employees were asked to indicate whether they print double sided. It is evident
from the results that they behave in this way. 71 % of the employees always print
double-sided and 19 % often. It can be seen from Tab. 39 that only 1 % of all
respondents never print double-sided.
Table 39 The percentages of employees printing double-sided – leaving office per building
Actio Aqua Atlas Bestuur Gaia Leeuwen Lumen Other Total
% % % % % % % % %
N N N N N N N N N
0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.9% 0.0% 4.2% 0.5%
N/A 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 2
0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.9% 0.0% 4.2% 0.5%
Never 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 2
0.0% 7.7% 4.8% 1.8% 2.0% 4.5% 3.1% 8.3% 3.7%
Rarely 0 2 2 1 2 5 2 2 16
9.1% 0.0% 2.4% 12.5% 5.0% 6.3% 6.2% 4.2% 6.0%
Sometimes 1 0 1 7 5 7 4 1 26
9.1% 7.7% 11.9% 25.0% 23.0% 10.7% 27.7% 29.2% 18.8%
Often 1 2 5 14 23 12 18 7 82
81.8% 84.6% 81.0% 60.7% 70.0% 76.8% 63.1% 50.0% 70.6%
Always 9 22 34 34 70 86 41 12 308
100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
Total 11 26 42 56 100 112 65 24 436

o) Copying double-sided
The second question related to printing was on copying double-sided. The positive
pro-environmental behaviour can be seen as paper reduction. Practically 43 % of the
respondents always copy double-sided and 32 % often copy double-sided. On the
other hand, 2% never copy double sided and 8 % rarely do so.
Table 40 The percentages of employees copying double-sided – leaving office per building
Actio Aqua Atlas Bestuur Gaia Leeuwen Lumen Other Total
% % % % % % % % %
N N N N N N N N N
27.3% 3.8% 4.8% 0.0% 6.0% 4.5% 3.1% 0.0% 4.4%
N/A 3 1 2 0 6 5 2 0 19
0.0% 7.7% 0.0% 0.0% 1.0% 3.6% 0.0% 8.3% 2.1%
Never 0 2 0 0 1 4 0 2 9
9.1% 11.5% 7.1% 8.9% 9.0% 7.1% 7.7% 8.3% 8.3%
Rarely 1 3 3 5 9 8 5 2 36
0.0% 0.0% 4.8% 19.6% 10.0% 13.4% 3.1% 16.7% 10.1%
Sometimes 0 0 2 11 10 15 2 4 44
9.1% 19.2% 31.0% 35.7% 32.0% 23.2% 52.3% 33.3% 31.9%
Often 1 5 13 20 32 26 34 8 139
54.5% 57.7% 52.4% 35.7% 42.0% 48.2% 33.8% 33.3% 43.3%
Always 6 15 22 20 42 54 22 8 189
100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
Total 11 26 42 56 100 112 65 24 436

88
 p) Printing on one sheet
Other desired pro-environmental behaviour is printing as much as possible on one
sheet (e.g. by using narrow margins or printing two pages on one A4 sheet). In many
cases, the employees behave in this way. 20.6 % always print as much as possible on
one sheet and 26.4 % often do. Nearly 11 % of all employees never print as much as
possible on one sheet and 19.5 % rarely do the same. As can be seen from Tab. 41
the largest percentages of the employees who do not print as much as possible on
one sheet are in Lumen, Atlas, and Gaia.
Table 41 The percentages of employees printing on one sheet per building
Actio Aqua Atlas Bestuur Gaia Leeuwen Lumen Other Total
% % % % % % % % %
N N N N N N N N N
0.0% 0.0% 2.4% 1.8% 0.0% 2.7% 1.5% 4.2% 1.6%
N/A 0 0 1 1 0 3 1 1 7
9.1% 7.7% 14.3% 10.7% 12.0% 8.0% 16.9% 4.2% 11.0%
Never 1 2 6 6 12 9 11 1 48
18.2% 3.8% 21.4% 19.6% 18.0% 23.2% 21.5% 16.7% 19.5%
Rarely 2 1 9 11 18 26 14 4 85
18.2% 11.5% 19.0% 19.6% 26.0% 20.5% 13.8% 37.5% 20.9%
Sometimes 2 3 8 11 26 23 9 9 91
27.3% 38.5% 23.8% 23.2% 31.0% 17.9% 32.3% 29.2% 26.4%
Often 3 10 10 13 31 20 21 7 115
27.3% 38.5% 19.0% 25.0% 13.0% 27.7% 13.8% 8.3% 20.6%
Always 3 10 8 14 13 31 9 2 90
100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
Total 11 26 42 56 100 112 65 24 436

