Next Article in Journal
Modelling Coal Dust Explosibility of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Coal Using Random Forest Algorithm
Previous Article in Journal
Investigating the Capability of PD-Type Recognition Based on UHF Signals Recorded with Different Antennas Using Supervised Machine Learning
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Energies
Volume 15
Issue 9
10.3390/en15093168
energies-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Determinants of Employee Electricity Saving Behavior in Small Firms: The Role of Benefits and Leadership

by
Olawale Fatoki
Department of Business Management, University of Limpopo, Private Bag X1314, Sovenga 0727, Limpopo Province, South Africa
Energies 2022, 15(9), 3168; https://doi.org/10.3390/en15093168
Submission received: 17 February 2022 / Revised: 12 March 2022 / Accepted: 21 March 2022 / Published: 26 April 2022
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
The emission of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases through electricity consumption by firms is one of the significant drivers of climate change. The performance of a firm’s environmental programme is to a large extent dependent on employee behaviour. Drawing on the Theory of Planned Behaviour (TPB), the study tested a theoretical model that incorporates benefits and leadership as antecedents of attitude towards electricity saving by the employees of small firms in the hospitality sector. The effects of five benefits (intrinsic, extrinsic, organisational, social, and environmental) and two leadership factors (leadership behaviour and leadership support) were examined. Investigating the antecedents of TPB constructs can help in understanding the process through which the constructs are associated with intention. In addition, the moderating effect of green psychological climate in the relationship between intention and electricity saving behaviour was examined. The study used the quantitative research design, and the cross-sectional survey method was used for data collection. The hypotheses of the study were tested using the Partial Least Square Structural Equation modelling (PLS SEM). The results of the empirical study indicated that intrinsic, organisational, social, and environmental benefits are positively related to attitudes towards electricity saving. In addition, the effects of leadership behaviour and support are significant. Furthermore, green psychological climate moderates the relationship between intention and electricity saving behaviour. Recommendations to improve employees’ electricity saving behaviour are suggested.

1. Introduction

Energy production and consumption are related to a country’s social-economic development. One of the reasons for the great level of development witnessed by human societies in the last century is the production and consumption of conventional energy resources from oil and gas [1,2]. However, the emission of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases through energy (electricity) consumption by individuals and firms is one the significant drivers of climate change [3]. Most of the energy produced currently is from non-renewable energy sources and coal mining for the production of energy can pollute water and create solid waste [4,5]. Coal accounts for approximately 75% of primary energy supply and over 90% of electricity generation in South Africa, and the country is ranked amongst the top fifteen largest carbon dioxide emitters in the world [6]. In addition, South Africa faces a significant electricity shortage leading to regular load shedding [7]. The total economic impact of load shedding in South Africa between 2007 and 2019 was between 167 billion rand and 338 billion rand [8]. Furthermore, the price of electricity in South Africa has increased significantly over the years with negative impact on the cost and performance of businesses [9].
Energy conservation is one of the ways to achieve a cleaner, healthier environment and mange climate change [10]. One of the ways to conserve energy is for individuals and businesses to investment in green technologies [11]. Another way to ensure energy conservation is the behavioural change of individuals at home or at work [12]. Because climate change is largely anthropogenic, human behavioural changes are important to create a sustainable future [13]. Businesses consume a lot of energy and contribute significantly to world’s environmental challenges [14]. The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (COP26) remarks that there must be a commitment to systemic change and net zero emissions should be a part of business principles and operation [15]. Despite a high level of consumption of energy by business, studies on energy conservation have tended to focus on individuals at home [16,17]. However, the results of the studies that focus on household energy conservation at home may not be generalised to the business context [18]. While energy use in households is paid for the owners, energy use in firms is free of charge for the employee, and this can lead to energy wastage [18,19]. Therefore, it is important for researchers to investigate energy conservation in the business context. The performance of a firm’s environmental programme is to a large extent dependent on employee behaviour [20]. Workplace Pro Environmental Behaviour (PEB) can be voluntary or involuntary. While involuntary PEB is often mandated by the organisation, voluntary PEB is discretionary [21]. The effectiveness of an organisation PEB is mainly dependent on employees’ voluntary behaviour or organisational citizenship behaviour for the environment [22]. Individually, the impact of each employee in respect of energy conservation may look small, but collectively, the impact is significant [19,20]. Employee workplace energy saving behaviour is an important theoretical issue that deserves better investigation and understanding [18]. Electricity is the major type of energy used in organisations [19]. Thus, the focus of this study will be on the electricity conservation (saving) behaviour of employees.
To understand the antecedents of the electricity saving behaviour of employees of small firms, this study builds a theoretical model based on the Theory of Planned Behaviour (TPB). The TPB consists of three constructs, namely, attitude, subjective norms, and perceived behaviour control [23]. In addition, according to the TPB, attitude is supposed to influence intention, and intention is supposed to influence behaviour [23]. The TPB also proposes some antecedents of attitude, subjective norms, and perceived behavioural control. Behavioural beliefs are the antecedents of attitude, while normative beliefs and control beliefs are the antecedents of subjective norms and perceived behavioural control respectively [23]. Investigating the antecedents of each TPB construct can help in understanding the process through which the constructs are associated with intention [19,23,24]. However, the majority of studies that have used the TPB as the framework to study household or workplace energy conservation have used the three TPB constructs alone in determining whether they account for variance in behavioural intention [18]. This is of significance because whilst the investigation of the three principal TPB constructs may provide an explanation of their contribution to the variance in behavioural intention, it is by considering their antecedents that a researcher can explain why this is so [23,24]. Attitude towards a behaviour can be affected by internal and external factors [25], and personal motivations for environmentally friendly behaviour can be linked to perceived benefits [26,27]. In addition, leaders through their behaviour can influence employee attitude towards environmentally friendly behaviour [28].
This study addresses some gaps in the energy conservation behaviour literature. First, studies on energy conservation behaviour of individuals have mainly focused on households with scant attention paid to employees in the business context. Second, most of the studies on energy conservation behaviour have focused on the antecedents of intention. The focus of this study is on the determinants of attitude towards electricity saving. Third, studies on employee electricity saving behaviour in the context of small firms are scarce as research has tended to focus on large firms [29,30,31]. Although a single small firm does not have the same environmental impact compared to a large firm, their combined effects are bigger than for large firms [32,33]. Compared to large firms, small firms tend to exhibit a severe lack of resources, dependence on top managers, and lower level of awareness, and these impact on their ability to adopt and implement sustainability initiatives [31]. Fourth, studies on the roles of benefits and leadership in stimulating electricity saving behaviour of the employees of small firms are scarce. Fifth, the moderating role of employees’ green psychological climate perception in the relationship between intention and electricity saving behaviour has received sparse empirical attention. Reference [34] points out that in the context of pro-environmental behaviour, the relationship between intention and actual behaviour can be positive if there is a perception of a positive green psychological climate by employees.
Based on these identified gaps, this study is premised on the following research questions. RQ1: Do perceived benefits influence employees’ attitude towards electricity saving in small firms? RQ2: Do leadership factors influence employees’ attitude towards electricity in small firms? RQ3: Does attitude towards electricity saving affect intention to save electricity in small firms? RQ4: Does intention to save electricity affect electricity saving behaviour in small firms? RQ5: Does green psychological climate moderate the relationship between intention and electricity saving behaviour in small firms?

