Do organisations and employees engage in green activities symbolically: a multi-level

perspective
Lei Yang, PhD candidate in the School of Business and Management at Queen Mary University of London,
UK.
Email: lei.yang@qmul.ac.uk
Danae Manika, Senior Lecturer (Associate Professor) in Marketing in the School of Business and
Management at Queen Mary University of London, UK.
Email: d.manika@qmul.ac.uk
Frances Bowen, the Head of the School of Business and Management, and Professor of Innovation Studies
at Queen Mary University of London, UK.
Email: f.bowen@qmul.ac.uk

1. Introduction
Defined as an action that intentionally seeks to minimise negative behavioural impacts on the
natural and built world (Kollmuss & Agyeman, 2002; Stern, 2000), pro-environmental
behaviour (PEB) is a multi-level construct that comprises individual/employee,
organisational, institutional, and social-cultural levels. The concern of organisational and
individual hypocrisy of performing PEB has received significant scholarly attention. Recent
literature has disclosed the ceremonial and symbolic nature of organisational green
behaviours such as greenwashing rather than true environmentalism. Individuals also perform
PEB for symbolic purposes such as the need to show self-identity (Steg, Berg, & De Groot,
2012), to conserve reputation (Delmas & Lessem, 2014).
However, very few attention are given to employees’ PEB in the workplace context, which
are essential to the successful enforcement of corporate greening practices. Moreover,
scholars have not yet examined how symbolic PEB can be classified and examined through an
integrated multi-level perspective. With a specific focus of organisational and employee
environmental-related behaviours, the aim of this paper is therefore to establish a multi-level
framework in the sense of explaining symbolic PEB in both levels. It particularly accords
with the Sub-theme 37: Opening the Black Box: Advancing Micro-level Perspectives on
Corporate Social Responsibility of the EGOS Colloquia. First, the short paper starts with
some theoretical backgrounds of symbolic PEB in each level. Second, the paper presents an
integrated multi-level framework of symbolic environmental behaviour that summarises three
major drivers of symbolic PEB in both levels. Third, the methodology approach of study 1 is
introduced. Finally, discussion, contribution and conclusion are demonstrated.
2. Symbolism in PEB
2.1 Symbolic PEB in organisational level
Organisational PEB (O-PEB) is defined as firm practices that aim to reduce negative environmental
impacts. Corporate greening contains both symbolic and substantive components, or can be
purely symbolic in extreme cases (Bowen, 2014). Not only scholars unmasked the symbolic
nature underneath seemingly green organisational actions like greenwashing (Chen & Chang,
2013; Vidovic & Khanna, 2012), but also generated a wider construct of symbolic corporate
environmentalism, which refers to “the shared meanings and representations surrounding
changes made by managers within firms that they describe as primarily for environmental
reasons” (Bowen, 2014, p. 31).
According to Bowen (2014), there are two theoretical traditions that explain motivations of
symbolic corporate environmentalism. The conventional view stresses the economic and
social benefits of acquiring social reputation and legitimacy through engaging in symbolic
corporate environmentalism. This perspective is consistent with the legitimation, stakeholder
pressure and competitiveness drivers of O-PEB according to the institutional theory,
stakeholder theory and the resource-based view. The critical view emphasises that
organisations may symbolically engage in corporate environmentalism actions to signal their
status and authority. High-status actors within the field can signal environmental
responsiveness to exhibit or maintain their authority. These two perspectives are
fundamentally different explanations for why companies engage in symbolic green practices.
To sum up, motives of symbolic corporate environmentalism are legitimation, stakeholder
pressure, competiveness, and status and authority. This is important to note because the two
perspectives give different insights and directions in terms of building a multi-level
framework on drivers of symbolic PEB.

2.2 Symbolic PEB in employee level

Employee PEB (E-PEB) is defined as employees’ measurable actions that are linked with
environmental sustainability and are intentional and fully under the control of employees
(Mesmer-Magnus, Viswesvaran, & Wiernik, 2012). The symbolism embedded in E-PEB has
not been examined much in the workplace context even though researchers identify factors
like self-identity, social identity, and social status in the household context (Griskevicius,
Tybur, & Van den Bergh, 2010; Hogg & Turner, 1987). From the E-PEB literature, norms,
self-identity, social identity, social status, and job requirements are particularly relevant to the
emergence of ceremonial green employee behaviours.
To sum up, symbolic O-PEB can be attributed to legitimation, stakeholder pressure,
competitiveness and status and authority motives, whereas symbolic E-PEB are influenced by
social norms, job requirements, self-identity, social identity and social status.

