Article Journal of Corporate Real Estate Green Buildings

Journal of Corporate Real Estate
Emerald Article: Green buildings, environmental awareness, and

organizational image
Mahbub Rashid, Kent Spreckelmeyer, Neal J. Angrisano
Article information:
To cite this document: Mahbub Rashid, Kent Spreckelmeyer, Neal J. Angrisano, (2012),"Green buildings, environmental awareness,
and organizational image", Journal of Corporate Real Estate, Vol. 14 Iss: 1 pp. 21 - 49
Permanent link to this document:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/14630011211231428
Downloaded on: 02-05-2012
References: This document contains references to 48 other documents
To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by Emerald Author Access
For Authors:
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for Authors service.
Information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all. Additional help
for authors is available for Emerald subscribers. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
With over forty years' experience, Emerald Group Publishing is a leading independent publisher of global research with impact in
business, society, public policy and education. In total, Emerald publishes over 275 journals and more than 130 book series, as
well as an extensive range of online products and services. Emerald is both COUNTER 3 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is
a partner of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive
preservation.
*Related content and download information correct at time of download.
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/1463-001X.htm
Green buildings, environmental

awareness, and organizational
image
Mahbub Rashid and Kent Spreckelmeyer
Green buildings,
EA, and OI
21
School of Architecture, Design and Planning,

University of Kansas, Lawrence, Kansas, USA, and
Neal J. Angrisano
Aviation and Facilities Global Practice,
Kansas City, Kansas, USA
Abstract
Purpose The study seeks to investigate the mechanisms for the effects of environmental design
features of a green building on occupants environmental awareness (EA) and organizational image (OI).
Design/methodology/approach One mechanism investigated the direct effects of environmental
design features of a green building on occupants EA and OI. The other mechanism investigated the
indirect effects on occupants EA and OI resulting from the direct effects of environmental design
features on occupants workplace satisfaction. The data were collected from 175 occupants of the
Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED)-certified green building using a
questionnaire instrument.
Findings Based on frequency, correlational, and regression analyses of the data, the study found no
evidence for direct effects of environmental design features on occupants EA and OI. The study,
however, found some evidence for indirect effects, indicating that individual workspace and
departmental space features affected occupants satisfaction with individual workspaces and the
building, which then affected occupants EA and OI.
Research limitations/implications The study involved only the employees of an organization
who occupy a single LEED-certified green building. Future studies should involve a larger sample of
green buildings. Future studies should also involve other stakeholders of these buildings.
Practical implications The study is important for the long-term market growth of green
buildings, because it provides supporting evidence for the organizational leaders who want to use
green buildings to enhance organizational values and benefits.
Originality/value The study makes an original contribution to the field, because studies focusing
on the potential links between green buildings and organizational benefits and values, and the
mechanisms that may help explain these links are still rare.
Keywords Green buildings, Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED),
Environmental awareness, Organizational image, Workplace satisfaction, Environmental management,
Sustainable design, Buildings, Corporate image
Paper type Research paper
Introduction
For the purpose of this paper, any building with a Leadership in Energy and
Environmental Design (LEED) certification from the US Green Building Council
(USGBC) is considered a green building. The USGBCs LEED-rating system is a
nationally accepted third-party certification program for green building design,
construction, and operation. The rating system promotes sustainability by recognizing
This article is Emerald Group Publishing and permission has been granted for this version to appear on
www.burnsmcd.com. Emerald does not grant permission for this article to be further copied/distributed or hosted
elsewhere without the express permission from Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
Journal of Corporate Real Estate

Vol. 14 No. 1, 2012
pp. 21-49
q Emerald Group Publishing Limited
1463-001X
DOI 10.1108/14630011211231428
JCRE
14,1
22
performance in five key areas: sustainable site development, water savings, energy
efficiency, materials selection, and indoor environmental quality (IEQ). It provides four
levels of certification basic certification, silver, gold, and platinum based on building
performance measured using a set of prerequisites and credits in the five key areas listed
above. Each higher level of certification represents an incremental step toward
integrating the different components of sustainable design, construction, and operation
to achieve optimal building performance. At present, the LEED-rating system provides
certifications for new construction and renovation, operations and maintenance of
existing buildings, design of commercial interiors, building core and shell development,
and neighborhood development and homes.
Since buildings are one of the heaviest consumers of natural resources and account
for a significant portion of the greenhouse gas emissions affecting climate change, the
USGBC and its LEED-rating system have become hugely important for the US
building industry in the context of global climate change and environmental
sustainability. In the USA, buildings represent 38.9 per cent of primary energy use,
38 per cent of all C02 emissions, and 72 per cent of electricity consumption (EIA, 2008).
Buildings also use 13.6 per cent of all potable water, or 15 trillion gallons per year
(USGS, 2000). Additionally, they use 40 per cent of raw materials globally (3 billion
tons annually) (Roodman and Lenssen, 1996). The Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) of the US Government estimates that 170 million tons of building-related
construction and demolition debris was generated in the USA in 2003, with 61 per cent
coming from nonresidential and 39 per cent from residential source (US EPA, 2009).
In the USA, the green building market was 2 per cent of non-residential construction
starts in 2005; 10-12 per cent in 2008; and will grow to 20.25 per cent by 2013 becoming
a $96-140 billion market (McGraw-Hill Construction, 2009). As of October 2010, there
were 19,101 commercial LEED-registered projects, and 7,368 LEED-certified projects.
The cumulative square footage of all commercial LEED-certified projects was over
1 billion and growing. Also as of October 2010, the USGBC had 80 local chapters, over
30,000 individual members, and 157,000 LEED-credentialed professionals across all
areas of practice (www.usgbc.org). The factors driving the green building market and
its related professional developments in the USA include government initiatives to
reduce greenhouse gasses and energy consumption, heightened demand for green
construction, and improvements in sustainable materials and technology (FMI, 2008).
The problem
Despite the growing importance and interests, studies reported on the outcomes of
LEED-certified green buildings are uneven. Many studies focus on cost-related
outcomes of these buildings suggesting that they save money. For example, in one report
it is suggested that an upfront investment of 2 per cent in green building design, on
average, results in life cycle savings of 20 per cent of the total construction costs more
than ten times the initial investment (Kats, 2003). In another, it is suggested that building
sale prices for energy efficient buildings are as much as 10 per cent higher per square foot
than conventional buildings (Miller et al., 2007). Many other studies focus on resource
and operational efficiency of green buildings suggesting that they consume less energy
and fewer resources. For example, a post-occupancy evaluation of 12 General Services
Administration (GSA) green buildings reports that in comparison to the average
commercial building, these green buildings consume 26 per cent less energy,
have 13 per cent lower maintenance costs, and have 33 per cent less greenhouse gas
emissions (GSA PBS, 2008).
In contrast, fewer studies focus on individual benefits and values of green buildings.
These studies in general suggest that the IEQ of green buildings are more conducive to
individual performance, health, comfort and satisfaction than that of conventional
buildings (Browning and Romm, 1995; Kamaruzzaman et al., 2011; Zhang and Altan,
2011). That is because the prerequisites and credits for IEQ in the LEED-rating system are
among those that are already known to have positive effects on building occupants. For
example, inclusion of high quality energy efficient lighting may reduce computer glare and
increase visual comfort, increased use of day lighting may reduce energy demands and
enhance interior lighting quality, certain construction practices may eliminate moisture
build up and reduce mold growth, advanced ventilation and mechanical systems may
increase air flow and reduce occupants contact with airborne microbial agents, or design
strategies that reduce sick building syndromes may have positive effects on health and
work performance. For a review of the related literature see Rashid and Zimring (2008).
Although outcomes related to cost, efficiency, and individual benefits and values are
important, studies focusing on the potential links between green buildings and
organizational benefits and values, and the mechanisms that may help explain these links
are still rare. In one related study Brown et al. (2010) explore the relationship between green
building and workplace design practice and evaluate user experience in relation to
workplace culture and context. The authors report that, while there are potentially
significant gains to be made from integrating green building with workplace design
strategies from the outset, there are many other factors beyond the quality of the space,
which may play a role in shaping user experience. Based on their findings, the authors
indicate possible links between improved occupant comfort, health and productivity, and
organizational culture and contextual factors accompanying the move to a green building.
However, the mechanism explaining these links remains unattended in the study. In
another related study, Kato et al. (2009) examine how occupiers (both management and
employees) perceive and evaluate the role of green workplace environments, and
subsequently assesses the effectiveness of a green workplace environment. The findings
of the study suggest that green workplace offers greater psychological benefits (taking
pride of the workplace environment) than health and productivity gains. Further,
management perceived greater benefits of green workplace compared to employees.
Again, the mechanisms explaining these findings remain unattended in the study, which
are likely to be an important factor in the long-term market growth of green buildings.
Organizational leaders who want to use green buildings to enhance organizational values
and benefits do not yet have the necessary evidence they need to make their case. It is in
this context, this paper studies the effects the environmental design features of green
buildings on occupants organizational image (OI) and environmental awareness (EA) and
the mechanisms explaining these effects.
Linking green buildings to employees OI and EA
Organizational image
The literature offers different terminologies, such as reputation and corporate image,
for OI (Miles, 1987; Fombrun and Shanley, 1990; Dutton and Dukerich, 1991;
Dutton et al., 1994). According to the literature, OI reflects individual perceptions of the
actions, activities and the accomplishments of the organization, and that it helps rank
Green buildings,
EA, and OI
23
JCRE
14,1
24
the organization in comparison with other organizations by referring to its stability

