
Fig. 1
Characteristi cs of sustainable behaviour
Source: elaborated by the authors based on (Tapia-Fonllem et al., 2013).

Fig. 2
Theoretical conceptual model of the sustainable behaviour of employees
Tab. 1
Population and sample size calculation
| POPULATION THOUSAND SIZE | CONFIDENCE LEVEL % | CONFIDENCE INTERVAL | SAMPLE SIZE |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1388.9* | 95 | 5 | 384 |
Tab. 2
Sociodemographic characteristics of respondents
| GENERATION (THE YEAR RESPONDENTS WERE BORN) | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| CHARACTERISTICS (N (%)) | BABY BOOM 1944-1964 | GENERATION X 1965-1981 | GENERATION Y/ MILLENNIALS 1982-2002 | TOTAL |
| Sample | 128 (31.1%) | 124 (30,1%) | 160 (38.8%) | 412 |
| Female | 80 (62.5%) | 76 (61.3%) | 76 (47.5%) | 232 (56.3%) |
| Male | 48 (37.5%) | 48 (38.7%) | 84 (52.5%) | 180 (43.7%) |
Tab. 3
Effects of generation, gender and education on economically sustainable behaviour
| CATEGORY | MEAN (ST.D.) | GENERATION | F, P | PARTIAL ETA 2 | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| BABY BOOMA | GENERATION XB | GENERATION YC | |||||
| Generation | 3.84 (0.58) | 3.67 (0.56) | 3.68 (0.51) | F=4,175, p=0.016 | 0.020 | ||
| Post hoc comparisons | F=10,559, p=0.001 | p=0.033 a-b p=0.041 a-c p=0.968 b-c | |||||
| Gender | Female | 3.81 (0.57) | 0.026 | ||||
| Male | 3.63 (0.52) | ||||||
| Generation x gender | Female | 3.96 (0.49) | 3.65 (0.66) | 3.81 (0.51) | F=4,350, p=0.014 | 0.021 | |
| Male | 3.65 (0.66) | 3.71 (0.38) | 3.58 (0.49) | ||||
| Post hoc comparisons | p=0.001 | p=0.454 | p=0.007 | ||||
| Education | University education d | 3.72 (0.54) | F=4,209, p=0.016 | 0.021 | |||
| College education e | 3.63 (0.57) | ||||||
| Secondary education f | 3.97 (0.53) | ||||||
| Post hoc comparisons | p=0.971 d-e p=0.019 d-f p=0.019 e-f | ||||||
| Generation x education | University education d | 3.93 (0.53) | 3.57 (0.55) | 3.65 (0.50) | F=8,189, p<0.001 | 0.077 | |
| College education e | 3.23 (0.43) | 3.89 (0.54) | 3.77 (0.49) | ||||
| Secondary education f | 4.00 (0.66) | 4.19 (0.29) | 3.86 (0.55) | ||||
| Post hoc comparisons | p<0.001 d-e p=0.700 d-f p=0.001 e-f | p=0.013 d-e p=0.001 d-f p=0.171 e-f | p=0.528 d-e p=0.191 d-f p=0.673 e-f | ||||
Tab. 4
Effects of generation, gender and education on environmentally sustainable behaviour
| CATEGORY | MEAN (ST.D.) | GENERATION | F, P | PARTIAL ETA 2 | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| BABY BOOMA | GENERATION XB | GENERATION YC | |||||
| Generation | 3.88 (0.54) | 3.72 (0.51) | 3.64 (0.54) | F=7,432, p=0.001 | 0.035 | ||
| Post hoc comparisons | F=14,413, p<0.001 | p=0.050 a-b p<0.001 a-c p=0.669 b-c | |||||
| Gender | Female | 3.83 (0.55) | 0.034 | ||||
| Male | 3.63 (0.50) | ||||||
| Generation x gender | Female | 4.02 (0.46) | 3.73 (0.59) | 3,73 (0,57) | F=3,258, p=0.039 | 0.016 | |
| Male | 3.66 (0.60) | 3.71 (0.37) | 3,56 (0,50) | ||||
| Post hoc comparisons | p<0.001 | p=0.880 | p=0.047 | ||||
| Education | University education d | 3.73 (0.54) | F=3,551, p=0.030 | 0.017 | |||
| College education e | 3.63 (0.54) | ||||||
| Secondary education f | 3.94 (0.55) | ||||||
| Post hoc comparisons | p=0.640 d-e p=0.084 d-f p=0.028 e-f | ||||||
| Generation x education | University education d | 3.98 (0.49) | 3.65 (0.50) | 3.60 (0.53) | F=8,128, p<0.001 | 0.075 | |
| College education e | 3.25 (0.37) | 3.84 (0.53) | 3.85 (0.47) | ||||
| Secondary education f | 3.94 (0.69) | 4.21 (0.22) | 3.84 (0.57) | ||||
| Post hoc comparisons | p<0.001 d-e p=0.857 d-f p=0.002 e-f | p=0.146 d-e p=0.003 d-f p=0.083 e-f | p=0.171 d-e p=0.054 d-f p=0.934 e-f | ||||
Tab. 5
Effects of generation, gender and education on socially sustainable behaviour
| CATEGORY | MEAN (ST.D.) | GENERATION | F, P | PARTIAL ETA 2 | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| BABY BOOMA | GENERATION XB | GENERATION YC | |||||
| Generation | 3.87 (0.61) | 3.72 (0.51) | 3.68 (0.56) | F=4,145, p=0.017 | 0.020 | ||
| Post hoc comparisons | F=49,480, p<0.001 0.108 | p=0.147 a-b p=0.015 a-c p=1.000 b-c | |||||
| Gender | Female | 3.91 (0.57) | |||||
| Male | 3.52 (0.52) | ||||||
| Generation x gender | Female | 4.11 (0.50) | 3.82 (0.56) | 3.78 (0.60) | F=5,752, p=0.003 | 0,028 | |
| Male | 3.47(0.58) | 3.48 (0.43) | 3.58 (0.52) | ||||
| Post hoc comparisons | p<0.001 | p=0.001 | p=0.020 | ||||
| Education | University education d | 3.75 (0.58) | F=3,270 p=0.039 | 0.016 | |||
| College education e | 3.56 (0.57) | ||||||
| Secondary education f | 3.87 (0.58) | ||||||
| Post hoc comparisons | p=0.111 d-e p=0.649 d-f p=0.043 e-f | ||||||
| Generation x education | University education d | 4.00 (0.56) | 3.65(0.53) | 3.62 (0.56) | F=11,956, p<0.001 | 0,106 | |
| College education e | 3.16 (0.33) | 3.65 (0.59) | 4.13 (0.13) | ||||
| Secondary education f | 3.50 (0.67) | 4.25 (0.00) | 3.88 (0.58) | ||||
| Post hoc comparisons | p<0.001 d-e p=0.011 d-f p=0.143 e-f | p=0.994 d-e p=0.003 d-f p=0.008 e-f | p=0.011 d-e p=0.051 d-f p=0.270 e-f | ||||

Fig. 3
Sustainable behaviour from the perspective of a generation

Fig. 4
Sustainable behaviour from the perspective of a gender

Fig. 5
Sustainable behaviour from the perspective of education