q) Reading digital versions of documents

The last pro-environmental behaviour related to printing and reducing paper is
reading documents on a screen and working with a digital versions. Only 4.6 % of the
employees indicated that they always read the documents on the screen. It is
important to note that it is not always possible to work with digital versions and
some people prefer to read documents from papers e.g. scientific articles.
Nevertheless, remarkable 42 % often read on the screen and 37.8 % of the
respondents do the same.
Table 42 The percentages of employees printing on one sheet per building
Actio Aqua Atlas Bestuur Gaia Leeuwen Lumen Other Total
% % % % % % % % %
N N N N N N N N N
0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 1.8% 0.0% 0.9% 0.0% 0.0% 0.5%
N/A 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 2
0.0% 3.8% 0.0% 3.6% 2.0% 4.5% 3.1% 0.0% 2.8%
Never 0 1 0 2 2 5 2 0 12
0.0% 26.9% 14.3% 8.9% 5.0% 19.6% 10.8% 8.3% 12.4%
Rarely 0 7 6 5 5 22 7 2 54
18.2% 26.9% 35.7% 37.5% 38.0% 43.8% 41.5% 25.0% 37.8%
Sometimes 2 7 15 21 38 49 27 6 165
81.8% 38.5% 45.2% 41.1% 48.0% 29.5% 44.6% 50.0% 42.0%
Often 9 10 19 23 48 33 29 12 183
0.0% 3.8% 4.8% 7.1% 7.0% 1.8% 0.0% 16.7% 4.6%
Always 0 1 2 4 7 2 0 4 20
100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
Total 11 26 42 56 100 112 65 24 436

This paragraph provided results on pro-environmental behaviour related to printing

and copying. In the main, we can conclude that the employees have considerably
good behaviour toward printing and copying double sided. Nevertheless, printing as

89
much as possible can be improved. Lastly, reading on a screen and working with
digital versions showed good results.
F. Pro-environmental behaviour in relation to drinking hot
beverages, buying sustainable and bio food
The paragraph explores the results of the questions on behaviour related to using
plastic cups, buying sustainable and bio food. The first subparagraph (r) shows if the
employees use a mug and subparagraph (s) is about washing a mug. Following
subparagraph (t) describes if the employees take a plastic cup and reuse it and also
whether they take a cup each time presented in subparagraph (u). Two other
subparagraphs bio food v) and buying sustainable w) were included in this
paragraph.
r) Using a mug
The majority of the employees use a mug to drink hot beverages (coffee/tea) at
work. Over half of them (51.4 % of the respondents) always use a mug and 17.9 %
often uses a mug. It should be, however, noted that 17 % the employees never use a
mug and 7.3 % rarely. Tab. 43 below presents the figures for each building. Not ideal
situation can be observed in Bestuurscentrum, Gaia, Leeuwenborch and Actio,
where the employees mostly do not use a mug at all.
Table 43 The percentages of employees using a mug per building
Actio Aqua Atlas Bestuur Gaia Leeuwen Lumen Other Total
% % % % % % % % %
N N N N N N N N N
9.1% 3.8% 0.0% 1.8% 0.0% 2.7% 0.0% 0.0% 1.4%
N/A 1 1 0 1 0 3 0 0 6
27.3% 3.8% 9.5% 35.7% 17.0% 17.9% 9.2% 12.5% 17.0%
Never 3 1 4 20 17 20 6 3 74
18.2% 3.8% 2.4% 8.9% 6.0% 8.9% 7.7% 8.3% 7.3%
Rarely 2 1 1 5 6 10 5 2 32
0.0% 3.8% 4.8% 0.0% 2.0% 11.6% 6.2% 0.0% 5.0%
Sometimes 0 1 2 0 2 13 4 0 22
0.0% 26.9% 11.9% 21.4% 16.0% 17.0% 15.4% 37.5% 17.9%
Often 0 7 5 12 16 19 10 9 78
45.5% 57.7% 71.4% 32.1% 59.0% 42.0% 61.5% 41.7% 51.4%
Always 5 15 30 18 59 47 40 10 224
100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
Total 11 26 42 56 100 112 65 24 436

s) Washing a mug
Correspondingly to the pervious question (subparagraph r), the employees were
asked if they wash their mugs in a sustainable way (e.g. cold water, no washing-up
liquids). 29.6 % of the employees who use a mug always wash their mugs sustainably
and 16.5 % often do so. In contrary, 12.2 % rarely wash the mugs sustainably and
13.8 % never. As shown in Tab. 44 the employees working in Aqua, Leeuwenborch,
Lumen and Atlas mostly wash their mugs in a sustainable way.

