The Effect of Education in Sustainability on the Attitude towards Corporate
Sustainability among Business School Students in the Netherlands
H.J. (Jazz) Rampen (11568127) Supervisor: Dr. G.T. Vinig
M.Sc. Business Administration: Entrepreneurship & Innovation Track University of Amsterdam Business School
Statement of Originality
This document is written by Hiskia (Jazz) Rampen who declares to take full responsibility for the contents of this document.
I declare that the text and the work presented in this document is original and that no sources other than those mentioned in the text and its references have
been used in creating it.
The Faculty of Economics and Business is responsible solely for the supervision of completion of the work, not for the contents.
Table of Content
Abstract ... 5
1 Introduction ... 6
2 Literature review & Conceptual Model ... 8
2.1 Concept of Corporate Sustainability ... 9
2.1.1 Sustainable Businesses ... 11
2.1.2 Sustainability Strategies ... 12
2.1.3 The Financial Performance of Corporate Sustainability ... 15
2.1.4 Critique on CSR and Corporate Sustainability ... 17
2.2 Attitude ... 19
2.3 Sustainability Education ... 20
2.4 Conceptual Model and Hypotheses ... 22
3 Data and Method ... 25
3.1 Data Collection ... 25
3.2 Sample ... 26
3.3 Measurements ... 28
3.3.1 Attitude Towards Corporate Sustainability ... 28
3.3.2 Personal Environmental Concern ... 29
3.3.3 Education in Sustainability ... 30
3.3.4 Control Variables ... 30
3.4 Research Method ... 31
3.4.1 Preliminary Tests ... 31
3.4.2 Reliability ... 31
3.4.3 Correlation and Regression ... 32
4.1 Testing Assumptions ... 34
4.2 Descriptive Statistics ... 35
4.3 Correlation Analysis ... 35
4.4 Regression Analyses ... 38
5. Discussion ... 42
5.1 Theoretical Implications and Suggestions for Further Research ... 42
5.2 Practical Implications ... 45 5.3 Explained Variance ... 47 5.4 Limitations ... 47 6 Conclusion ... 50 References ... 53 Appendices ... 58 Appendix A: Survey ... 58
Abstract
Recently, a growing number of sustainability courses are finding their way into business school curricula. Scholars suggest that sustainability in business starts with educating students in sustainability. In this study, the influence of sustainability education on the attitude towards corporate sustainability among business school students was examined while including personal environmental concern as a mediating variable. The data was collected from business school students across multiple universities in the Netherlands. Regression analyses, controlling for gender, level of education and institution, indicated that education does not affect attitudes towards corporate sustainability when concepts of sustainability are introduced, both directly and indirectly via the mediating variable. The personal environmental concern of students is similarly not increased by education in sustainability. However, empirical evidence was found that personal environmental concern significantly affects the attitude towards corporate sustainability. Moreover, gender differences were found for environmental concern, so that women are more sensitive to the environment than men. An ANOVA analysis showed that there is also no difference in attitude when education is followed as an elective course or when sustainability is at the core of the curriculum. Practical implications, theoretical implications, limitations and suggestions for further research are discussed.
Keywords: corporate sustainability, attitude, environmental concern, sustainable
1 Introduction
Environmental issues and protection of the environment have received increasing attention among media, the public and governments. The belief that humans are superior on earth, the Dominant Social Paradigm, is shifting towards the New Ecological Paradigm, in which people recognize the impact humans have on the environment. (Shetzer, Stackman, & Moore, 1991; Dalton, Gontmacher, Lovrich, & Pierce, 1999). In addition to the individual views of people, there has been an increase in attention for organizational sustainability within both businesses and society (Pfeffer, 2010). The opinions on the responsibilities of businesses are changing to the extent that companies are routinely investing to achieve environmental and social goals next their economic goals (Shetzer, Stackman, & Moore, 1991; Whiteman, Walker & Perego (2013)). Companies participate in these sustainable developments because it is more widely believed than before that is their obligation to do so and previous literature has also identified businesses as the main driver for ecological degradation in the first place (Whiteman et al., 2013; Cohen & Winn, 2007).
While governments were the main driver of sustainable developments in the nineties, this has shifted strongly towards businesses (Dyllick & Hockerts, 2002). According to Unilever CEO Paul Polman, we are entering a time where responsible businesses are ahead of politicians (Hoffman, 2018). Steps have been made by companies to contribute to sustainable developments, however, the challenge to transform business theory and practice so that they contribute to social and environmental development remains. (Gladwin, Kennelly, & Krause, 1995). The World Bank even mentions that “the achievement of sustained and equitable development is the greatest challenge facing the human race” (World Bank, 1992, p.1).
Sustainability within businesses is driven by human developments and a shift in paradigm therefore starts at educating humans on sustainability; more specifically in business schools (Gladwin et al., 1995; Kagawa, 2007; Driver, 2012;). However, this is where a paradox
emerges; previous research claims that business students are less sensitive towards the environment (Cordano, Ellis & Scherer, 2003; Thomas, 2005). It is therefore important to know whether education in sustainability at business schools would influence personal environmental concerns and attitudes towards corporate sustainability. If that is not the case, the challenges of sustainable development will not be overcome with education. Personal experiences within the Business School of the University of Amsterdam contradict the finding that business students are less sensitive towards the environment. This, combined with an interest in (corporate) sustainability, formed the basis of this study. Specifically, the study researched what the influence is of education on students’ attitude towards corporate sustainability, using the following research question:
What is the effect of education in sustainability on the attitude towards corporate sustainability among business school students in the Netherlands?
