Environmental perceptions of global business travel by Swiss companies in the Zurich airport region

Background literature

The reasons given for business travel have been the subject of study for several years. Above all, the context is one in which current business leaders and executives have a strong preference for face-to-face meetings over technological alternatives (Koyen, 2009; Harvard Business Review, 2009). There are two areas in which that preference is to an extent backed up by research: the transfer of knowledge, and trust-building. Both are better accomplished in some circumstances by face-to-face communication, and the ensuing associated travel, than through any of the available virtual alternatives (Tani M, 2005; Welch, Welch, & Worm, 2007).

But the environmental load, and the negative impacts of extensive travel on employee health and retention, are both pressing. The gap in the literature linking the environment with corporate social responsibility (CSR) was clearly identified as early as 1994: “this concern for the environment serves as a new, unifying theme for the study of international business, which will no doubt continue to deepen and grow in importance” (Wright & Ricks, 1994, p. 699). In some areas it has received attention – there are a range of studies on resource use, production-based pollution, and the range of responses firms can take from internal policies to engagement with regulatory bodies. These were often prompted by large-scale and widely reported disasters, along with responses to governance issues en-vogue at various historical moments. But awareness remains sparse and further studies are needed to highlight options that might work in particular settings (Kolk, 2016).

While the COVID-19 pandemic has seen a huge drop-off in air travel, there are indications that many businesses intend to resume travel in the near-term. However, as has been argued in many fields, this may provide a one-off opportunity to reset travel on a more sustainable footing, and to break the hold that travel has over business culture (Koonin, 2020; Hepburn et al., 2020; Kuzemko et al., 2020). The current normal is remote, and in some areas, it is allowing equivalent if not superior functionality to in-person communication (Clopper, Baccei, & Sel, 2020). The potential for an increased use of technology to replace travel has been building for a decade or more (Julsrud, Denstadli, & Hjorthol, 2014). It may now be realized.

The study reported below, conducted prior to COVID-19, demonstrates that not all business travel is essential, and will add to the evidence-base that argues a more targeted and specific approach to business travel would benefit employees, the environment, and businesses in the future (Poom, Orru, & Ahas, 2017). Leaders of the future should de-normalize travel both in how they act and the policies they engage in for their employees.

Switzerland

Switzerland is a small landlocked country located in central Europe, with a population of 8.5 million people, as of the 2018 census (Federal Statistical Office, 2018). Switzerland receives almost double the number of travelers that would be anticipated from its expenditure (Bripi, 2019). This indicates that Swiss companies attract business travelers disproportionately to their size, and this can be applied doubly so in the Zurich area. The study focuses on the Zurich airport region in Switzerland; a population of around 129,329 inhabitants in the following communities: Bassersdorf, Oberglatt, Rümlang, Opfikon-Glattbrugg, Wallisellen, Wangen-Brüttisellen, Dietlikon, Dübendorf, Nürensdorf and Kloten. Zurich Airport (2018) states that 31 million passengers used Zurich airport, of which 27% (or 8.37 million passengers) were international business travelers.

How business travel is viewed within a country varies not just with frequency but also with the different perspectives that people bring to bear on it. Switzerland is a country where the people are widely known to be environmentally friendly, outdoor sport-oriented and nature lovers. This is reflected in Switzerland being the first country to hold a ballot on implementing a green economy (in September 2016). Research demonstrates the consequential value that the Swiss place on their time; for instance, Bates, Bierlaire, Abay, Axhausen, and König (2006) examined how much one hour of traveling was worth to people in different countries within Europe. They found that Swiss citizens place a higher value on their time than any other European citizens do. In Swiss culture, free time and traveling are signs of status – with first class travel and particularly air travel acting as additional signifiers.

Two studies provide insight into how the Swiss view air travel and business travel. Firstly, Bruderer Enzler (2017) provides a short account of private air travel in Switzerland. Of interest is the brief examination of “attitudinal predictors”, which analyze behavior on a range of factors based on surveying undertaken in 2007. Of most relevance here was the finding that while those who voted for the Green Party of Switzerland, caused lower emissions overall, they flew nearly as often as the rest of the population. Hinnen, Hille, and Wittmer (2017) found that a significant proportion of passengers might be willing to pay extra for “green” products associated with air travel, such as organic on-board food or carbon offsets.

Objectives

The main aim of the study was to help the author understand two simple questions: why do we travel so much for business. Is it because we have to, or because we need to? To answer these, a study was undertaken using both quantitative and qualitative research methods focused in businesses within the Zurich airport area in Switzerland. The study will contribute a detailed case study to the literature, with a greater focus on the intersection between environmental awareness and business travel, than previously published work.

Quantitative survey

In total, five hypotheses were tested quantitatively using pre-tested closed questions in a web-based survey, which was collecting data from September to December 2019.

Information regarding the operationalization of the three major constructs, along with the evaluation of specific hypotheses, can be seen in Table 1. Each construct is listed along with any relevant variables, and the specific questionnaire items that form one. The six columns on the right denote which of the five specified hypotheses are being tested.

The questionnaire designed by the researcher was tested for validity and reliability using Qualtrics test survey tool. Pilot testing was undertaken with 10 people in August 2019. The criteria for selection of these 10 people was to hold a role in a company involving traveling, two with native English, and the rest German. They were asked beforehand to check their willingness and availability for participation. They were asked to highlight any unclear questions and to provide overall feedback which was used to improve the final survey. This was especially important as the survey was bilingual, in German and English, with the researcher not a native speaker of either (see Appendices A and B). The participants also timed how long the test took to complete, in order to assess whether it needed to be shorter or any questions amended. The researcher made some corrections based on the feedback to make the questionnaire clearer avoiding ambiguity and corrected the German language.

The study is based on the region surrounding Zurich airport, in which the latest research available (from 2014) states that there are 118,626 people employed (Flughafen Zürich Ag., 2014). Informal consultations with local human resources (HR) managers resulted in an estimate that 30 to 40 percent of all jobs within the Zurich Airport region involve global business travel, and thus might fall under consideration for this study. Therefore, the appropriate total population size for this study is 36,000 individuals. Mugenda and Mugenda (2012) posited that where a research population is large, the recommended minimum sample size is 384. This is predicated on the assumption that the population is normally distributed, and the degree of confidence is 95%, at a significance level of 5%.

The study utilized multistage sampling, in which clusters of the overall population are selected and then random samples drawn from each of those clusters. This allows a good balance of cost, convenience and accuracy compared to alternative sampling methodologies (Gall, Gall & Borg, 2007). In this case, clusters were formed of companies with which the researcher had a pre-existing relationship. A random sample of their employees was then taken for the survey. Participants were contacted, either by phone or by email, to gain their consent to invite them to take part in the survey.

The survey was sent to target 400 respondents in September 2019 and conducted through Qualtrics software, Version 2019 to collect the data and perform quantitative statistical analysis. Google Forms or SurveyMonkey could have been used as open access survey alternatives, paired with Apache OpenOffice for quantitative analysis.

For each question of the survey, responses were coded numerically along a seven-point Likert scale ranging from “very strongly disagree” (coded as -3) to “very strongly agree” (+3), with “neither agree nor disagree” as the neutral option (0). This allowed examination of the correlation between different responses. Then Pearson’s correlation co-efficient was utilized to draw conclusions about the strength of the correlation. Standard deviations provided information on the breadth of opinion. Regression analysis was performed, where warranted, to illustrate the relationship between the variables. Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used in inferential tests when determining the strength of influence that the independent variables had on the dependent variable.

Qualitative case study

A case study, the interviews for which were carried out between August and September 2019 at a Swiss pharma company in the region provided further in-depth understanding of the reasoning and intentions behind the business travel. Ms. Silvana Micheli, a Swiss citizen native in German, Swiss-German and very high level of the English language, was trained by the researcher to perform the interviews on his behalf to avoid any bias or influencing the interviewees. Ms. Silvana Micheli is a Learning and Development professional in the pharma industry.

In the organization, between 30 and 40 percent of all roles involve traveling. Overall, 15 employees were selected for the case study, a number which was felt to be sufficient for additional detail without risking data saturation. They were identified starting from the nominal description: gender, age, role grade and type of role and department. Only those with a role involving traveling were included. They were intentionally chosen to represent a broad scale of seniority and approached by email for their consent to participate in August 2019. At that time, they were informed of the nature of the study and the topic area, but not the research.

An NDA (non-disclosure agreement) was issued and signed by representatives from the pharma company. The male researcher countersigned it to preserve the anonymity of the company and its employees. The data collected has been stored at SBS Swiss Business School safely and will be kept for five years. After this period, under the terms of the NDA the material including audio recordings of the interviews will be destroyed.

An interview format was implemented with participants and questions were based upon the structure of the survey questionnaire to enable meaningful comparison of results. This gave the interviews a clear structure while allowing the possibility of extended answers and follow up questions as appropriate. Sessions were 45 minutes long, one on one, took place in the offices of the pharma company, and audio was recorded for the purpose of this research study only. The interviewer also took notes, manually writing down the answers to the interview questions. No repeat interviews were necessary. No participant refused to take part. Transcripts were not made available to participants. At the beginning of each interview the interviewer read the consent for audio recording and provided two copies to be signed. The interview audio analysis was part of a broader study than reported here.

