Culture, Behavior and Competencies in Relation to the Environment: Structural Analysis in a University ContextAbstract
This study explores how environmental concern, environmental competence, organizational citizenship for the environment, and pro-environmental behaviors are connected. Researchers used Partial Least Squares Path Modeling and analyzed 262 responses from professors, administrative staff, and students at the Universidade Federal do Piauí - UFPI (Federal University of Piauí). The findings show a positive link between environmental concern and environmental competence, and support the hypothesis that environmental competence is related to organizational citizenship for the environment. This finding supports the notion that personal knowledge and abilities in this field foster pro-environmental behavior. The study adds to our understanding of behavioral dynamics around sustainability, providing useful subsidies for both researchers and managers aiming to advance responsible environmental practices. It also encourages efforts to enhance environmental education within academic and professional development.
Keywords:
Sustainability; Education; Environmental; Organizational Citizenship; Educational Background
Resumo
O estudo investiga as relações entre preocupação ambiental, competência ambiental, cidadania organizacional para o meio ambiente e comportamentos pró-ambientais. Utilizou-se a técnica multivariada de Modelagem de Caminhos por Mínimos Quadrados Parciais (Partial Least Squares Path Modeling), com a análise de 262 respostas da Comunidade Acadêmica da Universidade Federal do Piauí, que inclui docentes, técnicos administrativos e discentes. Os resultados indicam uma relação positiva entre preocupação ambiental e competência ambiental, além de validar a hipótese de que a competência ambiental está associada à cidadania organizacional para o meio ambiente. Isso reforça a ideia de que o conhecimento e as habilidades individuais nessa área incentivam práticas pró-ambientais. Este estudo contribui para a compreensão das dinâmicas comportamentais relacionadas à sustentabilidade, oferecendo subsídios para pesquisadores e gestores que buscam promover práticas ambientalmente responsáveis, além de estimular ações voltadas para a educação ambiental na formação acadêmica e profissional.
Palavras-chave:
Sustentabilidade; Educação; Ambiental; Cidadania Organizacional; Formação Acadêmica
Resumen
Este estudio investiga las relaciones entre la preocupación ambiental, la competencia ambiental, la ciudadanía organizacional ambiental y los comportamientos proambientales. Se utilizó la técnica multivariante de Modelado de Rutas de Mínimos Cuadrados Parciales (MPC), analizando 262 respuestas de la Comunidad Académica de la Universidad Federal de Piauí, que incluye profesorado, personal administrativo y estudiantes. Los resultados indican una relación positiva entre la preocupación ambiental y la competencia ambiental, y validan la hipótesis de que la competencia ambiental está asociada con la ciudadanía organizacional ambiental. Esto refuerza la idea de que los conocimientos y las habilidades individuales en esta área fomentan prácticas proambientales. Este estudio contribuye a la comprensión de las dinámicas conductuales relacionadas con la sostenibilidad, ofreciendo subsidios para investigadores y gestores que buscan promover prácticas ambientalmente responsables, además de impulsar acciones de educación ambiental en la formación académica y profesional.
Palabras-clave:
Sostenibilidad; Educación; Ambiental; Ciudadanía Organizacional; Formación Académica
Introduction
Since the end of the 20th century, the interaction of humans with nature has affected the environment, causing significant environmental changes, such as the destruction of the ozone layer, global warming, and the extinction of animal species, among others (Pelegrini, 2006).
In light of increasing environmental degradation, social movements have highlighted socio-environmental issues in scientific forums and governmental meetings, such as the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment, held in 1972, which established the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), the Montreal Protocol in 1987, the Rio-92 Conference (Pelegrini, 2006), COP 1 (1995) in Berlin, COP 3 (1997) in Kyoto, Japan, and COP 26 (2021) in Glasgow, United Kingdom. These debates broaden the understanding of the relationship between humans and the environment. From this perspective, the UNEP Frontiers 2022 report emphasizes that a healthy society depends on a healthy environment (UNEP, 2022).
In this context, the educational sector plays a key role in encouraging learning processes that foster social values about environmental issues. It addresses problems such as the destruction of plant and animal life, pollution, and their effects on public health (Damiano; Resende; Arai; Ichiba, 2020). Developing a culture that prioritises environmental preservation is essential (Lima, 2009).
The United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization - UNESCO - initiated international debates on Environmental Education - EE, encouraging governments and civil society to discuss and promote practices for environmental protection (Barbieri; Silva, 2011). In Brazil, the legal framework for EE is Law No. 9795 of 1999, which addresses EE and establishes the Política Nacional de Educação Ambiental - PNEA (National Environmental Education Policy).
Despite progress in curriculum development, Saito et al. (2011) point out that a rigid, pragmatic focus on content often leads to generic strategies that lack connection to real-world contexts and environments. Ribeiro (2021) suggests that environmental education should deepen its understanding of students’ experiences, making practices aimed at environmental preservation more meaningful and fostering a culture that values the environment. In workplace settings, such a pro-environmental culture can help minimize harmful impacts from employee actions, especially when managers actively promote environmentally friendly behaviors, social norms, and attitudes (Blok, Wesselink, Studynka, & Kemp, 2015).
According to Levy and Marans (2012), pro-environmental behaviors are influenced by knowledge of the problems and procedures, and need to be supported by education. Universities are instigating agents of pro-environmental cultures (Blok et al, 2015; Callewaert; Marans; Shriberg, 2015; Levy; Marans, 2012; Ribeiro, 2021; Saito et al., 2011), based on the recognition of their capacity to analyze needs and supply in programs that include theoretical-practical integration of technical knowledge concerning environmental competence (Levy; Marans, 2012; Camacho Monar; Valdés Rodríguez, 2020).
Álvarez-García, García-Escudero, Salvà-Mut, and Calvo-Sastre (2019) conducted a study examining the relationship between personal and educational factors and the development of environmental competencies among undergraduate students enrolled in an Environmental Education (EE) course. Their findings indicated that the course content positively affected students’ levels of environmental awareness. In another study, Amérigo, García, and Côrtes (2017) investigated attitudes on environmental concern and pro-environmental behavior, assessing environmental concern across four dimensions: (a) apathy, (b) anthropocentrism, (c) connectivity, and (d) emotional affinity. Pro-environmental behavior was formed by the dimensions of: (a) energy efficiency and resource management; (b) waste management; and (c) green consumption (Amérigo, García, and Côrtes, 2017).
Still on the subject of studies, the Pedersn´s environmental competence scale, validated in Brazil by Andrade Júnior and Souza (2018), assessed aspects of an individual’s behavior in relation to the environment: (a) environmental awareness, (b) the individual’s skills for living outdoors; (c) the ability to orient oneself in unfamiliar environments; (d) knowledge of the environment in which one lives; (e) practical skills for dealing with the environment; (f) behavior directed towards the conservation of natural resources. In this context, Costa, Estivalete, and Andrade (2018, 2019) validated, in Brazil, the escala de Cidadania Organizacional (Organizational Citizenship scale), developed by Dekas (2010) and Dekas, Bauer, Welle et al. (2013), and the Cidadania Organizacional para o Meio Ambiente (Organizational Citizenship for the Environment), developed by Boiral and Paillé (2012).
A comprehensive understanding of the connections among environmental concern, pro-environmental behavior, environmental competence, and organizational citizenship for the environment can provide valuable insights into the development of a sustainable culture. Accordingly, this analysis seeks to examine the interplay between environmental behaviors and competencies.
Behaviors and Competencies Regarding the Environment
Sustainable, sustainability, and sustainable development (SD) terms have varying definitions, with the latter encompassing a broad spectrum of possibilities when environmental issues become the focus of the debate (Feil; Schreiber, 2017).
Sustainability is related to the consumption of natural resources without causing imbalance in ecosystems, which involves economic and socio-environmental aspects (Tagliapietra; Carniatto, 2019).
The sustainable development concept was formally introduced in 1987 through the World Commission on Environment and Development’s report “Our Common Future.” This report defined sustainable development as progress that satisfies current needs without hindering future generations from meeting theirs (Brundtland, 1987). More recent interpretations describe sustainable development as balancing economic growth with environmental protection, preserving cultural identity, and ensuring a good quality of life for all people (Tagliapietra; Carniatto, 2019).
Many organizations use the term “sustainable development” (SD) without fully comprehending the associated social issues, as they often do not engage with definitions that foster effective sustainability management (Munk; Galleli; Corrêa, 2016). Appreciating the complexity of SD as a conceptual field requires adaptability and careful interpretation, which in turn prompts critical discussions about the use of ‘sustainability’ within dynamic systems. This is particularly relevant as policies, perspectives, and values regarding both the planet and humanity continue to evolve, affecting the collective understanding of what is sustainable (Feil; Schreiber, 2017).
Acknowledging this reality comes before developing “environmental concern,” which refers to individuals’ awareness of the ecological impact resulting from significant consumption of natural resources and their sense of responsibility to adopt behaviors that help prevent depletion (Pinheiro, Souza, Campos, Costa, Silva, 2023).
According to Thompson and Barton (1994), there are at least two motivations that influence the predisposition to environmental concern during sustainable development mobilizations: anthropocentrism and ecocentrism. Both have positive attitudes towards the environment. The distinguishing factor lies in the underlying motivations that produce them.
Anthropocentrism positions humanity as the focal point of all natural relations, asserting that humans possess the authority to utilize natural resources according to their discretion (Silva & Mansur, 2023). In contrast, ecocentrism “situates the ecosystem at the core of environmental thought, integrating biotic and abiotic components and viewing this interconnected system as essential to the entirety of nature” (Silva & Mansur, 2020, p. 416).
From the confluence of production and organization and the relationship of human beings with the environment, the construction of space involves (re)cognizing nature, based on analyses of society and nature, considering the dynamics of their interactions mediated by human labor (Rodrigues; Leandro Neto; Carvalho, 2019). Thus, human behavior can be mobilized by social, political, and cultural contexts (Andrade Junior; Souza, 2018; Almeida; Scatena; Luz, 2017). In organizational contexts, for example, the reduction in the use of natural resources is frequently linked to economic issues, in terms of investments, returns, and profit (Garlet; Favarin; Beuron; Madruga; Terra; Borges, 2019).
There are two approaches in the field of behavior: (a) North American, centered on knowledge, skills, and attitudes together as human capabilities; (b) European, which expands to interpretations of the delimitation of competencies based on context (Fleury; Fleury, 2001; Andrade Júnior; Souza, 2018). Competency-based management aims to align management policies, organizational strategies, and individual aspirations with environmental conditions for a proactive approach (Vakola; Soderquis; Prastacos, 2007) considering (a) the competencies of the individuals that the organization is involved; (b) the dynamics of structure and resources, values, and culture; and (c) the external context to the organization (Munk et al., 2016).
With an emphasis on the importance of competent behaviors and meaningful contributions to sustainable development, one must consider whether it is feasible to reverse current environmental trends. This inquiry arises from the recognition that environmental degradation and improper use of natural resources are intrinsically linked to personal and societal habits. Within this framework, environmental competence serves as a basis for analyzing human actions, underscoring the accountability individuals hold towards the planet (Garlet, Favarin, Beuron, Madruga, Terra, & Borges, 2019). Gong, Li, Zhang, and Sun (2021) define environmental competence as the theoretical and practical capacity to interact appropriately with the environment.
According to Roczen (2011), environmental competence can be analyzed from the interactions between human skills and three main components: (a) ecological behavior; (b) environmental knowledge; and (c) pro-environmental motivation. In this context, positive ecological behavior reflects an inseparable concern between the environmental and the human. According to Pinheiro, Nascimento, and Oliveira (2022), ecological behavior can be described as a set of behaviors aimed at preserving nature through intentional and effective actions, based on the individual’s values, beliefs, and worldviews. Thus, environmental competence is related to personal factors, which include satisfaction and motivation to act with ecological responsibility, allowing the individual to interact with the environment with respect and a focus on preservation (Morval, 2007).
When assessing environmental competence, Gong et al. (2021) identified a positive correlation between participation in nature education and engagement in ecological conservation behaviors, further noting that informal learning contributes to the enhancement of environmental competence. Additionally, Camacho Monar and Valdés Rodríguez (2020) defined the student’s dedication to environmental preservation as a form of generic competence.
According to Yusliza, Amirudin, Rahadi, Nik Sarah Athirah, Ramayah, Muhammad, and Mokhlis (2020), human competence stems from individuals’ belief in their ability to take actions that enhance environmental quality. Casaló and Escario (2018) define pro-environmental behavior as intentional, purposeful, and consistent actions aimed at preserving the environment. Furthermore, Tabernero and Hernández (2011) found that perceptions of effectiveness significantly influence an individual’s intention to engage in pro-environmental behaviors, illustrating a positive correlation between environmental competence and such behaviors.
Khan and Terason’s (2022) study is notable for examining pro-environmental behavior as it relates to sustainability. Using a scale adapted from Blok et al. (2015), they confirmed that both pro-environmental behavior and green organizational culture have a significant impact, particularly in terms of the moderating effect of green organizational culture.
While many studies focus on family behavior, Blok et al. (2015) proposed evaluating pro-environmental behavior in the workplace. After testing university employees in the Netherlands, researchers found that planned behavior theory can be used to explain pro-environmental behavior in the work environment.
Environmental Citizenship Behavior
Citizenship as a historical construct has undergone numerous transformations in its characteristics; among these, in a modern sense, is the redesign of the relationship between the individual and the environment (Grubba; Pellenz; Bastiani; 2017), encompassing new meanings permeated, for example, by the notion of fundamental rights (Cortina, 2005). The environmental issue lends unparalleled importance to citizenship as a common sentiment among individuals based on behavioral action (Grubba et al., 2017).
Therefore, implementing effective measures is essential to facilitate a comprehensive experience of environmental citizenship, as it represents a construct closely linked to the planet’s current condition and extends beyond individual actions (Ferrer, 2012). The realization of such measures may be approached through educational initiatives that foster the internalization of ethical values, assign responsibility, promote respect for nature, and encourage environmental preservation (Boiral & Paillé, 2012; Grubba et al., 2017).
These actions are defined as organizational citizenship for the environment, which are voluntary behaviors aimed at improving attitudes that reduce environmental impacts (Costa; Estivalete; Andrade, 2022). In this context, Boiral (2009) uses six categories of analysis, based on Organ et al. (2006), to understand organizational citizenship for the environment, which include: a) altruism towards the environment; b) acceptance and positive attitude towards the environment and implementation of environmental procedures; c) adherence to pro-environmental policies and objectives; d) participation in environmental activities; and, e) acquisition and development of pro-environmental skills.
The categories of analysis outlined encompass significant environmental attitudes and behaviors that have positive implications for both society and organizations, thereby enhancing environmental management (Boiral; Paillé, 2012; Boiral, 2009). The values that individuals hold regarding themselves, their families, or communities, as well as plants or animals, foster environmental concern (Daily; Bishop; Govindarajulu, 2009), which is recognized in the literature as an attitude that precedes behavior (Schultz, 2001). According to Daily et al. (2009), individuals who demonstrate a pronounced commitment to environmental issues are more likely to translate this concern into environmentally oriented organizational citizenship behaviors within the workplace. Consequently, environmental concern serves as a positive driver for organizational citizenship related to environmental initiatives.
Organizational citizenship behavior focused on the environment has a positive relationship with environmental performance (Daily et al., 2009). Individuals who develop environmental competence use their knowledge to promote substantial changes with an attitude of ethical commitment and results that favor their personal development and that of society (Camacho Monar; Valdés Rodríguez, 2020), attesting that this action positively influences organizational citizenship towards the environment.
Xiang and Yang (2020) examined what affects green organizational citizenship behavior. They suggested that green human resource management practices boost employees’ identification with their organization, which in turn encourages green organizational citizenship behaviors. As described by Boiral (2009), these behaviors involve employees voluntarily taking part in pro-environmental actions.
At this point, the following research hypotheses are formulated:
H1: Environmental concern positively influences environmental competence.
H2: Environmental concern positively influences organizational citizenship toward the environment.
H3: Environmental competence positively influences organizational citizenship toward the environment.
H4: Environmental competence positively influences pro-environmental behaviors.
H5: Organizational citizenship for the environment positively influences pro-environmental behaviors.
Research methodology
To investigate the relationships among environmental concern, environmental competence, organizational citizenship for the environment, and pro-environmental behaviors, a quantitative study was undertaken, given the purpose of describing and inferring relationships through hypothesis testing, based on structural analysis (Hair; Hult; Ringle; Sarstedt, 2014). The measure of environmental concern, referenced by Amérigo, García and Côrtes (2017) - consisting of 4 dimensions, where 3 were considered (with all items): Anthropocentrism, Connectivity and Emotional Affinity - the Environmental Apathy dimension was removed, as the construct was not essential for understanding the phenomena investigated. For modeling pro-environmental behavior, based on Amérigo, García, and Côrtes (2017), the three dimensions (with all items) were used: Energy Efficiency and Resource Management, Waste Management, and Ecological Consumption. For the Environmental Competencies construct, the Pedersen Scale, validated by Andrade Júnior and Souza (2018), was used in its two dimensions (Awareness and Conservation) with all items. In the Citizenship construct, all items from the Boiral scale (2009), adapted in Brazil by Costa et al. (2018), were used.
Data collection and analysis procedures
The instruments were applied to 262 respondents from the academic community (faculty and administrative staff in education - including all positions, according to Law 11091/2005 - and undergraduate and graduate students) of the Universidade Federal do Piauí - UFPI (Federal University of Piauí), from the Teresina, Picos, Floriano and Bom Jesus campi, remotely (via Google Forms), between June 1st and 30th, 2023.
Regarding the respondents’ profile, 64% identify themselves as male and 36% as female. When asked about their marital status, the percentages obtained were: single 72%, married 23%, in a stable union 2%, widowed 3%, and other 1%. In terms of education, the breakdown is as follows: 8% completed elementary school, 47% have incomplete high school education, 9% completed high school, 26% have incomplete higher education, and 10% have a specialization level.
The research hypotheses were assessed using a structural model, estimated by the Partial Least Squares Path Modeling [PLS-PM] method, chosen for its ability to test relationships among latent variables without assuming multivariate normality (Hair Jr. et al., 2014), and also suitable for studies’ exploratory methods (Chin; Newsted, 1999). For the analysis, the PLS software was used in the SmartPLS® software (v. 3.2.9). Regarding the questionnaires, the preliminary analysis indicated the existence of missing values, which were addressed by imputing the mean of each variable, up to a maximum of 5% of the sample (Hair Jr. et al., 2014).
The statistical criteria of sample quality were analyzed using the G*Power software, version 3.1.9.2, as suggested by Hair et al. (2017). To analyze the effect size, which represents the degree of deviation from the null hypothesis (Cohen, 1977), the higher this value, the greater the degree to which the phenomenon under study is manifested. Post hoc, Linear Multiple Regression: fixed model, R2 deviation from zero, from the F-test family tests were performed considering a sample of 195 respondents.
Parameters - t tests - Linear multiple regression: fixed model, single regression coefficient; Analysis - post hoc: compute achieved power; Tail(s) - one; effect size - 0.35; β err prob - 0.005; total sample size - 262; number of predictors - 2; noncentrality parameter - 9.5760; critical t - 1.6507; Df - 259; Power (1-β err prob) - 1,000
The analysis used verifies whether the null hypothesis assumes the condition that the R2 value is equal to zero or whether the alternative hypothesis assumes that R2 is different from zero. For this purpose, the power parameters of the effect f2: 35% (large) were assumed, with a significance of 5%, and the number of predictors equal to 1 (represented by the largest number of structural arrows reaching a latent variable), to analyze power (1 - β err prob).
Using these parameters, they resulted in a power (1 - β error prob) equal to 1 (100%), with a Critical F of 1.6527, a noncentrality parameter of 8.261, and a df denominator of 193. For the collected sample, the statistical indicators reveal both the adequacy and sufficiency of the sample for conducting the research (Faul et al., 2007). Furthermore, considering the recommendation for a sample meeting the criterion of 5 to 10 participants per observed variable (Bentler; Chou, 1987), the sample is sufficient for the research.
Presentation of Findings
The structural equation modeling proposed for analyzing the relationships follows a two-step approach, as defined by Souza Bido and Silva (2019): (i) Confirmatory Component Analysis (CCA), to evaluate the measurement model of the Latent Variables (LV), the validity and reliability of the research constructs through correlations among the LVs (factor loadings) (Hair Jr; Hult; Ringle; Sarstedt, 2016), and obtaining factor scores; and (ii) Structural Model Analysis (SMA), including the structural relationships (hypotheses). Thus, Table 1 was extracted, which reports indicators for evaluating the CCA and SMA measurement model, respectively, through validity (convergent and discriminant) and reliability (alpha and composite).
Considering the findings presented in Table 1, the analysis standards are considered according to the criteria of Fornell and Larcker (1981) for Discriminant Validity (²√ AVE > Pearson correlations between constructs), AVE> 0.50; and Reliability composite with values 0.7<RC<0.95 estimated by the LVs, considered satisfactory (Hair et al. 2014).
Regarding Cronbach’s Alpha, the evaluation considers the readings of Cho and Kim (2015), Streiner (2003), and Hair et al. (2009) regarding the influence of the number of items on the indicator, as well as weighting in relation to the increase in alpha with the removal of items, since this can reduce reliability and criterion validity. Thus, for the study, alpha 0.597 (LV - EnergyEfficiency), alpha 0.599 (LV - ResidentialManagement), alpha 0.569 (LV - PROEnvironmentalCompliance), alpha 0.583 (EnvironmentalCompetence), and alpha 0.517 (VL - EnvironmentalConcern) were considered, due to their relevance to the research and proximity to Streiner’s (2003) recommendations, considering Nunnally’s (1967) suggestion for an alpha between 0.5 and 0.6 in exploratory studies.
For the remaining LVs, Table 1 shows that the proposed criteria were met, suggesting an analysis of discriminant validity using the factor loading matrix, considering the suggestion of Hair Jr., Hult, Ringle and Sarstedt (2017), to consider loadings between 0.60 and 0.70 acceptable, while loadings between 0.40 and 0.60 need to be evaluated based on a reasoned decision.
As shown in Table 2, the factor loadings (in bold) are greater than the cross-loadings (‘off the diagonal’ loadings). Note also that only the Latent Variable Citizenship should be considered in the Table, while the others are of second order.
Next, Figure 2 presents the structural model with the relationships (hypotheses) estimated based on the PLS algorithm and bootstrapping modules.
In the structural model, hypotheses 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 were evaluated using the path diagram, allowing for their acceptance or rejection. Before evaluating the model’s R², the hypothesized relationships (Figure 2) were tested to verify the significance of the standardized coefficients (path coefficients) using the Bootstrapping procedure (resampling technique) in SmartPLS with 5000 samples involving 18 variables. For this purpose, values above 1.96 for the Student’s t-test, standard error (|O/STDEV|), and p-value less than or equal to 0.05 were considered significant.
The following table reports the significance statistics of the investigated relationships, relative importance, and predictive capacity of the tested model:
To assess the significance of the hypothesized relationships using the bootstrapping procedure, the significance of the standardized coefficient (β = path coefficient) was determined. For t-tests > 1.96 and p-value < 0.05, the relationships are significant. Thus, it was found that hypotheses H1+, H2+, H3+, H4+, and H5+ presented a positive and significant coefficient (at the 1% level, p-value < 0.01), supporting them in the structural model proposed for this study.
The explanatory capacity of the model, according to the significance test of the hypothesized relationships, considering the structural coefficient (R2), with values ranging from 0 to 1, represented by R2=2%, a small effect, R2=13%, a average effect, and R2=26%, a large effect (Cohen, 1988), can be appreciated as follows: it is observed that the effect of the ‘EnvironmentalConcern>EnvironmentalCompetence’ relationship is considered small (R2=11.3%); of the ‘EnvironmentalCitizenship>PRO-Environmental Compliance’ and ‘EnvironmentalCompetence>PRO-Environmental Compliance’ relationships, are considered large (R2=47.5%); of the relationship ‘EnvironmentalCompetence>EnvironmentalCitizenship’ and ‘EnvironmentalConcern>EnvironmentalCitizenship’ relationships, are also considered large (R2=44.0%).
Subsequently, the blindfolding test indicates the predictive capacity of the tested model, assuming Q2 indicators above zero as a reference. Table 3 presents the predictive relevance indicators (Q2), or Stoner-Geisser criterion, which evaluates the accuracy of the model and the usefulness of the construct (f2) in the formation of the proposed model. It is emphasized that the f2 indicators signal the usefulness of the construct in the formation of the model, aiming to verify if the omission of the construct would result in a significant change in the coefficient of determination of the model (R2). The effect size (f2) considers the values 0.02 (low usefulness), 0.15 (average usefulness) and 0.35 (high usefulness) (f2 = R2/(1- R2) (Cohen, 1977).
According to Table 3, it can be observed that the predictors ‘PRO-Environmental Compliance ‘ (f2 =0.100), ‘EnvironmentalCompetence’ (f2 =0.157) and ‘EnvironmentalConcern’ (f2 =0.209) have average utility, and the predictor ‘EnvironmentalCitizenship’ (f2 =0.518) has high utility, or a predictive effect, being the most representative of the model.
Regarding the cross-validation of construct redundancy, also obtained by the Blindfolding module in SmartPLS, the predictive capacity of the model (Q2), or Stone-Geisser indicator, was obtained, in which the perfect model can be observed through Q2=1, as defined by Hair Jr. et al. (2014).
While Table 3 presents predictive relevance values (Q2>0), the predictive accuracy of the study model is considered satisfactory, meeting the criteria established by Hair Jr. et al. (2014) regarding the evaluation of the model’s predictive relevance. Thus, considering the f2 and Q² indicators, it is understood that the model has accuracy and that the constructs are important for the overall fit of the model.
Discussion of Findings
Hypothesis 1 (H1) states that there is a positive link between environmental concern and environmental competence. The data confirmed H1, showing that people who demonstrate pro-environmental behaviors are likely to develop related competencies. This outcome supports the idea that sustainable attitudes and actions help foster environmental skills and knowledge. Additionally, these findings are consistent with Roczen’s (2011) framework, which analyzes the connections between human skills, ecological behavior, environmental knowledge, and motivation toward pro-environmental activities.
Hypothesis 2 (H2) suggests that concern for the environment leads to more organizational citizenship behaviours related to sustainability. The research supports H2, showing that people who care about the environment are more likely to take positive action for sustainability at work. Environmental concern-shaped by one’s values toward oneself, their communities, and nature-echoes findings by Daily et al. (2009), who note that those with strong environmental awareness often show dedication to environmentally friendly actions within organizations. Multiple studies, including Grubba et al. (2017), consistently confirm that such values translate into real workplace behaviours supporting sustainability.
The empirical evidence also corroborates hypothesis 3 (H3), which posits that environmental competence has a positive effect on organizational citizenship behavior directed toward the environment. These findings indicate that proficiency in environmental knowledge and skills can motivate employees to undertake actions that support workplace environmental preservation. This supports the perspective that an individual’s capacity to comprehend and address environmental issues makes a substantial contribution to engagement in practices that benefit both the organization and society at large, consistent with the conclusions of Daily et al. (2009) and Camacho Monar and Valdés Rodríguez (2020).
For hypothesis 4 (H4), which proposed that environmental competence would positively influence pro-environment behaviors, the findings support this prediction as they reveal a connection between environmental competence and environmentally friendly actions. This outcome highlights the potential impact of environmental education and awareness on encouraging sustainable behaviors.
The relationship between education and the advancement of sustainable practices is well established, as evidenced by H4. Damiano et al. (2020) assign to the educational sector the responsibility of fostering awareness regarding environmental issues, emphasizing the necessity of cultivating a culture dedicated to conservation and preservation (Lima, 2009). Bizarria, Oliveira, Barbosa, and Oliveira (2023) highlight that there is “an emerging debate about the relationship between man and the environment, in which the educational/formative process broadens conceptions about historical and cultural nuances” (p. 183). Individuals tend to prioritize matters they perceive as relevant, which are often shaped by their accumulated knowledge and experiences. Furthermore, Álvarez-García et al. (2019) found that students enrolled in degree programs incorporating environmental education exhibited higher levels of awareness and environmental responsibility.
Hypothesis 5 (H5) predicted a positive link between organizational citizenship for the environment and pro-environmental behaviors, and the findings support this idea. When employees actively participate in environmental efforts within their organization, they are more likely to practice environmentally friendly behaviors. These findings imply that sustainability initiatives run by organizations can encourage staff to adopt greener habits.
The results of this study contribute to a broader understanding of the interactions among environmental concern, environmental competence, organizational citizenship, and pro-environmental behaviors, providing support for organizational practices aimed at sustainability, as well as encouraging actions related to Environmental Education (EE) in the academic training of university students.
Conclusions
This study conducted an empirical examination of the interconnections among environmental concern, pro-environmental behavior, environmental competencies, and organizational citizenship for the environment, thereby contributing to further analysis of sustainable culture. The findings underscore the significance of implementing organizational strategies that enhance environmental concern and build environmental competencies within the workforce. Integrating these factors can not only positively influence individual environmental behaviors but also reinforce organizational citizenship for the environment.
Moreover, highlighting environmental competence as a key factor in encouraging pro-environmental behaviors indicates that educational initiatives and job training can greatly contribute to fostering sustainable actions.
While the findings indicate notable connections between the constructs, human and organizational interactions are complex and may be affected by other influences. Future studies might examine additional factors-like professional background or lifelong environmental relationships-to offer deeper insights into ecological behavior and various contexts, achieving a fuller and more nuanced understanding of these dynamics.
The study has several limitations. First, the sample only included members of the academic community-teaching staff, administrative employees, and both undergraduate and graduate students-so the findings may not apply to other types of organizations. Second, collecting data remotely through Google Forms could have affected how well participants understood the questions and how honestly they answered, due to the absence of face-to-face interaction. Lastly, the decision to exclude the Environmental Apathy dimension when measuring environmental concern may have limited the depth of the analysis regarding participants’ views on environmental concerns.
Another important consideration pertains to the selection of the PLS-PM method, which, while appropriate for exploratory research, exhibits sensitivity to sample size. This underscores the necessity for prudent interpretation of findings, given the method’s responsiveness to variations in sample sizes. Moreover, as the study employs a cross-sectional design, it cannot establish causality among the constructs, limiting findings to establishing associations. Future longitudinal research could yield deeper insights into the temporal dynamics underlying these relationships.
Future research is recommended to increase sample diversity by incorporating various social sectors and employing longitudinal methodologies to substantiate and expand upon the present findings. These strategies are essential for enhancing the reliability and relevance of the conclusions, thereby providing a stronger foundation for policy development and practices concerning environmental sustainability across diverse settings.
References
- ALMEIDA, R.; SCATENA, L. M.; LUZ, M. S. da Environmental perception and public policies - dichotomy and challenges to the development of a sustainability culture, Ambiente & Sociedade, v. 20, n. 01, p. 43-64. 2017.
- ÁLVAREZ-GARCÍA, O.; GARCÍA-ESCUDERO, L. Á.; SALVÀ-MUT, F.; CALVO-SASTRE, A. Variables influencing pre-service teacher training in education for sustainable development: A case study of two Spanish universities. Sustainability, v. 11, n. 16, p. 4412. 2019.
- AMÉRIGO, M.; GARCÍA, J. A.; CÔRTES, Pedro L. Analysis of environmental attitudes and behaviors: an exploratory study with a sample of Brazilian university students. This study is part of a research project funded by the Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness of Spain (PSI2010-17534). Ambiente & Sociedade v.v20, n. 03. 2017.
-
ANDRADE, T. De; ESTIVALETE, V. F. B.; COSTA, V. F. Comportamento de cidadania organizacional: versão brasileira da escala Comportamentos de Cidadania Organizacional para Trabalhadores do Conhecimento. Cadernos EBAPE.BR. 16. 367-381. 10.1590/1679-395164088, 2018.
» https://doi.org/10.1590/1679-395164088 - BARBIERI, J. C.; SILVA, D. D. Desenvolvimento sustentável e educação ambiental: uma trajetória comum com muitos desafios. RAM. Revista de Administração Mackenzie, v. 12, p. 51-82. 2011.
- BENTLER, P. M.; CHOU, C. P. Practical issues in structural modeling. Sociological methods & research, v. 16, n. 1, p. 78-117. 1987.
- BIZARRIA, F. P. de A.; OLIVEIRA, B. G. de; BARBOSA, F. L. S.; OLIVEIRA, M. S. Da Educação Ambiental crítica à Educação Ambiental decolonial: revisando concepções em narrativas à luz da racionalidade ambiental. Revista Brasileira De Educação Ambiental (RevBEA), v. 18, n. 3, p. 172-195. 2023.
- BLOK, V.; WESSELINK, R.; STUDYNKA, O.; KEMP, R. G. M. Encouraging sustainability in the workplace: a survey on the pro-environmental behaviour of university employees. Journal of Cleaner Production, v. 106, p. 55-67. 2015.
- BOIRAL, O.; PAILLÉ, P. Organizational citizenship behaviour for the environment: Measurement and validation. Journal of business ethics, v. 109, p. 431-445. 2012.
- BOIRAL, O. Greening the corporation through organizational citizenship behaviors. Journal of Business Ethics, v. 87, p. 221-236. 2009.
- BRASIL. Lei 9795. Política Nacional de Educação Ambiental. Diário Oficial da República Federativa do Brasil, Brasília, DF, 27 abr. 1999.
- BRUNTLAND, G. H. (Ed.). Our Common Future: The World Commission on Environment and Development. Oxford: Oxford University Press, p. 398, 1987.
- CALLEWAERT, J., MARANS, R.W., SHRIBERG, M. Advancing a Culture of Sustainability at the University of Michigan. In: Leal Filho, W., Muthu, N., Edwin, G., Sima, M. (eds) Implementing Campus Greening Initiatives. World Sustainability Series. Springer, Cham. 2015.
- CAMACHO MONAR, M. A.; VALDÉS RODRÍGUEZ, M. C. Una perspectiva filosófica y sociológica de la competencia profesional ambiental en la educación superior. Revista Fuentes, v. 22, n. 2, p. 251-260. 2020.
- CASALÓ, Luis V.; ESCARIO, José-Julián. Heterogeneity in the association between environmental attitudes and pro-environmental behavior: A multilevel regression approach. Journal of Cleaner Production, v. 175, p. 155-163, 2018.
- CHIN, W. W.; NEWSTED, P. R. Structural equation modeling analysis with small samples using partial least squares. Statistical strategies for small sample research, v. 1, n. 1, p. 307-341. 1999.
- CHO, E.; KIM, S. “Cronbach’s Coefficient Alpha.” Organizational Research Method, v. 18, n. 2, p. 207-30. 2015.
- COHEN, J. Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (revised ed.). 1977.
- COHEN, J. Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Hillsdale: Erlbaum, 1988.
- CORTINA, A. Cidadãos do mundo: para uma teoria da cidadania. Tradução de Silvana Cobucci Leite. São Paulo: Loyola. 2005.
- COSTA, V. F.; ESTIVALETE, V. F. B.; ANDRADE, T. De. Escala de Comportamento de Cidadania Organizacional para o Meio Ambiente: Tradução, adaptação transcultural e validação para o contexto brasileiro. Revista de Ciências da Administração, v. 24, n. 63, 2022.
- COSTA, V. F.; ESTIVALETE, V. F. B.; ANDRADE, T. De. Tradução e adaptação transcultural para o contexto brasileiro da Escala de Comportamento de Cidadania Organizacional para o Meio Ambiente: um percurso metodológico qualitativo. Atas - Investigação Qualitativa em Ciências Sociais/Investigación Cualitativa en Ciencias Sociales. v. n. 3. 2019.
- DAMIANO, M.; RESENDE, M. O. de O.; ARAI, J. N.; ICHIBA, R. B. A preservação do meio ambiente: um desafio social, ético e global na educação. Educação Ambiental (Brasil), v.1, n.3, p.10-17. 2020.
- DEKAS, K. H. Citizenship in context: investigating the effects of work group climate on organizational citizenship perceptions and behavior (Doctoral dissertation, University of Michigan). 2010.
- DEKAS, K. H.; BAUER, T. N.; WELLE, B.; KURKOSKI, J.; SULLIVAN, S. Organizational citizenship behavior, version 2.0: A review and qualitative investigation of OCBs for knowledge workers at Google and beyond. Academy of Management Perspectives, v. 27, n. 3, p. 219-237. 2013.
- DAILY, B. F.; BISHOP, J. W.; GOVINDARAJULU, N. A Conceptual Model for Organizational Citizenship Behavior Directed Toward the Environment. Business & Society, v. 48, n. 2, p. 243-256. 2009.
- FAUL, F.; ERDFELDER, E.; LANG, A.G;; BUCHNER, A. G* Power 3: Um programa flexível de análise de poder estatístico para as ciências sociais, comportamentais e biomédicas. Métodos de pesquisa do comportamento, v. 39, n. 2, p. 175-191. 2007.
- FERRER, G. R. Sostenibilidad, transnacionalidad y trasformaciones del Derecho. Revista del Derecho Ambiental. El Instituto el Derecho por um Planeta Verde Argentina, n. 32, p. 65-82. 2012.
- FEIL, A. A.; SCHREIBER, D. Sustentabilidade e desenvolvimento sustentável: desvendando as sobreposições e alcances de seus significados. Cadernos Ebape. BR, v. 15, p. 667-681. 2017.
- FLEURY, M. T.; FLEURY, A. Construindo o Conceito de Competência. RAC: edição especial: p. 183-196, São Paulo. 2001.
- FORNELL, C.; LARCKER, D. F. Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of marketing research, v. 18, n. 1, p. 39-50. 1981.
- GARLET, V., FAVARIN, R. R., BEURON, T. A., MADRUGA, L. R. R. G., TERRA, C. C. F., BORGES, G. R et al. Correlações entre Comportamentos e Competências: A Busca de uma Universidade Verde. GESTÃO.Org - Revista Eletrônica de Gestão Organizacional, v. 17, n. 1, p. 73-87. 2019.
- GONG, Y.; LI, Y.; ZHANG, L.; SUN, Y. Informal learning in nature education promotes ecological conservation behaviors of nature reserve employees - A preliminary study in China. Global Ecology and Conservation, v. 31, e01814. 2021.
- GRUBBA, L. S.; PELLENZ, M. De.; BASTIANI, A. C. B. Cidadania ambiental: fundamentos éticos para uma sociedade sustentável. Revista Direito Ambiental e sociedade, Caxias do Sul, v.7, n.3, p. 7-29. set./dez. 2017.
- HAIR, J. F.; BLACK, W. C.; BABIN, B. J.; ANDERSON, R. E.; TATHAM, R. L. Análise multivariada de dados. Bookman editora. 2009.
- HAIR, J.; HULT, T.; RINGLE, C.; SARSTEDT, M. A Primer on Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc., 2014.
- HAIR, J. F.; HULT, G. T. M.; RINGLE, C. M.; SARSTEDT, M. A Primer on Partial Least Squares Structural. Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM). 2016.
- HAIR, J.F.; HULT, G.T.M.; RINGLE, C.M.; SARSTEDT, M. A Primer on Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM). 2nd Edition, Sage Publications Inc., Thousand Oaks, CA. 2017.
- KHAN, M. S.; TERASON, S. Encouraging pro-environmental behavior in university employees: An approach toward environmental sustainability as moderated by green organizational culture. Journal of Community Psychology, v. 50, n. 3, p. 1454-1469. 2022.
- LEVY, B.L.M.; MARANS, R.W. Towards a campus culture of environmental sustainability: Recommendations for a large university, International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, Vol. 13 No. 4, pp. 365 377. 2012.
- LIMA, G. F. D. C. Educação ambiental crítica: do socioambientalismo às sociedades sustentáveis. Educação e Pesquisa, v. 35, n. 01, p. 145-163. 2009.
- MORVAL, J. Psicologia Ambiental. Coleção Epigénese, desenvolvimento e psicologia; Lisboa: Instituto Piaget. 2007.
- MUNK, L.; GALLELI, B.; CORRÊA, H, L. Gestão da sustentabilidade ambiental: a perspectiva das competências. Pretexto, v. 17, n. 3, p. 58-74. 2016.
- NUNNALLY, J. C. Psychometric theory. New York: McGraw-Hill. 1967.
- ORGAN, D., PODSAKOFF, P.; MACKENZIE, S. Organizational Citizenship Behavior: Its Nature, Antecedents, and Consequences (Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA). 2006.
- PELEGRINI, S. C. A. Cultura e natureza: os desafios das práticas preservacionistas na esfera do patrimônio cultural e ambiental. Revista Brasileira de História, v. 26, n. 51, p. 115-140. 2006.
-
PINHEIRO, L. V. de S.; NASCIMENTO, J. C. H. B.; OLIVEIRA, T. S. Comportamento ecológico em tempos de (in)sustentabilidade:: indicadores ambientais em estudantes de administração. REUNIR Revista de Administração Contabilidade e Sustentabilidade, [S. l.], v. 11, n. 2, p. 33-41, 2022. Disponível em: https://reunir.revistas.ufcg.edu.br/index.php/uacc/article/view/1003 Acesso em: 3 out. 2024.
» https://reunir.revistas.ufcg.edu.br/index.php/uacc/article/view/1003 -
PINHEIRO, M. M. A.; SOUZA, J. C. V. de; CAMPOS, P. de O.; COSTA, C. S. R.; SILVA, M. J. de B. A Relação entre Preocupação Ambiental e Disposição em Pagar um Preço Premium na Intenção de Compra de Alimentos Orgânicos Industrializados . Revista Ciências Administrativas, [S. l.], v. 29, 2023. DOI: 10.5020/2318-0722.2023.29.e13495. Disponível em: https://ojs.unifor.br/rca/article/view/13495 Acesso em: 1 out. 2024.
» https://doi.org/10.5020/2318-0722.2023.29.e13495» https://ojs.unifor.br/rca/article/view/13495 - PNUMA - Programa das Nações Unidas para o Meio Ambiente. Noise, Blazes and Mismatches EMERGING ISSUES OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERN. Relatório Fronteiras, 2022.
- RIBEIRO, F.C. Uma proposta pedagógica sobre Educação Ambiental e currículo para as escolas da Amazônia. Educação Ambiental (Brasil), v. 2, n. 2, p. 38-61. 2021.
- ROCZEN, N. The interplay between connection with nature and environmental knowledge in promoting ecological behavior. Phd thesis. Eindhoven, Germany. 2011.
- RODRIGUES, T. A.; LEANDRO NETO, J.; CARVALHO, A. V. Ambiente e espacialidade social: construtividade sob a crítica da função ser humano e natureza no enfrentamento da questão ambiental. Nature and Conservation, v. 12, n. 2, p. 96-103. 2019.
- SAITO, C. H. et al. Conflitos socioambientais, educação ambiental e participação social na gestão ambiental. Sustentabilidade em Debate, Brasília, v. 2, n. 1, p. 121-138, jan./jun. 2011.
-
SCHULTZ, P. W. The Structure of Environmental Concern: Concern for Self, Other People, and the Biosphere. Journal of Environmental Psychology, [S. l.], v. 21, n. 4, p. 327-339, 2001. Disponível em: https://doi.org/10.1006/jevp.2001.0227
» https://doi.org/10.1006/jevp.2001.0227 -
SILVA, Matheus Lisboa Nobre da; MANSUR, Kátia Leite. Valor ecocêntrico da geodiversidade em geossítios do Projeto Geoparque Costões e Lagunas, RJ. Geologia USP. Série Científica, São Paulo, Brasil, v. 23, n. 2, p. 165-179, 2023. DOI: 10.11606/issn.2316-9095.v23-204644. Disponível em: https://www.revistas.usp.br/guspsc/article/view/218969. Acesso em: 3 out. 2024.
» https://doi.org/10.11606/issn.2316-9095.v23-204644» https://www.revistas.usp.br/guspsc/article/view/218969 - SILVA, Matheus Lisboa Nobre da; MANSUR, Kátia Leite. Ecocentrismo e sua Aplicabilidade em Estudos da Geodiversidade. Anuario do Instituto de Geociencias, v. 43, n. 3, 2020.
- SOUZA BIDO, D.; SILVA, D. da. SmartPLS 3: especificação, estimação, avaliação e relato. Administração: Ensino e Pesquisa, v. 20, n. 2, p. 488-536, 2019.
- STREINER, D.L. Starting at the beginning: an introduction to coefficient alpha and internal consistency. J Pers Assess. Feb; v. 80, n. 1. p. 99-103. 2003.
- TABERNERO, C.; HERNÁNDEZ, B. Self-Efficacy and Intrinsic Motivation Guiding Environmental Behavior. Environment and Behavior, v. 43, n. 5, p. 658-675. 2011.
- TAGLIAPIETRA, O. M.; CARNIATTO, I. A interdisciplinariedade na Educação Ambiental como instrumento para a consolidação do Desenvolvimento Sustentável. Revista Brasileira de Educação Ambiental (RevBEA), v. 14, n. 3, p. 75-90, 2019.
- THOMPSON, S. C. G.; BARTON, M. A. Ecocentric and anthropocentric attitudes toward the environment. Journal of Environmental Psychology, v. 14, p. 149-158. 1994.
- VAKOLA, M.; SODERQUIST, K. E.; GREGORY, P. Competency management in support of organisational change. International Journal of Manpower, Emerald Group Publishing, v. 28, n. 3/4, p. 260-275, June 2007.
- XIANG, L.; YANG, Y.-C. Fatores que influenciam o comportamento da cidadania organizacional verde. Comportamento Social e Personalidade: Um jornal internacional, v. 48, n. 9, e8754. 2020.
- YUSLIZA, M. Y.; AMIRUDIN, A.; RAHADI, R. A.; NIK SARAH ATHIRAH, N. A.; RAMAYAH, T.; MUHAMMAD, Z.; MOKHLIS, S. An investigation of pro-environmental behaviour and sustainable development in Malaysia. Sustainability, v. 12, n. 17, p. 7083. 2020.
All datasets supporting the findings of this study are available within the article.
Font: G*Power software output
Note: Output from SmartPLS software.Source: Authors 2023.