Coaching to Mobilize Workforce Green Behaviors: An Exploratory Analysis Through the Lens of Self-Determination Theory

Abstract

This paper explores how senior sustainability professionals perceive coaching as an organizational learning and development for green transition work. It draws on an explanatory sequential mixed-methods design, including interviews with 21 senior global sustainability leaders, and is supplemented by a survey of 138 sustainability professionals. Coaching is found to be a helpful, but under-utilized, approach to organizational learning and development. Analysis is framed through Self-Determination Theory constructs of Competence, Autonomy, and Relatedness. Findings suggest that embedding coaching within organizational learning and development could accelerate green workforce transformation.

Keywords

green transition climate coaching self-determination theory motivation learning and development

Introduction

Addressing climate change requires high-impact behavioral change (Whitmarsh et al., 2021), rooted in psychological approaches to transforming mindsets and behaviors (Huxley & Lambrick, 2020). This research explores sustainability professionals’ attitudes toward the potential value of climate coaching as an organizational learning and development tool for behavioral changes for a green transition. Cox and Flynn (2022) set out that climate coaching is distinguishable from more traditional forms of coaching because coach and coachee are part of the same system—that is, the context of climate change. They state that this calls for building the belief that both individuals and systems can change, and that working with any emotion can foster resonance and drive action.

Paradoxically, at a time when green talent is said to need to double by 2050 to meet expected demand (LinkedIn, 2025), an “attitude-behavior” gap can exist when employees experience barriers between environmental attitudes and workplace practices (Norton et al., 2015). Green workforce transformation arguably depends as much on transferable and transformative skills such as communication, influence, and resilience as on technical expertise (Cripps & Ho, 2026), indicating that effective workforce learning and development needs to encompass a broad spectrum of skills needs.

Organizational commitments to environmental action can also be important in talent recruitment and retention, especially for younger generations (Deloitte, 2024). At the other end of the spectrum, anxiety and distress associated with climate change are known to impact mental health and can thus negatively affect work performance (Brooks & Greenberg, 2023). Sustainability professionals charged with leading organizational behavioral changes can face a particularly significant “cognitive burden” (Huxley & Lambrick, 2020). “Common Good Human Resource Management” (Aust et al., 2020) incorporates promoting positive behavioral contributions to climate action, protecting against mental health risk factors, and managing workplace strategies and interventions (Noy et al., 2022).

Coaching can be effective in conditions of uncertainty and organizational change by building adaptive capacity (Grant, 2014), making it appropriate for sustaining behavioral adaptation over time. For example, coaching with a climate-related focus can support leaders in working at deeper levels of motivation and engagement to navigate organizational complexities by fostering workforce resilience and adaptability (Climate Coaching Alliance, 2024). Coaches are positioned as enablers of systemic shifts toward transformative change (Sandars & Hannell, 2026). Motivational perspectives underpin this paper's exploration of how senior sustainability professionals perceive coaching as a learning and development approach for green transition work. This paper, therefore, asks how senior sustainability professionals perceive coaching as a learning and development approach for green transition work.

From the perspective that organizational environmental goals are enacted through the people who work for them (The British Psychological Society, 2011), it is essential to understand what motivates green behaviors (Liaquat et al., 2024). Recognizing one's own and others’ motivations for climate-related learning and behavior change can help align personal values and beliefs with actions that support climate mitigation and adaptation (Brick et al., 2021). Steentjes and Roberts (2024) posit that climate change professionals face mental health threats, and Climate Critical (2023) highlights how role ambiguity, limited authority, and psychological burden present risks to workforce engagement. Based on interviews with sustainability professionals, Ellsworth-Krebs and Russell (2026) make the case for group coaching to support professionals in managing challenges related to imposter syndrome, career progression, eco-anxiety, internal greenwashing, and loneliness.

The value of coaching as a skill has been specifically recognized in the recent “State of the Sustainability Profession” report by the global membership association “Institute of Sustainability and Environmental Professionals” (ISEP, 2025, p. 32):

Beyond technical knowledge, there continues to be a significant emphasis on skills like communication, influencing, stakeholder engagement, building relationships, empathy, flexibility, adaptability and coaching.

Yet climate coaching remains an unexplored area in the academic literature from an organizational learning perspective, and Sandars and Hannell (2026) note a lack of research on how executive coaches concerned with climate change experience their roles. This paper forms part of a larger research project that sought to understand the changing context of sustainability professionals’ roles, the skills considered most critical to the green transition, and how they can be developed (Cripps, 2026). The research involved interviews with 21 senior sustainability leaders and a survey of 138 global sustainability professionals. This paper specifically considers findings on how sustainability professionals perceive the values of coaching, examined through the lens of Self-Determination Theory (SDT). The interview findings are the primary focus of this paper, supported by relevant aspects of the survey data.

This paper argues that climate coaching provides a helpful, but underutilized, organizational learning and development approach within the broader context of a just and green transition. The following literature review sets out the SDT constructs of Competence, Autonomy, and Relatedness in the context of climate coaching. The methodology describes the mixed-methods research design and application of SDT as an analytical framework. Findings are presented in correspondence to the SDT constructs, drawing primarily on interview data supplemented by relevant survey results. The discussion interprets these findings in light of SDT scholarship and coaching in the context of the green transition. The paper concludes with practical implications for coaching practitioners and organizations, limitations, and directions for future research.

Literature Review: SDT and Climate Coaching

SDT (Ryan & Deci, 2000, 2020) is a motivational theory based on goal setting. It incorporates a continuum of motivated behaviors ranging from autonomous (intrinsic) to controlled (extrinsic). The premise is that “autonomous motivation” enables movements toward self-determined actions that become internal and integrated. In this context, such motivation can encourage pro-active environmental behaviors. Behavioral science shows that information is not enough to change behavior (Environment and Climate Change Committee, 2022). Furthermore, climate change can spark emotive responses, discussions, and feelings of dissonance when we feel we must/should/ought to do something, and coaching can support individuals in navigating workplace conversations (Cox & Flynn, 2022).

In the context of eco-anxiety, especially, feelings of mistrust and uncertainty, along with other cognitive barriers, can lead to feelings of helplessness, denial, and inaction, so it is essential to build a sense of “self-efficacy” (Clayton, 2020). Self-efficacy is related to the SDT construct of “Competence,” particularly through experiences of mastery and effectiveness. For competence to be maintained, SDT holds that it must be accompanied by “Autonomy,” through feelings of being in control of one's behaviors rather than controlled, and “Relatedness,” in the sense of belonging and connection to others. When these three psychological needs are met, individuals are more likely to experience autonomous motivation, engagement, self-esteem, and well-being (Ryan & Deci, 2020).

Coaching aligns with the three psychological needs of competence, autonomy, and relatedness (Spence & Oades, 2011). Of particular note is the role of coaching in exploring motivation, regardless of “readiness for change.” This is significant in climate coaching, since coaching may be most needed where individuals are not inherently motivated or ready for change. Within organizational contexts, real or perceived barriers to climate-related goals can include feelings that they are irrelevant to the role/business, unrealistic, too complex, too problematic, or too overwhelming (Cox & Flynn, 2022). By exploring personal relevance and choices regarding green transition-related organizational goals, this paper posits that motivational shifts can accelerate through the alignment of values between individual and organizational goals (Relatedness), ownership and choice of behaviors (Autonomy), and increased capability to take action (Competence).

Wingrove et al. (2020) demonstrate how SDT's three constructs operate in group supervision with internal coaches, but no studies have been identified that combine climate coaching with SDT as a theoretical framework. Existing studies that address pro-environmental values and behaviors aimed at addressing climate change at the societal level can be drawn on. For example, Aviste and Niemiec (2023) illustrate how intrinsic and extrinsic motivations shape values, which then lead to changes in behavior. They position ecocentric values (i.e., that nature is important in its own right) as intrinsically motivating for pro-environmental values and actions. Similarly, Ariccio et al. (2021) illustrate how satisfying psychological needs influences behaviors related to climate-related risks, because individuals internalize and proactively respond to the environmental challenges they face. Baxter and Pelletier (2020) also draw on SDT to emphasize the importance of internalized motivation in driving sustainable behaviors, rather than relying on extrinsic motivators of incentives or sanctions.

Minciu et al. (2025) apply SDT to examine the influence of coaching on employees living in a Volatile, Uncertain, Complex, and Ambiguous (VUCA) world. This is highly relevant to an analysis of the green transition, in which political, regulatory, economic, fiscal, and consumer trends sit firmly within a VUCA world. Their study concluded that coaching could achieve psychological needs associated with competence, autonomy, and relatedness. It is said that coaching can support organizational shifts toward a “green psychological climate,” through a mindset that aligns individual and organizational commitments (Saini et al., 2024). From the perspective that environmental behaviors require workforce motivation and engagement alongside technical know-how, coaching may be the “missing piece” for organizations seeking to embed a green transition strategy. At the very least, coaching is a way to recognize the particular emotional burden of the sustainability role, where concerns are deeply personal and span personal and professional lives.

In summary, SDT provides a framework for understanding motivation and behavioral change, and coaching aligns well with its three psychological needs constructs. Studies to date on pro-environmental behavior drawing on SDT have largely focused on the societal level, and the workplace coaching literature has not yet examined the distinct motivational challenges faced by sustainability professionals. This paper addresses that gap by applying SDT as an interpretive lens to exploratory data on how senior sustainability professionals perceive the value of coaching for green transition work.

Methodology

This research project was carried out in collaboration with Climate Change Coaches. The research design comprised a survey of global sustainability professionals conducted between September and December 2023, followed by semi-structured, in-depth interviews with senior sustainability leaders conducted between January and April 2024. The study was approved by the Oxford Brookes University ethics committee (L23318). The author of this paper designed the survey tool in consultation with this organization, led the analysis of results, and then designed, conducted, and analyzed interviews. The author wrote the preliminary research report, from which selected findings are included here, and the published report was further developed in collaboration with the partner organization Climate Change Coaches (Cripps & Climate Change Coaches, 2024).

This paper builds on the published practitioner-focused report by re-analyzing the results through the lens of SDT, thereby enabling a deeper interpretation of the findings and a conceptual framework for ongoing research. The research followed an explanatory sequential mixed-methods approach (Creswell & Plano Clark, 2018) in which survey findings informed the interview questions. This approach enables convergence across data (Bryman, 2006), with findings here interpreted through an inductive analytical process. Reflection following publication of the industry-oriented reporting has enabled the consideration of emergent meanings.

Survey

The survey questions were designed based on Climate Change Coaches' field experience and desk research conducted by Oxford Brookes University. It was launched via social media pages and through direct invitations to the collaborating organization's sustainability professionals’ network. The questions examined skills for the green transition, employee well-being among those engaged in green transition roles, and factors influencing the effectiveness of those working on the transition, including organizational learning and development approaches. This paper focuses on just one component of the survey—organizational learning and development approaches, and specifically, attitudes toward and experiences of coaching. The two survey questions that are included in this analysis are:

Which learning and development approaches does your organization currently employ? (self-paced/live online or in-person training, individual/team coaching (offered by internal or external coaches)

Have you personally worked with a coach to support your work in the Green Transition?

All participants were assured of confidentiality and given the option of anonymity. Those who provided their email address at survey completion consented to be contacted to arrange a personal interview. Two hundred sixty-eight gave consent to participate, and 234 responded to some questions (primarily early classification questions). After data cleaning, 138 responses were deemed usable, representing 51% of those who initially consented. The data were analyzed using descriptive statistics in Qualtrics.

Respondents represented over 24 industry sectors, with the majority in management and sustainability consultancy and teaching and education. Of the 134 valid responses to the question on organizational location, most indicated that headquarters were primarily in the UK (58%), followed by the USA (6%), with additional responses from Europe, parts of Asia, Africa, and the Pacific. Respondents were drawn from a range of organizational sizes, with 62% representing micro- to medium-sized organizations and 38% representing large to multinational organizations. Participants also reflected a range of organizational roles, including Professional (33%), Executive (24%), Managerial (12%), Director-level (20%), and other (12%).

Interviews

Participants were invited to take part with their consent to be contacted via the survey or through the Climate Change Coaches professional network. To obtain meaningful and transferable insights, only participants holding senior-level or higher positions were recruited globally from leading organizations actively engaged in the green transition. These represented a cross-section of sectors (aerospace and defense, energy, fashion, publishing, insurance, sport, travel and transport, built environment, food, and beverage). The majority of interviewees were based at the UK headquarters, but represented four continents within the global organizational structures.

All interviewees held formal sustainability roles, and the majority were at the senior executive level. In all cases, interviewees had been invited to participate in the survey, but may not necessarily have completed it, so the interview questions were not linked to survey responses. A deliberate decision was made not to seek out interview participants based on their experience in climate-related coaching. Instead, the interest was in seeking attitudes toward how climate coaching might fit within existing approaches to organizational learning and development. The interview questions were designed to probe further into the themes covered in the survey, using a semi-structured approach. The core questions relevant to the focus of this paper on organizational learning and development approaches and attitudes/experiences toward coaching included:

How does your organization enable the dissemination of skills relevant to the Green Transition through training and learning?

In terms of well-being, what do you think can be done to support those responsible for engaging others in the Green Transition?

Does your organization currently use coaching as a training approach? Could you see any value in adopting coaching for the Green Transition, whether for individuals or teams?

Interviews were conducted online and lasted 45 min. They were recorded with participants’ consent, with confidentiality and anonymity ensured. After 21 interviews, thematic saturation was reached, as subsequent interviews did not reveal substantive new insights (Fusch & Ness, 2015). This is consistent with qualitative research in which saturation may occur within relatively small samples based on the depth of expertise of interviewees (Wutich et al., 2024). As an exploratory and interpretive study, saturation here is based on the depth of information provided by the purposive sample of senior-level participants (Braun & Clarke, 2021).

The interview transcripts were organized for analysis using NVIVO14 software. The analytical process involved two stages. In the first stage, a deductive thematic analysis (Miles & Huberman, 1994) was applied to organize interview data around the themes of the interview question guide. The author conducted the coding, and the collaborating organization reviewed it for reliability, achieving a high level of agreement across all thematic categories. In the second stage, the author undertook a more inductive review of this paper, in which transcripts were re-examined through the lens of SDT. Building on inductive thematic analysis, coding the data according to SDT enabled a more deductive approach. It provided an opportunity for an emergent assessment of the data through theoretical resonance with an established framework (Braun & Clarke, 2006).

The SDT-based coding involved reviewing all interview transcripts and assigning relevant segments to one of the three constructs: Competence (skill, self-efficacy, and capability development), Autonomy (intrinsic motivation, values alignment, and self-direction), or Relatedness (connection, collaboration, and psychological safety). Where a segment was relevant to more than one construct, assignment was guided by the primary emphasis of the interviewee's response. The SDT coding was conducted by the author, with awareness of the interpretivist tradition in which the researcher's theoretical positioning is acknowledged as part of the analytical process (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). It is acknowledged that the analysis is limited by the researcher's positioning as an advocate for sustainable business practice. Reflexivity is therefore maintained throughout, and a clear audit trail with representative quotations is provided. As the data mapped well to the three constructs, which are themselves well-defined and distinguishable, the SDT framework also serves as a form of “trustworthiness.” Consistent with abductive qualitative reasoning and the retrospective application of theoretical frameworks, SDT provides theoretical resonance with the exploratory data of this study. In keeping with the interpretive, qualitative approach to analysis, this study is premised on theoretical “transferability” rather than statistical validity (Braun & Clarke, 2006).

Findings

This section begins by briefly sharing the results of two survey questions regarding coaching experiences. The remainder presents the results from interview questions on experiences with coaching and its perceived value. The constructs of Competence, Autonomy, and Relatedness in the SDT framework provide a structure for presenting these results. Interviewee quotations are presented as “R” (Respondent) with an identifier number for data traceability. The results here are exploratory and indicative of broad attitudes to coaching rather than a comparative analysis by industry sector.

Attitude Toward, and Experiences of Coaching

The survey asked which learning and development approaches organizations employ (see Table 1). Of the 134 usable responses to this block of questions, 52% (n = 70) of respondents stated that learning and training approaches were specifically tailored to the green transition. Only 33% (n = 44) of respondents reported having personally worked with a coach to support work in the Green Transition. Among organizations that offer coaching, similarity was reported across individual and team coaching delivery formats.

Table 1.

Organizational Learning and Development Approaches Reported by Survey Respondents (n = 134).

Format of training	Number of respondents
Self-paced online learning	80% (n = 107)
In-person training	75% (n = 101)
Live online training	72% (n = 97)
Team coaching	39% (n = 52)
External individual coaching	35% (n = 47)
Internal individual coaching	34% (n = 45)

The interviews provided the opportunity to better understand the potential of coaching to address green transition challenges. Interviewees described coaching as a limited training and development mechanism due to resourcing challenges—“When you're talking about coaching, it would be a much harder sell to get a budget for it” (R21). It is significant that coaching is perceived as lacking instrumental value, despite its potential relevance to workforce behaviors needed to meet green transition-related goals and commitments. Moreover, it was felt that coaching might be perceived as a later stage intervention when organizations are more mature in implementing actions, or when the “problem” is more apparent—“It's just not a big enough problem at the moment to throw resources at it” (R16). Another questioned who should be prioritized for coaching—“Is it us that needs coaching? Or is it our suppliers? I'm not sure. Maybe a bit of both” (R2).

Overall, the survey and interview data indicate that coaching is underutilized, not because it is seen as irrelevant, but because of other organizational priorities. This provides a foundation for interpreting subsequent findings against the SDT framework in how coaching might be positioned for integration within learning and development.

Competence

That only 33% of respondents had personally worked with a coach suggests that the competence-building potential of coaching remains largely unrealized in this context. Competence is understood here in relation to the sustainability professional role as the capability to navigate complexity, communicate, and engage others. Despite limited personal experience with climate change coaching, interview participants expressed a range of perceived benefits in what it might offer. For example, one interviewee highlighted the importance of competence in building empathy with stakeholders who hold differing viewpoints and in managing contentious conversations. Coaching processes were seen as supportive of enabling individuals to see the bigger picture, reframe, and build relational confidence:

Coaching would allow them to see what challenges might be from stakeholder perspectives, what some of those feelings might be, and maybe contextualise some of the responses that they get. (R1)

This illustrates that coaching can develop competence in skills such as empathetic communication. Other interviewees spoke about the challenges of effective communication and engagement and how coaching could support technical specialists to communicate with, and engage others—“They need to recognize that the person in the room doesn't know what scope 1, 2, and 3 mean … coaching that could definitely help with” (R4). This indicates a competence gap that coaching can address by increasing self-awareness and communication skills.

The need for recognizing coaching as an opportunity for a more expansive form of competence that goes beyond formal technical knowledge training in the context of green transition work was clearly supported:

If there is an opportunity to try and help people have those conversations, communicate why we're doing it and that we need to get them on board, that can be very helpful. (R19)

The survey finding that only 33% of respondents had personally worked with a coach for green transition work contextualizes the responses here as perceptions rather than experiences. This suggests that coaching is valued for supporting the behavioral translation of sustainability goals into organizational interactions. Competence is thus seen as much more than knowledge; it lies in enabling the translation of technical and specialist expertise into action, which coaching can support and facilitate.

Autonomy

The survey finding that only half of respondents (52%) worked in organizations where learning and development was specifically tailored to the green transition underlines the importance of intrinsic motivation. In the context of sustainability work, autonomy operates at two levels in the findings: the self-determined (autonomous motivation) of sustainability professionals themselves, and their capacity to foster autonomy in colleagues. Both emerged as areas where coaching was perceived to add value. Interviewees consistently described the challenge of engaging colleagues where green transition goals are not yet embedded across job roles. Coaching was identified as well-suited to create conditions for more colleagues to engage:

I'm the only one that's formally doing environmental actions, but I want to help others do it. A coaching approach would fit really nicely because that's what we're moving to for a proactive approach. (R6)

This frames the value of coaching skills in enabling wider workforce engagement, based on a self-directed, rather than compliance-driven approach. Interviewees also described operating with broad remits, on issues which trigger strong emotions, with limited formal authority, which can act to constrain rather than enable a sense of self-determination. One noted, “I think you need thinking space in this kind of role, and particularly when thinking about sustainability can be quite harrowing” (R13), and another observed, “I have had coaching where I need to influence or just work on my confidence levels”. (R11)

These quotations highlight the value of coaching both at a personal level and in the context of limited structural support. Thus, coaching can be seen as a tool for professionals to sustain their own agency, which underpins their effectiveness to engage others. This is all the more important when operating in an environment without support or formal authority. The quotations also highlight that coaching can support both well-being and performance effectiveness.

Relatedness

The survey data on experience of team coaching (39%) versus individual coaching (35% external, 34% internal) suggests organizations offering coaching show comparable engagement with both team and individual formats. This aligns with the interview finding that relatedness operates at multiple levels: individual, team, and systemic. While survey findings indicated relatively limited engagement in coaching, interview data showed strong recognition of the opportunities coaching offers to build collaboration and a shared understanding of systemic challenges. Relatedness within SDT concerns feelings of connection, which, in the context of this study on the green transition, is essential to responding to complex environmental and societal challenges. Coaching was seen as particularly helpful for building connections and identifying contributions in team/group contexts:

I think someone to help unpick that and look at what you do on a daily basis, what you do as a team, how is that contributing, and how can you make that contribution better, harder, faster, and therefore get some personal gain out of that… I think our managers would struggle to create the space and the right conversations for themselves. (R20)

This illustrates how coaching may support collective meaning-making around sustainability responsibilities, particularly where managers lack the time or capability to facilitate reflective dialogue themselves. Coaching was positioned as a way of collective sensemaking, which can extend to unlocking innovative thinking across organizational functions—“How might we think differently and use the collective brainpower we’ve got in the room across a good bunch of executives, to actually drive the agenda?” (R20). Coaching was also highlighted as an approach for building broader systemic connections across industry networks. Interviewees discussed how coaching can bring fresh perspectives, which can extend to coaching from those external to the organizational context—“Two of my team members are currently being supported by external coaches. This gives a perspective of what the wider industry is doing in that particular area” (R1). These findings indicate that coaching enables relatedness at multiple levels from interpersonal connections through to broader systemic networks.

Discussion and Recommendations

Qualitative data have been coherently mapped to the SDT constructs of Competence, Autonomy, and Relatedness to analyze interviewees’ experiences and perceptions of coaching. The exploratory evidence on how sustainability professionals perceive the value of coaching provides indicative relationships between coaching and green behavioral change, thereby informing future empirical research. The findings confirm that self-directed motivation is effectively fostered when all three psychological needs are met (Ryan & Deci, 2000). The analysis has also revealed some nuances of SDT that merit further consideration for the context of climate coaching.

Although SDT was not structured into the data collection, it mapped well onto interviewee responses. The fact that participants articulated experiences corresponding to Competence, Autonomy, and Relatedness without being prompted by the theory suggests these constructs capture genuine psychological dynamics in sustainability roles, lending support to SDT's applicability in climate coaching. Autonomy has been highlighted as a key construct in roles subject to structural ambiguity in uncertain environments, which may constrain rather than encourage self-determination. Coaching can support the development of competence through both emotional and skill-based approaches. Relatedness has been shown to be core for building interpersonal connections both within and beyond organizational structures.

Competence

Interviewees detailed how climate coaching could support the development of “enabling” skills such as engagement, communication, and influence. These findings illuminate Spence and Oades’ (2011) description of coaching's capacity to build personal strengths through active listening and expressing empathy. The interviewees’ descriptions of coaching as helping individuals to see stakeholder perspectives, reframe challenges, and build relational confidence reflect precisely this. The findings suggest that coaching may be especially well-suited to sustainability professionals whose technical expertise is substantial but interpersonal and persuasive capabilities are underdeveloped relative to the demands of their roles. Competence in climate work is multidimensional, and coaching can build practical competencies, such as effective communication and the ability to address colleagues’ feelings of resistance or overwhelm. The quotes show the value of coaching in building coachees’ motivation, which, in turn, enables other team colleagues’ motivation.

Autonomy

Interviewees illustrated the importance of leadership in encouraging self-directed, innovative behaviors at all levels of the business, especially where the green transition is not formally integrated into most job roles. Spence and Oades’ (2011) positioning of motivation as a spectrum ranging from genuine values alignment to compliance-driven engagement is illustrated in the findings. The challenge for sustainability professionals is to find ways to engage others based on self-directed, rather than externally imposed, motivations. Coaching can help build skills such as asking reflective questions that help people to discover their own reasons for caring. Autonomy is a construct that can be further explored in the context of enabling coachees to “set the agenda” and equip coaches with the skills to effectively facilitate discussions that respect differing, and possibly contentious, views on climate action.

SDT primarily concerns individual psychological needs, rather than structural and systemic factors, which are beyond the individual's control. The autonomy construct raises particular areas of analytical interest in relation to the findings here. Sustainability professionals often operate with a broad remit without formal structure, authority, or resourcing, which might be seen as offering high levels of freedom to act on personal commitment. Yet, Gagné and Deci's (2005) study of SDT in the workplace shows that clearer structural features, such as role clarity, can in fact enhance autonomy, rather than control it. Similarly, Chong et al.'s (2024) study of SDT in the context of workplace newcomer socialization identifies the structure-autonomy tension in meeting psychological needs for structural conditions that, at the same time, enable a sense of self-determination. Navigating workplace roles without clear formal structures, and perhaps without even colleagues’ support, might therefore be seen as restricting rather than enhancing a sense of autonomy. This is an important direction for further research into sustainability professionals’ perceptions and the potential role of coaching to enable autonomy in these contexts. Coaching might, for example, provide the reflective space to navigate ambiguity in professional roles.

Relatedness

Interviewees emphasized the importance of communication and collaboration, grounded in active listening to diverse voices, to build common ground. Coaching, particularly team coaching, can be effective in building relational capacity. The interviewees reported feelings of isolation in their work, which mirrors Brooks and Greenberg's (2023) finding from a review of environmental workers who felt isolated because friends and family were reluctant to engage with environmental issues. This illustrates the significance of sustainability professionals’ work, which spans personal and professional contexts, and how coaching can provide space to process such emotions. Ellsworth-Krebs and Russell's (2026) study of sustainability professionals argues for group coaching to support relational needs, a finding that is also highly significant.

Relatedness, in the context of sustainability professionals, operates at both individual and systemic levels in tackling existential crises. This resonates with O'Connor et al.'s (2017) finding of the value of group coaching in conditions of change to build shared purpose. The interconnection between the individual and the system (whether organizational or societal) is integral to understanding the factors that shape values and behaviors. This supports coaching benefits that arise from the internalization of learning in relation to self and others. Coaching can be understood as an “inside out” approach through “individual-team-organization-society” (Outhwaite & Bettridge, 2009), lends itself well to global green transition challenges, as the benefits ripple out from coachees. However, linking back to the construct of autonomy in relation to restrictive organizational structures, relatedness in coaching relationships can also be subject to contextual influences. Organizational agendas, hierarchical relationships, and power dynamics have been said to influence coaching outcomes when coaches are internal (Wingrove et al., 2020). Thus, influences of relatedness on individual motivations and behaviors might be further explored by research at the levels of the coaching relationship, the organization, and broader external networks.

Conclusion

The study validates SDT in a climate coaching context, applies the autonomy construct to examine tensions in ambiguous sustainability roles that may constrain autonomous motivation, and demonstrates how relatedness operates at systemic and interpersonal levels in the context of the green transition. The findings highlight the value of group and team coaching formats alongside individual coaching, and of external coaches who bring a wider industry perspective. Coaches working with sustainability professionals need to be attuned to the particular emotional dimensions of sustainability professional roles. Sandars and Hanell's (2026) call for coaching training to address climate-related approaches is significant here, so that coaches can bring environmental awareness into conversations without feeling that they need to be scientific experts.

The findings indicate that coaching is perceived as a valuable but underutilized organizational learning and development approach. Coaching was seen as an approach to building competence to translate technical expertise into organizational action, sustain autonomy in roles characterized by broad remit and limited authority, and foster relatedness at interpersonal, organizational, and wider systemic levels. This suggests that organizations seeking to embed green transition strategies should consider coaching as an integrated component of learning and development. Future research might extend these findings at a greater scale across more diverse geographies and sectors. Longitudinal designs could examine whether climate coaching translates into sustained green behavioral change.

Limitations

The limited survey sample size and the organizations interviewed cannot be considered generalizable, and this is acknowledged in the interpretation of findings. Given the interviewees’ limited experience in coaching, particularly in climate change coaching, the data are exploratory. Given the voluntary nature of participation, response bias may be present, skewed toward individuals who are engaged with or concerned about environmental issues. Collaboration with Climate Change Coaches might bias the analysis toward the value of coaching, but this is mitigated by rich reporting of qualitative data. It would be advantageous to conduct a larger-scale global study to extend this work across multiple sectors.

As the research was an exploratory, professionally focused study, it was not theoretically underpinned. The application of SDT arose after data collection for this paper, providing methodological benefits through an emergent approach to analysis. However, if the constructs had been explicitly integrated into the interview questioning, it could have provided even deeper insights into the usefulness of considering competence, autonomy, and relatedness in the context of climate coaching.

Footnotes

Acknowledgments

The author thanks Climate Change Coaches for collaboration and all research participants who enabled this research.

ORCID iD

Karen Cripps

Funding

The author received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Author Biography

Karen Cripps is an associate professor in Responsible Management and Leadership and a senior fellow of the Higher Education Academy (SFHEA). With a long-established academic and teaching profile in sustainability leadership and management, Karen is committed to supporting career journeys that contribute to environmental and social organizational and broader, global goals. From an organizational learning and development perspective, she is especially interested in research concerning the potential of coaching to address sustainability capacity.

References

Ariccio

Lema-Blanco

Bonaiuto

(2021). Place attachment satisfies psychological needs in the context of environmental risk coping: Experimental evidence of a link between self-determination theory and person-place relationship effects. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 78, 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2021.101716

Aust

Matthews

Müller-Camen

(2020). Common good HRM: A paradigm shift in sustainable HRM? Human Resource Management Review, 30(3), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2019.100705

Aviste

R. P.

Niemiec

C. P.

(2023). Antecedents of environmental values and pro-environmental behaviour intentions: A self-determination theory approach. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 88, 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2023.102023

Baxter

Pelletier

L. G.

(2020). The roles of motivation and goals on sustainable behaviour in a resource dilema: A self-determination theory perspective. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 69, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2020.101437

Braun

Clarke

(2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3, 77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa

Braun

Clarke

(2021). To saturate or not to saturate? Questioning data saturation as a useful concept for thematic analysis and sample-size rationales. Qualitative Research in Sport, Exercise and Health, 13(2), 201–216. https://doi.org/10.1080/2159676X.2019.1704846

Brick

Bosshard

Whitmarsh

(2021). Motivation and climate change: A review. Current Opinion in Psychology, 42, 82–88. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2021.04.001

Brooks

S. K.

Greenberg

(2023). Climate change effects on mental health: Are there workplace implications?. Occupational Medicine, 73(3), 133–137. https://doi.org/10.1093/occmed/kqac100

Bryman

(2006). Integrating quantitative and qualitative research: How is it done?. Qualitative Research, 6, 97–113. https://doi.org/10.1177/1468794106058877

10.

Chong

J. X. Y.

Gagne

Dunlop

P. D.

Wee

(2024). Facilitating newcomer motivation through internalization: A self-determination theory perspective on newcomer socialization. Human Resource Management Review, 34, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2024.101041

11.

Clayton

(2020). Climate anxiety: Psychological responses to climate change. Journal of Anxiety Disorders, 74, 102263. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.janxdis.2020.102263

12.

Climate Coaching Alliance. (2024). Shaping tomorrow: a playbook for coaching leaders in sustainable decision-making and policy Retrieved from https://www.climatecoachingalliance.org/shaping-tomorrow-playbook/

13.

Climate Critical. (2023). The climate burnout report. Retrieved from https://www.climatecritical.earth/report

14.

Cox

Flynn

(2022). Climate change coaching: the power of connection to create climate action. Open University Press.

15.

Creswell

J. W.

Plano Clark

V. L.

(2018). Designing and conducting mixed methods research (3rd ed.). Sage Publications.

16.

Cripps

(2026). Soft skills and wellbeing for a green transition: Overlooked and underestimated? Sustainable Horizons, 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.horiz.2026.100193

17.

Cripps, K., & Climate Change Coaches. (2024). Holding back climate progress: Sustainability's critical skills gap. https://climatechangecoaches.com/sustainabilitys-new-skills-research/

18.

Cripps

(2026). Introduction. In Cripps

(Eds.), An organisational guide to skills for green workforce transformation (pp. 1–10). Routledge.

19.

Deloitte. (2024). 2024 Gen Z and Millenial Report. Retrieved from https://www.deloitte.com/global/en/issues/work/content/genz-millennialsurvey.html

20.

Ellsworth-Krebs

Russell

(2026). Coaching at the edge of the climate crisis: Ethical tensions in supporting sustainability professionals. International Coaching Psychology Review, 21(1), 24–36. https://doi.org/10.53841/bpsicpr.2026.21.1.24

21.

Environment and Climate Change Committee. (2022). In our hands: behaviour change for climate and environmental goals. Retrieved from https://committees.parliament.uk/publications/30146/documents/174873/default/

22.

Fusch

P. I.

Ness

L. R.

(2015). Are we there yet? Data saturation in qualitative research. The Qualitative Report, 20(9), 1408–1416. https://doi.org/10.46743/2160-3715/2015.2281

23.

Gagné

Deci

E. L.

(2005). Self-determination theory and work motivation. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 26(4), 331–362. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.322

24.

Grant

A. M.

(2014). The efficacy of executive coaching in times of organisational change. Journal of Change Management, 14, 258–280. https://doi.org/10.1080/14697017.2013.805159

25.

Huxley

Lambrick

(2020). What do sustainability professionals and activists want from psychology? Clinical Psychology Forum, 1(332), 74–77. https://doi.org/10.53841/bpscpf.2020.1.332.74

26.

ISEP. (2025). State of the sustainability profession 2025. Retrieved from https://www.isepglobal.org/state-of-the-profession

27.

Liaquat

Ahmed

Ismail

Ul Ain

Irshad

Izhar

S. S.

Mughal

M. T.

(2024). Impact of motivational factors and green behaviors on employee environmental performance. Research in Globalization, 8, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resglo.2023.100180

28.

Lincoln

Y. S.

Guba

E. G.

(1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Sage.

29.

LinkedIn. (2025). Global green skills report. Retrieved from https://economicgraph.linkedin.com/content/dam/me/economicgraph/en-us/PDF/2180-global-green-skills-report-v04.pdf

30.

Miles

M. B.

Huberman

A. M.

(1994). Qualitative data analysis. Sage Publications Ltd.

31.

Minciu

Dobrea

R. C.

Susanu

I. O.

(2025). The influence of coaching on employees: A quantitative analysis in the context of the VUCA world. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 21, 1–24. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11365-025-01101-9

32.

Norton

T. A.

Parker

S. L.

Zacher

Ashkanasy

N. M.

(2015). Employee green behavior: A theoretical framework, multilevel review, and future research agenda. Organization & Environment, 28, 103–125. https://doi.org/10.1177/1086026615575773

33.

Noy

Patrick

Capetola

Henderson-Wilson

Chin

J. W.

LaMontagne

(2022). Minding environment, minding workers: Environmental workers’ mental health and wellbeing. Global Health Promotion, 29(4), 8–17. https://doi.org/10.1177/17579759221081881

34.

O'Connor

S. A.

Studholme

Grant

A. M.

(2017). Group coaching in a large complex organisation: Lessons learnt from experience. International Journal of Evidence Based Coaching and Mentoring, 15(2), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.24384/000246

35.

Outhwaite

Bettridge

(2009). From the inside out: Coaching's role in transformation towards a sustainable society. The Coaching Psychologist, 5(2), 76–89. https://doi.org/10.53841/bpstcp.2009.5.2.76

36.

Ryan

R. M.

Deci

E. L.

(2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55(1), 68–78. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.55.1.68

37.

Ryan

R. M.

Deci

E. L.

(2020). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivation from a self-determination theory perspective: Definitions, theory, practices, and future directions. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 61, 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2020.101860

38.

Saini

Jena

L. K.

Gupta

Mahale

(2024). Understanding green behaviours through the lens of self-determination theory. Measuring Business Excellence, 29, 76–96. https://doi.org/10.1108/MBE-07-2024-0110

39.

Sandars

Hannell

(2026). Society and planet: How eco-aware coaches embody ethical responsibility. Journal of Coaching Ethics, 3(1), 1–27. https://doi.org/10.62882/btn46382

40.

Spence

G. B.

Oades

L. G.

(2011). Coaching with self-determination in mind: Using theory to advance evidence-based coaching practice. International Journal of Evidence Based Coaching and Mentoring, 9(2), 37–55. https://doi.org/10.24384/IJEBCM

41.

Steentjes

Roberts

(2024). Raising alarm bells for a struggling sector: Taking a new approach to improve the wellbeing of climate change professionals. Frontiers in Psychology, 15, 1–4. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2024.1404252

42.

The British Psychological Society. (2011). Going green: the psychology of sustainability in the workplace. Retrieved from https://cms.bps.org.uk/sites/default/files/2022-06/DOP%20Going%20Green%20The%20Psychology%20of%20Sustainability%20in%20the%20Workplace.pdf

43.

Whitmarsh

Poortinga

Capstick

(2021). Behaviour change to address climate change. Current Opinion in Psychology, 42, 76–81. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2021.04.002

44.

Wingrove

Lai

Palmer

Williams

(2020). Self-determination theory: A theoretical framework for group supervision with internal coaches. International Journal of Evidence Based Coaching and Mentoring, 18(2), 183–196. https://doi.org/10.24384/jxxd-st61

45.

Wutich

Beresford

Bernard

H. R.

(2024). Sample sizes for 10 types of qualitative data analysis: An integrative review. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 23, 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1177/16094069241296206