90
Table 44 The percentages of employees washing a mug per building
Actio Aqua Atlas Bestuur Gaia Leeuwen Lumen Other Total
% % % % % % % % %
N N N N N N N N N
36.4% 11.5% 16.7% 28.6% 16.0% 16.1% 13.8% 12.5% 17.4%
N/A 4 3 7 16 16 18 9 3 76
27.3% 7.7% 4.8% 19.6% 15.0% 13.4% 10.8% 20.8% 13.8%
Never 3 2 2 11 15 15 7 5 60
9.1% 3.8% 11.9% 10.7% 19.0% 10.7% 9.2% 12.5% 12.2%
Rarely 1 1 5 6 19 12 6 3 53
0.0% 7.7% 16.7% 5.4% 8.0% 11.6% 15.4% 12.5% 10.6%
Sometimes 0 2 7 3 8 13 10 3 46
9.1% 26.9% 28.6% 14.3% 14.0% 11.6% 15.4% 29.2% 16.5%
Often 1 7 12 8 14 13 10 7 72
18.2% 42.3% 21.4% 21.4% 28.0% 36.6% 35.4% 12.5% 29.6%
Always 2 11 9 12 28 41 23 3 129
100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
Total 11 26 42 56 100 112 65 24 436

t) Taking a plastic cup and reusing

The third question related to plastic cups was to investigate if the employees take a
plastic cup and reuse it for the rest of the day. 24.5 % of the respondents always use
the same cup and 26.6 % often behave the same. Nevertheless, 10.6 % rarely and
even 12.6 % of the employees never reuse the same cup.
Table 45 The percentages of employees taking a plastic cup per building
Actio Aqua Atlas Bestuur Gaia Leeuwen Lumen Other Total
% % % % % % % % %
N N N N N N N N N
0.0% 19.2% 19.0% 12.5% 19.0% 12.5% 18.5% 8.3% 15.4%
N/A 0 5 8 7 19 14 12 2 67
9.1% 11.5% 14.3% 12.5% 16.0% 13.4% 7.7% 8.3% 12.6%
Never 1 3 6 7 16 15 5 2 55
27.3% 3.8% 9.5% 14.3% 8.0% 11.6% 6.2% 20.8% 10.6%
Rarely 3 1 4 8 8 13 4 5 46
9.1% 7.7% 14.3% 14.3% 12.0% 8.0% 7.7% 8.3% 10.3%
Sometimes 1 2 6 8 12 9 5 2 45
36.4% 26.9% 23.8% 30.4% 25.0% 24.1% 29.2% 29.2% 26.6%
Often 4 7 10 17 25 27 19 7 116
18.2% 30.8% 19.0% 16.1% 20.0% 30.4% 30.8% 25.0% 24.5%
Always
2 8 8 9 20 34 20 6 107
100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
Total 11 26 42 56 100 112 65 24 436

u) Taking a new cup each time

The last question about using plastic cups in the workplace was to investigate if the
employees take a new cup each time. In most cases 47 % of the employees never
take a new cup each time they have a hot beverage and 26.6 % rarely do so. On the
other hand, 4.8 % of all respondents take a cup each time and 5.3 % act in the same
way. Data in Table 46 suggest that the situation can be improved.

91
Table 46 The percentages of employees taking a new cup each time per building
Actio Aqua Atlas Bestuur Gaia Leeuwen Lumen Other Total
% % % % % % % % %
N N N N N N N N N
0.0% 19.2% 11.9% 10.7% 16.0% 7.1% 6.2% 6.2% 10.6%
N/A 0 5 5 6 16 8 4 2 46
27.3% 57.7% 47.6% 37.5% 49.0% 46.4% 52.3% 52.3% 47.0%
Never 3 15 20 21 49 52 34 11 205
45.5% 15.4% 26.2% 19.6% 29.0% 24.1% 35.4% 35.4% 26.6%
Rarely 5 4 11 11 29 27 23 6 116
9.1% 0.0% 7.1% 10.7% 1.0% 10.7% 1.5% 1.5% 5.7%
Sometimes 1 3 6 1 12 1 1 25
18.2% 3.8% 2.4% 10.7% 3.0% 6.3% 3.1% 3.1% 5.3%
Often 2 1 1 6 3 7 2 1 23
0.0% 3.8% 4.8% 10.7% 2.0% 5.4% 1.5% 1.5% 4.8%
Always 0 1 2 6 2 6 1 3 21
100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
Total 11 26 42 56 100 112 65 24 436