This study is partly inspired by an exploratory study by (Ng & Burke, 2010) that tested the influence of the multiple variables on business students’ attitude towards corporate sustainability. The role of education, however, was not considered, and therefore introduced in this research. The majority of literature has focused on changing attitudes of students rather than measuring them (Ng & Burke, 2010). Similarly, according to Kagawa (2007), the attitudes towards corporate sustainability among students have been under-researched. Research has focused on corporate sustainability, sustainability education and to a lesser extent the attitude of business students towards sustainable business practices. There is no study that brings these elements together to explain the relations between them. Moreover, most of the research on attitudes towards corporate sustainability only consider environmental sustainability and neglect the social aspect. This paper also contributes to the academic debate by including the social dimension of sustainability in the discussion.
The findings of this research illustrate the power of universities in shaping the attitudes of students but it also critically assesses whether their current practices are effective. Finally, the findings have implications for future business school curricula and the policies of universities. The data for this research were collected, via a survey with pre-validated scales, among business school students across multiple universities in the Netherlands. The hypotheses and statistical model were tested through quantitative data analyses.
The next chapter will continue with explaining the essential concepts in this paper, synthesize previous research and form a theory and conceptual model based on previous research. Chapter 3 Data & Method provides a detailed description of the sample, measures and explains how the hypotheses are tested. Moreover, in Chapter 4 Results, the results of the data analyses are presented and used to support or reject the hypotheses. In Chapter 5 Discussion, the significance of the findings is discussed and compared to the theory. Moreover, both the theoretical and practical implications are discussed. Finally, the limitations of this research are acknowledged and recommendations for further research are made.
2 Literature review & Conceptual Model
To fully understand the concept of corporate sustainability, this literature review will start by explaining the concept of corporate sustainability. Then it will go in-depth into the topic by explaining the different types of corporate sustainability, the financial performance and critique on corporate sustainability. Similarly, it will introduce the construct ‘attitude’, which is essential for understanding the boundaries of this research. Finally, the literature review will explain the importance of education in the transformation towards sustainable business practices.
2.1 Concept of Corporate Sustainability
There are many different definitions of corporate sustainability and sustainable development. The most used definition was developed by former prime minister Brundtland of Norway. She described sustainable development as “meeting the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.” (WCED, 1987, p.43). An expansion of this framework, the concept of ‘triple-bottom-line’, was first introduced by Elkington in 1997. This concept introduced the importance of social and environmental value next to economic value. These three elements are not independent but interrelated and influence each other. The triple-bottom-line is also commonly known as ‘people, planet and profit’ (see Figure 1). Another, valuable addition to the Brundtland definition was formulated by Dyllick & Hockerts (2002) who transposed this idea more to a business level by including the notion of stakeholders. They stated that corporate sustainability meets the needs of present, direct and indirect, stakeholders without compromising the ability to meet the needs of future stakeholders (WCED, 1987; Dyllick & Hockerts, 2002). While definitions differ, most of them are extensions of Brundtland (1987) and acknowledge the triple-bottom-line. This paper also follows that reasoning.
The future focus, used in these definitions, is supported by Hawken (1993) who mentions that a sustainable society can exist over a long period of time because its economic demands can be met by the environment and people without reducing the capacity of the
Figure 1: the three dimensions of sustainability (Dyllick & Hockerts, 2002, p.132)
environment to provide for future generations. This means that businesses must not be driven by short-term pressures and quarterly reporting, but by a longer-term focus in order to be sustainable and meet the needs of future stakeholders (Dyllick & Hockerts, 2002). An example of a company that successfully implemented this is Unilever; the Anglo-Dutch company focusses on all three dimensions of sustainability throughout every function of the company. The board, led by CEO Paul Polman, decided the company should not be led by short-term pressures and stopped the company from reporting results quarterly. As a result, Unilever is reporting results on an annual basis instead (Bhattacharya & Polman, 2017).
According to Dyllick & Hockerts (2002) businesses do not only need to manage economic capital, but consequently social and environmental capital. Economically sustainable companies require companies to manage financial, tangible and intangible capital. Environmentally sustainable companies “use only natural resources that are consumed at a rate below the natural reproduction, or at a rate below the development of substitutes. They do not cause emissions that accumulate in the environment at a rate beyond the capacity of the natural system to absorb and assimilate these emissions. Finally, they do not engage in activity that degrades eco-system services.” (p. 133). Socially sustainable companies add value to communities and increase human capital of individuals and social capital within these communities.
