J Bus Ethics
DOI 10.1007/s10551-014-2165-0
Contextualist Inquiry into Organizational Citizenship: Promoting
Recycling Across Heterogeneous Organizational Actors
S. Todd Weaver • Pam Scholder Ellen •
Lars Mathiassen
Received: 25 January 2013 / Accepted: 24 March 2014
 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014
Abstract Although there is a significant amount of
research on organizational citizenship behavior and its
importance to individual and organizational outcomes
(Podsakoff et al. 2000), relatively little research has
explored the process by which such behavior emerges and
is established within an organization. Against this back-
drop, we combine the perspectives offered by contextualist
inquiry (Pettigrew 1990) and actor–network theory (Latour
2005) to propose an integrative framework for investigat-
ing how organizational citizenship behavior develops in a
large, heterogeneous organization. In order to illustrate the
framework, we present a detailed case study of recycling at
a large university. Like many other organizations, the
university does not have a formal organizational structure
to address sustainability concerns and the initiatives are
therefore mainly voluntary and emerging in nature, and
outcomes are, as a consequence, highly uncertain, and
fragile. We argue that contextualist inquiry in combination
with actor–network theory provides new and important
insights into the emergence and establishment of organi-
zational citizenship behaviors, and that outcomes are
S. T. Weaver (&)
Point University, 507 West 10th Street, 31833 West Point,
Georgia
e-mail: todd.weaver@point.edu
P. S. Ellen
J. Mack Robinson College of Business, Georgia State University,
35 Broad Street Suite 1300, 30303 Atlanta, Georgia
e-mail: pellen@gsu.edu
L. Mathiassen
Center for Process Innovation, J. Mack Robinson College of
Business, Georgia State University, P.O. Box 4015,
30302 Atlanta, Georgia
e-mail: lmathiassen@ceprin.org
contingent upon interactions between the context, process,
and content of the behaviors in question and the related
networks of human and non-human actors.
Keywords Organizational citizenship behavior

Sustainability
Contextualist inquiry
Actor–network
theory
Recycling
Introduction
Environmental sustainability is a growing concern for orga-
nizations, which are likely feeling pressure to improve envi-
ronmental performance from consumers, legislators and
regulators, industry groups, and nonprofits. A large percentage
of U.S. consumers (69 %) report at least occasional consid-
eration of the environmental impact of products when shop-
ping (Cone Communications 2012). President Obama signed
an executive order requiring federal agencies to meet targets,
such as 50 % recycling and waste diversion by 2015 (Exec-
utive Order 13514 2009), and 25 US states currently have
regulations mandating the recycling of disposed electronics,
often at the producers’ expense (ERCC 2012). Government
regulators, nonprofits and trade associations are taking an
active role in policy advocacy and are promoting the eco-
nomic and social value of businesses addressing sustainability
issues and then transparently reporting their efforts [e.g., the
US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA 2009), the
American Sustainable Business Council, and Global Report-
ing Initiative (GRI)]. One might be hard pressed to find an
industry that does not emphasize its environmental sustain-
ability initiatives.
To achieve sustainability goals, organizations often rely
on widespread cooperation, rather than coercion, of indi-
viduals and groups. For example, businesses can reduce
123

energy use and consumption waste if employees recycle
aluminum, plastics, and batteries, turn off lights and
computers, and use both sides of paper when printing. This
type of discretionary, extra-role behavior is an example of
organizational citizenship behavior (Organ 1988; Boiral
2009). Indeed, recent research (Boiral and Paille 2012;
Daily et al. 2009) suggests that such ‘‘organizational citi-
zenship behaviors for the environment’’ are a distinct and
important aspect of organizational behavior in need of
further study. Although the antecedents and outcomes of
organizational citizenship behavior have been the subject
of significant research (LePine and Erez 2002; Podsakoff
et al. 2000), very little research has focused on the process
by which such behaviors develop, that is, how they arise
out of emergent and intentional behaviors within an orga-
nization. Given the observed empirical relationship
between organizational citizenship behaviors and organi-
zational outcomes (Podsakoff et al. 2000) and the likely
relationship between citizenship behaviors and environ-
mental performance (Boiral 2009), a greater understanding
of how these behaviors arise is needed.
Against this backdrop, we review the extant literature on
organizational citizenship behavior and develop an integra-
tive framework, which combines the perspectives offered by
contextualist inquiry (Pettigrew 1990) and actor–network
theory (Latour 2005), for investigating the development of
organizational citizenship behavior. To illustrate the
framework, we present a detailed case study of recycling, a
form of organizational citizenship behavior (Boiral and Pa-
ille 2012), at a large university. Like many other organiza-
tions, the university does not have a formal organizational
structure to address sustainability concerns. The initiatives
are therefore mainly voluntary and emerging in nature, and,
as a consequence, outcomes are highly uncertain and fragile.
Finally, we discuss the insights generated by applying our
framework to the case to develop a greater understanding of
how heterogeneous groups of stakeholders negotiate sus-
tainability interests to promote recycling across this large
organization. In addition, we argue that this combination of
perspectives provides new and important insights into the
process by which organizational citizenship behavior
develops in an organization, and we propose that it can be
applied to guide empirical investigation of other organiza-
tional citizenship behaviors.
Research on Organizational Citizenship Behavior
The concept of organizational citizenship behavior (Organ
1988) recognizes that individual and organizational effec-
tiveness is often dependent upon individual behaviors that
are ‘‘above and beyond’’ job descriptions and project plans.
Organizational citizenship behavior is defined as
123
S. T. Weaver et al.
‘‘individual behavior that is discretionary, not directly or
explicitly recognized by the formal reward system, and that
in the aggregate promotes the effective functioning of the
organization’’ (Organ 1988, p. 4). Researchers have iden-
tified multiple categories of this type of behavior, including
helping (i.e., helping colleagues with work problems),
sportsmanship (i.e., enduring work challenges with a
positive attitude), loyalty to the organization, and individ-
ual initiative (Podsakoff et al. 2000). Research indicates
that organizational citizenship behavior is positively rela-
ted to organizational performance (Podsakoff et al. 2000;
Sison 2009), establishing this type of behavior as an
important topic in business research broadly and business
ethics research more specifically (Caldwell et al. 2012;
Sison 2011). Numerous antecedents of organizational cit-
izenship behavior have been identified, including organi-
zational traits like perceived corporate social responsibility
(e.g. Lin et al. 2010) and cohesiveness (Somech and Ron
2007) as well as ethical leadership (Chen and Yang 2012;
Kim and Kim 2013; Shin 2012).
Recently, researchers have begun to apply the concept
of organizational citizenship to pro-environmental behav-
iors in the workplace. Research on organizational sustain-
ability often focuses on formal programs such as
implementing the ISO 14001 standards (e.g., Boiral 2007;
Cordano et al. 2010) or on external influences like stake-
holders (e.g., Maignan and Ferrell 2004) or social institu-
tions (e.g., Roxas and Coetzer 2012). Considerably less
attention has been paid to voluntary pro-environmental
programs that take place within organizations that are vital
to achieving environmental sustainability (Ramus and
Killmer 2007; Rondinelli and Berry 2000). These discre-
tionary, unrewarded behaviors fit the definition of organi-
zational citizenship and can be considered a type or
category of citizenship behavior (Daily et al. 2009).
According to Boiral (2009), environmental citizenship
behaviors ‘‘can be defined as individual and discretionary
social behaviors not explicitly recognized by the formal
reward system and contributing to improve the effective-
ness of environmental management of organizations’’ (p.
223). Boiral and Paille (2012) observe three categories of
organizational citizenship behaviors for the environment
(OCBE): eco-initiatives, which include individual or grass-
roots pro-environmental behavior; eco-civic engagement,
which denotes employee participation in voluntary envi-
ronmental programs sponsored by the organization; and
eco-helping, which involves assisting work colleagues
achieve greater levels of sustainability. Recycling, the pro-
environmental behavior that is the focus of our empirical
case, can be considered a form of sportsmanship in the
general organizational citizenship framework (Boiral 2009)
and a type of eco-initiative within the construct of OCBE
(Boiral and Paille 2012).
Contextualist Inquiry into Organizational Citizenship
The extant research on organizational citizenship
behavior is largely concerned with correlating observed
organizational citizenship behavior with proposed ante-
cedents or outcomes. However, very little research has
taken up the question of how these behaviors emerge and
become established in the first case. Indeed, there have
been calls for more qualitative research on these behaviors
given their ‘‘informal, tacit, and behavioral aspects’’
(Boiral 2009, p. 234). Although research has noted the
positive relationship between contextual variables, such as
organizational culture and leadership, and organizational
citizenship, we currently know relatively little about how
these contextual influences interact with organizational
actors to give rise to organizational citizenship behavior.
Thus, this study seeks to contribute to the stream of
research on organizational citizenship behavior by intro-
ducing an integrative framework for investigating how
organizational citizenship develops.
Contextualist Approach to Actor–Network Analysis
Past research on organizational sustainability has frequently
focused on correlating the incidence of socially responsible
behaviors with specific firm characteristics or initiatives
(e.g., Starik and Rands 1995) rather than the process of
change. Likewise, research on organizational citizenship
behaviors is often static in nature and focuses on relating
organizational and employee traits to citizenship behavior
rather than exploring the process by which such behavior
arises. Thus, there has been a lack of attention to contextual
variables and their interaction with networks of organiza-
tional actors that might help understand and explain the
incidence of organizational citizenship behaviors.
Contextualist Inquiry
In the case of organizational change, Pettigrew (1987, 1990)
argues that it is important to consider not only the content of a
given change initiative but also the context and process of
change. For example, in order to fully investigate the inception
of an organizational citizenship behavior across different
stakeholders, researchers need to study not only the content of
the change (e.g., organizational citizenship behavior) but also
its context (e.g., organization structure and internal political
forces) and process (e.g., trial and establishment of citizenship
behavior). Furthermore, contextualist inquiry helps illuminate
vertical and horizontal perspectives of organizational change.
A vertical perspective views the different levels at which the
organizational context influences change (e.g., individuals,
groups, departments, organization), and a horizontal per-
spective highlights the content and process of the change over
time. Although prior research has explored the content of
organizational citizenship behaviors (e.g., sportsmanship,
eco-initiatives) and, to a lesser extent, the context (e.g.,
organizational culture, corporate social performance), very
little research has examined the process by which these
behaviors take root in an organization. Therefore, this research
will investigate the role of context and process in the devel-
opment of a particular form of citizenship behavior, recycling,
in a specific community.
Actor–Network Theory
Another framework that is useful in understanding trans-
formations in individual and collective behaviors is actor–
network theory (ANT). ANT evolved out of studies in
sociology and has since been applied in a variety of con-
texts (Latour 2005). The focus of ANT is on how stable
networks of associations among human actors and material
objects are formed and maintained, and how these net-
works in turn influence behavior (Latour 2005). Although
the framework is relatively new and quite fluid (Law 1999),
it offers contributions that are useful in the present study.
First, it bypasses the well-worn debate over whether social
structure or individual agency is most responsible for
shaping behavior, claiming instead that the two are indis-
tinguishable; actors form, dissolve, and re-form networks,
which themselves are structural influences on the actors
(Latour 2005). One of the central tenets of ANT is that
social structures have to be enacted and performed in order
to influence behavior; unlike buildings, actor–networks
cease to exist once the associations between human and
material actors are no longer being maintained by some
agency. Actor–networks that are frequently enacted can
create norms, habits, and material artifacts that serve to
facilitate their performance, thereby making them more
durable and influential. The process of constructing and
maintaining actor–networks is investigated through the
lens of translation (Law 1992) as actors generate ordering
effects by negotiating and maneuvering others’ interests
(i.e., translation) in attempts to enroll them into their net-
works. Callon (1986) identifies four stages of translation.
The first is problematization, which involves identifying
the necessary change and the necessary actors to enact
change. The second is interessement, in which organiza-
tional actors agree on the definition of the problem and the
plan to enact change. The outcome of a successful inter-
essement is the third stage of translation, enrolment, where
organizational actors commit to the change process and
engage in the roles and relationships deemed necessary.
The final stage of translation is mobilization, in which
organizational actors recruit allies and find ways of
extending their agency and expanding the actor–network.
Second, ANT offers a unique perspective on the role of
material objects in organizational change, giving them
123