2. Literature Review

2.1. Small Firms in the Hospitality Sector and Environmental Challenges

There are qualitative and quantitative descriptions of small firms described as Small, Medium and Micro Enterprises (SMMEs) in South Africa. The qualitative description shows that to be described as a SMME, the firm should be a distinct and separate body operated by one or more owners. There is also a schedule of standards that clarifies the sector and uses the number of employees and annual turnover to quantitatively classify SMMEs into micro, small, and medium [35]. This study uses the number of employees to classify SMMEs in the hospitality sector. Number of employees. Micro (1–10), small (11–50), and medium (51–250). The small business sector is the lifeblood of the economy of South Africa. The sector account for more than 98% of all businesses in the country. In addition, the sector contributes between 50 and 60% of employment and 25% of job growth in the private sector [36]. The total number of small firms in South Africa was 2.36 million at the end of the 3rd quarter of 2020. This is made up of 653,530 formal small firms and 1,580,155 informal (unregistered) small firms. The share of small firms as a percentage of total turnover of all firms was 38.8% in the third quarter of 2020. The hospitality sector is the largest sector in the tourism industry, and many hospitality firms in South Africa can be classified as small firms [37]. The Department of Labour [38] defines hospitality as “a commercial business involved in the provision of accommodation. The hospitality sector includes hotels, motels, lodges, guest houses including bed and breakfast establishments, restaurants, pubs, taverns and cafés” Hotels provide paid accommodation to guests and provide offer services such as food and entertainment to guests [39]. Tourism including the hospitality sector contributes significantly to income generation, job creation, and economic growth in South Africa. The direct and indirect contributions of tourism to South Africa’s gross domestic product are 2.9% and 8.6%, respectively. In addition, tourism supports about one-and-a-half million jobs and maintains an extensive value chain and generates foreign direct investment in South Africa [40]
Despite the positive contribution of hospitality, the activities of the sector have led to environmental challenges such as carbon dioxide emissions, waste, pollution, global warming, loss of biodiversity, and overconsumption of natural resources [41,42].
Reducing electricity consumption can provide internal and external benefits to firms and the larger economy [38]. On a micro level, reduced electricity consumption can lead to reduced energy costs, improved profitability, and competitiveness for firms. On a global level, reduced electricity consumption can lead to a reduction in fuel prices and volatility, improved energy security, and reduction of greenhouse gas emissions and pollution [43].

2.2. Energy (Electricity) Saving Behaviour

Energy (Electricity) saving behaviour refers to the behaviours that an individual performs to reduce overall energy (electricity) use [43]. Electricity saving behaviour includes the following: (1) Curtailment behaviour. This kind of behaviour saves energy through reduced use. Curtailment behaviour includes activities such as turning off lights, reducing appliance usage, and unplugging appliances. These activities must be repeated repeatedly for consistent energy savings [44]. (2) Efficiency behaviour. This approach is related to the purchase of more efficient appliances. (3) Maintenance behaviour. This involves saving energy by better maintaining appliances as this improves their performance and efficiency [45]. Energy conservation in small firms is limited because of lack of financial capacity, cost of additional equipment, low sensitivity and awareness, and staff attitude and behaviour [46]. This study focuses on how curtailment behaviour can improve employee energy saving behaviour. Boudet et al. [44] point out that energy savings and cost associated with a particular behaviour are important economic factors in a firm’s rational decision-making. Curtailment behaviour is relatively low cost compared to efficiency behaviour. This is important for many SMMEs with limited financial resources. In addition, the frequency of the performance of curtailment behaviour is important to habit formation, and this becomes a strong predictor of intention [47].
Section 2.3, Section 2.4 and Section 2.5 will review the theories that are related to the study. The section will examine the TPB from which attitude is derived. In addition, the self-determination theory provides the basis for intrinsic and extrinsic benefits of electricity saving behaviour, and theories that are related to leadership and electricity saving behaviour in the workplace are also discussed.

2.3. Theory of Planned Behaviour (TPB)

The TPB by [23] extends the Theory of Reasoned Action (TRA) [48]. The TRA argues that intention is the basis for actual behaviour. Intention depends on two factors, namely, attitude and subjective norms [48]. According to the TPB, intention also determines individual performance of a specific behaviour. The TPB is made up of three independent constructs, namely, attitude towards a behaviour, subjective norms, and perceived behavioural control. Attitude towards a behaviour is the extent to which an individual positively or negatively evaluates a behaviour. Subjective norms describe the possibility that an important individual, who is valued by an individual, will approve or disapprove of a behaviour. Perceived behavioural control describes the perceived difficulty or ease that an individual has in the performance of a behaviour. The TPB also proposes some antecedents of the three constructs [23]. This study focuses on perceived benefits and leadership as antecedents of attitude towards electricity saving.

2.4. Self-Determination Theory (SDT)

The Self-Determination Theory (SDT) by [49] focuses on the extent to which the behaviour of an individual is self-motivated and self-determined. The SDT explains the motivation behind the choices made by an individual in the absence of external influences and distractions. SDT distinguishes between two types of motivation: intrinsic and extrinsic. Intrinsic motivation focuses on the engagement of activities for the inherent rewards of the behaviour. Intrinsic motivation can be used to describe activities carried out for their inherent interest and enjoyment [50]. Extrinsic motivation focuses on behaviours prompted on an individual for reasons that are not related to inherent satisfactions. While intrinsic motivation comes from within the individual, extrinsic motivation comes from outside [50].

2.5. Leadership Theories

The link between leadership and the PEB of employees at work can be explained by the Social Learning theory (SLT), the Social Information theory (SIT), and the Social Exchange theory (SET). The SLT argues [51,52] that many human behaviours are learned through learning and observing other people. This suggests that employees can learn electricity saving behaviour at work by observing how managers save electricity. The SIT [53] contends that subordinates learn acceptable behaviour through interaction with and emulation of the activities of a leader. This suggests that PEB such as electricity saving can be learned by employees by emulating leaders. The SET [54] remarks that employees reciprocate leaders ‘behaviour towards them with their own matched behaviour on the basis of mutual reciprocity. These theories suggest that leaders through appropriate behaviour can influence the electricity saving behaviour of employees.

2.6. Hypotheses

2.6.1. Intrinsic Benefits and Attitude towards Electricity Saving

Intrinsic benefits can be described as benefits obtained from activities done for their inherent interest or enjoyment. Enjoyment includes pleasure, delight, and happiness in engaging in certain activities [49]. According to [55], acting in an environmentally friendly way can elicit psychological rewards through positive feelings. Intrinsic benefits can show themselves in the warm glow that an individual experiences when they feel good about themselves because of pro-environmental behaviour [56]. Thus, if an employee enjoys PEB, such employee will engage in environmentally friendly behaviour [49]. The findings of the study by [57] show that students engage in PEB because they enjoy it, and it is the fun thing to do. Another stream of research however finds that enjoyment is not positively associated with PEB. Tanu et al. [58] note that not environmentally friendly behaviour is pleasurable or enjoyed. Individuals that want to feel good should not include PEB in their goals because it often involves personal sacrifice. Enjoyment of a particular behaviour can significantly motivate the performance of such behaviour [15,59]. Enjoyment can also positively influence knowledge of pro-environmental action and positively affect attitude towards electricity saving [19]. It is hypothesised that:
Hypothesis 1.
Intrinsic benefit (enjoyment) is positively related to employees’ attitude towards electricity saving.

2.6.2. Extrinsic Benefits and Attitude towards Electricity Saving

Vanegas-Ricoa et al. [60] describe extrinsic benefits as benefits provided by sources external to the individual. Extrinsic benefits are benefits obtained by an individual for reasons that are not related to inherent satisfactions [50]. Organisations can use extrinsic rewards to drive employees’ energy saving behaviour. These rewards can be in the form of improved pay, better job assignment, and increased job security [19]. Zibarras et al. [61] in a study on promoting PEB in the workplace in the United Kingdom find that the two practices most effective are internal awareness through lectures, seminars and debates, and active championing by senior management. The two least effective practices to encourage workplace PEB are penalties for non-compliance and individual incentives or reward programmes. External motivation for a behaviour can lead to increased resentment, resistance, and performance of the behaviour only under specific circumstances [54]. The findings of the study by [19] show that the association between extrinsic reward and employee energy saving behaviour in China is insignificant. Chen and Liu [62] remark that it is important to investigate how extrinsic motivation based on reward can affect attitude towards energy saving. Employees that feel that they are likely to obtain extrinsic benefits (bonus, promotion, job security, better work assignment, increased pay) are likely to be motivated to engage in energy saving and thus develop a positive attitude towards electricity saving [62,63]. It is hypothesised that:
Hypothesis 2.
Extrinsic benefit (workplace rewards) is positively related to employees’ attitude towards electricity saving.

