Pollution Reduction Preferences of U.S.

Environmental Managers: Applying Ajzen's Theory

of Planned Behavior
Author(s): Mark Cordano and Irene Hanson Frieze
Source: The Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 43, No. 4 (Aug., 2000), pp. 627-641
Published by: Academy of Management
Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/1556358
Accessed: 23-10-2019 07:12 UTC

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms

Academy of Management is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access
to The Academy of Management Journal

This content downloaded from 139.190.33.167 on Wed, 23 Oct 2019 07:12:29 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
? Academy of Management Journal
2000, Vol. 43, No. 4, 627-641.

POLLUTION REDUCTION PREFERENCES OF U.S.

ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGERS: APPLYING AJZEN'S THEORY
OF PLANNED BEHAVIOR

MARK CORDANO
Wright State University

IRENE HANSON FRIEZE

University of Pittsburgh

We modified Ajzen's theory of planned behavior to analyze the behavioral preferences

of environmental managers. We used structural equation analysis to link the source
reduction preferences of 295 environmental managers to their pollution prevention
attitudes, their perceptions of norms for environmental regulation, their perceived
behavioral control, and the past source reduction activity of their facilities. The
hypothesized model fit the data well, except that we found the perceived behavioral
control variable was negatively rather than positively predictive of behavioral prefer-
ences for source reduction activity. Research and practical implications are suggested.

A frequent argument in research on organizations
and the natural environment is that motivated in-
dividuals can bring the critical ideas and deliver
the effort necessary to improve their organizations'
environmental performance (Starik & Rands, 1995;
Winn, 1995). Yet, as of this writing, research in this
field has tended to emphasize mainly strategic
(Aragon-Correa, 1998; Stead & Stead, 1995), orga-
nizational (Lawrence & Morell, 1995; Lober, 1996),
regulatory (Getz, 1993; King, 1994), interorganiza-
tional (Clair, Milliman, & Mitroff, 1995; Turcotte,
1995), and sustainability perspectives (Hart, 1997;
Shrivastava, 1995). Research has focused only lim-
ited attention on why managers made decisions or
took actions considered environmentally sensitive
(Rands & Marcus, 1991). One purpose of our study
was to add an organizational behavior perspective
to this literature by examining the preferences of
managers whose responsibilities directly influ-
enced the environmental performance of their man-
ufacturing organizations.
We studied source reduction activities because
This research was funded by a grant from the Program
for the Study of Corporate Social Performance and byagers'a
contribution from the Chase Manhattan Corporation; we
thank Steve Wartick and Dale Quarry for their help with Dieleman & de Hoo, 1993; Kemp, 1993; Marcus,
funding. This study benefited greatly from the sugges-
tions and endorsements of Paul King of PPG Industries
and Bob Volkmar of Aristech Chemical Corporation.
Helpful suggestions were provided on drafts of this work that the "key to success in pollution prevention is
by Brad Agle, Wendy Bailey, Audrey Murrell, Gordon
Rands, Mark Starik, Donna Wood, and the anonymous
reviewers.
these practices are critical for superior corporate
environmental performance. Environmental man-
agement researchers have asserted that pollution
prevention plays an important role at companies
that achieve superior corporate environmental per-
formance (Dechant & Altman, 1994; Lawrence &
Morell, 1995; Post & Altman, 1992) because pollu-
tion prevention delivers both operating efficiencies
and environmental performance enhancements
(Hart & Ahuja, 1994; Nerht, 1996; Porter & van der
Linde, 1995; Russo & Fouts, 1997). Source reduc-
tion activities, such as raw materials substitution,
spill prevention, and process modification provide
the foundation for sound pollution prevention
(Shen, 1995).
We focused on managers' attitudes as an impor-
tant antecedent to source reduction preferences in
view of assertions made in analyses of pollution
prevention activity. Research on pollution preven-
tion activity has tended to emphasize economic
(e.g., Kemp, 1993), technological (e.g., Ashford,
1993), regulatory (e.g., Byers, 1991), and organiza-
tional (e.g., Lovins & Lovins, 1997) factors. How-
ever, regardless of their initial emphases, over time
researchers have increasingly proposed that man-
attitudes significantly influence the adoption
of pollution prevention activities (Ashford, 1993;
1995; Schmidheiny, 1992). In his analysis of barri-
ers to pollution prevention, Ashford concluded
to influence managerial knowledge of and attitudes
toward both technological change and environmen-
tal concern" (1993: 277). The specific objectives of
627

This content downloaded from 139.190.33.167 on Wed, 23 Oct 2019 07:12:29 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
628 Academy of Management Journal August

our study were to assess the influence of manage- component. This variable measures the perceived
rial attitudes on pollution prevention preferences social pressure to perform or not perform a behav-
and to test an organizational application of the ior. Subjective norms are a function of a person's
theory of planned behavior (Ajzen, 1991). perception of important referents' evaluation of a
behavior and the person's motivation to conform to
those evaluations. According to Ajzen's theory of
THEORY AND HYPOTHESES planned behavior, a person's intention to perform a
behavior increases as subjective norms become
Theory of Planned Behavior
more favorable.
In order to better understand the attitudes of In the theory of planned behavior, Ajzen built on
individual managers, we selected Ajzen's theory of the well-researched theory of reasoned action. The
planned behavior (Ajzen, 1985, 1987, 1991) for our difference between the theory of reasoned action
analysis, because it has been employed success- (Fishbein & Ajzen, 1975) and the theory of planned
fully in many studies linking attitudes and behav- behavior (Ajzen, 1985, 1987, 1991) is the addition
iors (Conner & Armitage, 1998; Sutton, 1998). Re- of the perceived behavioral control variable. Ajzen
searchers have used this theory of planned added perceived behavioral control to extend the
behavior to examine behaviors such as recycling theory to include those behaviors characterized by
(Boldero, 1995; Taylor & Todd, 1995), green con- a low degree of volition. The perceived behavioral
sumerism (Sparks & Shepherd, 1992), ethical be- control variable measures a person's perceptions of
havior (Kurland, 1995), college course selection the ease or difficulty of performing a behavior. This
(Randall, 1994), leisure activity selection (Ajzen & variable reflects aspects of the person, such as her
Driver, 1992), collective political action (Kelly & or his level of self-efficacy, and aspects of the be-
Brienlinger, 1995), social networking activity havior, such as the necessity of obtaining the coop-
(Caska, 1998), and seat belt use (Trafimow & Fish- eration of others to accomplish it. According to the
bein, 1994). Sutton (1998) reviewed nine meta- theory of planned behavior, a person's intention to
analyses of studies using this theory of planned perform a behavior increases as perceived behav-
behavior or its predecessor, the theory of reasoned ioral control increases.
action. For studies that had behavioral intention or Within Ajzen's theory, attitudes, subjective
behavior as the dependent variable, Sutton con- norms, and perceived behavioral control determine
cluded that the theory of planned behavior typi- behavioral intention. Behavioral intention indi-
cally produced medium to large effect sizes, as cates the amount of effort a person exerts to per-
defined by Cohen's tables for statistical power anal- form a behavior. It captures the motivational factors
ysis (Cohen, 1988, 1992). that produce planned behaviors. In the theory of
Ajzen's theory of planned behavior (Ajzen, 1985, planned behavior, a person is more likely to per-
1987, 1991) includes three independent variables form a behavior as behavioral intention increases.
measuring attitudes, subjective norms, and per-
ceived behavioral control that together determine
Determinants of Pollution Prevention Activity
behavioral intention. His attitudes variable exam-
ines a person's disposition toward a behavior. His During the 1990s, widespread expectations that
subjective norms variable includes attributes of a companies would enthusiastically adopt pollution
person's social environment. His perceived behav- prevention initiatives (Hirschhorn & Oldenburg,
ioral control variable addresses variation in a per- 1991; Schmidheiny, 1992; Theodore, 1992) re-
son's ability to control the performance of a behav- mained unfulfilled despite the growing evidence of
ior. According to Ajzen's theory of planned the effectiveness of such initiatives to produce both
behavior, behavioral intention is the immediate an- economic and environmental benefits for compa-
tecedent to behavior. nies (Cebon, 1993; Crittenden & Kolaczkowski,
Within Ajzen's theory, attitudes toward a behav- 1995; Lober, 1998). Researchers attempting to stim-
ior gauge a person's evaluation of that behavior. ulate greater use of pollution prevention practices
Attitudes toward a behavior arise from a person's have identified many possible determinants of pol-
beliefs about the consequences resulting from its lution prevention activity. Some of these analyses
performance and the person's affective response to focused on specific factors, such as regulatory im-
those consequences. Ajzen proposed that a per- pediments (e.g., Byers, 1991), and others were at-
son's intention to perform a behavior increases as tempts to create exhaustive lists useful to practitio-
his or her attitudes toward the behavior becomes ners and researchers alike (e.g., Theodore, 1992).
more favorable. The more extensive lists included incentives, such
Ajzen's subjective norms variable adds a socialas the expected cost reductions gained through di-

