Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Employee energy benefits: what are they and what effects do they have on employees?

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Energy Efficiency Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Employee energy benefits (EEBs), such as subsidies for employee home energy audits and financial incentives for carpooling to work, aim to influence employees’ environmental behaviors outside of work. Exploring these understudied benefits would offer new insights that can enrich theories of employer and employee motivations for engaging in environmental behavior, as well as reveal new strategies for making significant progress on environment goals. By drawing upon employer reports and conducting a survey of 482 US adults employed full-time, we found that there are a wide range of types of EEBs currently offered by employers, and furthermore, they were more likely to be offered in certain industries, such as state and local governments but not others such as retail. These benefits were offered to 17% of employees and included a vast array of strategies and approaches. Guided by theorizing on employer and employee motivation, open-ended responses suggested employers were perceived to offer EEBs to maximize competiveness and because of social responsibility concerns, and employees tended to enroll because they wanted to save money and time or because they cared about the environment. Finally, EEBs were linked to employee environmental behavior and morale. The findings reveal new information about the types of EEBs being offered, motivations for offering and enrolling in EEBs, and their relationship to employee behavior and morale. This work suggests numerous lines of promising new research.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Following the open-ended questions, participants completed additional structured questions concerning employer and employee motivation. Results were consistent with the open-ended questions and are available from the authors upon request.

  2. Note that although 7.3% (35 out of 482) of employees had access to telecommuting as a benefit—something that arguably is substantively different from other benefits (given employees benefit from this in ways other than energy savings), less than 4% (3 out of 82) had this as their only employee energy benefit. Thus, if these telecommuting benefits were excluded, our findings are unlikely to substantively change.

  3. None of the predictors in our models demonstrated a problematic level of multicollinearity.

References

  • 2015 Employer List (n.d.). Retrieved July 20, 2015 from http://www.bestworkplaces.org/list/2012-list-by-state/

  • Abrahamse, W., & Steg, L. (2013). Social influence approaches to encourage resource conservation: a meta-analysis. Global Environmental Change, 23, 1773–1785.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Aguinis, H. (2011). Organizational responsibility: doing good and doing well. In S. Zedeck (Ed.), APA handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (Vol. 3, pp. 855–879). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

    Google Scholar 

  • Artz, B. (2010). Fringe benefits and job satisfaction. International Journal of Manpower, 31, 626–644.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bank of America. (n.d.). Bank of America energy benefits. Retrieved July 20, 2015 from http://makeanimpact.bankofamerica.com/EnergyBenefits

  • Bansal, P., & Roth, K. (2000). Why companies go green: a model of ecological responsiveness. The Academy of Management Journal, 43, 717–736.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bauer, T. N., & Aiman-Smith, L. (1996). Green career choices: the influence of ecological stance on recruiting. Journal of Business and Psychology, 10, 445–458.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Behrend, T. S., Baker, B. A., & Thompson, L. F. (2009). Effects of pro-environmental recruiting messages: the role of organizational reputation. Journal of Business and Psychology, 24, 341–350.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berman, B. (2011). Corporate incentives for hybrids and alternative cars. Retrieved from http://www.hybridcars.com/corporate-incentives/

  • Best Workplace for Commuters (2015). 2015 employers list. Retrieved from http://www.bestworkplaces.org/list/2012-list-by-state/.

  • Best Workplaces for Commuters (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.bestworkplaces.org/

  • Binswanger, M. (2001). Technological progress and sustainable development: what about the rebound effect? Energy Policy, 36, 119–132.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bureau of Labor Statistics (2015, February 12). Labor force statistics from the current population survey. Retrieved from http://www.bls.gov/cps/tables.htm.

  • Casper, W. J., & Buffardi, L. C. (2004). Work-life benefits and job pursuit intentions: the role of anticipated organizational support. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 65, 391–410.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chauvin, K. W., & Hirschey, M. (1994). Goodwill, profitability, and the market value of the firm. Journal of Accounting and Public Policy, 13, 159–180.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clinton Foundation (n.d.). HEAL. Retrieved from https://www.clintonfoundation.org/clinton-presidential-center/about/heal.