equal footing with humans in actor–networks in terms of
agency (Latour 2005). Although this equal footing does not
imply moral equivalence, ANT proposes that objects can
exhibit agency by influencing the behavior of other actors.
Therefore, any thorough study of behavior should not stop
with human influences but also attend to objects like pro-
ducts, facilities, and other material things. These material
objects are often inscribed with the agency of other actors;
in other words, the maker or designer of the object influ-
ences the users of the object even though he or she never
comes into personal contact with the user (Akrich 1992).
Finally, ANT introduces the concept of punctualization to
describe how an actor–network ceases to be seen as a
collection of actors and associations and instead is per-
ceived as an abstract unity that behaves predictably (Law
1992). For example, a car suffering a mechanical mal-
function is easy to view as a complex collection of
mechanical components with human actors that maintain
them. When it is well functioning, it is more appropriately
viewed as a single entity able to provide predictable
transportation.
These three contributions of ANT offer refreshing and
interesting perspectives on the forces and mechanisms that
shape organizational citizenship behaviors. Furthermore,
the fluidity of ANT makes it amenable to combinations
with other theoretical perspectives (Walsham 1997), as has
been demonstrated in other fields of study (e.g., Cho et al.
2008).
Integrating Perspectives
In order to investigate how organizational citizenship
behaviors develop and are shaped by the organizational
contexts and heterogeneous actors among which they
unfold, we combine contextualist inquiry and ANT into an
integrative framework for investigating how organizational
citizenship behavior develops over time. As overall fram-
ing, this approach focuses on the content of organizational
citizenship behavior, the multiple and competing agencies
in the context within which these behaviors unfold, and the
process through which organizational citizenship develops.
On a more specific level, our framework applies ANT
perspectives and constructs to investigate how organiza-
tional citizenship behavior is negotiated within heteroge-
neous actor–networks, how these networks can be fragile,
and how complex networks can at times be perceived as a
predictable, unitary whole (i.e., punctualization) (content);
how different networks of citizenship agency are shaped
by human and non-human actors both within the organi-
zation and outside it (context); and how organizational
citizenship interests are translated and inscribed into arti-
facts to create actor–networks of agency (process) (see
Fig. 1).
123
S. T. Weaver et al.
CONTEXT: PROCESS: CONTENT:
Agency Development Organizational
Citizenship
Heterogeneous
Actor (human and Problematization Network
non-human) Interessement
Enrolment Fragile Network
Frame (internal and Mobilization
external) Punctualization
Fig. 1 Integrative framework
Research Setting and Methodology
Research Setting
The research site was a large, public university situated in a
city at the center of one of the most populous metropolitan
areas in the US (US Census Bureau 2012). Universities
differ from for-profit corporations in important ways. The
lack of a profit motive might make them less sensitive to
the cost-savings that can be associated with environmental
initiatives such as recycling, and the transient nature of the
student body might make any campus-wide organizational
initiatives more fragile than at other types of organizations.
However, there are also important similarities to other
organizations, especially with respect to the study of
organizational citizenship behaviors. This university, like
many other organizations and communities, does not have
a formal hierarchical structure in support of sustainability
because their current strategic focus is on key service
delivery, which is not facilitated by a focus on sustain-
ability. As a result, efforts are mainly voluntary and
emerging in nature and outcomes are highly uncertain and
fragile. Furthermore, there are in these contexts a variety of
stakeholders (students, faculty, staff, authorities, and rela-
ted communities) with different priorities and responsibil-
ities. Not unlike many business organizations and local
communities, the university represents a heterogeneous
context where individuals and sub-groups pursue their
goals in the face of conflicting pressures and competing
priorities. Furthermore, the university is ordinary in the
sense that it is not a ‘‘heavy polluter’’ under scrutiny from
government or pro-environmental organizations. The uni-
versity is not known for its sustainability efforts, in contrast
to other nearby universities, one of which was rated one of
the top ‘‘green’’ colleges in the US (Princeton Review
2009). However in recent years, sustainability efforts have
begun to emerge among university groups, and this
emerging activity helped motivate the present study. Thus,
this research setting provides a valid, illustrative test case
for our theoretical advancement in the study of organiza-
tional citizenship behavior.
Contextualist Inquiry into Organizational Citizenship

In addition to the research site, the focal behavior of Data Collection

this study, recycling, is also appropriate to explore the
emergence of organizational citizenship. While sustain-
ability efforts encompass a wide range of desirable goals,
the scope of this study is restricted to efforts to increase
recycling behavior for several reasons. Recycling is typ-
ically voluntary and outside of the job requirements of
many employees, such as the faculty and staff in our case;
as such it has been identified as a form of organizational
citizenship behavior (Boiral 2009; Boiral and Paille
2012). Recycling is perhaps one of the oldest forms of
sustainable behavior (California Department of Conser-
vation 1997), and the decade of the 1990’s saw significant
growth in the acceptance of recycling as a norm and in
the availability of municipal recycling resources (Folz
1999). Moreover, recycling is one of the most prevalent
sustainable behaviors among organizations of all types
(American Marketing Association 2009) and individuals
(Harris Interactive 2008) because it is considered ‘‘low
hanging fruit’’ or ‘‘easy and inexpensive’’ (Hart and Ah-
uja 1996, p. 32; Handfield et al. 2005). Therefore, recy-
cling provides a good basis for exploring the process by
which organizational citizenship behavior becomes
established in an organization.
Driven by our goal to better understand the emergence of
organizational citizenship behaviors, we captured data to
illustrate the interplay between content, context, and pro-
cess as heterogeneous organizational actors engaged in
organizational citizenship. Formal data collection began in
the fall of 2008, although the researchers’ involvement
with this institution pre-dates this study. During the
24-month investigation, the research team used a variety of
methods to gain a rich understanding of the relevant actor–
networks at the university. The range of methods used, the
actor–networks reviewed, and the focus of the contextualist
inquiry for each are shown in Table 1.
Context
Pettigrew (1987) describes context as the environment in
which organizational change takes place. This environment
has an internal component, defined as ‘‘the structure, cor-
porate culture, and political context within the firm,’’ and an
external component, defined as ‘‘the social, economic,
political, and competitive environment in which the firm
operates’’ (p. 657). In order to explore the context of incipient