This content downloaded from 139.190.33.167 on Wed, 23 Oct 2019 07:12:29 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
2000
minished waste disposal costs, and potential im- ulatory compliance as its major environmental per-
formance goal, managers will be reluctant to con-
pediments, such as the general resistance to change
commonly found in organizations. However, be-
cause pollution prevention activities typically re-
quire a change in current organizational practices,
many analyses have emphasized the potential bar-
riers to the implementation of these activities (Ash-
ford, 1993; Dieleman & de Hoo, 1993; Kemp, 1993;
Lober, 1998).
We used two pollution prevention analyses to
support and develop our research model based on
Ajzen's theory of planned behavior. These analyses
outlined a wide range of potential influences, such
as aspects of regulatory environments, technologi-
cal development, stakeholder relationships, and or-
ganizational processes. For the purposes of this
research, we focused solely on possible influences
relevant to Ajzen's theory of planned behavior. The
primary analysis we used was done by Dieleman
and de Hoo (1993). They identified critical obsta-
cles on the basis of their experience with a large
multiorganization pollution prevention project
sponsored by the Dutch government. Ten compa-
nies participated in the project. We also examined
an additional analysis of pollution prevention bar-
riers conducted by Ashford (1993). Ashford drew
on his knowledge of technological change at Amer-
ican manufacturing companies to create his list of
barriers to pollution prevention.1
Dieleman and de Hoo (1993) outlined five impor-
tant categories of obstacles to the prevention of
waste at manufacturing facilities. These five cate-
gories were (1) conceptual obstacles, (2) organiza-
tional obstacles, (3) obstacles related to the avail-
ability of knowledge, (4) technical obstacles, and
(5) economic obstacles. The conceptual obstacles
centered on the prevalent belief among managers
that preventing waste was expensive. According to
Dieleman and de Hoo, this belief was the basis for
widespread negative attitudes toward environmen-
tal management issues. They contended that these
attitudes caused managers to underrate the envi-
ronment in corporate strategy and, as a result, to set
goals for environmental performance that aimed
primarily for regulatory compliance. Dieleman and
de Hoo argued that when an organization sets reg-
1 In their discussions, Dieleman and de Hoo (1993)
and Ashford (1993) did not emphasize distinctions be-
tween environmental managers and other managers. For
the discussion in this study, it is sometimes necessary to
make such a distinction. We defined managers without
environmental responsibilities as business managers and
managers with environmental responsibilities as envi-
ronmental managers. The term "managers" here denotes
all managers.
This content downloaded from 139.190.33.167 on Wed, 23 Oct 2019 07:12:29 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Cordano and Frieze 629
sider implementing pollution prevention activities,
since these activities frequently surpass regulatory
requirements.
Another set of obstacles identified by Dieleman
and de Hoo involved organizational barriers. Pol-
lution prevention often requires cooperation
among environmental managers, engineers, and
production managers. The bureaucratic structures
in organizations have limited cross-functional co-
operation and made it difficult to introduce inno-
vative suggestions that require the approval of mul-
tiple functional areas. Organizational obstacles also
included environmental managers' unclear respon-
sibilities and their limited authority to initiate or-
ganizational changes.
Dieleman and de Hoo's third set of obstacles
relates to knowledge transfer. They argued that fo
the widespread application of new technologies to
occur, there must be a commitment to training an
a formal means to recognize and document any
successful experiences. They further suggested that
competition within an industry limits knowledge
transfer among companies. Even in instances
where a company was willing to share its successes
with competitors, government agencies and trade
associations often lacked the infrastructure to
record and disseminate pollution prevention ad-
vances.
The next set Dieleman and de Hoo identified
were technical obstacles. They noted that any new
technology requires time for the development of
new applications. Until a critical mass of experi-
ence has developed in an industry, managers tend
to be skeptical of new technology. Dieleman and de
Hoo suggested that this skepticism has limited the
adoption of recent advances in pollution preven-
tion.
Lastly, Dieleman and de Hoo outlined some eco-
nomic barriers to pollution prevention that have
resulted from organizational procedures for allocat-
ing environmental costs and resources for invest-
ment. Often companies have a poor understanding
of their environmental costs because they do not
allocate these costs directly to processes and prod-
ucts. Instead, they often bundle their environmen-
tal costs into administration costs as overhead. This
bundling of costs can limit the identification of
savings that could result from pollution reduction
activities.
Capital budgeting processes also pose significant
economic barriers to pollution prevention initia-
tives. These processes typically exhibit a bias to-
ward established practices instead of toward inno-
vations. This bias favors end-of-pipe controls over
630 Academy of Management Journal August

pollution prevention alternatives. Additionally, en- (1993). In Table 1, we have listed each of Ajzen's
vironmental managers typically hold staff positions theory of planned behavior variables and the cor-
with limited power over resource allocations. As a responding category of pollution prevention obsta-
result, the projects of more powerful managers have cles we reviewed to develop our hypotheses.
tended to crowd out environmental managers' pol- Dieleman and de Hoo (1993) and Ashford (1993)
lution prevention projects. both emphasized the significant obstacle presented
Ashford (1993) identified similar sets of obsta- by managers' negative attitudes regarding environ-
cles to pollution prevention activity in manufactur- mental issues. They proposed these attitudes were
ing firms. He outlined seven different barriers to the result of managers' belief that preventing pol-
pollution prevention: (1) technological, (2) finan- lution was a nonessential expense. Like Dieleman
cial, (3) labor-force-related, (4) regulatory, (5) con- and de Hoo (1993), Ashford (1993) argued these
sumer-related, (6) supplier-related, and (7) manage- attitudes were a critical influence on the adoption
rial. We focused on Ashford's managerial barriers of pollution prevention activities. Drawing on these
to further support our research model. assertions regarding managers' environmental atti-
Ashford identified important managerial barriers tudes and pollution prevention, we hypothesized
to pollution prevention. He noted that a lack of that:
support from top management and engineering
Hypothesis 1. Environmental managers' atti-
managers posed a substantial impediment to inno-
tudes about pollution prevention will be posi-
vations that originated with environmental manag-
tively related to their preference to implement
ers. This lack of support was often coupled with
source reduction activities.
environmental managers' limited authority to im-
plement changes unilaterally (Cebon, 1993), result- Dieleman and de Hoo (1993) and Ashford (1993)
ing in their having little ability to implement new argued that negative environmental attitudes were
prevention initiatives. widespread among managers in industrial compa-
nies. These widely held attitudes created norms
that limited environmental management objectives
Hypotheses Based on the Theory of Planned
to regulatory compliance. These norms potentially
Behavior
inhibited source reduction activities because these
We selected environmental managers as the fo- practices often exceeded regulatory requirements.
cus of this study because of their formal organiza-If environmental managers assessed the norms in
tional responsibilities. Environmental managers their organizations as limited to regulatory compli-
were defined as those managers with responsibility ance, they would be hesitant to pursue source re-
for identifying source reduction opportunities and duction opportunities. Using this line of reasoning,
implementing feasible source reduction practices. we hypothesized that:
We limited the study to the behavioral preferences
Hypothesis 2. Environmental managers' as-
of these environmental managers because we
sessment of subjective norms about environ-
wanted to focus on the role of individual actors
mental regulation will be positively related to
within organizations.
their preference to implement source reduction
We used the pollution prevention analyses out-
activities.
lined above to develop our hypotheses based on
Ajzen's theory of planned behavior. We drew In Dieleman and de Hoo's (1993) analysis, the
mainly on the conceptual and organizational obsta- companies frequently encountered organizational
cles outlined by Dieleman and de Hoo (1993) and obstacles once they overcame any conceptual bar-
on the managerial obstacles listed by Ashford riers. Source reduction activities frequently re-

TABLE 1
Theory of Planned Behavior Variables and Corresponding Pollution Prevention Obstacles and Study
Variables

Theory of Planned Behavior Dieleman and de Hoo Ashford Variables in Hypotheses

1. Attitudes Conceptual Managerial Hypothesis 1: Pollution prevention attitudes

2. Subjective norms Conceptual Managerial Hypothesis 2: Subjective norms for environmental regulation
3. Perceived behavioral control Organizational Managerial Hypothesis 3: Perceived behavioral control
4. Past behavior a Organizational Managerial Hypothesis 4: Past source reduction activity

a This variable is not formally part of the theory of planned behavior but is frequently included in applications.

This content downloaded from 139.190.33.167 on Wed, 23 Oct 2019 07:12:29 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
2000 Cordano and Frieze 631

quired the cooperation of managers from functionalpast behavior, we extended our model by adding a
areas such as engineering and production (Hart, measure of past activity:
1995). At the facility level, environmental manag-
Hypothesis 4. A facility's amount of past
ers typically held staff positions that reported to
source reduction activity will be positively re-
line management (Dillon & Fischer, 1992). Diele-
lated to environmental managers' preference
man and de Hoo, along with Ashford, argued that
to implement source reduction activities.
an environmental manager with limited control
and resources would likely have difficulty imple- In Hypothesis 4, we proposed an organization-
menting any new source reduction activities with- level independent variable predicting our indi-
out the support of managers from other functional vidual-level dependent variable. Klein, Dansereau,
areas. In interviews conducted during the design of and Hall (1994) labeled this type of prediction a
this study, environmental managers repeatedly em- "cross-level relationship." They outlined special
phasized the importance of support from senior procedures for collecting data to address concerns
management and their managerial colleagues. (Of- raised by such relationships. In our Methods sec-
ficers in the Air & Waste Management Association, tion, we discuss how we addressed this cross-level
an environmental consultant who specialized in relationship using their guidelines.
pollution prevention, corporate environmental af- We designed this study to achieve dual objec-
fairs managers, and environmental affairs managers tives. Our primary objective was to test whether
at a manufacturing facility all reviewed drafts of attitudes and other social psychological variables
this study's survey.) We believed these organiza- influenced environmental managers' preferences to
tional circumstances, which limit the control envi- engage in source reduction activities to achieve
ronmental managers possess over pollution preven- pollution prevention. Our secondary objective was
tion initiatives, would diminish an environmental to test Ajzen's theory of planned behavior for ap-
manager's desire to implement source reduction plications in organizational settings. Ajzen's theory
activities. Consistent with these ideas, we hypoth- of planned behavior had yet to be used to examine
esized that:
behavioral preferences or behaviors in situations
Hypothesis 3. Environmental managers' per- where the performance of the behavior of interest
ceived behavioral control will be positively re- required the cooperation of multiple organization
lated to their preference to implement source members. To achieve these dual objectives, in our
reduction activities. analysis we used structural equation modeling to
evaluate Ajzen's entire theory of planned behavior,
Many researchers who have used Ajzen's theory along with its individual components.
of planned behavior have added a measure of past
behavior to their models. Conner and Armitage
(1998) reviewed the studies that used past behavior METHODS
variables. They found that after attitudes, subjec-
Sample
tive norms, and perceived behavioral control were
accounted for, the measure of past behavior ex- Our population for this study consisted of env
plained an additional 7.2 percent of the variance in ronmental managers at manufacturing facilities
behavioral intentions. the United States. We drew our sample from the
Clearly, past behavior cannot directly cause sub- membership of the Air & Waste Management Asso-
sequent behavior. However, past behavior can be ciation (AWMA). With 16,000 members at the time
an indicator of the resistance an environmental of the study, the AWMA was the largest organiza-
manager could experience when attempting to ini-tion of environmental professionals in the United
tiate source reduction activities. Ashford (1993), States. This organization has provided education,
along with Dieleman and de Hoo (1993), noted a technical exchange, and career development to en-
general resistance to change in manufacturing or- vironmental professionals in business, govern-
ganizations. This resistance was even stronger ment, and academia. Because of its active continu-
when managers lacked any experience with the ing education efforts, the members of the AWMA
benefits of source reduction. It is likely that past represented the agents of change for their respec-
successes would reduce the resistance an environ- tive organizations and the profession as a whole.
mental manager could face in any attempt to initi- Additionally, the AWMA provided us a large
ate future source reduction activity. Previous suc- enough sample of environmental managers at man-
cessful experiences with source reduction could ufacturing facilities to permit an analysis using
assist in demonstrating its benefits to managers structural equation modeling.
throughout a plant. Following this reasoning about We selected participants from the AWMA mem-

This content downloaded from 139.190.33.167 on Wed, 23 Oct 2019 07:12:29 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
632 Academy of Management Journal August

bership directory on the basis of address and job ment function at their plants. The first page of the
title. Addresses were cross-checked against the En- survey included two screening questions that asked if
vironmental Protection Agency's Toxics Release In- the survey recipient was personally, or jointly, re-
ventory (TRI). This control was necessary, since the sponsible for the environmental management func-
AWMA directory included members who were ac- tion at his or her facility. We asked individuals who
ademics, regulators, consultants, and environmen- answered yes to complete the survey and mail it and
tal managers in corporate departments. Using the the response postcard separately. We asked people
TRI enabled us to verify that the selected managers who answered no to return the screening page and
worked at manufacturing facilities instead of at the response postcard in the return envelope.
corporate headquarters or consulting firms. Also, The data collection process produced a 52.2 per-
being listed on the TRI suggested that an environ- cent response rate (301/577) with 295 usable sur-
mental manager had some opportunities for im- veys. There were 230 different company names rep-
plementing source reduction practices. resented among the respondents, including many
Respondents held a wide variety of job titles Fortune 500 companies such as Boeing, General
within the appropriate functional areas. We identi- Electric, Intel, and Monsanto. The sample repre-
fied environmental responsibilities by functional sented facilities of a variety of sizes, but the major-
labels, such as environment, health and safety, in- ity (53.5%) were larger facilities with more than
dustrial hygiene, regulatory affairs, environmental 500 employees.
affairs, and waste management. Respondents' spe-
cific titles were combinations of "environmental"
Statistical Analyses
and typical managerial designations, such as man-
ager, supervisor, administrator, engineer, director, We analyzed the data with the AMOS structural
specialist, coordinator, leader, and superintendent. equation modeling software. We used asymptoti-
The most common job titles were environmental cally distribution-free estimation for all the models
manager, environmental engineer, and environ- because they produced Mardia statistics (Mardia,
mental affairs manager. 1970) with values greater than 3.0. To evaluate both
The variables in our model determined our sample the measurement and structural models, we fol-
selection process. Our model includes one cross-level lowed Bollen's (1990) recommendation to examine
relationship (Klein et al., 1994). The dependent vari- multiple indexes of model fit, since it is possible
able in our model is at the individual level. Three of for a model to be adequate on one fit index but
our independent variables-the attitudes, subjective inadequate on many others. We based our selection
norms, and perceived behavioral control variables- of indexes on the recommendations of Hu and
are also at the individual level. However, the past Bentler (1995) and Mueller (1996). These sources
activity variable is at the organizational level. For recommended the chi-square statistic, the compar-
such mixed-determinants models, Klein, Dansereau, ative fit index (CFI), the goodness-of-fit index (GFI),
and Hall suggested reviewing the sources of variabil- the normed fit index (NFI), and the nonnormed fit
ity for the independent and dependent measures. In index (NNFI). We did not include the NFI in our
our study, the past activity variable posed a potential analysis because Hu and Bentler (1995) noted that
problem. Individuals within the same facility had a it often leads to excessive rejection of models with
homogenous past activity variable, one without any moderate sample sizes, especially when asymptot-
variability, but individuals from different facilities ically distribution-free estimation is used.
had a heterogenous past activity variable. To avoid Our choice for the first overall test of model fit
this complication, we surveyed only one individual was the chi-square test. A significant chi-square
per facility. statistic indicates a poor model fit. Following com-
The sample selection process produced 577 en- mon practice, we considered a value greater than
vironmental managers at different manufacturing .90 as demonstrating a good fit for each of the other
facilities. We completed three mailings of surveys model fit indexes we used (Hatcher, 1994; Hu &
and two mailings of reminder postcards. The sur- Bentler, 1995; Mueller, 1996).
vey was anonymous. The survey did not include We followed the two-stage analysis process rec-
any questions about personal information, but we ommended by Anderson and Gerbing (1988) in
did include a response postcard with each survey. which a researcher revises and confirms the mea-
Respondents returned these postcards separately surement model using confirmatory factor analysis
from the surveys. This enabled response tracking before any structural analysis of the model is per-
without matching returned surveys to respondents. formed. This two-stage analysis process is similar
These environmental managers were solely or to performing an exploratory factor analysis to cre-
jointly responsible for the environmental manage- ate variables before completing a multiple regres-

This content downloaded from 139.190.33.167 on Wed, 23 Oct 2019 07:12:29 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
2000 Cordano and Frieze 633

sion analysis. The primary advantage of structural Subjective norms for environmental regula-
equation modeling is that the entire measurementtion. For our subjective norms items (composite
model resulting from the confirmatory analysis is reliability = .74), we modified the format of the
incorporated into the structural analysis. For our items in the Ajzen (1991) and Taylor and Todd
confirmatory analysis, the initial measurement (1995) studies. We constrained the spectrum of im-
model included all of the indicator items for the portant referents to individuals within an environ-
attitude, subjective norms, and perceived behav- mental manager's organization. The environmental
ioral control variables. We based revisions to the managers who reviewed the initial drafts of the
measurement model on the modification indexes, survey suggested this modification. They stated
the standardized residuals, and the indicator reli- that internal managers provide the support or the
abilities. resistance that significantly influences the imple-
We evaluated the reliability of the variables in mentation of source reduction activities.
the revised measurement model using the compos- The content of our subjective norms items fo-
ite reliability measure (Fornell & Larcker, 1981). cused on environmental regulation. Source reduc-
The composite reliability measure uses the factor tion activities frequently exceed regulatory stan-
loadings generated in the confirmatory factor anal- dards. The environmental managers who reviewed
ysis to produce a measure of internal consistency our study suggested that environmental managers
comparable to coefficient alpha (Hatcher, 1994). who were pressured to limit environmental perfor-
mance to the minimum legal standards would ex-
pect resistance and disapproval from managers if
they attempted to implement source reduction ac-
Measures
tivities. Consequently, we designed our subjective
We created seven indicator items for each of the norms items to assess the pressures for environ-
multi-item independent variables. Examples of items mental performance relative to regulatory require-
from studies by Ajzen (1991) and a recent theory of ments. We used the environmental regulation items
planned behavior application examining recycling from Cordano's (1996) study of environmental
behavior (Taylor & Todd, 1995) suggested the format stakeholders to provide the content for our items
and wording for these items. The items for the pollu- measuring subjective norms for environmental reg-
tion prevention attitudes, subjective norms for envi- ulation. A sample item was, "People in this orga-
ronmental regulation, and perceived behavioral con- nization who are important to me think the govern-
trol variables used a seven-point scale (1, strongly ment should take stronger actions to protect our
disagree, to 7, strongly agree). We scored all of the nation's resources."
variables so that higher values reflected stronger pro- Perceived behavioral control. The perceived be-
environmental views. We reverse-scored nine of the havioral control items (composite reliability = .79)
items for the multi-item variables. The Appendix lists also followed the format of the items in the Ajzen
all of the survey items. (1991) and Taylor and Todd (1995) studies, with
Pollution prevention attitudes. Ajzen (1991) and some modification. We modified the perceived be-
Taylor and Todd (1995) used semantic differential havioral control items to accommodate the organiza-
items for their attitudes variable. We used a seven- tional setting of this study. We wrote items to mea-
point Likert-based format (composite reliability = sure aspects of control associated with organizational
.73). We did this to keep the survey brief and to avoid position along with a person's informal sources of
confusing respondents with many changes in survey organizational power since environmental managers
format. Terms such as "important," "desirable," "nec- occupy staff positions that vary in degree of formal
essary," and "worthwhile" were used to assess indi- power within their organizations. A sample item was,
viduals' evaluations of pollution prevention. Our "The authority given my position is sufficient to im-
items evaluated pollution prevention as a waste man- plement new pollution prevention practices."
agement goal, as a component of an organization's Past source reduction activity. The measure of
environmental management strategy, and as a com- past source reduction activity used a checklist of
ponent of overall manufacturing management. We reduction activities based on form R of the Toxics
incorporated those evaluations using the different Release Inventory. Environmental managers report
levels of organizational importance to distinguish their facility's pollution prevention activity as part
strong advocates of pollution prevention from those of their annual reporting of toxic releases. The full
people who expressed less commitment to pollution list of source reduction activities contains a total of
prevention. A sample item is "Pollution prevention is 77 activities organized into eight general categories
an important component of a company's environ- (good operating practices, inventory control, spill
mental management strategy." and leak prevention, raw material modifications

This content downloaded from 139.190.33.167 on Wed, 23 Oct 2019 07:12:29 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
634 Academy of Management Journal August

process modifications, cleaning and degreasing, subjective norms for environmental regulation, and
surface preparation and finishing, and product perceived behavioral control variables. The results
modifications). On our survey, we listed the eight for the confirmatory factor analysis of the initial mea-
general categories of source reduction activities surement model are listed in Table 2. The initial
and asked respondents to check those activities measurement model fit the data poorly. The chi-
that had been performed at their facilities during square statistic was significant (X2 = 854.10, df = 186,
the previous six months. We created the past p < .00), and only one of the fit indexes approached
source reduction activity variable from the sum of the preferred threshold of .90 (GFI = .89). This poor
these checks. For example, if an environmental fit was not surprising, since model respecification is
manager checked both inventory control and pro- often necessary in confirmatory factor analysis
cess modifications, we counted this as a value of 2 (Anderson & Gerbing, 1988). We examined the mod-
for the past source reduction activity variable. ification indexes, the standardized residuals, and
Behavioral preference for source reduction ac- the indicator reliabilities to select model changes
tivity. Typically, studies using Ajzen's theory of (Hatcher, 1994; Mueller, 1996). In view of these sta-
planned behavior include items asking respon- tistics, we dropped ten indicator items. Using a con-
dents about their intentions and/or actions. To ac- servative strategy, we did not change any factor or
commodate the organizational setting of the study, covariance paths to create the revised measurement
we modified the typical format for these items. We model. We allowed no error terms to covary in any of
asked environmental managers what behaviors the measurement models, and we limited each mea-
they would like to perform, instead of asking them surement model to a simple factorial structure with
what behaviors they intended or planned to per- each indicator item linked to a single latent variable.
form. We made this subtle modification in response The revised measurement model fit the data well
to the comments of environmental managers who
(see Table 2). The chi-square test was not signifi-
reviewed the drafts of the survey. They stressed cant (X2 = 53.96, df = .41, p < .08), and the three fit
that their organizational positions were often staff indexes were substantially greater than the .90
positions with limited authority to make organiza- threshold for acceptability (CFI = .96, GFI = .97,
tional changes. They believed a question about and NNFI = .94). All of the factor loadings in the
planned or intended behaviors might elicit re- revised measurement model were significant. The
sponses limited to only those proposals approved covariances ranged from .06 to .35, and composite
by plant management. Since we wanted to know reliability scores ranged from .73 to .79.
the intentions of the environmental managers
themselves, we modified the usual format for be-
havioral intention items. The item we used to mea-
sure behavioral preference for source reduction ac- Descriptives
tivity was: "Projecting over the next six months,
We computed scores for each variable in the re-
circle the number from the code below that best
vised measurement model by summing the final
completes the statement. I would like to
items and dividing by the number of items added
the number of reduction activities at our facility."
(see Table 3). These scores ranged from 1, indicat-
The possible responses used a seven-point scale
ing "strongly disagree," to 7, indicating "strongly
(-3, decrease greatly, to 3, increase greatly).
agree." The majority of the respondents, 61.0 per-
cent, had positive pollution prevention attitudes
RESULTS that ranged from 5 (somewhat agree) to 6 (agree).
The average for the attitudes variable was 5.42. One
Measurement Model
in six (16.6%) of the environmental managers had
The initial measurement model included all of the strongly positive attitudes and scored above 6,
indicator items for the pollution prevention attitudes, the "agree" response. Slightly more than 6 percent

TABLE 2
Goodness-of-Fit Results for Measurement and Structural Modelsa

Model X2 df p CFI GFI NNFI

Initial measurement model 854.10 186 .00 .62 .89 .87

Revised measurement model 53.96 41 .08 .96 .97 .94
Full structural model 73.82 57 .07 .95 .96 .93

a CFI = comparative fit index, GFI = goodness-of

This content downloaded from 139.190.33.167 on Wed, 23 Oct 2019 07:12:29 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
2000 Cordano and Frieze 635

TABLE 3
Means, Standard Deviations, Correlations, and Reliability Estimatesa

Variable Mean s.d. 1 2 3 4

1. Pollution prevention attitudesb 5.42 0.89 (.73)

2. Subjective norms for environmental regulationb 3.20 0.86 .06 (.74)
3. Perceived behavioral controlb 4.27 1.39 .27*** .10 (.79)
4. Past source reduction activityc 2.83 2.05 .14* .04 .28***
5. Behavioral preference for source reduction activityd 1.39 0.89 .25*** .11 -.03 .11

a Reliability estimates are in parentheses; n = 295 for all variables.

b Scale ranges from 1 to 7.
c Scale ranges from 0 to 8.
d Scale ranges from -3 to 3.
* p < .05
** p < .01
***p < .001

(6.1%) had negative attitudes about pollution increase (2) or slightly increase (1) their use of
prevention. source reduction activities. One in 9 (11.5%) did
Environmental managers felt no social pressure not want to change their current levels of source
to exceed regulatory requirements. Over 75 percent reduction activity. One in 16 (6.4%) wanted to
(75.9%) of them averaged below the neutral re- increase their source reduction activity greatly (3).
sponse for the subjective norms for environmental Slightly under 3 percent (2.7%) wanted to decrease
regulation variable. The average for the subjective (-2) or slightly decrease (-1) their levels of source
norms variable was 3.20. Only three environmental reduction activity.
managers (1.0%) had average scores above 5, the Overall, the majority of environmental managers
"somewhat agree" response. felt somewhat positive toward pollution preven-
The majority of the sample (74.2%) expressed tion. Most facilities had limited recent experience
limited control to initiate and implement source with source reduction. Although environmental
reduction activities. The average score for the per- managers felt little pressure to implement pollution
ceived behavioral control variable was 4.27. prevention practices and had limited control over
Slightly over 42 percent (42.3%) scored between initiating and implementing pollution prevention,
the 4 (neutral) and the 5 (somewhat agree) re- the majority of them wanted to increase to some
sponses. Nearly a third of the sample (31.9%) degree the number of source reduction activities in
scored in the negative range below the neutral re- use at their facilities.
sponse. Only about 1 in 17 scored above the 6
(agree) response.
Structural Model
The mean for the past source reduction activity
variable was 2.83. The scale ranged from 0 to 8, We added the observed independent variable,
based on the general categories of reduction activ- past source reduction activity, and the dependent
ities listed in the TRI. Approximately one in nine variable, behavioral preference for source reduc-
facilities (10.9%) demonstrated significant pollu- tion activity, to the revised measurement model to
tion prevention experience, with past source reduc- create the full structural model. Table 2 reports the
tion activity scores of 6 or above. Nearly one in five model fit indexes for this model. Table 4 lists the
facilities (18.0%) had no recent experience with path coefficients and standard errors. The full
source reduction. Over 40 percent (41.4%) pro- structural model produced a strong data fit. The
duced a score of 2 or less for past behavior. Al- chi-square was not significant (X2 = 73.82, df = .57,
though some facilities have aggressively imple- p < .07), and three of the four fit indexes were
mented source reduction, these numbers indicated substantially above the preferred .90 threshold
that there are many facilities that have not yet em- (CFI = .95, GFI = .96, and NNFI = .93).
braced source reduction.
The average score for the behavioral preference
Support for Hypotheses
for source reduction activity variable was 1.39. The
scale for the variable ranged from "decrease The results supported our model based on
greatly" (-3) to "increase greatly" (3). The majority Ajzen's theory of planned behavior. Hypothesis 1
(79.3%) of the environmental managers wanted to predicts a positive relationship between environ-

This content downloaded from 139.190.33.167 on Wed, 23 Oct 2019 07:12:29 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
636 Academy of Management Journal August

