Risky business: understanding the green voice behaviour of Australian professionals

Abstract

Purpose

As Australians experience more fierce and frequent natural disasters, there are urgent calls for businesses to meaningfully respond to climate change. Australian financial and professional services employees occupy an ambiguous space as climate mitigation measures have different economic implications for their clients. The purpose of this paper is to investigate how Australian professionals experience climate change and respond to the issue within their workplace.

Design/methodology/approach

This mixed methods study applies a systems thinking framework to investigate: how do professionals’ experiences of the issue of climate change and the workplace influence their cognitions, emotions and behaviour? And in particular, what psychosocial antecedents precede voicing climate concern?

Findings

Firstly, a survey of professionals (N = 206) found social norms, perceived behavioural control and biospheric values, but not attitudes, significantly predicted prohibitive green voice. Middle managers were significantly likely to voice climate concern, whereas senior managers were significantly likely to express climate scepticism. Ten professionals were then interviewed to gain a contextualised understanding of these trends. Interpretive phenomenological analysis identified five interrelated themes: (1) active identity management, (2) understanding climate change is escalating, (3) workplace shapes climate change response, (4) frustration and alienation and (5) belief that corporations prioritise profit.

Originality/value

Findings are discussed in relation to how employees may both embody and adapt their organisations. These results have implications for understandings of workplace meaningfulness and organisational risk governance.

Citation

Trezise, M. and Richardson, M.J. (2024), "Risky business: understanding the green voice behaviour of Australian professionals", International Journal of Ethics and Systems, Vol. 40 No. 2, pp. 256-280. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJOES-12-2022-0305

The need for organisations to respond meaningfully to climate change is now critical. In 2022, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reported transformational change is needed in virtually every sector to limit global warming to 1.5°C (Pörtner et al., 2022). The action required is urgent; scientists predict that if emissions continue rising at the current rate, the conditions of the Australian 2019–2020 bushfire season, which killed nearly 3 billion animals and blanketed cities in smoke, will be considered average by 2040 (Sanderson and Fisher, 2020).

Australians report significant climate change related anxiety (Clayton et al., 2017). A survey distributed during pandemic lockdowns found Australians were three times more concerned about climate change than COVID-19 (Patrick et al., 2021). Women, the well-off, young adults and those aged 35–54 show the greatest levels of concern. The researchers predict an escalating mental health epidemic as Australians experience powerlessness from witnessing more frequent natural disasters.

The concerns of individual Australians are not clearly reflected in the climate change policies of Australian organisations. Since the 2015 Paris Agreement to limit climate change to 1.5°C, nine in ten of Australia’s major energy companies lack policies consistent with the agreement (Rekker et al., 2022), and Australia’s four major banks have invested more than $44.4bn in fossil fuel projects (MarketForces, 2021). Although the number of ASX200 companies with net-zero emission commitments rose from 14 in 2019 to 95 in 2022, a minority of these commitments are science-based (ACSI, 2022). Dahlmann et al. (2019) found no overall effect of corporate emission reduction targets on actual emission reductions and suggest companies may create these targets to manage stakeholder expectations via greenwashing. There is limited research that explores the identified distinction between the private climate-related concerns of citizens and the critical actions of companies best positioned to mitigate climate change.

Systems thinking

The apparent inconsistency between individual concern and organisational responses to climate change in Australia may be addressed using a systems thinking framework. This means thinking about the world from the perspective of the connections and relationships between interconnected elements – that is, the system (Lyneis, 1999). The systems thinking framework posits that the same principles of self-assembly of microorganisms and complex structures apply to the relationships between humans as social beings (Marsh et al., 2009).

Systems thinking suggests that human cognition and behaviour are entrenched within a cultural and situational context (Coey et al., 2012; Castillo et al., 2015). In relation to belief in human-caused climate change, emotions concerning social belonging and identity may in some cases supersede climate concern (Norgaard, 2011). This creates socially constructed denial, which allows people to maintain their concept of reality and sense of empowerment without the need to risk change. On a national level, climate change scepticism is more pronounced in countries with greater economic dependence on fossil fuels (Lübke, 2022; Sandvik, 2008). Within the workplace context, a survey of 1,077 Canadian energy sector professionals found executives within the oil and gas industry were significantly more likely to express climate science beliefs that opposed emissions regulation (e.g. protecting the economy is most important; nature is unstoppable; Lefsrud and Meyer, 2012). Respondents who supported emissions regulation had identities less enmeshed with the energy sector – they were significantly more likely to be younger, lower in the organisational hierarchy, female or work within government.

Systems thinking suggests that a larger unit will exhibit resistance to change; the restraining structure attempts to quell deviant shifts from the normal state (Marsh et al., 2009). In a longitudinal study of five Australian organisations adopting climate action policies (2005–2015), Wright and Nyberg (2017) found that in all cases, the company’s initial strong commitments to address climate change diminished over time. In each case, the organisation’s engagement with climate change gradually narrowed as shareholders and financial analysts continuously challenged environmental initiatives with market evaluations.

Currently, companies may predominantly consider environmental and social issues through a profit maximisation lens, seeking “win-win” solutions that prioritise financial benefits (Hahn et al., 2014). Van der Byl and Slawinski (2015) label this approach the instrumental view. In contrast, an integrative view seeks to consider environmental, social and financial factors together without prioritising a single element. Reconfiguring organisations to explore competing demands using an integrative view may generate creative solutions (Smith and Lewis, 2011).

According to systems theory, a structure may only reconfigure into a different arrangement when there is a sufficient inflow of energy (Marsh et al., 2009). Individual’s salient experiences can prompt the emergence of new beliefs (Castillo et al., 2015). The COVID-19 survey found climate concern was significantly higher in regions impacted by the 2019–2020 bushfires (Patrick et al., 2021). Experiences of more frequent natural disasters may prompt Australians to question their workplace’s approach to climate change. Systems thinking enables the recognition of emergent phenomena across levels of analysis and, as such, is a well-suited lens for understanding how individuals may both embody and alter their organisations (Bou Zeineddine and Leach, 2021; Bitektine and Haack, 2015).

The bi-directional benefits of attending to employee climate concern

Employees can play a central role in driving organisational responses to climate change. Interviewees in the Australian Institute of Company Directors (AICD, 2021) Climate Governance Study (2021) acknowledged that the impetus for climate action often arises from staff who identify opportunities missed by management. The M3TRIX Academy in Germany advances this understanding and drives sustainable business transformation by training young, first-line managers to influence executives who may otherwise lack the knowledge or motivation to implement sustainability agendas (Jenkins, 2021). In Australia, employee participation in workplace environmental initiatives correlates with greater organisational carbon mitigation activities (Markey et al., 2016).

Workplaces may assist and motivate employees by functioning as spaces that address climate concern. For many, feeling like others are disengaged with the issue of climate change contributes to feelings of anxiety and alienation (Kemkes and Akerman, 2019). Discussing climate change publicly can help people cope with related feelings of emotional distress (Griffin, 2018). Employees able to act in coordination with their environmental beliefs in the workplace are less likely to feel alienated and exhibit higher psychological capital, a developmental state characterised by high self-efficacy, optimism, hope and resiliency (Bhatnagar and Aggarwal, 2020). A range of associated organisational benefits may include staff attraction, retention and cost savings (Nyberg et al., 2013).

Climate (in)action and the Australian financial and professional services sectors

Climate change confronts employees with situations where they must simultaneously consider multiple conflicting economic and environmental outcomes on both business and societal levels (Whiteman et al., 2013). Employees in the financial and professional services occupy a particularly ambiguous space as they support industries differentially impacted by climate change. Australia is the second-biggest exporter of thermal coal in the world, and rapid disinvestment would likely be financially damaging for many organisations (Wilkinson, 2020). Conversely, Australia’s predominantly coastal population and agriculture and tourism industries are highly exposed to changes in Australia’s already harsh climate, meaning inaction is also likely economically disastrous. The outcomes and timeframes prioritised by workplaces may constrain how employees navigate this ambiguity (Kaesehage et al., 2019).

But research suggests some financial and professional services employees experience climate concern and are advocating for climate action. Workers within these sectors are typically well-educated and earn above average salaries in Australia, both of which correlate with high reported climate concern (Patrick et al., 2021; Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2021). Markey et al. (2016) found the Australian business services sector (a combined sample including financial services, information and rental organisations) had the second highest rates of carbon mitigation activities after education and training. Company HR manager interviews found these results were mainly due to a mix of employee team meetings and unprompted employee requests.

Financial and professional services employees may hold positions of authority and influence in relation to broader climate-related business decisions. Compared to top (i.e. governments, energy companies) or bottom (i.e. consumer) actors, financial and professional services middle actors theoretically possess trustworthiness, legitimacy and the ability to influence social norms and practices relating to carbon mitigation (Parag and Janda, 2014). However, there is a research gap concerning how middle actor professionals view their agency and ability to affect change in relation to climate change. This study aims to investigate how financial and professional services workers experience climate change and respond to the issue within their workplace.

Study design and epistemological approach

This study adopts a mixed methods explanatory sequential design (see Figure 1; Creswell and Clark, 2017). Firstly, an experimental study investigates the psychosocial antecedents of voicing climate concern in the workplace. A post-experimental interview study is then used to gain a contextualised understanding of the identified trends, using interpretive phenomenological analysis (IPA) to address the research question:

RQ1.

How do employees’ experiences of the issue of climate change and their workplace influence their cognitions, emotions and behaviour?

Mixed methods approaches are especially suitable for issues being addressed through systems thinking lens, as quantitative methods enable the investigation of issues at the group level, whereas qualitative methods enable the investigation of issues at the individual level (McCrudden and McTigue, 2019). Using the epistemological pragmatic approach, the research topic is explored without being limited by the philosophical constraints which traditionally disconnect quantitative and qualitative research (Yardley and Bishop, 2008).

Experimental study

Prohibitive green voice

Voice behaviour describes the voicing of constructive concerns, ideas or opinions about work-related issues by employees that may help their organisation (Dyne et al., 2003). Recently, human resource scholars have defined green voice as voice behaviour that specifically concerns environmental suggestions (Ari et al., 2020).

This study integrates the concept of green voice with the distinct voice behaviour types identified by Liang et al. (2012): prohibitive voice (based on expressing harmful work factors) and promotive voice (based on improvement suggestions). Promotive green voice is relevant to win-win environmental suggestions like cost-saving energy efficiency initiatives, consistent with instrumental views of environmental issues (Van der Byl and Slawinski, 2015). Whereas prohibitive green voice is relevant to critical appraisals of climate-related business decisions, consistent with integrative views of environmental issues.

We adopt prohibitive green voice as the primary dependent variable of interest. Although research on workplace pro-environmental behaviour typically focuses on win-win actions (e.g. turning off idle monitors; Yuriev et al., 2020) employees who use their knowledge of both organisational practices and environmental problems to voice critical responses likely have the greatest pro-environmental utility (Skoglund and Böhm, 2020). Publicly expressing deviant judgements may challenge the perceived legitimacy of an organisation, creating opportunity for systemic change (Bitektine and Haack, 2015).

Theory of planned behaviour

The theory of planned behaviour (TPB) provides a useful theoretical framework for understanding what psychosocial antecedents contribute to an intention to perform a behaviour (Ajzen, 1991). The theory posits three factors influence an individual’s motivation to perform a behaviour. Firstly, the individual must have a positive attitude towards the behaviour. Secondly, an individual must perceive that the behaviour aligns with subjective norms. Finally, an individual must perceive that they have sufficient control to perform the behaviour. TPB has been used to understand ethical workplace behaviours, including whistleblowing (Park and Blenkinsopp, 2009).

H1.

Consistent with TPB, attitude, subjective norms and perceived behavioural control (PBC) will account for a significant amount of variance in intention to use prohibitive green voice within the workplace, and these variables will emerge as significant positive predictors.

Although TPB has received strong empirical support for predicting pro-environmental behaviour intention (Yuriev et al., 2020), it has also received criticism for underrepresenting the role of values (Klöckner, 2013). Personal values describe stable, trans-situational goals that guide individual evaluations, attitudes and behaviours (Schwartz, 1992). Unlike attitudes, which are situation specific, values tend to remain unchanged over extended time periods. Research has identified that biospheric values are highly correlated with pro-environmental behaviour intention (Wang et al., 2021).

H2.

Biospheric values will be a significant positive predictor of prohibitive green voice intention, over and above the standard TPB model.

Method

Participants and procedure

Participants were recruited through a number of avenues. First-year psychology students were recruited through a student research participant pool and received course credit for participating (n = 193). Between April and June 2022, the main researcher distributed fliers in the Sydney central business district. The fliers invited financial and professional services workers to participate in a study on “Attitudes Towards Sustainability in the Workplace” via a QR code (n = 77). The survey was also advertised on social media (n = 56). Non-student respondents were entered into a draw to win one of five $100 vouchers.

Australian and New Zealand Standard Industrial Classification codes categorised work sectors for inclusion in accordance with Markey et al. (2016). One hundred and twenty respondents reported working in unrelated sectors (e.g. retail) and were omitted from further analysis. Eighty-five participants reported working in professional, scientific and technical services; 79 participants reported working in financial and insurance services; 30 participants reported working in information, media and telecommunications; and 12 participants reported working in rental, hiring and real estate services.

Participants were 106 males and 100 females aged 18 to 68, with a mean age of 30.19 years (SD = 10.82). Regarding organisational position, 68.93% of respondents reported being employees, 10.68% reported being first-line managers, 8.74% reported being middle managers and 8.74% reported being senior managers. Politically, 20% of respondents indicated support for the Coalition, 17% supported the Greens, 29% supported Labour, 25% said they would prefer not to answer and 9% responded “Other”. Of those who responded other, five reported supporting Independents, and one reported supporting the United Australia Party.

The online survey took approximately 10 min to complete. At the end of the survey, participants were shown a debriefing statement and invited to register interest in a follow-up phone interview.

Measures

Where constructs are measured with multiple items, items were averaged. Participants responded using 7-point Likert scales. See supplementary materials for complete green voice and TPB measures.

• Prohibitive green voice: Ten items (five items per subscale) based on Liang et al. (2012)’s employee voice scale assessed self-ratings of prohibitive (α = 0.91) and promotive (α = 0.90) green voice. Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) with oblique maximal rotation confirmed these were distinct measures.

• TPB: Prior to the TPB items, participants read a definition of green voice behaviour. TPB constructs were adapted from Fielding et al. (2008). Five semantic differentials measured attitudes towards green voice (α = 0.88). Three items measured green voice subjective norms (α = 0.86), and five items assessed green voice PBC (α = 0.87).

• Biospheric values: Participants completed the environmental portrait value questionnaire (Bouman et al., 2018), a 16-item measure of biospheric, altruistic, hedonic and egoistic value orientations. Four items measured biospheric values (α = 0.87). CFA empirically distinguished biospheric values from all other values.

• Control variables: Position in one’s organisation and job satisfaction were included as control variables as both potentially impact voice behaviour (Liang et al., 2012). Four categories: employee, first-line manager, middle manager and senior manager measured organisational position. A three-item scale measured job satisfaction (α = 0.80; Hackman and Oldham, 1980). Four categories coded political preference: Greens, Coalition, Labour and Other. Age was measured as a control variables that may moderate pro-environmental behaviour (Okumah et al., 2020).

• Climate change disbelief: The final item assessed anthropogenic climate change belief: “I think that climate change is happening, and I think that humans are largely causing it”. Participants who responded unsure or disagree were excluded from the main analysis, as the green voice of climate sceptics may differ from those who accept anthropogenic climate change. For example, they may advocate for decisions that have unfavourable carbon mitigation but positive financial implications (Stanley et al., 2021).

Statistical analysis

The percentage of missing values across variables ranged from 0 to 2.91% for data about organisational position. In total, only 87% of the 206 participants would have been available for analysis using the traditional listwise deletion method. Data was missing due to item nonresponse. The “state of the art” multiple imputation (MI) technique was used to address the problem of missing data (Schafer and Graham, 2002). Stata 17’s mi impute chained command generated 10 imputed data sets, combined using Rubin’s rules (De Silva et al., 2021). Analysis performed on the subset of complete cases found results similar to MI, so imputed results are presented. Initially, sex and tenure were included as theoretical covariates in all models; however, they were nonsignificant (all p > 0.25), and results did not differ as a function of sex or tenure, so each were omitted from final reported models (Allison, 1999).

For this correlational study, we first used logistic regression to assess demographic differences between those who expressed anthropogenic climate change belief and disbelief. To reduce model parameters, Left (greens and labour) and Right (coalition and other) codes measured political preference in this regression. A three-step hierarchical linear regression then assessed the effect of TPB predictors and biospheric values on prohibitive green voice. Prior to conducting the regressions, all relevant assumptions were tested.

Results

Individual characteristics and climate change disbelief

Thirty-two participants (15.5%) indicated they were unsure or disagreed that human-caused climate change is occurring and were thus excluded from the main analysis. A post hoc logistic regression analysed the relationship between climate change disbelief and demographic variables position, politics and age (Table 1).

The overall model was significant, F(5, 16,442.9) = 3.60, p = 0.003. Holding all other predictor variables constant, identifying as a senior manager was associated with 4.17 times higher odds of expressing anthropogenic climate change disbelief compared to baseline employees (B = 1.43, SE = 0.65, p < 0.05). Age and being a first-line or middle manager were not associated with climate change disbelief, but being politically conservative was associated with an increased likelihood of indicating climate change disbelief (B = 1.73, SE = 0.52, p < 0.001).

Theory of planned behaviour, biospheric values and prohibitive green voice

Table 2 displays descriptive statistics of main analysis variables. Step 1 of the hierarchical regression model included politics, position, job satisfaction and age as control variables; Step 2 included the TPB variables; and Step 3 included biospheric values. Table 3 reports unstandardised regression coefficients (B) and effect sizes (adjusted R²)

In Step 1, being a middle manager was a significant predictor of prohibitive green voice (β = 0.29, t = 3.58, p < 0.001) and remained significant in all model iterations. The addition of the TPB variables in Step 2 improved the model’s adjusted prediction accuracy from 9% to 23%. Social norms (β = 0.23, t = 2.39, p = 0.018) and PBC (β = 0.17, t = 2.04, p = 0.043) were positive predictors of prohibitive green voice, whereas attitude was not (β = 0.08, t = 0.87, p = 0.385), partially supporting H1. The inclusion of biospheric values (Step 3) positively predicted prohibitive green voice (β = 0.16, t = 2.12, p = 0.036), and significantly improved the model fit, supporting H2. The final model accounted for 24.7% of adjusted variance in prohibitive green voice.

To control for possible sector clustering, a multilevel model that included work sector as a random effects variable repeated the three-step regression. All main effects were robust.

Experimental study discussion

The study drew on TPB and personal values to examine workplace prohibitive green voice. Overall, the model successfully accounted for prohibitive green voice, explaining a total of 30% of the variance.

The study also found senior managers were significantly more likely to report anthropogenic climate change disbelief, even when controlling for age, consistent with the findings of Lefsrud and Meyer (2012). This supports a systems theory perspective that suggests human cognition is entrenched within a situational context (Castillo et al., 2015), indicating climate change belief is not a function of access to scientific information alone but also psychosocial factors (Sandvik, 2008). Cognitive dissonance research identifies that people both need to feel good about themselves and feel that they can change the world around them, which influences perception (Howard and Callero, 1991). Controlling one’s thoughts is a primary means through which individuals may control their emotions. In systems where people feel compelled to make harmful environmental decisions, the cognitive dissonance caused by knowledge of climate change may prompt people to deny the issue rather than change their behaviour (Rabin, 1994).

Macrolevel systems may contribute to the climate denial of senior managers in a number of ways. Change management scholar Schein (2010) argues leaders often deny data that implies a need for change as it presents a challenge to their competencies, power position, identity and/or group membership. A survey of over 2,000 AICD members found 28% felt their board lacked the knowledge and experience needed to address climate governance issues (AICD, 2021). Empirical evidence shows prominent climate sceptics often reverse their stances when they no longer hold power positions (Huntley, 2020). The sunk cost fallacy, a bias to maintain the status quo in the face of negative outcomes, is a key psychological barrier to climate mitigation (Gifford, 2011). Finance, marketing, management and legal executives report high commitment to the status quo (Geletkanycz and Black, 2001). This may induce competitive myopia, that is, narrow shared understandings of appropriate business strategies (Hayes and Abernathy, 1980). More research is needed to better understand how psychosocial factors may perpetuate the climate scepticism of senior managers.

Middle managers who agreed with anthropogenic climate change were significantly more likely to indicate prohibitive green voice intention in all model iterations. Career lifespan research suggests mid-career stage employees will often seek meaningful work after becoming established in their careers (Wrzesniewski et al., 2013). Prohibitive green voice may be a means through which middle managers attempt to shape their workplace according to their values. Mid-career is also a time when many have families, and having children at home correlates with pro-environmental workplace behaviour (Pieters et al., 2022; Brown, 2002). Overall, the position findings correspond with Deloitte’s sustainable actions index, which surveyed 23,000 workers and found mid-career stage employees were the most likely to report pro-environmental workplace behaviours and late-career stage employees were the least likely to report practising such behaviours (Pieters et al., 2022).

Social norms and PBC, but not attitudes, significantly predicted prohibitive green voice. This finding reflects the attitude-behaviour gap observed in studies of consumer behaviour, whereby individuals express environmental concern but nonetheless make consumer choices known to be environmentally harmful (Higham et al., 2016). The effect of the attitude-behaviour gap is particularly pronounced in high-cost situations (Farjam et al., 2019), which likely includes the workplace, where expressing a dissenting opinion may have negative career implications (Bailey et al., 2017). When social norms and PBC support green voice, individuals may interpret fewer associated costs with speaking up.

A biospheric value orientation was a significant predictor of prohibitive green voice. This is consistent with research indicating biospheric values are important for pro-environmental behaviour intention (Wang et al., 2021) over and above variables captured by the TPB (Klöckner, 2013), which may not adequately capture moral motivation. Individuals with personal interest in and knowledge of the environment may be more likely to engage in active processing when considering the legitimacy of their company’s approach to climate-related issues (Bitektine and Haack, 2015).

We acknowledge the following limitations. Firstly, the study assessed self-reported measures of prohibitive green voice intention. A meta-analysis of 185 TPB studies found intentions account for 27% of variance in actual behaviour and that this relationship is stronger for self-reported rather than objective measures of behaviour (Armitage and Conner, 2001). As the study is correlational, no causal conclusions can be drawn. Furthermore, the adequate sample size for logistic regression is contested, particularly when categorical variables are used (Riley, 2019). As the sample size of managers was small, the position findings would benefit from replication to ensure generalisable results.

Finally, the measures of PBC and social norms were broad and did not inform understandings of the specific environmental and social cues individuals rely on to guide workplace behaviour. The next study explores how people navigate the issue of climate change within their workplace to gain a contextualised understanding of prohibitive green voice antecedents across seniority levels.

Post-experimental interview study

Interpretive phenomenological analysis

IPA is a qualitative method that examines how individuals play an active role in the construction and meaningfulness of experiences (Eatough and Smith, 2008). IPA has been used to understand the “hot” cognitions and behaviours of people facing questions of morality (Suh et al., 2020) and meaningfulness (Arslan et al., 2022) at work.

Participants and procedure

Thirty-four survey respondents indicated a willingness to participate in a follow-up interview. Participants were purposively selected to achieve a cross-section of seniority levels and attitudes towards anthropogenic climate change. Twenty participants were contacted via email, eight of whom agreed to participate. A senior manager who received a flier and did not complete the survey but contacted the researchers via email was also interviewed. Due to limited numbers, another senior manager interviewee was invited to participate through personal networks.

IPA recommends a small sample size that enables firsthand and unique insights into the phenomena of interest (Chapman and Smith, 2002), in this case, experience of the issue of climate change and experience working in an Australian financial or professional services role. Table 4 provides further detail about the interviewees, including pseudonym, anthropogenic climate change belief survey response, position and company size. All interviewees were entered into a draw to win one of two $100 vouchers.

Semi-structured interviews were conducted over the phone and were 30–50 min in length. Research suggests there are no significant differences between the transcripts of phone and face-to-face interviews (Sturges and Hanrahan, 2004). The interviews were conducted by the primary researcher between June and August 2022. Before the interviews, all participants gave verbal consent to participate and be recorded. The questions were designed to explore the survey findings and address the central research question. Interview recordings were subsequently transcribed semi-verbatim. The five-step IPA approach used by Larkin and Griffiths (2004) was used to analyse interview data (see supplementary materials for questions and analysis description).

Post-experimental interview analysis and discussion

The analysis will focus on five recurrent, interrelated superordinate themes (Figure 2). Although these themes are not generalisable in a statistical sense, we contend they are transferable to similar contexts (Willig, 2019).

Active identity management

Thomas and Harry expressed sceptical attitudes about mainstream climate science. In both cases, this scepticism seemed to protect core parts of their identity. For Thomas, the scepticism maintained his work-identity as a consultant in the coal-mining sector. He explained that all energy production is environmentally harmful and that the media exaggerates the benefits of renewable energy while unfairly demonising coal. Thomas used the pronoun “we” more often than “I” in his narrative, indicating he strongly identified with fellow coal-mining employees (Den Nieuwenboer and Kaptein, 2008). He appeared committed to this core group, suggesting powering Australian homes was a vital service. Thomas described how he and his colleagues discuss issues related to climate change and energy production:

We’re on social media ourselves, so there might be certain so-called news articles. There might be social media ads promoting how green a certain product is. So those sort of spark conversations as well.

By collectively sharing and discrediting renewable energy articles, Thomas and his colleagues together confirm and maintain the importance of their shared work-identity.

Harry’s scepticism of anthropogenic climate change appeared to support his ideological worldview. He explained, “I’d sort of consider myself an accelerationist” (an ideology that encourages the indefinite intensification of capitalism). He also described feeling “turned-off” in futurist seminars when speakers were critical of government inaction.

One thing that always gets me is people who go on about, we want to stop climate change […] I think the extent to which nobody can tell me that you know, this is what they want to achieve, in terms of stopping artificial climate change, I’m going to be sceptical. (Harry)

Here, Harry expresses frustration with the ambiguity and uncertainty of addressing climate change. Climate scepticism helps maintain his belief in the primacy of capitalism and protects him from feelings of helplessness or guilt. He continued:

Because I’d be interested to understand to what extent man has done that, and like I mentioned before, there doesn’t seem to be- and you might think I’m a bit of an idiot because like I said I’m not particularly well read on the topic- but there doesn’t seem to be a universal consensus that outlines the extent to which man and technology has contributed to- I don’t know, sea levels rising or global temperatures rising up, that kind of thing.

Harry’s seemingly conscious naivety here is consistent with the motivated reasoning individuals tend to display when presented with evidence that contradicts their ideological perspective (Flynn et al., 2017). Harry was defensive of his position, criticising his “virtue-signalling” generational peers for blindly adopting the majority consensus of climate change.

Fellow junior employees Emily and Christian similarly linked their generational cohort identity to concern about climate change. Christian described climate change as “the most important issue faced by my generation” and Emily explained her friends are concerned “because I’m in that under 30s age bracket”. Both described choosing workplaces that reflected their own progressive values. Here, workplace selection helped maintain their self-identities as concerned, informed millennials. Christian suggested company carbon mitigation efforts are inherently rational, describing research showing employees are more productive in temperate weather conditions.

The senior managers Jesse and Felix were more circumspect, voicing the economic impacts of carbon mitigation. Jesse explained “I think having a good [carbon mitigation] policy is important, but again, it damages the economy of Australia […] you know that’s inevitable, just a fact”. Felix suggested climate mitigation initiatives could, in some cases, be antithetical to people’s immediate survival and to the prosperity of poorer nations:

The reality is, we need to work out how the third world, like India and places like that that are very big on coal, how we’re going to get them to move to more expensive solar and wind. So it’s all very well for the Western world to tell people what to do, but they’ve got to survive and feed their people, and energy is a big thing in terms of how to run your country. Because unless you’ve got cheap energy, it’s hard to make money. (Felix)

Felix also explained that his CEO believed climate mitigation was important for “the survival of the global economy”. The senior managers placed high importance on the maintenance of the economic system. But they paradoxically suggest climate mitigation is both necessary for and detrimental to the performance of the economy. Leaders often understand the need for bold climate action but are simultaneously hampered by prudence and move only incrementally from the status quo (Hahn et al., 2014). Felix spoke of the need to “tilt” lending away from fossil fuels towards renewables. Emphasising the importance of the economy may help senior managers navigate identity conflict by framing harmful environmental business decisions as necessary pro-social actions.

Participants used intentional strategies to conceptualise climate change and their work in ways that allowed them to maintain social relationships and coherent work identities. At times, however, participants’ personal experiences of climate change seemed inconsistent with their workplace’s approach to the issue. We now examine participants’ lived experience of climate change.

Understanding climate change is escalating

All participants attributed their knowledge about the issue of climate change to scientific journals or news articles and documentaries. Interviewees Christian, David, Emily, Marlon and Felix integrated climate change science knowledge with their lived experiences of environmental change and extreme weather events. For example, Emily spoke about experiencing the 2019–2020 Black Summer bushfires and observing her local shoreline corroding.

Felix, Christian and Marlon spoke of how those around them were unprepared for the rapid escalation of extreme weather events in the last four years. Marlon, who works in insurance, described the impacts he was witnessing:

Hearing the stories of customers throughout the country who are just impacted in different ways. Whether it be king tides that sweep away people’s entire backyards or homes, or fires that are coming through and burning entire suburbs […] I mean, I feel pretty lucky in some regards, but not invincible. In that I live in an area that’s quite suburban and seemingly safe, so far. I also live in an apartment, so a lot of the impacts are so far indirect, for me, but you kind of empathise with these people, and you kind of wonder how bad these impacts may become – if they are what they are now. And me being a kid not really remembering these things happening as bad as what they’re happening now, then what’s next?

Here, Marlon contrasts current extreme weather events with memories from his childhood, leading to fears that weather conditions will continue worsening. Marlon felt his workplace exposed him to climate change impacts, which he suggested was “becoming exhausting”. In contrast, Sam described observing the increasing concern people feel about climate change indirectly at his workplace through marketing changes:

I can’t really tell from any personal experiences that the environment has changed, it’s you know, it’s not perceptible in that sort of sense. Moreso, I pinpoint the attitudes in the world. What we’re making, and I see the change in the way people are buying, and the way things are marketed. That I see, 100% I see. And I saw that happening over several maybe decades now […] Not that they would manufacture things any differently. But the messaging changed probably about 10–15 years ago.

Sam is cynical that the marketing rhetoric of his organisation does not reflect the unchanged manufacturing processes he observes: “If anything, I see it increasing. So, what we’re doing is opposite to what’s required”. Employees are not passive recipients of organisational messages and often actively scan their environment for clues to their genuineness (Bailey et al., 2017). The next theme explores how participants made sense of whether to voice environmental concern within their workplace.

Workplaces shape climate change responses

Middle-aged interviewees David, Jesse and Sam all described occasions where they had advocated for pro-environmental action within their workplace. Each interviewee described learning that these attempts were futile or unhelpful to career progression.

When I was younger I was much more aware and passionate about the environment. And again as I got older, it’s probably a reflection of most people in my life, you know you need to focus on your career. Every day I would advocate to my boss ‘we need to be more environmentally friendly and eat less meat and more vegetables’. So yeah, my sensitivity has probably decreased somewhat as I get older and as I get more advanced into the career. (Jesse)

Jesse’s experience is consistent with institutional theory, which suggests that a single individual who seeks change within an institution is likely to revert to the dominant institutionalised judgement overtime (Bitektine and Haack, 2015). Sam had early career success initiating environmental policies. However, he later found his advocacy sparked discussion but little change, which discouraged him from persisting. When the probability of success is low and exerted effort could lead to personal costs, individuals commonly suppress deviant judgements (Bitektine and Haack, 2015).

In the smaller workplaces of David and Angus, climate change was not explicitly addressed. These participants described having no space to discuss the issue.

I don’t feel I would have a platform to voice. Everything is driven with cost, time, and resources […] I’ve got to be honest and say that there is just zero platform to raise it at the workplace, honestly. (Angus)

At Angus’s workplace, where he works “8 till 8”, the issue of climate change is made subjectively irrelevant. Here, voicing the issue could challenge the company’s imperative to accumulate capital (Gunderson et al., 2020).

In the larger workplaces of Emily, Felix, David and Harry, the topic of climate change was addressed in a top-down manner through emails that outlined the organisational response or moderated speaker events.

[Environmental issues have] always been discussed in lectures or seminars. And I wouldn’t really consider that to be a discussion. There’s been a controlled discussion about it in a controlled environment, but it’s never really come up in conversation. It’s never really been candidly discussed amongst peers or naturally. (Harry)

Employee alignment with a company’s instrumental view of climate change may partly be explained by pluralistic ignorance, where a group majority suppress their opinion due to the false belief that it represents a minority view (Geiger and Swim, 2016). Organisational identity may reinforce pluralistic ignorance (Hahn et al., 2014). Organisational identity represents the central, enduring features of an organization, which are partly established through leadership communications and guide how employees interpret strategic issues.

In lieu of open conversation, participants interpreted personal consumption behaviours as signals of environmental concern. Angus noted some employees rode electric scooters to the office and suggested they did so to minimise their carbon footprints. Harry suggested the use of office teacups demonstrated people’s environmental awareness. Emily’s workplace actively promoted pro-environmental employee behaviour, providing branded keep cups. Through consumption behaviour, employees may signal environmental concern in a depoliticised way, as responsible consumption reproduces the social order that drives economic growth (Gunderson et al., 2020).

David, Harry, Emily, Jesse and Marlon acknowledged the issue of climate change in private conversations with trusted colleagues. These conversations were sometimes prompted by extreme weather, as Emily described, “At work lunches you’d raise something about floods, like ‘yep, it’s climate change, need to get it sorted’. So they’re more sort of informal, friendly discussions”. Here, the attribution of responsibility for addressing climate change is broad and vague. The reference to climate change seems to function as a thought-terminating cliché, stopping further discussion of the distressing issue of local floods.

Interviewees were reluctant to publicly discuss climate change for a number of reasons. Harry and Marlon suggested the issue of climate change was too political for the workplace and that it may cause friction or make people view them differently. David was particularly concerned that his superiors could hold contrary views, explaining that discussing climate change could be detrimental to his employment. Their accounts are consistent with research showing both reputational concerns and the threat of sanctions by an authority prompt workers to suppress judgements that could be considered deviant (Bitektine and Haack, 2015).

In contrast, Christian did not consider climate change a sensitive topic:

I’ve talked about it in say like, group meetings, within my team, and just said ‘yeah, like sure profit is important, yes the shareholder needs to be happy, but you can’t be happy if you’re six feet underwater.’ And the reaction was – people were concurring with the notion that yes, sure you can have all the money in the world, but a house made out of money isn’t very good underwater. […] I feel like it’s just something very easy to share. Although, understandably, this is much less political than other things to discuss or talk about, like Roe and Wade, for example.

Here, Christian contrasts the issue of climate change with the issue of abortion rights, which he considers more politically potent. He attributed the ease of his green voice to his company’s pro-environmental investment strategy and its openness to input from junior employees.

Framing climate change as a business opportunity also appeared to depoliticise it in the workplace context. Christian noted his company wants to “make a niche by saying we care about the future”. Felix and Harry discussed workplace experiences that expanded their knowledge of environmental issues. Through seminars, Harry learnt about the transformative potential of green technology. Felix now regularly discusses climate change implications with clients and boards. These accounts are consistent with findings that climate concern has become an accepted position within business, provided it aligns with a pro-market, profit-making agenda (Wright and Nyberg, 2014).

However, some participants suggested pro-environmental business initiatives were disingenuous or intrinsically flawed. This is explored in the next theme, where interviewees discuss emotional responses to the issue of climate change.

Frustration and alienation

Interviewees with less knowledge about climate change science expressed positive feelings about the future. Harry and Angus expressed feelings of hope and optimism about the future. Thomas’ frustration about the issue of climate change related to the demonisation of coal.

All other participants expressed feelings of worry and frustration about the future impacts of climate change. Jesse reported feeling “gloomy”. Christian thought the future looked “bleak”. Emily distanced herself from possible worst-case scenarios:

I’ve heard the extreme side of it, that the world will be burning, the icebergs are all going to be melted -we're all going to be swimming- so that, I don’t know if I trust that. That is quite daunting, so it makes me feel anxious for my grandchildren, great-grandchildren, because I don’t see it affecting me in the next 50 years as dramatically as what it could.

David similarly expressed, “I’m glad I’m not a teenager”. Participants appeared to make sense of climate change science in relation to their own capacity to accept potentially overwhelming information.

Often when people voiced their climate concern, they expressed frustration that others were failing to understand or address the issue properly:

Everyone sort of thinks it’s esoteric about droughts and floods, but when it’s happening in food bowls, that’s when it becomes quite a different story compared to when it’s happening in a residential area like Lismore. And that’s what really worries me. (Felix)

While Felix voiced frustration with people in general, Christian described how the lack of action from large corporations made him feel helpless. Marlon and David repeatedly expressed frustration about government inaction. David, Marlon, Christian and Emily also expressed frustration towards older generations.

Interviewees implied that workplaces could help ameliorate negative climate-related feelings. Christian noted his workplace’s approach helped him feel “more at peace with myself”. Thomas suggested that the coal industry should continue investing in green technology for employee wellbeing “If we know that we can reduce our harm and we’re not, and we’re mining the product anyway, I think that could socially and emotionally be a problem”.

Other interviewees expressed frustration about business initiatives that enabled people to “feel good” but may not have meaningful outcomes:

We’re seeing environmental policy, waste policies, recycling policies, bins […] Do they make much of a difference? I don’t know. As long as it doesn’t impact the product, we’re happy to do everything that makes everyone feel good. (Sam)

I mean, a lot of companies are doing [sustainability] as lip service to look good or attract customers or business, through that, but there needs to be a genuine movement. (Marlon)

I actually think globally, let’s say, a lot of the ESG [Environmental, Social, and Governance] initiatives are superficial. In my workplace we don’t talk about it […] That’s why I think people just do it for business, they don’t do it because they believe in it. (Jesse)

These interviewees grappled with feelings of frustration and alienation towards a system they felt was contributing to climate change but which they were also part of and beholden to. In the final theme, we discuss how this manifested in resignation towards corporations.

Corporations pursue profit above all

All interviewees expressed beliefs that corporations inevitably pursue and prioritise profit, underlining the hegemony of the instrumental approach to environmental issues. Christian noted “You have companies themselves who, I guess in a capitalist society, at the end of the day they’re choosing profit”. While Thomas reasoned, “I don’t believe that the [coal] mining will cease purely because of the economics behind it”.

Jesse and Angus spoke about the need for people in business to be educated about sustainability issues so that this knowledge will manifest in business decisions. Sam suggested that it was mindset, rather than knowledge, that stymied corporate responses to climate change “These are businesses running on, you know, numbers, not running on environmental beliefs. So unless we change that mindset, we’re not going to change”.

Contrary to the dominant business discourse that self-regulated markets can solve climate change through technology and innovation (Wright and Nyberg, 2014), all participants expressed beliefs that government policy needs to address climate change. Thomas, Christian, Jesse and Sam noted regulatory policies like a carbon tax should force corporations to act responsibly. Felix and Harry suggested governments should encourage responsible behaviour through incentives.

I believe the government should be made responsible. Politically speaking, I’m in favour of a small government, but I think ultimately when you do look at the net impact, I truly do believe it’s the government’s responsibility to set projections and also help firms and individuals reach those projections. (Harry)

In referencing the need for government policy, all participants implicitly acknowledged the failure of an unregulated market to adequately address the issue of climate change. Felix noted feeling disappointed that technology has not progressed quickly enough to make fossil fuel dependence obsolete. Belief in the potential of new technology has been used to explain fossil fuel investment vacillation (Wright and Nyberg, 2014).

General discussion

This paper used a systems thinking perspective to investigate how financial and professional services employees make sense of and respond to the issue of climate change in their workplace. Overall, our results suggest that the observed macrolevel business consensus of an instrumental approach to climate change may conceal a diversity of suppressed employee judgements.

Firstly, in the experimental study, we identified an attitude-behaviour gap regarding prohibitive green voice. PBC, social norms and biospheric values, but not attitudes, were significant predictors of prohibitive green voice. Being a middle manager was also significantly correlated with prohibitive green voice. However, senior managers were more likely to indicate climate scepticism.

The post-experimental interviews illuminated the thoughts, emotions and experiences that may underly these trends. While many interviewees understood the seriousness of climate change and the need for urgent action, most felt unable to publicly voice their concern at work due to norms and fears of reprisal. Rather than viewing themselves as agents capable of effecting change (Parag and Janda, 2014), many seemed to learn to displace their moral agency to organisational superiors (Moore and Gino, 2013). Senior managers, in turn, espoused frames suggesting that protecting the economy is the foremost objective. Consistent with existing research, climate denial appears to function as a strategy to maintain a positive self-image within a fossil-fuel-dependent economy (Norgaard, 2011). Our results suggest this may be supported by workplace cultures which, in most cases, appear to obscure the relevance of climate change.

Recommendations for organisations

These findings have implications for understanding work meaningfulness in relation to climate change. As reflected in our interviews, young people view climate concern as central to their generational identity and are increasingly choosing workplaces based on their perceived value match (Leslie et al., 2021). However, if employees come to view their company’s green rhetoric as inauthentic, they may experience alienation and demotivation (Bailey et al., 2017). One way to prevent this could be through policies that enhance employee participation in workplace decision-making.

Greater employee participatory mechanisms could further strengthen organisational responses to grand challenges like climate change (Ferraro et al., 2015). Systems thinking shows that the longer agents are immersed within a steady state, the more difficult it is for them to change (Eiler et al., 2017). As people remain in a system, they come to benefit from the way the system is entrenched. Our results support this, suggesting organisational leaders feel more inclined to preserve the status quo. Diverse perspectives, including those of junior employees, may allow groups of problem solvers to uncover innovative solutions to complex problems (Page, 2014). Our interviews suggest that the identified attitude-behaviour gap may partly be due to workers’ lack of knowledge about how to advance sustainability. Recruiting workers with demonstratable interest in climate mitigation may further improve organisational decision-making capability.

As more Australian companies commit to net-zero emissions targets (ACSI, 2022) workplace cultures that inhibit prohibitive green voice may present legal and financial risks. The Volkswagen emissions scandal, which led to the largest class-action settlement in history, is partly attributed to a workplace culture that lacked psychological safety (Edmondson, 2018). Here, employees felt unable to challenge the unrealistic emissions targets set by executives. Companies should invest in creating psychologically safe cultures where people feel supported to both express uncertainty and raise challenges about their company’s carbon mitigation strategy.

Recommendations for future research

The finding that anthropogenic climate change disbelief is entangled with position raises the question of whether people form this understanding as they move up the organisational hierarchy or if those who hold such views are more likely to seek and gain positions of power. While our qualitative findings suggest people may learn to be less environmentally focused as they progress in their career, this question requires further investigation.

Systems thinking shows that once an emerging state, like a shared opinion, reaches a critical point, the entire containing system will transform, shifting from one mode to another through a bifurcation (Richardson and Kallen, 2016). Network effects suggest leaders have a nonlinear influence on the uptake of opinions (Gibbons, 2015), with the potential to accelerate a company’s shift from an instrumental to an integrative approach to climate change. Considering the disproportionate influence of leaders, the psychosocial antecedents that precede executives who advance transformative climate mitigation agendas could be another topic of future research.

While the experimental study found middle managers expressed significantly higher prohibitive green voice intention compared with other positions, this finding did not converge with the qualitative data. Most mid-career interviewees suggested expressing green voice was somewhat futile. Our small middle manager qualitative sample may not represent the general experience. Alternately, research has identified that the TPB intention-behaviour gap is particularly pronounced for pro-environmental behaviours (Hassan et al., 2016). Middle managers may be more likely to express prohibitive green voice intention without actually practising this behaviour. Future research should seek to better understand the climate-related workplace experiences of middle managers, including the tactics adopted by those who are able to successfully maintain sustainability agendas.

Further studies could also investigate if the findings are replicable in different economic and cultural contexts. Research suggests financial workplace cultures discount moral discussion and are particularly market-focused (Suh et al., 2020). It is possible that in more people-oriented sectors, the identified attitude-behaviour gap would not be observed. It could similarly be informative to study financial and professional services employees in economies where the net-zero carbon emissions status is highly ambitious or already achieved (e.g. Bhutan, Uruguay and Finland; Climate Action Tracker, 2021) to understand and contrast how they make sense of climate change and the workplace.

Overall, the explanatory sequential mixed methods approach enhanced our understanding of the phenomena of Australian professional green voice behaviour. While the quantitative analysis revealed a green voice attitude-behaviour gap, the qualitative evidence deepened our understanding of how this gap may arise and persist within workplaces. This mixed-methods approach may be suitable for exploring other situations where individuals experience oppositional tension towards an encompassing structure.

Limitations in the present research

The study contained a number of limitations. Firstly, findings from this research should be interpreted with caution as the process used to recruit people had inherent self-selection bias. Although we attempted to obscure the purpose of our study through the vague descriptor “Sustainability in the Workplace”, it may nonetheless have been unappealing to individuals indifferent towards the environment, leading to an unrepresentative sample. A lack of expressed interest from female participants meant the qualitative sample was disproportionately male, so comparisons could not be made across gender. Our sectors of interest, selected in accordance with Markey et al. (2016), were somewhat heterogeneous. While this enabled a broad overview of the research topic, future research could examine the psychosocial antecedents of prohibitive green voice within sectors and workplaces more parsimoniously.

The study design also implies relationships between the findings from the experimental study and post-experimental interviews, but causation cannot be established. Experimental or longitudinal studies that test the causal associations between the factors observed in this study could address this shortcoming.

Conclusion

The IPCC’s call for rapid, transformational change in every sector to limit climate change to 1.5°C presents a challenge for change management scholars and practitioners, who understand that demands for change are often met with resistance from organisational leaders (Schein, 2010). Our findings suggest that even in companies staffed by knowledgeable, concerned professionals, individuals may create and maintain cultures that perpetuate questionable climate-related business decisions. As such, the macrolevel business consensus of an instrumental approach to climate change may conceal a diversity of suppressed employee judgements. In these circumstances, employees may experience feelings of alienation, frustration and cynicism towards their encompassing organisation. To both prevent this and encourage meaningful responses to the IPCC’s call, there is a need for practitioners to help leaders create workplaces where people are empowered to use green voice and seek out novel solutions.

Figures

Figure 1.

Overview of explanatory sequential study design

Figure 2.

Superordinate themes inferred from cross-case analysis

Table 1.

Anthropogenic climate change belief^a logistic regression

Variable	OR (95% CI)	p
Position (Employee = ref)
First-line manager	2.15 (0.25–0.59)	0.245
Middle manager	3.34 (0.79–14.16)	0.101
Senior manager	4.17 (1.17–14.86)	0.028
Politicsb	5.65 (2.04–15.66)	0.001
Age	1.00 (0.96–1.05)	0.936

Notes:

N = 206; OR = odds ratio; CI = confidence interval;

^a0 = agree; 1 = unsure or disagree;

^b0 = left; 1 = right

Source: Table by authors

Table 2.

Descriptive statistics and correlations for hierarchical regression variables

	Variable	M	SD	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10
1.	Prohibitive green voice	4.40	1.54
2.	Attitude	5.61	1.07	0.37***
3.	Social norms	5.39	1.15	0.37***	0.67***
4.	PBC	4.22	1.40	0.34***	0.45***	0.49***
5.	Biospheric values	5.87	0.92	0.30***	0.37***	0.29***	0.19*
6.	Job satisfaction	4.59	1.28	0.10	0.25***	0.29***	0.30***	0.08
7.	Tenure (years)	2.32	1.75	0.04	–0.01	–0.05	0.08	0.03	0.04
8.	Age	29.56	9.94	–0.04	–0.10	–0.05	0.18*	0.10	–0.03	0.57***
9.	Sexa	–	–	–0.03	–0.12	–0.16*	0.10	–0.13	–0.09	0.09	0.25**
10.	Positionb	1.47	0.90	0.14	0.01	–0.02	0.22**	0.06	0.11	0.54***	0.47***	0.08
11.	Politicsc	–	–	–0.11	–0.01	0.01	–0.01	–0.07	0.21**	–0.05	0.04	0.05	–0.07

Notes:

N = 166–174; Listwise deletion;

^a0 = female; 1 = male;

^b1 = employee; 2 = first-line manager; 3 = middle manager; 4 = senior manager;

^c0 = left, 1 = right

*

p < 0.05; **p < 0.01; ***p < 0.001

Source: Table by authors

Table 3.

Hierarchical regression of prohibitive green voice, TPB and biospheric values

Variable	Step 1		Step 2		Step 3
	B	SE	B	SE	B	SE
Intercept	4.70***	0.60	2.24**	0.77	1.25	0.61
Politics (Greens = ref)
Labour	–0.69*	0.33	–0.70*	0.30	–0.54	0.31
Coalition	–0.81*	0.38	–0.85*	0.35	–0.67	0.36
Other	–0.81*	0.34	–0.66*	0.31	–0.53	0.31
Position (Employee = ref)
First-line manager	0.64	0.38	0.44	0.36	0.43	0.35
Middle manager	1.66***	0.47	1.45***	0.44	1.51**	0.43
Senior manager	0.14	0.48	0.17	0.45	0.21	0.45
Age	–0.02	0.01	–0.02	0.01	–0.02*	0.01
Job satisfaction	0.17	0.09	–0.01	0.09	–0.02	0.09
Attitude			0.12	0.14	0.05	0.14
Social norms			0.31*	0.13	0.29*	0.13
PBC			0.19*	0.09	0.20*	0.09
Biospheric values					0.26*	0.13
Adjusted R2	0.09**		0.23***		0.25***

Notes:

N = 174; *p < 0.05; **p < 0.01; ***p < 0.001

Source: Table by authors

Table 4.

Interviewee demographics

Participant	Age	Work size	Climate change belief	Position	Gender
Thomas	44	250–499	Unsure	First-line manager	Male
Christian	26	1,000–2,500	Agree	Employee	Male
David	46	1–19	Agree	Employee	Male
Angus	42	20–49	Unsure	Middle manager	Male
Harry	27	2,500+	Unsure	First-line manager	Male
Marlon	37	2,500+	Agree	First-line manager	Male
Jesse	ND	ND	ND	Senior manager	Male
Emily	28	2,500+	Agree	Employee	Female
Sam	46	250–499	Agree	Middle manager	Male
Felix	ND	ND	ND	Senior manager	Male

Note:

ND = not disclosed

Source: Table by authors

Supplementary material

Supplementary material for this article can be found online