Table 1 Data collected

Actor–networks
University context Sustainability University Greening the Sustainable College Target
Committee Facilities University Students individuals

Collection Interviews; observation; Interviews; Interviews; Interviews; Interviews; Interviews; Interviews;

method(s) audit of electronic observation; physical observation; audit of audit of survey;
sources; physical audit audit of audit audit of electronic electronic observation of
of campus facilities; electronic electronic sources sources; public behavior
secondary research sources sources physical
audit
Collection September 2008– September November September October May 2009– September 2008–
timeline December 2010 2008– 2008– 2008– 2008– December December 2009
December August December December 2009
2010 2009 2010 2010
Contextualist Context Context, Context, Context, Context, Context, Content
inquiry area process process process process process
Focal University leadership Committee Director Group Group Administrator Faculty (Frances,
actor(s)a University constituents members (Edward); members officer (Kristen) Howard); Staff
(Andrew, Student (Andrew, (Daniel) (Ben); Students
Chloe) Assistant Chloe, (Georgette,
(Daniel) Edward) Isabella, Jane)
Focal Building environment, Poster, Recycling Web pages, Web pages Web pages, Recycling bins,
artifact(s) web pages e-mails, bins e-mails recycling recyclable
meeting bins, contest materials
minutes, entries
web pages
Focal activity Facilitating or frustrating Promoting Promoting Promoting Promoting Promoting Recycling
efforts to promote recycling recycling recycling recycling recycling behavior
recycling
a
All names used are pseudonyms

123

recycling behavior at the university, the first author collected
primary and secondary data throughout the course of the
study. First, secondary sources were consulted, including
sources internal to the university (e.g., web pages, student
newspaper articles, and minutes of leadership committee
meetings) as well as external secondary sources, such as the
city newspaper and publications of the Association for the
Advancement of Sustainability in Higher Education
(AASHE). In addition to yielding insights into the internal
and external context, this initial research identified important
organizational actors and actor–networks with influence on
recycling behavior at the university. Next, key informants
were identified in each actor–network, and, over time, semi-
structured interviews were conducted with eleven infor-
mants, who spanned the three focal categories of students
(n = 4), faculty (n = 2), and staff (n = 5). These interviews
typically lasted 60–90 min, and involved multiple meetings.
The interviewer took extensive notes during and after each
interview in order to accurately capture informant accounts.
In addition to these interviews, a convenience sample of 60
students was surveyed about recycling on campus to gain
greater perspective from those targeted by, but not actively
engaged in, formal efforts to promote recycling. Survey
questions were open-ended and include items like ‘‘Do you
recycle anything at [the university]? If so, what do you
recycle?’’ and ‘‘What could [the university] do to encourage
recycling on campus?’’ Thus, the individual perspectives
represented range from those that were heavy promoters to
those who were the targets of recycling efforts. The inter-
views and survey results yielded an understanding of the
university context as perceived by organizational actors.
In addition to these data sources, the first author conducted
observations of public spaces at the university, including the
student center, the food court, a popular outdoor courtyard,
the recreation center, and multiple classroom buildings.
During these observations, the researcher sat in an unobtru-
sive location and observed the surrounding activities for a
period of 45–90 min, taking notes on what he observed.
Finally, the first author was a participant observer in meet-
ings of one of the key actor–networks, Greening the Uni-
versity. Both human and non-human actors, such as
recycling bins and promotional posters, were observed to
understand the influence of each and how they interact. The
data collected related to different levels of the organization,
from individual to college to university to university system,
thus providing the ‘‘vertical’’ perspective on context rec-
ommended by Pettigrew (1987).
Process
Process, according to Pettigrew (1987), denotes ‘‘the
actions, reactions, and interactions from the various inter-
ested parties as they seek to move the firm from its present
123
S. T. Weaver et al.
to its future state’’ (pp. 657–658). In fact, process and
context are inextricably intertwined, with reciprocal influ-
ence between the two (Pettigrew 1990). Therefore, many of
the same sources used to understand the university context
also yielded insight into the process by which recycling
behavior emerged and was established at the university and
the accompanying translation process among organiza-
tional actors. Interviews, survey responses, and observa-
tions were key sources in understanding the process by
which organizational citizenship behaviors arose. In addi-
tion, a content analysis of secondary university sources
provided an indication of the attention paid to recycling
and other sustainable citizenship behaviors over time. The
content analysis and the dispersion of data collection
activities over 2 years provided the ‘‘horizontal’’ or lon-
gitudinal perspective on the process that Pettigrew felt was
essential (Pettigrew 1987).
Content
Content refers to ‘‘the particular areas of transformation
under investigation’’ (Pettigrew 1987, p. 657), which in this
case is recycling behavior. Key data sources here include
reports of recycling behavior and influences on same from
interviews and surveys. Secondary internal sources were
also useful, as they reported measurements of recycling
behavior at the university and at a particular college within
the university. Recycling behavior was also observed in
public spaces at the university. Collecting these data over
time provided evidence of the formation of heterogeneous
actor–networks of organizational citizenship.
Data Analysis
As data collection progressed, the first author began coding
the interview transcripts, open-ended survey responses, and
field notes from observations. The coding followed the two
levels of constructs in the integrative framework (Fig. 1).
First, we coded data drawing on the distinction between
content, process, and context from contextualist inquiry
(Pettigrew 1990). Some data was initially placed within
more than one category as emphasized by the interrela-
tionship between the categories (Pettigrew 1990). Sec-
ondary data was also reviewed and integrated, and content
analysis was conducted on meeting minutes of university
organizations and the student newspaper to measure the
salience of sustainability issues over time. An initial the-
matic structure was proposed to the other two authors, who
reviewed the data and offered refinements.
Second, we coded data drawing on key constructs from
actor–network theory, as summarized in Table 2. This
second stage of coding sought to use analytical constructs
from ANT to more thoroughly investigate the influences on
Contextualist Inquiry into Organizational Citizenship
Table 2 Analytical constructs
Construct Definition
Actor Any entity, human or non-human,
that has agency; that is, potential
or actual influence on other
actors
Frame The subjective framing of the
actor–network; in our case, the
focal actor–network exists
within the geographic and
organizational boundary of the
university (internal). This focal
network is part of a larger,
external actor–network
Translation The process by which human and
non-human actors are assembled
into an actor–network
Problematization The stage of translation in which
actors identify a goal or
objective for a potential actor–
network
Interessement The stage of translation in which
actors come to agreement on the
objective and the steps to reach
it
Enrolment The stage of translation in which
actors commit to achieving the
objective identified earlier. At
this stage, the actor–network is
created.
Mobilization The stage of translation in which
actors within the existing actor–
network seek to recruit new
actors and expand the influence
of the actor–network
Heterogeneous Actor–networks are
network heterogeneous in that they are
composed of both human and
non-human actors, each
exercising agency on other
actors in the network.
Fragile network Actor–networks are not
permanent and hold together
only as long as interests of
actors converge and agency
continues to be performed and
reinforced among actors.
Punctualization A temporary abstraction in which
an actor–network is perceived as
a unitary whole, obscuring the
various actors and actor–
networks that it comprises.
organizational citizenship behavior highlighted by con-
textualist inquiry. Within the context of organizational
citizenship, ANT helped us identify the agency of human
and non-human actors, and we noted that these agencies
could be framed and characterized as internal or external to
the university organization. As we investigated the process
by which organizational citizenship developed within this
Key source
context, we found that the ANT construct of translation
could illuminate how citizenship actor–networks coa-
Latour lesced, moving through the stages of problematization,
(2005);
interessement, enrolment, and mobilization. Finally, in
Law (1992)
terms of the content of organizational citizenship behavior,
Callon the ANT constructs of heterogeneous networks, fragile
(1999) networks, and punctualization were useful in describing
how networks of human and non-human actors produced
fragile configurations of citizenship behavior based on
temporary convergences of interests.
Although the study in this way followed interpretive
principles of iteration between data and theory (Hudson
Law (1992) and Ozanne 1988), the researchers took appropriate steps to
avoid spurious conclusions. On each level of coding,
whenever a theme or finding was challenged by members
Callon
(1986) of the research team, the relevant data was reviewed to see
if it offered adequate support or if it could also support
competing conclusions. In some cases, challenges resulted
Callon in additional, targeted primary or secondary data collection
(1986) to resolve the dispute. For example, early coding suggested
the agency of recycling bins in motivating recycling
Callon
behavior. A member of the research team challenged this
(1986) proposition, asserting that informants were merely ratio-
nalizing their lack of recycling and attributing it to an
external cause. In order to resolve this conflict, additional
data was collected, including a physical audit of the
Callon
availability and variety of recycling bins on campus and
(1986)
specific probing on this issue in subsequent interviews. As
a result, the agency of recycling bins was reinforced and
confirmed, and the author team reached agreement on this
Law (1992) finding. This process of triangulation among the research
team continued, as did the triangulation among data sour-
ces as new data was collected, until the final thematic
structure of the findings was agreed upon via interpretive
convergence (Saldana 2013). In addition, following the
Latour recommendations of Hirschman (1986) and Guba and
(2005);
Lincoln (1986), member checks were conducted to ensure
Law (1992)
the credibility of the findings. Because data collection was
longitudinal, the first author was able to share emerging
findings with some informants and check for objections or
Law (1992) disputed conclusions among the sources for the study. The
feedback we received during member checks was uni-
formly positive and no challenges were made to the cred-
ibility of our findings. Finally, the researchers attempted to
achieve Guba and Lincoln’s (1986) standards for authen-
ticity by being open and fair to all informants and points of
view and by endeavoring to construct an interpretation that
would lead not only to a better understanding of the situ-
ation (i.e., ontological authenticity) but also to an under-
standing that could lead to action in the focal community
(i.e., catalytic authenticity).
123

