1.

Background
Sustainable development in the contemporary world deems humans as the core, creating them
the right for a healthy and productive life in harmony with nature (Gabitov, et al., 2014), giving
birth to the concept of Green Buildings which has promised a growth of 14.3% CAGR by 2027
(GlobeNewswire, 2021).

Apparel manufacturing industry has been a major contributor towards environmental pollution
for the longest time and the sustainability of such garment factories depend largely on
environmental responsibility, making green buildings necessary for the survival of apparel
industry (Samaranayake & De Silva, 2010). The trend of green buildings is becoming potentially
significant in Asia, world’s largest manufacturing powerhouse (Ives, 2014). Many garment
factories in Asian countries, especially Bangladesh, Vietnam, Sri Lanka, China, and India, are
adopting eco-friendly initiatives, with Bangladesh in the lead, possessing 150 US Green Building
Council (USGBC) Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) certified green apparel
factories (Apparelscience, 2021).

As reported by the USGBC (2019), green buildings reduce carbon emissions by 34%, consumes
25% less energy and 11% less water, while also diverting 80 million tons of waste from landfills,
in contrast to conventional buildings. Further, employees in green, well-ventilated workspaces
recorded a 101% increase in cognitive scores, slept an average of 46 minutes more per night
and showed improvements in performance up to 8% (World Green Building Council, 2017),
demonstrating the impact of green buildings on productivity of employees.
 2. Rationale
The extent of research focusing on green buildings is exceptionally high in the contemporary
world which gives prominence to sustainability. There is a fair amount of existing literature
directly addressing the concept of green buildings and its impact on occupants. However, in
determining the relationship between green buildings and productivity, most literature focus
on productivity via employee health and well-being (Ghodrati, et al., 2012; Allen, et al., 2015;
Gou & Xie, 2017) or productivity associated with employee satisfaction (Liang, et al., 2014;
Agha-Hossein, et al., 2013; Altomonte & Schiavon, 2013; Tung, et al., 2019). Research articles
which demonstrate a direct link between green buildings and employee productivity are rather
limited, creating a visible gap in research.

Further, existing literature give unclear evidence on the relationship between the two variables
of green building and employee productivity, which creates an ambiguity. In the comparison of
green buildings with conventional buildings, it is stated that, although green buildings with
better indoor environments can bring higher satisfaction, productivity and well-being to
occupants, there are instances where non-green buildings demonstrate superiority over green
buildings in terms of light environment, sound environment and office layout (Thatcher &
Milner, 2014; Pei, et al., 2015; Gou, et al., 2012).

Thatcher and Milner (2014) suggest that specifications of green buildings require refinement
and broadening to focus on qualities that lead to improved productivity. Therefore, this
research attempts to identify these specific qualities or components of green buildings that will
enhance employee productivity, to bridge the existing gap in knowledge.

3. Scope
This research specifically focuses on the impact of green buildings on employee productivity.
The key elements of green buildings as well as factors affecting employee productivity will also
be analyzed. Although green buildings gained popularity across many industries such as
hospitality, healthcare and education, this study will be limited to the apparel manufacturing
industry in Asia, considering the rapidly increasing number of green garment factories
(Samaranayake & De Silva, 2010), especially in the Asian region. The area shaded in grey in
Figure 01 below demonstrates the scope of this research.

Figure 1: Scope of the Research

Source: Developed by Author

4. Aim and Objectives

4.1 Aim
To critically evaluate the impact of green buildings on employee productivity in apparel
manufacturing industry in the Asian Region

4.2 Objectives
• To identify and evaluate key elements of green buildings in apparel manufacturing
industry in Asia
• To evaluate internal environment factors of green buildings affecting employee
productivity in apparel manufacturing industry in Asia
• To critically evaluate the relationship between green buildings and employee productivity
in apparel manufacturing industry in Asia
• To establish the most effective utilization procedures of green buildings to enhance
employee productivity in apparel manufacturing industry in Asia
 5. Potential for Insightful Outcome
The outcome of this research will help to identify the specific components of green buildings
that will affect employee productivity positively and distinguish the most effective utilization
procedures for those identified components in order to enhance the productivity of employees
in apparel manufacturing industry. This will be useful for employers in determining the
important features of green buildings to best utilize the performance of their employees by
providing improved internal environment quality. Moreover, it is useful for garment
manufacturers of Asian countries to combat issues concerning negative impacts of
industrialization on sustainable development, by transforming into green factories. Since
foreign buyers too give priority to eco-friendly produce currently (Kiron, 2020), this research
will also assist Asian manufacturers to expand their export market.

