COMPANIES PROMOTING SUSTAINABLE CONSUMPTION OF THEIR EMPLOYEES

COMPANIES PROMOTING SUSTAINABLE CONSUMPTION OF THEIR EMPLOYEES

Viola Muster, Ulf Schrader

Corresponding Author:

Dipl. Soz.Wiss. Viola Muster

Technische Universität Berlin

Fachgebiet Arbeitslehre Wirtschaft/Haushalt

Franklinstr. 28/29

10587 Berlin

Tel. +49-30-314 73465

Email: Viola.Muster@tu-berlin.de

http://www.ibba.tu-berlin.de/awh/ltg.htm
Introduction

Corporate Social Responsibility sheds light on many subjects which have been ignored in conventional business life. Shortcomings with regards to sustainability get obvious and both company-related and society-related issues are taken into account. Employees and their concerns are considered by referring to labor rights and working conditions. It’s rarely seen that employees are perceived in their role as private consumers and customers (Berger/Kanetkar 1995), although private consumption is crucial with respect to promoting sustainability in our society. This paper is going to illustrate, why companies should promote sustainable consumption patterns of their employees (i) and how they become able of doing it (ii).

Even though the needed change of consumption patterns was already postulated by the Agenda 21 in 1992, some time went on until sustainable consumption became a serious topic in the critical science and research community. Meanwhile there is no doubt, that purchase, consumption and disposal of goods are crucial elements of sustainable development. Therefore especially two objectives are fundamental: sustainable products and sustainable consumption patterns (with regards to the Marrakesh-process 2002). That means that on the one hand companies need to integrate social and ecological aspects in their products, need to advance product innovations (Diehl/Schrader 2009) and are supposed to promote these products and information about sustainability to their customers. On the other hand it is necessary, that consumers ask for and buy sustainable products and that they adapt sustainable consumption patterns, which is about to become a mainstream trend (Fricke/Schrader 2009). Companies are also asked to cooperate with external stakeholders to banish unsustainable products from the marketplace (e.g. WBSCD 2008). Eventually many different actors like the government, NGOs or the media are able to influence both companies and consumers and they are powerful in creating supportive conditions, in which sustainable consumption is more likely. Nevertheless companies and consumers are the decisive parties and their performance will indicate if a society consumes responsible or not.

But companies’ contribution to help consumers to consume socially responsible is deficient. They are basically focused on the business-to-business marketplace (to realize sustainable supply chains) and the business-to-consumer marketplace, which are both external stakeholders. But concentrating on these groups, companies are neglecting an important internal fraction: their employees. Even though employees are the important target group for in-house CSR-activities (e.g. work-life-balance activities and life-long-learning, occupational health and safety actions and the enhancement of labor rights), sustainable consumption or rather activities to foster sustainable consumption patterns are disregarded. Apparently there is an incomplete attribution of “consumers”. Consumers are exclusively perceived as customers, therefore companies that promote sustainable consumption promote customers consumption patterns. Employees are left out. Previously it is hardly known, that any companies are engaged in promoting private sustainable consumption of their employees, although companies are perfectly able of doing so.
Reasons for promoting sustainable consumption of employees

As mentioned before companies’ performance is crucial for implementing sustainable consumption in our society and their activities can reasonably completed by promoting sustainable consumption of their employees. The CSR-concept is possibly much more plausible and holistic, if companies’ interest in sustainability is ‘all-inclusive’. Respecting employees not only as company members, but also as private persons with different private behavioral patterns can help to enhance companies’ credibility and reliability. It also points out companies’ employee-orientation. Meanwhile it’s certain, that employee-orientation is decisive to create employee satisfaction, motivation, commitment and in the end companies profit (e.g. BMAS 2008). Minding one’s own business by promoting sustainability nearby within its own company and with its own employees before starting to “heal the world” is also quite understandable. While promotion of sustainable consumption for customers is often related to promotion of companies’ sustainable products and therefore arousing suspicion that increasing sales is the actual objective, actions for the private consumption of employees are good chances to prove the fact, that companies are serious about their mission.

Furthermore activities, which promote private consumption patterns, are not only affecting private life. It is assumed, that private dispositions like attitudes and lifestyles affect workplace-related actions and the working performance. So the promotion of sustainable private behavior could also have positive effects on workplace-related behavior, because employees, who have internalized sustainable lifestyles in their privacy, are also probable to act likewise on their workplace. Since the organizational change towards sustainability can only be carried by all the company members, it is fundamental, that their values, attitudes and behavioral settings are corresponding. So organizational learning and individual learning of ‘what it means to live sustainable’ can only go on together. Moreover the organizational change needs acceptance and sympathy by the employees. Often organisational change efforts can bring about a range of unintended outcomes like distrust, frustration or even organizational change cynism (Stanley et al. 2005). It is assumed, that employee involvement and a participatory style of management can help to avoid these effects (e.g. Brown/Cregan 2008). Now promotion activities for private consumption can’t be realized without involving employees (even though wide differences can be assumed), these actions are a great opportunity to practice participation and to prove managements’ interest in employees’ concerns.

Organisational Learning leads also to another point, which clarifies the relevance and importance of companies’ promotion of private sustainable consumption of their employees. Companies are fruitful places for learning. On the one hand learning on the workplace is seen as a matter of course regarding vocational education, vocational training or internal and work-related learning processes. On the other hand companies are places, where different ways and forms of learning can be realized, for instance informal learning, learning by doing, learning through examples or learning by experiences (e.g. Bierema/Erout 2004). Both dimensions are rewarding to advance employees consumption behavior.

Firstly, actions of organizational education (e.g. instructions for in-house recycling activities, information about energy savings in the company, etc.) also hold an undefined potential to take effect in every-day-life-actions of the employees (e.g. Berger/Kanetkar 1995; Thøgersen 1999). So-called spill-over-effects are likely, if they have any importance or impact for private performances and can be easily transferred from the company-related situation to other circumstances. Spill-over-effects occur by chance, they are not intended on purpose and mainly they are an accidental byproduct of the organizational education for sustainability. But byproducts are not enough. These Spill-over-effects can help to understand the role of employees as vital catalysts between organizational experiences and private live. Moreover spill-over-effects point out that people change behavior, if new information or experiences they’ve made are sensible to them, easy to handle and useful for their private life. That means that companies’ promotion for sustainable consumption is prospective to be successful, if certain information and activities fit into day-to-day routines and are possibly useful to solve ordinary problems (e.g. high costs for energy, etc.). Therefore the promotion of sustainable consumption can also be seen as a chance to signalize that employees’ problems and uneasiness is taken seriously and that they can find assistance in the company if they need some.

Secondly, the variety of organizational forms of learning is fabulous to stimulate and set up the information and learning process. The workplace provides convenient conditions, which facilitate education and communication for sustainability. On the one hand corporate actions for sustainability are usually voluntary, therefore they can be a welcome change from normal working activities and possibly the willingness is higher than in any free-time-context to spend time and attention to these topics. On the other hand peer pressure and social expectancy can create an atmosphere, where people are more likely to approach new subjects, which they wouldn’t consider in their private life. Nevertheless there is the risk that external constraint (explicitly, implicitly or subconsciously) leads to reactance. Reactance appears if someone perceives a threat of his or her behavioral freedom, for instance when someone is pressured to accept a certain view or attitude (Brehm et al 1966). That must be crucially concidered, when certain actions are planned and organized.

The workplace is moreover an important hub, where people are influenced and inspired by each other. Experiences and information are exchanged (e.g. colleagues tell each other, how they realized energy savings at home) and it’s quite likely that companies’ activities for private consumption continue to have an effect later on, just because people talk about it. It is shown in many surveys (e.g. UBA 2008; Greendex 2008), that people are willing to change their behavior, but they are reluctant in doing so. They need leadership, information and support (SCR 2006) to change their behavior and companies are able to provide these conditions. It is extraordinary fruitful, if people know and watch other people, who consume responsible. The “I will if you will”-principle (SCR 2006) can be perfectly realized in companies, though colleagues, supervisors and chefs are all participating. Doing these activities together and having collective experiences is not only fruitful for team building and the corporate feeling; acceptance is much more likely, if people realize that even management is participating.

People are exchanging information in all social relationships. Therefore companies’ activities for private consumption are prospective to influence much more people than just their employees. Employees, who have accepted the importance and relevance of changing consumption patterns and who are willing to change their behaviour are vital multipliers to widespread the mission. Moreover private people, who tell their own experiences in their own words, are much more credible than organisations or companies can be. The word-of-mouth-influence is highly sufficient and established (e.g. Carl 2006). Employees are possibly associated with different social milieus. Therefore promotion activities are potential to be widespread in areas, where information about sustainability is rare or hardly existent. Additionally that can bring positive effects for the companies’ image in regard of being an attractive employer and being a responsible member of the community (e.g. Huck 2006).

Supporting sustainable consumption of employees is a new and innovative concept. Companies that realize the concept will be “first-movers” in this area and undoubtedly there are first-mover-advantages (e.g. image profits, positive publicity, etc.), companies will profit from (e.g. Lieberman/Montgomery 1988). But it is assumed, that in this context time-related competition advantages aren’t relevant. By contrast it is for sure, that first-mover-disadvantages are also of importance, because no company is willing to do voluntary actions if there are unknown difficulties and harms they can face. Therefore it’s crucial to explore this topic theoretically and empirically and to provide useful instructions for companies.

To sum up, corporate promotion of employees’ sustainable consumption can profit from the specific workplace situation and can bring about advantages for both companies and employees (see figure 1).

It is assumed, that there are certain determinants, which are crucial to set up successful activities or rather to avoid any flops.

Thus, at the forefront there has to be considered, that a direct and progressive interest, the company shows on employees’ privacy could meet with refusal or any kind of reactance. Reactance can strengthen an attitude or behavior that is just the opposite of what was intended. That means in detail that any failure by influencing private consumption patterns is a missed chance to promote sustainable behavior, but moreover it provokes the risk, that unsustainable habits and practices are reinforced or refreshed. So a responsible and sensitive handling by arranging certain activities is indispensable. Furthermore it is not only important to avoid reactance for these reasons, it is also essential to create positive attitudes and feelings. Gaining employees, who are sympathetic with the activities and pleased to get new information and experiences are much more committed and interested. So it must be the whole purpose of any activities generating high acceptance and avoiding reactance.

Firstly, it might be rewarding to identify different target-groups. It is assumed, that the employees are a heterogeneous group of people that might need different forms of information, support and participation. Findings from target group communication in the environment or sustainability education (e.g. Kleinhückelkotten 2005) can be helpful here. Combining knowledge from social-milieu-research (e.g. Sinus Sociovision) and social marketing (e.g. Kotler/Roberto 2002) makes possible, that activities are matched with the different needs of the target groups. But target-group communication for employees demands special consideration. As mentioned before avoiding reactance is of prime importance and therefore a selection and separation of different target groups of employees isn’t practicable. Firstly, because selection and allocation are supposed to limit personal freedom (and that can bring about reactance). Secondly, the mode of allocation couldn’t be transparent without being pretentious. Thirdly, data-mining needed to be extremly detailed and precise. Therefore the following is suggested: target group communication must be realized implicitly. After identifying different interests and requests of employees (e.g. by employee suggestions, idea managment, team meetings, questionaires, etc.) a range of acitivities must be designed. On the one hand they should cover different interests (variety of information), on the other hand they should provide different information contents (quality of information). Eventually employees are authorized to choose their favorite activities on their own (self selection).

Secondly, it might be relevant, that employees are involved in planning and organizing the activities. On the one hand participation is requisite to consider different interests and needs of employees; on the other hand integration and possibilities for decision making help to generate acceptance and motivation (e.g. BMAS 2008). Combining different instruments of employee participation is suitable to give a variety of impulses and incentives to get employees joining in.

Thirdly, it is assumed, that also stakeholder involvement is crucial to set up successful activities. Selecting stakeholders, who are in line with employees’ interests, can be helpful to encourage employees to participate; they can strengthen their commitment and their motivation. Stakeholders like environmental organizations or consumer protection organizations are working typically non-profit, they are experts in certain fields of activity and therefore their credibility and reliability is enormous. Companies that collaborate with these organizations profit by their positive connotations and strengthen their own image and goodwill (e.g. Berger et al 2006). Stakeholders can give the company a back seat while the activities are going on and employees might feel more comfortable. Stakeholder involvement is also appropriate to refresh and energize the promotion activities and to entrain the employees.

Empirical research will be conducted to validate the determinants and to create an instruction guide for companies that are willing to promote sustainable consumption of their employees. It was shown that companies are in principle qualified to help their employees to consume socially responsible, because the workplace can be a fruitful enabling system, in which information, reflection and learning for sustainability is possible. Companies’ contribution to promote sustainability can be reasonably extended by focusing their employees.

Berger, Ida E.; Cunningham, Peggy H.; Drumwright, Minette E., 2006. Identity, Identification, and Relationship through Social Alliances, Journal of the Academy of Marketing and Science, 34 (2), pp. 128-137.

Berger, Ida E.; Kanetkar, Vinay, 1995. Increasing environmental sensitivity via workplace experiences. Journal of Public Policy and Marketing, 14 (2), pp.205-215.

Bierema, Laura L.; Eraut, Michael, 2004. Workplace-Focused Learning: Perspective on Continuing Professional Education and Human Resource Development, Advances in Developing Human Resources, 6, pp. 52-68.

BMAS (Bundesministerium für Arbeit und Soziales), 2008. Unternehmenskultur, Arbeitsqualität und Mitarbeiterengagement in den Unternehmen in Deutschland (Research Paper by the German Ministry of Labor and Social Affairs, Company Culture, Quality of Labor and Employee Commitment), Abschlussbericht Forschungsprojekt Nr. 18/05. Berlin.

Brehm, Jack W.; Sensening, John; Shaban, Janet, 1966. The attractiveness of an eliminated choice alternative, Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 2, pp.301-313.

Brown, Michelle; Cregan, Christina, 2008. Organizational Change Cynism. The Role of Employee Involvement, Human Ressourse Management, 47 (4), pp. 667-686

Carl, Walter J., 2006. What's all the Buzz about? Everyday Communication and the relational Basis of Word-of-Mouth and Buzz Marketing Practices, Management Communication Quarterly, 19, pp. 601-634.

Diehl, Benjamin; Schrader, Ulf, 2009. Consumer Citizens as Leading Innovators – Enhancing Value Creation Potential through Consumer-Consumer-Interaction. Paper presented at the sixth CCN international conference “Making a Difference – Putting Consumer Citizenship into Action”, March 23rd-24th 2009, Technical University Berlin, Germany.

Fricke, Vera; Schrader, Ulf, 2009. CSR-Mainstreaming and its Influence on Consumer Citizenship. Paper presented at the sixth CCN international conference “Making a Difference – Putting Consumer Citizenship into Action”, March 23rd-24th 2009, Technical University Berlin, Germany.

Greendex, 2008. Consumer Choice and the Environment. A Worldwide Tracking Survey, Washington D.C.: National Geographic Society, GlobeScan.

Huck, Simone, 2006. Glaubwürdigkeit. Erfolgsfaktor für die Unternehmenskommunikation. Ergebnisse einer qualitativen Befragung von Kommunikationsverantwortlichen (Credibility. Factor of success for business communication), Vol. 6, Stuttgart: Universität Hohenheim.

Kleinhückelkotten, Silke, 2005. Suffizienz und Lebensstile. Ansätze für eine milieuorientiere Nachhaltigkeitskommunikation (Approaches for milieu-orientated sustainability education), Berlin: Berliner Wissenschaftsverlag.

Kotler, Philip; Roberto, Eduardo L.; Roberto, Ned, 2002. Social Marketing: Improving the Quality of Life. London: Sage.

Lieberman, Marvin B; Montgomery, David B., 1988. First-Mover Advantages, Strategic Management Journal, 9, pp. 41-58.

SCR (Sustainable Consumption Roundtable), 2006. I will if you will. Towards sustainable consumption, Internet: http://www.sdcommission.org.uk/publications/downloads/I_Will_If_You_Will.pdf (last access: 26.02.09)

Sinus Sociovision, Internet: http://www.sinus-sociovision.de/ (last access: 26.02.09)

Stanley, David J.; Meyer, John P., and Topolnytsky, Larissa, 2005. Employee cynicism and resistance to organizational change, Journal of Business and Psychology, 19 (4), pp. 429-459.

Thøgersen, John, 1999. Spillover processes in the development of a sustainable consumption pattern, Journal of Economic Psychology, 20, pp. 53-81.

UBA (Umweltbundesamt), 2008. Umweltbewusstsein in Deutschland 2008. Ergebnisse einer repräsentativen Bevölkerungsumfrage (Federal Environment Agency, Survey of environmental behaviour in Germany), Berlin.

WBCSD (World Business Council for Sustainable Development), 2008. Sustainable Consumption. Trends and Facts. From a business perspective. Conches Geneva, Switzerland.