Case Data and Results
Context: Agency and Organizational Citizenship
Given the contextualist nature of our inquiry, it is appro-
priate to begin by considering ways in which the univer-
sity’s context shaped recycling behavior. This context
exhibited the agency of both human and non-human actors,
and it had both internal and external aspects. The human
actors involved in the internal university context included
individuals at various vertical levels, including the uni-
versity’s president, leaders of pro-recycling groups, and
administrative committees, and the other faculty, staff, and
students that made daily decisions whether to recycle their
waste. One important, over-arching finding in this area was
the lack of a formal sustainability hierarchy; no person or
department at the university was tasked with improving
sustainability generally or recycling in particular. In addi-
tion, the President of the university did not serve as an
advocate for recycling or other sustainability efforts, per-
haps due to competing strategic priorities, such as
improved matriculation among economically challenged
students. Although the sustainability efforts that emerged at
the university were organized under the supervision of the
university’s Executive Committee, Faculty Senate, Staff
Council, or the administrative structures of individual
colleges, the efforts were grass-roots in nature, and there
was no leader or champion for campus-wide sustainability
initiatives. Figure 2 presents a visual representation of the
university context.
For example, one informant, Andrew, was a building
manager at the university and was actively engaged in
promoting recycling efforts on campus. Andrew recounted
how a student group went through the arduous, official
process to advance a proposal that the President sign on to
the American College & University Presidents’ Climate
Faculty Staff Council
Greening
College the Univ. Sustainability
Committee
Students,
Consumption Staff, Recycling
Faculty
Sustainable
Students Executive
Univ.
Facilities Committee
Fig. 2 University context. Solid lines indicate formal authority, while
dashed lines indicate informal influence
123
S. T. Weaver et al.
Commitment, which included several broad statements to
reduce greenhouse gas emissions. However, at the time, the
President was not willing to make this commitment, and
the initiative was denied by the university’s Executive
Committee. According to Andrew, the representatives of
this student group felt ‘‘burned’’ by this experience, as it
sent a signal to the larger campus community that sus-
tainability issues, like recycling, were not important to the
university administration. Ben, another staff member who
worked at a research center for corporate responsibility,
reported that the President, who had been very successful at
enlarging the university and improving its reputation,
simply did not ‘‘see the business case’’ for improving
sustainability because other strategic initiatives were
deemed much more important to the university’s success at
the time.
However, there were many human actors actively trying
to increase recycling behavior on campus. Several campus
groups had sprung up to fill the void of official outlets for
environmental efforts at the university, including the Sus-
tainability Committee, Greening the University, University
Facilities, Sustainable Students, and a college-specific
sustainability initiative, some working within and others
across university groups. For example, the Sustainability
Committee was appointed by the body representing staff
employees. Andrew and another informant, Chloe, who
worked in public relations for one of the six colleges in the
university, were both initial members of this Committee.
However, a newer group, called Greening the University,
was formed primarily to facilitate partnership and collab-
oration between faculty and staff. This group included
members of other groups, including the Sustainability
Committee and the University Facilities Department.
However, it was strictly voluntary and had very little for-
mal organization or authority.
Perhaps the most influential actor in terms of influencing
recycling on campus was Edward, a director in the Uni-
versity Facilities Department. According to Andrew and
Chloe, the recycling that took place at the university was
largely the result of his efforts. Edward had been working
at the university for 6 years, and his personal passion for
recycling had motivated him to attempt to increase the
level of recycling on campus. While he and his staff were
personally responsible for collecting and processing recy-
cling and processing solid waste from all campus buildings,
he did not manage the general custodial services on cam-
pus, which were instead managed by individual colleges
within the university. Thus, the Facilities Department was
not able to manage the placement or emptying of indi-
vidual recycling bins in most buildings on campus; instead,
they relied on the custodial staffs of the colleges to collect
recyclables and place them in a central location for pick-up
by the Facilities Department.
Contextualist Inquiry into Organizational Citizenship
The fourth pro-recycling group on campus was a student
group called Sustainable Students. According to Daniel, an
officer in the group, Sustainable Students had been in
existence since 2006, and it had four primary areas of
interest: preserving forests, conserving water, recycling and
renewable energy. Daniel was the leader of the recycling
efforts, which included advocacy as well as the mainte-
nance of a few recycling bins in outdoor public spaces on
campus. The final group involved in recycling efforts on
campus was a particular college within the university.
Although several colleges and departments within the
university had pursued their own recycling initiatives, this
college mounted a concerted effort to promote sustain-
ability during the observation period.
Non-human actors also helped constitute the internal
context for recycling. One important type of non-human
actor was recycling bins. One survey respondent noted, ‘‘I
know recycling should be encouraged, but it is not some-
thing I think much about unless I see a bin.’’ Howard, a
faculty member, reported that he recycled ‘‘stuff that’s
easy,’’ and he noted his recycling activity over the years
had risen and fallen depending on convenience. When
asked what could be done to increase recycling, graduate
student Georgette replied ‘‘make it easier.’’ Isabella, an
undergraduate student and a committed recycler, thought
that fellow students who did not recycle were ‘‘just lazy.’’
A number of comments from the survey confirmed this
theme. One respondent stated ‘‘I would recycle more if it
was more convenient.’’ Another said ‘‘…sometimes it takes
more effort to recycle than it does to throw everything into
a trash bag.’’ Other typical statements were ‘‘It’s important
enough to do it at my convenience…’’ and ‘‘I guess lazi-
ness takes over.’’
These and other responses indicate that ease and con-
venience was a key factor in whether or not individuals
chose to recycle. Convenience, in turn, is primarily
dependent upon the presence of recycling bins in places
where trash needs to be disposed. For example, Howard
observed how much likelier he was to recycle now that his
department had provided small paper recycling bins in
every office and large, material-specific recycling bins on
every floor. As with Howard, the mere presence of a
recycling bin can seemingly influence an individual to
recycle something instead of throwing it in the trash. In
fact, when we asked survey respondents to indicate how the
university could encourage recycling, the most common
response was the provision of more bins (38 %). However,
our physical observation of university spaces indicated that
relatively few recycling bins were provided in eating and
other public areas. Of the five food service areas within
university buildings, only two contained recycling bins.
Likewise, recycling in the two primary residence halls
required students to carry recyclables out of the building to
bins placed by the buildings’ trash dumpsters, while trash
cans and chutes were available on every floor.
There are also material factors beyond the presence or
absence of a bin that can influence recycling behavior. Our
observation of university buildings revealed that the pre-
sence, size, shape, and even color of recycling bins varied
from building to building, and not all bins accepted the
same type(s) of materials. For example, in many office
buildings, the only recycling bins offered were for office
paper. Furthermore, these bins were often large drums,
which were centrally located, rather than smaller recepta-
cles dispersed throughout the office space. Even the design
of the bin—an inscription of the agency of the designer—
can have an impact, as one survey respondent reported: ‘‘I
would like to [recycle], but the recycling bins at the uni-
versity only say ‘Recycle,’ not what to recycle. When I
look in there, it’s just a bunch of trash.’’ More signage or
more noticeable bins were also mentioned several times in
survey responses. Thus, the observed inconsistency in the
size, shape, and placement of bins could impede recycling
behavior.
Another material actor in the internal context is the
physical environment of the campus. The buildings of the
university are distributed around a roughly five-block-
square area in the city center; with the exception of a few
small city parks, the campus consists of streets, sidewalks,
and buildings. There is limited central campus student
housing, so most students commute or live in private res-
idences nearby. In addition to formal dining areas, there are
vending machines in every building, most of which sell
drinks in recyclable plastic bottles or aluminum cans.
Furthermore, there are many private fast food restaurants
and convenience shops adjacent to (or scattered within) the
campus area, allowing students and employees ample
opportunity to generate potentially recyclable refuse. This
urban setting, the relative lack of green spaces, and the
non-contiguous campus may make people less focused on
their natural environment. As one survey respondent said,
‘‘While walking to class I’m on a mission to get there and
only pay attention to what is happening in the current
crosswalk that I am traversing.’’
In addition to the internal context, the human and non-
human actors in the university’s external context also
influenced recycling on campus. For example, the two
other large universities in the same city had staff directors
of their sustainability efforts and had achieved ‘‘Gold Star’’
recognition from AASHE as a result of their sustainability
efforts (AASHE 2013). From a competitive standpoint, this
likely increased pressure on the university to make strides
in their sustainability efforts. Likewise, during the course
of our study the State Campus Sustainability Network, a
voluntary association of faculty, staff and students from
around the state interested in promoting sustainability in
123

higher education, was formed and held its first meeting.
Representatives from the university participated in this new
group, and the group continued to hold occasional meetings
and promote sustainable initiatives.
Non-human actors in the university’s external context
also likely influenced recycling on campus. Some external
artifacts in favor of recycling were the American College
and University President’s Climate Commitment (ACU-
PCC 2008), a written document developed by 152 pro-
environmental college presidents and inscribed with their
agency. As described earlier, this document and supporting
materials motivated students to lobby the university’s
President to sign the commitment, albeit unsuccessfully.
Likewise, the ‘‘Star Ratings’’ generated by AASHE and
published on their website and sustainability ratings in
college guides like the Princeton Review (2009) likely
increased competitive pressure on the university to
improve its sustainability track record. Alternatively, the
urban surroundings of the campus, as previously discussed,
might have served to make the natural environment less
salient and pro-environmental behaviors less likely (Ber-
enguer et al. 2005). In addition, public, municipal recycling
bins were not supplied by the city, while trash receptacles
were prevalent on city sidewalks. This lack of public
recycling bins in the areas surrounding the university might
have made recycling less salient to those who, like most
students, traversed both city and campus spaces in the
course of their day.
Process: Development of Organizational Citizenship
During the 2-year course of the study, actors in the uni-
versity context attempted to increase recycling at the uni-
versity. Thus, we were able to observe the development of
recycling behavior, which included both deliberate and
emergent behaviors. As they attempted to create durable
networks of recycling behavior, the four stages of network
translation were observed, as evidenced by the formation of
the Sustainability Committee. Andrew and Chloe reported
that it started as an ‘‘ad-hoc subcommittee’’ of the Staff
Council 3 years earlier as a result of a concern about sus-
tainability issues that some among the Council felt were
not being adequately addressed. This problematization
stage revealed how actors interested in increasing recycling
and other sustainable behaviors on campus gathered to
define perceived problems and possible solutions. At the
initial meetings, recycling was identified as ‘‘low hanging
fruit,’’ and a goal of increasing recycling by members of
the group as well as in the larger university community
were discussed. Moving into the interessement stage, the
group began lobbying the full council for permanent
committee status and began recruiting members for this
permanent committee. In fact, Andrew had been part of the
123
S. T. Weaver et al.
original group, but Chloe was recruited later for her mar-
keting and public relations skills, which constituted her role
at the university. The group also began to explore rela-
tionships with members of the university community who
were not part of the Staff Council but were essential to their
goal of increasing the volume of recycling on campus. Key
among the non-council relationships were Edward and his
network of recycling bins, trucks and personnel; they made
it possible for the larger university community to act on the
intention to recycle.
After 2 years, the actor–networks were formalized dur-
ing the enrolment stage; the Sustainability Committee was
designated as a permanent sub-group of the Staff Council,
and Edward agreed to collaborate with the Committee and
work with them to increase recycling on campus. Finally,
we observed the mobilization stage, in which the new
actor–network of recycling engaged in activities to expand
its influence and recruit new actors to enroll. Chloe
reported that there seemed to be a lot of pent-up energy
among staff members around environmental activities.
‘‘Sometimes we feel like that Far Side cartoon with the
mosquitoes,’’ she says. ‘‘One is blowing up like a balloon,
and the other is saying, ‘Pull out! You’ve hit an artery!’’’
Chloe, on behalf of the Sustainability Committee, sent out
a campus-wide e-mail promoting recycling. As part of this
effort, Chloe collaborated with Edward to develop a
‘‘Recycling FAQs’’ poster, to be distributed around cam-
pus. The poster detailed which materials can and cannot be
recycled and directed the reader to contact University
Facilities for further assistance. The FAQ information was
also posted on the Staff Council section of the university
website, as was an article discussing the efforts of Edward
to increase recycling. For his part, Edward reported that all
classroom and office buildings on campus had some sort of
recycling containers, as did the Student Recreation Center.
Edward also began tracking the volume of recycling and
solid waste, and he had established goals for increasing
recycling volume in the future. Another mobilization effort
initiated by the Sustainability Committee and Edward was
the formation of a new group, Greening the University.
Members of the Committee desired to enroll more faculty
and students into their recycling network, and they wanted
an outlet to raise awareness of recycling and other sus-
tainability issues among these constituencies. Andrew and
Edward began holding ‘‘Green Bag Lunches’’ under the
auspices of this new group and publicized them to faculty,
staff, and students. Meetings were promoted with e-mails,
posters, and a schedule on the university website. Meetings
typically involved a presentation on a sustainability topic,
such as recycling or promoting the use of bicycles by
commuters. There was also time for informal socializing
and information sharing by David or another group leader.
Thus, Greening the University served as an opportunity for
Contextualist Inquiry into Organizational Citizenship
new actors to be enrolled into the larger recycling network
issuing from the efforts of the Sustainability Committee
and Edward.
At the end of this translation process, relatively stable
actor–networks of recycling activity had been established.
This network comprised relationships among a variety of
human and non-human actors from the university context.
Human actors included those advocating for higher levels
of recycling on campus, such as Andrew, Chloe, and
Edward, as well as those mobilized by their efforts, such as
students and faculty attending meetings of Greening the
University or simply tossing their empty water bottles or
used office paper into recycling bins. In fact, those recy-
cling bins were a key non-human actor in this network,
connecting those participating in recycling behavior to the
advocacy network created by the Sustainability Committee.
Other non-human actors were also important hubs in this
network, including posters and e-mails about recycling and
posters promoting meetings of Greening the University.
The outcome of this translation process was the desired
change, increased recycling, as discussed next.
Content: Networks of Organizational Citizenship
The final category of contextualist inquiry concerns the
content of the desired change. A horizontal analysis of the
change process at the university indicates that in spite of
the contextual barriers mentioned earlier, the emergent
recycling actor–networks on campus were indeed increas-
ing the amount of recycling behavior. A historical analysis
of meeting minutes at different vertical levels of the
organization, from the university system governing board
to the Sustainability Committee at the university, reflects a
growing discussion of efforts to promote environmental
sustainability, including recycling (see Fig. 3).
A historical analysis of the university student newspaper
indicated that there were more articles on campus recycling
efforts in 2008 (n = 9) than in the previous 5 years combined
(n = 7). In April of 2009, the Sustainable Students worked
with campus administrators to hold the first university events
commemorating Earth Day, and this commemoration has
10
9 the potential impact on sustainability relative to the cost or
8
7 effort involved in implementation. Kristen reported that she
Incidence
6
5 was ‘‘shocked’’ by the high level of participation in the
4
3
2 entries was the idea to place small recycling bins in each
1
0 office of the college building as well as larger, divided bins
1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
Fig. 3 Discussion of sustainability initiatives in university meeting
minutes
been continued and expanded in the years since. University
Facilities continued to purchase additional recycling bins and
improve communication about recycling on campus. Thus,
the change process appears to have gained momentum over
the course of this study, and this momentum is even more
apparent when compared to the years preceding the current
investigation. In addition, Edward and Daniel reported that the
volume of recycling on campus had increased over the course
of the study; for example, the volume of mixed paper and
cardboard increased from 325 tons in 2008 to 450 tons in 2009,
and the volume of beverage containers increased from 6 tons
to 20 tons over the same period. Edward expected that trend to
continue in 2010 and beyond.
As described in the previous section, this increase in
recycling behavior was the outcome of successful transla-
tion of heterogeneous recycling actor–networks, such as
the one constructed around the Sustainability Committee.
Another illustrative recycling actor–network was formed at
a specific college within the larger University. In general,
efforts to promote and facilitate recycling within the uni-
versity’s six colleges were highly variable. For example, a
graduate student in the one college reported that her
department chair recently sent out a notice to all faculty
and staff requiring them to recycle all discarded office
paper. On the other hand, a second college had no official
stance on recycling, and the availability and forms of
recycling bins varied from department to department.
However, a third college, at the request of its dean,
mounted a concerted effort to raise awareness of sustain-
ability in general and recycling in particular among its
students, faculty and staff (problematization). The dean
asked Kristen, a staff member of the college, to lead the
initiative. Kristen formed a permanent ‘‘green committee’’
that included students, faculty, and staff from the college
(interessement and enrolment), and together they created a
promotional contest that was executed in the 3 months
leading up to Earth Day (April 22nd) in 2008 (mobiliza-
tion). The contest involved submitting individual and
departmental entries for the best ideas for reducing the
college’s environmental impact, and the college committed
to implementing the top entries. The contest was promoted
through mentions in classrooms, departmental meetings,
and social events, and entries were judged by a student
committee. Winning entries were selected on the basis of
contest; she received over 100 entries. One of the winning
for different materials on each floor. Previously there was
only a single, 55-gallon-drum on each floor. In addition,
instructional signs about materials accepted for recycling
123

and the location of bins for different materials were placed
around the college. According to records kept by Kristen,
with assistance from Edward in Facilities, the new bins
dramatically increased the volume of recyclable materials
collected in the college building. Total weekly recycling of
paper, cardboard, aluminum, and plastic increased from
594 pounds to 995 pounds, an overall increase of almost
68 %, over 16 weeks. Here again, we see the translation of
a stable network of human (the dean, Kristen, students) and
non-human (recycling bins, instructional signs) actors
resulting in increased recycling behavior.
However, the emerging recycling actor–networks were
fragile and often depended upon temporary convergences
of interests. The described recycling actor–networks have
not been enrolled into a larger, campus-wide actor–network
with coordinated activities and messages, which would
likely have much greater influence over the organization at
large. In fact, in spite of the increases in recycling volume,
the university is still far behind similar institutions in terms
of recycling. For example, in 2010, Edward entered the
University in the RecycleMania college recycling compe-
tition, and the school ranked 321st out of 346 entrants in
terms of per-capita recycling (RecycleMania 2011). Sur-
rounding particular events or efforts at the university, ad
hoc collaborations did occur across the described networks.
For example, Daniel described coordinated efforts from the
Sustainability Committee and Sustainable Students to
promote Earth Day activities on campus in 2008. However,
after Earth Day, these ties dissolved and the individual
actor–networks continued to pursue their objectives inde-
pendently. Without consistent performance, and without
inscription into material objects such as dedicated office
spaces, budgets and the like, wider, emergent actor–net-
works disappeared. In addition, although actor–networks
such as those established by the Sustainability Committee
were relatively durable, they were not static; fluid priorities
and shifts in network membership, due to elections or
appointments for staff and faculty and to matriculation of
students, made informal ties between groups, such as those
between the Sustainability Committee and Sustainable
Students, fragile. Therefore, it was difficult for associations
between groups to be sufficiently regular and consistent for
the localized networks to translate into a stable campus-
wide recycling actor–network.
The fragility of recycling actor–networks was likely
increased by some of the contextual factors discussed
earlier, such as the lack of top-down leadership (one of the
well-established antecedents of organizational citizenship
behavior; Podsakoff et al. 2000) and the urban, dispersed
nature of the university campus. Another factor contribut-
ing to the fragility of recycling actor–networks was the
relatively weak ties to the human actors at the fringes of the
actor–networks: the students, faculty, and staff whose only
123
S. T. Weaver et al.
attachment to the network was enacted when they placed
something in a recycling bin. Consistent with prior research
(e.g., Kennedy et al. 2009), the investigation of individual
recycling behavior at the university revealed a gap between
attitudes and actions. For example, while 72 % of
respondents to the survey indicated that recycling was
important to them, only 57 % reported recycling something
on campus. In analyzing the data collected concerning
individual behaviors, two main themes emerged to explain
this gap between attitudes and action: the convenience of
recycling (as discussed earlier) and the lack of mindfulness
regarding recycling. For example, Georgette, a graduate
student, indicated in an interview that she was generally
concerned about the environment and not being wasteful,
but she did not remember seeing any recycling bins on
campus. Upon hearing this, a friend who was studying
nearby spoke up and said, ‘‘What? There’s one right out-
side [the room]!’’ As Georgette laughed and thought about
the question more, she remembered seeing recycling bins
in a classroom building, ‘‘Oh yeah! That’s what we use to
prop the door open.’’
Thus, in addition to a lack of an institutional focus on
recycling as already discussed, a lack of focus on recycling
seemed to be true for many of the human actors at the
university. Like Georgette, who didn’t notice the recycling
bins in her office and classroom in spite of her professed
concern for the environment, Howard admitted that his
recycling behavior was dependent upon the convenient
presence of recycling bins to make recycling salient and
convenient. Survey respondents echoed this theme, illus-
trated by one who said, ‘‘I would like for [recycling] to be
[important to me] but have not put that much thought into
it,’’ and another who stated, ‘‘…I don’t see the immediate
impact of me not recycling.’’
In contrast, informants who reported dedicated recycling
behavior had at some point experienced a revelation that
made them mindful of the consequences of not recycling.
For Isabella, it was a persuasive speech given by a member
of her communications class. Frances claimed that she
inherited a sense of stewardship from her family; her par-
ents lived through the Great Depression, and she remem-
bers always recycling and conserving when she was
growing up. This contrast between dedicated recyclers and
occasional or non-recyclers emphasizes punctualization,
the idea that complex actor–networks can be perceived as
simple, predictable, and unitary. As noted above, some
have a tenuous connection to recycling actor–networks and
do not give it much thought because to them the disposal
process is a ‘‘black box;’’ they throw the item away, and it
disappears from sight and mind. The disposal actor–net-
work that involves trash bins, sanitation workers, garbage
trucks, and landfills has become punctualized into a simple
trash can that functions as a type of black hole, consuming
Contextualist Inquiry into Organizational Citizenship
what is deposited and leaving no trace. However, for oth-
ers, this veil has been pulled back (e.g., by an envir-
onmentally-conscious college environment, a persuasive
speech, or a thrifty parent) and the disposal actor–network
has been revealed as complex translations of various
interests and agencies. These people now know the con-
sequences of recycling or not recycling and appreciate the
difference.
Discussion
Our study combined two theoretical frameworks in order to
gain new, valuable insights into how contexts shape and are
shaped by organizational citizenship behavior. By
employing contextualist inquiry (Pettigrew 1990), we were
able to focus not just on the content of organizational cit-
izenship (in this case, recycling), but also on the context
and process of its development. This view of organizational
citizenship illustrates how context, process and content
interact and shape each other. In addition, our combination
of ANT (Latour 2005; Law 1992) with the contextualist
approach helped uncover the complex, heterogeneous
networks of humans and material artifacts that were at
work in all three areas of contextualist inquiry. The com-
bination of these two perspectives in our case study was
successful in uncovering important insights into the
emergence and establishment of organizational citizenship
behavior, a process that has received relatively little
research attention.
First, we have highlighted the important role played by
context in shaping recycling behavior as an important
instance of organizational citizenship behaviors. The role
of context in organizational citizenship has been suggested
by prior research, but the role of context in the develop-
ment of organizational citizenship had not been previously
investigated to our knowledge. The contextual factors
reported in previous studies of organizational citizenship
behavior have been limited and primarily social and
behavioral in nature, such as leadership (Shin 2012; Kim
and Kim 2013) and corporate citizenship (Lin et al. 2010).
However, our case demonstrates that human and non-
human actors as well as social and structural influences in
the internal context of the university impacted the devel-
opment of organizational citizenship. The decentralized
organizational structure, the lack of top-down advocacy for
sustainability, and the dispersed urban campus we observed
in the university’s context constituted a barrier to the cre-
ation of stable actor–networks concerned with practicing
recycling. However, other aspects of the university’s con-
text, such as individual actors with a personal zeal for
promoting recycling and the availability of recycling bins
and informational posters, served to enable durable
recycling actor–networks. Externally, the actions of sus-
tainability directors at other local universities and the
existence of artifacts such as the ACUPCC served to
engage actors in recycling efforts on campus, while other
actors, such as the urban setting and the lack of municipal
recycling receptacles in the surrounding city, likely impe-
ded recycling efforts.
Second, our integrative framework highlighted the
translation process by which organizational citizenship
behaviors develop. This topic has received little attention
in organizational citizenship research, where most research
is cross-sectional in nature (Podsakoff et al. 2000). Our
study illustrates how human and non-human actors attempt
to enroll other actors in the cause of developing citizenship
behaviors. Specifically, we observed the successful trans-
lation of recycling actor–networks and how these moved
from problematization through interessement and enrol-
ment to mobilization. Throughout the process, actors
attempted to influence other actors to promote recycling on
campus and to engage in recycling behavior. When this
influence was successfully and repeatedly exerted, a stable
recycling actor–network took shape and endured over the
2-year timeframe of this study. A particularly interesting
insight from our study was the ability of non-human arti-
facts, such as availability and form of recycling bins, to
influence humans to engage in citizenship behaviors. In
prior research, the proposed antecedents of organizational
citizenship behavior are primarily social, such as leadership
and organizational culture (e.g., Shin 2012; Kim and Kim
2013), or psychological, such as organizational commit-
ment or job satisfaction (Podsakoff et al. 2000). Our study
indicates that non-human artifacts can play a key role in the
development of organizational citizenship behaviors, just
as they did in the case of recycling. However, in order to
play this role, artifacts must be successfully inscribed with
the agency of human actors. When this inscription of
agency is unsuccessful, then the recycling bin becomes a
doorstop (as it was for Georgette), and the translation
process breaks down.
Third, the combination of ANT and contextualist
inquiry provides insight into the content of organizational
citizenship behavior, namely, that it takes place within and
is promulgated by fragile, heterogeneous actor–networks.
Actor–networks are heterogeneous in the sense that they
include both human and material actors, each with agency.
Thus, artifacts like recycling bins and informational posters
can be essential in maintaining durable actor–networks that
continue to influence actors over time. While we observed
two stable actor–networks of recycling behavior, we also
noted that links in these networks could be fragile and that
these individual actor–networks had not been able to coa-
lesce into a campus-wide actor–network of recycling
behavior. Prior research on organizational citizenship
123

behavior does not explore the process by which these
behaviors are established; neither does it contemplate
whether citizenship behavior observed at one point in time
continues indefinitely into the future. For example, Shin
(2012) finds a correlation between ethical leadership and
citizenship behaviors, but it is uncertain whether these
behaviors, once established, might be dependent or inde-
pendent of the specific leaders at the time of their study.
Indeed, as noted by Podsakoff et al. (2000), prior studies do
little to prove the direction of causality between organi-
zational citizenship and its proposed antecedents and out-
comes. In contrast, we noted that enrolment into a
recycling actor–network could be based on a temporary
convergence of interests, such as different actor–networks
collaborating for a special event like Earth Day or a stu-
dent’s temporary membership in the university committee.
Another contributor to the fragility of bonds in an actor–
network of organizational citizenship was punctualization.
When a complex actor–network becomes perceived as a
solitary ‘‘actor’’ with predictable outcomes, those who are
influenced by the actor–network are less mindful of its
constituent parts and the agencies being translated and
brought to bear. However, when the ‘‘black box’’ is
removed and the actor–network is revealed in all its com-
plexity, the perceiver is more likely to consider the various
people and objects enrolled in the actor–network and to
consider how their own interests are translated by inter-
acting with the constituent parts. For example, those with a
tenuous connection or no connection to recycling actor–
networks often seemed to view trash disposal as a punc-
tualized whole: the trash can functions as the ultimate
destination for their trash, obscuring the complex actor–
networks of human and non-human actors that collect
refuse and ultimately direct it to a landfill or to a recycling
facility. However, the committed recyclers in our study
appeared to consider the actors and relationships that
would be impacted by their choice to recycle or to dispose
of refuse. To them, their decision to place something in a
recycling bin rather than a trash can enrolled them in a
distinct actor–network, not only with others at the univer-
sity, but also with the external actors responsible for pro-
cessing the materials after they are placed in a bin. This
mindfulness of the consequences of their behavior, in turn,
motivated them to recycle. The same phenomenon could
apply to other citizenship behaviors, such as helping and
organizational loyalty; people may be more likely to
engage in these behaviors if they perceive the complex web
of relationships the organization represents and appreciate
the impact of their behavior on these relationships.
In addition, the application of our integrative framework
in the case study demonstrated its usefulness in a number of
ways. The two frameworks are compatible and they com-
plemented each other well in the study of organizational
123
S. T. Weaver et al.
citizenship behavior. Contextualist inquiry (Pettigrew 1990)
is a process-oriented framework for the investigation of
behavioral change. Contextualist inquiry does not consider
behavior in isolation at a single point in time. Instead, it
highlights the importance of the context of behavior and the
process intended to change behavior over time (horizontally)
and at different organizational levels (vertically). As noted
earlier, prior research on organizational citizenship has pri-
marily been survey-based and, therefore, cross-sectional and
correlational (Podsakoff et al. 2000). In contrast, our con-
textualist inquiry helped us investigate organizational citi-
zenship behavior more thoroughly by considering the
context of citizenship behavior, the process by which it arises
and is established, and how context and process shape and are
shaped by observed citizenship behaviors. Instead of think-
ing in terms of dichotomies (recyclers vs. non-recyclers;
sustainable organizations vs. non-sustainable organizations)
and correlations among categories, contextualist inquiry led
us to focus on the emergence of organizational citizenship
behaviors in the specific context of the university. ANT is
also process-oriented, as it emphasizes the ephemeral nature
of social structures and highlights the importance of enroll-
ment of support, performance of agency, and inscription of
material artifacts in creating stable networks of associations
(Law 1992). In our case, ANT prompted us to attend more
closely to the influence of efforts to enroll individuals into
networks of organizational citizenship and to the influence of
material artifacts on changes in citizenship behavior.
Moreover, ANT’s ability to consider networks at varying
levels of abstraction (frames) allowed us to conceptualize the
heterogeneous actor–networks and translations of agency
that exist in the broader university context. While one of the
difficulties of employing ANT is deciding where one actor–
network ends and another begins (Callon 1999), the three
analytical categories provided by contextualist inquiry
helped focus our study by framing the actor–networks under
investigation in terms of context, process, and content.
Accordingly, the combination of ANT and contextualist
inquiry proved to be a valuable integrative framework for
structuring analyses of complex, multilayered topics such
as emerging organizational citizenship behavior. Contex-
tualist inquiry is useful for organizing the influences on
individual behavior into broad categories: those that are
external to the individual and contextual (i.e., context),
those that are external to the individual and social (i.e.,
process), and those that are internal to the individual, such
as attitudes and actions (i.e., content). In our study, this
contextualist approach allowed us to segregate the myriad
influences on organizational citizenship behavior into
meaningful categories, and it enabled us to observe how
the different categories of influence interacted with one
another. At the same time, ANT is effective in illuminating
the heterogeneous networks of social actors and material
Contextualist Inquiry into Organizational Citizenship
artifacts that can influence organizational citizenship
behavior. Again, our study demonstrated that heteroge-
neous actor–networks existed in all three categories of
contextualist inquiry, and ANT helped us link the analysis
of individual and collective behaviors across these levels.
Thus, the combined approach gives the researcher an
organizing framework to differentiate between distinct
levels of analysis while also providing a tactical framework
that can be applied at each level, thereby unifying the
analysis. As the context for this study is not unlike many
other organizations and communities, this methodology
could therefore be fruitfully deployed in other contexts to
investigate other voluntary and emergent pro-social
behaviors like organizational citizenship.
Although our study makes important contributions to the
understanding of organizational citizenship behavior, it is
important to note its limitations and to recommend future
research to address them. First, although recycling is
accepted as a form of organizational citizenship behavior
(Boiral 2009), we cannot be sure that our framework would
be equally illustrative of other forms of citizenship
behavior. As noted above, future research could employ
our framework to better understand how other citizenship
behaviors, such as helping or loyalty (Podsakoff et al.
2000), emerge within organizations. For example, it would
be interesting to see whether variables such as physical
context and the agency inscribed into non-human artifacts
are as influential in the development of other organizational
citizenship behaviors. Second, our case also presents a
limitation in terms of the type of organization. We note that
a university, while similar in many respects to other
organizations, is unique and distinct from other organiza-
tional forms, such as a for-profit corporation. Future
research could explore whether organizational form is an
important contextual variable in the formation of organi-
zational citizenship. Finally, the scope of our study was
limited to the social and environmental influences on citi-
zenship behavior. Future research could explore how these
forces interact with personal factors, such as personality,
attitudes, and motivations, which are almost certainly
important in the emergence of organizational citizenship
behavior.
Conclusion
In this study, we integrated the perspectives offered by
contextualist inquiry and actor–network theory into a new
integrative framework for investigating the process by
which organizational citizenship behavior develops.
Empirically, we presented a detailed case study of recy-
cling behaviors at a large university that, like many other
organizations, does not have a formal sustainability
hierarchy. We found that recycling behavior was influ-
enced in important ways by the university context and by
processes designed to promote recycling, and we illustrated
how heterogeneous networks of humans and material
artifacts were at work in all three levels of analysis.
Methodologically, we demonstrated the effectiveness of
the contextualist-ANT framework and its usefulness in
investigating the development of organizational citizenship
behavior. We hope future research can build on these
empirical and methodological contributions in order to
better understand organizational citizenship behavior and
how it can be promoted.
References
AASHE. (2013). Rated STARS Institutions. Retrieved January 16,
2013 from https://stars.aashe.org/institutions/rated/.
ACUPCC (2008). Text of the American College & University
Presidents’ Climate Commitment, accessed January 16, 2013 at
http://www.presidentsclimatecommitment.org/about/commitment.
Akrich, M. (1992). The de-scription of technical objects. In W.
E. Bijker & J. Law (Eds.), Shaping technology/building society:
Studies in sociotechnical change (pp. 205–224). Cambridge,
MA: The MIT Press.
American Marketing Association. (2009). Marketers’ views remain
bright on the topic of sustainability, despite gloomy economy.
Chicago: American Marketing Association.
Berenguer, J., Corraliza, J. A., & Martin, R. (2005). Rural-urban
differences in environmental concern, attitudes, and actions.
European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 21(2), 128–138.
Boiral, O. (2007). Corporate greening through ISO 14001: A rational
myth? Organization Science, 18, 127–146.
Boiral, O. (2009). Greening the corporation through organizational
citizenship behaviors. Journal of Business Ethics, 87, 221–236.
Boiral, O., & Paille, P. (2012). Organizational citizenship behavior
for the environment: Measurement and validation. Journal of
Business Ethics, 109, 431–445.
Caldwell, C., Floyd, L. A., Atkins, R., & Holzgrefe, R. (2012). Ethical
duties of organizational citizens: Obligations owed by highly
committed employees. Journal of Business Ethics, 110, 285–299.
California Department of Conservation. (1997). An illustrated history of
recycling. Sacramento, CA: California Department of Conservation.
Callon, M. (1986). Some elements of a sociology of translation:
Domestication of the scallops and the fishermen of St. Brieuc
Bay. In J. Law (Ed.), Power, action and belief: A new sociology
of knowledge? (pp. 196–223). London: Routledge.
Callon, M. (1999). Actor–network theory—The market test. In J. Law
& J. Hassard (Eds.), Actor–network theory and after (pp.
181–195). Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishers.
Chen, C. Y., & Yang, C. F. (2012). The impact of spiritual leadership
on organizational citizenship behavior: A multi-sample analysis.
Journal of Business Ethics, 105, 107–114.
Cho, S., Mathiassen, L., & Nilsson, A. (2008). Contextual dynamics
during health information systems implementation: An event-
based actor–network approach. European Journal of Information
Systems, 17, 614–630.
Cone Communications. (2012). 2012 Cone green gap trend tracker.
Boston, MA: Cone Communications.
Cordano, M., Marshall, R. S., & Silverman, M. (2010). How do small
and medium enterprises go ‘‘green’’? A study of environmental
123