  • Corporate Responsibility Magazine (2014). The cost of a bad reputation—the impacts of corporate reputation on talent acquisition. Retrieved from http://www.commitforum.com/index.php/the-cost-bad-reputation-the-impacts-corporate-reputation-talent-acquisition/.

  • Daily, B. F., Bishop, J. W., & Govindarajulu, N. (2009). A conceptual model for organizational citizenship behavior directed toward the environment. Business Society, 48, 243–256.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Delmas, M. A., Fischlein, M., & Asensio, O. I. (2013). Information strategies and energy conservation behavior: a meta-analysis of experimental studies from 1975-2012. Energy Policy, 61, 729–739.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dietz, T., Gardner, G. T., Gilligan, J., Stern, P. C., & Vandenbergh, M. P. (2009). Household actions can provide a behavioral wedge to rapidly reduce US carbon emissions. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 106, 18452–18456.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dzurilla, D. (2008). Renewable energy firms strike gold with employee energy benefits. GreenBiz. Retrieved from http://www.greenbiz.com/blog/2008/01/13/renewable-energy-firms-strike-gold-green-employee-benefits.

  • Eastman Chemical (n.d.). Employees. Retrieved from http://www.eastman.com/Company/Sustainability/Social_Responsibility/Pages/Employees.aspx

  • Enoch, M., & Potter, S. (2003). Encouraging the commercial sector to help employees to change their travel behaviour. Transport Policy, 10, 51–58.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Environmental Leader (2014). Employees want to work for environmentally responsible CEOs. Retrieved from http://www.environmentalleader.com/2014/10/07/employees-want-to-work-for-environmentally-responsible-ceos/

  • Fombrun, C. J. (1996). Reputation: realizing value from the corporate image. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fryxell, G. E., & Lo, C. W. H. (2003). The influence of environmental knowledge and values on managerial behaviours on behalf of the environment: an empirical examination of managers in China. Journal of Business Ethics, 46, 45–69.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gillingham, K., Rapson, D., & Wagner, G. (2014). The rebound effect and energy efficiency policy (FEEM Working Paper No. 107.2014). Retrieved from Social Science Research Network: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2550710

  • Glavas, A. (2016). Corporate social responsibility and organizational psychology: an integrative review. Frontiers in Psychology, 7. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00144.

  • Green Impact (n.d.) Web-based engagement tool. Retrieved from http://www.greenimpact.com/sustainability_employee_engagement/.

  • Greenhouse Gas Protocol (n.d.) FAQ. Retrieved from http://www.ghgprotocol.org/files/ghgp/public/MAT.pdf.

  • Greening, D. W., & Turban, D. B. (2000). Corporate social performance as a competitive advantage in attracting a quality workforce. Business & Society, 39, 254–280.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Herrera, T. (2008). Driving a low-carbon commute. GreenBiz. Retrieved from http://www.greenbiz.com/news/2008/09/14/driving-low-carbon-commute.