v) Bio food
Another way of showing pro-environmental behaviour is buying bio food in the
workplace. A large group of the respondents cannot buy bio food at all. The group
accounts for 27.8 % of all respondents. Similarly, 10.3 % never buy bio food and
21.1 % buy rarely. Only 7.1 % always buy bio food and 15. 4 % often do so.
Table 47 The percentages of employees buying bio food per building
Actio Aqua Atlas Bestuur Gaia Leeuwen Lumen Other Total
% % % % % % % % %
N N N N N N N N N
36.4% 30.8% 28.6% 21.4% 27.0% 26.8% 27.7% 41.7% 27.8%
N/A 4 8 12 12 27 30 18 10 121
0.0% 11.5% 9.5% 8.9% 9.0% 16.1% 7.7% 4.2% 10.3%
Never 0 3 4 5 9 18 5 1 45
27.3% 19.2% 21.4% 26.8% 14.0% 23.2% 18.5% 33.3% 21.1%
Rarely 3 5 9 15 14 26 12 8 92
18.2% 23.1% 16.7% 16.1% 26.0% 17.0% 12.3% 12.5% 18.3%
Sometimes 2 6 7 9 26 19 8 3 80
18.2% 7.7% 11.9% 26.8% 13.0% 10.7% 24.6% 8.3% 15.4%
Often 2 2 5 15 13 12 16 2 67
0.0% 7.7% 11.9% 0.0% 11.0% 6.3% 9.2% 0.0% 7.1%
Always 0 2 5 0 11 7 6 0 31
100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
Total 11 26 42 56 100 112 65 24 436

w) Buying sustainable
The final question from this group was about buying sustainable. The employees
indicated how often they buy sustainably. Noteworthy 30 % of the employees
cannot buy sustainable goods in the workplace. Only 6.4 % of the employees buy
sustainable and 20.2 % often do so. Insufficient places to buy sustainable are Actio,
Lumen, Other and Gaia. The numbers can be found in Tab 48.

92
Table 48 The percentages of employees buying sustainably per building
Actio Aqua Atlas Bestuur Gaia Leeuwen Lumen Other Total
% % % % % % % % %
N N N N N N N N N
36.4% 26.9% 31.0% 19.6% 31.0% 30.4% 35.4% 33.3% 30.0%
N/A 4 7 13 11 31 34 23 8 131
0.0% 3.8% 2.4% 1.8% 9.0% 7.1% 6.2% 0.0% 5.5%
Never 0 1 1 1 9 8 4 0 24
18.2% 15.4% 11.9% 23.2% 11.0% 20.5% 10.8% 29.2% 16.5%
Rarely 2 4 5 13 11 23 7 7 72
18.2% 19.2% 26.2% 21.4% 17.0% 23.2% 21.5% 25.0% 21.3%
Sometimes 2 5 11 12 17 26 14 6 93
9.1% 30.8% 21.4% 26.8% 24.0% 15.2% 18.5% 8.3% 20.2%
Often 1 8 9 15 24 17 12 2 88
18.2% 3.8% 7.1% 7.1% 8.0% 3.6% 7.7% 4.2% 6.4%
Always 2 1 3 4 8 4 5 1 28
100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
Total 11 26 42 56 100 112 65 24 436

This paragraph reported results of the question on drinking hot beverages (e.g.
coffee, tea), bio food and buying sustainable. The results showed that the majority of
the employees use a mug to drink hot beverages. Also they more or less manage to
wash it in a sustainable way. Nonetheless, there is still room for improvement as
surprisingly a fair amount of people take a new cup each time. The results also
showed that almost a third of the employees are not able to neither buy bio food
nor buy sustainable in the workplace.

G. Pro-environmental behaviour in relation to commuting

Pro-environmental behaviour related to commuting is presented in this chapter. This
chapter provides results on commuting by car (subparagraph x), bike (subparagraph
y), walking to work (subparagraph z), using public transport (subparagraph aa),
sharing cars with other employees (bb), working at home (cc), and lastly travelling to
meetings (dd).
x) Commuting by car
The first question about commuting was on commuting by car. On the whole we can
see that 36.9 % of the employees never use a car to get to work and 24.1 % use one
rarely. On the opposite side, 20.6 % of the respondents commute always by car.
Detailed results are presented in Table 49.
Table 49 The percentages of employees commuting by car
Actio Aqua Atlas Bestuur Gaia Leeuwen Lumen Other Total
Car % % % % % % % % %
N N N N N N N N N
9.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 4.0% 3.6% 3.1% 4.2% 2.8%
N/A 1 0 0 4 4 2 1 12
36.4% 65.4% 28.6% 23.2% 47.0% 35.7% 26.2% 45.8% 36.9%
Never 4 17 12 13 47 40 17 11 161
9.1% 11.5% 40.5% 19.6% 25.0% 19.6% 29.2% 29.2% 24.1%
Rarely 1 3 17 11 25 22 19 7 105
0.0% 7.7% 4.8% 14.3% 5.0% 8.9% 9.2% 0.0% 7.6%
Sometimes 0 2 2 8 5 10 6 0 33
0.0% 3.8% 9.5% 10.7% 8.0% 6.3% 10.8% 8.3% 8.0%
Often 0 1 4 6 8 7 7 2 35
45.5% 11.5% 16.7% 32.1% 11.0% 25.9% 21.5% 12.5% 20.6%
Always 5 3 7 18 11 29 14 3 90
100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100.0%
Total 11 26 42 56 100 112 65 24 436