6. Application of Theory into Practice

In literature concerning green buildings and employee productivity, it has been identified that
to improve employee productivity, the built environment’s ability to influence long-term
employee behavior play a major role (Agha-Hossein, et al., 2013). Existing literature further
argue that employee awareness on green buildings can cause behavioural change and
adjustments within the working environment (Al Horr, et al., 2016) and that staff attitudes
towards sustainability affect their performance (Zuo & MaloneBeach, 2017). Hence, the Theory
of Planned Behavior (TBP) will be used in this research to reflect on promoting employee
attitudes to effectively target changes in occupant behavior.

Furthermore, Social Exchange Theory (SET) is an important facet of evaluating employee

workplace relations, which analyses how employees tend to recur behaviors that have been
rewarded in the past (Chernyak-Hai & Rabenu, 2018). SET emphasizes that relationships
between individuals largely rely on the balance between giving and receiving, which shows that
when the organization rewards the employee with better working conditions (in terms of
improved internal environment) which increases their willingness to work, employee
productivity will improve (Yin, 2018).
Triple Bottom Line (TBL) is another concept which supports the delivery of sustainable
development (Goh, et al., 2020), studied throughout the course of the MBA. Green buildings
aim to improve the performance and productivity through the facets of social, economic, and
environmental metrics, which are also the three pillars of TBL (Phillips, et al., 2020). Hence, this
research will focus on the use of TBL to identify how best to utilize green buildings to improve
employee productivity.

Scholarly articles were analyzed to identify key elements of green buildings. Cole (2019)
identified sustainable sites, location and transportation, energy and atmosphere, water,
materials, indoor quality and shape of building as key elements of green buildings whereas
Ragheb, et al. (2016) stated sustainable site design, water conservation and quality, energy and
environment, indoor environment quality and conservation of materials and resources as
elements of green buildings.

Factors affecting productivity of employees have been identified by researchers as

environmental hazards, the building design (Allen, et al., 2015), social factors (Kim, 2015),
behavioural factors, architectural design, operations and maintenance (Allen, et al., 2015).
Factors such as, daylighting, air quality, external views, ventilation, noise reduction, thermal
range were also identified (Thatcher & Milner, 2014).

Further, existing literature gives unclear evidence about the relationship between green
buildings and employee productivity. Although many articles claim a positive impact of green
buildings on productivity (Ghodrati, et al., 2012; Zhang, et al., 2018), certain articles claim that
some green buildings attracted lower satisfaction and comfort, causing low productivity (Gou,
et al., 2013; Pei, et al., 2015).

7. Method of Analysis
Systematic review approach will be deployed in this research using existing scholarly articles to
evaluate the identified objectives. A systematic review is a rigorous approach of summarizing
knowledge from an existing body of literature in a comprehensive and unbiased way
(Aromataris & Pearson, 2014). It is the best approach to be used when a collection of extensive
articles is available on a favored topic and the aim and objectives are well-defined (Denscombe,
2010).

This research will be qualitative in nature and resources such as Emerald, Scopus, Wiley Online
Library, Elsevier, and Google Scholar will be used to source articles using key words such as
‘Green Building’, ‘Employee Productivity’ and ‘Apparel Manufacturing Industry of Asia’. Author
will attempt to finalize 10 - 20 journal articles for the purpose of this research via rigorous
filtration of existing resources by deploying the four phase PRISMA guidelines (Selçuk, 2019).
Collected data from research articles will be analyzed through a thematic synthesis approach.

8. Evidence
Through the analysis of abovementioned facts, it is evident that there is an equivocal
relationship between the internal environment offered by green buildings and employee
productivity, where certain articles demonstrate a positive relationship and some articles
exhibit factors favoring conventional buildings over green buildings. Therefore, it is important
to identify the elements of green buildings that can positively impact employee productivity
and establish the most effective utilization procedure for green buildings and its features to
enhance productivity.
Literature Review

Theoretical Aspect of Green Buildings

The concept of green buildings has been progressively popularizing in a number of countries as
the embodiment of sustainable development across many industries (Shi & Liu, 2019).
According to the World Green Building Council, a Green Building can be described as a building
that is designed, constructed or operated in a manner which eradicates negative impacts on the
climate and natural environment while generating positive impacts, preserving natural
resources and improving the overall quality of life (World Green Building Council, 2017). Green
buildings lessen the impact on the environment through reduced levels of energy and water
usage and minimizing disturbances to the environment through building sites (Allen, et al.,
2015), and through better building construction, improved operation and maintenance and
lifecycle considerations such as recycling and deconstruction (Cole, 2019). Although there are
numerous interpretations for green buildings, the concept of green buildings as a whole
translates into the three themes of effective resource utilization, creation of a healthy and
comfortable living environment, and harmonious living with the environment (Shi & Liu, 2019),
which corresponds to the Triple Bottom Line (TBL) of sustainable development.

TBL refers to the value of an investment in terms of social, environmental, and economic
dimensions. TBL is an element of sustainable development, indicating that development should
meet the needs of current generation, while preserving and maintaining conditions for future
generations (Hammer & Pivo, 2016). TBL offers clear and developed strategies and action plans
for the construction industry, which contributes largely towards developing a sustainable
future, where the principles of TBL align with the aims of sustainability (Goh, et al., 2020). The
design framework of green buildings intends to improve building conditions and performance
across the facets of environmental, economic, and social metrics of TBL (Phillips, et al., 2020).

In a sustainable construction such as a green building, the delivery of all three aspects of
environmental, economic, and social elements must be ensured in a balanced and optimal
manner, so that one pillar will not overpower the other. Environment sustainability of
construction will ensure that a building will restore and maintain the harmony between the
built environment and the natural environment through the efficient use of natural resources
and minimizing the impact of the built environment (Goh, et al., 2020). People-centered
solutions are often encouraged in sustainable construction, since it is evident that the indoor
quality of the built environment is a major factor determining human well-being, considering
the amount of time spent indoors by people in industrialized countries (Phillips, et al., 2020).
Social sustainability focuses mainly on the user comfort, health and safety, and access to
services whereas economic sustainability refers to financial gains from projects to all project
stakeholders. However, for the successful implementation of the principle of TBL, it is of
paramount importance to balance all three dimensions of sustainability throughout the
lifecycle of a green building (Goh, et al., 2020).

Theoretical Aspect of Employee Productivity

The term productivity is employed as an indicator of the effectiveness of a production system,

where the efficiency of inputs to a process is determined against a given level of output (Njururi
& Okech, 2016). Employee productivity refers to the employee’s actual contribution to the
productivity of the company in terms of output quality or personal capacity. Furthermore,
employee or labour productivity can be considered as a value-addition brought in by the
employee to the production process or service provision of a company, which is also the most
prevalent factor behind the success or failure of an organization (Sreekumar, et al., 2018).

Ensuring that employees work in a safer, more comfortable, and healthier work environment
will result increased levels of efficiency among staff, especially in the manufacturing sector
(Kaya, 2015). Although there might different factors affecting the productivity of employees in a
manufacturing setting, the working environment is one such factor that has a direct influence
on employee productivity. In order to create a better work environment that enhances worker
productivity, internal environmental factors such as improved air quality and air circulation,
better lighting, reduced noise levels, availability of clean drinking water, and better
temperature conditions, play a major role (Sreekumar, et al., 2018).

Knowledge and awareness are two factors that affect employee behavior within an
organization. Knowledge is closely related with employee behavior while awareness deals with
understanding the effect of certain elements and factors on employee behavior (Bashirun &
Noranee, 2020). It is argued that employee awareness on green buildings can cause behavioral
change and adjustments within the working environment (Nisiforou, et al., 2012). Employees’
behavioral intensions can be boosted to increase their productivity through raising of
awareness and educating employees regarding the importance of green buildings and its
benefits (Bashirun & Noranee, 2020). Further, attitude, which is an individual’s overall
evaluation of their behavior, is also the greatest predictor of behavior. Attitudes are influenced
by personal, social, or informational factors and will stimulate behavior (Joachim, et al., 2015).
The Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB) could be used to evaluate the relationship between
attitude and behavior and to reflect on promoting employee attitudes to effectively target
changes in occupant behavior (Nisiforou, et al., 2012).

TPB is a behavioral model used to explain and predict behavior through the constructs of
attitude, subjective norms, and perceived behavioral control. The individual attitude towards
performing the behavior of interest, the social pressure whether to perform or not perform the
behavior of interest, and the sense of self-efficacy or the belief in their ability to perform the
behavior of interest, collectively determines a person’s intention. More favourable attitude,
more favourable subjective norms and greater perceived behavioral control will ensure
stronger intentions to perform the behavior of interest (Wu, et al., 2017). Therefore, it can be
established that the main antecedent of an individual’s behavior is their intention towards the
behavior. In summary, with proper knowledge and awareness concerning the benefits of green
buildings to influence employee intentions, the behavior of employees can be inspired to
achieve better productivity (Greaves, et al., 2013).

