A contrastive evaluation of two theoretical frameworks for understand-

In 2008, Tudor et al. published a framework of the major determinants of sustainable waste management behaviour in the Cornwall NHS (Figure 1.1). This was the first and currently only

1.3. THE THEORETICAL PERSPECTIVE ON WASTE MANAGEMENT BEHAVIOUR

theoretical framework that sought to understand the key influences on healthcare employee waste management behaviour, and it was based on the theory of planned behaviour (TPB) (Ajzen 1991) which, as discussed in Section 1.3.1, had previously been used to study the be-havioural antecedents of healthcare waste management behaviour by Tudor et al. (2007). The TPB uses ‘attitudes’, ‘subjective norms’ and ‘perceived behavioural control’ (PBC) to predict behavioural intentions, which people can then chose whether or not to act upon.

The factors described in the framework by Tudor et al. centre on the three TPB predictor variables. The variable ‘attitudes’ is clearly labelled in Figure 1.1. ‘Organisational culture’

represents the subjective norms of the individual and PBC is represented by the terms ‘NHS focus and policies’ and ‘organisational structure’. The behaviour intention gap described in the TPB is also present and is shown in the framework as stated versus actual behaviour. This is the mediating factor between the three predictor variables and the actual behaviour that is performed.

Recently, Young et al. (2013) published a modified version of the framework by Tudor et al.

(2008b). Young et al. carried out a systematic literature review of pro-environmental behaviour change studies conducted in the workplace setting and modified the Tudor et al. (2008b) frame-work to reflect the findings from the literature. The frameframe-work by Tudor et al. (2008b) was specific to the situation of healthcare waste management in the Cornwall NHS, and Young et al.

(2013) sought to extend this to workplace settings in general. The systematic literature review carried out by Young et al. included 17 articles that used direct empirical measurements of environmental performance. Young et al. excluded from the systematic review those studies that used self-reporting measures of environmental performance, because of their questionable validity in relation to measuring environmental performance, due to social desirability and re-sponse bias.

There is, however, a contradiction in the removal of studies using self-reporting measures of environmental performance from this review. The framework of Tudor et al. (2008b), on which the modified Young et al. (2013) framework was based, was constructed largely using data collected from self-reporting methods. While Young et al. sought to remove this validity issue

1.3. THE THEORETICAL PERSPECTIVE ON WASTE MANAGEMENT BEHAVIOUR

Figure1.1:TheMajorDeterminantsforSustainableWasteManagementBehaviorintheCornwallNHSsourceTudoretal.(2008b)

1.3. THE THEORETICAL PERSPECTIVE ON WASTE MANAGEMENT BEHAVIOUR

from their framework, they based it on the Tudor et al. (2008b) framework which was derived from self-reporting data. Though there are methodological issues with the assumptions made by Young et al. (2013), a comparison of the two frameworks does provide useful insights into the factors potentially influencing health and social care waste management behaviour. The employee pro-environmental behaviour (e-PEB) framework published by Young et al. (2013) is presented in Figure 1.2. Summary tables of the structural and factor differences between the Tudor et al. (2008b) framework and the Young et al. (2013) e-PEB framework can be found in Appendix A and B.

Structural differences between the frameworks Sideways links between factors

The first differences to note between the two frameworks are structural in nature, i.e. there are no sideways links between the four main factor groups (‘individual’, ‘external’, ‘group’

and ‘organisational factors’) or the sub-factors in the e-PEB framework. This implies that one set of factors does not interact with or influence another set of factors. In the Tudor et al.

(2008b) framework sideways interactions between the factors are present prior to them being amalgamated into behavioural intention, which is a weakness of the e-PEB framework because behavioural factors are rarely singular in purpose and lead to this framework likely being an over-simplification of the phenomenon. Such an oversimplification, however, is partly justified due to a potential lack of data that Young et al. had available on which to base any sideways links between the factors.

Removal of behavioural intentions

The second structural difference between the two frameworks is the removal of ‘behavioural intentions’ as a mediating variable between the determinant behavioural factors and the actual behaviour performed by the individual. Although no explicit explanation has been provided by Young et al., this has may have resulted from the inclusion of studies that only used di-rect measures of environmental performance. When using didi-rect measures of performance the researcher might assume that the behaviour the participants performed was the behaviour they intended to perform, though this may have been an inappropriate assumption because intentions

1.3. THE THEORETICAL PERSPECTIVE ON WASTE MANAGEMENT BEHAVIOUR

Figure1.2:Processframeworkofmacro-determinantsforemployeepro-environmentalbehaviour(e-PEB)Youngetal.(2013)

1.3. THE THEORETICAL PERSPECTIVE ON WASTE MANAGEMENT BEHAVIOUR

have been shown to be different to actual behaviours, while Young et al. omitted the intention behaviour gap.

The removal of ‘behavioural intentions’ from the e-PEB model could also be explained by the author wanting to only model a change from previous behaviours to pro-environmental be-haviour, regardless of the individual’s intentions. Whether a person holds pro-environmentally congruent or in-congruent intentions is not considered of importance to the desired behavioural change and outcome. A final explanation for the omission of ‘behavioural intentions’ from the e-PEB model might be a lack of data from the literature review from which to justify their inclusion. The variables ‘attitude’, ‘subjective norms’ and ‘perceived behavioural control’ are difficult constructs to measure, due their hypothetical nature, which means that they cannot be observed directly, and like ‘behavioural intentions’ they rely on the use of self-reporting mea-surement methods. If all studies using self-reporting methods were excluded from the study, any data supporting the existence of ‘behavioural intentions’ would also most likely have been excluded.

Differences in the determining factors of behaviour included in the frameworks

There are considerable differences between the main and sub-factors included in the two frame-works and the importance attributed to them in determining behaviour. The framework by Tudor et al. (2008b) uses five main factors as the determinants of healthcare waste management be-haviour, namely ‘attitudes’, ‘organisational culture’, ‘organisational structure’, ‘NHS focus and policies’, and ‘site department type and size’.

Attitudes

‘Attitudes’ is a main factor in the TPB and is considered of importance in the Tudor et al.

(2008b) framework. Young et al. (2013), however, did not attribute much importance to ‘atti-tudes’ and said that a change in ‘atti‘atti-tudes’ was not necessary for behavioural change to occur.

Due to the exclusion of self-reporting measures by Young et al., it is possible that any evi-dence for the influence of ‘attitudes’ on pro-environmental behaviours was also excluded, as

‘attitudes’ would most likely be measured using a self-reporting method.

1.3. THE THEORETICAL PERSPECTIVE ON WASTE MANAGEMENT BEHAVIOUR

‘Organisational culture’, ‘organisational structure’ and ‘focus and policies’ were highlighted as important determinants of behaviour by Tudor et al., but they are grouped under ‘organisational factors’ in the e-PEB framework and given less relative importance than other ‘organisational factors’. Young et al. (2013) views these factors as having a role in the communication of in-formation to the employee, but they are superseded by the management support and training factors. ‘Management support and training’ is a factor that also appears in the Tudor et al.

(2008b) framework, but the roles of these organisational factors are reversed: ‘culture’, ‘struc-ture’ and ‘focus and policies’ are seen as more important. It is possible that this difference in priority attributed to the factors by the two research teams is a matter of definition.

Tudor et al. (2008b) saw management support in terms of the attitude of management towards the implementation of environmental initiatives and sustainable practice. Young et al. (2013), however, was more specific and said that it was the role of management to set an example to their employees and effectively communicate the necessary information. For Young et al., a manager should increase an employee’s self-efficacy about the behaviour, by helping them to believe that they can perform the behaviour and make a difference. All four factors appear to be about the type of information being provided, its quality and the effective communication of that information. A study by Botelho (2012) highlights how waste management education and training can improve employee waste management performance over a protracted period of time, which appears to be an area where more research is required to resolve these discrepancies.

Site/department type and size

‘Site/department type and size’ was one factor that was important to the Tudor et al. framework, but it was absent in the e-PEB framework. This factor was shown in multiple studies to impact on waste management behaviour, hence its inclusion in the original (Tudor et al. 2005; Tudor 2007; Tudor et al. 2008b) framework. At first glance this factor may seem to be specific to a healthcare environment with diverse departments and sites of all different sizes. This might have been an oversight on the part of Young et al. (2013) in excluding this factor from the e-PEB framework, because with further consideration it is clear that many organisations consist of different departments, across different sites and often performing different activities.

1.3. THE THEORETICAL PERSPECTIVE ON WASTE MANAGEMENT BEHAVIOUR

In previous work, most notably Tudor et al. (2008a), ensuring the equipment, physical environ-ment and spatial layout was conducive to the desired waste manageenviron-ment practice was consid-ered an important factor. A factor representing these variables was not included in the Tudor et al. (2008b) framework, though it does appear in the e-PEB framework under ‘environmen-tal infrastructure’. This term is used to capture all of the physical factors that the organisation should provide for the employee to use. ‘Environmental infrastructure’ in the e-PEB framework is associated with the organisation providing the correct equipment in the right areas, along with situational cues that aid the employee in using the equipment appropriately. From the previous research (Tudor et al. 2005; Tudor 2007; Tudor et al. 2008b) and the e-PEB framework by Young et al. (2013) it is clear that both authors view this as an important factor in determining waste management/pro-environmental behaviour.

Group factors

‘Group factors’ is a category found in the e-PEB model but is only mentioned as ‘group dynam-ics’ in the Tudor et al. (2008b) framework. ‘Group factors’ and ‘group dynamdynam-ics’ are represen-tative of the normal day-to-day interactions within and between employees and management.

This is classed as a factor of relatively low importance in the Tudor et al. (2008b) framework, but Young et al. (2013) gives it relatively high importance in the e-PEB framework. The general factor is expanded to include two sub-factors not found in the Tudor et al. (2008b) framework.

The first of these sub-factors is ‘financial incentives’. Young et al. draws on a single example of the successful use of financial incentives in the context of pro-environmental behaviour change.

This example comes from the construction industry in Hong Kong. There is a large body of literature around the use of financial incentives to change behaviour which does agree that while financial incentives are being provided, behaviour can be changed. However, behaviour becomes contingent on receipt of the monetary gain, and once the financial incentive is removed, the old and undesirable behaviour reasserts itself. From this notion it can be concluded that using financial incentives for improving pro-environmental behaviours is not a preferred option.

‘Feedback’ is the second group factor in the e-PEB framework and is similar to the sub-factor

‘feedback’ found in the ‘individual factors’ category. Both individual- and group-level feedback

1.3. THE THEORETICAL PERSPECTIVE ON WASTE MANAGEMENT BEHAVIOUR

provides people with a way to monitor their performance overall and in relation to other people or groups. Young et al. explains that specific environmental performance feedback can be more effective than general feedback and acts as a motivational tool. While this may be true, there are a number of considerations to be made before using feedback as a behavioural change tool.

Feedback requires the collection of data on performance, and if these data are not currently being collected, somebody will have to collect them – taking up their time in doing so. If some-body has gone through the trouble of collecting the data, any feedback must be visible for all employees and their attention directed to it accordingly. When providing comparative feedback it must be remembered that there will always be an individual or a group that is last. This can demotivate people and reduce their self-efficacy, though, so care must be taken when providing performance feedback, to ensure nobody is targeted in a way that makes them vulnerable, the reasons for poor performance identified and effective support provided for rectifying the issue.

Three factors in the Tudor et al. (2008b) framework were linked to organisational culture but did not appear in the e-PEB framework. These were ‘age’, ‘job satisfaction’ and ‘motivation’.

All of these factors are derived from self-reported data, and due to the exclusion criteria used by Young et al. (2013) during their systematic review, they might have been excluded.

Factor similarities

Four factors were used in similar ways in both of the frameworks. The factor ‘beliefs’ was linked to ‘attitudes’ in both of the frameworks, as was ‘environmental attitudes’ and ‘environ-mental awareness’. These are all difficult constructs to define, because they are multifaceted, transient and hypothetical, which consequently makes them difficult to measure. It will re-quire further research to break them down into their constituent components. Although these components will still likely be hypothetical, they will be easier to define.

The fourth factor was ‘environmental actions at home’. The frequency of past behaviours is often used in an attempt to predict future behaviours. However, this is problematic, as it sug-gests people are incapable of change. It is possible that some form of habitual behaviour or behavioural heuristic is used by people when performing tasks they have previously performed (Aarts and Dijksterhuis 2000). Past actions should be treated with care as a determining