Promoting Sustainable Workplace Routines: The Identity and Practice Interdependence Model
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To clarify how the interaction of socio-material and human factors impacts the implementation of sustainable workplace routines, we developed the identity and practice interdependence model and then applied it to empirical data collected from a major Brazilian steel-producing facility. This qualitative exploratory study examined the model’s assumption that employee identity construction principles (e.g., self-esteem, self-efficacy, distinctiveness, continuity) and elements of practices (e.g., materials, meanings, competencies) provided by organizations directly impact routines and also interact in a continuous, interdependent process. Company documents, on-site observations, and data from three focus group sessions with a total of thirty employees from all levels were examined. A deductive reflexive thematic analysis was carried out on the data using Atlas.ti v 8. The results show that the model allows for the identification of the factors and their interactions, providing insights into how greener routines are created, accepted, resisted, maintained, and/or altered. When changes in practice elements can provide a path towards satisfaction of identity principles, rather than threats, there is good engagement in more sustainable routines. Employees seeking satisfaction of identity principles also take initiative, addressing practice elements that can allow for improved routines. Organizations/companies can apply some of the insights that this model provides to facilitate changes towards more sustainable work routines.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".