A Novel Conceptual Framework For Examini

Environment and Behavior
http://eab.sagepub.com
A Novel Conceptual Framework for Examining Environmental

Behavior in Large Organizations: A Case Study of the Cornwall
National Health Service (NHS) in the United Kingdom
Terry L. Tudor, Stewart W. Barr and Andrew W. Gilg
Environment and Behavior 2008; 40; 426 originally published online Jan 22,
2008;
DOI: 10.1177/0013916507300664
The online version of this article can be found at:

http://eab.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/40/3/426
Published by:
http://www.sagepublications.com
On behalf of:
Environmental Design Research Association
Additional services and information for Environment and Behavior can be found at:
Email Alerts: http://eab.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts
Subscriptions: http://eab.sagepub.com/subscriptions
Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav
Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
Citations (this article cites 41 articles hosted on the

SAGE Journals Online and HighWire Press platforms):
http://eab.sagepub.com/cgi/content/refs/40/3/426
Downloaded from http://eab.sagepub.com at University of Exeter on April 21, 2008

© 2008 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized
distribution.
Environment and Behavior
Volume 40 Number 3
May 2008 426-450
© 2008 Sage Publications
A Novel Conceptual 10.1177/0013916507300664
http://eab.sagepub.com
Framework for Examining hosted at
http://online.sagepub.com
Environmental Behavior
in Large Organizations
A Case Study of the Cornwall
National Health Service (NHS)
in the United Kingdom
Terry L. Tudor
University of Northampton
Stewart W. Barr
Andrew W. Gilg
University of Exeter
This article is concerned with the development of a conceptual framework of

the key antecedents that lead to sustainable environmental behavior amongst
employees within a large organizational setting. A range of quantitative and
qualitative methods was employed in the study to examine behavior. Using the
Cornwall National Health Service (NHS) in the United Kingdom as a case
study, the research demonstrated that both organizational and individual/cog-
nitive factors served as key predictors for sustainable waste behavior. However,
these factors did not work in isolation but rather, within a dynamic, holistic,
intrarelated, and interrelated conceptual framework to ultimately determine
individual behavior. The results suggest the need to address both categories of
variables when developing policies to achieve greater sustainability in the
behavior of employees within large organizations.
Keywords: organizational behavior; conceptual framework; sustainable envi-

ronmental management; waste management; National Health
Service; Cornwall
Introduction
The study of organizational behavior is concerned with the study of

behavior that examines the structure and functioning of organizations and
426
distribution.
Tudor et al. / Framework for Examining Environmental Behavior 427
Figure 1
Organizational Factors That Influence Individual
Environmental Management Behavior
Organizational focus
Organizational structure
Department type/size
Organizational/site type and size
Organizational culture
the behavior of groups and individuals within them (Mullins, 1999; Pugh,
1990; Robbins, 1998).
The Holistic and Interrelated Nature of

Organizational Behavior
There are two dominant theoretical considerations in the study of organi-
zational behavior. First, both the “individual/cognitive” category of variables
as well as the “organizational” category of factors determine individual behav-
ior. Second, the categories of determinants function in an interrelated manner.
Figure 1 shows that the factors related to the organization include its focus
(Gladwin, Kennelly, & Krause, 1995; Porter, 1991; Roberts, 1996; Welford,
1998), structure (Child, 1988; Fincham & Rhodes, 1994; Mullins, 1999), size
and type (Alberti, Caini, Calabrese, & Rossi, 2000; Brio & Junquera, 2003;
King & Lennox, 2000), culture (Deal & Kennedy, 1982; Tudor, Barr, & Gilg,
2005a; Williams, Dobson, & Walters, 1989), and department type and size
(Ozbek & Sanin, 2004; Tudor, Noonan, & Jenkin, 2005b).
Figure 2 outlines the cognitive factors that determine individual behavior
including attitudes (Ajzen, 1991; Tudor, Barr, & Gilg, in press; Vining & Ebreo,
1992), beliefs (Robbins, 2000; Tudor et al., 2005a; Williams et al., 1989), moti-
vation (Bent & Freath, 1997; Deci & Ryan, 1991, 2000; Locke, 1991), socio-
demographics (Baldassare & Katz, 1992; Barr, Gilg, & Ford, 2005; Gamba &
Oskamp, 1994), and awareness (Tucker, 2001).
In addition to being intrarelated, these categories of factors are also inter-
related. One of the earliest studies to demonstrate this was Heider’s (1958),

distribution.
428 Environment and Behavior
Figure 2
Cognitive Factors That Influence Individual
Environmental Management Behavior
Attitudes
Sociodemographics
Beliefs
Awareness
Motivation
which contended that behavior is determined both by perceived “internal

forces” (personality attributes such as skill, effort, fatigue) and “external
forces” (organizational rules and policies, etc.). This theory has been sup-
ported by other writers who attribute human behavior to the combination of
intrinsic and extrinsic factors (Elbing, 1978; Fincham & Rhodes, 1994;
Kaiser, 1998; Locke, 1991; Mullins, 1999; Robbins, 2000; Robinson, 1998;
Stern, Dietz, & Guagnano, 1995; Williams et al., 1989).
However, various limitations exist in previous studies of environmental
behavior in organizations. First, most of the research into organizational
behavior has tended to focus on the actual work such as public services
management (Metcalfe & Richards, 1987; Tomkins, 1987) or management
behavior (Mullins, 1999), whereas few studies have examined behavior as
it relates specifically to environmental concerns within the organization set-
ting, particularly in the United Kingdom. Second, despite evidence of their
holistic and interrelated nature, most authors have tended to focus on either
the cognitive or organizational factors separately (Robbins, 2000; Shields,
Solar, & Martin, 2002), and few have sought to examine their combined
effect. Third, most of the research on individual/cognitive factors has been
undertaken on general individual behavior in organizations.
Environmental Behavior Change