The challenge for businesses is to combine all three dimensions of corporate sustainability within their business model. However, Hahn, Pinkse, Preuss & Figge (2015) noticed that many companies prioritize the economic dimension over the other two, and named this the ‘instrumental logic’. This logic follows the reasoning that firms will benefit economically when addressing social and environmental issues, however, it ignores situations in which this is not the case. Not in all cases are economic outcomes aligned with social and environmental aspects, which creates tensions between the dimensions. The lack of consideration of these tensions and challenges do not match with the complexity of corporate
sustainability. The writers therefore propose to address corporate sustainability through an integrative view, which does not prioritize one dimension over others and argues that firms need to address different sustainability aspects in all dimensions simultaneously, even if they may seem contradictory. According to Hahn et al. (2015), the triple-bottom-line only places the three dimensions next to each other without addressing the relationship between them. The integrative view argues that managers need to embrace the tensions and that the achievement of corporate sustainability depends on the ability of managers to address all three dimensions while they might seem conflicting. The paper consequently advices management how to overcome the tensions that might arise, with the aim to help organizations deal with the complexity of corporate sustainability. Up until now, not a lot of research has addressed corporate sustainability using the integrative approach. Moreover, the lack of systemic thinking creates a gap in further understanding the concept of corporate sustainability (Hahn et al., 2015). Corporate sustainability, sustainable business practices and sustainable development are used interchangeably in this paper, however it should not be confused with corporate social responsibility (CSR). CSR in itself has many definitions as well and is in this case defined as the principle that business operations consider and are responsible for their impact in society. CSR, however, does not entail the long-term vision of corporate sustainability (Dahlsruth, 2008).
2.1.1 Sustainable Businesses
With a clear definition of corporate sustainability, this paper continues to analyze companies engaged with sustainable business practices, which can be divided into three types of businesses (Stubbs & Cocklin, 2008). The businesses differ in how they consider nature, time, stakeholders, externalities, and corporate sustainability as a strategy. First, neoclassical businesses aim to pursue only economic goals and wish to satisfy share- and stakeholders. These companies are self-centered and have a short-term focus. They associate sustainability
with increased costs and the only reasons to pursue social or environmental goals are in their self-interest; to gain a competitive advantage, to increase profits, to comply to legislation, public pressure or pressure from stakeholders. Typically, employees of these companies believe that the company’s needs are ‘above’ nature and that resources are plentiful. These companies do not involve sustainability in their strategic planning and at the same time managers do not value sustainability highly (Stubbs & Cocklin, 2008).
On the other end, ecocentric organizations try to minimize their use of resources, but also try to renew them. These companies try to produce little amounts of waste and pollution and reuse their resources as much as possible. Ecocentric companies include sustainability in their corporate strategy out of ethical motives because they believe it is the right thing to do. These companies have a long-term focus and highly value the environment, pursue stakeholder fairness and equity while recognizing the need to make profits (Stubbs & Cocklin, 2008; Gladwin et al., 1995).
In between these two, is the ecological modernization (EM) business, or ‘sustainablecentric business’ by Gladwin et al. (1995). The EM business’ goal is to act self-interested without harming nature or its stakeholders. It wants to be profitable, but consequently improve stakeholders’ welfare and minimize environmental impact. However, if the business does harm the environment, it will try to compensate this (for example by planting trees to compensate for CO2 emissions). The companies act out of ethical and economic reasons and
develop products and services that are designed to have low impact and reduce its ecological footprint. EM companies generally report their performance using the triple-bottom-line (Stubbs & Cocklin, 2008). Concluding, corporate sustainability exists in multiple forms and levels of intensity and commitment. Therefore, corporate sustainability does not always have a similar impact on the environment and society.
In the past, corporate sustainability has been ineffective because business was seen separately from society, while the two are interlinked. Moreover, companies thought in terms of CSR, responding to adverse effects of business activities or being a good corporate citizen, rather than creating ‘shared value’ for both business and society (Porter & Kramer, 2006).
Different types of companies also suggest different types of sustainability strategies to obtain the goals of corporate sustainability. There is no fixed model to perform or implement corporate sustainability, the success and approach depend on the context of the business and environment, however scholars agree that it can only be effective if the sustainability initiatives are a coordinated whole (Porter & Kramer, 2006; Rangan, Chase & Karim, 2015). According to Porter & Kramer (2006), in order to develop a successful strategy, a firm needs to start by identifying the points of intersection between the business and society. More specifically, where societal conditions impact the business. Once, the company is aware of that, the firm can start prioritizing which of those issues they want to address. A firm must address issues that intersect with their business, otherwise it does not create strategic value for them.
Porter & Kramer (2006) distinguished three types of societal issues, which can be addressed by two strategies (see Figure 2). Firstly, companies can create generic social impact by addressing issues that are not directly affected by the activities of the business nor the long-term strategy. These types of efforts are generally uncoordinated and not creating value for the company (e.g. philanthropy). Secondly, companies can create value chain impact by reducing harmful value chain activities (e.g. reducing water use or CO2 emission). Reducing pollution
and increased efficiencies are associated with a reduction of costs (see Chapter 2.1.3). Moreover, value chain impact can go one step further and transform the value chain so that the value chain can contribute to society while reinforcing the overall corporate strategy. A concrete example from a company is a soap developed by Unilever that does not need water to function, specially developed for water-stressed areas (Bhattacharya & Polman, 2017). Unilever does not only work on sustainable sourcing but with this waterless soap, it addresses the societal issue
of water scarcity while reinforcing the overall corporate strategy (Unilever, 2018). Thirdly, companies can impact social dimensions of competitive context in which a company impacts the external environment that significantly affects the underlying drivers of the company’s competitiveness at locations where it operates (Porter & Kramer, 2006). An example of addressing this social dimension is a program by Microsoft in which it helped students in American community colleges develop IT-related skills. This project positively impacted both the local community and Microsoft, because the students were a new employee pool for Microsoft while the students increased their chances for a job, thus creating ‘shared value’ (Porter & Kramer, 2006). By having this new pool of potential employees, Microsoft impacted the external environment, namely the availability of human resources, which in its turn affected the competitiveness of the company.
Addressing the latter two types of social issues is identified by Porter & Kramer as ‘strategic CSR’; the sustainability initiatives go beyond their best practices and form a unique proposition that serves both the company and society. On the other hand, with ’responsive CSR’, companies act as a ‘good citizen’, addressing social concerns of stakeholders or mitigate existing adverse effects from business activities. Even though the writers label this framework as ‘CSR’, this paper considers it, except for generic social impact, to be within the definition of
Figure 2: Corporate involvement in society (Porter & Kramer, 2006, p.89)
corporate sustainability. Concluding, the type of strategy a company pursues will depend on the type of business, however Porter & Kramer (2006; 2011) believe that all companies should move towards a creation of value for both society and companies.
2.1.3 The Financial Performance of Corporate Sustainability
Even though showing the financial benefits of corporate sustainability is not the goal of this paper, to fully understand the concept and its consequences (i.a. attitude formation) it is also necessary to understand what corporate sustainability means to the financial/economic performance of a firm. In short; does corporate sustainability pay? The traditional way of thinking about companies engaging in environmental protection is that is an additional cost for the firm and may challenge its competitiveness. However, this thinking has been evolving over the past decades and a new paradigm has emerged in which scholars believe that environmental performance can also lead to financial performance.
Ambec & Lanoie (2008) made a systemic overview of the mechanisms involved in this process. According to the study, corporate sustainability leads to increased financial performance through two channels: increased potential revenue and cost reductions, which can also reinforce each other (Ambec & Lanoie, 2008). There are three ways how potential revenues can be increased. First, environmental performance can lead to better access to certain markets; public organizations may reward green suppliers and customer loyalty is enhanced, leading to an increased demand. Second, it allows companies to differentiate their products and use a differentiation strategy to exploit niches in environmentally sensitive market segments. Third, when a company produces pollution-reducing technologies. However, the latter is not a common phenomenon.
Moreover, there are four ways how corporate sustainability can reduce costs. First, risk management and relations with external stakeholders make it less likely that the firm will be prone to boycotting, litigation or fines. In addition, the risks of future regulations are reduced.
Second, reducing pollution is often associated with an increase of efficiency in resources used. Hence, the cost of material, energy and services are reduced. Third, the cost of capital is reduced; greener firms have easier access to capital markets through special green funds, they can borrow more easily from banks and shareholders are generally influenced by information regarding the environmental performance of a firm. Finally, the cost of labor is reduced; people that are proud of the company they work for are more productive and advocate their workplace to others. Costs are not only reduced by less absenteeism and turnover, but also by reducing recruitment activities (Ambec & Lanoie, 2008).
Furthermore, Barnett & Salomon (2012) conducted an empirical study among more than 1200 firms with data across at least two years to bring together the contrasting literature on what they call corporate social performance (CSP) and financial performance. They found that the financial performance, for both the Return on Assets (ROA) and Net Income, has a U-shaped relation with social performance; firms with low CSP have better financial performance than firms with moderate CSP, but firms with high CSP have the best financial performance (see Figure 3). The shape of the curve is steeper for ROA than it is for Net Income. The increased financial performance is therefore most likely to come from a more efficient use of resources in the production process rather than from revenues from new markets, customers or premium prices (Barnett & Salomon, 2012). For firms that had a good relationship with stakeholders it was easier to move along the curve because the stakeholders believed their practices were legitimate and rewarded them for it. For firms that do not have credibility among their stakeholders it will be more difficult to achieve financial returns from social activities and they experience a strong increase in costs and decrease in financial performance first. The credibility among stakeholders can only be achieved through systematically investing in social activities. Concluding; if the non-credible firms invest long enough in social performance, they will eventually increase their financial performance too. However, many firms stop investing in social performance before legitimacy is perceived by stakeholders. An important lesson from
this study is it takes time before social investments pay off, but eventually it always will (Barnett & Salomon, 2012).
2.1.4 Critique on CSR and Corporate Sustainability
This chapter synthesizes critique that scholars have given on the role of businesses in society and corporate sustainability respectively. Some of the critique was aimed at CSR, but the arguments also apply to corporate sustainability. CSR has been widely criticized by academics for decades already, however the arguments have varied widely. A common critique of CSR is that some companies use it as ‘greenwashing’. This means that corporations present themselves as environmental and society friendly while actually their only objective is to expand their markets. These businesses misleadingly try to benefit from a positive image and reputation.
