how work, household and community life interact to … life and sustainable... · how work,...

How work, household and community life interact to affect environmental behaviours and outcomes

Janine Chapman

Work, life and sustainable living

© December 2013

Published by the Centre for Work + Life University of South Australia http://www.unisa.edu.au/hawkeinstitute/cwl/default.asp

Street Address St Bernards Road Magill SA 5072 Adelaide

Postal Address GPO Box 2471 Adelaide, SA 5001 Australia

Author Janine Chapman

Title Work, life and sustainable living: How work, household and community life interact to affect environmental behaviours and outcomes

ISBN: 978-‐0-‐9875120-‐3-‐1

Citation Chapman, J. (2013). Work, life and sustainable living: How work, household and community life interact to affect environmental behaviours and outcomes. Adelaide: Centre for Work + Life, University of South Australia.

Acknowledgements This report is the final project report of: ‘Work life and sustainable living: How work, household and community life interact to affect environmental behaviours and outcomes’, funded by the Australian Research Council (LP100200524) and industry partners Zero Waste SA, Urban Renewal Authority, Community and Public Sector Union and State Public Services Federation.

Helen Walton (Centre for Work + Life), Sharni Searle (School of Psychology, Social Work and Social Policy, UniSA) and Rebecca Law (Centre for Work + Life) contributed to data collection, analysis and reporting of the case studies and interviews. Responsibility for the final text rests with the author.

This report uses data from the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) Multipurpose Household Survey 2007-‐08; the Community and Public Sector Union (CPSU) What Women Want annual survey 2011-‐2012, and the International Social Survey Program (ISSP) Environment I (1993) and Environment III (2010) surveys. The findings and views reported in this report, however, are those of the author and should not be attributed to the ABS, CPSU or ISSP.

1

Contents Tables ..................................................................................................................................................... 3

Figures ................................................................................................................................................... 3

Executive summary ................................................................................................................................ 4

Introduction ........................................................................................................................................... 9

Part 1: Survey Studies .......................................................................................................................... 13

Study 1: Who Does What? Survey ................................................................................................... 14

Overview of the sample ............................................................................................................... 14

At a glance: who does what? ....................................................................................................... 14

Method ........................................................................................................................................ 16

Findings ........................................................................................................................................ 17

Who Does What? Summary ......................................................................................................... 18

Study 2: International Comparison Survey ...................................................................................... 19


At a glance: international comparison ......................................................................................... 19

Method ........................................................................................................................................ 20

Findings ........................................................................................................................................ 21

International Comparison Summary ............................................................................................ 24

Study 3: What Women Do Survey ................................................................................................... 25


At a glance: what women do ....................................................................................................... 26

Findings ........................................................................................................................................ 27

What Women Do Summary ......................................................................................................... 29

Part 2: Case Studies and Interviews ..................................................................................................... 30

Study 4: Natural Care Workplace Case Study .................................................................................. 31

Method ........................................................................................................................................ 31

Findings ........................................................................................................................................ 31

Natural Care Summary ................................................................................................................ 35

Study 5: International Wines Packaging Centre Workplace Case Study .......................................... 36

Method ........................................................................................................................................ 36

Findings ........................................................................................................................................ 37

International Wines Packaging Centre Summary ........................................................................ 42

Study 6: International Wines Production Plant Workplace Case Study ........................................... 43

Method ........................................................................................................................................ 43

Findings ........................................................................................................................................ 43

2

International Wines Production Plant Summary ......................................................................... 47

Study 7: Interviews with Australian Workers .................................................................................. 48

Method ........................................................................................................................................ 48

Findings ........................................................................................................................................ 48

Interviews with Australian Workers Summary ............................................................................ 56

Conclusion and recommendations ...................................................................................................... 57

References ........................................................................................................................................... 62

3

Tables Table 1. Frequency of workers who report positive personal electricity and water use outcomes. ... 15 Table 2. Frequency of workers who perform recycling and waste disposal behaviours always or most of the time. .......................................................................................................................................... 16 Table 3: Frequency of pro-‐environmental behaviours in five countries in 1993 and 2010 ................. 20 Table 4. Per cent of women who agree or strongly agree that they often take pro-‐environmental action at work, by general demographics. .......................................................................................... 26 Table 5. Per cent of women who always or often take pro-‐environmental action at home, by general demographics. ..................................................................................................................................... 26

Figures Figure 1: Work, home and community socio-‐ecosystem model in relation to environmental action 11 Figure 2. Summary of predictors and their influence on personal electric use, water use and waste disposal and recycling behaviours. ...................................................................................................... 17 Figure 3: Summary of predictors of recycling behaviour in 1993 and 2010 ........................................ 21 Figure 4: Summary of predictors of cutting back on car use in 1993 and 2010 .................................. 22 Figure 5: Summary of predictors of energy saving behaviour in 2010 ................................................ 22 Figure 6: Summary of predictors of water saving behaviour in 2010 .................................................. 23 Figure 7. Summary of variables associated with pro-‐environmental action at work, at home, and for car use. ................................................................................................................................................ 27 Figure 8. Facilitators of pro-‐environmental action. ............................................................................. 28

4

Executive summary This is the final project report from the Australian Research Council (ARC) Linkage project Work, life and sustainable living: How work, household and community life interact to affect environmental behaviours and outcomes. The overall aim of the project is to investigate how people’s work-‐life contexts influence their environmental attitudes and level of participation in pro-‐environmental action, both in the workplace and at home.

The project comprised seven studies conducted over two years (2011 -‐2013). The first three studies analyse survey data from four sources: the national ABS Multipurpose Household Survey 2007-‐2008; the International Social Survey Program (ISSP) I (1993) and the ISSP III (2010), and the annual What Women Want survey 2011-‐2012, collected by the Community and Public Sector Union (CPSU).

The final four studies use qualitative interview and focus groups methods and consist of three workplace case studies of companies with sustainability policies and worksites, and an in-‐depth interview study of 30 workers across South Australia and Victoria. The project findings are summarised as follows:

How concerned are Australian workers and what pro-‐environmental action do they take?

• Of the 23,996 Australian workers surveyed, an average of 75% reported that they were concerned about environmental problems. However, qualitative focus groups and interviews with 82 workers demonstrated mixed levels of concern.

• The most popular pro-‐environmental action was recycling and waste reduction, with approximately 85% of workers reporting always or sometimes taking action. On average, three quarters of respondents took steps to save energy at home; two thirds said they took steps to save water at home and approximately one third took steps to reduce their car use.

How does Australia compare with other OECD countries?

• 9.4% of Australians thought that ‘the environment’ was the most important issue for the country in 2010. This was higher than the UK, the US and Japan. In Norway, 17.7% ranked the environment as the most important issue.

• Levels of environmental concern and knowledge were similar across countries. In Australia in 1993, approximately 43% were willing to pay higher prices; higher taxes and accept cuts to standards of living to protect the environment, and this was similar across countries. Willingness to make these trade-‐offs dropped by approximately 10% from 1993 to 2010.

• In Australia, perceived dangers relating to air pollution, river pollution and global warming decreased by approximately 15% from 1993 to 2010. This was similar across countries.

• On average, Australian respondents reported engaging in the highest frequency of pro-‐environmental behaviour in 1993 and 2010 in comparison to the UK, US, Norway and Japan.

How do work arrangements influence pro-‐environmental outcomes?

• There is evidence that working hours influence pro-‐environmental action. Survey data show that full-‐time workers are slightly less likely to recycle food and general waste and save water at home than part-‐time workers, and longer hours of work were predictive of worse outcomes for recycling in the UK and US and car use in Norway. However, case study or interview participants rarely expressed the opinion that work hours influenced their pro-‐

5

environmental action at home or at work. However, casual employment may be associated with poorer outcomes at work, due to a lack of attachment to the workplace.

• Being satisfied with flexible working conditions was associated with better outcomes at work for women (men not surveyed). Regularly working at home, having access to flexible work arrangements and having access to leave as needed were associated with increased pro-‐environmental action in the workplace.

• Other people at work have a strong influence on pro-‐environmental action in the workplace. A higher number of workers take pro-‐environmental action at work when they perceive that their managers and colleagues are also pro-‐active. Perceived manager and colleague behaviour was also associated with higher frequencies of pro-‐environmental actions at home. These findings were consistent across survey, case study and interview data.

• Sustainable workplace cultures can be fostered by adopting clear and easy workplace procedures and design; embedding sustainability into job roles; giving employees influence over policies, and fostering perceptions of positive social norms. Committed leadership is essential.

How do household and family factors influence pro-‐environmental behaviour?

• Cost saving is the biggest driver of pro-‐environmental action at home, particularly in relation to energy use and space heating and cooling. Financial incentives are highly regarded. Many are attempting to make their household increasingly self-‐sufficient in the face of rising energy costs.

• Household structure influences action at home, with sole person households reporting the poorest outcomes overall. International survey data show that living with a partner leads to less car use in Australia and the US.

• Other people, such as friends or family who have previously made environmental purchases (e.g. solar panels) are a strong source of influence on purchasing decisions. The perceived actions of other people in the household also strongly influence engagement in pro-‐environmental behaviours in the household, as well as work.

• Good facilities from local councils strongly shape habitual household recycling behaviours and social norms around waste disposal.

• There is evidence that caring responsibilities shape action. In a women-‐only survey, workers with dependent children were less likely to cut back on car use, and having three or more children was associated with worse recycling outcomes at home. International data show that having children in the household leads to less frequent recycling in the UK, increased car use in Japan, and increased energy use in Norway. Some interviewees also speak of time pressure arising from juggling parenthood with work.

• In a women-‐only survey, those who spent the most hours doing unpaid domestic work per week had a higher frequency of pro-‐environmental action at home, particularly energy and water curtailment, recycling and waste reduction.

• In a women-‐only survey, being dissatisfied with work-‐life balance was associated with worse pro-‐environmental outcomes at work, but increased action at home. Similarly, those who felt rushed or pressed for time reported higher frequencies of pro-‐environmental action at home.

6

How is the life stage of workers related to pro-‐environmental outcomes?

• Age was a strong and consistent predictor of both pro-‐environmental attitudes and action. In all surveys, younger workers (aged 18-‐29) were least concerned about environmental problems, and report the least engagement in all pro-‐environmental behaviours at home and at work. This pattern is also reflected in qualitative interviews.

• Interview data showed that different generations have different motivations and perceptions of each other in relation to environmental issues. Older generations are motivated by cost-‐saving and waste avoidance, whereas young people are viewed as more educated in environmental matters but wasteful and irresponsible.

• The perceived irresponsible attitude of youth was thought partly to be a consequence of living with parents, with young people staying at home longer due to a lack of affordable housing. Renting is also a barrier for young people.

• Mid-‐life workers with children are most likely to discuss time pressure and work-‐life interference as barriers to pro-‐environmental action.

How is the gender of workers related to pro-‐environmental outcomes?

• All survey data show that women are more concerned than men about environmental problems, and that more women engage in pro-‐environmental behaviour at home than men, although qualitative interviews found less evidence of this.

• In interviews and focus groups, men were more likely to describe their involvement in pro-‐environmental action at home in a monitoring capacity, for example, checking that their female partner had recycled when doing the household chores, reflecting the unequal division of unpaid work in dual income households.

• International data showed that in Japan, having children in the household was associated with worse outcomes for car use, but only for female workers. Similarly, female workers in Norway had worse outcomes for energy saving when they had children at home, but this was not the case for men.

How is the socioeconomic status of workers related to pro-‐environmental outcomes?

• Workers with university degrees were more likely to report recycling, using reusable bags and taking steps to reduce energy than workers with lower levels of educational attainment. Workers on higher incomes were less likely to recycle food waste than low-‐income workers.

• International data showed that the number of years in school predicted better outcomes for recycling in Australia, the UK and US; cutting back on car use in the US and Norway, and energy saving in Australia.

• Few survey findings related to household income, although householders on higher incomes were less likely to recycle. Interviewees spoke frequently of feeling worried and powerless in relation to the rising cost of utility bills, and were making efforts to become self-‐sufficient to regain financial control.

7

Is there evidence for spillover of pro-‐environmental behaviours from work to home, or home to work?

• Survey data show that the perceived actions of managers and colleagues at work are positively associated with higher frequencies of action at home, and that the perceived actions of those at home are positively associated with higher frequencies of action at work.

• Case studies show that spillover of pro-‐environmental behaviour from the workplace to the household can occur if sustainability is collectively embedded into workplace culture.

What influences travel and commuting behaviour?

• Private car use is particularly resistant to change and commuting is viewed as a time pressure and demand. Public transport is generally viewed as insufficient to meet the needs of workers – particularly working mothers who make multi-‐trips with children.

• More women want telecommuting options (men not surveyed). • Barriers to workplace carpooling are unaligned shift patterns and unplanned overtime.

Concerns around safety and convenience were raised in relation to alternative forms of transport.

• Health was cited as a motivator for walking and cycling, and being able to work during the commute was cited as a motivation for using alternative modes of transport.

Implications and recommendations for policy and practice

General recommendations

1. Acknowledge that individual behaviours are part of a wider social context. 2. Ensure environmental marketing and appeals are genuine and reliable. Many express ‘green

fatigue’ due to cynicism regarding the over-‐use of sustainability products and claims. 3. Target messages appropriately. Message framing is important, as workers vary in their

identification with ‘green’ terminology. Engagement is most likely to occur when the outcome has personal relevance or meaning.

4. A focus on cost and efficiency is likely to be better received by householders and businesses than promoting environmental benefits alone. Most engage in pro-‐environmental action for reasons other than environmental concern.

5. To encourage alternative modes of transport, appeals to other benefits such as health and fitness when cycling or walking, or freeing up time for other tasks when commuting by train may be more effective than information regarding carbon footprint.

6. Target younger people to encourage participation, with a focus on motivation and steps to encourage independent living with affordable housing and secure work.

Work-‐related recommendations

1. Provide employee-‐centred flexibility, especially around access to leave, access to flexible hours and working from home. Reduce long hours and casualisation where possible.

2. Build ‘green’ workplace cultures with sustainability at the core of business. Workplace culture is key to good outcomes.

3. Ensure managers are supportive and pro-‐active, as they are the lynchpin to positive collective attitudes, social networks and norms.

8

4. Provide opportunities for experiential learning activities in the workplace. Having influence over environmental workplace initiatives and policies promotes engagement.

5. Focus on workplace layout and designs that makes pro-‐environmental action as easy as possible. This creates habitual behaviour over time.

6. Workplace incentives can be useful as long as the workers perceive them as genuine rather than tokenistic.

Home and community-‐related recommendations

1. Invest in sustainable urban design and development with local jobs, schools and services to reduce travelling.

2. Prioritise efficient and safe transport options or alternatives that reduce time, money, and the environmental effects of car use.

3. Provide financial incentives and green technologies where possible, including incentives for landlords to make rental properties more sustainable.

4. Focus on measures to redistribute unpaid work and reduce inequalities in household domestic labour, such as better quality part-‐time work and increased flexibility incentives for men.

5. Focus on community social cohesion and incentives to increase collective knowledge sharing and the generation of positive social norms around sustainability.

6. Invest in good local council facilities that facilitate household action and embed them into daily life, such as the ‘three bin’ recycling system. This approach is needed for other actions, such as water and energy conservation to create norms and habits around positive behaviours.

9

Introduction Work, life and sustainable living: How work, household and community life interact to affect environmental behaviours and outcomes is a three-‐year ARC Linkage project (2011 – 2014) conducted in collaboration with government and union industry partners Zero Waste SA, Urban Renewal Authority (formerly Land Management Corporation), Community and Public Sector Union (CPSU) and State Public Service Federation (SPSF).

The aims of the project are:

• To investigate how patterns of work and life influence environmental attitudes and engagement in pro-‐environmental behaviour

• To explore how this may differ by life stage, between men and women, and across socio-‐economic groups

• To identify the policy responses and actions – by state, employers, households and individuals – that will better promote pro-‐environmental behaviour in the workplace, at home and in the community

This is the final project report of the Work, life and sustainable living project, detailing the results from seven studies conducted from 2011 -‐ 2013. An overview of each study is provided in the following chapters, along with the key findings and a summary of how these inform the project aims. A general conclusion and discussion is then provided, with recommendations for action arising from the findings.

The following section gives the general background to the study, and the rationale for adopting a work-‐life perspective to the environmental sustainability domain.

Background

It is widely recognised that many of the problems threatening the environmental sustainability of the modern world are rooted in human behaviour (Gardner & Stern, 2002). As such, an extensive body of work has aimed to determine the behaviours that affect environmental outcomes; understand the factors that shape these behaviours, and finally, draw upon this knowledge to implement measurable and lasting pro-‐environmental behaviour change. Changes to human behaviour remain central to the sustainability debate because the gains resulting from technical innovations tend to be overtaken by consumption growth (Steg & Vlek, 2009). The role of the individual is also crucial in determining the success or failure of physical and technical innovations, as it is the day-‐to-‐day behaviours of householders, employees and community citizens that will ultimately implement them. Providing opportunities to influence behaviour, either directly or indirectly, must therefore be at the forefront of efforts to adapt to or to limit the impacts of environmental challenges. As part of the global response, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change observed that changes to individual lifestyle, household and working behaviours can have a significant impact on environmental outcomes, calling for a deeper understanding of the underlying determinants of everyday consumption (IPCC, 2007).

Much of the research on the determinants of pro-‐environmental action – defined here as behaviour that does as little harm as possible, or even benefits the environment – has focused on individual values and motivations. The underlying assumption of this focus is that human behaviour is the result of a calculated decision-‐making processes, whereby individual costs and benefits are rationally assessed before the best course of action is determined (Kollmuss & Agyeman, 2002; Jackson, 2005).

10

Many models based on what is commonly termed the ‘rational choice’ framework have been applied to predict and explain pro-‐environmental behaviour, focusing on factors such as personal attitudes, values and concern (see Jackson, 2005 for a comprehensive review).

However, research has frequently found that the correlation between attitude and action is generally weak, and evidence for the predictive power of environmental values is mixed (Corraliza & Berenguer, 2000; Steg & Vlek, 2009). In the broader literature, it is widely recognised that individual behaviour is heavily guided and shaped by the social context in which it occurs, meaning that motivation and positive intentions alone often make little difference to environmental outcomes (Blake, 1999; Shove, 2010).

Pro-‐environmental behaviour and the ‘work-‐life’ context

In line with the above, evidence shows that a large proportion of the population express highly positive attitudes and commitment towards sustainable living, but the degree of participation in pro-‐environmental behaviour rarely reflects this commitment (Aoyagi-‐Usui et al., 2003). In Australia, national data in 2009 showed that 82% of citizens express concern about the environment, yet energy use in the residential sector is predicted to increase by 56% between 1990 and 2020, and the amount of waste generated by households has doubled in the decade up to 2007 (ABS, 2009; DEWHA, 2008). The ‘green attitudes, brown behaviour’ paradox; or the ‘gap’ between pro-‐environmental values and action is well documented in Australia and internationally, suggesting that the ability of individuals to effectively adapt their behaviour is influenced by more wide-‐reaching and complex factors than reasoned preference and choice (Bamberg & Möser, 2007; Blake, 1999; Sandu & Petchy, 2009).

Key contextual factors thought to facilitate or constrain pro-‐environmental behaviours include physical infrastructure, such as the availability and quality of public transport; technical facilities, such as energy-‐efficient appliances, and the availability of products and pricing regimes (Steg & Vlek, 2009). In her comprehensive analysis of domestic consumption, Shove (2003) discusses how household behaviours are intimately connected with cultural dimensions of ‘normal practice’, and how the proliferation of convenience-‐related products, appliances and devices create systems of resource dependency that are both taken for granted and difficult to reverse. From this perspective, social expectations of convenience and the meanings around what it is to be ‘comfortable’ co-‐evolve alongside changes in sociotechnical infrastructures, and this in turn shapes patterns of pro-‐environmental behaviours such as energy, water and car use (Shove, 2003).

Other commentators have considered how behaviour is shaped by factors specific to, and the intersection between, work, home and community life (e.g. Pocock et al., 2012; Williams et al., 2008). Previous research has shown that combining paid work, family, care and social commitments create conditions that result in intensive and busy lifestyles for many people in industrialised countries, heavily impacting on resources, capacity and time (Pocock, 2003). In Australia, over half of employees currently report feeling frequently rushed or pressed for time, and this increases to three-‐quarters of women and sixty per cent of men in couple households with children (AWALI, 2010). Given that the behaviours associated with the greatest environmental impact (e.g. space heating and cooling, water consumption and car use) are also those that are most embedded in everyday routines, the way that paid work and other areas of family life are structured often enable, or ‘lock-‐in’ patterns of unsustainable behaviour (Sanne, 2002).

11

Household work patterns are often the central pivot around which many of our time schedules and opportunities for change depend. For example, previous analysis suggests that time pressures related to work and family responsibilities are strongly related to high patterns of car use, and the purchase of a car for every adult within a household (Andrey et al., 2004). Likewise, the configurations of working and domestic lives are implicated in ‘locking-‐in’ routine aspects of household consumption related to recreation and entertainment appliances, and the use of home computers (Jackson & Papathanasopoulous, 2008). As an increasing proportion of households are duel or multi-‐earner where roles are ‘juggled’ and time is short, it is clear that utility consumption patterns -‐ as well as the capacity to change -‐ are likely to be affected (Thompson, 1996). As such, environmental behaviour may be better located in the wider domain of lifestyle, or work-‐life context, as this is primarily a social phenomenon rather than purely attitudinal or economic (Pocock et al., 2012; Shove, 2010).

Conceptual framework of the project

Encompassing these ideas is Bronfenbrenner’s (1979) socio-‐ecological systems theory, as applied by Voydanoff (2007) in relation to work, home and community. This approach distinguishes the microdomains of work, home and community (in which face-‐to-‐face relations occur); the meso-‐systems where these domains intersect (e.g. where work affects home life and vice versa); the exosystems that represent the external environment in which a person does not participate but is affected (like the school system affecting a working parent), and the larger macrosystem (the over-‐arching law, culture, institutions and broad belief settings). Together, these make up a ‘socio-‐ecological system’ of work, home and community. Voydanoff (2007) melds a demand-‐resource model (Demerouti et al. 2001) with this system, to identify characteristics of work, home and community that create either resources or demands (Figure 1).

Figure 1: Work, home and community socio-‐ecosystem model in relation to environmental action

Macrosystem Labor law, education policy, welfare

Migration, social norms, etc

Work

Home Community

Each domain and intersection creates demands and resources, which affect adaptive capacity in relation to pro-‐environmental behaviours

12

Demand-‐resource models consider the degree to which structural, social and psychological characteristics of key domains place demands on an individual or group or alternatively create resources for an individual or group. This approach has important strengths in that it takes us away from the individualistic notion of ‘balance’ between the domains of work, family and community, and shows how the broader social context constructs outcomes and shapes the behaviour of individuals. This model has previously been applied in research exploring work-‐life issues (e.g. Williams et al., 2008) and provides a useful lens from which to view how experiences of combining work, home and community life might influence the environmental capacity and behaviour of households and workplaces.

Work, life and sustainable living

These perspectives speak to the idea that inter-‐personal and external factors co-‐exist and impact simultaneously to influence pro-‐environmental outcomes. The implication is that wider contextual change is needed to support, reinforce and feedback into the pro-‐environmental behaviour of individuals. Contextual factors may exert their effects by influencing behaviour directly (for example, poor public transport services limiting alternative travel choices), or by shaping the habits and motivations of individuals over time (for example, new recycling facilities at work may result in more frequent recycling and favourable attitudes) (Steg & Vlek, 2009). What is clear, however, is that individuals are work, household and community citizens whose life domains are interdependent and diverse (Pocock, 2003). The complex interplay of demands and resources arising from these domains should not be underestimated when assessing the capacity for individual pro-‐environmental behaviour change.

Despite this recognition, however, few empirical studies to date have examined the significance of contextual factors alongside personal attitudes on pro-‐environmental behaviour, and paid work has not featured into analysis of environmental capacity and action. This project addresses this gap, providing an in-‐depth, multi-‐method analysis of the ways in which the domains of work, home and community (‘work-‐life’), separately and together, construct citizens’ positive environmental adaptive capacity.

Seven studies were conducted as part of this project, combining survey data from national and international sources with workplace case studies, focus groups and one-‐to-‐one interviews with citizens and workers across Australia. These studies investigate the attitudes and frequency of pro-‐environmental action of workers in Australia and other OECD countries; the household and work variables that predict the environmental effects of reducing water, waste, energy and car use; and the complex factors affecting scope for action in the workplace and home with particular view to gender, life stage and socio-‐economic difference.

Finally, the findings from the individual studies are combined to examine ways in which the multiple identities of workers can be mobilised to result in better environmental outcomes, generating evidence-‐based policy recommendations for industry, government and community forums.

13

Part 1: Survey Studies Part one of the project reports the findings from three studies that analysed national and international survey data.

The first study looks at Australian workers in 2007 / 2008 to see ‘who does what’ in terms of pro-‐environmental action, and which variables predict good environmental outcomes.

The second study compares Australian survey data on environmental attitudes and behaviours with data from four other OECD countries at two time points: 1993 and 2010, and considers what has changed over time. Predictors of environmental behaviour amongst workers are then examined in each country at both time points.

The third survey study looks specifically at female workers to determine what factors are associated with better environmental outcomes at work and at home.

14

Study 1: Who Does What? Survey The purpose of this study was to analyse data from the ABS Multipurpose Household Survey (MPHS), 2007-‐08 to provide an initial assessment of how work-‐life factors affect Australians’ capacity to respond to environmental changes.

The MPHS is a national survey designed to provide statistics annually for a small number of labour, social and economic topics in addition to socio-‐demographic information such as educational qualifications, labour force status and household income. The MPHS 2007-‐08 survey included data from the topic Environmental Views and Behaviour, which collected information on attitudes towards the environment and specific conservation measures taken in the home in relation to electricity consumption, water consumption, recycling and waste disposal.

Specifically, this study outlines findings that show, at a point in time, how gender, age, education and income levels, family and parenting demographics and work hours were related to Australian workers’ environmental attitudes and household actions. The full report Who does what? The pro-‐environmental behaviours of Australian workers (Chapman, 2011) is available for download from the Centre for Work + Life website.

Overview of the sample All employees aged 18 years or over were selected for inclusion in the sample (n = 7399). Approximately half were female (48.8%). The largest group (38.7%) were in the 30-‐44 age range and 42% of respondents reported secondary school as their highest level of education. Around a third of households had incomes of less than $59,999 per annum, and 40.7% had incomes over $90,000. One third of respondents were from couple households with children, and 6.3% were one-‐parent families. 73.4% reported working full-‐time by their usual hours (35 hours per week or more).

84.8% reported that they were concerned about environmental problems, but attitudes differed by gender and life-‐stage. More women reported concern than men in all age groups. Significantly less 18-‐29 year olds were concerned than other age groups. The group most likely to report concern were women aged 45-‐64 (89.5%) and the group least likely to report concern were men aged 18-‐29 (73%).

At a glance: who does what? Table 1 gives a descriptive overview of the per cent of Australians who reported taking steps to limit their personal electricity use; a decrease in their personal electricity use, and a decrease in their personal water use over the past year. Table 2 shows the percentage of Australians who reported that they always (or mostly): sorted waste for recycling; recycled kitchen or food waste; recycled garden waste, and used green or reusable bags.

15

Table 1. Frequency of workers who report positive personal electricity and water use outcomes.

Takes steps to limit electricity use %

Decreased electricity use % (n)

Decreased water use % (n)

Gender Men 86.1 48.4 53.1 Women 91.7 52.9 57.6

Age 18-‐29 81.4 49.5 48.3 30-‐44 90.1 49.4 55.5 45-‐64 92.1 52.9 59.5 65+ 90.1 46.3 56.6

Highest level of education University degree 92.5 52.9 56.8 College/TAFE 90.4 51.6 55.3 Secondary school 85.5 48.5 54.6

Household income <$59,999 $60,000-‐$89,999 $90,000+

89.2 89.8 89.7

52.1 51.3 51.5

52.9 55.2 57.8

Family composition Lone person household 90.2 51.6 52.9 One parent family 92.2 59.8 60.4 Couple without children 90.4 51.6 56.8 Couple with children 89.8 49.0 57.1

Parenting responsibilities No children <15 88.5 51.0 54.4 Has children <15 89.5 49.7 57.1

Work status by usual hours Part-‐time (≤34 hrs) 90.0 51.8 54.3 Full-‐time (≥35 hrs) 88.4 50.2 55.7

Environmental concern Concerned 92.3 53.1 58.0 Not concerned 69.9 36.7 40.3

16

Table 2. Frequency of workers who perform recycling and waste disposal behaviours always or most of the time.

Sorts waste for recycling

%

Recycles kitchen or food waste

%

Recycles garden waste

%

Uses green or recyclable bags

% Gender

Men 81.4 29.6 40.7 38.0 Women 85.6 30.2 41.6 46.0

Age 18-‐29 77.5 21.8 34.4 34.4 30-‐44 83.6 29.4 39.9 41.0 45-‐64 86.8 35.4 45.7 47.4 65+ 87.0 33.5 48.3 50.6

Highest level of education University degree 87.8 30.5 42.7 45.1 College/TAFE 84.7 30.4 42.8 41.3 Secondary school 79.8 29.4 38.8 40.3

Household income <$59,999 79.8 29.7 39.7 42.1 $60,000-‐$89,999 85.4 29.1 42.1 42.8 $90,000+ 85.1 29.8 41.5 42.2

Family composition Lone person household 80.2 23.1 37.7 39.8 One parent family 83.0 26.7 38.4 43.1 Couple no children 85.3 32.7 43.9 45.7 Couple with children 85.1 34.1 43.7 43.3

Parenting responsibilities No children <15 83.1 28.3 40.4 41.9 Has children <15 84.1 33.3 42.3 42.3

Work status Part-‐time (≤34 hrs) 84.6 34.1 43.9 45.3 Full-‐time (≥35 hrs) 83.0 28.3 40.0 40.8

Environmental concern Concerned 85.3 31.3 43.0 44.2 Not concerned 72.9 22.0 30.3 28.9

Method Analyses were conducted to determine the predictors of the seven pro-‐environmental behavioural outcomes: (1) took steps to limit personal electricity, (2) reported a decrease in personal electricity use, (3) reported a decrease in personal water use, (4) sorted waste for recycling, (5) recycled kitchen or food waste, (6) recycled garden waste, and (7) used green or reusable bags.

Eight predictor variables were investigated for each pro-‐environmental outcome. These were:

(1) gender (female/male) (2) age (years) (3) family composition (lone person household/one parent family/couple without dependent

children/couple with dependent children) (4) parenting responsibilities (has children <15/does not have children <15) (5) household income (<$59,999/$60,000-‐$89,999/$90,000+) (6) level of education (school/college or TAFE/university) (7) hours usually worked in all jobs (part-‐time ≤34 hours per week /full-‐time ≥ 35 hours per

week)

17

(8) concern about environmental problems (concerned/not concerned)

The analyses were multivariate (multiple variable) using logistic regression statistical techniques. This involves considering multiple factors at the same time in a single analysis, to identify the unique contribution of each individual factor when all the other factors included in the analysis are held constant (i.e. their influence is removed).

Findings Figure 2 shows which variables significantly (i.e. not likely to be due to chance, p < .05) predicted each of the seven pro-‐environmental outcomes. The arrows show the direction of the prediction. For example, women are more likely (↑) to take steps to limit their electricity use in comparison to men, and people in full-‐time work are less likely (↓) to recycle food waste than people who work part-‐time.

Figure 2. Summary of predictors and their influence on personal electric use, water use and waste disposal and recycling behaviours.

Steps to limit

electricity use

Decrease personal electricity

use

Decrease personal water Use

Sorts waste for recycling

Recycles food waste

Recycles garden waste

Uses green bags

Women ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ Age in years ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ Education (school) College or TAFE ↑ University ↑ ↑ ↑ Income (<$59,999) $60,000-‐$89,999 ↓ $90,000+ ↓ Family composition (lone person)

Single parent ↑ ↑ Couple without

children ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑

Couple with children

↑ ↑ ↑

Parenting responsibilities

↓

Full-‐time work ↓ Environmental concern ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑

The two strongest and most consistent findings relate to level of concern and life stage. People who are concerned about the environment are more likely to engage in pro-‐environmental behaviours than those who are not concerned. Similarly, older workers have better environmental outcomes in all domains than their younger peers.

In relation to gender, the data shows that women have better outcomes than men on four of the seven pro-‐environmental behaviours relating to energy curtailment, recycling, and the use of green bags. Household composition also influences environmental outcomes: workers with parenting responsibilities had the poorest outcomes for electricity use, and single parents had better outcomes for water curtailment and recycling food waste than people living alone. Workers who are

18

part of a couple had better outcomes for all four recycling and waste behaviours than people who live alone.

In relation to income and education, workers with higher incomes are less likely to recycle food waste. Higher levels of education were associated with taking steps to reduce energy use, but not with a decrease in energy. University-‐educated workers are more likely to sort waste for recycling and use green bags than those with a school education.

Finally, hours of work predicted recycling food waste. People who work part-‐time are more likely to recycle food waste than those who work full-‐time.

Who Does What? Summary Analysis of the 2007-‐08 MPHS showed that the main drivers of pro-‐environmental behaviours among Australian workers are pro-‐environmental concern, age, gender and household / family structure, with some evidence for income, education and hours of work. These initial findings suggest that policy actions targeting both psychological and institutional factors may be beneficial: • Emphasis on young people: motivation, affordable housing arrangements and secure work

Young workers aged 18-‐29 had significantly worse outcomes on pro-‐environmental concern and behaviour than all other age groups. This was particularly the case for young men. This suggests that this group would benefit from tailored communications to educate and encourage participation. However, the poor outcomes for young people may also reflect broader trends in housing and living arrangements, with an increasing number of young people remaining in or returning to the parental home. Given that living arrangements are associated with wider patterns of financial security, employment and affordable housing, a broad range of government policies may be required to make independent living more sustainable for young people.

• Working arrangements The finding that most pro-‐environmental behaviours are driven by women is likely to be a reflection of the gendered allocation of unpaid work, and women’s higher level of active involvement with household tasks in general. Steps are needed to redistribute unpaid work and improve access to flexible working conditions for women and men. Some evidence was also found to suggest that a reduction in working hours may improve outcomes. Full-‐time workers had marginally worse outcomes than part-‐time workers, pointing to a time cost associated with pro-‐environmental action in the household.

• Social cohesion and community incentives Lone person households had consistently worse outcomes on waste and recycling behaviours than other family structures, suggesting that good environmental outcomes are encouraged by interaction with others. The facilitating effect of other people may be due to factors such as knowledge sharing or the generation of norms, setting a good example, or having more structured household routines. Given that lone person households are the fastest growing household type, investment in community-‐based action to build cohesive social norms and positive modelling behaviours may be particularly important for long-‐term sustainable living.

• Facilitate pro-‐environmental action for renting population As renting is a barrier to action, incentives for landlords to make rental properties more sustainable, or investment into alternative technology such as non-‐permanent solar could be useful. Incorporating waste disposal into household design is important for new builds.

19

Study 2: International Comparison Survey The International Social Survey Program (ISSP), started in 1984, is a continuing annual program of cross-‐national collaboration on surveys covering topics of social interest. The environment was the subject of the 1993, 2000 and 2010 ISSP modules, with Australia participating in 1993 and 2010. The ISSP permits analysis of pro-‐environmental behaviours in relation to attitudes, household and work characteristics. The aim of this study is to determine how Australia compares to other countries in relation to environmental issues, and to further investigate antecedents of action from an internationally comparative perspective. The full report Predictors of pro-‐environmental behaviour in 1993 and 2010: An international comparison (Chapman, 2013) is available for download from the Centre for Work + Life website.

Overview of the sample In 1993, 7316 respondents over 18 years completed the ISSP Environment I survey (Australia n = 1779, UK n = 1261, US n = 1557, Norway n = 1414, Japan n = 1305). In 2010, 6993 respondents completed the ISSP Environment III (Australia n = 1946, UK n = 928, US n = 1430, Norway n = 1387, Japan n = 1307).

There was a fairly even split between men and women in all countries, with slightly higher representation for females. The average age of the sample was 44.6 years in 1993, and 49.8 years in 2010. The average number of years spent in school was 12.0 in 1993 and slightly higher at 13.2 years in 2010. Roughly two-‐thirds to three quarters of respondents were living with a partner at both time points, except in the US where approximately half of the sample was cohabiting. In most countries, approximately one third had children in the household. Average hours of work were relatively consistent across countries and time points, averaging 39.6 in 1993 and 39.8 in 2010. Japan has the highest per cent of people working long full-‐time hours (over 45 hours per week) at both time points: 53.9% in 1993 and 47.5% in 2010.

At a glance: international comparison Preliminary descriptive analysis showed that the environment was a relatively low priority in comparison to other social issues (e.g. the economy, education, health care) for respondents in 2010. Less than 5% voted the environment as the most important issue in the UK, US and Japan. Australia (9.4%) and Norway (17.7%) had slightly higher votes. In addition, concern about the environment was also fairly low in 2010, indicated by around 60% of respondents across countries.

‘Willingness to make trade-‐offs’ decreased from 1993 to 2010. This was measured by questions regarding willingness to pay higher prices (approx. 50% in 1993), higher taxes (38% in 1993), and accepting cuts to standards of living in order to protect the environment (39% in 1993). On average across countries, willingness for all measures dropped by 10 -‐ 12%, with the exception of the US, whose willingness to accept cuts to standards of living increased slightly over time.

Beliefs that environmental problems are dangerous or very dangerous also decreased as a whole, from approximately 55% in 1993 to less than half in 2010. This was measured by asking questions about the perceived dangers of air pollution, nuclear power stations, pesticides, pollution of rivers and global warming. Pollution of rivers and pollution from industry were seen to present the greatest danger in most countries. In Australia, the perceived dangers of air pollution from cars and industry; the pollution of rivers and a rise in the world’s temperature decreased by 15% on average. Perceived dangers from nuclear power stations and pesticides in Australia remained constant over time.

20

Table 3 gives a descriptive overview of the per cent of respondents who always or often, sometimes, or never reported recycling, cutting back on driving, reducing energy, and reducing water use in 1993 and 2010. Of the four pro-‐environmental behaviours, recycling was the most popular. In 1993, Australia and Japan did the most recycling, with 71.1% and 75.0% reporting always or often making an effort. By 2010 most other countries had increased considerably (more than 80% reporting always or often recycling in Australia, the UK, Norway and Japan). The US stayed fairly consistent at 63% at both time points. In relation to cutting back on driving for environmental reasons, a low per cent of people across countries reported always or often cutting back. Cutting back on driving did increase slightly across all countries over time, with Japan showing the greatest increase (14.6%).

Data in relation to energy and water saving behaviours were collected only in 2010. Around half of the sample reported always or often making efforts to reduce their energy consumption and this was consistent across countries. Efforts to save water were highest in Australia and Japan (approximately half always or often make an effort). In 2010, water conservation was lowest in the US (28.3% reporting always or often making an effort).

Table 3: Frequency of pro-‐environmental behaviours in five countries in 1993 and 2010

AUS UK US NOR JAP 1993 2010 1993 2010 1993 2010 1993 2010 1993 2010 How often do you sort glass or tin for recycling?*

Always / often 71.1 93.8 46.6 88.8 62.6 63.7 42.1 86.9 75.0 88.7 Sometimes 21.3 4.2 31.4 8.8 23.4 22.7 41.0 11.1 21.3 10.1 Never 7.6 2.0 22.0 2.4 14.0 13.6 16.9 2.0 3.7 1.2

Cut back on driving?* Always / often 11.8 23.3 12.6 23.3 10.8 19.5 16.0 21.4 8.8 23.4 Sometimes 31.7 38.0 32.7 40.4 28.0 32.3 39.9 44.1 20.7 43.1 Never 56.5 38.7 54.7 36.3 61.2 48.2 44.1 34.5 70.5 33.5

Reduce energy or fuel at home?*

Always / often ** 52.1 ** 40.8 ** 42.7 ** 44.7 ** 49.4 Sometimes ** 32.3 ** 34.9 ** 31.8 ** 39.4 ** 42.3 Never ** 15.6 ** 24.3 ** 23.5 ** 15.9 ** 8.4

Save or reuse water?* Always / often ** 52.3 ** 33.5 ** 28.3 ** 17.3 ** 49.4 Sometimes ** 33.7 ** 34.1 ** 27.2 ** 34.8 ** 41.9 Never ** 14.0 ** 32.4 ** 44.5 ** 47.9 ** 8.7

*valid per cent of those for whom the behaviour is applicable, **data unavailable

Method Multivariate analyses using multiple regression techniques were conducted to determine the predictors of four pro-‐environmental behavioural outcomes: (1) sorted waste for recycling, (2) made an effort to cut back on driving for environmental reasons, (3) made an effort to reduce energy or fuel at home, and (4) made an effort to save or re-‐use water. Recycling and car use were investigated in 1993 and 2010, but data on energy and water use were available in 2010 only. 1993 analyses were performed on employees in Australia, the UK, US, Norway and Japan, but Japan was not included in the 2010 analyses due to missing data.

Ten predictor variables were investigated for each pro-‐environmental outcome. These were:

(1) gender (female/male) (2) age (years) (3) level of education (years in school)

21

(4) cohabiting status (living with partner/not living with partner) (5) children (children in household/no children in household) (6) hours worked weekly (hours) (7) willingness to make trade-‐offs to protect the environment (willingness) (8) beliefs about the dangers of environmental problems (danger) (9) concern about environmental problems (concern) (available in 2010 only) (10) knowledge about the causes of environmental problems (knowledge) (available in 2010

only)

Findings Figure 3 shows which variables significantly (i.e. not likely to be due to chance, p < .05) predicted recycling behaviour in 1993 and 2010. For Figure 3, and the rest of the Figures in this section, the arrows show the direction of the relationship. For example, the first column shows that willingness to make trade-‐offs in Australia in 1993 was associated with higher frequencies (↑) of recycling, but living with a partner (cohabiting) was associated with lower frequencies (↓) of recycling.

Figure 3: Summary of predictors of recycling behaviour in 1993 and 2010

AUS UK US NOR JAP 1993 2010 1993 2010 1993 2010 1993 2010 1993 2010

Women ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ** Age in years ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ** Education (years in school) ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ **

Living with a partner ↓ ** ↓ ** Children in household ** ** ↓ ** Weekly hours of work ↓ ↓ ** Willingness to make trade-‐offs ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ **

Beliefs about dangers ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ** Environmental concern ** ↑ ** ** ↑ ** ↑ ** ** Environmental knowledge ** ** ↑ ** ** ↑ ** **

** data unavailable

Age in years was a consistent predictor of recycling in all countries and years, with older employees recycling more frequently than younger employees. In Australia, the UK, Norway and Japan, women were more likely to recycle than men, although in Australian this difference was only found in 1993. Education was associated with higher frequencies of recycling in Australia, UK and US. Willingness to make trade-‐offs to protect the environment, beliefs that environmental problems posed a danger, and higher levels of environmental concern were fairly consistent predictors of recycling frequency in all countries. Having children in the household and longer hours of work were associated with lower rates of recycling at various times in the UK and US, suggesting that recycling behaviour may be influenced by time pressure in these countries. Living with a partner was also associated with lower rates of recycling in Australia (1993) and the US (2010).

22

Figure 4: Summary of predictors of cutting back on car use in 1993 and 2010

AUS UK US NOR JAP 1993 2010 1993 2010 1993 2010 1993 2010 1993 2010

Women ↑ ** Age in years ↑ ** Education (years in school) ↑ ↑ **

Living with a partner ↑ ↑ ** Children in household ** ** ↓ ** Weekly hours of work ↓ ** Willingness to make trade-‐offs ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ **

Beliefs about dangers ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ** Environmental concern ** ↑ ** ↑ ** ↑ ** ↑ ** ** Environmental knowledge ** ↑ ** ** ** ** **

Gender*children ↓ ** ** data unavailable. An asterisk (*) between two variables shows a significant interaction.

Figure 4 shows predictors of cutting back on car use. The most consistent predictors were the attitudinal variables: beliefs about the dangers of environmental problems; environmental concern, and willingness to make trade-‐offs predicted car use in all countries. Unlike recycling behaviour, living with a partner meant that employees were more likely to cut back on driving in Australia and the US, but longer hours of work (Norway 1993) and having children in the household (Japan) were again associated with negative behavioural outcomes. Gender predicted car use only in Australia in 1993, with women reporting less car use than men. However in Japan in 1993 there was a significant interaction between gender and children, meaning that if female employees had children in the household they were less likely to cut back on car use.

Figure 5: Summary of predictors of energy saving behaviour in 2010

AUS UK US NOR Women ↑ ↑ Age in years ↑ Education (years in school) ↑

Living with a partner ** ↑ ↑ Children in household ↓ Weekly hours of work Willingness to make trade-‐offs ↑ ↑

Beliefs about dangers ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ Environmental concern ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ Environmental knowledge ↑ ↑

Gender*children ↓ An asterisk (*) between two variables shows a significant interaction.

Figure 5 shows predictors of energy use. Again the most consistent predictors are attitudinal. Beliefs that environmental problems are dangerous, and a high level of environmental concern predicted energy-‐saving across countries. Knowledge about environmental problems was also a significant

23

predictor in Australia and the US. Living with a partner predicted higher frequencies of energy-‐saving in the US and Norway, as well as being female. However, in Norway having children in the household predicted lower rates of energy saving, and the gender*children interaction show that female employees with children also save energy less frequently. Age in years and education predicted energy-‐saving only in Australia and the US (respectively).

Figure 6: Summary of predictors of water saving behaviour in 2010

AUS UK US NOR Women ↑ Age in years ↑ Education (years in school)

Living with a partner ** Children in household Weekly hours of work Willingness to make trade-‐offs ↑ ↑ ↑

Beliefs about dangers ↑ ↑ ↑ Environmental concern ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ Environmental knowledge ↑ ↑

Figure 6 shows a summary of predictors for saving water. Again, high levels of environmental concern, beliefs about the dangers, and willingness to make trade-‐offs to protect the environment were the most consistent predictors of water-‐saving across countries in 2010. Knowledge was also predictive of a positive outcome in Australia and the US. Being an older employee was predictive of water-‐saving behaviour in Australia, and female employees reported better outcomes in the UK.

24

International Comparison Summary Analysis of the ISSP Environment I and III showed that in comparison with other countries, Australia’s frequency of pro-‐environmental action is relatively high. However, the findings delivered mixed messages regarding the success of the global environmental drive of recent years. The main discussion points arising from this research are: • A different focus?

While frequencies of pro-‐environmental behaviour are higher in 2010 than 1993, environmental attitudes are in decline, suggesting ‘green fatigue’ across countries. In this analysis, however, attitudinal variables comprise the most consistent predictors of action. Recycling is by far the most popular action, which in recent years has been embedded into daily household functioning by local authority recycling schemes. A similar approach may be needed to reframe energy and water saving tasks into habitual actions and everyday household norms. In relation to transport, efforts to cut back on car use are low and in general, resistant to change, suggesting improved and accessible transport options should be prioritised.

• Working hours, household structure and life stage Longer hours of work and having children at home were associated with poorer outcomes in a number of countries. These findings suggest increased work-‐life interference, leading to a reduced capacity for pro-‐environmental action. Living with a partner was found to impede recycling but facilitate reductions in car and energy use. Having a partner in the household may generate positive outcomes in some areas, potentially by alleviating time pressure generated by managing busy working lives. Again, young employees had worse outcomes for recycling, car, energy and water use. Targeted communications are needed to encourage participation in this group.

25

Study 3: What Women Do Survey The Community Public Sector Union (CPSU) carries out an annual survey of their women members to identify the best ways to represent and campaign for their rights. The What Women Want survey was carried out in 2011 for the sixth time in conjunction with the Centre for Work + Life.

In 2011, a section called ‘The Environment’ was added to the What Women Want survey, asking 15 purpose-‐designed questions about women’s beliefs and actions in relation to the environment. This new section explored how working women manage sustainable living at work and at home, and the factors that facilitate or hinder pro-‐environmental action. The broad aim of this survey was to investigate how work and home life can be best configured to support pro-‐environmental action, and to inform decision-‐making regarding working arrangements that best promote wellbeing and improve environmentally sustainable outcomes.

This survey takes a closer look at the pro-‐environmental actions that women do; how these are influenced by work, travel and home-‐related factors, and what women say would help them to reduce their environmental impact. The full report What women do: Exploring the link between pro-‐environmental actions, work, travel and home (Chapman, 2012) is available for download from the Centre for Work + Life website.

Overview of the sample General demographics: 12872 women aged 20 or over completed the CPSU What Women Want survey.* One third of respondents were in the 45-‐54 age range, which made up the largest age group. Nearly half of women held a university degree or postgraduate qualification, and over 70.9% were in the mid-‐income bracket.

Work factors: Clerical and administrative workers made up the highest proportion of respondents at 59.7%. 77.4% of women were in full-‐time employment, and 75.8% said they were satisfied or very satisfied with their access to flexible working arrangements. Over half of respondents spent less than 30 minutes travelling to work, and only 8.6% of women commuted for longer than one hour. 66.7% drove to work and 24.7% used public transport.

Home factors: 38.2% of women had dependent children under the age of 18 years, and approximately 42% of women had one or two children at home. 23.6% of women had regular caring responsibilities for others (e.g. parents, adult children). Nearly half of women (47.4%) spent between 5 and 14 hours doing unpaid domestic work in the previous week. 67.4% reported often or almost always feeling rushed or pressed for time, and 57.6% indicated that they were satisfied with their work-‐life balance in general.

Attitudes, co-‐workers and others in household: 76.2% agreed or strongly agreed that they were concerned about environmental problems and this increased by age: 67.2% of 20-‐24 year olds in comparison to 86.3% of women aged 65 or over.

Just under half of the women agreed that managers at work both encourage (46.1%) and participate (41%) in pro-‐environmental action, and slightly more agreed that their co-‐workers participate in pro-‐environmental action (57.2%). A large per cent of women agreed that other people in their household often take pro-‐environmental action (85%).

* The response numbers presented here may differ from those collected in the 2011 CPSU survey. This is because response categories of ‘prefer not to respond’, ‘not applicable’, and ‘don’t know’ were removed in the current analyses for simplicity and ease of comparison across variables.

26

At a glance: what women do At work: Women were asked if they often took pro-‐environmental action at work. 72% agreed or strongly agreed, 20.5% were neutral and 7.5% disagreed or strongly disagreed. Table 4 shows the frequency of pro-‐environmental action at work by age group, education and earnings.

Table 4. Per cent of women who agree or strongly agree that they often take pro-‐environmental action at work, by general demographics.

% Age

20-‐24 65.9 25-‐34 68.5 35-‐44 71.4 45-‐54 73.6 55-‐64 77.1 65+ 79.5

Highest level of education University degree or higher 74.3 College/TAFE 71.2 Secondary school 68.9

Annual earnings $10,000-‐$39,999 $40,000-‐$79,999 $80,000+

68.7 71.1 75.4

At home: 74.4% of women always or often reduced energy or fuel, 61% always or often saved or re-‐used water, 89.7% always or often made a special effort to recycle, 76.3% always or often made a special effort to reduce waste, and 42.3% cut back on driving. Table 5 gives a descriptive overview of the per cent of workers who often take action at home.

Table 5. Per cent of women who always or often take pro-‐environmental action at home, by general demographics.

Reduce energy

%

Save water %

Recycle %

Reduce waste %

Cut back on driving

% Age

20-‐24 61.1 41.1 77.8 58.7 34.6 25-‐34 68.1 51.5 85.6 68.9 42.5 35-‐44 74.4 63.2 90.1 76.7 41.2 45-‐54 77.4 65.3 92.1 79.5 42.4 55-‐64 81.8 68.7 93.7 85.8 45.8 65+ 86.4 72.5 92.4 87.7 49.3

Education University or higher 75.2 60.9 91.5 77.3 46.4 College / TAFE 74.0 61.7 88.0 75.9 40.4 Secondary school 73.7 60.4 88.5 74.7 36.6

Annual earnings $10,000-‐$39,000 75.1 65.3 92.8 77.6 38.7 $40,000-‐$79,000 74.6 60.4 88.5 75.9 42.7 $80,000+ 73.6 61.9 92.6 76.8 41.6

27

Scope for improvement: 51.7% said they would like to take a bit or a lot more pro-‐environmental action generally. Women were then asked how much scope there is to reduce environmental impact at home and at work. The biggest areas for improvement at work were recycling and reducing waste (approximately 74% agreed that there was a lot or some scope for improvement). The biggest areas for improvement at home were saving energy (72%) and reducing waste (71%). The area with least scope for improvement was reducing car use (44% at work and 56% at home).

Findings Figure 7 shows which variables were significantly (i.e. not likely to be due to chance, p < .05) associated with pro-‐environmental action at work, at home, and car use. The arrows show the direction of the association. For example, working full-‐time was associated with poorer outcomes (↓) for saving water, and having access to leave was associated with better outcomes (↑) for pro-‐environmental action at work. The analyses for this section were descriptive, using cross tabulation techniques.

Figure 7. Summary of variables associated with pro-‐environmental action at work, at home, and for car use.

Takes pro-‐environmental

action AT WORK

Reduces energy

AT HOME

Saves water

AT HOME

Recycles

AT HOME

Reduces waste

AT HOME

Cuts back on car use

Work arrangements Works full-‐time ↓ ↓ ↓ ↑ Has access to leave when needed

↑ ↑

Has access to flexible hours

↑

Regularly works at home

↑ ↑ ↑

Home life Has dependent

children at home ↑ ↓

Has caring responsibilities for others

↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑

Spends >15 hours per week in unpaid domestic work

↓ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑

Is dissatisfied with work-‐life balance

↓ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑

Feels rushed or pressed for time

↑ ↑ ↑

Perceived behaviour of others

Management at work encourage action

↑ ↑ ↑ ↑

Management at work are pro-‐active

↑ ↑ ↑ ↑

Colleagues at work are pro-‐active

↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑

Others at home are pro-‐active

↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑

28

In relation to working arrangements, women who work full-‐time had marginally worse outcomes for water, waste and recycling behaviours at home, but were more likely to report cutting back on car use than part-‐timers. Having access to leave as needed, having access to flexible hours and having the option to work at home on a regular basis were associated with engaging in pro-‐environmental action at work, and also with some actions undertaken at home.

In general, women who have regular caring responsibilities; those who spend more than 15 hours per week on unpaid domestic work; regularly feel pressed for time, and are dissatisfied with their work-‐life balance engage in higher levels of pro-‐environmental action at home. However, longer hours of unpaid domestic work and dissatisfaction with work-‐life balance were associated with less pro-‐environmental action at work.

The perception that other people, including managers, co-‐workers and people in the household are also pro-‐environmentally encouraging and active was strongly associated with better outcomes at work and in the home.

Barriers to pro-‐environmental action: women were given a list of potential barriers to pro-‐environmental action and asked to indicate whether they agreed or disagreed that they posed a barrier for them personally.

57% of women agreed that the demands of commuting were a barrier to pro-‐environmental action; 51.4% agreed that being unable to work from home was a barrier, and 50.9% agreed that poor transport options in their area hindered pro-‐environmental action.

44.3% of women agreed or strongly agreed that the demands of home and family responsibilities acted as barrier; 37.1% said demands of job or jobs, and 16.2% agreed that the demands of their community responsibilities made it harder for them to engage in pro-‐environmental action.

Facilitators to pro-‐environmental action: women also chose three from a list of ten facilitators that that would help them to take action. Figure 8 shows the facilitators ranked by order of popularity.

Figure 8. Facilitators of pro-‐environmental action.

47.7 44.0 42.0

28.6 25.7

14.6 10.0 8.1

4.3 3.0

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

%

29

What Women Do Summary Analysis of the 2011-‐12 CPSU survey showed that many working women are undertaking pro-‐environmental action at work and at home, especially in the areas of recycling, waste and energy reduction. However, many women – over half – would like to do more, showing significant scope for improvement. The main areas for action arising from this research are: • Emphasis on young people

Younger women engage in less pro-‐environmental action than older respondents and report marginally less concern. However, they also expressed a greater desire to do more, indicating that tailored communications may be of value.

• Working arrangements Flexibility at work helps. Satisfaction with flexible working arrangements, regularly working from home, and having access to leave and flexible hours were associated with better pro-‐environmental outcomes at work. In addition, having access to leave and regularly working from home was associated with increased action at home. These findings suggest that giving workers: (1) encouragement to take their leave; (2) some say over adjusting work time to fit their needs, and (3) the opportunity to work at home when feasible are important for any workplace aiming to support environmentally sustainable futures, as well as healthy work-‐life relationships for their employees.

• A closer look at unpaid work Women who spend more time in domestic work and caring per week have better environmental outcomes at home, supporting the earlier assumption from the MPHS 2007-‐08 that women’s greater participation is a general reflection of the gendered allocation of unpaid work. However, this study also shows that women who engage in higher levels of pro-‐environmental action at home are also more dissatisfied with their work-‐life balance, and feel more rushed and pressed for time. Active steps to redistribute the gender imbalance in unpaid work and improve access to flexible working conditions for men as well as women are needed.

• Building green workplace cultures and social norms Extending the MHPS 2007-‐08 theme of social cohesion, this study also shows that actions of others matter. Perceptions of encouragement and the pro-‐environmental action of managers and co-‐workers are all important for positive outcomes at work, which spill over to influence positive action at home. The pro-‐environmental action of others in the household was also clearly associated with better outcomes at work. This shows the central role of shared social context, and how pro-‐environmental action is ‘normed’ by perceptions of those around us. Collective and collaborative efforts to embedded sustainability practices within day-‐to-‐day culture seem crucial for workplace initiatives to succeed.

• Efficient transport options or alternatives Women chose the demands of commuting, being unable to work from home, and poor transport options as the top three barriers to pro-‐environmental action. Efficient transport options or alternatives that reduce time, money, and the environmental effects of car use are needed.

• Incentives and green technologies Financial incentives and technologies are highly regarded and should be offered where appropriate.

30

Part 2: Case Studies and Interviews Part two of the project reports the findings from four studies that employed qualitative data collection and analysis to gain a deeper insight into the factors influencing environmental outcomes at work, at home and in the community.

Study 4 is a workplace case study undertaken in an Australian-‐based natural skincare company given the pseudonym Natural Care.

Studies 5 and 6 are workplace case studies undertaken in a global wine company, given the pseudonym International Wines. Study 5 was conducted in a packaging centre in South Australia, and study 6 was conducted in a production plant in rural Victoria.

Study 7 is a one-‐to-‐one, telephone interview study of 30 workers from across Australia.

31

Study 4: Natural Care Workplace Case Study The first workplace case study was undertaken in an Australian-‐based natural skincare company, given the pseudonym Natural Care.

Natural Care is a medium-‐sized business, established on organic and biodynamic principles and embracing eco-‐friendly strategies within its workplace policies and practices. Natural Care incorporates a farm, factory, office and 18 retail outlets throughout South Australia and nationally, and is committed to managing operations, products and services in an environmentally sustainable manner across these work sectors. Specific actions include organically-‐certified farming practices, special efforts to re-‐use and recycle waste from all worksites, reducing the need for waste transportation to landfill, and company-‐wide energy efficiency programs. Working from home is also encouraged to reduce car use, and video conferencing is encouraged to reduce the need for national and international air travel. Education programs, training and ‘green teams’ are in place to enhance employee understanding and engagement. Natural Care emphasise the responsibility of all employees to fully support their environmental sustainability policy through active participation and cooperation.

The aim of the Natural Care case study was to gain an in-‐depth analysis of the experience of working in an exemplar organisation, with sustainability at the core of its product value and marketing. The case study is presented from the perspective of the employees, to allow front-‐line insight into what factors are important for initiating and maintaining sustainable workplace cultures, and how this influences personal attitudes and behaviour in and beyond the workplace. Details of this case study are also available in the book chapter Working towards sustainability: Exploring the workplace as a site for pro-‐environmental behaviour change (Chapman, Skinner & Searle, 2013).

Method The case study comprised semi-‐structured interviews with eleven female employees recruited from different work sectors of Natural Care including sales, office and manufacturing areas. The average age of the interviewees was 35 (ranging from 28-‐48 years) and the average length of employment was 3 years and 7 months. Interview questions focused on the factors that contribute to successfully building a sustainable workplace culture, and how environmental influences at work can affect actions in other life domains (work-‐life spillover). Interviews were audio-‐recorded and transcribed and the data was thematically analysed.

Findings The organisational factors that made the greatest contribution to fostering Natural Care’s eco-‐ culture and employees’ knowledge, attitudes and behaviours fell into three broad themes: (1) the embeddedness of environmental sustainability in job roles, (2) experiential learning leading to new habits, and (3) employee influence, open dialogue and social norms. A forth theme of influences on commuting and travel is also included. Summaries of the key observations are presented below, with a particular focus on implications for the development of ‘eco’ cultures and practices of environmental sustainability in workplaces.

1. Embedding sustainability into job roles One of the key observations from this case study was that working in an ‘eco-‐friendly’ organisation was important but not in itself sufficient for deep and sustained changes to attitudes and behaviours within and outside of the organisation.

32

The interviews revealed that ongoing and pro-‐active engagement by workers was required, going beyond the passive delivery of information that often characterises organisational training and communications. One of the ways that the organisation facilitated this active engagement with environmental issues was to ensure that environmental sustainability was incorporated and embedded into job roles at all levels, fostering an integration of values and practices across the company.

A number of employees spoke about their job role and responsibilities as encouraging pro-‐environmental behavioural changes within their home as well as at work. One office worker who was responsible for initiating new environmental projects gave an example of this: ‘I’ve been basically told to go away and learn about environmental sustainability, so for me, I’ve picked up my knowledge in all areas 500 per cent’. Another office participant’s job role required her to encourage consultants to move away from a ‘black and white understanding of organic certification’ and promote sustainable farming. This role encouraged a personal identification with environmental issues and prompted her to ask more questions when making purchasing decisions outside of work:

Probably the biggest impact has been my knowledge and understanding of organic and biodynamic practices, and following that through to what that means about the food I purchase and consume, both from a non-‐pesticide, non-‐fertiliser point of view but also from a distance travel sort of view, eating local within season.

Workers from Natural Care viewed environmental awareness and action as an integral part of their role -‐ a ‘way of being’ -‐ rather than separate practices to be performed in addition to their day-‐to-‐day tasks. The degree to which these values were embedded in the worker experience had a clear impact on sustainability efforts and outcomes both in and out of the workplace.

2. Experiential learning leading to new habits All interviewees emphasised that the best way of learning about environmental initiatives was by actively experiencing them. Experiential learning was described as being immersed in the physical acts of ‘seeing, feeling, tasting and doing’ in the workplace, fostering a sense of connectedness while making the practices more acceptable, familiar and readily adopted. One office worker spoke of how she had been actively involved in the renovation of a retail outlet that gave her ‘greater insight into the principles of green architecture and green design’, seeding a future desire in her own life to ‘build a home that is as passive [on the environment] as possible’. A number of workers also mentioned that the procedural act of separating general, recyclable and organic waste at the workplace encouraged them to improve their household recycling and compost behaviours, and adapt in ways they would not have usually considered:

I’ve actually started my own little compost, and more recycling and collecting scraps and stuff and that’s purely from working [at Natural Care]. I’ve just never thought of it before. It’s just a matter of learning how to do it.

Participants also reflected on the benefits of ‘hands-‐on’ experiential learning in the development of habits and routines whilst at work, which were easily transferred to home life: ‘because you’re recycling at work and you do it every day, I recycle well at home now. If you do it enough times it just becomes a habit’. These experiences suggest that exposure to new situations can create new norms and routines, and demonstrate the positive influence of consistency and clear, repeated action in the workplace. Participants acknowledged that changing their old behaviour required an application

33

of intention and effort initially, yet they recognised that the new actions soon translated to ‘second nature’ habits and routines that become automatically embedded in everyday life:

I think something that [Natural Care] has taught me is that once you implement the changes and they become second nature, there’s not that time commitment. There’s that initial time certainly but once that setup’s occurred it’s not something that you really have to think about again.

3. Employee influence, open dialogue and social norms The third key theme relates to the degree of influence that employees have over initiating and reviewing ecological initiatives. It is well established in the research literature on organisational change that encouraging employee input into decision-‐making processes is likely to increase engagement, uptake and acceptance of organisational change, including individual actions. Natural Care employees recognised the value of having opportunities to influence environmental sustainability practices at an organisational level. Workers reflected on their feelings of empowerment and increased motivation resulting from the acknowledgement and validation of their ideas and suggestions to improve eco-‐friendly practices in the workplace: ‘They’re listening to the everyday worker, like all levels, so we all get a say’. Employees spoke of how these experiences of influence and empowerment can create a ‘positive spiral’ that sustains employee values and engagement. This is illustrated in the following quote, which also demonstrates the value of having committed and engaged managers who take both the initiative and employee views seriously:

They’re [management] totally open to any sorts of [environmental] suggestions that we have. They’re willing to even implement some of them. That helps build my confidence and drives my passion.

Positive outcomes were further enhanced by the perception of organisational norms that encouraged a supportive and open dialogue around environmental principles. All workers noted that talking openly with their colleagues increased their understanding of environmental issues and solutions. Interviewees unanimously agreed that an inclusive and open dialogue flowed across all sectors of Natural Care. One employee described how gaining information from social networks gradually shifted her attitude towards a more collective view of pro-‐environmental action: ‘I’m doing this so I’m doing my bit’ to ‘what are the results that WE are looking for?’

Feeling supported by and working closely with colleagues who are committed to environmental principles fostered a sense of ‘keeping each other in the loop because of a joint interest’. The importance of peers and positive social norms in the workplace is captured in this quote from a worker whose pro-‐environmental action at home was strongly influenced by her working environment:

I’m around peers that talk about these things and talk about how they can do better. You get a bit caught up in that and you’re like, oh yeah, I can do this at home too.

4. What influences travel and commuting behaviour? Despite the pro-‐environmental culture of the organisation, high level of staff engagement and clear evidence of positive work-‐life spillover, interviewees felt that car use was the one area they were unable to adapt. Ten of the eleven workers said they could not cut back on time spent driving:

Unfortunately that’s one area that I don’t have a great deal of control over because I live in the country. I really need to use a car and also because I’ve got a young son.

34

All workers said that available public transport options were inadequate to take them efficiently and conveniently between their homes, workplace, shops and schools. Other women who lived nearer the workplace felt that using public transport to commute was unfeasible due to safety concerns:

I got stranded and all of a sudden no one was around because I missed the first bus and the next bus was really late and it was a horrible experience, standing there in the dark, cold and rain. So it’s a safety issue for me.

Conclusion From this case study, it is clear that sustainability must be congruent with the underlying values of the organisational culture in order to successfully engage employee participation in environmental initiatives.

The interviews demonstrate how environmental sustainability is deeply integrated within Natural Care, and is consistently reinforced in the everyday work practices and experiences of employees. Central to Natural Care’s success in positively influencing employee attitudes and knowledge is the embedding of environmental sustainability into job roles, which governs and guides the identity of workers in the organisation.

In regard to pro-‐environmental behaviours, a positive organisational culture communicates to workers the extent to which these behaviours are taken seriously, valued and worthwhile. Natural Care promotes the value and worth of environmental sustainability to its employees by creating supports and opportunities for active experiential learning with regard to day-‐to-‐day actions, and also at a whole-‐of-‐organisation level with regard to input into organisational policies and procedures.

The organisational change literature emphasises the need for cultural change to be approached as a multi-‐level systems endeavour that involves interventions at individual, team, management and organisational levels. What is clear from the Natural Care case study is that the organisation had succeeded in actively engaging workers at all levels; employees were not simply paying ‘lip service’. Open dialogue, peer encouragement and being exposed to the positive actions of management and colleagues actively fostered positive social norms. The employees’ engagement was demonstrated by their reflections on how the environmental knowledge and skills that they had developed through their work had led to motivation and habits in other life domains, demonstrating how environmentally-‐friendly workplaces have the potential to act as a catalyst for significant social influence.

Although the experience of working in Natural Care influenced and facilitated behaviour change in the working and home lives of workers, pro-‐environmental actions cannot be promoted if they are out of the individual’s control. A good example of this is through travel mode choice and commuting – even though workers have strong pro-‐environmental values and would like to cut back on car use, it is not an option for them due to inadequate alternative modes of transport and safety concerns. Such systemic and contextual factors shape the choices and actions of individuals both in and out of work, and require broader level, structural change to support sustainability efforts.

35

Natural Care Summary Natural Care can be seen as a ‘gold standard’ eco-‐friendly organisation, founded with sustainability principles at its core. Interviews with employees of Natural Care showed that environmental sustainability can be successfully embedded into workplace culture and that this can lead to positive spillover of pro-‐environmental action from the workplace to home. The main lessons for greening organisations arising from this research are: • Embed sustainability into job roles across the company Environmental issues and procedures should be embedded in, rather than peripheral to, employee day-‐to-‐day activities and core business. • New habits can be created by experiential learning and clear, effective procedures The experience of being actively involved in environmental initiatives is preferable to passive information provision and training. Clear routines and explicit pro-‐environmental strategies performed regularly can become automatically embedded in usual practice over time. • Include employees in developing sustainability policies and practices Employees will ultimately enact the pro-‐environmental policies of the organisation, and will often have valuable insight into day-‐to-‐day operations on the shop floor. Having the knowledge that their views are valued and incorporated in decision-‐making is empowering to employees and fosters a deeper sense of personal investment and engagement. • ‘Lead by example’: management commitment and engagement matters The perception that environmental sustainability is being driven from above is a powerful motivator for workers. Knowing that managers care and are willing to invest time and effort in initiatives sends the message to staff that the environment is a genuine priority for the company. • Positive social norms matter The perception that other employees have positive attitudes and are engaging in pro-‐environmental action encourages others to follow suit. This can be motivated by competition, not wanting to appear ‘outside the norm’, or by positive modelling and information sharing, leading to new habits over time. • Pro-‐environmental cultures at work positively affect action at home Positive cultures, workplace social norms and effective procedural learning facilitate the likelihood that pro-‐environmental action is transferred to the household. • Safe and efficient transport options or alternatives Private car use is resistant to change due to practical barriers and safety concerns. This is a particular issue for working mothers, who often make multi-‐trips with children. Investments in effective public transport and sustainable urban design alternatives that meet the needs of women workers are essential to reduce commuter traffic.

36

Study 5: International Wines Packaging Centre Workplace Case Study Study 4 and study 5 are case studies undertaken in a global wine company, given the pseudonym International Wines (IW). Study 4 was conducted in a packaging centre of IW in South Australia, and Study 5 was conducted in a production plant of IW in Victoria.

International Wines IW is a large company with over 11,000 hectares of vineyards, employing approximately 3,500 staff across 16 countries. IW endeavours to embed environmental considerations into all areas of production, utilising a comprehensive environmental monitoring system to report energy and water consumption, greenhouse gas emissions and waste generation at a global and individual site level. Australian sites must also comply with compulsory Australian Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) monitoring and planning initiatives due to high water usage in the wine production process.

IW works toward environmental objectives by protecting, enhancing and where possible restoring biodiversity; working across the supply chain to deliver commercially sound improvements in environmental performance, and ensuring that all employees, contractors and visitors understand and comply with environment policies, procedures and practices.

IW Packaging Centre The IW Packaging Centre has undertaken several initiatives to introduce pro-‐environmental practices and embed them in workplace procedures. The Packaging Centre recycles all waste products including glass, paper, cardboard, labels, plastic, and corks, with labelled bins for each type of waste located widely throughout the workplace. Energy saving initiatives include the installation of sensor lighting in some areas of the site and reminder notices to switch off lights when rooms are unoccupied. A water recycling system has also been introduced, where water used in wine production is filtered and stored in a large dam, used to water the winery gardens and transferred to an adjacent golf course. New employees are advised of these initiatives during induction. The Packaging Centre operates 24 hours from Monday to Friday. Working days are 8 hours in duration, organised into day, afternoon and night shifts. Shift work is accepted as a condition of working in most processing roles at this site. The aims of the IW Packaging Centre and Production Plant case studies were to gain an in-‐depth analysis of workers’ experiences of pro-‐environmental action at work and at home; get insight into employee perceptions of engaging with environmental policies at work, and highlight the factors that influence environmental outcomes from a worker perspective. As the Natural Care case study focused on female workers, the IW case studies aimed to include more male perspectives for a well-‐rounded gender comparison.

Method The case study comprised semi-‐structured interviews with 15 employees and one focus group with 5 employees from the IW packaging centre, including machine operators, team leaders, laboratory technicians and administrative staff. 17 of the 20 (85%) interviewees were male, and ages ranged from 22-‐58 years (mean age 38). All interviewees worked full-‐time, averaging 38-‐54 hours per week. Interview questions focused on workplace culture and policies in regard to pro-‐environmental action; the action taken at work and at home, and general attitudes towards the environment. Interviews were audio-‐recorded and transcribed and the data was thematically analysed in the broad categories of: (1) influences at work, (2) influences at home, and (3) influences on travel and commuting.

37

Findings Employees at the IW Packaging Centre varied in their level of concern about the environment, typically identifying themselves as ‘middle of the range’ in their environmental beliefs. Despite working shifts, interviewees did not view their work patterns or hours as a barrier to pro-‐environmental behaviour, as explained by a male area leader (38): ‘it’s just the same. I mean obviously you’re tired some shifts, but yeah, you don’t change the way you act’.

All interviewees agreed that they engaged in some pro-‐environmental action at work and at home, but concern for the environment was not the motivating factor for this. The following sections summarise the influences on pro-‐environmental action at work, at home, and when travelling.

1. What influences pro-‐environmental action at work? The most frequently reported pro-‐environmental activity in the workplace was recycling, with evidence of high compliance with recycling procedures. Approximately one third of interviewees also took action to reduce energy consumption in the workplace, such as turning off lights when not required. The factors influencing behaviours at work are categorised in three themes: workplace procedures and design, other people, and financial incentives.

Workplace procedures and design The main reason cited for engaging in pro-‐environmental action at work -‐ in particular recycling -‐ was that it is embedded into the day-‐to-‐day procedures of the job. Perceptions of convenience and the ease of the task further moderated worker engagement with recycling procedures, with employees describing the system as ‘idiotproof’ and ‘pretty hard to get wrong’. Employees also recognised that ongoing engagement with simple, effective workplace procedures led to habits that became automatic over time, leading to high levels of worker compliance:

…now everyone just does it. It’s habit and they make it easy because all the different types of bins are there...it’s just second nature now. (male, 58)

However, the location of the recycling bins and design of the workplace were cited as barriers for busy workers, particularly when the main recycling cage was situated away from local work stations. Workers found it hard to find the time to empty local recycling bins into the recycling cage, increasing the likelihood that recycling procedures would be undermined:

What we get is the recycle bin, once it’s full, then it’s a long walk to empty it. I think the temptation would be there to just not recycle and throw it in the bin that’s more empty... Somebody has to go and empty it and then they don’t because they haven’t got the time. (male, 43)

Further interviews revealed that the good habits created on the shop floor do not transfer to other areas of the worksite. Employees noted that rubbish in the staff lunch room was usually placed in the general waste bin rather than distributed to the recycling bins provided:

you open [the bins] and there’ll be cans of coke and iced coffees and stuff like that. It’s not really hard to rinse it out and put it in the recycling, but they’re the people who probably wouldn’t give it a second thought. (female, 38)

Some employees explained this by describing the lunch room as ‘down time’ where workers can switch off from work, suggesting that pro-‐environmental action is viewed as an isolated task-‐specific, shop floor procedure rather than a company-‐wide philosophy or commitment.

38

Other people Most employees indicated that they were pleased that the company was ‘doing the right thing’ environmentally, and some said they were proud of IW’s environmental practices more broadly. Some workers said that following the practices and procedures was important to keep up a good image for people outside the company, reflecting a feeling of pride in the workplace:

You’re sort of keen to put that little bit more effort in to keep it respectable, because again you get a lot of visitors, customers and that coming through viewing, so yeah, you try and keep it up to the best you can, the standard of cleanliness and environment. (male, 51)

The perception that pro-‐environmental values came ‘from the top’ was also important for the majority of staff, and the attitude and actions of managers was viewed as a direct influence on staff levels of engagement:

If they’re environmentally friendly, well, you want to try and do as much as you can. But if they don’t care, well, the workers are not [going to care]. (male, 51)

However, the general perception that other people in the workplace were not enthusiastic about environmental issues deterred some workers from trying to establish stronger environmental networks, highlighting the difficulties of acting outside perceived norms:

sometimes I’ve thought about bringing up a committee – but there’s not a lot of interest I don’t think… maybe I should do that, but if I’m the only one there that’s passionate about it, then you just feel like, well, yeah. (female, 38)

In the focus group, one interviewee described a previous failed attempt by the company to foster a sense of pro-‐environmental belonging by implementing a workplace garden. The winery ‘culture garden’ was to be tended by staff during working hours, using compost generated from the staff lunch room. However, the culture garden ‘got laughed completely out of the place, so it never really happened’.

Along with a general lack of interest, this collective attitude towards the workplace garden raises an additional difficulty associated with trying to establish cultural change. A degree of social risk is involved with attempting to instigate behaviours that are outside current perceptions of the social norm, leaving the instigator open to judgement or ridicule from colleagues. The implicit message behind such failed initiatives may be to avoid being associated with any related ‘green’ action in future.

Financial incentives The IW Packaging Centre offers a financial incentive for compliance with environmental procedures using a ‘scorecard’ system, paying an annual cash bonus to operators if targets are met. Generally this incentive was viewed positively by employees, with many embracing the scorecard system as a method of encouraging pro-‐environmental practices and increasing their income. However, it was recognised that a number of staff were still difficult to engage, suggesting that further promotion of the link between pro-‐environmental action and financial rewards is needed:

...that’s the hardest thing, to get it through to people, and say, well, you’re getting extra money at the end of the year to do this if more and more people do it. (male, 51)

39

2. What influences pro-‐environmental action at home? Overall, pro-‐environmental behaviours undertaken at home were widespread. Again, the most frequently reported pro-‐environmental activity in the household was recycling, although interviewees reported a range of activities from energy and water saving to installing solar panels and rainwater tanks. The factors influencing pro-‐environmental action at home are categorised into the four themes: cost, local facilities, household, life stage and family structure, and spillover from pro-‐environmental actions at work.

Cost The primary influence on pro-‐environmental action at home was cost. The following quote from a male label operator (38) in the Packaging Centre was typical of most employees: ‘Whatever I do at home, it's saving my pocket’. In general, interviewees saw the environmental benefit of actions such as energy reduction as an ‘added bonus’ to what were essentially viewed as cost saving practices:

But like I said, that's more the money side of it than it is the environmental side of it. I guess that's a sort of win-‐win for the environment because we're using less power but… (male, 22)

Cost was also the most significant barrier at home. Although many interviewees expressed an interest in energy-‐saving technologies such as solar panels, the general consensus was that they were too expensive, even with government rebates. The motivation for installing solar panels was also universally financial, with the assumption that the initial outlay would eventually pay for itself:

I’d really love to do the solar panel thing, but yeah, it’s the lack of money at the moment, because I’ve only just bought a house and I’ve had all the other stuff done to it… a lot of people would go solar if they had the funds, because over time, hopefully you’d pay it off and you wouldn’t get bills. (female, 38)

In addition to cost, the complexity of available information was also raised as a barrier for pro-‐environmental purchases. For example, installing solar panels requires individuals to undertake significant research to gauge competing deals and tariffs. The following quote demonstrates that having to navigate a complex system can act as a significant deterrent, despite the attraction of long-‐term financial benefit:

It’s a real minefield...there is a bunch of things that goes with it. I’m just trying to get my head around it. It’s huge – but you’ve got to read the fine print – the bottom line, the price they say, sounds great but then you read all the extra stuff that goes with it, there’s a lot more to it. (male, 43)

Local facilities Although interviewees did not perceive any financial gain to recycling at home, they spoke of how recycling had become an embedded part of their lives due to the general waste and recycling bins provided by the council. Interviewees found that the local system and provisions provided by the council made recycling convenient and simple to follow:

we have our rubbish bin, our recycle bin and then we have bottles and cans and the worm farm’s just out there. So everything is in a compact place… you don’t have to walk miles away to do stuff. Because if it was I think you’d probably get pretty lazy and not do it… but because it’s all there for us, it’s easy. (female, 52)

40

The withdrawal of local facilities, however, can result in negative effects. One interviewee spoke of a rural area in which changes to the local council led to removing the green household waste collection. In this situation, the interviewee was clear that the impact on the area was unlikely to improve while dumping fees were in operation:

...people won’t pay the money. You see it now, you go out towards some of the farms… and the rubbish on the side of the roads, people just dumping rather than paying the cost to get rid of it. (male, 58)

Household, life stage and family structure Living in rental accommodation was a structural barrier to pro-‐environmental home improvements and purchases. One young male team leader (27) also gave insight into how the transition from living with parents to home ownership can influence pro-‐environmental behaviour, largely from a financial perspective but also by introducing a new sense of responsibility:

…five years ago, I didn't care about nothing but going and having a drink at the pub… You didn't care about the environment. You just wanted to sort of have a good time... because I bought a house -‐ we're now, like, saving as much money as we can, so then…you're forced to go down that track, and I guess you start to grow up a bit and see what's going on in the world.

For employees in mid-‐life stages, children in the household were often cited as influencing energy and water consumption. Teenagers in particular were described as needing continuous monitoring and reminders to be mindful of their day-‐to-‐day actions. This was illustrated by a male team leader (43) who had taken action at home to compensate for the behaviour of his 14 and 18 year old children:

I’m the one that gets the huge bill so I’m always telling the kids to turn things off... so I’ve changed all the toilet cisterns to lower volume cisterns and changed all the shower heads to low water … But it’s – the kids are in the shower for a long time.

When speaking generally about action in their household, the majority of male interviewees held the view that they are the drivers of pro-‐environmental behaviour at home. With recycling in particular, several men said that they were more involved than their partners, and described their role as a monitor of household activities:

I’d say she’s probably not as much driven by it as I am. She’s all right, she does quite well with it, but she’s not as focussed on it. There might be occasions where she’ll sort of lapse in an area and I might have to remind her. (male, 46)

… I drive my wife up the wall with (it) – she’ll throw something out and I’ll go through – “no, that doesn’t go in the general waste, that goes in recycling”. So I’ll dissect the rubbish bin...my wife – unfortunately no, she doesn’t share my interest. (male, 49)

The role of men as household monitors of recycling was supported by a female employee (52). Here she discusses her experiences of managing full-‐time employment alongside domestic responsibilities and caring for two adult sons:

41

Yeah, it is a bit hard. But I have a very, probably, supportive family and my husband’s very good... he’s the recycling guru more so – don’t put that in the recycling… like – “who put that in there?” I'll go, “oh I don't know”. So yeah, he'll seem to take all that over. So they tend to do a bit.

Spillover from pro-‐environmental actions at work Most interviewees did not think that workplace environmental practices influenced action at home, tending to view work and home as separate domains: ‘well, it’s an encouragement, but I think if I didn’t work here, I’d still do what I do at home’ (male, 38). However, one employee described how some practices become automatic over time, and engaging in daily workplace procedures can help with this: ‘You’ve just got to make it a part of your life I suppose, like anything. Because at work we recycle our cardboard, which you have to, you know… it just becomes part of your life’ (female, 38).

3. What influences travel and commuting behaviours? The travel mode choice of interviewees was private car use. Carpooling and other commuting options such as cycling were rarely used at this site, and public transport was often unavailable in the country location. Several employees expressed a desire to carpool, but found that dispersed residential locations and shiftwork made this unworkable: ‘I have carpooled with other team leaders in the past but because we changed shifts it didn’t work out in the end’ (male, 43). Employees were also reluctant to carpool in case they had to stay late at work, which would mean delaying the driver or be left with no transport options. Cycling or walking was viewed as unsafe on country roads, particularly as the site is located on a highway used as an interstate thoroughfare for trucks: ‘It’s within cycling distance but because of shift work I’d always be riding on an open road at night so I’m not doing that, it’s too dangerous’ (male, 43).

42

International Wines Packaging Centre Summary Qualitative analysis of the IW Packaging Centre case study demonstrated that for these workers, environmental concern is not the motivating factor for pro-‐environmental action at work or at home. The main lessons arising from this case study are: • The importance of good workplace procedures Clear and accessible workplace procedures are key for compliance and habit formation on the shop floor. However, procedural action is context specific if not embedded into the workplace culture. • Ease of use and simplicity of information The perceived ease of the behaviour is important and has implications for workplace design. • Other people matter Employee behaviour is heavily influenced by the perception of the attitudes and action of others at work, including visitors, management and colleagues. This defines workplace social norms. • Financial incentives can help Financial incentives are a driver at work but particularly at home, where cost saving is the biggest motivator of action. • Good local facilities are important Practical help from local councils can shape household behaviours and facilitate ‘way of life’ change. • Life stage, household and family structure shape action Renting, living with parents and having dependent children in the household influence pro-‐environmental outcomes. Gendered perceptions of pro-‐environmental responsibilities at home are evident, with men adopting monitoring and supervisory roles. • Promoting carpooling Aligning shift patterns and reducing unplanned overtime may promote carpooling amongst employees working in rural areas and reduce private car use.

43

Study 6: International Wines Production Plant Workplace Case Study Study 5 is the second case study undertaken in the global wine company, pseudonym International Wines (IW). Study 5 was conducted in a production plant of IW in Victoria.

IW Production Plant The IW Production Plant has implemented a range of pro-‐environmental practices. The Production Plant has a waste water treatment facility and catchment dam and leftover grape product after wine production is recycled both on site as mulch on the garden and sent off site for recycling. The site has also introduced some power saving initiatives such as sensor lighting. The laboratory has extensive recycling facilities and recycling is a core aspect of day-‐to-‐day working procedures. The laboratory has instigated a power saving procedure that involves turning off all unnecessary equipment at the end of the last shift for the day and turning equipment on only as needed. This has been included as a standard operating procedure, and new employees are informed of these policies during their company induction. Other forms of power saving such as turning off lights and printers at the end of the day are not standardised but have been adopted by some office staff. While individual power saving is encouraged, it is not a large user of resources and does not affect compliance with EPA provisions. The Production Plant operates 24 hours from Monday to Friday, with rotating 8-‐hour day, afternoon and night shifts.

Method The case study comprised semi-‐structured interviews with 15 employees and one focus group with 6 employees including cellar hands, supervisors, laboratory technicians, office staff, members of the management team and the environmental officer for the site. 14 of the 21 (67%) interviewees were male and ages ranged from 24-‐58 (mean age 41 years). All participants worked full-‐time with reported hours varying from 38-‐54 per week, except one part-‐time female worker who averaged 24-‐38 hours per week. Only four interviewees worked shifts, reflecting the higher number of office and middle management staff interviewed at this site. Two were on casual contracts. Interview questions focused on workplace culture and policies in regard to pro-‐environmental action; the action taken at work and at home, and general attitudes towards the environment. Interviews were audio-‐recorded and transcribed and the data thematically analysed in the broad categories of: (1) influences at work, (2) influences at home, and (3) influences on travel and commuting.

Findings Similar to the Packaging Centre, employees at the IW Production Plant varied in level of concern about the environment, with most emphasising that their values were not ‘over the top’. Rather than describing themselves as pro-‐environmental, interviewees often offered an absence of environmentally destructive behaviour as evidence of concern: ‘like obviously, we’re not tipping oil down the drain or anything like that. We’re… happy to live within the general rules’. (male, 36).

All interviewees reported undertaking some pro-‐environmental action at work and at home. Again, for most people these actions were not primarily motivated by environmental concern, although some at the Production Plant said they were conscious of the link between their actions, greenhouse gases and global warming.

1. What influences pro-‐environmental action at work? Similar to the IW Packaging Centre, the most frequently reported pro-‐environmental activity at work was recycling, including paper, cardboard, water, glass and chemical recycling across production, laboratory and office workers. Individual energy-‐saving activities were occasionally reported by office staff. Knowledge of pro-‐environmental practices tended to be localised to individual work

44

areas, and with the exception of middle management, few interviewees had insight in to wider company sustainability policies. The factors influencing engagement at work are categorised into three themes: workplace procedures and design, other people, and employee status. These themes follow a similar format to the IW Packaging Centre, with new insights emphasised.

Workplace procedures and design The perception of convenience and ease of workplace recycling procedures was the key factor in influencing outcomes. Standards were less impressive in areas where pro-‐environmental action was less convenient and more effort for workers, as illustrated by the following quote: ‘In some areas I’d say it’s pretty much 100 per cent, and in other areas where it hasn’t been made so easy for them, it’s fairly poor’ (male, 40).

Consistent with the IW Packaging Centre, employees at the Production Plant also described a clear discrepancy between shop floor recycling and that in staff lunch rooms throughout the site. A number of interviewees noted a widespread absence of recycling in the staff lunch rooms. However, employees thought that one reason for this was the inconvenient location of the recycling bins, which were situated outside. Some employees thought that people were simply unwilling to make the extra effort to walk outside, while others expressed surprise that more facilities had not been provided to increase compliance:

I know there’s [a recycling bin] outside the [lunch] room, but there’s none actually in there. I think it all goes into the one bin, which is a surprise. You think that would be the main area to have something. (male, 31)

Other people Employees spoke positively about the pro-‐environmental stance of the company in general: ‘I think the company’s quite progressive… I think we have recently, or are acquiring a new environmental accreditation’ (male, 30). However, there was less evidence that the environment was a key priority for the site: ‘the care factor for environment and safety I think is quite low… there’s no one really beating the drum to get involved with it’ (male, 30).

This perceived lack of worker engagement was thought to be heavily influenced by modest or inconsistent levels of management commitment, demonstrating that strong pro-‐environmental leadership is required to champion action at all areas of the company: ‘it probably has not been pushed as hard on this side of the business [production], with regard to recycling. There’s still kind of that old mentality out there. That “oh just throw it in the bin”’ (male, 30). One employee said that this was a practical problem due to lack of recycling bins, but the majority of interviewees were of the opinion that recycling procedures were less embedded in the production site than in the laboratory, offices and packaging areas. In general, sustainability was viewed as a separate and peripheral issue to the core business of the plant:

[it’s] obviously not the functional focus of the site… I think from a management point of view, there's two motivating factors. There's compliance [with EPA provisions]-‐ no one wants a big fine or a black mark against their name for not staying on the right side of the law. Then the second one is where there's a dollar to be saved. Actually probably a third one is where there's a good PR story to be told. So I think they're the motivating factors that drive managers. (male, 40)

45

The perception that pro-‐environmental action is not a genuine priority can have a strong and lasting influence on the wider workplace culture and social norms around sustainability in the workplace, as well as individual employee attitudes and engagement. Positive sustainability outcomes can be further undermined by a reduction in trust amongst workers, making new incentives more difficult to establish.

One interviewee spoke of how the site used to have a financial incentive scheme to encourage compliance with pro-‐environmental practices, awarding bonuses for meeting set targets. However, this incentive was removed. Although some interviewees held the view that ‘if it affects anyone’s pocket… that would, of course, provide an incentive’ (male, 30), the initial program was met with resistance on the shop floor due to doubts over its legitimacy:

…there was a fairly cynical attitude amongst people to the whole program, you know, that changes in their behaviour didn't necessarily change the numbers, and the company would rip them off anyway. (male, 40)

It was also noted during interviews that a number of employees did not identify with pro-‐environmental language, and many were keen to distance themselves from behaviours that may earn them a ‘green’ reputation in the workplace: ‘I’m interested but not a – what do you call it? I wouldn’t say I’m passionate about it’ (male, 58). This was reflected in the focus group, where individual attempts at pro-‐environmental action were generally met with light amusement and derision from other workers.

This disassociation with environmental issues may have important consequences for how future pro-‐environmental messages and initiatives are framed and presented to employees.

Employment status Although no employees said that their work hours or shift patterns were a barrier to pro-‐environmental action, there was some evidence that being employed on a casual basis was a barrier. Those on casual contracts demonstrated less interest and engagement in pro-‐environmental action than permanent staff, as illustrated by this casual worker: ‘I don’t really deal with much rubbish up here so I just – if I find it, it just goes straight in the bin, whatever bin...there’s a bin, throw it in’ (male, 24).

This is congruent with the concept of place attachment, whereby individuals are more likely to care for a place to which they feel an attachment than for one to which they are not attached. Casual or temporary employment may therefore present an obstacle to pro-‐environmental action, as the casual worker is likely to have less personal investment and a weaker attachment to the workplace.

2. What influences pro-‐environmental action at home? Interviewees reported a range of pro-‐environmental actions at home. The main household actions were recycling, energy and water conservation, and some composting. The employees at the IW Production Plant reported less action at home than those at the Packaging Centre in Study 4, and there was no evidence of pro-‐environmental spillover from the workplace to home at this site. Participants drew a clear distinction between the domains of work and home and did not agree that one influenced the other: ‘no, I wouldn’t say that it has [affected action at home]… like work is one place and home is another and so they sort of function completely different’ (male, 36).

The factors influencing pro-‐environmental engagement at home are categorised into three themes: cost, local facilities, and household and family structure.

46

Cost For all interviewees, financial considerations were the most significant motivator for undertaking pro-‐environmental improvements in the home: ‘it’s good to do your bit but I mainly put it on [solar panels] to save money’ (male, 30).

Again, cost is the barrier to installing solar panels and rainwater tanks, with many finding them too expensive or feeling that the cost is not justified in terms of the estimated returns:

…we looked into all those government rebates – [we wanted to] get the really big tanks and have our whole property rainwater… but again it would have cost more than we were ever going to save by the time we put the tanks in and plumbed it to the house. Then we’ve got to do pressure pumps, which is electricity -‐ it's all just, you just gain in one area and lose in another…It’s not really cost effective. (female, 53)

Local facilities Recycling was perceived as part of the daily routine at home due to the community systems in place and bins provided by the local council. Recycling had become firmly embedded in home life due to the convenient nature of the task and the availability of facilities: ‘It makes it easy. They’re just there’ (female, 47).

Interviewees also noted that the smaller capacity of the general waste bin had been instrumental in encouraging recycling behaviour: ‘If I don’t recycle, you find you just don’t have room. It’s quite good they’ve worked it that way’ (male, 30). The size of the general waste bin even influenced recycling outcomes for those who identified as completely disengaged with environmental issues, as illustrated by a young man house-‐sharing with two friends:

…everything’s got to go in the right bin so – I do that at home… it’s only because we’ve got a little garbage bin. So if you put recycles in there it just fills up like crazy. (male, 24)

Practical and strategic action from councils clearly has the potential to shape habitual and lasting household habits, establishing almost universal recycling compliance amongst interviewees regardless of environmental concern.

Household and family structure Again, a major barrier to pro-‐environmental action and home improvements was housing tenure, with individuals in rented accommodation expressing less pro-‐environmental concern than house owners. Several stated they would consider solar panels if they were able to purchase a home in the future.

Having dependent children also influenced pro-‐environmental household functioning. The presence of children could shape pro-‐environmental action in a positive way by prompting parents to model good practices, although interviewees more commonly spoke of financially-‐motivated monitoring: ‘…constant reminders with the girls to switch off lights at home, the time and duration taken in showers…’ (male, 30).

Most interviewees reported that pro-‐environmental behaviours in the household tended to be a shared activity. However, when discussing the drivers of pro-‐environmental action at home, male interviewees were clear that they were more involved than their female partners: ‘honestly, I do like to recycle and – I do it more stringently than my partner in the house’ (male, 30). Another male interviewee echoed this statement, assuming a managerial role over his household’s recycling:

47

I’ve taken charge of that. Our waste streams are pretty well managed, and I actually recycle at home probably – I can’t say 100 per cent because my wife’s a bit hopeless with it. (male, 40)

Similar to the findings from the IW Packaging Centre, male employees in this case study often described their participation in pro-‐environmental action at home in terms of supervising and monitoring their partner’s behaviour: ‘I’m the driver at home. My partner, she’s not so much, you know – if I find a can in the bin, I’ll let her know, “this is recycle”’ (male, 40). Others extended their involvement to gatekeeping the domestic work of their partner, which was viewed as a pro-‐environmental activity in its own right: ‘The dishwasher, I won’t allow my partner to run [laughs] – you can set those things to run in off peak power. So I do those sorts of things’ (male, 58). These quotes support earlier data suggesting that pro-‐environmental action at home is largely embedded within domestic chores, and highlight the assumptions underlying gendered responsibilities and allocation of unpaid work.

3. What influences travel and commuting behaviours? No public transport is available to the IW Production Plant, which is located approximately 30 kilometres outside a large regional town. All interviewees travelled to work by private car, although a number of employees at this site carpooled. The motivation was primarily cost saving: ‘Obviously you do it for the money, but I guess environmentally you’re saving fuel, so you’re not polluting as much’ (male, 30). Carpooling was more frequent in those with regular shift start and finish times, and less popular for middle management, who could not always predict finish times. Living in widely dispersed rural locations and working unscheduled overtime emerged as the main barriers to carpooling. Few workers live close enough to ride a bike to work. A member of the focus group noted that the company had investigated a bus for workers several years ago but the initiative was not pursued due to lack of interest.

International Wines Production Plant Summary The new insights arising from the IW Production Plant case study are as follows: • Strong and consistent leadership Workplace pro-‐environmental action requires championing across all levels of the organisation. Perceived lack of management interest leads to poor worker engagement and reductions in trust. • Attention to available facilities Simple adjustments such as the location and size of recycling and general waste bins can have a significant influence on pro-‐environmental outcomes. • Financial incentives may help Incentives may help if employees are confident that they are genuine. Cost saving is important at home. • Employment status may affect pro-‐environmental engagement Being employed on a casual basis may discourage action due to a lack of workplace attachment. • Message framing matters Initiatives that reframe pro-‐environmental language may be required to reach disengaged workers. • Lack of work-‐life spillover without positive workplace social norms Sustainability needs to be culturally embedded to generate the transfer of positive actions to home. • Gendered perspectives of household pro-‐environmental responsibilities Male supervision of female action may reflect inequalities in the division of domestic labour.

48

Study 7: Interviews with Australian Workers The purpose of the final study in the Work, life and sustainable living project was to provide an in-‐depth, qualitative investigation of the issues raised in the previous studies. Specifically, interviews of Australian employees probed further into the reasons for engaging -‐ or not engaging -‐ in pro-‐environmental behaviour in the different arenas of work and life; the factors that shape beliefs and values over the life course and perceptions of difference between younger and older citizens, and finally, how the ‘green’ message is perceived more generally, exploring the notion of ‘green fatigue’.

Method Thirty one-‐to-‐one, semi-‐structured interviews exploring the themes above were conducted via telephone with paid workers from various sectors across South Australia and Victoria. Interviewees were drawn from a sample that had previously participated in the national Australian Work and Life Index (AWALI) and had agreed to be contacted for interviews. Participants were purposefully recruited to ensure a range of ages, income levels and an equal number of male and females. The final sample included 15 men and 15 women aged 18-‐66 (mean age 41 years) from a range of industries (service = 5, manufacturing = 4, retail = 3, education = 2, health care = 4, public sector = 1, hospitality = 3, banking = 1, construction = 2, NGO = 3 and self-‐employed = 3). Fourteen workers worked part-‐time hours and 16 worked full-‐time hours, 7 lived in a couple with dependent children and one was a single parent. The majority (11) had a household income of $60-‐90,000 per annum; 8 = >$90,000; 8 = $30-‐60,000 and 3 = <$30,000. Individual interviews took between 30 and 60 minutes and were recorded, transcribed and analysed using a constant comparison method, until no additional themes arose from the data.

Findings

Reasons for engaging or not engaging in pro-‐environmental behaviour

When asked about their current pro-‐environmental activities at work, all participants were aware of pro-‐environmental activities undertaken in their workplaces and most indicated that they valued efforts from their employer. In line with the findings from earlier chapters, interviewees employed by large companies noted the regulatory requirements impacting on workplace pro-‐environmental practices, and spoke of standard operating procedures to ensure worker compliance. At home, all participants noted a range of pro-‐environmental activities undertaken in their household. Recycling and efforts to save energy were mentioned by all interviewees, and restricting water was widespread, with two thirds (n=21) taking active steps to minimise water use. However, although most interviewees described themselves as environmentally aware and pro-‐active, environmental concern was rarely mentioned when asked about reasons for engaging in pro-‐environmental behaviours.

Three general themes were identified from the data in relation to reasons underlying action. These were: (1) cost, and regaining control over rising costs, (2) personal relevance, and (3) competing priorities.

1. Cost

All participants reported taking steps to save energy, mainly in relation to air conditioning, with cost saving cited as the primary motivation. For many, this was the sole motivation: ‘it’s purely to save money’ (female, 24), although some did acknowledge the environment as a secondary concern:

49

If what it's going to save me weighs up with what's helping the environment, then that's two things we'll look at. But I would think that a larger percentage of reasons why I would do it would be as a cost saving thing. (male, 40)

Another interviewee noted that while decisions about power usage were primarily influenced by cost, convenience was also a factor: ‘in the back of my mind... if it inconvenienced us we wouldn't really do it’ (male, 20). Comfort was an important consideration as well, although assessments of comfort varied. One participant concluded that air conditioning was: ‘Not worth it...I’m a Queenslander, born and bred, I think I’m used to the heat and it doesn’t worry me’ (male, 25). This is in direct contrast to an interviewee working in a remote and hot industrial town: ‘I don't care, if I'm hot, I have it [the air conditioning] on. I'm not going to cook for nobody’ (female, 60).

Minimising water use was also motivated by cost, although this was less frequently discussed. In terms of recycling, cost was cited as an influencing factor at work. A mechanic told of how he suggested that his worksite recycle the large amounts of surplus cardboard generated, but this did not happen:

I brought that up when I first started there and I was told because they'll have to pay to get rid of it, they didn't do it...Quite a few of the blokes have mentioned it but it's been knocked on the head 'cause it's going to cost. That's what they keep saying...it just goes in general waste. (male, 46)

There was also some evidence that the rising cost of utilities is making citizens feel powerless to manage their household expenses. A male worker who has taken steps to reduce energy but cannot afford solar panels noted: ‘electricity bills are spiralling out of control here... I don't know what else there is for me to do actually’ (male, 55). Several interviewees spoke of attempting to regain control over their finances by taking steps to become as self-‐sufficient as possible. An older female interviewee spoke of her retired husband’s increasingly poor health, which has necessitated a reduction in her paid employment from full-‐time hours to one day per week. She took steps to achieve some control over household expenses by utilising her superannuation to pay down her mortgage and installing solar panels in a bid to become ‘fairly bill free’. She framed this decision around a desire to be more independent:

Well, it’s to set us up for our older age when we can't really afford too much… we can use the source that's there – the sun – so that we can become more independent. (female, 59).

Withdrawing from escalating utility costs and the desire for self-‐sufficiency is further evident amongst some younger interviewees. A young woman living on a rural property with her husband and child noted: ‘we're trying to become as self-‐sufficient as we can to save money’ (female, 24), while a 18 year old student living with her parents spoke of her future aspirations: ‘I would like to get solar panels and try and be as self-‐sufficient as possible, just because I think that’s important ’ (female, 18).

2. Personal relevance

As previously noted, few participants mentioned environmental concerns when talking about behaviours to conserve energy or water. However, when interviewees had been directly witness to the problems caused by environmental issues, or personally identified with the action, their responses had a greater environmental focus. This is evidenced by an older single male who had lived alongside the River Murray in country South Australia all his life:

50

Well, I live on the river and I see the stress. I see the cockies and that are doing it hard because they can’t get water for their cattle, and I think everyone’s got to help. Especially being in South Australia, we have no control of the river (male, 50).

Another interviewee who had moved from Melbourne from Adelaide noted a different attitude to water conservation between South Australian and Victorian residents:

I'm from South Australia -‐ I've grown up with ‘don’t waste water, turn off the tap when you're brushing your teeth’, and all of that, because we just come from a much, much stronger culture of realising that water is precious there. Since I’ve moved to Victoria, it took a really long time -‐ even within the drought -‐ for people to actually change the way they do things. They're so used to having water freely available… whereas for me -‐ it was just sort of natural, that you adjust. (female, 40)

The notion of personal relevance also ties in with the habitual nature of pro-‐environmental actions. For example, for those living in urban locations recycling has become embedded in household activities, fostered by local government initiatives. The ‘three bin’ system widely used in Australian cities has made the task of separating waste relatively convenient and common-‐place for many households. This is reflected by an interviewee who moved from Adelaide to a rural South Australian town where the recycling bin system has not been introduced. This young woman has grown up with recycling bins in the Adelaide metropolitan area and has chosen to continue to separate her waste and take it to the nearby council dump for separate disposal:

We moved up here and because we were so used to recycling with the bins back in Adelaide… yeah, it was awkward for me throwing things out that I know can be recycled... I think if people are locals from up here they don’t do it because they're not used to it (female, 24).

3. Competing priorities

Interviewees also conveyed a sense that pro-‐environmental action was low on the list when competing with other, more pressing priorities. This was the case in relation to household budgets and installing items such as rain water tanks or solar panels: ‘If it came to a rainwater tank or going to Italy, we'd go to Italy – and pollute the environment in the plane’ (female, 66). Similarly, a male participant with 12 and 15 year old children stated:

We send both our kids to private schools, so we're probably more interested in making sure that everything is good there before we start worrying about buying solar powered stuff. (male, 47)

One working woman with two children aged 13 and 17 noted that the demands of juggling busy working lives could squeeze out time to engage in environmentally-‐friendly household tasks, which are often more time consuming. She said:

My husband isn't working at the moment so all of those things that normally take a lot of time to do, he's got time to do that... when you're a bit hurried, or stress levels are high, you tend to take the shortcuts and do things that are a bit quicker. Often that involves less good environmental choices, I think. So you tend to drive more or buy pre-‐packaged food to eat, rather than cook it yourself or all those sorts of things...I think that time plays a big part in this. (female, 38)

51

Time can also act as a barrier in relation to transport. Around half of interviewees said it was not feasible to cut back on driving given the amount of extra time it would take from their lives. One woman who had tried alternative forms of transport said the following:

I tested it for two weeks and it just sent me bananas. I'm 40 kilometres from my work and so I would need to get one train into the city and then change over and then get a train out to another suburb. So all that would take me up to two hours. So, no, I can tell you if it was like the rail network in Tokyo, I would be catching public transport but it's just not sufficient... we're incredibly car dependent. (female, 40)

Other interviewees who lived nearer their workplace felt that alternative ways of getting to work, such as walking, were unfeasible due to the extra effort rather than time, particularly if the job was perceived as intensive or stressful: ‘Yeah, we could walk [to work], but I wouldn't walk… I do enough when I get to work (male, 57). However, sometimes competing priorities can work in favour of pro-‐environmental outcomes. One interviewee who regularly cycles instead of driving admitted that the primary motivation was not environmental concern: 'I suppose it's mainly selfishly motivated by getting fit...but I think it's also about there's no need for us to create pollution just to go up to the shop I suppose...’ (female, 66). A male manager who regularly uses public transport speaks of his decision to leave the car at home, which he feels is a better use of his commute time. Again, environmental concern is not the motivating factor:

I could drive, but…it's more convenient to catch the train and be able to do work on the train or catch up with e-‐mails or whatever, rather than get stuck in traffic... So I'll take an hour out of the time I actually physically, sit in the office and use the extra time on the train to do stuff -‐ what I'd be doing on a PC, I'll do on an iPad instead. (male, 55)

Differences between younger and older citizens

Interviewees were also asked to comment on their perceptions of generational differences in relation to environmental attitudes and behaviours. Many revealed a tendency to view their own generation as environmentally conscious, while others less so. Most of the comments from participants of all ages were focused on young people, falling into three categories of ‘educated’ youth, ‘careless’ youth, and ‘inexperienced’ youth.

1. ‘Educated’ youth

18 to 24 year old participants in particular expressed the view that their own generation are better informed about environmental issues and are more environmentally aware than their elders. Young people felt that awareness of environmental issues was part of their culture, and were more likely to mention radio and social media as sources of environmental information than older interviewees. When asked what influenced his environmental views, this young male cited the radio and internet as primary sources of information and influence:

I listen to Triple R which is a community radio station, reasonably left wing. So I always get a lot of that there. Then just in my own research -‐ internet, and that sort of thing, I read it. (male, 20)

The impact of environmental education from school and university was discussed at length by interviewees in the youngest age group, and was seen to give younger people an environmental ‘edge’ over older generations. One young female student noted:

52

I know a lot more young people are more conscious of it, learn about it in school and various things, whereas my parents, they were just like oh okay, whatever [laughs]... It’s not really what they’re used to doing so it’s a little bit kind of a foreign concept. (female, 18)

Other young interviewees talked about how secondary school has played a big part in shaping their environmental beliefs and behaviours. One young man noted the impact of a particular Year 12 subject:

it’s called Outdoor Environmental Studies...yeah, probably the best subject I ever did… you get to go on trips like snorkelling and stuff in the bay near Melbourne. We went to Mount Bulla and you’ve got to write these big essays on what the effects and stuff are. It’s really cool, such a good subject...I guess education is the primary thing. (male, 19)

However, there was also an acknowledgement of the limitations of education and school as an influence on environmental outcomes. Although the younger interviewees typically described themselves as environmentally conscious, they were quick to point out that many others in their social circle did not share their views, speaking frequently of peers who were uninterested in green issues. One male interviewee noted that environmental education in schools can have little impact on the attitudes or behaviours of young people:

Maybe it has initial impact. But I mean some people who I went to school with have no respect for the environment or any green power, or anything like that. (male, 20)

This sentiment was echoed by another teenager, who noted that although education leads to an increased awareness of environmental issues, this awareness does not always translate into action. Here she talks about the diversity of views and behaviour amongst her own age group and peer network, despite receiving the same education:

We learnt about it a lot at school, it was pretty much just drilled into us at high school about these are environmental practices and you should do these things and stuff like that. Some of them are pretty with it, they’ll do their best...but some of my other friends are a bit blasé about it. They’re like, oh yeah, other people are doing it so it doesn’t really matter. (female, 18)

2. ‘Careless’ youth

The second theme arising from the discussions about generational differences related to perceptions of care. Interviewees described the ‘younger generation’ as being more wasteful, with irresponsible attitudes. Part of this view was a perceived general lack of care amongst young people, as reflected by an older male interviewee speaking of his own family:

I think it's: “what the hell, live for today and forget tomorrow”. A lot of the younger ones in their 20s and 30s, they couldn't care less. There's a generation coming through now, including my grandson, that are a pack of nitwits. They don't care about anything. (male, 65)

A female teacher also noted what she perceives as an increasing lack of care amongst primary school students: ‘Really, I'm finding that kids just really don't care about things anymore’ (female, 59), and others linked this to young peoples’ greater propensity to throw things away: ‘it's hard with kids because kids are becoming more and more wasteful, they don’t value anything ‘ (female, 59); ‘I look at the young generation, and they just waste food or waste whatever, it doesn’t matter’ (female, 60).

53

In contrast, older interviewees spoke of their upbringing as being the main influence on their own sense of living frugally and avoiding waste, which in turn shaped their recycling, reusing and conservation behaviours. This female care worker explained her stance on waste:

I don't like wasting stuff. I'm not going to eat it if it's rotten, for sure, but if it can do another night, then I'll utilise it and try to put it into something else... Well, I was always brought up to budget and make do, I'm at that age that a lot of things you do are old school stuff that you were taught by your mum or your nanna. (female, 60)

The interviewee who described the lack of care in his grandson’s generation also spoke of the differences in upbringing when asked to comment on reasons why this might be. He described the contrast between his own youth and that of young people, suggesting a sense of entitlement:

Well, I think they have been brought up to be able to use whatever they want all the time. That's been their right. That's like -‐ we didn't have the stuff that they had, but they're just used to, well, Mum and Dad have got this and got that and they expect it. (male, 65)

Some younger interviewees also spoke about the lack of environmental concern from their own generation, such as this young man commenting on his young work colleagues: ‘Some are ok but a few think it's a big joke...they kind of don't really care all that much’ (male, 22). A young manager in a fast food outlet agreed with this when describing the young casual staff at her workplace:

most of our employees are from age 14 to 18, so they don't really have a desire to care for the environment and stuff because they're young, so... teenagers just don't care about anything. (female, 20)

The same interviewee was asked about her perceptions of the older generation, and used her grandparents as an example: ‘I do think that older people care more, they do a lot’. When asked about her grandparents’ motivations for engaging in pro-‐environmental practices, however, she admitted environmental concern was not the driving factor: 'Oh it's all about saving money, definitely [laughs]’ (female, 20).

3. ‘Inexperienced’ youth

In addition to the above, there was a sense amongst mid and older age groups that the views of young people are a reflection of their life stage, and that their environmental behaviours will change as they age. Some interviewees attribute the lack of care demonstrated by young people to cultural changes over the years: ‘they’re not compassionate because they live in a disposable society, simple as that’ (male, 55), while others viewed the attitudes and behaviour of younger generations as typical but temporary:

I think sometimes it just takes a bit of life experience and bit of maturity to really understand the consequences of everybody's actions and that your small action contributes to larger impact. (female, 40)

A related topic was the ‘invincibility of youth’ and acknowledgement that maturity brings the ability to see the bigger picture. This male interviewee notes:

54

…well teenage boys, they're all invincible, they're going to live forever, so why would they care about something affecting their world? As you get older you do tend to think about the beauty of such and such a place where you've always holidayed...is it still going to be there? (male, 35)

The last comment in this section comes from a male participant who notes that even when young people do identify as environmentally conscious, older people are still more likely to take action because they have more responsibilities at their time of life. Here he sums up what he sees as the main differences between young people and older generations:

Probably I think there's a lot of idealism amongst the younger crowd. The younger people might push their views across and have an activist philosophy about things. But I think it actually comes to fruition later in life. Younger people might have all these brilliant ideas but they share a house with their parents so until they really become responsible for themselves...I think the older people are probably more like me. They'll do their thing and just sort of be quiet about it and just do it. (male, 55)

Perceptions of the ‘green’ message

Finally, all interviewees were asked about how they perceived common terms associated with environmental sustainability, such as ‘environmentally friendly’ and ‘green’, and what the terms meant for them. The majority of interviewees expressed a general dislike of the terms used to describe pro-‐environmental issues, or took issue with the ways they were used. A young student made the following comment: ‘I don't really like the term ‘green’... I think people use those terms to make themselves feel good about doing their bit even if it’s not really all that much’ (female, 18). Others displayed confusion around the terms and associated concepts, which was experienced as off-‐putting:

Well I must say it starts to be a little bit like rhetoric now. Like all this carbon offsetting when you're booking your plane flight. They go, "Oh, for $1.23 you can offset your carbon," and I think -‐ I don’t actually know what that means, because it's not really explained. (female, 40)

In the broader comments regarding the ‘green’ message, however, interviewees described two general perceptions, falling into general themes of ‘hippies and extremism’ and ‘green fatigue and scepticism’. These are outlined below.

1. Hippies and extremism

Many of the participants interviewed associated the terms ‘environmentally friendly’ and ‘green’ with images of activism, alternative lifestyles, hippies and extremism. Language framing ‘green’ messages in this way was used by participants across the age ranges. A middle aged male participant described how his community viewed ‘green’ or ‘sustainable’ issues: 'those terms to us here in a small town – bloody tree-‐huggers, basically’ (male, 50). Interviewees from the younger age brackets also noted the derogatory connotations associated the term ‘green’:

There’s a lot of people like, oh, bloody greenies, what do they know? Just a bunch of hippies, things like that. Yeah, that’s the sort of attitude of a lot of people that I see. (male, 26)

55

Another young male participant living with his parents in a rural location did not want to be associated with the term ‘greenie’, despite considering himself as someone who is concerned about the environment:

down this way when someone says greenie or something we think of people in trees and stuff who are protesting...I don't think I'd like to be considered a greenie. I think more just a bit more environmentally friendly kind of thing, but not quite a greenie [laughs]. (male, 22)

Other participants said they did not want to be connected with the term ‘green’ as they associated it with politics: 'There’s a difference between green and environmentally friendly. I see green now to be political’ (male, 47). This was also expressed by a female interviewee who had previously reported engaging in a high level of pro-‐environmental activity at home:

Personally I think some things are taken way too far... ‘green’ is starting to get a very bad rep. I certainly don't like the political party in the way it's gone... I think that in general people are getting very weary of the Greens being obstructive in a lot of areas. Over the top. (female, 59)

Again, the term ‘greenie’ was associated with going too far and extremism. In other interviews, ‘greenies’ were also associated with hyperbole and scaremongering. A married part-‐time equipment supplier aged 65 years explained his views as follows:

I just think the weather goes in cycles. We had this when I was a kid. We had bloody droughts and then we had bloody floods. Well, that's what we have now. I'm not saying it hasn't changed… but not to the degree that these scaremongers are taking about... well, you gather the fact I'm basically not in favour of the greenies...they're way out. (male, 65)

2. Green fatigue and scepticism

In addition to associating the term ‘green’ with alternative lifestyles, extremism and exaggeration, other participants noted disengagement from the term ‘green’ due to overuse. For this female office manager, who described herself as environmentally aware and pro-‐active, the term ‘green’ drew a strong response:

Sometimes ‘green’ for me, it's too in my face. I'm like, oh God, I'm sick of ‘green’. I'm sure I'm doing as much as I can, do you know what I mean? It can be a bit overwhelming. With that, you just tune out. It's not like you're pissed off or anything. You just tune out. I'm not reading that anymore -‐ I'm over it. (female, 56)

Numerous other interviewees described disengagement and ‘green fatigue’ due to scepticism regarding the overall green message. Unanimously, participants believed that ‘green’ has been appropriated, and often misused, as a marketing tool. A male manager was typical in his response: 'I think of the terms as being very over-‐hyped. People try to turn ‘green’ to commercial advantage, but generally, it's common sense, heaps of brands and stuff use it when they’re not really doing anything special’ (male, 55).

Another interviewee was more direct in her criticism about the overuse of the term ‘green’ and the marketing of sustainable products, and was wary of any claims of environmental benefit. She explains her position as follows:

56

I think of it as a marketing ploy [laughs]. I'm very cynical to those kinds of terms, they've been overused in the media. I think that big businesses are quick to jump on that bandwagon. So, if I see something advertised as being green or environmentally friendly, I wouldn't trust that implicitly. I would think okay well that's good, but let me find out a bit more about it, I wouldn't just trust the label or the blurb. Yes so I'm definitely sceptical I think.’ (female, 38)

In terms of purchasing decisions, people are increasingly seeking information from more reliable sources rather than relying on what is perceived as promotional blurb. One interviewee said: ‘you have to investigate these things yourself. Having friends that have actually got things like solar power panels really helps, because you know that the information is spot-‐on, it's not fabricated to help sell something.’ (female, 45). The mistrust described here is also reflected by another young male interviewee, who accuses the mainstream media of skewing or manipulating environmental information. Here he explains why he tends not to believe the things he reads or hears about green issues:

then there’s the media, they’re really one sided. They like to sensationalise things a lot. When there’s people protesting they always show the worst clips of them, like them pushing or whatever... then the company trying to chop down the trees are the good guys ‘cos they’ve got mates somewhere. I don’t think of the media as a reliable source too much. (male, 19)

All of these accounts underline the problematic nature of the term ‘green’; the importance of language in environmental message framing, and the growing sense of fatigue and mistrust around sustainability in general, with important implications for ongoing environmental initiatives.

Interviews with Australian Workers Summary While interviewed workers of all ages described themselves as environmentally conscious and pro-‐active, a clear message from this study is that environmental concern was not the driver of pro-‐environmental behaviour. The main findings are: • Cost is a very strong motivation for reducing utility use and waste Attempts at self-‐sufficiency were common as a means to regain control over rising utility costs. Incentives in these areas should emphasise monetary saving over environmental benefit. • Environmental problems are an abstract concept for many Unless people have a personal connection with either the consequences of inaction or the habitual performance of the behaviour itself, environmental issues are secondary in day-‐to-‐day life. • Time, money and convenience are prioritised over environmental issues But other factors such as health and better use of time can be used to promote alternative transport • Upbringing and generational norms are a key explanatory factor in life stage differences The actions of older generations are motivated by frugality, but young have less incentive to save and reuse. Tailored initiatives are needed to appeal to and target generational differences. • Again, message framing matters The association between environmental concerns and ‘alternative’ and ‘extremism’ is problematic when attempting to target sustainability initiatives widely throughout the community. • Green fatigue is partly driven by a lack of trust Many are disengaged due to a perceived saturation of disingenuous claims of environmental benefit and cynicism about environmental information and sustainability causes in general.

57

Conclusion and recommendations The Work, life and sustainable living project aimed to investigate how modern work-‐life contexts shape and influence pro-‐environmental attitudes and engagement in sustainable behaviours. In addition, the research aimed to investigate how these outcomes and experiences differ for workers at different stages of life, for men and women, and across socio-‐economic groups. In doing so, further insight can be gained into the broad array of factors that help or hinder households and workplaces in optimally reducing their environmental impact, placing the environmental actions of individuals within the broader social context.

As outlined in the introduction of this report, previous environmental research has critiqued the dominant focus on inter-‐personal motivations and choice, calling for further investigations into the role of contextual and social factors (e.g. Steg & Vlek, 2009). Others draw attention to how environmental behaviour is embedded within changing socio-‐technological systems that shape everyday routines, expectations and practices around comfort and convenience which have direct implications on patterns of consumption (Sanne, 2002; Shove, 2003). Along with the resource, capacity and time implications of juggling work and family commitments, these perspectives have led commentators to argue that effective intervention will need to attend to infrastructure and institutions, routines and regimes, and systems and services to be truly effective. To the extent that workplace or household behavioural change is the object of policy, policy must take account of the routine practices of daily life and the socio-‐cultural contexts in which they are enacted. The data from this project provides empirical evidence to support these ideas, demonstrating that pro-‐environmental attitudes and action are shaped by factors such as cost, habit, competing priorities, time and convenience, which are further influenced by life stage, gender, household structure, working arrangements and norms within the work-‐life sphere.

The findings of the Work, life and sustainable living project show that in comparison to other OECD countries (i.e. UK, US, Norway and Japan) Australia is doing well, reporting the highest frequencies of pro-‐environmental action on average in 1993 and in 2010. Furthermore, Australia holds positive attitudes towards environmental issues, although these have declined since 1993. However, a discrepancy was highlighted between survey and interview data regarding environmental concern. In general, environmental concern was the most consistent predictor of self-‐reported pro-‐environmental outcomes from both national and international surveys, yet individual levels of concern were far less influential when other work-‐life factors were unpacked in qualitative discussions with workers. Environmental concern and positive attitudes are a determinant of behaviour, but they are clearly not the whole story -‐ when considered alongside the practicalities of daily life, cost, competing priorities, habit and convenience are cited as primary reasons for frequency of engagement. In addition, longitudinal analyses show that levels of environmental concern are decreasing both in Australia and internationally, meaning that general appeals to environmental conscience are likely to have even less effect than in previous years, despite widespread global campaigns.

Although concern has declined, however, rates of engagement in pro-‐environmental action have risen in the time period between 1993 and 2010. This again suggests that pro-‐environmental concern is not the primary driving force behind sustainable action. The behaviour that has risen most dramatically is recycling, which has seen the most attention from local government incentives such as the ‘three bin’ recycling system. Interviewees confirmed that such systems have meant that recycling has become embedded in daily life, making the behaviours habitual. Given the success of this approach, it is likely that government-‐led systems in other key areas, such as water and energy

58

conservation, would have very positive long-‐term outcomes. Further work to integrate waste disposal into household builds is also likely to be effective.

Being satisfied with working arrangements and having access to flexible working conditions positively influenced employee engagement in pro-‐environmental action at work and at home. Such working arrangements included regular telecommuting, having access to leave and being satisfied with access to flexible working arrangements. Some evidence from national and international surveys show that reducing working hours may also have a beneficial effect. Interviews show that reliance on increasingly convenient ways of living are influenced by juggling busy schedules, demonstrating that when workers are time-‐poor capacity for pro-‐environmental action is reduced. In busy, time-‐pressured households in which family members juggle a range of work and non-‐work commitments, ‘quick, easy and convenient’ often takes priority over the best intentions to live and work sustainably. Flexible work arrangements – and reduced work hours – can provide individuals with opportunities to pursue more time-‐intensive household behaviours, such as establishing a vegetable patch, or reducing reliance on pre-‐packaged or take-‐away foods.

In terms of sustainable workplaces, clear and easy workplace procedures and accessible design is key for compliance and habit formation, and committed, consistent leadership is essential. The case studies show how working in an eco-‐friendly organisation has the potential to increase individual motivation and feelings of empowerment towards pro-‐environmental engagement, in addition to changing existing habitual behaviour to encompass new pro-‐environmental routines. Workers speak of how these changes are the outcomes of active participation and being involved in organisational environmental activities, learning by experience and having sustainability embedded into their job roles and identities as employees. Financial incentives are also highly regarded. Addressing these factors, as well as giving employees influence over practices and fostering open dialogue can promote a green workplace culture. Working within such positive cultures facilitate the likelihood that pro-‐environmental action will be transferred to the household, demonstrating how the creation of sustainable workplace cultures can influence a broader sustainable society. Data from both surveys and interviews showed how paid work experiences can motivate and influence pro-‐environmental choices, habits and behaviours outside of work. However, evidence suggests that sustainability needs to be firmly embedded into the workplace culture for positive work-‐life spillover to occur.

There is significant scope, therefore, for leaders and managers of companies pursuing environmental sustainability goals to extend their focus beyond pro-‐environmental behaviour in the workplace to consider how the organisation can create ‘windows of opportunity’ for employees to live more environmentally sustainable lives. Such initiatives may include promoting and supporting flexible work arrangements that, as discussed, can reduce time pressure or commuting demands. Workplaces that succeed in achieving a culture of sustainability can exert significant influence in other life domains, including home. These influences have the potential to spread to family members and the wider community, creating new social norms around sustainability.

At home, cost is a significant factor in explaining householder behaviour. Capacity for substantive capital investment (for example in energy or water-‐saving devices) is restricted by low household incomes and many competing, more pressing demands. Thermal comfort was generally viewed as a necessity, and many interviewees expressed a growing concern at rising utility costs, which were the main driving factor of efforts to live more self-‐sufficient lives. It is clear that carefully targeted subsidies and rebates play a key role in motivation and capacity to install energy efficient features.

59

In addition, housing tenure – and a general lack of affordable housing – may act as a barrier to pro-‐environmental household action, particularly for single householders and young people. Consistent with the workplace, however, the actions of significant others can have a strong positive influence in the household and community, with social norms playing a big part in shaping attitudes and behaviour, as well as influencing purchasing decisions. Good local facilities from councils are also crucial in supporting householders to reduce their consumption and form new lifestyle habits, while continuing to enjoy the amenities of a good home, community and working life.

A clear finding across the seven studies is that the life stage of workers can strongly influence pro-‐environmental outcomes. Although young workers considered themselves more highly educated in environmental issues, they were consistently less engaged and took less action than older employees. For young workers, this is related to motivation and may reflect the increasing number of young people living in the parental home. Steps to make independent living more affordable, greater access to secure work and family-‐friendly incentives may improve outcomes for these groups. Interviewees spoke of generational changes in upbringing and expectations of responsibility to explain the differences between young and old.

In most households, paid work directly influences car use in relation to commuting patterns. Adapting and modifying transport behaviours can be challenging, especially in busy dual-‐earner households who are managing the commitments and demands of both adults and children. Unsurprisingly, the project clearly showed that travel mode choice is resistant to change. Barriers to reducing private car use as the main means of commuting include poor public transport, safety concerns and lack of telecommuting options. Attention to urban design is needed to create accessible local jobs and services, reducing reliance on cars. Unaligned shift patterns, dispersed residential locations and unplanned overtime act as a barrier to carpooling. It is important to note, however, that many participants were very reluctant to cut back on car use for environmental reasons. Therefore, appeals targeting other motivations, such as cycling for health and fitness, may be a more effective strategy.

The final point relates to gender differences. Across studies, the evidence is clear that women are the primary drivers of household pro-‐environmental action, which is a likely reflection of the inequalities in the gendered division of unpaid work. In contrast, interviewed men viewed themselves as the primary environmental champions at home, yet their involvement was framed in terms of supervising and gatekeeping the action taken by women in the household. Women workers who most frequently engage in pro-‐environmental action are also more likely to have poorer work-‐life balance outcomes and feel more rushed and pressed for time, indicating that steps to challenge the gendered assumptions underlying domestic labour responsibilities are overdue. On a related note, household structure also emerged as a relatively consistent influence on environmental action, particularly in mid-‐life, when raising children take priority. Having dependent children in the house was associated with poorer outcomes, particularly for mothers in two separate countries. Again, these multiple levels of influence suggest that universal appeals to individuals and households to change behaviour are likely to be less than optimally effective.

In sum, each of the points discussed here suggest relevant, important and timely considerations for action, providing insight into how work-‐life can be configured to support a sustainable Australia and the wellbeing of its workers. Inter-‐personal motivation and habitual behaviours are important determinants of individual pro-‐environmental behaviour, but are shaped by structural and social

60

contexts. Policies should acknowledge that individuals are workplace, household and community citizens and actions taken in one domain influence and shape the outcomes in another.

Viewing sustainability from a work-‐life perspective offers valuable insights into potential systemic changes that can provide windows of opportunity to maximise natural opportunities for pro-‐environmental change. Those who wish to see communities reduce their environmental output need to take a detailed account of the contextual factors that affect behaviour, alongside the social forces that make cost and convenience a premium for contemporary households and organisations. The following recommendations bring together the key lessons from the Work, life and sustainable living project, each suggesting lines of action that governments, industry, unions and individuals can pursue to support pro-‐environmental action at work, home and when travelling between:

General recommendations

1. Many workers express ‘green fatigue’ due to cynicism regarding the overuse of sustainability products and claims, and levels of reported environmental concern are in decline. Appeals need to be genuine and reliable to have effect.

2. Message framing and language is important, as workers vary in their identification with ‘green’ terminology. Engagement is most likely to occur when the outcome has personal relevance or meaning, therefore messages should be targeted and tailored appropriately.

3. While most people consider themselves environmentally conscious, environmental concern is rarely the primary driver of pro-‐environmental action. A focus on cost saving and efficiency is likely to be better received by householders and businesses.

4. Few people attempt to cut back on car use to reduce their carbon footprint. To encourage alternative modes of transport, messages may be more effectively framed in terms of health benefits when cycling or walking, or freeing up time for other tasks when commuting by train.

5. While generally more educated on environmental issues, young people tend to be less concerned and less pro-‐active than older citizens. Target younger people to encourage participation, with a focus on motivation and steps to encourage independent living with affordable housing and secure work.

Work-‐related recommendations

1. Flexible working conditions help to minimise time demands alleviate work-‐life pressures. Provide employee-‐centred flexibility for all, especially around access to leave, access to flexible hours and working from home.

2. A collective reduction in working hours may also benefit the environment, not only by relieving time scarcity and its effect on promoting unsustainable lifestyles, but also to alleviate the propensity for the long hours ‘work-‐and-‐spend’ culture that leads to overconsumption. In most high-‐income nations including Australia, per capita ecological impacts increase as average work hours lengthen, via the effect on increasing GDP. Reform in the area of equitable and shorter working hours should be a key focus for a more sustainable future.

3. Workplace norms and culture is key. Build ‘green’ workplace cultures with sustainability at the core of business. Proactive, long term strategies including embedding sustainability within job roles and consistent, iterative exposure to new pro-‐environmental behaviours means that new habits and routines are likely to be formed.

61

4. Frontline supervisors and managers are the linchpins to successful pro-‐environmental behaviour change at an organisational and employee level. Genuine, positive interaction and involvement around sustainability issues and a ‘transformational leader’ approach are crucial for widespread integration of pro-‐environmental values and practices.

5. Organisational environmental training should move away from an information provision and educational approach to incorporate experiential learning to facilitate deep learning and engagement. Participation, tangible recognition and influence over environmental activities are important from an employee perspective, as this leads to increased motivation and feelings of empowerment.

6. Workplaces should focus on providing a layout and design that makes pro-‐environmental action as easy and clear as possible. This will make the behaviour more acceptable to the workforce and promote habituation over time.

7. Workplace incentives can be useful as long as the workers perceive them as genuine rather than tokenistic.

Home and community-‐related recommendations

1. Many find the use of public transport unfeasible for commuting purposes due to lack of availability outside city centres and the geographical location of work and home. Investment in sustainable urban design and development with local jobs, accessible schools and services such as retail and healthcare to reduce travelling is needed. Efficient and safe transport options or alternatives that reduce time, money, and the environmental effects of car use should be prioritised, as well as further investment into energy-‐efficient cars. Steps should be taken to facilitate carpooling in workplaces.

2. Cost is the main driver of household pro-‐environmental action and purchases. Greater access to financial incentives and subsidies in pro-‐environmental appliances and green technologies are likely to be viewed positively and generate improved environmental effects, including incentives for landlords to make rental properties more sustainable.

3. In general, women workers are the drivers of pro-‐environmental actions in the household and have primary care responsibilities. However, there is a limit to what working women can achieve when already time-‐poor. Action should focus on measures to redistribute unpaid work and reduce inequalities in household domestic labour, such as better quality part-‐time work and increased flexibility incentives for men and women.

4. The behaviours and attitudes of other people in the social circle or community have a strong influence on individual outcomes. Measures to promote community social cohesion and incentives to increase collective knowledge sharing and positive social norms around sustainability are needed.

5. The most popular pro-‐environmental action by far is recycling, because of the way local government incentives such as the ‘three bin’ recycling system have been embedded into daily life, making the behaviours habitual. This approach should be adopted for other key actions, such as water and energy conservation, calling for investment in good local council facilities that facilitate household action. Developers should also aim to incorporate other services – such as waste disposal –into the design of new household builds.

62

References Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) (2009). Environmental views and behaviour 2007–08. Cat. No. 4626.0.55.001.

Andrey, J., Burns, K.R., & Doherty, S.T. (2004). Toward sustainable transportation: Exploring transportation decision making in teleworking households in a mid-‐sized city. Canadian Journal of Urban Research, 13, 257-‐77.

Aoyagi-‐Usui, M., Vinken, H., & Kuribayashi, A. (2003). Pro-‐environmental attitudes and behaviours: An international comparison. Human Ecology Review, 10, 23-‐31.

Australian Work and Life Index (AWALI) (2010). How much should we work? Working hours, holidays and working life: The participation challenge. Adelaide: Centre for Work + Life, University of South Australia.

Bamberg, S., & Möser, G. (2007). Twenty years after Hines, Hungerford and Tomera: A new meta-‐analysis of psychosocial determinants of pro-‐environmental behaviour. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 27, 14-‐25.

Blake, J. (1999). Overcoming the ‘value-‐action gap’ in environmental policy: Tensions between national policy and local experience. Local Environment, 4, 257-‐78.

Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human development. Cambridge Mass, Harvard University Press.

Chapman, J. (2011). Who does what? The pro-‐environmental behaviours of Australian workers. Adelaide: Centre for Work + Life, University of South Australia.

Chapman, J. (2012). What women do: Exploring the link between pro-‐environmental actions, work, travel and home. Adelaide: Centre for Work + Life, University of South Australia.

Chapman, J., Skinner, N., & Searle, S. (2013). Working towards sustainability: Exploring the workplace as a site for pro-‐environmental behaviour change. In R. Crocker & S. Lehmann (Eds.), Motivating change: Values, behaviour, consumption and sustainable design. Earthscan: Routledge.

Chapman, J. (2013). Predictors of pro-‐environmental behaviour in 1993 and 2010: An international comparison. Adelaide: Centre for Work + Life, University of South Australia.

Corraliza, J.A., & Berenguer, J. (2000). Environmental values, beliefs, and actions: A situational approach. Environment and Behaviour, 32, 832-‐48.

Demerouti, E., Bakker, A.B., Nachreiner, F., & Schaufeli, W.B. (2001). The job demands-‐resources model of burnout. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 499-‐512.

Department of the Environment Water Heritage and the Arts (DEWHA) (2008). Energy use in the Australian residential sector 1986-‐2020. Canberra, Australian Government.

Gardner, G.T., & Stern, P.C. (2002). Environmental problems and human behaviour. Pearson, Boston MA.

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) (2007). Climate change 2007: Synthesis report. IPCC, Geneva.

63

Jackson, T. (2005). Motivating sustainable consumption: a review of evidence on consumer behaviour and behavioural change. Available at: http://www.sdresearch.org.uk/documents/ MotivatingSC final.pdf.

Jackson, T., & Papathanasopoulous, E. (2008). Luxury or lock-‐in? An exploration of unsustainable consumption in the UK 1968-‐2000. Ecological Economics, 68, 80-‐95.

Kollmuss, A., & Agyeman, J. (2002). Mind the gap: Why do people act environmentally and what are the barriers to pro-‐environmental behaviour? Environmental Education Research, 8, 239-‐260.

Pocock, B. (2003). The work/life collision. What work is doing to Australians and what to do about it. Sydney, Federation Press.

Pocock, B., Skinner, N. & Williams, P. (2012). Time bomb: Work rest and play in Australia today. Sydney, NewSouth Publishing.

Sandu, S., & Petchy, R. (2009). End use energy intensity in the Australian economy. Australian Bureau of Agriculture and Resource Economics, Canberra.

Sanne, C. (2002). Willing consumers or locked-‐in? Policies for a sustainable consumption. Ecological Economics, 42, 273-‐87.

Shove, E. (2003). Converging conventions of comfort, cleanliness and convenience. Journal of Consumer Policy, 26, 395-‐418.

Shove, E. (2010). Beyond the ABC: Climate change policy and theories of social change. Environment and Planning A, 42, 1271-‐85.

Steg, L., & Vlek, C. (2009). Encouraging pro-‐environmental behaviour: An integrative review and research agenda. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 29, 309-‐17.

Thompson, C. (1996). Caring consumers: Gendered consumption meanings and the juggling lifestyle. Journal of Consumer Research, 22, 388-‐407.

Voydanoff, P. (2007). Work, family, and community: Exploring interconnections. New York, Psychology Press.

Williams, P., Pocock, B. & Skinner, N. (2008). Clawing back time: Expansive working time and implications for work-‐life outcomes in Australian workers. Work, Employment and Society, 22, 719-‐30.

how work, household and community life interact to … life and sustainable... · how work,...

Documents