Models and Frameworks
Research has demonstrated that because of the interrelated and holistic

nature of the factors, it is necessary to employ models and frameworks to

distribution.
examine the manner in which they interact and ultimately influence envi-
ronmental behavior (Barr, Gilg, & Ford, 2001; Clift, Doig, & Finnveden,
2000; Costi, Minciardi, Robba, Ovatti, & Sacile, 2004; Kowalewski et al.,
1999; Lim, 2003).
There are four significant limitations that exist in current waste manage-
ment models and frameworks. First, many lack a coherent sense of holism.
It is only within recent times that models such as Berger, Savard, and Wizere
(1999) and Hummel (2000) have sought to integrate environmental and social
indicators (e.g., demographics and education) into their decision making.
Second, much of the research has been based on the theory of planned behav-
ior (TPB; Azjen, 1991). However, studies suggest that the TPB is limited in
its applicability to predicting the factors that influence sustainable waste
management behavior (Boldero, 1995; Davies, Foxall, & Pallister, 2002;
Tonglet, Phillips, & Read, 2004). Third, many of the current waste manage-
ment models assume that decision criteria have already been identified and
are actually decision-support systems using a variety of methods such as risk
assessment, multicriteria decision making, and life-cycle analysis (Morrissey
& Browne, 2004). Fourth, they are also limited in that they have tended to
be focused on the household or community sectors.
This article therefore sets out to conceptualize a framework of the main
individual and organizational factors that influence sustainable environmen-
tal behavior among employees in a large organization. The study sought to
answer three main questions:
1. What were the main organizational and individual factors that influenced
sustainable waste management behavior in the Cornwall NHS?
2. What were the main mechanisms via which the factors interacted?
3. How did the variables ultimately influence behavior?
The article is based on a case study of the Cornwall NHS and sought to build
on the literature by formulating an environmental behavior change frame-
work that (a) is holistic, (b) integrates both cognitive and organizational vari-
ables, and (c) focuses on environmental management behavior in the UK
within a setting that has thus far received limited attention—the organiza-
tional setting.
The Case Study Organization
The NHS was established in 1948 and is the largest health care provider
in the UK (www.nhs.uk/thenhsexplained). Its primary role is to improve the

distribution.
health and well-being of the British population. It is composed of a range

of professionals, support workers, and suborganizations. At the top of the
organizational hierarchy are the policy makers, comprising, primarily, the
Secretary of State for Health and the Department of Health (DOH), aided
by the Modernization Agency. Health authorities, particularly the Strategic
Health Authorities (SHAs) translate this policy at the local level by acting as
the main link between the DOH and various NHS Trusts. These trusts are at the
“bottom” of the hierarchy, and are primarily composed of the community-based
primary care trusts (PCTs), which include general practitioners (GPs) providing
routine health care, and larger acute care trusts, which are large hospitals
providing acute care services in the large towns and cities of the United
Kingdom (www.nhs.uk/thenhsexplained).
Cornwall, which is rural and widespread, is the most southwesterly county
in England and covers an area of 876,650 acres (354,920 hectares). The 2001
UK Population Census stated that the population of Cornwall and the Isles of
Scilly is 501,267 (www.statistics.gov.uk/census2001). There were five NHS
Trusts delivering health care in Cornwall, consisting of three PCTs, one spe-
cialist trust for mental health and one acute care trust. Some 9,536 staff are
employed in the health services in Cornwall, at approximately 100 sites
across the county (Cornwall NHS, 2005). These sites comprise 3 acute hos-
pitals, 15 community hospitals, 8 MH/LDD (mental health/learning disabil-
ity) in-patient units/homes, 23 health centers, four drop-in centers, as well as
a number of offices and administrative facilities, providing approximately
1,800 NHS beds.
Environmental Management in the NHS

The large size of the NHS, coupled with the number and range of its
services, requires a large ecological footprint. In addition, the geographical
spread of its services and practices have a significant social, economic, and
environmental impact (Barratt et al., 2004). To make the concepts of sus-
tainable development a more integral component within its overall policies,
the organization has put in place a range of sustainable environmental man-
agement policies and initiatives over the past 5 years (NHS Estates, 2001,
2002). However, Jochelson, Delap, and Norwood (2004) concluded that the
implementation of the concepts of sustainability into NHS practices were
generally lacking, apart from in Northwest England and London. Woolridge,
Morrissey, and Phillips (2005) also found that there are few formal systems
for tracking waste quantities within the organization and few accurate
figures at a regional level. Thus, there has been only limited integration of
the sustainability agenda into NHS practices.

distribution.
Table 1
The Main Research Approaches and Tools
Used During the Study
Research Approach Research Tool
Quantitative Questionnaires
Waste bin analysis
Qualitative Ethnography
Interviews
Method
Literature Review
A multidisciplinary and holistic literature review was undertaken to iden-
tify the main individual/cognitive and organizational factors that affect indi-
vidual waste management behavior within an organizational setting. Based
on this review, a number of organizational (Figure 1) and cognitive factors
(Figure 2) that influence sustainable environmental behavior were concep-
tualized. These variables were then used to undertake the study of employee
environmental behavior in the Cornwall NHS.
Research Methodologies and Tools

The interrelated and intrarelated nature of the conceptualized factors
required the use of a range of research methods and tools. Table 1 lists the
quantitative and qualitative methodologies and the four main research tools
employed.
The two methodologies were used in a complementary manner, but each
served a different function. The quantitative methodologies were used to
determine cause and effect relationships. For example, the use of waste bin
analysis enabled the examination of the effect of department type and size
on waste management practices. The qualitative methods enabled contextu-
alization of the data. For example, the ethnographic study was used to deter-
mine how the organizational structure affected the organizational culture and
individual behavior. It is important to stress that each of the research tools
was used to complement each other, rather than for one to dominate another;
hence they served to inform each other. For example, the ethnographic study
served as an overall context for the other three tools. There were four
research tools used: (a) an ethnographic study, (b) interviews, (c) waste bin
analyses, and (d) questionnaires.

distribution.
The ethnographic study of the general NHS staff in Cornwall was conducted
during the period of January 2003 through January 2005. It utilized partici-
pant observation, with field notes for documentation, and covered approxi-
mately 100 sites. These condensed accounts were either noted immediately,
if possible, or the information (usually in the form of snippets of conversa-
tion or brief descriptions of settings) was recorded on paper as soon as pos-
sible, and then expanded on afterward.
Interviews were held during the period October through December 2004.
Letters were sent to senior managers in the Cornwall NHS and related agen-
cies, with a list of specific questions. A total of eight structured interviews
were conducted either in person and recorded using a standard tape recorder
or over the telephone (in a radio studio) and recorded unto a minidisc. Each
interview was transcribed, coded, and analyzed by selecting key themes
related to sustainability and environmental management.
Waste bin analyses were undertaken during the periods of June-July 2004
and September-October 2004 at the acute care trust sites, and April-May
2004 and September 2004 at the non-acute sites to determine the waste man-
agement actions of the employees. A representative sample of 72 sites and
49 departments were chosen using the premises listing of the Cornwall NHS.
To determine the number of bags to be sampled, the “average” number of
bags produced over a period of 2 “average” weeks (based on patient activity
gathered from the Cornwall NHS Performance Management Department)
across five different departments was monitored. Based on these data, the
average number of waste bags per bin (approximately 20 bags) was calcu-
lated. Using an earlier survey of the total number of bins across the various
departments and these “average totals,” approximately 10% of the weekly
bags produced were then targeted for sampling. Each department was con-
tacted and cleaning staff asked to randomly select and set aside the required
number of waste bags to be collected. Because of the large number of sites
surveyed, to avoid sampling errors and to take account of seasonal varia-
tion, the sites were divided and sampling undertaken during the time peri-
ods stated above. A total of 169 clinical waste bags and 184 domestic waste
bags from 49 departments were collected and analyzed. All the items from
each of the bags were manually sorted into their respective waste cate-
gories. Each category was weighed, with the volume determined by placing
the items into a previously calibrated box, thus enabling calculation of the
average quantity and composition of waste from each department.
The questionnaires were designed to examine a number of issues including
staff attitudes and beliefs, and levels of awareness about waste management.
They were piloted in three different departments before roll out. They were
distributed to 72 sites across the county and either collected immediately or

distribution.
mailed by staff to a central location. A total of 987 questionnaires were

distributed between October 2004 and August 2005 to a representative sam-
ple of staff across the main departments and job categories of the organiza-
tion. Five hundred and sixty-six completed questionnaires were returned and
analyzed (using SPSS, version 11.5), thus giving a return rate of 57.3%.
Data Analyses
As a result of the holistic and interrelated nature of the determinants, and
the need to examine these relationships, multivariate models were used to
analyze the data. For each predictor (independent) the R2adj and F statistic
(and its probability) are given. Using conservation of materials at work as
the dependent variable for sustainable waste management behavior, various
independent factors from the bivariate analyses were put into the multivari-
ate model (using stepwise regression) to ascertain what were the main pre-
dictors that determined this behavior among staff. The high R2adj (68.2%)
and F values (943.938, p < .001) suggest a strong model fit and indicate that
the results can be confidently reported. For example, the R2adj indicates that
68.2% of the variation in the resource conservation behavior could be
accounted for by variation in the predictor variables.
Results
The Impact of the Organizational Factors

Organizational focus. The “organizational focus” was one of the most
significant influences on the practices of the Cornwall NHS and behavior
of its staff. Central control was exerted primarily through the various cen-
trally set targets that all NHS Trusts have to meet annually. According to the
West of Cornwall NHS Web site (www.cornwall.nhs.uk/wocpct), there are
nine key targets with subdivisions geared primarily toward reducing wait-
ing times, financial management, and access to professional care that must
be met by all NHS Trusts. This centralized focus and control determined the
practices and the levels of attention and resources that were directed toward
sustainable waste management, as was evidenced in three main ways. First,
this focus and control impacted on the attitudes, beliefs, and levels of moti-
vation of staff, in that they resulted in an ingrained culture, a highly pressured
work environment.

distribution.
Second, this focus and control resulted in a high degree of apathy coupled
with low levels of motivation among staff toward noncore activities. (This
will be discussed further under the heading “The Impact of the Individual/
Cognitive Factors.”) It should be stated that this was not the case for all staff,
as there were many who worked diligently; however, instances of this feeling
of apathy were experienced, for example, when the researcher was distribut-
ing questionnaires. Some staff queried the point of filling them in, as in their
opinion it would simply create more wastage and would not make a differ-
ence as “things never change.” One staff member indicated, “Somebody may
come in with new ideas, but they soon become frustrated.”
Third, the main aim of the managers was to meet the health care related tar-
gets, with any other issue being secondary. Based on the tone of what was said
and the type of words used, it was evident that there was a degree of “resigna-
tion” and “frustration” among the interviewees, even though only Interviewee
G actually spoke out against the system. Confirmation of the influence of the
central NHS on behavior was evidenced best in the following statement from
Interviewee F:
In the big flow of things, if you were to list out twenty-five health and safety
regulations and how important they are, they don’t dawn on any of us at all.
What’s more important is are we going to get kicked in the teeth by the
Health and Safety Executive in the next routine visit they have? What’s the
must do’s that fell out of their last visit’s action plan process that we haven’t
yet done?
These issues were compounded by the severe financial constraints that

all the NHS Trusts in Cornwall were facing. All the trusts were in debt,
thereby, leading to an emphasis on saving money and cutting resources, as
opposed to spending money, particularly on any new noncore (i.e., non-
health care related) activities. Financial considerations were, therefore,
major drivers for the policies and practices of the managers, with cost sav-
ings being the primary focus and other factors assuming lesser prominence.
The focus and control of the central NHS, therefore, served to strongly
influence the attitudes and behavior of both the managers and general
staff. These factors also emphasized prioritization and resource allocation
toward meeting health care targets, rather than noncore activities such as
sustainable waste management.

distribution.
Organizational/site type and size. “Organizational size and type” was

not found to have a direct impact on behavior; however, “site size and type”
did influence waste generation patterns. There were three main differences
between the quantities of waste produced from the larger acute sites and the
smaller non-acute sites. First, the quantities of the plastics polypropylene
(PP) and polyethylene terephthalate (PET), as well as gloves from acute
sites were double those from the non-acute sites. Second, an average clinical
bag weighed 2.1 kg from the non-acute sites, as compared to 1.37 kg from
acute sites. Third, the quantity of clinical incontinence waste from an acute
site was less at 16% (wt.) and 13% (vol.), compared to 37% (wt.) and 24%
(vol.) from a non-acute site.
Department type and size. The factor of “department type and size” was
a significant determinant of waste management practices, with large varia-
tions existing in the quantities of waste produced by each department (Figure
3). For example, mental health/learning disability (MH/LDD) units and
maternity wards produced the highest combined quantities (wt.) of clinical
and domestic bag waste. General wards, offices, and acute care wards were
also above the average quantity of 3.69 kg. Outpatient departments and can-
teens/restaurants were only slightly below average, generating 3.6 kg.
Alternatively, minor injury units (MIUs) and day hospitals were the lowest
waste generators.
Based on the availability of patient and staff numbers, per capita waste
quantities for selected departments were calculated (Table 2). It can be seen
that the combined effect of department size (activity levels) and type had a
significant influence on waste generation, with acute care wards being
highest at 32.1 kg/person/month, whilst minor injury units (MIUs) gener-
ated only 0.01 kg/person/month.
Although department type and size explained the quantities and compo-
sition of the waste, taken on their own they did not necessarily directly
influence the behavior of the employees. Rather, they worked in conjunc-
tion with other factors to ultimately influence behavior. For example, the
type or size of department determined the type of staff, which then influ-
enced the group dynamics and culture that existed. In combination, these
factors then served to determine individual behavior.
Organizational structure. The influence of the hierarchical NHS organi-

zational structure on individual behavior was “strong.” This influence was

distribution.
Figure 3
The Average Weight of a Bag of Health Care
Waste From the Main Departments
in the Cornwall NHS
10
6
Weight (kg)
0
ard
nits
pt.
tre
s
cy
ry
.
en
pt.
ice
rt
U
rd
osp
ab
po
MI
rge
wa
en
de
nte
de
ea
Off
ew
Du
al l
up
yh
erg
Th
Su
ral
nity
Ca
nts
ds
dic
car
/LD
Da
em
ne
atie
ter
Me
an
ute
MH
Ge
Ma
nd
tp
min
Ac
Ou
ta
Ad
en
cid
Ac
Department
clinical domestic
Source: Tudor (2006).
manifested in a number of ways, including the levels of bureaucracy, the

impact of the centralized controls on the support of the managers and
resource provision (e.g., finance) for environmental projects, and the degree
of autonomy in decision making that was possible at the local trust level. The
organizational structure had a controlling influence not only on the func-
tioning of the organization itself but also on the attitudes and behavior of
employees. The structure was hierarchical, bureaucratic, and rigid. There
appeared to be few opportunities for either managers or staff to provide
feedback up the organizational chain. Indeed, managers spoke of simply

distribution.
Table 2
The Per Capita Weight of Domestic Waste From Selected
Departments in the Cornwall NHS
Average Bag Waste Quantity
Department Weight (kg) kg/month kg/person/month
Acute care ward 2.6 1490.6 32.1

MH/LDD ward 5.6 490 19.6
Office 2.5 1008 11.2
Admin and support 0.7 301.6 8.6
Medical laboratories 4.9 258.4 5.7
Theatre 2.4 408 0.8
Out-patient 1.7 450 0.4
MIU 1.7 7.2 0.01

Note: MIU—Minor Injury Unit; MH/LDD ward—Mental Health/Learning Disability.
accepting the changes that occurred and moving on. As such, the organiza-
tional structure had a strong effect on the levels of motivation and apathy
among the employees. In parallel, the “informal” organization was also
strong and served to inculcate and maintain the ingrained thickness of the
existing culture. It also helped to “create” some of the heterogeneity in the
system by maintaining divisions along the lines of job categories and group
dynamics. In doing so, the structure also contributed to the formation of the
organizational culture.
Finally, the structure affected the support of the managers for environ-
mental management. Although there were a number of sustainability poli-
cies within the organization, it was evident that because of the focus of the
central NHS, support from managers for the substantial implementation of
the policies was generally limited. For example, apart from Interviewee D
there was limited mention during the interviews of any sustainability tar-
gets. Sustainability was not a priority for the managers.
Hence, the organizational structure affected the culture, employee attitudes,
and beliefs, as well as the level of support and resources that was afforded to
sustainable waste management.
Organizational culture. The organizational culture of the Cornwall

NHS, which was linked to a number of factors such as job category, group
dynamics and norms, and the formal organization, was a major determinant

distribution.
of individual behavior. The organizational culture was closely linked to the

overall organizational focus in that this focus resulted in an “ingrained” cul-
ture. Irrespective of any changes that occurred, the overall “system” (i.e., the
manner in which the NHS functioned) remained unchanged. This was seen
among employees and within the organization itself. For example, many
staff seemed to view their job as one “for life.” During the ethnography an
employee commented, “It’s more likely for someone who is giving prob-
lems in one department to be sent to another department or site rather than
be fired.”
The organizational culture was thick (i.e., commonly held) and self-perpetuating.
As staff came into the system they became indoctrinated with a similar phi-
losophy. Although these were not written rules, rather new staff adopted the
routines and strategies of other employees primarily via the informal orga-
nization. The organizational culture was also resistant to change as was
illustrated best during the introduction of new waste bins. Employees from
an office asked to have their individual small waste bins returned rather
than use the newly introduced large central waste bin. They had become
accustomed to doing things one way, and viewed having to walk from their
desks to the central waste bin as too much of a change and too great an
effort.
Both the formal organization (i.e., NHS policies and focus) and the
informal organization (group dynamics, norms, and routines) shaped the for-
mation of the culture within the Cornwall NHS. In turn, this culture that was
self-perpetuating, ingrained, and resistant to change significantly determined
individual employee behavior.
The Impact of the Individual/Cognitive Factors

Environmental attitudes. Table 3 illustrates that environmental attitudes
served as key predictors of sustainable waste management behavior. The two
most important attitudes were the level of interest the employees had in the
environment and their environmental friendliness.
Table 3 also suggests that these attitudes were linked to the beliefs and lev-
els of awareness of staff. The strong link between environmental attitudes and
behavior confirms the work of a number of other authors, including Vining
and Ebereo (1992), Barr et al. (2001), Tonglet et al. (2004), and Tudor et al.
(in press) but is contrary to the work of other researchers such as Simmons
and Widmar (1990) and Belton, Crowe, Matthews, and Scott (1994).

distribution.
Table 3
The Main Predictors of Sustainable Waste Management
Among Cornwall NHS Staff (Based on Stepwise
Multivariate Regression)
Standardized
Predictor Statement/Factor Beta Weight t P
Attitude I have no interest in recycling –.106 –3.947 <.001

Attitude I consider myself environmentally .092 3.357 <.001
friendly
Attitude I am not bothered about recycling –.079 –2.931 >.001
Attitude I take an active interest in what .066 2.413 >.001
happens to the environment
Belief I do not have enough materials –.060 –2.207 >.001
for recycling
Attitude I consider waste a major issue .055 2.052 >.001
at work
Attitude I am satisfied with my job .042 1.575 >.001
Awareness Not sure what to recycle .034 1.257 >.001
Motivation I would use a recycling scheme .033 1.203 >.001
if instructed to do so

R2adj = 68.2%. F = 943.938.
The influence of job satisfaction on behavior is interesting because it

confirms other studies such as Fincham and Rhodes’ (1994) and Bent and
Freathy’s (1997), which have concluded that job satisfaction increases the
adoption of new practices.
Beliefs. Although environmental attitudes were found to be among the

most important factors, it was the underlying beliefs that played an impor-
tant role in these attitudes. For example, as illustrated in Table 3, beliefs
about the quantity of items that were required to recycle determined the sus-
tainable waste management behavior of employees. This belief of requiring
a minimum quantity of materials for recycling was a significant issue affect-
ing recycling and waste minimization across the Cornwall NHS. It can also
be seen that the strength of the environmental attitudes of staff depended on
whether they considered that the behavior would benefit them or the organi-
zation. Hence, the combination of the environmental attitude and beliefs
determined individual sustainable waste management behavior.

distribution.
Motivation. Motivation influenced individual behavior; however, its

impact was strongly related to the organizational focus, structure, and cul-
ture. The control of the central NHS and continual change meant that there
was limited motivation or drive among staff. This was reflected in the low
motivation and high apathy, as well as in the highly ingrained and resistant
culture that existed. These low levels of motivation arose primarily from the
bureaucratic control of the central NHS. Indeed, both general staff and
managers were of the view that there was a limit to what they as individu-
als could do to effect change in the system. For example, Interviewee H
stated that most individuals working in the NHS “have real experience of
two or three reorganizations, if not more and once the dust settles down you
carry on with the main role that you were trained for and that the NHS
believes is right.”
The managers indicated that although on a personal level they were moti-
vated to be environmentally friendly, their primary obligations (i.e., meeting
health care targets) did not enable them to incorporate the concept of “sustain-
ability” into their behavior. Hence, although they had a personal motivation to
be more sustainable, their powers to effect change within the system (i.e., the
manner in which the Cornwall NHS functioned), as a whole, were limited.
Specifically, the motivation to manage resources and waste in a “sus-
tainable” manner was determined by a number of factors. Table 3 indicates
that these factors included the value that staff placed on the environment,
whether they considered waste to be a major issue at work, and whether
they had been instructed to recycle or reuse materials at work.
Sociodemographics. Although generally, a strong link between sociode-

mographics and behavior was not found, as suggested by other researchers
such as Gamba and Oskamp (1994), there was one significant sociodemo-
graphic factor. Age influenced the waste management behavior of employees.
Older staff members practiced more sustainable waste management behavior
compared to younger staff members.
This finding that older employees were more likely to be more environ-
mentally friendly is similar to the findings of Baldassare and Katz (1992) and
McDonald and Ball (1998) but disputes that of Oskamp et al. (1991) who
suggested that younger individuals were more environmentally friendly.
Environmental awareness. An awareness of on-site waste management

practices served to affect employee behavior. Awareness of what to recycle
and being aware of what happened to the waste after it left the department

distribution.
determined the behavior of staff. Table 3 demonstrates the link between

awareness and the environmental attitudes and beliefs of staff. The results
suggest that the more knowledge staff had of waste management practices
including what to recycle, the more sustainable their environmental behav-
ior would be.
Additional Factors
Waste management behavior at home and work. Environmental man-
agement practices at home strongly correlated with sustainable waste man-
agement behavior at work. Indeed, employees who recycled at home were
also more likely to practice sustainable environmental behavior at work.
Stated versus actual behavior. An important point to note in constructing

the framework is differences between actual and stated behavior. For
example, although employees stated that office paper was one of the main
waste items that they recycled, it was actually the third highest component by
weight, after mixed paper and food/organic waste in the domestic waste
stream (Tudor, 2006). Discrepancies between stated and actual behavior
were also noted during the interviews, where despite the managers stating
that they were environmentally friendly, in most cases these statements
were found to be more rhetorical than factual, as a few actual examples
demonstrating this behavior were provided.
Discussion
The Holistic and Related Nature of the Factors

This examination of the predictors of sustainable waste management
behavior has highlighted a number of key factors that serve as antecedents
to individual environmental management behavior in organizations. These
included both organizational factors (the organizational focus, structure, type
and size, culture and departmental size, and type) and cognitive/individual
factors (attitudes, beliefs, motivation, awareness, and sociodemographics).
In addition, the findings make two important general statements. First, they
confirm the holistic and intrarelated and interrelated nature of these factors
in their influence on the general behavior of individual employees (Elbing,
1978; Locke, 1991; Weiner, 1986), and more specifically their environmental
behavior (Kaiser, 1998; Stern et al., 1995). Second, they also demonstrate

distribution.
the close interaction between the cognitive and organizational variables.

This interaction was evidenced by the interlinking of a number of factors,
including the impact of the organizational focus, structure and culture, and
employee attitudes and beliefs. One of the key determinants of behavior was
the focus of the organization that influenced both organizational practices
and individual behavior variables. This strong influence of organizational
focus on employee behavior confirms the work of other authors (Gladwin
et al., 1995; Porter, 1991; Roberts, 1996; Welford, 1998).
The focus on health care targets for the Cornwall NHS Trusts meant that
sustainable waste management had a limited role within the organization.
There was limited support from managers and limited provision of resources
(financial and personnel) for sustainable waste management. Significantly,
the focus of the organization on meeting health care targets also served to
influence a number of other factors that affected behavior, such as the orga-
nizational culture, the structure of the organization, and the feelings of staff
(e.g., morale and apathy).
The impact of the organizational structure had multiple links. It was
closely related to the organizational focus and control, as well as organiza-
tional culture and the level of support for environmental management from
management. The impact of organizational structure confirms the works of
other researchers such as Child (1988), Williams et al. (1989), and Mullins
(1999) who all argue that it is a major factor in determining employee
behavior and organizational performance.
Finally, another important behavioral predictor was organizational culture.
The thick, ingrained, self-perpetuating nature of the organizational culture
determined which issues were of priority for individual employees, who
they mixed with, and the norms and routines that were formed. This influ-
ence of the organizational culture on individual behavior was, however,
heavily dependent on factors from both the formal organization (such as its
focus), as well as the informal organization (such as group dynamics and
levels of job satisfaction).
The holistic and strongly interrelated nature of the organizational and
individual factors is significant because it suggests two crucial points for
improving the sustainability behavior of employees in large organizations.
First, policies should address both categories of factors. For example, they
should address the focus, structure, and culture of the organization, as well
as the attitudes and beliefs of the employees toward sustainability. The ulti-
mate success or failure of any intervention policy to change individual envi-
ronmental behavior depends in large measure on getting this balance correct.
Second, it is important also for the policies to be targeted. For example,

distribution.
differences in the practices of departments on the basis of their size and

activity levels means that environmental management programs should be
tailored to meet these variations. This is so, rather than being simply stan-
dardized across the entire organization, if waste minimization, segregation,
and recycling activities are to be effective and successful.
In addition to the general issues, two other specific points need also to be
briefly highlighted. First, the low priority given to sustainability despite the
large size of the organization contradicts the assertion that large organizations
are more likely to have environmental management systems in place, as noted
by other researchers such as King and Lennox (2000), Alberti et al. (2000),
and Brio and Junquera (2003). Despite its large size, only a small number of
individuals within the Cornwall NHS were involved in the issue of sustain-
ability. For example, Tudor et al. (2005b) showed that as a result of limited
full-time waste management personnel, the Cornwall NHS had to depend
heavily on environmental representatives (EnReps) who were employees
who undertook the role on a voluntary basis and were to be found only at
about 50% of the sites across the county. The lack of a focus on sustainable
waste management by the NHS meant that despite its size, resources were not
directed toward the issue. Second, with regard to organizational type, other
studies have found that important motivators for environmental responsible
behavior in other large, complex, service organizations included a perception
of the environmental impact of the company’s operations and recognition of
the benefits that could accrue (Roberts 1996; Stabler & Goodall, 1997). This
research showed that these issues were of lesser importance to the Cornwall
NHS. Some researchers have also argued that competitive advantage rather
than sustainable development motivates companies to improve their environ-
mental management (Newton & Harte, 1997; Porter & van der Linde, 1995;
Russo & Fouts, 1997). However, this too does not apply because the NHS is
a public sector organization with a primary aim of providing health care, and,
hence, producing a profit for shareholders is not a driver. Therefore, it can be
concluded that organizational type on its own was not a major determining
factor for behavior. Although the size of the organization is important, there
are several other factors that play a greater role in determining the levels of
sustainability within an organization. These variables include its focus and
policies, as well as the attitudes and beliefs of the employees. It would there-
fore be better to conclude that although organizational type and size may play
a role in behavior, this factor is linked to and dependent on other issues, pri-
marily the organizational focus. Hence, large organizations would be more
likely to have environmental management systems in place if environmental
management is a focus for the organization.

distribution.
Additional Factors
Apart from the interrelated and holistic nature of the factors, two key
issues need also be noted before formulating the framework. First, there was
a strong influence of environmental actions of the employees at home on
their behavior at work. Indeed, the strong correlation suggests that employ-
ees who recycled at home were more likely to also be more sustainable in
their behavior at work. Second, there was a difference between actual and
stated behavior of the employees. For example, although employees stated
that they recycled paper, this was one of the main items in the domestic
waste stream. This confirms the intention-behavior gap noted in the TPB
(Ajzen, 1991).
Conceptualizing the Framework

The main factors and their links. Some of the theorized factors were,
therefore, found to be significant determinants of behavior. In addition, there
were other variables that affected behavior such as sustainable environmental
practices at home. In summary, the key variables were
1. The focus and structure of the central NHS. These factors were found to
affect the levels of management support, the availability of resources (finance
and personnel), and contribution to the ingrained culture and the levels of
motivation that existed.
2. The organizational culture of the Cornwall NHS. This was based both on the
formal organization (NHS policies and focus) and the informal organization
(group norms and dynamic, departmental atmosphere, and age). The levels
of staff motivation were also found to be linked to the organizational culture.
3. The attitudes of staff. The formation of these attitudes was, however, heav-
ily dependent on beliefs and levels of awareness. Key attitudes included the
value placed on the environment and job satisfaction.
4. Waste management behavior at home. Sustainable behavior at work was
strongly affected by what was done at home.
5. An intention-behavior gap.
Despite the fact that the impact of each category of factors has been dis-
cussed separately, a crucial point is that their effect on behavior was found
to be interrelated, not separate.
Based on the main identified factors and relationships, a modified con-
ceptual framework (Figure 4) of the key antecedents that determine sus-
tainable waste management behavior in the Cornwall NHS can therefore be
formulated. Figure 4 is a process framework in that its design takes into

distribution.
Figure 4
The Major Determinants for Sustainable Waste Management Behavior in the Cornwall NHS
Environmental actions at home

Environmental attitudes
Age Beliefs Attitudes Environmental awareness
Job satisfaction
Group dynamics
distribution.
STATED VERSUS SUSTAINABLE

EMPLOYEE ACTUAL WASTE
Organizational culture BEHAVIOR BEHAVIOR MANAGEMENT
BEHAVIOR
Motivation Management support and training
Organizational structure
Site/department
NHS focus and policies
type and size
Source:Tudor (2006).
445
account the interrelated and holistic nature of the factors and also indicates
the manner in which the interaction between the variables occurs.
Figure 4 is not intended to be a rigid structure but rather to provide a guide
for action. There is, therefore, the flexibility to take into account differing lev-
els of applicability of each of the factors identified, according to the context
being analyzed. For example, within other contexts, the geographical location
or organizational structure would be different. This flexibility is consistent
with the position of other researchers that sustainability is an ongoing, cyclic
process with the flexibility to accommodate change (Johnson, Hays, Center,
& Caley, 2004; Shields et al., 2002). Basing the framework on an integrated
approach is similar to recent waste management models/frameworks (Berger
et al., 1999; Clift et al., 2000; Costi et al., 2004).
However, this framework differs from previous waste management
frameworks/models in a number of ways:
1. It is holistic. It incorporates both social factors (including attitudes, moti-

vation, beliefs) and environmental factors (including organizational focus
and structure).
2. It adopts an integrated process-based approach. It takes into account both
organizational and employee-based factors.
3. It was based on health care waste management within a large organizational
setting in the United Kingdom.
4. It neither assumes that options have already been taken, nor is it a decision-
support model.
5. It was formulated from the successful integration of results from both quan-
titative and qualitative methodologies.
Conclusion
This study has demonstrated that the main determinants for sustainable
waste management behavior within the Cornwall NHS included its organi-
zational focus, structure, and culture of the Cornwall NHS, as well as the
attitudes, beliefs, levels of awareness, and the environmental practices of
the employees at home. These factors did not, however, work in isolation
but rather within a dynamic, holistic, and interrelated framework to ulti-
mately determine the sustainability of individual behavior (Figure 4). The
demonstration of the holistic and interrelated nature of these factors sug-
gests the need to address both individual and organizational variables in the
development of policies and programs to achieve greater sustainability in the
environmental behavior of employees. The formulation of this conceptual

distribution.
framework is significant as there has been limited research thus far into envi-
ronmental behavior in U.K. organizations, particularly studies that have
sought to integrate both organizational and individual factors.
References
Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision
Processes, 50, 179-211.
Alberti, M., Caini, M., Calabrese, A., & Rossi, D. (2000). Evaluation of the costs and benefits of
an environmental management system. International Journal of Production Research, 38,
4455-4466.
Baldassare, M., & Katz, C. (1992). The personal threat of environmental problems as predic-
tors of environmental practices. Environment and Behavior, 24, 602-616.
Barr, S., Gilg, A. W., & Ford, N. J. (2001). A conceptual framework for understanding and
analyzing attitudes toward household waste management. Environment and Planning A,
33, 2025-2048.
Barr, S., Gilg, A., & Ford, N. (2005). Defining the multi-dimensional aspects of household
waste management: A study of reported behavior in Devon. Resources, Conservation and
Recycling, 45, 172-192.
Barratt, J., Chambers, N., Cherrett, N., Jenkin, N., Lewis, K., & Vergoulas, G. (2004). Material
health: A mass balance and ecological footprint analysis of the NHS in England and Wales.
Oxford, UK: Best Foot Forward.
Belton, V., Crowe, D. V., Matthews, R. B., & Scott, S. (1994). Survey of public attitudes to
recycling in Glasgow. Waste Management and Resources, 8, 177-192.
Bent, R., & Freathy, P. (1997). Motivating the employee in the independent retail sector.
Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 4, 201-208.
Berger, C., Savard, G., & Wizere, A. (1999). EUGENE: An optimization model for integrated
regional solid waste management planning. International Journal of Environment and
Pollution, 12, 280-307.
Boldero, J. (1995). The prediction of household recycling of newspapers: The role of attitudes,
intentions and situational factors. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 25, 440-462.
Brio, J. A., & Junquera, B. (2003). A review of the literature on environmental innovation
management in SMEs: Implications for public policies. Technovation, 23, 939-948.
Child, J. (1988). Organisation: A guide to problems and practice. (2nd ed.). London: Paul
Chapman.
Clift, R., Doig, A., & Finnveden, G. (2000). The application of life cycle assessment to integrated
solid waste management. Transactions in Chemistry E, 78(B), 279-287.
Cornwall NHS. (2005). Workforce information. Bodmin, Cornwall, UK: Author.
Costi, P., Minciardi, R., Robba, M., Ovatti, M., & Sacile, R. (2004). An environmentally
sustainable decision model for urban solid waste management. Waste Management, 24,
277-295.
Davies, J., Foxall, G. R., & Pallister, J. (2002). Beyond the intention-behaviour mythology: An
integrated model of recycling. Market Theory, 2(1), 29-113.
Deal, T. E., & Kennedy, A. A. (1982). Corporate cultures: The rights and rituals of corporate
life. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