Milton Friedman (1970) believed businesses are not people and can therefore not have responsibilities. It is executives that bear responsibilities, and their responsibility is to make as much profit as possible for the company within ethical and lawful boundaries. If executives spend money on societal issues it would be like spending someone else’s money. The action would reduce stockholder returns, lower wages and raise prices, similar to imposing taxes. In his opinion, societal issues should be addressed by governments, who are elected to do this and
Figure 3: The relationship between corporate social
businesses should not interfere in this process (Friedman, 1970). Banerjee (2009) is also skeptical of CSR and the influence of businesses in the public domain. He believes that CSR is a movement for companies to legitimize and consolidate their power. Businesses are driven by economic needs and therefore have a different basic function than governments and should consequently not take over the government’s role in contributing to social welfare (Banerjee, 2009).
While these critiques were aimed at CSR, the arguments from Friedman (1970) and Banerjee (2009) also apply to corporate sustainability. Moreover, corporate sustainability itself has also been criticized. Whiteman et al. (2013) identified a paradox within the field of corporate sustainability and subsequently suggested how to solve this problem. It was already mentioned that previous literature has identified businesses as the main driver for ecological degradation (Whiteman et al., 2013; Cohen & Winn, 2007). The paradox is that companies these days invest routinely in corporate sustainability, ’ecoficiency’ matters and climate-related investments, however ecological analyses suggest that the global ecological systems are still worsening and arriving at alarming states of affairs. They identify a disconnect between corporate sustainability and natural sciences: the effect of corporate greening is unknown and it is not clear whether it contributes to ecological sustainability at all. This has happened because businesses and researchers fail to think outside of their field to see the bigger picture (Whiteman et al., 2013).
The writers identified three ways in which corporate sustainability and natural sciences are disconnected. First, most empirical studies do not quantitatively measure to what extent companies contribute to the degradation of ecological systems. Instead, the literature focuses on understanding the social, organizational or institutional complications of corporate sustainability. Second, research in the field of corporate sustainability that do focus on ecological systems, focus on a single issue like chemical pollution, climate change or biodiversity loss. Ecological systems are complex and interdependent; corporate sustainability
efforts are unlikely to be able to address these systematic challenges effectively. Third, research has failed to integrate theory and data from natural sciences into the business literature. They illustrate that there is little overlap between the articles in Nature, a highly valued science journal, and top management journals. However, it is clear that these two fields would need to integrate to successfully research and address corporate sustainability (Whiteman et al., 2013). To reestablish the link between corporate sustainability; the writers propose that research regarding the topic need to have a dual focus; both on the firm and ecological systems. The integration of these two fields would be able to build an ecologically-grounded foundation for corporate sustainability research (Whiteman et al., 2013).
2.2 Attitude
This research is specifically focused on attitudes towards corporate sustainability, however first the concept of attitude in general needs to be understood. Attitude has many definitions but scholars agree that a person’s attitude represents the evaluation of an entity in question. Consequently, a person’s attitude towards an entity influence the responses to the object, but it does not predict any action (Ajzen & Fishbein, 1977). This paper mentioned that business students are less sensitive towards the environment (Cordano, Ellis & Scherer, 2003). In addition, according to a study among MBA students in top business schools, 31.5% of the students believed their environmental responsibilities extended no further than the law requires. Moreover, they believed that sustainable business practices would not be supported by executives within corporations. This belief inhibits them from adopting sustainable developments and undermines the shift in paradigm.
Therefore, in order to successfully influence attitudes and also include sustainability in the corporate decision-making process, Thomas (2005) argues that students need to understand the legitimacy of the topic as a business issue. Legitimacy is a general perception or assumption that certain actions are desirable within certain norms and values. Thus, when people believe
certain actions are desirable their attitude will also be positive. Linking attitudes to education, when sustainability is at the core of courses, students address it as a central theme in managerial decisions and perceive it to be more legitimate (Thomas, 2005). The next section will elaborate more on education in sustainability.
2.3 Sustainability Education
The introduction mentioned the importance of human knowledge for sustainable business practices. This section will further explain how education contributes to sustainable development and attitudes and will consequently set the boundaries for this research.
Since the Brundtland Commission Report in 1987, and the Agenda 21 by the United Nations on sustainable development in 1992, the international community has acknowledged the importance of education in sustainability. This is important because education in sustainability is believed to have the power to guide people to engage with and reflect on sustainability (Springett, 2005). According to Gladwin et al. (1995) sustainable business practices are driven by human developments, and in line with this theory, strategist Michael Porter believes that a shift from traditional economic theory towards a sustainable one starts by moving the entire business school curriculum into the direction of sustainability (Porter & Kramer, 2011). According to Porter, a shift is not only caused by a small number of courses, but all courses should include the concept of sustainability. A new approach in business schools should inspire and educate the next generation of leaders (Driver, 2012). This shift of paradigm has already started with a growing number of sustainability programs in business schools (Thomas, 2005; Christensen, Peirce, Hartman, Hoffman & Carrier, 2007; Pfeffer, 2010; Ng & Burke, 2010). However, most of these programs are not included in the general curriculum of business schools. There has been little progress in integrating the concept into for example accounting, finance and strategy courses (Thomas, 2005).
The biggest obstacle for a successful integration into business curricula is the lack of time and staff expertise (Springett & Kearins, 2005). Related to time is also the perceived importance of the issue; people and institutions find it difficult to make time for something they do not perceive as relevant. Moreover, scholars have shown that corporate sustainability can be profitable for a company (Ambec & Lanoie, 2008; Barnett, & Salomon, 2012), however some scholars still argue that it harms the economical bottom line of a company. This latter view is also reflected in traditional business schools’ curricula (Hoffmann & Ventresca, 1999; Springett & Kearins, 2001). Carrithers & Peterson (2006) identified that there is a gap between the faculty members who believe in market-based economies and those that believe in a multiple-bottom-line. According to their study, this split forces students to choose between one of the sides in the discussion with difficulties to link the two aspects. This divide would be harmful to the development of the students.
Moreover, there is an on-going debate on the effectiveness of education in sustainability. Critical scholars have suggested that ethical beliefs cannot be taught because character development has already completed when an individual reaches college age (Cragg, 1997). Moreover, sustainability challenges students to develop new ways of working and changing the status quo, however most business schools educate following fixed and narrow models and methods that are inadequate to foster challenges in corporate sustainability. The narrow models of business schools have a negative effect on the perceived legitimacy of sustainability by students (Thomas, 2005). Even if students value sustainability, the institutionalism of business schools and the belief that executives will not support them can diminish the positive attitude (Thomas, 2005).
In the particular case of the University of Amsterdam, the Amsterdam Business School (ABS) claims a high commitment to sustainability and state that ethics, responsibility and sustainability achieve particular attention in research education and outreach activities (Amsterdam Business School, 2016). The mission of the ABS is to “foster independent minds
with an impact on international business and society at large” (Amsterdam Business School, 2017). Within this mission, it emphasizes social sustainability but misses environmental sustainability in its mission to meet the triple-bottom-line approach. However, the ABS has joint the Principles for Responsible Management Education (PRME) movement, which aims to achieve the Sustainable Development Goals from the United Nations through education. By joining this initiative, the ABS has put more emphasis on sustainability within the business school in research, education, partnerships and other stakeholders. Moreover, the ABS has joined multiple other networks to that commit to sustainability in education.
2.4 Conceptual Model and Hypotheses
Businesses are the only institutions that can lead a transition towards sustainable development, however it is business school education that can ensure that the future leaders of these businesses contribute to the sustainability transition (Springett & Kearins, 2001; Dyllick & Hockerts, 2002). Two journals have dedicated a special issue on changing attitudes towards sustainability (see Business Strategy and the Environment, 2005, Vol.14, No. 3, Special Issue on “Educating for Sustainability; and the Journal of Management Education, 2003, Vol. 27, No. 2, Special Issue on “Teaching about Environmental Sustainability”). Specifically, Kearins and Springett have written extensively about educating on sustainability in business schools with practical implications and moreover on how to create more space for the issue in students’ minds. Taking the influence and importance of education in sustainability into consideration, the theory leads to hypothesis 1a. The hypotheses and relations between the variables are visually displayed in the conceptual model (see Figure 4).
Hypothesis 1a: Education in sustainability has a direct positive relationship with attitude towards corporate sustainability, so that a positive attitude towards corporate sustainability is increased when concepts of sustainability are introduced.
Education in sustainability exists in different forms; a distinction can be made between sustainability included in all courses throughout the curriculum, as suggested by Porter, obligatory courses in sustainability within the curriculum and elective courses in (corporate) sustainability. When looking at the offering of sustainability education in business schools in the Netherlands, there are multiple master programs that combine business and sustainability. The Rotterdam School of Management (RSM) offers a full-time research master’s degree in ‘Global Business and Sustainability’. Moreover, the Amsterdam Business School also offers a research master in ‘Business and Society’. In addition to full-time programs, business schools offer multiple elective courses on corporate sustainability in the business administration programs, however, no compulsory courses regarding corporate sustainability are yet present in Dutch university curricula on both bachelor or master level. When sustainability is at the core of courses, students perceive it to be more legitimate and address it as a central theme in managerial decisions (Thomas, 2005). This leads to hypothesis 1b:
Hypothesis 1b: Sustainability education is more effective when it is at the core of the curriculum rather than followed as an elective course.
By obliging business students to follow a course on environmental sustainability, Cordano et al. (2003) found that it increases their environmental sensitivity and interest in sustainability and thus their personal environmental concern. That study specifically focused on the environmental aspect of sustainability, leaving social sustainability out of scope. The course included past and present environmental problems, public policies and organizational practices to mitigate the problems. The study additionally claims that increasing sensitivity is also effective among managers, so that it affects issue interpretation, environmental championing and consequently the firms’ environmental practices and environmental performance (Cordano
et al., 2003). By making students more sensitive to environmental sustainability, their interpretations of environmental issues can be shaped to the extent to which they consider the environmental impact of their decisions, which leads to hypothesis 2 (see Figure 4) (Cordano et al., 2003).
Hypothesis 2: Education in sustainability has a positive direct relationship with personal environmental concern, so that personal environmental concern is increased when concepts of sustainability are introduced.
Pro-ecological orientation or personal environmental concern, as it is labeled in this paper, should shape attitudes and beliefs regarding a broad spectrum of issues (Dunlap, Van Liere, Mertig, & Jones, 2000). A wide range of articles have explained this relationship, however the most important research for this paper is the study by Shetzer et al. (1999). The goal of the study by Shetzer et al. (1991) was to examine the attitude of business students towards the environment but consequently to measure the relationship between personal environmental concern and attitudes towards corporate environmental sustainability. The majority of students (96.6%) believed that organizations should spend more money on environmental protection, that businesses should lead in these protection efforts (74.3%) and consequently that environmental concern is not inferior the economic benefits (88.6%) (Shetzer et al., 1991). This finding is contradictory to earlier mentioned research, which claimed that business students are lowly sensitive towards the environment.
The study consequently found a significant correlation (0.48) between personal environmental concerns and the attitude towards corporate environmental sustainability. Due to this relationship, the article claims that environmental awareness is not merely a passing trend but a growing facet in our social consciousness (Shetzer et al., 1991). This leads to the formulation of hypothesis 3 (see Figure 4).
Hypothesis 3: Personal environmental concern has a direct positive relationship with attitude towards corporate sustainability, so that when personal environmental concern increases, the attitude towards corporate sustainability increases as well.
3 Data and Method
3.1 Data Collection
The data for this research was collected using an online survey. Students were asked to fill in the survey online via a link, and they were able to fill it in at any place and at any time. There was no reward for completing the survey. The length of the survey was approximately 5 minutes. The study was a cross-sectional study; data were collected over three weeks in April and May 2018.
This research used a non-probability sample, meaning that not all members of the population had an equal chance of being selected for this survey. The study combined multiple non-probability sampling techniques: convenience sampling and volunteer sampling. The survey was sent to approximately 560 students enrolled in the M.Sc. Business Administration
at the University of Amsterdam. Since most of them were collecting data at approximately the same time, people were willing to fill in the survey in exchange for filling in theirs. Moreover, an extra email was sent to 40 students that were enrolled in the Strategy and Sustainability elective course. Another 12 emails were sent to members of student organization SOLVE Consulting that are enrolled in business schools. The survey was also posted in Facebook groups from students at the VU. Moreover, population members were asked via an advertisement on LinkedIn to identify themselves and take part in the research. Since it was necessary to have respondents that followed track courses in sustainability, a volunteer sampling strategy was aimed at students following the Global Business and Sustainability master at the Rotterdam School of Management using the snowball technique. Due to the use of these different techniques, an accurate response rate is difficult to estimate. According to the supervisor of this thesis, Dr. T. Vinig, a response rate between 10 and 20 percent could have been expected, at which 20% would be a high response rate. The survey was sent to 560 students at the UvA and there were 58 respondents studying at the UvA, suggesting a response rate of approximately 10%.
3.2 Sample
The population of this study is business school students. However, in this chapter, the population for the research is further defined. Firstly, master students and end-phase bachelor students studying at business schools or at the economics/business faculties at universities throughout the Netherlands were part of the population of interest. Secondly, students that had a gap year in between their bachelor and master degree were technically not students but were still a group of interest and therefore included in the sample. Exchange students were also considered to be part of the scope of this research because they are enrolled at a Dutch institution and participate during at least one semester, which is half of the length of a Dutch master’s degree in business or economics. Finally, recent graduates, up to 6 months after graduating,
Table 1: Descriptive of Sample Characteristics N % Mean SD Gender 90 Male 33 35.48 Female 57 61.29 Current Education 90 Master 71 76.34 Pre-master 2 2.15
Recent Graduate (Master) 2 2.15
Gap Year in between Bachelor & Master 2 2.15
Bachelor (WO) 13 13.98
Institution 90
University of Amsterdam 58 62.37
Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam 13 13.98
Erasmus University (RSM) 15 16.13 Rijksuniversiteit Groningen 1 1.08 Maastricht University 1 1.08 Other 2 2.15 Age 80 86.00 23.35 2.02 Sustainability Courses 90 No 42 45.16 Yes 48 51.61
Outside business curriculum 3 3.30
Electives in Business School 25 26.90
Track Courses in Business School 19 20.43
Sustainability ECTS Obtained in Business
Curriculum 44 14.5 17.03
Prior Interest 48
Yes 36 38.71
No 12 12.90
were also within the population of the sample since their worldviews have most likely not changed drastically shortly after graduating. From the 93 respondents of the survey, 90 people completed the entire survey and 3 did not. Of those three cases, there are no demographic details recorded.
Table 1 provides all the details of the sample; there were only two respondents that recently graduated and two respondents in a gap year between their bachelor and master degree. From the 93 respondents of the survey, the majority of the sample was female (57) compared to male (33). A possible explanation for this distribution is that there are more female students
participating in elective courses relating to sustainability at the UvA. Moreover, 10 respondents did intentionally not disclose their age. The mean age was 23.35, with a single outlier of 35 years old. The biggest group of respondents were master students (71) and the most represented universities were the University of Amsterdam (58), Rotterdam School of Management (15) and the Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam (13). Three people followed sustainability courses outside of their business curriculum. These three are also included in the research as students that have followed education in sustainability but they are not assigned to the sub-groups ‘elective’ or ‘track course’ since these courses were followed outside the business curriculum.
