Journal of Corporate Real EstateEmerald Article: Green buildings, environmental awareness, and organizational imageMahbub Rashid, Kent Spreckelmeyer, Neal J. Angrisano

Article information:

To cite this document: Mahbub Rashid, Kent Spreckelmeyer, Neal J. Angrisano, (2012),"Green buildings, environmental awareness, and organizational image", Journal of Corporate Real Estate, Vol. 14 Iss: 1 pp. 21 - 49

Permanent link to this document: http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/14630011211231428

Downloaded on: 02-05-2012

References: This document contains references to 48 other documents

To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com

Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by Emerald Author Access

For Authors: If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for Authors service. Information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all. Additional help for authors is available for Emerald subscribers. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.

About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.comWith over forty years' experience, Emerald Group Publishing is a leading independent publisher of global research with impact in business, society, public policy and education. In total, Emerald publishes over 275 journals and more than 130 book series, as well as an extensive range of online products and services. Emerald is both COUNTER 3 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive preservation.

*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

Green buildings, environmentalawareness, and organizational

imageMahbub Rashid and Kent SpreckelmeyerSchool of Architecture, Design and Planning,

University of Kansas, Lawrence, Kansas, USA, and

Neal J. AngrisanoAviation and Facilities Global Practice,

Kansas City, Kansas, USA

Abstract

Purpose – The study seeks to investigate the mechanisms for the effects of environmental designfeatures of a green building on occupants’ environmental awareness (EA) and organizational image (OI).

Design/methodology/approach – One mechanism investigated the direct effects of environmentaldesign features of a green building on occupants’ EA and OI. The other mechanism investigated theindirect effects on occupants’ EA and OI resulting from the direct effects of environmental designfeatures on occupants’ workplace satisfaction. The data were collected from 175 occupants of theLeadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED)-certified green building using aquestionnaire instrument.

Findings – Based on frequency, correlational, and regression analyses of the data, the study found noevidence for direct effects of environmental design features on occupants’ EA and OI. The study,however, found some evidence for indirect effects, indicating that individual workspace anddepartmental space features affected occupants’ satisfaction with individual workspaces and thebuilding, which then affected occupants’ EA and OI.

Research limitations/implications – The study involved only the employees of an organizationwho occupy a single LEED-certified green building. Future studies should involve a larger sample ofgreen buildings. Future studies should also involve other stakeholders of these buildings.

Practical implications – The study is important for the long-term market growth of greenbuildings, because it provides supporting evidence for the organizational leaders who want to usegreen buildings to enhance organizational values and benefits.

Originality/value – The study makes an original contribution to the field, because studies focusingon the potential links between green buildings and organizational benefits and values, and themechanisms that may help explain these links are still rare.

Keywords Green buildings, Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED),Environmental awareness, Organizational image, Workplace satisfaction, Environmental management,Sustainable design, Buildings, Corporate image

Paper type Research paper

IntroductionFor the purpose of this paper, any building with a Leadership in Energy andEnvironmental Design (LEED) certification from the US Green Building Council(USGBC) is considered a “green building”. The USGBC’s LEED-rating system is anationally accepted third-party certification program for green building design,construction, and operation. The rating system promotes sustainability by recognizing

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at

www.emeraldinsight.com/1463-001X.htm

Green buildings,EA, and OI

21

Journal of Corporate Real EstateVol. 14 No. 1, 2012

pp. 21-49q Emerald Group Publishing Limited

1463-001XDOI 10.1108/14630011211231428

performance in five key areas: sustainable site development, water savings, energyefficiency, materials selection, and indoor environmental quality (IEQ). It provides fourlevels of certification – basic certification, silver, gold, and platinum – based on buildingperformance measured using a set of prerequisites and credits in the five key areas listedabove. Each higher level of certification represents an incremental step towardintegrating the different components of sustainable design, construction, and operationto achieve optimal building performance. At present, the LEED-rating system providescertifications for new construction and renovation, operations and maintenance ofexisting buildings, design of commercial interiors, building core and shell development,and neighborhood development and homes.

Since buildings are one of the heaviest consumers of natural resources and accountfor a significant portion of the greenhouse gas emissions affecting climate change, theUSGBC and its LEED-rating system have become hugely important for the USbuilding industry in the context of global climate change and environmentalsustainability. In the USA, buildings represent 38.9 per cent of primary energy use,38 per cent of all C02 emissions, and 72 per cent of electricity consumption (EIA, 2008).Buildings also use 13.6 per cent of all potable water, or 15 trillion gallons per year(USGS, 2000). Additionally, they use 40 per cent of raw materials globally (3 billiontons annually) (Roodman and Lenssen, 1996). The Environmental Protection Agency(EPA) of the US Government estimates that 170 million tons of building-relatedconstruction and demolition debris was generated in the USA in 2003, with 61 per centcoming from nonresidential and 39 per cent from residential source (US EPA, 2009).

In the USA, the green building market was 2 per cent of non-residential constructionstarts in 2005; 10-12 per cent in 2008; and will grow to 20.25 per cent by 2013 becominga $96-140 billion market (McGraw-Hill Construction, 2009). As of October 2010, therewere 19,101 commercial LEED-registered projects, and 7,368 LEED-certified projects.The cumulative square footage of all commercial LEED-certified projects was over1 billion and growing. Also as of October 2010, the USGBC had 80 local chapters, over30,000 individual members, and 157,000 LEED-credentialed professionals across allareas of practice (www.usgbc.org). The factors driving the green building market andits related professional developments in the USA include government initiatives toreduce greenhouse gasses and energy consumption, heightened demand for greenconstruction, and improvements in sustainable materials and technology (FMI, 2008).

The problemDespite the growing importance and interests, studies reported on the outcomes ofLEED-certified green buildings are uneven. Many studies focus on cost-relatedoutcomes of these buildings suggesting that they save money. For example, in one reportit is suggested that an upfront investment of 2 per cent in green building design, onaverage, results in life cycle savings of 20 per cent of the total construction costs – morethan ten times the initial investment (Kats, 2003). In another, it is suggested that buildingsale prices for energy efficient buildings are as much as 10 per cent higher per square footthan conventional buildings (Miller et al., 2007). Many other studies focus on resourceand operational efficiency of green buildings suggesting that they consume less energyand fewer resources. For example, a post-occupancy evaluation of 12 General ServicesAdministration (GSA) green buildings reports that in comparison to the averagecommercial building, these green buildings consume 26 per cent less energy,

JCRE14,1

22

have 13 per cent lower maintenance costs, and have 33 per cent less greenhouse gasemissions (GSA PBS, 2008).

In contrast, fewer studies focus on individual benefits and values of green buildings.These studies in general suggest that the IEQ of green buildings are more conducive toindividual performance, health, comfort and satisfaction than that of conventionalbuildings (Browning and Romm, 1995; Kamaruzzaman et al., 2011; Zhang and Altan,2011). That is because the prerequisites and credits for IEQ in the LEED-rating system areamong those that are already known to have positive effects on building occupants. Forexample, inclusion of high quality energy efficient lighting may reduce computer glare andincrease visual comfort, increased use of day lighting may reduce energy demands andenhance interior lighting quality, certain construction practices may eliminate moisturebuild up and reduce mold growth, advanced ventilation and mechanical systems mayincrease air flow and reduce occupants’ contact with airborne microbial agents, or designstrategies that reduce sick building syndromes may have positive effects on health andwork performance. For a review of the related literature see Rashid and Zimring (2008).