TABLE 4
Results for Full Structural Modela

Standardized Path
Hypothesis Path Coefficient s.e. Coefficients

Hypothesis 1: Pollution prevention attitudes .38*** .07 .34***

Hypothesis 2: Subjective norms for environmental regulation .16** .06 .18**
Hypothesis 3: Perceived behavioral control -.09* .04 -.12*
Hypothesis 4: Past source reduction activity .08*** .02 .19**
R2 .19

an = 295.
* p < .05
** p < .01
*** p < .001

mental managers' attitudes about pollution preven- DISCUSSION

tion and their preference to implement source
reduction activities. The pollution prevention atti-
tudes variable produced a standardized path coef-
ficient of .34 (p < .001). This result supported
Hypothesis 1. Among the independent variables,
the pollution prevention attitudes variable yielded
the strongest relationship with behavioral prefer-
ence for source reduction activity. In many studies
using Ajzen's theory of planned behavior, the atti-
tudes variable has produced the strongest relation-
ship with behavioral intention (Ajzen, 1991).
Hypothesis 2 predicts a positive relationship be-
tween environmental managers' assessment of sub-
jective norms about environmental regulation and
their preference to implement source reduction ac-
tivities. The results supported Hypothesis 2. The
relationship between subjective norms for environ-
mental regulation and behavioral preference for
source reduction activity generated a significant
standardized path coefficient of .18 (p < .01).
Hypothesis 3 predicts that, as perceived behavioral
control increases, behavioral preference for source
reduction activity increases. The path coefficient for lution prevention to business managers. Shelton
the relationship between perceived behavioral con-
trol and a behavioral preference for source reduction
activity was significant, but its direction was the re- mental
verse of the predicted direction. The relationship
yielded a standardized path coefficient of -.12 (p <
.05). In spite of its statistical significance, this result
does not support Hypothesis 3.
Hypothesis 4 predicts a positive relationship be-
tween a facility's amount of past source reduction
activity and environmental managers' preference to
implement source reduction activities in the future.
The results supported Hypothesis 4, with a signifi-
cant standardized path coefficient of .19 (p < .001).
The full structural model achieved a multiple
squared correlation coefficient (R2) of .19. Accord-
ing to Cohen's effect size index (Cohen, 1988,
1992), this R2 indicates a moderate effect.
This application of Ajzen's theory of plann
behavior explains a moderate amount of the var
ance in environmental managers' preferences to
implement source reduction activities. Our model
fits the data well and demonstrates that attitudes
and other social psychological variables do influ-
ence environmental managers' preferences. These
results provide an important behavioral perspec-
tive to the literature on organizations and the nat-
ural environment and highlight the potential of
Ajzen's theory of planned behavior for organiza-
tional research.
Our findings suggest that there may be substan-
tial communication barriers within organizations
that inhibit environmental performance. Many en-
vironmental managers had positive attitudes about
pollution prevention but felt little pressure to im-
prove environmental performance beyond regula-
tory requirements. These circumstances suggest en-
vironmental managers have been unable to
communicate the positive economic merits of pol-
(1994) contended that this communication problem
was the principal impediment to strategic environ-
management initiatives. He argued that en-
vironmental managers failed to communicate the
business benefits of environmental initiatives in
the language of business. Consequently, business
managers have limited the environmental function
to regulatory compliance and liability containment.
The widespread negative environmental attitudes
among business managers, suggested by the subjec-
tive norms for environmental regulation scores in
our study, may operate to exacerbate the commu-
nication barrier between business managers and
environmental managers. This communication bar-
rier may be the root cause of the financial obstacles
noted by Ashford (1993) and the economic obsta-
cles outlined by Dieleman and de Hoo (1993).

This content downloaded from 139.190.33.167 on Wed, 23 Oct 2019 07:12:29 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
2000 Cordano and Frieze 637

Our results provide environmental managers rent findings. The measures used in any organiza-
with some useful insights for practical application. tional study examining complex behaviors that are
In particular, the significance of the past source not discrete events must be based on some assump-
reduction activity variable suggests that environ- tions made by the researchers. With our measure of
mental managers could focus on selecting easy-to- past source reduction activity, we assumed that a
implement source reduction practices to create fa- greater variety of activity indicated a greater
vorable experiences that would smooth the amount of overall activity. Although we believed
introduction of additional practices in the future. that this was a reasonable assumption, some in-
Kotter (1996) called this strategy generating short- stances exist where this is not the case, such as
term wins. He argued that short-term wins aid allwhen a facility has a complex sequence of manu-
organizational transformations, because they pro- facturing processes that offer multiple opportuni-
vide evidence of a project's benefits, undermine ties for process modifications. Additional research
cynics and resisters, reward change agents, keep is needed to assess this possible exception to our
supervisors on board with a project, and build mo- assumption regarding this measure.
mentum. Many environmental managers have lim- We assessed our survey by interviewing environ-
ited resources. This foot-in-the-door approach mental managers before we collected any data. We
could stimulate support for projects in advance of did not pretest our survey on a large sample. Ad-
any data-intensive optimization analyses of pollu- ditional research is needed to fully evaluate the
tion prevention opportunities. measures in our study.
We failed to support our hypotheses involving Because we collected our survey data anony-
the relationship between perceived behavioral con- mously, we did not match responses to possible
trol and the behavioral preference for source reduc- independent sources of data. Consequently, our
tion activity. Most studies using Ajzen's theory of study might contain a common method bias influ-
planned behavior have examined individual be- encing the relationships between the independent
havior over which a person has a high level of and dependent variables.
control (Sutton, 1998). We modified the behavioral Our study produced a very high response rate
intention variable to accommodate the organiza- (52.2 percent). Nevertheless, there may be self-
tional context of our study. We wanted to isolate selection bias in our survey, since environmental
the preferences of the environmental managers managers at facilities with ample source reduc-
from their assessments of which source reduction tion activity might have been more eager to re-
proposals they expected would be approved by spond to a survey such as ours.
plant management. This change may have induced
the unexpectedly negative relationship between
Future Research
the perceived behavioral control and behavioral
preference for source reduction activity variables. This study opened a few different avenues for
Environmental managers with low levels of con- future research. Researchers could further evaluate
trol, as measured by the perceived behavioral con- the impediments to pollution prevention outlined
trol variable, wanted larger increases in source re- by Dieleman and de Hoo (1993) and by Ashford
duction activity than managers with greater levels (1993). We believe economic and financial consid-
of control. From our discussions with a few envi- erations could easily be integrated with the vari-
ronmental managers about this outcome, we now ables in our study. Additionally, a greater variety of
believe that this finding reflects the frustration attitudes could prove critical to pollution preven-
some environmental managers experience. An en- tion adoption. Ashford (1993) suggested that atti-
vironmental manager at a plant where many man- tudes about technological change and organiza-
agers have strongly negative environmental atti- tional change may also be critical to the adoption of
tudes may be likely to experience frustration in his pollution prevention practices and other future ad-
or her efforts to enhance environmental perfor- vances in environmental management.
mance. In such instances, limited authority to en- Our study provides a foundation for expanding
hance environmental performance would stimulate the literature on Ajzen's theory of planned behav-
greater desire for increased source reduction activ- ior. Our use of the past source reduction activity
ity in the future. variable in this context prompted suggestions from
colleagues and from the reviewers for this journal
Limitations
for analyses that test the structure of Ajzen's theory
of planned behavior itself. Researchers have de-
This study had some limitations that need fur- bated the role of past behavior in regard to theories
ther study and warrant consideration for our cur- containing measures of attitudes. Triandis (1980)

This content downloaded from 139.190.33.167 on Wed, 23 Oct 2019 07:12:29 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
638 Academy of Management Journal
proposed that habit and intention interact to influ-
ence behavior. Recently, Aarts, Verplanken, and
van Knippenberg (1998) argued that habitual be-
havior excludes deliberate decision making, such
as that outlined in the theory of planned behavior.
In organizational settings, the frequency and suc-
cess of past activity may greatly influence future
attitudes, subjective norms, and perceived behav-
ioral control regarding behavior preferences. Past
activity may serve as an antecedent to attitudes,
subjective norms, and perceived behavioral con-
trol. A longitudinal study examining multiple as-
pects of past activity would be necessary to ade-
quately evaluate these alternative hypotheses
regarding the role of past behavior.
Ajzen's theory of planned behavior provides a
useful foundation for research that investigates any
managerial decisions that impact environmental
performance. The variables we examined, and
many of the potential variables discussed by Diele-
man and de Hoo (1993) and by Ashford (1993),
should aid any research into environmental man-
agement decision processes.
Ashford, N. A. 1993. Understanding technological re-
Conclusion
As it becomes increasingly imperative for firms
to adopt resource productivity into their corporate
strategy (Hart, 1995; Porter & van der Linde, 1995),
managers, researchers, and educators concerned
about environmental issues must begin to under-
stand the drivers and mechanisms of organizational
change and the obstacles to it (Roome, 1998). We
cannot achieve a thorough understanding of envi-
ronmental management and organizational change
without some understanding of the individuals
who influence environmental management deci-
sions. Our intent in this study was not to fully
explain the source reduction activity of manufac-
turing organizations solely by the attitudes of envi-
ronmental managers, but to test a useful theory and
provide a foundation for behavioral research on
this critical aspect of ecologically sustainable orga-
nizations (Starik & Rands, 1995). The results pro-
vide useful information for understanding the com-
plex web of individual decisions and actions that
produce the environmental outcomes of organiza-
tions. Such an understanding might help managers
transform their companies into economically and
ecologically sustainable organizations.
REF ERENCES
Aarts, H., Verplanken, B., & van Knippenberg, A. 1998.
Predicting behavior from actions in the past: Re-
This content downloaded from 139.190.33.167 on Wed, 23 Oct 2019 07:12:29 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
August
peated decision making or a matter of habit? Journal
of Applied Social Psychology, 28: 1355-1374.
Ajzen, I. 1985. From intentions to actions: A theory of
planned behavior. In J. Kuhl & J. Beckmann (Eds.),
Action control: From cognition to behavior: 11-39.
New York: Springer-Verlag.
Ajzen, I. 1987. Attitudes, traits, and actions: A theory of
planned behavior. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances
in experimental social psychology: 1-63. New
York: Academic Press.
Ajzen, I. 1991. The theory of planned behavior. Organi-
zation Behavior and Human Decision Processes,
50: 179-211.
Ajzen, I., & Driver, B. L. 1992. Application of the the
of planned behavior to leisure choice. Journal of
Leisure Research, 24: 207-224.
Anderson, J. C., & Gerbing, D. W. 1988. Structural equa-
tion modeling in practice: A review and recom-
mended two-step approach. Psychological Bulletin,
103: 411-423.
Arag6n-Correa, J. A. 1998. Strategic proactivity and
approach to the natural environment. Academy
Management Journal, 41: 556-567.
sponses of industrial firms to environmental prob-
lems: Implications for government policy. In J. Schot
& K. Fischer (Eds.), Environmental strategies for
industry: International perspectives on research
needs and policy implications: 277-310. Washing-
ton, DC: Island Press.
Boldero, J. 1995. The prediction of household recycling
of newspapers: The role of attitudes, intentions, and
situational factors. Journal of Applied Social Psy-
chology, 25: 440-462.
Bollen, K. A. 1990. Overall fit in covariance structural
models: Two types of sample size effects. Psycholog-
ical Bulletin, 107: 256-259.
Byers, R. L. 1991. Regulatory barriers to pollution pre-
vention. Journal of Air and Waste Management
Association, 41: 418-422.
Caska, B. A. 1998. The search for employment: Motiva-
tion to engage in coping behavior. Journal of Ap-
plied Social Psychology, 28: 206-224.
Cebon, P. B. 1993. The myth of best practices: The con-
text dependence of two high-performing waste re-
duction programs. In J. Schot & K. Fischer (Eds.),
Environmental strategies for industry: Interna-
tional perspectives on research needs and policy
implications: 167-197. Washington, DC: Island
Press.
Clair, J. A., Milliman, J., & Mitroff, I. I. 1995. Clash or
cooperation? Understanding environmental organi-
zations and their relationship to business. In D. Col-
lins & M. Starik (Eds.), Research in corporate social
performance and policy: 163-194. Greenwich, CT:
JAI Press.
2000 Cordano and Frieze 639

Cohen, J. 1988. Statistical power analysis for the be- Hirschhorn, J. S., & Oldenburg, K. U. 1991. Prosperity
havioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. without pollution: The prevention strategy for in-
dustry and consumers. New York: Van Nostrand
Cohen, J. 1992. A power primer. Psychological Bulletin,
Reinhold.
112: 155-159.

Conner, M., & Armitage, C. J. 1998. Extending the Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. 1995. Evaluating model fit. In
theory
of planned behavior: A review and avenues for fur- R. H. Hoyle (Ed.), Structural equation modeling:
ther research. Journal of Applied Social Psychol- Concepts, issues, and applications: 76-99. Thou-
sand Oaks, CA: Sage.
ogy, 28: 1429-1464.
Cordano, M. 1996. The attitudinal bases of stakeholder Kelly, C., & Brienlinger, S. 1995. Attitudes, intentions,
conflict: An examination of business-environmental and behavior: A study of women's participation in
stakeholders. Academy of Management best paper collective action. Journal of Applied Social Psy-
chology, 25: 1430-1445.
proceedings: 347-351.
Crittenden, B., & Kolaczkowski, S. 1995. Waste minimi- Kemp, R. 1993. An economic analysis of cleaner technol-
zation: A practical guide. Warwickshire, England: ogy: Theory and evidence. In J. Schot & K. Fischer
Institution of Chemical Engineers. (Eds.), Environmental strategies for industry: In-
ternational perspectives on research needs and
Dechant, K., & Altman, B. 1994. Environmental leader-
policy implications: 79-116. Washington, DC: Is-
ship: From compliance to competitive advantage. land Press.
Academy of Management Executive, 8(3): 7-27.
King, A. 1994. Punctuated and incremental responses
Dieleman, H., & de Hoo, S. 1993. Toward a tailor-made
to environmental regulation. Paper presented at
process of pollution prevention and cleaner produc- the annual meeting of the Academy of Management,
tion: Results and implications of the PRISMA Dallas.
project. In J. Schot & K. Fischer (Eds.), Environmen-
tal strategies for industry: International perspec- Klein, K. J., Dansereau, F., & Hall, R. J. 1994. Levels issues
tives on research needs and policy implications: in theory development, data collection, and analysis.
245-276. Washington, DC: Island Press. Academy of Management Review, 19: 195-229.

Dillon, P. S., & Fischer, K. 1992. Environmental man-
agement in corporations: Methods and motiva-
tions. Center for Environmental Management, Tufts
University, Medford, MA.
Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. 1975. Belief, attitude, intention,
and behavior: An introduction to theory and re-
search. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. 1981. Evaluating structural
equation models with unobservable variables and
measurement error. Journal of Marketing Re-
search, 18: 39-50.
Kotter, J. P. 1996. Leading change. Boston: Harvard
Business School Press.
Kurland, N. B. 1995. Ethical intentions and the theories
of reasoned action and planned behavior. Journal of
Applied Social Psychology, 25: 297-313.
Lawrence, A. T., & Morell, D. 1995. Leading-edge
environmental management: Motivation, opportu-
nity, resources, and processes. In D. Collins &
M. Starik (Eds.), Research in corporate social
performance and policy: 99-126. Greenwich, CT:
JAI Press.

Getz, K. A. 1993. Corporate political tactics in a princi- Lober, D. J. 1996. Evaluating the environmental perfor-
pal-agent context: An investigation in ozone protec- mance of corporations. Journal of Managerial Is-
sues, 8: 184-205.
tion policy. In J. Post (Ed.), Research in corporate
social performance and policy: 19-55. Greenwich, Lober, D. J. 1998. Pollution prevention as corporate en-
CT: JAI Press. trepreneurship. Journal of Organizational Chang
Hart, S. L. 1995. A natural-resource-based view of the Management, 11(1): 26-37.
firm. Academy of Management Review, 20: 986- Lovins, A. B., & Lovins, L. H. 1997. Climate: Making
1014. sense and making money. Old Snowmass, CO:
Rocky Mountain Institute.
Hart, S. L. 1997. Beyond greening: Strategies for a sus-
tainable world. Harvard Business Review, 75(1): Marcus, A. 1995. Collaborating for a better environ-
66-76. ment and economy in Minnesota: Draft summary
Hart, S. L., & Ahuja, G. 1994. Does it pay to be green? An of dialogues 1-7. Minneapolis: Strategic Manage-
ment Research Center, University of Minnesota.
empirical examination of the relationship between
pollution prevention and firm performance. Paper Mardia, K. V. 1970. Measures of multivariate skewness
presented at the annual meeting of the Academy of and kurtosis with applications. Biometrika, 57:
Management, Dallas. 519-530.

Hatcher, L. 1994. A step-by-step approach to using the

Mueller, R. 0. 1996. Basic principles of structural
SAS system for factor analysis and structural tion modeling: An introduction to LISREL and
equation modeling. Cary, NC: SAS Institute. EQS. New York: Springer.

This content downloaded from 139.190.33.167 on Wed, 23 Oct 2019 07:12:29 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
640 Academy of Management Journal
Nerht, C. 1996. Timing and intensity effects of environ-
mental investments. Strategic Management Jour-
nal, 17: 535-547.
Porter, M., & van der Linde, C. 1995. Green and compet-
itive: Ending the stalemate. Harvard Business Re-
view, 73(5): 120-134.
Post, J., & Altman, B. 1992. Models of corporate greening:
How corporate social policy and organizational
learning inform leading-edge environmental man-
agement. In J. Post (Ed.), Research in corporate
social performance and policy: 3-29. Greenwich,
CT: JAI Press.
Randall, D. 1994. Why students take elective business
ethics courses: Applying the theory of planned be-
havior. Journal of Business Ethics, 13: 369-378.
Rands, G. P., & Marcus, A. 1991. Toward theory E: The
environmentally sensitive manager. Paper pre-
sented at the 11th Annual International Strategic
Management Society Conference, Toronto.
Winn, M. I. 1995. Corporate leadership and policies for
Roome, N. J. 1998. Conclusion: Implications for manage-
ment practice, education, and research. In N. J.
Roome (Ed.), Sustainability strategies for industry:
The future of corporate practice: 259-276. Wash-
ington, DC: Island Press.
Russo, M. V., & Fouts, P. A. 1997. A resource-based
perspective on corporate environmental perfor-
mance and profitability. Academy of Management
Journal, 40: 534-559.
the revised measurement model. Response scales ranged
Schmidheiny, S. 1992. Changing course: A global per-
from "strongly disagree," 1, to "strongly agree," 7, unless
spective on development and the environment.
an exception is noted. "R" indicates reverse coding.
Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Shelton, R. D. 1994. Hitting the green wall. Corporate
Environmental Strategy: The Journal of Environ-
mental Leadership, 3(2): 19-27.
Shen, T. T. 1995. Industrial pollution prevention. New
York: Springer-Verlag.
Shrivastava, P. 1995. The role of corporations in achiev-
ing ecological sustainability. Academy of Manage-
ment Review, 20: 936-960.
Sparks, P., & Shepherd, R. 1992. Self-identity and the
theory of planned behavior: Assessing the role of
identification with "green consumerism." Social
Psychology Quarterly, 55: 388-399.
Starik, M., & Rands, G. P. 1995. Weaving an integrated
web: Multilevel and multisystem perspectives of
ecologically sustainable organizations. Academy of
Management Review, 20: 908-935.
Stead, W. E., & Stead, J. G. 1995. An empirical investiga-
tion of sustainability strategy implementation in in-
dustrial organizations. In D. Collins & M. Starik
(Eds.), Research in corporate social performance
and policy: 43-66. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Sutton, S. 1998. Predicting and explaining intentions and
behavior: How well are we doing? Journal of Ap-
plied Social Psychology, 28: 1317-1338.
This content downloaded from 139.190.33.167 on Wed, 23 Oct 2019 07:12:29 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
August
Taylor, S., & Todd, P. 1995. An integrated model of waste
management. Environment and Behavior, 27: 603-
630.
Theodore, L. 1992. Pollution prevention. New York: Van
Nostrand Reinhold.
Trafimow, D., & Fishbein, M. 1994. The importance of
risk in determining the extent to which attitudes
affect intentions to wear seat belts. Journal of Ap-
plied Social Psychology, 24: 1-11.
Triandis, H. C. 1980. Values, attitudes, and interpersonal
behavior. In H. E. Howe & M. Page (Eds.), Nebraska
symposium on motivation: 195-259. Lincoln: Uni-
versity of Nebraska Press.
Turcotte, M. 1995. Conflict and cooperation: The inter-
faces between environmental organizations and
business firms. In D. Collins & M. Starik (Eds.), Re-
search in corporate social performance and pol-
icy: 195-230. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
the natural environment. In D. Collins & M. Starik
(Eds.), Research in corporate social performance
and policy: 127-162. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
APPENDIX
Scale Itemsa
Only the items highlighted in italic were retained for
Pollution Prevention Attitudes .73
Pollution prevention is not necessary
high levels of environmental perfor
Pollution prevention is an important
of a company's environmental manag
strategy.
Pollution prevention is not an impor
component of manufacturing manage
Pollution prevention should be seen as an
important component of a firm's "bottom line."
Pollution prevention is an ineffective environmental
management strategy.
Pollution prevention is the most desirable
waste management goal.
Most pollution prevention projects are worthwhile.
Subjective Norms for Environmental Regulation .74
People in this organization who are important
to me think ...
... the government should take stronger
actions to protect our nation's resources.
... pollution laws have gotten too strict in
recent years. (R)
... the natural environment is valuable in
itself and should be protected at all costs.
... antipollution laws should be enforced
more strongly.
2000 Cordano and Frieze 641

... our company should emphasize jobs Behavioral Preference for Source Reduction Activity
over the environment. (R) Responses for this scale ranged from "decrease
... the government has overstepped its authority in greatly," -3, to "increase greatly," 3.
its efforts to protect natural resources. (R) Projecting over the next six months, circle the
. .. environmental regulations have placed number from the code below that best completes
unfair burdens on industry. (R) each statement.
I would like to the number of source
Perceived Behavioral Control .79
reduction activities at our facility.
Whether or not I implement more pollution
prevention practices is within my control.
a Values on the right are scale reliabilities.
The authority given my position is sufficient to
implement new pollution prevention practices.
Mark Cordano is an assistant professor of managem
I have the authority to change production
Wright State University. He received his Ph.D. fr
processes when necessary to prevent pollution.
University of Pittsburgh. His research examines en
I can obtain the resources needed to increase the
mental attitudes, pollution prevention, environm
number of pollution prevention practices at our
stakeholders, and corporate social performance.
facility.
I am limited to end-of-pipe methods to control
pollution from this facility. (R) Irene Hanson Frieze is a professor of psychology and
I do not have management's support to increase business administration at the University of Pittsburgh.
the number of pollution prevention practices at She received her Ph.D. from the University of California,
our facility. (R) Los Angeles. Her research concerns motivation, career
Plant management supports my efforts to implement planning, and cross-cultural studies of attitudes about
pollution prevention practices. work and family issues.

This content downloaded from 139.190.33.167 on Wed, 23 Oct 2019 07:12:29 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms