the effect of green buildings on employees’ performance

School of Management Curtin Business School

The Effect of Green Buildings on Employees’ Performance

Subhadarsini Parida

This thesis is presented for the degree of

Doctor of Philosophy

of

Curtin University

August 2020

ii

DECLARATION

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

published by any other person except where due acknowledgement has been made.

This thesis contains no material which has been accepted for the award of any other degree

or diploma in any university.

The research presented and reported in this thesis was conducted in accordance with the

National Health and Medical Research Council National Statement on Ethical Conduct in

Human Research (2007) – updated March 2014. The proposed research study received

human research ethics approval from the Curtin University Human Research Ethics

Committee (EC00262), Approval Number # HRE2016-0395

Signature:

Date: 30 July 2020

iii

DEDICATION

This thesis is dedicated to my late father, Niranjan Parida, who believed in me and

always encouraged me to strive for the best. To my father: I hope this achievement

will complete the dream that you had for me when you chose to give me the best

education you could.

iv

ABSTRACT

This thesis reports on the evaluation of the impact of green human resource

management (Green HRM) on performance outcomes in green buildings in the

contexts of Australia and India. There are three research objectives of this study (1)

To review the existing evidence on the role of management in green building design;

(2) To develop the dimensions of performance outcomes in green buildings that

management can influence; (3) To identify the management practices improving

employees’ behaviours in green buildings. Studies on green buildings have grown

significantly in number in the last decade; however, capturing building performance

in a green building context has received limited attention. Moreover, the expected

performance of green buildings has shown different results compared to their actual

performance. This has mostly been due to the behaviours of occupants who were not

aware of green buildings’ design features. Occupants’ behaviours have gained

importance in the design literature when evaluating building performance as this

approach is likely to be linked to workplace satisfaction and to be associated with the

creation of a productive workplace. Furthermore, in the operational phase, building

performance is dependent on occupants’ behaviours, especially in relation to full

utilisation of the green design features of the building.

This study focuses on studying non-residential office buildings as these buildings

account for the maximum amount of carbon emissions in the construction industry. To

extend the scope of this study, a systematic review was conducted. Through this

review, the effectiveness of management’s interventions via Green HRM functions

was established to better understand occupants’ behaviours. Furthermore, the

systematic review clarified the research objectives, with the following three research

questions established: (1) “what is the influence of management in improving benefits

from green buildings?”; (2) “what are the various types of performance outcomes that

management can improve in green buildings?”; and (3) “which specific management

practices in green building design have improved employees’ behaviours and

performance?”

The literature review established the study’s conceptual framework based on three

theories: social identity theory (SIT), social exchange theory (SET) and the theory of

planned behaviour (TPB). Primarily, SIT is used to establish the intergroup behaviours

v

of employees when associated with green building initiatives. The next theory, SET,

explains exchange behaviours in the form of positive actions by employees when they

perceive that they are supported by their organisations located in green buildings.

These theories are both used to justify the relationship between Green HRM and

performance outcomes in green buildings. The TPB is used to establish the antecedents

of Green HRM, with the design of this study’s conceptual framework including key

performance outcomes in green buildings. The conceptual framework proposes

‘environmental attitudes’, ‘subjective norms’ and ‘perceived behavioural control

(PBC)’ as antecedents of Green HRM which, in turn, is more likely to impact on

employees’ ‘workplace environmental behaviour’ resulting in key performance

outcomes in green buildings. The key performance outcomes studied in this research

are ‘environmental performance’, ‘organisational identification’, ‘job satisfaction’ and

‘work-related flow’. Based on the literature review, five main hypotheses were

established for this study, including three direct relationships and two mediation

relationships.

The study’s data collection and analysis comprised two phases, thus establishing a

sequential explanatory mixed-methods research design. In the first phase, a

quantitative method was initially used to validate the conceptual framework and, in

the second phase, qualitative data were collected to explain the quantitative results.

Quantitative data were collected from 549 employees and 91 managers in Australia

whereas, in India, quantitative data were collected from 460 employees and

50 managers. Analysis of the quantitative data was undertaken using structural

equation modelling (SEM). The study’s hypotheses, proposed based on direct

relationships and mediation effects, were tested. The final model ensured that

standards were met for reliability, convergent validity and discriminant validity. The

qualitative data were collected from 18 interviews in Australia and 22 in India: the

interviewees were managers working in green buildings. The qualitative data provided

an additional exploration of the quantitative results. Thematic coding was used to

analyse the qualitative interview data. The assessment of results from the quantitative

and qualitative analyses explored the differences between the Australian and Indian

samples in the quantitative phase as well as providing additional themes for each

hypothesis.

vi

The study’s results provided theoretical, methodological and practical contributions to

the literature. The four theoretical contributions were based on the originality and

utility of this study. The first theoretical contribution highlighted the advancement of

existing knowledge by establishing SIT and SET in a way that extended the

TPB model. The second theoretical contribution was the use of Green HRM as a new

variable in the existing TPB model. The third and fourth theoretical contributions

explained the existence of multidisciplinary reach as a result of introducing variables

to better understand performance in green buildings. The study established two main

methodological contributions, that is, the use of a systematic review and using a

sequential explanatory mixed-methods design.

Several practical implications were highlighted. Firstly, the study identified the

importance of management’s interventions in understanding performance in green

buildings. The second practical implication provided stakeholders with the foundation

from which to focus on performance outcomes in green buildings, by specifying those

that were environmentally related and those that were not. Thirdly, the study identified

the importance of engaging different stakeholders, such as designers, architects,

engineers and building owners, in the use of the Green HRM model when making key

decisions related to the performance of green buildings. And fourthly, the results

provided human resource (HR) managers with a framework for establishing the

concept of Green HRM in cross-disciplinary fields. Notwithstanding the study’s

contributions, it also has limitations related to the data collection, scope and target

audience. Future researchers could examine Green HRM to understand performance

not only in green buildings but also in non-green buildings. In addition, this study

proposes that future studies, by broadening the range of countries and certifications,

could gather new perspectives.

Keywords: green buildings, green human resource management, systematic review,

workplace environmental behaviours, performance, environmental performance,

organisational identification, job satisfaction, work-related flow

vii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Life as a PhD student has been an extraordinary journey. This period came with

struggles and intense learning in both the academic arena and at the personal level.

However, I recommend the journey due to the enormous satisfaction it brings and the

people you meet along the way. The completion of the journey and this thesis was

made possible through the encouragement and support of many wonderful individuals.

I would like to express my sincere gratitude to my thesis committee comprising

Associate Professor Subramaniam Ananthram, Associate Professor Paul Christopher

Chan and Professor Kerry Brown for their continued support and encouragement. I

offer my sincere appreciation to Subra for being extremely supportive, particularly in

my academic writing and in pushing the thesis towards completion. I cannot express

my thanks enough to Chris for his guidance, particularly in the analysis part. Professor

Kerry Brown’s assistance is one of the biggest reasons that I have stayed resilient

throughout writing this thesis. Kerry has provided the virtue of perseverance and,

without her unfailing support, I would not have had the opportunity to achieve what I

have now achieved. I offer my sincere appreciation to all my previous supervisors for

the learning opportunities that I have received. I am grateful to Professor David Fan

for helping me to choose the right tool for setting up the conceptual framework and

the data collection. In addition, I would like to thank Professor John Burgess, Associate

Professor Amy Tian and Senior Lecturer Subas Dhakal for providing me with support

at the time when they were providing supervision in this project.

I would like to thank the Cooperative Research Centre (CRC) for Low Carbon Living

Ltd, with the support of the Cooperative Research Centres program, for awarding me

a scholarship and giving me access to the green building community. I would like to

express my sincere thanks particularly to Brett Pollard from Hassell for his support in

exploring the elusive subject of human resource (HR)’s role in green buildings as well

as thanking Dr Samantha Hall for introducing me to the world of low carbon living

during the initial days of my research. My sincere thanks also go to Curtin Business

School, particularly to Professor Julia Richardson and Associate Professor Paul

Alexander for their support when I needed it.

I never expected in a million years that I would arrive at this juncture of my life. I

could not have succeeded without the unconditional love and unwavering support from

viii

my mother, Smita Parida, my brother, Sabyasachi Parida and my sister, Priyadarshini

Parida. I owe thanks to Anil Nayak for his patience and making numerous adjustments

during this journey. My deepest gratitude goes to Sunita Mishra and Lopamudra Lenka

for their encouragement: when times were rough, they helped me to keep my feet on

the ground. In addition, I would like to extend my thanks to my sister-in-law, Saroni

Ghosh, my cousin, Punit Pallav Bagudai, and my extended family and friends for their

encouragement. And, finally, my thanks go to all my PhD colleagues for their support.

ix

TABLE OF CONTENTS

DECLARATION.................................................................................................................... ii

DEDICATION....................................................................................................................... iii

ABSTRACT ........................................................................................................................... iv

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ................................................................................................ vii

TABLE OF CONTENTS ..................................................................................................... ix

LIST OF TABLES .............................................................................................................. xiii

LIST OF FIGURES ............................................................................................................. xv

ABBREVIATIONS ............................................................................................................. xvi

Chapter 1 Introduction ........................................................................................................ 18

1.1. Chapter Overview ................................................................................................ 18

1.2. Introduction .......................................................................................................... 18

1.3. Background .......................................................................................................... 20

1.3.1. Research Scope .............................................................................................. 21

1.3.2. Research Setting: Australia and India ............................................................ 22

1.4. Additional Rationales for the Study ................................................................... 24

1.4.1. Theoretical Rationale ..................................................................................... 24

1.4.2. Methodological Rationale .............................................................................. 25

1.4.3. Practical Rationale ......................................................................................... 26

1.5. Key Terms Used in This Study ........................................................................... 28

1.5.1. Environmental Attitudes ................................................................................ 28

1.5.2. Subjective Norms ........................................................................................... 28

1.5.3. Perceived behavioural control ........................................................................ 28

1.5.4. Green Human Resource Management (GHRM) ............................................ 28

1.5.5. Theory of Planned Behaviour (TPB) ............................................................. 29

1.5.6. Workplace Environmental Behaviour ............................................................ 29

1.5.7. Environmental Performance .......................................................................... 29

1.5.8. Organisational Identification .......................................................................... 29

1.5.9. Job Satisfaction .............................................................................................. 29

1.5.10. Work-Related Flow ........................................................................................ 29

1.6. Overview of the Methodology ............................................................................. 30

1.7. Structure of the Thesis ......................................................................................... 31

1.8. Chapter Summary ............................................................................................... 33

Research Context and Gap Analysis using a Systematic Literature Review 34

2.1. Chapter Overview ..................................................................................................... 34

x

2.2. Context of Green Buildings ...................................................................................... 34

2.2.1. Defining Green Buildings .............................................................................. 35

2.2.2. Green Building Certifications ........................................................................ 35

2.2.3. Types of Stakeholders of Green Buildings .................................................... 37

2.2.4. Potential Outcomes of Green Buildings ......................................................... 39

2.3. Gap Analysis using a Systematic Literature Review ............................................. 43

2.3.1. Steps in Study’s Systematic Literature Review ............................................. 44

2.3.2. Reliability of Inclusion and Exclusion Decisions and Quality Assessment ... 45

2.3.3. Summary of Articles Analysed for Systematic Literature Review Process ... 47

2.3.4. Human Resource Intervention Evidence in Green Building Performance ..... 49

2.3.5. Research Agenda Emerging from the Systematic Literature Review ............ 63

2.3.6. Research Objectives and Questions ............................................................... 66

2.4. Chapter Conclusion ............................................................................................. 67

Literature Review .............................................................................................. 69

3.1. Chapter Overview ................................................................................................ 69

3.2. Need for Environmental Behaviour in Green Buildings .................................. 69

3.3. Existing Practices for Performance Measurement of Green Buildings .......... 71

3.4. Human Connection to Green Building Design .................................................. 72

3.5. Green Human Resource Management (Green HRM) ...................................... 74

3.5.1. Green HRM Initiatives ................................................................................... 76

3.5.2. Green HRM Intervention’s Role in Influencing Workplace Environmental Behaviour in Green Buildings........................................................................................ 80

3.6. Overarching Frameworks for Workplace Environmental Behaviour ............ 81

3.6.1. Social Identity Theory .................................................................................... 82

3.6.2. Types of Behavioural Models ........................................................................ 83

3.7. Theoretical Overview and Hypotheses Development ....................................... 87

3.7.1. Antecedents of Green HRM ........................................................................... 88

3.7.2. Green HRM Initiatives ................................................................................... 93

3.7.3. Precedents for Green HRM Construct in This Study ..................................... 96

3.7.4. Performance Outcome Constructs in This Study ........................................... 99

3.7.5. Mediating Links ........................................................................................... 107

3.8. Conceptual Framework ..................................................................................... 115

3.9 Chapter Conclusion ........................................................................................... 116

Methodology and Design ................................................................................. 118

4.1. Chapter Overview .............................................................................................. 118

4.2. Research Paradigm ............................................................................................ 118

4.3. Research Design ................................................................................................. 121

4.3.1. Justification for a Mixed-Methods Approach .............................................. 122

xi

4.3.2. Characteristics of Mixed Methods in this Study .......................................... 122

4.4. Study of Sampling Techniques and Population............................................... 125

4.4.1. Sampling Methods ....................................................................................... 126

4.4.2. Population (N) and Samples (n) ................................................................... 126

4.5. Approaches for Data Collection Phases ........................................................... 131

4.5.1. Quantitative Phase........................................................................................ 131

4.5.2. Qualitative Phase.......................................................................................... 149

4.5.3. Rationale for Semi-Structured Interviews .................................................... 149

4.6. Ethical Considerations ....................................................................................... 158

4.6.1. Anonymity and Confidentiality ................................................................... 158

4.6.2. Informed Consent and Voluntary Participation ........................................... 159

4.6.3. Honesty and Respect for Intellectual Property ............................................. 159

4.6.4. Data Storage ................................................................................................. 159

4.7. Chapter Summary ............................................................................................. 160

Data Analysis and Results ............................................................................... 161

5.1. Chapter Overview ................................................................................................... 161

5.2. Phase 1: Quantitative Data Analysis ..................................................................... 161

5.2.1. Pre-Testing the Questionnaire ............................................................................ 162

5.2.2. Data Preparation ................................................................................................. 167

5.2.3. Demographics .................................................................................................... 170

5.2.4. Model Testing .................................................................................................... 174

5.2.5. Structural Model ................................................................................................ 194

5.3. Phase 2: Linking Quantitative Results to the Following Qualitative Phase ...... 208

5.3.1. Profile of Interviewees ....................................................................................... 210

5.3.2. Qualitative Findings Supporting Direct Linkages .............................................. 217

5.3.3. Qualitative Findings Supporting Mediation ....................................................... 236

5.4. Chapter Conclusion ................................................................................................ 243

Findings and Discussion .................................................................................. 244


6.2. Theoretical Assumptions ........................................................................................ 244

6.3. Hypotheses Revisited .............................................................................................. 247

6.3.1. Antecedents of Green HRM ............................................................................... 248

6.3.2. Relationship of Green HRM and Workplace Environmental Behaviours ......... 253

6.3.3. Performance Outcomes in Green Buildings ....................................................... 256

6.4. Mediation Relationships Revisited ........................................................................ 263

6.4.1. Mediation Effect of Green HRM ....................................................................... 264

6.4.2. Mediation Effect of Workplace Environmental Behaviours .............................. 267

xii

6.5. Overall Research Model based on Results from Australia and India ................ 269

6.6. Thesis Objectives Revisited .................................................................................... 270

6.6.1. Research Objective 1 ......................................................................................... 271



6.7. Chapter Conclusion ................................................................................................ 276

Conclusion ........................................................................................................ 278


7.2. Summary of the Research ...................................................................................... 278

7.3. Research Contributions .......................................................................................... 279

7.3.1. Theoretical Contributions .................................................................................. 279

7.3.2. Methodological Contributions ........................................................................... 282

7.4. Practical Implications ............................................................................................. 284

7.5. Limitations ............................................................................................................... 286

7.6. Future Research Directions .................................................................................... 288

7.7. Concluding Remarks .............................................................................................. 289

REFERENCES ................................................................................................................... 291

APPENDICES .................................................................................................................... 334

Appendix 1: Consent Form for Survey ........................................................................ 334

Appendix 2: Survey for Employees .............................................................................. 336

Appendix 3: Survey for Managers ............................................................................... 342

Appendix 4: Interview Guide ........................................................................................ 346

Appendix 5: Consent Form for Semi-Structured Interview ...................................... 348

xiii

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1.1: Summary of chapters ............................................................................................ 32

Table 2.1: Inclusion and exclusion criteria in a systematic literature review ........................ 46

Table 2.2: Studies indicating types of performance ............................................................... 56

Table 3.1: Summary of direct linkages between study constructs ....................................... 114

Table 3.2: Summary of mediated linkages among study constructs .................................... 114

Table 4.1: Summarised comparison of world views and practical implications .................. 119

Table 4.2: Mixed-methods design ........................................................................................ 123

Table 4.3: Profile of green buildings: Australia and India ................................................... 129

Table 4.4: Sampling for the study ........................................................................................ 130

Table 4.5: Sources for survey measures used in this study .................................................. 132

Table 4.6: Summary of study’s fit indices ........................................................................... 147

Table 5.1: Demographic information of pilot study sample ................................................ 163

Table 5.2: Descriptive statistics of pilot study ..................................................................... 165

Table 5.3: Sources in Australia and India of data collected ................................................. 169

Table 5.4: Total data collected in Australia and India ......................................................... 170

Table 5.5: Demographic data for employees ....................................................................... 172

Table 5.6: Demographic data for managers ......................................................................... 173

Table 5.7: Initial measurement model fit: Australia and India ............................................ 176

Table 5.8: Means, standard deviations, correlations and Cronbach’s alpha values between study constructs: Australia ........................................................................................... 181

Table 5.9: Means, standard deviations, correlations and Cronbach’s alpha values between study constructs: India ................................................................................................. 183

Table 5.10: Average variance extracted, maximum shared variance, maximal reliability and composite reliability among study factors: Australia ................................................... 184

Table 5.11: Average variance extracted, maximum shared variance, maximal reliability and composite reliability among study factors: India ......................................................... 185

Table 5.12: Harman’s test for common method bias (CMB): Australia .............................. 187

Table 5.13: Harman’s test for common method bias (CMB): India .................................... 188

Table 5.14: Invariance tests: Australia and India ................................................................. 190

Table 5.15: Fit statistics of structural models: Australia ...................................................... 192

Table 5.16: Fit statistics of structural models: India ............................................................ 193

Table 5.17: Fit measures for hypothesised model: Australia and India ............................... 197

Table 5.18: Summary of direct linkages between study constructs ..................................... 198

Table 5.19: Summary of direct linkages between study constructs: Australia and India .... 199

Table 5.20: Summary of mediated linkages among study constructs .................................. 200

Table 5.21: Summary of mediated linkages among study constructs: Australia ................. 203

Table 5.22: Summary of mediated linkages among study constructs: India ........................ 204

Table 5.23: Influence of control variables on baseline model ............................................. 208

xiv

Table 5.24: Direct hypotheses supported in quantitative analysis: Australia and India....... 209

Table 5.25: Mediation hypotheses supported in quantitative analysis: Australia and India 209

Table 5.26: Profile of interviewees: Australia ..................................................................... 211

Table 5.27: Profile of interviewees: India ............................................................................ 212

Table 5.28: Illustration of open coding process ................................................................... 214

Table 5.29: Subthemes under environmental attitudes ........................................................ 217

Table 5.30: Subthemes under subjective norms ................................................................... 220

Table 5.31: Subthemes under perceived behavioural control .............................................. 223

Table 5.32: Subthemes under Green HRM .......................................................................... 227

Table 5.33: Subthemes under workplace environmental behaviours linked to various performance outcomes in green buildings ................................................................... 232

Table 6.1: Direct hypotheses supported in quantitative analysis: Australia and India......... 248

xv

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1.1: Overview of methodology (Saunders, Lewis and Thornhill 2011) ..................... 30

Figure 2.1: Systematic review (to October 2019) .................................................................. 48

Figure 3.1: Proposed initial model for predicting employees’ workplace environmental behaviours and related performance outcomes .............................................................. 87

Figure 3.2: Conceptual model .............................................................................................. 115

Figure 4.1: Visual diagram of sequential mixed-methods design ........................................ 124

Figure 4.2: Geographical dispersion of green buildings ...................................................... 128

Figure 4.3: Conceptual framework of this study .................................................................. 132

Figure 5.1: Measurement model: Australia .......................................................................... 177

Figure 5.2: Measurement model: India ................................................................................ 178

Figure 5.3: Model for common latent factor test ................................................................. 189

Figure 5.4: Structural model for Australia ........................................................................... 195

Figure 5.5: Fit statistics of structural model: India .............................................................. 196


Figure 5.7: Control variables as exogenous variables .......................................................... 206

Figure 6.1: Proposed model to predict performance outcomes ............................................ 247


xvi

ABBREVIATIONS

ABC attitude–behaviour–context (model)

AGFI Adjusted Goodness-of-Fit Index

AMOS Analysis of Moment Structures

ASV average shared squared variance

AVE average variance extracted

BREEAM Building Research Establishment Environmental Assessment Methodology

CASBEE Comprehensive Assessment System for Built Environment Efficiency

CEO Chief Executive Officer

CFA confirmatory factor analysis

CFI Comparative Fit Index

CI confidence interval

CMB common method bias

CR composite reliability

CSR corporate social responsibility

df degrees of freedom

DNA deoxyribonucleic acid (also means “the fundamental and distinctive characteristics or qualities of someone or something”)

E-HRM electronic human resource management

EPC/PBC perceived behavioural control

EM environmental management

EMIS environmental management information system

EMS environmental management system

GB green building

GBCA Green Building Council of Australia

GFI Goodness-of-Fit Index

Green HRM green human resource management

GRIHA Green Rating for Integrated Habitat Assessment

HEAG Human Ethics Advisory Group

HK BEAM Hong Kong Building Environmental Assessment Method

HRM human resource management

IEQ indoor environmental quality

IFI Incremental Fit Index

IGBC Indian Green Building Council

ISO International Organization for Standardization

IT information technology

xvii

KPI key performance indicator

LEED Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (certification)

MIs modification indices

MLE maximum likelihood estimation (technique)

MOA motivation–opportunities–abilities (model)

MS Microsoft

MSV maximum shared squared variance

NABERS National Australian Built Environment Rating System (certification)

NFI Normed Fit Index

OCBE organisational citizenship behaviour for the environment

OECD Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development

PBC/EPC perceived behavioural control

PGFI Parsimony Goodness-of-Fit Index

PNFI Parsimonious Normed Fit Index

POE post-occupancy evaluation (study)

RMSEA root mean square error of approximation

RMSR root mean square residual

ROI return on investment

SE standard error

SEM structural equation modelling

SET social exchange theory

SHRM strategic human resource management

SIT social identity theory

SLR systematic literature review

SMEs small and medium-sized enterprises

SPSS Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (now known as IBM SPSS Statistics)

SRMSR standardised root mean square residual

TAM technological acceptance model

TLI Tucker–Lewis Index

TPB theory of planned behaviour

UN United Nations

US/USA United States/United States of America

USEPA US Environmental Protection Agency

WCED World Commission of Environment and Development

WGBC World Green Building Council

18

Chapter 1 Introduction

1.1. Chapter Overview

This chapter provides a context to the study connecting green buildings and

performance. As part of the background, the research scope and research settings are

discussed. Next, the rationale regarding the theoretical, practical and methodological

aspects of studying managerial interventions and their influence on performance are

discussed within the context of green buildings. The chapter also introduces critical

definitions to be used in this study. The chapter then introduces the conceptual

framework and the methodology adopted by the study. Finally, the thesis structure is

presented to provide a road map for the overall study.

1.2. Introduction

The demand for green buildings is rising worldwide, and green buildings are becoming

an attractive business opportunity for the construction industry (Ahmad, Aibinu and

Stephan 2019). A study conducted by SmartMarket (Analytics 2018) reported that

green building projects are expected to grow by 47% in global constructions by 2021.

Historically, the performance of green buildings is largely dependent on physical

aspects such as indoor environmental quality (IEQ), lighting, temperature and noise

(Azar, Nikolopoulou and Papadopoulos 2016). Furthermore, understanding the

performance outcome metrics of green buildings has been either related to design, such

as the technical aspects of the building, or related to the building’s operation, such as

maintaining the resource efficiency of the green building. While this focus has created

credibility in terms of understanding performance, the predicted energy performance

of green buildings still differs from the actual energy use, with this found to be due to

occupants’ behaviours in green buildings (Wu et al. 2017). Therefore, it is evident that

understanding the performance of green buildings requires transformation through a

watershed shift from the fungible assets of buildings to the occupants.

In an attempt to understand the prominence of the green buildings sector, attention has

shifted from the environmental benefits of green buildings and their related impact on

operational costs to a human-centric strategy (Armitage, Murugan and Kato 2011;

Singh, Syal, Grady, et al. 2010). This shift to incorporate human-centric strategy in the

19

construction industry began with research into the influence of green buildings on

occupants’ health, productivity and well-being (Leaman, Stevenson and Bordass

2010). Recent studies have found that building occupants are regarded as a critical

factor in green building performance as their behaviours and interests are likely to add

to the barriers and risks in green building design (Altomonte et al. 2019; Thatcher and

Milner 2016; Ahmad, Aibinu and Stephan 2019; Geng et al. 2019). As a result,

research activity directed towards occupants’ behaviours in green buildings are

trending, such as behaviours affecting energy usage (Ohueri, Enegbuma and Kenley

2018); comparing occupants’ behaviours in green buildings to those in conventional

buildings (Azizi and Wilkinson 2015); the impact of IEQ on behaviours (Esfandiari et

al. 2017); and differentiating occupants’ planned and unplanned behaviours (Hewitt et

al. 2016). These developments add to the need to incorporate human benefits, in

conjunction with environmental sustainability, into green building design (Wu, Fan

and Chen 2016). Nevertheless, very little is understood about performance and human

factors in green buildings, despite it being crucial to understand, not only to ensure

how the physical elements of green buildings can affect occupants’ behaviours, but

also to learn how occupants must behave to create a high-performing building. As a

starting point, this study focuses on integrating human factors with performance in

green buildings through the initiatives of organisations.

In an attempt to develop a theoretical understanding of how organisations’ initiatives

improve performance in green buildings, a research gap was identified through a

systematic literature review. Based on this review, a conceptual framework was

developed by considering the literature from the perspectives of two theoretical lenses.

The first of these, green human resource management (Green HRM), is a perspective

related to the activities that prepare organisations to improve occupants’ or employees’

behaviours in green buildings (Hoffman and Henn 2008). The second lens, social

identity theory (SIT) and social exchange theory (SET), is used to develop the theory

of planned behaviour (TPB) which suggests that specific behaviours (or key

antecedents), such as environmental attitudes, subjective norms and perceived

behavioural control, are necessary (Ajzen 2011). Performance outcomes relating to

green buildings are analysed from these two perspectives. Thus, this study attempts to

address improvement in the performance of green buildings by simultaneously

20

developing and improving a human-centric strategy to incorporate into green building

design.

1.3. Background

Research investigating the relationship between sustainability and green buildings is

not new (Warren-Myers 2013; Warren 2018), with the demand for green building

projects increasing and expected to jump from 27% in 2018 to 47% by 2021, as noted

by World Green Building Trends 2018 (Analytics 2018). Furthermore, green buildings

have adopted energy efficiency, depending on whether they are rated higher or lower,

in their resource efficiency aspects. However, one of the current issues pertaining to

the green building market relates to occupants’ perceptions of the building’s ability to

offer sustainable options due to its look and feel rather than its energy rating. Likewise,

physical comfort in buildings may not necessarily mean that the building is optimal

for its occupants. Moreover, tenants occupying these buildings generally have limited

knowledge and information about green buildings (Miller and Buys 2008; Ahn et al.

2013). Within these boundaries, other operation-related costs, apart from energy cost,

must be considered. For example, staff costs, such as remuneration, benefits,

productivity, sick leave and health, are of significant concern for organisations

occupying green buildings (Kats 2003; Wilson and Tagaza 2006). These financial

implications may appear as modest improvements in employee-related benefits but can

have massive financial consequences for employers. Therefore, along with the

environmental improvements offered by green buildings, the relationships between

people and buildings are increasingly gaining importance. In this view, the concept of

integrating human factors (ergonomics), that is, architectural psychology, has become

one of the trending topics in green building research (Li, Ng and Skitmore 2018).

Over the past two decades, occupants’ behaviours have gained importance in the

design literature for two significant reasons. Firstly, occupant behaviours are essential

to the metrics used to evaluate building performance as this approach is likely to be

linked to workplace satisfaction and associated with creating a productive workplace

(Thatcher and Milner 2014). Furthermore, occupants with a higher level of comfort in

green buildings will accept workplace practices better than they would in conventional

buildings (Ries et al. 2006). Secondly, in the operational phase, the performance of

buildings is dependent on occupants’ behaviours, especially in relation to fully

21

utilising the green design features of a building (Day and Gunderson 2015). Research

has found that green buildings might not achieve their initial environmental objectives

when occupants fail to use the building features in the way that they were designed to

perform (Holmgren, Kabanshi and Sörqvist 2017). A green building is potentially

misleading if occupants do not behave in a way that complements the building’s design

intent. Thus, to fully maximise the carbon mitigation potential of green buildings,

occupants need to be sympathetic to the building’s green design intent. Considering

this, the possibility of enlightening occupants of green buildings becomes a significant

driver for interpreting the impact of green buildings on occupants’ environmental

behaviours. This perspective also addresses the fundamental reason for studying

occupants’ behaviours. Likewise, it is important to understand how green building

designers can pass on sustainability messages to their building occupants to encourage

green behaviours (Mitchell 2006). Traditionally, built environment researchers have

highlighted that buildings shape behaviour and that conditions within the buildings

influence occupants’ psychological moods (Roth 2018).

It has been proposed that occupants’ behaviour directly engages with building

performance (Blight and Coley 2013). For example, understanding occupants’

opinions can establish learned methods for their engagement in building design. As

the green building market becomes more human-centric, incorporating occupants into

building design becomes more relevant to business strategy. Hence, occupants’

behaviours are typically examined to understand what aspects of organisational

measurement could change these behaviours (Gill et al. 2010). In addition to building

performance, other kinds of performance, such as satisfaction, could be considered

(Lee and Malkawi 2014). Hence, this study focuses on investigating various types of

performance outcomes.

1.3.1. Research Scope

This study focuses on studying non-residential office buildings to understand the

impact of management interventions on occupants’ behaviours and, in turn, on their

performance. Targeting non-residential buildings as a specific building typology to

determine energy usage in green buildings was first highlighted by a report led by Pitt

and Sherry (2012). The building life cycle accounts for more than 40% of resource

use, along with the building’s production, operation and maintenance (Warren 2018).

22

The foundation of green building design was based on concerns about a great deal of

waste and the high-energy consumption that occurs during the life cycle of high-rise

buildings. The rising costs for energy and waste disposal are likely to impact on

designers who, in turn, are seeking to adopt a more sustainable design strategy in the

built environment industry (Wener and Carmalt 2006). Although many kinds of green

buildings exist, such as schools, health care, residential and retail, this study focuses

on office buildings. While lessons can be learned from other building typologies,

narrowing the scope to the office building will discard any additional elements that

might influence the results. Furthermore, it is challenging to engage organisations

located as multi-tenants in commercial green buildings (Edwards and Kumphai 2012).

These challenges include differences in their participation policies, levels of operation

and maintenance, and priorities for improving behaviours and relationships due to the

non-existence of ownership. The multi-tenant perspective is beyond the scope of this

study which focuses on organisations’ interventions to support employee behaviours

resulting in improved performance in green buildings. The systematic literature review

in Chapter 2 also highlights workplace interventions as one of the drivers to improve

performance. Similarly, findings from this study resonate beyond office buildings.

Office buildings were chosen as: (a) they share the most substantial part of the non-

residential building construction sector; (b) most of the current post-occupancy

evaluation (POE) studies have focused on offices and, thus, the understandings of

productivity and well-being concerns can easily be compared; and (c) they assist in

building a business case for organisations to educate occupants to control their

behaviours so energy efficiencies of these buildings can be maximised as well as

improving occupants’ performance.

1.3.2. Research Setting: Australia and India

This study utilises data from Australia, representing a developed country, and India,

an emerging economy. Geng et al. (2019) stated that Australia is one of the top five

countries in the world in its contribution to green building studies and that India is

included within the top 11–20 countries in the world involved in green building-related

research. The rationale for choosing Australia and India is discussed in the following

paragraphs.

23

Within countries in the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development

(OECD), in 2011, commercial buildings accounted for 40% of energy consumption

and 73% of electricity consumption (GBCA 2015). Australia recorded more than 50%

of its electricity usage in buildings. In 1990, the construction industry in Australia

witnessed a growth of 21% in carbon emissions, with around 28% of these emissions

related to energy usage (UN 2017). Furthermore, non-residential buildings contributed

to 60% of total carbon emissions (UN 2017). In 1990, the Australian figures suggested

that around 20% of the accounted energy usage was from the building sector: by 2005,

this had increased to 25% and, since then, it has continued to increase. According to a

SmartMarket report (Analytics 2018), carbon emission rates in the commercial

building sector are expected to grow at a faster rate than in the non-commercial

building sector. It is therefore evident that the factors impacting on the green building

sector need to be understood to minimise resource usage in Australia, where the

commonly used green building certifications are Green Star and the National

Australian Built Environment Rating System (NABERS).

Emerging economies, such as India, are regarded as the world’s largest carbon

emitters. However, as an emerging economy, India has witnessed significant

developments in the context of the green building since 2001 (Sharma 2018). The

green building movement in India has gained immense support and is expected to

continue to grow dramatically to include more than 55% of all buildings by 2021

(Analytics 2018). India has seen steady growth in the green buildings sector; however,

much still needs to be done by the government in implementing an agenda for a green

economy (Sharma 2018). Green buildings, as a contemporary concept, began to grow

in India in the late 1990s replacing traditional methods of using renewable materials,

such as bamboo or clay, for the construction of buildings. The rating system for green

buildings begain with the Green Rating for Integrated Habitat Assessment (GRIHA)

and later through the Indian Green Building Council (IGBC). The green building

movement in India is well supported by the government through subsidies and

regulations. Populous countries, such as India, face limited resources that restrict their

more rapid adoption of green building practices (Potbhare, Syal and Korkmaz 2009).

Moreover, countries that face risks of environmental problems are seeking operational

solutions to green building design. Furthermore, for these countries, the psychological

and social aspects of green building design are critical factors to consider when

24

studying the influence of green buildings on performance (Rajaee, Hoseini and

Malekmohammadi 2019). Thus, India, as a choice for this study, is an evident

comparison with Australia, with this intended to develop an understanding of whether

or not the conceptual framework suggested in this study for two different countries can

be generalised.

1.4. Additional Rationales for the Study

The justifications for this study are provided through the theoretical, methodological

and practical rationales in the following sections.

1.4.1. Theoretical Rationale

The inherent feature of this research is that it is multidisciplinary in nature as it includes

the green human resources management (Green HRM) construct from the human

resources management (HRM) field to study behavioural aspects in green buildings

from the built environment field. From the green building perspective, the systematic

literature review conducted in this study (Chapter 2) suggested that most research on

productivity and well-being has focused on physical aspects of green buildings with a

realisation of the importance of management’s interventions to improve performance

in green buildings. Thus, the need for Green HRM, with its focus on specific human

resources functions that influence occupants’ environmental behaviours, leading, in

turn, to performance outcomes, becomes evident and provides the underpinning for

pursuing this research. Furthermore, this study advances the existing knowledge in

green building studies by incorporating Green HRM into the TPB model within the

SIT and SET contexts. The study utilises SIT to understand the psychological

association between employees and their organisation. The utilisation of SIT invokes

the use of SET to explain behaviours in environmental management studies. To justify

the relationship between Green HRM and performance outcomes in green buildings,

SIT and SET are used. Based on this, the TPB is adopted, resulting in advancing the

knowledge of antecedents that could impact on Green HRM initiatives in green

buildings and of related behaviours that could impact on key performance outcomes

in green buildings. The TPB refines the understanding of the diffusion of Green HRM

processes in green buildings. Previously, the TPB has been used at an individual level

(Sawang and Kivits 2014). The current study not only applies the TPB at the firm level

25

but also uses it within multidisciplinary fields, such as the built environment and

management, as well as in multicultural contexts, such as Australia and India. The

TPB acknowledges antecedents that are significant for understanding occupants’

behaviour in green buildings. Thus, every construct discussed in this study has the

potential to influence the understanding of performance in green buildings through

Green HRM. Specifically, to understand behaviours in green buildings, SIT, SET and

the TPB explain the intricacies and uncertainties rooted in the Green HRM context.

From a human resource management (HRM) perspective, essential green human

resource (HR) functions provide employees with the necessary skills and knowledge

to further understand the issues pertaining to green workplace behaviours. Heerwagen

(2000) recommended further research to discover how strategic human resource

management (SHRM) could be implemented within green buildings to engage

employees and, in turn, to improve performance. Moreover, green buildings without

occupants with green workplace behaviours can be meaningless when it comes to

understanding the costs and values of green buildings. Nonetheless, the systematic

review of the published research, as documented in Chapter 2, found no evidence of

any empirical studies that have scrutinised the relationship between SHRM and the

performance of green buildings. Hence, to reach a better understanding of the

performance aspect, an examination of the Green HRM aspect within the green

building context would appear to be important. Therefore, this study is the first to bring

together both these concepts to consider how organisations can drive the efficiency of

green buildings and whether or not this benefits performance. Rather than focusing on

all elements of the TPB, this study adopts theories in the realms of SIT and SET to

advance the knowledge in green building studies. Furthermore, substantial evidence

has suggested that green occupants in green buildings can impact on the overall

performance of the buildings, thus adding the need to consider the buildings’ physical

aspects. In considering Green HRM within the green workplace aspect and focusing

on the impact of green buildings on performance, the lack of research is evident. Thus,

it is vital to understand whether management interventions have the potential to

understand and respond to performance-related issues in green buildings. The

theoretical contributions are further elaborated in Chapter 7 (Section 7.3.1).

1.4.2. Methodological Rationale

26

Quantifying occupants’ behaviour is challenging as it cannot be measured directly.

Although the number of studies on occupants’ behaviours in green buildings has grown

in the last decade, most of these studies have undertaken limited research on the

behavioural benefits of green buildings. Among the methods used, the most common

is quantitative research using post-occupancy evaluation (POE) surveys to understand

sustainability and workplace experience in green buildings (Meir et al. 2009; Meir et

al. 2019; Göçer, Hua and Göçer 2015). However, significant attention on the rationale

behind influencing occupants’ behaviours is still lacking. From a methodological

standpoint, using mixed methods (combining quantitative and qualitative approaches)

in the data collection process to contextualise the measurement instruments is the new

approach for research in this domain. This study is among the first of its kind to provide

first-hand empirical data to green building studies on the contribution of management

practitioners. Furthermore, understanding occupants’ behaviours and establishing a

relationship with Green HRM and performance is supplemented with data from the

qualitative research approach.

Most studies on green building design have emphasised the investigation of

productivity and well-being. The current study accepts the challenge to understand the

interventions of management in green buildings. However, limiting performance

outcomes to productivity and well-being could inhibit the study’s fundamental

intention which is to understand individual-level behaviour that is more likely to

impact on organisational-level performance and influence a broader context, such as

green buildings. Therefore, this study must be open to different performance outcomes,

such as environmental performance, organisational identification, job satisfaction and

work-related flow, based on the systematic literature review (described in Chapter 2)

and not be limited solely to productivity and well-being measures. Based on the TPB,

the antecedents used in this study are environmental attitudes, subjective norms and

perceived behavioural control (PBC). This methodological framework can help

practitioners to develop both qualitative and quantitative measures to understand the

significance of management’s influence on occupants’ workplace environmental

behaviours that, in turn, impact on performance in green buildings. The

methodological contributions are further discussed in Chapter 7 (Section 7.3.2).

1.4.3. Practical Rationale

27

From a practical perspective, this study strengthens the understanding of occupants’

workplace environmental behaviours as they impact on performance in green

buildings and, therefore, can help to develop occupant focused-design strategies. This

research would benefit architects, designers and facility managers to reach a better

understanding of social and psychological interventions in green building design. With

occupant behaviours now an essential ingredient in green building performance, one

of the emerging built environment challenges is exploring how occupants’ behaviours

can be influenced through green HR practices to resolve issues that affect both green

building performance and employees’ performance (Heerwagen 2000). Several studies

have suggested that workplace green behaviours affect buildings’ overall performance

(Kansara and Ridley 2012); however, some grey areas are apparent with regard to how

these green behaviours influence different performance outcomes. Moreover, as

occupants’ performance is increasingly becoming a concern when building the

business case for green buildings, it is essential to understand various other employee-

related performance outcomes. Furthermore, the role played by HR managers as the

newest stakeholders in the green building business remains unclear. The current study

advances the growing awareness of the psychological and social benefits of green

buildings, thus enlightening key stakeholders, such as developers, designers,

architects, owners and tenants.

Of practical relevance are the various certifications adopted for green buildings across

many countries. Their relevance, which could be impactful, is that they influence

occupant behaviours irrespective of the type of certifications used for green buildings.

Employers participating in improving employee performance in green buildings could

include other organisational effectiveness measures, such as satisfaction, productivity

and reduced sick leave. The current study’s findings have raised doubts about the over-

dependence on physical elements, such as temperature, lighting and air quality, when

scrutinising the performance of green buildings. In other words, this study suggests a

broader context for green building design that integrates human factors to realise

overall organisational effectiveness (Heerwagen 2000). Furthermore, this study

suggests that HR can influence performance-related outcomes for employees as well

as their organisation through multiple underlying mechanisms.

In the mainstream built environment, this study will attract non-technical audiences,

such as sustainability professionals, organisational behaviour practitioners and

28

HR professionals who are eager to understand the green building market. Moreover,

this study will provide office owners, managers and occupants with a clear picture on

how to measure performance and analyse the related challenges and opportunities at

employee and organisational levels. This includes providing practical

recommendations leading to consistent and robust evidence that informs design

decisions.

This study is significant as it bridges the gaps in the literature and helps us to obtain a

better understanding of Green HRM in green buildings, the impact of HR practices on

the critical stakeholders of green building design and whether HRM practices

developed in the context of green buildings in one country can be applied to different

countries. Through a systematic examination of HRM practices in green buildings, a

transparent picture of occupants’ behaviours and the nature of performance in green

buildings is obtained. These strategies should be adopted to achieve a win-win scenario

for both green construction and management practitioners. The experience of

successful Green HRM practices in green buildings will be valuable for both

developed and emerging economies.

1.5. Key Terms Used in This Study

1.5.1. Environmental Attitudes

Environmental attitudes are beliefs and feelings linked to environmental behaviour

(Hines, Hungerford and Tomera 1987; Blok et al. 2015).

1.5.2. Subjective Norms

Subjective norms are related to societal pressure on individuals to perform, or not to

perform, a specific behaviour (Ajzen 1991).

1.5.3. Perceived behavioural control

Perceived behavioural control (PBC) is the extent to which, when individuals perceive

that they can smoothly perform a behaviour of interest, they support the practice in a

larger area (Fishbein and Ajzen 2011).

1.5.4. Green Human Resource Management (GHRM)

29

Green human resource management (Green HRM) is a set of HRM activities that

improve green workplace outcomes at individual and organisational levels (Shen,

Dumont and Deng 2018).

1.5.5. Theory of Planned Behaviour (TPB)

The theory of planned behaviour (TPB) postulates a theoretical framework for shaping

behaviours based on attitudes, subjective norms and perceived behavioural control

(PBC) (Ajzen and Fishbein 1980).

1.5.6. Workplace Environmental Behaviour

Workplace environmental behaviour/s, workplace green behaviour/s or workplace

pro-environmental behaviour/s are actions in which employees are involved to bring

about positive changes in environmental sustainability (Ones and Dilchert 2012;

Wiernik et al. 2018). These behaviours include both in-role and extra-role behaviours

associated with sustainable practices in the workplace (Ramus 2002).

1.5.7. Environmental Performance

Environmental performance can be understood based on the organisation’s

achievements related to environmental releases, pollution prevention, reduction of

waste and the incorporation of recycling (Lober 1996). Another aspect of

environmental performance describes employees’ willingness to become involved in

the organisation's environmental strategies beyond their regular job duties to reduce

the use of resources in the workplace (Hanna, Rocky Newman and Johnson 2000).

1.5.8. Organisational Identification

Organisational identification is the individual’s perception of belonging to the

organisation or of associating with the organisation in his/her self-definition (Hall and

Schneider 1972; Smidts, Pruyn and Van Riel 2001).

1.5.9. Job Satisfaction

Job satisfaction is a component of well-being that is referred to as a specific emotional

state resulting from positive experiences in the job (Wright and Cropanzano 2000).

1.5.10. Work-Related Flow

30

Work-related flow refers to the individual’s experience of enjoyment as a result of

intrinsic work motivation (Bakker 2008).

1.6. Overview of the Methodology

Based on a pragmatism paradigm, this research undertakes an explanatory sequential

mixed-methods study (Creswell and Clark 2007). Here, the quantitative data are

collected through surveys and the qualitative data are then used to explain the

quantitative results (Yin 2006). Based on the research onion by Saunders, Lewis, and

Thornhill (2009), this study uses a deductive approach, mixed methods as its

methodological stance, surveys and semi-structured interviews as its strategies, a

cross-sectional time horizon, both probability and purposive sampling techniques and,

finally, structural equation modelling (SEM) and thematic analysis as its essential

analysis techniques.

Figure 1.1: Overview of methodology (Saunders, Lewis and Thornhill 2011)

31

1.7. Structure of the Thesis

Chapter 1 provides the introduction and background to the topic and explains the

theoretical, practical and methodological rationale of the study. The next section

introduces the terms used in the study, and makes clear the research objectives,

research questions, research methods and the thesis structure, thereby providing a road

map of the research.

Chapter 2 describes the analysis leading to identification of the research gap by

conducting a systematic literature review. The review highlights the evidence

surrounding the importance of management in green building design. The focus of the

systematic literature review is to finalise the outcomes and critical areas on which to

focus in the following literature review.

Chapter 3 builds on the systematic literature review and provides a literature review

based on previously published studies related to environmental behaviours. The

literature review situates this study, linking Green HRM with the green building

domain. The literature review reports on the relevant theories that can be used to build

an understanding of the factors leading to the development of a conceptual framework

and the research hypotheses.

Chapter 4 discusses the methodology and highlights the justification behind choosing

a mixed-methods approach in the current research. This chapter describes the research

design, sampling techniques, analytical techniques and research instruments. The

chapter consists of two phases: the first phase discusses the methods used for collecting

and analysing the quantitative study, while the second phase discusses how the

qualitative approach was designed and used to collect the data.

Chapter 5 discusses the results from the analyses of, firstly, the quantitative data and,

secondly, the qualitative data. With regard to the quantitative data, descriptive

analysis, confirmatory factor analysis (CFA), common method bias (CMB) and

structural equation modelling (SEM), as various components of statistical data

analyses, were discussed. Based on the quantitative phase findings, the qualitative

results were then used to support the results and validate the study’s research questions.

Chapter 6 provides a discussion of the research findings from the data analysed in the

quantitative and qualitative phases. This chapter revisits the overall objectives and

33

1.8. Chapter Summary

This chapter discussed the introduction to this study, providing an outline of the

research. The chapter began by introducing the green building sector and provided the

backdrop of this research, including the rationale for using both Australia and India as

the research setting. This chapter outlined the rationale and provided the key terms

used in the study. Finally, the chapter provided a brief overview of the methodology,

concluding with the flow chart of the thesis. The next chapter describes the systematic

literature review and the identification of the gaps, with the aim of developing the

study’s conceptual framework.

34

Research Context and Gap Analysis using a Systematic Literature Review


This chapter provides a contextual background to green buildings, including the role

of stakeholders and the potential outcomes involved in green building design. The

chapter comprises two sections, the first of which provides an overview of green

buildings and a discussion about different types of green building certification.

Furthermore, the section describes the various stakeholders involved in green

buildings and elucidates the potential outcomes of green buildings. The second section

identifies a research gap by employing a systematic review of studies focusing on

productivity and well-being in green buildings to broaden the understanding of

management’s role. The focus of the systematic review is to explore the existing

literature on two significant outcomes of green buildings, namely, productivity and

well-being. The systematic literature review provides a clear research boundary for

this study.

2.2. Context of Green Buildings

Green buildings have grown in prominence in the built environment discipline to their

capacity to impact on the environment and on their occupants. It is critical to

understand the three interrelated issues associated with the effects of green buildings

(Eichholtz, Kok and Quigley 2010). The first issue is the products, such as materials,

the structure and the controls required to gain any kind of green building certification.

The second issue is related to people, that is, the stakeholders involved, such as

government, investors, architects, designers, engineers, tenants, owners, employers

and employees. The third issue is the processes or outcomes involved, such as

maintenance, performance and management. This section sheds light on these three

issues to understand how green buildings impact on their occupants and the extent of

their impact. Also discussed in this section are the context of green buildings, the

stakeholders involved and the potential of green buildings.

35

2.2.1. Defining Green Buildings

Widespread international interest is apparent in green building research due to the

capability of green buildings to encourage sustainability. Therefore, green building

projects are supported by governments, the built environment industry, private

companies and the general public (Zuo and Zhao 2014). When dealing with green

buildings, the term is often juxtaposed or interchanged with terms such as sustainable

buildings, high-performance buildings, energy-efficient buildings, low-carbon

buildings, high-quality buildings or intelligent buildings (Kozusznik et al. 2019a). In

this thesis, these terms are all referred to as ‘green buildings’. The definition of green

buildings (GBs) lacks clarity (Zuo and Zhao 2014). A green building is one that is

designed using carefully integrated structures and processes that minimise resource

use throughout the building’s life cycle (USEPA 2016). A green building is one that

has high indoor environmental quality (IEQ), maximises the use of daylighting, reuses

and recycles materials and minimises waste (Kibert 2016). Another definition by the

World Green Building Council (WGBC 2017) viewed green buildings as being able

to replace traditional buildings due to their significant capability to reduce carbon

emissions from construction activities. According to Dwaikat and Ali (2016), a green

building is an eco-friendly economic facility that uses a lesser amount of natural

resources to build and operate. Another definition of green building relates to those

buildings that are certified green by any green building certification body or

constructed and maintained according to any established guidelines irrespective of

whether it is a new, existing or renovated structure (Wener and Carmalt 2006). While

definitions may vary, they all conclude that any building that aims to be resource-

efficient and that stimulates a healthy ecosystem can be termed a green building.

2.2.2. Green Building Certifications

One of the standard qualifying criteria for a building to be “green” is based on some

form of rating. The emergence of green building certification started in 1990 with the

Building Research Establishment Environmental Assessment Methodology

(BREEAM) (Gowri 2004). In the last two decades, several green building rating tools

have become popular in some countries. Some of these green building certifications

include Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) in the United States

(USA), Promise in Finland, ECO-PRO in Germany, the Comprehensive Assessment

36

System for Built Environment Efficiency (CASBEE) in Japan, Athena in Canada, the

Hong Kong Building Environmental Assessment Method (HK BEAM) in China,

LEED India and Green Rating for Integrated Habitat Assessment (GRIHA) in India,

Green Star in South Africa and Green Star and National Australian Built Environment

Rating System (NABERS) in Australia.

The building code varies in different countries. As this study compares green buildings

in Australia and India, most of the discussion is based on comparing Green Star

(launched in 2003) or NABERS (launched in 2000) in Australia with LEED (launched

in 1993) rating tools in India. From the outset, the LEED and Green Star or NABERS

are not equivalent. However, in a hypothetical scenario, a Platinum LEED building

can be compared with a six-star Green Star building, a Gold LEED building with a

five- or four-star Green Star building, a Silver LEED building with a three-star Green

Star building and a certified LEED building with one-star or two-star Green Star

building (BRE 2008). The six-star building corresponds with world leadership, the

five-star building with Australian excellence, the four-star building with best practice,

the three-star building with good practice, the two-star building with average practice

and the one-star building with minimum practice (GBCA 2009). Similarly, the

NABERS rating is based on a five-star tool where a five-star rating means exceptional

building performance, a four-star rating is excellent and strong performance, a three-

star rating signifies very good current market best practice, a two-star rating means

average building performance and a one-star rating is for poor energy management or

obsolete systems (NABERS 2019). In professional practice, many of these

certifications award credits based on criteria, such as where the building is constructed;

the overall ecology of the construction site from inception until completion and at an

operational level; materials that are energy-efficient and water-efficient; and

minimising waste in terms of refrigerants and sewage. Some of the dimensions of this

suite of tools include recognising good IEQ that emphasises better use of daylighting,

external views, thermal comfort, fresh air circulation, reduced toxins and reduced noise

(Xiong et al. 2015; Altomonte et al. 2019; Arif et al. 2016; Steinemann, Wargocki and

Rismanchi 2017). Primarily, these tools measure the capacity to satisfy sustainability

requirements in the built environment with indicators for future development.

Although voluntary, stakeholders embrace these guidelines to promote and operate

their green building design strategy (Eichholtz, Kok and Quigley 2013). The extensive

37

research conducted on green buildings emphasises the technical dimensions in these

certifications as qualifying advantages of green buildings. The preferences and

behaviours of the individuals implementing these dimensions remain vague (Ding and

YifeiZou 2016).

2.2.3. Types of Stakeholders of Green Buildings

A strong business case is made for green buildings due to the development of best

practices and increased attention from various stakeholders owing to critical

environmental, economic and social benefits (Rashid, Spreckelmeyer and Angrisano

2012; Miller and Buys 2008). Hence, stakeholders are undeniably involved in

nurturing initiatives and transforming the market for promoting green buildings in the

built environment sector (Yang and Zou 2014; Kashyap and Parida 2017).

Stakeholders refer to the immediate users of green buildings on whom the impact of

these buildings is directly measured. Additionally, diverse other stakeholders are

involved, with their collaboration essential for realising the design and construction of

green buildings (Zhao et al. 2015; Richardson and Lynes 2007). Examples of external

stakeholders are investors, government, architects and designers, while examples of

internal stakeholders are tenants, employers and employees (Rashid, Spreckelmeyer

and Angrisano 2012).

2.2.3.1. Investors

The green building sector has prompted interest in investment in sustainable

construction. The drivers for investors rely on government incentives, financial

incentives, customers’ strategic decisions, environmental and energy certificates, and

national standards. The corporate-level drivers for investors constitute the

organisation’s image and corporate strategy towards sustainability. In terms of

property-level drivers, investors are attracted to green building investment due to the

reduced risks, low property price and increased rental price (Andelin et al. 2015). At

the present time, sustainable features alone in green buildings may not be bankable for

investors and thus other benefits, such as reduced operational costs or increased

occupancy rates, might attract investors (Feige et al. 2013).

38

2.2.3.2. Government

Governments are an essential stakeholder of green building design as they face

pressure to reduce the carbon footprint of the built environment (Cajias, Geiger and

Bienert 2012). The agendas of governments worldwide therefore promote mandatory

policies due to the urgency imposed by internal requirements and external market

conditions (Gou, Lau and Prasad 2013; Hwang and Tan 2012). In establishing the

acceptance of green design by broader society, governments have realised the

significance of productivity and well-being benefits (Zhang, Wu and Liu 2018;

Edwards 2006).

2.2.3.3. Architects, designers, engineers and contractors

As sustainable design principles have become an integral aspect of the construction of

green buildings, a close interaction between architects, designers, engineers and

contractors is necessary (Guenther and Hall 2007). The idea of incorporating features

in green buildings that will influence productivity and well-being is a big challenge

(Tam 2007). Therefore, architects, designers, engineers and contractors have become

integral stakeholders of contemporary architectural design (Hwang, Zhu and Ming

2016).

2.2.3.4. Tenants/employers/management

Due to changing regulations and the market demand for green buildings, tenants are

regarded as another key stakeholder, essential for the survival of the green building

business. However, tenants have limited understanding and interest in incorporating

sustainable initiatives (Miller and Buys 2008). The increasing property-level drivers

for tenants mainly involve reducing operational costs, such as increased energy

efficiency or decreased water usage in the buildings (Andelin et al. 2015).

Additionally, these tenants are often more driven to occupy green buildings to maintain

their branding in relation to social achievements. Internally, the benefits of green

buildings on employees’ productivity, reduced absenteeism, less sick leave, increased

employee satisfaction and improved well-being appear lucrative for tenants seeking to

establish their offices in green buildings (Feige et al. 2013; Day and Gunderson 2015).

39

2.2.3.5. Employees

A considerable shift is occurring towards conceptualising the performance of green

buildings from the context of sustainability to the role of occupants as active

stakeholders (Brown and Cole 2009). It can be argued that if occupants are not

provided with the awareness needed to use the green features of the green building,

the building will behave more like a traditional building. For example, the use of

daylighting and natural ventilation are related to improved mood and reduced stress,

as well increased energy efficiency of the buildings. However, the buildings’

performance and the overall productivity of occupants might not reach their full

potential when occupants are not aware of, or educated on, how to control natural

ventilation or the use of daylighting. In addition, many positive aspects of green

buildings may not be realised until building occupants utilise the building as it was

intended (Day and Gunderson 2015; Antonelli 2008).

2.2.4. Potential Outcomes of Green Buildings

Several criteria must be considered to evaluate the potential outcomes involved in

green buildings beyond simply sustainability. To date, the focus has widely been

towards technical dimensions, such as IEQ, as the reason for green buildings to be

more productive and healthier. However, these claims are not always justified

(Thatcher and Milner 2016). For example, while the fundamental meaning of

sustainability emphasises environmental, social and economic factors, the focus of any

green building certification has always been mainly on the environmental component,

to a significant extent ignoring the components of social and economic sustainability

(Lee and Guerin 2009). Nevertheless, key stakeholders of green building design are

seeking to balance economic decisions, environmental impacts and social commitment

(Cajias, Geiger and Bienert 2012; Walker, Salaga and Mercado 2016). To achieve an

in-depth understanding of these aspects, the potential outcomes for green building

design under the triple bottom line (environmental, economic and social) realm are

highlighted in the next subsection

2.2.4.1. Environmental aspects

The design of the green building has several environmental benefits. Overall, the green

building is fundamentally known for its capacity to reduce carbon emissions during its

40

life cycle, that is, from the construction stage, through the maintenance stage and then

to the operation stage. Extensive studies have been underaken on environmental

benefits such as resource efficiency and water efficiency (Zuo and Zhao 2014).

Moreover, features, such as the use of recycling and the reuse of energy, lead to green

buildings using less operational energy than traditional buildings and this accounts for

overall energy savings in these buildings (Agha-Hossein et al. 2013; Azar,

Nikolopoulou and Papadopoulos 2016). Moreover, green buildings behave more

efficiently than traditional buildings as their power is generated on site from

photovoltaics.

2.2.4.2. Economic aspects

In recent times, green building design has moved beyond simply emphasising

environmental sustainability on its own to a broader definition that also adopts the

economic and social aspects of implementing sustainability. The overall life cycle of

green buildings is associated with cost savings (Altomonte et al. 2019) which occur

due to reduced operational costs when buildings consume less energy (Shi et al. 2013).

Contemporary research on green buildings has shifted from the hard-cost economic

benefits from water, waste and energy efficiency in these buildings to intangible or

soft-cost economic benefits that occur due to improved performance in green buildings

(Day and Gunderson 2015; Hoffman and Henn 2008). Some examples that justify

these soft benefits include higher performance or productivity of occupants within the

context of schools, hospitals or offices (Hoffman and Henn 2008). For example,

occupants’ productivity is a significant parameter used to understand the economic

aspects of green building design as it is responsible for the overall operational cost

which comprises more than 90% of any organisation’s expenditure (WGBC 2017).

2.2.4.3. Social aspects

The inclusion of social sustainability in green buildings is gaining momentum (Jensen

et al. 2012). The social sustainability of green buildings includes occupants’ quality of

life, health, well-being and productivity outcomes (Zuo and Zhao 2014). Research

provides justification that the significant motivators for green buildings are not only

hard cost benefits (operating costs) but also soft cost benefits (improved performance

of building occupants) (Day and Gunderson 2015; Hoffman and Henn 2008). Overall,

41

these potential cost savings at the operational level are significant drivers for

employers to invest in green building design. Furthermore, they are equally significant

for building occupants as working in green buildings has several benefits, such as

increased occupant satisfaction, increased productivity, increased environmental

comfort and positive impacts on both physiological and psychological health (Day and

Gunderson 2015). Green buildings are designed to satisfy occupants’ behavioural,

psychological and social needs (Wener and Carmalt 2006) and, consequently, an

occupant’s behavioural choices can affect the effectiveness of green buildings. The

success of the green building largely depends not on the extent to which the designers

design as opposed to how the building behaves (Wener and Carmalt 2006). The

behaviours and interactions of occupants can impact on the overall energy efficiency

of a green building (Day and Gunderson 2015). While increasing attention is being

paid to sustainable building techniques, discussions on the psychological and

behavioural aspects of green buildings are still in the early stages (Wener and Carmalt

2006; Heerwagen 2000).

Seeking to understand the interrelated and multidisciplinary issues related to people,

products and processes in green building design (Brown and Cole 2009) is often

challenging. Post-occupancy evaluation (POE) tools, such as surveys, lack

mechanisms to link behaviourally and psychologically related issues to green building

performance (Brown et al. 2010). The building features of green building design are

generally linked to an intention to improve overall environmental quality. However,

linking the relationship of green building design to the building’s strategic

performance for the organisation is limited (Heerwagen 2000). Despite considerable

achievements in the environmental and economic aspects of green buildings, the social

dimension achievements are still in their infancy (Hoffman and Henn 2008). For

example, most studies on the performance of green buildings are conducted through

post-occupancy evaluations (POEs) which suggest that IEQ is conducive to the

occupant’s performance (Kamaruzzaman et al. 2011). The main reason is that

certifications, such as LEED, are known to impact positively on occupants (Rashid,

Spreckelmeyer and Angrisano 2012; Baird 2011).

The benefits of the social aspects of green building design can be characterised by

three levels of analysis (Cohen 2007). At the individual level, better health and

personal productivity gains are achievable. At the societal level, talent attraction is a

42

vital benefit. At the organisational level, productivity gains and well-being are

essential parameters of the social sustainability aspects of green buildings (Hong et al.

2017). Furthermore, Hong et al. (2017) highlighted that the state of the art of the social

sustainability of green buildings is an outcome best explored through the interventions

of owner-, tenant- or manager-level stakeholders on building occupants’ behaviour.

Likewise, as Roetzel and Chen (2016) pointed out, the occupants’ attitudes, and

subjective and perceived behaviour control are the social–psychological parameters

that influence occupants’ behaviour. The focus of this study is on the productivity- and

well-being-related issues in green buildings.

Enhancing productivity has a critical influence on the socio-economic performance of

green building design. Productivity is the ratio of output to input. Hwang, Zhu, and

Ming (2016) categorised management factors, apart from project factors, human

resource factors, external factors and technical factors, as factors that affect

productivity in the built environment. Measuring productivity is a challenging task and

is commonly conducted using quantitative data focusing on operational productivity

(Al Horr et al. 2016). However, subjective productivity is yet another approach to

measuring productivity with these subjective assessments generally conducted through

surveys based on occupants’ perceived productivity (Miller et al. 2009; Feige et al.

2013). Productivity is found to have a stronger correlation to the IEQ dimensions of

certified green buildings. However, many responses in self-assessment surveys linking

IEQ with productivity are overshadowed by the skewed nature of occupants’ responses

when made aware they are being tested (Byrd and Rasheed 2016). Self-assessed

productivity is a vital productivity measure as it also facilitates organisational

measures such as occupants’ social interaction, personal comfort and behavioural

outcomes (Miller et al. 2009). When occupants are provided with individual control

over their environment (Gou, Prasad and Lau 2014), research supports the linking of

self-assessed productivity with occupants’ satisfaction. Therefore, engaging

employees with the building design features can critically impact on their overall

satisfaction which can affect their job satisfaction.

Well-being can be regarded as an employee-related sustainability outcome of green

buildings (Hong et al. 2017). Within the spectrum of well-being, comfort can be

regarded as the intersection of purely quantifiable measures such as health and purely

qualitative measures such as happiness (Steemers and Manchanda 2010). Therefore,

43

employees’ comfort in green buildings can be regarded as a state of complete socio-

physical and socio-psychological well-being (Monfared and Sharples 2011; Al Horr

et al. 2016). Comfort as a well-being parameter can be complex as elements such as

cultural norms, social norms and personal preferences influence individual comfort

levels in green buildings (Day and Gunderson 2015). Regardless of the specific

parameters that influence comfort, at a broader level, socio-cultural measures can have

a greater impact on comfort than technical aspects. For example, Heerwagen and

Zagreus (2005) highlighted that occupants were more satisfied due to the

organisation’s culture despite experiencing thermal discomfort. Monfared and

Sharples (2011) also indicated that occupants were unwilling to make comfort-related

sacrifices to embrace an energy-efficient lifestyle in green buildings. Hence,

occupants’ satisfaction certainly involves more factors, such as behavioural

dimensions; therefore, human factors should be considered when assessing occupants’

well-being.

2.3. Gap Analysis using a Systematic Literature Review

In recent decades, the relevance of green building design has increased in areas of

performance, specifically that of employees’ well-being and productivity (Miller et al.

2009; Singh, Syal, Grady, et al. 2010; Eichholtz, Kok and Quigley 2010; Abbaszadeh

et al. 2006; Thatcher and Milner 2014). Employee well-being and productivity are

broad categories that include the impact of workspaces on occupants’ attitudes,

motivations and health (Kozusznik et al. 2019a). Despite the several years that have

passed since a human-centric design was identified as necessary, such a design has

failed to present a comprehensive picture of organisational responsibilities in the

development of productivity and well-being in green buildings (Rajaee, Hoseini and

Malekmohammadi 2019). To fill this gap, it is critical to understand past research on

the organisational influence on green building design to assist future professionals in

their practice (Briner, Denyer and Rousseau 2009). Procedures for systematic

literature reviews have made significant strides in evidence-based research, being

popularised in medicine to systematically and transparently reproduce, and provide

information on, results (Rousseau 2006; Denyer and Tranfield 2009). The use of

systematic literature reviews has been extended since the 1970s (Petticrew and Roberts

2008) to other fields, such as health care, humanities and education, for their potential

44

to portray the research in a systematic and transparent manner (Boaz, Ashby and

Young 2002; Davies 2000; Tranfield, Denyer and Smart 2003). Systematic literature

reviews were developed to make the evidence available to practitioners (Chalmers

1993). They function as a tool to systematically search the available literature, identify

key sources of evidence, analyse the body of knowledge and, ultimately, disseminate

the evidence for its potential effectiveness on a topic for practitioners (Higgins and

Green 2011). Studies incorporating systematic literature reviews have been popular in

recent years in the business discipline (Adams, Smart and Huff 2016; Bocconcelli et

al. 2016; Ellwood, Grimshaw and Pandza 2016; Klang, Wallnöfer and Hacklin 2014;

Nolan and Garavan 2016; Sheehan, Fenwick and Dowling 2010; Rowley and Keegan

2019). Considering the significant effect of the systematic literature review on driving

evidence-based research, the focus of the review in the current study is to understand

the importance of the human/social dimension in green building design which has

remained largely unanswered. Only limited evidence is available about the

interventions of organisations to influence employees’ productivity and well-being in

green buildings.

2.3.1. Steps in Study’s Systematic Literature Review

To complement existing reviews, this section discusses the evidence on the topic in

this field. The systematic review is a comprehensive literature review; however, the

findings in such a review are purposively more descriptive in order to understand the

core topics under examination. Therefore, the systematic literature review analysis is

mainly based on the articles that capture the themes emerging from the selected

articles. The objective of this systematic literature review was intentionally broad. Two

main interconnected streams of studies can be identified:

Management functions that can influence employees in green buildings, and

Performance outcomes that can be controlled by managers within organisations

located in green buildings.

Before beginning the systematic literature review, a review panel with a range of

expertise in methods and the research topic was formed (Tranfield, Denyer and Smart

2003). Practitioners with experience in green buildings were included to provide

adequate guidance for the review. The process of the systematic literature review was

analysed by the review panel through regular meetings. The inclusion or exclusion of

45

studies was finalised through a series of iteration and by review panel decisions. At its

beginning, a systematic literature review is an iterative process to define, clarify and

refine for further steps (Clarke and Horton 2001). The process of the systematic

literature review is replicable and transparent (Tranfield, Denyer and Smart 2003).

However, the emphasis for this study’s review was not on quantitative analysis, but

instead to provide broader concepts in order to understand organisational influences

on green building design and to identify areas where knowledge was still lacking.

The review methodology can be further divided into seven steps (Tranfield, Denyer

and Smart 2003). In the first step, this research identified keywords and, in turn, design

search terms from the keywords through a scoping study. In the second step, this study

then decided on the search strings relevant to the topic. The third step reported on the

search strategy in a detailed manner so the search could be reproduced in future. In the

fourth step, the study ensured that the final output of the search included full details of

articles (core contributions) selected in the systematic literature review. Consequently,

in the fifth step, studies meeting all the inclusion and exclusion criteria were included

in the review protocol. The literature review was scrutinised based on strict criteria set

to capture the best quality evidence in the sixth step. Considering the subjective nature

of decisions on articles based on inclusion and exclusion parameters, the final step of

this review ensured that it was conducted by more than one reviewer. Furthermore, the

reviewers resolved all disagreements internally.

2.3.2. Reliability of Inclusion and Exclusion Decisions and Quality Assessment

At the outset of this review, a team of five reviewers was established comprising:

(a) academics with a background in the built environment, health and business; and

(b) practitioners from the built environment. The reviewers examined and judged the

papers based on the standards set in exclusion and inclusion criteria. These standards

included a requirement to ensure that all articles in the review were grouped, using a

two-step procedure as suggested by Delgado, Quevedo, and Blanco (2015). Two

reviewers firstly analysed the full text of the articles separately. The main objective

for these reviewers was to find traces of management or organisationally related topics

addressed in the articles with a focus on green buildings. The two reviewers then

resolved their disagreements through discussing their perspectives on choosing the

articles with the rest of the reviewers. For example, during disagreement and/or doubt

47

Focus: does the study scrutinise the green culture factors in green buildings?

No relationship with managerial interventions to incorporate behavioural and cultural change in green buildings

Informal literature surveys with no systematic review process

Focus: do the articles identify sustainability practices aimed at improving behaviours to enhance productivity and well-being?

Papers not subject to peer review

Design: did the study utilise qualitative or quantitative data?

Intervention: does the study address the antecedents of behaviour intervention?

Outcome: does the article report on occupants’ attitudes and behaviours, green building productivity and well-being outcomes?

Grey literature, conference proceedings

2.3.3. Summary of Articles Analysed for Systematic Literature Review Process

These initial searches led to a long list of 301 papers. The performance outcomes

keywords identified 123 articles from Scopus, 134 from ProQuest, 18 from Business

Source Complete and 26 from ScienceDirect. The articles were sorted based on the

established criteria, with the reasons for inclusion or exclusion noted. The original title

and abstract screening comprised 221 papers. More papers were excluded as they were

either not relevant to the topic or not relevant to the context of office buildings.

Removing the duplicates left 121 documents for a full review. Seven articles could not

be retrieved to make the assessment. Thus, full copies were retrieved for a total of

114 articles. The next stage involved examining the quality of the articles in

accordance with the review panel. This process reduced the number to 84, with these

selected for a full text review. The 84 articles were scrutinised based on their

discussion and emphasis on management interventions. In total, 22 articles were

excluded as they did not relate to the topic of interest. Searches of the reference lists

of the selected articles were undertaken, using the inter-rater reliability Kappa statistic

of 0.96 to further select 27 articles for a full text review. An additional two articles

were suggested by the expert review panel based on these articles’ inclusion of

discussion on management-related topics in green buildings. Of the total 91 articles,

31 articles were found to be theoretical, the remaining 60 were empirical, 53 used

quantitative methods, four used mixed-methods approaches and three used qualitative

49

2.3.4. Human Resource Intervention Evidence in Green Building Performance

The analysis of the concepts underpinning the empirical and theoretical studies of the

influence of human resources in green building design focused on: (1) aspects that

management can influence in green buildings; (2) key organisational functions that

management can utilise; and (3) performance outcomes that management can control.

2.3.4.1. Evidence of potential areas that human resources managers can influence in green buildings

Existing studies identify the need to widen the current post-occupancy evaluation

(POE) methods to include behavioural and socio-psychological aspects (Menadue,

Soebarto and Williamson 2014; Brown and Cole 2009). According to Gibson (2008),

occupants’ behavioural orientation makes an unconscious link between the building’s

physical structure and the organisational performance outcomes. Therefore, some

articles focus on the need for the built environment to influence long-term employee

behaviours (Sadatsafavi and Walewski 2013; Hoffman and Henn 2008; Agha-Hossein

et al. 2013) to improve productivity (Smith and Pitt 2009; Baird 2011; Vischer 2008).

Much of the literature argues that awareness can cause behavioural change (Al Horr et

al. 2016) and behavioural adjustments (Baker and van Dijk 2008; Liang et al. 2014)

within the office environment. Additionally, it can be directly influenced by the social

context of the organisation (Cole, Bild and Oliver 2012; Tucker and Smith 2008; Day

and Gunderson 2015; Hoffman and Henn 2008; Inalhan 2009; Clements-Croome

2015; Kim and Augenbroe 2013). Socio-psychological studies link green buildings to

human roles in energy conservation (Azar, Nikolopoulou and Papadopoulos 2016;

Wener and Carmalt 2006). These studies include investigations on staff attitudes

towards sustainability (Zuo and MaloneBeach 2017; Deuble and de Dear 2012;

McCunn and Gifford 2012). Articles also reflect an organisation’s sense of promoting

employee attitudes through the theory of planned behaviour (TPB) (Ding and YifeiZou

2016; Walker, Salaga and Mercado 2016; Azar, Nikolopoulou and Papadopoulos

2016) through which management could effectively target changes in occupants’

behaviours (Hall 2014).

Among the vital behavioural aspects found in the articles were workers’ satisfaction

with the physical environment (Armitage, Murugan and Kato 2011; Singh, Syal,

Grady, et al. 2010; Thatcher and Milner 2012) that could reflect both social and

50

economic factors (Li et al. 2015). Overall satisfaction with features of the office

environment is shown by several studies to affect work productivity (Hedge, Miller

and Dorsey 2014) and user engagement (Monfared and Sharples 2011; Nieuwenhuis

et al. 2014). Some studies also indicate evidence of benefits, such as job performance

(Altomonte and Schiavon 2013; Newsham et al. 2013) and environmental

sustainability (Kato, Too and Rask 2009). Results from the review indicate the

interrelationship between satisfaction and comfort (Steemers and Manchanda 2010; Al

Horr et al. 2016; Ding and YifeiZou 2016; Brown et al. 2010). Although strong links

are evident between overall comfort and productivity (Leaman and Bordass 2007), the

social dimension of comfort includes the sense of belonging, ownership and control

over the workplace (Vischer 2008, 2007). From the business standpoint, if occupants

are provided with environmental control, benefits follow including an increased sense

of well-being (Steemers and Manchanda 2010) and satisfaction (Agha-Hossein et al.

2013; Day and Gunderson 2015; Leaman and Bordass 1999), as well as the lowering

of energy consumption (Steemers and Manchanda 2010; Hartkopf 1999; Clements-

Croome 2015).

Control of the building environment is designed to accommodate user engagement

(Brown, Dowlatabadi and Cole 2009) and comfort (Armitage, Murugan and Kato

2011), as well as responsiveness (Leaman and Bordass 2007) toward green features.

The notion of comfort and a satisfactory outcome can be achieved through enhanced

communication and dialogue (Cole 2005; Monfared and Sharples 2011). Several

instances of these management-initiated initiatives can be encountered in previous

studies, for example, psychology-informed discussions of well-being (Chappells

2010), the introduction of plants (Nieuwenhuis et al. 2014), or the convergence of

facilities management and human resources (Kaczmarczyk and Murtough 2002).

Although, as argued by Smith and Pitt (2011), it is clear that green building occupants

often feel better psychologically, research on these management issues is still in its

infancy.

In the systematic literature review undertaken, one study showed that green design

does not have a positive effect on employees’ engagement or behaviours (McCunn and

Gifford 2012). However, most studies confirm the value of user engagement (Inalhan

2009; Tucker and Smith 2008) in ongoing management of the building to achieve

carbon reduction targets (Thomas 2010), connection with the work (Smith and Pitt

51

2011) and reduced turnover (Miller et al. 2009). Employees’ engagement, in the form

of organisational commitment, is reported in several studies (Cajias, Geiger and

Bienert 2012; Hall 2014; Newsham et al. 2013; Sadatsafavi and Walewski 2013).

Factors, such as providing autonomy and job enrichment, can be used by management

to enhance the feelings of organisational commitment (McCunn and Gifford 2012).

This also implies that initiatives in green buildings are helpful in boosting staff morale

(Kershaw and Lash 2013) and inspire staff to consider sustainability outside their

office environment (Kato, Too and Rask 2009).

Another type of organisational commitment is associated with organisational identity.

Organisational identity, as a collective expression of organisational culture, is reported

in studies by Inalhan (2009) and Gibson (2008). Organisational identity can be

associated with occupants developing a self-identity with their green building (Kim,

Lim and Kim 2019). Furthermore, organisational identity is more likely to develop a

perception that a green building is an industry leader for sustainability.

Apart from a key branding strategy (Edwards 2006; Elmualim et al. 2010; Heerwagen

2000; Kato, Too and Rask 2009) to invest in green buildings, a company’s green

credentials also influence employees (Baird and Penwell 2012; Brown et al. 2010;

Clements-Croome 2015; Newsham et al. 2013; Sadatsafavi and Walewski 2013;

Thatcher and Milner 2016). Green buildings can be identified as a catalyst for

environmental and social performance, and one which management can use as a

powerful source for attracting potential employees (Andelin et al. 2015; Feige et al.

2013). There is no doubt, as identified by articles in this review, that green buildings

can be used by the organisation as a means of competitive advantage (Andelin et al.

2015; Richardson and Lynes 2007) by creating environmental awareness and a

positive organisational image among employees (Rashid, Spreckelmeyer and

Angrisano 2012).

2.3.4.2 Evidence from exploring key organisational functions

The results from the systematic literature review revealed that management could

focus on key areas to address behavioural barriers to green buildings. These functions

comprise communication, attraction and retention, rewards and team management, and

overall organisational culture.

52

2.3.4.2.1. Communication

Several papers argue that occupants’ environmental awareness of the building’s

environmental system could increase the energy consciousness of operations and that

this may influence comfort and productivity (Liang et al. 2014; Brown et al. 2010).

Studies emphasise that green awareness is more acceptable in Green Star buildings

when management focuses on the psychological and social mechanisms at the

organisational level (Rashid, Spreckelmeyer and Angrisano 2012; Cole, Bild and

Oliver 2012). Several studies reflect the need for appropriate communication between

building managers and employees to have an impact on greater IEQ control (Brown

and Cole 2009). This finding suggests developing education on sustainability

initiatives in green buildings (Miller and Buys 2008; Smith and Pitt 2011) and

involving employees in workplace decision making (Vischer 2007), thus mentioning

the design intent and making it clear to users (Leaman and Bordass 2007). Human

resource managers have the capacity to facilitate increased environmental knowledge

(Walker, Salaga and Mercado 2016; Kato, Too and Rask 2009; Baharum and Pitt

2009) and long-term behavioural action (Andelin et al. 2015; Azar, Nikolopoulou and

Papadopoulos 2016; Menadue, Soebarto and Williamson 2014) that motivate

employees to address environmental issues in green buildings (Hoffman and Henn

2008). The role of communicating building information (Tucker and Smith 2008) to

employees has been regarded as the responsibility of facility managers (Elmualim et

al. 2010; Hodges 2005). Evidence highlights that establishing energy priorities at the

briefing stage (Edwards 2006) or when staff are being trained (Hall 2014; Armitage,

Murugan and Kato 2011; Wener and Carmalt 2006; Hutchinson 2017) results in

greater satisfaction among employees with their physical environment (Day and

Gunderson 2015). These functions can be utilised by organisations to motivate their

employees. Human resources can thus influence culture (Campion et al. 2016), and

successful training can be identified as critical for successful workplace design (Cohen

2007).

2.3.4.2.2. Attraction and retention

Studies investigate the importance of green buildings for reducing staff costs

(Heerwagen 2000) and adding to the organisation’s competitiveness (Edwards 2006).

The association between green buildings and turnover rates is reported in many studies

53

(Clements-Croome 2015; Kato, Too and Rask 2009; Shafaghat 2015), emphasising

organisational success through effective attraction and retention of employees rather

than by increasing energy efficiency in green buildings (Brown et al. 2010). Workers’

retention rates in green buildings are linked to work engagement (Feige et al. 2013),

job satisfaction, organisational identity (Gibson 2008) and organisational image

(Gatewood, Gowan and Lautenschlager 1993). The most comprehensive studies

assessing retention report reduced absenteeism in the workplace (Armitage, Murugan

and Kato 2011; Clements-Croome 2015; Heerwagen 2000; Hodges 2005; Liang et al.

2014; MacNaughton et al. 2015; Singh, Syal, Grady, et al. 2010; Thatcher and Milner

2012; Xie, Clements-Croome and Wang 2017). Studies suggest that improvements in

the working environment are also likely to increase psychological well-being and

productivity through reduced absenteeism (Al Horr et al. 2016; Smith and Pitt 2011;

Thatcher and Milner 2014) as occupants are less likely to complain about the physical

workspace (Singh, Syal, Korkmaz, et al. 2010) due to increased satisfaction (Harrison

1992). Moreover, studies indicate that sustainable offices are increasingly viewed as

an attraction strategy (Cole, Bild and Oliver 2012; Miller and Buys 2008) that creates

more job opportunities (Liang, Shen and Guo 2015). Furthermore, the articles in this

literature review addressed the view that a company’s culture is significant in

addressing its sustainability agenda (Ries et al. 2006), as well as its socio-

environmental performance, with the potential to attract potential employees

(Heerwagen 2000). Examples of attraction and retention practices can be developed

(Kaczmarczyk and Murtough 2002) through management support (Miller et al. 2009;

Tucker and Smith 2008), particularly human resources management (HRM)

(Armitage, Murugan and Kato 2011; Baharum and Pitt 2009; Campion et al. 2016).

2.3.4.2.3. Rewards and team management

Studies also identify that energy-saving behaviours (Day and Gunderson 2015) or

environmentally friendly behaviours (Armitage, Murugan and Kato 2011) in green

buildings may be influenced by the firm’s reward system (MacNaughton et al. 2015;

Hoffman and Henn 2008) or goal setting (Day and Gunderson 2015). However, several

studies emphasise that the firm’s corporate culture of taking ownership of

environmental practices (Brown et al. 2010) or providing more organisational

flexibility (Loftness et al. 2009; Hartkopf 1999) in terms of flexible working

54

arrangements (Kaczmarczyk and Murtough 2002; Agha-Hossein et al. 2013) or remote

working (Cole, Bild and Oliver 2012) can redefine the environmental control

requirements in green buildings (Agha-Hossein et al. 2013). A few studies link the

energy consumption patterns (Azar, Nikolopoulou and Papadopoulos 2016) in green

buildings with how efficiently human resource managers supervise activities of their

staff (Shafaghat 2015). Apart from their manager’s supervision, a feedback

mechanism from employees could assist human resource managers in understanding

the changing behaviours in green buildings (Armitage, Murugan and Kato 2011; Day

and Gunderson 2015). Other key organisational practices, such as location, amenities

and the formation of green teams (Hoffman and Henn 2008), can be powerful in

boosting employee well-being and productivity in green buildings (Al Horr et al.

2016).

2.3.4.2.4. Organisational culture

In many articles (Clements-Croome 2015; Gibson 2008; Hall 2014), the significance

of the physical environment in organisational culture is found to be symbolic. Often

office design is affected by external factors influenced by organisational culture (Al

Horr et al. 2016). A potential link could occur between the importance of corporate

culture and occupants’ satisfaction, in that occupants involved with the building’s

sustainability features are more likely to resist any physical discomfort (Monfared and

Sharples (2011). A precise alignment is found between the social dynamics of the

organisation’s culture and physical workplace (Chappells 2010). This is significantly

influenced by the educational level of staff and management’s proactiveness (Baharum

and Pitt 2009), as well as by specific motivational initiatives, such as rewards

(Hoffman and Henn 2008), along with a transparent communication channel (Brown

et al. 2010). Rashid, Spreckelmeyer, and Angrisano (2012) argue that organisational

leadership can use green buildings to enhance corporate values internally (i.e., within

the organisation).

2.3.4.3. Evidence from systematic literature review investigating performance outcomes

The word “productivity” was incorporated in 61 articles, of which 2% showed no

association of employees’ productivity with green buildings. Behavioural elements in

55

green buildings comprise various behaviours and social dimensions in workplaces

(Dorsey and Hedge 2017) that affect occupants’ overall comfort and, ultimately,

influence office productivity (Al Horr et al. 2016; Miller et al. 2009; Kato, Too and

Rask 2009; Jensen et al. 2018a; Meir et al. 2019). In the articles in the systematic

literature review, green buildings’ environmental performance is found to have a well-

built link with productivity (Singh, Syal, Grady, et al. 2010; Wener and Carmalt 2006;

Thatcher and Milner 2014; MacNaughton et al. 2015; Hartkopf 1999; Armitage,

Murugan and Kato 2011; Shafaghat 2015; Mofidi and Akbari 2016; Hodges 2005;

Loftness et al. 2009; Baird and Penwell 2012; Agha-Hossein et al. 2013; Azar,

Nikolopoulou and Papadopoulos 2016; Leaman and Bordass 2007; Clements-Croome

2015; Hutchinson 2017; Liang, Shen and Guo 2015; Menadue, Soebarto and

Williamson 2014; Thomas 2010; Ries et al. 2006; Campion et al. 2016; Andargie and

Azar 2019; Kozusznik et al. 2019a). It is argued that the dimension of behaviours in

environment management in green buildings includes intangible benefits and,

therefore, should be part of organisational measures within green offices (Miller et al.

2009).

The concept of productivity in green buildings in these articles has a broader scope in

the discussion (Newsham et al. 2013; To, Lee and Lam 2018). Organisational-level

productivity (Feige et al. 2013) is understood to be measured by environmental support

for task performance (Kershaw and Lash 2013; Vischer 2008; Newsham et al. 2019).

Furthermore, some articles highlight productivity with employee well-being within

green buildings (Cohen 2007; Chappells 2010; Ding and YifeiZou 2016). Productivity

is found to improve when employees have personal control of the building’s green

features (Thatcher and Milner 2014) and this results in greater employee satisfaction

(Thiel et al. 2014; Zuo and MaloneBeach 2017; Hedge, Miller and Dorsey 2014;

McCunn and Gifford 2012; Vischer 2008; Cole, Bild and Oliver 2012; Jensen et al.

2018a). Business management systems should contribute to the productivity of the

organisation and facilitate new and improved ways of working (Harrison 1992;

Leaman and Bordass 2007; Andelin et al. 2015). Some organisational functions that

articles suggest include: key performance indicators (KPIs) (Tucker and Smith 2008);

creating and increasing awareness (Al Horr et al. 2016); initiatives to attract workers

(Byrd and Rasheed 2016); and initiatives to retain workers (Kaczmarczyk and

Murtough 2002; Miller et al. 2009). Organisational support also involves human

57

9. Baharum and Pitt (2009)

*

10. Baird (2011)

11. Baird and Penwell (2012)

* *

12. Baird and Thompson (2012)

13. Brown and Cole (2009) *

14. Brown et al. (2010) * * *

15. Byrd and Rasheed (2016)

16. Cajias, Geiger and Bienert (2012)

17. Campion et al. (2016)

* *

18. Chappells (2010) * 19. Clements-Croome

(2015) *

*

20. Cohen (2007)

21. Cole, Bild and Oliver (2012)

*

*

22. Day and Gunderson (2015)

* *

23. Deuble and de Dear (2012)

24. Ding, Wang and Zou (2016)

*

*

25. Dorsey and Hedge (2017)

*

26. Edwards (2006) * * * * 27. Esfandiari et al. (2017) * 28. Elmualim et al. (2010)

29. Feige et al. (2013) * * * * 30. Gibson (2008)

*

31. Hall (2014) * * * * 32. Harrison (1992) *

* *

33. Hartkopf and Loftness (1999)

*

* *

34. Hedge, Miller and Dorsey (2014)

*

35. Heerwagen (2000) * * * * 36. Hodges (2005) *

37. Hoffman and Henn (2008)

*

38. Hutchinson (2017) *

*

39. Inalhan (2009)

* *

40. Issa, Rankin and Christian (2010)

*

41. Jensen et al. (2018b) * * 42. Kaczmarczyk and

Murtough (2002)

* *

58

43. Kato, Too and Rask, A. (2009)

* * * *

44. Kershaw and Lash (2013)

* *

*

45. Kim and Todorovic (2013)

*

*

46. Kozusznik et al. (2019b)

* *

47. Leaman and Bordass (1999)

*

*

48. Leaman and Bordass (2007)

49. Leaman, Thomas and Vandenberg (2007)

50. Li et al (2015)

*

51. Liang et al. (2014) *

52. Liang, Shen and Guo (2015)

*

53. Loftness et al. (2009) *

*

54. MacNaughton et al. (2015)

*

55. McCunn and Gifford (2012)

*

*

56. Melchert (2007)

57. Menadue, Soebarto and Williamson (2014)

*

58. Meir et al. (2019) *

59. Miller and Buys (2008)

60. Miller et al. (2009)

61. Mofidi and Akbari (2016)

62. Monfared and Sharples (2011)

* *

63. Newsham et al. (2019) * * *

64. Newsham, Veitch, and Hu (2018)

* *

65. Newsham et al. (2013) * * *

66. Nieuwenhuis et al. (2014)

* * *

67. Parida and Brown (2018)

68. Rashid, Spreckelmeyer and Angrisano (2012)

* *

69. Richardson and Lynes (2007)

*

70. Ries et al. (2006)

71. Sadatsafavi and Walewski (2013)

* * *

72. Shafaghat et al. (2015) * * * * 73. Singh et al. (2010)b

* *

74. Singh et al. (2010)

* *

59

75. Smith and Pitt (2009)

* * 76. Smith and Pitt (2011) *

* *

77. Steemers and Manchanda (2010)

*

78. Thatcher and Milner (2012)

* *


*

*


* *

81. Thiel et al. (2014) *

*

82. Thomas (2010) *

83. To, Lee and Lam (2018)

* *

84. Tucker and Smith (2008)

*

85. Vischer (2007) * * * * 86. Vischer (2008) * * *

87. Walker et al. (2016) *

88. Wener and Carmalt (2006)

*

*

89. Xie, Clements-Croome and Wang (2017)

* * *

90. Xuan (2018) *

91. Zuo and MaloneBeach (2017)

* *

Total=91 51 26 50 19

2.3.4.3.1. Environmental performance dimension

Studies that investigate a fundamental understanding of green building performance

around efficiency in energy, resources or water, as well as healthy staff, are scarce

(Ding and YifeiZou 2016; Kozusznik et al. 2019a). However, many studies in this

systematic literature review listed energy efficiency as a measurable outcome of green

buildings (Agha-Hossein et al. 2013; Azar, Nikolopoulou and Papadopoulos 2016;

Issa, Rankin and Christian 2010; Kershaw and Lash 2013; Thiel et al. 2014; Thomas

2010; Zuo and MaloneBeach 2017; To, Lee and Lam 2018; Esfandiari et al. 2017;

Parida and Brown 2018; Dorsey and Hedge 2017; Xuan 2018; Walker, Salaga and

Mercado 2016; Richardson and Lynes 2007). Moreover, green buildings are linked to

environmental performance at the operational level (Andelin et al. 2015; Clements-

Croome 2015; Hartkopf 1999; Heerwagen 2000; Liang, Shen and Guo 2015; Xie,

Clements-Croome and Wang 2017) through life-cycle assessment (Jensen et al.

2018a). Environmental performance can be understood at an individual level

60

(MacNaughton et al. 2015); for example, organisations can communicate with, and

motivate, employees to be environmentally friendly (Armitage, Murugan and Kato

2011; Kato, Too and Rask 2009; McCunn and Gifford 2012; Vischer 2008).

The systematic literature review found that environmental performance can be linked

to organisational and operational performance (Kim and Todorovic 2013) as well as

to improving well-being (Newsham et al. 2019), satisfaction (Smith and Pitt 2011) and

greater environmental awareness (Liang et al. 2014). Evidence from this review

suggests that individuals’ environmental expectations are satisfied by providing them

with adequate environmental control (Brown and Cole 2009; Cole, Bild and Oliver

2012; Day and Gunderson 2015; Edwards 2006; Feige et al. 2013; Harrison 1992;

Loftness et al. 2009; Steemers and Manchanda 2010; Thatcher and Milner 2014).

Personal control can be argued to bring psychological sense-making through

empowerment (Brown et al. 2010; Vischer 2007). Typically, HRM’s contribution to

better energy efficiency (Baharum and Pitt 2009; Hodges 2005; Leaman and Bordass

1999) could be achieved through imparting individual learning and feedback

(Hutchinson 2017) and influencing through rewards (Hoffman and Henn 2008). They

can also change psychological processes (Wener and Carmalt 2006), such as

occupants’ engagement with green identity (Monfared and Sharples 2011), and

increasing environmental satisfaction (Newsham et al. 2013) and personal

commitment to sustainability (Hall 2014). Accountability for environmental

performance by organisations is being demanded by external stakeholders, such as

design professionals (Brown and Cole 2009; Thatcher and Milner 2014).

Organisations need to consider buildings in their sustainability strategies due to

buildings’ potential for environmental pollution (Rashid, Spreckelmeyer and

Angrisano 2012) and as a reflection of building owners’ reputation (Liang, Shen and

Guo 2015). Additionally, studies indicate that the organisation itself plays a significant

role in bringing a sustainability agenda to the business (Edwards 2006; Heerwagen

2000; Miller and Buys 2008). This sustainability agenda is brought through, by

example, supporting new energy products (Ding and YifeiZou 2016) or supporting

energy efficiency through the complete building life cycle (Xie, Clements-Croome and

Wang 2017; Zuo and Zhao 2014; Jensen et al. 2018a). The organisation supports its

green building as one of the strategies contributing to its growth (Kim and Todorovic

2013) while maintaining energy efficiency (Hartkopf 1999; Shafaghat 2015; Thiel et

61

al. 2014). The environmental proactivity of an organisation can be highlighted by its

leaders’ commitment to sustainability (Elmualim et al. 2010; Vischer 2008; Hall 2014;

To, Lee and Lam 2018) and environmental responsibility (Cajias, Geiger and Bienert

2012; Kozusznik et al. 2019a). The higher level of engagement (Brown et al. 2010) by

senior managers is a critical component of successful green projects (Richardson and

Lynes 2007) such as: green power (Kato, Too and Rask 2009); selecting sustainable

building materials (Hoffman and Henn 2008); establishing environmental policies

(Baird and Penwell 2012); intending to meet current regulations (Kershaw and Lash

2013); minimising its impact on the environment (Smith and Pitt 2011); formulating

good green practices (Baharum and Pitt 2009); establishing a green task force (Walker,

Salaga and Mercado 2016); and continuing to believe in training staff to be green

(Armitage, Murugan and Kato 2011) to obtain internal support (Hodges 2005).

2.3.4.3.2. Organisational performance dimension

Organisational culture and the image of green buildings (Brown et al. 2010) increase

the psychological aspects (Edwards 2006) of workers’ environmental likes and

dislikes (Vischer 2007). Healthy and green buildings lead to better job performance

among employees (Clements-Croome 2015; MacNaughton et al. 2015; Cole, Bild and

Oliver 2012; Kozusznik et al. 2019a; Esfandiari et al. 2017) which translates into

firms’ performance (Sadatsafavi and Walewski 2013; Feige et al. 2013). Evidence was

found in the systematic literature review that organisational initiatives, such as a

flexible working environment or personal control of the environment (Harrison 1992;

Heerwagen 2000), provide greater satisfaction (Armitage, Murugan and Kato 2011;

Altomonte and Schiavon 2013) and well-being (Zuo and MaloneBeach 2017).

Workspace support often leads to enhanced work-related tasks (Vischer 2007; Kato,

Too and Rask 2009) and team effectiveness (Vischer 2008). A positive link between

green buildings and work engagement includes social aspects such as quality of life

(Edwards 2006); physical aspects such as a comfortable workplace and quality of life

(Brown et al. 2010; Xie, Clements-Croome and Wang 2017; Thomas 2010);

psychological aspects such as a reduced rate of depression (Singh, Syal, Korkmaz, et

al. 2010) and a stimulating workplace (Kershaw and Lash 2013); and organisational

aspects such as learning and development (Smith and Pitt 2011). The review

highlighted that organisations operating in green buildings are significant drivers for

62

communicating knowledge about the space (McCunn and Gifford 2012), thus

enriching employees (Nieuwenhuis et al. 2014) to turn more attention to their job

performance due to their workplace (Shafaghat 2015).

At a broader level, it is equally enriching for occupants to work in a psychologically

comfortable environment (Nieuwenhuis et al. 2014; Feige et al. 2013). Occupants

experience a sense of ownership and commitment (Vischer 2007) towards the

workspace leading employees to feel excited (Singh, Syal, Grady, et al. 2010) or to

take pride (Kato, Too and Rask 2009) in their organisation. They are more attached

(Brown et al. 2010; Edwards 2006) to their organisation, have a positive opinion of

their organisation (Kershaw and Lash 2013; Campion et al. 2016) and identify (Inalhan

2009; Andelin et al. 2015; Gibson 2008) themselves with their organisation. The deep

patterns of organisational meaningfulness are essential for productivity (Hall 2014)

and help to retain employees (Heerwagen 2000; Xie, Clements-Croome and Wang

2017; Vischer 2008). The organisation’s culture (Monfared and Sharples 2011), such

as training (Day and Gunderson 2015) and participation, influence energy use and

decrease resistance to change (Baird and Penwell 2012), thus generating extra-role and

in-role performances (Sadatsafavi and Walewski 2013) from employees.

2.3.4.3.3. Employee performance

Satisfaction in workplaces can have a direct association with employees’ job

satisfaction and indirectly impacts on organisational commitment (Baird and Penwell

2012; Cajias, Geiger and Bienert 2012; Hall 2014; Rashid, Spreckelmeyer and

Angrisano 2012). Both job satisfaction and organisational commitment contribute to

the overall well-being of employees. Organisations operating in green buildings show

responsibility for the environment (McCunn and Gifford 2012): this increases

employees’ loyalty (Kato, Too and Rask 2009), morale (Vischer 2007) and

commitment (Armitage, Murugan and Kato 2011) to the organisation (Newsham et al.

2013) as well as to its broader sustainability agenda (Kershaw and Lash 2013).

Evidence shows that job satisfaction (Newsham et al. 2013; Vischer 2008; Andargie

and Azar 2019; Kozusznik et al. 2019a; Esfandiari et al. 2017) can be considered as

another social well-being indicator (Baird and Penwell 2012; Chappells 2010; Feige

et al. 2013). Job satisfaction is significantly influenced by overall comfort within green

buildings (Agha-Hossein et al. 2013; Campion et al. 2016; Menadue, Soebarto and

63

Williamson 2014; Nieuwenhuis et al. 2014; Newsham et al. 2013) and user satisfaction

with the physical environment (Hall 2014; Smith and Pitt 2011; Thatcher and Milner

2012). Occupants in green buildings who are satisfied and comfortable with their

environmental conditions are found to be more productive (Ding and YifeiZou 2016;

Hedge, Miller and Dorsey 2014; Kaczmarczyk and Murtough 2002; Shafaghat 2015;

Xie, Clements-Croome and Wang 2017). The self-reported job satisfaction is largely

due to their personal control (Kato, Too and Rask 2009) to adjust their tolerance within

the environment and to involve themselves through organisational planning

(Armitage, Murugan and Kato 2011; Tucker and Smith 2008; Li et al. 2015).

Overall, strong evidence was found that well-being at work (Clements-Croome 2015;

Sadatsafavi and Walewski 2013; Singh, Syal, Grady, et al. 2010; Loftness et al. 2009),

and particularly emotional well-being (Kim and Todorovic 2013), psychological well-

being (Singh, Syal, Korkmaz, et al. 2010; Edwards 2006) and social well-being (Wener

and Carmalt 2006), improves in a green building (Thatcher and Milner 2014). The

reason is that organisations located in green buildings appear to be communicating

their employees’ responsibilities for the environment (Cole, Bild and Oliver 2012;

McCunn and Gifford 2012) and to treat their employees as benefits rather than costs

(Heerwagen 2000). Design features facilitating workplace tasks also boost employee

satisfaction (Newsham et al. 2019). Through this systematic literature review, a strong

relationship is shown between employees’ environmental comfort and psychological

needs that can potentially enhance employees’ task performance (Kershaw and Lash

2013; Nieuwenhuis et al. 2014). Additionally, several studies support the view that the

relationship between workspace and tasks was found to improve productivity (Vischer

2007; Leaman and Bordass 1999; Shafaghat 2015). As a result, employees are excited

about their work (Singh, Syal, Korkmaz, et al. 2010; Hartkopf 1999; Kato, Too and

Rask 2009), are motivated (Esfandiari et al. 2017) and are better engaged (Smith and

Pitt 2011; Hall 2014; Edwards 2006). Consequently, it is evident that employees will

be less likely to change jobs (Feige et al. 2013).

2.3.5. Research Agenda Emerging from the Systematic Literature Review

In summarising the systematic literature review, the findings suggest that the

assessment of the interventions of management or HR in enhancing employees’

productivity and well-being remain under-researched. Despite well-established

64

empirical evidence from investigations on productivity and well-being in green

buildings, the systematic review of the literature indicated that the relationship of

management interventions to increased productivity and well-being emerges less

clearly. Most studies focus on sustainable building techniques rather than discussing

the psychological, social and behavioural factors that impact on sustainability.

Nevertheless, the articles consider that the implementation of green building design to

its full potential requires the involvement of different stakeholders, for example,

architects, facility managers, designers, engineers, government, organisations and

management (Xie, Clements-Croome and Wang 2017; Ding and YifeiZou 2016; Smith

and Pitt 2011; Heerwagen 2000; Hutchinson 2017). In the articles being reviewed, it

was found that training, environmental awareness, leadership, job satisfaction,

organisational identity, employee engagement, environmental attitudes, behaviour and

social support are leading indicators that provide justification for HR to take on the

role of fostering the level of environmental engagement among employees in green

buildings. The green agenda and green performance or corporate social responsibility

(CSR) (Liang, Shen and Guo 2015) are specific components of a key agenda for

employers. These green practices can bridge the gaps between the hard and soft costs

of green buildings (Singh, Syal, Korkmaz, et al. 2010). Organisations are increasingly

shifting from the notion of “occupants” to “inhabitants” (Cole, Bild and Oliver 2012).

In this regard, the systematic literature review provides evidence that non-technical

factors can affect the performance of employees working in green buildings

(Clements-Croome 2015; Menadue, Soebarto and Williamson 2014; Hoffman and

Henn 2008; Gibson 2008). The findings from the study are clear: the psychological

and socio-cultural contexts (Chappells 2010; Wener and Carmalt 2006; Thatcher and

Milner 2012; Liang, Shen and Guo 2015; Kim and Todorovic 2013; Shafaghat 2015;

Kato, Too and Rask 2009) in greening the workplace are massive (Armitage and

Murugan 2013). Thus, HR issues should be considered in designing a sustainable

workplace (Smith and Pitt 2011; Elmualim et al. 2010; Li et al. 2015). Integrating

organisational values to evaluate performance related to social, environmental and

financial activities should be imperative for different stakeholders of green buildings

(Andelin et al. 2015; Leaman and Bordass 1999; Cohen 2007; Issa, Rankin and

Christian 2010).

65

The interrelationship between design and HR in green buildings is often determined

by the control that influences employees’ beliefs and adaptive capacity to their

workplace (Steemers and Manchanda 2010; Al Horr et al. 2016; Edwards 2006). The

involvement of employees by HR managers at the organisational level makes them

less resistant to change in the physical environmental of green buildings (Baird and

Penwell 2012; Brown et al. 2010). While Vischer (2007) highlights that empowering

employees is a form of environmental control that increases employees’ participation,

Azar, Nikolopoulou, and Papadopoulos (2016) suggest the use of the TPB to influence

occupants’ behaviour in green buildings. This might include company policies, but not

building-related factors. Examples include improving environmental awareness

(Rashid, Spreckelmeyer and Angrisano 2012); providing training on how to operate in

a green building (Hall 2014; Thatcher and Milner 2014); educating employees

(Baharum and Pitt 2009); providing feedback on energy-saving behaviour (Day and

Gunderson 2015); engaging in the organisation’s green identity (Monfared and

Sharples 2011); promoting collaborations among co-workers (Zuo and MaloneBeach

2017); job design that impacts on comfort (Feige et al. 2013); green procurement

practices (Armitage, Murugan and Kato 2011); supporting key programs such as

recycling (Hodges 2005); providing compensation (Ries et al. 2006); and increasing

organisational flexibility to meet employees’ requirements (Hartkopf 1999), all of

which have the potential to improve employees’ behaviour (Walker, Salaga and

Mercado 2016; Kershaw and Lash 2013; Vischer 2008) and attitudes (McCunn and

Gifford 2012; Deuble and de Dear 2012). From this perspective, HR capability can be

strongly associated with tracking sustainability behaviours and attitudes in green

buildings (Xie, Clements-Croome and Wang 2017; Cajias, Geiger and Bienert 2012;

Heerwagen 2000; Sadatsafavi and Walewski 2013; Loftness et al. 2009; Richardson

and Lynes 2007). Interventions by HR improve the retention of key workers (Singh,

Syal, Grady, et al. 2010; Harrison 1992) and thus align with organisational objectives

(Tucker and Smith 2008).

In summary, the systematic literature review highlighted three aspects to advance the

current research. Firstly, one of the major findings from the systematic review was the

apparent lack of any empirical studies exploring the physical work environment. Also

lacking were research trends or studies on how physical environment research

priorities on the interventions of organisations or management could facilitate the

66

person–environment fit to ensure higher productivity and well-being among

employees working in green buildings. However, an emphasis was found on the nature

of management’s influence as a discipline in design science (Sawang and Kivits 2014).

Hence, instead of focusing on specific outcomes such as ‘productivity’ and ‘well-

being’, the current study focused on the broader term ‘performance’ as an outcome.

Secondly, the results from the systematic review clearly indicate that key

organisational processes such as training, awareness, education and feedback can

assist in resolving the socio-psychological issues in green buildings. These processes

can be categorised under the broader umbrella of HR functions called Green HRM

(Renwick, Redman and Maguire 2013) that focuses on environmental as well as

human dimensions. Thirdly, despite a growing interest in the control of occupant

behaviour to realise the full potential of key performance outcomes in green buildings,

a specific theoretical framework is lacking that could provide such an explanation as

a basis for collecting empirical data. It is necessary to incorporate a theory, such as the

TPB, that could be used to explain management’s influence in predicting

environmental behaviours that foster the person–environment fit in green buildings.

The next section focuses on developing the current research objectives and research

questions based on the findings from the systematic literature review.

2.3.6. Research Objectives and Questions

The primary aim of this study is to explore management’s impact on performance in

green buildings. This study is inspired by Heerwagen's (2000) conceptualisation of

human factors that can be integrated into green building design to achieve overall

organisational effectiveness. This study also aims to explore the human factors through

Green HRM practices that impact on employees’ workplace behaviours that could

ultimately influence key performance outcomes in green buildings. The research

objectives are as follows:

RO1: To review the existing evidence on the role of management in green building

design

RO2: To develop the dimensions of performance outcomes in green buildings that

management can influence.

RO3: To identify the management practices improving employees’ behaviours in

green buildings

67

The first objective is to comprehend the current research on management interventions

in green buildings. To bridge the gaps in the literature, this study is designed to

recognise past evidence of the role of management in green building research. To

understand the phenomenon, this study requires an indication of current and past

research to capture key performance in green buildings. This was done earlier in the

current chapter.

The second objective is to illustrate the performance metrics that Green HRM can

influence. The study expands the scope of analysis beyond the much-discussed

productivity and well-being issues. The range of performance outcomes is finalised

based on the capability of management to influence occupants’ behaviours.

The third objective is aimed at addressing the major practices and the nature of HRM

in green buildings to better understand occupants’ behaviours. Given the limited

research on the association between Green HRM and green buildings, there is not

enough knowledge about the nature of HRM in green buildings. This study aims to

explore the influence of Green HRM practices to improve employee workplace

environmental behaviours.

Based on the research objectives, this study addresses three broad research questions

to contribute to a better understanding of the role of management in developing

performance in green buildings.

RQ1: What is the influence of management in enhancing the benefits resulting

from green buildings?

RQ2: What are the various types of performance outcomes that management can

improve in green buildings?

RQ3: Which specific management practices improve employees’ behaviours and

performances in green buildings?

2.4. Chapter Conclusion

This chapter discussed the contextual background of the current study. The meaning

of green buildings and their related stakeholders were discussed to help provide an

understanding of the potential outcomes of green building design. The systematic

literature review validated the view that addressing the behavioural requirements of

68

management and employees is essential for improved performance in green buildings.

The research objectives were finalised based on the results from the systematic

literature review. Based on the discussion from this chapter, the next chapter discusses

the relevant literature on improving performance outcomes through management

interventions, and particularly HR interventions, in green buildings.

69

Literature Review


This chapter aims to review the extant literature on the influence of green buildings on

performance within the realm of HR interventions. The systematic literature review,

as described in the previous chapter, identified key research gaps in the knowledge

about how green building studies address interventions by management in green

building design. Firstly, the systematic literature review was useful in narrowing down

the scope of this research to performance outcomes rather than specifically to

productivity and well-being. Secondly, the systematic literature review also

highlighted vital management practices that addressed psychological barriers to green

buildings. This provides a pathway for HRM practices that emphasise environmental

management. Thirdly, one of the systematic literature review’s significant findings

was the absence of a conceptual framework and, hence, a lack of empirical support to

justify the importance of interventions by management in green buildings. The

literature review in this chapter builds on the systematic literature review and primarily

focuses on developing the conceptual framework for this study. Existing theories on

environmental behaviours are explored, and the theory of planned behaviour (TPB) is

adopted in seeking to understand occupants’ behaviours in green buildings. The

concept of Green HRM is introduced to examine the capability of interventions by

management to drive performance in green buildings. Subsequently, a conceptual

model with several hypotheses is developed.

3.2. Need for Environmental Behaviour in Green Buildings

Every building works explicitly or implicitly based on how occupants behave and

respond (Day and O'Brien 2017). Similarly, the overall environmental benefits of

green buildings depend on occupants’ behaviours (Wener and Carmalt 2006). The

physical aspects of the building provide facilities and space in which to live and work.

Hence, these buildings are designed to accommodate the behavioural, social and

psychological needs of occupants. Therefore, it is important to understand and predict

what activities are required to realise the full potential of green building design. From

the technical perspective, engineers and designers ensure that energy and waste are

minimised. Specific human behaviour essentially determines the efficient use of these

70

resources (Wener and Carmalt 2006). However, specific cognitive and behavioural

issues limit the technical and economical solutions provided by green buildings

(Hoffman and Henn 2008). For example, occupants might save energy when they are

actually inside the building. As Day and Gunderson (2015) stated, when energy usage

is recorded as higher during non-working hours, this is probably due to employees

leaving lights and equipment on even after finishing work. In another example,

occupants make behavioural choices to maximise their personal comfort by using

unnatural light sources instead of natural daylighting sources for which the building

was designed (Wener and Carmalt 2006). These examples are part of occupants’

behavioural issues that significantly shift the efficiency of green buildings. The lack

of interactions by occupants with the green features of green buildings is often affected

by their lack of knowledge and information about the buildings (Day and Gunderson

2015). Some researchers have tended to build their understanding of these issues

through occupants’ responses in which they rate their satisfaction through behavioural

feedback (Heerwagen 2000).

For any designer, occupants’ satisfaction and health are compelling drivers for

informed decisions. However, the most significant roadblock in considering an

occupant behaviour strategy in sustainable design solutions is the enormous inter-

individual differences between occupants (Wang et al. 2018; Cena and De Dear 2001;

Haldi and Robinson 2011). The perceptions and, hence, the behaviour of occupants

are likely to be highly variable and unpredictable. This is the main area of concern,

and designers often complain that they cannot achieve good environmental quality

because they cannot control each occupant’s behaviour (Paul and Taylor 2008). From

this perspective, the occupant-oriented design process is a debated topic, especially

when designers may not be taking into consideration the preferences and needs of

every occupant. When employees working in their offices are not in control or

responsible for their environment, they are more stressed (Paul and Taylor 2008).

Hence, their performance, such as productivity and well-being, at work might be most

affected. Following this line of argument, employees’ environmental behaviour at the

workplace should incorporate both in-role and extra-role performance as a

contribution to and creation of value for organisations (Ramus and Steger 2000).

However, employee behaviours for predicting performance are largely dependent on

the organisation’s initiatives and practices (Paillé and Mejía-Morelos 2014).

71

3.3. Existing Practices for Performance Measurement of Green Buildings

The most popular way to scrutinise the performance of green buildings is based on

measuring their operational performance. Post-occupancy evaluation (POE) is a

widely accepted method used by researchers to collect data on the operational

performance of buildings (Roberts et al. 2019; Geng et al. 2019; Li, Froese and Brager

2018). This form of evaluation identifies the building’s actual performance by

systematically evaluating the operational issues gathered from residents (Zimring and

Reizenstein 1980; Preiser, White and Rabinowitz 2015; Birt and Newsham 2009). In

the POE method, both objective and subjective data on performance are collected. The

objective data consist of measuring each occupant’s space and actual energy utilisation

rate (Cohen et al. 2001; Bordass et al. 2001; Nicol and Roaf 2005). The subjective data

are collected from occupants’ perceptions of their level of satisfaction with buildings’

physical factors such as thermal comfort, indoor air quality and daylighting (Li, Froese

and Brager 2018; Geng et al. 2019). The POE measures the physical environment and

users’ health and satisfaction which are based on buildings’ physical parameters such

as office layout, workspace, and thermal and air quality (Van Dick et al. 2004). The

objective of POE surveys is to scrutinise the performance of buildings during and post-

construction (Hadjri and Crozier 2009). The POE includes procedures that address the

improvement of end-user’s requirements, management activities, communication of

design guides and maintenance of formal regulations.

The POE’s current nature lacks the capability to include occupants’ behavioural, social

and psychological measures that can impact on the overall performance of green

buildings (Brown and Cole 2009). At first, it may seem that technical elements

substantially impact on behaviours; however, for green building practices to be

adopted, environmental literacy must be addressed (Hoffman et al. 2015). In this

regard, Wu et al. (2017) argued that technical sustainability is insufficient without

behavioural sustainability which is needed to understand and evaluate critical

performance in green buildings. Indeed, separation from the technical measurement of

buildings may identify important physiological, social and behavioural issues among

occupants in green buildings (Wener and Carmalt 2006). A shift from the physical

environment is required, moving from occupants’ behaviour and more to examining

the social context that determines human behaviour (Byrd and Rasheed 2016; Zhao et

72

al. 2015). Management has the potential in green building design to not only provide

their awareness about green buildings but also their understanding of the impacts that

green buildings have on occupants’ behaviours (Xue, Gou and Lau 2016; Wu et al.

2017). This human factors’ aspect contributes to a new perspective on current studies

related to post-occupancy evaluation (POE).

3.4. Human Connection to Green Building Design

Organisations are challenged to achieve a fine balance between technology and

financial requirements, while also reducing their overall impact on the environment

(Shrivastava 1995). For an environmentally driven organisation, the corporate

reputation of having a responsible business while also gaining competitive advantage

are vital (Daily and Huang 2001). Hence, the current research suggests that these

elements must co-exist in green building design. The World Commission of

Environment and Development (WCED) (1987), in the Brundtland Report,

acknowledges the combination of all three aspects of sustainability: profit, people and

the planet. In this view, organisations and green buildings are highly dependent on

each other to be successful. The bidirectional relationships in green ergonomics

suggest that buildings benefit occupants in ways such as improved comfort and well-

being. Moreover, occupants conserve and restore energy efficiency by adhering to

buildings’ life-cycle considerations and recycling initiatives (Hedge and Dorsey

2013). Despite the various benefits of green buildings, their promotion is restricted due

to issues related to socio-psychological factors rather than to those that are technical

and financial (Rajaee, Hoseini and Malekmohammadi 2019). Therefore, green

buildings and organisations together must be treated as one entity from the outset when

relating to employee performance improvement in green buildings (Heerwagen 2000).

With green buildings gaining in popularity in built environment studies, organisations

located in these green buildings are now embracing “green” culture through

employees’ behaviours that are streamlined by organisational initiatives (Brown et al.

2010; Hoffman and Henn 2008; Li et al. 2014). This contemporary integration of green

workplaces with green workspaces through human connections offers sustainable

living practices and shapes the immediate environment (Inalhan et al. 2010).

Consequently, employees are not only more motivated in their work but also

effectively express a feeling of pride in the building where they work (Kato, Too and

73

Rask 2009). From the perspective of human motivation for sustainability, green

practices are now receiving increased attention in the organisational management

literature (Heerwagen 2000). One might expect management scholars to be concerned

with individual, group and organisational outcomes in organisations. Management

could also be associated as a primary catalyst in research that explores how office

environments affect worker outcomes. However, scholars have not paid much

attention to integrating management’s importance with physical design (Pfeffer 1998).

Although some discussion has occurred within the sociological literature regarding the

need to consider the physical environment (Pfeffer 1998), apparently no empirical

studies have validated how physical design prioritises the contribution of management

to improve the effectiveness of spaces. The systematic literature review presented in

the previous chapter also highlighted this lack of empirical support.

Management can have an impact on green buildings in numerous ways. At the project

level, management can influence the green building certification process (Li et al.

2011; Aaltonen et al. 2013; Zhao, Hwang and Lee 2016) and provide specialised

training opportunities to engage employees (Steinberg et al. 2009; Ahn, Pearce and Ku

2011). At the company level, management can monitor energy efficiency from the

facility management perspective (Aaltonen et al. 2013; Warren 2010; Brown,

Dowlatabadi and Cole 2009). However, the discrepancies between a building’s

intended performance and its actual performance due to occupants’ behaviour

recognises the vital responsibility of management at the employee level. The social,

psychological and behavioural barriers to green building implementation can, to a

large extent, be addressed at the employee level (Hoffman and Henn 2008). It can be

argued that over 80% of all organisational change programs fail during implementation

(Beer and Nohria 2000). The blame for this level of failure, as found by researchers

and many professionals, is that workplace culture is more reactive than proactive

(Doherty and King 2003; Todnem By 2005). Even when all the requirements to

achieve the change are identified and addressed, implementing change becomes a

critical part of any organisational culture. The responsibility to control behaviour is

often referred to facilities management in green buildings (Hadi and Halfhide 2011;

Lo, Peters and Kok 2012a) and not to human resources management (HRM). Within

green buildings, facilities management is held responsible for handling the operations

aspect (Mokhtar Azizi, Wilkinson and Fassman 2014; Valle and Junghans 2014; Rock

74

et al. 2019). However, it can be argued that implementation to achieve behavioural

outcomes in a green building occurs at the employee level through a proactive strategy

that can only be fostered by human resources (HR).

It is important to comprehend the impact of green buildings within the HR realm

compared to that based on strategic performance (Heerwagen 2000). When involved

in green buildings, HR channel outcomes concerning human factors, whereas strategic

performance focuses on the organisation’s overall business performance, such as

environmental performance, corporate image or employees’ performance. Given that

the adoption of a “green and competitive” mantra as an aspect of organisational culture

demands behavioural changes, the current study proposes that the capacity of green

buildings is realised if employee resources undergo constant development. The focus

of this study complements the argument of Bowen and Ostroff (2004) on how certain

HR practices can be linked to the firm’s performance and, consequently, to competitive

advantage.

3.5. Green Human Resource Management (Green HRM)

Given the presence of technological advancement in energy efficiency in businesses,

such as green buildings (Gupta and Sharma 1996; Kok, McGraw and Quigley 2011),

it is unsurprising that innovations in management related to environmental

sustainability have witnessed steady growth. Almost every field from marketing,

logistics and the supply chain through to accounting and retailing are introducing new

ideas to promote a company’s eco-responsibilities (Zoogah 2011; Haberberg and

Rieple 2001). However, even with the increased focus on organisational context as a

critical element in innovation (Bessant et al. 2005), HRM has not been centrally

involved in firms’ environmental management initiatives. The most significant

challenge of HR in implementing sustainability is to incorporate employees’

environmental altruism into their behaviours or attitudes (Collier and Esteban 2007;

Zibarras and Coan 2015; Unsworth, Dmitrieva and Adriasola 2013). However,

strategic human resource management (SHRM) theorists believe that a firm’s HR are

instrumental in developing the skills, behaviours and interactions of that firm’s

workers during any formulation and implementation of strategy (Colbert 2004; Garcia-

Carbonell, Martin-Alcazar and Sanchez-Gardey 2015; Uysal 2013). The potential for

75

incorporating HR into environmental management objectives of any organisation is

due to their capacity to translate any sustainability policy into practice (Hersey 1998).

Green human resource management (Green HRM or GHRM) is defined as the HR

aspects of environmental sustainability (Renwick et al. 2016). De Prins (2011), in his

four approaches to sustainable HRM, accurately described Green HRM as the planet

component of the triple bottom line that focuses on developing green competencies

inside organisations. Milliman (1996) suggested that elements of HR should be linked

to environmental management, such as providing a guide to the organisation’s

sustainability vision, training employees to achieve this vision, evaluating employees’

environmental performance and encouraging employees’ sustainability activities

through a reward system. Green HRM was found to be supported in studies based on

corporate social responsibility (CSR) (Jackson et al. 2011; Wagner 2011); green

supply chain management (Longoni, Luzzini and Guerci 2018); strategic HRM (Yong

and Mohd-Yusoff 2016); and various performance outcomes (O'Donohue and Torugsa

2016; Siyambalapitiya, Zhang and Liu 2018).

Based on SHRM, an organisation’s HR can be instrumental in developing the

behaviours and interactions of employees as being fundamental to any strategy

formulation and strategy implementation (Colbert 2004). The current study argues that

implementing Green HRM could re-emphasise the routine protocols of sustainable

practices in green buildings. This argument aligns with the view of many scholars

(Daily and Huang 2001; Russo and Fouts 1997; Schroeder 2013; Haddock-Millar,

Sanyal and Müller-Camen 2016; Guerci and Carollo 2016) that the scope of

environmental sustainability needs to be widened from the existing paradigm of

creating environmental protocols to a more state-of-the-art approach, such as HR

involvement. Several studies have argued that when green consciousness is included

in workplace culture, the organisation’s adaptability to any change improves

(Shrivastava 1995; Saeed et al. 2019; Tang et al. 2018). Jabbour, Santos, and Nagano

(2010) contended that HR can be a driver of environmental sustainability.

Although the Green HRM concept is gaining attention from both academic and

practitioner perspectives, the role of HR in organisational environmental sustainability

remains under-researched. Renwick, Redman, and Maguire (2013) added that Green

HRM guarantees benefits at organisational and individual levels. Although

76

sustainability is a pivotal topic (Wilkinson, Hill and Gollan 2001) in business research,

sustainability’s nexus with HR is the most pressing theoretical challenge, with many

researchers (Ehnert 2009; Inyang, Awa and Enuoh 2011; Zoogah 2011; Aggerholm,

Andersen and Thomsen 2011; Renwick et al. 2016) agreeing that this concept has

received little attention from their counterparts. The success of Green HRM in

implementing the organisation’s environmental management (EM) objectives can be

achieved by employees’ extra-role behaviours rather than by enforcement (Collier and

Esteban 2007). Studies in SHRM have discussed the need for HR to influence

employees’ attitudes and behaviours. While sustainability practices can be based on

the alignment of policies and processes with the organisation’s green strategies, Green

HRM can display a high level of cohesion to bring about behavioural changes.

Replication by other organisations may be difficult as innovative HR functions are

developed by HR managers to accomplish their organisation’s environmental

solutions, and this is linked to behavioural change (Schroeder 2013).

As Green HRM is associated with employees’ environmental performance and the

facilitation of an environmentally oriented organisational culture, aspects of Green

HRM can be utilised to evaluate performance in green buildings. Furthermore, Green

HRM can also serve as a medium through which employees will adopt green practices

in green buildings (Saeed et al. 2019). While the literature has proposed that HR have

a significant role in promoting a green business approach, the principles and programs

that would underpin a successful Green HRM strategy in green buildings remain

unclear as does whether such a strategy can provide key performance outcomes in

green buildings. This study intends to investigate the integration of Green HRM and

green buildings.

3.5.1. Green HRM Initiatives

When it comes to incorporating an organisational change, a proactive and planned

process can generate maximum results (Weldon 2000). Green HRM initiatives,

practices or functions are regarded as a planned and continuous process (Sawang and

Kivits 2014). Green HR initiatives can be planned for medium-term objectives as well

as for long-term objectives to implement the organisation’s sustainability agenda

(Maxwell 1997). The change towards greener HR initiatives helps organisations to

find an alternative solution to minimise costs without compromising the quality of the

77

workplace for employees. The adoption of green HR practices could also reduce

product costs (Sawang and Kivits 2014). Hence, the organisation should ensure that

the HR department incorporates green practices in an appropriate manner (Boselie,

Paauwe and Jansen 2001). For example, HR professionals in organisations could guide

middle-level and lower-level managers to implement strategies related to the

environment (Sathyapriya, Kanimozhi and Adhilakshmi 2013). Some HR-level

functions that could be used to nurture environmentally friendly behaviour (Kim et al.

2019) among employees in green buildings could include recruitment, induction,

selection, performance management, training and rewards.

3.5.1.1. Green recruitment, selection and induction

Green recruitment practices focus on the inclusion of environmentally oriented

individuals in the workforce (Jabbour, Santos and Nagano 2010; Arulrajah, Opatha

and Nawaratne 2015; Mandip 2012). These practices include green job descriptions,

eco-friendly locations, a paperless recruitment process and asking environmentally

related questions in interviews to ensure candidates have an understanding of the green

culture. Recruiting environmentally oriented candidates is useful for the organisation

as it can more easily educate, train and develop these staff in relation to the

organisation’s sustainable processes (Grolleau, Mzoughi and Pekovic 2012; Renwick

et al. 2016; Ramasamy 2017; Dumont, Shen and Deng 2017; Zubair and Khan 2019).

For example, new recruits working in green buildings should be aware of the basics of

environmental management (Jabbour 2011) and, therefore, they would be more likely

to effectively use the features of green buildings.

Moreover, recruits who are already passionate about working in green buildings can

incorporate a sense of commitment to effectively using green processes. Therefore,

attracting this kind of candidate might emphasise the organisation’s brand image and

assist it in creating a reputation of being a green employer (Ullah 2017; Arulrajah,

Opatha and Nawaratne 2015; Bangwal and Tiwari 2015). Consequently, the

organisation has a higher chance of retaining employees after induction. Furthermore,

during induction, new employees are made aware of the general requirements related

to green buildings which include information necessary for working in green buildings

(Likhitkar and Verma 2017; Uddin 2018). Induction can focus on specific job-related

78

requirements such as their environmental responsibilities and the safety requirements

in that job (Renwick, Redman and Maguire 2013).

3.5.1.2. Performance management, including green key performance indicators (KPIs)

Performance management is an important Green HRM practice which examines

realistic and long-term environmental performance at the organisational level (Ashraf,

Ashraf and Anam 2015; Kim et al. 2019). Measuring green performance in green

buildings is vital for the success of these buildings. Therefore, the green performance

of employees must be included as a key criterion in the existing performance

evaluation system (Arulrajah, Opatha and Nawaratne 2015). The most common forms

of performance management processes are environmental management systems

(EMSs) and environmental audits (Wehrmeyer 2017). With an environmental

management information system (EMIS), the resources and energy usage of green

buildings by their occupants can be monitored. The success of employee-related

performances can be used to evaluate the performance of managers (Renwick et al.

2016; Uddin 2018; Mandip 2012). The environmental auditing process could assist in

providing reports on the overall environmental performance of organisations in green

buildings. For proper functioning of green buildings, having an inherent green culture

at a corporate level is critical. This must include addressing environmental incidents,

concerns and policies through to examining the company’s performance management

system (O'Donohue and Torugsa 2016; Jackson et al. 2011). Regardless of

performance standards at the corporate level, open communication about key

performance indicators (KPIs) must be provided to all employees (Renwick, Redman

and Maguire 2013). Therefore, the HR department has the responsibility of setting

green targets and goals for the other departments in order to examine green incidents

and enhance behaviours within the scope of their operations. In addition, regular

feedback would help to accomplish the overall environmental objectives in order to

enhance environmental performance.

3.5.1.3. Green training

Training and development focusing on the organisation’s environmental requirements

are other important processes in Green HRM (Pinzone et al. 2019). Green training

79

emphasises developing the required skills and knowledge to implement corporate-

level environmental management (Zoogah 2011; Zubair and Khan 2019). The

alignment of green training has been found to be critical in reducing the deterioration

of resources efficiency in organisations (Jackson 2013). This training can be provided

to employees at operational and managerial levels (Jabbour and de Sousa Jabbour

2016). Training can range from encouraging recycling and managing waste to

supporting flexibility in terms of time and commuting, from conducting workshops

providing environment-related details to environment-related education to incorporate

attitudinal and behavioural change among employees, and to sharpening skills to

handle related environmental issues (Ramus and Steger 2000; Ramus 2002; Gosling

et al. 2016; Jackson et al. 2011). Further green training and development activities can

include training managers to analyse a green workspace, ensure safety and resource

efficiencies are maintained at the employee level, train for future leaders and to retrain

for green-collar jobs trending in the market (Renwick et al. 2016; Gosling et al. 2016;

Urbaniak 2017; Renwick, Redman and Maguire 2013). In green buildings, appropriate

education, training and development are necessary to achieve the targeted

environmental performances of offices located in the building. For this, organisations

must take their environmental training needs analysis, gaps and opportunities more

seriously (Teixeira et al. 2016). Indeed, the relevance of Green HRM with green

buildings in the green building context must be established as the HR department has

the capacity to develop the people and behavioural competencies of employees in

green buildings.

3.5.1.4. Green reward management

The awarding of rewards and compensation are proposed as robust processes to

encourage employees’ environmental behaviour (Daily and Huang 2001;

Govindarajulu and Daily 2004; Mandip 2012; Bangwal and Tiwari 2015; Renwick,

Redman and Maguire 2013). In this regard, the achievement of desirable

environmental behaviour among employees is dependent on rewards. The rewards

emphasise attracting, retaining and motivating skilled employees to develop new skills

and competencies to satisfy and align with the organisation’s sustainability objectives

(Teixeira et al. 2016; Yong and Mohd-Yusoff 2016; Deshwal 2015). The rewards can

consider the contributions of individual employees to reflect the organisation’s broader

80

corporate commitment towards the environment (Teixeira, Jabbour and de Sousa

Jabbour 2012). Green reward management can be financial and non-financial. For

some organisations, incentives, a competitive salary and bonuses based on employees’

appraisal ratings can be awarded for good environmental behaviour (Liebowitz 2010;

Margaretha and Saragih 2012). Moreover, certain lifestyle benefits such as vouchers,

‘perks’ and gifts can be used to recognise employees’ contributions to environmentally

sustainable behaviours. However, financial rewards can be challenging when

evaluating environmental behaviours (Fernández, Junquera and Ordiz 2003;

Arulrajah, Opatha and Nawaratne 2015; Opatha and Arulrajah 2014). Therefore, non-

financial rewards, such as awards, honours and prizes as well as identifying

employees’ contributions to the public platform can also enhance their motivation to

contribute to the organisation’s environmental performance. The expectations and

associated benefits from these rewards, appropriately tailored to green skills in the

organisation, must be communicated (Ramus 2002; Deshwal 2015). Thus, green

rewards and compensation form a part of the HRM processes that help to develop a

green culture within offices located in green buildings.

3.5.2. Green HRM Intervention’s Role in Influencing Workplace Environmental Behaviour in Green Buildings

According to Heerwagen (2000), HR can be linked to financial outcomes, such as

productivity, or operational costs in green buildings can be linked to stakeholder

relationships and business outcomes, such as innovation and efficiency at work.

Efficient workspaces are advantageous for employees and for organisations as

employees gain awareness which enhances their ability to be educated and informed

and to do their job efficiently, making them more productive in the workplace which

enhances organisational effectiveness (Åmo 2006). In contrast, if employees recognise

that their organisation does not value their well-being, they may not be enthusiastic

about undertaking the activities needed to achieve specific organisational goals. In the

green building context, the sustainability design features to achieve well-being are not

sufficient on their own but, with occupants’ behaviour and attitudes in responding to

the building design, the organisational culture is more significant. Hence, this study

argues that an organisation’s management, in particular HR, can impact on employees’

‘Green signatures’ comprising their green decisions and green behaviours (Zuo and

Zhao 2014). Indeed, introducing new knowledge and information changes cognitive

81

behavioural patterns. For example, green messages defining green ideas, when

embedded in the building, can create awareness among occupants that they work in a

green building; therefore, their behaviours towards the green building changes (Wu et

al. 2017).

This research argues that management is critical in influencing employees’ behaviours

in green buildings. Significant performance outcomes are primarily determined by key

practices of management that facilitate the cognitive, emotional and behavioural

dimensions in an organisation (Jackson et al. 2011). Some researchers have argued

that crucial practices, for example, HR intervening functions, such as training,

recruitment or performance appraisal, could influence the overall work environment

(Patterson, West and Wall 2004; Zacharatos, Barling and Iverson 2005) by influencing

employees’ skills, competencies and motivation (Elorza et al. 2016; Macky and Boxall

2007; Messersmith et al. 2011). Therefore, promoting green practices and initiatives

in the workspace may be likely to increase productivity and well-being in green

buildings. In practical terms, it is still debatable whether green buildings can add value,

such as productivity and well-being, while ensuring resource efficiency (Kozusznik et

al. 2019a). On that note, HR processes can be planned proactively to achieve

workplace performance through social and psychological processes in green

workspaces (Mishra, Sarkar and Kiranmai 2014; Jiang et al. 2012). Furthermore,

Green HRM policies and practices can be used by different organisations to impact on

employees’ perceptions of their workplaces, thereby indirectly impacting on

employees’ behaviours (Dumont, Shen and Deng 2017). Thus, Green HRM practices

can influence employees’ behaviours which might assist in the promotion of

sustainability processes, job quality and performance factors.

3.6. Overarching Frameworks for Workplace Environmental Behaviour

In environmental psychology, conceptual frameworks that predict environmental

behaviours and identification of the interventions that influence these behaviours are

continuously sought. A wide range of frameworks has been developed, along with

related variables predicting environmental behaviours. Thus, to minimise the

complexity, this section seeks to bring together some of the most relevant theories,

such as social identity theory (SIT) and the theory of planned behaviour (TPB), into

an integrated framework that could help to generate relevant variables to understand

82

workplace environmental behaviours in green buildings. Furthermore, these theories

could elaborate on how relevant variables interrelate, directly determining

environmental behaviours in green buildings, have a mediation effect and predict key

performance outcomes.

3.6.1. Social Identity Theory

Social identity theory (SIT) explains that employees identify, feel proud and generate

intergroup behaviours when they are associated with organisations with a positive

vision, and socially relevant values, reputation and brand (Tajfel et al. 1979; Dutton,

Dukerich and Harquail 1994; Maxwell and Knox 2009). This theoretical paradigm

suggests that the internal and external attributes of value-driven organisations are

likely to influence employees to generate self-concepts in regard to their relationships

with these organisations (Ashforth and Mael 1989). The linkage of employees’ social

identities with these positively valued organisations is a significant factor in their self-

concepts (Benkhoff 1997). These associations of employees based on SIT provide the

foundation of employees’ extra-role behaviours in organisations. According to Shen

and Benson (2016), employees are likely to exhibit a very high level of commitment

to generate these extra-role behaviours. As a result, employees put extra efforts into

achieving their organisations’ objectives through their extra-role behaviours (Balfour

and Wechsler 1996).

The conceptual development of SIT helps to advance the understanding of ongoing

relationships between organisations and their employees’ behaviours. Carroll and

Shabana (2010) provided an example of how organisations involved in CSR not only

create an external brand, but also the positive reputation gained builds organisational

identification among employees. Furthermore, several scholars (Peterson 2004;

Ashforth and Mael 1989) showed the association of an organisation’s image with

organisational commitment. According to the study conducted by Brammer,

Millington, and Rayton (2007), employees with a positive perception of an

organisation’s social values, such as CSR, are likely to be highly committed to that

organisation. These outcomes are based on employees attempting to examine the

organisation’s actions and practices that address social norms (Dimaggio and Powell

1983).

83

Employee outcomes, such as organisational identification, associated with an

organisation’s positive social values can generate key behaviours of employees that

can accelerate the development of their self-identity (Ashforth and Mael 1989). This

relationship between self-identity predicting behaviours is supported by several studies

(Carmeli, Gilat and Waldman 2007; Chen et al. 2013). Similarly, by using SIT,

employee behaviours in environmental management activities can be understood

(Yen, Chen and Teng 2013). Given that this study seeks to utilise the concept of Green

HRM to understand employees’ behaviour in green buildings, SIT would explain how

Green HRM could encourage employees to participate in green behaviours. According

to Shen, Dumont, and Deng (2018), SIT suggests that Green HRM has the capacity to

influence green behaviours that eventually result in various workplace outcomes.

Further, social exchange theory (SET) (Gouldner 1960; Blau 1964) explains this

exchange relationship between organisational support and employee outcomes. Hence,

the current study uses SIT coexisting with SET as a conceptual theory to explain how

Green HRM can influence employees’ behaviours in green buildings. Based on SIT,

an overarching theoretical framework is suggested. The next section explores key

behavioural models that can elaborate on performance outcomes in green buildings.

3.6.2. Types of Behavioural Models

Understanding human behaviour is a complicated task. The fundamental requirement

for this study was to focus on the behaviour–environment congruence in green

buildings with the supportive role of Green HRM leading to specific performance

outcomes in green buildings. The study sought to identify the behavioural models that

could support SIT’s and SET’s argument linking organisational activities and

behaviours.

Theoretically, routine behaviours are persistent as these behaviours are shaped by

practice. Moreover, these routine practices change a planned behaviour (Verplanken

and Roy 2016) into a new habit (Kurz et al. 2015) and become intrinsic (Steg and Vlek

2009). The repetitive nature of environmental behaviours can be found to influence

employees when monitored (Van Den Bergh, Ferrer-i-Carbonell and Munda 2000).

From this perspective, critical organisational interventions can convert environmental

behaviours into habits that can ultimately provide key performances in green buildings.

These habits are more likely to become part of employees’ extra-role behaviour.

84

Organisational interventions can support employees’ habits by creating greater

awareness. This line of argument is supported by (Stern et al. 1999) ‘attitude–

behaviour–context’ (ABC) model that links with green behaviours. According to the

model, behaviour (B) is correlated to attitudes (A) when under the influence of

contextual factors (C). Contextual factors refer to a range of influences such as social

norms, regulations, etc. Thus, in the context of workplace environmental behaviours

in green buildings, a conceptual framework becomes relevant that acknowledges the

dimensions of organisational practices as contextual factors and attitudes.

Based on Stern et al.’s (1999) ABC model that incorporates organisational initiatives

to predict behaviours, Triandis (1977) proposed the theory of interpersonal behaviour

that included facilitating conditions as antecedents of behaviour. According to

(Triandis 1977), facilitating conditions are a stronger predictor of behaviours than

intentions. The reason is that, even though right intentions exist, without a supportive

environment, the resulting behaviour is non-existent. These facilitating conditions can

be enablers for the performance of a particular behaviour (Milhausen, Reece and

Perera 2006). Facilitating conditions are situationally related constraints that enable

behaviour to be undertaken with ease (Chatterton 2016). In the green building context,

this study seeks to incorporate the concept of Green HRM as comprising facilitating

conditions that influence workplace environmental behaviour leading to performance

outcomes.

ThØgersen (1995) further proposed that facilitating conditions refer to opportunities

to perform a particular behaviour through the motivation–opportunities–abilities

(MOA) model. This model’s distinctive aspect is that it includes behaviours and

contextual factors or facilitating conditions integrated within a single model

(Almutawa, Muenjohn and Zhang 2016). This integration can be used to predict the

environmental behaviours of employees through organisational initiatives. This

feature of linking situational factors to workplace environmental behaviours and

motivations from the MOA model is useful in developing this study’s model.

Furthermore, the MOA model is resourceful in including HR bundles for key

performance outcomes (Demortier, Delobbe and El Akremi 2014). According to

(Guagnano, Stern and Dietz 1995), the ability (A) component of the MOA model

supports related environmental behaviours. The influence of situational factors is more

likely to be a precondition to workplace environmental behaviours (Cheng, Hu and

85

Zhou 2019). Based on the MOA model, (Unsworth, Dmitrieva and Adriasola 2013),

the current study proposes using Green HRM as motivation-enhancing HR practices

to address environmental behaviours. The MOA model can correspond to part of the

popular theory of planned behaviour (TPB) (Obeidat, Mitchell and Bray 2016).

One of the conventional theories investigating workplace environmental behaviours is

the theory of planned behaviour (TPB) (Ajzen 1991). Various researchers have

supported the TPB as a well-established model to support workplace environmental

behaviours, such as environmental activism (Fielding, McDonald and Louis 2008);

recycling (Nigbur, Lyons and Uzzell 2010; Chan and Bishop 2013); food waste

reduction (Graham-Rowe, Jessop and Sparks 2015); and energy-saving behaviour

(Webb et al. 2013). The TPB predicts behaviours based on three core constructs. The

first core construct is individual attitudes toward a particular behaviour. Individual

attitudes are concerned with the desirable outcomes of behaviours (Fishbein and Ajzen

1975). The second core construct is subjective norms that include social pressure from

reference groups to perform a behaviour. Subjective norms are considered as standards

or customary codes of behaviour approved or disapproved by a specific group of

people. The final construct in the TPB is perceived behavioural control (PBC) which

explains the extent to which an individual attempts to perform that behaviour. In many

instances, PBC refers to perceptions of behaviour control. According to the TPB, these

three core constructs predict specific behaviour (Ajzen 2011). Moreover, the TPB

strongly influences an organisation’s commitment to environmental management

(Fishbein and Ajzen 1975). In the green building context, the TPB is a vital framework

to consider when predicting workplace environmental behaviours. The behaviours of

occupants and the acceptance of green building technology can also be explained by

the technological acceptance model (TAM). According to Fred, Richard, and Paul

(1989), individuals accept the use of any technology when external factors support

them. The TAM is adapted from the TPB in predicting the acceptance of new

technologies by employees as well as the role of organisations in streamlining the

process (Rajaee, Hoseini and Malekmohammadi 2019). The prior research further

added that occupants’ ease at adopting green building technology is based on

knowledge of the technology and trust in organisational initiatives. This perspective

also provides evidence that links organisational initiatives or practices with

86

behaviours. The TPB as a fundamental theoretical framework is explained extensively

in Section 3.7.

This study aimed to identify Green HRM as organisational practices that influence

workplace environmental behaviours. Developing a conceptual model for workplace

environmental behaviours, including Green HRM interventions leading to

performance in green buildings, is, no doubt, seeking to address a complex

phenomenon. This study integrates a major conceptual perspective of Green HRM to

predict behaviours. Schuler and Jackson (1987) proposed the role of behaviour theory

in predicting behaviours. Within this view, HR initiatives can be utilised by

organisations to support key behaviours by delegating roles to specific individuals

depending on the organisation’s strategy. The success of HRM is dependent on how

efficiently the expectations of a particular behaviour are communicated, and how the

corresponding performance is examined (Frederiksen 1988). Thus, Green HRM is a

mechanism to facilitate employees’ workplace environmental behaviours that

constitute interdependent roles and not only respond to the organisation’s

environmental demands but also contribute to achieving key environmental objectives.

In green buildings, employees in specific roles, such as being part of the green team,

could have clarity about what specific behaviours are expected. Thus, Green HRM is

influential in supporting employees’ workplace environmental behaviours at the

organisational level to determine specific organisational outcomes (Daily and Huang

2001).

Considering the limited research on organisational practices that could facilitate

occupants’ behaviours in generating several performance outcomes, the current study

attempts to fill the gap by providing a conceptual framework based on the discussion

in previous sections. The broad requirements for this study did not take only one model

into account. Therefore, this research integrates a combination of theories in seeking

to understand workplace environmental behaviours. This study integrates the

theoretical domains of SET, the TPB, Stern’s (1999) ABC model, Triandis’s (1977)

theory of interpersonal behaviour into explaining the nature of Green HRM. Following

the discussion in previous sections, Figure 3.1 shows this study’s conceptual

framework, indicating the antecedents and predictors of Green HRM and employees’

workplace environmental behaviours. Employees in green buildings are predicted by

SIT to demonstrate green behaviours based on the organisation’s practices. In this

88

perceived behavioural control (PBC) in the TPB refers to the presence of an

opportunity to support a behaviour (Fishbein and Ajzen 1975). The TPB explains

behaviours at the individual and firm levels (Hagger 2015; Hagger, Chatzisarantis and

Biddle 2002). This theory has been utilised to gain a deeper understanding of different

types of human behaviours such as health (Conner, Norman and Bell 2002); exercise

(Hagger, Chatzisarantis and Biddle 2002); drinking (Cooke, Sniehotta and Schüz

2006); and environmental behaviours (Bamberg 2003; Bamberg and Möser 2007).

With regard to environmental behaviours, the TPB is commonly referenced in

environmental studies (Nye and Hargreaves 2010), such as conservation of water

(Bamberg 2003); pollution prevention (Cordano and Frieze 2000); using public

transport (Heath and Gifford 2002); green purchasing (Kalafatis et al. 1999); smoking

(Gantt 2001); environmental activism (Fielding, McDonald and Louis 2008); green

information technology (IT) (Sarkar and Young 2009); household recycling (Boldero

1995); and environmental behaviours, particularly in the workplace (Unsworth,

Dmitrieva and Adriasola 2013).

The TPB has been used conceptually to understand the involvement of HR, such as

adopting online recruitment (Parry and Wilson 2009); employee involvement

(Wiethoff 2004); promoting women into leadership positions (Biswas et al. 2017); and

diversity training (Rynes and Rosen 1995). The TPB is also used in the built

environment to explore design decisions (Lee, Allen and Kim 2013). Despite its

popularity, the TPB has yet to be used as a conceptual framework in guiding HRM

interventions to facilitate workplace environmental behaviours in green buildings. The

current study utilises the TPB to explain workplace environmental behaviours in green

buildings and their related performance outcomes, as discussed in Section 3.5. For

example, HR managers are governed by general attitudes and social support in their

facilitation of HR green initiatives. The existence of these initiatives is the determinant

of workplace environmental behaviours in green buildings. As a result of the TPB

influencing workplace environmental behaviours, performance-related outcomes can

also be influenced.

3.7.1. Antecedents of Green HRM

The TPB considers that three core constructs influence behaviours (Blok et al. 2015).

To predict employees’ behaviours in green buildings, this study proposes that Green

89

HRM initiatives are influenced by employees’ attitudes towards the environment,

subjective norms and perceived behavioural control (PBC).

3.7.1.1. Environmental attitudes

Research on environmental management in organisations can be grouped into two

categories: the first attempts to strengthen attitudes to change the behaviour while the

second focuses on examining significant behavioural circumstances (Wener and

Carmalt 2006). Regardless of these two categories, attitudes influence critical

decisions in the organisation (Rynes and Rosen 1995). The term ‘attitude’ refers to a

person’s response to a favourable or an unfavourable situation (Fishbein and Ajzen

1975, 2011). The study of employees’ attitudes in green buildings is likely to establish

how beliefs influence their workplace environmental behaviours. The term

‘environmental attitudes’ is defined as beliefs and feelings associated with

involvement in environment-related issues (Blok et al. 2015; Hines, Hungerford and

Tomera 1987). A positive attitude refers to an attitude that leads individuals to increase

their awareness to make them likely to act favourably towards the environment (Stern

2000; Dunlap et al. 2000; Ibtissem 2010). Within the dimensions of the workspace,

positive attitudes can result in comfortable workplaces (Vischer 2008; Ballantyne and

Schaefer 2019) and help employees to respond positively towards any organisational

initiatives.

Within the green building context, the attitudes of occupants influence the overall

motivation to practise energy-saving behaviours (Azizi and Wilkinson 2015; McCunn

and Gifford 2012; Rashid, Spreckelmeyer and Angrisano 2012) and accept green

building technologies (Rajaee, Hoseini and Malekmohammadi 2019). This argument

can be drawn based on the findings of Hoffman (1993) who argued that management

needs to align organisational environmental objectives with increasing employees’

motivation. This argument is further supported by several authors (Tudor, Barr and

Gilg 2008; Schelly et al. 2011; Schwartz et al. 2010) who state that employees’

environmental attitudes can predict strong behaviours in organisations. Hence,

environmental attitudes can directly influence an organisation’s initiatives to

incorporate environmental practices by its employees. Furthermore, within the green

building context, Rajaee, Hoseini, and Malekmohammadi (2019) supported the

importance of environmental attitudes in the adoption of green building technologies.

90

A positive environmental attitude towards sustainability was found to leverage an

individual’s ability to accept the uncertainties and risks involved in green buildings

(Deuble and de Dear 2012; Liu et al. 2018). Moreover, Kang et al. (2012) argued that

developing a positive attitude towards green building initiatives requires a positive

attitude towards the environment.

Attitude is also regarded as a crucial driver for facilitating Green HRM initiatives

(Ghosh and Kumaraswamy 2002; Sawang and Kivits 2014). Strategic decisions by

HR managers to adopt green initiatives are influenced by employees’ attitudes towards

carrying out these initiatives (Unsworth, Dmitrieva and Adriasola 2013; Opatha and

Arulrajah 2014). Indeed, such attitudes towards environmental issues are likely to

increase the environmental awareness that drives the organisation towards a green

direction. As a result, employees’ ecological world view will motivate company

leaders to invest in environmental practices in the organisation. If the key decision

makers find that employees do not have an intrinsic feeling towards sustainability, they

would perceive that green HR practices might fail (Dunlap et al. 2000). The strategic

approach by management to incorporate environmental management initiatives is

often short term (Sangle 2010) with this possibly contributing to an organisation’s

overall environmental objectives (Schmidheiny 1992; Shrivastava 1995). Thus,

critical workplace interventions are influenced by attitudinal changes (Jones et al.

2012). Accordingly, senior management would be likely to adopt green functions to

improve employees’ workplace environmental behaviours. Based on this discussion,

the following hypothesis is proposed:

Hypothesis 1a:

Environmental attitudes have a positive relationship with Green HRM initiatives in

green buildings.

3.7.1.2. Subjective norms

Subjective norms are defined as societal pressure on individuals to act in accordance

with a specific behaviour (Ajzen 1991). According to the TPB, societal pressure can

act as an influencing element on an individual’s behaviour in the absence of rewards

or punishments (Fishbein and Ajzen 1975). These norms can be categorised into

descriptive norms and injunctive norms (Cialdini, Reno and Kallgren 1990; Cialdini,

Kallgren and Reno 1991; Reno, Cialdini and Kallgren 1993). While descriptive norms

91

are linked to an individual’s natural way of reacting to certain situations, injunctive

norms are rules based on how others’ approval or disapproval of a situation impacts

on an individual’s reaction (Park and Smith 2007). In this regard, injunctive norms (or

social influence or subjective norms) are the subjective perceptions of different

stakeholders. Subjective norms can be regarded as the expectations of reference groups

on an individual’s behaviour (Kelman 1958). The current study considers subjective

norms as the primary influence on adopting HR initiatives in green buildings. The

reason is that social influence or pressure from a social circle is a significant factor in

choosing specific initiatives (Rajaee, Hoseini and Malekmohammadi 2019) and

developing behaviours (Al-Shafi 2009). For example, research shows that an

individual’s adoption of certain technologies is initiated by social influence (Swinerd

and McNaught 2015; Venkatesh et al. 2003). Social influence or subjective norms are

also found to impact on the adoption of green supply chain practices (Sarkis, Gonzalez-

Torre and Adenso-Diaz 2010) and green logistics practices (Kim and Lee 2012).

Similarly, within the green building context, employees’ workplace environmental

behaviours can be seen as positive behaviours, with it seen as socially desirable for the

organisation with environmental objectives to incorporate environmental initiatives.

Subjective norms are likely to occur by normative expectations from social influence

either internally or externally (Christmann 2004; Freeman and Reed 1983). Within the

green building context, external social influences can come from designers, architects,

the government and contractors. For example, the government is responsible for

introducing regulations associated with environmental hazards (Etzion 2007). This

might influence internal stakeholders to introduce workplace practices to comply with

that particular regulation. In the green building context, internal social influences can

be initiated from management at an upper level, for example, by Chief Executive

Officers (CEOs); at a middle level by HR managers and facility managers; and, finally,

at an employee level by supervisors and employees. Indeed, subjective norms are

motivational factors that influence an individual’s decisions to support environmental

behaviours (Bingham, Nabatchi and O'Leary 2005). The motivational factors in

developing workplace environmental initiatives depend on how well employees and

their organisation respond to the various social pressures (i.e., subjective norms) (Yu

and Ramanathan 2015).

92

Members internal to the organisation have always been regarded as significant drivers

for the adoption of green initiatives and the creation of a workplace culture that

emphasises environmental sustainability (Aguilera et al. 2007). Adopting green

HR practices as voluntary initiatives creates the importance of internal social influence

(Backhaus, Stone and Heiner 2002). This argument provides support for green

buildings as green building certifications are voluntary and, therefore, the influence

from within organisations is essential in influencing environmental initiatives in green

buildings. Stakeholder theory explains the usefulness of HRM in developing strategic

human resource systems (Garavan 1995) through essential HR functions (Lamberg et

al. 2008; Yusliza, Othman and Jabbour 2017). For example, the adoption of green HR

practices is likely to attract environmentally driven staff (Unsworth, Dmitrieva and

Adriasola 2013; Backhaus, Stone and Heiner 2002). These employees can demonstrate

extra-role behaviours in green buildings. In this line of argument, it can be argued that

social pressures internal to organisations in green buildings are likely to influence the

implementation of Green HRM practices. In this regard, this study proposes the

following hypothesis:

Hypothesis 1b:

Subjective norms have a positive relationship with Green HRM initiatives in green

buildings.

3.7.1.3. Perceived behavioural control (PBC)

Perceived behavioural control (PBC) occurs when individuals perceive they can easily

perform a behaviour of interest, describing the extent to which they extensively

support that behaviour (Fishbein and Ajzen 2011). It includes both a lack of control

(Rotter 1966) and self-efficacy (Bandura 1989, 1999), and can explain the extent to

which an individual can be engaged in a specific behaviour (Ajzen 1996, 1991). In the

context of sustainability, an individual’s self-efficacy is an important determinant to

act in a green manner (Greaves, Zibarras and Stride 2013). Thus, the studies conducted

by (Han and Kim 2010; Chen and Tung 2014) showed that evaluation of the self is a

necessary behavioural requirement for acting green. Individuals build greater

psychological interest when required resources are made available to them (Armitage

and Conner 2001). Despite self-interest/attitudes or social support/subjective norms, if

resources and opportunities available to individuals are lacking, their behavioural

93

achievements are most likely to be restricted (Ajzen 2011). Consequently, an

individual’s perception of greater control due to the allocation of resources

substantially enhances an individual’s effort to undertake the behaviour.

Within the current study, aspects of PBC are used to influence the application of Green

HRM initiatives in green buildings. Therefore, PBC herein can be referred to as

organisational readiness. Organisational readiness is organisational preparedness in

terms of financial resources, staffing resources, technical resources, operational

resources and knowledge resources (Ooi et al. 2017; Sawang and Kivits 2014).

Implementing Green HRM practices in green buildings also require resources in terms

of time, finance and staff. Hence, the lack of an organisation’s readiness to support

these practices might weaken the overall expectations of employees to behave in an

environmental manner in green buildings. Some indication has been provided within

the Green HRM literature that Green HRM practices are more likely to be applied in

larger organisations than in smaller organisations. Larger organisations are more

proactive in implementing Green HRM due to the presence of adequate resources that

influenced management to initiate the practices in the first place (Wagner 2011).

However, small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) are more reactive due to the

lack of adequate resources, and could be solely limited to satisfying any environmental

regulations (Grant, Bergesen and Jones 2002). Consequently, the presence of resources

is a significant factor in implementing practices that are necessary to achieve a

company’s environmental goals and values (Ronnenberg, Graham and Mahmoodi

2011). With the arguments provided above, it can be concluded that implementing

green initiatives to change behaviours among employees is dependent on significant

resources being available in the first place. In the absence of organisational readiness,

this would necessarily mean a lack of control on green initiatives (Sawang and Kivits

2014). Hence, resource allocations to encourage green HR practices in green buildings

can be regarded as a necessary condition to develop green behaviours. In this regard,

the following hypothesis is proposed:

Hypothesis 1c:

Perceived behavioural control has a positive relationship with Green HRM in green

buildings.

3.7.2. Green HRM Initiatives

94

Environmental management scholars have argued that tackling an individual’s

environmental behaviour is a responsibility of the organisation itself as environmental

issues are largely caused by humans (Oskamp 1995, 2000; Ones and Dilchert 2012).

Thus, the role of HR in implementing environmental change programs has become a

significant focus for researchers in recent times (Del Brío, Fernández and Junquera

2007; Jabbour and Santos 2008; Rimanoczy and Pearson 2010; Jabbour, Santos and

Nagano 2010; Jackson et al. 2011). Hence, the current study incorporates Green HRM

practices to support environmental objectives in green buildings and to help employees

to develop critical behavioural competencies to perform accordingly in green

buildings. Some studies (Renwick, Redman and Maguire 2013; Jackson et al. 2011)

have argued that the use of Green HRM practices to promote employees’ workplace

environmental behaviour is an emerging topic in the environmental management

literature. This argument can be supported by SIT which explains how a positive cause,

such as environmental sustainability, can influence employees’ commitment.

Furthermore, employees’ organisational commitment improves their extra-role

behaviours (Podsakoff et al. 2014; Bishop, Scott and Burroughs 2000). Employees

with extra-role behaviours are found to be more engaged in these behaviours.

Employee engagement also comes from altruism which is developed through a

positive association between the company and its employees (Carmeli 2005). This

indicates that organisations can facilitate appropriate conditions to influence an

individual’s behaviours.

The term ‘facilitating conditions’ refers to objective factors within the environment

that can act as enablers for the performance with ease of specific behavioural

requirements. According to (Jain, Jain and Triandis 1997), facilitating conditions

include conditions that enable employees to work well and also conditions that

promote an individual’s self-judgement thus allowing the behaviour to occur.

Furthermore, facilitating conditions directly impact on actual behaviour as opposed to

the TPB’s argument of indirect impact through intentions (Valois, Desharnais and

Godin 1988). According to Triandis (1977), facilitating conditions are significant

determinants for the prevention or establishment of a behaviour regardless of strong

intentions. The differences in self-reported and actual behaviour often leave the TPB

open to question as an effective measure for predicting actual behavioural outcomes

(Armitage and Conner 2001). Some research has found the effectiveness of intentions

95

in the TPB for predicting behaviour is weak (Bamberg 2003; Davis et al. 2015). In

particular, intention as a construct in the TPB can be regarded as a limitation when

individuals with the right intention fail to behave as they intended (Sniehotta, Presseau

and Araújo-Soares 2014). Hence, the prediction of behaviours based on the TPB is

insufficient for predicting environmental behaviours in the current study. Explanatory,

sequential or extended models of the TPB are more likely to be needed to better explain

behaviours (Sniehotta, Presseau and Araújo-Soares 2014). Supportive HRM practices

in green buildings provide favourable conditions in which employees can be motivated

to behave in an environmentally friendly fashion. For example, individuals might have

the right intention to behave positively towards the green features of green buildings.

However, they might lack the appropriate education or training that they would need

to understand their job’s technical details. Similarly, for some employees,

environmental behaviours might not be part of their altruism; however, in the presence

of rewards, they could be motivated to behave in a more effective manner in green

buildings. Hence, the necessary conditions can be facilitated by management rather

than through employees’ perceived intentions. Evidence from the research conducted

by Sawang and Kivits (2014) has already indicated that the TPB’s three constructs:

environmental attitudes, subjective norms and perceived behavioural controls (PBC)

can be determinants for Green HR initiatives.

With strategic human resource management (SHRM) indicating HR’s capacity to

facilitate workplace environmental behaviours, HRM’s role to promote these

behaviours is an under-researched area (Jackson et al. 2011). Previous research has

signified that HRM practices are a strong medium through which to merge

sustainability objectives with organisational culture (Russell and McIntosh 2011), thus

transforming green leaders into change agents (Robertson and Barling 2013).

Furthermore, HRM practices enhance employees’ participation in environmental

initiatives (Osbaldiston and Schott 2012) and create solutions responding to

environmental needs (Burnes 1996). Specific to Green HRM, substantial development

has occurred linking Green HR practices to the development of workplace

environmental behaviours (Kim et al. 2019). According to Zibarras and Coan (2015),

green HR practices, such as recruitment, rewards, training and employee engagement

are found to influence employees’ workplace environmental behaviours.

96

In addition, traces of crucial HR functions have been found that promote workplace

environmental behaviours through green recruitment (Dilchert and Ones 2011;

Renwick, Redman and Maguire 2013) and increase the number of green-collar jobs

(Smidts, Pruyn and Van Riel 2001). Studies have indicated that green HR practices,

such as attracting employees with green credentials, provide a robust value system that

encourages employees to contribute to the environment at a later stage (Aiman-Smith,

Bauer and Cable 2001; Backhaus, Stone and Heiner 2002; Behrend, Baker and

Thompson 2009; Willness and Jones 2013). Similarly, when employees are provided

with the necessary organisational training and learning about environment-related

actions, they are empowered to perform environmentally oriented behaviours (Bansal

and Roth 2000).

Adequate support from top management provides the necessary resources for HR to

adopt green practices. Moreover, staff and resource readiness to perform certain

behaviours can be facilitated by Green HRM practices, such as training (Jackson et al.

2011). Renwick, Redman, and Maguire (2013) explained that the attitudes of

employees can be stimulated through numerous HR processes focusing on

environmental improvement. Several functions, such as a newsletter or suggestion

groups, improve employees’ motivation to maintain the workplace environment

(Govindarajulu and Daily 2004). Green HR practices are a significant mediator

between top management commitment toward the environment and environmental

behaviours at the employee level (Zibarras and Coan 2015). Therefore, HRM acts as

a catalyst to support any strategy of the organisation.

Based on the argument provided in the preceding section, the hypothesis below is

proposed:

Hypothesis 2:

Green HRM has a positive relationship with workplace environmental behaviours in

green buildings.

3.7.3. Precedents for Green HRM Construct in This Study

To establish the association between behaviours and performance, it is vital to

understand the nature of the behaviours influenced by critical organisational practices

and the type of performance outcomes that can result. Behaviours that are considered

97

to be aligned to a corporate strategy are often termed ‘cooperative behaviours’

(Sanders and Schyns 2006; Tyler 2003). In the green building context, workplace

environmental behaviours can be regarded as cooperative behaviours as they influence

the broader environmental agenda and related organisational performance in green

buildings. Podsakoff et al. (2014) explained that cooperative behaviours impact on

organisational performance as employees are provided with the necessary

competencies to behave more productively. Podsakoff and Mackenzie (1997) provided

organisational citizenship behaviours as evidence of cooperative behaviours that

enhance organisational performance. For example, employees can adapt to change

when provided with the necessary information, and this can result in solving job-

related issues. Furthermore, empirical evidence from the research on restaurant

performance conducted by Walz and Niehoff (2000) suggested that such behaviours

can strongly impact on overall financial performance and overall non-financial

performance. As previously discussed, these key types of performance can result from

HRM interventions. For example, training (Shaw et al. 1998) or level of pay (Rynes,

Gerhart and Minette 2004) improves employee effort. Hence, HRM measures impact

on employee performance (Horgan 2003), making them more productive which can

result overall in enhanced organisational performance (Huselid 1995).

Similarly, Green HRM is likely to impact on both environmental performance (Guerci

and Carollo 2016; Longoni, Luzzini and Guerci 2018; Obeidat, Mitchell and Bray

2016) and non-environmental performance, such as organisational identification (Shen

and Benson 2016) and organisational commitment (Zaki and Norazman 2019).

Fundamentally, these key types of organisational performance do not stem directly

from HR interventions but from behaviours that result from using these interventions

(Barney and Wright 1998; Delery and Doty 1996; Teece, Pisano and Shuen 1997). The

necessary information, skills and competencies are provided by HR to employees to

motivate them to have an impact on organisational outcomes. It can be argued that

HR influences both role behaviours (Jackson, Schuler and Rivero 1989) and extra-role

behaviours (Messersmith et al. 2011; Schuler and Jackson 1987). Role behaviours in

green buildings can be based on compliance to meet the requirements of any green

building certification. However, HR can influence extra-role behaviours or

discretionary behaviours, such as environmental behaviours, beyond job roles. The HR

practices affecting extra-role behaviours that are likely to improve overall

98

organisational performance are oriented toward performance (Lado and Wilson 1994).

Previously, in Section 3.6.2, the association of Green HRM practices with workplace

environmental behaviours was established. In the following sections, the critical

performance outcomes from workplace environmental behaviours are discussed.

Based on the results from the systematic literature review, this study focuses on four

performance parameters in green buildings: environmental performance,

organisational identification, job satisfaction and work-related flow.

3.7.3.1. Workplace environmental behaviours

The discussion of workplace environmental behaviours is vital for the current study.

As discussed in Section 3.5.2, this study has adopted various behavioural models to

predict employees’ workplace environmental behaviours in green buildings. This

subsection provides additional explanation of this variable to develop hypotheses

related to key workplace outcomes. Environmental behaviours (or pro-environmental

behaviours or green behaviours) are actions in which employees are involved in

bringing positive changes to environmental sustainability (Wiernik et al. 2018; Ones

and Dilchert 2012; Juárez-Nájera, Rivera-Martínez and Hafkamp 2010). The

subcategories of workplace environmental behaviours include working in

sustainability-related jobs, avoiding pollution, reusing, recycling, motivating others

through training and creating awareness among the general public. Workplace

environmental behaviours include a set of responsible tasks (Graves, Sarkis and Zhu

2013) which employees are committed to completing (Bissing‐Olson et al. 2013). The

degree of behavioural change among individuals can significantly minimise the impact

on the environment (Dietz et al. 2009). Further explanation in the article is provided

by a study which demonstrates that applying a list of 17 simple changes to an

individual’s behaviours leads to a 20% reduction of household-related carbon dioxide

emissions. Gaining an understanding of these environmental behaviours in social or

household settings has been quite popular. However, research on workplace

environmental behaviours is still at an initial stage (Blok et al. 2015; Ones and Dilchert

2012; Tezel and Giritli 2019).

In behavioural research, it is suggested that managers can take on diverse roles when

incorporating environmental behaviours among employees (Renwick et al. 2016). For

example, managers can integrate essential functions, motivate cooperation, help in

99

building compliance, improve creativity and manage risks (Razak and Sabri 2019). In

terms of Green HRM practices, management can be instrumental in promoting or

preventing key behaviours. In terms of promotive key behaviours, HRM can initiate

the integration of operational activities (Rothenberg 2003) and the preparation of

employees to develop and utilise risk-taking abilities (Schuler and Jackson 1987) when

undertaking critical environmental tasks. In contrast, preventive behaviours are

general role behaviours that are concerned with cooperating with management to

implement environmental initiatives (Wehrmeyer 1996) and preventing distractions

from the organisation’s environmental strategies (Schuler and Jackson 1987). The

current study argues that management initiatives can incorporate these promotive and

preventive workplace environmental behaviours in green buildings.

One of the features of environmental behaviours is that, as they can be discretionary,

they might not be part of employees’ job roles (Lülfs and Hahn 2013). These extra-

role behaviours are formed as part of employees’ organisational citizenship behaviours

(Organ 1997) through which employees identify themselves with the organisation’s

social values. According to Ones and Dilchert (2012), despite an individual being

involved in sustainability as part of his/her altruism, not all workplace environmental

behaviours are discretionary. From the previous discussion, it is clear that workplace

environmental behaviours are dependent on Green HR practices. In green buildings,

management can encourage employees’ workplace environmental behaviours in

several ways. Apart from formal guidelines such as a code of conduct or implementing

technical processes, the organisation can be involved in implementing key initiatives

that will motivate employees’ workplace environmental behaviours (Schramm 2011).

Management plays a vital role, becoming essential in the encouragement of workplace

environmental behaviours while developing solutions to environmental problems (De

Groot and Steg 2007; Temminck, Mearns and Fruhen 2015). To strengthen this

argument, links have been found that connect extra-role behaviours and organisational

performance (Van Scotter, Motowidlo and Cross 2000). Taking this discussion

forward, the following section links workplace environmental behaviours with

environmental performance, organisational identification, job satisfaction and work-

related flow.

3.7.4. Performance Outcome Constructs in This Study

100

This study emphasises four performance outcomes based on Chapter 2’s discussion:

environmental performance, organisational identification, job satisfaction and work-

related flow.

3.7.4.1. Environmental performance

Environmental performance is an important criterion used to measure whether the

organisation satisfies environmental expectations that are linked to its financial

performance (Guerci and Carollo 2016). Environmental performance is evaluated

based on performance related to environmental releases, minimisation of resources,

reduction of waste and incorporation of recycling (Lober 1996). These examples of

environmental performance are based on the individual’s green behaviours (Paillé et

al. 2014). As identified in the categorisation of environmental behaviours by Boiral

(2002), eco-initiatives or eco-helping by individual employees are an outcome of

support and commitment from organisations. These workplace environmental

behaviours often reflect employees’ willingness to become involved beyond their

regular job duties in the organisation’s environmental strategies. These behaviours also

significantly influence the reduction in resource usage in workplaces (Hanna, Rocky

Newman and Johnson 2000). Moreover, the environmental aspect is a complex system,

indicating the difficulty of relying solely on technical elements without employees’

engagement in environmental behaviours (Ramus and Steger 2000). This is a win-win

situation for organisations involved in environmental initiatives that influence

environment-related behaviours and, ultimately, resulting in high levels of

environmental performance (Plaza‐Úbeda et al. 2009).

Workplace environmental behaviours are a direct driver of environmental performance

outcomes (Paillé and Mejía-Morelos 2014). The study conducted by Paillé et al. (2014)

explained organisational citizenship behaviour for the environment (OCBE) as a

crucial category of workplace environmental behaviours that helps organisations to

reach their environmental objectives. This is particularly important as management is

less likely to make an impact on all the required behaviours that reduce environmental

impacts on workplaces (Jiang and Bansal 2003). Therefore, individuals’ extra-role

behaviours, such as OCBE, become critical in supporting environmental objectives in

organisations (Ramus and Steger 2000). Recognised as a spontaneous behaviour,

OCBE (Roy, Boiral and Paillé 2013) can help to convert green HR initiatives into

101

environmental performance (Branzei et al. 2004; Daily, Bishop and Govindarajulu

2009).

In addition to extra-role behaviours driven by individuals, workplace interventions

favouring extra-role behaviours play a significant role in supporting environmental

performance (Lo, Peters and Kok 2012b; Zhu and Sarkis 2004; Melnyk, Sroufe and

Calantone 2003). These organisational interventions are generally proactive, focused

beyond formal regulations and based on diverse organisational capabilities (Galdeano-

Gómez, Céspedes-Lorente and Martínez-Del-Río 2008; Russo and Fouts 1997;

Sharma and Vredenburg 1998). According to SIT, as discussed in Section 3.5.1,

employees develop self-interest when environmental responsibilities form part of their

behaviour. In some cases, employees attach a social affiliation to behaving in an

environmentally friendly way in green buildings. Within green buildings, better

environmental behaviour by employees would be likely to indicate the building’s

positive environmental performance. This would mean that employees were aware of

their roles and responsibilities to behave in an environmentally friendly manner in

green buildings. This would certainly mean that they would behave in a more efficient

way in terms of resource utilisation. Employees’ workplace environmental behaviours

indicate that green buildings function in the way for which they were initially built.

This study not only focuses on management’s interventions on behaviour changes in

green buildings but also on environmental behaviour indicators such as environmental

performance. Therefore, based on the above discussion, the following hypothesis is

proposed:

Hypothesis H3a:

Workplace environmental behaviours have a positive relationship with environmental

performance in green buildings.

3.7.4.2. Organisational identification

Organisational identification is a significant element of individual and organisational

values. It refers to an individual’s perception of belongingness or association with the

organisation as a self-definition (Hall and Schneider 1972; Smidts, Pruyn and Van Riel

2001) and the feeling of psychological union with the organisation (Ashforth and Mael

1989). Organisational identification forms part of organisational embeddedness, as

proposed by (Johnson, Sachau and Englert 2010). In addition, organisational

102

identification forms part of social identification through which individuals identify

themselves based on the organisation’s reputation and social values (Dutton, Dukerich

and Harquail 1994). Therefore, organisational identification can be regarded as a

cognitive construct that is fundamentally associated with social identity theory (SIT).

The cognitive component reflects the mutual interests of employees and the

organisation, while the individual’s membership with social groups forms part of

his/her own self-identity (Tajfel et al. 1979). Hence, individuals perceive themselves

as part of the organisation’s strategies. As a result, the affective component of

organisational identification incorporates a feeling of pride from having contributed to

the organisation’s performance (Kreiner and Ashforth 2004).

Organisational identification impacts on staff to the extent that they partially define

their overall identity with the values of the organisation (Ashforth and Mael 1989). It

can be argued that organisational support will be more likely to increase the degree of

organisational identification. This line of argument is conceptually dependent on social

exchange theory (SET) (Gouldner 1960; Blau 1964). For example, when organisations

motivate employees with rewards, employees, in return, behave according to

organisational requirements. This exchange-based relationship is highly significant

when the organisation supports employees through socially valuable practices.

Consequently, employees form a strong identification with the organisation (Rousseau

1998). Moreover, several studies have indicated that employees identify themselves

with organisational benefits (Christ et al. 2003) and that the behaviour of these

employees demonstrates other forms of workplace performance outcomes, such as

organisational commitment (Meyer et al. 2002) and turnover intentions (Van Dick et

al. 2004). Organisational identification is different from the perspective of the person–

organisation fit (or organisational commitment) as it conveys deep emotional

significance as a sense of oneness and self-concept with a particular organisation (Pratt

1998). Organisational identification is linked to organisational behaviour and

particularly to organisational citizenship behaviours (Abrams, Ando and Hinkle 1998;

Bartel 2001; Wan‐Huggins, Riordan and Griffeth 1998).

The relationship between workplace environmental behaviours and organisational

identification can be understood by the nature of organisations’ involvement in values

such as environmental sustainability through the mechanism of green buildings. The

result of employees adopting these behaviours is that they develop a positive attitude

103

towards the reality of the organisation (Van Knippenberg 2000; Abimbola and

Vallaster 2007). Based on SIT, employees are attracted to and generate a higher level

of organisational identification (Wegge et al. 2006). This argument is also true for

environmental initiatives by organisations in green buildings. Activities by HR can be

seen as the perceived organisational support mechanism to ensure that employees

behave in an environmentally friendly way. This predicts that people will be more

likely to engage psychologically with the organisation and to identify with the

organisation’s values (Edwards 2009). This can be further explained by stating that

employees demonstrating workplace environmental behaviours in green buildings are

emotionally attached to the organisation’s environmental values and, thereby, that

employees build a positive image of their organisation as well as attaching it to their

personal social identity. Based on the above argument, the following hypothesis is

proposed:

Hypothesis H3b:

Workplace environmental behaviours have a positive relationship with organisational

identification in green buildings.

3.7.4.3. Well-being

Another performance-related outcome discussed in this study is well-being which is

an important employee-related HRM outcome (Harter, Schmidt and Keyes 2003).

Well-being can be categorised into three types: psychological well-being, physical

well-being and social well-being (Grant, Christianson and Price 2007). According to

Van De Voorde, Paauwe, and Van Veldhoven (2012), HRM practices can influence

employees’ psychological well-being, with this mainly focusing on well-being related

to individuals. The pro-social (De Young 2000; Xiao and Li 2011; Thøgersen 1996)

and moral nature (Thøgersen 1996) of environment-related behaviours develops a

sense of altruism (Bamberg, Hunecke and Blöbaum 2007; Stern, Dietz and Kalof

1993) through which employees experience a sense of pleasure. This individual-level

mechanism can explain the relationship between workplace environmental behaviours

and well-being.

Job satisfaction and work-related flow are two psychological well-being measures

discussed as part of the performance outcomes related to well-being in green buildings.

Other versions of well-being, namely, hedonic and eudaimonic well-being, could

104

explain job satisfaction and work-related flow as part of well-being concepts. Hedonic

well-being refers to immediate positive emotions whereas eudaimonic well-being

refers to meaningful and deeper emotions (Ryan, Huta and Deci 2008; Aknin, Dunn

and Norton 2012; Waterman, Schwartz and Conti 2008; Andreoni 1990, 1989; Ryff

1989). In the current study, job satisfaction can be regarded as the hedonic well-being

type where immediate and sudden emotions result from working in green buildings.

Work-related flow can be understood as the eudaimonic well-being type owing to the

deeper involvement of employees in their jobs due to the physical workspace

environment. Practices provided by HR seem to benefit employees’ well-being and

overall organisational performance (Subramanian et al. 2016) due to their capacity to

control behaviours (Wright et al. 2005). With this view, the following subsection

discuss how workplace environmental behaviours are related to job satisfaction and

work-related flow.

3.7.4.3.1. Job satisfaction

Job satisfaction is a component of well-being that refers to a specific emotional state

resulting from positive experiences in the job (Wright and Cropanzano 2000). Job

satisfaction can also be conceptualised as the affective component of subjective well-

being (Bowling, Eschleman and Wang 2010; Judge and Locke 1993). Individuals

might be dissatisfied with their jobs if experiences in their workplaces are not

conducive (Paillé and Boiral 2013; Bowling, Beehr and Lepisto 2006). Conversely,

employees with a high degree of job satisfaction are more likely to be committed to

the organisation and to be productive (Lease 1998). The nature of job satisfaction is

based on its association with content (Maslow 1970) and process theories (Vroom

1964). Both these categories of job satisfaction (Earl 1993) are rapidly formed and

transitory (Porter et al. 1974).

Two theories can explain the nature of job satisfaction, the first of which is social

identity theory (SIT) which argues that employees identify with organisations that

have a higher socio-economic status or have social values (Tajfel et al. 1979). As a

result, employees develop a positive attitude towards that organisation and are

generally content or satisfied with their jobs. The second theory is the social

information processing model (Salancik and Pfeffer 1978). This theory argues that

individuals’ perceptions towards their jobs are shaped by the socio-contextual image

105

of the organisation and employees’ behaviour. Workplace environmental behaviours

provide a sense of accomplishment, with this altruistic behaviour intrinsically

motivating employees in their jobs.

Satisfaction can be considered as a significant performance indicator in green

buildings (Geng et al. 2019). Indeed, employees feel satisfied with their work when

they are provided with a better working environment (Paul and Taylor 2008).

Occupants in green buildings are satisfied due to better IEQ (Paul and Taylor 2008;

Huang et al. 2013) in comparison to that in traditional buildings. Paul and Taylor

(2008) explained occupants’ behaviour based on the place identity theory. Their study

argued that occupants in green buildings could develop a positive attitude when they

evaluated their green workplace environment. This was due to their behavioural norms

associated with environmental sustainability. Organisational strategies and initiatives

towards sustainability often impact on employees’ overall environmental behaviour

(Lo, Peters and Kok 2012a; Cialdini, Reno and Kallgren 1990). Consequently, their

overall satisfaction with the environment is developed. As workplace environmental

behaviours provide a source of meaning in life, individuals could thereby experience

sudden positive feelings as a result of being satisfied with their work. In this regard,

the study proposes the following hypothesis:

Hypothesis H3c:

Workplace environmental behaviours have a positive relationship with job satisfaction

in green buildings.

3.7.4.3.2. Work-related flow

Work-related flow is a psychological condition that occurs when individuals are

effortlessly immersed in workplace activities (Csikszentmihalyi 1991). It refers to an

individual’s experience of enjoyment as a result of intrinsic work motivation (Bakker

2008). Work-related flow can be explained and understood as subjective well-being in

the workplace when individuals experience constant positive emotions (Diener,

Sandvik and Pavot 2009). It can be conceptualised as a specific condition that supports

employees’ energy levels after work, thus indicating total involvement

(Csikszentmihalyi 1991; Csikszentmihalyi, Rathunde and Whalen 1993; Ellis, Voelkl

and Morris 1994; Ghani and Deshpande 1994). This holistic sensation of self-control

and happiness at work can result in intrinsic work motivation and work enjoyment

106

(Fullagar and Kelloway 2009). Haradkiewicz and Elliot (1998) explained that this

sense of intrinsic motivation through continuously being interested in one’s work

results from the kind of tasks the individual performs.

Within flow theory, motivation can explain the experience of subjective well-being at

work (Moneta 2004). Employees will continue to be engaged in their tasks when they

believe that their tasks are significant, and that they can benefit from doing these tasks

(Muraven and Tae 1998). The integration of motivation as a psychological need for a

higher level of work-related flow can be explained from self-determination theory

(Deci and Ryan 2000). Environmental behaviours can be regarded as self-fulfilling

due to the nature of the social concept. Therefore, employees are likely to show interest

and enjoy their work in green buildings. Work-related flow is also associated with the

level of opportunities provided to employees that makes them behave in a certain

manner (Bakker 2008). As suggested by SET, this organisation–employee relationship

can maximise performance outcomes (Blau 1964).

Social exchange theory (SET) explains the association of behaviour with work-related

flow (Gouldner, 1960). When employees receive adequate support from the

organisation, they are obliged to be immersed in extra-role behaviours. Various studies

have been conducted to link flow with both in-role and extra-role behaviours (Bakker

2008; Demerouti et al. 2012). Workplace environmental behaviours can include in-

role behaviours, such as complying with formal regulations in green buildings, and

extra-role behaviours, such as behaviour that extends beyond compliance. Green

buildings provide the conditions necessary to improve productivity in the workplace;

thus, employees’ energy levels are positive due to their physical environment.

Furthermore, the physical workspace is likely to influence employees’ feelings about

their work, resulting in increased speed of task completion (Lan, Wargocki and Lian

2014). Moreover, employees’ sense of pride from working in green organisations and

contributing to the environment supports them to enjoy their work at a personal level

(Geyser, Geldenhuys and Crous 2015). Given that green buildings facilitate

employees’ satisfaction, productivity and commitment, employees’ environmental

behaviours facilitate stress reduction at work. Therefore, occupants in green buildings

demonstrate high levels of work engagement. In this regard, the following hypothesis

is proposed:

107

Hypothesis H3d:

Workplace environmental behaviours have a positive relationship with work-related

flow.

3.7.5. Mediating Links

Apart from the direct links between the constructs in the conceptual framework, this

study discusses the mediation effect of two constructs, namely, Green HRM and

workplace environmental behaviours, with this discussed in the following section.

3.7.5.1. Mediating role of green HRM

Based on SIT, the social values of the organisation can evoke the required behaviour

among employees (Turban and Greening 1997). Within the environmental

management agenda, HR can be instrumental in creating more opportunities

(Renwick, Redman and Maguire 2013) to establish a higher level of workplace

environmental behaviours. For example, employees are likely to demonstrate positive

behaviour when they believe in the self-enhancement motives of Green HRM practices

(Smidts, Pruyn and Van Riel 2001; Dutton, Dukerich and Harquail 1994). The social

values and related reputation associated with the corporate green agenda can attract

employees and encourage them to become immersed in green practices (Rangarajan

and Rahm 2011). For example, employees working in green buildings can develop

environmental behaviours when they are provided with an adequate amount of support.

The TPB can be used to explain the existing literature on workplace environmental

behaviours (Ajzen 1991; Bamberg and Möser 2007; Ones et al. 2018) stating that

environmental attitudes, subjective norms and perceived behavioural control (PBC)

can be related to HRM practices. In a study conducted by Benkoff (1997),

HRM practices were found to influence employees’ attitudes. Evidence has been

found in a prior study that establishes the relationship between Green HRM practices

and environmental behaviours (Pinzone et al. 2016). Another study indicated that

HRM has an association with the skills and competencies that impact on employees’

behaviour (Jackson and Schuler 1995). Furthermore, based on the motivation–

opportunities–abilities (MOA) model, green HRM has a positive association with

organisational citizenship behaviour (Guest 1997). This, in turn, influences

organisational performance outcomes (Den Hartog, Boselie and Paauwe 2004).

108

The mediated linkages of Green HRM with workplace environmental behaviours are

based on the alignment of HRM with green organisational objectives to create a

strategic fit. For example, the attitudes of employees can only convert to key

behaviours when they know what is expected from them (Schmidt 2000). Green HRM

can create appropriate communication channels for conveying environmental

messages. Similarly, resource allocation that converts into employee behaviour can be

created by HRM processes. For example, HRM can allocate financial resources in

terms of compensation and rewards to evoke extra-role environmental behaviours

(Renwick et al. 2014. Moreover, Green HRM practices have been found to mediate

the relationship between social pressures and environmental problems (Guerci,

Bartezzaghi and Solari 2010). In fact, Pinzone et al. (2016) suggested that subjective

norms can ultimately result in higher environmental outcomes through Green HRM

processes. The success of Green HRM practices depends on whether employee

behaviour has been in accordance with the intent of HRM practices (Delery and Doty

1996). Based on the above arguments, the current study argues that Green HR

initiatives are influenced by the TPB’s three constructs (attitudes, subjective norms

and perceived behavioural control [PBC]), and that Green HRM influences workplace

environmental behaviours. For example, a set of HRM policies serves as the mediator

in the TPB for promotive behaviours in women (Biswas et al. 2017).

Building occupants’ attitudes impact on their motivation to practise energy-saving

behaviours (Azizi and Wilkinson 2015; McCunn and Gifford 2012; Rashid,

Spreckelmeyer and Angrisano 2012). Furthermore, environmental attitudes can

predict strong behaviours in organisations (Tudor, Barr and Gilg 2008; Schelly et al.

2011; Schwartz et al. 2010). Employees, despite having the right attitudes, might not

make the transition to the right kind of behaviours in green buildings if external signals

are not provided. These external signals can be in the form of management’s policies

and practices transmitted within the organisation and, in turn, influencing employees

by demonstrating actions that align with the organisation’s strategies (Tajfel et al.

1979). As a result, employees are motivated to put their efforts into achieving the

organisation’s objectives. Social identity theory (SIT) illustrates this association

between employees’ attitudes and behaviours through workplace interventions.

According to SIT, employees are more likely to generate these behaviours when they

associate with their organisation’s positive values (Tajfel et al. 1979; Dutton, Dukerich

109

and Harquail 1994; Maxwell and Knox 2009). Consequently, management can create

opportunities for employees with the right attitudes to be aligned with the

organisation’s environmental objectives. The indirect relationship between

employees’ environmental attitudes and workplace environmental behaviours can be

devised through Green HRM and other related workplace practices. This study

proposes that Green HRM mediates the relationship between the environmental

attitudes and workplace environmental behaviours of employees in green buildings.

The mediated links are as proposed in the following hypothesis:

Hypothesis H4a:

Green HRM mediates the relationship between environmental attitudes and workplace

environmental behaviours in green buildings

Organisational practices focusing on social values and branding influence employees

to behave in favour of their organisation (Turban and Greening 1997). The relationship

between subjective norms and practices includes examples such as the adoption of

green supply chain practices (Sarkis, Gonzalez-Torre and Adenso-Diaz 2010) and

green logistics practices (Kim and Lee 2012). Similarly, workplace environmental

behaviours in green buildings can be seen as positive behaviour, with it being socially

desirable to incorporate environmental initiatives for the organisation with

environmental objectives. Based on SET, employees generate their self-concepts when

they are motivated to be associated with organisations that incorporate positive

initiatives (Ashforth and Mael 1989). The motivational aspect of subjective norms

influences individuals’ decisions to support environmental behaviours (Bingham,

Nabatchi and O'Leary 2005). Subjective norms indicate that social pressure influences

employees to behave in an environmentally friendly way through Green HRM

practices. In addition, specific HRM practices, such as green training, green

recruitment and green induction, provide opportunities and motivate employees to

engage in environmental behaviours in green buildings. However, without the

presence of these practices, the support of external and internal influences is less likely

to influence employees to behave in an environmentally friendly way in green

buildings. Based on the above argument, the following mediated relationship is

proposed:

110

Hypothesis H4b:

Green HRM mediates the relationship between subjective norms and workplace

environmental behaviours in green buildings.

Perceived behavioural control (PBC) refers to individuals’ perception of their ability

to easily perform a behaviour of interest, leading to them carrying out a specific

behaviour in an extensive manner (Fishbein and Ajzen 2011). Individuals therefore

build greater psychological interest when the required resources are made available to

them (Armitage and Conner 2001). The availability of resources and opportunities to

individuals generates their behavioural achievements (Ajzen 2011). As a result,

employees are likely to exhibit a very high level of commitment to undertaking extra-

role behaviours (Shen and Benson 2016). However, without the support of Green

HRM practices, PBC on its own cannot predict employees’ workplace environmental

behaviours (Shen, Dumont and Deng 2018). For example, employees with a certain

degree of environmental orientation, support and resources could perceive

organisational motives through its Green HRM practices. This would result in

employees’ motivation to behave in a specific manner in alignment with green building

strategies. Based on SET, employees are motivated and self-identify with their

organisation when the organisation prepares them to behave in specific ways in green

buildings. As a result, employees put extra efforts into achieving their organisation’s

objectives through their extra-role behaviours (Balfour and Wechsler 1996). Based on

this discussion, this study proposes that Green HRM mediates the relationship between

perceived behavioural control and workplace environmental behaviours:

Hypothesis H4c:

Green HRM mediates the relationship between perceived behavioural control and

workplace environmental behaviours in green buildings

3.7.5.2. Mediating role of workplace environmental behaviours

Several studies have indicated the role of HRM in driving performance in

organisations (Arthur 1994; Becker and Gerhart 1996; Boselie, Dietz and Boon 2005;

Boselie, Paauwe and Jansen 2001; Guest et al. 2003; Youndt et al. 1996). However,

within the HRM literature, an indirect relationship is found between HRM and

workplace outcomes (Guest 2011; Kehoe and Wright 2013). The underlying

111

mechanisms through which HRM improves performance are believed to be

competencies and behavioural processes (Bratton and Gold 2017). For example, Shen

and Benson (2016) argued that HRM practices could invoke environmental

conservation as part of a company’s corporate social responsibility (CSR) when

employees’ socially responsible behaviours are examined. In another example, Yen et

al. (2013) indicated that environmental training programs impact on the commitment

of staff after they complete tasks based on the training.

Workplace environmental behaviours are pro-social in nature (Chou 2014); therefore,

routine workplace environmental behaviours should include both in-role and extra-

role green behaviours (Ramus and Killmer 2007), as both forms of behaviour

contribute to organisational outcomes through value creation. The pro-social nature of

workplace environmental behaviours thus includes both in-role and extra-role

behaviours (Ramus and Killmer 2007). Moreover, HRM can be regarded as a medium

through which to create value that can result in in-role and extra-role behaviours,

ultimately leading to critical organisational outcomes. The current study proposes

mediation links of workplace environmental behaviours between Green HRM and

organisational performances such as environmental performance, organisational

identification, job satisfaction and work-related flow.

Environmental behaviours have a direct mediation effect in the relationship between

HR practices and an organisation’s environmental performances (Daily, Bishop and

Govindarajulu 2009). Environmental behaviours are likely to play a role that results in

environmental performance when critical HRM practices support green behaviour

(Mukherjee and Chandra 2018). For example, a rewards system can motivate

employees’ environmental behaviours resulting in overall improvement of

environmental performance (Daily and Huang 2001). The underlying mechanism is

based on HR’s involvement in driving behaviour when they communicate

organisational objectives to employees in such a way that these objectives are achieved

(Evans, 1986; Lado and Wilson, 1994). Paille et al. (2014) introduced organisational

citizenship behaviour towards the environment (OCBE) as a link connecting Green

HRM and environmental performance (Daily, Bishop and Govindarajulu 2009). In

their study, (Pinzone et al. 2016) emphasised the collective nature of OCBE, while

(Boiral 2009) indicated that extra-role behaviour is connected to environmental

performance. Despite HRM being identified as facilitating environmental performance

112

in organisations (Guerci and Carollo 2016), only limited research has been conducted

on the exact HR functions that stimulate employees to behave in an environmentally

friendly way to contribute to the organisation’soverall environmental performance

(Jackson et al. 2011; Paillé et al. 2014). Nevertheless, workplace environmental

behaviours mediate the relationship between SHRM and environmental performance.

Thus, based on this argument, the study proposes the following hypothesis:

Hypothesis H5a:

Workplace environmental behaviours mediate the relationship between green HRM

practices and environmental performance in green buildings.

Similarly, following the previous discussion, workplace environmental behaviours can

be linked to other performance-related outcomes such as organisational identification

and well-being concepts. Practices by HR that have a focus on sustainability are often

capable of bridging the organisation’s pursuits as it seeks to achieve both its

environmental and economic goals (Guerci and Carollo 2016). For example, Paillé and

Boiral (2013) found in their study that managers improve employees’ overall

efficiency through key HRM practices. The various HR activities that lead employees

to perform in an environmentally friendly way in green buildings achieve different

results, such as employees being satisfied in their job, enjoying their work and self-

identifying with the organisation’s values. According to Van De Voorde, Paauwe, and

Van Veldhoven (2012), HRM’s presence indicates an increase in employees’ overall

well-being. Based on the discussed rationales, Hypotheses H5b, H5c and H5d predict

that workplace environmental behaviours mediate the relationships between Green

HRM and the following organisational performance outcomes: environmental

performance, organisational identification, job satisfaction and work-related flow.

Based on SIT, Green HRM, environmental behaviours and types of organisational

performance, such as organisational identification, are connected (Turban and

Greening 1997). Wayne, Shore, and Linden (1997) argued that essential HR functions

motivate and support employees to engage in the required organisational tasks. The

indirect relationship between HRM and organisational identification has been

supported by several studies (Wayne, Shore and Linden 1997; Masterson et al. 2000;

Rhoades, Eisenberger and Armeli 2001; Allen, Shore and Griffeth 2003). The

mechanism of HRM in its support for discretionary activities encourages employees

113

to be committed to such an organisation (Allen, Shore and Griffeth 2003). This

develops a sense of trust in the organisation as employees perceive management to be

considerate and thoughtful. (Edwards 2009). Consequently, employees are encouraged

to display a higher degree of organisational identification (Ashforth and Mael 1989).

In the current study’s context, when an organisation supports environmental

behaviours through Green HRM, employees are more likely to identify with the

organisation (Edwards 2009).

Hypothesis H5b:

Workplace environmental behaviours mediate the relationship between green HRM

practices and organisational identification in green buildings.

Clear linkages are found between value-driven HR practices and organisational

commitment (Celma, Martínez‐Garcia and Coenders 2014). A highly committed

employee is likely to be more satisfied with his/her work environment. Based on SIT,

O'Donohue and Torugsa (2016) argued that soft HRM could help to develop

employees’ social identity by improving their behaviour (Ardichvili 2011; Brammer,

Millington and Rayton 2007). Furthermore, SET can explain the association between

HR practices and job satisfaction (Blau 1964). According to Blau (1964), employees

behave in response to the socio-emotional benefits created by HR initiatives. These

emotions are more intense when the association is ethics-driven or value-driven

(Hammann, Habisch and Pechlaner 2009). Based on this employee–organisation

relationship, employees are perceived to be more satisfied with their organisation as

well as with the job itself (Kundu 2003):

Hypothesis H5c:

Workplace environmental behaviours mediate the relationship between Green HRM

practices and job satisfaction in green buildings.

Existing research considers that behaviours related to environmental issues have a

significant impact on work-related flow or task performance (Ehrhart 2004). By

making the work more meaningful, HR have the capacity to motivate employees

(Bakker, Demerouti and Schaufeli 2003; Hackman 1980), resulting in enhanced work

engagement (Bakker, Demerouti and Verbeke 2004). Support generated by HRM,

resulting in improved employees’ behaviour, can increase the overall quality of work

114

by fostering flow experiences. Employees’ perceptions of organisational initiatives

can be seen to develop behavioural norms. These descriptive norms are often

associated with proactive workplace environmental behaviours. Injunctive norms

signify the workplace environmental behaviour that is influencing tasks (Zohar and

Luria 2005). In another line of argument, employees become engaged in their work

through specific environmental behaviour when they are assigned the tasks.

Employees become immersed in their task when they perceive the presence of a

discretionary type of behaviour such as environmental behaviours (Norton, Zacher and

Ashkanasy 2014). Paillé and Mejía-Morelos (2014) indicated that it is critical to

examine behaviour that determines task completion through psychological processes

Hypothesis H5d:

Workplace environmental behaviours mediate the relationship between Green HRM

practices and work-related flow in green buildings.

In summary, the proposed direct relationships are shown in Table 3.1, with the

proposed mediated relationships shown in Table 3.2.

Table 3.1: Summary of direct linkages between study constructs

H1a: Environmental attitudes have a positive relationship with Green HRM initiatives in green buildings H1b: Subjective norms have a positive relationship with Green HRM initiatives in green buildings. H1c: Perceived behavioural control has a positive relationship with Green HRM in green buildings. H2: Green HRM has a positive relationship with workplace environmental behaviours in green buildings. H3a: Workplace environmental behaviours have a positive relationship with environmental performance in green buildings H3b: Workplace environmental behaviours have a positive relationship with organisational identification in green buildings. H3c: Workplace environmental behaviours have a positive relationship with job satisfaction in green buildings. H3d: Workplace environmental behaviours have a positive relationship with work-related flow

Table 3.2: Summary of mediated linkages among study constructs

H4a: Green HRM mediates the relationship between environmental attitudes and workplace environmental behaviours in green buildings H4b: Green HRM mediates the relationship between subjective norms and workplace environmental behaviours in green buildings.

115

H4c: Green HRM mediates the relationship between perceived behavioural control and workplace environmental behaviours in green buildings H5a: Workplace environmental behaviours mediate the relationship between Green HRM practices and environmental performance in green buildings. H5b: Workplace environmental behaviours mediate the relationship between Green HRM practices and organisational identification in green buildings. H5c: Workplace environmental behaviours mediate the relationship between Green HRM practices and job satisfaction in green buildings. H5d: Workplace environmental behaviours mediate the relationship between Green HRM practices and work-related flow in green buildings.

3.8. Conceptual Framework

As suggested by the literature review, green HRM could be a potential determinant of

different types of performance in green buildings. Based on the discussion, the study’s

conceptual framework is proposed as shown in Figure 3.4 below.

Notes: EAE = environmental attitudes; EPC = perceived behavioural control; ESN = subjective norms; EGH = Green HRM; EWB = workplace environmental behaviours; MEP = environmental performance; EOI = organisational identification; EJS = job satisfaction; EWF = work-related flow

Figure 3.2: Conceptual model

As shown in the study’s conceptual model (Figure 3.2), this study evaluates hypotheses

related to three antecedents (environmental attitudes, subjective norms and perceived

behavioural control) and four outcome variables (environmental performance,

organisational identification, job satisfaction and work-related flow). Green HR

practices under the realm of the TPB can be considered to have a direct impact on

employees’ workplace environmental behaviours. The rationale for choosing

environmental attitudes, subjective norms and perceived behavioural control are

explained within the TPB context.

116

Firstly, based on the preliminary literature review, among the various antecedents of

Green HRM are environmental attitudes, subjective norms and perceived behavioural

control. Secondly, although this study has focused on Green HRM that directly

connects with different performance outcomes, Green HR is the study’s core and

provides ground-breaking research on influencing employees to behave in

environmentally friendly ways. Thirdly, although a wide range of previous studies has

indicated that Green HRM support can influence employees’ workplace environmental

behaviours, the specific HR practices have not yet been considered. Moreover, the

mediating role of HRM in the relationships between the TPB’s three constructs and

workplace environmental behaviours is critical. Therefore, this study emphasises

Green HRM as a central mechanism for achieving performance outcomes in green

buildings.

Finally, only a limited range of studies has examined the mediating role of workplace

environmental behaviours in the relationships between HRM and different types of

organisational performance. However, the relationships between critical behaviours

and different categories of performances have already been discussed. Therefore,

focusing on the environmental workplace contribution is crucial in determining the

impact of management interventions on organisational performance.

3.9 Chapter Conclusion

This chapter reviewed the previous literature on Green HRM and workplace

environmental behaviours to provide a more informed understanding of organisational

performance in green buildings. Consequently, the Green HRM concept was found to

be most appropriate to use with regard to enhanced employee resource usage of green

buildings, thereby also improving employees’ overall performance. This chapter used

SIT to extend the understanding of Green HRM under the realm of the TPB, thus

providing relevant justifications for identifying the role of Green HR practices as being

the facilitating conditions for employees to behave in an environmentally friendly way.

The relationships between constructs were hypothesised, and the conceptual model

was established. The chapter proposed three main hypotheses, seven sub-hypotheses

and seven mediated linkages as shown in Figure 3.4. The following chapter discusses

the research design highlighting quantitative and qualitative approaches that were both

117

employed to empirically validate the conceptual framework and the associated

hypotheses.

118

Methodology and Design


Drawing from the systematic literature review in Chapter 2 and the literature review

in Chapter 3, it was evident that, while employee performance and green buildings are

interlinked mostly through technical elements such as the temperature, lighting and

indoor air quality of green buildings, the importance of management cannot be

ignored. It was argued that research is lacking on establishing the effect of

management on the performance of employees who work in green offices. The current

research explores and analyses, firstly, how management influences employees’ green

behaviours. Secondly, this study establishes the relationship between management’s

influence and the performance of employees in a green building. This chapter

elaborates on the overall research design, sampling and research methodology of the

study. Specifically, based on an understanding of research methodology, it establishes

the rationale for choosing the mixed-methods approach (Creswell, Clark and Garrett

2008).

This chapter is organised as follows. Section 4.2 elucidates the research paradigm and

the ontological and epistemological stance adopted. Section 4.3 discusses the research

design elaborating on the choice of the mixed-methods approach, with the rationale

for this choice explained and justified. Next, in Section 4.4, the chapter discusses the

population and the sampling technique and, in Section 4.5, the data collection and

analysis approaches are presented. In Section 4.6, ethical considerations are discussed.

The chapter concludes with the chapter summary (Section 4.7).

4.2. Research Paradigm

When conducting research, certain assumptions for gaining knowledge are required to

orient the research processes and to address the research questions (Grant and Giddings

2002; Firestone 1987). These philosophical assumptions, world views or paradigms

underline the choices made for the relevant study methods (Crotty 1998; Creswell

2014a). A paradigm is a comprehensive framework (Willis and Jost 2007) involving a

set of shared beliefs, assumptions, values and principles that guides a researcher’s

inquiry (Creswell 1998; Guba and Lincoln 1994). For the current study, it is critical to

120

The research objectives and the context of this study led to pragmatism being the

chosen research paradigm (Tashakkori and Teddlie 2013). The purpose of this research

was to investigate and develop a model for employees’ performance within the context

of green organisational practices in green buildings. The results from the systematic

literature review, presented in Chapter 2, highlighted that prior research on green

buildings has been conducted in the area of the technical elements of the buildings to

study productivity and well-being (Heerwagen 2000; Hoffman and Henn 2008; Kim

et al. 2005). The systematic literature review findings explored the need to determine

what organisational functions could influence employees’ behaviours to improve

overall performance in green buildings. In this regard, this study aimed to ascertain the

measurable determinants of employees’ performance and to further explore the nature

of performance within the green building context. A clear paradigm was therefore

required that could determine a combination of different models of inquiry for the

researcher (Teddlie and Tashakkori 2003; Guba and Lincoln 1994). Consequently,

pragmatism was considered more appropriate for this study due to its ability to mix

quantitative and qualitative models of research in a single study to evaluate different

aspects of a research problem (Teddlie and Tashakkori 2012). Pragmatism explores

the research problem from more than one world view, therefore making it more

practicable in terms of the desired outcome and impact (Teddlie and Tashakkori 2003).

It is particularly common to choose pragmatism when the research questions being

addressed intrinsically determine that a combination of multiple methods is needed

(Morgan 2007). In addition, the chosen paradigm was relevant within the context of

this study owing to its stances on related philosophical issues, such as objectivity and

subjectivity, and the role of values, context and contingency in social knowing and in

social reality itself (Greene 2007).

The belief underlying ontological philosophy refers to the nature of social reality

(Tashakkori and Teddlie 2013). The current study has taken an ontological position

from the pragmatic philosophy, acknowledging that views in social sciences can be

projected objectively and subjectively. To obtain a full and deep understanding, many

realities need to be understood. The focus of this study on employees’ performance in

green buildings could be perceived from different perspectives, such as those of

managers, employees and even of organisations. As with the ontological position taken

by the current study, a ‘shared’ (Kuhn 1962) viewpoint on epistemology was adopted

121

to acknowledge both objectivist and subjectivist stances as a continuum rather than a

contradiction. In accordance with the pragmatic standpoint, this study assumed an

insider’s perspective to fully understand ‘what works’ while addressing the research

question to understand management’s interventions undertaken to enhance employees’

performance in green buildings. Thus, in order to determine the axiology or the role of

values in the inquiry (Saunders 2011), this research tended to include both unbiased

perspectives (while collecting data objectively) and biased perspectives (while

collecting data subjectively). In pragmatism, such a multi-stance approach can be used

from different perspectives, accepting both objective knowledge as well as subjective

knowledge (Creswell and Clark 2018). In this study, it was critical to understand

different perspectives, such as establishing the relationship of management to

performance indicators in green buildings and further investigating managers’

influence on performance in green buildings.

To better understand management initiatives to enhance performance, this study used

both quantitative and qualitative methods. This strategy was based on rejecting the

relationship of specific methods to a specific paradigm (e.g., constructivism with

qualitative methods or positivism with quantitative methods). Consequently, this study

embraced pragmatism owing to its nature of being driven by the research questions

(Fetters, Curry and Creswell 2013). The research questions, first presented in Chapter

2, are as follows:

RQ1: What is the influence of management on enhancing the benefits resulting





performance in green buildings?

4.3. Research Design

As discussed in the previous section, pragmatism as the world view provides the

foundation for the mixed-methods research approach (Tashakkori and Teddlie 1998;

Tashakkori, Teddlie and Sines 2012; Tashakkori and Teddlie 2013). Mixed-methods

research is becoming a significant methodological approach as it provides numerous

122

opportunities for researchers to systematically combine qualitative and quantitative

data in one study (Cameron and Molina-Azorin 2010; Hesse-Biber 2015). Mixed

methods allow for quantitative and qualitative research to be conducted both in parallel

and sequentially (Tashakkori and Teddlie 1998; Johnson, Onwuegbuzie and Turner

2007). The following section discusses the justification and characteristics of the

mixed-methods approach used in this study.

4.3.1. Justification for a Mixed-Methods Approach

The mixed-methods approach was considered best suited to this study for three

reasons. Firstly, the fundamental principle of mixed-methods research is the use of a

mix of quantitative and qualitative methods to complement their respective strengths

(Teddlie and Tashakkori 2003; Elliott and Timulak 2005; Lund 2012; Creswell and

Clark 2018). The primary intent behind using the mixed-methods approach in this way

is that the qualitative approach can explain the specific results that a quantitative

approach may or may not be able to explain (Yin 2006). Secondly, this combination

of both quantitative and qualitative techniques in a single study is undertaken to obtain

a comprehensive understanding of the research questions (Creswell 2014a) and to

identify the general picture through quantitative results. Subsequently, qualitative data

can help to provide more insights into the results from the quantitative study

(Tashakkori and Teddlie 1998; Creswell and Clark 2018). Finally, the current study

on employees’ performance in green buildings can be better understood through

multiple views including those from employees working at the operational level and

staff at the leadership level. To make the findings more precise, the sampling plan

included managers, while the interview protocol in the qualitative follow-up phase was

informed by the quantitative results. This process was designed to make the study less

abstract (Firestone 1987). Hence, mixed-methods research with a quantitative study

followed by qualitative research (Creswell and Clark 2018; Miles and Huberman

1994) was deemed the most appropriate methodology for the current study.

4.3.2. Characteristics of Mixed Methods in this Study

As discussed in the previous section, this study used both quantitative and qualitative

data. This process was challenging as it required both forms of data to be combined

and presented holistically (Tashakkori and Teddlie 2003; Creswell 2014a). As prior

125

4.3.2.2. Weighting

Weight attribution (weighting) refers to the priority (i.e., emphasis) given to either

qualitative data or quantitative data. The current study assigns importance to the

quantitative data to understand the predictors of performance in green buildings.

Qualitative research is then conducted as a follow-up to explain the quantitative results

(Creswell and Clark 2018). This is represented by the notation ‘QUAN qual’

(Creswell 2009; Tashakkori and Teddlie 1998) which indicates that a greater emphasis

is placed on quantitative methods in addressing the overall objectives of the study

(Creswell and Clark 2018; Morse 2016). In addition, the notation system indicates an

explanatory sequential design in which the quantitative strand is followed by the

qualitative strand.

4.3.2.3. Mixing

As both qualitative and quantitative data are included in mixed-methods research,

these two types of data need to be integrated at some point during the research.

Therefore, it is vital to identify and comprehend where, when and how the data

integration must occur (Ivankova, Creswell and Stick 2006; Creswell 2014b). In the

current study, the mixing happened at the data level. Connecting the two types of data

occurred in this study when the analysis of quantitative data could be explained further

by the qualitative data (e.g., sequential design) (Krause et al. 2019; Creswell and Clark

2018). One of the major advantages of this follow-up study by applying the qualitative

phase is its capacity to elaborate on and explain the quantitative results (Krause et al.

2019). Furthermore, this could be easily operationalised due to its clearly defined

stages.

4.4. Study of Sampling Techniques and Population

This section presents the sampling strategy used in the current study. Sampling refers

to the process of selecting a portion of a large population in order to draw conclusions

about that population (Creswell 2014a). The sampling methods, bias and the

population are discussed in the following sections.

126

4.4.1. Sampling Methods

For mixed-methods sampling, an understanding of the sampling strategies for both

quantitative and qualitative approaches is required (Teddlie and Yu 2007). Probability

sampling techniques are often used in quantitative research and involve selecting a

sample that includes representation of the entire population (Teddlie and Tashakkori

2003; Tashakkori and Teddlie 2013). Purposive sampling is mainly used in qualitative

research and selects units of study, that is, those who can better answer the research

questions (Maxwell 2008). Consequently, mixed-methods sampling strategies involve

participants who are selected by probability sampling for the purpose of external

validity and by purposive sampling for improving transferability and reliability

(Teddlie and Yu 2007). During the quantitative phase, this study sought to obtain

samples with respondents who could cover the breadth of information souoght and

who could serve as representatives of the population. To generate samples from which

interviewees could be selected for the qualitative phase, this study sought to establish

samples that would lead to interviewees with a greater depth of information (Patton

2002a). However, the sampling plan for the follow-up qualitative phase depended on

the quantitative results (Teddlie and Yu 2007). The overall purpose was to use

sampling to choose a sample of interviewees who could address the research questions.

4.4.2. Population (N) and Samples (n)

The population of a study refers to the total of all objects, subjects or members that

conform to a set of specifications (Creswell 2014a). The population (N) of a study thus

comprises all respondents within the larger group from which the sample is chosen for

the study. The target population for the current study comprised employees and

managers who worked in offices located in green buildings. Office buildings were

selected based on the criterion of accessibility with variations within the sample of key

categories, including geographic diversity and green building certifications. The

variations in the distribution and composition of green buildings across diverse

geographic locations in Australia and India are shown in Figure 4.2. The current study

was designed to collect and compare data from Australia as it is a developed economy

and green buildings are a popular infrastructural choice. India was selected due to its

nature of being an emerging economy where green buildings are becoming a trend for

offices in recent times. While the green building market is much established in

127

Australia, this market is still emerging and under-researched in India (Yudelson 2008).

As it was not feasible to recruit respondents from all areas, the sampling frame for the

quantitative phase consisted of employees and managers working in organisations

located in green buildings. To further explain the quantitative results (Krause et al.

2019), a qualitative follow-up was conducted with managers. Sampling methods in

qualitative research typically focus on enabling a deeper understanding of the

phenomenon of interest (Patton 2002a).

133

Environmental Attitudes (Blok et al. 2015; Nystrom, Ramamurthy and Wilson 2002)

Perceived Behavioural Control (Sawang and Kivits 2014)

Subjective Norms (Freeman and Reed 1983; Sawang and Kivits 2014)

Green HRM (Zibarras and Coan 2015)

Workplace Environmental Behaviours

(Paillé and Mejía-Morelos 2014)

Environmental Performance (Paillé and Mejía-Morelos 2014)

Organisational Identification (Smidts, Pruyn and Van Riel 2001)

Job Satisfaction (Messersmith et al. 2011)

Work-Related Flow (Bakker 2008)

4.5.1.3.1. Environmental attitudes

The term ‘environmental attitudes’ refers to employees having the mindset to adopt

green HR practices. This construct was measured by the 5-item attitude scale

developed by Blok et al. (2015). They included three positive statements: ‘in favour of

behaving environmentally’; ‘it’s a good idea for the employer to support the

environmental behaviour in the workplace’; and ‘environmental behaviour is

important to me’. To reduce response bias, this instrument included one negative item:

‘non-environmental behaviour in the workplace does good’. The responses were

measured on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly

agree). Responses for the negative item were reverse coded in IBM SPSS Statistics

(formerly known as the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences [SPSS]) v.25. The

Cronbach’s alpha values were 0.83 for Australia and 0.78 for India.

4.5.1.3.2. Subjective norms

The next antecedent of Green HRM was subjective norms which, in this context, refer

to the perceived social pressures to perform, or not perform, environmental behaviours.

This construct was adopted from (Freeman and Reed 1983) to explore the subjective

norms of external and internal stakeholders. An example of a question asked was: ‘Do

you agree/disagree that the following stakeholders influence you in adopting

environmental practices in your workplace’. The examples provided for respondents

comprised external stakeholders (government, professional associations, building

owners, architects, engineers, designers and competitors) and internal stakeholders

134

(senior managers, HR managers, facility managers, middle managers, line managers

and colleagues). This 7-item scale was measured with a 5-point Likert scale ranging

from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). The Cronbach’s alpha values were

0.83 for Australia and 0.80 for India.

4.5.1.3.3. Perceived behavioural control (PBC)

In this study, the TPB’s resource readiness was represented by perceived behavioural

control (PBC) which determines the adoption of green practices based on the

availability of the ‘right’ resources (both financial and non-financial). Measurement of

this construct was based on the 3-item scale developed by (Nystrom, Ramamurthy and

Wilson 2002) using a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7

(strongly agree). The items were: ‘My workplace has ample financial resources to

support environmental behaviours and practices at the workplace’; ‘My workplace has

a reasonable amount of resources to support environmental practices at the workplace’;

and ‘My workplace has staff dedicated to environmentally-friendly related practices’.

The Cronbach’s alpha values were 0.68 for Australia and 0.71 for India.

4.5.1.3.4. Green human resource management (HRM)

Green HRM refers to supportive HRM policies and practices that encourage employee

participation in green initiatives. Green HRM links to environmental management by

recognising the significant role of HR in motivating an employee to take part in green

initiatives. Green HRM was measured using a 16-item scale adopted from the study

conducted by Zibarras and Coan (2015). An example of a question was: ‘To what

extent does your organisation use the following methods to encourage environmental

behaviour in your workplace?’ Some of the included options were recruitment and

selection criteria, team incentives, training courses, green teams and the organisational

vision statement. The responses were measured by a 5-point Likert scale ranging from

1 (never) to 5 (always). The Cronbach’s alpha values were 0.95 for Australia and 0.93

for India.

4.5.1.3.5. Workplace environmental behaviours

Workplace environmental behaviours were measured as a direct outcome of Green

HRM. Green HRM practices stimulate employees to engage in green behaviours in the

135

workplace which can help the organisation and its employees to demonstrate different

types of performances. The measurement of workplace environmental behaviours was

based on the study by Paillé and Mejía-Morelos (2014). This construct was measured

using a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree).

Some questions included were: ‘In my work, I weigh my actions before doing

something that could affect the environment’; ‘I make suggestions to my colleagues

about ways to more effectively protect the environment, even when it is not my direct

responsibility’; and ‘I volunteer for projects, endeavours or events that address

environmental issues in my organisation’. The Cronbach’s alpha value was 0.88 for

both Australia and India.

4.5.1.3.6. Environmental performance

Environmental performance was one of the types of performance studied in this

research. Environmental performance comprises specific environmental competencies

related to the organisation’s business strategy to reduce environmental issues.

Responses were measured on a 5-point scale designed by Paillé and Mejía-Morelos

(2014) and ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). The five items

emphasising environmental performance were: ’reduced waste’; ’reduced

environmental consumption of projects harmful to the environment’; ‘reduced

personal environmental impact’; ’reduced risk of environmental accidents, spills and

releases in the workplace’; and ‘reduced use of non-renewable materials and chemicals

in the workplace’. The Cronbach’s alpha values were 0.78 for Australia and 0.90 for

India.

4.5.1.3.7. Organisational identification

Another employee performance-related construct explored in this study was

organisational identification. Organisational identification is regarded as the perceived

pride that individuals hold for their organisation. This construct is measured with a 5-

item scale developed by (Smidts, Pruyn and Van Riel 2001). The construct measures

the impact on employees by the organisation due to the organisation’s environmental

initiatives. The items included: ‘… feel strong ties ...’; ‘… experience a strong sense

of belonging ...’; ‘… feel proud to work for the organisation ...’; ‘… sufficiently

recognised in the organisation …’; and ‘… glad to be a member of the organisation

136

…’ The response format was a 5-point scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5

(strongly agree). The Cronbach’s alpha values were 0.78 for Australia and 0.91 for

India.

4.5.1.3.8. Job satisfaction

The term ‘job satisfaction’ implies the extent to which employees are self-motivated

and content with their jobs due to the organisation’s environmental practices. Job

satisfaction was measured with three items derived from (Messersmith et al. 2011)

using a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree).

Two of the items were: ’I like working in the building’ and ‘All things considered, I

feel pretty good about the job after moving into this building’. One item was negative

to reduce response bias: ‘In general, I don’t like working in this building’. Responses

for the negative item were reverse coded in SPSS v.25. The Cronbach’s alpha values

were 0.84 for Australia and 0.66 for India.

4.5.1.3.9. Work-related flow

The final performance-related outcome was work-related flow which meant that

individuals in an organisation were likely to experience engagement with their jobs

due to their workplace’s environmental practices. Work-related flow was measured by

a 13-item construct using a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (never) to 5 (always).

Some items measured in this construct were: ‘When I am working in this office space,

I think about nothing else’; ‘The environmental practices in my workspace give me a

good feeling’; and ‘I find that I am also okay working in my free time due to the

environmental standards of my workspace’. The Cronbach’s alpha values were 0.92

for Australia and 0.90 for India.

4.5.1.3.10. Control variables

Several control variables were included to test the robustness of the model. These

control variables comprised: (1) tenure (options included a year or more and less than

a year); (2) duration of working hours in a day (less than an hour, 1–2 hours, 3–4 hours

and more than five hours; (3) number of working days in a week (more than five days,

five days, four days, three days and less than three days); (4) age group (divided into

nine categories: 15–19, 20–24, 25–29, 30–34, 35–39, 40–44, 45–49, 50–54 and 55 and

137

older); (5) lifestyle (sedentary, somewhat active and active); and (6) gender (male,

female, others).

4.5.1.4. Drafting the questionnaire

The questionnaire comprised standardised scales that had been used and tested in the

literature as discussed above. The survey questions used in collecting data for this

study were designed in a closed-ended format, with the survey instrument drafted to

limit potential biases in the response patterns. Some specific techniques were

employed at this stage of the questionnaire design. The study employed

methodological separation in the design of the research questionnaire, so that

respondents completed the measurement of predictor variables under different

methodological conditions to when they completed the measurement of criterion

variables (Podsakoff, MacKenzie and Podsakoff 2012). The methodological

separation was done by using different response modes and physically separating the

predictor and criterion variables in the questionnaire. Therefore, items in the

questionnaire were randomly ordered for the different constructs (Podsakoff,

MacKenzie and Podsakoff 2012). In addition, the questionnaire was distributed to

respondents with appropriate experience to answer the questions (Podsakoff,

MacKenzie and Podsakoff 2012). Finally, the language used in the survey instrument

was unambiguous, clear, understandable and familiar to those within the green

building sector (Podsakoff, MacKenzie and Podsakoff 2012).

The research questionnaire was also designed in a simple and attractive manner,

requiring 15–20 minutes for completion. In total, two surveys were designed to

respectively target employees and managerial-level respondents. The employee

questionnaire targetted employees’ experience and the manager questionnaire asked

about their opinion on their employees. Accordingly, the survey instruments contained

a clear cover story on the objectives of the research and clear instructions for answering

the survey questions. Each survey instrument had a consent form which gave

employees and managers option to voluntarily participate in or, to opt out of, the

research. The consent form also assured participants of the anonymity of their identity

and the confidentiality of the information provided. The questionnaire was categorised

into 12 main sections, with each section having a brief instruction to pause the

continuity of flow in responses. The first part of the each questionnaire for employee

138

and manager respondents was labelled ‘Demographic information’ and requested each

respondents’ socio-demographic information, such as age, gender, department and

tenure. The next section of the questionnaire was labelled, in accordance with the

constructs chosen in subsection 4.5.1.3.

4.5.1.5. Pilot study

After drafting the study questionnaire, the instrument was reviewed. To determine face

validity, the questionnaire was initially scanned and reviewed by two academic

researchers, the supervisors for this study. The survey questionnaire was later

submitted to three practitioners who worked with green buildings to obtain their

consensus in order to establish face validity. After the review, the survey was pre-

tested with a small group of 39 respondents. The questionnaire was pre-tested for the

following reasons:

To ensure the questionnaire contained all the relevant questions to obtain the

information it sought to collect (Aaker, Kumar and Day 2007);

To identify and remove any probable errors (Malhotra et al. 2006);

To ensure potential respondents would understand the questions and

instructions correctly, and whether any additional instructions or information

should be included (Babin and Zikmund 2015); and

To assess and determine how much time a potential respondent would need to

complete a single survey questionnaire (Aaker, Kumar and Day 2007).

A pilot study was conducted with a small group of 39 target respondents (Malhotra et

al. 2006) in April 2017 comprising employees working in green buildings in India.

The respondents were invited to participate in the pilot study by completing the revised

questionnaire. In addition, the pre-test respondents were asked to provide comments

and suggestions on the questionnaire, in terms of the questionnaire structure and

appearance (e.g., layout, font size); the wording and clarity of the questions (e.g., any

unclear or confusing question(s), any question(s) that could be interpreted in more

ways than one); and the average length of time it took them to complete the

questionnaire. Following the evaluation by, and feedback from, respondents in the

pilot study, a few changes were made to the revised questionnaire. For example, the

cover story and consent forms were printed as separate sheets instead of making them

139

the first section of the questionnaire. According to the pre-test respondents, this

separation of the two make it easier and simpler. In addition, the instructions on how

to answer some questions were revised as some of pre-test respondents found the

instructions long and, at times, confusing. Moreover, the wording of some questions

was revised to eliminate ambiguities as some pre-test respondents found them difficult

to understand or interpret. The findings from the pilot study are discussed in greater

detail in Chapter 5 (subsection 5.2.1.1). Due to these changes, responses from the 39

respondents in the pilot study were not included for analysis in the main study. The

final version of the research questionnaire for employees is presented in Appendix 2

and for managers in Appendix 3.

4.5.1.6. Assessment of reliability and validity

4.5.1.6.1. Reliability of quantitative data

Reliability examines the internal consistency of the items in a particular construct (Hair

et al. 2010). It is a matter of whether or not the researcher has used a particular

technique repeatedly applied to the same object and has obtained the same result each

time. The reliability of quantitative data was tested using Cronbach’s alpha test (Hair

et al. 2010; Saunders 2011). The measurement procedure is considered reliable and

consistent if the Cronbach’s alpha value is higher than 0.7 (Nunnally, Bernstein and

Berge 1967). The use of different reliability estimators may not produce significantly

different results; however, composite and maximal reliability values tend to be the

most robust measure of construct reliability (Byrne 2016). For confirmatory models,

composite reliability should be equal to or greater than 0.70 for adequate measures

(Höck and Ringle 2006) and 0.80 or higher for good measures (Daskalakis and Mantas

2008). In this study, all the study constructs obtained a Cronbach’s alpha coefficient

and a composite reliability value higher than the 0.70 thresholds.

4.5.1.6.2. Validity of quantitative data

In mixed-methods research, validity refers to examining aspects of truth values,

applicability, consistency and neutrality. Validity indicates whether the instruments

have measured the right elements that needed to be measured (Saunders 2011). The

items measured should actually align with the theoretical latent construct that was

140

originally intended. This ensures that the measure is free from any systematic and non-

random error (Hair et al. 2010). Establishing the validity of the results is ensured by

being in accordance with acceptable research standards. Content, criterion and

construct validity are the measurements of validity in quantitative research.

Content validity

Content validity measures how the elements of a test are representative of the whole

of the area that the test aims to measure (Salkind 2010; Hair et al. 2010). For the

quantitative phase of this study, the instruments used in the questionnaire were

constructed based on theoretical concepts grounded in thte academic literature and a

panel of management experts was then consulted to comment on the representativeness

and suitability of the questions. The final questionnaire was designed based on

feedback from the pilot study.

Criterion validity

Criterion validity determines how the instrument to be used estimates or predicts the

outcomes (Salkind 2010). Criterion validity was ensured in the current study by using

appropriate measurement questions to predict the performance of employees in green

buildings. In this study, the researcher consulted previous research related to the topic,

with questionnaires from existing research used to guide this process. The

questionnaire was designed based on studies published in the literature.

Construct validity

Construct validity predicts the degree that constructs effectively measure what they

are meant to measure (Stangor 2014). Construct validity is intended to support the

interpretation and the formulation of test scores (Salkind 2010). The construct validity

measures in the current study used two approaches: convergent validity and

discriminant validity. Convergent validity examines the degree to which the measures

positively correlate with each other within a specific construct, while discriminant

validity is the degree to which the measures do not correlate with other constructs

(Malhotra et al. 2006). These approaches are discussed in more detail in Chapter 5.

141

4.5.1.6.3. Sample size determination

Several complex formulas are used for estimating sample size for statistical analyses,

such as correlation and regression, when examining relationships and effects

(VanVoorhis and Morgan 2007). Green (1991) provided a robust outline of the

procedures used to determine sample size. The formula for sample size determination

is given as

N > 50 + 8n

where N is the sample size and n is the number of independent variables. Primarily,

the current study had five independent variables (i.e., environmental attitudes,

perceived behavioural control [PBC], subjective norms, Green HRM and workplace

environmental behaviours). Based on (Green 1991) formula, the estimated sample size

for this study would be a minimum of 90 employees.

For studies employing structural equation modelling (SEM) techniques, issues such as

the multivariate distribution of data, the estimation technique, model complexity,

missing data and the amount of average error variance of the indicators should be

considered in determining sample sizes (Hair et al. 2010). According to Hair et al.

(2010), SEM studies using the maximum likelihood estimation (MLE) technique

should have a minimum sample size of between 100 and 150 to ensure stable MLE as

this is an iterative approach that makes small sample sizes more likely to produce

invalid results. In Australia, data from 549 employees and 90 managers were estimated

and analysed. In India, data from 460 employees and 50 managers were regarded as

usable and used for further analysis. The accuracy and reliability of generalising the

study’s findings to the population were thus increased.

4.5.1.6.4. Data collection procedure

Data were collected between July and December 2017. Data collection methods

ensured that respondents were protected, thus promoting the researcher’s credibility as

well as the study’s authenticity (further details of ethical considerations are provided

in Section 4.6). An online version of the research questionnaire was initially distributed

to employees and managers in Australia and in India using an online survey platform,

SurveyMonkey. Despite follow-up emails, online surveys tend to generate a low

response rate (Fan and Yan 2010; Shannon and Bradshaw 2002). As a result, paper-

142

based questionnaires were personally administered to research respondents to ensure

a good response rate.

The current study was designed to collect and compare data from offices located in

India and Australia. The data collection approach in this study was cross-sectional. A

cross-sectional study collects data from the sampled population at a single point in

time (Leedy and Ormrod 2005). Although the cross-sectional design is the most

frequently used design in research in the social sciences, it raises concerns of response

biases and common method variance (Podsakoff, MacKenzie and Podsakoff 2012).

The next subsection discusses the issue of potential common method variance and how

this was addressed in the current research.

4.5.1.6.5. Potential common method variance

Cross-sectional data may possibly suffer from methodological lapses, such as common

method bias (CMB) which occurs when variations in responses in the data set are

found to be caused by the similarity of methods. This may arise from several sources

including response tendencies that raters apply across survey measures and similarities

of methods (Podsakoff, MacKenzie and Podsakoff 2012). Therefore, researchers need

to address the issue of CMB that may be present in their data to strengthen the

reliability and accuracy of results. This study checked for CMB at the pre-data

collection stage as well as at the post-data collection stage. As discussed in

subsection 4.5.1.3, at the design stage, the study’s survey instrument sought to

procedurally remedy potential response biases. Only established measurements were

used to avoid ambiguous items and vague concepts. Once the cross-sectional data were

collected for this study, two statistical tests, namely, Harman’s single-factor test and

the common latent factor were employed to assess the prevalence of CMB in the data.

The statistical analysis findings in Chapter 5 (subsection 5.2.4.1.3) suggested that

CMB was absent in this study.

4.5.1.6.6. Data cleaning and initial analysis

After entering the data into SPSS 25, the raw data were managed through editing and

cleaning processes. In this step, each case and item were examined to identify errors,

outliers and the percentage of missing values. By checking the raw scores against the

original questionnaires, the researcher was able to correct errors and outliers, as well

143

as deleting cases to obtain clean and error-free data sets. This study surveyed both

managers and employees, as stated in subsection 4.5.1.4, with different questionnaires

for India and Australia. After cleaning the data sets, four separate data sets (two from

employees in India and Australia and two from managers in India and Australia) were

created for further analysis, and missing values were imputed. This study included

both descriptive and inferential statistics in computing the quantitative data sets.

After cleaning the data, a preliminary analysis was conducted. In this step, frequencies

for categorical variables, such as gender and professional level, were calculated to

obtain an overall picture of the data distributions and to confirm patterns. Confirmatory

factor analyses (CFAs) and reliability analyses were conducted to examine the

structure of the factors as well as the validity and internal reliability of a scale. After

the CFAs, composite variables were imputed; skewness and kurtosis of continuous

variables were examined by inspecting their distributions; means and standard

deviations for continuous variables were generated; correlations between variables

were obtained; and the data were tabulated for presentation. In the third step,

hypotheses testing were conducted. The detailed process of data analysis is outlined in

Chapter 5.

4.5.1.7. Statistical design

Chapter 3 developed a research model (Figure 3.4) which identified several direct and

indirect causal links between the study variables. Due to the complexity of the causal

associations between the antecedents and outcomes of Green HRM, structural equation

modelling (SEM) was employed to empirically test the research model. Scholars are

able to use SEM to test an entire theory with a technique that considers all possible

information (Byrne 2016; Kline 2015). The most obvious advantage of SEM is perhaps

that, unlike other multivariate techniques where separate linkages are estimated for

each set of dependent variables, SEM is relevant for examining multiple equations

involving interdependence linkages so interrelated relationships between multiple

criterion constructs and predictor constructs can be examined simultaneously (Byrne

2016). According to Hair et al. (2010), SEM models are distinguished by three notable

features. Firstly, they estimate multiple and interrelated relationships. Secondly, SEM

models serve as representatives of unobserved concepts in these associations and

ensure that measurement error is corrected in their estimation process. Thirdly, through

144

SEM, a model is defined that comprehends the entire set of relationships of all the

constructs. This study involved multiple predictor–criterion relationships as

hypothesised in Chapter 3 based on the literature reviewed. Structural equation

modelling (SEM) is accepted as the most robust and appropriate method for testing

this study’s research model. The software Analysis of Moment Structures (AMOS)

version 25 (Amos v.25) was used to rigorously assess the latent constructs and the

hypotheses proposed for the conceptual model.

4.5.1.7.1. Structural equation modelling (SEM) using AMOS

In statistical analysis, two models are usually estimated, namely, the measurement

model and the structural model (Byrne 2016; Kline 2015). Therefore, this study

adopted a two-step approach including confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) and the

Structural Equation modelling (SEM) (Anderson and Gerbing 1988). The following

subsections discuss the measurement model and the structural model used in the study.

4.5.1.8. Measurement model

The confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) model is otherwise regarded as the

measurement model. This model examines the extent to which measured constructs

provide a confirmatory test of the study’s measurement theory (Byrne 2016; Kline

2015). The measurement model uses theoretical underpinnings to measure items and

their underlying constructs (Byrne 2016). One of the biggest advantages for using this

approach is, perhaps, the program’s capacity to examine the discriminant and

convergent validity of the proposed measurement model (Byrne 2016). The CFA

model determines the pattern that each measure loads onto a specific factor (Byrne

2016). In addition, this model often eradicates the requirement to summate scales as

SEM computes factor scores for each survey respondent. This procedure, according to

Hair et al. (2010), determines the associations between variables to be automatically

corrected according to the amount of variance that might remain in the construct

measures. Anderson and Gerbing (1988) strongly encouraged researchers to estimate

the CFA model to verify and confirm how items loaded onto their theoretically

underlying measured construct. Following Anderson and Gerbing (1988), the current

research first estimated the measurement model based on the research framework

developed in Chapter 3.

145

To examine how well the proposed measurement model fitted the research data, the

study employed multiple criteria. Firstly, absolute fit indices, incremental fit indices

and parsimony fit indices were used. Secondly, some diagnostic tests were conducted

to identify how to modify the model and improve the model fit. Thirdly, the two types

of construct validity – convergent and discriminant validity – were examined. The

convergent validity of the measurement model was scrutinised using a variety of

indicators, including factor loadings, composite reliability and average variance

extracted (AVE). Thirdly, the discriminant validity of the model was assessed. The

following subsections discuss the assessment criteria and what was considered an

acceptable fit level of each criterion in this study.

4.5.1.8.1. Goodness-of-fit indices

In reporting goodness-of-fit indices in SEM studies, different researchers have

indicated the use of different fit indices for the evaluation of their measurement models

(Hooper, Coughlan and Mullen 2008). While no golden rules exist for which indices

to use to report the assessment of model fit, Crowley and Fan (1997) encouraged

researchers to report using various indices as they could therefore determine the

different perspectives of model fit. Broadly, three types of fit indices are used in

assessing measurement models in SEM, namely, absolute fit indices, incremental fit

indices and parsimonious fit indices (Byrne 2016; Kline 2015).

4.5.1.8.2. Absolute fit indices

Absolute fit indices examine the extent to which the proposed model fits the sample

data (McDonald and Ho 2002) and establishes whether the proposed model has the

best fit (Hooper, Coughlan and Mullen 2008). These measures also indicate the

alignment of theory with the sample data obtained for the study (Hooper, Coughlan

and Mullen 2008). Examples of absolute fit indices are the chi-squared test (2), root

mean square error of approximation (RMSEA), Goodness-of-Fit Index (GFI),

Adjusted Goodness-of-Fit Index (AGFI), root mean square residual (RMSR), and

standardised root mean square residual (SRMSR). Although, as previously mentioned,

no golden rules are available on which indices to use for reporting, Kline (2015)

suggested the need to report the model’s chi-square along with its degrees of freedom

(df) and associated p-value. However, Kline (2015) noted that, in large samples, the

146

chi-square (2) is likely to be significant, and that the normed 2 of less than 2.0

indicates a good fit. Kline (2015) also asserted that the RMSEA should be less than

0.05 for a good fit.

4.5.1.8.3. Incremental fit indices

Incremental fit indices are a family of indices that compare using the baseline model

rather than using the chi-square (Hooper, Coughlan and Mullen 2008). These measures

include both comparative fit indices (Miles and Shevlin 2007) and relative fit indices

(McDonald and Ho 2002). Various types of incremental fit indices are the Normed Fit

Index (NFI), the Comparative Fit Index (CFI) and the Tucker–Lewis Index (TLI).

Byrne (2016) indicated that the Comparative Fit Index (CFI) and the Tucker–Lewis

Index (TLI) must have a value close to 1 for a better fit.

4.5.1.8.4. Parsimony fit indices

Parsimony fit indices indicate that, for a more complex model, it is possible to estimate

the sample data with competing models that, even though they are less rigorous, they

yield better fit indices (Crowley and Fan 1997). To address this issue, Mulaik et al.

(1989) categorised these indices into the Parsimony Goodness-of-Fit Index (PGFI) and

the Parsimonious Normed Fit Index (PNFI). Although both indices adjust for the loss

of degrees of freedom (df), the PGFI is particularly based on the GFI, while the PNFI

is based on the NFI (Hooper, Coughlan and Mullen 2008; Mulaik et al. 1989).

A measurement model is considered not to fit the data well if the fit indices are not at

an acceptable level (Byrne 2016). Table 4.6 presents the summary of the fit indices

used in this study and the acceptable level for each fit index. This research incorporates

various absolute, incremental and comparative fit indices to assess the measurement

model. Six fit criteria were employed, including chi-square (2), and 2/df ratio

(normed 2).

148

terms should reduce the size of the MI values and improve the overall model fit (with

this discussed further in Chapter 5).

Construct Validity

As discussed above, construct validity involves convergent validity and discriminant

validity. The following subsections discuss how convergent and discriminant validity

were examined in this study.

Convergent Validity

Convergent validity was examined using a variety of indicators, including average

variance extracted (AVE), composite reliability (CR) and Cronbach’s alpha coefficient

(Hair et al. 2010). The subsequent subsections explain these indicators. The composite

reliability (CR) of constructs in a SEM model should be higher than 0.70 (Hair et al.

2010). The calculation of CR is based on the squared sum of factor loadings for each

variable studied and the sum of the error variance terms for each variable. Another

important indicator of convergent validity is the average variance extracted (AVE) by

each latent factor (Byrne 2016; Kline 2015). To achieve convergent validity, each

latent factor should have an AVE threshold of 0.50 (Byrne 2016; Kline 2015).

Discriminant Validity

Testing for discriminant validity ensures that a latent construct is more strongly linked

with its own indicators than to any other construct in the path model (Hair et al. 2010).

In this study, the Fornell–Larcker criterion (Fornell and Larcker 1981) was used in

assessing the discriminant validity of the measurement model as this provided good

evidence of discriminant validity. In this approach, the square root of each latent

construct’s AVE was compared with the shared variances among the variables (Hair

et al. 2010). Discriminant validity is established when the square roots of the AVEs

are greater than the shared variances (Fornell and Larcker 1981).

4.5.1.10. Structural Model

After the proposed measurement model demonstrated a good fit with the study data

with evidence of acceptable convergent and discriminant validity, the next step was to

determine the structural model. A structural model estimates whether a particular latent

149

construct is related to other latent constructs in the model (Byrne 2016; Kline 2015).

A structural model thus tests a research model or conceptual framework by examining

the hypothesised relationships. Following the approach of Anderson and Gerbing

(1988), new latent constructs for the individual factors were created based on the

findings from the measurement model, with the new latent constructs in the structural

model having no indicator items. The results are displayed in the next chapter (Chapter

5).

4.5.2. Qualitative Phase

The nature of employee performance in green buildings under the influence of

management is an important area to study. Tashakkori and Creswell (2007) suggested

that a sequential explanatory study needs some of the results, including significant and

non-significant results from the quantitative phase, to be further examined by the

qualitative study. For example, Phase 1 of the quantitative analysis established the

relationships between Green HRM and impact on performance; however, the

qualitative study in Phase 2 was conducted as a follow-up investigation to further

explain the quantitative results using the study’s findings. A similar approach was

conducted in the study by Krause et al. (2019) where the follow-up investigation on

quantitative results was used to explore additional validations of performance

consequences on firm value. The current study conducted a qualitative study as a post

hoc investigation to further explore the results obtained from the quantitative study.

The next section sets out the steps and requirements for the qualitative part of the

research. It describes Phase 2 which constitutes the choice of semi-structured

interviews as research tools, sampling and the analysis of the qualitative data.

4.5.3. Rationale for Semi-Structured Interviews

A semi-structured interview approach was adopted for the current study (Malhotra et

al. 2006). Interviews are the most common data collection tool in qualitative studies

(Holstein and Gubrium 1994). Interviews provide a deeper understanding of a context

(Strauss and Corbin 1998; Holstein and Gubrium 1994) as they gather rich empirical

data (Eisenhardt and Graebner 2007). Eisenhardt and Graebner (2007) suggested that

researchers collect numerous data from informants to capture diverse perspectives to

avoid biases. Qualitative interviews can be classified as structured, unstructured (or

150

‘open’) or semi-structured (Fontana and Frey 1994). The structured interview style

follows a rigid instrument similar to a survey where the results can be easily compared

and coded according to the premises of the responses to the questions (Stuckey 2013).

This method often provides limited opportunity for respondents to provide rich data.

The unstructured (or open) interview approach is informal and is conducted as a

normal conversation to obtain the richest and most in-depth information (Moyle 2002).

The unstructured interview can tend to be diverted from its original purpose due to its

non-directive nature. The current study employed a semi-structured face-to-face

interview approach. A semi-structured interview, using the mechanism of a degree of

structure, can capture rich and complex data (Bryman 2006). This interview approach

allowed the researcher to uncover hidden complexities as it provided the flexibility to

probe interviewees for additional information (Patton 2002b). Semi-structured

interviews can also be used to cross-check and expand the insights from a structured

form of data collection, such as surveys or structured interviews through triangulation

(Denzin 2012).

A semi-structured interview design was purposively chosen for this study for several

reasons. Firstly, this method allowed a focused discussion of employee performance

that was confirmed in the quantitative stage by further exploring additional themes

within a green building context. Secondly, the semi-structured interviews were used

to expand on key Green HRM functions that could be used by management to improve

workplace environmental behaviours in green buildings. Thirdly, taking a less

structured interview approach for this study also allowed for interactions between the

researcher and interviewees to further comprehend the different facets of employee

engagement in green buildings that could be influenced by management.

4.5.3.1. Population and sampling

The qualitative data collection, as a follow-up approach, focuses on expanding the

relationships confirmed in the quantitative stage. Taking into consideration that the

quantitative survey questionnaires were collected from 17 organisations in Australia

and 22 organisations in India, the qualitative interviews were conducted with those

same organisations to enhance the ability of the study to be representative. The sample

for this qualitative study comprised managers working for these organisations who did

not participate in the quantitative phase. These managers were mostly the points of

151

contact for distributing surveys among employees. This method of sampling is known

as purposive sampling (Teddlie and Yu 2007) which allows interviewees to be selected

who are experienced or knowledgeable about the subject of interest (Creswell 1998).

Purposive sampling assists the researcher in selecting interviewees for the sample

using inclusion criteria (Acharya et al. 2013), which all interviewees in this phase of

the current study needed to meet. The managers working in green buildings were ideal

for answering questions related to employee performance when green HRM practices

were adopted. Data saturation was reached when the researcher was satisfied that the

complexities of the context being studied were fully captured (Dworkin 2012).

4.5.3.2. Development of interview guide

The content of the interview questions was based on the quantitative findings obtained

from Phase 1. The interview guide was developed based on Creswell's (1998) advice

to include sub-questions which can answer the overall research question. The initial

list of interview questions was based on the weak relationships and additional

clarification needed from the model that was confirmed in the quantitative phase. The

set of questions was reviewed by the academics and practitioners involved in this

study. The pre-testing of and feedback on the interview questions were conducted to

refine and minimise the risks (Sampson 2004). Feedback suggestions for the interview

questions were based on adding more probing questions, changing the order of some

questions, avoiding or combining duplicate or ambiguous questions and rewording in

simpler language. Each interview started with broad, open-ended questions, followed

by specific questions and extensive follow-ups to probe for more detailed explanation

and description. The interview guide in included in Appendix 4.

A three-step procedure was undertaken for the design of the interview guide. Firstly,

the interview started with broad questions. Interviewees were asked general

demographic questions, their role in their organisation, their role in managing green

behaviours in green buildings, and how their organisation supports employees to

improve their performance in green buildings. Secondly, the next phase of questions

was based on the conceptual model confirmed in the quantitative phase. Key questions

were asked about the organisation’s initiatives (Green HRM as a mediator) to improve

workplace environmental behaviours that impact on the dependent variables studied,

that is, environmental performance, job satisfaction, organisational identification and

152

work-related flow. Each question included one or two probing questions to extract

more data from interviewees. The objective was to understand the extent to which

certain Green HRM practices could assist management to improve employee

performance as was confirmed in the quantitative stage. Careful investigations were

conducted of relationships that appeared to be weaker and of significant results in the

quantitative phase. The final section of the interview guide included one open-ended

question to discover interviewees’ perceptions and additional thoughts on the

relationship between management practices and the related employee performance

outcomes.

4.5.3.3. Data collection process from semi-structured interviews

The first step of collecting qualitative data through the interviews was to obtain

appointments with managers from each organisation that agreed to participate in the

study. Prior to the interview, each interviewee was provided with a consent form

(Appendix 5) which consisted of brief details of the research, the scope of the study,

ethical considerations and the steps taken to ensure their confidentiality. Following

requests from interviewees, the interview guide was shared with them before the

interview so they were familiar with the questions. The date and venue were confirmed

by interviewees after signing the consent form. As interviewees were working at

management level, including some in very senior positions, the appointments were

postponed and rescheduled several times. Despite these circumstances, all 40

interviews across Australia and India were conducted within a span of four months

from December 2017 to March 2018.

The second step was immediately before the interviews in which interviewees were

advised about the ethical considerations, including that their participation was

voluntary and confidential and that they had the right to withdraw from the interview

at any moment. Details on the ethical considerations are discussed in Section 4.6. With

interviewees’ permission, interviews were recorded and additional notes were taken.

In this study, no ethical concerns were reported or emerged. The interviews were

conducted face-to-face and lasted from 35–50 minutes. The number of interviews is

determined when the researcher reaches theoretical data saturation (Fusch and Ness

2015). For example, in scenarios where a large number of sessions are organised, new

information potentially decreases from subsequent interviews (Teddlie and Yu 2007).

153

In the current study, saturation of information was achieved after 15 interviews from

each country. However, to include representatives from each organisation that

participated in the questionnaire survey, the number of interviews was extended to

include all participating organisations. Thus, to better understand managers’

perspectives, 18 interviews from Australia and 22 interviews from India were

conducted.

The third and final step of the data collection process was after the interviews had been

conducted. Interviewees were asked if they required the interview transcripts after the

end of each interview. All interviewees stated that they did not have time to provide

feedback on the transcripts, and they agreed that the researcher should carry out the

research without their feedback. Another possible issue was social desirability bias

that occurs when interviewees present themselves in a positive way rather than as they

would be normally (Van de Mortel 2008). Social desirability influences the validity of

interviews (King and Bruner 2000). The steps taken to address social desirability bias

are discussed in subsection 4.5.2.7.

4.5.3.4. Data analysis

Data analysis commenced when the interview transcripts were ready. The data analysis

procedure for this study followed (Yin 2011) five key stages: (1) compiling, (2)

disassembling, (3) reassembling, (4) interpreting and (5) concluding.

Compiling

In compiling, the first stage, the data collected through the interviews were transcribed.

After finishing the interviews, the recorded interviews were transcribed by a

professional transcriber. However, one interview from India and another from

Australia were transcribed by the researcher in order to understand the process and the

depth of the data. The transcriber was provided with the background knowledge of the

study before transcribing the rest of the interviews. This ensured the external

transcriber understood the jargon (Sutton and Austin 2015). The professional

transcriber ensured that the confidentiality of the information contained in the recorded

audio would be maintained. The transcription recorded any expressions, pauses and

gaps (Davidson 2009). All the interview transcripts were cross-checked by the

researcher and then collated with the field notes. The interview transcripts were

154

produced in Microsoft (MS) Word documents, and any identifying words about the

company and the individual were removed to ensure confidentiality and anonymity.

The researcher re-examined the final interview transcripts to ensure accuracy was

maintained (Wellard and McKenna 2001).

Disassembling

After compilation and organisation of the data, they were separated or coded at the

disassembling stage (Yin 2011). Coding is described as the process of sorting data

(Charmaz 2006) in a meaningful manner with regard to the context of the study

(Boyatzis 1998). The process of data coding for this study sought to identify

information related to the quantitative results. Thus, a coding strategy was established

before the coding commenced, based on the previous quantitative results (Yin 2011).

The researcher generated the codes and subcodes after reading the transcripts and

interview notes several times and becoming familiar with the data. The transcripts

were also imported into a qualitative analysis software program called NVivo (v.10)

to analyse the qualitative data in a systematic and rigorous way (Richards 1999).

NVivo is widely used for coding and generating rich insights into qualitative data

(Ananthram and Chan 2016). The main objective of this stage was to explore the

additional explanations of the relationships explored in the quantitative phase. The

coding strategy used in this study was a combination of open and axial coding (Strauss

and Corbin 1998). The open coding procedure involved creating categories for chunks

of data that could be compared together (Boeije 2009). The axial coding was adopted

to minimise the number of categories by constant comparison with, and assembly of,

related concepts (Silverman 2000). The details of the coding process are explained in

Chapter 5 (Section 5.3.1). The codes were generated as soon as the data were prepared

and, in accordance with Yin (2011), the same data were re-coded after waiting for a

few days. To ensure validity, the codes were reviewed by academics associated with

this study. The final codes were generated after several rounds of feedback from the

supervisors. This procedure maximised the inter-rater reliability and reduced coder

bias (Ananthram and Chan 2016).

Reassembling

The final codes were categorised within the context to create themes to support and

explore the quantitative results (Krause et al. 2019). The themes were further

155

categorised into subthemes as well as being collated to show a bigger picture of the

context studied (Yin 2011). During the axial coding process, the themes were related

to the subthemes to form a precise explanation of the concept (Blair 2015). To

represent the themes visually, Yin (2011) suggested two methods: hierarchies and

matrices. While developing hierarchies provides the clustering of related codes into

higher-order codes, matrices are constructed to arrange themes into rows and columns.

This study adopted a matrices system to represent the concepts emerging verbatim

from interviewees; thus, the themes were related to explain the quantitative results.

During the reassemble phase of qualitative data analysis, it is crucial for the researcher

to continuously review each theme to maintain its robustness (Anderson 2010). The

final themes were developed after a review by a team of coders, including the lead

researcher and supervisors, to improve inter-rater reliability to 100%.

Interpreting and concluding

The fourth step was interpreting the themes and common patterns generated in the

reassemble phase. At this critical stage, the researcher drew an analytical conclusion

from the codes in logical sentences. This study followed (Yin 2011) five goals for the

interpretation stage; that is, the interpretation is complete, generalisable, accurate, adds

value to the study and is credible. The interpretation for this study ensured that the

explanation of the quantitative results was extended, as well as explaining the weak

relationships discovered during the quantitative phase. A careful interpretation

determined that the researcher could focus on the varied experiences of the managers

in the context of employee performance in green buildings. This meant that the

interpretations generated were able to connect the themes and conclude with answers

to the research questions (Braun and Clarke 2006). The basic nature of concluding in

this qualitative phase was to add a post hoc (or follow-up) analysis of the quantitative

findings (Krause et al. 2019). The findings of the qualitative analysis are presented in

Chapter 5.

4.5.3.4. Quality of enquiry

The criteria of credibility, transferability, dependability and confirmability determine

the quality and rigour of qualitative research (Guba 1981). This subsection discusses

156

these criteria and the strategies employed in Phase 2 of this study to achieve the quality

of the research.

Credibility

Credibility refers to the confidence that the research findings are congruent with reality

(Denzin and Lincoln 2018). In this study, credibility was established through

prolonged engagement and peer debriefing. Prolonged engagement was used to build

rapport with the interviewees. This was achieved by spending time with interviewees

before the interview, conducting the interviews at a convenient time and revisiting the

recorded interview audios. Furthermore, the researcher carried out constant

observations during the data collection by note taking. In peer debriefing, the

researcher discussed the data collection and data analysis process with the supervisors

to identify any flaws in the study. Feedback from colleagues and academics was

obtained through informal discussions and conferences.

Transferability

Transferability refers to the degree to which the findings from the qualitative data can

be transferred to other situations or groups (Guba and Lincoln 1994). In this study, an

extensive discussion was presented on sampling techniques, respondents and

interviewees, data collection and the analysis framework. In particular, the purposive

sampling techniques used in this study provided more in-depth findings and made the

process transparent to others examining the transferability of the findings. Direct

quotes from respondents and interviewees were also used to enable other researchers

to apply the findings. Furthermore, by assuring anonymity for interviewees,

transferability was also ensured by restricting social desirability bias (Maryon and

Bruner 2000).

Dependability

Dependability concerns the stability of the findings over the course of time (Bryman

2006). For this research, sufficient details and meticulous documentation of the

process were provided to enable replication of the study and its results in future. The

research database was created using NVivo. During the coding procedure, the

researcher allowed multiple observations by providing a week’s gestation period

before coding the same data twice. This increased the dependability of the qualitative

157

analysis as the researcher gained a rich understanding of the data. Moreover, the study

underwent a peer examination to attract honest feedback or additional categories from

peers and colleagues (Yin 2006).

Confirmability

Confirmability refers to the research’s findings being shaped from the experiences of

respondents rather than from the researcher’s imagination and bias (Lincoln and Guba

1985). In this research, confirmability was ensured by systematically recording the

steps of the data collection and analysis. Furthermore, the legitimacy of whether the

researcher’s preferences had been avoided was achieved by a reflexive journal that

checked the influence of personal reflection on the data. An additional test of

confirmability was attained by generating the data using different methods (Creswell

and Clark 2018). In addition, confirmability was achieved by eliminating social

desirability bias (Nederhof 1985).

4.5.3.5. Social desirability bias

The results from interviews are more likely to have the potential for social desirability

bias. This bias is a classification of response bias that occurs when interviewees have

a tendency to answer according to social norms instead of answering truthfully (Van

de Mortel 2008). This research adopted several strategies to minimise social

desirability bias during the qualitative data collection (Ananthram and Chan, 2016).

Firstly, it was clearly communicated and ensured that interviewees volunteered for the

interviews. Secondly, confidentiality was assured for interviewees. Thirdly, to avoid

the preparation of answers, the main purpose of the interviews was kept vague. Only

a brief description of the research was shared with each interviewee before their

interview. Fourthly, the interview questions went through several revisions from

experts and academics working on the project to ensure the relevance and applicability

of the questions. Finally, one-to-one interviews made the whole process more intimate.

As interviews were conducted according to the suitability of location, time and

convenience for the interviewees, the interviewee was less likely to be put under

pressure to answer in a distorted manner. Therefore, these strategies were useful to

minimise social desirability bias in the study.

158

4.6. Ethical Considerations

Ethical considerations in research have been, and should continue to be, a critical

aspect of this endeavour (Saunders 2011). Based on arguments by researchers

(Plowright 2011; Creswell 2014a), this study avoided any potential ethical issues, such

as confidentiality, and ensured that the research activities generated no adverse effects

on respondents and interviewees, such as worry, nervousness, loss of self-esteem or a

sense of failure. As the research was performed in India and Australia, ethical

principles in both Australia and India were used to guide this study in order to

maximise benefits and eliminate any potential harm. As most organisations in India

were multinational companies with the medium of instruction being in English, the

ethical requirements for India were similar to those in Australia. Specifically, before

data collection, the researcher first applied for approval for a low-risk ethical study

from the faculty’s Human Ethics Advisory Group (HEAG) at Curtin University to

ensure that the research design and the research package, including questionnaires, met

ethical standards such as autonomy, confidentiality, voluntary participation, non-

maleficence, beneficence and justice.

4.6.1. Anonymity and Confidentiality

The current research made every effort to guarantee confidentiality and anonymity for

both quantitative and qualitative phases. The participating organisations, survey

respondents and interviewees involved in this study were coded anonymously to avoid

any disclosure of identifiable data. In this study, the researcher assured the respondents

and interviewees that the information they provided was anonymous as the research

instrument did not request their names or any other identifiable information. The data

collected were retained in a secure location: only the researcher and supervisors had

access to the data, and only de-identified and aggregate data were to be reported in this

thesis and subsequent publications. Following the principle of autonomy, the

researcher made every effort to ensure that interviewees were volunteers. This

involved the ability of the researcher to ensure that responses or information derived

from interviewees could not be traced back to the individual, and that the identity of

interviewees was kept from the public or any third party. Moreover, respondents were

assured that responses were used for academic purposes only. Together with an

invitation and the information statement, a self-addressed stamped envelope was

159

provided to allow survey respondents to anonymously return the completed

questionnaire.

4.6.2. Informed Consent and Voluntary Participation

Furthermore, the researcher ensured that respondents and interviewees were provided

with information about the study’s nature, aims and processes, how the data would be

used, and the potential consequences of the research. This ensured that respondents

understood the nature of this research and that they participated voluntarily. Before

completing the questionnaire, respondents were provided with an informed consent

form which contained a statement about the research (see Appendix 1). Before each

interview, interviewees were given a consent form to complete (see Appendix 5) to

ensure that they understood the nature and manner of this study, and its potential risks

and benefits. Survey respondents were given access to the survey after they gave their

consent to continue. Interviewees were required to sign the consent form to

demonstrate that they understood their rights and were willing to be interviewed.

Interviewees were assured that participation in the research project was voluntary, and

that they could withdraw their participation in the research at any point.

4.6.3. Honesty and Respect for Intellectual Property

Responses gathered from study respondents and interviewees were analysed and

reported without any falsification of data, evidence, findings or conclusions. To avoid

unintentional plagiarism, all articles and materials used in the current research have

been referenced appropriately.

4.6.4. Data Storage

The collected data have not been shared with others, and no conflict of interest exists.

As part of Curtin University protocols, the survey data and interview recordings have

been stored at the researcher’s workplace in a locked cupboard and on her personal

computer which is password-protected. The research data are only referenced to clarify

ambiguities.

160

4.7. Chapter Summary

The chapter discussed the research paradigm and described the mixed-methods

research approach used in this study. Specifically, this study is aligned with the

pragmatic view of generating knowledge and assessing reality. In line with the study

objectives, this chapter justified the rationale for employing the mixed-methods

approach to address the research questions developed for the study, and described how

the research was designed and how the data were collected and analysed. Through

combining the benefits of qualitative and quantitative techniques, the study obtained

rich first-hand information at both management and employee levels. The information

obtained has provided a comprehensive picture of how people are engaged in green

buildings and the possible influence of HRM functions on employees’ performance.

In brief, the questionnaire surveys and interview notes in this study have corroborated

each other and, hence, have enhanced the credibility and generalisability of the

research findings. Furthermore, the chapter discussed the ethical issues considered in

the conduct of this research, including respondent and interviewee anonymity and

confidentiality, informed consent and voluntary participation, honesty and respect for

intellectual property, and data storage. The next chapter outlines the analyses of the

quantitative and qualitative data.

161

Data Analysis and Results


This chapter presents the findings from the analyses of the quantitative and qualitative

data and is organised as follows. Section 5.2 discusses the quantitative data analysis

and its results. Based on the study’s sequential explanatory mixed-methods approach,

the findings from the analysis of the quantitative data then guided the qualitative

study’s data collection. In Section 5.3, the chapter discusses how the qualitative data

were analysed and presents the subsequent findings.

5.2. Phase 1: Quantitative Data Analysis

This section explains the procedure used for the quantitative data analysis and presents

its findings. The data analysis of the quantitative data was conducted using SPSS and

AMOS v.25. The section begins by describing the analysis of the data from the pilot

study. The section next describes data preparation which is comprised of data entry,

data screening and treatment of missing data from the data collected in Australia and

India. Description of the analysis of the demographic data follows, which includes

testing for data normality. The testing of correlations between the constructsis

presented. This section then explains the procedure used to examine the measurement

model which was tested for goodness of fit using various fit indices. The section

continues by describing further analysis conducted on the measurement model to test

for validity and reliability. The measurement model was also tested in comparison with

several other models to see if the baseline model was best suited to the task of

validating the structural model. When all tests of the measurement model had been

conducted, the models were analysed by SEM using AMOS v.25. The section next

describes how, in the structural model, the proposed hypotheses were tested against

data from the Australian and Indian samples. In this process, the direct and indirect

paths were confirmed for both samples. Finally, control variables were added to the

respective models to test the influence of demographic data, such as age, tenure and

gender, on the outcome variables.

162

5.2.1. Pre-Testing the Questionnaire

Pre-testing of any questionnaire is an important process for obtaining reliable results

(Creswell 2009; Yin 2013). The low response rate common in surveys may provide

unreliable results (Krosnick 1999). To avoid this low response rate, researchers follow

several techniques at various phases of the process. For example, in the current study,

an interesting and concise cover letter, including the funding organisation’s logo, and

the purpose and scope of the study, was provided to inform respondents about the

research. The questionnaire was designed in plain English, with technical jargon

avoided (Malhotra et al. 2006). The items in the survey questions were measured with

a 5-point Likert scale so respondents could understand the nature of these questions.

As there were 67 items, any ambiguous questions were removed so the questionnaire

could fit into less pages. In the current study, the questionnaire was pre-tested with

experts and a sample of respondents to refine the data collection instrument (Saunders

2011). The researcher obtained feedback from two academics from the School of

Management at Curtin University and from two practitioners working in green

buildings who were associated with the project. The questionnaire was adjusted with

five revisions following feedback from the experts and, for further clarity, was

distributed to a sample of respondents as a pilot study. In a survey, the pilot study is

an important step before the actual survey to improve readability of the questionnaire.

5.2.1.1. Pilot study results

In the pilot study, the survey questionnaires were distributed to a sample of

80 employees in India with 60 responses obtained, indicating a high response rate of

75%. The final number of usable questionnaires was narrowed down to 39 after

removing those with missing data, non-responses and data entry errors. Seven types

of demographic data were collected: gender, age group, position, tenure, working days,

working hours and lifestyle. Table 5.1 presents the entire demographic profile

information of the 39 respondents who participated in the pilot study. The pilot study

has 61.54% male respondents and 38.46% female residents. In terms of age groups,

the largest cohort (51.28%) of respondents was aged from 26–35 years. Most

respondents (46.15%) held professional positions in their organisations. In terms of

working days, 64.10% of respondents replied that they worked five days a week, while

97.87% worked for five or more hours per day. It was important in this study to

166

EGH11 2.8205 1.04810 -0.055 -0.871 EWF7 2.7179 0.91619 -0.041 -0.879 EGH12 2.4615 1.18868 0.195 -1.125 EWF8 3.1538 0.90433 -0.318 -0.635 EGH13 2.8205 1.09717 -0.003 -0.657 EWF9 2.2895 1.13680 0.671 -0.544 EGH14 2.5128 1.02268 -0.114 -1.065 EWF10 2.3684 1.10089 0.354 -1.173 EGH15 2.0256 1.03840 0.541 -0.957 EWF11 2.8158 1.18219 -0.141 -1.300 EGH16 2.9744 1.30761 -0.174 -1.193 EWF12 2.8158 1.03598 -0.072 -0.754 EGB1 3.5641 0.91176 -0.968 0.647 EWF13 2.6053 1.07903 0.326 -0.294 EGB2 3.2821 0.91619 -0.825 0.305

Notes: EAE = environmental attitudes; EPC = perceived behavioural control (previously abbreviated as PBC); ESN = subjective norms; EGH = Green HRM; EWB = workplace environmental behaviours; EGB = green building; EEP = environmental performance; EOI = organisational identification; EJS = job satisfaction; EWF = work-related flow

167

5.2.1.1.2. Reliability

To examine internal consistency between items of a particular construct, it is vital to

test the reliability of the survey instrument (Hair et al. 2010). In the pilot study, the

reliability analysis was conducted in SPSS using Cronbach’s alpha values (Cronbach

1972). According to Cortina (1993) and Lance, Butts and Michels (2006), a value

of 0.9 or higher for Cronbach’s alpha is considered as excellent, 0.8–0.89 as good, 0.7–

0.79 as acceptable, 0.6–0.69 as questionable, 0.5–0.59 as poor and less than 0.5 as

unacceptable. This means that a value closer to 1 indicates that the items measure a

single unidirectional latent construct. The pilot study’s findings revealed that all

constructs, except the construct ‘perceived behavioural control (PBC)’, had

Cronbach’s alpha values higher than 0.7. As the instrument for perceived behavioural

control (PBC) formed an important part of this study’s conceptual model, the

instrument was retained for further examination. According to Nunnally, Bernstein

and Berge (1967), a construct with fewer than 10 items has a tendency to show a lower

Cronbach’s alpha value and can be used (Spector, Liu and Sanchez 2015). In addition,

as this was a pilot study, the study retained ‘perceived behavioural control (PBC)’ for

the final analysis.

The following sections examine the findings of the main study, starting with data

preparation and model testing.

5.2.2. Data Preparation

In this study’s quantitative data collection phase, surveys were used. A preliminary

data analysis was conducted before the final data analysis to identify data entry errors,

inaccurate records, missing entries and duplicate cases (Hair et al. 2010). The data

were prepared, organised and meticulouly screened, specifically so SEM could predict

accurate estimations that would lead to correct conclusions (Kline 2015). Data

preparation guides researchers towards understanding the pattern of the data, enabling

them to perform further analysis (Hair et al. 2010). The following subsections discuss

the data preparation procedures: entering and screening the data; identifying and

treating monotones, missing data and outliers; and assessing data normality.

168

5.2.2.1. Data entry and screening

Initial analysis of all data from the completed data collection was conducted via SPSS

(v.25). All online responses were imported, with hard copies collected, and all were

manually entered in SPSS (v.25) by the researcher. A 5-point Likert scale was used to

analyse the data. The Likert scale allowed respondents to answer according to their

level of agreement or disagreement with a particular item in the survey (Allen and

Seaman 2007). The first step for data entry was to transform the two reverse-coded

items (EEA4 and EJS2). These items had opposite responses, and this is generally done

in surveys to check if respondents have paid attention to the survey content. If a

respondent chose 1 for ‘strongly disagree’, it was converted to 5 for ‘strongly agree’.

Similarly, 2 for ‘disagree’ was converted to 4 for ‘agree’; 3 was retained for ‘neither

agree nor disagree’; 4 for ‘agree’ was converted to 2 for ‘disagree’; and 5 for ‘strongly

agree’ was converted to 1 for ‘strongly disagree’. All entries were scrutinised for any

missing values or incomplete information and were later deleted.

In surveys, missing data are regarded as an influential issue (Hair et al. 2010). This is

especially the case in multivariate data analysis, where a response to each item is

required to examine a particular construct, and missing responses can lead to incorrect

results. Furthermore, data sets with missing values cannot compute certain tests during

SEM using AMOS v.25 (Arbuckle 2009), such as chi square, modification indices

(MIs) and fit indices. It is important to consider the pattern of missing data to see

whether these data are randomly distributed or non-randomly distributed. Randomly

distributed patterns can be ignored; however, ignoring non-randomly distributed

missing values might impact on the generalisability of the results (Tabachnick and

Fidell 2007). Data with monotone responses have no variances and, thus, are of no use

for any kind of analysis. All responses containing missing values and monotone

responses were removed. The data from employees were finalised for the following

constructs: environmental attitudes, perceived behavioural control (PBC), subjective

norms, Green HRM and workplace environmental behaviours. Dependent variables,

such as environmental performance, were finalised from managers’ responses, while

organisational identification, job satisfaction and work-related flow were finalised

from employees’ responses. The summary of the data sources is presented in Table 5.3

below:

171

Australia worked five days a week. In India, most employee respondents (70.43%)

worked five days a week. Manager respondents from India mostly worked five days a

week (44%); however, 18% worked three days a week and 14% worked four days a

week. Respondents who provided no response to the duration of days worked in a week

accounted for 0.36% in Australia and 0.66% in India. Furthermore, most respondents

did not work from home. In Australia, 82.87% of employee respondents and 79.12%

of manager respondents worked in offices rather than at home. A similar trend

occurred in India where 77.19% of employee respondents and 66% of manager

respondents worked in offices. The above results signified that most respondents to

the surveys spent their work time in offices.

The next set of demographic question results revealed that employee respondents for

both Australia and India were almost equally distributed between females and males.

The percentage in Australia was 45.71% female employee respondents in comparison

to 45.90% of male employee respondents. In India, the pattern was similar: 47.17%

female employee respondents and 46.95% male employee respondents. In total, 8.02%

of employee respondents from Australia and 5% from India preferred not to state their

gender. Employee respondents with no response in the gender category totalled 0.36%

from Australia and 0.87% from India. This trend was different for manager

respondents thus indicating that males dominated management positions at 60.43% in

Australia and 72% in India. In Australia, 9.90% of manager respondents preferred not

to state their gender. With respect to the age groups of respondents in the study,

18.57% of Australian employee respondents were aged from 30–34, followed by

18.39% from 35–39 and 17.12% from 25–29. The results from India were different:

most employee respondents (21.95%) were aged from 25–29, followed by 18.26%

from 30–34, 17.17% from 35–39 and 0.43% in the ‘no response’ category. The

percentages indicated that more than 50% of employee respondents would be

categorised as young (within the range of 15–39 years): 58.99% in Australia and

67.81% in India. However, slightly different results were found for the manager

respondent age categories in Australia, with 67% above 40 years of age: in India, 70%

of manager respondents were above 35 years of age. This indicated that most manager

respondents were slightly older than employee respondents. The analysis of

respondents’ positions in their company/organisation revealed that most employee

175

standardised regression estimates, standardised residuals and modification indices

(MIs) were diagnosed (Hair et al. 2010). The analysis then examined the validity of

the measurement model.

As shown in Figure 5.1 for Australia and Figure 5.2 for India, all the constructs were

linked together. This was done for the reason that, in CFA, the dependent and

independent variables do not need to be differentiated (Podsakoff, MacKenzie and

Podsakoff 2012). The causal relationships between the constructs and their respective

items were denoted by one-headed arrows, while covariances between the constructs

were represented by two-headed arrows. In this study, two separate models, one each

for Australia and India, were generated to best fit the data from the respective samples.

The study adopted the maximum-likelihood (ML) method to calculate the parameters

based on variance–covariance matrices (Hair et al., 2010). To examine whether a better

model fit could be found, values for specific fit indices should be calculated (Kline

2005; Hair et al. 2010).

The diagnostic checks in this study were based on scrutinising the items with loading

estimates below 0.50 (Byrne 2016), as well as by addressing the model fit, including

some fit indices from the measurement model (Hair et al. 2010). Based on this

assumption, items with high covariances were dropped (Hair et al. 2010; Byrne 2016).

From the Australian and Indian data sets, the items dropped from the respective

constructs were as follows: three of the eight items for subjective norms; one of the

three items for perceived behavioural control (PBC); eight of the 16 items for Green

HRM; two of the nine items for workplace environmental behaviours; two of the five

items for environmental performance; one of the five items for organisational

identification; and three of the 13 items for work-related flow. The reason for removing

these items was that both data sets needed to be consistent in the model for further

analysis. Furthermore, the final items from each construct were retained based on the

analysis of the modification indices (MIs) values (Hair et al. 2010). The assessment of

modification indices (MIs) values indicated that some higher values were found for

some items under subjective norms, Green HRM, workplace environmental

behaviours and work-related flow. To address these issues, covariances were drawn

among the error terms of the corresponding items (Byrne 2016). This further reduced

the size of the modification indices (MIs) values, and the overall model fit was

177

Figure 5.1: Measurement model: Australia

178

Figure 5.1: Measurement model: India

179

5.2.4.1.2. Validity and reliability

Before conducting the hypotheses testing, it is important to test the validity and

reliability of the constructs to avoid impacting on the overall results (Hair et al. 2010).

If measures are found to be valid, this may not necessarily mean that they are reliable

and vice versa. Therefore, even though validity and reliability are fundamentally

different, they are equally important. Validity determines that the set of constructs

measures what it is supposed to measure (Hair et al. 2010). Reliability, on the other

hand, measures the consistency of the survey instruments. This study evaluated

validity and reliability based on the recommendation by Hair et al. (2010) to use

composite reliability (CR), average variance extracted (AVE), maximum shared

squared variance (MSV) and average shared squared variance (ASV).

Construct validity

Construct validity determines that the measurements effectively test the theoretical

domain to which the construct is related (Hair et al. 2010). In this study, construct

validity could be examined by convergent validity and discriminant validity.

Convergent validity examines the degree to which the measures positively correlate

with each other within a specific construct, while discriminant validity is the degree to

which the measures do not correlate with other constructs (Malhotra et al. 2006).

Convergent validity was evaluated based on all items retained following confirmatory

factor analysis (CFA). Calculations to determine the validity and composite reliability

(CR) were carried out using the Stats Tool package designed by James Gaskin (Gaskin

2016). The results showed that the constructs were positively correlated with one

another with moderate to high coefficient values. Furthermore, as shown in Tables

5.10 and 5.11, discriminant validity was achieved. The recommended threshold value

for convergent validity is a value greater than 0.5 for average variance extracted

(AVE). For the Australian sample, the AVE values were above 0.5 for employee

attitudes, perceived behavioural control (PBC), subjective norms, Green HRM,

workplace environmental behaviours, environmental performance, organisational

identification, job satisfaction and work-related flow. Similarly, for the Indian sample,

these values were all above 0.5. As the AVE values for the 9-factor measurement

model for Australia and India were greater than the threshold value of 0.5, convergent

180

validity was achieved (Byrne 2016; Kline 2015). To compute discriminant validity,

MSV was used as follows:

MSV < AVE; square root of AVE > inter-construct correlations

These requirements were satisfied, as shown in Table 5.10 for Australia and in

Table 5.11 for India. Thus, discriminant validity for all constructs in the proposed

model for Australia and India was achieved (Fornell and Larcker 1981).

5.2.4.1.3. Reliability

The variables for this research were examined using pre-validated multi-item scales.

All the variables have a Cronbach’s alpha value greater than 0.7, except for perceived

behavioural control (EPC) in Australia which has a value of 0.68, and job satisfaction

(EJS) in India with a value of 0.66. The Cronbach’s alpha value of EPC in Australia

was increased to 0.70 when EPC1 was deleted, and the Cronbach’s alpha value for EJS

was increased to 0.77 when EJS2 was deleted. This indicated that all measures used in

this study had good reliability (Lance, Butts and Michels 2006; Cortina 1993). The

Cronbach’s alpha values, the means, standard deviations of the variables and

correlations between the constructs are reported in Table 5.8.

Table 5.8 reports the correlations between constructs in Australia. Significant and

positive relationships were found between employee attitudes and subjective norms

(r = 0.21, p < 0.01); employee workplace environmental behaviours (r = 0.19,

p < 0.01); and job satisfaction (r = 0.17, p < 0.01), but a negative correlation was found

with Green HRM (r = -0.08, p < 0.01). No significant relationships were found

between employee attitudes and perceived behavioural control, environmental

performance, organisational identification and work-related flow. Results shown in

Table 5.8 indicate positive and significant correlations between perceived behavioural

control and subjective norms (r = 0.29, p < 0.01); Green HRM (r = 0.42, p < 0.01);

employee workplace environmental behaviours (r = 0.32, p < 0.01); organisational

identification (r = 0.31, p < 0.01); job satisfaction (r = 0.21, p < 0.01); and work-related

flow (r = 0.16, p < 0.01), with no significant correlation found with environmental

performance. A similar trend was found between subjective norms and Green HRM (r

= 0.24, p < 0.01); employee workplace environmental behaviours (r = 0.30, p < 0.01);

organisational identification (r = 0.24, p < 0.01); job satisfaction (r = 0.18, p < 0.01);

182

Table 5.9 shows the correlations between the study variables in India. Significant and

positive correlations were apparent between employee attitudes and perceived

behavioural control (r = 0.13, p < 0.01); subjective norms (r = 0.23, p < 0.01);

employee workplace environmental behaviours (r = 0.21, p < 0.01); and job

satisfaction (r = 0.11, p < 0.01). No significant relationships were found between

employee attitudes and Green HRM, environmental performance, organisational

identification and work-related flow. As shown in Table 5.9, positive and significant

correlations were found between perceived behavioural control and subjective norms

(r = 0.28, p < 0.01); Green HRM (r = 0.31, p < 0.01); employees’ workplace

environmental behaviours (r = 0.29, p < 0.01); organisational identification (r = 0.27,

p < 0.01); job satisfaction (r = 0.11, p < 0.01); and work-related flow (r = 0.22,

p < 0.01), but no significant correlation was found with environmental performance.

As shown in Table 5.9, positive and significant correlations were found between

subjective norms and employee workplace environmental behaviours (r = 0.27,

p < 0.01); organisational identification (r = 0.11, p < 0.05); and work-related flow

(r = 0.12, p < 0.01). No significant correlations were found between subjective norms

and Green HRM, environmental performance and job satisfaction.

Positive correlations were found between Green HRM and employee workplace

environmental behaviours (r = 0.34, p < 0.01); organisational identification (r = 0.36,

p < 0.01); and work-related flow (r = 0.318, p < 0.01); however, a negative correlation

was found with environmental performance (r = -0.25, p < 0.05) with no significant

correlation found with work-related flow. As shown in Table 5.9, a negative and

significant correlation was found between employee workplace environmental

behaviours and environmental performance (r = -0.25, p < 0.01), while positive and

significant correlations were found with the rest of the variables: organisational

identification (r = 0.39, p < 0.01); job satisfaction (r = 0.18, p < 0.01); and work-related

flow (r = 0.35, p < 0.01). Environmental performance was found to have negative

correlations with organisational identification (r = -0.28, p < 0.01) and work-related

flow (r = -0.29, p < 0.01). No significant correlation was found between environmental

performance and job satisfaction. As also shown in Table 5.9, organisational

identification was revealed to have positive and significant correlations with job

satisfaction (r = 0.28, p < 0.01) and work-related flow (r = 0.50, p < 0.01). Finally, job

satisfaction was found to have a positive and significant correlation with work-related

186

In summary, the measurement model’s construct validity and reliability (as shown in

Tables 5.10 and 5.11) were supported by the findings. Before developing the structural

model, common method bias (CMB) was evaluated, as presented in the next

subsection.

5.2.4.1.5. Assessment of common method bias (CMB)

Common method bias (CMB) occurs when, due to the similarity of methods, variations

are present in responses in the data set. For example, one potential cause of CMB is

collecting data from a single data source in a survey. To minimise CMB, different

techniques were adopted in the current study when designing the survey. To collect

data from two different sources, namely, managers and employees, data triangulation

was adopted (Podsakoff, MacKenzie and Podsakoff 2012). After collecting the data,

two statistical tests, Harman’s (1976) single-factor test and the common latent factor

test, were conducted to check whether CMB existed in the baseline models for India

and Australia.

Harman’s (1976) single-factor test was conducted to determine if most of the variance

could be explained by a single factor. The analysis was conducted using factor

analysis: in the current study, principal axis factoring in SPSS was used as the

extraction method. The threshold value for Harman’s test is a single factor that should

explain less than 50% of the variance (Harman 1976). For the current study, as shown

in Table 5.12, a single factor in the Australian data set explained 25.75% of the total

variance in the data. For the Indian data set (Table 5.13), a single factor explained

22.11% of the total variance in the data.

To obtain more robust results in checking for the presence of CMB, the common latent

factor test was conducted. Based on Podsakoff, MacKenzie and Podsakoff’s (2012)

recommendation, a latent factor, as shown in Figure 5.3, was added to the CFA models

for the Australian and Indian data sets. All the observed items were then connected to

the latent factor. The standardised regression weights were compared between this

model and the previous model for Australia and India. In this test, a difference with a

threshold of 0.20 is recommended. The values for India and Australia were below the

recommended threshold value in the common latent factor test. These test results

revealed that CMB was not an issue in this study.

189

Figure 5.2: Model for common latent factor test

191

8-factor model, two constructs were combined; for the 6-factor model, five constructs

were combined; for the 5-factor model, six constructs were combined; and for the 1-

factor model, all the constructs were combined. In both cases, the values for chi square,

df, Δχ2, CFI, NFI, GFI, the Incremental Fit Index (IFI), TLI and RMSEA were better

in the baseline model than in the other competing models. These results revealed that

the baseline model could be the final model used in SEM to test the hypotheses. Table

5.14 shows the fit indices of the models that were tested. Results indicate that Model

1 fits the data well for Australia and India. Models 2, 3, 4 and 5 differed significantly

from Model 1. This indicated that Model 1 was the most robust for hypotheses testing.

The results for Australia are shown in Table 5.15 and for India in Table 5.16.

194

5.2.5. Structural Model

After the CFA, the structural model was examined. The assessment of the 9-factor

model showed that it was a reasonably good fit to the study data, with good evidence

of convergent validity and discriminant validity, no potential CMB issues and proving

to be better than the competing models. The results from CFA for the Australian and

Indian samples indicated this the 9-factor model was a good model fit and provided

confidence to proceed with hypotheses testing. This section discusses how the

structural model was evaluated and how the hypotheses were tested, including testing

of the mediating linkages and control variables.

5.2.5.1. Estimating the structural model

The structural model was estimated next, with the standardised effects among the study

variables in the research model able to be seen in Figure 5.4 for Australia and Figure

5.5 for India. In these figures, the main structural model shows latent variables with

their hypothesised links: environmental attitudes (EAE); perceived behavioural

control (EPC, previously abbreviated as PBC); subjective norms (ESN); Green HRM

(EGH); EGH workplace environmental behaviours (EWB); EWB environmental

performance (MEP); organisational identification (EOI); job satisfaction (EJS); and

work-related flow (EWF). Based on studies by Hu and Bentler (1999) and Kline

(2015), the following indices were used to examine the model fit: chi square; relative

chi square; Tucker–Lewis Index (TLI); root mean square error of approximation

(RMSEA); and Comparative Fit Index (CFI). Ideally, all the fit indices would provide

an overall impression of the model fit. The fit measures of the structural models for

Australia and India are provided in Figure 5.4 and Figure 5.6, respectively. Results

shown in Table 5.17 indicate that the structural models for Australia and India

demonstrated good model fits. The chi square/df for Australia was 2.66 and India was

2.44, with both lower than the threshold value of 5. The RMSEA values for Australia

and India were below 0.08. The TLI values and CFI values for Australia and India

were greater than 0.90 (Kline 2015). All in all, the results showed that the models for

Australia and India had good model fits.

195

Figure 5.3: Structural model for Australia

196

Figure 5.4: Fit statistics of structural model: India

198

the hypotheses developed in Chapter 3 were supported or not supported. The

hypotheses proposed in Chapter 3 were as follows:

Table 5.18: Summary of direct linkages between study constructs

H1a: Environmental attitudes have a positive relationship with Green HRM initiatives in green buildings H1b: Subjective norms have a positive relationship with Green HRM initiatives in green buildings. H1c: Perceived behavioural control has a positive relationship with Green HRM in green buildings. H2: Green HRM has a positive relationship with workplace environmental behaviours in green buildings. H3a: Workplace environmental behaviours have a positive relationship with environmental performance in green buildings H3b: Workplace environmental behaviours have a positive relationship with organisational identification in green buildings. H3c: Workplace environmental behaviours have a positive relationship with job satisfaction in green buildings. H3d: Workplace environmental behaviours have a positive relationship with work-related flow

Hypothesis 1 proposed that: (H1a) environmental attitudes had a positive relationship

with Green HRM initiatives in green buildings; (H1b) that subjective norms had a

positive relationship with Green HRM initiatives in green buildings; and (H1c) that

perceived behavioural control had a positive relationship with Green HRM initiatives

in green buildings. For H1a, employee environmental attitudes negatively impacted on

Green HRM practices for Australia (β = -0.14, p < 0.05) and India (β = -0.20, p < 0.01).

Thus, H1a was not supported for Australian and Indian samples. H1b was supported

for Australia (β = 0.14, p < 0.01) but not supported for India (β = 0.03, p = 0.611). For

H1c, perceived behavioural control is positively related to Green HRM practices in

Australia (β = 0.40, p < 0.001) and India (β = 0.39, p < 0.001).

Hypothesis 2 proposed that Green HRM has a positive relationship with workplace

environmental behaviour in green buildings. This hypothesis was supported for

Australia (β = 0.58, p < 0.001) and India (β = 0.45, p < 0.001).

Hypothesis 3 predicted that the outcome variables were positively linked to employee

workplace environmental behaviours.

200

5.2.5.2.2. Mediated linkages

The next phase was to test the two mediation effects. The first test was to evaluate the

mediation effect of Green HRM in the causal relationships between the antecedents

(environmental attitudes, subjective norms and perceived behavioural control) and

workplace environmental behaviours. The second mediation effect was workplace

environmental behaviours on Green HRM and outcome variables (environmental

performance, organisational identification, job satisfaction and work-related flow).

This study used SEM in AMOS v.25 with 5,000 bias-corrected samples through the

bootstrap method and 95% confidence interval (CI) to test all the mediation effects

(Cheung and Lau 2008). Results for the mediation effects are reported in Table 5.19

for Australia and Table 5.20 for India.

The following section examines the mediation results by testing the hypotheses.

Hypothesis 4 predicted that Green HRM mediates the relationships between the

antecedents (environmental attitudes, perceived behavioural control and subjective

norms) and workplace environmental behaviours. The mediated linkages proposed in

Chapter 3 are as shown in Table 5.20.

Table 5.20: Summary of mediated linkages among study constructs

H4a: Green HRM mediates the relationship between environmental attitudes and workplace environmental behaviours in green buildings H4b: Green HRM mediates the relationship between subjective norms and workplace environmental behaviours in green buildings. H4c: Green HRM mediates the relationship between perceived behavioural control and workplace environmental behaviours in green buildings H5a: Workplace environmental behaviours mediate the relationship between Green HRM practices and environmental performance in green buildings. H5b: Workplace environmental behaviours mediate the relationship between Green HRM practices and organisational identification in green buildings. H5c: Workplace environmental behaviours mediate the relationship between Green HRM practices and job satisfaction in green buildings. H5d: Workplace environmental behaviours mediate the relationship between Green HRM practices and work-related flow in green buildings.

In H4a, it was stated that Green HRM mediates the relationship between employees’

environmental attitudes and employees’ environmental behaviours. As reported in

Table 5.21 and Table 5.22, this hypothesis was supported and demonstrated a partial

mediation for Australia (β = -0.07, p < 0.05) and India (β = -0.07, p < 0.001).

201

In H4b, it was stated that Green HRM mediates the relationship between employees’

subjective norms and employees’ environmental behaviours. This hypothesis was

supported for the Australian sample (β = 0.06, p < 0.001). However, the mediating

effect of Green HRM on the relationship between subjective norms and workplace

environmental behaviours was not supported for the Indian sample (β = 0.00,

p > 0.05).

In H4c, it was predicted that Green HRM mediates the relationship between

employees’ perceived behavioural control and employees’ environmental behaviours.

Results showed a partial mediation for Australia (β = 0.19; p < 0.05). There was a full

mediation for India (β = 0.13; p < 0.01) as the direct path was no longer significant.

Hypothesis 5 predicted that workplace environmental behaviours mediate the

relationship between Green HRM and the outcome variables (environmental

performance, organisational identification, job satisfaction and work-related flow).

In H5a, it was predicted that workplace environmental behaviours mediate the

relationship between Green HRM practices and environmental performance. This

mediation effect was not supported for Australia (β = -0.02; p > 0.05). However, a

partial mediation effect was found for India (β = -0.13; p < 0.001).

In H5b, it was predicted that workplace environmental behaviours mediate the

relationship between Green HRM practices and employees’ organisational

identification. There is a partial mediation effect for the Australian sample (β = 1.65;

p < 0.05). As the direct path was non-significant, this mediation demonstrated a full

mediation effect for India (β = 0.28; p < 0.01).

In H5c, it was predicted that workplace environmental behaviours mediate the

relationship between Green HRM practices and employees’ job satisfaction. A partial

mediation effect was found for Australia (β = 1.11; p < 0.05) and a full mediation effect

for India (β = 0.07; p < 0.05).

The final mediating hypothesis within Hypothesis 5 was H5d which predicted that

workplace environmental behaviours mediate the relationship between Green HRM

practices and employees’ work-related flow. This mediating effect followed a similar

pattern to that found in H5b and H5c. A partial mediation effect was found for

202

Australia (β = 1.51; p < 0 .05). As the direct effect was non-significant, a full mediation

effect was found seen for India (β = 0.25; p < 0.01).

205

5.2.5.3. Influence of control variables on outcome variables

This study included control variables, namely, age, gender and job tenure. These three

control variables were chosen in order to understand how they impact on the

performance of employees in green buildings. The aim of including control variables

in SEM is to test whether any of the control variables significantly impacts on the

overall results. The control variables (age, gender and tenure) were treated as

exogenous variables and were covaried with other exogenous variables to regress into

the endogenous variables that they might be likely to affect. The placement of the

control variables is shown in Figure 5.7.

206

Figure 5.6: Control variables as exogenous variables

207

Only environmental performance (MEP), job satisfaction (EJS) and work-related flow

(EWF) were significantly influenced by the control variables. No significant influence

was found on organisational identification (EOI). The findings for the influence of

control variables are shown in Table 5.23 for Australia and India. Results revealed that

age influenced job satisfaction for Australia (β = -0.03, p < 0.05) and India (β = -0.05,

p < 0.001). One explanation for this finding came from the study conducted by Dobrow

Riza, Ganzach and Liu (2018) which indicated that those in older age groups were

more likely to have job satisfaction. This could be extended to the green building

context where age could influence the satisfaction rate of working in green buildings.

Job satisfaction was also positively influenced by the tenure of the employees. For the

Australian (β = 0.16, p < 0.05) and Indian (β = 0.15, p < 0.05) data sets, tenure was

positively related to job satisfaction. This demonstrated that employees who worked

for more than a year in green buildings demonstrated a higher level of job satisfaction.

This was supported by the literature which indicated that older employees tended to

become less bored (Dobrow Riza, Ganzach and Liu 2018).

Environmental performance was shown to be influenced by age in the Australian

sample (β = -0.01, p < 0.05). The younger generation was more concerned about

performing in a more environmentally friendly way in green buildings. This result was

supported by the study conducted by Hawcroft and Milfont (2010) which revealed that

younger workers demonstrated stronger pro-environmental behaviour than their older

colleagues. However, no significant impact of age on environmental performance was

found in India. This might be due to the collectivistic work style in countries like India

where employees tend to follow organisational practices rather than their own

individual ‘take’ on environmental management (Etzioni 1994). Environmental

performance was also influenced by gender in both the Australian (β = -0.04, p < 0.05)

and Indian samples (β = -0.09, p < 0.05).

Age was found to influence employees’ work-related flow in green buildings.

Justification for this result could be found in the association between age and job

satisfaction as job satisfaction is considered to be linked to work-related flow (Bakker

2008). Therefore, as shown in Table 5.23, work-related flow declined with increasing

age. This was shown in the Australian sample (β = -9.05, p < 9.05) as well as in the

Indian sample (β = -0.03, p < 0.05). Finally, work-related flow was found to be

210

5.3.1. Profile of Interviewees

Table 5.26 summarises the profile of the 18 interviewees from Australia while

Table 5.27 summarises the profile of the 22 interviewees from India. The interviewees

ranged across different sectors and age groups. From Australia, six female managers

and 12 male managers and from India, six female managers and 16 male managers

participated in the interview process. All the managers from India and Australia were

above 31 years of age, with 59% of respondents from India aged from 31–40 and the

remainder aged 41 years and above. The Australian respondents were equally

distributed among these age groups. The findings were obtained by analysing the

combination of open and axial coding processes (Strauss and Corbin 1998) which

involved conceptualising and categorising different subthemes under each hypothesis.

As shown in Table 5.28, the aim was to clarify and expand on each theme in the

relevant hypothesis by providing samples of underlying key terms under each

subtheme from the qualitative data collection.

213

14. Sameer Male 46–50 Sustainability manager I14 LEED Consulting, technology professional, and outsourcing services

Hyderabad

15. Ramkishan Male 41–45 Senior manager I15 LEED Computer technology Hyderabad

16. Harish Male 36–40 Senior software manager

I16 LEED Semiconductors and telecommunications equipment

Hyderabad

17. Anuradha Female 51–55 Sustainability manager I17 LEED Education Hyderabad

18. Raghuranjan Male 41–45 Senior software manager

I18 LEED IT services, including digital, technology, consulting, and operations services

Kolkata

19. Subhojit Male 36–40 Senior software manager

I19 LEED IT services, including digital, technology, consulting, and operations services

Kolkata

20. Anulipt Male 36–40 Business development manager

I20 LEED Design consulting firm Kolkata

21. Shekhar Male 51–55 Sustainability manager I21 LEED Technology services and consulting company

Bhubaneswar

22. Rahul Male 36–40 Senior software manager

I22 LEED IT, consulting and business process

Bhubaneswar

214

Table 5.28: Illustration of open coding process

Supporting Hypothesis

Interview Number

Step 2: Key Terms (In Italics) Step 3: Restating Key Phrases

Step 4: Developing and Naming Categories/ Subthemes

Main Theme

H1a 6

I think attitude’s not a primary motivation. It’s certainly one of a number of factors. The quality of the space that an employee will occupy is a factor

it’s not a primary motivation one of a number of factors

Not primary motivator

Environmental attitudes

H1b 4

Behaviours change because they're driven by government or by the customer. If you put a cost on pollution, that will happen. Once we start seeing a tax on carbon dioxide, behaviours will happen.

they’re driven by government or by the customer, cost on pollution

External and internal influences

Subjective norms

H1c 4

Generally, what happens with initiatives is that you need to have a budget for them. If you don’t have a budget, it’s just talking, and then people put in suggestions and then nobody takes actions, and after a while, nobody puts in suggestions.

initiatives is that you need to have a budget

Budget Perceived behavioural control

H2 27

Human resource team as I think in the centre zone of it, because if HR is not walking the talk, then nobody is going to believe it or do it. So, all these teams that I spoke about, the sustainability team, the CSR team, [are] considered to be a sister team to the HR team. These teams are not considered in solo, because everywhere, HR has to act as a change champion, so anywhere any kind of chain being driven, in the organisation.

centre zone of it, HR is not walking the talk, sister team to HR team, HR has to act as a change champion HRM and

sustainability Green HRM

215

H3a 25

We can see the environmental conditions degrading, pollution levels are increasing, and any company, be it Capgemini or any other organisation, if they are contributing collectively, by over at first, then continuously, we can curb those things, and we can make the environment more friendly.

environmental conditions degrading, pollution levels increasing, contributing collectively, we can curb those things, and make the environment more friendly

Environmental performance

Performance outcomes

H3b 27

One is the work environment, and the second is belongingness or brand pride. When employees are working for the organisation, and they very well look around it and say, hey, this is where I work, and I like working here, and that, in turn, helps us in building brand image

belongingness helps us in building a brand image Organisational

identification Performance outcomes

H3c 10

I think it comes across where productivity gets impacted from employee satisfaction. Many people who are happy in their work environment generally do perform better, and they’re more receptive. They can work that up for longer periods as well, and that keeps their clients happy.

Productivity, employee satisfaction, more receptive

Job satisfaction Performance outcomes

H3d 5

Happy, motivated employees can do wonders for you. If your work environment and your work culture are happy and motivated, employees can bring the tremendous result to the organisation. One person can do [the] job of three people if he or she is happy, and three people will not do the job of one person if they are not happy, as simple as that. You have to provide them the environment culture to perform to the fullest capacity

can do wonders, bring tremendous result

Work-related flow

Performance outcomes

H4a 5

Employees come with professional attitude and if they are involved in green initiatives, they will definitely get involved. Else they won’t put energy into behaving in a sustainable way.

put energy into behaving in a sustainable way

Green HRM Mediation of Green HRM

216

H4b 3

The role of that support is important, and the behaviours will come from [that]. The support in [the] form of initiatives and making employees aware of those things and implementing that kind of practices.

employees aware of those things


H4c 13

Typically, the capital is utilised by human resources to run successful projects focusing [on] green initiatives. Integrating such human resources functions will help to attract employees’ behaviours.

human resources functions will help to attract employees’ behaviours


H5a 27

These practices give us complete details right from the beginning, and we have an idea about certain innovative practices and how we can behave.

how we can behave Workplace environmental behaviours

Mediation of workplace environmental behaviours

H5b 32

When employees see that they are working for an organisation which is doing something for the environment and surroundings, this makes them feel motivated. My behaviours make me feel positive that I am also contributing, may be [a] small percentage.

behaviours make me feel positive

Workplace environmental behaviours


H5c 39

Absolutely, under pressure, employees have to behave according to those initiatives. This will make employees gradually show interest and feel good about it.

employees gradually show interest and feel good



H5d 27

The green initiatives can make our life livelier and will make us directly connected to the environment. In such a way, everybody will stay motivated and engaged in their work.

will stay motivated and engaged



218

supported by Interviewee 4 who added that a financial value would motivate

employees to bring their attitude towards sustainability and adopting environmental

practices, such as Green HRM, to the workplace.

[Interviewee 8] Looking around the place, probably not. This is a hard one to

answer, but some people take this challenge related to green when they see the

initiatives in place, but others will just say, so what?

[Interviewee 6] I think it’s not a primary motivation. It’s certainly one [of] the

factors that come with it. The quality of the space that an employee will occupy

is a major factor.

[Interviewee 10] It’s hard to know their attitudes. They are here more for the

benefits of a good space to work in comfort-wise, amenity-wise.

[Interviewee 17] I don’t necessarily think that it does. If we were sitting here,

we’re surrounded by smog, and we couldn’t breathe, then definitely, yes, that

kind of stuff. That’s more of the natural environment. For the most part, I think

it’s probably something that you definitely take into consideration, but it’s

definitely not one of the main reasons why I chose to come here and work.

[Interviewee 9] The green aspects are nice to have, but they’re not seen as a

tangible benefit. I don’t think you can measure a benefit in terms of people’s

efficiency on their attitude.

[Interviewee 4] Actually nobody does that. To be very honest, there’s a lot of

talk about environmental initiatives, but unless there’s a monetary value

associated with it, nobody does it. That’s why all of us are dragged, kicking

and screaming, to do that: no matter how much we say we love it, that’s all

useless.

Interviewees 34 and 39 in India supported the views in the above discussion on the

lack of self-driven attitude for environmental sustainability. Interviewee 26 stated that

the absence of the right mindset would generate temporary behaviour. According to

Interviewee 30, developing attitudes can be subjective, for example, when

organisations impose environmental initiatives on the workplace. Furthermore,

219

Interviewee 37 explained that often employees are busy meeting their professional

requirements and behaving in an environmentally friendly way would involve putting

in extra time. This signified the role of macro-level factors, such as the government

and the organisation, and the political will to drive the sustainability agenda. In

addition, Interviewee 22 described environmental sustainability as a topic does not

emerge organically in discussions compared to other topics, such as movies and

politics.

[Interviewee 26] I always think people know a lot of things; they have a lot of

knowledge, but practice and experience are what people lack, for an example

of sustainability is the paper cup. I have seen many people complain about a

paper cup, but when paper cup[s] suddenly stopped in our company, people

will follow for a day or two; the next day they will forget. Definitely, it cannot

be an individual job; it cannot be the only company’s initiatives such as written

policies, rules, regulation. Nobody follows that. It should be inbuilt; you should

feel like I should do that.

[Interviewee 30] Turn light [off] before going out, switch off your monitor;

these kinds of instructions are put in all cubicles; again you can ask how many

people are following: it is subjective.

[Interviewee 37] People are coming with a professional attitude; they want to

do their work and earn the money they are supposed to earn, that’s it. [The]

workplace is not something where they spend their time with their family. A

person may be involved in their own green initiatives in their house, but when

it comes to a company, it’s only work, so I don’t think they will take a huge

amount of his[/her] energy, won’t even like to take time off and get involved..

[Interviewee 22] When four people gather in a tea shop, they talk about

politics, they talk about Bollywood, they talk about Hollywood. etc. But they

don’t talk about environmental stuff. Nobody is paying them to talk about

politics or Bollywood songs. Attitudes towards [the] environment can happen

only at a larger-level momentum such as[the] political level and national level.

221

In Australia, the support for green initiatives came from external stakeholders such as

building owners, as mentioned by Interviewee 8, and government, as indicated by

Interviewees 15 and 4. Internal stakeholders, such as self-driven employees as

mentioned by Interviewee 17, were considered to drive these initiatives in green

buildings.

[Interviewee 8] We’re heavily reliant on the owner and their facilities’ people

to advise us how they’re managing the building. We are reliant on information

from them before we can disseminate and generate more interest amongst the

staff.

[Interviewee 15] It depends on who is mandating it. If it was the world

mandating it, it would be easy and then everyone would be on a level playing

field, and [if] it’s your council or the state government, you always have to

follow the rules.

[Interviewee 4] Behaviours change because they’re driven by government or

by the customer. It’s like fashion: if you decide I am not going to wear skirts

any more, there won’t be any skirts made. If you put a cost on pollution, then

organisations will make initiatives.

[Interviewee 17] A lot of the initiatives actually get driven by the staff. Every

now and then, we have focus groups, and people come up with these ideas and

I ask the management if we can do this, that or the other. Generally, they accept

it because it’s obvious as the right things to do.

Hypothesis H1b was not supported by the data from India, with this further explained

by interviewees from India. The roles and key people to help implement these

initiatives were often found to be miscalculated. The reason might be the higher

hierarchical structure of organisations in India (Ahmad, Haleem and Syed 2012).

Specifically, as stated by Interviewee 25, even if a self-driven employee wanted to

suggest some initiative, it might not be accepted as the manager might not be the right

person to support the idea. Interviewee 32 added that the inability to reach out to top-

level management often hinders the implementation of any initiatives. With regard to

green buildings, Interviewee 34 stated that less motivation exists for adopting such

222

initiatives. The lack of a relationship between subjective norms and Green HRM in

India was also supported by Interviewees 26, 27 and 19.

[Interviewee 25] They do, considering you are reaching out to the correct

person; considering it’s not like I'm reaching out to my manager with that idea;

it would be accepted well, [but] it might or might not be relevant for him, so if

I have something, I should not only reach out to my manager but also to the

relevant team, which can actually implement it and think about it.

[Interviewee 32] We are moving from green initiatives; I would say we are

moving from the group level. It is not from the centre level or each location, so

once this initiative is drilled down to the central head, the responsibility to

implement these initiatives at their respective level will occur.

[Interviewee 34] First we have to know what motivates; [there]’s not much that

[the] organisation can do. There are guidelines that have to be followed from

building management, so there are not many things [that] anyone can do.

5.3.2.3. H1c: Perceived behavioural control Green HRM

The next theme ‘perceived behavioural control’ highlighted the importance of

resources that are likely to help management promote key green initiatives in

workplaces (Zoogah 2011). Hypothesis H1c proposed that perceived behavioural

control has a positive relationship with Green HRM. The quantitative results from

Australia and India supported this hypothesis. Evidence of this theme in H1c can be

found in the quantitative results which suggested that key resources influenced the

adoption of green initiatives in any organisation. These resources include tangible

resources such as designated roles for sustainability, policies emphasising green

initiatives and the allocation of financial support to implement green initiatives.

Thus, the main theme explored in H1c is perceived behavioural control with the

subthemes of sustainability roles, sustainability policies and budget (Table 5.31).

224

the individual teams at employee levels, and that should be then circulated to

various sub-teams and subdivisions so that each of them is aware of it.

[Interviewee 21] If any change has to come, that has to come from the higher

authorities who are at the higher level in an organisation. Unless that becomes

a goal of the organisation, people in your organisation cannot [be] converted.

So, that is a very important part as you set some goals; then employees are

there to work on the things that you give.

Sustainability policies

Top management is the source of support for green initiatives such as Green HRM.

Moreover, top management is aligned with the key organisational policies.

Organisations should effectively communicate their environmental policies and values

to employees to develop green initiatives (Dumont, Shen and Deng 2017). In Australia,

most organisations have some kind of environmental policy or strategy. Interviewees

8, 15 and 5 mentioned specific environmental policies that are part of their businesses,

while Interviewees 3, 11 and 10 focused on these policies as part of their action plan,

strategy or organisational commitments. Interviewee 7 highlighted the importance of

these policies in maintaining organisations’ accreditation. Furthermore, Interviewee

13 mentioned that the policies served as guiding documents to manage their

environmental management system. These policies, as described by Interviewee 11,

are helpful for emphasising the focus on sustainability and, moreover, as Interviewee

4 mentioned, for enhancing the organisation’s overall performance improvements.

[Interviewee 13] There already is a series of guiding documents which are part

of our environmental management system, which show how we should work on

projects or give guidance [about] how we approach sustainable design in our

projects, within our operations and our studios.

[Interviewee 11] We definitely have sustainability as part of our core values

that we have a real focus on.

[Interviewee 4] In the last 10 years, we have developed a number of systems

that improve efficiency.

225

Interviewees 28, 30, 32, 36 and 39 from India agreed that they had some kind of

environmental policies in their organisations. Specifically, Interviewee 23 explained

how these environmental policies generated key environmental workplace

environmental behaviours among employees working in the organisation.

[Interviewee 23] Yes, nowadays, we are adopting certain policies, like fewer

prints, and this will make people use less paper, and whichever paper is wasted,

our attendant collects that paper.

Budget

The successful implementation of green initiatives depends on financial resources. In

Australia, mixed responses were received on the point about having a separate budget

to implement green initiatives. Interviewees 1, 10, 2, 12 and 13 agreed to a separate

budget, while Interviewees 6, 7 and 11 had limited knowledge of any predefined

budget for green initiatives. Interviewee 5 highlighted that often the expenditure used

for environmental initiatives is from other key departments. Financial resources are

significant for driving any kind of initiative. Interviewee 4 explained that a lack of

budget would result in the absence of any initiatives.

[Interviewee 5] I would not say there [are] no separate financial resource, but

we have got the Health, Safety and Environment budget that is dedicated to

training initiatives and other green initiatives within the company.

[Interviewee 4] Generally, what happens with initiatives is that you need to

have a budget for them. If you don’t have a budget, it’s just talking, and then

people put in suggestions and then nobody takes actions, and after a while,

nobody puts in suggestions.

In India, Interviewees 19, 25, 26 and 29 agreed that a separate budget was allocated

for green initiatives in their organisations. Interviewee 32 mentioned the reason for a

separate budget was often to comply with certain standards such as ISO 14001. The

existence of a separate budget for green initiatives was essential to address the stress

on implementing innovations within the financial resources provided, as mentioned by

Interviewee 28.

226

[Interviewee 32] As we have to do ISO 14001 compliance, we have a budget;

therefore, [a] budget is necessary at the organisation level, group level and at

all the centres to comply with ISO 14001 certification.

[Interviewee 28] This is the only company which has a department that

allocates budgets for innovations, and we are told that you have to do at least

two innovations every year or so, and we make sure, each and every one of our

new buildings has some or other initiative.

5.3.2.4. H2: Green HRM Workplace environmental behaviours

The core theme of this study emphasised that human resources (HR) has significant

potential to introduce and enable environmental behaviours among employees

working in green buildings. H2 proposed that Green HRM has a positive relationship

with workplace environmental behaviours in green buildings. Key HR functions help

to establish environmental behaviours (Ciocirlan 2017). Findings from the qualitative

data collection suggested that HR functions, such as recruitment, induction, teams,

culture, training, performance criteria and communication, are key areas that

organisations were utilising to innovate and implement green initiatives. This theme

was further explained in H2.

Results from Australia provided support to HR playing an important role in

implementing environmental initiatives in green buildings. Interviewee 10 mentioned

the role of HR in raising awareness and highlighted that HR can provide a strategic

approach to solve key issues. Taking this argument forward, managers in India were

aligned with the idea that HR play a central role to implementing key environmental

behaviours. Interviewee 27 affirmed that other teams, such as CSR or sustainability,

were subsets of HR and, therefore, that HR’s role as a change agent was vital in

implementing green initiatives. This was supported by the argument proposed by

Andersson, Jackson and Russell (2013) that organisations’ managers can encourage

environmental behaviours.

[Interviewee 13] We need to raise that level of awareness, and I think HR can

help as they can help to build that.

228

[Interviewee 2] When we recruit, as part of the advertising, we mention our

environmental responsibility and certainly, in the interview process, we say

that we are a green company. We do that to attract certain people who are

motivated to be involved in important initiatives of the company.

[Interviewee 27] In recruitment, I would not say that we have one assessment

question asking “do you believe in green initiatives?” but there has to be proof

in their CVs that they have worked in [these] kind of projects that align with

the objective of the organisation. This to make sure that our objectives are met,

so later, when there are many initiatives, we know that people voluntarily come

up for [them].

Green induction

Another Green HRM function that supports workplace environmental behaviours is

induction. Organisations can facilitate employees’ green consciousness about

workplace sustainability and green issues related to health and safety (Hosain and

Rahman 2016). In this regard, Interviewees 10, 5 and 2 from Australia supported the

view that during induction, employees were made aware of key compulsory

responsibilities as part of their job. In addition, the significance of induction was also

highlighted by Interviewees 25, 33, 34 and 37 from India. In particular, in Interviewee

2’s opinion, induction could play a vital role in developing new employees’

understanding of the facilities in green buildings.

[Interviewee 2] Each person that comes on board undergoes an induction scenario,

where they are told about all the things, that this is a green office, and they are made

aware of those intrinsic parts of our building that have been designed. As part of the

induction process, they are made aware of all the facilities that we provide.

Green teams

Specific green teams can be organised in organisations to provide awareness on green

initiatives (Mandip 2012). These green teams have been set up in a formal way in some

organisations which was confirmed by data collected from Interviewees 2 and 10 from

Australia. Interviewee 2 stated that a green office action team more frequently

streamlined green initiatives. Evidence of these teams was also found in the interviews

229

in India. However, the role of these teams did not necessarily focus on environmental

sustainability. According to Interviewees 28 and 27 from India, these teams existed

with other teams that focused on both social and environmental causes.

[Interviewee 2] We have a committee which is called the Green Office Action

Team, and they meet regularly, and they consider how we can be more green

and initiatives that they would like to start, and they then report to me to see

how that fits in [and] whether that’s an achievable goal that they are trying to

achieve.

[Interviewee 28] Apart from that, we also have a sustainability team [that]

looks after the social causes and environmental issues as well.

Communication

As part of HR’s information dissemination about environmental initiatives,

appropriate communication channels are an efficient way to engage employees (Paillé

and Mejía-Morelos 2014). In Australia, Interviewees 3, 11, 17, 6 and 7 supported the

view that HR could assist to build employee awareness. Evidence of weekly forums

as a medium of communication was mentioned by Interviewee 7 in Australia. Certain

communication channels were also mentioned by Interviewees 28 and 25 from India.

For example, Interviewee 25 stated that communication channels were mainly through

staff emails, banners and posters.

[Interviewee 7] We have weekly forums to do that. We have weekly meetings,

[and] minutes that go out to talk about. If there’s anything specific in terms of

achievement for the office, that gets spread through our internal organisation

channels and [at] our weekly morning tea.

[Interviewee 25] They communicate it through email, plus they will have

banners and posters all around the areas where most people gather; for

example, they have very big posters in the cafeteria.

Green training

Green initiatives by management can use training programs to persuade employees to

demonstrate key workplace behaviours (Jackson 2013). From the Australian sample,

230

interviewees mentioned compulsory (Interviewee 1) and voluntary training

(Interviewees 5, 13 and 25) to enhance workplace environmental behaviours. In

particular, in Interviewee 5’s view, the organisation should provide the necessary

training to employees who want to understand the organisation’s environmental

initiatives. Further to the training strategy, Interviewees 25 and 39 from India

suggested various ways in which training could be incorporated. According to

Interviewee 25, mandatory training was the most appropriate as this would force

employees to embrace the organisation’s behaviours related to environment

management.

[Interviewee 5] I wanted to emphasise to lead by example, lead by initiatives,

and have training and development facilities available for the employees if they

want to have some additional training. Ensure that the workplace is built

around those principles. Talk to the senior management all the time to make

sure that they are in alignment with policies and the workplace culture. We

make sure that it is one of their key performance indicators, that they are

trained and then understand that this is related to environmental initiatives.

[Interviewee 25] Mandatory training for half an hour or one hour in a year, so

that people are bound to do it. Even if they are doing it more or less, they can

grasp about 20% of it; at least they know something about it. After that, there

can be awareness sessions on what we are doing in specific areas, [for

example,] on waste management, how we are saving energy should be covered

in some way or another, maybe e-learning or classroom learning or something

else.

Performance criteria

The next HR function that generates employees’ workplace environmental behaviors

are performance indicators (Jackson, Ones and Dilchert 2012). According to

Interviewee 1 from Australia, these performance evaluation criteria were added to

technical performances and were reviewed on an ongoing basis. Furthermore,

Interviewee 11 from Australia supported performance criteria as a part of key

performance indicators (KPIs). Interviewee 27 from India stated that rewards could be

231

non-monetary, such as a vote of thanks or appreciation, to encourage environmental

behaviours.

[Interviewee 1] We have performance evaluation criteria. This is reviewed bi-

annually. In that performance evaluation criteria, there are two criteria; in

addition to your technical, commercial and financial performances, you are

also expected to set targets every six months [for] your environmental targets

and individual environment commitments. Our HR department reviews those

targets individually, records that and six months later, asks you to demonstrate

that you have done something about it. They review it and then marking is

given, and your performance is evaluated accordingly.

[Interviewee 27] As I said, I can give my appreciation or vote of thanks, yes,

these three people did like that. Generally, such a work culture is [more]

significant than the physical facilities of green buildings.

Green culture

Findings from Australia revealed that successful implementation of green initiatives

in green buildings could be a reality when these activities are part of the DNA of the

organisation. According to Interviewees 5, 7 and 2 from Australia, organisations that

provided an environment conducive to working often motivated employees. For

Interviewee 2 in particular, this work culture emphasising sustainability, to a large

extent, impacted on the behaviours of employees. Similarly, Interviewees 28, 32 and

27 from India provided key examples that organisations could include as part of green

culture. For example, Interviewee 28 mentioned the efforts made by his/her

organisation on food wastage that changed employees’ behaviours.

[Interviewee 2] This organisation certainly has a lot of awareness as a green

company, and we try to address [this] in behaviours so that we make minimal

impacts.

[Interviewee 28] We have a board that [reports] today’s food wastage. So that

kind of subtle thing is affecting employees. So, if you see that today’s wastage

was 100 kg, you automatically start thinking, “why am I wasting food?” so

automatically you start to take fewer things.

233

[Interviewee 9] Actually, to be brutally honest, I don’t think it makes any

difference whatsoever. On hot days, employees have to turn AC [air

conditioning] on because it’s hot. As long as they’re in a comfortable

temperature, they don’t care how much power you’re burning to make it

comfortable.

[Interviewee 11] I think a little bit. Maybe 10%. I guess a small amount. I

definitely think that, within this company, there’s an understanding that things

are done to maximise sustainability. It definitely flows through into what

they’re expecting, [what] they’re expected to do on their projects. I do think

there’s a bit of a connection between what people do in the office and what they

think is acceptable in the office, compared to what they do at home and what

they think is acceptable at home.

H3a was supported by Indian interviewees. According to Interviewee 27, employees

working in green buildings were mindful of their energy usage. Similarly, Interviewee

28 provided examples, including throwing recyclable paper into the correct separate

bin, which were generated by facilities within organisations and, overall, these

impacted on employees’ behaviours. Furthermore, Interviewees 25 and 31 from India

emphasised that supporting employees’ behaviour led to positive change in the

environmental performance of green buildings.

[Interviewee 27] Very small-scale activities that we do: it starts with employee-

level activities that each one of them has to make sure [of], say for example,

turning off the lights while walking out, and usage of electricity, water, and

waste segregation, and most recently, one very significant activity that we did,

in order to make sure that we are going green.

[Interviewee 28] You will see there are three kinds of recyclable paper bins

and so you know where you have to throw, I mean if you are even a bit

environment conscious, you’ll throw it into the correct bin. So, since you are

provided with these facilities, you will automatically tend to follow it, creating

an impact.

234

5.3.2.7. H3b: Workplace environmental behaviours Organisational identification

Environmental workplace behaviours and commitment are correlated (Temminck,

Mearns and Fruhen 2015; Lo, Peters and Kok 2012a). Identifying with an organisation

can be regarded as an extra-role behaviour. This explained why H3b was supported by

Australia as well as by India. In adding to the evidence, Interviewees 11, 2 and 5 from

Australia supported the view that employees identified with such organisations.

Interviewee 2, in particular, mentioned that employees from all levels maintained their

green consciousness and were proud to work in such an organisation. In India, the

major reason why employees self-identified with their organisations was that they

perceived their work with a sense of pride as they were themselves contributing to the

cause. This was supported by Interviewees 25 and 35. In addition, Interviewee 27

correlated the work environment and belongingness with the organisation’s branding.

[Interviewee 2] I must say that I’m very proud to work for this organisation

because it does have a green consciousness and I work with a group of people

from upper management right to entry-level vacation students and graduates

who are very aware and want to make a positive impact on the world we live

in.

[Interviewee 27] One is [the] work environment, and the second is the

belongingness or … brand pride. When employees are working for the

organisation, and they look very well around it and say, “hey, this is where I

work, and I like working here”, and that, in turn, helps us in building a brand

image.

5.3.2.8. H3c: Workplace environmental behaviours Job satisfaction

One of the outcomes generated by workplace environmental behaviours was job

satisfaction (Jackson et al. 2011). H3c was supported by both Australian and Indian

samples. Interviewees 10, 4, 7 and 5 from Australia reported evidence that drew a

positive relationship between workplace environmental behaviours and job

satisfaction. A few comments from Australia highlighted the feel-good factor of being

in a green building. According to Interviewee 10, this feel-good factor could

subconsciously motivate employees. In India, Interviewees 19, 25 and 27 supported

H3c, mentioning the direct relationship of green workplaces to job satisfaction as

235

enhancing employees’ levels of satisfaction. Interviewee 25 related job satisfaction

results to employees’ productivity. Furthermore, for Interviewee 27, job satisfaction

was an outcome of motivation and engagement that resulted from green initiatives by

organisations.

[Interviewee 4] The feel-good factor is quite important because it makes people

feel like our company’s doing well, and we’re able to have a better office, better

lunchroom, better view, whatever feel-good factor is subconscious. People

want to show off that they have an office, and their office is really nice, and

there’s a place to eat, and then there’s a place to sit down.

[Interviewee 27] For everybody to stay motivated and engaged, it is very

important to have a lively environment, and we all know how green initiatives

can make our life more and more lively and that is directly connected to the

welfare of the environment. All of these are linked to job satisfaction.

5.3.2.9. H3d: Workplace environmental behaviours Work-related flow

Hypothesis H3d was supported by the qualitative data from both Australia and India.

H3d proposed that workplace environmental behaviours have a positive relationship

with work-related flow in green buildings. Environment-related behaviours in the

workplace have been shown to result in reducing over-work implications (Chapman,

Skinner and Searle 2013). An instance from Australia, according to Interviewee 5,

highlighted self-motivation and concentration on the employee’s work as being

discretionary. This was supported by Interviewee 27 in India who mentioned that green

initiatives in the workplace were often regarded as motivators for implementing green

initiatives.

[Interviewee 5] Happy, motivated employees can do wonders for you. If your

work environment and your work culture are happy and motivated, employees

can bring the tremendous result to the organisation. One person can do a job

of three people if he or she is happy, and three people will not do the job of one

person if they are not happy, as simple as that. You have to provide them with

the environment culture to perform to the fullest capacity.

236

[Interviewee 27] Nobody works for those nine hours, they work more than that,

and the reason is not too much work, because they like working like that. We

have seen people staying back in the office and utilising the facilities because

they find it easier to work in that environment than going back home and

working in the comfort of home.

5.3.3. Qualitative Findings Supporting Mediation

The conceptual framework has proposed Green HRM and workplace environmental

behaviours as the two mediators in this study. In the quantitative study, Green HRM

was supported as the mediator for all cases, except between subjective norms and

workplace environmental behaviours in the data from India. Similarly, workplace

environmental behaviours as mediator was supported in all the hypotheses proposed

in the data from Australia, except between Green HRM and environmental

performance. These results are further explained by the qualitative data in the

following subsections.

5.3.3.1. Mediation effect of Green HRM

Green HRM’s mediation effect was proposed in H4a which stated the mediating effect

of Green HRM in the relationship between environmental attitudes and workplace

environmental behaviours. In H4b, the mediation effect of Green HRM in the

relationship between subjective norms and workplace environmental behaviours was

proposed. Furthermore, H4c proposed that Green HRM was the mediator in the

relationship between perceived behavioural control and workplace environmental

behaviours.

5.3.3.1.1. H4a: Green HRM mediates between environmental attitudes and workplace environmental behaviours

From the quantitative analysis, H4a was supported for both Australian and Indian data.

The functions of Green HRM nurture and provide opportunities for employees with

specific environmental attitudes to demonstrate green behaviours in their workplace.

This argument was explained by Interviewee 7 from Australia. Furthermore,

qualitative data from India suggested that green initiatives were more likely to make

237

employees with the right attitudes contribute efforts (Interviewee 36) and energy

(Interviewee 22) to behaving in a manner supporting sustainability.

[Interviewee 5] If you have a personal attitude towards sustainability and when

you get facilities at work, obviously [you] behave the way you are supposed to

do. I think it’s more about that culture.

[Interviewee 36] Employees come with [a] professional attitude and if they are

involved in green initiatives, they will definitely get involved. Else they won’t

put energy in[to] behaving in a sustainable way.

[Interviewee 32] The employees are aware when initiatives are done to people

[or] else they do not know how to behave unless the[se] are communicated

even if they have [the] right attitude.

5.3.3.1.2. H4b: Green HRM mediates between subjective norms and workplace environmental behaviours

Hypothesis H4b indicated the mediated linkages of Green HRM in the relationship

between subjective norms and workplace environmental behaviours. The quantitative

findings from Australia supported H4b; however, H4b was not supported by the data

from India. The qualitative findings from Interviewee 11 explained that, in Australia,

Green HRM enabled support and resulted in improved behaviours among employees.

Similarly, Interviewee 3 from Australia highlighted the importance of Green HRM as

an awareness tool in the implementation of green practices.

[Interviewee 11] It definitely needs to come from them, and they need to drive

it. One of the significant things to uptake is actually design[ing] systems on an

ongoing basis. This will further motivate and make employees perform better.

[Interviewee 3] The role of that support is important, and the behaviours will

come from them; support in [the] form of initiatives and making employees

aware of those things and implementing th[ose] kind of practices.

Differences in the results for the data from India were further explored in the

qualitative interviews. In particular, Interviewee 34 stated that employees behaved in

green buildings in accordance with building management’s guidelines and policies.

238

Furthermore, Interviewee 39 added that government policies determined employees’

behaviours and that the organisation had limited capacity to intervene. Therefore, in

India, no mediation effect of Green HRM was found in the relationship between

subjective norms and workplace environmental behaviours.

[Interviewee 34] There are guidelines from the building management team and

audit team so there is not much … anyone can do. We have to know wh[at] they

need motivation for. It’s more facilities rather than HR for employees to

behave.

[Interviewee 39] I don’t think they can do much as there are all set guidelines,

what [is] to be done. These guidelines are from central government or state

control policy and I don’t think you can do more on that in organisations such

as green initiatives.

5.3.3.1.3. H4c: Green HRM mediates between perceived behavioural control and workplace environmental behaviours

Hypothesis H4c was supported for both Australian and Indian samples, thereby

indicating that Green HRM could be a mediator in the relationship between perceived

behavioural control and workplace environmental behaviours. From Australia,

Interviewee 13 indicated that a specific budget would shape HR activities to be carried

in green buildings, thus resulting in having an impact on employees’ sustainability

behaviours. Furthermore, Interviewee 14 indicated that HR were integrated into the

company’s policy to influence employees’ green behaviours. Interviewee 24 from

India indicated that workplace-related issues, such as employees’ green behaviours,

were often supported by organisations when certain green initiatives needed to be in

place.

[Interviewee 13] Typically, the capital is utilised by human resources to run

successful projects focusing [on] green initiatives. Integrating such human

resources functions will help to attract employees’ behaviours.

[Interviewee 14] As a part of policy, HR function is integrated [for] how we

might want to make people behave. I have HR certainly on my agenda when

we are planning things on a bigger scale, such as green behaviours.

239

[Interviewee 24] This organisation has links with another organisation that is

involved in waste management and workplace-related issues. Thus, our

organisation needs to ensure that these green initiatives are in place and

employees behave in such a way as they are supposed to in this building.

5.3.3.2. Mediation effect of workplace environmental behaviours

Hypothesis H5 proposed the mediation effect of workplace environmental behaviours.

This effect indicated that HR functions focusing on green initiatives would

demonstrate specific peformance outcomes when employees behaved in certain ways.

The four sub-hypotheses that indicated this effect were as follows: in H5a between

Green HRM and environmental performance; in H5b between Green HRM and

organisational identification; in H5c between Green HRM and job satisfaction; and,

finally, in H5d between Green HRM and work-related flow.

5.3.3.2.1. H5a: Workplace environmental behaviours between Green HRM and environmental performance

The quantitative results indicated that H5a was not supported by the Australian data.

From the previous discussion in subsection 5.3.2.5, the direct link between workplace

environmental behaviours and environmental performance was also not supported.

According to Interviewee 1, the environmental functioning of the green building and

employees was not employee-related. The influence on employees might therefore be

something external to the organisation. Similarly, Interviewee 4 from Australia

indicated that the organisation’s environmental performance was more likely to be

driven by the budget for the initiatives than by employees’ behaviours.

[Interviewee 1] We tend to make sure that we not within the organisation

necessarily, but we have outdoor gatherings from time to time. Every now and

then, we go out of the office and try in a green environment to do [a] more

strategic thinking process and office initiatives are less likely to impact [on]

our strategic thinking.

[Interviewee 4] Not necessarily. To be very honest, there is a lot of talk about

environmental initiatives but if there is a monetary value associated with it,

240

then only the company will have some benefits in environmental performance.

[Or] else, the behaviours have nothing much to do with it.

For the data from India, the mediation effect of workplace environmental behaviours

was supported in the relationship between Green HRM and environmental

performance. Hypothesis H5a was further explained by Interviewee 27 from India who

stated that any activity demonstrating environmental performance was prompted by an

initiative. However, in terms of employees’ behaviour in these initiatives, only they

could then practise an activity that improved environmental performance. Similarly,

employees’ reiteration of these initiatives would make environmental performance

work.

[Interviewee 27] These practices give us complete details right from the

beginning, and we have an idea about certain innovative practices and how we

can behave. For example, in our organisation, these initiatives provoke lots of

brainstorming for recycling ideas and we practise recycling and this enhances

environmental performance. It starts with the organisation’s initiatives, such

as the HR practices which are more like the DNA. We reiterate all those things

as a group of how sustainable we can become. The problem solving is broken

down into smaller pieces to make it more scalable. Thus, performance such as

‘reuse, recycle’ are achieved.

5.3.3.2.2. H5b: Workplace environmental behaviours between Green HRM and organisational identification

Hypothesis H5b stating the mediation effect of workplace environmental behaviours

in the relationshp between Green HRM and organisational identification was

supported by both the Australian and Indian data. This mediation effect proposed that

when employees behaved sustainably in a green building based on HR’s

environmental initiatives, they tended to identify themselves more with their

organisations. In Australia, Interviewee 1 explained that these initiatives provided a

sense of contribution towards the environment. These facilities and encouragement led

to behaviours that made employees feel accomplished. Similarly, in India, Interviewee

28 explained that these initiatives developed a competitive advantage, for example, for

their employer’s brand when employees behaved based on facilities and green

241

initiatives. Furthermore, Interviewee 32 added that employees’ behaviours make them

feel positive and motivated.

[Interviewee 1] A green compliant building and other features such as green

initiatives are motivating factors. But the employees feel energetic and that they

are a part of the environment when they behave in an environmental way. For

example, the bike initiatives will make the employees feel that they have an

alternative for commuting that is sustainable. They will feel that they are

contributing towards the organisation and identify with it.

[Interviewee 28] We are proud of the facilities and green initiatives. The

organisation trains and teaches the employees how they can behave in an

environmental way. The employees go to that level of behaving. Other

companies might give you excellent pay and excellent recognition, but this

organisation has become a brand of its own due to how employees behave.

[Interviewee 32] When employees see that they are working for an

organisation which is doing something for the environment and [the]

surroundings, this makes them feel motivated. My behaviours make me feel

positive that I am also contributing, maybe a small percentage.

5.3.3.2.3. H5c: Workplace environmental behaviours between Green HRM and job satisfaction

Hypothesis H5c proposed the mediation of workplace environmental behaviours in the

relationship between Green HRM and job satisfaction, with this supported by the

quantitative data from Australia and India. Hypothesis H5c indicated that employees’

green behaviours in the workplace created a sense of satisfaction among employees

when they acted on these green initiatives. Interviewee 8 from Australia added that the

reason was that employees connected themselves with the organisation when they

were following its code of conduct and values. Interviewee 2 from Australia suggested

that employees experienced a feel-good factor and happiness when they acted in a

sustainable way based on green initiatives. In addition to these justifications,

Interviewee 36 from India highlighted that employees gave 12 hours per day to their

work and the absence of green behaviours would impact on their levels of stress.

242

Interviewee 39 from India explained that, even though employees demonstrated that

their behaviour was performed under pressure as with any HR-related function, they

eventually became interested and felt good about their behaviour in the long term.

[Interviewee 8] When there are performance objectives linked to behaviours,

these behaviours link back to [the] code of conduct and values. You have a

‘feel-good’ [feeling] about it.

[Interviewee 2] If you compare to another building that was not at all

sustainable, moving into this building, the practices encourage us to be

environmental and we are all happy.

[Interviewee 36] Job satisfaction increases when we behave according to the

initiatives. If I don’t have good surroundings [and] initiatives, I am detached

from the environment. I am giving 12 hours of work [per day] into the company

and [the] absence of such behaviours might depress me a lot.

[Interviewee 39] Absolutely, under pressure, employees have to behave

according to those initiatives. This will make employees gradually show

interest and feel good about it.

5.3.3.2.4. H5d: Workplace environmental behaviours between Green HRM and work-related flow

Hypothesis H5d proposed the mediation effect of workplace environmental behaviours

on the relationship between Green HRM and work-related flow. This hypothesis was

supported by both the Australian and Indian data in the quantitative analysis. This

hypothesis stated that when employees demonstrated workplace behaviours that

focused on sustainability through green HR initiatives, their level of engagement in

their respective jobs increased. This was explained through qualitative data from

Australia and India. In Australia, Interviewee 11 explained that these behaviours led

to the fulfilment of expectations when organisations led by example and that these

behaviours made employees feel engrossed in their work. According to

Interviewee 12, the level of support from management directed employees to behave

in a certain way in green buildings and that this accomplishment could make them

engaged in their current jobs without being distracted. The qualitative data from India

243

further explained these findings. For example, Interviewee 28 commented that the

initiatives resulting in these behaviours impacted on employees’ comfort levels, thus

making them engaged in their work. In addition, according to Interviewee 27,

employees felt livelier due to behaviours they performed when acting on these

intiatives, thereby resulting in increased motivation and engagement in their work.

[Interviewee 11] These things are important. It is difficult to get the

‘engagement in work’ bit. If employees are embedded with [the] company’s

initiatives, they are led by example and there is a certain level of expectation.

Once employees roll up, accordingly they are engaged.

[Interviewee 32] You are going to have moments in your career where you are

under pressure but generally the support from the management will make the

employees behave and they feel pretty engaged.

[Interviewee 28] If the employees [do] not feel comfortable in the building and

are not satisfied with the organisation, they will feel drowsy, feel low, and they

will not be able to concentrate on their work. Even if the employees are

brilliant, they will have to put in more effort.

[Interviewee 27] The green initiatives can make our life livelier, this will make

us directly connected to the environment. In such a way, everybody will stay

motivated and engaged in their work.


This chapter has provided an analysis of the results from data collected in the

quantitative study from the Australian and Indian samples. The hypotheses developed

in Chapter 3 were analysed. The qualitative data provided additional exploration and

understanding of the results obtained from the hypotheses in the quantitative study.

The qualitative data collected from semi-structured interviews provided an in-depth,

descriptive account addressing the hypotheses through themes and subthemes while

studying the differences and similarities across Australia and India. The next chapter

discusses the overall results, based on the quantitative and qualitative data, in

alignment with the research objectives.

244

Findings and Discussion


The previous chapter (Chapter 5) presented the analyses and synthesis of the

quantitative and qualitative data collected from Australia and India. The findings

indicated that environmental behaviours in green buildings were influenced by various

Green HRM initiatives that affected performance outcomes in green buildings. The

objective of this chapter is two-fold. Firstly, this chapter provides a summary of the

findings from the quantitative and qualitative analyses in Chapter 5. The results are

explained within the context of the overarching theory applied in this study. The

discussion on the hypotheses is based on findings on the direct and mediated effects

from the quantitative study, in turn, later supported by the qualitative findings. In

addition, this discussion is compared to arguments in the literature, as presented in the

literature review. Differences in the findings from Australia and India are then

discussed. Consequently, a refined conceptual framework for both countries based on

the TPB is highlighted. Secondly, this chapter revisits the research questions raised in

the literature review in Chapter 3 and discusses them within the purview of the study

results. The research objectives provide additional clarifications on the importance of

Green HRM in influencing performance outcomes in green buildings.

6.2. Theoretical Assumptions

The current study analysed data from samples in Australia and India to understand

how management practices, particularly Green HRM practices, affected employees’

workplace environmental behaviours and in turn, impacted on key performance

outcomes in green buildings. The primary focus was to predict employees’ behaviours

under the realm of the TPB and to investigate whether these behaviours could result in

critical performance outcomes in green buildings. Based on the organisational

behaviour literature, employees’ behaviours are understood to result from their

psychological association with their employers (Van Knippenberg, Van Dick and

Tavares 2007). As a result, investigations of SIT (Hogg and Terry 2000; Ashforth and

245

Mael 1989) and SET (Eisenberger et al. 1986; Rousseau and McLean Parks 1993)

formed the fundamental theoretical perspectives underpinning this research.

According to SIT, when firms are associated with socially relevant values, employees

are most likely to be linked with a positive identity based on the organisation’s group

status (Dutton, Dukerich and Harquail 1994; Tajfel et al. 1979), and they will examine

the organisation’s actions based on their social environment (DiMaggio and Powell

1983; Scott 1995). Based on the statistical results from both Australia and India, a

significant connection was found between Green HRM practices and workplace

environmental behaviours. Employees create a positive impression of their

organisation when it is associated with socially relevant values, such as green

buildings, that can be considered to be the epitome of sustainability initiatives as well

as emphasising health and well-being. As a result, employees emphasise their self-

concept (Ashforth and Mael 1989; Tajfel et al. 1979) and, consequently, they tend to

be integrated into their organisation’s values (Ashforth and Mael 1989). Research has

confirmed this connection of self-concept with the reputation or brand built by these

organisations (Maxwell and Knox 2009). This theoretical paradigm suggests that

employees working in green buildings generate a self-concept that provides the

foundation for their extra-role behaviours. Employees’ workplace environmental

behaviours in green buildings can be termed ‘a generalised exchange’ as any

environmental behaviour can be categorised under extra-role behaviours.

The components of workplace environmental behaviours in green buildings are

defined by identity theory and can also be explained by SET (Gouldner 1960; Blau

1964). Based on employees’ perceptions of self-identification with their organisation,

they tend to interact and behave according to the organisation’s requirements.

Likewise, incorporating Green HRM initiatives tends to create positive perceptions

towards their organisation, and in exchange, the employees are likely to exhibit a

higher level of engagement with those initiatives. This study provides evidence that

the impact of Green HRM would be to create an environment in which employees can

behave in an environmentally friendly manner in their workplace. This connection

between engagement with organisational activities and work-related environmental

behaviours has been confirmed by several studies (Chatman et al. 1998; Flynn,

Chatman and Spataro 2001; Dukerich, Golden and Shortell 2002; Chatman and Flynn

246

2001; Dutton, Dukerich and Harquail 1994). In other words, this exchange behaviour

is often predicted by their identity orientation (Dukerich, Golden and Shortell 2002;

Chatman and Flynn 2001).

According to some scholars, (Vandyne, Cummings and McLean Parks 1995; Williams

and Anderson 1991), the reciprocation of this generalised exchange behaviour is

indirect and ambiguous. Therefore, the relationship between behaviours and outcomes

has been supported by scholars as being classified as both extra-role performances

(Cardona, Lawrence and Bentler 2004; Van Knippenberg, van Prooijen and Sleebos

2015; Masterson et al. 2000; Settoon, Bennett and Liden 1996) and in-role

performances (Armeli et al. 1998; Eisenberger et al. 2001). The findings from the

current research explain how employees behave according to the requirements of green

buildings, with this activated when employees identify with specific green HRM

practices such as induction programs, incentives, training, awareness, engagement

workshops, green teams, senior management and the organisational vision/mission.

For example, green skills provided by organisations through training could promote

employees’ performance, and they could be engaged through their assigned in-role

task. Similarly, offering promotions and compensation creates enhanced motivation to

perform better in their assigned job roles. Furthermore, Brickson (2000) highlighted

that critical practices such as rewards, task allocation or organisational design could

change employees’ identity orientation depending on the extent to which a sense of

independence is generated.

Thus, the focus on Green HRM practices in green buildings has been a new concept in

enhancing performance outcomes in green buildings. According to Tajfel et al. (1971),

the extent to which individuals collectively become assimilated into their

organisation’s value system depends on the kind of support with which they are

provided (Rhoades and Eisenberger 2002). However, with the performance of green

buildings being shifted towards more human-centric solutions, the relevance of

organisational support is becoming evident. This conceptual understanding of Green

HRM practices may be the core to understanding what could influence employees’

workplace environmental behaviours so green buildings can perform in the way for

which they were initially built. Therefore, the fundamental theoretical foundation for

this research suggests the co-existence of SIT and SET in predicting employees’

249

Green HRM practices can be explained based on several justifications. The lack of

specificity in environmental attitudes might not necessarily predict specific behaviour

in a positive way (Kaiser 1998; Weigel and Newman 1976). This argument can be

corroborated by the qualitative findings in Chapter 5 (subection 5.3.2.1) which

suggested that the adoption of Green HRM practices was not dependent on an

individual’s environmental attitudes. According to a thematic analysis that explored

this phenomenon, the qualitative data indicated that the adoption of Green HRM

initiatives might not be the primary motivation at the workplace. Furthermore, these

practices are generally adopted when they are specified by organisations in their

employees’ job roles.

Employees’ attitudes can be considered as not being the primary factor in providing

momentum to adopt Green HRM initiatives. Positively valuing the environment does

not necessarily lead to generating HRM activities focusing on sustainability in green

buildings. Contrary to some popular perceptions, employees are more likely to be the

adopters as a result of these initiatives and not necessarily the catalysts for initiating

Green HRM practices in green buildings. An organisation’s vision and its leadership

could serve as a potential catalyst for adopting these initiatives. To support this

argument, according to Sawang and Kivits (2014), the environmental attitudes of

senior managers can influence their decision-making process when considering the

inclusion of Green HRM practices in the organisation. Senior management’s

perceptions of environmental issues having a local impact can drive them to shift their

current HR practices towards more environment-focused decisions (Lehman, Greener

and Simpson 2002; Simpson and Flynn 2007). Therefore, the environmental attitudes

of employees are less likely to influence the adoption of Green HRM initiatives in

green buildings.

The qualitative findings explored another justification for the rejection of H1a. Green

HRM initiatives undertaken by organisations to implement green-related behaviours

that are motivated solely or primarily driven by employees’ environmental attitudes

might be misleading. The qualitative findings in subection 5.3.2.1 explained that even

though employees might not find these initiatives relevant, their job responsibilities

concerning the initiatives mostly promoted the adoption of Green HRM practices in

green buildings. If the organisation’s core values were aligned towards sustainability,

250

specific job roles would be created to increase the uptake of sustainability initiatives

in the organisation. These specific job roles could vary depending on the specific area

on which the organisation needed to focus, such as generating green performance

criteria, providing green training or simply creating environmental awareness.

The rejection of H1a could possibly be due to confidence in the building’s design

features more than in the individual’s environmental attitudes. Employees working in

green buildings relied on the building’s capabilities rather than on their own actions to

enhance the building’s performance. According to Khashe et al. (2015), occupants of

green buildings perceive that green buildings’ sustainable design features could hide

the unsustainable behaviours of building occupants due to the design features’

enhanced sustainability technologies. In contrast, according to Tezel (2019), the

environmental awareness of occupants of non-certified buildings could positively

influence the adoption of organisational practices, as the lack of sustainable

technologies in these buildings would, in fact, motivate occupants to adopt practices

that are resource-efficient for the building or workspace. Moreover, the rejection of

H1a based on employees’ environmental attitudes can be explained by the age of the

respondents who completed the study’s survey. More than 50% of respondents from

Australia and India were above the age of 35. This has been supported by several

scholars who argued that younger people have higher levels of environmental concerns

(Arcury and Christianson 1993; Jianguang 1994; Klineberg, McKeever and

Rothenbach 1998). According to Honnold (1984), the reduced level of

environmentally friendly attitudes among the older generation can be explained by an

“era effect” which refers to the lack of an eco-centric world view among the older

generation in comparison to the younger generation.

6.3.1.2. H1b: Subjective norms have a positive relationship with Green HRM initiatives in green buildings.

The findings from this study showed a positive relationship between subjective norms

and Green HRM for the Australian sample. This was supported in discussions by

scholars (Ren, Tang and Jackson 2018; Biga et al. 2012) who highlighted the influence

of external conditions on the adoption of green practices in an organisation. Australia’s

property market continues to lead in green building sectors (GBCA 2018). However,

251

various regulations stipulate an energy requirement in commercial buildings that is too

stringent to maintain ambitious sustainability standards (Kim, Lim and Kim 2019;

Zhang et al. 2019). These government regulations for green buildings force

organisations to include practices to avoid fines. Similarly, competitors’ practices

influence organisations to change their current practices to achieve a competitive

advantage. Apart from external influences, adopting green HR practices is dependent

on internal policies and senior management’s initiatives that are more likely to

motivate employees (Sawang and Kivits 2014). Social pressures from, for example,

the government, competitors, senior management and employees can be influencing

factors when incorporating environmental practices in green buildings in Australia.

Hypothesis H1b was rejected for the Indian sample. Subjective norms, which can also

be referred to as ‘social influence’, can be argued to be the weakest TPB construct

(Trafimow and Finlay 1996; Cialdini and Goldstein 2004). The specific roles and

assigned person to implement these initiatives are often miscalculated. The reason

might be the higher hierarchical structure of organisations in India (Ahmad, Haleem

and Syed 2012). The qualitative findings in Chapter 5 (subsection 5.3.2.2) indicated a

lack of organisational support in India to motivate environmental initiatives. Evidence

from the qualitative findings suggested that if a self-driven employee wanted to

suggest an initiative, their suggestion might not be accepted as their manager might

not be the right person to support the idea. At the business level, sustainability might

not be the main agenda for organisations. This is a key point to differentiate the Indian

sample’s results from those of the Australian sample. Emerging economies like India

are often regarded as a hub for the low-cost labour industry, and implementation of

initiatives to achieve sustainability commitments might emerge as a stumbling block

in the path of the country’s economic growth due to the additional financial burden of

assisting these initiatives (Potbhare, Syal and Korkmaz 2009).

Within the context of environmental practices, it is plausible that individuals showing

an affiliation to an organisation advocating environmental concerns may be more

concerned with the environmental issues in green buildings rather than the impact of

subjective norms. These perspectives can be validated in more collectivistic cultures

such as India. The argument is also supported by a difference in the perceptions of

norms between individualistic and collectivistic societies, as discussed in the study

252

conducted by Fischer et al. (2009). The injunctive component of subjective norms, that

is, the socially shared rule of conduct (Cialdini, Kallgren and Reno 1991) can be linked

to a particular location (Reno, Cialdini and Kallgren 1993). Hence, the influence of

subjective norms on the adoption of Green HR practices can show different results

when comparing Indian results with the Australian results. The absence in India of any

significant relationship between subjective norms and Green HRM practices is more

likely to be concerned with how significantly external influences, such as regulations,

and internal influences, such as senior management interest, are imposed. This

suggests that the lack of injunctive norms present in India is more likely to explain

why subjective norms have no significant influence on Green HRM practices in green

buildings.

6.3.1.3. H1c: Perceived behavioural control has a positive relationship with Green HRM in green buildings

The results from both the Australian and Indian samples supported H1c which

predicted that perceived behavioural control (PBC) has a positive relationship with

Green HRM adoption in green buildings. Perceived behavioural control (PBC)

provides support and resources to influence the performance of behaviour (Fishbein

and Ajzen 2011). An organisation’s PBC can be determined by the extent to which it

is prepared in terms of providing financial resources, staffing resources, technical

resources, operational resources and knowledge resources (Sawang and Kivits 2014;

Ooi et al. 2017). Perceived behavioural control (PBC) can be regarded as the most

explicit antecedent for Green HRM adoption in green buildings. This is reinforced by

the findings from the qualitative data analysis in Chapter 5. The themes explored from

the qualitative findings in Chapter 5 (subection 5.3.2.3) indicated that the adoption of

specific Green HRM practices to motivate environmental behaviours in green

buildings required both specific policies and budgets. The organisation’s policies

supporting green building practices should provide a clear commitment by

management to implement environmental practices. One policy response would be to

ensure budget estimates for incorporating sustainable design practices in green

buildings. Moreover, a separate budget would be necessary in any country to meet the

costs of application for green building certifications.

253

The statistical and qualitative results justified the need for resource allocation to

encourage green HR practices in green buildings with this regarded as a necessary

condition to develop green behaviours. As most green behaviours in the workplace are

voluntary, the influence of key resources could compel management to implement

Green HRM practices in green buildings. This argument was supported by Sawang

and Kivits (2014) who indicated that managers’ perceptions in favour of implementing

these practices were more likely to increase when organisations in green buildings had

sufficient resources to initiate green HR practices. In this line of argument, when

management finds that specific resources are lacking, undertaking any Green HR

initiatives to influence employees’ behaviours in green buildings is likely to be

problematic.

6.3.2. Relationship of Green HRM and Workplace Environmental Behaviours

Green HRM is a contemporary concept in SHRM studies (Bangwal and Tiwari 2015).

However, Green HRM has received inadequate empirical attention in green building

studies. The results from the systematic literature review conducted in Chapter 2

identified the need for management’s interventions in green buildings to enhance the

overall performance of these buildings. Several studies have emphasised that the lack

of behavioural and human dimensions may pose a threat to the technological and

economic benefits of green building design (Brown et al. 2010; Hoffman and Henn

2008; Heerwagen 2000). The current study has explored how and under what

circumstances Green HRM would encourage employees’ environmental behaviours to

influence their performance-related outcomes. The statistical results from Australia

and India supported H2 which indicated that a positive relationship existed between

Green HRM and employees’ workplace environmental behaviours.

6.3.2.1. H2: Green HRM has a positive relationship with workplace environmental behaviours in green buildings

Although Green HRM has attracted much attention in relation to influencing

workplace sustainability practices, the understanding of the exact process of how

employees respond is still in its initial stages. However, the implementation and

outcomes of Green HRM systems can be considered to achieve the desired employee

254

behaviours (Ren, Tang and Jackson 2018). In the current research, the association

between Green HRM and employees’ workplace environmental behaviours under the

realm of the TPB was fundamental. This relates to Research Objective 2 which sought

to address the research gap of the unclear association between management’s role in

green buildings and performance in green buildings, as argued in the systematic

literature review conducted in Chapter 2. The identification of the drivers of

environmental behaviours in green buildings indicated that organisations could

actively promote employees’ workplace environmental behaviours by supporting

specific environment-related HR practices in green buildings.

Organisational support to implement solutions to environmental issues is more likely

to promote specific environment-related behaviours in green buildings. As employees’

workplace environmental behaviours in green buildings are voluntary in nature, it is

increasingly difficulty for these behaviours to be controlled. Hence, it is evident that

organisations in green buildings need to develop practices that indirectly enhance the

emergence of these behaviours in green buildings. For example, organisations could

include necessary building-related information in their newsletter or conduct informal

workshops. This knowledge could motivate employees to provide extra efforts.

However, it is also important to consider what kind of Green HRM practices could be

used to generate environmentally friendly behaviours in green buildings.

The impact of HR practices can be categorised into two types of systems: soft and hard

(Storey 1989). The hard HRM systems implement Green HRM initiatives that can

directly control employees’ behaviours to achieve expected performance outcomes,

whereas the soft systems of Green HRM practices include influencing employees’

attitudes towards alignment with organisational green performance outcomes (Ren,

Tang and Jackson 2018). Hence, specific Green HRM practices that focus on hard and

soft targets overall could influence employees’ environmental behaviours in green

buildings. The study’s qualitative findings explored additional themes in Chapter 5

(subection 5.3.2.4) in Green HRM initiatives targeted towards employees in green

buildings. The qualitative findings indicated that soft HR practices could be green

teams, communication and green culture, whereas hard HR practices included

recruitment, induction, performance criteria and green training.

255

Through implementing specific Green HRM initiatives, organisations should be able

to gain ground in achieving their objectives of improved performance supported by the

technical advancements in green buildings. Supporting the relationship between Green

HRM and behaviour in the literature, Ones and Dilchert (2012) argued that these

practices are scalable and could potentially either contribute or distract employees

from engaging in environmental solutions. Renwick, Redman and Maguire (2013)

demonstrated that Green HRM, as an emerging concept, can improve sustainability-

related behaviours in the workplace, with this supported by several studies (Cherian

and Jacob 2012; Harvey, Williams and Probert 2013; Jabbour, Santos and Nagano

2010; Shen, Dumont and Deng 2018). The nature of Green HRM practices in terms of

their influence on employees’ environmental behaviours can be explained through

different social and psychological processes. This argument was put forward by Jiang

et al. (2012). In the study, it was explained that green HRM practices unleashed

processes, such as improved competencies, when employees are provided with

opportunities to be engaged in these related environmental practices. In addition,

organisations can achieve expected performances as a consequence of these

behaviours.

The significant contribution of Green HRM processes to improved performance in

green buildings is likely to occur through motivational processes. This argument can

be derived from the current study’s theoretical framework in which SIT and SET were

used to explore the nature and influences of Green HRM in green buildings. Shen,

Dumont and Deng (2018) supported the use of SIT in understanding how perceived

Green HRM motivates employees to perform specific behaviours. This related to

employees’ positive self-identification with the organisation’s social image which

could result in positive workplace outcomes. Based on SIT and SET, Green HRM

could be influential in building the organisation’s capacity to make employees’

environmental behaviours routine and habitual. Therefore, Green HRM forms a

significant part of the broader framework of green building design when it comes to

emphasising employees’ behaviours in enhancing performance in green buildings.

256

6.3.3. Performance Outcomes in Green Buildings

Based on the discussion in the previous section, it is clear that Green HRM was

positively related to employees’ workplace environmental behaviours in Australia and

India. Nevertheless, the study’s fundamental aim was to understand performance

outcomes in green buildings as a result of management’s interventions. These

performance outcomes were investigated to see if they emerged from an indirect effect

of Green HRM practices on employees’ workplace environmental behaviours.

Performance-specifying environmental objectives were stated for these performance

outcomes and comprised environmental performance as well as the following

performance outcomes that were distinct from environmental objectives:

organisational identification, job satisfaction and work-related flow. The following

sections summarise the findings discussed in Chapter 5 (subsection 5.3.2.5) indicating

the direct relationship between workplace environmental behaviours and performance

outcomes.

6.3.3.1. H3a: Workplace environmental behaviours have a positive relationship with environmental performance in green buildings

Environmental performance was linked as a direct outcome of workplace

environmental behaviours (Paillé and Mejía-Morelos 2014). The term ‘environmental

performance’ in this study refers to occupants’ energy efficiency or resource

efficiency. Paillé et al. (2014) explained that organisational citizenship behaviour for

the environment (OCBE), as a significant aspect of workplace environmental

behaviours, helps organisations to reach their environmental objectives. Employees’

extra-role behaviours, such as environmental behaviours, become an influential aspect

of the favouring of environmental objectives in organisations (Ramus and Steger

2000). As organisations shift towards environmental management as one of their core

business strategies, sufficient efforts by HR are necessary to expand the scope to bring

about changes in employees’ behaviours (Ángel Del Brío, Junquera and Ordiz 2008).

This significantly adds to the application of strategic HR functions such as green HRM

(Ehnert and Harry 2012; Renwick, Redman and Maguire 2013). These focused HR

environmental initiatives contribute to the overall environmental performance of

organisations (Shen, Dumont and Deng 2018).

257

The current study’s findings accentuated the intricacies incorporated in enhancing

environmental performance when the focus is on the environmental behaviours of

employees in green buildings. The integrated findings from the analysis based on

Australian and Indian data captured somewhat different results as indicated in

Chapter 5 (subsection 5.2.5.2). The results showed a positive relationship between

workplace environmental behaviours and environmental performance for the sample

in India. However, results from the Australian sample showed no significant

relationship. This was further confirmed by the qualitative findings in Chapter 5

(subsection 5.3.2.5). Interviewees in the qualitative study conducted in Australia

indicated that they rated comfort above behaving in an environment-related manner in

green buildings. However, interviewees from India indicated the nature of their

behaviours leading to environmental performance mostly resulted from the facilities

available in green buildings. It is worth understanding that adopting a low-carbon

lifestyle in a workplace in India could be linked to individuals’ self-identity within

group behaviour.

Furthermore, the difference in results from Australia and India might be explained by

cultural differences between these two countries. In addition, with SIT at the forefront,

it could be argued that environmental behaviours are shaped differently across

different social contexts. The positive relationship between environmental behaviours

and environmental performance in India shows the collectivistic cultural orientation.

According to Etzioni (1994), individuals align their self-interest with collective

responsibilities when it comes to managing environmental issues. The collectivist

orientation of those living in India is based on group behaviour or on perceptions of a

particular behaviour based on social status (Lee 1988). An individual is dependent on

the group to avoid losing face and dignity (Yau 1988). Employees working in India

could categorise themselves in line with their membership of a group to follow Green

HRM practices when they are provided with that level of comfort and support through

specific HRM functions. Individuals in India promote environmental performance

through peer pressure and social affiliation associated with behaving in a certain way

in green buildings. This explains why employees from India would contribute to the

environmental performance of green buildings as they might be mandated to behave

in this way by their organisation with this imposed through certain workplace practices

258

(Cho et al. 2013). This might work differently for employees in Australia who are more

prone to self-interest than group interest (Markus and Kitayama 1991).

Moreover, individualists may act according to their individual needs rather than those

of society overall (Cho et al. 2013). Evidence from the current study’s qualitative

findings in Chapter 5 (subsection 5.3.2.5) indicated that employees preferred to adopt

unsustainable practices to maintain comfort. For example, interviewees from Australia

were more likely to switch to air conditioning or artificial lights in green buildings

rather than adapting to the normal temperature or natural lighting for which a green

building is designed. From this study’s investigation, environmental behaviours of the

Australian sample did not contribute to the environmental performance of green

buildings, thus providing justification for why H3a was not supported in Australia. The

nature of individualism in environmental performance has been explained by

Molnárné and Nagy (2018) who confirmed that individualism has a weak or negative

influence when the relationship with environmental behaviours comes into the picture.

As green building technologies are far more advanced in Australia, the environmental

performance of green buildings is not solely dependent on employees’ environmental

behaviours but also on the building’s sustainable features. For the Australian data,

focusing on actual interventions to achieve environmental behaviours that are effective

in improving environmental performance specific to the technicalities of green

buildings could be more useful for understanding environmental performance in green

buildings.

Hence, the difference in the findings from Australia and India on the association

between employees’ environmental behaviours and environmental performance can

be explained by cultural orientation and individuals’ perceptions towards

environmental performance in these two countries.

6.3.3.2. H3b: Workplace environmental behaviours have a positive relationship with organisational identification in green buildings

Organisational identification is fundamentally connected with SIT, and occurs when

employees’ interests are aligned with the interests of their organisation. According to

Tajfel et al. (1979), individuals form self-interest when they perceive themselves as

part of an organisation with social values. This cognitive construct manifests as the

259

result of employees’ emotional attachment to organisations which they demonstrate as

a feeling of pride that they are part of the social values to which the organisation is

attached (Kreiner and Ashforth 2004). Specifically for green buildings, this hypothesis

is more relevant due to the social status and brand image of organisations located in

these buildings. Employees adopting workplace environmental behaviours develop a

sense of positive attitude to the reality of their organisation (Van Knippenberg 2000;

Abimbola and Vallaster 2007). Based on SIT, these employees are attracted to

organisations where they can generate a higher level of organisational identification

(Wegge et al. 2006).

Individuals are more likely to be engaged psychologically when their values overlap

with the ideologies of the organisation (Edwards 2009). Not surprisingly then, the

statistical findings from Australia and India supported H3b which predicted that

employees’ workplace behaviours would positively impact on organisational

identification in green buildings. An association possibly exists between organisational

identification and behaviours, in particular, with extra-role behaviours (Bartel 2001;

Van Dick et al. 2004; Van Dick et al. 2006; Dutton, Dukerich and Harquail 1994;

Dukerich, Golden and Shortell 2002). The qualitative findings from Australia and

India in Chapter 5 (subsection 5.3.2.5) further confirmed this hypothesis, indicating

that the green consciousness of the organisation could result in a sense of

belongingness among employees. Based on SIT, employees who perceived that they

were part of organisations’ efforts to improve performance in green buildings tended

to develop a sense of pride that they were associated with these organisations.

Organisational identification can be regarded as a significant performance outcome in

green buildings. It contributes to the individual’s desire to develop a sense of

continuity with the organisation. Therefore, the results from Australia and India

indicated that organisations located in green buildings would face lower employee

turnover rates. This behaviour by individuals is consistent with the application of

individuals’ self-construed image derived from organisational membership (Rousseau

1998). The psychological connection between employees and employers may result in

both contributing benefits to the organisation and to employees. Hence, it can be

argued that both SIT and SET support the relationship between workplace

environmental behaviours and organisational identification.

260

6.3.3.3. H3c: Workplace environmental behaviours have a positive relationship with job satisfaction in green buildings

The study’s results provide a strong indication that workplace environmental

behaviours positively impact on job satisfaction in green buildings in Australia and

India. Specifically to SIT, an employee develops a sense of pride when the

organisation’s intentions can be realised (Shen and Jiuhua Zhu 2011). With the

application of Green HRM in green buildings, organisations enhance job satisfaction

among employees. The qualitative data findings from Australia and India in Chapter 5

(subsection 5.3.2.5) confirmed this hypothesis, while indicating the associated ‘feel-

good’ factor. The logic behind this finding is that environmental behaviours are mainly

related to extra-role behaviours at work that provide a sense of contribution to the

organisation. Employees’ workplace environmental behaviours as an extra-role

behaviour trait may be transmitted into satisfaction levels in green buildings. This is

linked to SIT, indicating that employees develop a positive self-concept when they

attach themselves to the positive values of their organisation.

It is significant to note that green buildings are constructed to make the workplace

more comfortable and satisfying. A possible explanation for this observation is related

to place identity theory in environmental studies. A key finding here is that individuals

identify with a green building and develop a sense of positive attitude based on the

workplace environment. Furthermore, Paul and Taylor (2008) stated that the

environmental behaviour of individuals could act as an outcome of place identity that

could outweigh the actual links between the physical nature of green buildings and

their comfort level. The physical aspect of the building where they work also

contributes to the happiness and satisfaction of employees. Moreover, individuals tend

to demonstrate a higher satisfaction outcome when they are informed that they are

working in green buildings and their sense of tolerance and acceptance increases due

to this information. Hence, the effects of workplace behaviour becomes relevant in

predicting the job satisfaction rate in green buildings.

In addition, employees perceive that they have adopted green practices, complying

with the regulations and requirements set by the organisation. Consequently,

employees tend to develop satisfaction through their sense of accomplishment from

performing these behaviours. An associated example can be found in the study by Shen

261

and Jiuhua Zhu (2011) in which they found that where HRM initiatives focused on

social values, the result was improved employee commitment. Therefore, specific

Green HR practices can result in positive work attitudes, such as job satisfaction. A

further explanation is that the nature of these HR practices is to improve individuals’

cognitive and emotional competencies (Shuck et al. 2014). Hence, the perception of

improved competencies due to their contribution of environmental behaviours would

improve employees’ job satisfaction in green buildings. Furthermore, satisfied

employees demonstrate higher retention rates and productivity in green buildings

(Kundu 2003). Consequently, this study presents a robust conceptual understanding of

the developments of SIT and SET through green HRM initiatives predicting specific

behaviours that ultimately contribute to higher employee job satisfaction levels. These

results are noteworthy in their contribution to the literature by arguing for the inclusion

of job satisfaction as a key performance indicator (KPI) in green buildings.

6.3.3.4. H3d: Workplace environmental behaviours have a positive relationship with work-related flow

The analysis of the data from the samples in Australia and India revealed a significant

association between workplace environmental behaviours and work-related flow.

Work-related flow refers to a psychological condition that indicates the level of

effortless work engagement of individuals (Csikszentmihalyi 1991). In the process of

work-related flow, individuals experience a sense of enjoyment due to higher intrinsic

motivation factors (Bakker 2008). The qualitative data from Australia and India further

explained this hypothesis in Chapter 5 (subsection 5.3.2.5) indicating higher self-

motivation and concentration in the workplace due to the facilities available in green

buildings. Furthermore, the qualitative data indicated that motivated employees in

green buildings could work to their fullest capacity. Intrinsic motivation results in

extra-role behaviours that employees contribute to an organisation which has social

values such as investing in green buildings. This sense of intrinsic motivation involves

a higher level of interest in the task (Haradkiewicz and Elliot 1998) and total

involvement (Csikszentmihalyi 1991; Csikszentmihalyi, Rathunde and Whalen 1993;

Ellis, Voelkl and Morris 1994; Ghani and Deshpande 1994). A further illustration of

employees motivated in their work is the positive attitudes that such employees

develop when they adapt to a low-carbon work environment in green buildings. In

262

addition, work-related flow can be predicted when employees perceive positive

characteristics in their workplace such as support, a good relationship with other

employees and improved quality of work through their organisation’s initiatives.

These resources create strong beliefs about an individual’s competencies at work and

therefore foster work-related flow experiences.

The findings reported here not only confirm the relationship between workplace

environmental behaviours and work-related flow, but also add evidence to the

theoretical framework proposed in this study. In conformity with SET, behaviours can

be linked to work engagement (Geyser, Geldenhuys and Crous 2015; Schaufeli et al.

2002; Gouldner 1960). A close alliance exists between work engagement and work-

related flow as they demonstrate absorption, work enjoyment and intrinsic motivation

factors (Geyser, Geldenhuys and Crous 2015). When an organisation supports

employees in green initiatives in green buildings, through the nature of SIT, they

identify with the overall brand of the organisation. Moreover, in exchange for

organisational support, employees demonstrate key environmental behaviours

supporting green building performance. The processes of job satisfaction and

organisational identification can result in employees immersing themselves in their

role tasks. It was interesting to note that environmental behaviours overrode routine

behaviours in an office environment in motivating employees’ engagement in their

daily work. The research results indicated that several interviewees from Australia and

India considered this feeling of motivation to have a significant impact on their task

completion. For example, when Green HRM initiatives provided training, incentives

and opportunities to complete assigned tasks, employees tended to empower

themselves with the assurance that they possessed the necessary competencies to

efficiently achieve the goals.

Moreover, employees working in green buildings could identify themselves with the

green culture as a result of their environmental behaviours, and they tended to be

committed towards tasks assigned to them as part of their job role. Furthermore, a

green workspace was likely to impact on employees feeling positive about their work,

resulting in an increase in task speed (Lan, Wargocki and Lian 2014). In addition, the

sense of pride in working for green organisations and contributing to the environment

supported employees in their enjoyment of their work on a personal level. Taking the

264

H4c: Green HRM mediates the relationship between perceived behavioural control and workplace environmental behaviours

Supported Supported

H5a: Workplace environmental behaviours mediate the relationship between Green HRM and environmental performance

Not supported

Supported

H5b: Workplace environmental behaviours mediate the relationship between Green HRM and organisational identification

Supported Supported

H5c: Workplace environmental behaviours mediate the relationship between Green HRM and job satisfaction

Supported Supported

H5d: Workplace environmental behaviours mediate the relationship between Green HRM and work-related flow

Supported Supported

6.4.1. Mediation Effect of Green HRM

Further to the direct impacts of Green HRM on workplace environmental behaviours

in green buildings, it is essential to study the mediation role of Green HRM in the

relationships between workplace environmental behaviours and environmental

attitudes, subjective norms and perceived behavioural control. It is important to

consider the mediation effect of Green HRM to understand the immediate short-term

impact that could possibly explain the longer-term consequences of Green HRM (Ren,

Tang and Jackson 2018). In addition, the mediation role of Green HRM could guide

the overall organisational strategy of involving management as a critical stakeholder

in green building design. This is explicitly consequential to investigating the gaps

identified in the systematic literature review, with these gaps focusing on

management’s role in green building design. This study empirically tests whether or

not Green HRM practices that are internally amalgamated with the green building

strategy could impact on employees’ behaviours resulting in improved performance

outcomes in green buildings.

The findings from Australia and India appeared to be slightly different. For H4a, a

partial mediation effect was found for Green HRM between environmental attitudes

and workplace environmental behaviours for Australia and India. In the case of H4c,

the mediation effect for Green HRM between perceived behavioural control and

265

subjective norms, the Australian sample showed partial mediation, while the Indian

sample indicated full mediation. However, for H4b, the findings from statistical

analysis demonstrated significant differences in the Australian and Indian samples

when studying the mediation effect of Green HRM between subjective norms and

employees’ workplace environmental behaviours. A partial mediation effect was

found for the Australian sample, with no mediation effect for the Indian sample. To

explain these results, H1b must be revisited. Hypothesis H1b was not supported for

the Indian sample, as indicated in Chapter 5 (subsection 5.2.5.2). As no direct

relationship was found between subjective norms and Green HRM for the Indian

sample, Green HRM was less likely to mediate the relationship between subjective

norms and workplace environmental behaviours for this sample.

The management literature has generally predicted that HRM may not directly impact

on performance outcomes in the workplace; instead, HR influence specific

psychological or social processes that can lead to these workplace outcomes (Kehoe

and Wright 2013; Guest 2011). To bridge the gaps found in the systematic literature

review reported in Chapter 2, this study explored the specific nature of management,

particularly Green HRM, in relation to employees’ workplace outcomes. The nature

of Green HRM as a mediator in the relationships between employees’ workplace

environmental behaviours and environmental attitudes, subjective norms and

perceived behavioural control can be clarified by social identity theory (SIT).

Employees with the right attitude, adequate resources or external and internal

influences, without the provision of external stimuli, might not adopt the right kind of

behaviours in green buildings. The qualitative findings in subsection 5.3.3.1 further

indicated that employees with the right attitude can put more effort and energy into

behaving in an environmentally friendly manner. The external signals can manifest in

the form of management’s policies and practices that can be transmitted within the

organisation, in turn, influencing employees to perform actions that align with the

organisation’s strategies (Tajfel et al. 1979). The qualitative findings in

subsection 5.3.3.1 provided evidence on the capacity of Green HRM to enable this

support and improve behaviours. Employees could interpret these organisational

initiatives and, consequently, make critical decisions about the organisation’s motives

that will eventually convert into specific actions (Turban and Greening 1997).

266

Organisational practices focusing on social values and branding influence employees

in such a way that this works in favour of the organisation (Turban and Greening

1997). For example, employees with a certain degree of environmental orientation,

support and resources could perceive the intentions of organisations through their

Green HRM practices. This would enhance employees’ behaviours in a specific way

that aligns with green building strategies. This explanation, supporting management’s

influence in improving behaviours, indicates a new wave of research that differs from

the underlying mechanism of performance dependencies on the physical aspects of

green buildings, such as indoor environmental quality (IEQ), temperature and air

quality. Therefore, the behaviours are not necessarily always related to the building

but could also be due to organisational initiatives such as Green HRM.

According to Benkhoff (1997b), organisations’ intended or unintended employee

outcomes are driven by HRM practices. This is further supported within the Green

HRM context. Employees engage in positive actions when they develop a sense of

self-enhancement through Green HRM practices (Smidts, Pruyn and van Riel 2001;

Dutton, Dukerich and Harquail 1994). An organisation that implements specific Green

HRM practices signals its strong social values to employees, and this promotes the

organisation’s external branding (Rangarajan and Rahm 2011). Consequently, the

whole process appears attractive to employees. In addition, specific Green HRM

practices, such as green training, green recruitment, green induction and performance

criteria on specific green KPIs, provide opportunities and motivates employees to

engage in environmental behaviours in green buildings. This revelation demonstrates

that environmental attitudes, subjective norms or perceived behavioural control cannot

predict employees’ workplace environmental behaviours without the support of Green

HRM practices (Shen, Dumont and Deng 2018).

In summary, this study has confirmed the mediation role of Green HRM. In particular,

this study draws attention to building upon Green HRM studies which provide grounds

for future research on green building design, taking behavioural outcomes into account

and recognising the multi-level nature of Green HRM to encompass employee-centric

aspects in green buildings.

267

6.4.2. Mediation Effect of Workplace Environmental Behaviours

The mediation effect of workplace environmental behaviours on the relationships

between Green HRM and critical performance outcomes was explored through four

hypotheses H5a, H5b, H5c and H5d. Analysis of the data provided by the samples

from Australia and India provided evidence that supported the mediation effect of

workplace environmental behaviours on the relationships between Green HRM and

the following performance outcomes: organisational identification (H5b), job

satisfaction (H5c) and work-related flow (H5d). For H5a, the mediation effect of

workplace environmental behaviours on the relationship between Green HRM and

environmental performance showed partial mediation for the Indian sample and no

mediation effect for the Australian sample. The nature of H3a (as explained in Section

6.3.3) can be used as justification for this difference in the results. The direct links

between workplace environmental behaviours and environmental performance in H3a

were also not supported by the Australian sample; therefore, the indirect linkage of

H5a was not supported by Australian data. However, the mediation effect of workplace

environmental behaviours confirmed a mediation effect for the Indian sample.

One of the significant issues highlighted in the systematic literature review presented

in Chapter 2 was the way that performance outcomes are measured. Therefore, when

the role of management in green buildings became the focus of this study, Green HRM

practices in organisations were measured at an organisational level, with the aim of

determining the actual policies focusing on improving performance in green buildings

rather than through perceived policies. However, as this study intended to investigate

the behavioural connection in green building design, employees might perceive these

Green HRM practices quite differently to what HR had originally intended. The Green

HRM initiatives might officially be well regarded at the organisational level, but may

not necessarily be perceived in that way by employees. This was particularly evident

in an individualist society such as Australia where personal orientation towards the

environment might not be aligned with perceived practices in green buildings. The

qualitative findings presented in subsection 5.3.3.2 highlighted that, in Australia, the

environmental performance agenda was influenced by other factors, such as monetary

return, and not necessarily by employees’ behaviours. On the other hand, the findings

268

explained that employees in India were more dependent on these initiatives to perform

these behaviors and connect to the organisation’s environmental performance.

However, the results for organisational identification, job satisfaction and work-related

flow showed similar results for Australia and India. Implementing Green HRM may

elicit a chain of issues that benefit both the organisation and employees. The role of

workplace environmental behaviours included a mediating process as well as

consideration of a broader range of performance outcomes suitable for embedding in

green buildings; therefore, it became the focus of this behavioural research. Employees

and the organisation can benefit at a personal and institutional level from each other

apart from receiving a benefit as a result of complying with rules. The qualitative data’s

evidence described in subsection 5.3.3.2 explained that the initiatives resulted in

employees experiencing a feel-good factor, and also built the employer’s brand and

improved concentration at work. Even though performance outcomes, such as job

satisfaction and work-related flow, benefitted employees at a more personal level, this

would eventually result in broader organisational benefits, such as lower employee

turnover or higher productivity. Similarly, organisational identification occurred at a

more institutional level, adding to the organisational citizenship behaviour of

employees (OCBE) directed towards organisations investing in green buildings.

The mediation effect of workplace environmental behaviours is a notable contribution

to better understanding the Green HRM–environmental performance relationship in

green buildings. Some relationship studies (Bowen and Ostroff 2004; Tsui and Wang

2002) have supported the requirement to involve both employee and organisational

perspectives to understand this relationship. According to Lambooij et al. (2006), when

HR practices are planned and consistent, employees react positively through

cooperative behaviours. The range of HR activities that leads to employees performing

in an environmentally friendly way in green buildings has different results on

employees, such as being satisfied in their job, enjoying their work and self-identifying

with the organisation’s values. These behaviours may then be fruitful for explaining

different performance outcomes in green buildings. Therefore, the indirect effect of

Green HRM on performances can be examined through the presence and mediation

effect of workplace environmental behaviours.

269

6.5. Overall Research Model based on Results from Australia and India

Based on the discussion so far, the samples from Australia and India confirmed some

differences in the hypothesised and mediation linkages. It is essential to note the

research on Green HRM based on a categorisation of countries. In Green HRM studies,

evidence on the differences in different countries and regions can be found in several

studies: United States (US) (Haddock-Millar, Sanyal and Müller-Camen 2016);

Europe (Guerci and Carollo 2016; Harvey, Williams and Probert 2013); Asia (Gholami

et al. 2016); and South America (Jabbour, Santos and Nagano 2010; Teixeira et al.

2016). Although the number of Green HRM studies in developed countries is

expanding, it is crucial to understand Green HRM’s relevance in emerging economies

that are seeking to involve organisations in decreasing their carbon footprints (Ren,

Tang and Jackson 2018). In various studies, the differences between different countries

(Liu et al. 2014) (including Australia and India) have shown variations in perceptions

towards the environment. The differences in this study’s results between Australia and

India encompassed various interplaying aspects such as regulations, cultural

orientation and models of economic development. In addition, the levels of guidance,

pressure and awareness could impact on how different countries move towards the

convergence of Green HRM and green building design. These national-level

differences may shape the relationships between Green HRM and its antecedents as

well as the relationships between Green HRM and its consequences, including

employees’ behaviours and, consequently, performance outcomes in green buildings.

For most economies, investing in human connections in green buildings still has a long

way to go. In developed countries such as Australia, green building standards are well

accepted and actively regulated (Sharma 2018). In emerging economies such as India,

the significance of the green building is expanding, but the implementation of specific

contemporary developments such as Green HRM will require some time. With such a

backdrop, when human-centric design focusing on behavioural outcomes is the focus

to drive the benefits of green buildings, empirical research, such as the current study,

to understand the difference between different countries becomes more relevant. To

summarise, the findings that showed differences between Australian and Indian

samples revealed that the context of Green HRM and environmental behaviours are

distinct in different cultures and that performance traits in green buildings are not only

270

influenced by organisational-level initiatives but might be based on broader contextual

influences.

Figure 6.2 presents the original research model as proposed in Chapter 3. In summary,

for Australia, workplace environmental behaviours had no significant relationship with

environmental performance. For India, subjective norms had no relationship with the

adoption of Green HRM practices. The research model for Australia and India reflects

the differences in green building design in developed and emerging economies.

Figure 6.2: Conceptual model

Notes: EAE = environmental attitudes; EPC = perceived behavioural control (previously abbreviated as PBC); ESN = subjective norms; EGH = Green HRM; EWB = workplace environmental behaviours; MEP = environmental performance; EOI = organisational identification; EJS = job satisfaction; and EWF= work-related flow

6.6. Thesis Objectives Revisited

The current research aimed to identify the influence of management on improving

performance in green buildings. This section revisits the associated research questions

corresponding to the three research objectives proposed in Chapter 2. The rationale for

this section is derived from the discussion conducted in Sections 6.3, 6.4 and 6.5 for

both Australia and India. Research Objective 1 sought to find the existing evidence

about the role of management in improving performance in green buildings. The

hypotheses and conceptual framework were conceived based on Research Objective 1

which corresponded to findings from the systematic literature review presented in

Chapter 2. Research Objective 2 investigated the performance outcomes of

management control. This research objective was addressed by Hypotheses H3 and

H5. Lastly, Research Objective 3 examined the impact of key management functions

on employees’ behaviours in green buildings as addressed via Hypotheses H2 and H4.

271

6.6.1. Research Objective 1

Research Objective 1 sought to explore the evidence about the role of management in

influencing performance in green buildings. The following research question was

formulated:

RO1: To review the existing evidence on the role of management in green building

design

RQ1: What is the influence of management in enhancing the benefits resulting


To address this research objective, a systematic literature review was conducted, as

presented in Chapter 2. Evidence from 91 papers published between 1990 and 2019

was finalised after an initial search resulted in 301 articles from three databases.

Chapter 2, Figure 2.1 showed the processes of identifying, screening, determining

eligibility and synthesising the articles for the systematic literature review. The

relevant articles were systematically examined based on the inclusion criteria in

Chapter 2, Table 2.1. The evidence from this review identified the potential areas

where HR managers could have an impact on green building performance. The

relevant information obtained from the systematic literature review dissected the

performance dimensions at environmental and organisational levels. The evidence

collected from this review highlighted the conceptualisation and implementation of

management practices to achieve both environmental and organisational performance

outcomes. The systematic literature review findings revealed that management or HR

interventions in improving employees’ productivity and well-being remained an

under-researched area. The systematic literature review was initially conducted based

on performance indicators popular in green building studies, such as productivity and

well-being. However, the conclusion of the systematic literature review was that, when

analysing management interventions in green buildings, performance indicators that

go beyond productivity and well-being are necessary. Based on this critical

observation from the systematic literature review, the performance outcomes were

shifted to other several types of performance in green buildings. Chapter 2, Table 2.2.

revealed that the selected articles indicated management’s influence on performance

outcomes such as environmental performance, organisational identification, job

272

satisfaction and work-related flow. The results from the systematic literature review

fed into Research Objective 2, narrowing down the performance indicators researched

in this study.

Despite most selected articles in the systematic literature review using empirical

evidence on building techniques as indicators for performance improvement in green

buildings, most articles also raised concerns about the need to discuss the

psychological, social and behavioural factors that impact on performance in green

buildings. The articles considered the involvement of stakeholders to realise the full

potential of green building design (Xie, Clements-Croome and Wang 2017; Smith and

Pitt 2011; Heerwagen 2000; Ding and YifeiZou 2016; Hutchinson 2017). These

important findings from the systematic literature review were fundamental to this

entire study as it sought to understand the behavioural elements upon which

management could impact. The integration of behaviours and management was well

explained by strategic human resources management (SHRM). When sustainability

was brought into the context, Green HRM became the core area on which to focus for

the rest of the study. The systematic literature review provided evidence on critical HR

practices, such as training, environmental awareness, leadership, job satisfaction,

organisational identity, employee engagement, environmental attitudes, behaviour and

social support, as leading indicators providing justification for management’s role in

environmental management in green buildings by its engagement of employees. In this

regard, the systematic literature review provided justification that non-technical factors

could affect the performances of employees working in green buildings (Clements-

Croome 2015; Menadue, Soebarto and Williamson 2014; Hoffman and Henn 2008;

Gibson 2008). The involvement of employees by HR managers at the organisational

level plays a role in reducing resistance to the physical environmental change of green

buildings (Baird and Penwell 2012; Brown et al. 2010). From this perspective, and

particularly highly relevant to management, HR capability can be associated strongly

with tracking sustainability behaviours and attitudes in green buildings (Xie,

Clements-Croome and Wang 2017; Cajias, Geiger and Bienert 2012; Heerwagen

2000; Sadatsafavi and Walewski 2013; Loftness et al. 2009; Richardson and Lynes

2007). Corporate strategy needs to be integrated to understand performance from

social, environmental and economic perspectives (Issa 2010; Andelin et al. 2015;

273

Leaman and Bordass 1999; Cohen 2007). This spike of interest from the systematic

literature review generated the investigation of Green HRM in the current study.


Research Objective 2 proposed the exploration of how managers can influence the

categories of performance outcomes in green buildings. Based on this, the following

research question was examined:

RO2: To develop the dimensions of performance outcomes in green buildings that

management can influence.



This research objective was addressed from the mediation effect of Green HRM on

performance outcomes in Hypotheses H5a, H5b, H5c and H5d. Moreover, Green

HRM’s influence on workplace environmental behaviours was found to have direct

links with performance as predicted in Hypotheses H3a, H3b, H3c and H3d. This study

narrowed down the number of the various performance outcomes based on the

systematic literature review, with the result being environmental performance, job

satisfaction, organisational identification and work-related flow. These performance

outcomes in green buildings were further categorised into types of performance

emphasising both environmental and non-environmental objectives. Hence, this study,

in its investigation, determined that focusing on human dimensions in green buildings

might go beyond the organisation’s environmental benefits.

The first green-related environmental outcome explored was environmental

performance. This performance outcome is core to green building requirements. Green

buildings are designed to be more resource-efficient than traditional buildings. One of

the critical issues that led to the exploration of human dimensions in green building

design was the difference between actual and predicted performance in green

buildings. Thus, understanding the influence of management practices on

environmental performance in green buildings became relevant. Environmental

performance could be perceived as the outcome of extra-role behaviour (Lo, Peters

and Kok 2012a; Melnyk, Sroufe and Calantone 2003; Zhu and Sarkis 2004). This

274

means that when employees know exactly how they need to behave in green buildings,

the overall environmental performance of green buildings will improve.

The second performance outcome studied in this research was organisational

identification. Social identity theory (SIT) was able explain perceived organisational

support converting to organisational identification. With organisational identification

in the context of green buildings, other outcomes, such as lower employee turnover,

deep emotional attachment and organisational citizenship behaviours, could be

achieved. By employees developing a positive attitude (Van Knippenberg 2000;

Abimbola and Vallaster 2007), they will align their personal values with the strategic

objectives of the organisation. Hence, organisational identification at the employee

level could be favourable for gaining an understanding of the benefits of green

buildings at a more corporate level.

The third and fourth performance outcomes, namely, job satisfaction and work-related

flow, were related to the overall well-being of employees. Job satisfaction could be

perceived as the ‘feel-good’ emotion and work-related flow as immersion in one’s job.

Both these employee-related outcomes could be considered as significant performance

indicators in green buildings. With a better working environment due to green

buildings and green culture as a result of management’s interventions, employees are

likely to experience positive feelings in the workspace. Job satisfaction and work-

related flow can both be linked to increased employee retention in the organisation.


Research Objective 3 was to explore specific management practices that impact on

employee behaviour in green buildings. Based on this, the following research question

was posed.

RO3: To identify the management practices improving employees’ behaviours in

green buildings


performances in green buildings?

275

This research objective was addressed by the direct links of Green HRM to employees’

workplace environmental behaviours, as proposed in Hypothesis H2. Green HRM

could also be seen to have mediation relationships in this study as proposed in

Hypotheses H1a, H1b and H1c. In addition, Green HRM in this study had an indirect

effect on performances through H4a, H4b and H4c. Green HRM became the

fundamental explanation and solution to behavioural issues in green buildings. The

integration of HRM and sustainability has been a recent addition to sustainability

studies. To the best of the researcher’s knowledge, the enactment of Green HRM in

green buildings has not yet been studied. This study has used Green HRM as a

paradigm shift in green building studies that has an impact at several levels. At the

organisational level, Green HRM proposes a commitment to the organisation’s green

agenda and employees’ participation to realise the full potential of green buildings. On

a broad scale, human dimensions become an essential criterion and, with Green HRM,

are new standards of enhanced performance in green buildings. At an individual level,

Green HRM in green buildings would incorporate a new set of competencies and skills

to match the behaviours required in green buildings. To examine the effect of the

inclusion of Green HRM, a cross-national study was adopted in this research, thus

exploring the extent to which Green HRM shifted in its intention when exposed to

different contexts.

Within the environmental management studies, the implementation of Green HRM is

considered evolutionary (Jabbour, Santos and Nagano 2010). This study’s findings

from its statistical and qualitative analyses emphasised HRM practices, such as internal

awareness, engagement workshops, green teams, senior management’s interest, the

organisational vision/mission statement, induction, incentives and training, green

recruitment performance criteria and green culture as being useful in the green

buildings scenario. For example, green training on the adoption of green building

techniques could upskill employees and thus promote their lifelong employability

(Packer and Sharrar 2003). Providing incentives and rewards could be instrumental in

boosting motivation among employees to be engaged in green building efficiency. This

has been supported by studies on CSR (Knudsen, Geisler and Ege 2013; Lothe and

Myrtveit 2003) where it was emphasised that rewards could promote and reinforce

delivery. At the organisational level, organisational policies and practices to highlight

276

the role of Green HRM might play a crucial role in embracing HR as a crucial

stakeholder in management efficiency in green buildings. For this, integration is

needed among the different stakeholders, such as HR, facility managers, team leaders,

etc. Other organisational-level criteria are needed, such as the use of metrics to focus

on performance management to address critical behaviours (Haddock-Millar, Sanyal

and Müller-Camen 2016). At the employee level, forming green teams could initiate

extra-role behaviours in green buildings. These specific groups could raise awareness

and organise employee engagement forums at regular intervals. These engagement

workshops would be more likely to generate communication between employees and

senior management. Some practices in the areas of recruitment and selection could be

an added advantage for organisations with an environmental management agenda. In

the process of green recruitment, organisations could be motivated to hire employees

with sustainability-related values and competencies (Podgorodnichenko, Edgar and

McAndrew 2019). Similarly, induction could raise awareness among employees of

how to handle the critical features of green buildings.

A core tenet of SHRM is how HRM could align with the organisation’s strategic

objectives (Jiang et al. 2012). The human-centric nature of Green HRM suggests that

it could provide the necessary environment for employees to participate in the

organisation’s strategic objectives and to perform in the way that was intended when

green buildings were built in the first place. According to Jackson and Seo (2010), as

these behaviours are discretionary, this would add value to the organisation in

achieving its broader environmental management agenda.


This chapter has discussed the results from the quantitative and qualitative analyses.

The integrated findings explained both direct and mediated hypotheses, answered the

research questions and indicated specific differences between Australia and India. It

was found that environmental behaviours linked to environmental performance was

not supported in the Australian sample and that subjective norms related to Green

HRM was not supported in the Indian sample. The chapter outlined the original

research models that were adjusted based on the results from Australia and India. The

next chapter discusses the conclusion of this study.

278

Conclusion


The previous chapter discussed the results based on the data collected from Australia

and India. The previous chapter also revisited the hypotheses and research objectives,

indicating the differences between Australia and India. This final chapter provides the

conclusion of the thesis. It begins by discussing the summary of the study. This chapter

addresses how the findings contribute to the theoretical and methodological aspects of

Green HRM’s influence on green building design in terms of performance

improvement. Furthermore, based on the findings, the practical implications of this

research are discussed. In the final section, the limitations of this study and directions

for future research are outlined, recommending potential areas to which this study

could lead.

7.2. Summary of the Research

This study explored the significance of management in improving performance in

green buildings. For developers, investors and engineers involved in green building

design, the performance of green buildings from the end-user perspective is pivotal for

the success of the design. Hence, a systematic literature review was conducted to

understand the scope of topics that focus on human-centric design in green buildings.

The systematic literature review provided a pathway towards selecting key

performance outcomes and exploring management’s role in improving employees’

behaviours, all of which the study sought to examine. Based on SIT and SET, the TPB

was extended to include Green HRM in the conceptual framework. A sequential

explanatory mixed-methods design was adopted for data collection in which an initial

quantitative method was used to validate the conceptual framework, with qualitative

data later collected to explain the quantitative results. The quantitative data were

collected from 549 employees and 91 managers in Australia, whereas data in India

were collected from 460 employees and 50 managers. Based on comprehensive

validation from the quantitative study, the final conceptual model for Australia

comprised environmental attitudes, subjective norms, perceived behavioural control,

279

Green HRM, workplace environmental behaviours, job satisfaction, organisational

identification and work-related flow. For the Indian sample, the conceptual framework

comprised environmental attitudes, perceived behavioural control, Green HRM,

workplace environmental behaviours, environmental performance, job satisfaction,

organisational identification and work-related flow. The quantitative data were

analysed using structural equation modelling (SEM). The proposed hypotheses based

on direct relationships and mediation effects were tested. The final model ensured that

standards were met for reliability, convergent validity and discriminant validity. For

the qualitative data collection, 18 interviews were conducted in Australia and 22 in

India, all with managers working in green buildings. The qualitative data provided an

additional exploration of the results obtained from the quantitative data analysis.

Thematic coding was used to analyse the interview data in the qualitative phase of the

study. Assessment of the results from the quantitative and qualitative analyses revealed

some differences between the Australian and Indian samples. The justifications for

differences in the results were provided in Chapter 6 based on the levels of acceptance

for green building design. The next sections provide the study’s significant

contributions, limitations and future research directions.

7.3. Research Contributions

This section discusses several theoretical contributions and methodological

contributions of the current study. Within the theoretical contributions, this study

highlights that this research has been undertaken from the perspectives of originality

and utility. The methodological contributions have been to suggest the use of

systematic literature reviews and mixed-methods design when studying cross-

disciplinary topics.

7.3.1. Theoretical Contributions

The meaning of the term ‘theoretical contribution’ has a wide scope and can be

understood beyond simply adding new variables to the existing theory. A theoretical

contribution in a study establishes an ‘original insight’ highlighting its practical

implementation (Corley and Gioia 2011). The term ‘theoretical contribution’ can be

further explained through two dimensions, namely, originality and utility. These two

280

dimensions provide a further four categories where the terms ‘revelatory’ and

‘incremental’ are explained under the originality dimension and ‘scientific’ and

‘practical’ are grouped under the utility dimension (Corley and Gioia 2011). Based on

these categories, the subsequent paragraphs discuss the theoretical contributions of this

study.

The revelatory category under the originality dimension in the theoretical contribution

highlights the advancement of existing knowledge (Corley and Gioia 2011). Social

identity theory (SIT) and social exchange theory (SET) were used to justify the

relationship between Green HRM and performance outcomes in green buildings.

Based on this, the TPB was adopted, resulting in advancing the knowledge on the

antecedents that could impact on Green HRM initiatives in green buildings and on

related behaviours that could impact on key performance outcomes in green buildings.

Social identity theory (SIT) confirmed the nature of the psychological association

between employees and their organisation (Paillé and Boiral 2013). Therefore, this

study also invoked the theoretical perspectives of using SIT and SET to explain

behaviours in environmental management studies. Specifically, to understand

behaviours in green buildings, these theories explained the intricacies and uncertainties

rooted in the Green HRM context. The TPB refined the understanding of the diffusion

of Green HRM processes in green buildings. Previously, the TPB has been used at an

individual level (Sawang and Kivits 2014). This study not only applied the TPB at the

firm level but also used it in within multidisciplinary fields and multicultural contexts.

Investigating Green HRM based on the TPB drew our attention to TPB-related factors

(environmental attitudes, subjective norms and perceived behavioural control) and the

adoption of workplace environmental behaviours in green buildings. Uncovering the

paradox of behaviours in green buildings via Green HRM was more likely to be

simplified through an adapted TPB model. Such anomalous dynamics might predict

the possibiity of an indirect relationship between Green HRM and performance

outcomes, namely, organisational identification, job satisfaction and work-related flow

in green buildings. Alternatively, understanding these cognitive and psychological

perspectives might be useful for research seeking to advance the Green HRM concept

within different contexts. Such a theoretical lens would enable an in-depth analysis of

281

green practices making it more conducive to elucidating environmental behaviours in

the workplace.

The incremental category from the dimension of originality explains the addition of a

new construct to existing theory and its behaviour in the current context (Corley and

Gioia 2011). This study added Green HRM as a new variable to the existing TPB

model and extended it to understand performance outcomes in green buildings.

Existing HRM studies have tended to examine SHRM in environmental studies in a

static and oversimplified way by identifying a pure ideal model that fits across all the

environmental management processes. However, there is no consensus on what

practices constitute Green HRM in different contexts. In the past decade, the concept

of Green HRM has added to a greater understanding of the human dimension in

environmental studies. Some recent impacts of Green HRM include other fields such

as information processing (Zoogah 2011); the public sector (Mishra, Sarkar and

Kiranmai 2014); sports (Gholami et al. 2016); aviation (Harvey, Williams and Probert

2013); and electronic human resource management (E-HRM) (Yusoff, Ramayah and

Othman 2015). Conceptually, the impact of Green HRM has been mainly limited to

green outcomes (Jabbour, Santos and Nagano 2010; Cherian and Jacob 2012; Harvey,

Williams and Probert 2013; Renwick, Redman and Maguire 2013). The current study

adds to the Green HRM literature by arguing that Green HRM can add value to

organisations beyond environmental outcomes. This study showed evidence of the

impact of Green HRM on workplace behaviours and performance outcomes. The TPB

model was extended beyond behaviours and added four performance outcomes

resulting from the behaviour variable. This research therefore contributes to the

behavioural literature by including the Green HRM variable that emphasises the

benefits for organisations when they invest in human resources (HR). For example, the

behavioural perspective has been an issue in green buildings and this study

demonstrates a theoretical contribution by employing Green HRM to shape

performance in green buildings. Therefore, this study captures the hybrid nature of

Green HRM in practices and aligns the research more closely with the actual scenario

to improve performance in green buildings.

The theoretical contribution to the utility dimension includes practical and scientific.

While the practical utility dimension in the theoretical contribution highlights the

282

practical outcomes of the concepts in organisations, the scientific category explains

the utility of the theory in other disciplines (Corley and Gioia 2011). This study

provides a multidisciplinary stance drawing on human resources management (HRM),

the built environment and sustainability disciplines, with the theoretical contribution

differing in its applicability in each of these fields. This research utilises the concept

of Green HRM in both practical and scientific ways for the following reasons. This

study is among the first to systematically consider the concept of Green HRM to

improve performance in the green building context as part of a ‘vicious cycle’ of good

design. Many of the existing studies on green buildings have focused on the technical

details of these buildings (Chapter 2). The green building projects with green

certifications are regarded as conforming to ‘best practice’ in terms of the buildings’

environmental impacts (Hoffman and Henn 2008). However, with evidence of the

differences between perceived performance and actual performance in green buildings,

increased attention has been paid by researchers to exploring the human-centric

aspects in green buildings (Geng et al. 2019). Moreover, much attention has been given

to understanding the social and behavioural barriers to achieving better performance

of green building design (Hoffman and Henn 2008; Siva, Hoppe and Jain 2017; Darko

and Chan 2017). It is important to understand these unrecognised social and

behavioural barriers in order to increase the return on investment (ROI) in green

buildings. Therefore, this study has introduced the Green HRM concept to consider

the impact created by people and thereby to resolve issues of this impact. Hence, Green

HRM contributes to employing human-centric practices that, as a result, can have

substantial financial implications for organisations operating in green buildings. The

study has sought to examine the aspects of Green HRM in green buildings through a

detailed discussion based on quantitative and qualitative methods, presenting a vivid

picture of how employees behave in green buildings when Green HRM practices are

implemented. By introducing the Green HRM concept, this study sets the groundwork

for studies that are entangled in the dilemma of actual payback for building green.

7.3.2. Methodological Contributions

The term ‘methodological contribution’ refers to the innovative ways used by

researchers in their data collection and analysis (Thomas 2003). This study has made

283

two methodological contributions. The first one is employing a systematic literature

review of management studies to understand a performance issue in green buildings.

The second methodological contribution was using the mixed-methods approach to

explore the issues related to behavioural aspects in green buildings through a

qualitative data.

This study utilised a systematic literature review technique to inspect the possibilities

when it came to including management’s interventions in green building studies.

Systematic literature reviews are different from traditional or narrative reviews (Uman

2011) as the latter often emphasise seeking generalised knowledge from the previous

literature. In contrast to traditional reviews, systematic literature reviews identify the

best evidence by selecting studies based on a rigorous and systematic process. The

systematic literature review has become relevant for providing insights into the areas

where the management discipline is mentioned in existing green building research.

Generally, researchers seem to assign more importance to identifying new research

questions rather than to developing a deeper understanding of the existing state of

knowledge. Moreover, practitioners rarely use academic research to inform practices;

rather, they are more dependent on best practice scenarios. This reliance is more likely

to result in suboptimal outcomes. The adoption of systematic literature reviews could

add great value to the work of academics and practitioners in green building studies.

Hence, to bridge the gap between academics and practitioners, this study used a

systematic literature review as a methodological contribution to provide a foundation

for the literature review in the following chapter. The implementation of Green HRM

and the selection of specific performance outcomes were examined based on the results

from the systematic literature review. Systematic literature reviews can be an

important part of the green buildings tool kit, with their full potential to include

multidisciplinary fields in green building studies yet to be explored.

The second significant methodological contribution of this research is its adoption of

a mixed-methods approach. In contrast to the mainstream sustainability behaviour

literature which relies on the mono-method approach (Molina‐Azorín and López‐

Gamero 2014), this study has employed mixed methods combining quantitative and

qualitative data collection strategies to explore the characteristics of Green HRM and

employee performance outcomes in green buildings. The main reason for adopting a

284

sequential explanatory mixed-methods approach is to further explain the significant

and non-significant results from the quantitative phase (Tashakkori and Creswell

2007). A similar approach was used by Krause et al. (2019) to explore additional

explanations of performance. In the current research, the quantitative approach

provided appropriate measurements and instruments in the research context. As

described earlier, a qualitative data collection followed the quantitative data collection

in the current study, with the aim being to explore the quantitative results and thus to

present the data holistically (Teddlie and Tashakkori 2003; Creswell 2014a). The

integration of Green HRM from the management field with green buildings from the

built environment field was an unexplored domain. Thus, by using mixed methods, the

proposed model was not only tested based on the existing literature, but was also

validated by additional information and the pattern of changes.

7.4. Practical Implications

This section discusses the implications for managers, particularly HR managers, as

well as the different stakeholders of green building design, such as designers, architects

and engineers.

The first practical contribution was to include management in green building studies.

From a managerial standpoint, it is crucial to develop an understanding of the factors

that impact on employees’ environmental behaviours in their workplaces. The

technical functionalities of green buildings might not be relevant for measuring actual

performance in green buildings. In this regard, the current research has confirmed the

behavioural factors that management can identify and control in relation to

performance in green buildings. The results from this study have the potential to

provide new insights for policy makers and the different stakeholders involved in green

building design. Taking into account the positive effect of managerial interventions on

employee’s behaviours, policy makers should consider integrating non-technical

aspects, such as Green HRM, to influence the use of green building technology by

employees. Furthermore, emphasising a range of performance outcomes beyond

productivity and well-being would help practitioners to design comprehensive Green

HRM practices in green buildings.

285

Secondly, the findings from this study have suggested several practical implications

related to performance outcomes. Linking the behavioural aspects of employees with

green buildings can invoke performance outcomes that are not necessarily green-

related. This study has promoted Green HRM initiatives in green buildings to go

beyond simply focusing solely on resource efficiency in these buildings by tracking

other performance outcomes. This study provides a path for future researchers to

explore different performance outcomes at the employee and organisational levels.

While the relationships predicted in the current model are likely to hold in many

contexts, performance outcomes contribute to the return on investment (ROI) for

building green. Organisational identification could encourage employees to

demonstrate organisational citizenship behaviours, thereby reducing employee

turnover rates in organisations. The study findings have also highlighted the

significance of job satisfaction among employees so they can work in a pleasant mood.

This would contribute to the overall well-being of employees. Another performance

outcome predicted in this study was work-related flow. Employees in green buildings

may be encouraged to engage in extra-role tasks, thereby adding to the overall

productivity of the organisation. Such clearly defined performance outcomes are more

likely to result in achieving the sought-after productivity and well-being parameters in

green buildings.

Thirdly, the findings of this study have implications for the different stakeholders, such

as designers, architects and engineers, involved in green building design. This study’s

conceptual model could be the basis of several insights for these key decision makers

in facilitating the communication of sustainability information and the adoption of

Green HRM at the institutional level. The findings of this study have clearly

demonstrated the significance of including human-centric design in green buildings.

The outcome metrics used in this research would be suitable for contemporary office

space and practices. Management concepts, such as employee turnover or absenteeism,

that are difficult to measure could find that their importance is recognised in built

environment studies. Moreover, practitioners and researchers from the built

environment field could emphasise the greater awareness of behaviours and the use of

Green HRM to influence performance outcomes in green buildings. This study has

provided tools for owners and tenants to directly engage with and merge management

286

and green building fields. Building owners, designers and engineers could use the

findings of this research to collaborate with HR managers to track the impact of

buildings on occupants and to learn how occupants’ behaviours could be oriented for

the benefit of green building performance. In return, HR managers could avail

themselves of the opportunities presented by building stakeholders when they are

seeking guidance to boost performance in these buildings.

Fourthly, this study has implications for HRM in general. The findings of this study

provide HR managers with an evidence-based indication of the importance of Green

HRM practices in improving environmental behaviours, thus allowing the

prioritisation of HRM interventions in green buildings. In this regard, managers could

create numerous opportunities to engage employees on environmental issues,

including providing solutions to environmental issues in green buildings. At the

organisational level, HR could focus on green policies, the organisation’s vision

incorporating its environmental strategy, green training, green KPIs and rewards for

green performance. At the employee level, Green HR practices, such as green teams,

environmental awareness and regular forums focusing on environmental practices,

could be enactors for green behaviours in green buildings. Managers could act as

change agents and could customise Green HR practices based on the cultural

differences in different countries. Human resource (HR) managers have a clear

opportunity to successfully introduce effective frameworks to maximise the

environmental impact of these green buildings in emerging and developed economies.

7.5. Limitations

This study has provided useful in-depth insights into the ability of HR managers to

enhance performance in green buildings. However, as with all other empirical

research, some limitations of this research need to be highlighted.

The first limitation is that this research adopted a cross-sectional study design in which

all the data were collected at a single point of time. These data might provide only a

snapshot of a specific group at that point of time. Employees’ behaviours in green

buildings might change according to the season and time of occupancy. For example,

the perception of comfort in summer might be different to that in winter. Similarly, if

287

employees have only occupied the building recently contributes to the feel-good factor

felt when employees go to a new location to work. Although the cross-sectional

approach to data collection is quicker and costs less compared to longitudinal research,

it might not be sufficient to understand the relationships of constructs which are

dependent on context.

The second limitation is that the systematic literature review only selected articles that

were peer-reviewed which were considered to be more rigorous. The aim of the

systematic literature review for this study was to provide justification supporting the

subsequent literature review; however, due to time constraints, the systematic literature

review included only peer-reviewed academic articles rather than the grey literature

and unpublished articles.

The third limitation of this study was the use of self-reported data. Although the data

were collected from employees and managers to minimise the issues related to single-

source data, most of the survey questions were answered based on respondents’

subjective judgements. Self-reported data are often subject to social desirability bias.

Responses might be inaccurate, thus affecting how relationships between the

constructs are determined. It is possible that, instead of a survey, experimentation in

the quantitative phase and observation or focus groups could have improved the overall

results.

The study’s fourth limitation was that the data collection was limited to Australia and

India. Even though the researcher put efforts into making a cross-cultural comparison

by selecting Australia and India, the empirical findings might not apply to all

developed and emerging economies. The reason is that the climatic conditions,

people’s perceptions and the nature of green building certifications vary in different

countries. Hence, including data collection from a greater number of countries in the

future would be more likely to reproduce the results. Moreover, it is important to note

that Green HRM, as a concept, is relatively new for developing countries compared to

developed countries. Therefore, data from a wide range of countries would be

beneficial.

The fifth limitation was the target audience, with this study collecting data from only

managers and employees. However, given that green building design involves other

288

stakeholders such as designers, engineers, architects and owners, all of whom play a

critical role in the green building sector, it would have been beneficial to collect data

from these stakeholders. Although the original plan was to collect data from these

stakeholders, due to lack of time and access, the data collection was limited to internal

stakeholders of organisations, namely, managers and employees.

7.6. Future Research Directions

This study’s limitations could provide several additional possibilities for future

research. Future research could investigate how Green HRM practices affect other

behaviours beyond workplace environmental behaviours to improve performance in

green buildings. This would enable policy makers to understand the exact mechanism

by which Green HRM and behaviours are formulated. While the theoretical model for

this study considered Green HRM as one construct, future research might consider

examining specific Green HR practices and investigating the extent to which some

Green HR functions have more impact than others on performance in green buildings.

This would also link to include other types of performance such as commitment,

absenteeism and retention. Future research might explore including designers,

architects and engineers in the data collection. This would help to understand whether

the solutions proposed by HR managers in green buildings could be conceived at the

design phase of these buildings.

Another potential avenue of research would be to compare green and non-green

buildings. While this study provides evidence that the Australian and Indian samples

produced similar results for most of the hypotheses, for some hypotheses, the results

were different. Several important factors could be examined in future research.

Comparing green and non-green buildings would better predict whether Green HRM’s

influence was specifically in green buildings or if it added the same value to non-green

buildings.

This study focused on non-residential office buildings. For future studies, occupants

behaviours in residential buildings and other non-residential green buildings such as

hospitals and schools can help to understand the application of SET and SIT on

performance. Similarly, future research might consider comparing occupied or rented

289

spaces with owned spaces, or investigating multi-tenant perspectives to understand the

owner–tenant relationship and the extent to which organisations would be willing to

invest in a workspace which was under a lease. Future studies could also focus on

using different ratings of a specific certification or specific ratings of different

certifications to accurately compare the green building experience in two contrasting

countries.

7.7. Concluding Remarks

Clearly, management, particularly HRM, has a central role to play in addressing

performance issues in green buildings. Employees in green buildings can respond to

different performance outcomes by adapting to key Green HRM practices. The

business case for high-performing green buildings has always been based on the

impact on occupants and management which to date is a missed opportunity in green

building design. With performance in green buildings primarily centred on occupants’

workplace environmental behaviours, the inclusion of a human-centric focus is more

likely to create high-performing green buildings. The current study, by adding Green

HRM to green building studies, has presented a deeper understanding of how Green

HRM could be utilised as a human-centric strategy to drive the business case for green

buildings. By utilising social identity theory (SIT) and social exchange theory (SET)

in this study, employees’ behavioural orientation in green buildings has been put

forward as a compelling argument for better performance. This study presented both

quantitative and qualitative data from Australia and India. More importantly, a valid

conceptual model based on the theory of planned behaviour (TPB) can now identify

the antecedents and outcomes of management interventions in green buildings.

Within its theoretical contributions, this study highlights the perspectives of originality

and utility. The methodological contributions suggest the use of systematic literature

reviews and mixed-methods design when researching cross-disciplinary topics.

Employees’ behaviours are powerful as the way that buildings impact on occupants is

equally important to understanding how occupants impact on building performance.

This appeals to all green building stakeholders. This study’s findings can work as a

springboard for organisations located in green buildings in various cultures and

290

disciplines. As a result, this research has practical implications for managers, HR

managers, designers, architects, building owners, employers and employees.

In conclusion, this study advances the existing knowledge on performance in green

buildings through Green HRM research. From a business perspective in green

buildings, engaging with behavioural issues could be a potent and attractive strategy.

This has been captured by the current research through Green HRM by creating a

‘sweet spot’ where green buildings’ physical aspects, human resources and

performance overlap.

291

REFERENCES

Aaker, David A., V. Kumar, and George S. Day. 2007. Marketing Research. Ninth ed. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

Aaltonen, Anna, Eeva Määttänen, Riikka Kyrö, and Anna‐Liisa Sarasoja. 2013. "Facilities Management Driving Green Building Certification: A Case from Finland." Facilities 31 (7/8): 328‐342.

Abbaszadeh, Sahar, Leah Zagreus, David Lehrer, and Charlie Huizenga. 2006. "Occupant Satisfaction with Indoor Environmental Quality in Green Buildings." Proceedings of Healthy Buildings 3 (1): 365‐370.

Abimbola, Temi, and Christine Vallaster. 2007. "Brand, Organisational Identity and Reputation in SMEs: An Overview." Qualitative Market Research: An International Journal 10 (4): 341‐348.

Abrams, Dominic, Kaori Ando, and Steve Hinkle. 1998. "Psychological Attachment to the Group: Cross‐Cultural Differences in Organizational Identification and Subjective Norms as Predictors of Workers' Turnover Intentions." Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 24 (10): 1027‐1039.

Acharya, Anita S., Anupam Prakash, Pikee Saxena, and Aruna Nigam. 2013. "Sampling: Why and How of IT." Indian Journal of Medical Specialties 4 (2): 330‐333.

Adams, Richard J., Palie Smart, and Anne Sigismund Huff. 2016. "Shades of Grey: Guidelines for Working with the Grey Literature in Systematic Reviews for Management and Organizational Studies." International Journal of Management Reviews 19 (4): 432‐454.

Aggerholm, Helle Kryger, Sophie Esmann Andersen, and Christa Thomsen. 2011. "Conceptualising Employer Branding in Sustainable Organisations." Corporate Communications: An International Journal 16 (2): 105‐123.

Agha‐Hossein, M. M., S. El‐Jouzi, A. A. Elmualim, J. Ellis, and M. Williams. 2013. "Post‐Occupancy Studies of an Office Environment: Energy Performance and Occupants' Satisfaction." Building & Environment 69 (1): 121‐130.

Aguilera, Ruth V., Deborah E. Rupp, Cynthia A. Williams, and Jyoti Ganapathi. 2007. "Putting the S Back in Corporate Social Responsibility: A Multilevel Theory of Social Change in Organizations." The Academy of Management Review 32 (3): 836‐863.

Ahmad, Naim, Abid Haleem, and Asif Syed. 2012. "Compilation of Critical Success Factors in Implementation of Enterprise Systems: A Study on Indian Organisations." Global Journal of Flexible Systems Management 13 (4): 217‐232.

Ahmad, Tayyab, Ajibade Ayodeji Aibinu, and André Stephan. 2019. "Managing Green Building Development – A Review of Current State of Research and Future Directions." Building and Environment 155 (1): 83‐104.

Ahn, Yong Han, Annie R. Pearce, and Kihong Ku. 2011. "Paradigm Shift of Green Buildings in the Construction Industry." International Journal of Sustainable Building Technology and Urban Development 2 (1): 52‐62.

Ahn, Yong Han, Annie R. Pearce, Yuhong Wang, and George Wang. 2013. "Drivers and Barriers of Sustainable Design and Construction: The Perception of Green Building Experience." International Journal of Sustainable Building Technology and Urban Development 4 (1): 35‐45.

Aiman‐Smith, Lynda, Talya N. Bauer, and Daniel M. Cable. 2001. "Are You Attracted? Do You Intend to Pursue? A Recruiting Policy‐Capturing Study." Journal of Business and psychology 16 (2): 219‐237.

292

Ajzen, Icek. 1991. "The Theory of Planned Behavior." Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 50 (2): 179‐211.

Ajzen, Icek. 1996. "The Social Psychology of Decision Making." Social Psychology: Handbook of Basic Principles 1 (1): 297‐325.

Ajzen, Icek. 2011. "The Theory of Planned Behaviour: Reactions and Reflections." Psychology & Health 26 (9): 1113‐1127.

Ajzen, Icek, and Martin Fishbein. 1980. Understanding Attitudes and Predicting Social Behaviour. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice‐Hall.

Aknin, Lara B., Elizabeth W. Dunn, and Michael I. Norton. 2012. "Happiness Runs in a Circular Motion: Evidence for a Positive Feedback Loop between Prosocial Spending and Happiness." Journal of Happiness Studies 13 (2): 347‐355.

Al‐Shafi, S. 2009. "Factors Affecting E‐Government Implementation and Adoption in the State of Qatar." Department of Information Systems and Computing ProQuest Dissertations Publishing. Brunel University.

Al Horr, Yousef, Mohammed Arif, Amit Kaushik, Ahmed Mazroei, Martha Katafygiotou, and Esam Elsarrag. 2016. "Occupant Productivity and Office Indoor Environment Quality: A Review of the Literature." Building and Environment 105 (1): 369‐389.

Allen, David G., Lynn M. Shore, and Rodger W. Griffeth. 2003. "The Role of Perceived Organizational Support and Supportive Human Resource Practices in the Turnover Process." Journal of Management 29 (1): 99‐118.

Allen, I. Elaine, and Christopher A. Seaman. 2007. "Likert Scales and Data Analyses." Quality Progress 40 (7): 64‐65.

Almutawa, Zeyad, Nuttawuth Muenjohn, and Jiaying Zhang. 2016. "The Effect of Human Resource Management System on Employees' Commitment: The Mediating Role of the AMO Model." The Journal of Developing Areas 50 (6): 17‐29.

Altomonte, Sergio, and Stefano Schiavon. 2013. "Occupant Satisfaction in LEED and Non‐LEED Certified Buildings." Building & Environment 68 (1): 66‐76.

Altomonte, Sergio, Stefano Schiavon, Michael G. Kent, and Gail Brager. 2019. "Indoor Environmental Quality and Occupant Satisfaction in Green‐Certified Buildings." Building Research & Information 47 (3): 255‐274.

Åmo, Bjoern Willy. 2006. "Employee Innovation Behaviour in Health Care: The Influence from Management and Colleagues." International Nursing Review 53 (3): 231‐237.

Ananthram, Subramaniam, and Christopher Chan. 2016. "Religiosity, Spirituality and Ethical Decision‐Making: Perspectives from Executives in Indian Multinational Enterprises." Asia Pacific Journal of Management 33 (3): 843‐880.

Andargie, Maedot S., and Elie Azar. 2019. "An Applied Framework to Evaluate the Impact of Indoor Office Environmental Factors on Occupants’ Comfort and Working Conditions." Sustainable Cities and Society 46 (101447): 1‐17.

Andelin, Mia, Anna‐Liisa Sarasoja, Tomi Ventovuori, and Seppo Junnila. 2015. "Breaking the Circle of Blame for Sustainable Buildings – Evidence from Nordic Countries." Journal of Corporate Real Estate 17 (1): 26‐45.

Anderson, Claire. 2010. "Presenting and Evaluating Qualitative Research." American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education 74 (8): 1‐8.

Anderson, James C., and David W. Gerbing. 1988. "Structural Equation Modeling in Practice: A Review and Recommended Two‐Step Approach." Psychological Bulletin 103 (3): 411‐423.

Andersson, Lynne, Susan E. Jackson, and Sally V. Russell. 2013. "Greening Organizational Behavior: An Introduction to the Special Issue." Journal of Organizational Behavior 34 (2): 151‐155.

293

Andreoni, James. 1989. "Giving with Impure Altruism: Applications to Charity and Ricardian Equivalence." Journal of Political Economy 97 (6): 1447‐1458.

Andreoni, James. 1990. "Impure Altruism and Donations to Public Goods: A Theory of Warm‐Glow Giving." The Economic Journal 100 (401): 464‐477.

Ángel Del Brío, Jesús, Beatriz Junquera, and Mónica Ordiz. 2008. "Human Resources in Advanced Environmental Approaches – A Case Analysis." International Journal of Production Research 46 (21): 6029‐6053.

Antonelli, Monika. 2008. "The Green Library Movement: An Overview and Beyond." Electronic Green Journal 1 (27): 1‐8.

Arbuckle, James L. 2009. "AMOS (Version 18.0)." Crawfordville, FL: AMOS Development Corporation.

Arcury, Thomas A., and Eric Howard Christianson. 1993. "Rural‐Urban Differences in Environmental Knowledge and Actions." The Journal of Environmental Education 25 (1): 19‐25.

Ardichvili, Alexandre. 2011. "Sustainability of Nations, Communities, Organizations and Individuals: The Role of HRD." Human Resource Development International 14 (4): 371‐374.

Arif, Mohammed, Martha Katafygiotou, Ahmed Mazroei, Amit Kaushik, and Esam Elsarrag. 2016. "Impact of Indoor Environmental Quality on Occupant Well‐Being and Comfort: A Review of the Literature." International Journal of Sustainable Built Environment 5 (1): 1‐11.

Armeli, Stephen, Robert Eisenberger, Peter Fasolo, and Patrick Lynch. 1998. "Perceived Organizational Support and Police Performance: The Moderating Influence of Socioemotional Needs." Journal of Applied Psychology 83 (2): 288‐297.

Armitage, Christopher J., and Mark Conner. 2001. "Efficacy of the Theory of Planned Behaviour: A Meta‐Analytic Review." British Journal of Social Psychology 40 (4): 471‐499.

Armitage, Lynne, and Ann Murugan. 2013. "The Human Green Office Experience: Happy and Healthy or Sick and Frustrated?" The Australian and New Zealand Property Journal 4 (1): 35‐41.

Armitage, Lynne, Ann Murugan, and Hikari Kato. 2011. "Green Offices in Australia: A User Perception Survey." Journal of Corporate Real Estate 13 (3): 169‐180.

Arthur, Jeffrey B. 1994. "Effects of Human Resource Systems on Manufacturing Performance and Turnover." The Academy of Management Journal 37 (3): 670‐687.

Arulrajah, A. Anton, H. H. D. N. P. Opatha, and N. N. J. Nawaratne. 2015. "Green Human Resource Management Practices: A Review." Sri Lankan Journal of Human Resource Management 5 (1): 1‐16.

Ashforth, Blake E., and Fred Mael. 1989. "Social Identity Theory and the Organization." Academy of Management Review 14 (1): 20‐39.

Ashraf, Fawad, Ibbad Ashraf, and Waqasia Anam. 2015. "Green HR for Businesses." International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences 5 (8): 149‐156.

Azar, Elie, Christina Nikolopoulou, and Sokratis Papadopoulos. 2016. "Integrating and Optimizing Metrics of Sustainable Building Performance Using Human‐Focused Agent‐Based Modeling." Applied Energy 183 (1): 926‐937.

Azizi, Nurul Sakina Mokhtar, and Suzanne Wilkinson. 2015. "Motivation Factors in Energy Saving Behaviour between Occupants in Green and Conventional Buildings – Malaysia Case Study." International Journal of Environmental Science and Development 6 (7): 491‐497.

294

Babin, Barry J., and William Zikmund. 2015. Exploring Marketing Research. Eleventh ed. Boston, MA: Cengage Learning.

Backhaus, Kristin B., Brett A. Stone, and Karl Heiner. 2002. "Exploring the Relationship between Corporate Social Performance and Employer Attractiveness." Business & Society 41 (3): 292‐318.

Baharum, M. R., and M. Pitt. 2009. "Determining a Conceptual Framework for Green FM Intellectual Capital." Journal of Facilities Management 7 (4): 267‐282.

Baird, George. 2011. "Did That Building Feel Good for You? Or – Isn't It Just as Important to Assess and Benchmark Users’ Perceptions of Buildings as It Is to Audit Their Energy Efficiency?" Intelligent Buildings International 3 (2): 124‐130.

Baird, George, and Jaq Penwell. 2012. "Designers’ Intentions versus Users’ Perceptions: A Comparison of Two Refurbished Office Buildings." Intelligent Buildings International 4 (1): 15‐33.

Baker, P. H., and H. A. L. van Dijk. 2008. "PASLINK and Dynamic Outdoor Testing of Building Components." Building & Environment 43 (2): 143‐151.

Bakker, Arnold B. 2008. "The Work‐Related Flow Inventory: Construction and Initial Validation of the WOLF." Journal of Vocational Behavior 72 (3): 400‐414.

Bakker, Arnold, Evangelia Demerouti, and Wilmar Schaufeli. 2003. "Dual Processes at Work in a Call Centre: An Application of the Job Demands– Resources Model." European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology 12 (4): 393‐417.

Bakker, Arnold B., Evangelia Demerouti, and Willem Verbeke. 2004. "Using the Job Demands–Resources Model to Predict Burnout and Performance." Human Resource Management 43 (1): 83‐104.

Balfour, Danny L., and Barton Wechsler. 1996. "Organizational Commitment: Antecedents and Outcomes in Public Organizations." Public Productivity & Management Review 19 (3): 256‐277.

Ballantyne, Angela, and G. Owen Schaefer. 2019. "Taxonomy of Justifications for Consent Waivers: When and Why Are Public Views Relevant?" Journal of Medical Ethics 45 (5): 353‐354.

Bamberg, Sebastian. 2003. "How Does Environmental Concern Influence Specific Environmentally Related Behaviors? A New Answer to an Old Question." Journal of Environmental Psychology 23 (1): 21‐32.

Bamberg, Sebastian, Marcel Hunecke, and Anke Blöbaum. 2007. "Social Context, Personal Norms and the Use of Public Transportation: Two Field Studies." Journal of Environmental Psychology 27 (3): 190‐203.

Bamberg, Sebastian, and Guido Möser. 2007. "Twenty Years after Hines, Hungerford, and Tomera: A New Meta‐Analysis of Psycho‐Social Determinants of Pro‐Environmental Behaviour." Journal of Environmental Psychology 27 (1): 14‐25.

Bandura, Albert. 1989. "Human Agency in Social Cognitive Theory." American Psychologist 44 (9): 1175‐1184.

Bandura, Albert. 1999. "Self‐Efficacy: The Exercise of Control." Journal of Cognitive Psychotherapy 13 (2): 158‐166.

Bangwal, Deepak, and Prakash Tiwari. 2015. "Green HRM – A Way to Greening the Environment." IOSR [International Organization of Scientific Research] Journal of Business and Management 17 (12): 45‐53.

Bansal, Pratima, and Kendall Roth. 2000. "Why Companies Go Green: A Model of Ecological Responsiveness." Academy of Management Journal 43 (4): 717‐736.

Barney, Jay, and Patrick Wright. 1998. "On Becoming a Strategic Partner: The Role of Human Resources in Gaining Competitive Advantage." Human Resource Management 37 (1): 31‐46.

295

Bartel, Caroline A. 2001. "Social Comparisons in Boundary‐Spanning Work: Effects of Community Outreach on Members' Organizational Identity and Identification." Administrative Science Quarterly 46 (3): 379‐413.

Becker, Brian, and Barry Gerhart. 1996. "The Impact of Human Resource Management on Organizational Performance: Progress and Prospects." Academy of Management Journal 39 (4): 779‐801.

Beer, Michael, and Nitin Nohria. 2000. "Cracking the Code of Change." HBR [Harvard Business Review]’s 10 Must Reads on Change 78 (3): 133‐141.

Behrend, Tara S., Becca A. Baker, and Lori Foster Thompson. 2009. "Effects of Pro‐Environmental Recruiting Messages: The Role of Organizational Reputation." Journal of Business and Psychology 24 (3): 341‐350.

Benkhoff, Birgit. 1997a. "A Test of the HRM Model: Good for Employers and Employees." Human Resource Management Journal 7 (4): 44‐60.

Benkhoff, Birgit 1997b. "Disentangling Organizational Commitment: The Dangers of the OCQ for Research Policy." Personnel Review 26 (2): 114‐131.

Bessant, John, Richard Lamming, Hannah Noke, and Wendy Phillips. 2005. "Managing Innovation Beyond the Steady State." Technovation 25 (12): 1366‐1376.

Biga, Andrew, S. Dilchert, A. S. McCance, R. E. Gibby, A. Doyle Oudersluys, S. E. Jackson, and D. S. Ones. 2012. "Environmental Sustainability and Organization Sensing at Procter & Gamble." Managing Human Resources for Environmental Sustainability 1 (1): 362‐374.

Bingham, Lisa Blomgren, Tina Nabatchi, and Rosemary O'Leary. 2005. "The New Governance: Practices and Processes for Stakeholder and Citizen Participation in the Work of Government." Public Administration Review 65 (5): 547‐558.

Birt, Benjamin, and Guy R. Newsham. 2009. "Post‐Occupancy Evaluation of Energy and Indoor Environment Quality in Green Buildings: A Review." 3rd International Conference on Smart and Sustainable Built Environments 1 (1): 15‐19.

Bishop, James W., K. Dow Scott, and Susan M. Burroughs. 2000. "Support, Commitment, and Employee Outcomes in a Team Environment." Journal of Management 26 (6): 1113‐1132.

Bissing‐Olson, Megan J., Aarti Iyer, Kelly S. Fielding, and Hannes Zacher. 2013. "Relationships between Daily Affect and Pro‐Environmental Behavior at Work: The Moderating Role of Pro‐Environmental Attitude." Journal of Organizational Behavior 34 (2): 156‐175.

Biswas, Kumar, Brendan Boyle, Rebecca Mitchell, and Gian Casimir. 2017. "A Mediated Model of the Effects of Human Resource Management Policies and Practices on the Intention to Promote Women: An Investigation of the Theory of Planned Behaviour." The International Journal of Human Resource Management 28 (9): 1309‐1331.

Blair, Erik. 2015. "A Reflexive Exploration of Two Qualitative Data Coding Techniques." Journal of Methods and Measurement in the Social Sciences 6 (1): 14‐29.

Blau, Peter M. 1964. Exchange and Power in Social Life. New York, NY: J. Wiley. Blight, Thomas S., and David A. Coley. 2013. "Sensitivity Analysis of the Effect of Occupant

Behaviour on the Energy Consumption of Passive House Dwellings." Energy & Buildings 66 (1): 183‐192.

Blok, Vincent, Renate Wesselink, Oldrich Studynka, and Ron Kemp. 2015. "Encouraging Sustainability in the Workplace: A Survey on the Pro‐Environmental Behaviour of University Employees." Journal of Cleaner Production 106 (1): 55‐67.

296

Boaz, Annette, Deborah Ashby, and Ken Young. 2002. Systematic Reviews: What Have They Got to Offer Evidence Based Policy and Practice? London, UK: ESRC [Economic and Social Research Council] UK Centre for Evidence Based Policy and Practice.

Bocconcelli, Roberta, Marco Cioppi, Fulvio Fortezza, Barbara Francioni, Alessandro Pagano, Elisabetta Savelli, and Simone Splendiani. 2016. "SMEs and Marketing: A Systematic Literature Review." International Journal of Management Reviews 20 (2): 227‐254.

Boeije, Hennie. 2009. Analysis in Qualitative Research. London, UK: Sage Publications. Boiral, Olivier. 2002. "Tacit Knowledge and Environmental Management." Long Range

Planning 35 (3): 291‐317. Boiral, Olivier. 2009. "Greening the Corporation through Organizational Citizenship

Behaviors." Journal of Business Ethics 87 (2): 221‐236. Boldero, Jennifer. 1995. "The Prediction of Household Recycling of Newspapers: The Role of

Attitudes, Intentions, and Situational Factors." Journal of Applied Social Psychology 25 (5): 440‐462.

Bordass, Bill, Robert Cohen, Mark Standeven, and Adrian Leaman. 2001. "Assessing Building Performance in Use 2: Technical Performance of the Probe Buildings." Building Research & Information 29 (2): 103‐113.

Boselie, Paul, Graham Dietz, and Corine Boon. 2005. "Commonalities and Contradictions in Research on Human Resource Management and Performance." Human Resource Management Journal 15 (3): 67‐94.

Boselie, Paul, Jaap Paauwe, and Paul Jansen. 2001. "Human Resource Management and Performance: Lessons from the Netherlands." International Journal of Human Resource Management 12 (7): 1107‐1125.

Bowen, David E., and Cheri Ostroff. 2004. "Understanding HRM‐Firm Performance Linkages: The Role of the "Strength" of the HRM System." The Academy of Management Review 29 (2): 203‐221.

Bowling, Nathan A., Terry A. Beehr, and Lawrence R. Lepisto. 2006. "Beyond Job Satisfaction: A Five‐Year Prospective Analysis of the Dispositional Approach to Work Attitudes." Journal of Vocational Behavior 69 (2): 315‐330.

Bowling, Nathan A., Kevin J. Eschleman, and Qiang Wang. 2010. "A Meta‐Analytic Examination of the Relationship between Job Satisfaction and Subjective Well‐Being." Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology 83 (4): 915‐934.

Boyatzis, Richard E. 1998. Transforming Qualitative Information: Thematic Analysis and Code Development. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Brammer, Stephen, Andrew Millington, and Bruce Rayton. 2007. "The Contribution of Corporate Social Responsibility to Organizational Commitment." The International Journal of Human Resource Management 18 (10): 1701‐1719.

Branzei, Oana, Teri Jane Ursacki‐Bryant, Ilan Vertinsky, and Weijiong Zhang. 2004. "The Formation of Green Strategies in Chinese Firms: Matching Corporate Environmental Responses and Individual Principles." Strategic Management Journal 25 (11): 1075‐1095.

Braun, Virginia, and Victoria Clarke. 2006. "Using Thematic Analysis in Psychology." Qualitative Research in Psychology 3 (2): 77‐101.

BRE. 2008. "Assessment of Sustainability Tools." BRE, Glasgow 2004. Brickson, Shelley. 2000. "The Impact of Identity Orientation Individual and Organizational

Outcomes in Demographically Diverse Settings." The Academy of Management Review 25 (1): 82‐101.

Briner, Rob B., David Denyer, and Denise M. Rousseau. 2009. "Evidence‐Based Management: Concept Cleanup Time?" The Academy of Management Perspectives 23 (4): 19‐32.

297

Brown, Timothy A. 2006. Confirmatory Factor Analysis for Applied Research. New York, NY: Guilford Press.

Brown, Zosia, and Raymond J. Cole. 2009. "Influence of Occupants' Knowledge on Comfort Expectations and Behaviour." Building Research & Information 37 (3): 227‐245.

Brown, Zosia, Raymond J. Cole, John Robinson, and Hadi Dowlatabadi. 2010. "Evaluating User Experience in Green Buildings in Relation to Workplace Culture and Context." Facilities 28 (3/4): 225‐238.

Brown, Zosia B., Hadi Dowlatabadi, and Raymond J. Cole. 2009. "Feedback and Adaptive Behaviour in Green Buildings." Intelligent Buildings International 1 (4): 296‐315.

Bryman, Alan. 2006. "Integrating Quantitative and Qualitative Research: How Is It Done?" Qualitative Research 6 (1): 97‐113.

Burnes, Bernard. 1996. "No Such Thing as … a “One Best Way” to Manage Organizational Change." Management Decision 34 (10): 11‐18.

Byrd, Hugh, and Eziaku Onyeizu Rasheed. 2016. "The Productivity Paradox in Green Buildings." Sustainability 8 (4): 347.

Byrne, Barbara M. 2016. Structural Equation Modeling with AMOS: Basic Concepts, Applications, and Programming. New York, NY: Routledge.

Cajias, Marcelo, Peter Geiger, and Sven Bienert. 2012. "Green Agenda and Green Performance: Empirical Evidence for Real Estate Companies." Journal of European Real Estate Research 5 (2): 135‐155.

Cameron, Roslyn, and Jose F. Molina‐Azorin. 2010. "The Use of Mixed Methods across Seven Business and Management Fields." In 10th IFSAM World Congress, International Federation of Scholarly Associations of Management, Paris, France.

Campion, Nicole, Cassandra L. Thiel, Judy Focareta, and Melissa M. Bilec. 2016. "Understanding Green Building Design and Healthcare Outcomes: Evidence‐Based Design Analysis of an Oncology Unit." Journal of Architectural Engineering 22 (3): 04016009‐1‐11.

Cardona, Pablo, Barbara S. Lawrence, and Peter M. Bentler. 2004. "The Influence of Social and Work Exchange Relationships on Organizational Citizenship Behavior." Group & Organization Management 29 (2): 219‐247.

Carmeli, Abraham. 2005. "Perceived External Prestige, Affective Commitment, and Citizenship Behaviors." Organization Studies 26 (3): 443‐464.

Carmeli, Abraham, Gershon Gilat, and David A. Waldman. 2007. "The Role of Perceived Organizational Performance in Organizational Identification, Adjustment and Job Performance*." Journal of Management Studies 44 (6): 972‐992.

Carroll, Archie B., and Kareem M. Shabana. 2010. "The Business Case for Corporate Social Responsibility: A Review of Concepts, Research and Practice." International Journal of Management Reviews 12 (1): 85‐105.

Celma, Dolors, Esther Martínez‐Garcia, and Germà Coenders. 2014. "Corporate Social Responsibility in Human Resource Management: An Analysis of Common Practices and Their Determinants in Spain." Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management 21 (2): 82‐99.

Cena, Krzysztof, and Richard De Dear. 2001. "Thermal Comfort and Behavioural Strategies in Office Buildings Located in a Hot‐Arid Climate." Journal of Thermal Biology 26 (4‐5): 409‐414.

Chalmers, I. 1993. "The Cochrane Collaboration: Preparing, Maintaining, and Disseminating Systematic Reviews of the Effects of Health Care." Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 703 (1): 156‐165.

Chan, Lucy, and Brian Bishop. 2013. "A Moral Basis for Recycling: Extending the Theory of Planned Behaviour." Journal of Environmental Psychology 36 (1): 96‐102.

298

Chapman, Janine, Natalie Skinner, and Sharni Searle. 2013. "Working Towards Sustainability: Exploring the Workplace as a Site for Pro‐Environmental Behavioural Change." In Motivating Change: Sustainable Design and Behaviour in the Built Environment. 88‐102. London: Routledge.

Chappells, Heather. 2010. "Comfort, Well‐Being and the Socio‐Technical Dynamics of Everyday Life." Intelligent Buildings International 2 (4): 286‐298.

Charmaz, Kathy. 2006. Constructing Grounded Theory : A Practical Guide through Qualitative Analysis. London, UK: SAGE Publications.

Chatman, Jennifer, and Francis Flynn. 2001. "The Influence of Demographic Heterogeneity on the Emergence and Consequences of Cooperative Norms in Work Teams." Academy of Management Journal 44 (5): 956‐974.

Chatman, Jennifer, Jeffrey Polzer, Sigal Barsade, and Margaret Neale. 1998. "Being Different yet Feeling Similar: The Influence of Demographic Composition and Organizational Culture on Work Processes and Outcomes." Administrative Science Quarterly 43 (4): 749‐780.

Chatterton, Tim. 2016. "An Introduction to Theories of Behaviour." Beyond Behaviour Change: Key Issues, Interdisciplinary Approaches and Future Directions 1 (1): 27‐48.

Chen, Mei‐Fang, and Pei‐Ju Tung. 2014. "Developing an Extended Theory of Planned Behavior Model to Predict Consumers’ Intention to Visit Green Hotels." International Journal of Hospitality Management 36 (1): 221‐230.

Chen, Sheng‐Hwang, Hsing‐Yi Yu, Hsiu‐Yueh Hsu, Fang‐Chen Lin, and Jiunn‐Horng Lou. 2013. "Organisational Support, Organisational Identification and Organisational Citizenship Behaviour among Male Nurses." Journal of Nursing Management 21 (8): 1072‐1082.

Cheng, Hongwei, Xuming Hu, and Rui Zhou. 2019. "How Firms Select Environmental Behaviours in China: The Framework of Environmental Motivations and Performance." Journal of Cleaner Production 208 (1): 132‐141.

Cherian, Jacob Poopada, and Jolly Jacob. 2012. "A Study of Green HR Practices and Its Effective Implementation in the Organization: A Review." International Journal of Business and Management 7 (21): 1‐10.

Cheung, Gordon W., and Rebecca S. Lau. 2008. "Testing Mediation and Suppression Effects of Latent Variables: Bootstrapping with Structural Equation Models." Organizational Research Methods 11 (2): 296‐325.

Cho, Yoon‐Na, Anastasia Thyroff, Molly I. Rapert, Seong‐Yeon Park, and Hyun Ju Lee. 2013. "To Be or Not to Be Green: Exploring Individualism and Collectivism as Antecedents of Environmental Behavior." Journal of Business Research 66 (8): 1052‐1059.

Christ, Oliver, Rolf Dick, Ulrich Wagner, and Jost Stellmacher. 2003. "When Teachers Go the Extra Mile: Foci of Organisational Identification as Determinants of Different Forms of Organisational Citizenship Behaviour among Schoolteachers." British Journal of Educational Psychology 73 (3): 329‐341.

Christmann, Petra. 2004. "Multinational Companies and the Natural Environment: Determinants of Global Environmental Policy." Academy of Management Journal 47 (5): 747‐760.

Cialdini, R. B., and N. J. Goldstein. 2004. "Social Influence: Compliance and Conformity." Annual Review of Psychology 55 (1): 591‐621.

Cialdini, Robert B., Carl A. Kallgren, and Raymond R. Reno. 1991. "A Focus Theory of Normative Conduct: A Theoretical Refinement and Reevaluation of the Role of Norms in Human Behavior." Advances in Experimental Social Psychology 24 (1): 201‐234.

299

Cialdini, Robert B, Raymond R Reno, and Carl A Kallgren. 1990. "A Focus Theory of Normative Conduct." Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 58 (6): 1015‐1026.

Ciocirlan, Cristina E. 2017. "Environmental Workplace Behaviors: Definition Matters." Organization & Environment 30 (1): 51‐70.

Clarke, Mike, and Richard Horton. 2001. "Bringing It All Together: Lancet‐Cochrane Collaborate on Systematic Reviews." The Lancet 357 (9270): 1728‐1728.

Clements‐Croome, Derek. 2015. "Creative and Productive Workplaces: A Review." Intelligent Buildings International 7 (4): 164‐183.

Cohen, Linda M. 2007. "Bridging Two Streams of Office Design Research: A Comparison of Design/Behavior and Management Journal Articles from 1980‐2001." Journal of Architectural and Planning Research 24 (4): 289‐307.

Cohen, Robert, Mark Standeven, Bill Bordass, and Adrian Leaman. 2001. "Assessing Building Performance in Use 1: The Probe Process." Building Research & Information 29 (2): 85‐102.

Colbert, Barry A. 2004. "The Complex Resource‐Based View: Implications for Theory and Practice in Strategic Human Resource Management." Academy of Management Review 29 (3): 341‐358.

Cole, Raymond J. 2005. "Building Environmental Assessment Methods: Redefining Intentions and Roles." Building Research & Information 33 (5): 455‐467.

Cole, Raymond J., Audrey Bild, and Amy Oliver. 2012. "The Changing Context of Knowledge‐Based Work: Consequences for Comfort, Satisfaction and Productivity." Intelligent Buildings International 4 (3): 182‐196.

Collier, Jane, and Rafael Esteban. 2007. "Corporate Social Responsibility and Employee Commitment." Business Ethics: A European Review 16 (1): 19‐33.

Conner, Mark, Paul Norman, and Russell Bell. 2002. "The Theory of Planned Behavior and Healthy Eating." Health Psychology 21 (2): 194‐201.

Cooke, Richard, Falko Sniehotta, and Benjamin Schüz. 2006. "Predicting Binge‐Drinking Behaviour Using an Extended TPB: Examining the Impact of Anticipated Regret and Descriptive Norms." Alcohol and Alcoholism 42 (2): 84‐91.

Cordano, Mark, and Irene Hanson Frieze. 2000. "Pollution Reduction Preferences of US Environmental Managers: Applying Ajzen's Theory of Planned Behavior." Academy of Management Journal 43 (4): 627‐641.

Corley, Kevin G., and Dennis A. Gioia. 2011. "Building Theory About Theory Building: What Constitutes a Theoretical Contribution?" The Academy of Management Review 36 (1): 12‐32.

Cortina, Jose M. 1993. "What Is Coefficient Alpha? An Examination of Theory and Applications." Journal of Applied Psychology 78 (1): 98‐104.

Creswell, John W. 1998. Qualitative Inquiry and Research Design : Choosing among Five Traditions Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Creswell, John W. 2009. "The Selection of a Research Design," Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative and Mixed Methods Approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Creswell, John W. 2014a. A Concise Introduction to Mixed Methods Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Creswell, John W. 2014b. Educational Research: Planning, Conducting, and Evaluating Quantitative and Qualitative Research. Frenchs Forest, Sydney: Pearson Australia.

Creswell, John W., and David Creswell. 2018. Research Design : Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches. Edited by J. David. Fifth ed: Thousand Oaks, CA : Sage Publications, Inc.

300

Creswell, John W., and Vicki L. Plano Clark. 2007. Designing and Conducting Mixed Methods Research. Vol. 21, Reference and Research Book News. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Creswell, John W., and Vicki L. Plano Clark. 2018. Designing and Conducting Mixed Methods Research. Edited by Vicki L. Plano Clark. Third ed: Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Creswell, John W., V. L .Plano Clark, and A. L. Garrett. 2008. " Methodological issues in conducting mixed methods research designs " Advances in mixed methods research 1 (1): 66‐83.

Cronbach, Lee Joseph. 1972. "The Dependability of Behavioral Measurements." Theory of Generalizability for Scores and Profiles 1 (1): 1‐33.

Crotty, Michael. 1998. The Foundations of Social Research : Meaning and Perspective in the Research Process. St Leonards, NSW : Allen & Unwin.

Crowley, Susan L., and Xitao Fan. 1997. "Structural Equation Modeling: Basic Concepts and Applications in Personality Assessment Research." Journal of Personality Assessment 68 (3): 508‐531.

Csikszentmihalyi, Mihaly. 1991. Flow : The Psychology of Optimal Experience / Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi. 1st ed., Harper Perennial ed. New York, NY : Harper Collins.

Csikszentmihalyi, Mihaly, Kevin Rathunde, and Samuel Whalen. 1993. Talented Teenagers : The Roots of Success and Failure. Edited by Kevin Raymond Rathunde and Samuel Whalen. Vol. 99. Cambridge : Cambridge University Press.

Daily, Bonnie F., James W .Bishop, and Nalini Govindarajulu. 2009. "A Conceptual Model for Organizational Citizenship Behavior Directed toward the Environment." Business & Society 48 (2): 243‐256.

Daily, Bonnie F., and Su‐chun Huang. 2001. "Achieving Sustainability through Attention to Human Resource Factors in Environmental Management." International Journal of Operations & Production Management 21 (12): 1539‐1552.

Darko, Amos, and Albert P. C. Chan. 2017. "Review of Barriers to Green Building Adoption." Sustainable Development 25 (3): 167‐179.

Daskalakis, Stylianos, and John Mantas. 2008. "Evaluating the Impact of a Service‐Oriented Framework for Healthcare Interoperability." Studies in Health Technology and Informatics 136 (1): 285‐290.

Davidson, Christina. 2009. "Transcription: Imperatives for Qualitative Research." International Journal of Qualitative Methods 8 (2): 35‐52.

Davies, Philip. 2000. "The Relevance of Systematic Reviews to Educational Policy and Practice." Oxford Review of Education 26 (3‐4): 365‐378.

Davis, Fred D., Richard P. Bagozzi, and Paul R. Warshaw. 1989. "User Acceptance of Computer Technology: A Comparison of Two Theoretical Models." Management Science 35 (8): 982‐1003.

Davis, Rachel, Rona Campbell, Zoe Hildon, Lorna Hobbs, and Susan Michie. 2015. "Theories of Behaviour and Behaviour Change across the Social and Behavioural Sciences: A Scoping Review." Health Psychology Review 9 (3): 323‐344.

Day, Julia K., and David E. Gunderson. 2015. "Understanding High Performance Buildings: The Link between Occupant Knowledge of Passive Design Systems, Corresponding Behaviors, Occupant Comfort and Environmental Satisfaction." Building and Environment 84 (1): 114‐124.

Day, Julia K., and William O'Brien. 2017. "Oh Behave! Survey Stories and Lessons Learned from Building Occupants in High‐Performance Buildings." Energy Research & Social Science 31 (1): 11‐20.

301

De Groot, Judith, and Linda Steg. 2007. "General Beliefs and the Theory of Planned Behavior: The Role of Environmental Concerns in the TPB." Journal of Applied Social Psychology 37 (8): 1817‐1836.

De Prins, P. 2011. "Duurzaam HRM: Synthetische Academische Introductie, cited by Rompa, I." Explorative Research on Sustainable Human Resource Management 1 (1). http://www.innovatiefinwerk.nl/sites/.../sustainable hrm.pdf.

De Young, Raymond. 2000. "Expanding and Evaluating Motives for Environmentally Responsible Behavior." The Journal of Social Issues 56 (3): 509‐526.

Deci, Edward L., and Richard M. Ryan. 2000. "The "What" and "Why" of Goal Pursuits: Human Needs and the Self‐Determination of Behavior." Psychological Inquiry 11 (4): 227‐268.

Del Brío, Jesús Ángel, Esteban Fernández, and Beatriz Junquera. 2007. "Management and Employee Involvement in Achieving an Environmental Action‐Based Competitive Advantage: An Empirical Study." The International Journal of Human Resource Management 18 (4): 491‐522.

Delery, John, and D. Doty. 1996. "Modes of Theorizing in Strategic Human Resource Management: Tests of Universalistic, Contingency, and Configurational Performance Predictions." Academy of Management Journal 39 (4): 802‐835.

Delgado, García Juan Bautista, Puente Esther Quevedo, and Mazagatos Virginia Blanco. 2015. "How Affect Relates to Entrepreneurship: A Systematic Review of the Literature and Research Agenda." International Journal of Management Reviews 17 (2): 191‐211.

Demerouti, Evangelia, Arnold B. Bakker, Sabine Sonnentag, and Clive J. Fullagar. 2012. "Work‐Related Flow and Energy at Work and at Home: A Study on the Role of Daily Recovery." Journal of Organizational Behavior 33 (2): 276‐295.

Demortier, Anne‐Lise Pauline, Nathalie Delobbe, and Assâad El Akremi. 2014. "Opening the Black Box of HR Practices‐Performance Relationship: Testing a Three Pathways AMO Model." In Academy of Management Proceedings, 2014: Academy of Management, Briarcliff Manor, NY 10510.

Den Hartog, Deanne N., Paul Boselie, and Jaap Paauwe. 2004. "Performance Management: A Model and Research Agenda." Applied Psychology 53 (4): 556‐569.

Denyer, David, and David Tranfield. 2009. "Producing a Systematic Review." The Sage Handbook of Organizational Research Methods. Edited by D. A. Buchanan and A. Bryman, 1 (1): 671‐689.

Denzin, Norman K. 2012. "Triangulation 2.0." Journal of Mixed Methods Research 6 (2): 80‐88.

Denzin, Norman K., and Yvonna S. Lincoln. 2018. The Sage Handbook of Qualitative Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Deshwal, Parul. 2015. "Green HRM: An Organizational Strategy of Greening People." International Journal of Applied Research 1 (13): 176‐181.

Deuble, Max Paul, and Richard John de Dear. 2012. "Green Occupants for Green Buildings: The Missing Link?" Building and Environment 56 (1): 21‐27.

Diener, Ed, Ed Sandvik, and William Pavot. 2009. "Happiness Is the Frequency, Not the Intensity, of Positive versus Negative Affect." In Assessing Well‐Being. 213‐231. Springer.

Dietz, Thomas, Gerald T. Gardner, Jonathan Gilligan, Paul C. Stern, and Michael P. Vandenbergh. 2009. "Household Actions Can Provide a Behavioral Wedge to Rapidly Reduce US Carbon Emissions." Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 106 (44): 18452‐18456.

302

Dilchert, S., and D. S. Ones. 2011. "Personality and Its Relationship to Sustainable and Unsustainable Workplace Behaviors." In symposium titled Focusing on Employees to Achieve Environmentally Sustainable Organizations conducted at the Annual Conference of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology. Chaired by S. Dilchert, Chicago, ILL.

DiMaggio, Paul J., and Walter W. Powell. 1983. "The Iron Cage Revisited: Institutional Isomorphism and Collective Rationality in Organizational Fields." American Sociological Review 48 (2): 147‐160.

Ding, ZhikunWang, and Patrick X. W. YifeiZou. 2016. "An Agent Based Environmental Impact Assessment of Building Demolition Waste Management: Conventional versus Green Management." Journal of Cleaner Production 133 (1): 1136‐1153.

Dobrow Riza, Shoshana, Yoav Ganzach, and Yihao Liu. 2018. "Time and Job Satisfaction: A Longitudinal Study of the Differential Roles of Age and Tenure." Journal of Management 44 (7): 2558‐2579.

Dodge Data & Analytics. 2018. The World Green Building Trends 2018 https://www.worldgbc.org/sites/default/files/World%20Green%20Building%20Trends%202018%20SMR%20FINAL%2010‐11.pdf

Doherty, Neil F., and Malcolm King. 2003. "From the Technical Change to Socio‐Technical Change: Towards a Proactive Approach to the Treatment of Organisational Issues." In Socio‐Technical and Human Cognition Elements of Information Systems. 22‐40. IGI Global.

Dormann, Carsten F., Jane Elith, Sven Bacher, Carsten Buchmann, Gudrun Carl, Gabriel Carré, Jaime R. García Marquéz, Bernd Gruber, Bruno Lafourcade, and Pedro J. Leitão. 2013. "Collinearity: A Review of Methods to Deal with It and a Simulation Study Evaluating Their Performance." Ecography 36 (1): 27‐46.

Dorsey, Julie, and Alan Hedge. 2017. "Re‐Evaluation of a LEED Platinum Building: Occupant Experiences of Health and Comfort." Work 57 (1): 31‐41.

Dukerich, Janet M., Brian R. Golden, and Stephen M. Shortell. 2002. "Beauty Is in the Eye of the Beholder: The Impact of Organizational Identification, Identity, and Image on the Cooperative Behaviors of Physicians." Administrative Science Quarterly 47 (3): 507‐533.

Dumont, Jenny, Jie Shen, and Xin Deng. 2017. "Effects of Green HRM Practices on Employee Workplace Green Behavior: The Role of Psychological Green Climate and Employee Green Values." Human Resource Management 56 (4): 613‐627.

Dunlap, Riley E., Kent D. Van Liere, Angela G. Mertig, and Robert Emmet Jones. 2000. "New Trends in Measuring Environmental Attitudes: Measuring Endorsement of the New Ecological Paradigm: A Revised NEP Scale." Journal of Social Issues 56 (3): 425‐442.

Dutton, Jane, Janet Dukerich, and Celia Harquail. 1994. "Organizational Images and Member Identification." Administrative Science Quarterly 39 (2): 239‐263.

Dwaikat, Luay N., and Kherun N. Ali. 2016. "Green Buildings Cost Premium: A Review of Empirical Evidence." Energy and Buildings 110 (1): 396‐403.

Dworkin, Shari L. 2012. "Sample Size Policy for Qualitative Studies Using in‐Depth Interviews." Archives of Sexual Behavior 41 (6): 1319‐1320.

Edwards, Brian. 2006. "Benefits of Green Offices in the UK: Analysis from Examples Built in the 1990s." Sustainable Development 14 (3): 190‐204.

Edwards, Martin R. 2009. "HR, Perceived Organisational Support and Organisational Identification: An Analysis after Organisational Formation." Human Resource Management Journal 19 (1): 91‐115.

Edwards, Todd J., and Wisit Kumphai. 2012. "Sustainability in Multi‐Tenant Office Buildings: Anatomy of a LEED EBOM Program." Energy Engineering 109 (2): 7‐23.

303

Ehnert, Ina. 2009. Sustainable Human Resource Management:A Conceptual and Exploratory Analysis from a Paradox Perspective. Heidelberg: Physica‐Verlag HD.

Ehnert, Ina, and Wes Harry. 2012. "Recent Developments and Future Prospects on Sustainable Human Resource Management: Introduction to the Special Issue." Management Revue 23 (3): 221‐238.

Ehrhart, Mark G. 2004. "Leadership and Procedural Justice Climate as Antecedents of Unit‐Level Organizational Citizenship Behavior." Personnel Psychology 57 (1): 61‐94.

Eichholtz, Piet, Nils Kok, and John M. Quigley. 2010. "Doing Well by Doing Good? Green Office Buildings." The American Economic Review 100 (5): 2492‐2509

Eichholtz, Piet, Nils Kok, and John M. Quigley. 2013. "The Economics of Green Building." Review of Economics and Statistics 95 (1): 50‐63..

Eisenberger, Robert, Stephen Armeli, Barbara Rexwinkel, Patrick D. Lynch, and Linda Rhoades. 2001. "Reciprocation of Perceived Organizational Support." Journal of Applied Psychology 86 (1): 42‐51.

Eisenberger, Robert, Robin Huntington, Steven Hutchison, and Debora Sowa. 1986. "Perceived Organizational Support." Journal of Applied Psychology 71 (3): 500‐507.

Eisenhardt, Kathleen M., and Melissa E. Graebner. 2007. "Theory Building from Cases: Opportunities and Challenges." Academy of Management Journal 50 (1): 25‐32.

Elliott, Robert, and Ladislav Timulak. 2005. "Descriptive and Interpretive Approaches to Qualitative Research." A Handbook of Research Methods for Clinical and Health Psychology 1 (7): 147‐159.

Ellis, Gary D., Judith E. Voelkl, and Catherine Morris. 1994. "Measurement and Analysis Issues with Explanation of Variance in Daily Experience Using the Flow Model." Journal of Leisure Research 26 (4): 337‐356.

Ellwood, Paul, Paul Grimshaw, and Krsto Pandza. 2016. "Accelerating the Innovation Process: A Systematic Review and Realist Synthesis of the Research Literature." International Journal of Management Reviews 19 (4): 510‐530.

Elmualim, Abbas, Daniel Shockley, Roberto Valle, Gordon Ludlow, and Sunil Shah. 2010. "Barriers and Commitment of Facilities Management Profession to the Sustainability Agenda." Building and Environment 45 (1): 58‐64.

Elorza, Unai, Christopher Harris, Aitor Aritzeta, and Nekane Balluerka. 2016. "The Effect of Management and Employee Perspectives of High‐Performance Work Systems on Employees’ Discretionary Behaviour." Personnel Review 45 (1): 121‐141.

Esfandiari, Masoud, S. M. Zaid, M. A. Ismail, and A. Aflaki. 2017. "Influence of Indoor Environmental Quality on Work Productivity in Green Office Buildings: A Review." Chemical Engineering Transactions 56 (1): 385‐390.

Etzion, Dror. 2007. "Research on Organizations and the Natural Environment, 1992‐Present: A Review." Journal of Management 33 (4): 637‐664.

Etzioni, Amitai. 1994. Spirit of Community. New York, NY: Simon and Schuster. Fan, Weimiao, and Zheng Yan. 2010. "Factors Affecting Response Rates of the Web Survey:

A Systematic Review." Computers in Human Behavior 26 (2): 132‐139. Feige, Annika, Holger Wallbaum, Marcel Janser, and Lukas Windlinger. 2013. "Impact of

Sustainable Office Buildings on Occupant's Comfort and Productivity." Journal of Corporate Real Estate 15 (1): 7‐34.

Fernández, Esteban, Beatriz Junquera, and Mónica Ordiz. 2003. "Organizational Culture and Human Resources in the Environmental Issue: A Review of the Literature." International Journal of Human Resource Management 14 (4): 634‐656.

Fetters, Michael D., Leslie A. Curry, and John W. Creswell. 2013. "Achieving Integration in Mixed Methods Designs – Principles and Practices." Health Services Research 48 (6): 2134‐2156.

304

Fielding, Kelly S., Rachel McDonald, and Winnifred R. Louis. 2008. "Theory of Planned Behaviour, Identity and Intentions to Engage in Environmental Activism." Journal of Environmental Psychology 28 (4): 318‐326.

Firestone, William A. 1987. "Meaning in Method: The Rhetoric of Quantitative and Qualitative Research." Educational Researcher 16 (7): 16‐21.

Fischer, Ronald, Maria Cristina Ferreira, Eveline Assmar, Paul Redford, Charles Harb, Sharon Glazer, Bor‐Shiuan Cheng, Ding‐Yu Jiang, Corbin C Wong, and Neelam Kumar. 2009. "Individualism‐Collectivism as Descriptive Norms: Development of a Subjective Norm Approach to Culture Measurement." Journal of Cross‐Cultural Psychology 40 (2): 187‐213.

Fishbein, Martin, and Icek Ajzen. 1975. Belief, Attitude, Intention and Behavior: An Introduction to Theory and Research. MA, USA: Addison‐Wiley Publications.

Fishbein, Martin, and Icek Ajzen. 2011. Predicting and Changing Behavior: The Reasoned Action Approach. New York, NY: Taylor & Francis.

Flynn, Francis J., Jennifer A. Chatman, and Sandra E. Spataro. 2001. "Getting to Know You: The Influence of Personality on Impressions and Performance of Demographically Different People in Organizations." Administrative Science Quarterly 46 (3): 414‐442.

Fontana, Andrea, and James Frey. 1994. "The Art of Science." In The Handbook of Qualitative Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Fornell, Claes, and David F. Larcker. 1981. "Evaluating Structural Equation Models with Unobservable Variables and Measurement Error." Journal of Marketing Research 18 (1): 39‐50.

Frederiksen, Norman. 1988. " Toward a Broader Conception of Human Intelligence." American Psychologist 41 (4): 445‐452.

Freeman, R. Edward, and David L .Reed. 1983. "Stockholders and Stakeholders: A New Perspective on Corporate Governance." California Management Review 25 (3): 88‐106.

Fullagar, Clive J., and E. Kevin Kelloway. 2009. "Flow at Work: An Experience Sampling Approach." Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology 82 (3): 595‐615.

Fusch, Patricia, and Lawrence Ness. 2015. "Are We There Yet? Data Saturation in Qualitative Research." The Qualitative Report 20 (9): 1408‐1416.

Galdeano‐Gómez, Emilio, José Céspedes‐Lorente, and Javier Martínez‐Del‐Río. 2008. "Environmental Performance and Spillover Effects on Productivity: Evidence from Horticultural Firms." Journal of Environmental Management 88 (4): 1552‐1561.

Gantt, Cynthia J. 2001. "The Theory of Planned Behavior and Postpartum Smoking Relapse." Journal of Nursing Scholarship 33 (4): 337‐341.

Garavan, Thomas N. 1995. "Stakeholders and Strategic Human Resource Development." Journal of European Industrial Training 19 (10): 11‐16.

Garcia‐Carbonell, Natalia, Fernando Martin‐Alcazar, and Gonzalo Sanchez‐Gardey. 2015. "Is Double Fit a Sufficient Condition for SHRM Success? The Missing Link between Intended and Implemented HRM Strategy." International Journal of Organizational Analysis 23 (2): 264‐284.

Gaskin, J. 2016. "Name of Tab, Stats Tools Package."Stat Wiki. http://statwiki.kolobkreations.com/index.php?title=Main_Page

Gatewood, Robert D., Mary A. Gowan, and Gary J. Lautenschlager. 1993. "Corporate Image, Recruitment Image and Initial Job Choice Decisions." Academy of Management Journal 36 (2): 414‐427.

GBCA (Green Building Council of Australia). 2009. "Green Star Eligibility Criteria." Accessed October 11, 2019, 2019.

305

https://www.gbca.org.au/uploads/192/960/Green%20Star%20Eligibility%20Criteria%20281009.pdf? ga=2.74253589.604919080.1570783917‐918441689.1570175014.

GBCA (Green Building Council of Australia). 2015. "Mid‐Tier Commercial Office Buildings Pathway Project." Green Building Council of Australia. https://doi.org/https://www.gbca.org.au/uploads/97/36449/Mid‐Tier%20Commercial%20Office%20Buildings%20Pathway%20report.pdf.

GBCA (Green Building Council of Australia). 2018. "Support for Stronger Construction Standards." Green Building Council of Australia. https://doi.org/https://new.gbca.org.au/news/gbca‐media‐releases/support‐stronger‐construction‐standards/.

Geng, Yang, Wenjie Ji, Zhe Wang, Borong Lin, and Yingxin Zhu. 2019. "A Review of Operating Performance in Green Buildings: Energy Use, Indoor Environmental Quality and Occupant Satisfaction." Energy and Buildings 183 (1): 500‐514.

Geyser, Ita, Madelyn Geldenhuys, and Freddie Crous. 2015. "The Dimensionality of the Work Related Flow Inventory (WOLF): A South African Study." Journal of Psychology in Africa 25 (4): 282‐287.

Ghani, Jawaid A., and Satish P. Deshpande. 1994. "Task Characteristics and the Experience of Optimal Flow in Human‐Computer Interaction." The Journal of Psychology 128 (4): 381‐391.

Gholami, Hamed, Ghasem Rezaei, Muhamad Zameri Mat Saman, Safian Sharif, and Norhayati Zakuan. 2016. "State‐of‐the‐Art Green HRM System: Sustainability in the Sports Center in Malaysia Using a Multi‐Methods Approach and Opportunities for Future Research." Journal of Cleaner Production 124 (1): 142‐163.

Ghosh, Sameek, and Madan Kumaraswamy. 2002. "Expert Systems in Human Resource Management." Journal of Management Research 2 (1): 53‐59.

Gibson, Susan FitzMaurice. 2008. "Buildings and Organizations: The Shaping and the Shaped." HERD: Health Environments Research & Design Journal 1 (4): 20‐31.

Gill, Zachary M., Michael J. Tierney, Ian M. Pegg, and Neil Allan. 2010. "Low‐Energy Dwellings: The Contribution of Behaviours to Actual Performance." Building Research & Information 38 (5): 491‐508.

Göçer, Özgür, Ying Hua, and Kenan Göçer. 2015. "Completing the Missing Link in Building Design Process: Enhancing Post‐Occupancy Evaluation Method for Effective Feedback for Building Performance." Building and Environment 89 (1): 14‐27.

Gosling, Jonathan, Fu Jia, Yu Gong, and Steve Brown. 2016. "The Role of Supply Chain Leadership in the Learning of Sustainable Practice: Toward an Integrated Framework." Journal of Cleaner Production 137 (1): 1458‐1469.

Gou, Zhonghua, Deo Prasad, and Stephen Siu‐Yu Lau. 2014. "Impacts of Green Certifications, Ventilation and Office Types on Occupant Satisfaction with Indoor Environmental Quality." Architectural Science Review 57 (3): 196‐206.

Gou, Zhonghua, Stephen Siu‐Yu Lau, and Deo Prasad. 2013. "Market Readiness and Policy Implications for Green Buildings: Case Study from Hong Kong." Journal of Green Building 8 (2): 162‐173.

Gouldner, Alvin W. 1960. "The Norm of Reciprocity: A Preliminary Statement." American Sociological Review 25 (2): 161‐178.

Govindarajulu, Nalini, and Bonnie F. Daily. 2004. "Motivating Employees for Environmental Improvement." Industrial Management & Data Systems 104 (4): 364‐372.

Gowri, Krishnan. 2004. "Green Building Rating Systems: An Overview." ASHRAE Journal 46 (11): 56‐58.

306

Graham‐Rowe, Ella, Donna C. Jessop, and Paul Sparks. 2015. "Predicting Household Food Waste Reduction Using an Extended Theory of Planned Behaviour." Resources, Conservation & Recycling 101 (1): 194‐202.

Grant, Adam M., Marlys K. Christianson, and Richard H. Price. 2007. "Happiness, Health, or Relationships? Managerial Practices and Employee Well‐Being Tradeoffs." Academy of Management Perspectives 21 (3): 51‐63.

Grant, Barbara M., and Lynne S. Giddings. 2002. "Making Sense of Methodologies: A Paradigm Framework for the Novice Researcher." Contemporary Nurse 13 (1): 10‐28.

Grant, Don Sherman, Albert J. Bergesen, and Andrew W. Jones. 2002. "Organizational Size and Pollution: The Case of the U.S. Chemical Industry." American Sociological Review 67 (3): 389‐407.

Graves, Laura M., Joseph Sarkis, and Qinghua Zhu. 2013. "How Transformational Leadership and Employee Motivation Combine to Predict Employee Proenvironmental Behaviors in China." Journal of Environmental Psychology 35 (1): 81‐91.

Greaves, Martin, Lara D. Zibarras, and Chris Stride. 2013. "Using the Theory of Planned Behavior to Explore Environmental Behavioral Intentions in the Workplace." Journal of Environmental Psychology 34 (1): 109‐120.

Green, Samuel B. 1991. "How Many Subjects Does It Take to Do a Regression Analysis?" Multivariate Behavioral Research 26 (3): 499‐510.

Greene, Jennifer C. 2007. Mixed Methods in Social Inquiry. Vol. 9. San Francisco, CA: John Wiley & Sons.

Grolleau, Gilles, Naoufel Mzoughi, and Sanja Pekovic. 2012. "Green Not (Only) for Profit: An Empirical Examination of the Effect of Environmental‐Related Standards on Employees’ Recruitment." Resource and Energy Economics 34 (1): 74‐92.

Guagnano, Gregory A., Paul C. Stern, and Thomas Dietz. 1995. "Influences on Attitude‐Behavior Relationships: A Natural Experiment with Curbside Recycling." Environment and Behavior 27 (5): 699‐718.

Guba, Egon G. 1981. "Criteria for Assessing the Trustworthiness of Naturalistic Inquiries." Educational Communication and Technology: A Journal of Theory, Research, and Development 29 (2): 75‐91.

Guba, Egon G., and Yvonna S. Lincoln. 1994. "Competing Paradigms in Qualitative Research." Handbook of Qualitative Research 2 (163‐194): 105‐117.

Guenther, Robin, and Anna Gilmore Hall. 2007. "Healthy Buildings: Impact on Nurses and Nursing Practice." The Online Journal of Issues in Nursing 12 (2): 1‐11.

Guerci, Marco, Emilio Bartezzaghi, and Luca Solari. 2010. "Training Evaluation in Italian Corporate Universities: A Stakeholder‐Based Analysis." International Journal of Training and Development 14 (4): 291‐308.

Guerci, Marco, and Luca Carollo. 2016. "A Paradox View on Green Human Resource Management: Insights from the Italian Context." The International Journal of Human Resource Management 27 (2): 212‐238.

Guest, David E. 1997. "Human Resource Management and Performance: A Review and Research Agenda." International Journal of Human Resource Management 8 (3): 263‐276.

Guest, David. 2011. "Human Resource Management and Performance: Still Searching for Some Answers." Human Resource Management Journal 21 (1): 3‐13.

Guest, David E., Jonathan Michie, Neil Conway, and Maura Sheehan. 2003. "Human Resource Management and Corporate Performance in the UK." British Journal of Industrial Relations 41 (2): 291‐314.

307

Gupta, Mahesh, and Keshav Sharma. 1996. "Environmental Operations Management: An Opportunity for Improvement." Production and Inventory Management Journal 37 (3): 40‐46.

Haberberg, Adrian, and Alison Rieple. 2001. The Strategic Management of Organisations. Harlow, UK: FT Prentice Hall.

Hackman, J. Richard. 1980. "Work Redesign and Motivation." Professional Psychology 11 (3): 445‐455.

Haddock‐Millar, Julie, Chandana Sanyal, and Michael Müller‐Camen. 2016. "Green Human Resource Management: A Comparative Qualitative Case Study of a United States Multinational Corporation." The International Journal of Human Resource Management 27 (2): 192‐211.

Hadi, Mindy, and Chloe Halfhide. 2011. "Green Buildings: Understanding the Role of End User Behaviour." Going Green: The Psychology of Sustainability in the Workplace 1 (1): 31‐35.

Hadjri, Karim, and Carl Crozier. 2009. "Post‐Occupancy Evaluation: Purpose, Benefits and Barriers." Facilities 27 (1/2): 21‐33.

Hagger, Martin S. 2015. "Retired or Not, the Theory of Planned Behaviour Will Always Be with Us." Health Psychology Review 9 (2): 125‐130.

Hagger, Martin S., Nikos L. D. Chatzisarantis, and Stuart J. H. Biddle. 2002. "The Influence of Autonomous and Controlling Motives on Physical Activity Intentions within the Theory of Planned Behaviour." British Journal of Health Psychology 7 (3): 283‐297.

Hair, Joseph F., Rolph E. Anderson, Barry J. Babin, and Wiiliam C. Black. 2010. Multivariate Data Analysis: A Global Perspective, Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.

Haldi, Frédéric, and Darren Robinson. 2011. "The Impact of Occupants' Behaviour on Building Energy Demand." Journal of Building Performance Simulation 4 (4): 323‐338.

Hall, Douglas T., and Benjamin Schneider. 1972. "Correlates of Organizational Identification as a Function of Career Pattern and Organizational Type." In Academy of Management Proceedings, 1972: Academy of Management, Briarcliff Manor, NY 10510.

Hall, S. 2014. "Development and Initial Trial of a Tool to Enable Improved Energy & Human Performance in Existing Commercial Buildings." Renewable Energy 67 (1): 109‐118.

Hammann, Eva‐Maria, André Habisch, and Harald Pechlaner. 2009. "Values That Create Value: Socially Responsible Business Practices in SMEs – Empirical Evidence from German Companies." Business Ethics: A European Review 18 (1): 37‐51.

Han, Heesup, and Yunhi Kim. 2010. "An Investigation of Green Hotel Customers’ Decision Formation: Developing an Extended Model of the Theory of Planned Behavior." International Journal of Hospitality Management 29 (4): 659‐668.

Hanna, Mark D., W. Rocky Newman, and Pamela Johnson. 2000. "Linking Operational and Environmental Improvement through Employee Involvement." International Journal of Operations & Production Management 20 (2): 148‐165.

Haradkiewicz, Judith M., and Andrew J. Elliot. 1998. "The Joint Effects of Target and Purpose Goals on Intrinsic Motivation: A Mediational Analysis." Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 24 (7): 675‐689.

Harman, Harry Horace. 1976. Modern Factor Analysis. 3rd ed. Chicago, ILL: University of Chicago Press.

Harrison, Andrew. 1992. "The Intelligent Building in Europe." Facilities 10 (8): 14‐19. Harter, James K., Frank L. Schmidt, and Corey L. M. Keyes. 2003. "Well‐Being in the

Workplace and Its Relationship to Business Outcomes: A Review of the Gallup Studies." Flourishing: Positive Psychology and the Life Well‐Lived 2 (1): 205‐224.

308

Hartkopf, Volker, and Vivian Loftness. 1999. "Global Relevance of Total Building Performance." Automation in Construction 8 (4): 377‐393.

Harvey, Geraint, Karen Williams, and Jane Probert. 2013. "Greening the Airline Pilot: HRM and the Green Performance of Airlines in the UK." The International Journal of Human Resource Management 24 (1): 152‐166.

Hawcroft, Lucy J., and Taciano L. Milfont. 2010. "The Use (and Abuse) of the New Environmental Paradigm Scale over the Last 30 Years: A Meta‐Analysis." Journal of Environmental Psychology 30 (2): 143‐158.

Heath, Yuko, and Robert Gifford. 2002. "Extending the Theory of Planned Behavior: Predicting the Use of Public Transportation 1." Journal of Applied Social Psychology 32 (10): 2154‐2189.

Hedge, Allan, and J. A. Dorsey. 2013. "Green Buildings Need Good Ergonomics." Ergonomics 56 (3): 492‐506.

Hedge, A., L. Miller, and J. A Dorsey. 2014. "Occupant Comfort and Health in Green and Conventional University Buildings." Work 49 (3): 363‐372.

Heerwagen, Judith. 2000. "Green Buildings, Organizational Success and Occupant Productivity." Building Research & Information 28 (5): 353‐367.

Heerwagen, Judith, and Leah Zagreus. 2005. "The Human Factors of Sustainable Building Design: Post Occupancy Evaluation of the Philip Merrill Environmental Center." Indoor Environmental Quality 1 (1): 3‐26.

Henderson, Hazel, and Simran Sethi. 2006. Ethical Markets: Growing the Green Economy. White River Junction, VT: Chelsea Green Publishing.

Hersey, Kevin. 1998. "A Close Look at ISO 14000." Professional Safety 43 (7): 26‐29. Hesse‐Biber, Sharlene. 2015. "Mixed Methods Research: The “Thing‐Ness” Problem."

Qualitative Health Research 25 (6): 775‐788. Hewitt, Elizabeth L., Clinton J. Andrews, Jennifer A. Senick, Richard E. Wener, Uta

Krogmann, and MaryAnn Sorensen Allacci. 2016. "Distinguishing between Green Building Occupants’ Reasoned and Unplanned Behaviours." Building Research & Information 44 (2): 119‐134.

Higgins, Julian P. T., and Sally Green. 2011. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Vol. 4: John Wiley & Sons.

Hines, Jody M., Harold R. Hungerford, and Audrey N. Tomera. 1987. "Analysis and Synthesis of Research on Responsible Environmental Behavior: A Meta‐Analysis." The Journal of Environmental Education 18 (2): 1‐8.

Höck, Michael, and Christian M. Ringle. 2006. "Strategic Networks in the Software Industry: An Empirical Analysis of the Value Continuum." In International Federation of Scholarly Associations of Management (IFSAM) 8th World Congress, Berlin, 2006.

Hodges, Christopher P. 2005. "A Facility Manager's Approach to Sustainability." Journal of Facilities Management 3 (4): 312‐324.

Hoffman, Andrew J. 1993. "The Importance of Fit between Individual Values and Organisational Culture in the Greening of Industry." Business Strategy and the Environment 2 (4): 10‐18.

Hoffman, Andrew J., and Rebecca Henn. 2008. "Overcoming the Social and Psychological Barriers to Green Building." Organization & Environment 21 (4): 390‐419.

Hoffman, Emma, Meagan Bernier, Brenden Blotnicky, Peter G. Golden, Jeffrey Janes, Allison Kader, Rachel Kovacs‐Da Costa, Shauna Pettipas, Sarah Vermeulen, and Tony R. Walker. 2015. "Assessment of Public Perception and Environmental Compliance at a Pulp and Paper Facility: A Canadian Case Study." Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 187 (12): 1‐13.

309

Hogg, Michael A., and Deborah J. Terry. 2000. "Social Identity and Self‐Categorization Processes in Organizational Contexts." The Academy of Management Review 25 (1): 121‐140.

Holmgren, Mattias, Alan Kabanshi, and Patrik Sörqvist. 2017. "Occupant Perception of “Green” Buildings: Distinguishing Physical and Psychological Factors." Building and Environment 114 (1): 140‐147.

Holstein, James A., and Jaber F. Gubrium. 1994. "Phenomenology, Ethnomethodology, and Interpretive Practice." In Handbook of Qualitative Research. Edited by N. K. Denzin and Y. S. Lincoln, Sage Publications 1 (1): 262‐272.

Hong, Tianzhen, Da Yan, Simona D'Oca, and Chien‐fei Chen. 2017. "Ten Questions Concerning Occupant Behavior in Buildings: The Big Picture." Building and Environment 114 (1): 518‐530.

Honnold, Julie A. 1984. "Age and Environmental Concern: Some Specification of Effects." The Journal of Environmental Education 16 (1): 4‐9.

Hooper, Daire, Joseph Coughlan, and Michael Mullen. 2008. "Structural Equation Modelling: Guidelines for Determining Model Fit." Electronic Journal of Business Research Methods 6 (1): 53‐60.

Horgan, Justine. 2003. "High Performance Human Resource Management in Ireland and the Netherlands." In Adoption and Effectiveness. Groningen: ICS‐Dissertation. Edited by Siegwart Lindenberg, 197‐218.

Hosain, M. D., and M. D. Rahman. 2016. "Green Human Resource Management: A Theoretical Overview." IOSR [International Organization of Scientific Research] Journal of Business and Management 18 (6): 54‐59.

Hu, Li‐tze, and Peter M. Bentler. 1999. "Cutoff Criteria for Fit Indexes in Covariance Structure Analysis: Conventional Criteria versus New Alternatives." Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal 6 (1): 1‐55.

Huang, Li, Qin Ouyang, Yingxin Zhu, and Lingfei Jiang. 2013. "A Study About the Demand for Air Movement in Warm Environment." Building & Environment 61 (1): 27‐33.

Huselid, Mark A. 1995. "The Impact of Human Resource Management Practices on Turnover, Productivity, and Corporate Financial Performance." Academy of Management Journal 38 (3): 635‐672.

Hutchinson, Robert. 2017. "Thriving in a Net‐Zero Office – Looking Beyond Energy to Create Quality in Human Work Spaces." Journal of Solar Energy Engineering 139 (1): 1‐6.

Hwang, Bon‐Gang, and Jac See Tan. 2012. "Green Building Project Management: Obstacles and Solutions for Sustainable Development." Sustainable Development 20 (5): 335‐349.

Hwang, Bon‐Gang, Lei Zhu, and Jonathan Tan Tzu Ming. 2016. "Factors Affecting Productivity in Green Building Construction Projects: The Case of Singapore." Journal of Management in Engineering 33 (3): 1‐12.

Ibtissem, Mustapha Harzallah. 2010. "Application of Value Beliefs Norms Theory to the Energy Conservation Behaviour." Journal of Sustainable Development 3 (2): 129‐139.

Inalhan, Goksenin. 2009. "Attachments: The Unrecognised Link between Employees and Their Workplace (in Change Management Projects)." Journal of Corporate Real Estate 11 (1): 17‐37.

Inalhan, Goksenin, Zosia Brown, Raymond J. Cole, John Robinson, and Hadi Dowlatabadi. 2010. "Evaluating User Experience in Green Buildings in Relation to Workplace Culture and Context." Facilities 28 (3/4): 225‐238.

310

Inyang, Benjamin J., Hart O. Awa, and Rebecca O. Enuoh. 2011. "CSR–HRM Nexus: Defining the Role Engagement of the Human Resources Professionals." International Journal of Business and Social Science 2 (5): 118‐126.

Issa, M. H., J. H. Rankin, and A. J. Christian. 2010. "Canadian Practitioners' Perception of Research Work Investigating the Cost Premiums, Long‐Term Costs and Health and Productivity Benefits of Green Buildings." Building & Environment 45 (7): 1698‐1711.

Ivankova, Nataliya V., John W. Creswell, and Sheldon L. Stick. 2006. "Using Mixed‐Methods Sequential Explanatory Design: From Theory to Practice." Field Methods 18 (1): 3‐20.

Jabbour, Charbel Jose Chiappetta 2011. "How Green Are HRM Practices, Organizational Culture, Learning and Teamwork? A Brazilian Study." Industrial and Commercial Training. 43 (2): 98‐105.

Jabbour, Charbel José Chiappetta, and Fernando César Almada Santos. 2008. "Relationships between Human Resource Dimensions and Environmental Management in Companies: Proposal of a Model." Journal of Cleaner Production 16 (1): 51‐58.

Jabbour, Charbel José Chiappetta, Fernando César Almada Santos, and Marcelo Seido Nagano. 2010. "Contributions of HRM Throughout the Stages of Environmental Management: Methodological Triangulation Applied to Companies in Brazil." The International Journal of Human Resource Management 21 (7): 1049‐1089.

Jabbour, Charbel José Chiappetta, and Ana Beatriz Lopes de Sousa Jabbour. 2016. "Green Human Resource Management and Green Supply Chain Management: Linking Two Emerging Agendas." Journal of Cleaner Production 112 (1): 1824‐1833.

Jackson, Susan E. 2013. "Behavioral Perspective of Strategic Human Resource Management." Encyclopedia of Management Theory 1 (1): 66‐72.

Jackson, Susan E., Deniz S. Ones, and Stephan Dilchert. 2012. Managing Human Resources for Environmental Sustainability. San Francisco, CA: Jossey‐Bass.

Jackson, Susan E., Douglas W. S. Renwick, Charbel J. C. Jabbour, and Michael Muller‐Camen. 2011. "State‐of‐the‐Art and Future Directions for Green Human Resource Management: Introduction to the Special Issue." Zeitschrift für Personalforschung/German Journal of Research in Human Resource Management 25 (2): 99‐116.

Jackson, Susan E., and Randell S. Schuler. 1995. "Understanding Human Resource Management in the Context of Organizations and Their Environments." Annual Review of Psychology 46 (1): 237‐264.

Jackson, Susan E., Randall S. Schuler, and J. Carlos Rivero. 1989. "Organizational Characteristics as Predictors of Personnel Practices." Personnel Psychology 42 (4): 727‐786.

Jackson, Susan E., and Janghoon Seo. 2010. "The Greening of Strategic HRM Scholarship." Organization Management Journal 7 (4): 278‐290.

Jain, Ravinder Kumar, Raj Jain, and Harry C Triandis. 1997. Management of Research and Development Organizations: Managing the Unmanageable. Vol. 27. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons.

Jensen, Jesper Ole, Michael Søgaard Jørgensen, Morten Elle, and Erik Hagelskjær Lauridsen. 2012. "Has Social Sustainability Left the Building? The Recent Conceptualization of “Sustainability” in Danish Buildings." Sustainability: Science, Practice and Policy 8 (1): 94‐105.

Jensen, Per Anker, Esmir Maslesa, Jakob Brinkø Berg, and Christian Thuesen. 2018. "10 Questions Concerning Sustainable Building Renovation." Building and Environment 143 (1): 130‐137.

311

Jiang, Kaifeng, David P. Lepak, Jia Hu, and Judith C. Baer. 2012. "How Does Human Resource Management Influence Organizational Outcomes? A Meta‐Analytic Investigation of Mediating Mechanisms." Academy of Management Journal 55 (6): 1264‐1294.

Jiang, Ruihua Joy, and Pratima Bansal. 2003. "Seeing the Need for ISO 14001." Journal of Management Studies 40 (4): 1047‐1067.

Jianguang, Zhang. 1994. "Environmental Hazards in the Chinese Public's Eyes." Risk Analysis 14 (2): 163‐167.

Johnson, Ashley, Daniel Sachau, and David Englert. 2010. "Organizational and Occupational Embeddedness of Federal Law Enforcement Personnel." The Official Journal of the Society for Police and Criminal Psychology 25 (2): 75‐89.

Johnson, R. Burke, Anthony J. Onwuegbuzie, and Lisa A. Turner. 2007. "Toward a Definition of Mixed Methods Research." Journal of Mixed Methods Research 1 (2): 112‐133.

Jones, Jo, Janet Jackson, Terry Tudor, and Margaret Bates. 2012. "Strategies to Enhance Waste Minimization and Energy Conservation within Organizations: A Case Study from the UK Construction Sector." Waste Management & Research 30 (9): 981‐990.

Juárez‐Nájera, Margarita, Juan G. Rivera‐Martínez, and Wim A. Hafkamp. 2010. "An Explorative Socio‐Psychological Model for Determining Sustainable Behavior: Pilot Study in German and Mexican Universities." Journal of Cleaner Production 18 (7): 686‐694.

Judge, Timothy A., and Edwin A. Locke. 1993. "Effect of Dysfunctional Thought Processes on Subjective Well‐Being and Job Satisfaction." Journal of Applied Psychology 78 (3): 475‐490.

Kaczmarczyk, Stan, and Judi Murtough. 2002. "Measuring the Performance of Innovative Workplaces." Journal of Facilities Management 1 (2): 163‐176.

Kaiser, Florian G. 1998. "A General Measure of Ecological Behavior 1." Journal of Applied Social Psychology 28 (5): 395‐422.

Kalafatis, Stavros P., Michael Pollard, Robert East, and Markos H. Tsogas. 1999. "Green Marketing and Ajzen’s Theory of Planned Behaviour: A Cross‐Market Examination." Journal of Consumer Marketing 16 (5): 441‐460.

Kamaruzzaman, Syahrul Nizam, C. O. Egbu, Emma Marinie Ahmad Zawawi, Azlan Shah Ali, and Adi Irfan Che‐Ani. 2011. "The Effect of Indoor Environmental Quality on Occupants’ Perception of Performance: A Case Study of Refurbished Historic Buildings in Malaysia." Energy and Buildings 43 (2‐3): 407‐413.

Kang, Kyung Ho, Laura Stein, Cindy Yoonjoung Heo, and Seoki Lee. 2012. "Consumers’ Willingness to Pay for Green Initiatives of the Hotel Industry." International Journal of Hospitality Management 31 (2): 564‐572.

Kansara, T., and I. Ridley. 2012. "Post Occupancy Evaluation of Buildings in a Zero Carbon City." Sustainable Cities and Society 5 (C): 23‐25.

Kashyap, Karishma, and Subha D. Parida. 2017. "Closing the Loop between Building Sustainability and Stakeholder Engagement: Case Study of an Australian University." International Journal of Civil, Environmental, Structural, Construction and Architectural Engineering 11 (3): 299‐306.

Kato, Hikari, Linda Too, and Ann Rask. 2009. "Occupier Perceptions of Green Workplace Environment: The Australian Experience." Journal of Corporate Real Estate 11 (3): 183‐195.

Kats, Gregory. 2003. Green Building Costs and Financial Benefits, Boston, MA: Massachusetts Technology Collaborative.

Kehoe, Rebecca R., and Patrick M. Wright. 2013. "The Impact of High‐Performance Human Resource Practices on Employees’ Attitudes and Behaviors." Journal of Management 39 (2): 366‐391.

312

Kelley, Kate, Belinda Clark, Vivienne Brown, and John Sitzia. 2003. "Good Practice in the Conduct and Reporting of Survey Research." International Journal for Quality in Health Care 15 (3): 261‐266.

Kelman, Herbert C. 1958. "Compliance, Identification, and Internalization: Three Processes of Attitude Change." Journal of Conflict Resolution 2 (1): 51‐60.

Kershaw, T., and D. Lash. 2013. "Investigating the Productivity of Office Workers to Quantify the Effectiveness of Climate Change Adaptation Measures." Building & Environment 69 (1): 35‐43.

Khashe, Saba, Arsalan Heydarian, David Gerber, Burcin Becerik‐Gerber, Timothy Hayes, and Wendy Wood. 2015. "Influence of LEED Branding on Building Occupants' Pro‐Environmental Behavior." Building & Environment 94 (1): 477‐488.

Kibert, Charles J. 2016. Sustainable Construction: Green Building Design and Delivery. NJ, USA: John Wiley & Sons.

Kim, Jeong Tai, and Marija S. Todorovic. 2013. "Towards Sustainability Index for Healthy Buildings – Via Intrinsic Thermodynamics, Green Accounting and Harmony." Energy and Buildings 62: 627‐637.

Kim, Sean Hay, and Godfried Augenbroe. 2013. "Decision Support for Choosing Ventilation Operation Strategy in Hospital Isolation Rooms: A Multi‐Criterion Assessment under Uncertainty." Building & Environment 60 (1): 305‐318.

Kim, Seong‐Tae, and Sang‐Yoon Lee. 2012. "Stakeholder Pressure and the Adoption of Environmental Logistics Practices. Is Eco‐Oriented Culture a Missing Link?" International Journal of Logistics Management 23 (2): 238‐258.

Kim, Sumin, Benson T. H. Lim, and Jinu Kim. 2019. "Tenants’ Motivations to Lease Green Office Buildings: An Exploratory Study of Sydney Central Business District." International Journal of Structural and Civil Engineering Research 8 (1): 59‐62.

Kim, Taeyeon, Shinsuke Kato, Shuzo Murakami, and Ji‐woong Rho. 2005. "Study on Indoor Thermal Environment of Office Space Controlled by Cooling Panel System Using Field Measurement and the Numerical Simulation." Building & Environment 40 (3): 301‐307.

Kim, Yong Joong, Woo Gon Kim, Hyung‐Min Choi, and Kullada Phetvaroon. 2019. "The Effect of Green Human Resource Management on Hotel Employees’ Eco‐Friendly Behavior and Environmental Performance." International Journal of Hospitality Management. 76: 83‐93.

King, Maryon F., and Gordon C. Bruner. 2000. "Social Desirability Bias: A Neglected Aspect of Validity Testing." Psychology & Marketing 17 (2): 79‐103.

Klang, David, Maria Wallnöfer, and Fredrik Hacklin. 2014. "The Business Model Paradox: A Systematic Review and Exploration of Antecedents." International Journal of Management Reviews 16 (4): 454‐478.

Kline, Rex B. 2015. Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling. New York, NY: Guilford Publications.

Klineberg, Stephen L., Matthew McKeever, and Bert Rothenbach. 1998. "Demographic Predictors of Environmental Concern: It Does Make a Difference How It's Measured." Social Science Quarterly 79 (4): 734‐753.

Knudsen, Jette Steen, Kathrine Geisler, and Mette Ege. 2013. "Corporate Social Responsibility in the Board Room ‐ When Do Directors Pay Attention?" Human Resource Development International 16 (2): 238‐246.

Kok, Nils, Marquise McGraw, and John M. Quigley. 2011. "The Diffusion of Energy Efficiency in Building." American Economic Review 101 (3): 77‐82.

Kozusznik, Malgorzata Wanda, Laurentiu Paul Maricutoiu, José M Peiró, Delia Mihaela Virga, Aida Soriano, and Carolina Mateo‐Cecilia. 2019. "Decoupling Office Energy

313

Efficiency from Employees’ Well‐Being and Performance: A Systematic Review." Frontiers in Psychology 10: 293.

Krause, Ryan, Zhiyan Wu, Garry D. Bruton, and Suzanne M. Carter. 2019. "The Coercive Isomorphism Ripple Effect: An Investigation of Nonprofit Interlocks on Corporate Boards." Academy of Management Journal 62 (1): 283‐308.

Kreiner, Glen E., and Blake E. Ashforth. 2004. "Evidence toward an Expanded Model of Organizational Identification." Journal of Organizational Behavior: The International Journal of Industrial, Occupational and Organizational Psychology and Behavior 25 (1): 1‐27.

Krosnick, Jon A. 1999. "Survey Research." Annual Review of Psychology 50 (1): 537‐567. Kundu, Subhash C. 2003. "Workforce Diversity Status: A Study of Employees' Reactions."

Industrial Management & Data Systems 103 (4): 215‐226. Kurz, Tim, Benjamin Gardner, Bas Verplanken, and Charles Abraham. 2015. "Habitual

Behaviors or Patterns of Practice? Explaining and Changing Repetitive Climate‐Relevant Actions." Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change 6 (1): 113‐128.

Lamberg, Juha‐Antti, Kalle Pajunen, Petri Parvinen, and Grant T. Savage. 2008. "Stakeholder Management and Path Dependence in Organizational Transitions." Management Decision 46 (6): 846‐863.

Lambooij, Mattijs, Karin Sanders, Ferry Koster, and Marieke Zwiers. 2006. "Human Resource Practices and Organisational Performance: Can the HRM–Performance Linkage Be Explained by the Cooperative Behaviours of Employees?" The International Review of Management Studies. 17 (3): 223‐240.

Lan, Li, Pawel Wargocki, and Zhiwei Lian. 2014. "Thermal Effects on Human Performance in Office Environment Measured by Integrating Task Speed and Accuracy." Applied Ergonomics 45 (3): 490‐495.

Lance, Charles E., Marcus M. Butts, and Lawrence C. Michels. 2006. "The Sources of Four Commonly Reported Cutoff Criteria: What Did They Really Say?" Organizational Research Methods 9 (2): 202‐220.

Landis, J. Richard, and Gary G. Koch. 1977. "The Measurement of Observer Agreement for Categorical Data." Biometrics 33 (1): 159‐174.

Leaman, Adrian, and Bill Bordass. 1999. "Productivity in Buildings: The ‘Killer’ Variables." Building Research & Information 27 (1): 4‐19.

Leaman, Adrian, and Bill Bordass. 2007. "Are Users More Tolerant of ‘Green’ Buildings?" Building Research & Information 35 (6): 662‐673.

Leaman, Adrian, Fionn Stevenson, and Bill Bordass. 2010. "Building Evaluation: Practice and Principles." Building Research & Information 38 (5): 564‐577.

Lease, Suzanne H. 1998. "Annual Review, 1993‐1997: Work Attitudes and Outcomes." Journal of Vocational Behavior 53 (2): 154.

Lee, Chol. 1988. 'Cross‐Cultural Validity of the Fishbein Behavioral Intention Model: Culture‐Bound or Culture‐Free?' Edited by Robert T. Green: ProQuest Dissertations Publishing.

Lee, Eunsil, April Allen, and BoKyung Kim. 2013. "Interior Design Practitioner Motivations for Specifying Sustainable Materials: Applying the Theory of Planned Behavior to Residential Design." Journal of Interior Design 38 (4): 1‐16.

Lee, Yoon Soo, and Ali M. Malkawi. 2014. "Simulating Multiple Occupant Behaviors in Buildings: An Agent‐Based Modeling Approach." Energy & Buildings 69 (1): 407‐416.

Lee, Young S., and Denise A. Guerin. 2009. "Indoor Environmental Quality Related to Occupant Satisfaction and Performance in LEED‐Certified Buildings." Indoor and Built Environment 18 (4): 293‐300.

314

Leedy, Paul D., and Jeanne Ellis Ormrod. 2005. Practical Research: Planning and Design. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education.

Lehman, Wayne E. K., Jack M. Greener, and D. Dwayne Simpson. 2002. "Assessing Organizational Readiness for Change." Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment 22(4): 197‐209.

Li, Hongyang, S. Thomas Ng, and Martin Skitmore. 2018. "Stakeholder Impact Analysis During Post‐Occupancy Evaluation of Green Buildings – a Chinese Context." Building and Environment 128 (1): 89‐95.

Li, Junjie, Yehao Song, Shuai Lv, and Qingguo Wang. 2015. "Impact Evaluation of the Indoor Environmental Performance of Animate Spaces in Buildings." Building & Environment 94 (1): 353‐370.

Li, Peixian, Thomas M. Froese, and Gail Brager. 2018. "Post‐Occupancy Evaluation: State‐of‐the‐Art Analysis and State‐of‐the‐Practice Review." Building and Environment 133 (1): 187‐202.

Li, Yuan Yuan, Po‐Han Chen, David Ah Seng Chew, and Chee Chong Teo. 2014. "Exploration of Critical Resources and Capabilities of Design Firms for Delivering Green Building Projects: Empirical Studies in Singapore." Habitat International 41 (1): 229‐235.

Li, Yuan Yuan, Po‐Han Chen, David Ah Seng Chew, Chee Chong Teo, and Rong Gui Ding. 2011. "Critical Project Management Factors of AEC Firms for Delivering Green Building Projects in Singapore." Journal of Construction Engineering and Management 137 (12): 1153‐1163.

Liang, Han‐Hsi, Chen‐Peng Chen, Ruey‐Lung Hwang, Wen‐Mei Shih, Shih‐Chi Lo, and Huey‐Yan Liao. 2014. "Satisfaction of Occupants toward Indoor Environment Quality of Certified Green Office Buildings in Taiwan." Building & Environment 72 (1): 232‐242.

Liang, Xin, Geoffrey Qiping Shen, and Li Guo. 2015. "Improving Management of Green Retrofits from a Stakeholder Perspective: A Case Study in China." International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 12 (11): 13823‐13842.

Liebowitz, Jay. 2010. "The Role of HR in Achieving a Sustainability Culture." Journal of Sustainable Development 3 (4): 50‐57.

Likhitkar, P., and Priyanka Verma. 2017. "Impact of Green HRM Practices on Organization Sustainability and Employee Retention." International Journal for Innovative Research in Multidisciplinary Field 3 (5): 152‐155.

Lincoln, Yvonna S., and Egon G. Guba. 1985. "Establishing Trustworthiness." Naturalistic Inquiry 289 (331): 289‐327.

Lincoln, Yvonna S., Susan A. Lynham, and Egon G. Guba. 2011. "Paradigmatic Controversies, Contradictions, and Emerging Confluences, Revisited." The Sage Handbook of Qualitative Research 4 (1): 97‐128.

Liu, Weiwei, Hao Huangfu, Jing Xiong, and Qihong Deng. 2014. "Feedback Effect of Human Physical and Psychological Adaption on Time Period of Thermal Adaption in Naturally Ventilated Building." Building & Environment 76 (1): 1‐9.

Liu, Yunxia, Zaisheng Hong, Jie Zhu, Jingjing Yan, Jianqiang Qi, and Peng Liu. 2018. "Promoting Green Residential Buildings: Residents' Environmental Attitude, Subjective Knowledge, and Social Trust Matter." Energy Policy 112 (1): 152‐161.

Lo, Siu Hing, Gjalt‐Jorn Y. Peters, and Gerjo Kok. 2012a. "A Review of Determinants of and Interventions for Proenvironmental Behaviors in Organizations." Journal of Applied Social Psychology 42 (12): 2933‐2967.

Lo, Siu Hing, Gjalt‐Jorn Y. Peters, and Gerjo Kok. 2012b. "Energy‐Related Behaviors in Office Buildings: A Qualitative Study on Individual and Organisational Determinants." Applied Psychology 61 (2): 227‐249.

315

Lober, Douglas J. 1996. "Evaluating the Environmental Performance of Corporations." Journal of Managerial Issues 8 (2): 184‐205.

Loftness, Vivian, Azizan Aziz, JoonHo Choi, Kevin Kampschroer, Kevin Powell, Mike Atkinson, and Judith Heerwagen. 2009. "The Value of Post‐Occupancy Evaluation for Building Occupants and Facility Managers." Intelligent Buildings International 1 (4): 249‐268.

Longoni, Annachiara, Davide Luzzini, and Marco Guerci. 2018. "Deploying Environmental Management across Functions: The Relationship between Green Human Resource Management and Green Supply Chain Management." Journal of Business Ethics 151 (4): 1081‐1095.

Lothe, Solveig, and Ingunn Myrtveit. 2003. "Compensation Systems for Green Strategy Implementation: Parametric and Non‐Parametric Approaches." Business Strategy and the Environment 12 (3): 191‐203.

Lülfs, Regina, and Rüdiger Hahn. 2013. "Corporate Greening Beyond Formal Programs, Initiatives, and Systems: A Conceptual Model for Voluntary Pro‐Environmental Behavior of Employees." European Management Review 10 (2): 83‐98.

Lund, Thorleif. 2012. "Combining Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches: Some Arguments for Mixed Methods Research." Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research 56 (2): 155‐165.

Macky, Keith, and Peter Boxall. 2007. "The Relationship between ‘High‐Performance Work Practices’ and Employee Attitudes: An Investigation of Additive and Interaction Effects." The International Journal of Human Resource Management 18 (4): 537‐567.

MacNaughton, Piers, James Pegues, Usha Satish, Suresh Santanam, John Spengler, and Joseph Allen. 2015. "Economic, Environmental and Health Implications of Enhanced Ventilation in Office Buildings." International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 12 (11): 14709‐14722.

Malhotra, Naresh, John Hall, Mike Shaw, and Peter Oppenheim. 2006. Marketing Research: An Applied Orientation. Frenchs Forest, NSW: Pearson Education Australia.

Mandip, Gill. 2012. "Green HRM: People Management Commitment to Environmental Sustainability." Research Journal of Recent Sciences 1 (1): 244‐252.

Margaretha, Meily, and Susanti R. Saragih. 2012. "Developing New Corporate Culture through Green Human Resource Practice." In International Conference on Business, Economics, and Accounting, Bangkok, Thailand, 908‐917.

Markus, Hazel Rose, and Shinobu Kitayama. 1991. "Culture and the Self: Implications for Cognition, Emotion, and Motivation." Psychological Review 98 (2): 224‐253.

Maryon, King F., and Gordon C. Bruner. 2000. "Social Desirability Bias: A Neglected Aspect of Validity Testing." Psychology and Marketing 17 (2): 79‐103.

Maslow, Abraham H. 1970. Motivation and Personality. Second ed. New York, NY: Harper & Row.

Masterson, Suzanne S., Kyle Lewis, Barry M. Goldman, and M. Susan Taylor. 2000. "Integrating Justice and Social Exchange: The Differing Effects of Fair Procedures and Treatment on Work Relationships." The Academy of Management Journal 43 (4): 738‐748.

Maxwell, James, Sandra Rothenberg, Forrest Briscoe, and Alfred Marcus. 1997. "Green Schemes: Corporate Environmental Strategies and Their Implementation." California Management Review 39(3): 118‐134.

Maxwell, Joseph A. 2008. "Designing a Qualitative Study." The SAGE Handbook of Applied Social Research Methods 2 (1): 214‐253.

316

Maxwell, Rachael, and Simon Knox. 2009. "Motivating Employees to "Live the Brand": A Comparative Case Study of Employer Brand Attractiveness within the Firm." Journal of Marketing Management 25 (9‐10): 893‐907.

McCunn, Lindsay J., and Robert Gifford. 2012. "Do Green Offices Affect Employee Engagement and Environmental Attitudes?" Architectural Science Review 55 (2): 128‐134.

McDonald, Roderick P., and Moon‐Ho Ringo Ho. 2002. "Principles and Practice in Reporting Structural Equation Analyses." Psychological Methods 7 (1): 64‐82.

Meir, Isaac A., Yaakov Garb, Dixin Jiao, and Alex Cicelsky. 2009. "Post‐Occupancy Evaluation: An Inevitable Step toward Sustainability." Advances in Building Energy Research 3 (1): 189‐219.

Meir, Isaac A., Moshe Schwartz, Yosefa Davara, and Yaakov Garb. 2019. "A Window of One’s Own: A Public Office Post‐Occupancy Evaluation." Building Research & Information 47 (4): 437‐452.

Melnyk, Steven, Robert Sroufe, and Roger Calantone. 2003. "Assessing the Impact of Environmental Management Systems on Corporate and Environmental Performance." Journal of Operations Management 21 (3): 329‐351.

Menadue, Vanessa, Veronica Soebarto, and Terence Williamson. 2014. "Perceived and Actual Thermal Conditions: Case Studies of Green‐Rated and Conventional Office Buildings in the City of Adelaide." Architectural Science Review 57 (4): 303‐319.

Messersmith, Jake G., Pankaj C. Patel, David P. Lepak, and Julian S. Gould‐Williams. 2011. "Unlocking the Black Box: Exploring the Link between High‐Performance Work Systems and Performance." Journal of Applied Psychology 96 (6): 1105‐1118.

Meyer, John P., David J. Stanley, Lynne Herscovitch, and Laryssa Topolnytsky. 2002. "Affective, Continuance, and Normative Commitment to the Organization: A Meta‐Analysis of Antecedents, Correlates, and Consequences." Journal of Vocational Behavior 61 (1): 20‐52.

Miles, Jeremy, and Mark Shevlin. 2007. "A Time and a Place for Incremental Fit Indices." Personality and Individual Differences 42 (5): 869‐874.

Miles, Matthew B., and A. Michael Huberman. 1994. Qualitative Data Analysis: An Expanded Sourcebook. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Milfont, Taciano L., Chris G. Sibley, and John Duckitt. 2010. "Testing the Moderating Role of the Components of Norm Activation on the Relationship between Values and Environmental Behavior." Journal of Cross‐Cultural Psychology 41 (1): 124‐131.

Milhausen, Robin R., Michael Reece, and Bilesha Perera. 2006. "A Theory‐Based Approach to Understanding Sexual Behavior at Mardi Gras." Journal of Sex Research 43 (2): 97‐106.

Miller, Evonne, and Laurie Buys. 2008. "Retrofitting Commercial Office Buildings for Sustainability: Tenants' Perspectives." Journal of Property Investment & Finance 26 (6): 552‐561.

Miller, Norm, Dave Pogue, Quiana Gough, and Susan Davis. 2009. "Green Buildings and Productivity." Journal of Sustainable Real Estate 1 (1): 65‐89.

Milliman, John. 1996. "Best Environmental HRM Practices in the US." Greening People: Human Resources and Environmental Management 1 (39): 49‐73.

Mingers, John. 2003. "A Classification of the Philosophical Assumptions of Management Science Methods." Journal of the Operational Research Society 54 (6): 559‐570.

Mishra, R. K., Shulagna Sarkar, and J. Kiranmai. 2014. "Green HRM: Innovative Approach in Indian Public Enterprises." World Review of Science, Technology and Sustainable Development 11 (1): 26‐42.

317

Mitchell, Amanda. 2006. "The Hidden Curriculum : An Exploration into the Potential for Green Buildings to Silently Communicate a Pro‐Environmental Message." The University of British Columbia. Columbia.

Mofidi, Farhad and Hashem Akbari. 2016. "Integrated Optimization of Energy Costs and Occupants’ Productivity in Commercial Buildings." Energy and Buildings 129 (1): 247‐260.

Mokhtar Azizi, Nurul Sakina, Suzanne Wilkinson, and Elizabeth Fassman. 2014. "Management Practice to Achieve Energy‐Efficient Performance of Green Buildings in New Zealand." Architectural Engineering and Design Management 10 (1‐2): 25‐39.

Molina‐Azorín, José F., and María D López‐Gamero. 2014. "Mixed Methods Studies in Environmental Management Research: Prevalence, Purposes and Designs." Business Strategy and the Environment 25 (2): 134‐148.

Molnárné, Csilla, and Szabolcs Nagy. 2018. "The Effects of Hofstede's Cultural Dimensions on Pro‐Environmental Behaviour: How Culture Influences Environmentally Conscious Behaviour." Theory, Methodology, Practice 14 (1): 27‐36.

Moneta, Giovanni. 2004. "The Flow Experience across Cultures." Journal of Happiness Studies 5 (2): 115‐121.

Monfared, Ida G., and Steve Sharples. 2011. "Occupants’ Perceptions and Expectations of a Green Office Building: A Longitudinal Case Study." Architectural Science Review 54 (4): 344‐355.

Morgan, David L. 2007. "Paradigms Lost and Pragmatism Regained: Methodological Implications of Combining Qualitative and Quantitative Methods." Journal of Mixed Methods Research 1 (1): 48‐76.

Morse, Janice M. 2016. Mixed Method Design: Principles and Procedures. Vol. 4. UK: Routledge.

Moyle, Wendy. 2002. "Unstructured Interviews: Challenges When Participants Have a Major Depressive Illness." Journal of Advanced Nursing 39 (3): 266‐273.

Mukherjee, Bidhan, and Bibhas Chandra. 2018. "Conceptualizing Green Human Resource Management in Predicting Employees' Green Intention and Behaviour: A Conceptual Framework." Prabandhan: Indian Journal of Management 11 (7): 36‐48.

Mulaik, Stanley A., Larry R. James, Judith Van Alstine, Nathan Bennett, Sherri Lind, and C. Dean Stilwell. 1989. "Evaluation of Goodness‐of‐Fit Indices for Structural Equation Models." Psychological Bulletin 105 (3): 430‐445.

Muraven, Mark, and Sungho Tae. 1998. "Mechanism of Self‐Control Failure: Motivation and Limited Resources." Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 29 (7): 894‐906.

NABERS (National Australian Built Environment Rating System). 2019. "Rated Space." Accessed October 11, 2019.

Naumann, Earl. 1993. "Organizational Predictors of Expatriate Job Satisfaction." Journal of International Business Studies 24 (1): 61‐80.

Nederhof, Anton J. 1985. "Methods of Coping with Social Desirability Bias: A Review." European Journal of Social Psychology 15 (3): 263‐280.

Newsham, Guy R., Benjamin J. Birt, Chantal Arsenault, Alexandra J. L. Thompson, Jennifer A. Veitch, Sandra Mancini, Anca D. Galasiu, Bradford N. Gover, Iain A. Macdonald, and Gregory J. Burns. 2013. "Do ‘Green’ Buildings Have Better Indoor Environments? New Evidence?" Building Research & Information 41 (4): 415‐434.

Newsham, Guy R., Jennifer A. Veitch, and Yitian Hu. 2018. "Effect of Green Building Certification on Organizational Productivity Metrics." Building Research & Information 46 (7): 755‐766.

318

Newsham, Guy R., Jennifer A. Veitch, Meng Qi Zhang, and Anca D. Galasiu. 2019. "Comparing Better Building Design and Operation to Other Corporate Strategies for Improving Organizational Productivity: A Review and Synthesis." Intelligent Buildings International 1 (1): 1‐20.

Nicol, Fergus, and Susan Roaf. 2005. "Post‐Occupancy Evaluation and Field Studies of Thermal Comfort." Building Research & Information 33 (4): 338‐346.

Nieuwenhuis, Marlon, Craig Knight, Tom Postmes, and S. Alexander Haslam. 2014. "The Relative Benefits of Green versus Lean Office Space: Three Field Experiments." Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied 20 (3): 199‐214.

Nifadkar, Sushil S., and Talya N. Bauer. 2016. "Breach of Belongingness: Newcomer Relationship Conflict, Information, and Task‐Related Outcomes During Organizational Socialization." Journal of Applied Psychology 101 (1): 1‐13.

Nigbur, Dennis, Evanthia Lyons, and David Uzzell. 2010. "Attitudes, Norms, Identity and Environmental Behaviour: Using an Expanded Theory of Planned Behaviour to Predict Participation in a Kerbside Recycling Programme." British Journal of Social Psychology 49 (2): 259‐284.

Nolan, Ciara T., and Thomas N. Garavan. 2016. "Human Resource Development in SMEs: A Systematic Review of the Literature." International Journal of Management Reviews 18 (1): 85‐107.

Norton, Thomas A., Hannes Zacher, and Neal M. Ashkanasy. 2014. "Organisational Sustainability Policies and Employee Green Behaviour: The Mediating Role of Work Climate Perceptions." Journal of Environmental Psychology 38: 49‐54.

Nunnally, Jum C., Ira H. Bernstein, and Jos M. F. ten Berge. 1967. Psychometric Theory. Vol. 226. New York, NY: McGraw‐hill

Nye, Michael, and Tom Hargreaves. 2010. "Exploring the Social Dynamics of Proenvironmental Behavior Change." Journal of Industrial Ecology 14 (1): 137‐149.

Nystrom, Paul C., Keshavamurthy Ramamurthy, and Alla L. Wilson. 2002. "Organizational Context, Climate and Innovativeness: Adoption of Imaging Technology." Journal of Engineering and Technology Management 19 (3‐4): 221‐247.

Obeidat, Shatha M., Rebecca Mitchell, and Mark Bray. 2016. "The Link between High Performance Work Practices and Organizational Performance: Empirically Validating the Conceptualization of HPWP According to the AMO Model." Employee Relations 38 (4): 578‐595.

O'Donohue, Wayne, and Nuttaneeya Torugsa. 2016. "The Moderating Effect of ‘Green’ HRM on the Association between Proactive Environmental Management and Financial Performance in Small Firms." The International Journal of Human Resource Management 27 (2): 239‐261.

Ohueri, Chukwuka Christian, Wallace Imoudu Enegbuma, and Russell Kenley. 2018. "Energy Efficiency Practices for Malaysian Green Office Building Occupants." Built Environment Project and Asset Management 8 (2): 134‐146.

Ones, Deniz S., and Stephan Dilchert. 2012. "Environmental Sustainability at Work: A Call to Action." Industrial and Organizational Psychology 5 (4): 444‐466.

Ones, Deniz S., Brenton M. Wiernik, Stephan Dilchert, and Rachael M. Klein. 2018. "Multiple Domains and Categories of Employee Green Behaviors: More Than Conservation." In Research Handbook on Employee Pro‐Environmental Behaviour, Cheltenham, UK and Northampton, MA, USA: Edward Elgar Publishing: 13‐38.

Ooi, Say, Azlan Amran, Simin Goh, and Mehran Nejati. 2017. "Perceived Importance and Readiness of Green HRM in Malaysian Financial Services Industry." Global Business and Management Research 9 (4): 457‐474.

319

Opatha, Henarath H. D. N. P., and A. Anton Arulrajah. 2014. "Green Human Resource Management: Simplified General Reflections." International Business Research 7 (8): 101‐112.

Organ, Dennis W. 1997. "Organizational Citizenship Behavior: It's Construct Clean‐up Time." Human Performance 10 (2): 85‐97.

Osbaldiston, Richard, and John Paul Schott. 2012. "Environmental Sustainability and Behavioral Science: Meta‐Analysis of Proenvironmental Behavior Experiments." Environment and Behavior 44 (2): 257‐299.

Oskamp, Stuart. 1995. "Applying Social Psychology to Avoid Ecological Disaster." The Journal of Social Issues 51 (4): 217‐239.

Oskamp, Stuart. 2000. "Psychological Contributions to Achieving an Ecologically Sustainable Future for Humanity." The Journal of Social Issues 56 (3): 373‐390.

Packer, Arnold H., and Gloria K. Sharrar. 2003. "Linking Lifelong Learning, Corporate Social Responsibility, and the Changing Nature of Work." Advances in Developing Human Resources 5 (3): 332‐341.

Paillé, Pascal, and Olivier Boiral. 2013. "Pro‐Environmental Behavior at Work: Construct Validity and Determinants." Journal of Environmental Psychology 36 (1): 118‐128.

Paillé, Pascal, Yang Chen, Olivier Boiral, and Jiafei Jin. 2014. "The Impact of Human Resource Management on Environmental Performance: An Employee‐Level Study." Journal of Business Ethics 121 (3): 451‐466.

Paillé, Pascal, and Jorge Humberto Mejía‐Morelos. 2014. "Antecedents of Pro‐Environmental Behaviours at Work: The Moderating Influence of Psychological Contract Breach." Journal of Environmental Psychology 38 (1): 124‐131.

Parida, Subhadarsini, and Kerry Brown. 2018. "Investigating Systematic Review for Multi‐Disciplinary Research in the Built Environment." Built Environment Project and Asset Management 8 (1): 78‐90.

Park, Hee Sun, and Sandi W. Smith. 2007. "Distinctiveness and Influence of Subjective Norms, Personal Descriptive and Injunctive Norms, and Societal Descriptive and Injunctive Norms on Behavioral Intent: A Case of Two Behaviors Critical to Organ Donation." Human Communication Research 33 (2): 194‐218.

Parry, Emma, and Hugh Wilson. 2009. "Factors Influencing the Adoption of Online Recruitment." Personnel Review 38 (6): 655‐673.

Patterson, Malcolm G., Michael A. West, and Toby D. Wall. 2004. "Integrated Manufacturing, Empowerment, and Company Performance." Journal of Organizational Behavior 25 (5): 641‐665.

Patton, Michael. 2002a. Qualitative Research and Evaluation Methods. Thousands Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Patton, Michael Quinn. 2002b. "Two Decades of Developments in Qualitative Inquiry: A Personal, Experiential Perspective." Qualitative Social Work 1 (3): 261‐283.

Paul, Warren L., and Peter A. Taylor. 2008. "A Comparison of Occupant Comfort and Satisfaction between a Green Building and a Conventional Building." Building and Environment 43 (11): 1858‐1870.

Permarupan, P. Yukthamarani, Roselina Ahmad Saufi, Raja Suzana Raja Kasim, and Bamini K. P. D. Balakrishnan. 2013. "The Impact of Organizational Climate on Employee's Work Passion and Organizational Commitment." Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences 107 (C): 88‐95.

Peterson, Dane K. 2004. "The Relationship between Perceptions of Corporate Citizenship and Organizational Commitment." Business & Society 43 (3): 296‐319.

Petticrew, Mark, and Helen Roberts. 2008. Systematic Reviews in the Social Sciences: A Practical Guide. Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishing.

320

Pfeffer, Jeffrey. 1998. "Seven Practices of Successful Organizations." California Management Review 40 (2): 96‐124.

Pinzone, Marta, Marco Guerci, Emanuele Lettieri, and Donald Huisingh. 2019. "Effects of ‘Green’ Training on Pro‐Environmental Behaviors and Job Satisfaction: Evidence from the Italian Healthcare Sector." Journal of Cleaner Production 226 (1): 221‐232.

Pinzone, Marta, Marco Guerci, Emanuele Lettieri, and Tom Redman. 2016. "Progressing in the Change Journey Towards Sustainability in Healthcare: The Role of ‘Green’ HRM." Journal of Cleaner Production 122: 201‐211.

Pitt & Sherry. 2012. Baseline Energy Consumption and Greenhouse Gas Emissions – in Commercial Buildings in Australia. Department of Climate Change and Energy Efficiency.

Plaza‐Úbeda, J. A., J. Burgos‐Jiménez, D. A. Vazquez, and C. Liston‐Heyes. 2009. "The ‘Win–Win’ Paradigm and Stakeholder Integration." Business Strategy and the Environment 18 (8): 487‐499.

Plowright, David. 2011. Using Mixed Methods: Frameworks for an Integrated Methodology. London, UK: Sage Publications.

Podgorodnichenko, Nataliya, Fiona Edgar, and Ian McAndrew. 2019. "The Role of HRM in Developing Sustainable Organizations: Contemporary Challenges and Contradictions." Human Resource Management Review 1 (1): 1‐19.

Podsakoff, Nathan P., Philip M. Podsakoff, Scott B. Mackenzie, Timothy D. Maynes, and Trevor M. Spoelma. 2014. "Consequences of Unit‐Level Organizational Citizenship Behaviors: A Review and Recommendations for Future Research." Journal of Organizational Behavior 35 (S1): 87‐119.

Podsakoff, Philip M., and Scott B. Mackenzie. 1997. "Impact of Organizational Citizenship Behavior on Organizational Performance: A Review and Suggestion for Future Research." Human Performance 10 (2): 133‐151.

Podsakoff, Philip M., Scott B. MacKenzie, and Nathan P. Podsakoff. 2012. "Sources of Method Bias in Social Science Research and Recommendations on How to Control It." Annual Review of Psychology 63 (1): 539‐569.

Porter, Lyman W., Richard M. Steers, Richard T. Mowday, and Paul V. Boulian. 1974. "Organizational Commitment, Job Satisfaction, and Turnover among Psychiatric Technicians." Journal of Applied Psychology 59 (5): 603‐609.

Potbhare, Varun, Matt Syal, and Sinem Korkmaz. 2009. "Adoption of Green Building Guidelines in Developing Countries Based on US and India Experiences." Journal of Green Building 4 (2): 158‐174.

Pratt, M. G. 1998. "To Be or Not to Be?:Central Questions in Organizational Identification." In Identity in Organizations. Edited by D. A. Whetten and P. C. Godfrey. CA, USA: Sage Publications: 171‐208.

Preiser, Wolfgang F. E., Edward White, and Harvey Rabinowitz. 2015. Post‐Occupancy Evaluation. London: Routledge (Routledge Revivals).

Rajaee, Melika, Seyed Mahmoud Hoseini, and Iraj Malekmohammadi. 2019. "Proposing a Socio‐Psychological Model for Adopting Green Building Technologies: A Case Study from Iran." Sustainable Cities and Society 45 (1): 657‐668.

Ramasamy, Adimuthu. 2017. "A Study on Implications of Implementing Green HRM in the Corporate Bodies with Special Reference to Developing Nations." International Journal of Business and Management 12 (9): 117‐129.

Ramus, Catherine A. 2002. "Encouraging Innovative Environmental Actions: What Companies and Managers Must Do." Journal of World Business 37 (2): 151‐164.

321

Ramus, Catherine A., and Ulrich Steger. 2000. "The Roles of Supervisory Support Behaviors and Environmental Policy in Employee “Ecoinitiatives” at Leading‐Edge European Companies." Academy of Management Journal 43 (4): 605‐626.

Rangarajan, Nandhini, and Dianne Rahm. 2011. "Greening Human Resources: A Survey of City‐Level Initiatives." Review of Public Personnel Administration 31 (3): 227‐247.

Rashid, Mahbub, Kent Spreckelmeyer, and Neal J. Angrisano. 2012. "Green Buildings, Environmental Awareness, and Organizational Image." Journal of Corporate Real Estate 14 (1): 21‐49.

Razak, Norjumaaton Fazhani, and Mohamad Fazli Sabri. 2019. "Pro‐Environmental Workplace Intention Behaviour in the Malaysian Public Organization." Asian Social Science 15 (4): 60‐68.

Ren, Shuang, Guiyao Tang, and Susan E. Jackson. 2018. "Green Human Resource Management Research in Emergence: A Review and Future Directions." Asia Pacific Journal of Management 35 (3): 769‐803.

Reno, Raymond R., Robert B. Cialdini, and Carl A. Kallgren. 1993. "The Transsituational Influence of Social Norms." Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 64 (1): 104‐112.

Renwick, Douglas W. S., Charbel J. C. Jabbour, Michael Muller‐Camen, Tom Redman, and Adrian Wilkinson. 2016. "Contemporary Developments in Green (Environmental) HRM Scholarship." The International Journal of Human Resource Management 27 (2): 114‐128.

Renwick, Douglas W. S., Tom Redman, and Stuart Maguire. 2013. "Green Human Resource Management: A Review and Research Agenda." International Journal of Management Reviews 15 (1): 1‐14.

Rhoades, Linda, and Robert Eisenberger. 2002. "Perceived Organizational Support: A Review of the Literature." Journal of Applied Psychology 87 (4): 698‐714.

Rhoades, Linda, Robert Eisenberger, and Stephen Armeli. 2001. "Affective Commitment to the Organization: The Contribution of Perceived Organizational Support." Journal of Applied Psychology 86 (5): 825‐836.

Richards, Lyn. 1999. Using NVivo in Qualitative Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Richardson, Gregory R. A., and Jennifer K. Lynes. 2007. "Institutional Motivations and Barriers to the Construction of Green Buildings on Campus: A Case Study of the University of Waterloo, Ontario." International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education 8 (3): 339‐354.

Ries, Robert, Melissa M. Bilec, Nuri Mehmet Gokhan, and Kim LaScola Needy. 2006. "The Economic Benefits of Green Buildings: A Comprehensive Case Study." The Engineering Economist 51 (3): 259‐295.

Rimanoczy, Isabel, and Tony Pearson. 2010. "Role of HR in the New World of Sustainability." Industrial and Commercial Training 42 (1): 11‐17.

Roberts, C. J., David John Edwards, M. Reza Hosseini, Monica Mateo‐Garcia, and De‐Graft Owusu‐Manu. 2019. "Post‐Occupancy Evaluation: A Review of Literature." Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management 26 (9): 2084‐2106.

Robertson, Jennifer L., and Julian Barling. 2013. "Greening Organizations through Leaders' Influence on Employees' Pro‐Environmental Behaviors." Journal of Organizational Behavior 34 (2): 176‐194.

Rock, Stephanie, M. Reza Hosseini, Bahareh Nikmehr, Igor Martek, Sepehr Abrishami, and Serdar Durdyev. 2019. "Barriers to “Green Operation” of Commercial Office Buildings: Perspectives of Australian Facilities Managers." Facilities 37 (13/14): 1048‐1065.

322

Roetzel, Astrid and Chien‐fei Chen. 2016. "Understanding Architectural and Social‐Psychological Influences on Occupant Behaviour in Commercial Buildings." in ASA 2016 : Revisiting the role of architectural science in design and practice : Proceedings of the 50th International Conference of the Architectural Science Association, University of Adelaide, Adelaide, South Aust., 567‐576.

Ronnenberg, Shannon K., Mary E. Graham, and Farzad Mahmoodi. 2011. "The Important Role of Change Management in Environmental Management System Implementation." International Journal of Operations & Production Management 31 (6): 631‐647.

Roth, Leland M. 2018. Understanding Architecture: Its Elements, History, and Meaning: Routledge.

Rothenberg, Sandra. 2003. "Knowledge Content and Worker Participation in Environmental Management at NUMMI." Journal of Management Studies 40 (7): 1783‐1802.

Rotter, Julian B. 1966. "Generalized Expectancies for Internal versus External Control of Reinforcement." Psychological Monographs: General and Applied 80 (1): 1‐28.

Rousseau, Denise M. 1998. "Why Workers Still Identify with Organizations." Journal of Organizational Behavior 19 (3): 217‐233.

Rousseau, Denise M. 2006. "Is There Such a Thing as “Evidence‐Based Management”?" Academy of Management Review 31 (2): 256‐269.

Rousseau, Denise M., and Judi McLean Parks. 1993. "The Contracts of Individuals and Organizations." Research in Organizational Behavior 15 (1): 1‐1.

Rowley, Jennifer, and Brendan Keegan. 2019. "An Overview of Systematic Literature Reviews in Social Media Marketing." Journal of Information Science 1 (1): 1‐14.

Roy, Marie‐Josée, Olivier Boiral, and Pascal Paillé. 2013. "Pursuing Quality and Environmental Performance." Business Process Management Journal 19 (1): 30‐53.

Russell, Sally V., and Malcolm McIntosh. 2011. "Changing Organizational Culture for Sustainability." In The Handbook of Organizational Culture and Climate. 393‐411. Thousand Oaks, CA : Sage Publications.

Russo, Michael V., and Paul A. Fouts. 1997. "A Resource‐Based Perspective on Corporate Environmental Performance and Profitability." Academy of Management Journal 40 (3): 534‐559.

Ryan, Richard M., Veronika Huta, and Edward L .Deci. 2008. "Living Well: A Self‐Determination Theory Perspective on Eudaimonia." Journal of Happiness Studies 9 (1): 139‐170.

Ryff, Carol D. 1989. "Happiness Is Everything, or Is It? Explorations on the Meaning of Psychological Well‐Being." Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 57 (6): 1069.

Rynes, Sara L., Barry Gerhart, and Kathleen A. Minette. 2004. "The Importance of Pay in Employee Motivation: Discrepancies between What People Say and What They Do." Human Resource Management 43 (4): 381‐394.

Rynes, Sara, and Benson Rosen. 1995. "A Field Survey of Factors Affecting the Adoption and Perceived Success of Diversity Training." Personnel Psychology 48 (2): 247‐270.

Sadatsafavi, Hessam, and John Walewski. 2013. "Corporate Sustainability: The Environmental Design and Human Resource Management Interface in Healthcare Settings." HERD: Health Environments Research & Design Journal 6 (2): 98‐118.

Saeed, Bilal Bin, Bilal Afsar, Shakir Hafeez, Imran Khan, Muhammad Tahir, and Muhammad Asim Afridi. 2019. "Promoting Employee's Proenvironmental Behavior through Green Human Resource Management Practices." Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management 26 (2): 424‐438.

Salancik, G. R., and J. Pfeffer. 1978. "A Social Information Processing Approach to Job Attitudes and Task Design." Administrative Science Quarterly 23 (2): 224‐253.

323

Salkind, Neil J. 2010. Encyclopedia of Research Design. Vol. 1. Los Angeles, CA: Sage Publications.

Sampson, Helen. 2004. "Navigating the Waves: The Usefulness of a Pilot in Qualitative Research." Qualitative Research 4 (3): 383‐402.

Sanders, Karin, and Birgit Schyns. 2006. "Trust, Conflict and Cooperative Behaviour: Considering Reciprocity within Organizations." Personnel Review 35 (5): 508‐518.

Sangle, Shirish. 2010. "Empirical Analysis of Determinants of Adoption of Proactive Environmental Strategies in India." Business Strategy and the Environment 19 (1): 51‐63.

Sarkar, Pradipta, and Leslie Young. 2009. "Managerial Attitudes Towards Green IT: An Explorative Study of Policy Drivers." PACIS [Pacific Asia Conference on Information Systems] Proceedings 1 (1): 95‐109.

Sarkis, Joseph, Pilar Gonzalez‐Torre, and Belarmino Adenso‐Diaz. 2010. "Stakeholder Pressure and the Adoption of Environmental Practices: The Mediating Effect of Training." Journal of Operations Management 28 (2): 163‐176.

Sathyapriya, J., R. Kanimozhi, and V. Adhilakshmi. 2013. "Green HRM – Delivering High Performance HR Systems." International Journal of Marketing and Human Resource Management 4 (2): 19‐25.

Saunders, Mark N. K., Philip Lewis, and Adrian Thornhill. 2011. Research Methods for Business Students. Fifth ed. India: Pearson Education.

Saunders, Mark N. K., Philip Lewis, and Adrian Thornhill. 2009. "Understanding Research Philosophies and Approaches." Research Methods for Business Students 4 (1): 106‐135.

Sawang, Sukanlaya, and Robbert A. Kivits. 2014. "Greener Workplace: Understanding Senior Management's Adoption Decisions through the Theory of Planned Behaviour." Australasian Journal of Environmental Management 21 (1): 22‐36.

Schaufeli, Wilmar B., Isabel M. Martínez, Alexandra Marques Pinto, Marisa Salanova, and Arnold B. Bakker. 2002. "Burnout and Engagement in University Students: A Cross‐National Study." Journal of Cross‐Cultural Psychology 33 (5): 464‐481.

Schelly, Chelsea, Jennifer E. Cross, William S. Franzen, Pete Hall, and Stu Reeve. 2011. "Reducing Energy Consumption and Creating a Conservation Culture in Organizations: A Case Study of One Public School District." Environment and Behavior 43 (3): 316‐343.

Schmidheiny, Stephan. 1992. Changing Course : A Global Business Perspective on Development and the Environment. With the Business Council for Sustainable Development. Cambridge, MA : MIT Press.

Schmidt, Reinhard. 2000. Strategic Human Resources: Frameworks for General Managers. Vol. 52, Schmalenbach Business Review. New Yorkm NY: John Wiley & Sons.

Schramm, Jennifer. 2011. "Advancing Sustainability: HR’s Role. A Research Report by the Society for Human Resource Management." Society for Human Resource Management 1 (1): 18‐24.

Schroeder, Harold. 2013. "The Importance of Human Resource Management in Strategic Sustainability: An Art and Science Perspective." Journal of Environmental Sustainability 2 (2): 75‐82.

Schuler, Randall S., and Susan E. Jackson. 1987. "Linking Competitive Strategies with Human Resource Management Practices." Academy of Management Perspectives 1(3): 207‐219.

Schultz, P. Wesley, Jessica M. Nolan, Robert B. Cialdini, Noah J. Goldstein, and Vladas Griskevicius. 2007. "The Constructive, Destructive, and Reconstructive Power of Social Norms." Psychological Science 18 (5): 429‐434.

324

Schwartz, Tobias, Matthias Betz, Leonardo Ramirez, and Gunnar Stevens. 2010. "Sustainable Energy Practices at Work: Understanding the Role of Workers in Energy Conservation." In Proceedings of the 6th Nordic Conference on Human‐Computer Interaction: Extending Boundaries. Reykjavik, Iceland, 452‐462.

Scott, Sue M. 1995. Institutions and Organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Sekaran, Uma, and R. Bougie. 2011. Business Research Methods: A Skill‐Building Approach.

New York, NY: McGraw‐Hill. Settoon, Randall P., Nathan Bennett, and Robert C. Liden. 1996. "Social Exchange in

Organizations: Perceived Organizational Support, Leader–Member Exchange, and Employee Reciprocity." Journal of Applied Psychology 81 (3): 219‐227.

Shafaghat, ArezouKeyvanfar, AliFerwati, Mohamed SalimAlizadeh, Tooran. 2015. "Enhancing Staff's Satisfaction with Comfort toward Productivity by Sustainable Open Plan Office Design." Sustainable Cities and Society 19 (1): 151‐164.

Shannon, David M., and Carol C. Bradshaw. 2002. "A Comparison of Response Rate, Response Time, and Costs of Mail and Electronic Surveys." The Journal of Experimental Education 70 (2): 179‐192.

Sharma, Meenakshi. 2018. "Development of a ‘Green Building Sustainability Model’ for Green Buildings in India." Journal of Cleaner Production 190 (1): 538‐551.

Sharma, Sanjay, and Harrie Vredenburg. 1998. "Proactive Corporate Environmental Strategy and the Development of Competitively Valuable Organizational Capabilities." Strategic Management Journal 19 (8): 729‐753.

Shaw, Jason D., John E. Delery, G. Douglas Jenkins, and Nina Gupta. 1998. "An Organization‐Level Analysis of Voluntary and Involuntary Turnover." The Academy of Management Journal 41 (5): 511‐525.

Sheehan, Cathy, Marilyn Fenwick, and Peter J. Dowling. 2010. "An Investigation of Paradigm Choice in Australian International Human Resource Management Research." The International Journal of Human Resource Management 21 (11): 1816‐1836.

Shen, Jie, and John Benson. 2016. "When CSR Is a Social Norm: How Socially Responsible Human Resource Management Affects Employee Work Behavior." Journal of Management 42 (6): 1723‐1746.

Shen, Jie, Jenny Dumont, and Xin Deng. 2018. "Employees’ Perceptions of Green HRM and Non‐Green Employee Work Outcomes: The Social Identity and Stakeholder Perspectives." Group & Organization Management 43 (4): 594‐622.

Shen, Jie, and Cherrie Jiuhua Zhu. 2011. "Effects of Socially Responsible Human Resource Management on Employee Organizational Commitment." The International Journal of Human Resource Management 22 (15): 3020‐3035.

Shi, Qian, Jian Zuo, Rui Huang, Jing Huang, and Stephen Pullen. 2013. "Identifying the Critical Factors for Green Construction – An Empirical Study in China." Habitat International 40 (1): 1‐8.

Shrivastava, Paul. 1995. "The Role of Corporations in Achieving Ecological Sustainability." Academy of Management Review 20 (4): 936‐960.

Shuck, Brad, Devon Twyford, Thomas G. Reio, and Angie Shuck. 2014. "Human Resource Development Practices and Employee Engagement: Examining the Connection with Employee Turnover Intentions." Human Resource Development Quarterly 25 (2): 239‐270.

Silverman, David. 2000. Doing Qualitative Research: A Practical Handbook. London, UK: SAGE Publications Limited.

Simpson, D. Dwayne, and Patrick M. Flynn. 2007. "Moving Innovations into Treatment: A Stage‐Based Approach to Program Change." Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment 33 (2): 111‐120.

325

Singh, Amanjeet, Matt Syal, Sue C. Grady, and Sinem Korkmaz. 2010. "Effects of Green Buildings on Employee Health and Productivity." American Journal of Public Health 100 (9): 1665‐1668.

Singh, Amanjeet, Matt Syal, Sinem Korkmaz, and Sue Grady. 2010. "Costs and Benefits of IEQ Improvements in LEED Office Buildings." Journal of Infrastructure Systems 17 (2): 86‐94.

Siva, Vidushini, Thomas Hoppe, and Mansi Jain. 2017. "Green Buildings in Singapore; Analyzing a Frontrunner’s Sectoral Innovation System." Sustainability 9 (6): 1‐27.

Siyambalapitiya, Janaka, Xu Zhang, and Xiaobing Liu. 2018. "Green Human Resource Management: A Proposed Model in the Context of Sri Lanka’s Tourism Industry." Journal of Cleaner Production 201 (1): 542‐555.

Smidts, Ale, Ad Th H. Pruyn, and Cees B. M. van Riel. 2001. "The Impact of Employee Communication and Perceived External Prestige on Organizational Identification." Academy of Management Journal 44 (5): 1051‐1062.

Smith, Andrew, and Michael Pitt. 2009. "Sustainable Workplaces: Improving Staff Health and Well‐Being Using Plants." Journal of Corporate Real Estate 11 (1): 52‐63.

Smith, Andrew, and Michael Pitt. 2011. "Sustainable Workplaces and Building User Comfort and Satisfaction." Journal of Corporate Real Estate 13 (3): 144‐156.

Sniehotta, Falko F., Justin Presseau, and Vera Araújo‐Soares. 2014. "Time to Retire the Theory of Planned Behaviour." Health Psychology Review 8 (1): 1‐7.

Spector, Paul E., Cong Liu, and Juan I. Sanchez. 2015. "Methodological and Substantive Issues in Conducting Multinational and Cross‐Cultural Research." Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior 2 (1): 101‐131.

Stangor, Charles. 2014. Research Methods for the Behavioral Sciences. Canada: Nelson Education.

Steemers, Koen, and Shweta Manchanda. 2010. "Energy Efficient Design and Occupant Well‐Being: Case Studies in the UK and India." Building & Environment 45 (2): 270‐278.

Steg, Linda, and Charles Vlek. 2009. "Encouraging Pro‐Environmental Behaviour: An Integrative Review and Research Agenda." Journal of Environmental Psychology 29 (3): 309‐317.

Steinberg, Deborah, Melissa Patchan, Christian Schunn, and Amy Landis. 2009. "Developing a Focus for Green Building Occupant Training Materials." Journal of Green Building 4 (2): 175‐184.

Steinemann, Anne, Pawel Wargocki, and Behzad Rismanchi. 2017. "Ten Questions Concerning Green Buildings and Indoor Air Quality." Building and Environment 112 (1): 351‐358.

Steinmetz, Holger. 2013. "Analyzing Observed Composite Differences across Groups: Is Partial Measurement Invariance Enough?" Methodology: European Journal of Research Methods for the Behavioral and Social Sciences 9 (1): 1‐12.

Stern, Paul C. 2000. "New Environmental Theories: Toward a Coherent Theory of Environmentally Significant Behavior." Journal of Social Issues 56 (3): 407‐424.

Stern, Paul, Thomas Dietz, Troy Abel, Gregory Guagnano, and Linda Kalof. 1999. "A Value‐Belief‐Norm Theory of Support for Social Movements: The Case of Environmentalism." Human Ecology Review 6 (2): 81‐81.

Stern, Paul C., Thomas Dietz, and Linda Kalof. 1993. "Value Orientations, Gender, and Environmental Concern." Environment and Behavior 25 (5): 322‐348.

Stevens, James. 2009. Applied Multivariate Statistics for the Social Sciences. Fifth ed. New York, NY: Routledge.

326

Storey, John. 1989. "Introduction: From Personnel Management to Human Resource Management." In New Perspectives on Human Resource Management. London, UK: Routledge: 18.

Strauss, Anselm, and Juliet Corbin. 1998. Basics of Qualitative Research: Procedures and Techniques for Developing Grounded Theory. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Stuckey, Heather L. 2013. "Three Types of Interviews: Qualitative Research Methods in Social Health." Journal of Social Health and Diabetes 1 (2): 056‐059.

Subramanian, Nachiappan, Muhammad D. Abdulrahman, Lin Wu, and Prithwiraj Nath. 2016. "Green Competence Framework: Evidence from China." The International Journal of Human Resource Management 27 (2): 151‐172.

Sutton, Jane, and Zubin Austin. 2015. "Qualitative Research: Data Collection, Analysis, and Management." The Canadian Journal of Hospital Pharmacy 68 (3): 226‐231.

Swinerd, Chris, and Ken R. McNaught. 2015. "Comparing a Simulation Model with Various Analytic Models of the International Diffusion of Consumer Technology." Technological Forecasting & Social Change 100 (1): 330‐343.

Tabachnick, Barbara G., and Linda S. Fidell. 2007. Using Multivariate Statistics. Edited by Linda S. Fidell. Fifth ed. Boston, MA: Pearson Education.

Tajfel, Henri, M. G. Billig, R. P. Bundy, and Claude Flament. 1971. "Social Categorization and Intergroup Behaviour." European Journal of Social Psychology 1 (2): 149‐178.

Tajfel, Henri, John C. Turner, William G. Austin, and Stephen Worchel. 1979. "An Integrative Theory of Intergroup Conflict." Organizational identity: A Reader 1 (1): 56‐65.

Tam, Vivian W. Y. 2007. "The Effectiveness of the Green Building Evaluation and Labelling System." Architectural Science Review 50 (4): 323‐330.

Tang, Guiyao, Yang Chen, Yuan Jiang, Pascal Paille, and Jin Jia. 2018. "Green Human Resource Management Practices: Scale Development and Validity." Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources 56 (1): 31‐55.

Tashakkori, Abbas, and John W. Creswell. 2007. The New Era of Mixed Methods. CA, USA: Sage Publications.

Tashakkori, Abbas, and Charles Teddlie. 1998. Mixed Methodology: Combining Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches. Vol. 46. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Tashakkori, Abbas, and Charles Teddlie. 2003. Handbook on Mixed Methods in the Behavioral and Social Sciences. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Tashakkori, Abbas, and Charles Teddlie. 2013. Handbook of Mixed Methods in Social & Behavioral Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Tashakkori, Abbas, Charles Teddlie, and Marylyn C. Sines. 2012. "Utilizing Mixed Methods in Psychological Research." In Handbook of Psychology. 428‐450.

Teddlie, Charles, and Abbas Tashakkori. 2003. "Major Issues and Controversies Inthe Use of Mixed Methods in the Social and Behavioral Sciences." Handbook of Mixed Methods in Social & Behavioral Research 1 (1): 13‐50.

Teddlie, Charles, and Abbas Tashakkori. 2012. "Common “Core” Characteristics of Mixed Methods Research: A Review of Critical Issues and Call for Greater Convergence." American Behavioral Scientist 56 (6): 774‐788.

Teddlie, Charles, and Fen Yu. 2007. "Mixed Methods Sampling: A Typology with Examples." Journal of Mixed Methods Research 1 (1): 77‐100.

Teece, David J., Gary Pisano, and Amy Shuen. 1997. "Dynamic Capabilities and Strategic Management." Strategic Management Journal 18 (7): 509‐533.

Teixeira, Adriano Alves, Charbel José Chiappetta Jabbour, and Ana Beatriz Lopes de Sousa Jabbour. 2012. "Relationship between Green Management and Environmental Training in Companies Located in Brazil: A Theoretical Framework and Case Studies." International Journal of Production Economics 140 (1): 318‐329.

327

Teixeira, Adriano Alves, Charbel Jose Chiappetta Jabbour, Ana Beatriz Lopes de Sousa Jabbour, Hengky Latan, and Jorge Henrique Caldeira De Oliveira. 2016. "Green Training and Green Supply Chain Management: Evidence from Brazilian Firms." Journal of Cleaner Production 116 (1): 170‐176.

Temminck, Elisha, Kathryn Mearns, and Laura Fruhen. 2015. "Motivating Employees Towards Sustainable Behaviour." Business Strategy and the Environment 24 (6): 402‐412.

Tezel, Ecem, and Heyecan Giritli. 2019. "Understanding Pro‐Environmental Workplace Behavior: A Comparative Study." Facilities 37 (9/10): 669‐683.

Thatcher, Andrew, and Karen Milner. 2012. "The Impact of a ‘Green’ Building on Employees’ Physical and Psychological Wellbeing." Work 41 (1): 3816‐3823.

Thatcher, Andrew, and Karen Milner. 2014. "Changes in Productivity, Psychological Wellbeing and Physical Wellbeing from Working in a 'Green' Building." Work 49 (3): 381‐393.

Thatcher, Andrew, and Karen Milner. 2016. "Is a Green Building Really Better for Building Occupants? A Longitudinal Evaluation." Building and Environment 108 (1): 194‐206.

Thiel, Cassandra L., Kim LaScola Needy, Robert Ries, Diane Hupp, and Melissa M. Bilec. 2014. "Building Design and Performance: A Comparative Longitudinal Assessment of a Children's Hospital." Building & Environment 78 (1): 130‐136.

Thøgersen, John. 1995. "Understanding of Consumer Behaviour as a Prerequisite for Environmental Protection." Journal of Consumer Policy 18 (4): 345‐385.

Thøgersen, John. 1996. "Recycling and Morality: A Critical Review of the Literature." Environment and Behavior 28 (4): 536‐558.

Thomas, Leena E. 2010. "Evaluating Design Strategies, Performance and Occupant Satisfaction: A Low Carbon Office Refurbishment." Building Research & Information 38 (6): 610‐624.

Thomas, R. Murray. 2003. Blending Qualitative and Quantitative Research Methods in Theses and Dissertations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

To, Wai‐Ming, Peter K. C. Lee, and King‐Hang Lam. 2018. "Building Professionals’ Intention to Use Smart and Sustainable Building Technologies – An Empirical Study." PloS one 13 (8): 1‐17.

Todnem By, Rune. 2005. "Organisational Change Management: A Critical Review." Journal of Change Management 5 (4): 369‐380.

Trafimow, David, and Krystina A. Finlay. 1996. "The Importance of Subjective Norms for a Minority of People: Between‐Subjects and Within‐Subjects Analyses." Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 22 (8): 820‐828.

Tranfield, David, David Denyer, and Palminder Smart. 2003. "Towards a Methodology for Developing Evidence‐Informed Management Knowledge by Means of Systematic Review." British Journal of Management 14 (3): 207‐222.

Triandis, Harry Charalambos. 1977. Interpersonal Behavior: Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole Publishing Company.

Tsui, Anne, and Duanxu Wang. 2002. "Employment Relationships from the Employer's Perspective: Current Research and Future Directions." International Review of Industrial and Organizational Psychology 17 (1): 77‐114.

Tucker, Ledyard R., and Charles Lewis. 1973. "A Reliability Coefficient for Maximum Likelihood Factor Analysis." Psychometrika 38 (1): 1‐10.

Tucker, Matthew, and Andrew Smith. 2008. "User Perceptions in Workplace Productivity and Strategic FM Delivery." Facilities 26 (5/6): 196‐212.

Tudor, Terry L., Stewart W. Barr, and Andrew W. Gilg. 2008. "A Novel Conceptual Framework for Examining Environmental Behavior in Large Organizations: A Case

328

Study of the Cornwall National Health Service (NHS) in the United Kingdom." Environment and Behavior 40 (3): 426‐450.

Turban, Daniel, and Daniel Greening. 1997. "Corporate Social Performance and Organizational Attractiveness to Prospective Employees." Academy of Management Journal 40 (3): 658‐672. https://doi.org/10.2307/257057.

Tyler, Tom R. 2003. "Trust within Organisations." Personnel Review 32 (5): 556‐568. Uddin, Maeen. 2018. "Practicality of Green Human Resource Management Practices:

A Study on Banking Sector in Bangladesh." International Journal of Economics, Commerce and Management VI (6): 382‐393.

Ullah, Mamin. 2017. "Integrating Environmental Sustainability into Human Resource Management: A Comprehensive Review on Green Human Resource Management." Maghreb Review of Economics and Management 423 (4167): 1‐17.

Uman, Lindsay S. 2011. "Systematic Reviews and Meta‐Analyses." Journal of the Canadian Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry 20 (1): 57‐59.

UN (United Nations). 2017. Towards a Zero‐Emission, Efficient, and Resilient Buildings and Construction Sector. Global Status Report 2017. https://doi.org/https://www.worldgbc.org/sites/default/files/UNEP%20188 GABCen%20%28web%29.pdf.

Unsworth, Kerrie L., Alina Dmitrieva, and Elisa Adriasola. 2013. "Changing Behaviour: Increasing the Effectiveness of Workplace Interventions in Creating Pro‐Environmental Behaviour Change." Journal of Organizational Behavior 34 (2): 211‐229.

Urbaniak, Bogusława. 2017. "Colorful Human Resource Management: What Are We Talking About?" Human Resource Management/Zarzadzanie Zasobami Ludzkimi 119 (6): 9‐19.

USEPA (US Environmental Protection Agency). 2016. "Definition of Green Building." Accessed October 11, 2019.

Uysal, Gürhan. 2013. "Dimensions of American SHRM: Human Capital, HR Systems and Firm Performance." Journal of US‐China Public Administration 10 (7): 720‐726.

Valle, R., and A. Junghans. 2014. "Mind the Gap between Sustainable Design and Facilities Management." In Ework and Ebusiness in Architecture, Engineering and Construction: ECPPM [European Conference on Product and Process Modelling] 2014. 221‐231. Vienna, Austria.

Valois, Pierre, Raymond Desharnais, and Gaston Godin. 1988. "A Comparison of the Fishbein and Ajzen and the Triandis Attitudinal Models for the Prediction of Exercise Intention and Behavior." Journal of Behavioral Medicine 11 (5): 459‐472.

Van de Mortel, T. F. 2008. "Faking It: Social Desirability Response Bias in Self‐Report Research." Australian Journal of Advanced Nursing 25 (4): 40‐48.

Van De Voorde, Karina, Jaap Paauwe, and Marc Van Veldhoven. 2012. "Employee Well‐Being and the HRM–Organizational Performance Relationship: A Review of Quantitative Studies." International Journal of Management Reviews 14 (4): 391‐407.

Van Den Bergh, Jeroen C. J. M., Ada Ferrer‐i‐Carbonell, and Giuseppe Munda. 2000. "Alternative Models of Individual Behaviour and Implications for Environmental Policy." Ecological Economics 32 (1): 43‐61.

Van Dick, Rolf, Oliver Christ, Jost Stellmacher, Ulrich Wagner, Oliver Ahlswede, Cornelia Grubba, Martin Hauptmeier, Corinna Hoehfeld, Kai Moltzen, and Patrick A. Tissington. 2004. "Should I Stay or Should I Go? Explaining Turnover Intentions with Organizational Identification and Job Satisfaction." British Journal of Management 15 (4): 351‐360.

329

Van Dick, Rolf, Michael W. Grojean, Oliver Christ, and Jan Wieseke. 2006. "Identity and the Extra Mile: Relationships between Organizational Identification and Organizational Citizenship Behaviour." British Journal of Management 17 (4): 283‐301.

Van Knippenberg, Daan. 2000. "Work Motivation and Performance: A Social Identity Perspective." Applied Psychology 49 (3): 357‐371.

Van Knippenberg, Daan, Rolf Van Dick, and Susana Tavares. 2007. "Social Identity and Social Exchange: Identification, Support, and Withdrawal from the Job." Journal of Applied Social Psychology 37 (3): 457‐477. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559‐1816.2007.00168.x.

Van Knippenberg, Daan, Jan‐Willem van Prooijen, and Ed Sleebos. 2015. "Beyond Social Exchange: Collectivism's Moderating Role in the Relationship between Perceived Organizational Support and Organizational Citizenship Behaviour." European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology 24 (1): 152‐160.

Van Scotter, James R., Stephan J. Motowidlo, and Thomas C. Cross. 2000. "Effects of Task Performance and Contextual Performance on Systemic Rewards." Journal of Applied Psychology 85 (4): 526‐535.

Vandyne, Linn, Larry L. Cummings, and J. McLean Parks. 1995. "Extra‐Role Behaviors‐in Pursuit of Construct and Definitional Clarity (a Bridge over Muddied Waters)." Research in Organisational Behaviour: An Annual Series of Analytical Essays and Critical Reviews 17 (1): 215‐285.

VanVoorhis, C. R. Wilson, and Betsy L. Morgan. 2007. "Understanding Power and Rules of Thumb for Determining Sample Sizes." Tutorials in Quantitative Methods for Psychology 3 (2): 43‐50.

Venkatesh, Viswanath, Michael G. Morris, Gordon B. Davis, and Fred D. Davis. 2003. "User Acceptance of Information Technology: Toward a Unified View." MIS Quarterly 27 (3): 425‐478.

Verplanken, Bas, and Deborah Roy. 2016. "Empowering Interventions to Promote Sustainable Lifestyles: Testing the Habit Discontinuity Hypothesis in a Field Experiment." Journal of Environmental Psychology 45 (1): 127‐134.

Vischer, Jacqueline C. 2007. "The Effects of the Physical Environment on Job Performance: Towards a Theoretical Model of Workspace Stress." Stress and Health 23 (3): 175‐184.

Vischer, Jacqueline C. 2008. "Towards an Environmental Psychology of Workspace: How People Are Affected by Environments for Work." Architectural Science Review 51 (2): 97‐108.

Vroom, Victor Harold. 1964. Work and Motivation. New York, NY: Wiley. Wagner, Marcus. 2011. "Environmental Management Activities and Sustainable HRM in

German Manufacturing Firms – Incidence, Determinants, and Outcomes." German Journal of Human Resource Management/Zeitschrift für Personalforschung 25 (2): 157‐177.

Walker, Matthew B., Steven Salaga, and Haylee Mercado. 2016. "Determinants of Managerial Engagement in Environmental Responsibility in the Public Assembly Facility Sector." Management Decision 54 (8): 2084‐2102.

Walz, Sandra M., and Brian P. Niehoff. 2000. "Organizational Citizenship Behaviors: Their Relationship to Organizational Effectiveness." Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research 24 (3): 301‐319.

Wan‐Huggins, Veronica N., Christine M. Riordan, and Rodger W. Griffeth. 1998. "The Development and Longitudinal Test of a Model of Organizational Identification." Journal of Applied Social Psychology 28 (8): 724‐749.

330

Wang, Zhe, Richard de Dear, Maohui Luo, Borong Lin, Yingdong He, Ali Ghahramani, and Yingxin Zhu. 2018. "Individual Difference in Thermal Comfort: A Literature Review." Building and Environment 138 (1): 181‐193.

Warren, Clive. 2010. "The Facilities Manager Preparing for Climate Change Related Disaster." Facilities 28 (11/12): 502‐513.

Warren, Clive. 2018. "Building Energy Efficiency Certificates and Commercial Property." In Routledge Handbook of Sustainable Real Estate. New York, NY: Routledge

Warren‐Myers, Georgia. 2013. "Is the Valuer the Barrier to Identifying the Value of Sustainability?" Journal of Property Investment & Finance 31 (4): 345‐359.

Waterman, Alan S., Seth J. Schwartz, and Regina Conti. 2008. "The Implications of Two Conceptions of Happiness (Hedonic Enjoyment and Eudaimonia) for the Understanding of Intrinsic Motivation." Journal of Happiness Studies 9 (1): 41‐79.

Wayne, Sandy, Lynn Shore, and Robert Linden. 1997. "Perceived Organizational Support and Leader‐Member Exchange: A Social Exchange Perspective." Academy of Management Journal 40 (1): 82‐111.

Webb, Dave, Geoffrey N. Soutar, Tim Mazzarol, and Patricia Saldaris. 2013. "Self‐Determination Theory and Consumer Behavioural Change: Evidence from a Household Energy‐Saving Behaviour Study." Journal of Environmental Psychology 35 (1): 59‐66.

Wegge, Jürgen, Rolf Van Dick, Gary K. Fisher, Christiane Wecking, and Kai Moltzen. 2006. "Work Motivation, Organisational Identification, and Well‐Being in Call Centre Work." Work & Stress 20 (1): 60‐83.

Wehrmeyer, Walter. 1996. "Identification and Relevance of Environmental Corporate Cultures as Part of a Coherent Environmental Policy." Greening People: Human Resources and Environmental Management 1 (39): 163‐185.

Wehrmeyer, Walter. 2017. Greening People: Human Resources and Environmental Management. London and New York: Routledge.

Weigel, Russell H., and Lee S. Newman. 1976. "Increasing Attitude‐Behavior Correspondence by Broadening the Scope of the Behavioral Measure." Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 33 (6): 793‐802.

Weldon, Elizabeth. 2000. "The Development of Product and Process Improvements in Work Groups." Group & Organization Management 25 (3): 244‐268.

Wellard, Sally, and Lisa McKenna. 2001. "Turning Tapes into Text: Issues Surrounding the Transcription of Interviews." Contemporary Nurse 11 (2‐3): 180‐186.

Wener, Richard, and Hannah Carmalt. 2006. "Environmental Psychology and Sustainability in High‐Rise Structures." Technology in Society 28 (1‐2): 157‐167.

WGBC (World Green Building Council). 2017. "What is Green Building?" Accessed October 11, 2019.

Wiernik, Brenton M., Deniz S. Ones, Stephan Dilchert, and Rachael M. Klein. 2018. "Individual Antecedents of Pro‐Environmental Behaviours: Implications for Employee Green Behaviours." In Research Handbook on Employee Pro‐Environmental Behaviour. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing.

Wiethoff, Carolyn. 2004. "Motivation to Learn and Diversity Training: Application of the Theory of Planned Behavior." Human Resource Development Quarterly 15 (3): 263‐278.

Wilkinson, Adrian, Malcolm Hill, and Paul Gollan. 2001. "The Sustainability Debate." International Journal of Operations & Production Management 21 (12): 1492‐1502.

Williams, Larry J., and Stella E. Anderson. 1991. "Job Satisfaction and Organizational Commitment as Predictors of Organizational Citizenship and In‐Role Behaviors." Journal of Management 17 (3): 601‐617.

331

Willis, Jerry W., and Muktha Jost. 2007. Foundations of Qualitative Research: Interpretive and Critical Approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Willness, Chelsea, and David Jones. 2013. "Corporate Environmental Sustainability and Employee Recruitment: Leveraging ”Green” Business Practices to Attract Talent." In Green Organizations: Driving Change with I‐O Psychology. 231‐251. New York and London: Routledge.

Wilson, John L., and Emilia Tagaza. 2006. "Green Buildings in Australia: Drivers and Barriers." Australian Journal of Structural Engineering 7 (1): 57‐63.

Wright, Patrick M., Timothy M. Gardner, Lisa M. Moynihan, and Mathew R. Allen. 2005. "The Relationship between HR Practices and Firm Performance: Examining Causal Order." Personnel Psychology 58 (2): 409‐446.

Wright, Thomas A., and Russell Cropanzano. 2000. "Psychological Well‐Being and Job Satisfaction as Predictors of Job Performance." Journal of Occupational Health Psychology 5 (1): 84‐94.

Wu, Susie Ruqun, Peilei Fan, and Jiquan Chen. 2016. "Incorporating Culture into Sustainable Development: A Cultural Sustainability Index Framework for Green Buildings." Sustainable Development 24 (1): 64‐76.

Wu, Susie Ruqun, Martin Greaves, Jiquan Chen, and Sue C. Grady. 2017. "Green Buildings Need Green Occupants: A Research Framework through the Lens of the Theory of Planned Behaviour." Architectural Science Review 60 (1): 5‐14.

Xiao, Jing, and Haifeng Li. 2011. "Sustainable Consumption and Life Satisfaction." An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality‐of‐Life Measurement 104 (2): 323‐329.

Xie, Hongjie, Derek Clements‐Croome, and Qiankun Wang. 2017. "Move Beyond Green Building: A Focus on Healthy, Comfortable, Sustainable and Aesthetical Architecture." Intelligent Buildings International 9 (2): 88‐96.

Xiong, Youyou, Uta Krogmann, Gediminas Mainelis, Lisa A. Rodenburg, and Clinton J. Andrews. 2015. "Indoor Air Quality in Green Buildings: A Case‐Study in a Residential High‐Rise Building in the Northeastern United States." Journal of Environmental Science and Health, Part A 50 (3): 225‐242.

Xuan, Xiaodong. 2018. "Study of Indoor Environmental Quality and Occupant Overall Comfort and Productivity in LEED‐and Non‐LEED–Certified Healthcare Settings." Indoor and Built Environment 27 (4): 544‐560.

Xue, Fei, Zhonghua Gou, and Stephen Lau. 2016. "Human Factors in Green Office Building Design: The Impact of Workplace Green Features on Health Perceptions in High‐Rise High‐Density Asian Cities." Sustainability 8 (11): 1‐16.

Yang, Rebecca J., and Patrick X. W. Zou. 2014. "Stakeholder‐Associated Risks and Their Interactions in Complex Green Building Projects: A Social Network Model." Building and Environment 73: 208‐222.

Yau, Oliver H. M. 1988. "Chinese Cultural Values: Their Dimensions and Marketing Implications." European Journal of Marketing 22 (5): 44‐57.

Yen, Chang‐Hua, Chien‐Yu Chen, and Hsiu‐Yu Teng. 2013. "Perceptions of Environmental Management and Employee Job Attitudes in Hotel Firms." Journal of Human Resources in Hospitality & Tourism 12 (2): 155‐174.

Yin, Robert K. 2006. "Mixed Methods Research: Are the Methods Genuinely Integrated or Merely Parallel?" Research in the Schools 13 (1): 41‐47.

Yin, Robert K. 2011. Qualitative Research from Start to Finish. New York, NY: Guilford Publications.

Yin, Robert K. 2013. Essential Guide to Qualitative Methods in Organizational Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

332

Yong, Jing Yi, and Yusliza Mohd‐Yusoff. 2016. "Studying the Influence of Strategic Human Resource Competencies on the Adoption of Green Human Resource Management Practices." Industrial and Commercial Training 48 (8): 416‐422.

Youndt, Mark A., Scott A. Snell, James W. Dean, and David P. Lepak. 1996. "Human Resource Management, Manufacturing Strategy, and Firm Performance." The Academy of Management Journal 39 (4): 836‐866.

Yu, Wantao, and Ramakrishnan Ramanathan. 2015. "An Empirical Examination of Stakeholder Pressures, Green Operations Practices and Environmental Performance." International Journal of Production Research 53 (21): 6390‐6407.

Yudelson, Jerry. 2008. The Green Building Revolution. Washington, DC: Island Press. Yusliza, Mohd‐Yusoff, Nur Zahiyah Othman, and Charbel Jose Chiappetta Jabbour. 2017.

"Deciphering the Implementation of Green Human Resource Management in an Emerging Economy." The Journal of Management Development. 36 (10): 1230‐1246.

Yusoff, Yusliza M., T. Ramayah, and Nur‐Zahiyah Othman. 2015. "Why Examining Adoption Factors, HR Role and Attitude Towards Using E‐HRM Is the Start‐Off in Determining the Successfulness of Green HRM." Journal of Advanced Management Science 3 (4): 337‐343.

Zacharatos, Anthea, Julian Barling, and Roderick D. Iverson. 2005. "High‐Performance Work Systems and Occupational Safety." Journal of Applied Psychology 90 (1): 77‐93.

Zaki, Nur Aina Binti Mohd, and Irmawati Norazman. 2019. "The Relationship between Employee Motivation Towards Green HRM Mediates by Green Employee Empowerment: A Systematic Review and Conceptual Analysis." Journal of Research in Psychology 1 (2): 6‐9.

Zhang, Jingxiao, Hui Li, Ayokunle Olubunmi Olanipekun, and Li Bai. 2019. "A Successful Delivery Process of Green Buildings: The Project Owners’ View, Motivation and Commitment." Renewable Energy 138 (1): 651‐658.

Zhang, Li, Jing Wu, and Hongyu Liu. 2018. "Turning Green into Gold: A Review on the Economics of Green Buildings." Journal of Cleaner Production 172: 2234‐2245.

Zhao, Dong‐Xue, Bao‐Jie He, Christine Johnson, and Ben Mou. 2015. "Social Problems of Green Buildings: From the Humanistic Needs to Social Acceptance." Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 51: 1594‐1609.

Zhao, Xianbo, Bon‐Gang Hwang, and Hong Ning Lee. 2016. "Identifying Critical Leadership Styles of Project Managers for Green Building Projects." International Journal of Construction Management 16 (2): 150‐160.

Zhu, Qinghua, and Joseph Sarkis. 2004. "Relationships between Operational Practices and Performance among Early Adopters of Green Supply Chain Management Practices in Chinese Manufacturing Enterprises." Journal of Operations Management 22 (3): 265‐289.

Zibarras, Lara D., and Phillipa Coan. 2015. "HRM Practices Used to Promote Pro‐Environmental Behavior: A UK Survey." The International Journal of Human Resource Management 26 (16): 2121‐2142.

Zimring, Craig M., and Janet E. Reizenstein. 1980. "Post‐Occupancy Evaluation: An Overview." Environment and Behavior 12 (4): 429‐450.

Zohar, Dov, and Gil Luria. 2005. "A Multilevel Model of Safety Climate: Cross‐Level Relationships between Organization and Group‐Level Climates." Journal of Applied Psychology 90 (4): 616‐628.

Zoogah, David B. 2011. "The Dynamics of Green HRM Behaviors: A Cognitive Social Information Processing Approach." German Journal of Human Resource Management 25 (2): 117‐139.

333

Zubair, Syed Sohaib, and Mukaram Khan. 2019. "Sustainable Development: The Role of Green HRM." International Journal of Research in Human Resource Management 1 (2): 1‐6.

Zuo, Jian, and Zhen‐Yu Zhao. 2014. "Green Building Research – Current Status and Future Agenda: A Review." Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 30 (1): 271‐281.

Zuo, Qun, and Eileen E. MaloneBeach. 2017. "Assessing Staff Satisfaction with Indoor Environmental Quality in Assisted Living Facilities." Journal of Interior Design 42 (1): 67‐84.

“Every reasonable effort has been made to acknowledge the owners of copyright material. I would be pleased to hear from any copyright owner who has been omitted or incorrectly acknowledged.”

334

APPENDICES

Appendix 1: Consent Form for Survey

Welcome Purpose of study and Identification of Investigators

This study examines the effect of green buildings on employee well-being, productivity and performance. The study is being carried out by Curtin University and funded by the Co-operative Research Centre for Low Carbon Living. You are invited to participate in this research and to share your experiences with the green building.

Research objectives

a) To explore the relationship between green buildings and well-being of office occupants b) To understand how green workplaces can impact on employees’ productivity and business performance c) To identify the influences on employees’ behaviours and attitudes towards green buildings

Participants’ rights Your participation in the study is entirely voluntary. The participant information statement will inform you about this research. At any time, you are free to choose not to participate. There will be no negative consequences if you decide to leave, and you can take any of the information you have provided with you if you so wish.

Participation procedures If you decide to take part in the research study, you will be asked to complete an online questionnaire about your satisfaction and productivity level in your office. This should take between 15-20 minutes to complete.

Costs and payment to the participants There are no costs associated with participating in this research study nor will you be paid.

Risks and benefits of participation There are no known risks to the participants. The information obtained from this study generates feedback on the performance of buildings from their occupants’ perspective and can inform future building design.

HREC Project Number

Project Title Effect of green building on employee performance, productivity and well-being

Principle Investigator

Kerry Brown, Professor, School of Management, Curtin Business School ([email protected])

Student Researcher

Subhadarsini Parida

Version Number 1 Version Date 02/09/2016

335

Confidentiality The results from this research study will be strictly confidential and will be used to obtain a Doctor of Philosophy at Curtin University. Only the researchers will have access to information, no names will be mentioned in the research report and the information will be coded. Aggregate data will be presented or/and published representing generalisations about the responses as a whole and the individual respondent’s identity will be kept anonymous.

Verification of the study The ethical aspects of this research project have been approved by the Curtin University Human Research Ethics Committee. If needed, verification of approval or a confidential complaint can be made to the Ethics Officer on (08) 9266 9223 or the Manager, Research Integrity on (08) 9266 7093 or by emailing [email protected].

Questions about the study and further communication If you have questions or concerns about this research study, you can contact Kerry Brown, the Principal Investigator via email: ([email protected]) or the student researcher Subha Parida via email ([email protected]). If you wish to be contacted on future research or to obtain the overall results, please specify your email below. Email ID: ______________________________________ The results will not be individual but based on all the information we collect and review as part of the research.

Declaration by the participant By clicking start, I give my consent to my participation in this project. In giving my consent, I acknowledge that:

The procedures required for the project and the time involved have been explained to me, and any questions I have about the project have been answered to my satisfaction.

I have read the Participant Consent Form and have been given the opportunity to discuss the information and my involvement in the project with the researcher/s.

I understand that being in this study is completely voluntary – I am not under any obligation to consent.

I understand that my involvement is confidential. I understand that any research data gathered from the results of the study may be shared and published; however, no information about me will be used in any way that is identifiable.

I understand that I can withdraw from the study at any time, without affecting my relationship with the researcher(s) or the university now or in the future.

I understand that I can stop the questionnaire at any time if I do not wish to continue, and the information provided will not be included in the study.

I understand that this project has been approved by Curtin University Human Research Ethics Committee and will be carried out in line with the National Statement on Ethical Conduct in Human Research (2007)

340

Do you think your building is an environmentally friendly or certified green building? Yes (1) No (2) Do you think your organisation is in an environmentally friendly or certified green building?

Yes (1) No (2) How long have you been working in this building?

Less than a year (1) A year or more (2)

How long do you spend in the building during the day ?

Less than an hour (1) 1-2 hours (2) 3-4 hours (3) 5 or more hours (4)

Additional comments: _______________________ How often in a week do you work in this building?

Less than three days (1) Three days (2) Four days (3) Five days (4) More than five days (5)

Do you regularly work at home during normal work hours? Yes (1) No (2)

If yes, how often do you work at home? ______________________________________ Which one of the following best describes the type of work you do? Managerial (1) Professional (2) Support staff (3) Clerical (4) Others, (5) Please specify: ________________________________ How old are you? 15-19 (1) 20-24 (2) 25-29(3) 30-34(4) 35-39(5) 40-44(6) 45-49(7) 50-54(8) Older than 55 years (9)

341

How do you rate your lifestyle? Very active (1) Somewhat active (2) Sedentary (3) Which racial ethnicity/cultural groups do you identify with the most? Prefer not to say (1) If you prefer to say (Please specify): _______________________________________ Please specify your gender Male (1) Female (2) Prefer not to say (3) Is there anything else you would like to say about the environmental practices in your workplace or building?

345

How long have you been working in this building?

Less than a year (1) A year or more (2) How long do you spend in the building during the day? Additional comments: _______________________

How often in a week do you work in this building? Do you regularly work at home during normal work hours? Yes (1) No (0) R8 If yes, how often do you work at home? ____________________________ Which one of the following best describes the type of work you do? Managerial (1) Professional (2) Support Staff (3) Clerical (4) Others (5), please specify: ________________________________ How old are you? How do you rate your lifestyle? Very active (1) Somewhat active (2) Sedentary (3) Which cultural group(s) do you identify with the most?

Prefer not to say (1) If you prefer to say (2) (Please specify): _______________________________________

Please specify your gender Male (1) Female (2) Prefer not to say (3) Is there anything else you would like to say about the environmental practices in your workplace or building? _______________________________________

Less than an hour (1) 1-2 hours (2)

3-4 hours (3) 5 or more hours (4)

Less than three days (1) Three days (2) Four days (3)

Five days (4) More than five days 5)

15-19 (1) 20-24 (2) 25-29 (3)

30-34 (4) 35-39 (5) 40-44 (6)

45-49 (7) 50-54 (8) Older than 55 years (9)

346

Appendix 4: Interview Guide

5. Do you identify yourself as working for an environmentally friendly organisation

Yes/No. Why do you think so? Are there any written policies, corporate strategy to implement environmental practices?

6. Who would you say is the driving force behind the green practices within any organisation?

Top management/middle management or employees?

7. How does your institution practise sustainable practices?

Any examples of encouraging public transport use, managing trash, conserving energy and water? Is it helpful to you? Or forced?

What category do you want to put most of the practices into: recycle, reuse, reduce, renew or being eco-responsible?

8. Does your company intend to further expand the implementation of green practices in future?

What is the additional aspect of green practices they should be working on?

9. How would you describe the meaning of the term ‘sustainable green business practices’ in your organisation?

10. What are the specific procedures that you practise in the areas of waste management, resource conservation, energy efficiency and/or materials usage at your workplace?

Any examples?

11. Where do you get your ideas for green practices?

Is it from the organisation policy, manager, HR, or your own motivation

12. How comfortable is your workplace? Is it due to a sustainable green practice culture at your workplace?

Can you please elaborate with examples?

13. Do you know of any HR strategies that have been applied to motivate employees to use green practices

Have you tried searching for one?

14. Has your company provided volunteering opportunities to engage in environmental sustainability projects/events

What was your role? Self-managed teams or green teams?

Did you find yourself more satisfied from engaging in those events?

15. Was there any information about environmental sustainability policies and practices from your company when you joined?

If yes, at what stage: Before you joined? At interview stage? During induction?

Main questions Additional questions Clarifying questions 1. What does environmental sustainability

mean to you? Give examples from: - Personal life - Professional life

Are you motivated more to environmental sustainability in your professional or personal life?

2. Is environmental sustainability significant for you?

Yes/No? Why do you think so?

3. How important do you think is eco-sustainability at workplaces? Rate 1-5 (1 less significant and 5 being most significant)

Why do you think so?

4. What is in your opinion/from your experience the main benefit in implementing environmental sustainability practices at workplaces

Do you have any concrete examples on that?

347

16. Do you think you have a green culture at your organisation?

17. Are you or other employees given any training to be environmentally friendly at work

Is it a part of your professional development?

Were these voluntary or compulsory workshops?

18. Are you or other employees rewarded or compensated for any green practices?

Is it more monetary or non-monetary?

19. How do you prioritise green practices based on their perceived benefits, for example, green buildings, green offices

20. Is there anything else you would like to comment on that I haven’t addressed in

348

Appendix 5: Consent Form for Semi-Structured Interview

Topic: Employee attitudes and behaviours related to environmental sustainability in offices Identification of investigators and purpose of study Thank you for agreeing to be interviewed for my study to investigate whether human resources may be a significant stakeholder in developing green capability to maintain environmental sustainability Research objectives a) Analysing how HRM can influence employees’ green attitudes and behaviours b) Identifying energy- related behaviours and attitudes of employees in their workplaces Research procedures The literature review on the topic revealed some interesting arguments on HR’s capability to drive environmental sustainability. The questions in the interview will examine your experiences, perceptions, motivations and expectations at your workplace involving green practices Time required The interview will last about 30-45 minutes Participants’ rights Your participation in the study is entirely voluntary. At any time, you are free to choose not to participate. Should you choose to participate, you can refuse to answer certain questions, discuss certain topics or even put an end to the interview without consequences of any kind. Risks and benefits of participation There are no known risks nor expected benefits to the participants. Recordings To facilitate the interviewer’s job, the interview will be recorded. However, all written and audio records will be destroyed as soon as they have been transcribed. Confidentiality All interview data will be strictly confidential and only the researchers will have access to information about participants which will be handled so as to protect their confidentiality. Therefore, no names will be mentioned, and the information will be coded. Aggregate data will be presented representing generalisations about the responses as a whole and the individual respondent’s identity will be kept anonymous Questions about the study If you have questions or concerns, please contact: Subha Parida (E:[email protected]) Giving of consent I have read this consent form and I understand what is being requested of me as a participant in this study. I freely consent to participate. The investigator provided me with a copy of this form through email.

Signed……………………………………………………………………………….. Name…………………………………………………………………………………. Date……………………………… …………………………………………………….

the effect of green buildings on employees’ performance

Documents