Although outcomes related to cost, efficiency, and individual benefits and values areimportant, studies focusing on the potential links between green buildings andorganizational benefits and values, and the mechanisms that may help explain these linksare still rare. In one related study Brown et al. (2010) explore the relationship between greenbuilding and workplace design practice and evaluate user experience in relation toworkplace culture and context. The authors report that, while there are potentiallysignificant gains to be made from integrating green building with workplace designstrategies from the outset, there are many other factors beyond the quality of the space,which may play a role in shaping user experience. Based on their findings, the authorsindicate possible links between improved occupant comfort, health and productivity, andorganizational culture and contextual factors accompanying the move to a green building.However, the mechanism explaining these links remains unattended in the study. Inanother related study, Kato et al. (2009) examine how occupiers (both management andemployees) perceive and evaluate the role of green workplace environments, andsubsequently assesses the effectiveness of a green workplace environment. The findingsof the study suggest that green workplace offers greater psychological benefits (takingpride of the workplace environment) than health and productivity gains. Further,management perceived greater benefits of green workplace compared to employees.Again, the mechanisms explaining these findings remain unattended in the study, whichare likely to be an important factor in the long-term market growth of green buildings.Organizational leaders who want to use green buildings to enhance organizational valuesand benefits do not yet have the necessary evidence they need to make their case. It is inthis context, this paper studies the effects the environmental design features of greenbuildings on occupants’ organizational image (OI) and environmental awareness (EA) andthe mechanisms explaining these effects.

Linking green buildings to employees’ OI and EAOrganizational imageThe literature offers different terminologies, such as reputation and corporate image,for OI (Miles, 1987; Fombrun and Shanley, 1990; Dutton and Dukerich, 1991;Dutton et al., 1994). According to the literature, OI reflects individual’ perceptions of theactions, activities and the accomplishments of the organization, and that it helps rank

Green buildings,EA, and OI

23

the organization in comparison with other organizations by referring to its stabilityand reputation in the market/society, its quality of outputs and outcomes, its positionas a manufacturer or service provider in relation to other similar organizations, and itsability to engage its customers, clients, and employees in its actions (Browne andGolembiewski, 1974; Dowling, 1994; Dutton and Dukerich, 1991; Fombrun and Shanley,1990; Fomburn, 1996; Gioia et al., 2000; Riordan et al., 1997; Selama and Selama, 1988;Thompson, 1967; Treadwell and Harrison, 1994).

Studies often suggest that OI is built upon a set of shared constructs such as commonexperiences of the employee, common knowledge they share, and common expectationsthey have from the organization (Vigoda-Gadot and Ben-Zion, 2004). Since outsiders(customers, clients, or contractors) and insiders (employees or managers) may sharedifferent constructs or may use different yardsticks to assess the organization, anorganization may represent multiple images. Put simply, an organization may offer oneimage to employers, another to employees, and yet another to customers or to the society.Concerning OI, then the scope of the present study is limited since it studies OI of theemployees of an organization who occupy a single building.

Employees’ OI is important, because a good OI may send a message of quality,stability, power, vitality, and pride to all including employees (Gatewood et al., 1993;Riordan et al., 1997). Since organizations with a good image are also considered goodemployers, it is likely that employees will hold positive perceptions towards their work.For example, some studies report a positive relationship between OI and the intensityand strength of employees’ connections with their organization (Dutton andDukerich, 1991; Riordan et al., 1997). OI is also a good predictor of employees’decision to join an organization. Consequently, individuals who are employed in anorganization that has a good image will also be more likely to stay rather than to leavefor a job in a different organization (Gatewood et al., 1993).

Buildings may be the most visible asset of an organization, but their effects onemployees’ OI are not well understood. This is a major limitation, since, a “good”building or a “good” workplace may also send a message of quality, stability, power,vitality, and pride to all including employees. Many studies show that workers who aremore satisfied with their workplace design are more likely to produce better workoutcomes. For example, Carlopio (1996) reports that employees’ satisfaction with theirworkplace design is directly related to their job satisfaction and indirectly related toorganizational commitment and turnover intention. Many other investigators alsoreport that workplace design affects employees’ job perception, attitudes, and jobsatisfaction (Ferguson and Weisman, 1986; Leather et al., 2003; Lee and Brand, 2005;Oldham and Fried, 1987; Sundstrom et al., 1980, 1994; Zalesny et al., 1985). Therefore,there is a need to understand the relationship between employees’ OI and theirperception of and satisfaction with their building and workplace design.

Environmental awarenessDuring the last few decades environmental-friendly business practice strategies ofdifferent organizations, regardless of their sizes, have come to prominence because evensmall and medium organizations generate a significant amount of environmentalcontamination (Berends et al., 2000; Brıo and Junquera, 2003). Buildings are an integralpart of an organization’s environmental strategies because they are a majorenvironmental pollutant. An environmental-friendly building can help improve

JCRE14,1

24

OI by giving an organization a competitive advantage as a sustainable leader in theindustry (Kato et al., 2009). As early as 1993, in an extensive evaluation of companies isUK and Europe, Hodgkinson (1993) notes that businesses increasingly want theirflagship buildings to present an image of environmental friendliness in terms of energyefficiency, the use of building materials, and the impact on the wider environment. In a1999 survey by BOMA International and the Urban Land Institute, 72 per cent ofbuilding tenants maintained that it was important for their buildings to project an imageof environmental friendliness (Baier, 1999). With increasing public awareness,commitment to environmental sustainability has become an important organizationalasset. It is suggested in the literature that companies with the best environmentalrecords would not only have a higher standing with the public, they would also developmore positive relationships with environmental regulators (Makower, 1994).

Human resources are another integral part of an organization’s environmentalstrategies, because the success of these strategies depends on employees’ awarenessrelated to the general issues concerning the environment and the cost andbenefits associated with environmental issues (Hart, 1995; Klassen and Angell,1998). It has been noted that despite business owner/managers having strong “green”attitudes, the level of implementation of environmental-friendly practices may be lowin many organizations because employees usually have a very low level EA, andgenerally the lower the EA of the employees the lower the environmental involvementof an organization (Azzone et al., 1997; Azzone and Noci, 1998; Gadenne et al., 2009).

Put simply, the benefits of green buildings in relation to EA and OI are more likely tooccur when buildings and its occupants are treated as integrated systems. As Cole (1999)points out, when there is a lack of systems integration it is entirely possible to have a“green” building with “gray” occupants who do not have the appropriate knowledge touse the building. “Gray” occupants are also more likely to be found in buildings that“green” individual systems rather than the environment as a whole, or in buildingswhich focus primarily on technology and materials to the exclusion of social andpsychological mechanisms at work in the organization. Further, it is possible to have“green” buildings occupied by “gray” organizations that pass up significant benefitsoffered by these buildings in terms of resource and operational efficiency, and humanand organizational values. Therefore, in order to understand how the benefits of greenbuildings may accrue in relation to EA and OI, there is also a need to understand howgreen buildings affect occupants’ EA.

Study designThis study investigated two different mechanisms involving building occupants’ EAand OI in relation to a LEED-certified building’s green environmental features. Thefirst mechanism involved looking at the direct effects of environmental design featuresof the building on its occupants’ EA and OI. The second mechanism involved lookingat the indirect effects on occupants’ EA and OI resulting from the direct effects of theenvironmental features on occupants’ satisfaction with individual workspace,departmental spaces and/or the building (Figure 1).

More specifically, in the first part, this study focuses on the following three questionsto study the direct effects of the “green” environmental features of a LEED-certifiedbuilding on occupants’ EA and OI:

Green buildings,EA, and OI

25

(1) Do the occupants of a LEED-certified green building assess various environmentalfeatures of the building favorably? If the occupants do not have a favorable view ofthese features, then it may be pointless to pursue the study any further.

(2) Do the occupants of a LEED-certified green building agree that these buildingshave positive effects on EA and OI? Despite having a favorable view of variousenvironmental features if the occupants believe that the building does notpositively affect their EA and OI, then it is possible that the building uses“green” environmental features to the exclusion of some of the social andpsychological mechanisms at work in the organization.

