Evaluating 22 EU member states’ ‘waste culture’ using Hofstede’s and Schwartz’s cultural dimensions

References

• Aini MS, Fakhru’I-Razi A, Lad SM, Hashim AH. 2002. Practices, attitudes and motives for domestic waste recycling. Int J Sustainable Dev World Ecol. 9(3):232–238.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Banker RD, Charnes A, Cooper WW. 1984. Some models for estimating technical and scale inefficiencies in data envelopment analysis. Manage Sci. 30:1078–1092.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bator RJ, Cialdini RB. 2000. The application of persuasion theory to the development of effective pro-environmental public service announcements. J Social Issues. 56:527–541.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bond MH. 1988. Finding universal dimensions of individual variation in multicultural studies of values: the Rokeach and Chinese value surveys. J Pers Soc Psychol. 55(6):1009–1015.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Boussofiane A, Dyson RG, Thanassoulis E. 1991. Applied data envelopment analysis. Eur J Oper Res. 52:1–15.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bratt C. 1999. The impact of norms and assumed consequences on recycling behavior. Environ Behav. 31:630–656.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brett JM, Okumura T. 1998. Inter- and intracultural negotiation: US and Japanese negotiators. Acad Manage J. 41(5):495–510.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Charnes A, Cooper WW, Rhodes E. 1978. Measuring the efficiency of decision making units. Eur J Oper Res. 2:429–444.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chekima B, Chekima S, Syed Khalid Wafa AW, Igau OA, Sondoh SL. 2016. Sustainable consumption: the effects of knowledge, cultural values, environmental advertising, and demographics. Int J Sustainable Dev World Ecol. 23(2):210–220.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• de Feo G, De Gisi S. 2010. Domestic separation and collection of municipal solid waste: opinion and awareness of citizens and workers. Sustainability. 2(5):1297–1326.
   Google Scholar
• de Feo G, Napoli RMA. 2005. New and old paradigms on production and management of municipal solid waste. Proceedings of Sardinia 2005, Tenth International Waste Management and Landfill Symposium; October 3–7. Cagliari (Italy): CISA.
   Google Scholar
• de Kadt M. 1994. Garbage culture and the culture of garbage: the solid waste management Quagmire. Organ Environ. 8(4):345–379.
   Google Scholar
• DEFRA. 2011. The economics of waste and waste policy, waste economics team, environment and growth economics, department for environment, food and rural affairs. This document is available on the Defra website. https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/69500/pb13548-economic-principles-wr110613.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Drogendijka R, Slangen A. 2006. Hofstede, Schwartz, or managerial perceptions? The effects of different cultural distance measures on establishment mode choices by multinational enterprises. Int Bus Rev. 15:361–380.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dyson RG, Shale EA. 2010. Data envelopment analysis, operational research and uncertainty. J Oper Res Soc. 61:25–34.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Efron B. 1979. Bootstrap methods: another look at the jackknife. Ann Stat. 7:1–26.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• El Leithy W. 2017. A review of the impact of national culture on economic growth. Int J Econ Manage Sci. 6(4):1–4.
   Google Scholar
• Farrell MJ. 1957. The measurement of productive efficiency. J R Stat Soc. 120(3):253–290.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gallo A. 2015. A refresher on regression analysis. Harvard business review. https://hbr.org/2015/11/a-refresher-on-regression-analysis.
   Google Scholar
• Halkos G, Tzeremes N. 2013a. National culture and eco-efficiency: an application of conditional partial nonparametric frontiers. Environ Econ Policy Stud. 15:423–441.
   Google Scholar
• Halkos G, Tzeremes N. 2013b. Modelling the effect of national culture on countries’ innovation performances: A conditional full frontier approach. Int Rev Appl Econ. 27(5):656–678.
   Google Scholar
• Hall D. 2017 Mar 13. Throwaway culture has spread packaging waste worldwide: here’s what to do about it. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/mar/13/waste-plastic-food-packaging-recycling-throwaway-culture-dave-hall.
   Google Scholar
• Hofstede G. 1980. Cultures consequences: international differences in work-related values. Beverly Hills: Sage Press.
   Google Scholar
• Hofstede G. 1983. The cultural relativity of organizational practices and theories. J Int Bus Stud Fall. 75–90.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hofstede G. 1991. Cultures and organizations: software of the mind. London: McGraw-Hill.
   Google Scholar
• Hofstede G. 2001. Culture’s consequences: comparing values, behaviors, institutions, and organizations across nations. 2nd ed. Beverly Hills CA: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Hofstede G. 2011. Dimensionalizing cultures: the Hofstede model in context. Online Readings in Psychol Culture. 2(1):1–26.
   Google Scholar
• Hofstede G. 2018. The 6-D model of national culture; [accessed 2018 Jan 15]. http://geerthofstede.com/culture-geert-hofstede-gert-jan-hofstede/6d-model-of-national-culture/.
   Google Scholar
• Hofstede G, Hofstede GJ, Minkov M. 2010. Cultures and organizations: software of the mind. 3rd ed. New York (NY): McGraw-Hill.
   Google Scholar
• Honma S, Hu J-L. 2009. Efficient waste and pollution abatements for regions in Japan. Int J Sustainable Dev World Ecol. 16(4):270–285.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hopper JR, Nielsen JM. 1991. Recycling as altruistic behavior: normative and behavioral strategies to expand participation in community recycling programs. Environ Behav. 23:195–220.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lee D. 2017. Overcoming the culture of waste. MIT Sloane Experts. http://mitsloanexperts.mit.edu/overcoming-the-culture-of-waste-deishin-lee/.
   Google Scholar
• Lewis R.D. 1990. Cross culture: the lewis model. Richard Lewis Communications: Hampshire UK.
   Google Scholar
• Nau R. 2018. Notes on linear regression analysis. http://people.duke.edu/~rnau/Notes_on_linear_regression_analysis–Robert_Nau.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Ng SI, Lee JA, Soutar GN. 2006. Are Hofstede’s and Schwartz’s value frameworks congruent? Inte Marketing Rev. 24(2):164–180.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Oosthuizen J. 2018. Behavioural change a hurdle across industries. Engineering News. http://www.engineeringnews.co.za/article/behavioural-change-a-hurdle-waste-management-company-2018-09-28/rep_id:4136.
   Google Scholar
• Parsons T. 1951. The social system. Glencoe (IL): Free Press.
   Google Scholar
• Petty RE, Cacioppo JT. 1986. Communication and Persuasion: central and peripheral routes to attitude change. New York (NY): Springer-Verlag.
   Google Scholar
• Redman TC. 2008. Data driven: profiting from your most important business asset. Harvard Business Review Press.
   Google Scholar
• Roberts OI, Okereke CI. 2017. Cultural beliefs on waste and the need for integration into present domestic waste management: evidence from selected communities in rivers state, Nigeria. Int J Social Sci Manage Res. 3(6).
   Google Scholar
• Rogge N, de Jaeger S. 2012. Evaluating the efficiency of municipalities in collecting and processing municipal solid waste: A shared input DEA-model. Waste Manage. 32:1968–1978.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sagiv L, Schwartz SH. 2007. Cultural values in organisations: insights for Europe. Eur J Int Manage. 1(3):176–190.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schneider D. 1972. What is kinship all about? In: Reinig P, editor. Kinship studies in the Morgan memorial year. Washington (DC): Anthropological Society of Washington.
   Google Scholar
• Schwartz SH. 1977. Normative influence on altruism. In: Berkowitz L, editor. Advances in experimental social psychology. New York (NY): Academic Press; p. 221–279.
   Google Scholar
• Schwartz SH. 1992. Universals in the content and structure of values: theoretical advances and empirical tests in 20 countries. In: Zanna MP, editor. Advances in experimental social psychology. Vol. 25; p. 1–66.
   Google Scholar
• Schwartz SH. 1994. Beyond individualism/collectivism: new cultural dimensions of values. In: Kim U, Triandis HC, Kagitcibasi C, Choi SC, Yoon G, editors. Individualism and collectivism: theory, methods, and applications. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications; p. 85–119.
   Google Scholar
• Schwartz SH. 1999. Cultural value differences: some implications for work. Appl Psychol. 48:23–47.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schwartz SH. 2004. Mapping and interpreting cultural differences around the world. In: Vinken H, Soeters J, Ester P, editors. Comparing cultures, dimensions of culture in a comparative perspective. The Netherlands: Brill, Leiden; p. 43–73.
   Google Scholar
• Seiford LM, Thrall RM. 1990. Recent developments in DEA: the mathematical programming approach to frontier analysis. J Econom. 46:7–38.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Seiford LM, Zhu J. 2002. Modeling undesirable factors in efficiency evaluation. Eur J Oper Res. 142:16–20.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Seiford LM, Zhu J. 2005. A response to comments on modeling undesirable factors in efficiency evaluation. Eur J Oper Res. 161:579–581.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shackleton VJ, Ali AH. 1990. Work-related values of managers: A test of the Hofstede model. J Cross Cult Psychol. 21(1):109–118.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sherman HD, Zhu J. 2006. Chapter 2: data Envelopment Analysis EXPLAINED. In: Service productivity management, improving service performance using data envelopment analysis (DEA). Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Simar L, Wilson PW. 1998. Sensitivity analysis of efficiency scores: how to bootstrap in non parametric frontier models. Manage Sci. 44:49–61.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Simar L, Wilson PW. 2000. A general methodology for bootstrapping in nonparametric frontier models. J Appl Stat. 27:779–802.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Simar L, Wilson PW. 2002. Non parametric tests of return to scale. Eur J Oper Res. 139:115–132.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Simões P, de Witte K, Marques RC. 2010. Regulatory structures and operational environment in the Portuguese waste sector. Waste Manage. 30:1130–1137.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Smith PB, Peterson MF, Schwartz SH. 2002. Cultural values, sources of guidance, and their relevance to managerial behaviour: a 47-nation study. J Cross Cult Psychol. 33(2):188–208.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sondergaard M. 1994. Hofstede’s consequences: A study of reviews, citations and replications. Organ Stud. 15(3):447–456.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Song M, An Q, Zhang W, Wanga Z, Wub J. 2012. Environmental efficiency evaluation based on data envelopment analysis: A review. Renewable Sustainable Energy Rev. 16:4465–4469.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Steenkamp JBEM. 2001. The role of national culture in international marketing research. Inte Marketing Rev. 18(1):30–44.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• The Trustees of Princeton University. 2007. Interpreting regression output. https://dss.princeton.edu/online_help/analysis/interpreting_regression.htm.
   Google Scholar
• Triandis HC. 1982. Culture’s consequences. Hum Organ. 41(1):86–90.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Watkins E. 2015. A case study on illegal localised pollution incidents in the EU. In: A study compiled as part of the EFFACE project. London: IEEP.
   Google Scholar
• Williams R.M. 1970. American society: a sociological interpretation. 3rd ed ed. Knopf: New York.
   Google Scholar
• Yang K-S. 1988. Will societal modernization eventually eliminate cross-cultural psychological differences? In: Bond MH, editor. The cross-cultural challenge to social psychology. Newbury Park (CA): Sage Publications; p. 67–85.
   Google Scholar
• Yoo B, Donthu N. 1998. Validating Hofstede’s five-dimensional measure of culture at the individual level, American marketing association. Boston (MA): Summer Marketing Educators’ Conference.
   Google Scholar