93
 y) Commuting by bike
The results on the questions about commuting by bike showed that 43.8 % of the
employees always use a bike to get to work and 17 % commute by bike often. As can
be seen from Table 50, 20 % of the respondents never commute by bike. This score
can be seen as relatively high, yet the employees might live far from the workplace
and they are not able to get to work by bike in given circumstances.
Table 50 The percentages of employees commuting by bike
Actio Aqua Atlas Bestuur Gaia Leeuwen Lumen Other Total
Bike % % % % % % % % %
N N N N N N N N N
9.1% 3.8% 2.4% 8.9% 0.0% 4.5% 4.6% 0.0% 3.7%
N/A 1 1 1 5 0 5 3 0 16
36.4% 15.4% 26.2% 19.6% 15.0% 20.5% 21.5% 20.8% 20.0%
Never 4 4 11 11 15 23 14 5 87
9.1% 11.5% 0.0% 12.5% 5.0% 5.4% 6.2% 4.2% 6.2%
Rarely 1 3 0 7 5 6 4 1 27
9.1% 0.0% 7.1% 16.1% 6.0% 12.5% 9.2% 8.3% 9.4%
Sometimes 1 0 3 9 6 14 6 2 41
9.1% 7.7% 16.7% 12.5% 23.0% 19.6% 15.4% 8.3% 17.0%
Often 1 2 7 7 23 22 10 2 74
27.3% 61.5% 47.6% 30.4% 51.0% 37.5% 43.1% 58.3% 43.8%
Always 3 16 20 17 51 42 28 14 191
100% 100% 100% 100% 100.00% 100% 100.0% 100% 100.0%
Total 11 26 42 56 100 112 65 24 436

z) Walking to work
The employees reported that 67.2 % never walk to work and 13.5 % rarely walk to
work. The number might be seen as high, however it should be considered that the
employees live further from their working places. Additionally, they need to get to
work faster and within a time frame. Detailed results are displayed in Table 51
below.
Table 51 The percentages of employees walking to work
Actio Aqua Atlas Bestuur Gaia Leeuwen Lumen Other Total
% % % % % % % % %
N N N N N N N N N
27.3% 7.7% 4.8% 17.9% 12.0% 13.4% 16.9% 4.2% 12.8%
N/A 3 2 2 10 12 15 11 1 56
63.6% 65.4% 83.3% 60.7% 67.0% 59.8% 70.8% 83.3% 67.2%
Never 7 17 35 34 67 67 46 20 293
9.1% 11.5% 11.9% 12.5% 19.0% 14.3% 10.8% 4.2% 13.5%
Rarely 1 3 5 7 19 16 7 1 59
0.0% 3.8% 0.0% 3.6% 1.0% 7.1% 0.0% 0.0% 2.8%
Sometimes 0 1 0 2 1 8 0 0 12
0.0% 7.7% 0.0% 5.4% 0.0% 4.5% 1.5% 4.2% 2.8%
Often 0 2 0 3 0 5 1 1 12
0.0% 3.8% 0.0% 0.0% 1.0% 0.9% 0.0% 4.2% 0.9%
Always 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 4
100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
Total 11 26 42 56 100 112 65 24 436

94
 aa) Using public transport
It is evident from the results on using public transport that majority of the
respondents never use public transport 59.2 % and 13.1 % rarely commute by public
transport. It is important to consider that the employees use other means for
commuting e.g. bikes, therefore, these numbers should not be seen as extremely
negative.
Table 52 The percentages of employees using public transport
Actio Aqua Atlas Bestuur Gaia Leeuwen Lumen Other Total
Public
transport % % % % % % % % %
N N N N N N N N N
27.3% 0.0% 7.1% 21.4% 10.0% 14.3% 12.3% 12.5% 12.6%
N/A 3 0 3 12 10 16 8 3 55
63.6% 57.7% 66.7% 62.5% 59.0% 50.9% 66.2% 58.3% 59.2%
Never 7 15 28 35 59 57 43 14 258
0.0% 15.4% 9.5% 8.9% 15.0% 14.3% 15.4% 12.5% 13.1%
Rarely 0 4 4 5 15 16 10 3 57
0.0% 7.7% 4.8% 5.4% 4.0% 8.0% 3.1% 0.0% 5.0%
Sometimes 0 2 2 3 4 9 2 0 22
0.0% 7.7% 9.5% 1.8% 6.0% 5.4% 0.0% 8.3% 4.8%
Often 0 2 4 1 6 6 0 2 21
9.1% 11.5% 2.4% 0.0% 6.0% 7.1% 3.1% 8.3% 5.3%
Always 1 3 1 0 6 8 2 2 23
100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
Total 11 26 42 56 100 112 65 24 436