  • Herzberg, F. (1962). Work and the nature of man. New York: Thomas Y. Crowell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Keller, K. L., & Richey, K. (2006). The importance of corporate brand personality traits to a successful 21st century business. Journal of Brand Management, 14, 74–81.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kollmuss, A., & Agyeman, J. (2002). Mind the gap: why do people act environmentally and what are the barriers to pro-environmental behavior? Environmental Education Research, 8, 239–260.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kristof, A. L. (1996). Person-organization fit: an integrative review of its conceptualizations, measurement, and implications. Personnel Psychology, 49, 1–49.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kuvaas, B., & Dysvik, A. (2009). Perceived investment in employee development, intrinsic motivation and work performance. Human Resource Management Journal, 19, 217–236.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lanzini, P., & Thøgersen, J. (2014). Behavioural spillover in the environmental domain: an intervention study. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 40, 381–390.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Littleford, C., Ryley, T. J., & Firth, S. K. (2014). Context, control and the spillover of energy use behaviours between office and home settings. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 40, 157–166.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lineberry, J., & Trumble, S. (2000). The role of employee benefits in enhancing employee commitment. Compensation and Benefits Management, 16, 9–14.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lo, S. H., Peters, G. Y., & Kok, G. (2012). A review of determinants of and interventions for proenvironmental behaviors in organizations. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 42, 2933–2967.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maki, A., Burns, R. J., Ha, L., & Rothman, A. J. (2016). Paying people to protect the environment: a meta-analysis of financial incentive interventions to promote proenvironmental behaviors. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 47, 242–255.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maki, A., & Rothman, A. J. (2016). Understanding proenvironmental intentions and behaviors: the important of considering both the behavior setting and the type of behavior. Journal of Social Psychology., 157, 517–531. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224545.2016.1215968.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Manika, D., Wells, V. K., Gregory-Smith, D., & Gentry, M. (2015). The impact of individual attitudinal and organizational variables on workplace environmentally friendly behaviours. Journal of Business Ethics, 126, 663–684.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mathieu, J. E., & Zajac, D. M. (1990). A review and meta-analysis of the antecedents, correlates, and consequences of organizational commitment. Psychological Bulletin, 108, 171–194.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miles, M. P., & Covin, J. G. (2000). Environmental marketing: a source of reputational, competitive, and financial advantage. Journal of Business Ethics, 23, 299–311.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morley, M. J. (2007). Person-organization fit. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 22, 109–117.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Muse, L. A., & Wadsworth, L. L. (2012). An examination of traditional versus non-traditional benefits. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 27(2), 112–131.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Muster, V. (2011). Companies promoting sustainable consumption of employees. Journal of Consumer Policy, 34, 161–174.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ones, D. S., & Dilchert, S. (2012). Environmental sustainability at work: a call to action. Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 5, 444–466.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Osbaldiston, R., & Schott, J. P. (2012). Environmental sustainability and behavioral science: meta-analysis of proenvironmental behavior experiments. Environment and Behavior, 44, 257–299.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Paolacci, G., & Chandler, J. (2014). Inside the Turk: understanding Mechanical Turk as a participant pool. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 23, 184–188.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 879–903.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Paine, J. B., & Bachrach, D. G. (2000). Organizational citizenship behaviors: a critical review of the theoretical and empirical literature and suggestions for future research. Journal of Management, 26, 513–563.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Podsakoff, N. P., Whiting, S. W., Podsakoff, P. M., & Blume, B. D. (2009). Individual- and organizational-level consequences of organizational citizenship behaviors: a meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94, 122–141.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Poortinga, W., Steg, L., & Vlek, C. (2004). Values, environmental concern, and environmental behavior: a study into household energy use. Environment and Behavior, 36, 70–93.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ramus, C. A. (2001). Organizational support for employees: encouraging creative ideas for environmental sustainability. California Management Review, 43, 85–105.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ramus, C. A., & Killmer, A. B. C. (2007). Corporate greening through prosocial extrarole behaviours—a conceptual framework for employee motivation. Business Strategy and the Environment, 16, 554–570.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Richardson, H. A., Simmering, M. J., & Sturmans, M. C. (2009). A tale of three perspectives: examining post hoc statistical techniques for detection and correction of common method variance. Organizational Research Methods, 12, 762–800.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Russo, M. V., & Fouts, P. A. (1997). A resource-based perspective on corporate environmental performance and profitability. Academy of Management Journal, 40, 534–559.

    Google Scholar 

  • Seivwright, A. N., & Unsworth, K. L. (2016). Making sense of corporate social responsibility and work. Frontiers in Psychology, 7. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00443.

  • Shrivastava, P. (1995). The role of corporations in achieving ecological sustainability. Academy of Management Review, 20, 936–960.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Society for Human Resource Management (2008). SHRM survey brief: green workplace. Retrieved from https://www.shrm.org/Research/SurveyFindings/Articles/Documents/SHRM%20Green%20Workplace%20Survey%20Brief.pdf.

