This study investigates the impact of Hofstede's dimensions of national culture on environmental sustainability across 57 countries. Hofstede's national culture construct reflects and gauges the extent of the inclination of a particular national person toward either economic development or environmental preservation. Climate change and pollution have continuously devastated the environment in recent decades. The United Nations Sustainable Development Goals aim to achieve a more sustainable future and prevent further environmental destruction. This study aims to explore whether national culture significantly influences national environmental sustainability. We use national environmental performance as the proxy for national environmental sustainability and adopt the ordinary least squares regression model to explore the possible relationship with two datasets of international indices; one is proposed by Hofstede, and the other is proposed by Germanwatch. Our results show that the power distance index has a strong negative impact on the climate change performance index (CCPI), greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, renewable energy, and energy use. Further, the masculinity index is negatively related to CCPI and GHG emissions. The individual index is also negatively related to renewable energy. Furthermore, indulgence is positively associated with climate policy. These findings support the notion that nations should consider their cultural characteristics to improve environmental sustainability. Thus, conducting a national environmental policy that aligns with national culture is suggested to achieve environmental sustainability.
ParkHRussellCLeeJ. National culture and environmental sustainability: a cross-national analysis. J Econ Fin2007; 31: 104–121.
2.
ShortallRKharraziA. Cultural factors of sustainable energy development: a case study of geothermal energy in Iceland and Japan. Renew Sustain Energy Rev2017; 79: 101–109.
3.
HustedBW. Culture and ecology: a cross-national study of the determinants of environmental sustainability. Manage Int Rev2005; 45: 349–371.
4.
KumarSGiridharVSadaranganiPA. Cross-national study of environmental performance and culture: implications of the findings and strategies. Glob Bus Rev2019; 20: 1051–1068.
5.
PelauCPopNA. Implications for the energy policy derived from the relation between the cultural dimensions of Hofstede’s model and the consumption of renewable energies. Energy Policy2018; 118: 160–168.
6.
SovacoolB. The cultural barriers to renewable energy and energy efficiency in the United States. Technol Soc2009; 31: 365–373.
7.
CegliaDde Oliveira LimaSHLeocádioÁL. An alternative theoretical discussion on cross-cultural sustainable consumption. Sustain Dev2015; 23: 414–424.
8.
MorrenMGrinsteinA. Explaining environmental behavior across borders: a meta-analysis. J Environ Psychol2016; 47: 91–106.
9.
Hampden-TurnerCTrompenaarsF. Response to Geert Hofstede. Int J Intercult Relat1997; 21: 149–159.
10.
GongWLiZGStumpRL. Global internet use and access: cultural considerations. Asia Pac J Mark Logist2007; 19: 57–74.
MaLHHsiehJCChiuYH. Comparing regional differences in global energy performance. Energy Environ2019; 31: 943–960.
14.
JochemE. Do differences in climate change policy reflect different cultures and vice versa?Energy Environ1998; 9: 413–423.
15.
ScottWR. Approaching adulthood: the maturing of institutional theory. Theory Soc2008; 37: 427–442.
16.
KimYKimSBaekJ, et al.The linkages between democracy and the environment: evidence from developed and developing countries. Energy Environ2019; 30: 821–832.
17.
SternDICommonMSBarbierEB. Economic growth and environmental degradation: the environmental Kuznets curve and sustainable development. World Dev1996; 24: 1151–1160.
18.
KahuthuA. Economic growth and environmental degradation in a global context. Environ Dev Sustain2006; 8: 55–68.
19.
Zambrano-MonserrateMValverdeIAguilar-BohórquezJ, et al.Relationship between economic growth and environmental degradation: is there an environmental evidence of Kuznets curve for Brazil?Int J Energy Econ Policy2016; 6: 208–216.
20.
IPCC. Summary for Policymakers. In: StockerTFQinDPlattnerG-K, et al. (eds) Climate change 2013: the physical science basis. Contribution of working group I to the fifth assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change. Cambridge, UK and New York, NY, USA: Cambridge University Press, 2013, pp.15-17.
IPCC. Annex I: Glossary. In Masson-DelmotteV, ZhaiPPörtnerHORobertsDSkeaJShuklaPRPiraniAMoufouma-OkiaWPéanCPidcockRConnorsSMatthewsJBRChenYZhouX, GomisMILonnoyEMaycockTTignorMWaterfieldT (eds) Global warming of 1.5°C. An IPCC special report on the impacts of global warming of 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels and related global greenhouse gas emission pathways, in the context of strengthening the global response to the threat of climate change, sustainable development, and efforts to eradicate poverty. Geneva, 2018.
BernauerTBöhmeltT. National climate policies in international comparison: the climate change cooperation index. Environ Sci Policy2013; 25: 196–206.
28.
CaglarAE. The importance of renewable energy consumption and FDI inflows in reducing environmental degradation: bootstrap ARDL bound test in selected 9 countries. J Cleaner Prod2020; 264: 121663.
29.
PuertasRMartiL. International ranking of climate change action: an analysis using the indicators from the climate change performance index. Renew Sustain Energy Rev2021; 148: 11136.
30.
JovanovićVPaunkovićJStevanovićM. Organizational learning for sustainable development—correlation with the national culture dimensions framework. Megatrend Rev2017; 14: 1–20.
31.
GuptaKMcIverR. Chapter 12—Does national culture affect attitudes toward environment friendly practices? In: RamiahVGregoriouGN (eds) Handbook of environmental and sustainable finance. San Diego: Academic Press, 2016, pp.241–263.
32.
GiffordRNilssonA. Personal and social factors that influence pro-environmental concern and behavior: a review. Int J Psychol2014; 49: 141–157.
33.
EvarB. Framing Co2 storage risk: a cultural theory perspective. Energy Environ2012; 23: 375–387.
34.
KotlerPLefebvreRC. Design thinking, demarketing and behavioral economics: fostering interdisciplinary growth in social marketing. In The Sage handbook of social marketing. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications, 2011, pp.80–94.
35.
CoyDMalekpourSSaeriAK,et al.Rethinking community empowerment in the energy transformation: a critical review of the definitions, drivers and outcomes. Energy Res Social Sci2021; 72: 101871.
36.
BroskaLH. It’s all about community: on the interplay of social capital, social needs, and environmental concern in sustainable community action. Energy Res Social Sci2021; 79: 102165.
37.
VenghausSHenseleitMBelkaM. The impact of climate change awareness on behavioral changes in Germany: changing minds or changing behavior?Energy Sustain Soc2022; 12: Article 8.
38.
QuevedoJMDUchiyamaYKohsakaR. Local perceptions of blue carbon ecosystem infrastructures in Panay Island, Philippines. Coastal Eng J2021; 63(3): 227–247.
39.
DisliMNgAAskariH. Culture, income, and CO2 emission. Renew Sustain Energy Rev2016; 62: 418–428.
40.
ClaudyMCPetersonMO’driscollA. Understanding the attitude-behavior gap for renewable energy systems using behavioral reasoning theory. J Macromarket2013; 33: 273–287.
Perez-BatresLAMillerVVPisaniMJ. Why do firms engage in national sustainability programs and transparent sustainability reporting?Manage Int Rev2012; 52: 107–136.
EstyDCPorterME. Ranking national environmental regulation and performance: a leading indicator of future competitiveness? In: PorterME, SachsJD, CorneliusPK, et al. (eds) The global competitiveness report 2001-2002. New York: Oxford University Press, 2002, pp. 78–101.
LiuYLiuYChenJ. The impact of the Chinese automotive industry: scenarios based on the national environmental goals. J Cleaner Prod2015; 96: 102–109.
48.
WagnerM. National culture, regulation and country interaction effects on the association of environmental management systems with environmentally beneficial innovation. Bus Strategy Environ2009; 18: 122–136.
49.
LaurentAEspinosaN. Environmental impacts of electricity generation at global, regional and national scales in 1980–2011: What can we learn for future energy planning?Energy Environ Sci2015; 8: 689–701.
50.
AsaiTPerezJLC. Human-related problems in information security faced by Japanese, British and American overseas companies because of cultural differences. China-USA Bus Rev2012; 11: 90–101.
51.
TylorEB. Primitive culture: researches into the development of mythology, philosophy, religion, language, art, and custom, Vol. 1, 3rd American Ed. from 2nd English ed. NY, US: Henry Holt and Company, 1889.
52.
GeertzC. The interpretation of cultures: selected essays. New York: Basic Books, 1973.
53.
LichtANGoldschmidtCSchwartzSH. Culture, law, and corporate governance. Int Rev Law Econ2005; 25: 229–255.
54.
HofstedeGMinkovM. Long-versus short-term orientation: new perspectives. Asia Pacific Bus Rev2010; 16: 493–504.
55.
HofstedeG. Dimensionalizing cultures: the Hofstede model in context. Online Readings Psychol Culture2011; 2: 1–26.
56.
Gert-Hofstede.com. Cultural dimension—national culture. Available at: https://geerthofstede.com/(2022, accessed April 2022).
KaufmannDKraayAMastruzziM. The worldwide governance indicators: methodology and analytical issues. Available at: https://www.govindicators.org(2010, accessed April 2022).
59.
BarroRJCooperRN. Determinants of economic growth: a cross-country empirical study. Foreign Affairs1997; 76: 154.
60.
HofstedeG. Culture’s consequences: comparing values, behaviors, institutions and organizations across nations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 2001.
61.
StulzRMWilliamsonR. Culture, openness, and finance. J Fin Econ2003; 70: 313–349.
62.
RobinsonNAHassanPBurhenne-GuilminF. Agenda 21 and the UNCED proceedings, IUCN Publication, 1992.
63.
JohanGNielsN. National culture and environmental responsibility research revisited. Int Bus Rev2018;27: 958–968.
64.
AkramRNatashaFS, et al.Trends of electronic waste pollution and its impact on the global environment and ecosystem. Environ Sci Pollut Res2019; 26: 16923–16938.
65.
ThompsonSB. Simple formulas for standard errors that cluster by both firm and time. J Fin Econ2011; 99: 1–10.
66.
AbramovichALoriaY. The long-term impact of an education for sustainability course on Israeli science and technology teachers’ pro-environment awareness, commitment and behaviour. Aust J Environ Educ2015; 31: 264–279.
67.
McSweeneyB. Hofstede’s model of national cultural differences and their consequences: a triumph of faith-a failure of analysis. Human Relations2002; 55: 89–118.
68.
HairJFAnderson JrRETathamRL, et al.Multivariate data analysis. New York: Macmillan, 1992.