management programs in the US wine industry. Journal of
Business Ethics, 92, 463–478.
Daily, B. F., Bishop, J. W., & Govindarajulu, N. (2009). A conceptual
model for organizational citizenship behavior directed toward
the environment. Business and Society, 48, 243–256.
EPA. (2009). Smart steps to sustainability: A guide to greening your
small business. Retrieved May 28, 2013 from http://www.epa.
gov/osbp/pdfs/smart_steps_greening_guide_042101.pdf.
ERCC. (2012). Map of states with legislation. Retrieved January 21,
2013 from http://www.ecycleclearinghouse.org/content.aspx?pa
geid=10.
Executive Order 13514. (2009). Federal leadership in environmental,
energy and economic performance. Retrieved January 16, 2013 from
http://www.whitehouse.gov/administration/eop/ceq/sustainability.
Folz, D. H. (1999). Municipal recycling performance: A public sector
environmental success story. Public Administration Review, 59,
336–345.
Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1986). But is it rigorous?
Trustworthiness and authenticity in naturalistic evaluation. In
D. Williams (Ed.), Naturalistic evaluation (pp. 73–84). San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Handfield, R., Sroufe, R., & Walton, S. (2005). Integrating environ-
mental management and supply chain strategies. Business
Strategy and the Environment, 14, 1–19.
Harris Interactive. (2008). The environment… are we doing all we
can? Retrieved December 31, 2009 from http://www.b2i.us/
profiles/investor/ResLibraryView.asp?ResLibraryID=34589&
GoTopage=7&Category=1777&BzID=1963&t=10.
Hart, S. L., & Ahuja, G. (1996). Does it pay to be green? An empirical
examination of the relationship between emission reduction and
firm performance. Business Strategy and the Environment, 5,
30–37.
Hirschman, E. C. (1986). Humanistic inquiry in marketing research:
Philosophy, method, and criteria. Journal of Marketing
Research, 23, 237–249.
Hudson, L. A., & Ozanne, J. L. (1988). Alternative ways of seeking
knowledge in consumer research. Journal of Consumer
Research, 14, 508–521.
Kennedy, E. H., Beckley, T. M., McFarlane, B. L., & Nadeau, S.
(2009). Why we don’t ‘‘walk the talk’’: Understanding the
environmental values/behavior gap in Canada. Human Ecology
Review, 16, 151–160.
Kim, T. Y., & Kim, M. (2013). Leaders’ moral competence and
employee outcomes: The effects of psychological empowerment
and person–supervisor fit. Journal of Business Ethics, 112,
115–166.
Latour, B. (2005). Reassembling the social: An introduction to actor–
network theory. New York: Oxford University Press.
Law, J. (1992). Notes on the theory of the actor–network: Ordering,
strategy, and heterogeneity. Systemic Practice and Action
Research, 5, 379–393.
Law, J. (1999). After ANT: Complexity, naming and typology. In J.
Law & J. Hassard (Eds.), Actor–network theory and after (pp.
1–14). Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishers.
LePine, J. A., & Erez, A. (2002). The nature and dimensionality of
organizational citizenship behavior: A critical review and meta-
analysis. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 52–65.
123
S. T. Weaver et al.
Lin, C., Lyau, N., Tsai, Y., Chen, W., & Chiu, C. (2010). Modeling
corporate citizenship and its relationship with organizational
citizenship behaviors. Journal of Business Ethics, 95, 357–372.
Maignan, I., & Ferrell, O. C. (2004). Corporate social responsibility
and marketing: An integrative framework. Journal of the
Academy of Marketing Science, 32, 3–19.
Organ, D. W. (1988). Organizational citizenship behavior: The good
soldier syndrome. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.
Pettigrew, A. M. (1987). Context and action in the transformation of
the firm. Journal of Management Studies, 24, 649–670.
Pettigrew, A. M. (1990). Longitudinal field research on change:
Theory and practice. Organization Science, 1, 267–292.
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Paine, J. B., & Bachrach, D. G.
(2000). Organizational citizenship behaviors: A critical review
of the theoretical and empirical literature and suggestions for
future research. Journal of Management, 26, 513–563.
Princeton Review. (2009). Green Honor Roll. Retrieved December
31, 2009, from http://www.princetonreview.com/green-honor-
roll.aspx.
Ramus, C. A., & Killmer, A. B. (2007). Corporate greening through
prosocial extrarole behaviours—A conceptual framework for
employee motivation. Business Strategy and the Environment,
16, 554–570.
RecycleMania. (2011). 2010 Results. Retrieved January 25, 2013
from http://www.recyclemaniacs.org/scoreboard/past-results/
2010.
Rondinelli, D. A., & Berry, M. A. (2000). Environmental citizenship
in multinational corporations: Social responsibility and sustain-
able development. European Management Journal, 18, 70–84.
Roxas, B., & Coetzer, A. (2012). Institutional environment, manage-
rial attitudes and environmental sustainability orientation of
small firms. Journal of Business Ethics, 111, 461–476.
Saldana, J. (2013). The coding manual for qualitative researchers.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Shin, Y. (2012). CEO ethical leadership, ethical climate, climate
strength, and collective organizational citizenship behavior.
Journal of Business Ethics, 108, 299–312.
Sison, A. J. G. (2011). Aristotelian citizenship and corporate
citizenship: Who is a citizen of the corporate polis? Journal of
Business Ethics, 100, 3–9.
Somech, A., & Ron, I. (2007). Promoting organizational citizenship
behavior in schools: The impact of individual and organizational
characteristics. Educational Administration Quarterly, 43,
38–66.
Starik, M., & Rands, G. P. (1995). Weaving an integrated web:
Multilevel and multisystem perspectives of ecologically sustain-
able organizations. Academy of Management Review, 20,
908–935.
US Census Bureau. (2012). Annual estimates of the population of
metropolitan and micropolitan statistical areas: April 1, 2010 to
July 1, 2011. Retrieved January 23, 2013 from http://www.
census.gov/popest/metro/totals/2011/index.html.
Walsham, G. (1997). Actor–network theory and IS research: Current
status and future prospects. In S. Lee, J. Liebenau, & J.
I. Degross (Eds.), Information systems and qualitative research
(pp. 466–480). London: Chapman and Hall.