3. Conceptual Framework
In general, the symbolism PEB can be defined as the representation of pro-environmental
behaviours with symbols or the symbolic meanings attributed to eco-friendly objects and
actions. Nevertheless, the theoretical development of symbolic PEB in two levels is highly
imbalanced. A large number of studies disclose the symbolic nature of organisational
greenings focusing on symbolic corporate environmentalism, whereas similar studies focusing
on the employee level are scant. Therefore, the motives of symbolic environmentalism at the
organisational level are extended to the employee level to propose a multi-level framework of
symbolic environmental behaviour. Based on commonalities shared by symbolic O-PEB and
E-PEB, three motivations—appropriateness, competitiveness, and status, are proposed as
drivers of symbolic PEB across two levels.
First, the legitimation motive at the organisational level and the motives of social norms and
job requirements at the employee level are very much alike in the sense that they show
compliance with external constraints to pursue legitimacy, appropriateness and acceptance.
These drivers are merged together under the label of “appropriateness” in the proposed multi-
level framework. The appropriateness motivation represents the organisation’s and
employee’s intention to signal conformity with taken-for-granted norms or external
regulations via symbolic environmental behaviour.
Second, the symbolic self-identity and social identity motive at the employee level shares
commonalities with stakeholder pressures and competitive motives at the organisational level.
Symbolic green behaviours may increase the behavioural actor’s competitive power compared
with their original state. These drivers are merged together under the label of
“competitiveness” in the proposed multi-level framework. The competitiveness motivation
refers to the organisation’s and employee’s intention to obtain a competitive superiority
among rivals via symbolic environmentally-friendly poses. There are two methods to achieve
the goal: acquire resources and being differentiated from others. The former tells how
organisations and employees acquire competitiveness from external resources (e.g.
reputation). The latter demonstrates how organisations and employees improve
competitiveness through internal characterisation (e.g. identity).
Third, both appropriateness and competitiveness motivations in the proposed multi-level
framework are supported by the conventional perspective of corporate symbolic
environmentalism and are extended across the employee level. However, the critical
perspective should not be neglected. Therefore, the status and authority motive as per the
critical view, supported by the status and wealth driver of symbolic employee PEB, is
proposed to be the third motivation of symbolic environmental behaviours across levels and is
termed “status” motivation in the proposed multi-level framework. The status motivation
refers to the organisation’s and employee’s intention to signal or strengthen their positions in
social ranks via symbolic environmentally-friendly actions.
Figure 1 below illustrates the proposed three motivations of symbolic PEB across both levels;
and their roots from O-PEB and E-PEB symbolic drives literature as well as reflective
perspectives on symbolic corporate environmentalism literature.

Figure 1. A multi-level framework of symbolic environmentalism in organisational and employee

levels and its roots

Note: + labels motives of organisational symbolic environmental behaviours based on the conventional
++
view; labels motives of organisational symbolic environmental behaviours based on the critical
view. Arrows do not infer causal relationships but guide the development of the multi-level
framework.
4. Methodology
The project uses a qualitative approach to verify proposed motivations in each level. In study
1, a qualitative study is proposed to explore the reasons behind symbolic environmental
behaviours in the organisational level. In study 2, a qualitative study is proposed for
consistency in terms of exploring the motivators of symbolic environmental behaviours in the
employee level. In both qualitative studies, semi-structured interview is used to generate more
pertinent and deeper insights of the underlying mechanism of symbolic PEB from
interviewees’ responses (Drever, 1995). In addition, critical incident interview technique
(CIT) is particularly applied on the individual interviews in study 2. The rationale for using
CIT is because its strength and flexibility in encompassing factual happenings to step over
different levels of the aim or attributes; its ability as an exploratory tool in research; and its
role in building theories or models (Butterfield, Borgen, Amundson, & Maglio, 2005).
Therefore, this research technique is utilised as a retrospective tool to examine self-reported
employees’ PEB for symbolic purposes. However, due to the incomplete data collection
process, only study 1 is presented in this paper as study 2 is still in progress.

4.1 Study 1— drivers of symbolic O-PEB

A qualitative study provides insights into the organisational adoption of a symbolic and
superficial approach to address sustainability issues during business practices. Sustainability
directors and managers have a more lucid understanding of why organisations are motivated
to engage in symbolic PEB. The findings from these interviews (N=14) are synthesised with
themes according to the proposed conceptual framework.
4.1.1 Method and data collection
Data are obtained from 14 in-depth interviews of director of sustainability and sustainability
managers from 13 universities that served as organisational context for this study. This study
uses a combined technique of purposive and convenience sampling. In each university, 1 to 4
managers who oversee sustainability issues are approached, and in total 14 interviews were
conducted based on their willingness and availability. Table 1 below summarises the profile
of universities.
Table 1. University profiles
University Location of Position of Number of Informant Category of
pseudo name university interviewee interviewee number the university
in the People
& Planet
league table
2016
University of Worcester Sustainability 1 01 First class
01 coordinator
University of London Head of 1 02 First class
02 sustainability
University of Cardiff Technical 1 03 2:1 class
03 architect
University of Cardiff Environmental 1 04 First class
04 performance
manager
University of Birmingham Sustainable 1 05 2:2 class
05 travel
coordinator
University of Cambridge Head of 1 06 2:1 class
06 environment and
energy
University of London Sustainability 2* 07; 08 First class
07 officer;
Sustainability
engagement
coordinator
University of London Sustainability 1 09 First class
08 engagement
officer
University of Oxford Head of 1 10 2:1 class
09 environmental
sustainability
University of London Sustainability 2 11; 12 2:2 class
10 projects officer;
 sustainability
and engagement
manager
University of Warwick Head of energy 1 13 2:1 class
11 and
sustainability
University of York Grand manager 1 14 2:1 class
12
University of Leeds Sustainability 1 15 First class
manager
13
* The two interviewees are interviewed simultaneously of their own will. Hence, it was considered as
one interview at a time.
Informants are interviewed for 17-47 minutes using a semi-structured interview protocol via
phone-call or Skype. Four themes are particularly investigated according to the proposed
conceptual framework. Meanwhile, by analysing the emerging themes, interviews terminate
at 14 when it was indicated a theoretical saturation. Data are analysed via thematic coding in
NVIVO 11.

4.1.2 Factors influencing symbolic O-PEB

External constraints
Informants suggested that most frequently the university has external requirements and targets
set by institutions in terms of performing in a sustainable way. For instance, the Clean Act
came from the local government sets clear targets to meet, and the Planet Commission often
have requirements around transport, especially the impact on new development of transport in
local areas. Besides, the most claimed external pressure is the carbon reduction target set by
the Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE) in 2010. Universities receive
funding on new developments from HEFCE in the condition of fulfilling the carbon emission
target in due course. It is also the major motivation for some universities to establish a carbon
management plan, to set standards and reporting mechanism in order to systematically
manage their carbon emissions. Moreover, informants indicated the university will face the
risk of breaking the law (e.g. environmental legislation) and legal non-compliance issues
given that universities are found to underperform sustainably. Hence, this theme implies that
delivering sustainability in universities is a way to show compliance to external constraints,
which is consistent with the first motivation — appropriateness, proposed in the conceptual
framework.

Resources
On the one hand, gaining capital funds from HEFCE is a significant reason for universities to
engage in sustainability as funding is an essential resource for growth and improvement. On
the other hand, being energy-efficient makes business sense from a cost-saving perspective.
For instance, an informant mentioned that “the main reason that the sustainability team exists
is to save university money” (informant 11, University of 10). The costs to university not only
come from resource consumption bills but also from purchasing carbon allowances as a larger
user of energy required by the CRC Energy Efficiency Scheme. Overall, performing
environmentally-friendly is a method of obtaining competitive power via either gaining or
saving disposable capitals for the university. Additionally, the majority of informants stated
that university are motivated to acquire positive reputation in terms of doing good for the
environment. In other words, “it is very much like a kind of PR (public relations), it’s good
PR for the university”, said by one of the informants (informant 02, University of 02).
Reputational resource is also a competitive strengthen for universities as it influences the
students’ choice of the university they wish to study. Therefore, being green helped
universities improve their competiveness through the accumulation of capital resource as well
as the spillover of reputational resource, which confirms one approach in the second driver—
competitiveness: resource, proposed in the conceptual framework.

Differentiation
Informants have described environmental activities as a green branding strategy. It became a
recognised brand with a unique logo so that a green image of the university can be easily
perceived by others. In addition, most informants agreed that sustainability is a selling point
for the university to stand out. For instance, one pointed out: “if I looked at the university, I
thought actually what is a unique selling point for the University? Now, I could say actually,
why shouldn’t it be sustainability?” (informant 02, University of 02). Therefore, being
environmental-friendly can improve the university’s uniqueness and specialty comparing to
other competitors, which confirms the other approach in the second driver—competitiveness:
differentiation, proposed in the conceptual framework.

Status
Some has indicated the importance of “providing leadership in this field” (informant 06,
University of 06) and believed that the university has a responsibility in making a difference
on sustainability and “acting as an agent for change” (informant 04, University of 04). For
example, an informant recognised the university’s role to be “world-leading in terms of our
approach to reduce our impacts on the environment” (informant 06, University of 06).
Besides, the leadership in sustainability is something the university can achieve and then
enable other university to replicate, as claimed by one of the informants, “we are leading an
example for our students, for our staff, for external stakeholders, for other universities, for
people all over the UK, for people all over the world, anybody that wants to listen, I guess.
Anybody that’s kind of looking at Universities to take the lead in sustainability” (informant
08, University of 08). Hence, the theme concerning the leadership and entrepreneurial
influences in sustainability field supports the third motivation—status, proposed in the
conceptual framework.

5. Contribution and Conclusion

The analysis of symbolic environmental-related activities is usually restricted to certain
groups of behavioural actors and overlooks the possibility of bridging the motivational
mechanisms across different levels. This paper is the first systematic analysis of the drivers of
symbolic environmental activities via a multi-level perspective (although not completely
verified to date), which explores the commonalities and differences among different
motivators of PEB and provides theoretical insights into the symbolic nature of environmental
activities. A multi-level model also provides a parsimonious overview of common motives of
symbolic environmental behaviours across levels.
There are preliminary findings from study 1 showing that organisations perform PEB for
symbolic reasons such as to comply with external requirements, to increase competitiveness,
and to demonstrate status and leadership. From a theoretical standpoint, the identification of
three drivers mentioned above confirmed symbolic PEB literature in organisational level and
pave the way to explore the commonalities and differences across the two levels (i.e.
organisational and employee level).
To conclude, study 1 provides preliminary supports to the proposed multi-level framework.
Study 2 is still in process. A multi-level framework of symbolic environmentalism will fill in
the research gap in the literature and opens the door of exploring the rhetorical and symbolic
nature of environmental behaviours across different levels. It offers a new perspective of
examining the motivational mechanism behind environmental symbolism, encourages
thinking of how to see symbolic environmental activities in practice, and opens new
opportunities for theoretical expansions in the future.

Bibliography:

Bowen, F. (2014). After Greenwashing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139541213
Butterfield, L. D., Borgen, W. A., Amundson, N. E., & Maglio, A.-S. T. (2005). Fifty years of
the critical incident technique: 1954-2004 and beyond. Qualitative Research, 5(4), 475–
497. https://doi.org/10.1177/1468794105056924
Chen, Y. S., & Chang, C. H. (2013). Greenwash and Green Trust: The Mediation Effects of
Green Consumer Confusion and Green Perceived Risk. Journal of Business Ethics,
114(3), 489–500. https://doi.org/10.2307/23433794
Delmas, M., & Lessem, N. (2014). Saving power to conserve your reputation? The
effectiveness of private versus public information. Journal of Environmental Economics
and Management, 67(3), 353–370. Retrieved from
http://econpapers.repec.org/article/eeejeeman/v_3a67_3ay_3a2014_3ai_3a3_3ap_3a353-
370.htm
Drever, E. (1995). Using Semi-Structured Interviews in Small-Scale Research. A Teacher’s
Guide. SCRE. Retrieved from https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED394990
Griskevicius, V., Tybur, J. M., & Van den Bergh, B. (2010). Going green to be seen: Status,
reputation, and conspicuous conservation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
98(3), 392–404. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0017346
Hogg, M. A., & Turner, J. C. (1987). Social identity and conformity: A theory of referent
informational influence. Current Issues in European Social Psychology, 2, 139–182.
Retrieved from https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=zh-CN&q=Hogg%2C+M.+A.
+and+Turner%2C+J.+C.+%281987%29%2C+“Social+identity+and+conformity
%3A+A+theory+of+referent+informational+influence”%2C Current+issues+in+Europea
n+social+psychology%2C 2%2C+139-182.&btnG=&lr=
Kollmuss, A., & Agyeman, J. (2002). Mind the Gap: Why do people act environmentally and
what are the barriers to pro-environmental behavior? Environmental Education
Research, 8(3), 239–260. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504620220145401
Mesmer-Magnus, J., Viswesvaran, C., & Wiernik, B. M. (2012). The role of commitment in
 bridging the gap between organizational sustainability and environmental sustainability.
In S. E. Jackson, D. S. Ones, & S. Dilchert (Eds.), Managing human resources for
environmental sustainability (pp. 155–186). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass/Wiley.
Retrieved from http://wiernik.workpsy.ch/downloads/the-role-of-commitment-in-
bridging-the-gap-between-organizational-sustainability-and-environmental-sustainability
Steg, L., Berg, A. E. van den., & De Groot, J. I. M. (Eds.). (2012). Environmental
psychology : an introduction. Wiley-Blackwell.
Stern, P. C. (2000). New Environmental Theories: Toward a Coherent Theory of
Environmentally Significant Behavior. Journal of Social Issues, 56(3), 407–424.
https://doi.org/10.1111/0022-4537.00175
Vidovic, M., & Khanna, N. (2012). Is Voluntary Pollution Abatement in the Absence of a
Carrot or Stick Effective? Evidence from Facility Participation in the EPA’s 33/50
Program. Environmental and Resource Economics, 52(3), 369–393.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10640-011-9533-3