  • Society for Human Resource Management (2011). Advancing sustainability: HR’s role. Retrieved from https://www.shrm.org/resourcesandtools/tools-and-samples/toolkits/documents/11-0066_advsustainhr_fnl_full.pdf

  • Somers, M. J. (1995). Organizational commitment, turnover and absenteeism: an extension of direct and interaction effects. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 16, 49–58.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sørenson, J. B. (2002). The strength of corporate culture and reliability of firm performance. Administrative Science Quarterly, 47, 70–91.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Spector, P. E. (2006). Method variance in organizational research: truth or urban legend? Organizational Research Methods, 9, 221–232.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Starik, M., & Marcus, A. A. (2000). Introduction to the special research forum on the management of organizations in the natural environment: a field emerging from multiple paths, with many challenges ahead. Academy of Management Journal, 43, 539–546.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stern, P. C., Gardner, G. T., Vandenbergh, M. P., Dietz, T., & Gilligan, J. M. (2010). Design principles for carbon emissions reduction programs. Environmental Science and Technology, 44, 4847–4848.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sustainable Food Trade Association. (2013). Implementing sustainability: a case study. Retrieved from http://www.sustainablefoodtrade.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/SFTA-Case-Study-Clif-Bar-2013-Final-21.pdf.

  • Swanda, J. R. (1990). Goodwill, going concern, stocks and flows: a prescription for moral analysis. Journal of Business Ethics, 9, 751–759.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Swiss Re (n.d.). COyou2 programme. Retrieved from http://www.swissre.com/corporate_responsibility/coyou2_programme.html.

  • The Solar Community Initiative-Leasing Solar Panels. (2014). Retrieved July 20, 2015 from http://www.vista-solar.com/solar-community-initiative-leasing-solar-panels-100k-people/

  • Thompson, L. F., & Aspinwall, K. R. (2009). The recruitment value of work/life benefits. Personnel Review, 38, 195–210.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Toor, W., & Havlick, S. W. (2004). Transportation & sustainable campus communities: issues, examples, and solutions. Washington, DC: Island Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Truelove, H. B., Carrico, A. R., Weber, E. U., Raimi, K. T., & Vandenbergh, M. P. (2014). Positive and negative spillover of pro-environmental behavior: an integrative review and theoretical framework. Global Environmental Change, 29, 127–138.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Turban, D. B., & Greening, D. W. (1997). Corporate social performance and organizational attractiveness to prospective employees. Academy of Management Journal, 40, 658–672.

    Google Scholar 

  • van Saane, N., Sluiter, J. K., Verbeek, J. H. A. M., & Frings-Dresen, M. H. W. (2003). Reliability and validity of instruments measuring job satisfaction—a systematic review. Occupational Medicine, 53, 191–200.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Walmart. (2016). Company facts. Retrieved from http://corporate.walmart.com/newsroom/company-facts

  • WeSpire (n.d.). WeSpire employee engagement platform. Retrieved from http://www.wespire.com/employee-engagement-platform/

  • Westerman, J. W., & Yamamura, J. H. (2007). Generational preferences for work environment fit: effects on employee outcomes. Career Development International, 12, 150–161.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Williams, M. L., Brower, H. H., Ford, L. R., Williams, L. J., & Carraher, S. M. (2008). A comprehensive model and measure of compensation satisfaction. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 81, 639–668.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • WSP. (n.d.). PACT. Retrieved from http://www.wspgroup.com/en/WSP-USA/Who-we-are-USA/Sustainability/PACT/

  • Young, W., Davis, M., McNeill, I. M., Malhotra, B., Russell, S., Unsworth, K., & Clegg, C. W. (2013). Changing behaviour: successful environmental programmes in the workplace. Business Strategy and the Environment. Advance online publication, 24, 689–703. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.1836.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

This research was funded in part by a Vanderbilt University Trans-institutional program grant.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN, USA

    Alexander Maki, Emmett McKinney, Michael P. Vandenbergh, Mark A. Cohen & Jonathan M. Gilligan

Authors
  1. Alexander Maki
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Emmett McKinney
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Michael P. Vandenbergh
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Mark A. Cohen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Jonathan M. Gilligan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Alexander Maki.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Maki, A., McKinney, E., Vandenbergh, M.P. et al. Employee energy benefits: what are they and what effects do they have on employees?. Energy Efficiency 12, 1065–1083 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12053-018-9721-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12053-018-9721-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation