Faculty of Behavioural, Management and Social Sciences

Communication Science

Master Thesis

Sustainability and the attitudes of internal stakeholders:

a cross-sectional survey at a Dutch university

Submitted by: Elizabeth Westra

s2598639

1st supervisor: Prof.dr. M. D. T. de Jong

2nd supervisor: Dr. S. R. Jansma

Enschede, 28 02 2022

1
Abstract
Purpose- In this study the relationship between sustainability and satisfaction with job/study (SJS),
identification (IDF), and perceived external prestige (PEP) of internal stakeholders is tested. This is
done in addition to demographics and perceived organization quality, to see if sustainability adds
significantly to the attitudes on top of these variables. In turn, the relationship between the
attitudes and the willingness to contribute (WTC) of the organization’s sustainability initiatives is
studied. As this study is conducted at a university, both employees and students were included. This
fills a research gap as the effect of sustainability on students’ attitudes has not yet been studied. The
results of both stakeholders were compared, providing new insights in how they are different.
Method- The sustainability variables were split up in sustainability quality of the organization and
encountered sustainability communication. Four variables measured the organizational quality:
research, education, campus, and atmosphere quality. An online cross-sectional survey was used to
collect data, which was targeted at employees and students from one Dutch university. Respondents
were approached on campus or via a random email. Overall, 614 respondents finished the survey
(235 employees and 379 students).
Results- With employees, a statistically significant relationship was found between sustainability and
PEP. For students the relationships between sustainability and SJS and IDF was statistically
significant. Moreover, the attitudes statistically significantly influenced the WTC of both employees
and students. However, not all attitudes added significantly to this.
Theoretical and practical implications- The findings provide new insights on how sustainability
influences the organization-related attitudes of both employees and students. As sustainability may
positively contribute to these attitudes, it is valuable to communicate what an organization’s
sustainability initiatives are. This in turn positively influences the WTC, which helps the organization
reach their sustainability goals.

Key words: Sustainability, Sustainable Development, Sustainability communication, Identification,

Job satisfaction, Perceived external prestige, Internal stakeholders, Higher education institutes

2
Table of contents
1. Introduction .................................................................................................................................... 4
2. Theoretical framework ................................................................................................................... 6
2.1 Overview sustainability and CSR…………………………………………………………………………………………..6
2.2 Sustainability and CSR in higher education institutions………………………………………………………..8
2.3 Sustainability and CSR and the attitudes of internal stakeholders………………………………………..9
2.4 Model…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………14
3. Method ......................................................................................................................................... 15
3.1 Design of the study…………………………………………………………………………………………………………….15
3.2 Measures……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………15
3.3 Validity and reliability…………………………………………………………………………………………………………17
3.4 Procedure…………………………….…………………………………………………………………………………………….18
3.5 Participants………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..18
3.6 Analysis……………………….……………………………………………………………………………………………………..21
4. Results ........................................................................................................................................... 22
4.1 Descriptive statistics: differences between employees and students…………………………………22
4.2 Correlations between the variables……………………………………………………………………………………22
4.3 The relationship between sustainability and internal stakeholders’ attitudes…………………….25
5. Discussion...................................................................................................................................... 32
5.1 Main findings……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..32
5.2 Theoretical and practical implications………………………………………………………………………………..34
5.3 Limitations………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….35
5.4 Suggestions for future research………………………………………………………………………………………….35
5.5 Conclusion………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….36
References .................................................................................................................................... ……..37
Appendix I Overview constructs ........................................................................................................... 50
Appendix II Online questionnaire employee ........................................................................................ 54
Appendix III Online questionnaire student ........................................................................................... 64
Appendix IV Final results factor analysis and pattern matrix ............................................................... 74
Appendix V Results demographics ........................................................................................................ 76

3
1. Introduction
Sustainability is an issue that is becoming increasingly important in daily life (Chang et al., 2020).
Both corporate sustainability and corporate social responsibility (CSR) are “voluntary business
activities” for organizations, according to Lo (2010, p. 312). These activities include social and
environmental concerns and empower organizations to interact with their stakeholders. Another
common term in organizations is sustainable development (SD) (Craig & Allen, 2013) which is often
used interchangeably with sustainability (Maryville University, 2022). In the past decades, there have
been many studies that studied the relationship between sustainability or CSR and different
employee attitudes. This research has shown that engaging in sustainability initiatives and CSR can
have many benefits for organizations. For instance, it appears that CSR may have an effect on job
performance and employee commitment (Rupp et al., 2006), organizational commitment (Brammer
et al., 2007), job satisfaction (Valentine & Fleischman, 2008), employee engagement (Duthler &
Danesh, 2018), and employee performance outcomes (Carlini & Grace, 2021). Thus, in addition to
improving the conditions of the environment (Craig & Allen, 2013), they also present revenue
opportunities for organizations and meet the needs and wishes of stakeholders (Mincer, 2008 in
Craig & Allen, 2013).

Sustainability is of great relevance and highly discussed as a topic (Correia et al., 2020). It is not only
relevant for society at large and in academic research, but also for organizations in the sector of
higher education institutes (HEIs) (Correia et al., 2020). HEIs form the base of educating future
leaders, decision-makers, and intellectuals (Labanauskis, 2017) and they educate and train future
employers (Aleixo et al., 2018). As universities lay out the structure and values for the continuing
progress towards SD, they have a fundamental and influential role in society (Ferrero-Ferrero et al.,
2017). According to Correia et al. (2020), HEIs are different from other organizations when it comes
to contributing to sustainability and CSR. This is because they have a distinct role to promote social,
environmental, and economic well-being. The Sustainable Development Solutions Network (2020)
emphasizes that the role of HEIs in delivering sustainable development goals is essential. Stating that
these goals will not be fully realized without the help of HEIs in education, research, innovation, and
leadership (SDSN, 2020). Additionally, universities are needed to produce knowledge and shape
grounded opinions (Correia et al., 2020). According to Wang and Juslin (2012), it is likely that the
personal values of present-day students will affect future corporate values and ethical decision-
making as a professional. Therefore, HEIs should integrate sustainability in education and research,
along with fostering discussion and solutions to social and environmental matters in the context of
the communities where the HEIs are placed (Geng et al., 2013). Furthermore, HEIs can develop a
more sustainable oriented society by facilitating progress, bridging research efforts, and community
efforts (Lozano et al., 2013).

There remains much to discover when it comes to sustainability and CSR and internal stakeholders.
In 2010, Wright described the research topic of sustainability in HEIs as new and emerging, which,
according to Dagiliūte et al. (2018), is still under-researched. A HEI has multiple internal stakeholders
(Ferrero-Ferrero et al., 2017). Which are academic staff, non-academic staff and students. Therefore,
this study is conducted at a university in the Netherlands, to explore how sustainability influences
the organization-related attitudes of both employees and students. The results of both stakeholders
will be compared, to see if the organization-related attitudes are influenced in a similar way.
Additionally, there has been an increasing focus on CSR and sustainability communication and its
impact on employees’ work-related behaviour. Which according to Schaefer et al. (2019) is under-
researched. Therefore, the organization-related attitudes in this study are tested in relation to both

4
sustainability quality, and sustainability communication. Moreover, the step is taken to see if these
attitudes of internal stakeholders in turn influence their willingness to contribute to the
sustainability initiatives of the organization.

Research questions
The research questions that is leading for this study is:

“What are the relationships between the sustainability perception and organization-related
attitudes of employees and students in HEIs?”

With the sub-questions:

“How does the perception of a HEI’s sustainability initiatives influence the organization-
related attitudes of internal stakeholders?”;

“How do these organization-related attitudes influence internal stakeholders’ willingness to

contribute to the HEI’s sustainability initiatives?”;

“How does a HEI’s sustainability communication influence the organization-related attitudes

of internal stakeholders?”; and

“Are there differences between the effects of sustainability on the organization-related

attitudes of employees and students, and what are they?”

The findings of this study contribute to the current research gap on sustainability in HEIs. New
insights will be provided on how sustainability in HEIs relates to organization-related attitudes, as
well as providing revelations regarding the effects of sustainability communication on satisfaction
with job/study, identification, and perceived external prestige. The effects of sustainability will be
tested in relation to multiple internal stakeholders, namely employees and students. As these results
will be compared to each other it will provide new insights if these internal stakeholders’ attitudes
will be affected in a similar way or not, with implications for both theory and practice as a result.

5
2. Theoretical framework
In the past decades, there has been an increasing body of research about corporate sustainability,
sustainable development, and corporate social responsibility. In this chapter these terms and their
relationships will be explained. Furthermore, the main findings of sustainability in relation to internal
stakeholders and organizational communication will be highlighted. This will serve as the basis of
this study which will be explained in the hypotheses and visualized in the conceptual research
model.

2.1 Overview sustainability and CSR

The concept of sustainable development (SD) is very broad and combines several aspects. These
aspects are economics, social justice, environmental science and management, business
management, politics and law (Wilson, 2003). According to the United Nations General Assembly
(2005) the three pillars of sustainability are environmental protection, social equity, and economic
development. These three pillars (economic, social, and environmental) are referred to as the triple
bottom line (TBL) which, in literature, is used interchangeably with the term sustainability (Alhaddi,
2015). The TBL is a framework that can be used to measure organizational success and business
performance, driven by sustainability (Goel, 2010). A concept that is related to corporate
sustainability is CSR (Wilson, 2003). CSR is the way an organization acts with regards to the social
environment they are in, whether this is in a negative or positive way. (Schooley, 2021). CSR is a
contributing factor to the paradigm of corporate sustainability as it provides ethical arguments why
organizations ought to contribute to SD (Wilson, 2003). Additionally, Wilson (2003) states SD is a
part of corporate sustainability as well. As an organization is undergoing CSR as a transitional stage,
when implementing corporate sustainability (Lo, 2010). Therefore, they argue that CSR is subsumed
under corporate sustainability.

CSR and corporate sustainability are strongly related, as there is theoretical overlap (Simon & Zhou,
2018). However, the two are different concepts. (Smith 2011, named in Simon & Zhou, 2018). Even
so, sustainability and CSR both apply to the organization’s behaviour towards their social
environment. Thus, even though sustainability and CSR can be seen as different concepts, the same
results are expected for sustainability and CSR. Therefore, this research will focus on just
sustainability to narrow down the scope of the study.

2.1.1 Sustainability of organizations

Over the past decades, the concerns about corporate sustainability have grown (e.g., Schaefer, 2004;
Epstein & Roy, 2003; Shrivastava, 1995 and Dechant et al., 1994). When it comes to corporate
sustainability, it is essential for an organization to pursue societal goals related to SD. Yet, corporate
growth and profits are still recognized as important (Wilson 2003). In 2015, the United Nations
proposed 17 sustainable development goals, to secure sustainable development and global growth
the increasement of opportunities for progress and promoting the development of individuals,
families, and communities are underlined as important. Which, according to Di Fabio (2017) is also
true for organizations (named in Di Fabio, 2017).

Furthermore, in the past decade there has also been a considerable interest in research when it
comes to corporate sustainability (Freeman & Gilbert, 1998; Mathews, 1997; Friedman & Miles,
2001; Rotheroe et al., 2003 and Howard-Grenville et al., 2019). It has been recognized that
sustainability is a key strategic asset of an organization (Gao & Zhang, 2006). Therefore,

6
sustainability principles should be taken up into the strategic policies and business processes of
corporations, as the TBL and long-term profitability are affected by sustainability (i.e., Elkington,
1997; Russo & Fouts, 1997; and Johnson & Scholes, 1993). Organizations can benefit from
integrating sustainability in their business operations in multiple ways. It can increase the
performance of an organization (e.g., Judge & Douglas, 1998 and Lankoski, 2008), contribute to
generating of a sustainable competitive advantage (e.g., Wagner, 2009), and it can provide
organizations with legitimacy, which shields them from reputational damage (Suchman, 1995).

2.1.2 CSR of organizations

CSR involves both how organizations generate profit and how they use it (Orlitzky et al., 2003).
According to Farooq et al. (2014) CSR policies and practices can be structured into four different core
domains, which are customer-oriented, employee-oriented, environment-oriented, and
philanthropy-oriented.

CSR has already been researched for a century, for instance by Berle (1931) and Dodd (1932). The
main focus was initially on the institutional level (Lee, 2008) which revolved around the role of an
organization in society (e.g., Frederick, 1960 and Preston & Post, 1975). The field of CSR has evolved
throughout the years, with different related constructs as a result. For instance, corporate
citizenship is a term that has been used interchangeably but also separately from CSR (Carroll, 1999).
Furthermore, the influence on the environment of organizations and drivers of firm environmental
performance is related (Etzion, 2007). A few topics that are focused on in this stream, according to
Glavas and Kelley (2014) are: increased reputation (Westly & Vredenburg, 1991), cost saving aspect
of environmental performance (Hart & Ahuja, 1996), and improved capabilities of an organization
(Sharma & Vredenburg, 1998). However, other concepts that have been used to refer to this
literature are sustainability (Shrivastava, 1995), sustainable development (Gladwin et al., 1995), and
the natural environment (Hart, 1995). This again shows how related the areas of CSR and
sustainability are.

More and more scholars have explored how CSR activities influence employees, which has yielded
interesting results. For instance, the impact on improved employee relationships (Agle et al., 1999),
commitment (Maignan et al., 1999), engagement (Glavas & Piderit, 2009), organizational citizenship
behaviour (De Luque et al., 2008 and Jones, 2010), creative involvement (Glavas & Piderit, 2009),
employee performance (Jones, 2010), and employee performance and cost (Sun and Yu, 2015) have
been studied in the past decades.

2.1.3 Sustainability and CSR communication

Another key factor in sustainability and CSR is communication, which Craig and Allen (2013, p.293)
describe as the “key to the understanding and implementation of sustainability initiatives and
activities related to corporate social responsibility”. According to Ihlen et al. (2011) an organization
ought to communicate about the CSR activities they engage in. As not communicating about them
can also be seen as a form of communication. Even though CSR communication can be manipulative
(e.g., to purely improve reputation) it is potentially useful for stakeholder participation and ethical
business practice. For instance, CSR communication can be used for the anticipation of stakeholders’
expectations, the articulation of CSR policy and the managing of different communication tools of
the organization with as a goal to provide true and transparent information in relation to the CSR
activities (Podnar, 2008). Additionally, Godemann and Michelsen (2011) state that sustainability
communication is about norms and values, research into causes and awareness, and lastly it is about

7
possibilities to take action and influence development on both individual and societal level. Fischer
et al. (2016) argue that there are three forms of sustainability communication: communication of,
about, or for sustainability.

The first form, communication of sustainability, is a transmissive form of communication with as a

goal to transfer information (Newig et al., 2013). This can be instrumental, intentional, or managerial
(Newig, 2011). Actors that engage in this form of sustainability communication use it to legitimize or
defend their behaviour, for instance through corporate sustainability reporting. More specific
functions of communication of sustainability are informing and educating individuals and achieving
some form of social engagement and action (Moser, 2010). Communicating about sustainability is
deliberative and it refers to “processes in which information, interpretations, and opinions regarding
sustainability issues are exchanged and debated” (Fischer et al., 2016, p.6). Communication about
sustainability creates a common understanding of the issues that are at stake, goals that ought to be
achieved, and which people should undertake action (Brand, 2011). Lastly, communication for
sustainability is used to make societal transformation possible (Fischer, et al., 2016). In the contrary
to the first two forms of sustainability communication, communication for sustainability emphasizes
the normative aspect of sustainability development. Furthermore, in this form of communication
elements of communication about and of sustainability can be included, the impact of
communication for sustainability lies in the measurable action in relation to sustainable
development (Fischer et al. 2016). Some examples of how organizations communicate about CSR
activities are in annual reports, newsletters, advertising or on the website of the company (Brunton
et al., 2015).

If CSR is addressed thoroughly and successfully in an organization, employees from all levels must be
involved and have the knowledge of social and environmental matters (Pojasek, 2008). Employees
are essential stakeholders in relation to CSR communication, as they ought to communicate about
the CSR activities of the organization with external stakeholders. Which means they have an
important role (Brunton et al., 2015). Communication provides employees with information about
what has been done and the aims behind the organizational CSR efforts (Suh, 2016). Therefore, it
has a critical role in shaping the evaluations and responses towards the CSR efforts of an
organization.

2.2 Sustainability and CSR in higher education institutions

As higher education institutions (HEIs) provide the structure and values for progressing towards SD,
HEIs have a fundamental and influential role in society (Ferrero-Ferrero et al., 2017). According to
Hayter and Cahoy (2016), sustainability has become a social demand. Which is because society
expects of HEIs that they not only contribute to SD, but also control their environmental and social
impact and are accountable for this. Furthermore, HEIs have a social mission and public role in
education, research, and community service. Ferrero-Ferrero et al. (2017) argue therefore that
stakeholder engagement should be implemented, as this could connect the functions of the HEI to
the expectations of stakeholders. This contributes to stakeholders adopting principles, strategies,
and actions to move forward towards SD. According to Shriberg (2002) the main reasons for HEIs to
be sustainable are social/ethical obligation, expertise, their model role, their responsibility in the
problem, and lastly reputational benefits. To help HEIs integrate sustainability in their organization
declarations, charters, and partnerships have been designed. Important elements for promoting SD
in HEIs are stakeholder collaboration, engagement, and outreach (Lozano et al., 2013). According to
Leal Filho et al. (2018) there are still challenges to overcome for HEIs when it comes to sustainability.

8
Despite the successful developments in the last 15 years, sustainability needs a holistic integration in
the systems of HEIs and the integration of sustainability in research and curricula must be improved
(Leal Filho et al., 2018).

Apart from sustainability, the service quality of HEI’s has become increasingly important (e.g., Sultan
& Wong, 2012 and Almarghani & Mijatovic, 2017). According to O’Neill and Palmer (2004), the
service quality of a HEI can be defined as the difference between students’ perceptions of what they
actually received and what their expectations were. Monitoring the service quality is vital, as well as
safeguarding stakeholders’ general interest, which can be done through fulfilling the stakeholders’
real needs and desires (Al-alak, 2009). Additionally, research has suggested that implementing
quality and excellence management can be used as a strategy for improving the satisfaction of
internal and external stakeholders (Khan & Matlay, 2009 and Sakthivel et al., 2005). If the service
quality of a HEI is perceived as positive, this may lead to the satisfaction of students (Marzo-Navarro
et al., 2005). Furthermore, students’ satisfaction is mainly associated with the staff, systems,
procedures, and support mechanisms of the HEI they study at (Pedro et al., 2018) But also the
perception on the received education and classroom experiences are essential in the satisfaction of
students (e.g., Elliot & Healy, 2001). Additionally, Bayraktar et al. (2008) state that the academic
programmes are the main product HEIs use to attract and satisfy stakeholders. Apart from academic
quality, other factors that influence student satisfaction, according to De Jager and Gbadamosi
(2009, 2013), are location and logistics, sports facilities and reputation, and safety and security.

In the literature, three main internal stakeholders are identified for HEIs. These stakeholders are
students, non-academic and academic staff (Burrows, 1999; Cortese, 2003; Jongbloed et al. 2008;
Turan et al., 2016). Hayter and Cahoy (2016) state that these stakeholders are essential for the
mission towards sustainability of universities. This is because they are both a member of a HEI, but
they also have the ability to take part in the democratic governance structure of the organization.
Furthermore, employees are essential stakeholders in relation to CSR, as they ought to communicate
about the CSR activities of the organization with external stakeholders (Brunton et al., 2015).
Whenever students have to participate in CSR activities, it is important that they are exposed to the
benefits of these activities and that they are well-informed (Ahmad, 2012). Furthermore, Ahmad
(2012) states that including students as part of CSR initiatives is the best way to encourage them to
be socially responsible.

2.3 Sustainability and CSR and the attitudes of internal stakeholders

In the past decades, the research on the effect of sustainability and CSR on internal stakeholders’
attitudes has increased, which has led to many interesting findings (e.g., Rupp et al., 2006; Craig &
Allen, 2013 and Glavas & Kelley, 2014). In this study, the satisfaction with job/study, identification,
and perceived external prestige will be tested in relation to sustainability, regarding both employees
and students. Already existing literature suggests these attitudes are related to sustainability for
employees (e.g., Valentine & Fleischmann, 2008; Gond et al., 2010 and De Roeck & Delobbe, 2012),
however these results have not been confirmed for students yet. As both students, academic and
non-academic staff are key stakeholders for HEIs, and this study takes place at a Dutch university
both groups are key internal stakeholders. From the research of Ferrero-Ferrero et al. (2017) it
becomes clear that non-academic and academic staff have the same expectations of integrating
sustainability aspects in HEIs. However, there are some differences in the expectations of students
and (non-)academic staff. Of the 17 sustainability aspects that were tested in this study, there was
just one difference between non-academic staff and students, which was in the aspect labour and

9
management relations. On the other hand, there were four differences between academic staff and
students. Labour and management relations was one of these aspects, but also efficient resource
allocation, improving academic curricula, and relationships with stakeholders. Thus, as most of the
expectations of employees and students are in line with each other, it is expected that both
stakeholders will yield the same results. As there is no evidence to suggest this is not the case.

Additionally, the effect of sustainability will be tested on top of the perceived quality of the
university the employees and students work for or study at. There is a current research gap on how
sustainability influences internal stakeholders’ attitudes in relation to other factors. From previous
studies, it is known service quality is important for higher education institutes and influences
students’ attitudes (Sultan & Wong, 2012; Alarghani & Mijatovic and Al-alak, 2009). Which is why it
is expected that sustainability will add significantly to the attitudes of employees and students on
top of the perceived research, education, campus, and atmosphere quality.

2.3.1 Satisfaction with job/study

Job satisfaction reflects the attitude towards the organization the employee works for (Landis et al.,
2015). When employees have positive feelings that correlate with the characteristics and
requirements of their job, this means that their job satisfaction is high (Robbins & Judge, 2015).
There are many factors that influence job satisfaction, according to Robbins and Judge (2015),
namely the nature of the job, administration, salary, opportunities for advancement, and
relationships. Furthermore, overly stressed employees are less satisfied with their job, which in turn
causes employees to perform worse (Barakat et al., 2015). According to Landis et al. (2015) the
working environment of the organization is better for everyone if employees are satisfied with their
job. As they can increase efficiency, profits, and the satisfaction of their customers.

Key determinants of job satisfaction, according to Brown and Peterson (1993), are role ambiguity
and role conflict. Furthermore, George & Jones (2008) state that four basic factors that have an
effect on a person’s level of job satisfaction are personality, values, the work situation, and social
influence and the study of Christen et al. (2006) shows that job performance has a positive effect on
job satisfaction. Some of the other factors that job satisfaction is related to are: (extrinsic)
motivation (Igalens & Roussel, 1999 and Moynihan & Penday, 2007), organizational culture
(Rawashdeh et al., 2015), and employee engagement (Vorina et al., 2017). Besides this, culture may
play a role in job satisfaction (Sledge et al., 2008) and it is related with the value system that applies
to a certain person (Theresia et al., 2018) as well.

From the research of Valentine and Fleischman (2008), it is known that perceived CSR is positively
associated with the job satisfaction of employees. This positive relationship between CSR and job
satisfaction is confirmed by more recent research of Mascarenhas et al. (2020). A reason for
increased job satisfaction among employees is, according to Barakat et al. (2016), that CSR activities
influence the organizational image positively, which in turn influences employees. The study of Pérez
et al. (2018) shows a positive relationship between the perception on CSR and the wellbeing of
employees. They argue that as CSR enacts a set of values that is converted into actions, policies, and
decisions this might enhance a feeling of pride in the employees, which leads to higher job
satisfaction and organizational citizenship behaviour (Pérez et al., 2018).

Based on this literature, the first sub-hypothesis is formulated:

10
 H1a. The sustainability quality of a HEI has a positive effect on the satisfaction with the job or
study of internal stakeholders on top of the research, education, campus, and atmosphere
quality.

According to Ellis (2009) the awareness of the CSR policies may be even more important than the
actual policies as employees could misunderstand them or be simply unaware of the activities. With
the latter, this means that the CSR activities will have no impact on the attitudes and/or behaviours
of the employees. And whenever the activities are misunderstood, this could lead to frustrations
(Ellis, 2009). CSR communication can be used to provide true and transparent information in relation
to the CSR initiatives of an organization (Podnar, 2008). Therefore, it is expected that organization-
related attitudes of employees and students will be positively influenced when they encounter more
communication about the sustainability initiatives, as they will become more aware of them. This is
formulated in the second sub-hypothesis:

H1b. Communication about a HEI’s sustainability initiatives has a positive influence on the
satisfaction with the job or study of internal stakeholders on top of the research, education,
campus, and atmosphere quality.

The sustainability quality differs from sustainability communication, as the sustainability

communication applies to how internal stakeholders were informed about the organization’s
sustainability initiatives. On the other hand, the sustainability quality measures how employees and
students perceive the quality of the sustainability initiatives the organization engages in.

2.3.2 Identification

Gautam et al. (2004) state that employees’ identification with the organization they work for, is a
specific form of social identification. Identification happens when employees share the values and
beliefs of an organization (Pratt, 1998). The more employees identify themself with the organization
they work for, the more they think and act from the perspective of the organization (Ashforth &
Mael, 1989). Bartels et al. (2006) state that the identification with an organization is important for
several reasons. Namely, it makes employees more willing to strive for organizational goals (Elsbach
& Glynn, 1996), as well as influencing the willingness to stay with the organization (Scott et al.,
1999). Furthermore, the image that they spread of the organization they work for is positive
(Bhattacharya et al., 1995), and lastly employees are more willing to cooperate with other members
of the organization, when they identify with an organization (Dutton et al., 1994).

Organizational identification lies very close to organizational commitment, but research has shown
that the two are different concepts (Mael & Tetrick, 1992). Organizational identification has been
linked to multiple aspects of organizational life, by Ashfort and Mael (1989, 1996) and O’reilly and
Chatman (1986) have suggested that identification positively affects job satisfaction and negatively
affects turnover. Moreover, the study of Katrinli et al. (2009) shows that job involvement positively
influences the organizational identification of nurses and whenever employees believe that an
organization is positively evaluated externally, they willingly identify with this organization (Smidts et
al., 2001). Which means that perceived external prestige has an effect on organizational
identification.

In regard to sustainability, Gond et al. (2010) state that whenever an organization internally
promotes CSR programs and these are in line with the values of employees, it is expected that the
employees’ identification increases. The research of Fu et al. (2014) confirms that perceptions of CSR

11
can enhance the identification of employees with the organization they work for. According to De
Roeck et al. (2016) organizations can even use CSR as a strategic management tool to strengthen the
feelings of identification of employees. According to Casey and Sieber (2016), a business culture that
is aware of both social and environmental issues can be created whenever the vision of individuals
and an organization are in line. If an organization consequently strives to this situation, it is expected
that the identification and motivation of the employees of the organization are strengthened
(Wissmann, 2013, in Casey & Sieber, 2016).

When it comes to identification with an organization of internal stakeholders, it is expected that

sustainability communication has the same effect on it as sustainability quality. As communication
about CSR or sustainability is used to provide information about the CSR or sustainability activities of
an organization (Podnar, 2008 and Craig & Allen, 2013). These expected results of sustainability
quality and sustainability communication on internal stakeholders’ identification are formulated in
the two sub-hypotheses for the second hypothesis.

H2a. The sustainability quality of a HEI has a positive effect on the identification with the
organization of internal stakeholders on top of the research, education, campus, and
atmosphere quality.; and

H2b. Communication about a HEI’s sustainability initiatives has a positive influence on the
identification with the organization of internal stakeholders on top of the research,
education, campus, and atmosphere quality.

2.3.3 Perceived external prestige

Perceived external prestige can be described as how members of an organization interpret and
assess the reputation of the organization they work for (Sulentic et al., 2017). This definition shows
that perceived external prestige is not the same as organizational image or reputation, as it refers to
the way employees believe the organization is seen by outsiders, instead of the image that is actually
projected by the organization (Sulentic et al., 2017). With perceived external prestige, employees
determine what the image of their employers is, through how they think outsiders see the
organization (Kim et al., 2010). Therefore, perceived external prestige is an indirect method to build
an image.

Carmeli (2005) shows that perceived external prestige has an effect on the affective commitment of
employees towards an organization. In this study a difference is made between perceived external
social prestige and perceived external economic prestige, but the results show both dimensions have
an effect on affective commitment (Carmeli, 2005). Another study, done by Carmeli et al. (2006)
confirms that perceived external prestige results in augmented affective commitment, through
identification. Lastly, it appears that when employees believe the organization, they work for is
appreciated, this can decrease the intention to leave an organization, through higher levels of
affective commitment and job satisfaction (Carmeli & Freund, 2009). Sulentic et al. (2017) suggest
that perceived external prestige is a multi-dimensional construct. The most important dimensions
that they identified were past success and organizational position, the organization’s social impact
on immediate surroundings, the internal organization climate, and respecting employees.

The direct link between perceived external prestige and sustainability has not been studied yet.
However, it is known that CSR can improve the actual reputation of an organization (e.g., Esen, 2013;
Javed et al., 2019 and Singh & Misra, 2021). Moreover, as CSR initiatives can reflect a positive image

12
on an organization, this can in turn intensify feelings of pride within employees, as well as the
willingness to be associated with the organization as it has a favourable reputation (De Roeck &
Delobbe, 2012). Furthermore, they also state that external stakeholders use CSR initiatives to make
character judgements of the reputation of an organization and its members. Which is why
employees pay great attention to these initiatives (De Roeck & Delobbe, 2012). Thus,

H3a. The sustainability quality of a HEI has a positive effect on the perceived external
prestige of internal stakeholders on top of the research, education, campus, and atmosphere
quality.

Additionally, the relationship between sustainability communication and perceived external prestige
is expected to be the same for satisfaction with job/study and identification. This is formulated in
the second sub-hypothesis for the third hypothesis.

H3b. Communication about a HEI’s sustainability initiatives has a positive influence on the
perceived external prestige of internal stakeholders on top of the research, education,
campus, and atmosphere quality.

2.3.4 Willingness to contribute

Whenever an organization engages in CSR activities, it is important that the employees are willing to
contribute to this, as they are enactors of the organizational CSR (Im et al., 2016). If an employee
wants to participate and contribute to the CSR initiatives of an organization, this calls for a particular
motivation (Mozes et al., 2011). The possible significance of adding meaning and purpose in work
was highlighted by Hackman and Oldham (1980, named in Mozes et al., 2011) as a main motivating
factor. This is in line with Pink (2009), who stated that one of three essential components to
motivate employees is purpose, which is to have a greater reason to be doing the work. This, for
instance, could potentially be CSR or sustainability activities. However, there is currently a research
gap on the willingness of employees to contribute to the sustainability goals of an organization.

A term that is related to willingness to contribute is employee green behaviour (EGB). EGB is pro-
environmental behaviour or environmentally friendly behaviour, that applies specifically to the
workplace of an individual (Ramus & Steger, 2000 and Stern, 2000). However, the willingness to
contribute measures the willingness to behave sustainably, instead of the actual behaviour.
According to Temminck et al. (2013) organizations need to recognize that the environmental
behaviour of workers is essential in the challenge of them addressing the environmental impact they
have. In their study they use the term organizational citizenship behaviour directed towards the
environment (OCBE) and their findings show that OCBE is related to environmental concern,
perceived organizational support, and affective organizational commitment of employees. The green
five taxonomy proposes five meta-categories in which employees can perform green behaviour
(Ones & Dilchert, 2012). Which are: avoiding harm, conserving, working sustainably, influencing
others, and taking initiative.

Varma (2017) states that internal employee motivation is derived from job satisfaction. Motivation
in turn has a positive influence on the performance of employees, which subsequently affects
organizational performance (Risambessy et al., 2012). Furthermore, organizational identification can
be seen as a dominant factor in influencing the willingness to contribute of employees, as Elsbach
and Glynn (1996) state that it has an influence on the willingness to strive for the goals of an
organization. The direct relationship between perceived external prestige and willingness to

13
contribute, employee motivation or employee green behaviour has not been studied yet. However,
Dutton et al. (1994) state that whenever employees believe that outsiders have a positive view of
the organization, they develop favourable performance. An example of this is intra-organization
cooperation and good citizenship behaviour. Therefore, it is interesting to see what relationship
perceived external prestige will have on the willingness to contribute to the sustainability goals of an
organization. Based on these findings, it is believed that all three attitudes will positively influence
the willingness to contribute to the sustainability organization positively, as these are important
organizational goals.

The fourth and final hypothesis reads as follows:

H4. The satisfaction with job or study, identification, and perceived external prestige has a
positive effect on the willingness to contribute to a HEI’s sustainability initiatives of
internal stakeholders.

2.4 Model
To visualize the hypotheses a conceptual research model was developed, which is shown in figure 1.
The model shows two relationships. First, the effect of the independent variables perceived
sustainability quality and sustainability communication on the dependent variables satisfaction with
job/study, identification, and perceived external prestige, on top of the perceived quality of
research, education, campus, and atmosphere. Second, the effect of satisfaction with job/study,
identification, and perceived external prestige on willingness to contribute. Lastly, the moderator
variable can be found in the research model, which shows whether the respondent is an employee
or student.

Employee/
Perceived student
research
education
campus
atmosphere
quality

Satisfaction with
Perceived job/study
sustainability
quality Willingness to
H1a / H2a / H3a +
Identification contribute
H4 +
Sustainability
Communication
H1b / H2b / H3b + Perceived
external prestige

Figure 1 Conceptual research model

14
3. Method
3.1 Design of the study
To measure the different variables, a cross-sectional survey was done, using an online tool called
Qualtrics. Beforehand, the study had received ethical approval from the Ethics Committee of the
faculty of Behavioural Management and Social Sciences of the University of Twente. The data was
collected in two periods of 10 days: from 15/11/2021 until 24/11/2012 and from 01/12/2021 until
10/12/2021.

3.2 Measures
To measure the different variables both self-developed items and items based on previous research
were included in the study. The constructs were measured using 5-point Likert scales ranging from 1
(strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). An overview of all the items for the different scales can be
found in appendix I.

3.2.1 Organization-related attitudes

The dependent variables in the study were the attitudes of the respondents towards the University
of Twente, which is the organization the respondents work for/study at.

Satisfaction with job or study

The first variable is satisfaction with job or study which measures the extent to which students and
employees are satisfied with their study or job. The scale was based on the items that were used in
the study of Im et al. (2016) which were based on Cho et al. (2013 (item 1 & 2) and Valentine and
Fleischman (2008) (item 3 & 4). The scale contained four items, including one reversed one. Two of
the statements that were used were: “In general, I would say my job/study is very worthwhile.” and
“In general, I do not like my job/study.”

Identification
The next variable was identification which can be defined as the extent to which the university the
respondents work or study at is part of the self-concept of the students and employees. This
construct was based on Mael and Ashforth (1992) and consists of six items. Two of the statements
that were included in the survey were “When someone praises University of Twente, it feels like a
personal compliment.” and “I am very interested in what others think about University of Twente.”

Perceived external prestige

The third dependent variable was perceived external prestige which is the way students and
employees interpret and assess the reputation of the organization they work for/study at. The items
of this variable were based on Mael and Ashfort (1992) (item 1 &2) and the third item was based on
Rodrigo et al. (2019). Statements that were asked were: “When talking with family and friends about
University of Twente they often display a positive attitude toward the organization.” and “I feel like
University of Twente is accredited with a favourable reputation by others.”

Willingness to contribute
The last dependent variable that was included in the questionnaire was the willingness to contribute
of the respondents, which measured the extent to which students and employees were willing to
perform sustainable behaviour, which contributes to the sustainability goals of the university the
respondents work for/study at. The scale was self-developed and consisted of three items. Two of

15
the items were: “I want to be actively involved in the sustainability initiatives University of Twente
engages in.” and “I want to help the University of Twente become a more sustainable organization.”

3.2.2 Quality of the organization

Next, questions were asked about how the respondents rated the quality of the organization. To see
if the perception on sustainability initiatives of the organization differed from the perception the
respondents have on other aspects of the organization, there were similar questions asked about
their perception on the quality of research, education, campus, and atmosphere.

Sustainability quality
To measure how the employees and students at the university perceived the quality of the
sustainability initiatives of the organization a self-developed scale was used. There were four items
included, for example: “The sustainability initiatives of the University of Twente are innovative.” and
“The impact of the sustainability initiatives of the University of Twente are high.”

Research quality
The quality of research was measured to see how employees and students perceived the quality of
the research that takes place at the organization. The scale was self-developed and contained four
items. Two of the items that were included in the survey were: “The research that takes place at the
University of Twente is groundbreaking.” and “The social impact of the research that takes place at
the University of Twente is high.”

Education quality
The next construct was the quality of education, which can be defined as the way employees and
students perceive the quality of education that takes place at the organization. The construct was
self-developed, with four items. Two items that were included were: “The University of Twente
provides students with extraordinary personal support during their education.” and “The University
of Twente optimally prepares students for their work field.”

Campus quality
The fourth construct that measured the quality of the organization, was about the perceived quality
of the campus of the university. This scale was self-developed and contained four items. Statements
that were asked were: “The campus of the University of Twente provides all the facilities
employees/students need.” and “The campus of the University of Twente makes the university
unique.”

Atmosphere quality
The last construct to measure the quality of the organization, was the quality of the atmosphere.
This construct measured the way employees and students perceived the quality of the atmosphere
at the organization. The self-developed scale contained four items, with two of them being: “I feel
like I can be myself at the University of Twente.” and “In general, people at the University of Twente
are easily approachable.”

3.2.3 Sustainability communication

The definition of the independent variable sustainability communication is the extent to which
employees and students encountered communication about the sustainability initiatives of the
organization. The questions and the statements for this variable were self-developed and focused on
the frequency, the channel(s) of the communication and the expansion of the sustainability

16
communication. Two of the items that were used in the survey were: “In the last year, how often did
you encounter communication about sustainability initiatives of the University of Twente?” and “I
feel like the University of Twente communicates about sustainability initiatives quite frequently.” The
four items did not form one scale, as the other two items (see Appendix I) were used for background
information on the encountered sustainability communication. To get an idea on what platforms the
messages were encountered and if the sustainability communication of the organization should be
increased.

3.2.4 Background variables

Perceived relevance of sustainability

Furthermore, the perceived relevance of sustainability, was measured to see to what extent
employees and students think sustainability in general is important. This scale was self-developed
and contained four items, including one reversed one. Two of the items asked were: “I think it is
valuable to work on becoming more sustainable.” and “I don’t see why it is necessary to work on
sustainability.”

Sustainable behaviour
To find out how sustainable the current behaviour of the employees and students was, the construct
sustainable behaviour was included in the questionnaire. This construct was self-developed, and
four items were included. Two of them were: “In general, I want to take part in sustainability
initiatives.” and “In general, sustainability plays a big role in my daily life.”

3.3 Validity and reliability

To see if the constructs that were included in the study were valid and reliable, a factor analysis and
a reliability analysis were done.

3.3.1 Factor analysis

In the factor analysis, using SPSS, eleven constructs were recognized at first, the construct that was
not recognized was sustainable behaviour as these items were seen as one construct with the items
of willingness to contribute. Using these constructs there was an explained variance of 62.38%.
When forcing a twelfth construct the explained variance increased to 64.45%, but the construct of
sustainable behaviour was still not recognized.

Because of this, the constructs willingness to contribute and sustainable behaviour were no longer
seen as different constructs but as one: willingness to contribute. Furthermore, the third item for
sustainability perception was removed (see Appendix I), as this this item was also seen as part of
another scale. The final explained variance of the eleven constructs was 62.58% with .86 on the KMO
and Bartlett’s test. As an explained variance above 50% can be considered good, the constructs in
this research can be seen as valid. The results of the final factor analysis and the pattern matrix can
be found in Appendix IV.

3.3.2 Reliability check

A reliability check done in SPSS shows that all eleven constructs are reliable (see table 1). The highest
score was for willingness to contribute with a Cronbach’s Alpha of .89 (N of items = 7). The lowest
score was for education quality with a Cronbach’s Alpha of .63 (N of items = 4).

17
As the third item from sustainability perception was removed, the Cronbach’s Alpha increased from
.79 to .81. This shows that the reliability of the construct was also better without the third
statement. Furthermore, only two items of sustainability communication were included in the
construct, as the second and fourth items were not in line with the other two statements and could
not be taken together. However, the fourth statement was used as a variable called increasing of
sustainability communication, which thus consisted of just one item.

Table 1 Final results reliability check

Reliability statistics
Cronbach’s Alpha N of items
Research quality .70 4
Education quality .63 4
Campus quality .78 4
Atmosphere quality .82 4
Sustainability quality .88 4
Sustainability communication .72 2
Satisfaction with job/study .74 4
Identification .79 6
Perceived external prestige .66 3
Willingness to contribute .89 7
Perceived relevance of sustainability .81 3

3.4 Procedure
The first step in doing the questionnaire for the respondents, was to give consent to the terms and
conditions. After this was done the first questions that were asked were about demographics and
what their position in the organization was (employee/student). Next, questions were asked about
the satisfaction with their job/study, identification with the organization and perceived external
prestige. Then the questions about the quality of the university were asked, with the perception of
sustainability at last. The survey then continued with the questions about willingness to contribute,
perceived relevance of sustainability in general and their own sustainable behaviour. The survey
ended with the questions about sustainability communication. The full surveys (employee and
student) can be found in appendix II and III.

3.5 Participants
All participants for this study were from the University of Twente, which is located in Enschede, the
Netherlands. As stated earlier, both students and employees were included in the sample. All
participants had to be above 16 years old to participate in the questionnaire and could have either a
Dutch or other nationality, as there are many international employees and students present at the
University of Twente. The results from the groups ‘employees’ and ‘students’ were compared to
each other, to see if the effect of sustainability communication is different for the two groups.

The participants for the study were collected both through opportunity sampling, meaning that
participants from the target audience were used who were available at the time of data collection

18
and willing to participate (McLeod, 2019). This was done by asking people on campus of the
University of Twente to fill in the questionnaire, if they were an employee or student there.
Furthermore, an invitation was sent out to employees of University of Twente, using a random
mailing list.

In total, 902 respondents started the online questionnaire. As only completed surveys were used for
the data analysis, respondents that did not finish the survey were filtered out (N = 271).
Respondents had to be either a student or employee at the University of Twente, therefore,
respondents that did not meet this criterion were removed as well (N = 16). Lastly, respondents that
were younger than 16 years were filtered out (N = 1).

The final number of respondents that took part in the data analysis were 614 (N = 614), while 288
respondents were removed (N = 288). In Appendix V the tables with the remaining results of the
demographics can be found.

3.5.1 Distribution of demographics

From the 614 respondents, 58% was Dutch, 21% was non-Dutch, European, and the last 21% was
non-European (see table 2). In 2020, the international population at University of Twente was 32%
(University of Twente, 2021b), this means that there were more international respondents that
participated in the survey compared to the international population of the university in general.

In the analysis nationality was used as a dichotomous variable. Therefore, the group of Non-Dutch,
European and Non-European were fused together.

Table 2 Demographics
Employees Students Total

Frequency Percent Frequency Percent Percent

Nationality Dutch 158 67 199 53 58

Non-Dutch, European 33 14 98 26 21
Non-European 44 19 82 22 21

Age 17 – 20 1 0 161 43 26
21 – 40 135 57 218 58 58
41 – 65 98 42 0 0 16
66 – 80 1 0 0 0 0

Gender Male 143 61 260 69 66

Female 87 37 116 31 33
Non-binary / third gender 1 0 1 0 0
Prefer not to say 4 2 2 1 1

Education High school or equivalent 5 2 229 60 38

Post-secondary vocation- 18 8 2 1 3
al education (MBO)
College degree (HBO) 39 17 26 7 11
University degree 12 5 113 30 20
bachelor
University degree master 92 39 9 2 16
University degree PhD 69 29 0 0 11

19
The average age of the respondents was 28.7 years old. The youngest respondents that participated
were 17 years old and the eldest 66 years (see table 2). As a lot of the respondents were students it
makes sense that the average age is on the younger side, as students are often younger in age than
employees. The average of the group employees was 40.3 years old, and the students had an
average age of 21.5 years old.

Most of the respondents, 66%, identified as male, the second biggest group, with 33%, identified as
female. The rest of the respondents identified as third gender/non-binary, or preferred not to say
their gender. In the annual report of University of Twente, it is stated that 36% of the bachelor
students, 44% of the pre-master students and 36% of the master students were female in 2020
(University of Twente, 2021b). When it comes to the full-time employees, a little under 50% of the
non-academic staff was male and approximately 70% of the academic staff was male (University of
Twente, 2021b). This data shows that there are both more male employees and students at the
University of Twente, which at least partly explains these results.

Of the respondents, 38% completed high school as their highest level of education, 3% completed
their post-secondary vocational education, 11% completed a college degree, and the remaining 48%
of the respondents completed a university degree. This could be a bachelor, master, or a PhD.

3.5.2 Distribution of employees

From the 614 respondents, 38% were employees. This could be academic staff (N = 135 or 57%) or
non-academic staff (N = 100 or 43%). Employees from all five faculties of the university took part in
the survey (see table 3), as well as employees from service departments. The average time the
employees were working for the University of Twente was 11.2 years, with less than a full year being
the shortest time respondents had been employed (N = 27), and 41 years the longest (N = 1).

Table 3 Distribution employees and students among faculties

Distribution respondents among faculties

Employees Students Total

Frequency Percent Frequency Percent Percent

Faculty of BMS 32 5 95 16 21
Faculty of EEMCS 50 8 119 19 28
Faculty of ET 40 6 75 12 19
Faculty of ITC 18 3 28 5 8
Faculty of TNW 39 6 62 10 17
Services 56 9 0 0 9

In the annual report of the University of Twente (2021b) it is stated of those full-time employees
59% is academic staff, and 41% is non-academic staff. Even though part-time employees took part in
the survey as well, these percentages show, that the distribution of academic and non-academic
staff is quite similar.

3.5.3 Distribution of students

The other 62% of the respondents were students at the University of Twente. The students were
either studying for their bachelor (N = 235 or 62%), pre-master (N = 21 or 6%), or master (N = 123 or
33%). Students from all five faculties took part in the research (see table 3). The average study time

20
was 1.8 years, with the shortest time respondents had been studying being less than a full year (N =
95) and the longest 12 years (N = 1).

According to the University of Twente (2021a), there were 7114 bachelor students (57%), 417 pre-
master students (3%) and 4377 master students (35%) in 2020. Additionally, there were 770
students that followed another programme. This shows that the distribution of the respondents that
took part in the survey, are quite similar to the general population of the University of Twente.

3.6 Analysis
To analyse the data, the first thing that was done was to see if the results were normally disturbed
and if there were any outliers in the results. Boxplots showed that there were outliers for the
variables research quality, campus quality, atmosphere quality, sustainability quality, satisfaction
with job/study, identification, perceived external prestige, willingness to contribute, increasing of
sustainability communication, and perceived relevance of sustainability. The normality of the results
was often skewed, but the skewedness was similar for both employees and students. As the there
was a high number of outliers (N = 125) the choice was made to keep them in the dataset.

After this, statistical tests were used to see how the variables affected each other. Firstly,
independent samples t-tests were run to see if there were differences between employees and
students. Hereafter, a correlation analysis was done to get an idea of the relationships between the
variables and lastly a regression analysis was run to see the effect of sustainability on employees’
and students’ organizational-related attitudes and how these attitudes in turn influenced their
willingness to contribute to the sustainability initiatives of the organization.

21
4. Results
4.1 Descriptive statistics: differences between employees and students
Independent samples t-tests were run to determine if there were differences between employees
and students (see table 4). The results show that there were statistically significant differences
between students and employees for five of the twelve variables with a significance level of α = >
0.05. These variables were campus quality, atmosphere quality, sustainability quality, identification,
and willingness to contribute. Which means that employees and students assess the quality of the
organization differently and have different attitudes towards the organization as well.

The mean scores showed that the identification, and willingness to contribute of employees was
higher than that of students. On the other hand, students perceived the quality of the campus,
atmosphere, and sustainability initiatives as higher. The results also showed that there were no
significant differences between the perceived research and education quality, encountered
sustainability communication, satisfaction with job/study, perceived external prestige, perceived
relevance of sustainability, and the finding that the sustainability communication should be
increased. However, as there were some statistically significant (mean) differences between
employees and students. The correlation and regression analysis were done separately for the two
groups to study the differences between employees and students further.

Table 4 Overview results group statistics, independent samples t-test with assumed equal variances,
and effect size

Employees Students t-test for equality of means Effect size

Mean SD Mean SD t Sig. Cohens’s D

Research quality 3.5 .53 3.5 .50 1.70 .09

Education quality 3.4 .52 3.4 .58 -.29 .78
Campus quality 4.2 .60 4.4 .56 -3.56 .00**** 0.29
Atmosphere quality 4.0 .60 4.2 .57 -2.76 .01** 0.23
Sustainability quality 2.9 .73 3.2 .61 -4.54 .00**** 0.37
Sustainability 2.8 .78 2.7 .84 1.58 .12
communication
Satisfaction with job/study 4.2 .50 4.1 .55 2.13 .33
Identification 3.2 .68 2.9 .75 5.76 .00**** 0.48
Perceived external prestige 3.6 .60 3.6 .62 -.87 .38
Willingness to contribute 3.6 .66 3.5 .73 2.70 .01** 0.23
Perceived relevance of 4.2 .62 4.3 .62 -1.96 .05 0.16
sustainability
Increasing of sustainability 3.5 .86 3.6 .92 -.78 .44
communication
Note. Scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree).
Note. * = p < .05 level. ** = p < .01 level. *** = p < .005 level. **** = p < .001 level.

4.2 Correlations between the variables

To assess the relationship between the different variables, a Pearson’s product-moment correlation
was run. As stated above, the correlation was run separately for employees and students.

22
Employees
First, the correlation analysis was done for the employees (see table 5). From the results of the
correlation analysis, it becomes clear that a lot of the variables correlated with each other. However,
there are a few things that stand out. First, all variables that measured the perceived quality of the
organization statistically significantly correlated with each other, except for sustainability quality and
campus quality. The rest of the correlations were positive and either weak or moderate. With the
relationship between campus quality and atmosphere quality being the strongest. Furthermore, the
perceived quality of the organization, including sustainability quality, statistically significantly
correlated with the organization-related attitudes of employees. These relationships were again all
positive and weak or moderate. Next, the results show that willingness to contribute only
statistically significantly correlated with two of the three attitudes, namely, identification and
perceived external prestige. These relationships were weak and positive. Another thing that stands
out is that the perceived relevance of sustainability barely correlated with any variables, however
the results did show a strong positive relationship between willingness to contribute which is
statistically significant. Lastly, it appears that the increasing of sustainability communication had
moderate positive correlations with willingness to contribute and general perception on
sustainability, which were statistically significant. However, this variable also showed a statistically
significant relationship, which was weak and negative, with sustainability communication.

Table 5 Pearson correlations for employees

Correlations

RQ EQ CQ AQ SQ SCOM SJS IDF PEP WTC PRS

****
Education .40
quality (EQ)
Campus .26**** .21***
quality (CQ)
Atmosphere .23**** .28**** .50****
quality (AQ)
Sustainability .40**** .47**** .07 .14*
quality (SQ)
Sustainability .06 .23**** -.05 .16* .25****
communica-
tion (SCOM)
Satisfaction .25**** .36**** .30**** .40**** .23**** .17**
with job/
study (SJS)
Identification .29**** .28**** .32**** .21*** .32**** .07 .19***
(IDF)
Perceived .49**** .33**** .23**** .27*** .46**** .20*** .34**** .44****
external
prestige (PEP)
Willingness to .17** .12 -.08 .03 .14* .16* .09 .14* .21***
contribute
(WTC)
Perceived .06 .03 .08 .13 -.12 .07 .13* -.04 .10 .66****
relevance of
sustainability
(PRS)
Increasing of .17** .07 -.03 -.02 .09 -.21*** .08 .10 .17* .53**** .41****
sustainability
communica-

23
tion (ISCOM)

Note. * = p < .05 level. ** = p < .01 level. *** = p < .005 level. **** = p < .001 level.

Students
The same analysis was run for the student respondents, to see if the associations between the
different variables were the same for the two groups (see table 6). The first thing that stands out in
these results is that there was quite an amount of statistically significant correlations between these
variables. However, none of the relationships were negative. The statistically significant positive
relationships were either weak or moderate. When looking more closely at the variables itself, it
appears that the variables that measured the perceived quality of the organization statistically
significantly correlated with each other. The only case of there being no relationship was between
atmosphere quality and sustainability quality. The strongest relationship was between the quality of
the campus and the atmosphere. Furthermore, the perceived quality of the organization also
statistically significantly correlated with the organization-related attitudes of the students. There
was only one exception here, which was between sustainability quality and satisfaction with
job/study. The rest of the variables had a weak or moderate positive relationship with each other.
Furthermore, sustainability communication statistically significantly correlated with nearly all
variables which were research quality, education quality, campus quality, sustainability quality,
satisfaction with job/study, identification, perceived external prestige, and willingness to contribute.
Next, the willingness to contribute of students showed a statistically significant correlation between
satisfaction with job/study and identification. However, the relationship with perceived external
prestige was not statistically significant. The results show that there were only a few statistically
significant correlations with students’ perceived relevance of sustainability. However, the
relationship with willingness to contribute was the strongest correlation of the table. Lastly, the
increasing of sustainability communication strongly correlated with the willingness to contribute of
students, with a statistically significant positive relationship.

Table 6 Pearson correlations for students

Correlations

RQ EQ CQ AQ SQ SCOM SJS IDF PEP WTC PRS

Education .35****
quality (EQ)
Campus .18*** .26****
quality (CQ)
Atmosphere .21**** .28**** .48****
quality (AQ)
Sustainability .31**** .37**** .12* .10
quality (SQ)
Sustainability .26**** .22**** .14** .08 .37****
communica-
tion (SCOM)
Satisfaction .26**** .40**** .27**** .32**** .02 .17***
with job/
study (SJS)
Identification .30**** .36**** .27**** .25**** .24**** .28**** .25****
(IDF)
Perceived .34**** .42**** .19**** .15*** .29**** .21**** .21**** .21****
external
prestige

24
(PEP)

Willingness .20**** .15** .09 .04 .17*** .25**** .18*** .24**** .09
to contribute
(WTC)
Perceived .05 -.04 .14** .10 -.06 .04 .17*** .03 .00 .51****
relevance of
sustainability
(PRS)
Increasing of .12* .04 .12* -.01 .01 -.02 .08 .18**** .04 .47**** .30****
sustainability
communica-
tion (ISCOM)
Note. * = p < .05 level. ** = p < .01 level. *** = p < .005 level. **** = p < .001 level.

Differences between employees and students

When comparing the results of the correlation analysis of employees and students, it appears that
there are slightly more correlations for students. However, this is just a slight difference. What does
stand out, is that there was one statistically significant correlation for employees that showed a
negative relationship, between increasing of sustainability communication and encountered
sustainability communication. This was not the case for students.

There were also some differences in the correlations between the perceived quality of the
organization and the organization-related attitudes of the respondents. For employees the
perceived research, education, campus, atmosphere, and sustainability quality statistically
significantly correlated with all three attitudes. However, this was not the case for students, as
sustainability quality did not statistically significantly correlate with satisfaction with job/study. The
rest of the correlations were similar. There were differences between the correlations of the
attitudes and willingness to contribute as well. The willingness to contribute of employees
statistically significantly correlated with the attitudes identification and perceived external prestige,
but not with satisfaction with job/study. On the other hand, students’ willingness to contribute
statistically significantly correlated with satisfaction with job/study and identification, but not with
perceived external prestige. Lastly, another difference between the internal stakeholders that stands
out is that sustainability communication correlated with a lot more variables when it comes to
students, compared to employees.

What is similar for both employees and students is that the relationship between the perceived
relevance of sustainability and the willingness to contribute was the strongest correlation of them
all. However, this relationship was stronger for employees than it was for students.

4.3 The relationship between sustainability and internal stakeholders’ attitudes

A regression analysis was done, to find out how the addition of sustainability influenced the
organization-related attitudes of employees and students and how these attitudes in turn influenced
their willingness to contribute to the sustainability initiatives of the organization. The outcomes of
employees and students were compared to each other, to see if the fourth hypothesis can be
confirmed or rejected.

4.3.1 The relationship between sustainability quality and sustainability communication and
attitudes of internal stakeholders

25
The first part of the regression analysis is the hierarchical regression, which was run to determine if
the addition of sustainability quality and sustainability communication improved the satisfaction
with job/study, identification, and perceived external prestige on top of the perceived quality of the
organization. Therefore, these two variables were added on top of research quality, education
quality, campus quality, and atmosphere quality, and demographics. Namely, years at the
organization, age, nationality, and position. The variable position was only included in the analysis
for the employees, as students did not fall into the categories of non-academic and academic staff.

Employees
The hierarchical regression analysis contained three models: the first one included the demographic
variables. Namely, years at the organization, age, nationality, and position. In the second model the
variables quality of research, education, campus, and atmosphere were added. Lastly, the third and
last model also included sustainability quality and sustainability communication to test the
relationship between sustainability and the attitudes of internal stakeholders, on top of the
perceived quality of the organization.

Firstly, the satisfaction with job was not statistically significantly influenced by sustainability quality
and sustainability communication (see table 7). From the results it also became clear that the quality
of research, education, campus, and atmosphere did have a statistically significant influence on the
satisfaction of employees with their job. Both the second and third model were statistically
significant (see table 7), however the first one, only including the demographics, was not.

Table 7 Results hierarchical regression for employees

Model Summary Anova Coefficients

Model Adjusted F Sig. F F Sig. Beta t Sig.

R Square Change Change

Satisfaction with 1 -.10 .44 .78 .44 .78 Constant 18.57 .00****
job/study Years at organization -.05 -.38 .70
Age .07 .52 .60
Nationality -.03 .35 .72
Position -.09 -1.23 .22
2 .23 18.47 .00**** 9.52 .00**** Constant 5.04 .00****
Years at organization .00 .01 1.00
Age .13 1.09 .28
Nationality -.02 -.22 .83
Position -.09 -1.35 .18
Research quality .08 1.20 .23
Education quality .23 3.32 .00***
Campus quality .11 1.56 .12
Atmosphere quality .29 4.16 .00****
3 .23 1.35 .26 7.91 .00**** Constant 4.91 .00****
Years at organization .000 .00 1.00
Age .124 1.05 .30
Nationality -.042 -.57 .57
Position -.101 -1.50 .14
Research quality .057 .84 .40
Education quality .187 2.60 .01**
Campus quality .123 1.78 .08
Atmosphere quality .270 3.86 .00****
Sustainability quality .078 1.08 .28
Sustainability .063 1.03 .31
communication
Identification 1 .05 3.93 .00*** 3.93 .00*** Constant 7.72 .00****
Years at organization -.10 -.75 .46
Age .06 .46 .64
Nationality .25 3.39 .00***
Position .17 2.35 .02**

26
 2 .21 12.60 .00**** 8.66 .00**** Constant -.93 .36
Years at organization -.06 -.48 .63
Age .11 .96 .34
Nationality .28 3.95 .00****
Position .14 2.09 .04*
Research quality .17 2.53 .01*
Education quality .10 1.49 .14
Campus quality .27 3.86 .00****
Atmosphere quality .05 .67 .50
3 .22 2.36 .10 7.48 .00**** Constant -.73 .47
Years at organization -.07 -.60 .55
Age .13 1.05 .29
Nationality .23 3.10 .00***
Position .12 1.79 .08
Research quality .12 1.79 .08
Education quality .05 .75 .46
Campus quality .28 3.96 .00****
Atmosphere quality .04 .57 .57
Sustainability quality .16 2.14 .03*
Sustainability -.00 -.03 .98
communication
Perceived 1 .03 2.88 .02* 2.88 .02* Constant 11.36 .00****
external Years at organization -.04 -.30 .76
prestige Age -.08 -.59 .55
Nationality .14 1.93 .06
Position .22 2.94 .00***
2 .29 22.03 .00**** 12.99 .00**** Constant .62 .54
Years at organization -.00 -.02 .99
Age -.02 -.20 .84
Nationality .14 2.16 .03*
Position .19 3.00 .00***
Research quality .39 6.38 .00****
Education quality .11 1.74 .08
Campus quality .03 .47 .64
Atmosphere quality .15 2.23 .03*
3 .35 10.38 .00**** 13.33 .00**** Constant .72 .47
Years at organization -.01 -.13 .90
Age -.02 -.19 .85
Nationality .06 .89 .37
Position .16 2.53 .01*
Research quality .33 5.22 .00****
Education quality .01 .19 .85
Campus quality .06 1.00 .32
Atmosphere quality .12 1.79 .08
Sustainability quality .26 3.84 .00****
Sustainability .10 1.71 .08
communication
Note. * = p < .05 level. ** = p < .01 level. *** = p < .005 level. **** = p < .001 level.

When it comes to identification, it appeared that the addition of sustainability quality and
communication led to a small improvement. However, this change was not statistically significant.
With this variable, both the first and second model led to a statistically significant increase in
identification and all three models were statistically significant (see table 7).

Lastly, the relationship with perceived external prestige was explored. It seemed that the addition of
all three models led to an increase in employees’ perceived external prestige, with the biggest
increase through the second model. The results showed that all three additions did indeed lead to a
statistically significant change, with sustainability quality and sustainability communication
explaining 6% of perceived external prestige and the full model accounting for 35% of employees’
perceived external prestige. Furthermore, all three models were statistically significant, as shown by
the Anova (see table 7).

27
Students
The hierarchical regression analysis for students contained the same three models as the analysis for
employees (see table 8). However, there was one difference, as the variable position was not
included in the first model for students as this was variable not applicable here.

Table 8 Results hierarchical regression for students

Model Summary Anova Coefficients

Model Adjusted F Sig. F F Sig. Beta t Sig.

R Square Change Change

Satisfaction with 1 .00 1.50 .22 1.50 .22 Constant 19.21 .00****
job/study Years at organization .06 .99 .32
Age -.08 -1.34 .18
Nationality -.06 -1.05 .30
2 .23 28.34 .00**** 17.02 .00**** Constant 5.59 .00****
Years at organization .13 2.41 .02*
Age -.04 -.79 .43
Nationality -.07 -1.33 .18
Research quality .11 2.24 .03*
Education quality .34 6.48 .00****
Campus quality .09 1.75 .08
Atmosphere quality .13 2.30 .02*
3 .25 6.97 .00*** 15.21 .00**** Constant 6.28 .00****
Years at organization .09 1.53 .13
Age -.06 -1.15 .25
Nationality -.04 -.84 .40
Research quality .13 2.54 .01*
Education quality .36 6.80 .00****
Campus quality .08 1.63 .11
Atmosphere quality .14 2.51 .01*
Sustainability quality -.19 -3.41 .00***
Sustainability .12 2.47 .01*
communication
Identification 1 .02 2.97 .03* 2.97 .03* Constant 8.45 .00****
Years at organization -.05 -.89 .38
Age -.01 -.17 .87
Nationality .13 2.28 .02*
2 .19 21.41 .00**** 13.78 .00**** Constant -1.47 .14
Years at organization -.01 -.17 .87
Age .02 .38 .70
Nationality .12 2.29 .02*
Research quality .16 3.14 .00***
Education quality .21 3.95 .00****
Campus quality .14 2.54 .01*
Atmosphere quality .12 2.11 .04*
3 .21 5.63 .00** 6.45 .00**** Constant -1.51 .13
Years at organization .00 .01 .99
Age .01 .18 .86
Nationality .11 2.12 .04*
Research quality .12 2.40 .02*
Education quality .19 3.50 .00***
Campus quality .12 2.30 .02*
Atmosphere quality .12 2.18 .03*
Sustainability quality .02 .31 .76
Sustainability .16 3.10 .00***
communication
Perceived 1 .04 6.45 .00**** 16.50 .00**** Constant 13.72 .00****
external Years at organization -.05 -.83 .41
prestige Age -.06 -1.10 .27
Nationality .19 3.50 .00***
2 .22 22.90 .00**** 13.39 .00**** Constant 2.91 .00***
Years at organization .01 .19 .85
Age -.04 -.70 .48
Nationality .14 2.77 .01**
Research quality .20 4.07 .00****

28
 Education quality .30 5.64 .00****
Campus quality .07 1.29 .20
Atmosphere quality .02 .35 .72
3 .23 2.16 .12 13.33 .00**** Constant 2.58 .01*
Years at organization .03 .56 .57
Age -.04 -.72 .47
Nationality .13 2.47 .01*
Research quality .17 3.41 .00***
Education quality .28 5.18 .00****
Campus quality .06 1.17 .24
Atmosphere quality .02 .33 .75
Sustainability quality .07 1.28 .20
Sustainability .06 1.19 .24
communication
Note. * = p < .05 level. ** = p < .01 level. *** = p < .005 level. **** = p < .001 level.

The satisfaction of students with their study seemed to be influenced by the variables from all three
models (see table 8). However, the results showed that the increase was only statistically significant
for the second and third model. Meaning that the sustainability quality and sustainability
communication positively influenced the satisfaction with study on top of the demographics and
perceived quality of research, education, campus, and atmosphere. The third model added 3% to the
total of 25% that was accounted for, by all three models. The Anova showed that the second and
third model were statistically significant, but the first one was not (see table 8).

The second variable that was tested in the hierarchical regression was identification. The results
showed a statistically significant increase in identification through all three models (see table 8). The
identification with the organization of students was accounted for 2% by sustainability quality and
communication. The full model accounted for 21%. Additionally, all three models were statistically
significant as well.

The last variable that was tested was perceived external prestige. This attitude was not statistically
significantly influenced by the sustainability quality and communication. However, the quality of
research, education, campus, and atmosphere did increase the R2 statistically significantly.
Furthermore, all three models were statistically significant, as shown by the Anova (see table 8).

Differences between employees and students

When comparing the outcomes of employees to the results of students, the results differ from each
other. First of all, the addition of sustainability quality and sustainability communication did not lead
to a significant increase in R2 for the satisfaction with job/study of employees, but it did for students.
However, the second model did lead to a statistically significance increase in R2 for both groups, but
the first model did not lead to any statistically significant increase in the satisfaction with job/study.
This was the case for both employees and students. Furthermore, both full models were statistically
significant.

When the effects on the identification of students and employees are compared, there is again one
main difference. This is that the last model, including sustainability quality and communication, did
lead to a statistically significant increase in R2 for students, but not for employees. On the other
hand, the first and second model led to a statistically significant increase for both employees and
students and both full models were statistically significant. This means that the only difference lay in
the statistical significance of the addition of the third model.

Interestingly, the only variable that was statistically significantly influenced by sustainability quality
and sustainability communication for employees, was not statistically significantly influenced for

29
students. Both the first and second model did lead to a statistically significantly increase in R2 for
perceived external prestige. Which was similar for the two groups. Lastly, the full models were both
statistically significant.

4.3.2 The relationship between satisfaction with job/study, identification, and perceived external
prestige and willingness to contribute

Next, a multiple regression was run to test the second part of the model. To predict willingness to
contribute from satisfaction with job/study, identification, and perceived external prestige. This
regression analysis was done separately for employees and students as well.

Employees
First, the multiple regression was run for the employees. The results showed that satisfaction with
job, identification, and perceived external prestige did statistically significantly predict the
willingness to contribute to the sustainability initiatives of the organization of employees (see table
9). However, the variance that was explained through the attitudes of employees was extremely
small, with just 3%.

Table 9 Prediction willingness to contribute for employees

Model summary Anova Coefficients

Model R Adjusted R F Sig. Beta t Sig.

Square

1 .22 .03 3.77 .01* Constant 6.81 .00****

Satisfaction with job .02 .26 .79

Identification .06 .79 .43

Perceived external prestige .18 2.38 .02*

Note. * = p < .05 level. ** = p < .01 level. *** = p < .005 level. **** = p < .001 level.

The only variable that added statistically significantly employees’ willingness to contribute with p = <
.05 was perceived external prestige. This is in not fully line with the results of the correlation
analysis, as these previously reported results also showed a statistically significant correlation with
identification.

Students
When the multiple regression was run for the students, it showed that the attitudes satisfaction with
study, identification and perceived external prestige did statistically significantly predict the
willingness to contribute as well with an explained variance of 7% (see table 10).

Table 10 Prediction willingness to contribute for students

Model summary Anova Coefficients

Model R Adjusted R F Sig. Beta t Sig.

Square

1 .27 .07 9.79 .00**** Constant 6.62 .00****

Satisfaction with job .12 2.35 .02*
Identification .20 3.92 .00****
Perceived external prestige .02 .46 .65
Note. * = p < .05 level. ** = p < .01 level. *** = p < .005 level. **** = p < .001 level.

30
However, not all three variables added significantly to the prediction (see table 10), as the
significance of perceived external prestige was p = .65, which is in line with there being no
correlation between perceived external prestige and willingness to contribute.

Differences between employees and students

When the results of this multiple regression for employees and students are compared, it becomes
clear that the willingness to contribute of students had a higher prediction through the attitudes
towards the organization. However, the only variable (perceived external prestige) that was not
statistically significantly adding to the willingness to contribute of students, was statistically
significantly contributing to the willingness of employees.

31
5. Discussion
5.1 Main findings
It appears that the organization-related attitudes and the perceived sustainability quality correlate
with each other. This is the case for both employees and students, but there are some differences
between the stakeholders. When it comes to the employees, the sustainability quality correlates
with all three organization-related attitudes. For students, the sustainability quality does not
correlate with study satisfaction, but it does with both identification and perceived external prestige.
These correlations were already expected, as previous research has shown that sustainability or CSR
activities have a positive on attitudes of employees (Valentine & Fleischmann, 2008; Fu et al., 2014
and De Roeck & Delobbe, 2012). However, it is interesting to see that it can also have a positive
effect on students, even though they have a different position in the organization (Ferrero-Ferrero,
2014). Moreover, there were expected relationships between sustainability communication and the
attitudes towards the organization of both employees and students. These relationships are
confirmed through the correlation analysis for both stakeholders. It makes sense that whenever
stakeholders encounter communication about sustainability initiatives of an organization their
attitudes are influenced, as communication about sustainability is used for exchanging and
discussing information, interpretations, and opinions that regard sustainability issues (Baguley, 1994
in Genç, 2017). However, it is interesting that sustainability communication and identification do not
correlate for employees. Especially as the relationship between sustainability and identification has
been confirmed in previous research (Gond et al., 2010 and Fu et al., 2014). When the results of the
effect of sustainability communication are compared to the effects of the perceived sustainability
quality there are big differences. For instance, there is a statistically significant relationship between
study satisfaction and sustainability communication, but not between study satisfaction and
sustainability quality. On the other hand, for employees, there is no relationship between
identification and sustainability communication, but there is with sustainability quality. This shows
that the perceived sustainability quality and sustainability communication have different effects on
internal stakeholders.

Even though the perceived quality of the organizational sustainability activities and the
communication about these activities correlate with the attitudes of internal stakeholders, the
addition of sustainability does not influence the attitudes of internal stakeholders on top of the
demographic variables and the perceived quality of the organization (see model 2). The only
exception for employees is perceived external prestige, which shows a slight increase through the
addition sustainability quality and communication. For students, two of the attitudes are positively
influenced through the addition of sustainability, namely satisfaction with study and identification.
Based on this, only the third hypothesis is accepted for employees (H3a and H3b) and for students
the first and second hypotheses are accepted (H1a, H1b, H2a and H2b).

32
 Model 2 Final results in research model

Perceived
research
education
campus Satisfaction with
atmosphere job/study
quality .00****

Willingness to
Identification contribute
Perceived E = .01*/
sustainability .00**** S = .00****
quality
Perceived
.00****
external prestige
Sustainability
Communication

Note. Blue filling = statistically significant for employees (E). Green border = statistically significant for students (S).
Note. * = p < .05 level. ** = p < .01 level. *** = p < .005 level. **** = p < .001 level.

However, it can be concluded that the quality of research, education, campus, and atmosphere play
a more important role in the in influencing the attitudes of internal stakeholders. The studies of De
Jager and Gbadamosi (2009, 2013) identified several factors that were to be considered to measure
the satisfaction of HE-students. Some of them were academic quality, location & logistics, sports
reputation & facilities, and safety & security, which are all related to either research, education,
campus, or atmosphere quality. Furthermore, the quality of a HEI is one of the main factors that
students take into account when choosing the university to study abroad (Roga et al., 2013). The
findings of this study confirm that students’ attitudes are indeed formed through the quality of the
HEI and add that it is also the case for employees.

Another finding is that the perceived relevance of sustainability is a lot higher than the perceived
quality of sustainability activities of the organization. When this is compared to the sustainability
communication that was encountered by the respondents, it appears that this might be a reason
that both employees and students for the low score on sustainability quality. As it is known that
sustainability communication is used to inform stakeholders about the activities of an organization,
which influences their evaluation and responses to the activities (Suh, 2016). Furthermore,
employees and students also indicate that they think the communication about the sustainability
initiatives should be increased.

The fourth hypothesis showed very different results for students and employees. First of all, there
only seems to be a relationship between perceived external prestige and the willingness to
contribute of employees. This is interesting, as it was expected that both identification and
satisfaction with job would have a positive effect on the willingness to contribute as well (Varma,
2017 and Elsbach & Glynn). Even though there seems to be no relationship between the willingness
to contribute and the other two organization-related attitudes, the attitudes positively influenced
their willingness to contribute to the sustainability goals of an organization. Therefore, the fourth

33
hypothesis is accepted for employees. However, this effect was extremely small and only perceived
external prestige added statistically significantly to the relationship. When it comes to students, both
identification and satisfaction with study correlate positively with their willingness to contribute and
the attitudes also statistically significantly influence the willingness to contribute in a positive way.
Confirming the fourth hypothesis for students. Interestingly, the mean score of the willingness to
contribute to the sustainability goals of the organization of employees is higher than the willingness
to contribute of students. Nonetheless, the willingness of students is influenced more by their
attitudes towards the organization. The results of the study of Emanual and Adams (2011) showed
that American students were willing to support and participate in sustainability initiatives. However,
the study of Abubakar et al. (2016) had opposite results. As students from Saudi Arabia lacked
interest and willingness to participate in sustainability initiatives, even though they were concerned
and aware about campus environmental sustainability (Abubakar et al., 2016). The reason for the
willingness of employees being higher, may be because contributing to organizational sustainability
goals is already a part of their job, as employees are the enactors of organizational CSR. (Im et al.,
2016) However, it is interesting that only perceived external prestige has an effect on the variable.
Especially as previous has research shown that the motivation of employees is derived job
satisfaction (Varma, 2017) and that organizational commitment makes employees want to strive for
organizational goals (Elsbach & Glynn, 1996). Thus, it can be concluded that employees find it
important if outsiders view the organization positively because of the sustainability activities and
this makes them more willing to work on the sustainability goals as well. On the other hand,
students that are more satisfied with their study and identify with the organization are more willing
to contribute to organizational sustainability goals because of this.

Through these findings it can be concluded that there are differences between employees and
students. The differences might be explained because employees and students have a different
position in the organization. An example of this is in the teaching-learning process where the
students are on one side and employees on the other (Ferrero-Ferrero, 2017). This could also explain
why some attitudes are influenced by sustainability quality or communication for employees, but
not for students. Furthermore, according to the stakeholder theory of Freeman (1984), which is
closely related to CSR (Glavas & Kelley, 2014), organizations must keep in mind that stakeholders
have different perspectives and expectations. Thus, even though students and employees are both
internal stakeholders for a HEI, they still differ from each other on some points.

5.2 Theoretical and practical implications

The findings of this study have implications for theory as they contribute to the body of research on
how sustainability relates to the attitudes of internal stakeholders. For instance, an important
finding is that there is a relationship between sustainability and the perceived external prestige of
internal stakeholders. The relationship between sustainability and CSR and organizational reputation
has already been confirmed in previous research (e.g., Esen, 2013 and Javed et al., 2019). However,
the direct relationship between perceived external prestige and sustainability had not been studied
yet. Thus, it can be concluded that not only the actual reputation of organizations is influenced
through sustainability, but also how members of an organization believe the organization is seen by
outsiders. Additionally, the results indicate positive relationships between students and
sustainability as well. Recently, there has been an increasing body of research on sustainability in
HEIs in relation to students (e.g., Farinha et al., 2018, Correia et al., 2020 and Alm et al., 2021), but
the area of student’s attitudes towards HEIs in relation to sustainability has been largely neglected.
Therefore, the results of this study broaden this field. Furthermore, the results show that students

34
are more willing to contribute to the sustainability initiatives of an organization if their attitudes
towards an organization are positive. These positive attitudes towards the organization can actually
increase as a result of sustainability initiatives and communication. These findings suggest promising
insights, which is a basis to keep building on to find out more about students as internal
stakeholders in relation to sustainability.

Furthermore, the study also brings implications for practice to light. First, through the mean scores
of the survey it has become clear that students take a big interest in sustainability in general.
Moreover, they also want to hear about the sustainability initiatives their university engages in, as it
was indicated that the sustainability communication should be increased. This is a clear signal for
HEIs which they can use for their internal communication strategy. Furthermore, there is not only an
interest in sustainability, but the attitudes of students are actually influenced by the perceived
quality of the initiatives and the communication about it. HEIs can use this in their favour, by using
their sustainability initiatives as a way to improve the satisfaction with their study, identification
with the organization and the perceived external prestige. These attitudes in turn positively
influence the willingness of the students to contribute to the sustainability goals of the
organizations. Which is an important issue for society as a whole (Anabaraonye et al., 2017).
Additionally, students show a clear interest in sustainability. As universities and other (higher)
education institutes have a crucial role when it comes to educating students about sustainability
(e.g., Ferrero-Ferrero, 2017 and Wang & Juslin, 2012) it is important to include this in the curriculum
of studies even though this is much debated (Martin & Jucker, 2005). Furthermore, employees are
also positively influenced by sustainability quality and communication, but not exactly the same as
students. This shows that there should be differentiated between students and employees in the
communication about sustainability to optimize the effects on both stakeholders. Using these results
HEIs can optimize their sustainability communication for employees and students, to eventually have
them contribute to the sustainability goals of the organization. This is important, as the help of
employees is essential in organizational sustainability and CSR (Temminck, 2013 and Im et al., 2016)
and students can contribute to this as well. Especially, as the best way to encourage students to be
socially responsible is to include them as a part of the CSR initiatives (Ahmad, 2012).

5.3 Limitations
The first limitation of the study is the fact that it was conducted at just one HEI in the Netherlands.
This may have caused bias in the results, as this particular university may have a unique standpoint
when it comes to sustainability, which is distinct from other HEIs. This in turn could influence the
perception of the respondents. Another limitation was that the respondents did not encounter a lot
of communication about the sustainability initiatives. It is possible that reduced communication
about the initiatives may have indirectly influenced their responses and thus the effect it had on
their attitudes. Furthermore, two of the constructs did have a moderate score on the Cronbach’s
Alpha (Taber, 2017). This means that the scales for perceived external prestige and education quality
were not as reliable. Lastly, the study is limited as it measured just the relationship between the
variables, but not the actual effects. This means the relationships that were found could be caused
by something else than sustainability.

5.4 Suggestions for future research

In the future, there should be more research on willingness to contribute to organizational
sustainability goals of internal stakeholders. Some of the results did not show the expected

35
relationships, which calls for more research on how the willingness of both students and employees
can be enhanced. This is important, as the success of strategic initiatives rely on the collective effort
and accumulation of employee behaviour (Carmeli et al., 2017 and Strauss et al., 2017). Additionally,
future research should study if sustainability has an actual effect on the attitudes of internal
stakeholders, as this study merely tested the relationships. This ought to be done in an experimental
setting.

Furthermore, the differences between students and employees should be further investigated. In
the previous years there have been a lot of studies on how sustainability and CSR activities influence
(internal) stakeholders (e.g., Duthler & Danesh, 2018; Carlini & Grace, 2021 and Tetrault Sirsly &
Lvina, 2016), but students have been largely neglected. As this study shows significant differences
between the groups, further research should be conducted to find out where these differences rely
on. Lastly, future research should be broadened by studying if the same relationships are found for
employees and students at different HEIs. This should not only be Dutch HEIs, but also HEIs in other
countries. As students are the leaders of tomorrow (Wang & Juslin, 2012) and climate change is an
established challenge nowadays (Anabaraonye et al., 2017) it is important to not only know what
their perceptions are, but also how these can be positively influenced.

5.5 Conclusion
Apart from confirming outcomes of previous research, this study has also revealed new relationships
when it comes to sustainability (communication) and the attitudes of internal stakeholders. What
can be taken from this research is that the perceived sustainability quality and the encountered
sustainability communication positively influences both students and employees when it comes to
satisfaction with job/study, identification, and perceived external prestige. However, these attitudes
in turn influence the willingness to contribute to organizational sustainability activities as well.
However, this is only a very slight effect, which is a lot higher for students, than for employees.
These findings invite further research to continue this path, to continue to investigate the
differences between employees and students as internal stakeholders of an organization.

36
References
Abubakar, I., Al-Shihri, F., & Ahmed, S. (2016). Students’ assessment of campus sustainability at the
university of Dammam, Saudi Arabia. Sustainability, 8(1), 1–14.
https://doi.org/10.3390/su8010059

Agle, B. R., Mitchell, R. K., & Sonnenfeld, J. A. (1999). Who matters to CEOs? An investigation of
stakeholder attributes and salience, corporate performance, and CEO values. Academy of
Management Journal, 42(5), 507–525. https://doi.org/10.2307/256973

Ahmad, J. (2012). Can a university act as a corporate social responsibility (CSR) driver? An analysis.
Social Responsibility Journal, 8(1), 77–86. https://doi.org/10.1108/17471111211196584

Al-Alak, A. B. (2009). Measuring and evaluating business students satisfaction perceptions at public
and private universities in Jordan. Asian Journal of Marketing, 3(2), 33–51.
https://doi.org/10.3923/ajm.2009.33.51

Aleixo, A. M., Leal, S., & Azeiteiro, U. M. (2018). Conceptualization of sustainable higher education
institutions, roles, barriers, and challenges for sustainability: An exploratory study in
Portugal. Journal of Cleaner Production, 172, 1664–1673.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.11.010

Alhaddi, H. (2015). Triple bottom line and Ssustainability: A literature review. Business and
Management Studies, 1(2), 6–10. https://doi.org/10.11114/bms.v1i2.752

Alm, K., Beery, T. H., Eiblmeier, D., & Fahmy, T. (2022). Students’ learning sustainability – implicit,
explicit or non-existent: A case study approach on students’ key competencies addressing
the SDGs in HEI program. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, ahead-
of(ahead-of-print). https://doi.org/10.1108/ijshe-12-2020-0484

Almarghani, E. M., & Mijatovic, I. (2017). Factors affecting student engagement in HEIs - it is all
about good teaching. Teaching in Higher Education, 22(8), 940–956.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2017.1319808

Anabaraonye, B., Okafor, C. J., & Ikuelogbon, O. J. (2017). Educating farmers and fishermen in rural
areas in Nigeria on climate change mitigation and adaptation for global sustainability.
International Journal of Scientific & Engineering Research, 10(4), 1391–1398.

Ashforth, B. E., & Mael, F. A. (1989). Social identity theory and the organization. Academy of
Management Review, 14(1), 20–39. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1989.4278999

Ashfort, B. E., & Mael, F. A. (1996). Organizational identity and strategy as a context for the
individual. Advances in Strategic Management, 13, 19–64.

Barakat, L. L., Lorenz, M. P., Ramsey, J. R., & Cretoiu, S. L. (2015). Global managers: An analysis of the
impact of cultural intelligence on job satisfaction and performance. International Journal of
Emerging Markets, 10(4), 781–800. https://doi.org/10.1108/ijoem-01-2014-0011

Barakat, S. R., Isabella, G., Boaventura, J. M. G., & Mazzon, J. A. (2016). The influence of corporate
social responsibility on employee satisfaction. Management Decision, 54(9), 2325–2339.
https://doi.org/10.1108/md-05-2016-0308

37
Bartels, J., Douwes, R., de Jong, M., & Pruyn, A. (2006). Organizational identification during a
merger: Determinants of employees’ expected identification with the new organization.
British Journal of Management, 17, 49–67. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-
8551.2006.volcontents_1.x

Bayraktar, E., Tatoglu, E., & Zaim, S. (2008). An instrument for measuring the critical factors of TQM
in Turkish higher education. Total Quality Management & Business Excellence, 19(6), 551–
574. https://doi.org/10.1080/14783360802023921

Berle, A. A. (1931). Corporate powers as powers in trust. Harvard Law Review, 44(7), 1049–1074.
https://doi.org/10.2307/1331341

Bhattacharya, C. B., Rao, H., & Glynn, M. A. (1995). Understanding the bond of identification: An
investigation of its correlates among art museum members. Journal of Marketing, 59(4), 46.
https://doi.org/10.2307/1252327

Brammer, S., Millington, A., & Rayton, B. (2007). The contribution of corporate social responsibility
to organizational commitment. The International Journal of Human Resource Management,
18(10), 1701–1719. https://doi.org/10.1080/09585190701570866

Brand, K.-W. (2011). Sociological perspectives on sustainability communication. In J. Godemann & G.

Michelsen (Eds.), Sustainability communication: Interdisciplinary perspectives and
theoretical foundations (pp. 55–68). Springer.

Brown, S. P., & Peterson, R. A. (1993). Antecedents and consequences of salesperson job
satisfaction: Meta-analysis and assessment of causal effects. Journal of Marketing Research,
30(1), 63–77. https://doi.org/10.2307/3172514

Brunton, M., Eweje, G., & Taskin, N. (2015). Communicating corporate social responsibility to
internal stakeholders: Walking the walk or just talking the talk? Business Strategy and the
Environment, 26(1), 31–48. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.1889

Burrows, J. (1999). Going beyond labels: A framework for profiling institutional stakeholders.
Contemporary Education, 70(4), 5–10.

Carlini, J., & Grace, D. (2021). The corporate social responsibility (CSR) internal branding model:
Aligning employees’ CSR awareness, knowledge, and experience to deliver positive
employee performance outcomes. Journal of Marketing Management, 1–29.
https://doi.org/10.1080/0267257x.2020.1860113

Carmeli, A. (2005). Perceived external prestige, affective commitment, and citizenship behaviors.
Organization Studies, 26(3), 443–464. https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840605050875

Carmeli, A., Brammer, S., Gomes, E., & Tarba, S. Y. (2017). An organizational ethic of care and
employee involvement in sustainability-related behaviors: A social identity perspective.
Journal of Organizational Behavior, 38(9), 1380–1395. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.2185

Carmeli, A., & Freund, A. (2009). Linking perceived external prestige and intentions to leave the
organization: The mediating role of job satisfaction and affective commitment. Journal of
Social Service Research, 35(3), 236–250. https://doi.org/10.1080/01488370902900873

38
Carmeli, A., Gilat, G., & Weisberg, J. (2006). Perceived external prestige, organizational identification
and affective commitment: A stakeholder approach. Corporate Reputation Review, 9(2), 92–
104. https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.crr.1550014

Carroll, A. B. (1999). Corporate social responsibility. Business & Society, 38(3), 268–295.
https://doi.org/10.1177/000765039903800303

Casey, D., & Sieber, S. (2016). Employees, sustainability and motivation: Increasing employee
engagement by addressing sustainability and corporate social responsibility. Research in
Hospitality Management, 6(1), 69–76. https://doi.org/10.2989/rhm.2016.6.1.9.1297

Chang, T. W., Yeh, Y. L., & Li, H. X. (2020). How to shape an organization’s sustainable green
management performance: The mediation effect of environmental corporate social
responsibility. Sustainability, 12(21), 9198. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12219198

Cho, Y. N., Rutherford, B. N., & Park, J. (2013). Emotional labor’s impact in a retail environment.
Journal of Business Research, 66(11), 2338–2345.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2012.04.015

Christen, M., Iyer, G., & Soberman, D. (2006). Job satisfaction, job performance, and effort: A
reexamination using agency theory. Journal of Marketing, 70(1), 137–150.
https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkg.2006.70.1.137

Correia, E., Conde, F., Nunes, R., & Viseu, C. (2020). Students’ perceptions of HEI regarding
environmental sustainability – a comparative analysis. International Journal of Sustainability
in Higher Education, 21(4), 629–648. https://doi.org/10.1108/ijshe-10-2019-0320

Cortese, D. A. (2003). The critical role of higher education in creating a sustainable future. Planning
for Higher Education, 31, 15–22.

Craig, A. C., & Allen, W. M. (2013). Sustainability information sources: Employee knowledge,
perceptions, and learning. Journal of Communication Management, 17(4), 292–307.
https://doi.org/10.1108/jcom-05-2012-0035

Dagiliūtė, R., Liobikienė, G., & Minelgaitė, A. (2018). Sustainability at universities: Students’
perceptions from green and non-green universities. Journal of Cleaner Production, 181, 473–
482. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.01.213

Dechant, K., Altman, B., Downing, R. M., & Keeney, T. (1994). Environmental leadership: From
compliance to competitive advantage. Academy of Management Executive, 8(3), 7–28.

De Jager, J., & Gbadamosi, G. (2009). Specific remedy for specific problem: Measuring service quality
in South African higher education. Higher Education, 60(3), 251–267.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-009-9298-6

De Jager, J., & Gbadamosi, G. (2013). Predicting students’ satisfaction through service quality in
higher education. The International Journal of Management Education, 11(3), 107–118.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijme.2013.09.001

De Luque, M. S., Washburn, N. T., Waldman, D. A., & House, R. J. (2008). Unrequited profit: How
stakeholder and economic values relate to subordinates’ perceptions of leadership and firm

39
 performance. Administrative Science Quarterly, 53(4), 626–654.
https://doi.org/10.2189/asqu.53.4.626

De Roeck, K., & Delobbe, N. (2012). Do environmental CSR initiatives serve organizations’ legitimacy
in the oil industry? Exploring employees’ reactions through organizational identification
theory. Journal of Business Ethics, 110(4), 397–412. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-012-
1489-x

De Roeck, K., El Akremi, A., & Swaen, V. (2016). Consistency matters! How and when does
corporate social responsibility affect employees’ organizational identification? Journal of
Management Studies, 53(7), 1141–1168. https://doi.org/10.1111/joms.12216

Di Fabio, A. (2017). The psychology of sustainability and sustainable development for well-being in
organizations. Frontiers in Psychology, 8. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01534

Dodd, E. M. (1932). For whom are corporate managers trustees? Harvard Law Review, 45(7), 1145–
1163. https://doi.org/10.2307/1331697

Duthler, G., & Dhanesh, G. S. (2018). The role of corporate social responsibility (CSR) and internal
CSR communication in predicting employee engagement: Perspectives from the United Arab
Emirates (UAE). Public Relations Review, 44(4), 453–462.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2018.04.001

Dutton, J. E., Dukerich, J. M., & Harquail, C. V. (1994). Organizational images and member
identification. Administrative Science Quarterly, 39(2), 239–263.
https://doi.org/10.2307/2393235

Elkington, J. (1997). Cannibals with forks. Capstone Publishing.

Elliott, K. M., & Healy, M. A. (2001). Key factors influencing student satisfaction related to
recruitment and retention. Journal of Marketing for Higher Education, 10(4), 1–11.
https://doi.org/10.1300/j050v10n04_01

Ellis, A. D. (2009). The impact of corporate social responsibility on employee attitudes and
behaviors. Academy of Management Proceedings, 2009(1), 1–6.
https://doi.org/10.5465/ambpp.2009.44251836

Elsbach, K. D., & Glynn, M. A. (1996). Believing your own PR: Embedding identification in strategic
reputation. Strategic Management, 13, 65–90.

Emanuel, R., & Adams, J. (2011). College students’ perceptions of campus sustainability.
International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 12(1), 79–92.
https://doi.org/10.1108/14676371111098320

Epstein, M. J., & Roy, M.-J. (2003). Making the business case for sustainability: Linking social and
environmental actions to financial performance. Journal of Corporate Citizenship, 9, 79–96.

Esen, E. (2013). The influence of corporate social responsibility (CSR) activities on building
corporate reputation. In M. A. Gonzalez-perez & L. Leonard (Eds.), International Business,
Sustainability and Corporate Social Responsibility (Advances in Sustainability and
Environmental Justice) (pp. 133–150). Emerald Group Publishing Limited.

40
Etzion, D. (2007). Research on organizations and the natural environment, 1992-present: A review.
Journal of Management, 33(4), 637–664. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206307302553

Farinha, C. S., Azeiteiro, U., & Caeiro, S. S. (2018). Education for sustainable development in
Portuguese universities. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 19(5),
912–941. https://doi.org/10.1108/ijshe-09-2017-0168

Farooq, M., Farooq, O., & Jasimuddin, S. M. (2014). Employees response to corporate social
responsibility: Exploring the role of employees’ collectivist orientation. European
Management Journal, 32(6), 916–927. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.emj.2014.03.002

Ferrero-Ferrero, I., Fernández-Izquierdo, M. N., Muñoz-Torres, M. J., & Bellés-Colomer, L. (2018).

Stakeholder engagement in sustainability reporting in higher education. International
Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 19(2), 313–336. https://doi.org/10.1108/ijshe-
06-2016-0116

Fischer, D., Lüdecke, G., Godemann, J., Michelsen, G., Newig, J., Rieckmann, M., & Schulz, D. (2016).
Sustainability communication. Sustainability Science, 139–148. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-
94-017-7242-6_12

Frederick, W. C. (1960). The growing concern over business responsibility. California Management
Review, 2(4), 54–61. https://doi.org/10.2307/41165405

Freeman, R. E. (1984). Strategic management: A stakeholder approach. Pitman.

Freeman, R. E., & Gilbert, D. R. (1988). Corporate strategy and the search for ethics. Prentice Hall.

Friedman, A. L., & Miles, S. (2001). Socially responsible investment and corporate social and
environmental reporting in the UK: An exploratory study. The British Accounting Review,
33(4), 523–548. https://doi.org/10.1006/bare.2001.0172

Fu, H., Ye, B. H., & Law, R. (2014). You do well and I do well? The behavioral consequences of
corporate social responsibility. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 40, 62–70.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2014.03.004

Gao, S. S., & Zhang, J. J. (2006). Stakeholder engagement, social auditing and corporate
sustainability. Business Process Management Journal, 12(6), 722–740.
https://doi.org/10.1108/14637150610710891

Gautam, T., van Dick, R., & Wagner, U. (2004). Organizational identification and organizational
commitment: Distinct aspects of two related concepts. Asian Journal of Social Psychology,
7(3), 301–315. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-839x.2004.00150.x

Genç, R. (2017). The importance of communication in sustainability & sustainable strategies.

Procedia Manufacturing, 8, 511–516. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.promfg.2017.02.065

Geng, Y., Liu, K., Xue, B., & Fujita, T. (2013). Creating a “green university” in China: A case of
Shenyang university. Journal of Cleaner Production, 61, 13–19.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2012.07.013

George, J. M., & Jones, G. R. (2008). Understanding and managing organizational behavior (Fifth
Edition). Pearson Prentice Hall.

41
Gladwin, T. N., Kennelly, J. J., & Krause, T. S. (1995). Shifting paradigms for sustainable development:
Implications for management theory and research. The Academy of Management Review,
20(4), 874. https://doi.org/10.2307/258959

Glavas, A., & Kelley, K. (2014). The effects of perceived corporate social responsibility on employee
attitudes. Business Ethics Quarterly, 24(2), 165–202. https://doi.org/10.5840/beq20143206

Glavas, A., & Piderit, S. K. (2009). How does doing good matter? Effects of corporate citizenship on
employees. Journal of Corporate Citizenship, 2009(36), 51–70.
https://doi.org/10.9774/gleaf.4700.2009.wi.00007

Godemann, J., & Michelsen, G. (2011). Sustainability communication – An introduction.

Sustainability Communication, 3–11. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-1697-1_1

Goel, P. (2010). Triple bottom line reporting: An analytical approach for corporate sustainability.
Journal of Finance, Accounting, and Management, 1(1), 27–42.

Gond, J. P., El-Akremi, A., Igalens, J., & Swaen, V. (2010). Corporate social responsibility influence on
employees. International Center for Corporate Social Responsibility, 54, 1-47.

Hart, S. L. (1995). A natural-resource-based view of the firm. The Academy of Management Review,
20(4), 986–1014. https://doi.org/10.2307/258963

Hart, S. L., & Ahuja, G. (1996). Does it pay to be green? An empirical examination of the relationship
between emission reduction and firm performance. Business Strategy and the Environment,
5(1), 30–37. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1099-0836(199603)5:1<30::AID-BSE38>3.0.CO;2-
Q

Hayter, C. S., & Cahoy, D. R. (2016). Toward a strategic view of higher education social
responsibilities: A dynamic capabilities approach. Strategic Organization, 16(1), 12–34.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1476127016680564

Howard-Grenville, J., Davis, G. F., Dyllick, T., Miller, C. C., Thau, S., & Tsui, A. S. (2019). Sustainable
development for a better world: Contributions of leadership, management, and
organizations. Academy of Management Discoveries, 5(4), 355–366.
https://doi.org/10.5465/amd.2019.0275

Igalens, J., & Roussel, P. (1999). A study of the relationships between compensation package, work
motivation and job satisfaction. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 20(7), 1003–1025.

Ihlen, Ø., Bartlett, J., & May, S. (2011). The handbook of communication and corporate social
responsibility (1st ed.). Wiley-Blackwell.

Im, S., Chung, Y., & Yang, J. (2016). Employees’ participation in corporate social responsibility and
organizational outcomes: The moderating role of person–CSR fit. Sustainability, 9(1), 28.
https://doi.org/10.3390/su9010028

Javed, M., Rashid, M. A., Hussain, G., & Ali, H. Y. (2019). The effects of corporate social responsibility
on corporate reputation and firm financial performance: Moderating role of responsible
leadership. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 27(3), 1395–
1409. https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.1892

Johnson, G., & Scholes, K. (1993). Exploring strategy: Text and cases (11. Prantice Hall International.

42
Jones, D. A. (2010). Does serving the community also serve the company? Using organizational
identification and social exchange theories to understand employee responses to a
volunteerism programme. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 83(4),
857–878. https://doi.org/10.1348/096317909x477495

Jongbloed, B., Enders, J., & Salerno, C. (2008). Higher education and its communities:
Interconnections, interdependencies and a research agenda. Higher Education, 56(3), 303–
324. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-008-9128-2

Judge, W. Q., & Douglas, T. J. (1998). Performance implications of incorporating natural

environmental issues into the strategic planning process: An empirical assessment. Journal
of Management Studies, 35(2), 241–262. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-6486.00092

Katrinli, A., Atabay, G., Gunay, G., & Guneri, B. (2009). Exploring the antecedents of organizational
identification: The role of job dimensions, individual characteristics and job involvement.
Journal of Nursing Management, 17(1), 66–73. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-
2834.2008.00941.x

Khan, H., & Matlay, H. (2009). Implementing service excellence in higher education. Education +
Training, 51(8), 769–780. https://doi.org/10.1108/00400910911005299

Kim, H. R., Lee, M., Lee, H. T., & Kim, N. M. (2010). Corporate social responsibility and employee–
company identification. Journal of Business Ethics, 95(4), 557–569.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-010-0440-2

Labanauskis, R. (2017). Key features of sustainable universities: A literature review. Journal of

Business Management, 13, 56–69.

Landis, E. A., Vick, C. L., & Novo, B. N. (2015). Employee attitudes and job satisfaction. Journal of
Leadership, Accountability & Ethics, 12(5), 37–42.

Lankoski, L. (2008). Corporate responsibility activities and economic performance: A theory of why
and how they are connected. Business Strategy and the Environment, 17(8), 536–547.
https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.582

Leal Filho, W., Brandli, L. L., Becker, D., Skanavis, C., Kounani, A., Sardi, C., Papaioannidou, D., Paço,
A., Azeiteiro, U., De Sousa, L. O., Raath, S., Pretorius, R. W., Shiel, C., Vargas, V., Trencher, G.,
& Marans, R. W. (2018). Sustainable development policies as indicators and pre-conditions
for sustainability efforts at universities: Fact or faction? International Journal of
Sustainability in Higher Education, 19(1), 85–113. https://doi.org/10.1108/ijshe-01-2017-
0002

Lee, M. D. P. (2008). A review of the theories of corporate social responsibility: Its evolutionary path
and the road ahead. International Journal of Management Reviews, 10(1), 53–73.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2370.2007.00226.x

Lo, S. F. (2010). Performance evaluation for sustainable business: A profitability and marketability
framework. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 17(6), 311–
319. https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.214

43
Lozano, R. (2011). The state of sustainability reporting in universities. International Journal of
Sustainability in Higher Education, 12(1), 67–78.
https://doi.org/10.1108/14676371111098311

Lozano, R., Lukman, R., Lozano, F. J., Huisingh, D., & Lambrechts, W. (2013). Declarations for
sustainability in higher education: Becoming better leaders, through addressing the
university system. Journal of Cleaner Production, 48, 10–19.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2011.10.006

Mael, F., & Ashforth, B. E. (1992). Alumni and their alma mater: A partial test of the reformulated
model of organizational identification. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 13(2), 103–123.
https://doi.org/10.1002/job.4030130202

Mael, F. A., & Tetrick, L. E. (1992). Identifying Organizational Identification. Educational and
Psychological Measurement, 52(4), 813–824.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164492052004002

Maignan, I., Ferrell, O. C., & Hult, G. T. M. (1999). Corporate citizenship: Cultural antecedents and
business benefits. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 27(4), 455–469.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0092070399274005

Martin, S., & Jucker, R. (2005). Educating earth-literate leaders. Journal of Geography in Higher
Education, 29(1), 19–29. https://doi.org/10.1080/03098260500030298

Maryville University. (2022, January 12). Sustainability vs. Sustainable development. Maryville
Online. Retrieved 16 February 2022, from https://online.maryville.edu/blog/sustainability-
vs-sustainable-development/#:%7E:text=Sustainability%20is%20a%20broad %20term,
depleting%20them%20for%20future%20generations.&text=Sustainable%20develo
pment%20describes%20the%20processes,ability%20to%20meet%20their%20needs.

Marzo‐Navarro, M., Pedraja‐Iglesias, M., & Pilar Rivera‐Torres, M. (2005). Measuring customer
satisfaction in summer courses. Quality Assurance in Education, 13(1), 53–65.
https://doi.org/10.1108/09684880510578650

Mascarenhas, C., Mendes, L., Marques, C., & Galvão, A. (2020). Exploring CSR’s influence on
employees’ attitudes and behaviours in higher education. Sustainability Accounting,
Management and Policy Journal, 11(4), 653–678. https://doi.org/10.1108/sampj-04-2018-
0101

Mathews, M. (1997). Twenty‐five years of social and environmental accounting research.

Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 10(4), 481–531.
https://doi.org/10.1108/eum0000000004417

McLeod, S. A. (2019, August 03). Sampling methods. Simply Psychology. Retrieved 15 December
2021, from https://www.simplypsychology.org/sampling.html

Moser, S. C. (2010). Communicating climate change: History, challenges, process and future
directions. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, 1(1), 31–53.
https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.11

Moynihan, D. P., & Pandey, S. K. (2007). Finding workable levers over work motivation.
Administration & Society, 39(7), 803–832. https://doi.org/10.1177/0095399707305546

44
Mozes, M., Josman, Z., & Yaniv, E. (2011). Corporate social responsibility organizational identification
and motivation. Social Responsibility Journal, 7(2), 310–325.
https://doi.org/10.1108/17471111111141558

Newig, J. (2011). Climate change as an element of sustainability communication. In J. Godemann &

G. Michelsen (Eds.), Sustainability communication: Interdisciplinary perspectives and
theoretical foundations (pp. 119–128). Springer.

Newig, J., Schulz, D., Fischer, D., Hetze, K., Laws, N., Lüdecke, G., & Rieckmann, M. (2013).
Communication regarding sustainability: Conceptual perspectives and exploration of societal
subsystems. Sustainability, 5(7), 2976–2990. https://doi.org/10.3390/su5072976

O’Neill, M. A., & Palmer, A. (2004). Importance‐performance analysis: A useful tool for directing
continuous quality improvement in higher education. Quality Assurance in Education, 12(1),
39–52. https://doi.org/10.1108/09684880410517423

Ones, D. S. & Dilchert, S. (2012). Employee green behaviours. In Jackson S. E., Ones, D. S. & Dilchert
S. (Ed.), Managing human resources for environmental sustainability (pp. 85–116). Wiley.

O’Reilly, C. A., & Chatman, J. (1986). Organizational commitment and psychological attachment: The
effects of compliance, identification, and internalization on prosocial behavior. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 71(3), 492–499. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.71.3.492

Orlitzky, M., Schmidt, F. L., & Rynes, S. L. (2003). Corporate social and financial performance: A
meta-analysis. Organization Studies, 24(3), 403–441.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840603024003910

Pedro, E., Mendes, L., & Lourenço, L. (2018). Perceived service quality and students’ satisfaction in
higher education: The influence of teaching methods. International Journal for Quality
Research, 12(1), 165–192. https://doi.org/10.18421/IJQR12.01-10

Pérez, S., Fernández-Salinero, S., & Topa, G. (2018). Sustainability in organizations: Perceptions of
corporate social responsibility and Spanish employees’ attitudes and behaviors.
Sustainability, 10(10), 3423. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10103423

Pink. D. H. (2009). Drive: The surprising truth about what motivates us. Canongate Books.

Podnar, K. (2008) Guest editorial: Communicating corporate social responsibility, Journal of

Marketing Communications, 14(2), 75–81. https://doi.org/10.1080/13527260701856350

Pojasek, R. B. (2008). Creating a complete business management system. Environmental Quality

Management, 17(4), 87–95. https://doi.org/10.1002/tqem.20189

Pratt, M. B. (1998). To be or not to be: Central questions in organizational identification. In D. A.

Whetten, & P. C. Godfrey (Eds.), Identity in organizations (pp. 171-208). SAGE.

Preston, L. E., & Post, J. E. (1975). Private Management and Public Policy. Prentice Hall.

Ramus, C. A., & Steger, U. (2000). The roles of supervisory support behaviors and environmental
policy in employee “Ecoinitiatives” at leading-edge European companies. Academy of
Management Journal, 43(4), 605–626. https://doi.org/10.5465/1556357

45
Rawashdeh, A., Al-saraireh, A., & Gassan, O. (2015). Does organizational culture matter for job
satisfaction in Jordanian private aviation companies? International Journal of Information,
Business and Management, 7(2), 107–115.

Risambessy, A., Swasto, B., Thoyib, A., & Astuti, E. S. (2012). The influence of transformational
leadership style, motivation, burnout towards job satisfaction and employee performance.
Journal of Basic and Applied Scientific Research, 2(9), 8833–8842.

Robbins, S. P., & Judge, T. (2015). Essentials of organizational behavior, Global edition (16th ed.).
Pearson Education Limited.

Rodrigo, P., Aqueveque, C., & Duran, I. J. (2019). Do employees value strategic CSR? A tale of
affective organizational commitment and its underlying mechanisms. Business Ethics: A
European Review, 28(4), 459–475. https://doi.org/10.1111/beer.12227

Roga, R., Lapiņa, I., & Müürsepp, P. (2015). Internationalization of higher education: Analysis of
factors influencing foreign students’ choice of higher education institution. Procedia - Social
and Behavioral Sciences, 213, 925–930. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.11.506

Rotheroe, N., Keenlyside, M., & Coates, L. (2003). Local agenda 21; Articulating the meaning of
sustainable development at the level of the individual enterprise. Journal of Cleaner
Production, 11(5), 537–548. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0959-6526(02)00075-6

Rupp, D. E., Ganapathi, J., Aguilera, R. V., & Williams, C. A. (2006). Employee reactions to corporate
social responsibility: an organizational justice framework. Journal of Organizational
Behavior, 27(4), 537–543. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.380

Russo, M. V., & Fouts, P. A. (1997). A resource-based perspective on corporate environmental

performance and profitability. Academy of Management Journal, 40(3), 534–559.
https://doi.org/10.5465/257052

Sakthivel, P., Rajendran, G., & Raju, R. (2005). TQM implementation and students’ satisfaction of
academic performance. The TQM Magazine, 17(6), 573–589.
https://doi.org/10.1108/09544780510627660

Schaefer, A. (2004). Corporate sustainability - integrating environmental and social concerns?

Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 11(4), 179–187.
https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.70

Schaefer, S. D., Terlutter, R., & Diehl, S. (2019). Talking about CSR matters: Employees’ perception of
and reaction to their company’s CSR communication in four different CSR domains.
International Journal of Advertising, 39(2), 191–212.
https://doi.org/10.1080/02650487.2019.1593736

Schooley, S. (2021, March 18). What is corporate social responsibility? Business News Daily.
Retrieved 14 May 2021, from https://www.businessnewsdaily.com/4679-corporate-social-
responsibility.html

Scott, C. R., Connaughton, S. L., Diaz-Saenz, H. R., Maguire, K., Ramirez, R., Richardson, B., Shaw, S.
P., & Morgan, D. (1999). The impacts of communication and multiple identifications on
intent to leave. Management Communication Quarterly, 12(3), 400–435.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0893318999123002

46
SDSN. (2020, 22 september). Accelerating education for the SDGs in univerisities. Sustainable
Development Solutions Network. Retrieved 31 January 2021, from
https://www.unsdsn.org/accelerating-education-for-the-sdgs-in-univerisities

Sharma, S., & Vredenburg, H. (1998). Proactive corporate environmental strategy and the
development of competitively valuable organizational capabilities. Strategic Management
Journal, 19(8), 729–753.

Shriberg, M. (2002). Institutional assessment tools for sustainability in higher education: Strengths,
weaknesses, and implications for practice and theory. Higher Education Policy, 15(2), 153–
167. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0952-8733(02)00006-5

Shrivastava, P. (1995). The role of corporations in achieving ecological sustainability. The Academy
of Management Review, 20(4), 936–960. https://doi.org/10.2307/258961

Simon, G., & Zhou, E. (2018). Can corporate sustainability influence employee engagement?
International Journal of Human Resource Studies, 8(2), 284–293.
https://doi.org/10.5296/ijhrs.v8i2.13111

Singh, K., & Misra, M. (2021). Linking corporate social responsibility (CSR) and organizational
performance: The moderating effect of corporate reputation. European Research on
Management and Business Economics, 27(1), 100139.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iedeen.2020.100139

Sledge, S., Miles, A. K., & Coppage, S. (2008). What role does culture play? A look at motivation and
job satisfaction among hotel workers in Brazil. The International Journal of Human Resource
Management, 19(9), 1667–1682. https://doi.org/10.1080/09585190802295157

Smidts, A., Pruyn, A. T. H., & Van Riel, C. B. M. (2001). The impact of employee communication and
perceived external prestige on organizational identification. Academy of Management
Journal, 44(5), 1051–1062. https://doi.org/10.2307/3069448

Stern, P. C. (2000). New environmental theories: Toward a coherent theory of environmentally

significant behavior. Journal of Social Issues, 56(3), 407–424. https://doi.org/10.1111/0022-
4537.00175

Strauss, K., Lepoutre, J., & Wood, G. (2017). Fifty shades of green: How microfoundations of
sustainability dynamic capabilities vary across organizational contexts. Journal of
Organizational Behavior, 38(9), 1338–1355. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.2186

Suchman, M. C. (1995). Managing legitimacy: Strategic and institutional approaches. The Academy
of Management Review, 20(3), 571. https://doi.org/10.2307/258788

Šulentić, S. T., Žnidar, K., & Pavičić, J. (2017). The key determinants of perceived external
prestige (PEP) – Qualitative research approach. Management: Journal of Contemporary
Management Issues, 22(1), 49–84. https://doi.org/10.30924/mjcmi/2017.22.1.49

Suh, Y. J. (2016). The role of relational social capital and communication in the relationship
between CSR and employee attitudes. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 23(4),
410–423. https://doi.org/10.1177/1548051816637564

47
Sultan, P., & Yin Wong, H. (2012). Service quality in a higher education context: An integrated model.
Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing and Logistics, 24(5), 755–784.
https://doi.org/10.1108/13555851211278196

Sun, L., & Yu, T. R. (2015). The impact of corporate social responsibility on employee performance
and cost. Review of Accounting and Finance, 14(3), 262–284. https://doi.org/10.1108/raf-03-
2014-0025

Taber, K. S. (2017). The use of Cronbach’s Alpha when developing and reporting research
instruments in science education. Research in Science Education, 48(6), 1273–1296.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-016-9602-2

Temminck, E., Mearns, K., & Fruhen, L. (2013). Motivating employees towards sustainable
behaviour. Business Strategy and the Environment, 24(6), 402–412.
https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.1827

Theresia, L., Lahuddin, A. H., Ranti, G., & Bangun, R. (2018). The influence of culture, job satisfaction
and motivation on the performance lecturer / employees. Proceedings of the International
Conference on Industrial Engineering and Operations Management, March(6–8).

Tetrault Sirsly, C. A., & Lvina, E. (2016). From doing good to looking even better: The dynamics of
CSR and reputation. Business & Society, 58(6), 1234–1266.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0007650315627996

Turan, F. K., Cetinkaya, S., & Ustun, C. (2016). A methodological framework to analyze stakeholder
preferences and propose strategic pathways for a sustainable university. Higher Education,
72(6), 743–760. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-015-9973-8

United Nations. (2015). Take action for the sustainable development goals. Retrieved 16 January
2022, from https://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/sustainable-development-goals/

United Nations General Assembly. (2005). Resolution adopted by the General Assembly on 16
September 2005. Retrieved 31 January 202, from https://www.un.org/en/development/
desa/population/migration/generalassembly/docs/globalcompact/A_RES_60_1.pdf

University of Twente. (2021a). Education | Facts & Figures. Retrieved 15 February 2022, from
https://www.utwente.nl/en/facts-and-figures/education/#key-figures

University of Twente. (2021b). Jaarverslag 2020.

https://www.utwente.nl/.uc/f9a1cf54d01021146ee01ac4a0803ee9c179ca27f4ef400/21010
%2520Jaarverslag%2520UT%25202020%2520DT.pdf

Valentine, S., & Fleischman, G. (2007). Ethics programs, perceived corporate social responsibility
and job satisfaction. Journal of Business Ethics, 77(2), 159–172.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-006-9306-z

Varma, C. (2017). Importance of employee motivation & job satisfaction for organizational
performance. International Journal of Social Science & Interdisciplinary Research, 6(2).
https://ssrn.com/abstract=3073813

48
Vorina, A., Simonič, M., & Vlasova, M. (2017). An analysis of the relationship between job
satisfaction and employee engagement. Economic Themes, 55(2), 243–262.
https://doi.org/10.1515/ethemes-2017-0014

Wagner, M. (2009). Innovation and competitive advantages from the integration of strategic aspects
with social and environmental management in European firms. Business Strategy and the
Environment, 18(5), 291–306. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.585

Wang, L., & Juslin, H. (2012). Values and corporate social responsibility perceptions of Chinese
university students. Journal of Academic Ethics, 10(1), 57–82.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10805-012-9148-5

Wilson, M. (2003). Corporate sustainability: What is it and where does it come from? Ivey Business
Journal Online, March/April Edition. https://iveybusinessjournal.com/publication/corporate-
sustainability-what-is-it-and-where-does-it-come-from/

Wright, T. (2010). University presidents’ conceptualizations of sustainability in higher education.

International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 11(1), 61–73.
https://doi.org/10.1108/14676371011010057

49
Appendix I Overview constructs
Scale N of items Items
Demographics 8 * What is your nationality?
* What is your age, in years?
* What is your gender?
* What is the highest level of education you
completed?
* Are you a student or employee at University of
Twente
* What department do you work for?
* What is your position in University of Twente?
* How long have you been working at University of
Twente, in years?

* Are you a student or employee at University of

Twente
* What faculty do you study at?
* What is programme are you currently studying?
* How long have you been studying at University
of Twente, in years?
Research quality 4 * The research that takes place at the University of
Twente is groundbreaking.
Self-developed scale. * The research that takes place at the University of
Twente is innovative.
* The research that takes place at the University of
Twente is unique compared to research at other
Dutch universities.
* The sociatal impact of the research that takes
place at the University of Twente is high.
Education Quality 4 * The education at the University of Twente is
innovative.
Self-developed scale. * The University of Twente provides students with
personal support during their education.
* The quality of education at the University of
Twente is high compared to the education at other
Dutch universities.
* The University of Twente optimally prepares
students for their work field.
Campus Quality 4 * I really enjoy being on the campus of the
University of Twente.
Self-developed scale. * The campus of the University of Twente provides
all the facilities students need.
* The campus of the University of Twente makes
the university unique.
* The campus of the University of Twente is a
pleasant place to study.

* I really enjoy being on the campus of the

University of Twente.

50
 * The campus of the University of Twente provides
all the facilities employees need.
* The campus of the University of Twente makes
the university unique.
* The campus of the University of Twente is a
pleasant place to work.
Atmosphere quality 4 * Whenever I am working at the University of
Twente, I feel welcome to be there.
Self-developed scale. * I feel like I can be myself at the University of
Twente.
* In general, there is an open and accepting
atmosphere at the University of Twente.
* In general, people at the University of Twente
are easily approachable.

* Whenever I am studying at the University of

Twente, I feel welcome to be there.
* I feel like I can be myself at the University of
Twente.
* In general, there is an open and accepting
atmosphere at the University of Twente.
* In general, people at the University of Twente
are easily approachable.
Sustainability quality 4 * The sustainability initiatives of the University of
Twente are groundbreaking.
Self-developed scale. * The sustainability initiatives of the University of
Twente are innovative.
* The sustainability initiatives of the University of
Twente are unique compared to other Dutch
universities.
* The impact of the sustainability initiatives of the
University of Twente are high.
Satisfaction with job/study 4 * In general, I would say my job is very worthwhile.
* All in all, I am very content with my job.
Based on Im et al. (2016) * In general, I like working at University of Twente.
based on Cho et al. (2013) * In general, I do not like my job. (Reversed)
(Item 1 & 2) and based on
Valentine and Fleischman * In general, I would say my study is very
(2008) (Item 3 & 4). Rephrased worthwhile.
to be applicable for students. * All in all, I am very content with my study.
* In general, I like studying at University of Twente
* In general, I do not like my study. (Reversed)
Identification 6 * When someone criticizes University of Twente, it
feels like a personal insult.
Based on Mael and Ashforth * I am very interested in what others think about
(1992). Rephrased to be University of Twente.
applicable for employees and * When I talk about University of Twente, I usually
students of the University of say “we” rather than “they”.
Twente. * University of Twente’s successes are also my
successes.

51
 * When someone praises University of Twente, it
feels like a personal compliment.
* If a story in the media criticized University of
Twente, I would feel embarrassed.
Perceived external prestige 3 * I feel like the University of Twente is accredited
with a favourable reputation by others.
Based on Mael and Ashfort * I feel like the University of Twente is viewed as a
(1992) (Item 1 & 2) and prestigious university by others.
Rodrigo et al. (2019) (Item 3), * When talking with family and friends about the
rephrased to be applicable for University of Twente they often display a positive
sustainability. attitude toward the organization.
Willingness to contribute 3 * I want to be actively involved in the sustainability
initiatives the University of Twente engages in.
Self-developed scale. * I want to contribute to the sustainability of the
University of Twente, by becoming more
sustainable myself.
* I want to help the University of Twente become
a more sustainable organization.
Perceived relevance of 4 * I think is important to work on becoming more
sustainability sustainable.
* I think it is valuable to work on becoming more
Self-developed scale. sustainable
* I am motivated to include sustainability in my
work.
* I don’t see why it is necessary to work on
sustainability. (Reversed)

* I think is important to work on becoming more

sustainable.
* I think it is valuable to work on becoming more
sustainable
*I am motivated to include sustainability in my
study.
* I don’t see why it is necessary to work on
sustainability. (Reversed)
Sustainable behaviour 4 * In general, I am interested in sustainability and
sustainability initiatives.
Self-developed scale. * In general, I want to take part in sustainability
initiatives.
* In general, I take sustainability into account
when making decisions.
* In general, sustainability plays a big role in my
daily life.
Sustainability communication 4 * In the last year, how often did you encounter
communication about the sustainability initiatives
Self-developed scale. of the University of Twente?
* Where did you read, hear, or see about
sustainability at the University of Twente? You can
choose multiple answers.
* I feel like the University of Twente

52
communicates about sustainability initiatives quite
frequently.
* I feel like the University of Twente could
communicate more about their sustainability
initiatives.

53
Appendix II Online questionnaire employee
* Are you a student or employee at the University of Twente?

o Student
o Employee
o Neither

* What is your nationality?

o Dutch
o Non-Dutch, European
o Non-European

* What is your age, in years?

o …

* What is your gender?

o Male
o Female
o Non-binary / third gender
o Prefer not to say

* What is the highest level of education you completed?

o High school or equivalent

o Post-secondary vocational education (MBO)
o College degree (HBO)
o University degree bachelor
o University degree master
o University degree PhD

* What department do you work for?

o Faculty of BMS
o Faculty of EEMCS
o Faculty of ET
o Faculty of ITC
o Faculty of TNW
o Services (GA, CES, FIN, C&FM, M&C, HR, LISA, S&P, or SBD)

* What is your position at the University of Twente?

o Academic staff (research and teaching)

o Academic staff (research only)
o Academic staff (teaching only)
o Non-academic staff

* How long have you been working at the University of Twente, in years?

o …

54
Please answer the following statements about how you feel about the UT by indicating how accurate
they are for you. The scale goes from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree).

* In general, I would say my job is very worthwhile.

o Strongly disagree
o Disagree
o Agree nor disagree
o Agree
o Strongly agree

* All in all, I am very content with my job.

o Strongly disagree
o Disagree
o Agree nor disagree
o Agree
o Strongly agree

* In general, I like working at the University of Twente

o Strongly disagree
o Disagree
o Agree nor disagree
o Agree
o Strongly agree

* In general, I do not like my job.

o Strongly disagree
o Disagree
o Agree nor disagree
o Agree
o Strongly agree

* When someone criticizes the University of Twente, it feels like a personal insult.

o Strongly disagree
o Disagree
o Agree nor disagree
o Agree
o Strongly agree

* I am very interested in what others think about the University of Twente.

o Strongly disagree
o Disagree
o Agree nor disagree
o Agree

55
 o Strongly agree

* When I talk about the University of Twente, I usually say “we” rather than “they”.

o Strongly disagree
o Disagree
o Agree nor disagree
o Agree
o Strongly agree

* The University of Twente’s successes are also my successes.

o Strongly disagree
o Disagree
o Agree nor disagree
o Agree
o Strongly agree

* When someone praises the University of Twente, it feels like a personal compliment.

o Strongly disagree
o Disagree
o Agree nor disagree
o Agree
o Strongly agree

* If a story in the media criticized the University of Twente, I would feel embarrassed.

o Strongly disagree
o Disagree
o Agree nor disagree
o Agree
o Strongly agree

* I feel like the University of Twente is accredited with a favourable reputation by others.

o Strongly disagree
o Disagree
o Agree nor disagree
o Agree
o Strongly agree

* I feel like the University of Twente is viewed as a prestigious university by others.

o Strongly disagree
o Disagree
o Agree nor disagree
o Agree
o Strongly agree

56
* When talking with family and friends about the University of Twente they often display a positive
attitude toward the organization.

o Strongly disagree
o Disagree
o Agree nor disagree
o Agree
o Strongly agree

* The research that takes place at the University of Twente is groundbreaking.

o Strongly disagree
o Disagree
o Agree nor disagree
o Agree
o Strongly agree

* The research that takes place at the University of Twente is innovative.

o Strongly disagree
o Disagree
o Agree nor disagree
o Agree
o Strongly agree

* The research that takes place at the University of Twente is unique compared to research at other
Dutch universities.

o Strongly disagree
o Disagree
o Agree nor disagree
o Agree
o Strongly agree

* The societal impact of the research that takes place at the University of Twente is high.

o Strongly disagree
o Disagree
o Agree nor disagree
o Agree
o Strongly agree

* The education at the University of Twente is innovative

o Strongly disagree
o Disagree
o Agree nor disagree
o Agree

57
 o Strongly agree

* The University of Twente provides students with extraordinary personal support during their
education.

o Strongly disagree
o Disagree
o Agree nor disagree
o Agree
o Strongly agree

* The quality of education at the University of Twente is high compared to the education at other
Dutch universities.

o Strongly disagree
o Disagree
o Agree nor disagree
o Agree
o Strongly agree

* The University of Twente optimally prepares students for their work field.

o Strongly disagree
o Disagree
o Agree nor disagree
o Agree
o Strongly agree

* I really enjoy being on the campus of the University of Twente.

o Strongly disagree
o Disagree
o Agree nor disagree
o Agree
o Strongly agree

* The campus of the University of Twente provides all the facilities employees need.

o Strongly disagree
o Disagree
o Agree nor disagree
o Agree
o Strongly agree

* The campus of the University of Twente makes the university unique.

o Strongly disagree
o Disagree
o Agree nor disagree
o Agree

58
 o Strongly agree

* The campus of the University of Twente is a great place to work.

o Strongly disagree
o Disagree
o Agree nor disagree
o Agree
o Strongly agree

* Whenever I am working at the University of Twente, I feel welcome to be there.

o Strongly disagree
o Disagree
o Agree nor disagree
o Agree
o Strongly agree

* I feel like I can be myself at the University of Twente.

o Strongly disagree
o Disagree
o Agree nor disagree
o Agree
o Strongly agree

* In general, there is an open and accepting atmosphere at the University of Twente.

o Strongly disagree
o Disagree
o Agree nor disagree
o Agree
o Strongly agree

* In general, people at the University of Twente are easily approachable.

o Strongly disagree
o Disagree
o Agree nor disagree
o Agree
o Strongly agree

Please answer the following statements about how you feel about sustainability at the UT by
indicating how accurate they are for you. The scale goes from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly
agree).

* The sustainability initiatives of the University of Twente are groundbreaking.

o Strongly disagree

59
 o Disagree
o Agree nor disagree
o Agree
o Strongly agree

* The sustainability initiatives of the University of Twente are innovative.

o Strongly disagree
o Disagree
o Agree nor disagree
o Agree
o Strongly agree

* The sustainability initiatives of University of Twente are unique compared to other Dutch
universities.

o Strongly disagree
o Disagree
o Agree nor disagree
o Agree
o Strongly agree

* The impact of the sustainability initiatives of the University of Twente are high.

o Strongly disagree
o Disagree
o Agree nor disagree
o Agree
o Strongly agree

* I want to be actively involved in the sustainability initiatives of the University of Twente.

o Strongly disagree
o Disagree
o Agree nor disagree
o Agree
o Strongly agree

* I want to contribute to the sustainability of the University of Twente, by becoming more

sustainable myself.

o Strongly disagree
o Disagree
o Agree nor disagree
o Agree
o Strongly agree

* I want to help the University of Twente become a more sustainable organization.

o Strongly disagree

60
 o Disagree
o Agree nor disagree
o Agree
o Strongly agree

* I think is important to work on becoming more sustainable.

o Strongly disagree
o Disagree
o Agree nor disagree
o Agree
o Strongly agree

* I think it is valuable to work on becoming more sustainable

o Strongly disagree
o Disagree
o Agree nor disagree
o Agree
o Strongly agree

* I am motivated to include sustainability in my work.

o Strongly disagree
o Disagree
o Agree nor disagree
o Agree
o Strongly agree

* I don’t see why it is necessary to work on sustainability.

o Strongly disagree
o Disagree
o Agree nor disagree
o Agree
o Strongly agree

* In general, I am interested in sustainability and sustainability initiatives.

o Strongly disagree
o Disagree
o Agree nor disagree
o Agree
o Strongly agree

* In general, I want to take part in sustainability initiatives.

o Strongly disagree
o Disagree

61
 o Agree nor disagree
o Agree
o Strongly agree

* In general, I take sustainability into account when making decisions.

o Strongly disagree
o Disagree
o Agree nor disagree
o Agree
o Strongly agree

* In general, sustainability plays a big role in my daily life.

o Strongly disagree
o Disagree
o Agree nor disagree
o Agree
o Strongly agree

Please answer the following questions about sustainability at the UT as best as possible. Both scales
and multiple choice questions are included.

* In the last year, how often did you encounter communication about sustainability initiatives from
the University of Twente?

o Never
o Rarely
o Sometimes
o Often
o Very often

* Where did you read, hear, or see about sustainability at the University of Twente? You can choose
multiple answers.

o UT Website
o Email
o Newsletter
o In a meeting
o In a conversation
o Utoday
o During a lecture
o Policy document
o Social media UT (Facebook, Twitter, Instagram or LinkedIn)
o Other, namely

* I feel like the University of Twente communicates about sustainability initiatives quite frequently.

o Strongly disagree
o Disagree

62
 o Agree nor disagree
o Agree
o Strongly agree

* I feel like the University of Twente should communicate more about its sustainability initiatives.

o Strongly disagree
o Disagree
o Agree nor disagree
o Agree
o Strongly agree

63
Appendix III Online questionnaire student
* Are you a student or employee at the University of Twente?

o Student
o Employee
o Neither

* What is your nationality?

o Dutch
o Non-Dutch, European
o Non-European

* What is your age, in years?

o …

* What is your gender?

o Male
o Female
o Non-binary / third gender
o Prefer not to say

* What is the highest level of education you completed?

o High school or equivalent

o Post-secondary vocational education (MBO)
o College degree (HBO)
o University degree bachelor
o University degree master
o University degree PhD

* Which faculty do you study at?

o Faculty of BMS
o Faculty of EEMCS
o Faculty of ET
o Faculty of ITC
o Faculty of TNW

* Which programme are you currently studying?

o Bachelor
o Pre-master
o Master

* How long have you been studying at the University of Twente, in years?

o …

64
Please answer the following statements about how you feel about the UT by indicating how accurate
they are for you. The scale goes from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree).

* In general, I would say my study is very worthwhile.

o Strongly disagree
o Disagree
o Agree nor disagree
o Agree
o Strongly agree

* All in all, I am very content with my study.

o Strongly disagree
o Disagree
o Agree nor disagree
o Agree
o Strongly agree

* In general, I like studying at the University of Twente

o Strongly disagree
o Disagree
o Agree nor disagree
o Agree
o Strongly agree

* In general, I do not like my study.

o Strongly disagree
o Disagree
o Agree nor disagree
o Agree
o Strongly agree

* I am very interested in what others think about the University of Twente.

o Strongly disagree
o Disagree
o Agree nor disagree
o Agree
o Strongly agree

* When I talk about the University of Twente, I usually say “we” rather than “they”.

o Strongly disagree
o Disagree
o Agree nor disagree
o Agree

65
 o Strongly agree

* The University of Twente’s successes are also my successes.

o Strongly disagree
o Disagree
o Agree nor disagree
o Agree
o Strongly agree

* When someone praises the University of Twente, it feels like a personal compliment.

o Strongly disagree
o Disagree
o Agree nor disagree
o Agree
o Strongly agree

* When someone criticizes the University of Twente, it feels like a personal insult.

o Strongly disagree
o Disagree
o Agree nor disagree
o Agree
o Strongly agree

* If a story in the media criticized the University of Twente, I would feel embarrassed.

o Strongly disagree
o Disagree
o Agree nor disagree
o Agree
o Strongly agree

* I feel like the University of Twente is accredited with a favourable reputation by others.

o Strongly disagree
o Disagree
o Agree nor disagree
o Agree
o Strongly agree

* I feel like the University of Twente is viewed as a prestigious university by others.

o Strongly disagree
o Disagree
o Agree nor disagree
o Agree
o Strongly agree

66
* When talking with family and friends about the University of Twente they often display a positive
attitude toward the organization.

o Strongly disagree
o Disagree
o Agree nor disagree
o Agree
o Strongly agree

* The research that takes place at the University of Twente is groundbreaking.

o Strongly disagree
o Disagree
o Agree nor disagree
o Agree
o Strongly agree

* The research that takes place at the University of Twente is innovative.

o Strongly disagree
o Disagree
o Agree nor disagree
o Agree
o Strongly agree

* The research that takes place at the University of Twente is unique compared to research at other
Dutch universities.

o Strongly disagree
o Disagree
o Agree nor disagree
o Agree
o Strongly agree

* The societal impact of the research that takes place at the University of Twente is high.

o Strongly disagree
o Disagree
o Agree nor disagree
o Agree
o Strongly agree

* The education at the University of Twente is innovative.

o Strongly disagree
o Disagree
o Agree nor disagree
o Agree

67
 o Strongly agree

* The University of Twente provides students with extraordinary personal support during their
education.

o Strongly disagree
o Disagree
o Agree nor disagree
o Agree
o Strongly agree

* The quality of education at the University of Twente is high compared to the education at other
Dutch universities.

o Strongly disagree
o Disagree
o Agree nor disagree
o Agree
o Strongly agree

* The University of Twente optimally prepares students for their work field.

o Strongly disagree
o Disagree
o Agree nor disagree
o Agree
o Strongly agree

* I really enjoy being on the campus of the University of Twente.

o Strongly disagree
o Disagree
o Agree nor disagree
o Agree
o Strongly agree

* The campus of the University of Twente provides all the facilities students need.

o Strongly disagree
o Disagree
o Agree nor disagree
o Agree
o Strongly agree

* The campus of the University of Twente makes the university unique.

o Strongly disagree
o Disagree
o Agree nor disagree
o Agree

68
 o Strongly agree

* The campus of the University of Twente is a great place to study.

o Strongly disagree
o Disagree
o Agree nor disagree
o Agree
o Strongly agree

* Whenever I am studying at the University of Twente, I feel welcome to be there.

o Strongly disagree
o Disagree
o Agree nor disagree
o Agree
o Strongly agree

* I feel like I can be myself at the University of Twente.

o Strongly disagree
o Disagree
o Agree nor disagree
o Agree
o Strongly agree

* In general, there is an open and accepting atmosphere at the University of Twente.

o Strongly disagree
o Disagree
o Agree nor disagree
o Agree
o Strongly agree

* In general, people at the University of Twente are easily approachable.

o Strongly disagree
o Disagree
o Agree nor disagree
o Agree
o Strongly agree

Please answer the following statements about how you feel about sustainability at the UT by
indicating how accurate they are for you. The scale goes from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly
agree).

* The sustainability initiatives of the University of Twente are groundbreaking.

o Strongly disagree

69
 o Disagree
o Agree nor disagree
o Agree
o Strongly agree

* The sustainability initiatives of the University of Twente are innovative.

o Strongly disagree
o Disagree
o Agree nor disagree
o Agree
o Strongly agree

* The sustainability initiatives of the University of Twente are unique compared to other Dutch
universities.

o Strongly disagree
o Disagree
o Agree nor disagree
o Agree
o Strongly agree

* The impact of the sustainability initiatives of the University of Twente are high.

o Strongly disagree
o Disagree
o Agree nor disagree
o Agree
o Strongly agree

* I want to be actively involved in the sustainability initiatives the University of Twente engages in.

o Strongly disagree
o Disagree
o Agree nor disagree
o Agree
o Strongly agree

* I want to contribute to the sustainability of the University of Twente, by becoming more

sustainable myself.

o Strongly disagree
o Disagree
o Agree nor disagree
o Agree
o Strongly agree

* I want to help the University of Twente become a more sustainable organization.

o Strongly disagree

70
 o Disagree
o Agree nor disagree
o Agree
o Strongly agree

* I think is important to work on becoming more sustainable.

o Strongly disagree
o Disagree
o Agree nor disagree
o Agree
o Strongly agree

* I think it is valuable to work on becoming more sustainable

o Strongly disagree
o Disagree
o Agree nor disagree
o Agree
o Strongly agree

* I am motivated to include sustainability in my work.

o Strongly disagree
o Disagree
o Agree nor disagree
o Agree
o Strongly agree

* I don’t see why it is necessary to work on sustainability.

o Strongly disagree
o Disagree
o Agree nor disagree
o Agree
o Strongly agree

* In general, I am interested in sustainability and sustainability initiatives.

o Strongly disagree
o Disagree
o Agree nor disagree
o Agree
o Strongly agree

* In general, I want to take part in sustainability initiatives.

o Strongly disagree
o Disagree

71
 o Agree nor disagree
o Agree
o Strongly agree

* In general, I take sustainability into account when making decisions.

o Strongly disagree
o Disagree
o Agree nor disagree
o Agree
o Strongly agree

* In general, sustainability plays a big role in my daily life.

o Strongly disagree
o Disagree
o Agree nor disagree
o Agree
o Strongly agree

Please answer the following questions about sustainability at the UT as best as possible. Both scales
and multiple choice questions are included.

* In the last year, how often did you encounter communication about sustainability initiatives of the
University of Twente?

o Never
o Rarely
o Sometimes
o Often
o Very often

* Where did you read, hear, or see about sustainability at the University of Twente? You can choose
multiple answers.

o UT Website
o Email
o Newsletter
o In a meeting
o In a conversation
o Utoday
o During a lecture
o Policy document
o Social media UT (Facebook, Twitter, Instagram or LinkedIn)
o Other, namely…

* I feel like the University of Twente communicates about sustainability initiatives quite frequently.

72
 o Strongly disagree
o Disagree
o Agree nor disagree
o Agree
o Strongly agree

* I feel like the University of Twente should communicate more about its sustainability initiatives.

o Strongly disagree
o Disagree
o Agree nor disagree
o Agree
o Strongly agree

73
Appendix IV Final results factor analysis and pattern matrix
Total variance explained

Initial Eigenvalues Rotation Sums of

Squared Loadings
Component Total % of Variance Cumulative % Total
1 7.84 17 17 4.05
2 4.83 11 28 5.21
3 3.48 8 36 3.62
4 2.33 5 41 4.00
5 2.00 4 46 3.34
6 1.67 4 49 2.58
7 1.37 3 52 3.81
8 1.31 3 55 2.45
9 1.23 3 58 3.10
10 1.08 2 60 3.45
11 1.03 2 63 2.98

Pattern Matrix

Component

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

SJS1 -.77
SJS2 -.83
SJS3 -.52

SJS4R -.75
IDF1 -.78
IDF2 -.48
IDF3 -.58
IDF4 -.67
IDF5 -.81
IDF6 -.70
PEP1 -.81
PEP2 -.68
PEP3 -.62
RQ1 -.74
RQ2 -.69
RQ3 -.58 .34
RQ4 -.48
EQ1 .64
EQ2 .56
EQ3 .61
EQ4 .53

CQ1 .72

74
CQ2 .68
CQ3 .78

CQ4 .79
AQ1 -.65
AQ2 -.75

AQ3 -.86
AQ4 -.80
SQ1 .86

SQ2 .85
SQ3 .82
SQ4 .78

WTC1 .84
WTC2 .73
WTC3 .82

CSRP1 .81
CSRP2 .82
CSRP4R .74

SB1 .67
SB2 .74
SB3 .55 .31

SB4 .66
SCOM1 .88
SCOM3 .84

75
Appendix V Results demographics
Distribution age

Employees Students Total

Frequency Percent Frequency Percent Percent

17 0 0.0 2 .5 .3
18 0 0.0 38 10.0 6.2
19 1 0.4 62 16.4 10.3
20 0 0.0 59 15.6 9.6
21 1 0.4 55 14.5 9.1
22 0 0.0 43 11.3 7.0
23 2 .9 43 11.3 7.3
24 6 2.6 26 6.9 5.2
25 8 3.4 14 3.7 3.6
26 10 4.3 16 4.2 4.2
27 10 4.3 7 1.8 2.8
28 11 4.7 4 1.1 2.4
29 12 5.1 6 1.6 2.9
30 8 3.4 1 0.3 1.5
31 6 2.6 1 0.3 1.1
32 14 6.0 1 0.3 2.4
33 9 3.8 1 0.3 1.6
34 9 3.8 0 0.0 1.5
35 6 2.6 0 0.0 1.0
36 3 1.3 0 0.0 .5
37 3 1.3 0 0.0 .5
38 8 3.4 0 0.0 1.3
39 4 1.7 0 0.0 .7
40 5 2.1 0 0.0 .8
41 2 .9 0 0.0 .3
42 6 2.6 0 0.0 1.0
43 3 1.3 0 0.0 .5
44 5 2.1 0 0.0 .8
45 8 3.4 0 0.0 1.3
46 4 1.7 0 0.0 .7
47 3 1.3 0 0.0 .5
48 3 1.3 0 0.0 .5
50 4 1.7 0 0.0 .7
51 1 .4 0 0.0 .2

76
52 5 2.1 0 0.0 .8
53 3 1.3 0 0.0 .5
54 3 1.3 0 0.0 .5
55 7 3.0 0 0.0 1.1
56 4 1.7 0 0.0 .7
57 4 1.7 0 0.0 .7
58 1 .4 0 0.0 .2
59 3 1.3 0 0.0 .5
60 8 3.4 0 0.0 1.3
61 3 1.3 0 0.0 .5
62 4 1.7 0 0.0 .7
63 6 2.6 0 0.0 1.0
64 2 .9 0 0.0 .3
65 6 2.6 0 0.0 1.0
66 1 .4 0 0.0 .2

Years at UT

Employees Students Total

Frequency Percent Frequency Percent Percent

0 27 11.5 95 25.1 19.9

1 30 12.8 117 30.9 23.9
2 22 9.4 63 16.6 13.8
3 20 8.5 44 11.6 10.4
4 15 6.4 25 6.6 6.5
5 9 3.8 15 4.0 3.9
6 5 2.1 8 2.1 2.1
7 7 3.0 5 1.3 2.0
8 5 2.1 4 1.1 1.5
9 1 .4 1 0.3 .3
10 3 1.3 0 0.0 .5
11 3 1.3 1 0.3 .7
12 6 2.6 1 0.3 1.1
13 6 2.6 0 0.0 1.0
14 3 1.3 0 0.0 .5
15 1 .4 0 0.0 .2
16 2 .9 0 0.0 .3
17 2 .9 0 0.0 .3
18 1 .4 0 0.0 .2
19 2 .9 0 0.0 .3
20 6 2.6 0 0.0 1.0
21 4 1.7 0 0.0 .7

77
22 3 1.3 0 0.0 .5
23 4 1.7 0 0.0 .7
24 2 .9 0 0.0 .3
25 4 1.7 0 0.0 .7
26 3 1.3 0 0.0 .5
27 4 1.7 0 0.0 .7
28 2 .9 0 0.0 .3
30 6 2.6 0 0.0 1.0
31 2 .9 0 0.0 .3
32 2 .9 0 0.0 .3
33 5 2.1 0 0.0 .8
34 5 2.1 0 0.0 .8
35 4 1.7 0 0.0 .7
36 1 .4 0 0.0 .2
38 2 .9 0 0.0 .3
39 3 1.3 0 0.0 .5
40 2 .9 0 0.0 .3
41 1 .4 0 0.0 .2

Distribution staff

Frequency Percent

Academic staff 76 12
(research and teaching)
Academic staff 45 7
(research only)
Academic staff 14 2
(teaching only)
Non-academic staff 100 16

Distribution study programme

Frequency Percent

Bachelor 235 38
Pre-master 21 3
Master 123 20

78