bb) Sharing cars with other employees

Similarly to the previous question, 71.1 % of all respondents do not share cars with
other employees (also known as carpooling). The employees use different means to
get to work. As detailed in Table 53, 17.2 % are not able to share cars with other
employees.
Table 53 The percentages of employees carpooling
Actio Aqua Atlas Bestuur Gaia Leeuwen Lumen Other Total
Carpooling
% % % % % % % % %
N N N N N N N N N
18.2% 7.7% 7.1% 23.2% 17.0% 20.5% 16.9% 16.7% 17.2%
N/A 2 2 3 13 17 23 11 4 75
81.8% 73.1% 81.0% 66.1% 72.0% 68.8% 72.3% 62.5% 71.1%
Never 9 19 34 37 72 77 47 15 310
0.0% 11.5% 4.8% 8.9% 7.0% 5.4% 6.2% 12.5% 6.9%
Rarely 0 3 2 5 7 6 4 3 30
0.0% 0.0% 4.8% 0.0% 2.0% 1.8% 0.0% 4.2% 1.6%
Sometimes 0 0 2 0 2 2 0 1 7
0.0% 7.7% 2.4% 0.0% 1.0% 2.7% 3.1% 4.2% 2.3%
Often 0 2 1 0 1 3 2 1 10
0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 1.8% 1.0% 0.9% 1.5% 0.0% 0.9%
Always 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 4
100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
Total 11 26 42 56 100 112 65 24 436

95
 cc) Working at home
The respondents were asked if they choose to work at home, when they can. Table
54 shows that most of the respondents choose rarely to work at home, when they
can. The second largest group sometime choose to work at home. We can also see
that almost 10 % of the respondents cannot choose to work at home.
Table 54 The percentages of employees working at home
Actio Aqua Atlas Bestuur Gaia Leeuwen Lumen Other Total
% % % % % % % % %
N N N N N N N N N
36.4% 0.0% 7.1% 16.1% 6.0% 9.8% 6.2% 25.0% 9.9%
N/A 4 0 3 9 6 11 4 6 43
0.0% 11.5% 9.5% 10.7% 7.0% 19.6% 15.4% 4.2% 12.2%
Never 0 3 4 6 7 22 10 1 53
45.5% 38.5% 38.1% 46.4% 46.0% 27.7% 52.3% 45.8% 41.1%
Rarely 5 10 16 26 46 31 34 11 179
9.1% 38.5% 28.6% 21.4% 29.0% 24.1% 15.4% 16.7% 24.1%
Sometimes 1 10 12 12 29 27 10 4 105
9.1% 7.7% 14.3% 3.6% 8.0% 15.2% 6.2% 4.2% 9.4%
Often 1 2 6 2 8 17 4 1 41
0.0% 3.8% 2.4% 1.8% 4.0% 3.6% 4.6% 4.2% 3.4%
Always 0 1 1 1 4 4 3 1 15
100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
Total 11 26 42 56 100 112 65 24 436

dd) Travelling to meetings

In the last question on commuting, the employees were asked if they use public
transport as much as possible, when they travel for their work (e.g. a business
meeting, conference). In general, the employees use public transport reasonably.
Table 55 indicates that 29.6 % of the respondents always travel by public transport,
32.6 % often and 15.8 % sometimes.
Table 55 The percentages of employees Travelling for work
Actio Aqua Atlas Bestuur Gaia Leeuwen Lumen Other Total
% % % % % % % % %
N N N N N N N N N
9.1% 7.7% 14.3% 16.1% 2.0% 9.8% 4.6% 16.7% 8.7%
N/A 1 2 6 9 2 11 3 4 38
0.0% 3.8% 2.4% 12.5% 0.0% 6.3% 1.5% 0.0% 3.9%
Never 0 1 1 7 0 7 1 0 17
18.2% 7.7% 7.1% 14.3% 5.0% 8.0% 15.4% 8.3% 9.4%
Rarely 2 2 3 8 5 9 10 2 41
18.2% 0.0% 14.3% 16.1% 18.0% 17.0% 12.3% 29.2% 15.8%
Sometimes 2 6 9 18 19 8 7 69
36.4% 38.5% 33.3% 25.0% 39.0% 25.9% 40.0% 25.0% 32.6%
Often 4 10 14 14 39 29 26 6 142
18.2% 42.3% 28.6% 16.1% 36.0% 33.0% 26.2% 20.8% 29.6%
Always 2 11 12 9 36 37 17 5 129
100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
Total 11 26 42 56 100 112 65 24 436

96
VII. Additional information from the questionnaire
This section presents results of the questions that were not included in the model
testing and analysis.
The employees indicated whether they want to be informed about the costs
and amount of the energy/water/paper used by my department/science group. The
mean for all respondents was 3.28 (SD=1.06) on a 5 point scale. As can be seen from
Table 56, 28.2 % of all respondents are unsure if they want to be informed, 39%
agreed to be informed and 9.4 % strongly agreed to be informed.
Table 56 Informing about costs and amount of the energy/water/paper used by a department
Actio Aqua Atlas Bestuur Gaia Leeuwen Lumen Other Total

% % % % % % % % %
N N N N N N N N N
Strongly 7.7% 7.1% 1.8% 9.0% 10.7% 1.5% 4.2% 6.7%
disagree 0 2 3 1 9 12 1 1 29
18.2% 3.8% 16.7% 21.4% 20.0% 17.9% 13.8% 8.3% 16.7%
Disagree 2 1 7 12 20 20 9 2 73
36.4% 7.7% 26.2% 37.5% 28.0% 25.0% 33.8% 29.2% 28.2%
Unsure 4 2 11 21 28 28 22 7 123
27.3% 57.7% 50.0% 37.5% 33.0% 34.8% 40.0% 50.0% 39.0%
Agree 3 15 21 21 33 39 26 12 170
Strongly 18.2% 23.1% 0.0% 1.8% 10.0% 11.6% 10.8% 8.3% 9.4%
agree 2 6 1 10 13 7 2 41
100.0% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100.0%
Total 11 26 42 56 100 112 65 24 436

The respondents also indicated the easiness to behaving pro-environmentally. The

mean showed to be higher of 3.68 (SD=.85) on a 5 point scale. Table 57 shows
detailed results for each building. We can see that 14 % of the employees can easily
behave pro-environmentally, 49 % agreed to do so, and 29.4 % are actually unsure if
they could easily behave pro-environmentally in the workplace.
Table 57 Easiness to behave pro-environmentally in the workplace.
Actio Aqua Atlas Bestuur Gaia Leeuwen Lumen Other Total
% % % % % % % % %
N N N N N N N N N
Strongly 0% 0.0% 2.4% 1.8% 2.0% 1.8% 2.0% 4.2% 1.8%
disagree 0 0 1 1 2 2 1 1 8
Disagree 9.1% 3.8% 7.1% 5.4% 7.0% 5.4% 7.0% 4.2% 5.7%
1 1 3 3 7 6 3 1 25
Unsure 27.3% 38.5% 23.8% 21.4% 31.0% 28.6% 31.0% 41.7% 29.4%
3 10 10 12 31 32 20 10 128
Agree 45.5% 42.3% 54.8% 62.5% 48.0% 48.2% 48.0% 33.3% 49.1%
5 11 23 35 48 54 30 8 214
Strongly 18.2% 15.4% 11.9% 8.9% 12.0% 16.1% 12.0% 16.7% 14.0%
agree 2 4 5 5 12 18 11 4 61
Total 100.0% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
11 26 42 56 100 112 65 24 436

97
Similar to previous questions, the respondents were asked if the find the current
facilities for recycling sufficient in their workplace. The mean score was close to the
mid-point 2.69 (SD=1.04) on a 5 point scale. Almost 12 % of all respondents strongly
disagreed and 37.4 % disagree that the current facilities are sufficient. On the other
hand, hardly 1.4 % strongly agreed and 27.8 % agreed with the statement. The
results are summarised in Table 58.
Table 58 Sufficiency of the current facilities for recycling in the working place.
Actio Aqua Atlas Bestuur Gaia Leeuwen Lumen Other Total
% % % % % % % % %
N N N N N N N N N
Strongly 9% 23.1% 7.1% 5.4% 16.0% 17.9% 3.1% 4.2% 11.9%
disagree 1 6 3 3 16 20 2 1 52
27.3% 42.3% 31.0% 51.8% 35.0% 37.5% 35.4% 29.2% 37.4%
Disagree 3 11 13 29 35 42 23 7 163
27.3% 23.1% 26.2% 21.4% 20.0% 17.0% 26.2% 25.0% 21.6%
Unsure 3 6 11 12 20 19 17 6 94
36.4% 11.5% 35.7% 19.6% 29.0% 25.0% 33.8% 37.5% 27.8%
Agree 4 3 15 11 29 28 22 9 121
Strongly 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 1.8% 0.0% 2.7% 1.5% 4.2% 1.4%
agree 0 0 0 1 0 3 1 1 6
90.9% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
Total 11 26 42 56 100 112 65 24 436

98
VIII. Demographic comparison of the groups
This appendix provides demographic comparison of the employees. The respondents
were divided by gender, age science group, building, kind of employment and
compared by mean values of four scales. The scales created for model test (for
details see section 4.2 Model development and testing) were used in this analysis
The groups were compared in relation to drinking, heating, printing, and buying
behaviour.

Figure 12 Pro-environmental behaviours compared by gender

Figure 12 illustrated a mean comparison of four behaiovurs and gender. In general,

we could say the the means of the scales were higer for female. The score means
were slightly higher in all cases except priting behaviour.

99
Figure 13 Pro-environmental behaviours compared by age

Inspection of Figure 13 indicates that younger people showed slightly higher mean
scores than older people. The age group 0-20 shows low score, yet this group is
represented by one respondent. We can also see that the means differed based on
the type of performed behaviour.

Figure 14 Pro-environmental behaviours compared by science group

Figure 14 shows comparison between the behaviours grouped by science group. In

general, we can say that environmental sciences scored higher means in drinking,
printing, and buying behaviour. The means were always higher than in other sciences
groups. Only mean for heating was lower than in sociel sciences group.

100
Figure 15 Pro-environmental behaviours compared by building

The mean scores for every building are shown in Figure 15 above. It is apparent that
in all of the cases, Aqua building showed the highest scores means for all four
behaviours.

Figure 16 Pro-environmental behaviours by compared kind of employment

No significant difference was found between supportive and scientific personnel. We

can observe from Figure 16 that the mean scores are close to each other.

101
IX. Recommendations for Wageningen UR
This appendix provides practical recommendations based on the result from
Appendix VI, VII and VIII.
The results showed that facilities are mostly available for recycling paper are
sufficient in studied buildings. However, other recycling facilities for recycling should
be improved. About 63 % of all respondents have no facilities for recycling glass, 55.3
% cannot recycle plastic bottles, 55.3 % are unable to recycle batteries, and 52.8 % of
the employees indicated that they do not have facilities for recycling chemical office
waste. Wageningen UR as an employer should provide appropriate recycling facilities
in order to help employees to recycle easily. The results in Appendix VI. showed that
only 1.4 % strongly agree and 27.8 % agree that the current facilities for recycling in
the workplace are sufficient.
The employees reported that the workplace setting sometimes does not
allow them to control heating system. Total 23.4 % cannot regulate thermostats in
their workplace. We also found that 22.7 % never reduce heating outside working
hours. Similarly, 34.2 % cannot control temperatures in unused rooms. It was evident
that employees are willing to wear more clothes instead of putting the heating
system up. The situation could be improved if the employees would be able to
regulate temperatures in their workplace and other rooms. An additional benefit
could be seen an improvement in comfortableness as each employees have different
preference for a room temperature.
The computers energy use can be decreased as well. The employees
indicated that 22.7 % rarely and 20.9 % never switch the computers off when they
leave the workplace for a considerable period of time. The employees could be
encouraged to perform this behaviour by e.g. hibernating the computer.
Over a half of the employees 59.2 % reported that they switch the lights on
when they come to work in the morning and leave them on for a whole day.
Additionally, 16.5 % of the respondents cannot control the lights due to automatic
setting. The worst situation was reported in Atlas, where 88.1 % of the employees
cannot regulate lights. The employees should have an option to choose whether
they need lights on or off. Very often we can experience that the lights are
automatically on despite enough daily light.
The results on printing were positive, however there is still a room for
improvement. Lower paper usage can be improved by encouraging
to print and copy double sided, and print as much as possible on one sheet.
Similarly, the employees could be supported to read the documents on computers.
Drinking hot beverages, buying sustainable and bio food can also be more
pro-environmental. The employees should be encouraged to use plastic cups less
and use a mug or ceramic cup instead. A fair number of employees take a cup each
time or often when they drink hot beverages. The mug can be rinsed by only cold
water to keep sustainability. We can also see that 27.8 % of the respondents cannot
buy bio food and 30 % cannot buy sustainable. The employees should have an option
to choose bio and sustainable products in the workplace.
Improvements can be also done in regard commuting. The employees use
significantly cars to get to work as they live far from the workplace. However, they
do not share the cars with other employees or students. There can be a platform

102
where the employees and students from different departments could find drivers
and share the cars together. Similarly, the employees can be supported to use more
public transport to get to work, meetings and conferences.

103