and reputation in the market/society, its quality of outputs and outcomes, its position
as a manufacturer or service provider in relation to other similar organizations, and its
ability to engage its customers, clients, and employees in its actions (Browne and
Golembiewski, 1974; Dowling, 1994; Dutton and Dukerich, 1991; Fombrun and Shanley,
1990; Fomburn, 1996; Gioia et al., 2000; Riordan et al., 1997; Selama and Selama, 1988;
Thompson, 1967; Treadwell and Harrison, 1994).
Studies often suggest that OI is built upon a set of shared constructs such as common
experiences of the employee, common knowledge they share, and common expectations
they have from the organization (Vigoda-Gadot and Ben-Zion, 2004). Since outsiders
(customers, clients, or contractors) and insiders (employees or managers) may share
different constructs or may use different yardsticks to assess the organization, an
organization may represent multiple images. Put simply, an organization may offer one
image to employers, another to employees, and yet another to customers or to the society.
Concerning OI, then the scope of the present study is limited since it studies OI of the
employees of an organization who occupy a single building.
Employees OI is important, because a good OI may send a message of quality,
stability, power, vitality, and pride to all including employees (Gatewood et al., 1993;
Riordan et al., 1997). Since organizations with a good image are also considered good
employers, it is likely that employees will hold positive perceptions towards their work.
For example, some studies report a positive relationship between OI and the intensity
and strength of employees connections with their organization (Dutton and
Dukerich, 1991; Riordan et al., 1997). OI is also a good predictor of employees
decision to join an organization. Consequently, individuals who are employed in an
organization that has a good image will also be more likely to stay rather than to leave
for a job in a different organization (Gatewood et al., 1993).
Buildings may be the most visible asset of an organization, but their effects on
employees OI are not well understood. This is a major limitation, since, a good
building or a good workplace may also send a message of quality, stability, power,
vitality, and pride to all including employees. Many studies show that workers who are
more satisfied with their workplace design are more likely to produce better work
outcomes. For example, Carlopio (1996) reports that employees satisfaction with their
workplace design is directly related to their job satisfaction and indirectly related to
organizational commitment and turnover intention. Many other investigators also
report that workplace design affects employees job perception, attitudes, and job
satisfaction (Ferguson and Weisman, 1986; Leather et al., 2003; Lee and Brand, 2005;
Oldham and Fried, 1987; Sundstrom et al., 1980, 1994; Zalesny et al., 1985). Therefore,
there is a need to understand the relationship between employees OI and their
perception of and satisfaction with their building and workplace design.
Environmental awareness
During the last few decades environmental-friendly business practice strategies of
different organizations, regardless of their sizes, have come to prominence because even
small and medium organizations generate a significant amount of environmental
contamination (Berends et al., 2000; Bro and Junquera, 2003). Buildings are an integral
part of an organizations environmental strategies because they are a major
environmental pollutant. An environmental-friendly building can help improve
OI by giving an organization a competitive advantage as a sustainable leader in the

industry (Kato et al., 2009). As early as 1993, in an extensive evaluation of companies is
UK and Europe, Hodgkinson (1993) notes that businesses increasingly want their
flagship buildings to present an image of environmental friendliness in terms of energy
efficiency, the use of building materials, and the impact on the wider environment. In a
1999 survey by BOMA International and the Urban Land Institute, 72 per cent of
building tenants maintained that it was important for their buildings to project an image
of environmental friendliness (Baier, 1999). With increasing public awareness,
commitment to environmental sustainability has become an important organizational
asset. It is suggested in the literature that companies with the best environmental
records would not only have a higher standing with the public, they would also develop
more positive relationships with environmental regulators (Makower, 1994).
Human resources are another integral part of an organizations environmental
strategies, because the success of these strategies depends on employees awareness
related to the general issues concerning the environment and the cost and
benefits associated with environmental issues (Hart, 1995; Klassen and Angell,
1998). It has been noted that despite business owner/managers having strong green
attitudes, the level of implementation of environmental-friendly practices may be low
in many organizations because employees usually have a very low level EA, and
generally the lower the EA of the employees the lower the environmental involvement
of an organization (Azzone et al., 1997; Azzone and Noci, 1998; Gadenne et al., 2009).
Put simply, the benefits of green buildings in relation to EA and OI are more likely to
occur when buildings and its occupants are treated as integrated systems. As Cole (1999)
points out, when there is a lack of systems integration it is entirely possible to have a
green building with gray occupants who do not have the appropriate knowledge to
use the building. Gray occupants are also more likely to be found in buildings that
green individual systems rather than the environment as a whole, or in buildings
which focus primarily on technology and materials to the exclusion of social and
psychological mechanisms at work in the organization. Further, it is possible to have
green buildings occupied by gray organizations that pass up significant benefits
offered by these buildings in terms of resource and operational efficiency, and human
and organizational values. Therefore, in order to understand how the benefits of green
buildings may accrue in relation to EA and OI, there is also a need to understand how
green buildings affect occupants EA.
Study design
This study investigated two different mechanisms involving building occupants EA
and OI in relation to a LEED-certified buildings green environmental features. The
first mechanism involved looking at the direct effects of environmental design features
of the building on its occupants EA and OI. The second mechanism involved looking
at the indirect effects on occupants EA and OI resulting from the direct effects of the
environmental features on occupants satisfaction with individual workspace,
departmental spaces and/or the building (Figure 1).
More specifically, in the first part, this study focuses on the following three questions
to study the direct effects of the green environmental features of a LEED-certified
building on occupants EA and OI:
Green buildings,
EA, and OI
25
JCRE
14,1
26
(1) Do the occupants of a LEED-certified green building assess various environmental

features of the building favorably? If the occupants do not have a favorable view of
these features, then it may be pointless to pursue the study any further.
(2) Do the occupants of a LEED-certified green building agree that these buildings
have positive effects on EA and OI? Despite having a favorable view of various
environmental features if the occupants believe that the building does not
positively affect their EA and OI, then it is possible that the building uses
green environmental features to the exclusion of some of the social and
psychological mechanisms at work in the organization.
(3) Finally, what is the relationship between the occupants assessments of various
environmental features of a LEED-certified green building and their assessments
of EA and OI? This relationship may help us describe whether a green building is
occupied by gray occupants or not. If there is no relationship between the
occupants assessments of the green environmental features and their
assessments of EA and OI, then it is possible that the benefits offered by the
building are unknown to the occupants, something that can be observed among
gray occupants.
In the second part, this study then focuses on the following three questions to
study the indirect effects of the environmental features of a LEED-certified
building on occupants EA and OI via the occupants satisfaction with individual
workspaces, departmental spaces, and the building.
(4) Are the occupants of a LEED-certified building generally satisfied with
individual workspaces, departmental spaces, and the building? If the occupants
are not satisfied with these spaces and/or the building but still assess various
environmental features of these buildings favorably, then the occupants
satisfaction must depend on something else of the building and/or the
organization. Likewise, if the occupants are not satisfied with these spaces
and/or the building but still believe that the building has positive effects on EA
and OI, then the occupants assessments of EA and OI must depend on
something else of the building and/or the organization.
(5) If the occupants of a LEED-certified building are generally satisfied with
individual workspaces, departmental spaces and the building, then what is the
relationship between the occupants assessments of various environmental
features of a LEED-certified green building and their satisfaction?
Indirect effects
Occupants satisfaction
with
Individual workspace
Departmental spaces
Building
Figure 1.
The study model showing
the two mechanisms under
investigation
Occupantsassessment of
features
Departmental space
features
Direct effects
Environmental
Awareness (EA)
Organizational Image
(OI)
(6) Finally, if the occupants of a LEED-certified building are generally satisfied

with individual workspaces, departmental spaces, and the building, then what
is the relationship between the occupants satisfaction and their assessments of
EA and OI?
The case study
The study was conducted at a Gold-level LEED-certified public office building.
Plates 1-8 show the office building and a few selected spaces within the building.
Environmental highlights of the building in the five key areas of the LEED rating
systems include the following.
Green buildings,
EA, and OI
27
Water
The building uses bio-swales to clean parking lot run-off, and bio-filter in the lobby to
clean rain water from roof. It also uses native or adapted grass and plant species to
reduce water consumption. Its site irrigation system is rain fed. The building includes
grey water recycling system for toilet flushing, low-flow and hands free faucets and
fixtures, and waterless urinals.
Energy
The building uses highly efficient mechanical systems, and floor plenum displacement
ventilation. It also uses sophisticated building automation system. The building
includes significant amount of day lighting, and high efficiency indirect computer
controlled lighting to reduce the need for artificial lighting. It was also designed for
45 per cent energy use reduction below a code minimum building.
Site
The building was designed to reduce site disturbances. It preserved existing trees and
habitats. The building has full cut-off lighting fixtures to help minimize light pollution
in and around the site.
Plate 1.
A view of the building
showing bio-swales,
trees, and habitats
JCRE
14,1
28
Plate 2.
The reflecting pool at the
entrance of the building
works as a retention pond
Plate 3.
The bio-filter in the lobby
of the building helps clean
rain water from the roof
Green buildings,
EA, and OI
29
Plate 4.
Ample natural light
reduces the need for
artificial lighting
in the building
Plate 5.
Each workstation in the
building has ample
natural light and easy
access to natural view
JCRE
14,1
30
Plate 6.
Technology-enhanced
conference spaces also
have natural light
and views
Plate 7.
A view of a lounge area
Materials
The building diverted 90 per cent of construction waste. About 20 per cent of all
materials used in the building were manufactured within 500-mile radius of site. It used
reclaimed cedar from demolished building. It also used recycled glass chips for terrazzo
floor, and high recycled-content steel structure, carpet fiber and other materials. Further,
it used corn-based fabrics.
Green buildings,
EA, and OI
31
Plate 8.
A view of a group
meeting space
Indoor environmental quality

The building uses sustainable materials and furniture with off-gassing volatile organic
compounds. It has systems of containment for source pollutants. It also provide high
amount of fresh air intake. Each individual office space has heating, ventilation and air
conditioning control. Private offices are placed inside and workstations are placed
around the perimeter. As a result, more workers have access to natural light and
outside view. Office workers also share several amenities including a huge well-lit
atrium, well-lit corridors with invitingly warm woodwork, technology-enhanced
conference spaces with outdoor views, and improved service areas. The building also
has a system of green housekeeping in place.
Recognitions received in addition to the Gold-level LEED certification
The building received the 2005 Achievement Award for making the design-build
process work for County Government by the National Association of Counties, the 2005
Public Technology Institute Award, the 2006 Excellence Award by the Design-Build
Institute of America, the 2006 Merit Award for Excellence in Architecture by Kansas
Chapter of the AIA, the 2006 Excellence Award by the Mid-America Chapter of the
Design-Build Institute of America, the 2006 Award for Merit by Kansas City AIA
Committee on the Environment, the 2007 KC Business Journal Capstone Award,
the 2007 Construction Specifications Institute Environmental Stewardship Award, the
2007 Achievement Award for setting a new standard for public capital investment by
the National Association of Counties, the 2007 EPA Blue Skyways Partnership Award,
and the 2007 Bridging the Gap Environmental Excellence award for Business.
JCRE
14,1
32
Methods
Data collection methods
Data for the study were collected via an anonymous questionnaire survey. Institutional
Review Board (IRB) approval for the survey was obtained from the Human Subjects
Committee of the involved institution. The IRB-required information and cover sheets
were attached to the questionnaire to ensure that participating office workers fully
understood the intent of the study and the consequences of their participation. The
purpose and methods of the survey were discussed with office managers, who then
described these to office workers. Participation in the study was voluntary. On the day of
survey, research representatives left the questionnaire on each office workers desk. Office
workers could complete the questionnaire any time during a period of one week after they
received the questionnaire. The respondent put the filled-out questionnaire in a sealed
envelope and returned it to boxes kept at predetermined locations within the building.
The questionnaire
Among the many questions included in the questionnaire, this study utilized only some of
those related to individual background, workplace design, and individual and
organizational outcomes. Questions on individual background included gender, job, type
and age group. Questions on workplace design included some on environmental features of
individual workspaces, and others on departmental spaces or common amenities (Table I).
They also included questions on satisfaction with workspaces, departmental spaces and the
building. Among the many questions on organizational outcomes, some were regrouped
Workspace-related questions
Departmental space-related questions
Amount of area in personal workspace fits

needs
Sufficient work surfaces in workspace
Enough storage in workspace
Furniture in workspace is sufficient
Can socialize in corridors/circulation areas
Can enjoy outside view

Can adjust workspace for needs
Workspace helps accomplishing tasks
Have enough privacy
Can adjust workspace to increase privacy
Conversations with co-workers cannot be
overheard
Phone conversations cannot be overheard
Have enough privacy to do job well
Table I.
and departmental
space-related questions
Have enough natural light in workspace

Workspace is not too bright
Lighting at desk helps job
Have enough fresh air in workspace
Happy with air quality
Not too hot in workspace
Not too cold in workspace
Air not too dry in workspace
Can socialize in lounge/break room

Can socialize in coffee/snack bar
Building provides opportunities for informal
conversation
People I need to work with are close to my work area
Shared spaces for teamwork/impromptu meetings
Have no difficulty finding people needed to get
work done
Can choose where I get work done in bldg.
Have easy access to equipment
Do not have to go out of way to get info from coworkers
Support equipment is convenient to workspace
Layout of departmental workspace supports
teamwork
Layout of department supports impromptu meetings
Office does not lack informal meeting spaces
Conference and/or training rooms support tasks
Conference spaces available when needed
Conference spaces have suitable sizes
Office spaces are flexible
to create two multi-item scales describing OI and EA (Table II). OI was measured using a
six-item scale 3 of these items described the way employees believed others view their
organization, and the other 3 described the employees view of the organization as a
good employer. EA was measured using an eight-item scale 3 of these items described the
employees assessment of the buildings performance as a green building, 2 described
the employees own attitude toward environment and toward other similar buildings,
2 described the employees view of the other employees attitude toward environment and
toward other similar buildings, and the last one described the employees view about the
impact of the building on the image of the organization as an environment conscious
organization. The questionnaire utilized a five-point bi-polar scale to score responses
against each question related to environmental features, satisfaction, and organizational
outcomes.
Green buildings,
EA, and OI
33
Data analysis methods

Altogether, the building had 284 office workers at the time of the survey. There were
175 appropriately filled out questionnaires (response rate: 61.6 per cent). The numbers
Scales
Items
Organizational 1. Public image improved since we

image
relocated in this building
2. Organization hires better people since
we relocated in this building
3. Having a job in this building carries a
positive image
4. Employees respect job more since we
5. Respect my job more since we
6. This building affects my desire to
stay with the organization
Environmental 1. This building has a positive effect on
awareness
the environment
2. This building helps conserve energy
3. This building provides healthy work
environment
4. I care more about environment since
we relocated in this building
5. I believe all buildings should be
designed like this building
6. Employees believe all buildings
should be designed like this building
7. Employees care more about
environment since we relocated in
this building
8. Our reputation as an environment
conscious organization improved
since we relocated
Factor analysis extraction

method: principal component Cronbachs
analysis
alpha
One primary component was
extracted
0.884
One primary component was

extracted
0.899
Table II.
Items in the
organizational image and
environmental awareness
scales and their
Cronbachs alpha values
JCRE
14,1
34
of valid returns by gender, job type, and age group are given in Table III. Questionnaire
data were manually entered into an SPSS (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL) database. Standard data
checking and verification were performed (e.g. range, distribution, pattern of missing
values). Factor analyses of the two scales EA and OI extracted one primary
component for each, therefore no item was eliminated. Reliability analyses showed the
scales to have acceptable Cronbachs alpha values (Table II).
The following analyses were completed to find out the answers to the six study
questions posed earlier:
(1) For the first question, frequencies of the responses on the questions related to
individual workspace and departmental space features were analyzed.
(2) For the second question, frequencies of the responses on the EA and OI scales
were analyzed. These responses were then broken down according to gender,
job type, and age group to find out if these categories had any differential effects
on the occupants assessments of EA and OI.
(3) For the third question, correlational analyses between the occupants assessments
of workplace environmental design features and their assessments of EA and OI
were performed; and regression models were developed with the occupants
assessments of workplace environmental design features as the predictor variables
and their assessments of EA and OI as the dependent variables.
(4) For the fourth question, frequencies of the responses on the questions related to
satisfaction with individual workspaces, departmental spaces, and the building
were analyzed.
(5) For the fifth question, regression models were developed with the occupants
assessments of workplace environmental variables as the predictor variables
and their satisfaction with individual workspaces, departmental spaces and the
building as the dependent variables.
(6) Finally, for the sixth question, regression models were developed with the
occupants satisfaction with individual workspaces, departmental spaces and
the building as the predictor variables and their assessments of EA and OI as
the dependent variables.
Gender
Job type
Age group
Over
Male Female Total SM MM P S Total Below30 31-40 41-50 51-60 60 Total
Table III.
Valid returns by gender,
job type, and age group
Organizational
image
70
89
159 13
Environmental
awareness
72
90
162 13
Total number of participants 175
31 46 67 157
13
32
48
58
158
32 48 67 160
13
34
49
58
161
Notes: SM, senior manager; MM, mid-level manager; P, professionals; S, staff
Results
Table IV and Figure 2 show the results of the analysis of the frequencies of the
occupants assessments of workspace features. More occupants agreed than disagreed
with the following workspace features:
.
Amount of area in personal workspace fits needs.
.
Have sufficient work surfaces in workspace.
.
Have enough storage in workspace.
.
Furniture in workspace is sufficient.
.
Can enjoy outside view.
.
Can adjust workspace for needs.
.
Workspace helps accomplishing tasks.
.
Have enough natural light in workspace.
.
Workspace is not too bright.
.
Lighting at desk helps job.
.
Have enough fresh air in workspace.
.
Happy with air quality.
.
Not too hot in workspace.
.
Not too cold in workspace.
.
Air not too dry in workspace.
.
Satisfied with workspace.
Amount of area in personal workspace fits needs

Have enough privacy
Conversations with co-workers cannot be overheard
Disagree (%)
Neutral (%)
Agree (%)
22.9
41.3
29.6
13.4
24.3
31.8
26.8
62
82.7
88.8
89.4
43.6
36.9
10.1
17.3
29.1
21.2
29.1
34.1
22.9
7.8
11.7
18.4
16.2
37.9
24.6
18.4
19
8.9
6.7
6.1
26.3
20.7
17.3
24.6
28.5
33
21.8
20.7
45.8
69.3
47
52
70.4
37.8
43.6
54.8
19
8.4
4.5
4.5
30.1
42.4
72.6
58.1
42.4
45.8
49.1
45.2
31.3
Green buildings,
EA, and OI
35
Table IV.
Occupants responses
to individual
workspace-related
questions
JCRE
14,1
100
90
80
70
60
50
36
40
30
20
10
ar
of
nt
ou
am
Figure 2.
Occupants responses
to individual
workspace-related
questions
ea
i
su n p
ffi ers
ci
en on
t w al w
or or
en k su ksp
fu
rn oug rfa ace
itu h ce
re st s i fits
in ora n w ne
wo ge or ed
r k in ks s
c
pa
s
wo an
c p w
rk
ad an ace ork ce
sp
ju en is sp
co
a
s
nv
ce t w joy su ace
er can
he or ou ffic
sa
ad
lp ksp ts ien
tio
s
i
ns just
ac ac de t
co e f vie
w
or
ph with or
m
w
n
on c ks ha pli
e o-w pa ve sh eed
ce e
co
in
s
o
n
g
nv rk
o
t
er er o in ug tas
s
ha sat ca cre h p ks
ha v
io
a ri
n
ve e e ns no se vac
en no ca t be pri y
n
va
ou ug
n
gh h p ot ove cy
na riv be rhe
ov ar
tu ac
wo ral y to erh d
ea
r k lig
d
r
sp ht o
ha
jo d
ve
lig ace in w b w
en
ht
or
i
e
s
ou ing n ks ll
pa
gh
a ot
fre t d too ce
sh esk br
a
he igh
h ir
t
l
no app in w ps j
o
y
o
tt
oo wi rks b
no
ho th a pa
t i ir ce
ai t to
qu
n
rn o
ot col wo ali
rk ty
d
to
s
o in
dr wo pac
y
e
in r ks
wo pa
c
rk e
sp
ac
e
Disagree
Neutral
Agree
In contrast, more occupants disagreed than agreed with the following workspace
features:
.
Have enough privacy.
.
Can adjust workspace to increase privacy.
.
Conversations with co-workers cannot be overheard.
.
Phone conversations cannot be overheard.
.
Have enough privacy to do job well.
Table V and Figure 3 show the results of the analysis of the frequencies of the
occupants assessments of departmental space features. More occupants agreed than
disagreed with the following departmental space features:
.
Can socialize in corridors/circulation areas.
.
Can socialize in lounge/break room.
.
Can socialize in coffee/snack bar.
.
Building provides opportunities for informal conversation.
.
People I need to work with are close to my work area.
.
Have shared spaces for teamwork/impromptu meetings.
.
Have no difficulty finding people needed to get work done.
.
Have easy access to equipment.
.
Do not have to go out of way to get info from co-workers.
Disagree (%) Neutral (%) Agree (%)

Can socialize in lounge/break room
Building provides opportunities for informal conversation
Have no difficulty finding people needed to get work done
Do not have to go out of way to get info from co-workers
Layout of departmental workspace supports teamwork
Office spaces are flexible
15.9
21.3
20.3
17
15.3
14.2
25.6
65.3
5.7
26.1
27.3
29
30.7
26.1
15.9
22.2
25
25.6
17.6
25.3
27.9
19.3
9.7
13.1
18.8
19.9
10.2
18.8
11.9
21
25
22.7
21.6
32.4
23.3
30.1
66.5
53.4
51.8
63.7
75
72.7
55.6
14.8
84.1
55.1
60.8
50
44.3
51.2
62.5
45.4
51.7
44.3
Green buildings,
EA, and OI
37
Table V.
Occupants responses
to departmental
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
co
r ri
ci dor
al
s
i
ze /cir
i n op
n
sh ee por soc in cula
lo
t
ar d t
i
t
ed o unit aliz un ion
ge
ie
e
ar
sp wo
s
i
/
n
e
b
ac rk
fo
r i cof rea as
es wit
k
n
f
ee
ro
fo
fo h a
o
r
/
rt
ea re c ma sna m
lc
c
lo
m
on k b
do
wo se
a
ve
t
rk
no
rs r
/im o m
th
a
pr y w tio
av
om o
n
e
to
pt rk a
g
u
la
yo su o o
m rea
ee
p
ut
u
tin
of por t of
gs
de t e
wa
qu
la
p
yo
ar
ip y to
tm
ut
m
en ge
e
of
ti
de ntal t is
n
pa
wo co fo f
r tm rk
nv rom
of
e
s
fic
c
e ent pac nie
co
n o-w
d
s
e
nf
or
er oes up
su t to
p
en
p
wo ker
ce not or ts po
s
rk
p
l
s
a
r
im
co an
pr ts te pac
d/ ck i
nf
om
o
er
nf
am e
o
en r tr
w
ce ain ma ptu
m ork
co
sp ing l m
e
e
nf
er ace roo etin etin
en
s
g
m
g
s
ce av
sp s
ac
sp aila sup
es
ac ble po
es
w r t ta
h
sk
of hav en
fic
e
ne s
s
e
sp uita ede
ac
bl
d
es e s
ize
ar
e
fle s
xi
bl
e
in
ca
so
ca
ci
al
ize
so
es
cu
le
ffi
op
pe
bi
dg
pr
ov
id
ca
t
ne idg en
do n b pm
i
i
k
r
u
e
o
q
n
t w do to e
ge rk
s
s
to wo
ce
ed et
ac
ed I g sy
ne re
a
e
le he
ve
w
op
ha
pe ose
g
o
n
di
ch
fin an
c
lty
ve
ha
no
di
Disagree
.
.
.
.
Neutral
Agree
Support equipment is convenient to workspace.

Layout of departmental workspace supports teamwork.
Layout of department supports impromptu meetings.
Office does not lack informal meeting spaces.
Figure 3.
Occupants responses
to departmental
JCRE
14,1
.
.
.
.
.
38
Conference and/or training rooms support tasks.

Conference spaces available when needed.
Conference spaces have suitable sizes.
Office spaces in the department are flexible.
Satisfied with location of workspaces in the department.
Satisfied with the layout of department.
In contrast, more occupants disagreed than agreed with the following departmental
space feature:
.
Can choose where I get my work done in bldg.
Tables VI-VIII and Figures 4-6 show the results of the analysis of the frequencies of the
occupants assessments of EA and OI. More occupants agreed than disagreed that the
building helped improve their EA. In contrast, more occupants disagreed than agreed
that the building helped improve their OI. These findings do not change for gender, job
type, and age group except for the over 60 age group. For this age group, the percentage of
occupants who agreed that the building helped improve their EA and OI was equal to the
percentage of occupants who disagreed that the building helped improve their EA and OI.
Tables IX-XI show the results of the correlational and regression analysis studying
the relationships between the occupants assessments of individual workspace and
departmental space features and that of EA and OI. The occupants assessments of most
individual workspace features showed significant correlation with that of EA and OI
(Table IX). However, a regression analysis with OI as the dependent variable and
workspace features showing significant correlations as the predictor variables returned
no significant predictor variable (Table XI). Likewise, a regression analysis with EA as
dependent variable and workspace features showing significant correlations as
predictor variables also showed no significant predictor variable (Table XI).
Table VI.
Occupants assessment of
by gender
Disagreed (%)
Neutral (%)
Agreed (%)
All Male Female All Male Female All Male Female
Did organizational image improve? 45.3 44.3
Did environmental awareness
improve?
24.6 23.6
All
Table VII.
by job type
Disagreed (%)
SM MM P
42.7
23.3
22.1 18.6
9.7
9.7
Neutral (%)
All SM MM P
Organizational
image
improved
45.3 53.8 48.4 39.1 43.3 22.1
Environmental
awareness
improved
24.6 15.4 15.6 29.2 22.4 9.7
24.7
23.6 37.1
32.6
7.8
65.7 66.7
68.9
All
Agreed (%)
SM MM P
25.8 21.7 23.9 23.6 46.2 25.8 39.2 32.8
15.6
6.3
7.5 65.7 84.6 68.8 64.5 70.1
Notes: SM, senior manager; MM, mid-level manager; P, professionals; S, staff
70.6 61.2 70.7 42.8

9.7
7.7
8.8 14.3
5.2 14.3 65.7
76.9
39
15.4
24.6
20.6 24.5 24.1 42.9
40.6 31.2 29.3 42.8

46.1
14.3 23.6
19
18.8 25
38.5
40.6 43.8 51.7 42.9 22.1
15.4
45.3
Did organizational image improve?

Did environmental awareness
improve?
Disagreed (%)
Neutral (%)
Agreed (%)
Below 31- 41- 51- Over
All
30
40 50 60
60 All
30
40 50 60
60 All
30
40 50 60
60
Green buildings,
EA, and OI
Table VIII.
by age group
JCRE
14,1
40
Figure 4.
by gender
Figure 5.
by job type
The occupants assessments of most departmental space features also showed significant
correlation with that of EA and OI (Table X). However, a regression analysis with OI as the
dependent variable and workspace features showing significant correlations as the
predictor variables returned no significant predictor variable (Table XI). However,
a regression analysis with EA as the dependent variable and departmental space features
showing significant correlations as the predictor variables returned only departmental
spaces are flexible as a significant predictor variable (Table XI).
Table XII and Figure 7 show the frequencies of responses of the occupants
satisfaction with workspace, departmental space and the building. More than 54 per cent
of the respondents were satisfied and just over 20 per cent were not satisfied with their
individual workspaces. More than 57 per cent of the respondents were satisfied and over
21 per cent were not satisfied with their departmental spaces. Finally, more than
69 per cent of the respondents were satisfied and just over 11 per cent were not satisfied
with the building.
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
All
Male
Female
All
Disagreed (%)
Male
All
SM
MM
All
Neutral (%)
Did "Organizational Image" Improve?
100
80
60
40
20
0
Female
All
Disagreed (%)
Male
Female
Agree (%)
Did "Environmental Awareness" Improve?
SM
MM
All
Neutral (%)
SM
MM
Agree (%)
100
80
60
40
20
0
Figure 6.
by age group
All
Below 31-40 41-50 51-60 Over

30
60
Disagreed (%)
All
Below 31-40 41-50 51-60 Over

30
60
All
Neutral (%)
Below 31-40 41-50 51-60 Over

30
60
Agree (%)
Organizational image
Environmental
awareness
0.195 *
0.152 *
0.200 * *
0.296 * *
0.174 *
0.303 * *
0.198 * *
0.275 * *
0.221 * *
0.129
0.107
0.255 * *
0.111
0.165 *
0.323 * *
0.202 * *
0.258 * *
0.199 * *
0.209 * *
0.283 * *
0.139
0.017
0.250 * *
0.285 * *
0.067
0.269 * *
0.184 *
0.243 * *
0.187 *
0.174 *
0.177 *
0.276 * *
0.156 *
0.188 *
0.330 * *
0.240 * *
0.273 * *
0.238 * *
0.225 * *
0.320 * *
Amount of area in personal workspace fits needs

Have enough privacy
Conversations with co-workers cannot be overheard
Note: Correlation is significance at: *0.05 and * *0.01 levels (two-tailed)

Can socialize in lounge/breakroom
Building provides opportunities for informal conversation
Have no difficulty finding people needed to get work done
Do not have to go out of way to get info from co-workers
Layout of departmental workspace supports teamwork
Departmental spaces are flexible
Organizational
image
Environmental
awareness
0.268 * *
0.12
0.129
0.330 * *
0.158 *
0.401 * *
0.105
0.186 *
0.273 * *
0.250 * *
0.235 * *
0.384 * *
0.372 * *
0.336 * *
0.233 * *
0.270 * *
0.242 * *
0.346 * *
0.128
0.088
0.098
0.303 * *
0.181 *
0.354 * *
0.07
0.151 *
0.293 * *
0.218 * *
0.273 * *
0.415 * *
0.354 * *
0.269 * *
0.282 * *
0.222 * *
0.325 * *
0.422 * *
Note: Correlation is significance at: *0.05 and * *0.01 levels (two-tailed)
Green buildings,
EA, and OI
41
Table IX.
Correlations between
occupants assessment of
with that of workspace
variables
Table X.
Correlations between
occupants assessment of
with that of departmental
space variables
JCRE
14,1
Dependent and predictor variables

Regression
model 1a
42
Table XI.
Summary of the
regression models with
different environmental
features as the predictor
variables and
organizational image or
as the dependent variable
Table XII.
Occupants responses
to satisfaction-related
questions
Regression
model 2a
Regression
model 3a
Regression
model 4b
Dependent variable: organization image

Predictors: individual workspace
variables
Dependent variable: environmental
awareness
variables
Dependent variable: organization image
Predictors: departmental space variables
Dependent variable: environmental
awareness
Predictors: departmental space variables
Model summary
R 2 Adjusted-R 2
ANOVA
F
Sig.
0.501
0.251
0.156
2.644
0.001
0.488
0.238
0.144
2.519
0.001
0.530
0.281
0.211
4.008
0.000
0.516
0.266
0.201
4.096
0.000
Notes: Regression model with no significant predictor variables; regression model with one
significant predictor variable
Disagree (%)
Neutral (%)
Agree (%)
20.1
21.6
11.3
25.1
21
19.2
54.8
57.4
69.5
Satisfied with workspaces

Satisfied with departmental spaces
Satisfied with the building
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
Figure 7.
Occupants responses to
satisfaction-related
questions
0
satisfied with my
workspace
satisfied with
departmental spaces
Disagree
Neutral
satisfied with the

building
Agree
Table XIII shows the results of the regression analysis that used the occupants
assessments of individual workspace features or departmental space features as the
predictor variables and the occupants satisfaction with workspace, departmental space
and the building as the dependent variables. According to the results, the occupants
assessments of individual workspace features explained about 62 per cent of the
variation in the occupants satisfaction with workspace; the occupants assessments of
departmental space features explained about 65 per cent of the variation in the
occupants satisfaction with departmental space; the occupants assessments of
individual workspace features explained more than 43 per cent of the variation in the
occupants satisfaction with the building; and the occupants assessments of individual
departmental space features explained more than 39 per cent of the variation in the
occupants satisfaction with the building. In all the models, there were several significant
predictor variables as well.
Tables XIV and XV show the results of the regression analysis that used the
occupants satisfaction with individual workspaces, departmental spaces and the
building as predictor variables and the occupants assessments of EA and OI as
dependent variables. In the regression models, satisfied with workspace and satisfied
with building were shown as the significant predictor variables for the occupants
assessments of OI explaining about 32 per cent of the variation in this dependent
variable (Table XIV), and satisfied with building was shown as a significant predictor
variable for the occupants assessments of EA explaining about 29 per cent of the
variation in this dependent variable (Table XV). However, satisfied with departmental
spaces was not significant in either of the two models.
Green buildings,
EA, and OI
43
Discussion
The study showed that in general the occupants of this LEED-certified building
assessed the individual workspace and departmental space features of the building
favorably. However, it should be noted here that most occupants assessed all the items
related to privacy negatively in this building. This may be due to the fact that with
Dependent and predictor variables

Regression
model 1a
Regression
model 2a
Regression
model 3a
Regression
model 4a
Dependent variable: satisfied with my

workspace
features
Dependent variable: satisfied with
departmental spaces
Predictors: departmental space features
Dependent variable: satisfied with the
building
features
Dependent variable: satisfied with the
building
Predictors: departmental space features
Model summary
R 2 Adjusted-R 2
ANOVA
F
Sig.
0.814 0.662
0.619
15.31
0.826 0.682
0.647
19.418 0.000
0.705 0.497
0.431
7.594 0.000
0.673 0.453
0.392
7.493 0.000
Note: Regression models with several significant predictor variables
0.000
Table XIII.
Summary of the
regression models with
environmental features as
predictor variables and
satisfaction as dependent
variables
JCRE
14,1
44
the exception of a few enclosed individual workspaces most workspaces in the building
are defined by low-height partitions. It should also be noted that regarding departmental
spaces most occupants responded negatively to the question can choose where they can
get their work done. It is possible that this was an organizational issue more than a
design problem.
The study also showed that the occupants agreed that this building had positive
effects on EA, but not on OI, and their assessments of EA and OI remained similar across
gender, age, and job type. These findings are interesting in light of the fact that
organizations often feel that their buildings need to be environment-friendly in order to
improve OI. In contrast, the findings of this study suggest that the mechanisms
explaining EA and OI are different in this LEED-certified green building. This is in
spite of the fact that the correlation between EA and OI is significantly strong (r 0.685,
p 0.000).
As the first attempt to describe the mechanisms of the occupants assessments of EA
and OI, regression models were developed with the occupants assessments of EA and
OI as the dependent variables and the occupants assessments of workspace and
departmental space features as the predictor variables. Even though a large number of
workspace features showed significant correlations with OI and EA, when they were
used in the regression equation as the predictor variables none showed significant
F-statistics for OI or EA. Likewise, even though a large number of departmental space
features showed significant correlations with OI and EA, when they were used in the
Table XIV.
Summary of the
regression model with
occupants satisfaction as
organizational image as
dependent variable
Regression model
Dependent variable: organizational image
Predictors: occupants satisfaction
Model summary
R
R2
Adjusted-R 2
0.572
0.327
0.315
Coefficients
Variables
t-value
Sig.
Constant
29.453
0.000
Satisfied with workspace
2.635
0.009
0.347
0.729
Satisfied with building
4.594
0.000
Table XV.
Summary of the
regression model with
occupants satisfaction as
as dependent variable
Regression model
Dependent variable: environmental awareness
Predictors: occupants satisfaction
Model summary
R
R2
Adjusted-R 2
0.547
0.299
0.287
Coefficients
Variables
t-value
Sig.
Constant
0.786
0.433
Satisfied with workspace
1.624
0.106
0.520
0.604
Satisfied with building
4.816
0.000
ANOVA
F
Sig.
26.876
0
ANOVA
F
Sig.
24.049
0
regression equation as the predictor variables none showed significant F-statistics for
OI, and only departmental spaces are flexible showed significant F-statistics for EA
(sig. 0.019). These findings thus suggest that there may be no significant direct
relationship between the occupants assessments of individual workspace and
departmental space features and the occupants assessments of EA and OI.
As the second attempt to describe the mechanisms of the occupants assessments of
EA and OI, regression models were developed with the occupants assessments of
workspace and departmental space features as the predictor variables and their
satisfaction with individual workspace, departmental space and the building as the
dependent variables. According to the findings of these models, the occupants
assessments of individual workspace and departmental space features were the
significant predictors of the occupants satisfaction with workspace, departmental space
and the building. Following this, another set of regression models that used the occupants
satisfaction with workspace, departmental space and the building as the predictor
variables and the occupants assessments of EA and OI as the dependent variables
showed satisfied with building as a significant predictor for EA (sig. 0.000), and
satisfied with workspace and satisfied with building as the two significant predictors
for OI (sig. 0.009 and 0.000, respectively). These findings thus suggest that there may
be some indirect relationship between the occupants assessments of individual work
space and departmental space features and the occupants assessments of EA and OI
through the occupants satisfaction with individual workspaces and the building. In other
words, the occupants assessments of individual workspace and departmental space
features may affect the occupants satisfaction with individual workspace and the
building, which may them affect the occupants assessments of EA and OI.
Conclusion
Based on the statistical analyses of the data collected from 175 occupants of a Gold-level
LEED-certified building using a questionnaire instrument, this study found no evidence
for direct relationships between the occupants assessments of individual workspace and
departmental space features and their assessments of EA and OI. The study, however,
found some evidence for indirect relationships showing that the occupants assessments
of individual workspace and departmental space features had affected their satisfaction
with individual workspaces and the building, which then affected the occupants
assessments of EA and OI. A summary of the study findings is shown in Figure 8.
Regarding the issue whether the occupants of this LEED-certified building was
gray or not, the findings of this study suggested that the occupants certainly
appreciated the environmental design features of the buildings. These features had
played an important role in determining how satisfied the occupants were with
individual workspaces, departmental spaces, and the building. These environmental
design features also made the occupants more environment-conscious, even though
these features did not help improve their assessment of OI. In other words, even in a case
where the green building and the organization that occupies it are treated as an
integrated system with the occupants being aware of the environmental-friendliness of
the building, the building may not help improve the occupants assessment of OI.
In the context of heightened demands for green buildings, this study may thus offer
a lesson for organizational leaders who would like to use green buildings to improve
OI and/or EA. They should note that while providing green workspaces and
Green buildings,
EA, and OI
45
JCRE
14,1
Adjusted R2 = 0.156*
with individual workspace
46
individual workspace
features
Adj. R2 = 0.619***
Adj. R2 = 0.431***
* No sig. variable
** One sig. variable
*** Multiple sig. variables
(EA)
Adjusted R2 = 0.287
Sig. 000
Adjusted R2 = 0.315
Sig.000
Adjusted R2 = 0.315
Sig.009
organizational image (OI)
Adj. R2 = 0.647***
with departmental spaces
Figure 8.
Summary findings
Non-significant
relationship
with the building
Adj. R2 = 0.392***
departmental space
features
Non-significant
relationship
Non-significant
relationship
Adjusted R2 = 0.201**
buildings that satisfy occupants may help improve EA, there is no guarantee this may
also help improve OI. In contrast to the suggestion made in the literature, they should
further note that the mechanisms describing EA and OI could be very different in any
given case with the qualification that OI of an organization might depend more on
issues unrelated to the environmental features of a green building than EA of the
organization might. In future, there will be a need to replicate this study to see if its
findings hold true for other green buildings as well.
References
Azzone, G. and Noci, G. (1998), Identifying effective PMSs for the deployment of green
manufacturing strategies, International Journal of Operations & Production Management,
Vol. 18 No. 4, pp. 308-35.
Azzone, G., Bertele`, U. and Noci, G. (1997), At last we are creating environmental strategies
which work, Long Range Planning, Vol. 30, August, pp. 562-71.
Baier, R.D. (1999), Customer service made easy: deliver what office tenants want,
HPAC Engineering, September, pp. 41-5.
Berends, H., More`re, M., Smith, D., Jensen, M. and Hilton, M. (2000), Report on SMEs and the
Environment, ECOTEC, Brussels.
Bro, J.A. and Junquera, B. (2003), A review of the literature on environmental innovation
management in SMEs: implications for public policies, Technovation, Vol. 23, pp. 939-48.
Brown, Z.M., Cole, R.J., Robinson, J. and Dowlatabadi, H. (2010), Evaluating user experience in
green buildings in relation to workplace culture and context, Facilities, Vol. 28 Nos 3/4,
pp. 225-38.
Browne, P.J. and Golembiewski, R.T. (1974), The line-staff concept revisited: an empirical study
of organizational images, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 17, pp. 407-17.
Browning, W. and Romm, J. (1995), Greening and the bottom line: increasing productivity
through energy efficient design, in Whitter, K.M. and Cohn, T.B. (Eds), Proceedings of the
Second International Green Buildings Conference and Exposition, National Institute of
Standards and Technology (NIST), Special Publications 888, Gaithersburg, MD.
Carlopio, J.R. (1996), Construct validity of a physical work environment satisfaction
questionnaire, Journal of Occupational Health and Psychology, Vol. 1, pp. 330-44.
Cole, R. (1999), Green buildings and gray occupants, paper presented at the AIA-USGBC
Conference on Mainstreaming Green, Chattanooga, TN, 14-16 October.
Dowling, G.R. (1994), Corporate Reputation: Strategies for Development the Corporate Brand,
Kogan Page, London.
Dutton, J.E. and Dukerich, J.M. (1991), Keeping an eye on the mirror: image and identity in
organizational adaptation, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 34, pp. 517-54.
Dutton, J.E., Dukerich, J.M. and Harquail, C. (1994), Organizational image and member
identification, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 39, pp. 239-63.
EIA (2008), EIA Annual Energy Outlook 2008, available at: www.eia.gov/oiaf/archive/aeo08/
(accessed 7 July 2011).
Ferguson, G.S. and Weisman, G.D. (1986), Alternative approaches to the assessment of
employee satisfaction with the office environment, in Wineman, J.D. (Ed.), Behavioral
Issues in Office Design, Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York, NY, pp. 85-108.
FMI (2008), US Construction Overview 2008, available at: www.fminet.com/
Fombrun, C.J. and Shanley, M. (1990), Whats in a name? Reputation building and corporate
strategy, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 33, pp. 233-58.
Fomburn, C.J. (1996), Reputation: Realizing Value from the Corporate Image, Harvard Business
School Press, Boston, MA.
Gadenne, D.L., Kennedy, J. and McKeiver, C. (2009), An empirical study of environmental
awareness and practices in SMEs, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 84, pp. 45-63.
Gatewood, R.D., Gowan, M.A. and Lautenschlager, G.J. (1993), Corporate image, recruitment
image, and initial job choice decision, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 36,
pp. 414-27.
Gioia, D.A., Schultz, M. and Corley, K.G. (2000), Organizational identity, image, and adaptive
instability, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 25, pp. 63-81.
GSA PBS (2008), Assessing Green Building Performance: A Post Occupancy Evaluation of 12
GSA Buildings, GSA Public Buildings Service, Washington, DC.
Hart, S.L. (1995), A natural resource-based view of the firm, Academy of Management Review,
Vol. 20 No. 4, pp. 986-1014.
Hodgkinson, S. (1993), Environmental issues and the workplace, in Duffy, F., Laing, A. and
Crisp, V. (Eds), The Responsible Workplace, Architectural Press, London, pp. 98-111.
Kamaruzzaman, S.N., Egbu, C.O., Zawawic, E.M.A., Ali, A.S. and Che-Ani, A.I. (2011), The effect
of indoor environmental quality on occupants perception of performance: a case study of
refurbished historic buildings in Malaysia, Energy and Buildings, Vol. 43, pp. 407-13.
Kato, H., Too, I. and Rask, A. (2009), Occupier perceptions of green workplace environment:
the Australian experience, Journal of Corporate Real Estate, Vol. 11 No. 3, pp. 183-95.
Green buildings,
EA, and OI
47
JCRE
14,1
48
Kats, G. (2003), The Costs and Financial Benefits of Green Buildings: A Report to Californias
Sustainable Building Task Force, October, available at: www.ciwmb.ca.gov/
GreenBuilding/Design/CostBenefit/Report.pdf
Klassen, R.D. and Angell, L.C. (1998), An international comparison of environmental
management in operations: the impact of manufacturing flexibility in the US and
Germany, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 16, pp. 177-94.
Leather, P., Beale, D. and Sullivan, L. (2003), Noise, psychosocial stress and their interaction in
the workplace, Journal of Environmental Psychology, Vol. 23 No. 2, pp. 213-22.
Lee, S.Y. and Brand, J.M. (2005), Effects of control over office workspace on perceptions of the
work environment and work outcomes, Journal of Environmental Psychology, Vol. 25
No. 3, pp. 323-33.
McGraw-Hill Construction (2009), Green Outlook 2009: Trends Driving Change, McGraw-Hill
Construction, New York, NY.
Makower, J. (1994), The E-factor: The Bottom Line Approach to Environmentally Responsible
Business, Penguin Books, New York, NY.
Miles, R.H. (1987), Managing the Corporate Social Environment: A Grounded Theory,
Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Miller, N., Spivey, J. and Florance, A. (2007), Does green pay off?, available at: www.costar.com/
josre/pdfs/CoStar-JOSRE-Green-Study.pdf (accessed 7 July 2011).
Oldham, G.R. and Fried, Y. (1987), Employee reactions to workspace characteristics, Journal of
Applied Psychology, Vol. 72, pp. 75-80.
Rashid, M. and Zimring, C. (2008), A review of the empirical literature on the relationships
between indoor environment and stress in healthcare and office settings:
problems and prospects of sharing evidence, Environment & Behavior, Vol. 40 No. 3,
pp. 151-90.
Riordan, M.R., Gatewood, R.D. and Bill, J.B. (1997), Corporate image: employee reaction and
implications for managing corporate social performance, Journal of Business Ethics,
Vol. 16, pp. 401-12.
Roodman, D.M. and Lenssen, N. (1996), A building revolution: how ecology and health concerns
are transforming construction, Worldwatch Paper 124, Worldwatch Institute,
Washington, DC, March.
Selama, E. and Selama, J. (1988), The Company Image: Building Your Identity and Influence in the
Marketplace, Wiley, New York, NY.
Sundstrom, E., Burt, R.E. and Kamp, D. (1980), Privacy at work: architectural correlates of job
satisfaction and job performance, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 23, pp. 101-17.
Sundstrom, E., Town, J.P., Rice, R.W., Osborn, D.P. and Brill, M. (1994), Office noise and
satisfaction, and performance, Environment & Behavior, Vol. 26, pp. 195-222.
Thompson, J.D. (1967), Organizations in Action, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.
Treadwell, D.F. and Harrison, T.M. (1994), Conceptualizing and assessing organizational image:
model images, commitment, and communication, Communication Monographs, Vol. 61,
pp. 63-85.
US EPA (2009), Estimating 2003 Building-related Construction and Demolition Materials
Amounts, US Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC.
US Geological Survey (2000), USGS: Data files for Estimated Use of Water in the United States,
US Geological Survey, Reston, VA.
Vigoda-Gadot, E. and Ben-Zion, E. (2004), Bright shining stars: the mediating effect of
organizational image on the relationship between work variables and army officers
intention to leave the service for a job in high-tech industry, Public Personnel
Management, Vol. 33 No. 2, pp. 201-23.
Zalesny, M.D., Farace, R.V. and Kurchner-Hawkins, R. (1985), Determinants of employee work
perceptions and attitudes, perceived work environment an organizational level,
Environment & Behavior, Vol. 17 No. 5, pp. 567-92.
Zhang, Y. and Altan, H. (2011), A comparison of the occupant comfort in a conventional
high-rise office block and a contemporary environmentally-concerned building, Building
and Environment, Vol. 46, pp. 535-45.
Corresponding author
Mahbub Rashid can be contacted at: mrashid@ku.edu
To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com

Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints
Green buildings,
EA, and OI
49

Article Journal of Corporate Real Estate Green Buildings

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Article Journal of Corporate Real Estate Green Buildings

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Journal of Corporate Real Estate

Emerald Article: Green buildings, environmental awareness, and

Green buildings, environmental

School of Architecture, Design and Planning,

Journal of Corporate Real Estate

the organization in comparison with other organizations by referring to its stability

OI by giving an organization a competitive advantage as a sustainable leader in the

(1) Do the occupants of a LEED-certified green building assess various environmental

(6) Finally, if the occupants of a LEED-certified building are generally satisfied

Indoor environmental quality

Departmental space-related questions

Amount of area in personal workspace fits

Can socialize in corridors/circulation areas

Can enjoy outside view

Have enough natural light in workspace

Can socialize in lounge/break room

Data analysis methods

Organizational 1. Public image improved since we

Factor analysis extraction

One primary component was

Notes: SM, senior manager; MM, mid-level manager; P, professionals; S, staff

Amount of area in personal workspace fits needs

Disagree (%) Neutral (%) Agree (%)

Support equipment is convenient to workspace.

Conference and/or training rooms support tasks.

25.8 21.7 23.9 23.6 46.2 25.8 39.2 32.8

7.5 65.7 84.6 68.8 64.5 70.1

Notes: SM, senior manager; MM, mid-level manager; P, professionals; S, staff

70.6 61.2 70.7 42.8

5.2 14.3 65.7

20.6 24.5 24.1 42.9

40.6 31.2 29.3 42.8

Did organizational image improve?

Did "Organizational Image" Improve?

Did "Environmental Awareness" Improve?

Did "Organizational Image" Improve?

Did "Environmental Awareness" Improve?

Below 31-40 41-50 51-60 Over

Below 31-40 41-50 51-60 Over

Did "Organizational Image" Improve?

Below 31-40 41-50 51-60 Over

Did "Environmental Awareness" Improve?

Amount of area in personal workspace fits needs

Note: Correlation is significance at: *0.05 and * *0.01 levels (two-tailed)

Can socialize in corridors/circulation areas

Note: Correlation is significance at: *0.05 and * *0.01 levels (two-tailed)

Dependent and predictor variables

Dependent variable: organization image

Satisfied with workspaces

satisfied with the

Dependent and predictor variables

Dependent variable: satisfied with my

Note: Regression models with several significant predictor variables

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com

You might also like

Note: Correlation is significance at: 0.05 and *0.01 levels (two-tailed)

Note: Correlation is significance at: 0.05 and *0.01 levels (two-tailed)