2.6.3. Organisational Benefits and Attitude towards Electricity Saving

Organisational benefits can be described as benefits that accrue to an organisation because of electricity saving behaviour of employees. These benefits include cost savings and improved financial performance [19]. Singh et al. [64] point out that in recent times, businesses have started to witness pressure from customers, government, and shareholders to reduce their negative environmental impact. Environmentally oriented firms can derive benefits through cost savings, customer and employee attraction and retention, improved environmental performance, and sustained competitive advantage [65]. The study by [66] finds that commitment of an employee to an organisation and the desire to protect the image of organisation are significantly related to energy saving behaviour. Employee knowledge and awareness of the benefits that can accrue to an organisation through energy saving behaviour can affect their attitude towards energy saving [19]. It is hypothesised that:
Hypothesis 3.
Organisational benefit is positively related to employees’ attitude towards electricity saving.

2.6.4. Social Benefit and Attitude towards Electricity Saving

The social benefits of electricity saving behaviour include the impact of such a behaviour on the society in terms of costs, health, and air quality [67]. Social impact also includes availability of electricity to the population through the reduction in demand caused by electricity saving [68] In South Africa, electricity supply is constrained, and the main energy supply company (Eskom) finds it difficult to meet demand leading to regular blackouts [69]. In addition, a significant part of the population of Sub-Saharan Africa does not have access to electricity, and the rate of electrification is not in line with the rate of population growth [69]. Saving electricity through demand side management can lead to a better match of electricity supply and demand [70]. According to [71], an organisation should take into consideration the social benefits of its activities such as the reduction of energy consumption on the society.as this can positively contribute to the sustainability of energy supplies. This suggests that the understanding by employees of the social benefits of energy saving in the form reduction of load shedding and improved access to electricity can affect their attitude towards energy saving. [19]. It is hypothesised that:
Hypothesis 4.
Social benefits are positively related to employees’ attitude towards electricity saving.

2.6.5. Environmental Benefits and Attitude towards Electricity Saving

Environmental benefits can be described as the benefits of electricity saving to the environment. These benefits are derived through reduction in the direct and indirect emissions from fossil fuel consumption and electricity generation [72]. Climate change is one of the greatest challenges faced by the world, and PEB can make a positive contribution to environmental protection [73]. The perception of environmental benefits can influence the willingness of an individual to engage in PEB. Reference [10] finds that perceived environmental benefits are positively related with the acceptance by individuals of energy sources that protect the environment. Zhang et al. [19] find that environment benefits are positively linked to attitude towards energy saving. The perception of environmental benefits can positively affect the attitude towards energy saving [10,19]. It is hypothesised that:
Hypothesis 5.
Environmental benefits are positively related to employees’ attitude towards electricity saving.

2.6.6. Leadership Behaviour and Support and Attitude towards Electricity Saving

Leadership is the process of influencing others towards the attainment of organisational goal. Leaders influence employees in an organisation through their moral commitment to their followers or employees and the collective good [74]. The effectiveness of an organisation’s environmental management strategy depends on leadership [20]. Leadership behaviour is a way and process through which leaders guide, direct, and influence followers to meet organisational goals [21]. Leadership support in the context of PEB describes deliberate activities by leaders and managers to encourage sustainability [21]. Robertson and Barling [21] remark that an individual can learn by observing the behaviours performed by others and subsequently initiate those kinds of behaviour themselves. In the case of PEB, which is often voluntary, leaders cannot mandate employees; however, they can encourage employees to develop and act pro-environmentally through their behaviour. Robertson and Barling [21] find that leadership behaviour and pro-environmental behaviour of employees are related. PEB by the managers of organisations can affect the intention of an employee to act pro-environmentally [75]. Thondhlana and Hlatshwayo [76] however find that leadership behaviour does not always affect the PEB of employees because of certain external factors. Leaders that show PEB in the area of recycling may not exhibit PEB in another area such as transportation. Blok et al. [77] describe leadership support in the context of sustainability as the activities that a leader or manager does to encourage employee PEB. Leaders support employees’ PEB in many ways. These include encouraging employees’ pro-environmental initiatives; communication about environmental issues; encouraging, appreciating, and helping employees to engage in pro-environmental behaviour; and appreciating employees PEB [78]. Leaders through their behaviour and support can influence attitude towards energy saving by employees [21,77]. It is hypothesised that:
Hypothesis 6.
Leader’s electricity saving behaviour is positively related to employees’ attitude towards electricity saving.
Hypothesis 7.
Leadership support for electricity saving is positively related to employees’ attitude towards electricity saving.

2.6.7. Attitude and Intention

Attitude towards a behaviour is the extent to which an individual positively or negatively evaluates a behaviour. This influences the intention to perform a behaviour [23,78]. Reference [79] remarks that attitude can be conceptualised in two ways, namely, general and specific attitudes. General attitude focuses on the tendency of an individual to accomplish a certain behaviour whilst specific attitude can be used to predict a single behaviour. In the context of sustainability, general attitude represents judgement of an individual about environmental problem, whilst specific attitude evaluates a particular type of environmentally friendly behaviour or product [80,81]. Untaru et al. [82] remark that the findings of research that has focused on general attitude have not been very useful in sustainability-oriented behavioural changes compared to studies that have focused on specific attitude. The findings of the studies by [18,19,83] indicate that a positive attitude towards energy conservation can positively affect the intention to conserve energy. If an employee evaluates electricity saving behaviour to be beneficial, he/she can develop a positive attitude, and this can positively affect the intention to save electricity [23]. It is hypothesised that:
Hypothesis 8.
Attitude towards electricity saving is positively related to employees’ intention to save electricity.

2.6.8. Intention and Behaviour

Intention is a central factor in the TPB and describes as an individual’s commitment to perform a given behaviour. Intention is the immediate antecedent of behaviour [23]. This suggests that the main predictor of a pro-environmental behaviour by an individual is the intention to behave in a pro-environmental manner. Macovei [84] finds that the intention to conserve energy and energy conservation behaviour are positively associated. Alshurideh et al. [85] in a study that used the TPB to investigate PEB in Jordan finds that intention and behaviour are significantly positively related. The findings of the study on hotel guests’ energy-saving behaviours by [86] indicate that that intention has a significant positive association with energy-saving behaviours. Canova and Manganelli [87] in a study that focused on energy-saving behaviours in the workplace in Italy and applying an extended TPB find that intention positively affects behaviour. It is hypothesised that:
Hypothesis 9.
Intention to save electricity is positively related to employees’ electricity saving behaviour.

2.6.9. Moderating Role of Green Psychological Climate in the Relationship between Intention and Behaviour

Green psychological climate can be described as the perception and interpretation of employees about organisational practices, policies, and procedures and practices with respect to the environment [88,89]. Green psychological climate encourages and stimulates stakeholders to exhibit voluntary pro-environmental behaviour [90]. Tuan [91] finds that green psychological climate serves as a moderator in how green crafting affects employees’ green performance. Norton et al. [89] remarks that in the context of PEB, employees ’perception of green psychological climate can affect the association between intention and behaviour. It is hypothesised that:
Hypothesis 10.
Green psychological climate moderates the positive relationship between intention to save electricity and electricity saving behaviour.
Figure 1 depicts the conceptual model of the study.

3. Materials and Methods

The study used the survey method and specifically the self-administered questionnaire method to collect data from the respondents. The survey was conducted in the Central Business Districts of Johannesburg and Pretoria of the Gauteng Province and Polokwane in the Limpopo province of South Africa. These areas contain a large number of small firms in the hospitality sector. The hotels that participated in the survey were sampled conveniently from the website of Trivago, a hotel search firm. A data collection agency assisted in the process. The study followed two processes. First the participating firms were identified. The owners and managers of the identified firms were contacted through personal meetings to explain the purpose of the research and seek the permission to contact their employees. One hundred and thirty firms and their owners and managers granted the permission to conduct the survey out of one hundred and seventy contacted. The emails and telephone numbers of the owner/managers were obtained. The number of employees working in each firm was obtained from the owner/manager. This led to the identification of the class of small firms as follows: one hundred small firms (11–50 employees) and thirty medium sized firms (51–250 employees). Before actual data collection, a pilot study was carried out with ten small firms and thirty employees following the same process. The firms or the employees that participated in the pilot study were not involved in the actual survey. The pilot study led to slight modifications to the questionnaire. In addition, two leading researchers in the areas of sustainability and small firms examined the questionnaire, and their comments were incorporated in developing the final questionnaire. One hundred and twenty firms made up of ninety small firms and thirty large firms participated in the final survey. Six employees were contacted in each small enterprise and thirteen in each medium sized enterprise. Out of the one hundred and twenty firms that participated in the final survey, thirty-four were located in Polokwane and eighty-six in Pretoria. Polokwane is the capital of Limpopo province, and Pretoria is the administrative capital of South Africa. The participants were all office staff, and their cell phone numbers and or the emails were obtained after the delivery of the questionnaire. Each participant in the survey was given two weeks to complete the questionnaire. The participants were reminded every two weeks through phone calls or email messages to complete the questionnaire. This process was repeated for eight weeks. Questionnaires that are not completed after eight weeks are regarded as non-response. The Partial Least Square Structural Equation Modelling (PLS SEM) on the Smart software 3.0 was used to analyse the data collected in the survey. The question items were developed from previous studies and depicted in appendix one. The five-point Likert scale ranging from “1 strongly disagree” to “5 strongly agree” was used to anchor the questions. The participants in the survey were guaranteed anonymity and confidentiality. Table A1 Appendix A depicts the measures of the constructs of the study.

4. Results

4.1. Response Rate and Biographical Detail

Nine hundred and thirty questionnaires were distributed, and four hundred and four hundred and fifty-five returned. Eleven questionnaires were discarded because of the failure of the respondents to complete vital parts. Four hundred and forty-four questionnaires were usable. In determining the appropriate sample size, the study utilised the 10 times rule which assumes that when PLS SEM is used, the sample size should be greater than ten times the maximum number of inner or outer model links that point to a given latent variable in a model [92]. The biographical details of the respondents are as follows: gender, 229 females and 215 males; age, 21–30 years (135 respondents), 31–40 years (185), 41–50 years (98), 51–60 years (26); educational qualifications, 256 with Matric (high school) qualification and 188 with post matric (post high school, i.e., diploma and university degree) qualification.

4.2. PLS SEM

References [92,93] remark that the PLS SEM consists of two sub- models which are the measurement and the structural.

4.2.1. The Measurement Model

Table 1 depicts the measurement model. The following factors should be considered in the evaluation of the measurement model: factor loadings (>0.708), average variance explained (>0.500), Cronbach’s alpha (>0.700), and composite reliability. Table 1 shows that all these requirements are met, and convergent validity is established

4.2.2. Discriminant Validity

To assess discriminant validity, the study used the Fornell–Larcker criterion and the heterotrait–monotrait ratio (HTMT). Table 2 depicts the results of the the Fornell–Larcker criterion for discriminant validity [92]. In addition, all the values of the HTMT ratio were below the conservative threshold of 0.850. These two tests confirm an adequate discriminant validity of all latent variables.

4.2.3. Structural Model

Hair et al. [93] points out that the following factors should be considered in the assessment of the structural model. The common method bias (CMB), the R2, the Q2, and the evaluation of the path coefficients. The variance inflation factor (VIF) that helps to identify the existence of CMB should be equal or lower than 3.3. The model (R2) explained 54.8% of the variance of attitude towards electricity saving [94]. The GOF obtained by the study is 0.337, suggesting that the empirical data satisfactorily fits the significant predictive power of the model. A Q2 > 0.5 is considered a predictive model. The Q2 obtained in the study is 0.406. The effect sizes obtained in the study range from 0.284 to 0.296, and the standardised root mean square residual (SRMR) obtained in the study is 0.02. Table 3 depicts the structural model.
Table 3 and Figure 2 depict the summary results of the structural model. The results (β 0.293, T 5.039, p < 0.05) show that INT and ATT are significantly positively related supporting hypothesis one is supported. The results (β 0.042, T 0.099, p > 0.05) depict an insignificant relationship between EXT and ATT. Hypothesis two is rejected. The results (β 0.181, T 7.071, p < 0.01) indicate an ORG and ATT are significantly positively associated, supporting hypothesis three. The results (β 0.193, T 2.998, p < 0.01) show that ENV and ATT are positively linked, supporting hypothesis four. The results (β 0.306, T 5.008, p < 0.01) show that SOC and ATT are significantly related, supporting hypothesis five. The results (β 0.220, T 4.126, p < 0.05) show LEB and ATT are significantly positively related, supporting hypothesis six. The results (β 0.149, T 3.335, p < 0.05) show a significant positive association between LES and ATT, supporting hypothesis five seven. The results (β 0.276, T 3.902, p < 0.01) show ATT and INTE are positively linked, supporting hypothesis eight. The results (β 0.195, T 3.664, p < 0.05) show INTE and BEH are significantly positively associated, supporting hypothesis nine. The product-indicator method was used to evaluate if green psychological climate moderates the relationship between intention and energy saving behaviour because the construct is continuous. The results of the interaction terns ((β 0.108 T 2.804, p < 0.01) are significant, and hypothesis ten is supported. In addition, the slope of the link between intention and behaviour as moderated by green psychological climate indicates that the relationship becomes stronger when green psychological climate is high as evidenced by Table 3. This shows that when green psychological climate is high, the relationship between intention and behaviour tends to be stronger.
Figure 2 depicts the results of the structural modelling results of the conceptual model.
Figure 3 depicts the moderation plot for green psychological climate.

5. Discussion

Electricity saving is one of the ways to achieve a cleaner, healthier environment and ensuring climate change. Grounded on the TPB, the study examined the effects of perceived benefits and leadership on attitude towards energy conservation by the employees of SMMEs in South Africa. Five benefits (intrinsic, extrinsic, organisational, social, and environmental) and two leadership factors (leadership behaviour and leadership support) were examined. In addition, the moderating effect of green psychological climate in the relationship between intention and electricity saving behaviour was investigated. The findings indicated that the perception of intrinsic benefit positively affects the attitude towards electricity saving, these being significantly positively related. The results suggest that intrinsic benefits as measured by enjoyment can positively affect attitude toward electricity saving. The results are consistent with the findings of [19,58] that enjoyment leads to fulfilment and an inner feeling of satisfaction and positively impact on attitude toward electricity saving. The results indicate that extrinsic benefits do not affect attitudes towards energy saving. The results suggest that external motivations to engage in electricity saving may not lead to electricity saving. The results are consistent with the findings of [61] that external rewards such as individual incentives or reward programmes do not significantly influence employees’ pro-environmental behaviour.
The findings indicated that organisational, social, and environmental benefits positively affect attitudes towards electricity saving. The knowledge by employees of the social and environmental benefits of electricity saving can affect their attitude towards electricity saving. The results are consistent with the findings of previous empirical studies. Energy conservation can reduce a firm’s operational costs and improve financial and environmental performance [19]. Environmentally oriented firms can derive benefits in cost savings, improved environmental performance, and competitive advantage [64]. In South Africa, the electricity supply is constrained and does not match the demand leading to regular load shedding [65]. Electricity saving can lead to reduction of load shedding and blackouts and improved access to electricity by the people of the country [65].
The results indicated that leadership behaviour and leadership support are significantly positively related to attitude towards electricity saving. The findings indicated that owners/managers of SMMEs through their behaviour and support can influence attitude towards electricity saving by employees. Robertson and Barling [21] finds that leadership behaviour influences the PEB of employees. Blok et al. [77] remark that leadership support through the building of environmental competencies, encouraging pro-environmental initiatives, and encouraging pro-environmental action can improve employees PEB. The results showed that attitude is positively related to electricity saving intention. This suggests that if an employee evaluates electricity saving in the workplace to be beneficial, he/she will develop a positive attitude, and this can positively affect the intention to save electricity. The findings of the study by [18,19] also showed that a positive attitude towards energy conservation is positively linked to intention to conserve energy. The results showed that intention is positively related to electricity saving behaviour. The findings are consistent with the results of [84,85,86,87] that intention has a significant positive association with energy-saving behaviours. The findings showed that green psychological climate moderates the link between intention and energy saving behaviour. The relationship between intention and actual behaviour can be positive if there is a perception of a positive green psychological climate by employees [88,89].

6. Research Implications

6.1. Theoretical Implication

The study makes a contribution to the workplace electricity saving behaviour of employees. Studies have primarily focused on household electricity saving behaviour with scant research on employees in the workplace. However, businesses consume a vast amount of electricity and energy saving at work is more complex than energy saving at home because employees do not pay for electricity at work. In addition, while the majority of studies that used the TPB or the extended versions have focused on how the TPB constructs affect intention, this study examined the antecedents of attitude towards electricity saving in the context of small firms in the hospitality sector. The study developed a unique theoretical model that shows how benefits and leadership can affect employees’ attitude towards electricity saving and how green psychological climate can moderate the relationship between intention and behaviour. The findings of the study provide an important insight into how benefits and leadership can affect the electricity saving behaviour of employees. In addition, while the direct effect of intention on pro-environmental behaviour has stimulated many studies, this study provides insight into how green psychological climate can intervene in the relationship. This is a novel contribution especially in the context of electricity saving behaviour of employees in small hospitality firms.

6.2. Practical Implication

The findings of the study have practical implications for the management of electricity saving in small hospitality firms. The findings indicate how perceived benefits and leadership behaviour and support can affect attitude towards electricity saving. To improve attitude towards electricity saving, employees must be able to obtain both the intrinsic and extrinsic benefits of electricity saving behaviour. To improve intrinsic motivation, hospitality firms should focus on enhancing the warm glow derived from electricity saving. This can be done through an increase in the level of environmental concern and knowledge that high energy consumption significantly contributes to climate change. Hotel managers can enhance the self of enjoyment by acknowledging the contribution of employees to electricity saving. In addition, employees should be made aware of the social, environmental, and organisational benefits of electricity saving. This can be realised through training about the environmental impact of energy conservation. Leaders through their behaviour and support can also improve attitudes towards electricity saving. Leaders should make sure that that they save electricity at work and also encourage employees to do so.

6.3. Limitations and Areas for Further Study

The study has some limitations. First data were collected from employees of small firms in three cities in South Africa, and this restricts the generalisability of the results. Other studies can improve the generalizability of the findings by including additional employees in large hotels in other provinces of South Africa. An international comparative study will assist in improving the generalizability of the findings. Second, the study depended on self-reported data of employees rather than rather than objective observations. This may lead to social desirability bias. Other studies can obtain responses from managers of hotels about the electricity saving behaviour of employees. Third, the study did not include the effect of demographic factors such as age, level of education, and gender. Socio-demographic factors can also affect employees’ electricity saving behaviour. Other studies can explore the moderating role of demographic factors. Fourth, the study did not include mediating variables which can be useful in understanding the intervention mechanism between benefits and leadership and intention. Attitude towards energy saving can be used as a mediator in the link between benefits and leadership and intention to save energy by the employees of small firms. Fifth, the study focuses only on the antecedents of attitude. The two other TPB constructs (subjective norms and perceived behavioural control) also have antecedents, and these were not examined by the study. Other studies could examine the antecedents of subjective norms and perceived behavioural control in the context of employee electricity saving behaviour in small firms. Sixth, the study used a cross-sectional research design, and this limits cause and effect relationship. Other studies can adopt a longitudinal research design to improve cause and effect.

7. Conclusions

The study examined the relationship between perceived benefits and leadership and attitude towards energy saving by the employees of small firms. Data were collected from 444 employees of small hotels. The PLS SEM using Smart software was used to analyse the data. The findings indicated that benefits (intrinsic, organisational, social, and environmental) and leadership (leadership behaviour and support) are positively associated with attitude toward electricity saving in the context of small firms. The study makes theoretical, empirical, and policy contributions to the research on employee electricity saving from the perspective of small hospitality firms.

Funding

The research received internal funding from the author’s university. This research was funded by the Department of Business Management, University of Limpopo grant no BMAN/21/2.

Institutional Review Board Statement

The study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki, and approved by the Institutional Review Board (or Ethics Committee) of the University of Limpopo (protocol code TREC/289/2021:IR and dated 30 March 2021) for studies involving humans.

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.

Data Availability Statement

The research results were obtained from the questionnaire constructed by the Author of this publication.

Conflicts of Interest

The author of the paper confirms that there is conflict of interest.

Appendix A

Table
Table A1. Measures of the constructs of the study.
Table A1. Measures of the constructs of the study.
ConstructQuestionsAdapted from (Source)
Personal Intrinsic benefits (enjoyment)1. I enjoy saving electricity in my firm
2. It gives me pleasure to save electricity for my firm
3. I am delighted saving electricity in my firm		[19]
Extrinsic benefits (workplace reward)1. I will be rewarded with improved salary by my firm for my electricity saving behaviour
2. I will be rewarded with promotion by my firm for my electricity saving behaviour
3. I will be rewarded with job security by my firm for my electricity saving behaviour
4. I will be rewarded with a better job assignment by my firm for my electricity saving behaviour
5. My firm has rewards employee electricity saving behaviours.		[19,55]
Environmental benefits1. Saving electricity in my firm helps to prevent global warming and climate change
2. Saving electricity in my firm helps to reduce my country’s ecological damage		[19]
Social benefits1. Saving electricity in my firm helps to reduce electricity demand in the country
2. Saving electricity in my firm helps to reduce electricity load shedding and blackouts in the country
3. Saving electricity in my firm helps to improve access to electricity by people and business in the country
4. Saving electricity in my firm help to improve energy security of the country		[60,61]
Organisational benefits1. Saving electricity reduces the cost of electricity incurred by my firm
2. Saving electricity will help my firm save money
3. Saving electricity is beneficial to my firm		[19,56,57]
Attitude towards electricity saving1. For me, saving electricity in my firm is positive
2. For me, saving electricity in my firm is good
3. For me, saving electricity in my firm is positive wise
4. For me, saving electricity in my firm is positive is desirable		[19,56]
Leadership behaviour1. ‘I save electricity because my manager/owner saves electricity at work
2. It is important to me that my manager/owner displays electricity saving at work
3. Seeing my manager/owner save electricity at work influences my own electricity saving behaviour at work.		[63,64,65,66,67,68]
Leadership support1. My manager/owner supports me in electricity saving behaviour at work
2. I learn electricity saving behaviour at work.
3. My manager/owner encourages employees to save electricity at work
4. There is the support of manger/owner for the electricity saving effort of employees.		[63,64,65,66,67,68]
Intention to save electricity1. I intend to save electricity in my firm
2. I plan to save electricity in my firm
3. I am willing to save electricity in my firm		[23,55]
Electricity saving behaviour1. When I am at work in my firm: I turn off the lights when going out even for a short time.
2. I reduce the use of the fan/air conditioner by opening the windows
3. I switch off the computer when it is not used.
4. I limit the duration that the refrigerator door is kept open
5. I turn off the lights when the sunshine is bright enough.
6. I properly close the room when I use the air-conditioner
7. I switch off all lights when leaving work as the last person		[23,55]
Green psychological climate 1. My firm is worried about its environmental impact
2. My firm is interested in supporting environmental causes
3. My firm believes it is important to protect the environment
4. My firm is concerned with becoming more environmentally friendly.
5. My firm would like to be seen as environmentally friendly 		[80]

References

  1. Lloyd, P.J. The role of energy in development. J. Energy S. Afr. 2017, 28, 54–62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  2. Rej, S.; Nag, B. Does socio-economic development impact energy consumption? A causality test for India. J. Energy Dev. 2019, 44, 143–159. [Google Scholar]
  3. Ritchie, H.; Roser, M. CO2 and Greenhouse Gas Emissions. 2020. Available online: https://ourworldindata.org/co2-and-other-greenhouse-gas-emissions (accessed on 15 June 2021).
  4. European Environmental Agency. Energy Policy Review. 2020. Available online: https://www.iea.org/reports/european-union-2020 (accessed on 15 June 2021).
  5. Liu, X.; Wang, Q.; Wei, H.; Chi, H.; Ma, Y.; Jian, I. Psychological and Demographic Factors Affecting Household Energy-Saving Intentions: A TPB-Based Study in Northwest China. Sustainability 2020, 12, 836. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  6. Statista. Coal Consumption in South Africa from 1998 to 2020. 2020. Available online: https://www.statista.com/statistics/265499/south-african-coal-consumption-in-oil-equivalent/ (accessed on 15 June 2021).
  7. Mbomvu, L.; Hlongwane, I.T.; Nxazonke, N.P.; Qayi, Z.; Bruwer, J. Load Shedding and its Influence on South African Small, Medium and Micro Enterprise Profitability, Liquidity, Efficiency and Solvency. Business Re-Solution Working Paper BRS/2021/001. Available online: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3831513 (accessed on 9 January 2022).
  8. Council for Scientific and Industrial Research. CSIR Releases Power Sector Statistics for First-Half of 2021 Presenting the Extent of Load Shedding Already Experienced Whilst Highlighting the Growing Role of Clean Energy. 2021. Available online: https://www.csir.co.za/csir-releases-power-sector-statistics-first-half-2021 (accessed on 15 June 2021).
  9. Gonese, D.; Hompashe, D.; Sibanda, K. The impact of electricity prices on sectoral output in South Africa from 1994 to 2015. Afr. J. Econ. Manag. Stud. 2019, 10, 198–211. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Moriaty, P.; Honnery, D. Energy Efficiency or Conservation for Mitigating Climate Change? Energies 2019, 12, 3543. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  11. Cruz-Lovera, C.; Perea-Moreno, A.; Cruz-Fernández, J.; Alvarez-Bermejo, J.; Manzano-Agugliaro, F. Worldwide Research on Energy Efficiency and Sustainability in Public Buildings. Sustainability 2017, 9, 1294. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  12. Hussain, W.; Halim, L.; Chan, M.; Rahman, R. Predicting Energy-Saving Behaviour Based on Environmental Values: An Analysis of School Children’s Perspectives. Sustainability 2021, 13, 7644. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Lynas, M.; Houlton, B.; Perry, S. Greater than 99% consensus on human caused climate change in the peer-reviewed scientific literature. Environ. Res. Lett. 2021, 16, 114005. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Soderholm, P. The green economy transition: The challenges of technological change for sustainability. Sustain. Earth 2020, 3, 6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. McKinsey. COP26 Made Net Zero a Core Principle for Business. Here’s How Leaders Can Act. 2021. Available online: https://www.mckinsey.com/business-functions/sustainability/our-insights/cop26-made-net-zero-a-core-principle-for-business-heres-how-leaders-can-act (accessed on 15 June 2021).
  16. Yue, T.; Long, R.; Liu, J.; Liu, H.; Chen, H. Empirical Study on Households’ Energy-Conservation Behavior of Jiangsu Province in China: The Role of Policies and Behaviour Results. Int. J. Env. Res. Public Health 2019, 16, 939. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  17. Bohdanowicz, Z.; Łopaciuk-Gonczaryk, B.; Kowalski, J.; Biele, C. Households’ Electrical Energy Conservation and Management: An Ecological Break-Through, or the Same Old Consumption-Growth Path? Energies 2021, 14, 6829. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Gao, L.; Wang, S.; Li, J.; Li, H. Application of the extended theory of planned behavior to understand individual’s energy saving behavior in workplaces. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2015, 127, 107–113. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Zhang, Y.; Wang, Z.; Zhou, G. Determinants of employee electricity saving: The role of social benefits, personal benefits and organizational electricity saving climate. J. Clean. Prod. 2014, 66, 280–287. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Wesselink, R.; Blok, V.; Ringersma, J. Pro-environmental behaviour in the workplace and the role of managers and organisation. J. Clean. Prod. 2017, 168, 1679–1687. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Robertson, J.; Barling, J. Greening Organizations Through Leaders’ Influence on Employees’ Pro-Environmental Behaviors. J. Organ. Beh. 2012, 34, 176–194. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Zientara, P.; Zamojska, K. Green organizational climates and employee pro-environmental behaviour in the hotel industry. J. Sustain. Tour. 2018, 26, 1142–1159. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Ajzen, I. The theory of planned behaviour. Org. Beh. Human Dec. Proc. 1991, 50, 179–211. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Greaves, M.; Zibarras, L.; Stride, C. Using the theory of planned behavior to explore environmental behavioural intentions in the workplace. J. Environ. Psychol. 2013, 34, 109–120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. McSporran, A.; Cho, Y. Analyzing The Determinants of Attitude, Behavior, and Satisfaction on Imported Products: Implications For The Growing Food And Beverage Industry. Jou Serv. Sci. 2017, 10, 13–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Silvi, M.; Rosa, E. Pro-environmental behavior: On the interplay of intrinsic motivations and external conditions. In Proceedings of the Conference: EAERE2017-23rd Annual Conference of the European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, Athens, Greece, 28 June–1 July 2017. [Google Scholar]
  27. Blankenberg, A.; Alhusen, H. On the Determinants of Pro-Environmental Behavior: A Literature Review and Guide for the Empirical Economist; CEGE Discussion Papers, No. 350; Center for European, Governance, and Economic Development Research (CEGE): Göttingen, Germany, 2019. [Google Scholar]
  28. Nisar, S.; Khan, N.R.; Khan, M.R. Determinant analysis of employee attitudes toward pro-environmental behaviour in textile firms of Pakistan: A serial mediation approach. Manag. Environ. Qual. 2021, 32, 1064–1094. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Russell, S.; Evans, A.; Fielding, K.; Hill, C. Turn It Off: An Action Research Study of Top Management Influence on Energy Conservation in the Workplace. Front. Psychol. 2016, 7, 389. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  30. Zierler, R. The energy efficiency behaviour of individuals in large organisations: A case study of a major UK infrastructure operator. Energy Policy 2017, 104, 38–49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  31. Cantele, S.; Vernizzi, S.; Campedelli, B. Untangling the Origins of Sustainable Commitment: New Insights on the Small vs. Large Firms’ Debate. Sustainability 2020, 12, 671. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  32. Vázquez-Carrasco, R.; López-Pérez, M.E. Small & medium-sized enterprises and corporate social responsibility: A systematic review of the literature. Qual. Quant. 2013, 47, 3205–3218. [Google Scholar]
  33. Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development. Environmental Policy Toolkit for Greening SMEs in EU Eastern Partnership Countries. Available online: https://www.oecd.org/publications/environmental-policy-toolkit-for-sme-greening-in-eu-eastern-partnership-countries-9789264293199-en.htm (accessed on 15 April 2021).
  34. Tahir, R.; Athar, M.R.; Afzal, A. The impact of greenwashing practices on green employee behaviour: Mediating role of employee value orientation and green psychological climate. Cog. Bus. Man. 2020, 7, 1–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Government Gazette. Revised Schedule 1 of the National Definition of Small Enterprise in South Africa. 2019. Available online: https://www.gov.za/sites/default/files/gcis_document/201903/423041gon399.pdf (accessed on 15 April 2021).
  36. 2020. Available online: https://www.mckinsey.com/featured-insights/middle-east-and-africa/how-south-african-smes-can-survive-and-thrive-post-covid-19 (accessed on 15 April 2021).
  37. Small Enterprise Development Agency. SMME Quarterly Update 1st Quarter 2021. 2021. Available online: http://www.seda.org.za/Publications/Publications/SMME%20Quarterly%202021%20Q1%20September.pdf (accessed on 5 February 2022).
  38. Department of Labour. Sectorial Determination 14: Hospitality Sector, South Africa. 2016. Available online: http://www.labour.gov.za/DOL/legislation/sectoral…/sectoral-determination-14-hospitality (accessed on 6 March 2021).
  39. Cebekhulu, N. Assessing Security Measures at Hotels: A Case Study from Gauteng. 2016. Available online: http://uir.unisa.ac.za/bitstream/handle/10500/22182/dissertation_cebekhulu_np.pdf?sequence=3&isAllowed=y (accessed on 15 February 2022).
  40. South African Government. Tourism on United Nations World Tourism Organisation Seat Nomination. 2021. Available online: https://www.gov.za/speeches/tourism-united-nations-world-tourism-organisation-seat-nomination-8-sep-2021-0000 (accessed on 15 February 2022).
  41. Mbasera, M.; Du Plessis, E.; Saayman, M.; Kruger, M. Environmentally-friendly practices in hotels. Acta Commer. 2016, 16, a362. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Idahosa, L.; Marwa, N.; Akotey, J. Energy Consumption in South African Hotels: A Panel Data Analysis. 2017. Available online: https://econrsa.org/system/files/publications/working_papers/working_paper_685.pdf (accessed on 15 February 2022).
  43. Sweeney, J.C.; Webb, D.A.; Soutar, G.; Mazzarol, T. Energy saving behaviour: Development of a practice based model. Energy Policy 2013, 61, 371–381. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Boudet, H.; Flora, J.; Armel, K. Clustering household energy-saving behaviours by behavioural attribute. Energy Policy 2016, 92, 444–454. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  45. Azizi, Z.; Azizi, S.; Abidin, N.; Mannakkara, S. Making Sense of Energy-Saving Behaviour: A Theoretical Framework on Strategies for Behaviour Change Intervention. In Proceedings of the 3rd World Conference on Technology, Innovation and Entrepreneurship: Industry 4.0 Focused Innovation, Technology, Entrepreneurship and Manufacture, Istanbul, Turkey, 21–23 June 2019. [Google Scholar]
  46. Fatima, Z.; Oksman, V.; Lahdelma, R. Enabling Small Medium Enterprises (SMEs) to Become Leaders in Energy Efficiency Using a Continuous Maturity Matrix. Sustainability 2021, 13, 10108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Karlin, B.; Davis, N.; Sanguinetti, A.; Gamble, K.; Kirkby, D.; Stokols, D. Dimensions of Conservation: Exploring Differences Among Energy Behaviours. Environ. Behav. 2012, 46, 423–452. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  48. Ajzen, I.; Fishbein, M. Understanding Attitudes and Predicting Social Behavior; Prentice-Hall: Englewood Cliffs, NJ, USA, 1980. [Google Scholar]
  49. Ryan, R.M.; Deci, E.L. Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. Am. Psychol. 2000, 55, 68–78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  50. Ryan, R.M.; Deci, E.L. Intrinsic and extrinsic motivation from a self-determination theory perspective: Definitions, theory, practices, and future directions. Contemp. Educ. Psychol. 2020, 61, 101860. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Bandura, A. Social Learning Theory; Prentice-Hall: Englewood Cliffs, NJ, USA, 1977. [Google Scholar]
  52. Bandura, A. The social learning perspective: Mechanisms of aggression. In Psychology of Crime and Criminal Justice; Toch, H., Ed.; Waveland Press: Prospect Heights, IL, USA, 1986; pp. 198–236. [Google Scholar]
  53. Salancik, G.R.; Pfeffer, J. A social information processing approach to job attitudes and task design. Admin. Sci. Quart. 1978, 23, 224–253. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Blau, P.M. Exchange and Power in Social Life; John Wiley: New York, NY, USA, 1964. [Google Scholar]
  55. Taufik, D.; Bolderdijk, J.; Steg, L. Acting green elicits a literal warm glow. Nat. Clim. Chang. 2014, 5, 37–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Venhoeven, L.A.; Bolderdlyk, J.W.; Steg, L. Why Acting Environmentally-Friendly Feels Good: Exploring the Role of Self-Image. Front. Psychol. 2016, 7, 1846. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  57. Pugno, M.; Sarracino, F. Intrinsic Vs. Extrinsic Motivation to Protect the Environment: Correlational and Causal Evidence. 2021. Available online: https://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/107143/1/MPRA_paper_107143.pdf (accessed on 14 May 2021).
  58. Tanu, D.; Parker, L. Fun, Family, and Friends. Developing pro-environmental behaviour among high school students in Indonesia. Indones. Malay World 2018, 46, 303–324. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Lindenberg, S.; Steg, L. Normative, gain and hedonic goal-frames guiding environmental behavior. Jou Soc. Issues 2007, 65, 117–137. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  60. Vanegas-Ricoa, M.; Corral-Verdugo, V.; Ortega-Andeane, P.; Bustos-Aguayo, J. Intrinsic and extrinsic benefits as promoters of pro-environmental behaviour. Biling. J. Environ. Psychol. 2017, 9, 33–54. [Google Scholar]
  61. Zibarras, L.; Judson, H.; Barnes, C. Promoting Environmental Behaviour in the Workplace: A Survey of UK Organisations. 2012. Available online: https://greenedge.co.za/files/Downloads-Pro-environmental-behaviour-in-the-workplace-UK-survey-2012.pdf (accessed on 16 June 2021).
  62. Chen, Z.; Liu, Y. The Effects of Leadership and Reward Policy on Employees’ Electricity Saving Behaviours: An Empirical Study in China. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 2019. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  63. Goplen, J. Dedicated vs. Coerced: Internal and External Motivations to Be Proenvironmental. 2014. Available online: http://fsu.digital.flvc.org/islandora/object/fsu:185252/datastream/PDF/view (accessed on 16 June 2021).
  64. Singh, S.; Chen, J.; Del Giudice, M.; El-Kassar, A. Environmental ethics, environmental performance, and competitive advantage: Role of environmental training. Tech Soc. Chang. 2019, 146, 203–211. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Deluca, H.; Wagner, M.; Block, J. Sustainability and environmental behaviour in family firms: A Longitudinal analysis of environment related activities, innovation and performance. Bus. Strategy Environ. 2018, 27, 152–172. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Leygue, C.; Ferguson, E.; Spence, A. Saving energy in the workplace: Why, and for whom? J. Environ. Psychol. 2017, 53, 50–62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Gokce, K.U.; Gokce, H.U. Economic, social and environmental impact analysis of an indigenously developed energy optimization system for German office and residential building types. Int. J. Low-Carbon Technol. 2021, 16, 747–760. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Department of Mineral Resources and Energy. Integrated Resource Plan. 2019. Available online: http://www.energy.gov.za/IRP/2019/IRP-2019.pdf (accessed on 10 January 2022).
  69. Monyei, C.G.; Kingsley Akpeji, O. Repurposing Electricity Access Research for the Global South: A Tale of Many Disconnects. Joule 2020, 4, 278–291. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Xu, T.; Gao, W.; Li, Y.; Qian, F. Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the reduction of electricity demand and the integration of renewable energy into the power grid. J. Renew. Sustain. Energy 2021, 13, 026304. [Google Scholar]
  71. Paladan, N.; Florida, J.S. Reducing Energy Consumption as a Social Responsibility: Towards a Sustainable Energy Supply. Int. J. Innov. Manag. 2013, 1, 29–40. [Google Scholar]
  72. International Energy Agency. Energy Savings. 2021. Available online: https://www.iea.org/reports/multiple-benefits-of-energy-efficiency/energy-savings (accessed on 10 January 2022).
  73. Jahanshahi, A.; Brem, A.; Bhattacharj, A. Who Takes More Sustainability-Oriented Entrepreneurial Actions? The Role of Entrepreneurs’ Values, Beliefs and Orientations. Sustainability 2017, 9, 1636. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  74. De Jong, J.; Hartog, D. How Leaders Influence Employees‘ Innovative Behaviour. Eur. J. Innov. Manag. 2017, 10, 41–64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Graves, L.M.; Sarkis, J.; Zhu, Q. How transformational leadership and employee motivation combine to predict employee proenvironmental behaviors In China. J. Environ. Psychol. 2013, 35, 81–91. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Thondhlana, G.; Hlatshwayo, T. Pro-Environmental Behaviour in Student Residences at Rhodes University, South Africa. Sustainability 2018, 10, 2746. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  77. Blok, V.; Wesselink, R.; Studynka, O.; Kemp, R. Encouraging sustainability in the workplace: A survey on the pro-environmental behavior of university employees. J. Clean. Prod. 2015, 106, 55e67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Priyankara, H.; Luo, F.; Saeed, A.; Nubuor, S.; Jayasuriya, M. How Does Leader’s Support for Environment Promote Organizational Citizenship Behaviour for Environment? A Multi-Theory Perspective. Sustainability 2018, 10, 271. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  79. Ajzen, I.; Fishbein, M. The Influence of Attitudes on Behavior. In The Handbook of Attitudes; Albarracín, D., Johnson, B.T., Zanna, M.P., Eds.; Erlbaum: Mahwah, NJ, USA, 2005; pp. 173–221. [Google Scholar]
  80. Nguyen, T.T.; Nguyen, Z.; Yang, A.; Thanh, C. Theory of Planned Behavior Approach to Understand the Influence of Green Perceived Risk on Consumers Green Product Purchase Intentions in an Emerging Country. Int. Rev. Manag. Mark. 2019, 9, 138–147. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Zhang, L.Y.; Fan, W.; Zhang, W.; Zhang, S. Extending the Theory of Planned Behaviour to Explain the Effects of Cognitive Factors across Different Kinds of Green Products. Sustainability 2019, 11, 4222. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  82. Untaru, E.-N.; Adina, A.I.; Candrea, N.; Luca, M.; Epuran, G. Predictors of Individuals’ Intention to conserve Water in a Lodging Context: The Application of an Extended Theory of Reasoned Action. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 2016, 59, 50–59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Arya, B.; Chaturvedi, S. Extending the Theory of Planned Behaviour to Explain Energy Saving Behaviour. Environ. Clim. Technol. 2020, 24, 516–528. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Macovei, O.-L. Applying the Theory of Planned Behavior in Predicting Proenvironmental Behaviour: The Case of Energy Conservation. Acta Universitatis Danubius. Economica 2015, 11, 15–32. [Google Scholar]
  85. Alshurideh, M.; Al Kurdi, B.; Al Kurdi, A.; Ghuff, S. Determinants of pro-environmental behaviour in the context of emerging economies. Int. J. Sustain. Soc. 2019, 11, 257–277. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Wang, Q.; Xie, K.; Liu, X.; Shen, G.; Wei, H.; Liu, T. Psychological drivers of hotel guests’ energy-saving behaviours—Empirical research based on the extended theory of planned behaviour. Buildings 2021, 11, 401. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Canova, L.; Manganelli, A.M. Energy-Saving Behaviours in Workplaces: Application of an Extended Model of the Theory of Planned Behaviour. Eur. J. Psychol. 2020, 16, 384–400. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Mouro, C.; Duarte, A.P. Organisational Climate and Pro-environmental Behaviours at Work: The Mediating Role of Personal Norms. Front. Psychol. 2021, 21, 635739. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  89. Norton, T.A.; Zacher, H.; Parker, S.L.; Ashkanasy, N.M. Bridging the gap between green behavioral intentions and employee green behaviour: The role of green psychological climate. J. Organ. Behav. 2017, 38, 996–1015. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Shumaila, N.; Samia, J.; Qasim, A.; Nadia, N. Green HRM, psychological green climate and pro-environmental behaviors: An efficacious drive towards environmental performance in China. Curr. Psychol. 2021. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Tuan, L.T. Effects of environmentally-specific servant leadership on green performance via green climate and green crafting. Asia Pac. J. Manag. 2021, 38, 925–953. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Hair, J.F.; Ringle, C.M.; Sarstedt, M. PLS-SEM: Indeed a silver bullet. J. Mark. Theory Pract. 2011, 19, 139–151. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Hair, J.; Risher, J.; Sarsstedt, M.; Ringle, C. When to use and how to report the results of PLS-SEM. Eur. Bus. Rev. 2019, 31, 2–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. Kock, N. Common method bias in PLS-SEM: A full colinearity assessment approach. Int. J. e-Collab. 2015, 11, 4. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
Energies 15 03168 g001 550
Figure 1. The conceptual model.
Figure 1. The conceptual model.
Energies 15 03168 g001
Energies 15 03168 g002 550
Figure 2. Structural modelling results of the conceptual model * p < 0.01; ** p < 0.05.
Figure 2. Structural modelling results of the conceptual model * p < 0.01; ** p < 0.05.
Energies 15 03168 g002
Energies 15 03168 g003 550
Figure 3. Moderation plot GSC (green psychological climate).
Figure 3. Moderation plot GSC (green psychological climate).
Energies 15 03168 g003
Table
Table 1. Measurement model.
Table 1. Measurement model.
ConstructMeasurement ItemsLoadingCronbach’s AlphaComposite ReliabilityAVE
Intrinsic benefits (INT) (enjoyment)
(Mean 3.35
Standard deviation 1.03)		INT10.7710.8020.8110.589
INT20.802
INT30.729
Extrinsic benefits (EXT) (reward) (Mean 1.82 Standard deviation 0.99)EXT 10.7320.7900.8550.595
EXT20.746
EXT30.779
EXT40.411 D
EXT50.826
Organisational benefits (ORG) (Mean 3.70, standard deviation 1.01)ORG10.8270.7550.8330.631
ORG20.801
ORG30.742
Environmental benefits (ENV) (Mean 3.46 Standard deviation 1.06)ENV10.8180.8140.7900.654
ENV20.799
Social benefits (SOC)
Mean 4.10 Standard deviation 1.02		SOC10.7410.7260.8640.613
SOC20.782
SOC30.808
SOC40.799
Leadership behaviour (LEB) Mean 4.02 standard deviation 1.05)LEB10.9010.8000.8420.662
LEB20.803
LEB30.729
Leadership support (LES) (Mean 3.88 standard deviation 1.03)LES10.8200.7330.8600.606
LES20.761
LES30.728
LES40.802
Green Psychological climate (GPC) (Mean 3.55 standard deviation 1.06)GPC10.8160.8080.8920.623
GPC20.800
GPC30.779
GPC40.736
GPC50.816
Attitude to energy conservation (ATT) Mean 4.35 standard deviation 1.01Att10.8130.8600.8520.591
ATT20.782
ATT30.749
ATT40.727
Intention (INTE) Mean 4.18 standard deviation 1.03INTE10.8440.8410.8390.635
INTE20.804
INTE30.739
Behaviour Mean (BEH) 4.26 standard deviation 1.03BEH10.8190.7620.9010.564
BEH20.729
BEH30.808
BEH40.731
BEH50.747
BEH60.726
BEH70.759
Table
Table 2. Discriminant validity.
Table 2. Discriminant validity.
CONINTEXTORGENVSOCLEBLESGPCATTINTEBEH
INT0.767
EXT0.6290.771
ORG0.5030.5650.794
ENV0.5520.4480.5070.809
SOC0.4170.6020.5830.4220.783
LEB0.5080.5750.4880.4290.5770.814
LES0.6120.4080.4220.5290.6270.7050.778
GPC0.5580.6140.4490.5060.6090.5820.6020.789
ATT0.4460.5130.4110.6710.5070.5220.5610.4920.769
INTE0.6930.5810.5380.4990.6050.6220,5850.6600.5130.797
BEH0.4250.3990.4820.5710.5990.6080.6610.4820.5330.5970.751
Diagonals in bold signify the square root of the AVE while the other figures depict the correlations.
Table
Table 3. Path coefficient and T-statistics.
Table 3. Path coefficient and T-statistics.
Hypothesised PathPath CoefficientT-StatisticsDecision
H1 INT→ATT0.2935.039 **Supported
H2 EXT→ATT0.0420.099Rejected
H3 ORG-ATT0.2067.071 *Supported
H4 ENV-ATT0.1932.998 *Supported
H5 SOC-ATT0.3065.008 *Supported
H6 LEB→ATT0.2204.126 **Supported
H7 LES→ATT0.1493.335 **Supported
H8 ATT→INTE0.2763.902 *Supported
H9 INT→BEH0.1953.664 **Supported
H10 Moderation effect
green psychological climate → intention on energy saving behaviour		0.1082.804 *Supported
* p < 0.01; ** < 0.05.
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Fatoki, O. Determinants of Employee Electricity Saving Behavior in Small Firms: The Role of Benefits and Leadership. Energies 2022, 15, 3168. https://doi.org/10.3390/en15093168

AMA Style

Fatoki O. Determinants of Employee Electricity Saving Behavior in Small Firms: The Role of Benefits and Leadership. Energies. 2022; 15(9):3168. https://doi.org/10.3390/en15093168

Chicago/Turabian Style

Fatoki, Olawale. 2022. "Determinants of Employee Electricity Saving Behavior in Small Firms: The Role of Benefits and Leadership" Energies 15, no. 9: 3168. https://doi.org/10.3390/en15093168

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop