lable at ScienceDirect

Journal of Cleaner Production 66 (2014) 280e287

Contents lists avai

Journal of Cleaner Production

journal homepage: www.elsevier .com/locate/ jc lepro

Determinants of employee electricity saving: the role of socialbenefits, personal benefits and organizational electricity savingclimate

Yixiang Zhang a,b, Zhaohua Wang a,b,*, Guanghui Zhou c

a School of Management and Economics, Beijing Institute of Technology, Beijing 100081, ChinabCenter for Energy and Environmental Policy Research, Beijing Institute of Technology, Beijing 100081, Chinac School of Management, University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100190, China

a r t i c l e i n f o

Article history:Received 20 March 2013Received in revised form8 October 2013Accepted 10 October 2013Available online 23 October 2013

Keywords:Theory of planned behaviorElectricity saving intentionOrganizational electricity saving climateEnvironmental benefitOrganizational benefitEnjoyment

* Corresponding author. School of Management andof Technology, Beijing 100081, China. Tel.: þ 8668912483.

E-mail addresses: wangzhaohua@bit.edu.cn,(Z. Wang).

0959-6526/$ e see front matter � 2013 Elsevier Ltd.http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.10.021

a b s t r a c t

China is one of the major energy-consuming and carbon-emitting countries. Promotion of efficient en-ergy use is crucial in reducing energy consumption and carbon emission. Under external pressure andrealizing the importance of energy conservation, many firms have adopted measures to save energy. Suchmeasures entail active employee participation. However, employees often lack motivation and thus donot actively participate in energy saving activities. Studies on factors that drive employee energy savingremain scarce. To fill this gap in research, drawing on theory of planned behavior and taking officeworkers as example, we develop a model for studying the antecedents of employee electricity savingbehavior in organizations. The model was empirically examined using survey data collected from officeworkers in Beijing, China. Results show that employee attitude toward electricity saving and perceivedbehavioral control positively influence employee intention to save electricity. Environmental benefit,organizational benefit, enjoyment, and organizational electricity saving climate positively influenceemployee attitude toward electricity saving, whereas the effect of anticipated extrinsic benefit is foundinsignificant. This study contributes to research on energy saving by presenting the energy saving be-haviors of employees, which remains largely ignored in the current literature despite its importance. Theimplications of promoting employee electricity saving are discussed in accordance with the studyfindings.

� 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

China is under great pressure to reduce energy consumptionand carbon emission. As a major energy-consuming country, Chinais known to have high energy usage that is likely to increase in thenear future to support the fast economic development of thecountry. In 2010, total energy consumption in China reached3249.39 million tons of standard coal equivalent (NBSC, 2011).China also imports various energy resources to meet its domesticenergy demand. The country imported 163.09 million tons of coaland 237.68 million tons of crude oil in 2010. High energy con-sumption leads to many problems such as energy shortage and

Economics, Beijing Institute10 68918213; fax: þ86 10

wangzh1018@hotmail.com

All rights reserved.

crisis, high carbon dioxide emission, and environmental pollution.During peak summer months, numerous cities in China experiencepower shortage; consequently, these cities adopt a power rationingpolicy. However, this policy negatively affects human lives and theeconomy. Therefore, energy conservation and reduction of energyconsumption are crucial issues in China.

The government highly values efficient energy use and createspolicies promoting energy conservation and reducing carbonemission. Under this condition, companies are pressured to saveenergy and reduce carbon emission to comply with these policies(Liu et al., 2012; Suk et al., 2013; Zhang et al., 2012; Zhu and Geng,2013). Some firms also realize that energy conservation lowersenergy cost and thus is beneficial. Firms need employees’ supportand active participation in carrying out energy saving measures asemployees are majority who engage directly in energy consump-tion in firms. Many firms strive to encourage employee initiativeand promote employee participation. However, employee energysaving is in fact a public goods game (Perc et al., 2013). In such asocial dilemma, employees are tempted to free-ride and do not

Y. Zhang et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 66 (2014) 280e287 281

participate actively in energy saving, which damage the collectivewelfare (Choi and Ahn, 2013; Skatova and Ferguson, 2011). Manytheoretical models have been built to study public goods game, andthey found that additional mechanisms (such as incentives) areneeded to relax the social dilemma and promote the public goodsproduction (Cressman et al., 2012; Nowak, 2006; Perc et al., 2013;Perc and Szolnoki, 2010). Similarly, to overcome free-riding andpromote contribution, factors influencing the energy savingbehavior of employees must be understood.

A careful review of the existing literature on energy saving re-veals that studies on the energy saving behavior of employees inorganizations and their determining factors are rarely reported. Thecurrent literature on energy saving at the individual level mainlyfocus on household energy saving. To understand how to promotehousehold energy saving, many studies examined antecedents ofhousehold energy saving. A careful review of these studies showsthat they identified some important factors influencing householdenergy saving behavior, such as social psychological factors(Abrahamse and Steg, 2009; Abrahamse et al., 2009; Ek andSöderholm, 2010; Hori et al., 2013; Ma et al., 2013; Martinssonet al., 2011; Thøgersen and Grønhøj, 2010; Wang et al., 2011; Yueet al., 2013), demographic variables (Abrahamse and Steg, 2009;Abrahamse et al., 2009; Hori et al., 2013; Martinsson et al., 2011;Yue et al., 2013), and situational factors (Thøgersen and Grønhøj,2010; Yue et al., 2013). As both residents and employees are in-dividuals, their energy saving behavior should have some similar-ities. Thus it should be reasonable to consider social psychologicalfactors, demographic variables and situational factors whenstudying employee energy saving.

It should also be noted that energy saving within the organi-zation differs from energy saving within the household, andcaution must be taken when generalizing the results of householdenergy saving to employee context. Unlike energy consumptionwithin the household, energy consumptionwithin the organizationis usually free of charge for the employees, and this free supplycontributes to the possibility of energy wastage. In addition, unlikehousehold energy saving, employee energy saving is more like apublic game (Perc et al., 2013), as mentioned earlier. Thus, energysaving among employees is an important theoretical issuerequiring more research to address the research gap in this subject.As an initial effort toward this issue, we take office workers as anexample to study employee energy saving in organizations. Inter-view results with this group identified electricity as the major en-ergy consumed in their respective companies; other types ofenergy (e.g., coal, crude oil) are rarely consumed given that they donot conduct material production. Therefore, we focused on study-ing the antecedents of office workers’ electricity saving inorganizations.

Theory of planned behavior (TPB) has become awidely acceptedtheory for explaining individual behavior (Ajzen,1991, 2002; Chengand Huang, 2013), including household energy saving behavior(Abrahamse and Steg, 2009; Abrahamse et al., 2009; Wang et al.,2011). It provides a reliable framework to explore social psycho-logical factors influencing employee energy saving behavior.However, its role in exploring employee energy saving behavior hasnot been fully examined. To fill this gap, we constructed a theo-retical model of employee electricity saving behavior based on TPBto direct us in promoting energy saving among employees.Furthermore, we extended this theory by identifying four attitu-dinal beliefs regarding saving electricity: environmental benefit,organizational benefit, anticipated extrinsic benefit, and enjoymentfrom electricity saving. In addition, situational context in organi-zation is also crucial, and organizational climate is such a factordeveloped in the organizational behavior literature, which hasimportant influence on employee behavior (Bock et al., 2005;

Schulte et al, 2006). To explore its role, we integrated organiza-tional climate literature with TPB, proposed the concept of orga-nizational electricity saving climate, and investigated how it caninfluence electricity saving among company employees.

The following section describes the theoretical background. Weformulated the research model and developed several researchhypotheses. The research method and the empirical setting aredescribed. Empirical testing of the research model is then pre-sented, followed by a discussion of research and practical impli-cations, as well as future research directions.

2. Theoretical background

TPB is widely applied to study various kinds of individualbehavior, such as intention to use marijuana (Yzer et al., 2004),online group-buying (Cheng and Huang, 2013), media files sharing(Blake and Kyper, 2013), Internet banking behavior (Yousafzai et al.,2010), households energy saving (Abrahamse and Steg, 2009;Wanget al., 2011), car use for commuting (Abrahamse et al., 2009), anduse of public transportation (Bamberg et al., 2007). According tothis theory, human behavioral intention is determined by threefactors: attitude toward the behavior, subjective norm, andperceived behavioral control (Ajzen, 1991, 2002). Attitude isdefined as “the degree to which a person has a favorable or unfa-vorable evaluation or appraisal of the behavior” (Ajzen,1991, p 188).Subjective norm reflects a “person’s perception that most peoplewho are important to him think he should or should not performthe behavior” (Venkatesh et al., 2003, p 452). Perceived behavioralcontrol refers to “the perceived ease or difficulty of performing thebehavior” (Ajzen, 1991, p 188). The attitude toward the behavior,subjective norm, and perceived behavioral control positively in-fluence the intention to perform a behavior. Individuals exhibitingpositive attitude, high subjective norm, and high perceivedbehavioral control are more likely to form a strong intention toperform a particular behavior. By contrast, individuals with nega-tive attitude, low subjective norm, and low perceived behavioralcontrol are not likely to form a strong behavioral intention.

TPB also discusses the antecedents of behavioral attitude. Ac-cording to TPB, attitude is determined by underlying attitudinalbeliefs that refer to the perceived outcomes of the behavior (Ajzen,1991, 2002). However, the relationship between attitudinal beliefsand attitude remains poorly understood (Ajzen, 1991; Taylor andTodd, 1995). The reason is that attitudinal beliefs are idiosyncraticto specifically empirical context (Taylor and Todd,1995). Attitudinalbeliefs are usually determined by the empirical context of thestudy. This important limitation of TPB is addressed by exploringthe attitudinal beliefs of energy saving in organizations.

This study aims to examine the antecedents of energy savingbehavior among employees. The attitude toward saving electricityis viewed as the antecedent of behavioral intention. We extend TPBby identifying the attitudinal beliefs regarding electricity saving inorganizations to further enhance our understanding of the factorsinfluencing the attitude of employees toward saving energy. Suchapproach is expected to help determine how to influence employeeattitude and behavior toward electricity saving.

We identify two kinds of attitudinal beliefs: social benefits andpersonal benefits. Social benefits reflect the social consequences ofthe electricity saving behavior of an individual, whereas personalbenefits reflect the personal consequences of such behavior. Elec-tricity saving behavior helps reduce CO2 emission, thus benefitingthe environment. This environmental benefit can be viewed as asocial benefit. In addition, electricity saving behavior by employeesbenefits their organization by reducing electricity costs. Thisorganizational benefit is another social benefit considered in thispaper. Besides social benefits, individual benefits are also crucial.

Y. Zhang et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 66 (2014) 280e287282

Two types of individual benefits are identified in this paper: theanticipated extrinsic benefit and the perceived enjoyment fromelectricity saving. The former is an extrinsic benefit, whereas thelatter is intrinsic. Organizations may provide certain forms ofreward to encourage employees’ energy saving, such as bonuses,better work assignment, or career advancement. Thus, employeesmay gain extrinsic benefit by saving electricity in the organization,and this anticipated extrinsic benefit is important personal benefit.

Although TPB is useful in explaining various individual behav-iors, it neglects the social environment where employees live,which has important influence on employee perception andbehavior. Employees are involved in their organization which hasstrong effect on their perception and behavior. Prior scholars real-ized the effect of organizational social context on employee andproposed the concept of organizational climate. Based on organi-zational climate literature, organizational climate has significanteffect on employee perception and behavior (Bock et al., 2005;Schulte et al, 2006). To better understand employee electricitysaving behavior, it is necessary to consider the outer organizationalclimate. In this study, we develop the concept of organizationalelectricity saving climate to reflect this organizational climate fac-tor, and integrate it with TPB to study its role.

3. Research model and hypotheses

Based on TPB and organizational climate literature, we devel-oped a research model to enhance our understanding of the factorsinfluencing employee energy saving. Fig. 1 shows the researchmodel. In this model, attitude toward electricity saving and orga-nizational electricity saving climate are used to predict employeeintention to save electricity. Four attitudinal beliefs, i.e., environ-mental benefit, organizational benefit, anticipated extrinsic benefit,enjoyment from electricity saving, and organizational electricitysaving climate are identified as antecedents of employee attitudetoward electricity saving. Environmental benefit and organizationalbenefit are social benefits that can be achieved through employeeenergy saving behaviors. Anticipated extrinsic benefit and enjoy-ment are personal benefits gained by employees by their electricity

Fig. 1. Researc

saving behaviors within their organizations. According to TPB,subjective norm and perceived behavioral control can influenceindividual behavioral intention. As these two factors are not thefocus of this research, we regard both of them as control variables,considering their effect on the intention to save electricity (Ajzen,1991). Demographic information (age, gender, education level, in-come, and work experience) is controlled as well.

3.1. Attitude toward electricity saving

According to TPB, human behavior is guided by attitude. Themore favorable one views a certain behavior, the more likely oneintends to engage in it. Employees with a favorable attitude towardelectricity saving (i.e., they view electricity saving in the organi-zation as significant and valuable) form an intention to save elec-tricity. By contrast, employees with a negative attitude towardelectricity saving are not likely to save electricity. Various empiricalstudies have shown that attitude is the most influential antecedentof human behavioral intention in various contexts such asemployee knowledge sharing (Bock et al., 2005), energy savingwithin the household (Abrahamse and Steg, 2009), reduced car usefor commuting (Abrahamse et al., 2009), and paying for greenelectricity (Hansla et al., 2008). Similarly, we can expect attitudetoward electricity saving to influence positively employee intentionto save electricity.

Hypothesis 1: Attitude toward electricity saving is positivelyrelated to intention to save electricity in the organization.

3.2. Environmental benefit

The electricity saving behavior of employees can lead to positiveconsequences for the environment. In China, thermal power is amajor source of electricity. In 2009, thermal power output wasapproximately 2982.8 billion kWh. By contrast, hydropower outputwas approximately 615.6 billion kWh, and nuclear power outputwas only around 70.1 billion kWh (NBSC, 2011). Thus, the pro-duction of electricity results in sizable amounts of carbon emission.Carbon dioxide is known to cause global warming, which could

h model.

Y. Zhang et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 66 (2014) 280e287 283

lead to ecological damage in the long run. By saving electricity,electricity consumption can be reduced, thus decreasing carbonemissions that ultimately help prevent global warming andecological damage. This result can be viewed as an environmentalbenefit of electricity saving (Banfi et al., 2008). Awareness of thisenvironmental benefit of electricity saving are likely to convinceemployees that such behavior is valuable and significant (i.e., theydevelop a positive attitude toward electricity saving behavior in theorganization). Thus, we expect the environmental benefit of elec-tricity saving to influence positively the attitude toward electricitysaving in organizations.

Hypothesis 2: Environmental benefit is positively related toattitude toward electricity saving in the organization.

3.3. Organizational benefit

The energy saving behavior of employees can also benefit theircompany. For example, electricity saving can reduce the electricconsumption of an organization, thus lowering the electric costs.This type of saved cost can be viewed as an organizational benefit ofelectricity saving. If employees are aware of this organizationalbenefit, they are likely to appreciate electricity saving, thus devel-oping a positive attitude toward electricity saving. To study theeffect of organizational benefit, we formulate the followinghypothesis.

Hypothesis 3: Organizational benefit is positively related toattitude toward electricity saving in the organization.

3.4. Anticipated extrinsic benefit

To encourage employees to save electricity, organizations mayprovide certain forms of organizational reward such as bonuses,better work assignment, or career advancement. Thus, employeesmay gain extrinsic benefit by saving electricity in the organization.Employees who are confident that they can obtain such extrinsicbenefit are likely to appreciate electricity saving, thereby devel-oping a positive attitude toward the behavior. By contrast, em-ployees who anticipate low extrinsic benefit from electricity savingare not likely to develop a positive attitude toward electricitysaving. Thus, anticipated extrinsic benefit influences positivelyone’s attitude toward electricity saving. To determine the effect ofanticipated extrinsic benefit, we present the following researchhypothesis.

Hypothesis 4: Anticipated extrinsic benefit is positively relatedto attitude toward electricity saving in the organization.

3.5. Enjoyment

Enjoyment is an intrinsic benefit that individuals gain from theirbehavior (Kankanhalli et al., 2005; Wasko and Faraj, 2005). Onewho enjoys a particular behavior can gain enjoyment through thebehavior, which effectively promotes their positive attitude towardsuch behavior. Similarly, employees who perceive a high level ofenjoyment from electricity saving are likely to develop a positiveattitude toward the behavior. Thus, enjoyment from electricitysaving is expected to promote employee’s positive attitude towardelectricity saving.

Hypothesis 5: Enjoyment is positively related to attitude towardelectricity saving in the organization.

3.6. Organizational electricity saving climate

Organizational climate reflects the influence of social contexts inorganizations. The term refers to “common practices, shared be-liefs, and value systems that an organization follows” (Chen and

Huang, 2007, p. 105). This concept is typically used to capture theinstitutional context (Bock et al., 2005). A number of studies indi-cate that organizational climate significantly affects employeeattitude and behavior (Schulte et al, 2006). Organizational climatecan be examined at the organizational and individual levels. Thepresent study aims to investigate employee behavior; thus, wedetermine individual perceptions of organizational climate.Various studies have explored the nature and dimensions of orga-nizational climate. Moreover, more researchers have startedfocusing on special types of organizational climate rather than thegeneral concept. For example, organizational innovation climate iswidely studied in organizational innovation research (Baer andFrese, 2003; Hsu and Fan, 2010). In the present study, we proposethe concept of organizational electricity saving climate and arguethat it can influence employee attitude and behavior toward elec-tricity saving.

An organization that creates electricity saving climate regardselectricity saving as highly important, supporting and encouragingactivities related to electricity saving. Under this condition, em-ployees have a high probability of forming a positive attitude to-ward electricity saving and engaging in electricity saving to meetorganizational expectation of saving electricity; likewise, em-ployees are pressured to save electricity because not engaging insuch activities violates the accepted behavior. Thus, the existence oforganizational electricity saving climate is likely to promote theformation of positive electricity saving attitudes and behavioralintention among employees.

Hypothesis 6: Organizational electricity saving climate is posi-tively related to attitude toward electricity saving in theorganization.

Hypothesis 7: Organizational electricity saving climate is posi-tively related to intention to save electricity in the organization.

4. Research method

Survey data collectionwas performed to test the researchmodeland research hypotheses. This method is suitable for obtaining in-dividual beliefs and perceptions.

4.1. Measurement development

Most variables in this paper are latent variables. Each variable ismeasured using multiple questions. Their measure items (i.e.,questions used to measure a construct) were adapted from ordeveloped based on prior research. Electricity saving behavioralintention was assessed using questions adapted from the study byChen (2007). These questionsmeasure employee’s intention to saveelectricity in organizations. Measurement of attitude toward elec-tricity saving was adapted from Bock et al. (2005). The measure-ments of environmental and organizational benefits weredeveloped based on Thøgersen and Grønhøj (2010), that of enjoy-ment was adapted from Kankanhalli et al. (2005), and those ofanticipated extrinsic benefit were developed based on Bock et al.(2005) and Kankanhalli et al. (2005). Items measuring organiza-tional electricity saving climatewere adapted from previous studies(Bock et al., 2005; Chen and Huang, 2007). Using a seven-pointscale, respondents rated the extent to which they agreed or dis-agreed with a given question. Strong disagreement was indicatedby “1”, whereas strong agreement was indicated by “7”. Table 1shows the assessment questions.

To verify and improve the adapted survey questions, individualmeetings were held with university colleagues and experts todiscuss the questionnaire content and layout. The questionnairewas revised based on the feedback. These processes improvedquestionnaire validity.

Table 2Results of measurement model analysis.

Construct Cronbach’s alpha AVE Items Loading

Environmental benefit(ENB)

0.85 0.87 ENB1 0.95ENB2 0.92

Organizational benefit(ORB)

0.80 0.71 ORB1 0.79ORB2 0.85ORB3 0.88

Anticipated extrinsicbenefit (AEB)

0.94 0.84 AEB1 0.91AEB2 0.95AEB3 0.90AEB4 0.90

Enjoyment (ENJ) 0.86 0.88 ENJ1 0.94ENJ2 0.94

Attitude (ATT) 0.87 0.79 ATT1 0.86ATT2 0.91ATT3 0.89

Intention to saveelectricity (ISE)

0.93 0.87 ISE1 0.94ISE2 0.95ISE3 0.91

Organizationalelectricity savingclimate (OESC)

0.89 0.82 OESC1 0.79OESC2 0.85OESC3 0.88

Subjective norm (SNM) 0.92 0.87 SNM1 0.93SNM2 0.95SNM3 0.91

Perceived behavioralcontrol (PBC)

0.73 0.79 PBC1 0.92PBC2 0.85

Table 1Measurement items.

Construct Survey questions

Organizationalbenefit

By saving electricity, I help reduce the electricity costsincurred by my companySaving electricity is beneficial for my companyMy company can benefit from my electricity savingbehavior

Environmentalbenefit

By saving electricity, I contribute to the prevention ofclimate warmingBy saving electricity, I contribute to the prevention of localecological damage

Enjoyment I enjoy saving electricity in my companySaving electricity in my company gives me pleasure

Anticipatedextrinsicbenefit

I will receive additional points for promotion in return formy electricity savingI will get a better work assignment in return for myelectricity savingI will get a higher salary in return for my electricity savingI will get more job security in return for my electricitysaving

Attitude Saving electricity in my company is significantSaving electricity in my company is valuable to meSaving electricity in my company is a wise move

Subjective norm My company’s top leads think I should save electricity in thecompanyMy boss thinks I should save electricity in the companyMy colleagues think I should save electricity in the company

Perceivedbehavioralcontrol

I believe that I am capable of saving electricity in mycompanyI have the knowledge and skills to save electricity in mycompany

Intention tosave electricity

I intend to save electricity in my companyI plan to save electricity in my companyI am willing to save electricity in my company

Organizationalelectricitysaving climate

My company encourages electricity savingMy company puts much value on electricity savingMy company is actively committed on electricity saving

Y. Zhang et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 66 (2014) 280e287284

4.2. Data collection

To collect data for model testing, questionnaires were distrib-uted to office workers in Beijing. Questionnaires (280) were sent tocompany contact persons responsible for distributing and collect-ing the questionnaires. In addition, 104 questionnaires weredistributed to participants of a company workshop, and all partic-ipated in the survey. The questionnaires that were returned werecarefully reviewed. Questionnaires with missing values for mainvariables and those with completely similar answers for all vari-ables were excluded. A total of 273 responses were consideredvalid. Overall effective response rate was 79%. Respondents workedin industries, such as the financial industry, software development,and consultancy. T-tests and chi-squared tests were conducted todetermine whether significant differences with respect to the mainvariables were indicated between the two samples. The testsrevealed no significant differences.

About half (53.1%) of the respondents were female. Among therespondents, 63.7% were aged between 21 and 30 years, and 31.1%were between 31 and 40 years. The respondents were relativelywell-educated, and 77.3% earned an associate degree or a bachelor’sdegree. About 34.8% earned a monthly income ranging from 2000RMB to 5000 RMB, and 41.8% earned a monthly income rangingfrom 5000 RMB to 10000 RMB.

4.3. Data analysis method

Partial least squares (PLS) method was used to analyze the data formodel testing. PLS is widely used for examining models with latent vari-ables (Chin et al., 2003; Zhang et al., 2010). A latent variable is an unob-servable variable that can bemeasured using several observable variablescalled indicators or items (i.e., questions asked in the questionnaire).

Two kinds of models are involved in a PLS analysis, namely, themeasurement model and the structural model (Tenenhaus et al.,2005). The measurement model shows the relationship betweenlatent variables and their corresponding indicators, whereas thestructural model shows the relationship between different variables.Although the measurement model and the structural model aresimultaneously estimated, they are assessed in two stages: (1)checking the measurement model to determine whether the in-dicators used to measure latent variables are proper because a validmeasurement model is essential for obtaining valid variable re-lationships;and (2)checking thepathcoefficientbetweenvariables toexamine the proposed research hypotheses (Anderson and Gerbing,1988). In the following section, we first examined the validity of themeasurement model and then analyzed the structural model.SmartPLS was used to conduct the PLS analysis (Ringle et al., 2005).

5. Results

5.1. Measurement model

We first examined reliability and validity of the measurementmodel as they are prerequisite for achieving valid results of struc-tural model. The reliability of latent variables can be checked usingCronbach’s alpha which accesses internal consistency among thevariable indicators. The threshold low value is 0.7 (Nunally andBernstein, 1994; Porter and Donthu, 2008), meaning that theCronbach’s alpha of each variable should exceed 0.7 if it has goodreliability. As shown in Table 2, all values of Cronbach’s alphaexceed 0.7, supporting the reliability of latent variables.

Validity can be reflected by average variance extracted (AVE)from a construct and item’s loading on their correspondingconstruct. The value of AVE reflects the amount of variance that aconstruct captures from its measurement items relative to theamount due to measurement error (Gray and Meister, 2004). Acommonly accepted criterion is that AVE values should exceed 0.5(Fornell and Larcker, 1981; Gray and Meister, 2004). In Table 2, allAVE values are larger than 0.5, supporting the validity of themeasurement model. The validity of the measurement model canalso be checked by examining the indicator loadings (Anderson and

Y. Zhang et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 66 (2014) 280e287 285

Gerbing, 1988; Porter and Donthu, 2008). The criterion is that eachindicator loading on the corresponding variable should exceed 0.7;each loading should also be significant (Gray and Meister, 2004). Asshown in Table 2, all indicator loadings meet the requirement,further supporting the validity of the measurement model.

5.2. Research hypothesis testing results

The results of the structural model are depicted in Table 3. Themodel explained46.5% of the variance in intention to save electricityand 52.7% of the variance in attitude toward electricity saving. Intotal, five out of seven research hypotheses were supported.

Hypothesis 1 posits that the attitude toward electricity savingpositively influences the intention to save electricity. Table 3 showsthat the path coefficient is 0.59 (p < 0.001), thus supporting Hy-pothesis 1. Hypothesis 2, which states that the environmentalbenefit of electricity saving affects the intention to save electricity,is also confirmed (path coefficient of 0.19, and p < 0.01). The pos-itive effect of organizational benefit on the attitude toward elec-tricity saving is also supported (path coefficient of 0.26, andp < 0.001), thereby confirming Hypothesis 3. However, no signifi-cant effect of extrinsic benefit on the attitude toward electricitysaving is indicated (path coefficient of�0.08). Thus, Hypothesis 4 isnot supported. The results further show that enjoyment positivelyaffects attitude toward electricity saving (path coefficient of 0.26,and p < 0.001), thus confirming Hypothesis 5. Hypothesis 6 positsthat an organizational electricity saving climate positively in-fluences the attitude toward electricity saving. Table 3 shows thatthe path coefficient is 0.29 (p < 0.001), thus supporting Hypothesis6. However, organizational electricity saving climate does notsignificantly affect the intention to save electricity. Thus, Hypoth-esis 7 is not supported (path coefficient of �0.03).

Some control variables also have significant effects. Perceivedbehavioral control positively influences the electricity savingintention (path coefficient of 0.14 and p < 0.05). However, subjec-tive norm does not significantly influence the intention to saveelectricity (path coefficient of 0.06). A similar result was reported inthe study by Abrahamse et al. (2009), inwhich the subject norm didnot influence the intention to reduce car use. No significant effectsof other control variables (age, gender, income, education, andwork experience) on the electricity saving intention were found.

6. Discussion and implication

This study elucidates the attitude and the behavior of employeesin an organization. The results indicate that attitude toward

Table 3Result of hypothesis test.

Model Standardized coefficient

Dependent variable: intention to save electricityAttitude toward electricity saving 0.59***Organizational electricity saving climate �0.03Subjective norm 0.06Perceived behavioral control 0.14*

R-square 0.465

Dependent variable: attitude toward electricity savingSocial benefit beliefsEnvironmental benefit 0.19**Organizational benefit 0.26***

Personal benefit beliefsAnticipated extrinsic benefit �0.08Enjoyment 0.26***

Organizational electricity saving climate 0.29***R-square 0.527

*p < 0.05; **p < 0.01; and ***p < 0.001.

electricity saving positively influences the intention of employeesto save electricity. Furthermore, the same attitude is positivelyinfluenced by environmental benefit, organizational benefit,enjoyment, and organizational electricity saving climate. Thesefindings suggest that employees who have a favorable attitude to-ward electricity saving in their organizations are likely to saveelectricity. Employees who are aware that their electricity savingbehavior can benefit the environment and their organizations arelikely to adopt a favorable attitude toward electricity saving.Meanwhile, those who enjoy electricity saving are also likely tohave favorable attitude toward the behavior. The presence oforganizational electricity saving climate also contributes to theformation of a positive attitude toward electricity saving. Thecontrol variable of perceived behavioral control also significantlyaffects the intention to save electricity, which suggests that em-ployees are more likely to save electricity when they can controltheir electricity saving behavior. Furthermore, control variables ofsubjective norms do not significantly affect employee behaviorintention, which demonstrates that important others (e.g., super-visor, colleges) do not influence their electricity saving intention inthe organization. This result is in agreement with the study byAbrahamse et al. (2009). The effects of other control variables arefound insignificant in this study.

Contrary to our expectation, anticipated extrinsic benefit did notsignificantly influence employee attitude toward electricity saving.This finding suggests that anticipated extrinsic benefit does notcontribute to positive employee attitude toward saving electricity.A possible explanation is that extrinsic reward is only effectivewhen securing temporary compliance (Kelman, 1961), whereas anelectricity saving behavior is expected to occur daily. No direct linkbetween extrinsic benefit and daily energy saving behavior isobserved, which hinders the effect of extrinsic benefit. Anotherexplanation is that extrinsic rewards do not meet employee ex-pectations (e.g., they expect to gain extrinsic benefit other than thecurrent benefit received or expect to gain more benefits than arecurrently provided). This disconfirmation of expectation can lead todissatisfaction, thus failing to promote a positive attitude towardsaving electricity (Bock et al., 2005; Meyer, 1975). Further studiescan be conducted to investigate the effect of anticipated extrinsicbenefit on employee energy saving behavior.

Organizational electricity saving climate did not influence theintention of the employees to save electricity. However, organiza-tional climate had a significant positive effect on the attitude to-ward electricity saving and consequently, on the intention to saveelectricity. This finding suggests that attitude toward saving elec-tricity mediates the effect of organizational electricity savingclimate on the intention to save electricity.

6.1. Research implication

This paper has some implications for the study of energy savingbehavior. First, taking office workers electricity saving as example,wedeveloped a theoreticalmodel to examine employee’s electricitysaving behavior in organizations. Earlier studies on energy savingmostly focused on the country, city, industrial, or household levels(Ek, 2005; Gyberg and Palm, 2009; Longo et al., 2008; Scarpa andWillis, 2010). Employees constitute an important target group forenergy saving. Realizing the importance of energy saving and em-ployees’ role, many companies want to promote employee energysaving behavior. Despite the importance and specificity of electricitysaving behavior among employees, studies investigating the factorsinfluencing the energy saving behavior of employees are rarely re-ported. This research is an initial effort to fill this gap in research.

Second, we identified four attitudinal beliefs on electricitysaving (i.e., organizational benefit, environmental benefit,

Y. Zhang et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 66 (2014) 280e287286

anticipated extrinsic benefit, and enjoyment). Thus, we determinedhow these beliefs influence employee attitude on electricity saving.This study improves our understanding regarding beliefs that in-fluence the formation of employee attitude toward energy saving.Our empirical findings suggest that enjoyment is important ante-cedent of the attitude influencing electricity saving behavior inorganizations. Previous studies on energy saving are known toignore the important role of enjoyment in individual energy saving(including literature on energy saving within the household).Similarly, our findings regard the influence of organizational andenvironmental benefit on employee electricity saving attitude asrecent contributions to the literature.

Third, we proposed and developed the concept of organizationalelectricity saving climate. We also studied its effect on employeeelectricity saving behavior. We found that organizational electricitysaving climate indirectly affects electricity saving intention throughattitude toward electricity saving. Despite studies on organizationalclimate such as innovation climate, organizational electricity savingclimate remains poorly examined. This study thus contributes tothe literature on organizational behavior by developing this newconcept and empirically testing it. In addition, this study enrichesthe literature on energy saving by exploring this new concept anddemonstrating its role in employee energy saving.

6.2. Practical implication

This work also provides important implications for energysaving practices. First, employees play an important role in energysaving, especially in organizations. Thus, more attention should bedirected toward promoting employee energy saving behavior. Thisapproach to reducing energy consumption is important. Companymanagement should recognize the role of employees in energysaving and fully encourage these efforts. Second, company man-agers should strive to improve employee attitude toward electricitysaving if they intend to promote electricity saving behavior amongemployees. Enjoyment from electricity saving strongly affectsattitude toward electricity saving. Thus, managers should strive toenhance the sense of enjoyment perceived by employees as theysave electricity. Acknowledging the efforts of employees who takemeasures in saving electricity may be useful. Organizational benefitalso has a significant impact on attitude toward saving energy.Thus, efforts should be exerted to improve employee perception ofan organizational benefit. This can be accomplished by showinghowmuch energy and money employees can save for the companyif they engage in energy saving. Environmental benefit can posi-tively influence employee attitude toward saving energy. Employeeperception of environmental benefit can be enhanced by usingvarious media to present the reduction in CO2 that results fromdecreased energy consumption and demonstrate how CO2 can in-fluence global warming and ecological damage. Developing anorganizational energy saving climate is also important. Possibleways include establishing energy saving as a goal and make it clearin the organization; implementing action to support and encourageemployee saving is also important. Perceived behavioral controlsignificantly affects energy saving and can be improved by pro-moting awareness on energy saving methods and providing anenergy saving manual.

6.3. Limitation and future research

Several limitations should be noted and future research di-rections can be considered. First, we only studied office workers’electricity saving in organizations. Other types of workers such asproduction workers and managers are not covered in the study.Caution must be takenwhen attempting to generalize the results of

this study, considering the difference between office workers andother types of employees (such as production workers) and man-agers (e.g., the form of energy saving behavior may be different, andproduction workers’ duties may involve other types of energy,while mangers’ duties may involve planning and managing of en-ergy saving). Further studies may be conducted to study energysaving behaviors of other types of employees and managers. Sec-ond, our samples are drawn in Beijing, China. With the differencesbetween China and other countries (e.g., cultural differences anddifferent economic development levels) considered, caution shouldbe takenwhen generalizing the results. Third, our sample is relativeyoung andwell-educated. Although age and education level did nothave significant effect in this study, caution must be taken whengeneralizing the results to samples who are older and who havelower education level. Fourth, there are many valuable models ofpublic goods game, which are useful for understanding employeeenergy saving. Following these previous research works (Cressmanet al., 2012; Perc et al., 2013; Perc and Szolnoki, 2010), futureresearch can build models of public goods game to study employeeenergy saving.

7. Conclusion

By extending TPB, we developed a theoretical model ofemployee electricity saving behavior. Environmental benefit,organizational benefit, anticipated extrinsic benefit, and enjoymentof savings were hypothesized to influence employee attitude to-ward electricity saving. Organizational electricity saving is hy-pothesized to influence employee attitude toward electricity savingand behavioral intention. Office workers in Beijing, China weresurveyed, and the data collected were analyzed by PLS analysis formodel testing. The results show that attitude toward electricitysaving positively influences employee intention to save electricity.Environmental benefit, organizational benefit, enjoyment, andorganizational electricity saving climate positively influenceemployee attitude toward electricity saving. The effect of antici-pated extrinsic benefit is found to be insignificant. This study en-hances our understanding of energy saving behavior amongemployees of an organization.

Acknowledgment

This study is supported by the Program for New CenturyExcellent Talents in University (Reference No. NCET-10-0048),Humanities and Social Sciences Research Foundation of Ministry ofEducation of China (Reference No. 12YJC630301), National NaturalScience Foundation of China (Reference Nos. 71203007, 71173017,and 71172106), China Postdoctoral Science Foundation (ReferenceNo. 2012M510008), Fok Ying Tung Education Foundation (Refer-ence No. 121079), Doctoral Fund of Ministry of Education of China(Reference No. 20101101110034), State Key Development Programof Basic Research of China (Reference Nos. 2012CB955703 and2012CB955704), the Basic Research Fund of Beijing Institute ofTechnology (Reference No. 20122142002), and Natural ScienceFoundation of Beijing (Reference No. 9112013). The authors wouldlike to express their gratitude to Prof. YimingWei for his commentsand suggestions.

References

Abrahamse, W., Steg, L., 2009. How do socio-demographic and psychological factorsrelate to households’ direct and indirect energy use and savings? J. Econ. Psy-chol. 30, 711e720.

Abrahamse, W., Steg, L., Gifford, R., Vlek, C., 2009. Factors influencing car use forcommuting and the intention to reduce it: a question of self-interest or mo-rality? Transport. Res. F: Traffic Psychol. Behav. 12, 317e324.

Y. Zhang et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 66 (2014) 280e287 287

Ajzen, I., 1991. The theory of planned behavior. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process.50, 179e211.

Ajzen, I., 2002. Perceived behavioral control, self-efficacy, locus of control, and thetheory of planned behavior. J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 32, 665e683.

Anderson, J.C., Gerbing, D.W., 1988. Structural equation modeling in practice: areview and recommended two-step approach. Psychol. Bull. 103, 41e423.

Baer, M., Frese, M., 2003. Innovation is not enough: climates for initiative andpsychological safety, process innovations, and firm performance. J. Organ.Behav. 24, 45e68.

Bamberg, S., Hunecke, M., Blöbaum, A., 2007. Social context, personal norms and theuse of public transportation: two field studies. J. Environ. Psychol. 27, 190e203.

Banfi, S., Farsi, M., Filippini, M., Jakob, M., 2008. Willingness to pay for energy-saving measures in residential buildings. Energy Econ. 30, 503e516.

Blake, R.H., Kyper, E.S., 2013. An investigation of the intention to share media filesover peer-to-peer networks. Behav. Inform. Technol. 32, 410e422.

Bock, G.-W., Zmud, R.W., Kim, Y.-G., Lee, J.-N., 2005. Behavioral intention formationin knowledge sharing: examining the roles of extrinsic motivators, socialepsychological forces, and organizational climate. Mis Q. 29, 87e111.

Chen, C.-J., Huang, J.-W., 2007. How organizational climate and structure affectknowledge management e the social interaction perspective. Int. J. Inform.Manage. 27, 104e118.

Chen, I.Y., 2007. The factors influencing members’ continuance intentions in pro-fessional virtual communities e a longitudinal study. J. Inf. Sci. 33, p451e467.

Cheng, H.-H., Huang, S.-W., 2013. Exploring antecedents and consequence of onlinegroup-buying intention: an extended perspective on theory of plannedbehavior. Int. J. Inform. Manage. 33, 185e198.

Chin, W.W., Marcolin, B.L., Newsted, P.R., 2003. A partial least squares latent variablemodeling approach for measuring interaction effects: results from a montecarlo simulation study and an electronic-mail emotion/adoption study. Inform.Syst. Res. 14, 189e217.

Choi, J.-K., Ahn, T.K., 2013. Strategic reward and altruistic punishment supportcooperation in a public goods game experiment. J. Econ. Psychol. 35, 17e30.

Cressman, R., Song, J.-W., Zhang, B.-Y., Tao, Y., 2012. Cooperation and evolutionarydynamics in the public goods game with institutional incentives. J. Theor. Biol.299, 144e151.

Ek, K., 2005. Public and private attitudes towards “green” electricity: the case ofSwedish wind power. Energy Policy 35, 1677e1689.

Ek, K., Söderholm, P., 2010. The devil is in the details: household electricity savingbehavior and the role of information. Energy Policy 38, 1578e1587.

Fornell, C., Larcker, D.F., 1981. Evaluating structural equation models with unob-servable variables and measurement error. J. Market. Res. 18, 39e50.

Gray, P.H., Meister, D.B., 2004. Knowledge sourcing effectiveness. Manage. Sci. 50,821e834.

Gyberg, P., Palm, J., 2009. Influencing households’ energy behaviour e how is thisdone and on what premises? Energ Policy 37, 2807e2813.

Hansla, A., Gamble, A., Juliusson, A., Gärling, T., 2008. Psychological determinants ofattitude towards and willingness to pay for green electricity. Energ Policy 36,768e774.

Hori, S., Kondo, K., Nogata, D., Ben, H., 2013. The determinants of household energy-saving behavior: survey and comparison in five major Asian cities. Energ Policy52, 354e362.

Hsu, M.L.A., Fan, H.-L., 2010. Organizational innovation climate and creative out-comes: exploring the moderating effect of time pressure. Creat. Res. J. 22, 378e386.

Kankanhalli, A., Tan, B.C.Y., Kwok-Kee, W., 2005. Contributing knowledge to elec-tronic knowledge repositories: an empirical investigation. Mis Q. 29, 113e143.

Kelman, H.C., 1961. Process of opinion change. Public Opin. Q. 25, 57e78.Liu, X., Niu, D., Bao, C., Suk, S., Shishime, T., 2012. A survey study of energy saving

activities of industrial companies in Taicang, China. J. Clean. Prod. 26, 79e89.Longo, A., Markandya, A., Petrucci, M., 2008. The internalization of externalities in

the production of electricity: willingness to pay for the attributes of a policy forrenewable energy. Ecol. Econ. 67, 140e152.

Ma, G., Andrews-Speed, P., Zhang, J., 2013. Chinese consumer attitudes towardsenergy saving: the case of household electrical appliances in Chongqing. EnergyPolicy 56, 591e602.

Martinsson, J., Lundqvist, L.J., Sundström, A., 2011. Energy saving in Swedishhouseholds. The (relative) importance of environmental attitudes. Energy Pol-icy 39, 5182e5191.

Meyer, H.H., 1975. The pay-for-performance dilemma. Organ. Dyn. 3, 39e50.NBSC (National Bureau of Statistics of China), 2011. China Energy Statistical Year-

book 2011. China Statistics Press, Beijing.Nowak, M.A., 2006. Five rules for the evolution of cooperation. Science 314, 1560e

1563.Nunally, J.C., Bernstein, I.H., 1994. Psychometric Theory. McGrawHill, New York.Perc, M., Gómez-Gardeñes, J., Szolnoki, A., Floría, L.M., Moreno, Y., 2013. Evolu-

tionary dynamics of group interactions on structured populations: a review. J. R.Soc. Interf. 10, 1e17.

Perc, M., Szolnoki, A., 2010. Coevolutionary games e a mini review. Biosystems 99,109e125.

Porter, C.E., Donthu, N., 2008. Cultivating trust and harvesting value in virtualcommunities. Manage. Sci. 54, 113e128.

Ringle, C.M., Wende, S., Will, A., 2005. SmartPLS 2.0(beta). University of Hamburg,Hamburg, Germany. http://www.smartpls.de.

Scarpa, R., Willis, K., 2010. Willingness-to-pay for renewable energy: primary anddiscretionary choice of British households’ for micro-generation technologies.Energy Econ. 32, 129e136.

Schulte, M., Ostroff, C., Kinicki, A.J., 2006. Organizational climate systems andpsychological climate perceptions: a cross-level study of climate-satisfactionrelationships. J. Occup. Organ. Psychol. 79, 645e671.

Skatova, A., Ferguson, E., 2011. What makes people cooperate? Individual differ-ences in BAS/BIS predict strategic reciprocation in a public goods game. Pers.Indiv. Differ. 51, 237e241.

Suk, S., Liu, X., Sudo, K., 2013. A survey study of energy saving activities of industrialcompanies in the Republic of Korea. J. Clean. Prod. 41, 301e311.

Taylor, S., Todd, P.A., 1995. Understanding information technology usage: a test ofcompeting models. Inform Syst. Res. 6, 144e176.

Tenenhaus, M., Vinzi, V.E., Chatelin, Y.-M., Lauro, C., 2005. PLS path modeling.Comput. Stat. Data 48, 159e205.

Thøgersen, J., Grønhøj, A., 2010. Electricity saving in households e a social cognitiveapproach. Energ Policy 38, 7732e7743.

Venkatesh, V., Morris, M.G., Davis, G.B., Davis, F.D., 2003. User acceptance of in-formation technology: toward a unified view. Mis Q. 27, 425e478.

Wang, Z., Zhang, B., Yin, J., Zhang, Y., 2011. Determinants and policy implications forhousehold electricity-saving behaviour: evidence from Beijing, China. EnergPolicy 39, 3550e3557.

Wasko, M.M., Faraj, S., 2005. Why should I share? examining social capital andknowledge contribution in electronic networks of practice. Mis Q. 29, 35e57.

Yousafzai, S.Y., Foxall, G.R., Pallister, J.G., 2010. Explaining internet bankingbehavior: theory of reasoned action, theory of planned behavior, or technologyacceptance model? J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 40, 1172e1202.

Yue, T., Long, R., Chen, H., 2013. Factors influencing energy-saving behavior of urbanhouseholds in Jiangsu Province. Energy Policy 62, 665e675.

Yzer,M.C., Cappella, J.N., Fishbein,M., Hornik, R., Sayeed, S., Ahern, R.K., 2004. The roleof distal variables in behavior change: effects of adolescents’ risk for marijuanause on intention to use marijuana1. J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 34, 1229e1250.

Zhang, B., Wang, Z., Yin, J., Su, L., 2012. CO2 emission reduction within Chinese ironand steel industry: practices, determinants and performance. J. Clean. Prod. 33,167e178.

Zhang, Y., Fang, Y., Wei, K.-K., Chen, H., 2010. Exploring the role of psychologicalsafety in promoting the intention to continue sharing knowledge in virtualcommunities. Int. J. Inform. Manage. 30, 425e436.

Zhu, Q., Geng, Y., 2013. Drivers and barriers of extended supply chain practices forenergy saving and emission reduction among Chinese manufacturers. J. Clean.Prod. 40, 6e12.