(3) Finally, what is the relationship between the occupants’ assessments of variousenvironmental features of a LEED-certified green building and their assessmentsof EA and OI? This relationship may help us describe whether a green building isoccupied by “gray” occupants or not. If there is no relationship between theoccupants’ assessments of the “green” environmental features and theirassessments of EA and OI, then it is possible that the benefits offered by thebuilding are unknown to the occupants, something that can be observed among“gray” occupants.

In the second part, this study then focuses on the following three questions tostudy the indirect effects of the environmental features of a LEED-certifiedbuilding on occupants’ EA and OI via the occupants’ satisfaction with individualworkspaces, departmental spaces, and the building.

(4) Are the occupants of a LEED-certified building generally satisfied withindividual workspaces, departmental spaces, and the building? If the occupantsare not satisfied with these spaces and/or the building but still assess variousenvironmental features of these buildings favorably, then the occupants’satisfaction must depend on something else of the building and/or theorganization. Likewise, if the occupants are not satisfied with these spacesand/or the building but still believe that the building has positive effects on EAand OI, then the occupants’ assessments of EA and OI must depend onsomething else of the building and/or the organization.

(5) If the occupants of a LEED-certified building are generally satisfied withindividual workspaces, departmental spaces and the building, then what is therelationship between the occupants’ assessments of various environmentalfeatures of a LEED-certified green building and their satisfaction?

Figure 1.The study model showingthe two mechanisms underinvestigation

Occupants’assessment of• Individual workspace features• Departmental space features

Occupants’ satisfactionwith

• Individual workspace• Departmental spaces• Building

Occupants’assessment of• Environmental Awareness (EA)• Organizational Image (OI)

Direct effects

Indirect effects

JCRE14,1

26

(6) Finally, if the occupants of a LEED-certified building are generally satisfiedwith individual workspaces, departmental spaces, and the building, then whatis the relationship between the occupants’ satisfaction and their assessments ofEA and OI?

The case studyThe study was conducted at a Gold-level LEED-certified public office building.Plates 1-8 show the office building and a few selected spaces within the building.Environmental highlights of the building in the five key areas of the LEED ratingsystems include the following.

WaterThe building uses bio-swales to clean parking lot run-off, and bio-filter in the lobby toclean rain water from roof. It also uses native or adapted grass and plant species toreduce water consumption. Its site irrigation system is rain fed. The building includesgrey water recycling system for toilet flushing, low-flow and hands free faucets andfixtures, and waterless urinals.

EnergyThe building uses highly efficient mechanical systems, and floor plenum displacementventilation. It also uses sophisticated building automation system. The buildingincludes significant amount of day lighting, and high efficiency indirect computercontrolled lighting to reduce the need for artificial lighting. It was also designed for45 per cent energy use reduction below a code minimum building.

SiteThe building was designed to reduce site disturbances. It preserved existing trees andhabitats. The building has full cut-off lighting fixtures to help minimize light pollutionin and around the site.

Plate 1.A view of the building

showing bio-swales,trees, and habitats

Green buildings,EA, and OI

27

Plate 2.The reflecting pool at theentrance of the buildingworks as a retention pond

Plate 3.The bio-filter in the lobbyof the building helps cleanrain water from the roof

JCRE14,1

28

Plate 4.Ample natural lightreduces the need for

artificial lightingin the building

Plate 5.Each workstation in the

building has amplenatural light and easyaccess to natural view

Green buildings,EA, and OI

29

MaterialsThe building diverted 90 per cent of construction waste. About 20 per cent of allmaterials used in the building were manufactured within 500-mile radius of site. It usedreclaimed cedar from demolished building. It also used recycled glass chips for terrazzofloor, and high recycled-content steel structure, carpet fiber and other materials. Further,it used corn-based fabrics.

Plate 6.Technology-enhancedconference spaces alsohave natural lightand views

Plate 7.A view of a lounge area

JCRE14,1

30

Indoor environmental qualityThe building uses sustainable materials and furniture with off-gassing volatile organiccompounds. It has systems of containment for source pollutants. It also provide highamount of fresh air intake. Each individual office space has heating, ventilation and airconditioning control. Private offices are placed inside and workstations are placedaround the perimeter. As a result, more workers have access to natural light andoutside view. Office workers also share several amenities including a huge well-litatrium, well-lit corridors with invitingly warm woodwork, technology-enhancedconference spaces with outdoor views, and improved service areas. The building alsohas a system of green housekeeping in place.

Recognitions received in addition to the Gold-level LEED certificationThe building received the 2005 Achievement Award for making the design-buildprocess work for County Government by the National Association of Counties, the 2005Public Technology Institute Award, the 2006 Excellence Award by the Design-BuildInstitute of America, the 2006 Merit Award for Excellence in Architecture by KansasChapter of the AIA, the 2006 Excellence Award by the Mid-America Chapter of theDesign-Build Institute of America, the 2006 Award for Merit by Kansas City AIACommittee on the Environment, the 2007 KC Business Journal Capstone Award,the 2007 Construction Specifications Institute Environmental Stewardship Award, the2007 Achievement Award for setting a new standard for public capital investment bythe National Association of Counties, the 2007 EPA Blue Skyways Partnership Award,and the 2007 Bridging the Gap Environmental Excellence award for Business.

Plate 8.A view of a group

meeting space

Green buildings,EA, and OI

31

MethodsData collection methodsData for the study were collected via an anonymous questionnaire survey. InstitutionalReview Board (IRB) approval for the survey was obtained from the Human SubjectsCommittee of the involved institution. The IRB-required information and cover sheetswere attached to the questionnaire to ensure that participating office workers fullyunderstood the intent of the study and the consequences of their participation. Thepurpose and methods of the survey were discussed with office managers, who thendescribed these to office workers. Participation in the study was voluntary. On the day ofsurvey, research representatives left the questionnaire on each office worker’s desk. Officeworkers could complete the questionnaire any time during a period of one week after theyreceived the questionnaire. The respondent put the filled-out questionnaire in a sealedenvelope and returned it to boxes kept at predetermined locations within the building.

The questionnaireAmong the many questions included in the questionnaire, this study utilized only some ofthose related to individual background, workplace design, and individual andorganizational outcomes. Questions on individual background included gender, job, typeand age group. Questions on workplace design included some on environmental features ofindividual workspaces, and others on departmental spaces or common amenities (Table I).They also included questions on satisfaction with workspaces, departmental spaces and thebuilding. Among the many questions on organizational outcomes, some were regrouped

Workspace-related questions Departmental space-related questions

Amount of area in personal workspace fitsneeds

Can socialize in corridors/circulation areas

Sufficient work surfaces in workspace Can socialize in lounge/break roomEnough storage in workspace Can socialize in coffee/snack barFurniture in workspace is sufficient Building provides opportunities for informal

conversationCan enjoy outside view People I need to work with are close to my work areaCan adjust workspace for needs Shared spaces for teamwork/impromptu meetingsWorkspace helps accomplishing tasks Have no difficulty finding people needed to get

work doneHave enough privacy Can choose where I get work done in bldg.Can adjust workspace to increase privacy Have easy access to equipmentConversations with co-workers cannot beoverheard

Do not have to go out of way to get info from co-workers

Phone conversations cannot be overheard Support equipment is convenient to workspaceHave enough privacy to do job well Layout of departmental workspace supports

teamworkHave enough natural light in workspace Layout of department supports impromptu meetingsWorkspace is not too bright Office does not lack informal meeting spacesLighting at desk helps job Conference and/or training rooms support tasksHave enough fresh air in workspace Conference spaces available when neededHappy with air quality Conference spaces have suitable sizesNot too hot in workspace Office spaces are flexibleNot too cold in workspaceAir not too dry in workspace

Table I.Individual workspaceand departmentalspace-related questions

JCRE14,1

32

to create two multi-item scales describing OI and EA (Table II). OI was measured using asix-item scale – 3 of these items described the way employees believed others view theirorganization, and the other 3 described the employees’ view of the organization as agood employer. EA was measured using an eight-item scale – 3 of these items described theemployees’ assessment of the building’s performance as a “green” building, 2 describedthe employees’ own attitude toward environment and toward other similar buildings,2 described the employees’ view of the other employees’ attitude toward environment andtoward other similar buildings, and the last one described the employees’ view about theimpact of the building on the image of the organization as an environment consciousorganization. The questionnaire utilized a five-point bi-polar scale to score responsesagainst each question related to environmental features, satisfaction, and organizationaloutcomes.

Data analysis methodsAltogether, the building had 284 office workers at the time of the survey. There were175 appropriately filled out questionnaires (response rate: 61.6 per cent). The numbers

Scales Items

Factor analysis extractionmethod: principal componentanalysis

Cronbach’salpha

Organizationalimage

1. Public image improved since werelocated in this building

2. Organization hires better people sincewe relocated in this building

3. Having a job in this building carries apositive image

4. Employees respect job more since werelocated in this building

5. Respect my job more since werelocated in this building

6. This building affects my desire tostay with the organization

One primary component wasextracted

0.884

Environmentalawareness

1. This building has a positive effect onthe environment

2. This building helps conserve energy3. This building provides healthy work

environment4. I care more about environment since

we relocated in this building5. I believe all buildings should be

designed like this building6. Employees believe all buildings

should be designed like this building7. Employees care more about

environment since we relocated inthis building

8. Our reputation as an environmentconscious organization improvedsince we relocated

One primary component wasextracted

0.899

Table II.Items in the

organizational image andenvironmental awareness

scales and theirCronbach’s alpha values

Green buildings,EA, and OI

33

of valid returns by gender, job type, and age group are given in Table III. Questionnairedata were manually entered into an SPSS (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL) database. Standard datachecking and verification were performed (e.g. range, distribution, pattern of missingvalues). Factor analyses of the two scales – EA and OI – extracted one primarycomponent for each, therefore no item was eliminated. Reliability analyses showed thescales to have acceptable Cronbach’s alpha values (Table II).

The following analyses were completed to find out the answers to the six studyquestions posed earlier:

(1) For the first question, frequencies of the responses on the questions related toindividual workspace and departmental space features were analyzed.

(2) For the second question, frequencies of the responses on the EA and OI scaleswere analyzed. These responses were then broken down according to gender,job type, and age group to find out if these categories had any differential effectson the occupants’ assessments of EA and OI.

(3) For the third question, correlational analyses between the occupants’ assessmentsof workplace environmental design features and their assessments of EA and OIwere performed; and regression models were developed with the occupants’assessments of workplace environmental design features as the predictor variablesand their assessments of EA and OI as the dependent variables.

(4) For the fourth question, frequencies of the responses on the questions related tosatisfaction with individual workspaces, departmental spaces, and the buildingwere analyzed.

(5) For the fifth question, regression models were developed with the occupants’assessments of workplace environmental variables as the predictor variablesand their satisfaction with individual workspaces, departmental spaces and thebuilding as the dependent variables.

(6) Finally, for the sixth question, regression models were developed with theoccupants’ satisfaction with individual workspaces, departmental spaces andthe building as the predictor variables and their assessments of EA and OI asthe dependent variables.

Gender Job type Age group

Male Female Total SM MM P S Total Below30 31-40 41-50 51-60Over

60 Total

Organizationalimage 70 89 159 13 31 46 67 157 13 32 48 58 7 158Environmentalawareness 72 90 162 13 32 48 67 160 13 34 49 58 7 161Total number of participants ¼ 175

Notes: SM, senior manager; MM, mid-level manager; P, professionals; S, staff

Table III.Valid returns by gender,job type, and age group

JCRE14,1

34

ResultsTable IV and Figure 2 show the results of the analysis of the frequencies of theoccupants’ assessments of workspace features. More occupants agreed than disagreedwith the following workspace features:

. Amount of area in personal workspace fits needs.

. Have sufficient work surfaces in workspace.

. Have enough storage in workspace.

. Furniture in workspace is sufficient.

. Can enjoy outside view.

. Can adjust workspace for needs.

. Workspace helps accomplishing tasks.

. Have enough natural light in workspace.

. Workspace is not too bright.

. Lighting at desk helps job.

. Have enough fresh air in workspace.

. Happy with air quality.

. Not too hot in workspace.

. Not too cold in workspace.

. Air not too dry in workspace.

. Satisfied with workspace.

Disagree (%) Neutral (%) Agree (%)

Amount of area in personal workspace fits needs 22.9 7.8 69.3Sufficient work surfaces in workspace 41.3 11.7 47Enough storage in workspace 29.6 18.4 52Furniture in workspace is sufficient 13.4 16.2 70.4Can enjoy outside view 24.3 37.9 37.8Can adjust workspace for needs 31.8 24.6 43.6Workspace helps accomplishing tasks 26.8 18.4 54.8Have enough privacy 62 19 19Can adjust workspace to increase privacy 82.7 8.9 8.4Conversations with co-workers cannot be overheard 88.8 6.7 4.5Phone conversations cannot be overheard 89.4 6.1 4.5Have enough privacy to do job well 43.6 26.3 30.1Have enough natural light in workspace 36.9 20.7 42.4Workspace is not too bright 10.1 17.3 72.6Lighting at desk helps job 17.3 24.6 58.1Have enough fresh air in workspace 29.1 28.5 42.4Happy with air quality 21.2 33 45.8Not too hot in workspace 29.1 21.8 49.1Not too cold in workspace 34.1 20.7 45.2Air not too dry in workspace 22.9 45.8 31.3

Table IV.Occupants’ responses

to individualworkspace-related

questions

Green buildings,EA, and OI

35

In contrast, more occupants disagreed than agreed with the following workspacefeatures:

. Have enough privacy.

. Can adjust workspace to increase privacy.

. Conversations with co-workers cannot be overheard.

. Phone conversations cannot be overheard.

. Have enough privacy to do job well.

Table V and Figure 3 show the results of the analysis of the frequencies of theoccupants’ assessments of departmental space features. More occupants agreed thandisagreed with the following departmental space features:

. Can socialize in corridors/circulation areas.

. Can socialize in lounge/break room.

. Can socialize in coffee/snack bar.

. Building provides opportunities for informal conversation.

. People I need to work with are close to my work area.

. Have shared spaces for teamwork/impromptu meetings.

. Have no difficulty finding people needed to get work done.

. Have easy access to equipment.

. Do not have to go out of way to get info from co-workers.

Figure 2.Occupants’ responsesto individualworkspace-relatedquestions

100

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

amou

nt o

f are

a in

pers

onal

works

pace

fits n

eeds

suffi

cient

wor

k sur

face

s in

works

pace

enou

gh st

orag

e in

works

pace

furn

iture

in w

orks

pace

is su

fficie

nt

can

enjoy

out

side

view

can

adjus

t wor

kspa

ce fo

r nee

ds

works

pace

help

s acc

ompli

shing

task

s

have

eno

ugh

priva

cy

can

adjus

t wor

kspa

ce to

incr

ease

priv

acy

conv

ersa

tions

with

co-w

orke

rs ca

nnot

be

over

hear

d

phon

e co

nver

satio

ns ca

nnot

be

over

hear

d

have

eno

ugh

priva

cy to

do

job w

ell

have

eno

ugh

natu

ral li

ght in

wor

kspa

ce

works

pace

is n

ot to

o br

ight

light

ing a

t des

k help

s job

have

eno

ugh

fresh

air

in wor

kspa

ce

happ

y with

air

quali

ty

not t

oo h

ot in

wor

kspa

ce

not t

oo co

ld in

works

pace

air n

ot to

o dr

y in

works

pace

Disagree Neutral Agree

JCRE14,1

36

. Support equipment is convenient to workspace.