Ethical approval

An ethics declaration form was submitted to and approved by SBS Swiss Business School Human Resources Ethics Committee (approval number: 642). Additionally, a research panel consisting of a supervisor assigned by SBS Swiss Business School and industry specialists, examined the quantitative and qualitative surveys and this research proposal, before giving ethical permission for the study.

Business travel and environmental awareness

Travel time and trip length varied markedly among both survey respondents and case study participants, as is shown in Figure 1. A Pearson’s Chi-squared test of independence (with Yates’ continuity correction) between travel frequency and trip length was not significant, χ²(1) = 3.31e-31, p = 1. It was therefore acceptable to use them as independent variables for inferential statistics.

Figure 1. Percentage of work time travelling and trip length.

Following Ham, Mrčela, and Horvat (2016) this study defined environmental awareness not only as a knowledge of environmental issues, but also a willingness to act on climate science as a corporation and as an individual. In business, that tends to be financial remuneration to the global citizenry in some form of green tax or financial offsetting of carbon footprint. There were thus two question sets which, taken together, illustrate ‘environmental awareness’.

Regarding knowledge the questions asked were:

Table 2 displays the correlation matrix for the three “climate science knowledge” questions. The three questions were highly positively correlated with one another, with Pearson R values ranging from 0.75 to 0.89. Since they are so strongly correlated, they are combined into one overall variable called “climate science knowledge” by averaging them together. Scores on this measure ranged from -0.333 to + 3.00, with a mean of 1.88, and a standard deviation of 0.876.

For each of the three statements, the percentage of respondents who endorsed the statement (“understand”, “strongly understand”, “very strongly understand”) was over 95%.

And regarding willingness to act:

Table 3 displays the correlation matrix for the three social responsibility questions. The three questions were positively correlated with one another, with Pearson R values ranging from 0.58 to 0.65. Since these responses are correlated, they were combined into one overall variable identified as “social responsibility”, by averaging them together. Scores on this measure ranged from -0.333 to + 3.00, with a mean of 1.88, and a standard deviation of 0.876.

Ha(1), “as environmental awareness (from the corporate) increases, business travel decreases”

This was not proven from the data collected. There was no significant difference between business travel and wiliness to pay corporate taxation. For ‘more’ and ‘less’ frequent travelers, F(1, 100) = 0.041, p = 0.840. Therefore, the null hypothesis was accepted. No effect was found upon trip length, F(1, 100) = 0.33, p = 0.86, nor was there any interaction between the two business travel variables, F(1, 100) = 1.96, p = 0.165.

Ha(2), “as environmental awareness (from the individual) increases, business travel decreases”

Again, the null hypothesis was accepted here with no statistically significant relationship being found. The analysis did not find a significant difference between more and less frequent travelers, F(1, 100) = 0.001, p = 0.979. The analysis did not find an effect on trip length, F(1, 100) = 0.18, p = 0.68, nor any interaction between the two business travel variables, F(1, 100) = 0.01, p = 0.93.

There was a noticeable relationship between the variables making up environmental awareness at the corporate level: “climate science knowledge” and “corporate social responsibility”. As shown in Figure 2, a positive correlation was found, Pearson’s product-moment correlation R = 0.309, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.124-0.473, t(102) = 3.282, p = 0.0014.

Figure 2. Relationship between social responsibility and climate science knowledge.

The next question which needed addressing was: is this relationship affected by business travel? To examine this more closely, the respondents were split into more frequent and less frequent travelers to be plotted in that relationship. This can be seen in Figure 3. For those who tend to travel more frequently, “climate science knowledge” and “social responsibility” are positively related, R = 0.528, 95% CI = 0.274 – 0.713, t(42) = 4.03, p = 0.0002. However, there is no such correlation for those who travel less frequently, Pearson’s product-moment correlation R = 0.160, 95% CI = −0.097 – 0398, t(58) = 1.24, p = 0.221.

Figure 3. Relationship between corporate social responsibility and climate science knowledge for less frequent (orange) and more frequent (blue) travelers.

The analysis combined all the variables that were found related to global business travel, here operationalized as travel frequency. The researcher discovered that elements of “corporate culture” were related to “business travel”: liking business travel; and believing business growth comes from travel. It was also found that an interaction of the elements of “environmental awareness” were related to “business travel”: similarly, “science knowledge” and “corporate social responsibility” are related.

Business travel and business growth

Ha(3), “there is a significant positive relationship between global business travel and business growth”.

To test this hypothesis, it was necessary to take both the responses to questions 1 and 8, and then consider the answers on a branching basis. The results of which are displayed in Table 4, with the number of respondents displayed.

A Pearson’s Chi-squared test of independence (with Yates’ continuity correction) was statistically significant, χ²(1) = 5.5283, p = 0.01871. Given that dependence, for each respondent “business growth” was calculated by taking the average of the responses from Questions 1 and 8.

If global business travel is undertaken partly because people believe it contributes to their business growth, it would be expected that travel frequency be related to business growth. However, it would not necessarily be expected that the variables would be dependent to the extent that it would predict an average trip length. That is, those who travel more frequently do so because they believe it is integral for their business growth, and that trip length should not be related.

A 2 (trip length: shorter, longer) × 2 (travel frequency: less frequent, more frequent) between-subjects ANOVA was conducted to see whether “business growth” varied across the groups. The data showed that there was a significant difference for travel frequency: indeed, those who travel more frequently did rate travel as more important to their business growth.

Figure 4 is a scatterplot showing one blue point for each of the respondents, based on which of the four options they chose for travel frequency and their judgment of how important travel is to their business growth. There is random jitter added to the graph, so that each point is visible. The purple dots show the average number of people at each possible response by their size. The purple line shows the linear relation between the two variables. Analysis of this supports hypothesis 1, as there is a significant and positive correlation. Pearson’s product-moment correlation R = 0.299, 95% CI = 0.113 – 0.465, t(102) = 3.164, p = 0.002053.

Figure 4. Relationship between business growth travel frequency.

The interviewees all believed that “business travel has been essential for achieving the results” they have; and two thirds of them also endorsed the idea that business travel increases business growth. There were several discussion points which provided an explanation of their rationale, and complicating factors. One interviewee mentioned the problem with regular travel and maintaining office relationships and workload. The idea of balance was mentioned by several respondents. The stresses of business travel were notable, but no consensus emerged from the group regarding its suitability for them as employees.

Regarding virtual teams, one of the interviewees said that to develop a team located in different sites, the sense of belonging to a team and being together developing relationships and trust, is key to success. And face-to-face contact remains by the best means to establish that rapport. However, interviewees supported the idea of Oertig and Buergi (2006) that irregular physical meetings, perhaps only annually, is enough to keep a virtual team working efficiently. Therefore, while face-to-face contact is needed within team-based environments, it can be kept to a minimum without significant drawbacks.

The overall message from the interviewees, supporting most of the literature mentioned above, is that achieving a balance is the goal to optimize employee and corporate prosperity.

Corporate culture

Ha(4), “corporate culture is the predominant reason business travel is undertaken as frequently as it is”.

This was tested quantitatively with two questions:

There was a significant positive correlation between responses to the two questions (see Figure 5), Pearson’s product-moment correlation R = 0.51, 95% CI = 0.282 – 0.592, t(102) = 5.1003, p = 0.000002. The researcher reasoned that respondents from corporations with a meeting culture that emphasizes meeting face-to-face would report greater enjoyment of business travelling. For one, they were hired by the corporation, so they are likely to embody the culture to begin with. Secondly, being in a pro-business-travel meeting culture would ultimately make one more likely to believe they enjoy business travel, as has been argued previously (Bentley, Bloomfield, Davidai, & Ferguson, 2016; Mueller, 2010). The researcher compared the responses to this question against the variable “remote meeting” and found that they were not significantly correlated (see Figure 6), Pearson’s product-moment correlation R = 0.062, 95% CI = −0.133 – 0.253, t(102) = 0.626, p = 0.533. Enjoyment of business travel and a preference for videoconferencing are two separate constructs.

Figure 5. Responses to questions about remote meetings.

Figure 6. Responses to questions about meeting culture.

The interviews gave some further light into this disconnect. It was said that better sharing of the information on how, where, who, and what for, business travel is occurring, would mean that the travel can be consolidated as smart travel and reduce the amount of unnecessary travelling. A problem with this is that people might not be willing to share all the intentions of business travelling. An additional aspect to consider is that training to use appropriate technology is required to make people use them. If the videoconferencing equipment were advanced, secure, and well supported then this would reduce travel for business. Given COVID-19 standards are emerging and gaining broader support in this area (Kagan, Alpert, & Fire, 2020; Weil & Murugesan, 2020).

For the corporation, interviewees found several benefits for travel. These included: understanding the local market, interaction with affiliates, motivation, better results, build relationships, business growth, generate more business, and trust building. It allows people to build up relationships, make decisions quicker, and avoid the infuriating ‘ping-pong messaging’ often seen in remote communication. Business interactions involve a myriad of nonverbal cues (including body language) and therefore face to face meetings have the advantage of capitalizing on that. Yet for the individual engaging in business travel, the free discussion was predominantly negative. It was voiced that traveling for business is exhausting and that it is not beneficial for everyone; the load on businesspeople with families was mentioned several times, as was health.

Corporate social responsibility

Ha(5), “as corporate social responsibilities policies linked to environmental awareness (from the corporate) increases, business travel decreases”.

The survey asked the following question directly:

Of 102 responses to that question, 93 (91%) responded that business travel would decrease in such a situation, and 9 (9%) responded that it would increase. Therefore, 91% of the respondents endorsed Ha(5) in the hypothetical. A similar result was achieved in the interviews – 14 of the 15 respondents (93%) endorsed the question.

One of the interviewees indicated that if pro-environment policies were implemented, travel for business would be reduced in the short term only; the corporation would need to keep investing in a pro-environment program. To succeed, it would need to be implemented and embedded as part of the culture of the corporation. Another respondent said that if a company was environmentally friendly with the usage of paper, water waste, recycling, etc., then it must also consider the impact of business travel on global warming. Physically travelling for business purposes needs to be seen not as purely a sunk cost in travel expenditure. It must be measured in terms of environmental impact as part of the values of the corporation. Without a quantified measure such as that, pro-environment policies would tend to be unsustainable in the long run. These kinds of policies only work when supported and believed in by senior leadership.

The interview brought out an important point regarding CSR policy. Only four of the 15 interviewees knew that they did already have a policy in place. Of these, only two of the four said the policy referred to travel for business, one said the environment, and the other to neither of them. One of them indicated that the company at the focus of the company’s own case study is moving from Scope 2 up to Scope 3. Scope 2 are indirect emissions from the generation of purchased energy (Greenhouse Gas Protocol Corporate Standard (GHGPCS) Value Chain Emission) whereas Scope 3 emissions include all indirect emissions that occur in the value chain of the reporting company, including both upstream and downstream emissions. All four belonged to the more senior group of employees interviewed.

Four of the other interviewees (27%) replied that the company did not have a CSR policy. Seven did not know. Therefore, it can be assumed that related internal information is not distributed in a clear and homogeneous manner within the business for all employees. It would seem evident that internal communications are an area for the business to focus upon in the future. Other literature indicates that this finding is far from unusual (Yue, Men, & Ferguson, 2020), but given comments above about the importance of communication from senior leadership to embed pro-environment policies, it is of note.

It is also worth noting that travel policies were in place within the company to control expenditure, hotel grade selection, car hire price range, weekend allowances, flight price range (related to business class, economy, or premium economy) depending on the length of the flight, etc., but not related to any environmental concerns or CSR. Again, this is far from unusual.

Additional conclusion – relationship between environmental knowledge, and willingness to pay green tax

There were three items on the questionnaire regarding environmental awareness:

Responses to these three items were correlated with responses on the item “I am willing to pay more, as a corporation, when purchasing pollution products and services, through “green taxes”.” The research analyzed the relationship between these knowledge-based variables and willingness to pay both corporate and individual green tax (see Table 5).

Table 5. R values for correlations between self-reported environmental awareness and willingness to pay corporate green tax.

Unsurprisingly, the three questions about environmental awareness were highly positively correlated with one another, with R values ranging from 0.75 to 0.89. The correlation with willingness to pay corporate green tax were also positive, and statistically significant, with R values of 0.23, 0.26, and 0.37 (see Table 6).

Table 6. R values for correlations between self-reported “environmental awareness” and “willingness to pay individual green tax”.

The correlations with “willingness to pay individual green tax” were also positive, and statistically significant, with R values of 0.26, 0.30, and 0.31.

Underlying data

UK Data Service: Environmental Perception of Global Business Travel by Swiss Companies in the Zurich Airport Area, 2019-2020. https://doi.org/10.5255/UKDA-SN-854930 (Echeverria-Arrondo & Wolfs, 2021).

This project contains the following underlying data:

Extended data

UK Data Service: Environmental Perception of Global Business Travel by Swiss Companies in the Zurich Airport Area, 2019-2020. https://doi.org/10.5255/UKDA-SN-854930 (Echeverria-Arrondo & Wolfs, 2021).

This project contains the following extended data:

Data are available under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license (CC-BY 4.0).