distribution.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1991). A motivational approach to self: Integration in personality.
Perspectives on motivation: Current theory and research in motivation. Nebraska Symposium
on Motivation, 38, 237-288.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The “what” and “why” of goal pursuits: Human needs and
the self-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11, 227-268.
Elbing, A. (1978). Behavioral decisions in organizations. Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman.
Fincham, R., & Rhodes, P. S. (1994). The individual, work and organization: Behavioural stud-
ies for business and management (2nd ed.). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Gamba, R. J., & Oskamp, S. (1994). Factors influencing community residents’ participation in
commingled curbside recycling programs. Environment and Behavior, 26, 587-612.
Gladwin, T. N., Kennelly, J. J., & Krause, T. (1995). Shifting paradigms for sustainable develop-
ment: Implications for management theory and research. Academy of Management Review,
20, 874-907.
Heider, F. (1958). The psychology of interpersonal relations. New York: John Wiley.
Hummel, J. (2000, November). What does it cost to recycle household waste. Warmer Bulletin,
75, 3-5.
Jochelson, K., Delap, C., & Norwood, S. (2004). Good corporate citizenship and the NHS—a
regional mapping. London: Health Development Agency.
Johnson, K., Hays, C., Center, H., & Caley, C. (2004). Building capacity and sustainable preven-
tion innovations: A sustainability planning model. Evaluation and Program Planning, 27,
135-149.
Kasier, F. G. (1998). A general measure of ecological behavior. Journal of Applied Social
Psychology, 28, 395-422.
King, A., & Lennox, M. (2000). Industry self-regulation without sanctions: The chemical
industry’s responsible care program. Academy of Management Journal, 16, 177-194.
Kowalewski, R., Reid Lea, W., & Titlebaum, M. (1999). A standardised data reporting method-
ology for long-term integrated municipal solid wastes management—A case study. Journal
of Solid Waste Technology Management, 26(1), 26-35.
Lim, J. (2003). A conceptual framework on the adoption of negotiation support systems.
Information and Software Technology, 45, 469-477.
Locke, E. A. (1991). The motivation sequence, the motivation hub and the motivation core.
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50, 288-299.
McDonald, S., & Ball, R. (1998). Public participation in plastics recycling schemes. Resources,
Conservation and Recycling, 22, 123-141.
Metcalfe, L., & Richards, S. (1987). The efficiency strategy in Government: An impoverished
concept of management. Public Money, 7(1), 29-35.
Morrissey, A. J., & Browne, J. (2004). Waste management models and their application to sus-
tainable waste management. Waste Management, 24, 297-308.
Mullins, L. J. (1999). Management and organisational behaviour (5th ed.). London: Financial
Times, Pitman.
Newton, T., & Harte, G. (1997). Green business: Technicist kitch? Journal of Management
Studies, 34, 78-98.
NHS Estates (2001). Sustainable development in the NHS. London: HMSO.
NHS Estates (2002). New environmental strategy for the NHS. London: HMSO.
Oskamp, S., Harrington, M. J., Edwards, T. C., Sherwood, D. L., Okuda, S. M., & Swanson,
D. C. (1991). Factors influencing household recycling behaviour. Environment and Behavior,
23, 494-519.
Ozbek, M., & Sanin, F. D. (2004). A study of the dental solid waste produced in a school of
dentistry in Turkey. Waste Management, 24, 339-345.

distribution.
Porter, M. (1991, April). Green competitiveness. Scientific American.

Porter, M. E., & van der Linde, C. (1995). Green and competitive. Ending the stalemate. Harvard
Business Review, 73(5), 120-137.
Pugh, D. S. (1990). Organization theory: Selected readings (3rd ed.). Harmondsworth, UK:
Penguin.
Robbins, S. P. (1998). Organizational behavior: Concepts, controversies, applications (8th ed.).
Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Robbins, S. P. (2000). Essentials of organizational behavior. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice
Hall.
Roberts, L. (1996). Improving the environmental performance of firms: The experience of two
metal working companies. Journal of Cleaner Production, 4, 175-187.
Robinson, G. M. (1998). Methods and techniques in human geography. Chichester and
New York: John Wiley.
Russo, M. V., & Fouts, P. A. (1997). A resource-based perspective on corporate environmen-
tal performance and profitability. Academy of Management Journal, 40, 534-559.
Shields, D. J., Solar, S. V., & Martin, W. E. (2002). The role of values and objectives in com-
municating indicators of sustainability. Ecological Indicators, 2, 149-160.
Simmons, D., & Widmar, R. (1990). Motivators and barriers to recycling: Towards a strategy
for public education. Journal of Environmental Education, 22(1), 13-18.
Stabler, M. J., & Goodall, B. (1997). Environmental awareness, action and performance in the
Guernsey hospitality sector. Tourism Management, 18(1), 9-33.
Stern, P. C., Dietz, T., & Guagnano, G. A. (1995). The new ecological paradigm in social-
psychological context. Environment and Behavior, 27, 723-743.
Tomkins, C. R. (1987). Achieving economy, efficiency and effectiveness in the public sector.
Edinburgh: Institute of Chartered Accountants of Scotland.
Tonglet, M., Phillips, P. S., & Read, A. D. (2004). Using the theory of planned behaviour to inves-
tigate the determinants of recycling behaviour: A case study from Brixworth, UK. Resources,
Conservation and Recycling, 41, 191-214.
Tucker, P. (2001). Understanding recycling behaviour, vol. 2. University of Paisley Environmental
Technology Group Research Report. University of Paisley, UK.
Tudor, T. L. (2006). An examination of the influencing factors and policies for sustainable waste
management: A case study of the Cornwall NHS. PhD Thesis. Department of Geography,
Archaeology and Earth Resources, University of Exeter, UK.
Tudor, T. L., Barr, S. W., & Gilg, A. W. (2005a). The role of sustainability within service deliv-
ery in the National Health Service in Cornwall (UK). Proceedings of the ISWA 2005 World
Congress and Exhibition. Towards integrated urban solid waste management. 6-10
November. Buenos Aires, Argentina.
Tudor, T. L., Barr, S. W., & Gilg, A. W. (in press). Linking intended behaviour and actions: A
case study of the Cornwall NHS. Resources, Conservation and Recycling.
Tudor, T. L., Noonan, C. L., & Jenkin, L. E. T. (2005b). Healthcare waste management: A case
study from the Cornwall NHS, UK. Waste Management, 25, 606-615.
Vining, J., & Ebreo, A. (1992). Predicting recycling behaviour from global and specific envi-
ronmental attitudes and changes in recycling opportunities. Journal of Applied Social
Psychology, 22, 1580-1607.
Welford, R. (1998). Corporate environmental management. Systems and strategies. (2nd ed.).
London: Earthscan Publications.
Williams, A., Dobson, P., & Walters, M. (1989). Changing culture: New organizational
approaches. London: Institute of Personnel Management.