Social Exchange Theory (SET) is yet another theory which is extremely beneficial in assessing
workplace relations. SET depicts that the formation of human relations at a workplace is
determinant upon subjective cost-benefit analysis, where employees are more likely to repeat
actions rewarded in the past. More often a particular action is rewarded, more likely the
recurrence of the particular behavior (Chernyak-Hai & Rabenu, 2018). SET is further defined as
a two-sided rewarding process which involves two parties, where one party will be motivated
to engage with the other party provided that the benefits received will outweigh the costs
involved (Rasoolimanesh, et al., 2015). SET can be used as the foundation of the relationship
between employees and the organization. Either party will be driven by self-interest where if
neither of the two parties could get satisfactory rewards, the exchange will not take place.
Hence, when the organization promises better rewards for employees through improved
internal environmental conditions and a better working environment, the level of trust of
employees regarding the organization will increase, augmenting their willingness to work hard,
which will cause them to repay the organization through better performance. This supports the
fact that better internal environment conditions will boost employee productivity (Yin, 2018).

Key elements of green buildings in apparel manufacturing industry in Asia

What causes a green building, or a green factory, to be green are the key components or
elements most commonly found across green buildings in Asian manufacturing industry. As
established by Cole (2019), the key components of green buildings most commonly found
include sustainable sites, location and transportation, energy and atmosphere, water, materials
and indoor air quality, and shape of the building. These elements are further acknowledged by
Ragheb, et al. (2016), stating five major elements of green building design, namely, sustainable
site design, water conservation and quality, energy and environment, indoor environment
quality and conservation of materials and resources. These components mentioned in above
two studies are further established in a research conducted on green certified factory buildings
in Sri Lanka (Monarange, et al., 2016) which underscores sustainable site conditions, energy
consumption, water efficiency, indoor environmental quality, and material uses as sustainability
attributes of green buildings.

A sustainable site design will ensure that there is minimal impact from built environment on the
natural environment. For example, a sustainable site design will take advantage of solar access,
shading and wind patterns which could overcome heating problems and improve cooling within
the building. Water conservation and improved quality of water will be ensured via capturing,
storing, filtering, and reusing of water. Energy-efficient designs will be incorporated into
buildings to create an efficient and comfortable environment while indoor air quality will
promote occupant health and productivity. Material selection should also be carried out
ensuring the careful selection of material which are durable, locally manufactured, contains
recycled content and reduces negative impact on environment (Ragheb, et al., 2016).

Another study which demonstrates the role of environment sustainability within green
buildings highlights the importance of paying attention to sustainability as the construction
stage itself, thereby introducing the sustainable construction criteria for green buildings. These
sustainable construction criteria, namely, reducing resource consumption, reusing the
resources, conservation of natural environment, reinforcing quality, considering the economic
efficiency, and removing toxicity are the key components of green buildings constructed within
sustainability initiatives (GhaffarianHoseini, et al., 2013).

The concept of green buildings emphasizes saving resources such as water, energy and material
resources in construction and focuses on the maintenance of buildings to reduce negativities
towards the natural environment and building occupants. To be in par with the
abovementioned concept of green buildings, Bombugala and Atputharajah (2010) identifies
seven components of green buildings, that is, low energy materials, sustainable site, water
reduction, energy optimization, waste management, superior indoor quality, and increased
human comfort, that should be taken into consideration at the designing stage. Efficient use of
energy, water and material, improvement of indoor environmental quality, and minimization of
negative impacts on the environment are factors highlighted in another study as principal
considerations or components of green buildings (Zhang, et al., 2018).

Furthermore, many green building certifications too disclose certain elements to categorize and
certify construction structures as green buildings. A study conducted in Taiwan unveils
characteristics such as energy savings, water resources, greenery, water-soil content,
garbage/sewage upgrading, indoor environmental quality, carbon emission reduction,
construction waste reduction, and biodiversity as criteria cited in green building certification
(Liang, et al., 2014). Further, LEED or the Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design, which
is a third-party certification on green buildings, highlight five common credit categories under
which green buildings are accredited; sustainable sites, water efficiency, energy and
atmosphere, materials and resources, and indoor environmental quality.
Taking into consideration all aforesaid categories and components of green buildings, it is
evident that, although various studies highlight different components of green buildings,
sustainable site design, indoor environmental quality, water conservation, energy optimization,
and conservation of materials and resources are the five most commonly emphasized
characteristics of green buildings across several studies.

Internal environmental factors affecting employee productivity in apparel manufacturing

industry in Asia

Employee productivity in the manufacturing industry can be measured in terms of the output
generated by an individual within a certain specified period of time. Productivity is considered
as an important theory in the manufacturing sector due to its ability to stimulate higher
production at reduced costs and reduce wastage of materials (Sreekumar, et al., 2018).

There are many factors that can affect the level of productivity of employees. As indicated by
Mendis (2016), factors that affect employee productivity in the manufacturing industry can be
categorized into two components; management driven factors and factors arising from the
factory design. Organizational plans, job descriptions, working patterns, administrative support,
training and development practices are some of the management driven factors that affect
employee productivity as highlighted in the aforesaid research. However, it has been
highlighted that the workplace/factory design plays a major role in improving productivity of
employees (Mendis, 2016). Out of the key components of green buildings, indoor
environmental quality has a massive impact on building performance and employee
productivity. Poor indoor environmental quality will lower the productivity causing employees
to utilize more time to complete the same workload. These additional personnel costs of poor
productivity derived due to low internal environmental quality will be a cost burden to the
organization, making internal environmental quality a vital component of ensuring worker
productivity (Hwang, et al., 2022).

It is evident that if workers are happy, they will perform better. Therefore, a better working
environment will have a direct impact on the employee productivity and morale of any
organization. Through the provision of better air quality and air circulation, improved
temperature conditions, adequate lighting, reduced level of noise, proper drinking water, a
harmonious working environment can be created which will motivate employees to work
harder and more effectively which will enhance their productivity (Sreekumar, et al., 2018). It is
common to misjudge that the compensation package of an employee will solely determine
their job performance. However, Mendis (2016) states that performance based on
compensation is only limited to a certain extent, whereas improvements in the physical design
of the workplace or the internal environment alone will result in 5-10% increase in the level of
productivity of employees. Factors such as workplace layout, ventilation, lighting, establishment
of equipment, and thermal comfort are underscored in the study as internal environmental
factors affecting the productivity of employees in the apparel manufacturing industry.
Moreover, Hwang, et al. (2022) features four aspects of indoor environmental quality in their
study which has an impact of productivity. ‘Acoustics’ or the ability of sound insulation of walls
and ceilings, ‘Visual’ or the availability of daylight, antiglare devices and adequate windows,
‘Ventilation’ or availability of natural or mechanical ventilation, and ‘Furnishing’ or amount of
furnishing and usage of recyclable or green materials are identified as indoor environmental
factors affecting productivity. Kaya (2015) further proposes that creating a favourable work
environment and designing it ergonomically is of utmost importance, particularly in the apparel
manufacturing industry where workers spend massive amounts of time working inside
factories. The inherent occupational health and safety risks of the garment sector such as noise,
high temperature, work exhaustion, manual-handling of chemicals, musculoskeletal disorders,
and poor lighting can be eliminated via improved workplace designs and enhanced indoor
environmental quality (Kaya, 2015). Additionally, several studies (Dulari, et al., 2020;
Shanmugasundaram & Panchanatham, 2011; Gunapalan & Ekanayake, 2019) highlight the
importance of improved physical working environment in the garment industry to overcome
negativities such as congested work area, improper ventilation, dust, excessive noise, high
temperature and humidity intrinsic to the apparel manufacturing industry. Hence, elements of
indoor environmental quality such as thermal comfort, indoor air quality, acoustic comfort,
visual comfort, spatial comfort and building maintenance and cleanliness play an important role
in influencing employee productivity in the Asian apparel manufacturing industry.
Impact of green buildings on employee productivity in apparel manufacturing industry in Asia

With the evolution of civilization, the basic need of buildings to shelter from rain and wind
became antiquated with advanced needs of people to live comfortably and healthily (Shi & Liu,
2019). However, in the contemporary world, societal awareness regarding the
overconsumption of natural resources has heightened, which gave birth to the concept of
sustainable building constructions (Goh, et al., 2020). Hence, the term ‘Green Buildings’
evolved, which refers to constructions that adhere to the laws of nature by lessening
disturbances to the natural environment and preserving natural resources. Green buildings
consider many factors such as indoor environmental quality, climate, ventilation and energy
consumption, which creates a healthy and comfortable working environment that improves
health and productivity levels of workers (Shi & Liu, 2019).

Most studies conducted to evaluate the impact of green buildings on employee productivity
portray a positive correlation among green buildings and employee productivity. One such
study conveys, that occupants of green buildings reported fewer absenteeism caused by
asthma and allergies, lower employee turnover and reduction in the length of open staff
positions (Allen, et al., 2015). It is further stated that occupants in green buildings
demonstrated high levels of satisfaction due to less discomforts, better moods, improved sleep
at night and access to better views. Moreover, a comparative study conducted between green
buildings and conventional buildings in apparel manufacturing industry of Sri Lanka reveals
that, intrinsic factors of green buildings such as higher indoor air quality, thermal comfort,
daylight and exterior view, and natural ventilation strategies have demonstrated measurable
increments in worker productivity (Mendis, 2016). As unveiled by Zhang, et al. (2018), studies
convey that green building improve visual acuity and thermal comfort, causing productivity to
increase by 6% - 25% and absenteeism to reduce by 15% - 25%, indicating a clear positive
relationship between green buildings and employee productivity.

However, it is to be observed that although many article claim a positive impact of green
buildings on productivity, certain articles argue the opposite. An occupant survey conducted in
first-generation green buildings in China revealed that while some green buildings enjoyed
higher satisfaction and comfort, certain green buildings demonstrated rather lower levels of
satisfaction and comfort (Gou, et al., 2013). It is further mentioned that although green
buildings tends to perform better that conventional buildings in terms of thermal satisfaction,
indoor air quality , cleanliness, and improves office space feeling, when considering factors such
as the light environment, sound environment and office layout, green buildings fail to prove
superiority over non-green buildings (Pei, et al., 2015). Moreover, it is said that in certain
instances, internal environment quality of green and non-green buildings shows no difference
in overall satisfaction or productivity (Gou, et al., 2013). Supporting this argument, another
study states that it was discovered that conventional buildings equipped with proper heating,
ventilation and air-condition systems indicated no significant difference in thermal comfort in
comparison to green buildings (Shi & Liu, 2019). Allen, et al. (2015) too confirms this stating
that although green buildings performed better in terms if indoor air quality, it performed
worse in terms of noise, while being mostly consistent over other internal environment quality
parameters.

Nevertheless, it is also pointed-out that green building occupants are more forgiving and
tolerant of their ambient environments rather than occupant of non-green buildings, which
means that dissatisfaction with one or more elements of a green building does not necessarily
guarantee dissatisfaction on the environment overall, due to their tendency to balance the
good features against the bad (Gou, et al., 2013). Taking all the above into consideration, it is
safe to mention that, although a positive impact of green buildings on employee productivity is
established across a vast amount of literature, certain articles assert the opposite, claiming that
either green buildings demonstrate lower satisfaction or productivity or no significant changes
in comparison with traditional buildings, creating a certain level ambiguity among the
relationship between green buildings and employee productivity.
Method of Analysis

Research approach

The connection between theory and research is often a choice between theories driving the
research process across the phases, or theory as a product of the research process, which
translates into the two approaches of deductive and inductive (Bell, et al., 2019). The extent to
which the author is clear about the theory at the beginning of the research will be a key
determinant of the research approach, whether its deductive approach in which a theory and
hypothesis are developed first and then tested using a design strategy or inductive approach in
which you first collect data and then develop a theory based on the results of the data analysis
(Saunders, et al., 2009).

Deductive approach involves starting-off with a theory, deriving hypotheses from the theory,
testing the hypotheses, and revising the theory, which depicts moving from general to
particular. On the other hand, inductive approach can be described as moving from particular
to general, where theories and concepts will be formed based on the empirical observations
made on a fact of interest (Woiceshyn & Daellenbach, 2018). Abductive approach refers to
creating a ‘guess’ to a theory or concept that delivers an unexpected observation. In other
words, abductive approach consists of discovering a surprising observation that is contradictory
to existing knowledge, which entails creating a guess, or a hypothesis, in order to resolve the
observed irregularity (Gregory & Muntermann, 2011). Through the comparison between
observed and known, abductive approach involves both deduction and induction to formulate
an idea that further needs to be empirically tested.

Deductive approach can be easily adopted to a research topic where there is a multitude of
existing research knowledge through which a theoretical framework can be derived and will
also be quicker to complete (Saunders, et al., 2009). Therefore, this research will use a
deductive approach in order to test the relationship between green buildings and employee
productivity.

Research Strategy
The choice of a research strategy depends on how suitable, feasible and ethical the particular
strategy might be to achieve the research objectives (Denscombe, 2010).