<![CDATA[Environmental policy implementation research has traditionally emphasized regulatory design, institutional capacity, and formal coordination, while paying less attention to the organizational culture through which officials translate environmental obligations into routine administrative practice. This study examines how bureaucratic culture, administrative values, and accountability arrangements shape environmental policy implementation across five provincial and district government agencies in Bengkulu Province, Indonesia. A multi-site qualitative organizational study was combined with narrative analysis and a 24-indicator culture evaluation matrix covering administrative values, implementation behaviour, policy commitment, and inter-departmental norm alignment. Evidence was derived from 81 officials participating in one or more study activities, including 15 focus group discussions, 32 narrative interviews, approximately 65 hours of field observation, and documentary review. The results show a pronounced value-practice decoupling: articulated environmental commitment recorded the highest indicator mean (3.20), whereas implementation behaviour averaged 1.47 and inter-departmental norm alignment averaged 1.43. Three indicators—follow-through on prescribed measures, willingness to express cross-agency disagreement, and joint accountability arrangements—scored 1.00 in every agency. Narrative analysis identified five recurring occupational scripts: the procedural custodian, constrained steward, growth realist, documentary conservationist, and isolated champion. Together, the findings indicate that environmental commitment is widely articulated but is filtered through routines that privilege procedural defensibility, hierarchical deference, annual budget completion, and fragmented accountability. The study develops a Values–Routines–Accountability (VRA) framework to explain this decoupling and argues that reform should focus on outcome attribution, post-approval verification, cross-agency accountability, and protected professional dissent rather than relying primarily on value statements or awareness programmes.]]>