distribution.
Woolridge, A., Morrissey, A., & Phillips, P. S. (2005). The development of strategic and tacti-
cal tools, using systems analysis for waste management in large, complex organisations: A
case study in UK health care. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 44, 115-137.
Terry L. Tudor, PhD, is a research fellow in waste management at the University of

Northampton in the United Kingdom. His main research interests are in health care waste man-
agement and environmental behavior in large organizations. He has published in a number of
environmental management and environmental psychology journals and has presented at con-
ferences across the globe including in the United Kingdom, Argentina, and India. He is a
member of the Chartered Institution of Wastes Management.
Stewart W. Barr gained his PhD from the University of Exeter in 2001, having studied the fac-
tors that influenced waste management behavior in Exeter, United Kingdom. He was a research
fellow for 2 years from 2001 to 2003 on an Economic and Social Research Council project
titled “Environmental Action in and Around the Home.” Since 2003, he has worked as a lec-
turer in geography at the University of Exeter, teaching modules on sustainable development
and statistical analysis. He is author of Household Waste in Social Perspective (Ashgate, 2002)
and coauthor of Statistical Techniques in Geographical Analysis (Fulton, 2004).
Andrew W. Gilg is an honorary research fellow at the University of Exeter. Until 2005, when he
retired, he was a reader in Countryside Planning at the University of Exeter. He is currently
researching into Housing Affordability in North Devon and has just completed a Department of
Environment, Food, and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) contract on “Changing Environmental Behavior.”
Before his retirement he directed two Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC) research
grants—between 2001 and 2003, research into “Household Environmental Behavior,” which has
been published widely, and between 2003 and 2005, research into a “Comparison of Local Food
issues in Two English Regions,” which has been mainly published in working papers. In 2005,
he also published a major evaluation of British Planning in “Planning in Britain: Understanding
and Evaluating the Post-War system.”

distribution.

A Novel Conceptual Framework For Examini

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

A Novel Conceptual Framework For Examini

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Environment and Behavior

A Novel Conceptual Framework for Examining Environmental

The online version of this article can be found at:

Email Alerts: http://eab.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts

Citations (this article cites 41 articles hosted on the

Downloaded from http://eab.sagepub.com at University of Exeter on April 21, 2008

This article is concerned with the development of a conceptual framework of

Keywords: organizational behavior; conceptual framework; sustainable envi-

The study of organizational behavior is concerned with the study of

Organizational/site type and size

The Holistic and Interrelated Nature of

Downloaded from http://eab.sagepub.com at University of Exeter on April 21, 2008

which contended that behavior is determined both by perceived “internal

Environmental Behavior Change

Research has demonstrated that because of the interrelated and holistic

Downloaded from http://eab.sagepub.com at University of Exeter on April 21, 2008

The Case Study Organization

Downloaded from http://eab.sagepub.com at University of Exeter on April 21, 2008

health and well-being of the British population. It is composed of a range

Environmental Management in the NHS

Downloaded from http://eab.sagepub.com at University of Exeter on April 21, 2008

Research Methodologies and Tools

Downloaded from http://eab.sagepub.com at University of Exeter on April 21, 2008

Downloaded from http://eab.sagepub.com at University of Exeter on April 21, 2008

mailed by staff to a central location. A total of 987 questionnaires were

The Impact of the Organizational Factors

Downloaded from http://eab.sagepub.com at University of Exeter on April 21, 2008

These issues were compounded by the severe financial constraints that

Downloaded from http://eab.sagepub.com at University of Exeter on April 21, 2008

Organizational/site type and size. “Organizational size and type” was

Organizational structure. The influence of the hierarchical NHS organi-

Downloaded from http://eab.sagepub.com at University of Exeter on April 21, 2008

Source: Tudor (2006).

manifested in a number of ways, including the levels of bureaucracy, the

Downloaded from http://eab.sagepub.com at University of Exeter on April 21, 2008

Acute care ward 2.6 1490.6 32.1

Source: Tudor (2006).

Organizational culture. The organizational culture of the Cornwall

Downloaded from http://eab.sagepub.com at University of Exeter on April 21, 2008

of individual behavior. The organizational culture was closely linked to the

The Impact of the Individual/Cognitive Factors

Downloaded from http://eab.sagepub.com at University of Exeter on April 21, 2008

Attitude I have no interest in recycling –.106 –3.947 <.001

Source: Tudor (2006).

The influence of job satisfaction on behavior is interesting because it

Beliefs. Although environmental attitudes were found to be among the

Downloaded from http://eab.sagepub.com at University of Exeter on April 21, 2008

Motivation. Motivation influenced individual behavior; however, its

Sociodemographics. Although generally, a strong link between sociode-

Environmental awareness. An awareness of on-site waste management

Downloaded from http://eab.sagepub.com at University of Exeter on April 21, 2008

determined the behavior of staff. Table 3 demonstrates the link between

Stated versus actual behavior. An important point to note in constructing

The Holistic and Related Nature of the Factors

Downloaded from http://eab.sagepub.com at University of Exeter on April 21, 2008

the close interaction between the cognitive and organizational variables.

Downloaded from http://eab.sagepub.com at University of Exeter on April 21, 2008

differences in the practices of departments on the basis of their size and

Downloaded from http://eab.sagepub.com at University of Exeter on April 21, 2008

Conceptualizing the Framework

Downloaded from http://eab.sagepub.com at University of Exeter on April 21, 2008

Environmental actions at home