. Layout of departmental workspace supports teamwork.

. Layout of department supports impromptu meetings.

. Office does not lack informal meeting spaces.

Disagree (%) Neutral (%) Agree (%)

Can socialize in corridors/circulation areas 15.9 17.6 66.5Can socialize in lounge/break room 21.3 25.3 53.4Can socialize in coffee/snack bar 20.3 27.9 51.8Building provides opportunities for informal conversation 17 19.3 63.7People I need to work with are close to my work area 15.3 9.7 75Shared spaces for teamwork/impromptu meetings 14.2 13.1 72.7Have no difficulty finding people needed to get work done 25.6 18.8 55.6Can choose where I get work done in bldg. 65.3 19.9 14.8Have easy access to equipment 5.7 10.2 84.1Do not have to go out of way to get info from co-workers 26.1 18.8 55.1Support equipment is convenient to workspace 27.3 11.9 60.8Layout of departmental workspace supports teamwork 29 21 50Layout of department supports impromptu meetings 30.7 25 44.3Office does not lack informal meeting spaces 26.1 22.7 51.2Conference and/or training rooms support tasks 15.9 21.6 62.5Conference spaces available when needed 22.2 32.4 45.4Conference spaces have suitable sizes 25 23.3 51.7Office spaces are flexible 25.6 30.1 44.3

Table V.Occupants’ responses

to departmentalspace-related questions

Figure 3.Occupants’ responses

to departmentalspace-related questions

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

can

socia

lize

in co

rrido

rs/ci

rcula

tion

area

s

can

socia

lize

in lou

nge/

brea

kroo

m

can

socia

lize

in co

ffee/

snac

k bar

bidg

prov

ides o

ppor

tunit

ies fo

r inf

orm

al co

nver

satio

n

peop

le i n

eed

to w

ork w

ith a

re cl

ose

to m

y wor

k are

a

shar

ed sp

aces

for t

eam

work/i

mpr

ompt

u m

eetin

gs

have

no

diffic

ulty f

inding

peo

ple n

eede

d to

get

wor

k don

e

have

eas

y acc

ess t

o eq

uipm

ent

do n

ot h

ave

to g

o ou

t of w

ay to

get

info

from

co-w

orke

rs

supp

ort e

quipm

ent is

conv

enien

t to

works

pace

layou

t of d

epar

tmen

tal w

orks

pace

supp

oprts

team

work

layou

t of d

epar

tmen

t sup

ports

impr

ompt

u m

eetin

gs

conf

eren

ce a

nd/o

r tra

ining

room

s sup

port

task

s

conf

eren

ce sp

aces

ava

ilable

whe

n ne

eded

conf

eren

ce sp

aces

hav

e su

itable

size

s

offic

e sp

aces

are

flexib

le

offic

e do

es n

ot la

ck in

fom

al m

eetin

g sp

aces

can

choo

se w

here

I ge

t wor

k don

e in

bidg

Disagree Neutral Agree

Green buildings,EA, and OI

37

. Conference and/or training rooms support tasks.

. Conference spaces available when needed.

. Conference spaces have suitable sizes.

. Office spaces in the department are flexible.

. Satisfied with location of workspaces in the department.

. Satisfied with the layout of department.

In contrast, more occupants disagreed than agreed with the following departmentalspace feature:

. Can choose where I get my work done in bldg.

Tables VI-VIII and Figures 4-6 show the results of the analysis of the frequencies of theoccupants’ assessments of EA and OI. More occupants agreed than disagreed that thebuilding helped improve their EA. In contrast, more occupants disagreed than agreedthat the building helped improve their OI. These findings do not change for gender, jobtype, and age group except for the over 60 age group. For this age group, the percentage ofoccupants who agreed that the building helped improve their EA and OI was equal to thepercentage of occupants who disagreed that the building helped improve their EA and OI.

Tables IX-XI show the results of the correlational and regression analysis studyingthe relationships between the occupants’ assessments of individual workspace anddepartmental space features and that of EA and OI. The occupants’ assessments of mostindividual workspace features showed significant correlation with that of EA and OI(Table IX). However, a regression analysis with OI as the dependent variable andworkspace features showing significant correlations as the predictor variables returnedno significant predictor variable (Table XI). Likewise, a regression analysis with EA asdependent variable and workspace features showing significant correlations aspredictor variables also showed no significant predictor variable (Table XI).

Disagreed (%) Neutral (%) Agreed (%)All Male Female All Male Female All Male Female

Did “organizational image” improve? 45.3 44.3 42.7 22.1 18.6 24.7 23.6 37.1 32.6Did “environmental awareness”improve? 24.6 23.6 23.3 9.7 9.7 7.8 65.7 66.7 68.9

Table VI.Occupants’ assessment oforganizational image andenvironmental awarenessby gender

Disagreed (%) Neutral (%) Agreed (%)All SM MM P S All SM MM P S All SM MM P S

“Organizationalimage”improved 45.3 53.8 48.4 39.1 43.3 22.1 0 25.8 21.7 23.9 23.6 46.2 25.8 39.2 32.8“Environmentalawareness”improved 24.6 15.4 15.6 29.2 22.4 9.7 0 15.6 6.3 7.5 65.7 84.6 68.8 64.5 70.1

Notes: SM, senior manager; MM, mid-level manager; P, professionals; S, staff

Table VII.Occupants’ assessment oforganizational image andenvironmental awarenessby job type

JCRE14,1

38

Dis

agre

ed(%

)N

eutr

al(%

)A

gre

ed(%

)

All

Bel

ow30

31-

4041

-50

51-

60O

ver

60A

llB

elow

3031

-40

41-

5051

-60

Ov

er60

All

Bel

ow30

31-

4041

-50

51-

60O

ver

60

Did

“org

aniz

atio

nal

imag

e”im

pro

ve?

45.3

15.4

40.6

43.8

51.7

42.9

22.1

38.5

18.8

2519

14.3

23.6

46.1

40.6

31.2

29.3

42.8

Did

“en

vir

onm

enta

law

aren

ess

”im

pro

ve?

24.6

15.4

20.6

24.5

24.1

42.9

9.7

7.7

8.8

14.3

5.2

14.3

65.7

76.9

70.6

61.2

70.7

42.8

Table VIII.Occupants’ assessment oforganizational image andenvironmental awareness

by age group

Green buildings,EA, and OI

39

The occupants’ assessments of most departmental space features also showed significantcorrelation with that of EA and OI (Table X). However, a regression analysis with OI as thedependent variable and workspace features showing significant correlations as thepredictor variables returned no significant predictor variable (Table XI). However,a regression analysis with EA as the dependent variable and departmental space featuresshowing significant correlations as the predictor variables returned only “departmentalspaces are flexible” as a significant predictor variable (Table XI).

Table XII and Figure 7 show the frequencies of responses of the occupants’satisfaction with workspace, departmental space and the building. More than 54 per centof the respondents were satisfied and just over 20 per cent were not satisfied with theirindividual workspaces. More than 57 per cent of the respondents were satisfied and over21 per cent were not satisfied with their departmental spaces. Finally, more than69 per cent of the respondents were satisfied and just over 11 per cent were not satisfiedwith the building.

Figure 4.Occupants’ assessment oforganizational image andenvironmental awarenessby gender

80706050403020100

All Male Female All Male Female All Male Female

Agree (%)Neutral (%)Disagreed (%)

Did "Organizational Image" Improve? Did "Environmental Awareness" Improve?

Figure 5.Occupants’ assessment oforganizational image andenvironmental awarenessby job type

All

100806040200

SM MM P S All SM MM P PS All SM MM S

Agree (%)Neutral (%)Disagreed (%)

Did "Organizational Image" Improve? Did "Environmental Awareness" Improve?

Figure 6.Occupants’ assessment oforganizational image andenvironmental awarenessby age group

100

80

60

40

20

All Below30

31-40 41-50 51-60 Over60

All Below30

31-40 41-50 51-60 Over60

All Below30

31-40 41-50 51-60 Over60

0

Agree (%)Neutral (%)Disagreed (%)

Did "Organizational Image" Improve? Did "Environmental Awareness" Improve?

JCRE14,1

40

Organizational imageEnvironmental

awareness

Amount of area in personal workspace fits needs 0.195 * 0.139Sufficient work surfaces in workspace 0.152 * 0.017Enough storage in workspace 0.200 * * 0.250 * *

Furniture in workspace is sufficient 0.296 * * 0.285 * *

Can enjoy outside view 0.174 * 0.067Can adjust workspace for needs 0.303 * * 0.269 * *

Workspace helps accomplishing tasks 0.198 * * 0.184 *

Have enough privacy 0.275 * * 0.243 * *

Can adjust workspace to increase privacy 0.221 * * 0.187 *

Conversations with co-workers cannot be overheard 0.129 0.174 *

Phone conversations cannot be overheard 0.107 0.177 *

Have enough privacy to do job well 0.255 * * 0.276 * *

Have enough natural light in workspace 0.111 0.156 *

Workspace is not too bright 0.165 * 0.188 *

Lighting at desk helps job 0.323 * * 0.330 * *

Have enough fresh air in workspace 0.202 * * 0.240 * *

Happy with air quality 0.258 * * 0.273 * *

Not too hot in workspace 0.199 * * 0.238 * *

Not too cold in workspace 0.209 * * 0.225 * *

Air not too dry in workspace 0.283 * * 0.320 * *

Note: Correlation is significance at: *0.05 and * *0.01 levels (two-tailed)

Table IX.Correlations between

occupants’ assessment oforganizational image andenvironmental awareness

with that of workspacevariables

Organizationalimage

Environmentalawareness

Can socialize in corridors/circulation areas 0.268 * * 0.128Can socialize in lounge/breakroom 0.12 0.088Can socialize in coffee/snack bar 0.129 0.098Building provides opportunities for informal conversation 0.330 * * 0.303 * *

People I need to work with are close to my work area 0.158 * 0.181 *

Shared spaces for teamwork/impromptu meetings 0.401 * * 0.354 * *

Have no difficulty finding people needed to get work done 0.105 0.07Can choose where I get work done in bldg. 0.186 * 0.151 *

Have easy access to equipment 0.273 * * 0.293 * *

Do not have to go out of way to get info from co-workers 0.250 * * 0.218 * *

Support equipment is convenient to workspace 0.235 * * 0.273 * *

Layout of departmental workspace supports teamwork 0.384 * * 0.415 * *

Layout of department supports impromptu meetings 0.372 * * 0.354 * *

Office does not lack informal meeting spaces 0.336 * * 0.269 * *

Conference and/or training rooms support tasks 0.233 * * 0.282 * *

Conference spaces available when needed 0.270 * * 0.222 * *

Conference spaces have suitable sizes 0.242 * * 0.325 * *

Departmental spaces are flexible 0.346 * * 0.422 * *

Note: Correlation is significance at: *0.05 and * *0.01 levels (two-tailed)

Table X.Correlations between

occupants’ assessment oforganizational image andenvironmental awarenesswith that of departmental

space variables

Green buildings,EA, and OI

41

Model summary ANOVADependent and predictor variables R R 2 Adjusted-R 2 F Sig.

Regressionmodel 1a

Dependent variable: organization imagePredictors: individual workspacevariables 0.501 0.251 0.156 2.644 0.001

Regressionmodel 2a

Dependent variable: environmentalawarenessPredictors: individual workspacevariables 0.488 0.238 0.144 2.519 0.001

Regressionmodel 3a

Dependent variable: organization imagePredictors: departmental space variables 0.530 0.281 0.211 4.008 0.000

Regressionmodel 4b

Dependent variable: environmentalawarenessPredictors: departmental space variables 0.516 0.266 0.201 4.096 0.000

Notes: aRegression model with no significant predictor variables; bregression model with onesignificant predictor variable

Table XI.Summary of theregression models withdifferent environmentalfeatures as the predictorvariables andorganizational image orenvironmental awarenessas the dependent variable

Disagree (%) Neutral (%) Agree (%)

Satisfied with workspaces 20.1 25.1 54.8Satisfied with departmental spaces 21.6 21 57.4Satisfied with the building 11.3 19.2 69.5

Table XII.Occupants’ responsesto satisfaction-relatedquestions

Figure 7.Occupants’ responses tosatisfaction-relatedquestions

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0satisfied with my

workspacesatisfied with

departmental spacessatisfied with the

building

Disagree Neutral Agree

JCRE14,1

42

Table XIII shows the results of the regression analysis that used the occupants’assessments of individual workspace features or departmental space features as thepredictor variables and the occupants’ satisfaction with workspace, departmental spaceand the building as the dependent variables. According to the results, the occupants’assessments of individual workspace features explained about 62 per cent of thevariation in the occupants’ satisfaction with workspace; the occupants’ assessments ofdepartmental space features explained about 65 per cent of the variation in theoccupants’ satisfaction with departmental space; the occupants’ assessments ofindividual workspace features explained more than 43 per cent of the variation in theoccupants’ satisfaction with the building; and the occupants’ assessments of individualdepartmental space features explained more than 39 per cent of the variation in theoccupants’ satisfaction with the building. In all the models, there were several significantpredictor variables as well.

Tables XIV and XV show the results of the regression analysis that used theoccupants’ satisfaction with individual workspaces, departmental spaces and thebuilding as predictor variables and the occupants’ assessments of EA and OI asdependent variables. In the regression models, “satisfied with workspace” and “satisfiedwith building” were shown as the significant predictor variables for the occupants’assessments of OI explaining about 32 per cent of the variation in this dependentvariable (Table XIV), and “satisfied with building” was shown as a significant predictorvariable for the occupants’ assessments of EA explaining about 29 per cent of thevariation in this dependent variable (Table XV). However, “satisfied with departmentalspaces” was not significant in either of the two models.

DiscussionThe study showed that in general the occupants of this LEED-certified buildingassessed the individual workspace and departmental space features of the buildingfavorably. However, it should be noted here that most occupants’ assessed all the itemsrelated to privacy negatively in this building. This may be due to the fact that with

Model summary ANOVADependent and predictor variables R R 2 Adjusted-R 2 F Sig.

Regressionmodel 1a

Dependent variable: “satisfied with myworkspace”Predictors: individual workspacefeatures 0.814 0.662 0.619 15.31 0.000

Regressionmodel 2a

Dependent variable: “satisfied withdepartmental spaces”Predictors: departmental space features 0.826 0.682 0.647 19.418 0.000

Regressionmodel 3a

Dependent variable: “satisfied with thebuilding”Predictors: individual workspacefeatures 0.705 0.497 0.431 7.594 0.000

Regressionmodel 4a

Dependent variable: “satisfied with thebuilding”Predictors: departmental space features 0.673 0.453 0.392 7.493 0.000

Note: aRegression models with several significant predictor variables

Table XIII.Summary of the

regression models withenvironmental features as

predictor variables andsatisfaction as dependent

variables

Green buildings,EA, and OI

43

the exception of a few enclosed individual workspaces most workspaces in the buildingare defined by low-height partitions. It should also be noted that regarding departmentalspaces most occupants responded negatively to the question “can choose where they canget their work done”. It is possible that this was an organizational issue more than adesign problem.

The study also showed that the occupants agreed that this building had positiveeffects on EA, but not on OI, and their assessments of EA and OI remained similar acrossgender, age, and job type. These findings are interesting in light of the fact thatorganizations often feel that their buildings need to be environment-friendly in order toimprove OI. In contrast, the findings of this study suggest that the mechanismsexplaining EA and OI are different in this LEED-certified “green” building. This is inspite of the fact that the correlation between EA and OI is significantly strong (r ¼ 0.685,p ¼ 0.000).

As the first attempt to describe the mechanisms of the occupants’ assessments of EAand OI, regression models were developed with the occupants’ assessments of EA andOI as the dependent variables and the occupants’ assessments of workspace anddepartmental space features as the predictor variables. Even though a large number ofworkspace features showed significant correlations with OI and EA, when they wereused in the regression equation as the predictor variables none showed significantF-statistics for OI or EA. Likewise, even though a large number of departmental spacefeatures showed significant correlations with OI and EA, when they were used in the

Regression modelDependent variable: organizational image

Predictors: occupants’ satisfactionModel summary ANOVA

R R 2 Adjusted-R 2 F Sig.0.572 0.327 0.315 26.876 0

CoefficientsVariables t-value Sig.Constant 29.453 0.000Satisfied with workspace 2.635 0.009Satisfied with departmental spaces 0.347 0.729Satisfied with building 4.594 0.000

Table XIV.Summary of theregression model withoccupants’ satisfaction aspredictor variables andorganizational image asdependent variable

Regression modelDependent variable: environmental awareness

Predictors: occupants’ satisfactionModel summary ANOVA

R R 2 Adjusted-R 2 F Sig.0.547 0.299 0.287 24.049 0

CoefficientsVariables t-value Sig.Constant 0.786 0.433Satisfied with workspace 1.624 0.106Satisfied with departmental spaces 0.520 0.604Satisfied with building 4.816 0.000

Table XV.Summary of theregression model withoccupants’ satisfaction aspredictor variables andenvironmental awarenessas dependent variable

JCRE14,1

44

regression equation as the predictor variables none showed significant F-statistics forOI, and only “departmental spaces are flexible” showed significant F-statistics for EA(sig. ¼ 0.019). These findings thus suggest that there may be no significant directrelationship between the occupants’ assessments of individual workspace anddepartmental space features and the occupant’s assessments of EA and OI.

As the second attempt to describe the mechanisms of the occupants’ assessments ofEA and OI, regression models were developed with the occupants’ assessments ofworkspace and departmental space features as the predictor variables and theirsatisfaction with individual workspace, departmental space and the building as thedependent variables. According to the findings of these models, the occupants’assessments of individual workspace and departmental space features were thesignificant predictors of the occupants’ satisfaction with workspace, departmental spaceand the building. Following this, another set of regression models that used the occupants’satisfaction with workspace, departmental space and the building as the predictorvariables and the occupants’ assessments of EA and OI as the dependent variablesshowed “satisfied with building” as a significant predictor for EA (sig. ¼ 0.000), and“satisfied with workspace” and “satisfied with building” as the two significant predictorsfor OI (sig. ¼ 0.009 and 0.000, respectively). These findings thus suggest that there maybe some indirect relationship between the occupants’ assessments of individual workspace and departmental space features and the occupant’s assessments of EA and OIthrough the occupants’ satisfaction with individual workspaces and the building. In otherwords, the occupants’ assessments of individual workspace and departmental spacefeatures may affect the occupants’ satisfaction with individual workspace and thebuilding, which may them affect the occupants’ assessments of EA and OI.

ConclusionBased on the statistical analyses of the data collected from 175 occupants of a Gold-levelLEED-certified building using a questionnaire instrument, this study found no evidencefor direct relationships between the occupant’s assessments of individual workspace anddepartmental space features and their assessments of EA and OI. The study, however,found some evidence for indirect relationships showing that the occupant’s assessmentsof individual workspace and departmental space features had affected their satisfactionwith individual workspaces and the building, which then affected the occupants’assessments of EA and OI. A summary of the study findings is shown in Figure 8.

Regarding the issue whether the occupants’ of this LEED-certified building was“gray” or not, the findings of this study suggested that the occupants certainlyappreciated the environmental design features of the buildings. These features hadplayed an important role in determining how satisfied the occupants were withindividual workspaces, departmental spaces, and the building. These environmentaldesign features also made the occupants more environment-conscious, even thoughthese features did not help improve their assessment of OI. In other words, even in a casewhere the “green” building and the organization that occupies it are treated as anintegrated system with the occupants being aware of the environmental-friendliness ofthe building, the building may not help improve the occupants’ assessment of OI.

In the context of heightened demands for green buildings, this study may thus offera lesson for organizational leaders who would like to use green buildings to improveOI and/or EA. They should note that while providing “green” workspaces and

Green buildings,EA, and OI

45

buildings that satisfy occupants may help improve EA, there is no guarantee this mayalso help improve OI. In contrast to the suggestion made in the literature, they shouldfurther note that the mechanisms describing EA and OI could be very different in anygiven case with the qualification that OI of an organization might depend more onissues unrelated to the environmental features of a green building than EA of theorganization might. In future, there will be a need to replicate this study to see if itsfindings hold true for other green buildings as well.

References

Azzone, G. and Noci, G. (1998), “Identifying effective PMSs for the deployment of ‘green’manufacturing strategies”, International Journal of Operations & ProductionManagement,Vol. 18 No. 4, pp. 308-35.

Azzone, G., Bertele, U. and Noci, G. (1997), “At last we are creating environmental strategieswhich work”, Long Range Planning, Vol. 30, August, pp. 562-71.

Baier, R.D. (1999), “Customer service made easy: deliver what office tenants want”,HPAC Engineering, September, pp. 41-5.

Berends, H., Morere, M., Smith, D., Jensen, M. and Hilton, M. (2000), Report on SMEs and theEnvironment, ECOTEC, Brussels.

Brıo, J.A. and Junquera, B. (2003), “A review of the literature on environmental innovationmanagement in SMEs: implications for public policies”, Technovation, Vol. 23, pp. 939-48.

Brown, Z.M., Cole, R.J., Robinson, J. and Dowlatabadi, H. (2010), “Evaluating user experience ingreen buildings in relation to workplace culture and context”, Facilities, Vol. 28 Nos 3/4,pp. 225-38.

Figure 8.Summary findings

Occupants’assessment ofindividual workspace

features

Occupants’ satisfactionwith individual workspace

Occupants’ assessment ofenvironmental awareness

(EA)

Occupants’ assessment ofdepartmental space

featuresOccupants’ satisfaction

with departmental spaces

Occupants’ assessment oforganizational image (OI)

Occupants’ satisfactionwith the building

Adjusted R2 = 0.156*

Adjusted R2 = 0.144*

Adjusted R2 = 0.211*

Adjusted R2 = 0.201**

Adj. R2 = 0.619***

Adjusted R2 = 0.287Sig. 000

Adj. R2 = 0.647***

Adj. R2 = 0.431***

Adj. R2 = 0.392***

Non-significantrelationship

Non-significantrelationship

Adjusted R2 = 0.315Sig.009

Non-significantrelationship

Adjusted R2 = 0.315Sig.000

* No sig. variable** One sig. variable*** Multiple sig. variables

JCRE14,1

46

Browne, P.J. and Golembiewski, R.T. (1974), “The line-staff concept revisited: an empirical studyof organizational images”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 17, pp. 407-17.

Browning, W. and Romm, J. (1995), “Greening and the bottom line: increasing productivitythrough energy efficient design”, in Whitter, K.M. and Cohn, T.B. (Eds), Proceedings of theSecond International Green Buildings Conference and Exposition, National Institute ofStandards and Technology (NIST), Special Publications 888, Gaithersburg, MD.

Carlopio, J.R. (1996), “Construct validity of a physical work environment satisfactionquestionnaire”, Journal of Occupational Health and Psychology, Vol. 1, pp. 330-44.

Cole, R. (1999), “Green buildings and gray occupants”, paper presented at the AIA-USGBCConference on Mainstreaming Green, Chattanooga, TN, 14-16 October.

Dowling, G.R. (1994), Corporate Reputation: Strategies for Development the Corporate Brand,Kogan Page, London.

Dutton, J.E. and Dukerich, J.M. (1991), “Keeping an eye on the mirror: image and identity inorganizational adaptation”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 34, pp. 517-54.

Dutton, J.E., Dukerich, J.M. and Harquail, C. (1994), “Organizational image and memberidentification”, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 39, pp. 239-63.

EIA (2008), EIA Annual Energy Outlook 2008, available at: www.eia.gov/oiaf/archive/aeo08/(accessed 7 July 2011).

Ferguson, G.S. and Weisman, G.D. (1986), “Alternative approaches to the assessment ofemployee satisfaction with the office environment”, in Wineman, J.D. (Ed.), BehavioralIssues in Office Design, Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York, NY, pp. 85-108.

FMI (2008), US Construction Overview 2008, available at: www.fminet.com/

Fombrun, C.J. and Shanley, M. (1990), “What’s in a name? Reputation building and corporatestrategy”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 33, pp. 233-58.

Fomburn, C.J. (1996), Reputation: Realizing Value from the Corporate Image, Harvard BusinessSchool Press, Boston, MA.

Gadenne, D.L., Kennedy, J. and McKeiver, C. (2009), “An empirical study of environmentalawareness and practices in SMEs”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 84, pp. 45-63.

Gatewood, R.D., Gowan, M.A. and Lautenschlager, G.J. (1993), “Corporate image, recruitmentimage, and initial job choice decision”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 36,pp. 414-27.

Gioia, D.A., Schultz, M. and Corley, K.G. (2000), “Organizational identity, image, and adaptiveinstability”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 25, pp. 63-81.

GSA PBS (2008), Assessing Green Building Performance: A Post Occupancy Evaluation of 12GSA Buildings, GSA Public Buildings Service, Washington, DC.

Hart, S.L. (1995), “A natural resource-based view of the firm”, Academy of Management Review,Vol. 20 No. 4, pp. 986-1014.

Hodgkinson, S. (1993), “Environmental issues and the workplace”, in Duffy, F., Laing, A. andCrisp, V. (Eds), The Responsible Workplace, Architectural Press, London, pp. 98-111.

Kamaruzzaman, S.N., Egbu, C.O., Zawawic, E.M.A., Ali, A.S. and Che-Ani, A.I. (2011), “The effectof indoor environmental quality on occupants’ perception of performance: a case study ofrefurbished historic buildings in Malaysia”, Energy and Buildings, Vol. 43, pp. 407-13.

Kato, H., Too, I. and Rask, A. (2009), “Occupier perceptions of green workplace environment:the Australian experience”, Journal of Corporate Real Estate, Vol. 11 No. 3, pp. 183-95.

Green buildings,EA, and OI

47

Kats, G. (2003), The Costs and Financial Benefits of Green Buildings: A Report to California’sSustainable Building Task Force, October, available at: www.ciwmb.ca.gov/GreenBuilding/Design/CostBenefit/Report.pdf

Klassen, R.D. and Angell, L.C. (1998), “An international comparison of environmentalmanagement in operations: the impact of manufacturing flexibility in the US andGermany”, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 16, pp. 177-94.

Leather, P., Beale, D. and Sullivan, L. (2003), “Noise, psychosocial stress and their interaction inthe workplace”, Journal of Environmental Psychology, Vol. 23 No. 2, pp. 213-22.

Lee, S.Y. and Brand, J.M. (2005), “Effects of control over office workspace on perceptions of thework environment and work outcomes”, Journal of Environmental Psychology, Vol. 25No. 3, pp. 323-33.

McGraw-Hill Construction (2009), Green Outlook 2009: Trends Driving Change, McGraw-HillConstruction, New York, NY.

Makower, J. (1994), The E-factor: The Bottom Line Approach to Environmentally ResponsibleBusiness, Penguin Books, New York, NY.

Miles, R.H. (1987), Managing the Corporate Social Environment: A Grounded Theory,Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.

Miller, N., Spivey, J. and Florance, A. (2007), “Does green pay off?”, available at: www.costar.com/josre/pdfs/CoStar-JOSRE-Green-Study.pdf (accessed 7 July 2011).

Oldham, G.R. and Fried, Y. (1987), “Employee reactions to workspace characteristics”, Journal ofApplied Psychology, Vol. 72, pp. 75-80.

Rashid, M. and Zimring, C. (2008), “A review of the empirical literature on the relationshipsbetween indoor environment and stress in healthcare and office settings:problems and prospects of sharing evidence”, Environment & Behavior, Vol. 40 No. 3,pp. 151-90.

Riordan, M.R., Gatewood, R.D. and Bill, J.B. (1997), “Corporate image: employee reaction andimplications for managing corporate social performance”, Journal of Business Ethics,Vol. 16, pp. 401-12.

Roodman, D.M. and Lenssen, N. (1996), “A building revolution: how ecology and health concernsare transforming construction”, Worldwatch Paper 124, Worldwatch Institute,Washington, DC, March.

Selama, E. and Selama, J. (1988), The Company Image: Building Your Identity and Influence in theMarketplace, Wiley, New York, NY.

Sundstrom, E., Burt, R.E. and Kamp, D. (1980), “Privacy at work: architectural correlates of jobsatisfaction and job performance”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 23, pp. 101-17.

Sundstrom, E., Town, J.P., Rice, R.W., Osborn, D.P. and Brill, M. (1994), “Office noise andsatisfaction, and performance”, Environment & Behavior, Vol. 26, pp. 195-222.

Thompson, J.D. (1967), Organizations in Action, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.

Treadwell, D.F. and Harrison, T.M. (1994), “Conceptualizing and assessing organizational image:model images, commitment, and communication”, Communication Monographs, Vol. 61,pp. 63-85.

US EPA (2009), Estimating 2003 Building-related Construction and Demolition MaterialsAmounts, US Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC.

US Geological Survey (2000), USGS: Data files for Estimated Use of Water in the United States,US Geological Survey, Reston, VA.

JCRE14,1

48

Vigoda-Gadot, E. and Ben-Zion, E. (2004), “Bright shining stars: the mediating effect oforganizational image on the relationship between work variables and army officers’intention to leave the service for a job in high-tech industry”, Public PersonnelManagement, Vol. 33 No. 2, pp. 201-23.

Zalesny, M.D., Farace, R.V. and Kurchner-Hawkins, R. (1985), “Determinants of employee workperceptions and attitudes, perceived work environment an organizational level”,Environment & Behavior, Vol. 17 No. 5, pp. 567-92.

Zhang, Y. and Altan, H. (2011), “A comparison of the occupant comfort in a conventionalhigh-rise office block and a contemporary environmentally-concerned building”, Buildingand Environment, Vol. 46, pp. 535-45.

Corresponding authorMahbub Rashid can be contacted at: mrashid@ku.edu

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.comOr visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints

Green buildings,EA, and OI

49