The size of the population was unknown; however, the sample size was aimed to be as high as possible. Earlier research on this topic was mostly done by professors who were able to distribute the survey during class and make it compulsory, therefore high response rates have been recorded in the past.
3.3 Measurements
For this research, it was assumed that the population is fluent in English and therefore the survey was conducted in English only. Moreover, all of the validated scales used in the survey were originally constructed in English. By conducting the survey in English, the validity of the scales was not at risk.
3.3.1 Attitude Towards Corporate Sustainability
To measure attitude towards corporate sustainability, measures from Pagell & Gobeli (2009) were used. Their scale is derived from Klassen (2001), who only measured attitude towards the environment. Pagell & Gobeli (2009) introduced items to also measure attitude towards employee-well-being, derived from the environmental items. This measure is more suitable for this research because both the planet and people are addressed. Klassen (2001) derived his scale
from the longer original scale developed and validated by Shetzer et al. (1991) to assess the attitudes of business students towards corporate environmental behavior.
The environmental aspect includes five items, while the social aspect includes four items. An example of an item is: “Businesses need to spend more money on environmental protection”. Pagell & Gobeli (2009) deleted the item on job protection because employee well-being encompasses job protection. The items are measured using a 1 to 7 Likert scale ranging from 1 = ‘strongly disagree’ to 7 = ‘strongly agree’ with the midpoint being “neutral”. The research by Pagell & Gobeli (2009) was conducted among operations managers in the US, while the sample and setting of the research are different, the scale is still applicable to this case, also because the original scale was developed for students as well. The scale had in total two counter-indicative questions.
In the research of Pagell and Gobeli (2009) the Cronbach alpha of the environmental attitude items was 0.696 while the social attitude items have a Cronbach alpha of 0.820. However, in the research by Klassen (2001), the alpha value of the environmental attitudes was 0.750. This research will combine the sub-constructs into one construct “attitude towards corporate sustainability” because together it measures what this research aims to measure. The scales can be combined since they are not separate quantified measures, but originate from the same paper, measured with similar items, on the same Likert scale.
3.3.2 Personal Environmental Concern
There are multiple scales available to measure personal environmental orientation however, the New Environmental Paradigm (NEP) by Dunlap & Van Liere (1978) is one of the most used measures. In 2000, the writers published a revised version of the scale which addresses more aspects of an ecological worldview. The New Ecological Paradigm scale offers a set of both pro- and anti-NEP items and avoids outdated terminology (Dunlap et al., 2000). This paper also used the revised NEP scale as a measure because the study by Shetzer et al. (1991), which was
used as a basis in formulating hypothesis 3, also used the NEP scale. Moreover, Cordano et al. (2003), which was used as a basis for formulating hypothesis 2, used an adjusted version of both the original and revised NEP scale in their research.
The revised scale contains 15 items with a coefficient alpha of 0.830, whereas the original scale contained 12 items and an alpha value of 0.810. The new scale includes the sub-constructs; fragility of the balance of nature (items 3, 8 and 13), limits to growth (items 1, 6 and 11), anti-anthropocentrism (opposing the human age) (items 2, 7 and 12), possibility of an eco-crisis (items 5, 10 and 15) and human exemptionalism (items 4, 9 and 14) (see Appendix B). The latter is defined as the idea that humans are exempt from natural forces (Dunlap et al., 2000). An example of an item is “When humans interfere with nature it often produces disastrous consequences”. The items are measured using a 1 to 5 Likert scale ranging from 1 = ‘strongly disagree’ to 5 = ‘strongly agree’ with the midpoint being “unsure” to tackle nonresponse. The evenly numbered items are formulated so that disagreement indicates a pro-ecological worldview, and the unevenly numbered items are formulated so that agreement corresponds with a pro-ecological worldview (Dunlap et al., 2000).
3.3.3 Education in Sustainability
To measure the education in sustainability of the individual, no pre-validated scale was used. Nominal variables indicated whether the participants had followed courses in sustainability throughout or outside of their business curriculum. Moreover, the type of sustainability education the students followed was determined; elective or track courses. This was important because differences among these groups were expected. The groups of respondents were expected to have different motives for following the education. Therefore, the students were asked whether they had a prior interest in the topic before following their courses.
Control variables are variables that might influence the dependent variable but are not part of the model. These variables are used in this research to rule out other explanations of the relationship between the constructs, thus to see whether the relationship can be explained above and beyond the control variables. The control variables included are age, gender, the current level of education and the institution. The current level of education was added since master students are closer to graduating and entering the job market thus therefore possibly more aware and considerate of company practices. The institution at which the students study might also affect part of the relationship and was therefore included.
3.4 Research Method 3.4.1 Preliminary Tests
First, the dataset was cleaned; all empty cases and cases with respondents out of the scope of this research were deleted. Consequently, missing data was labeled 999.00 for all items. After that, the frequency of all items was checked to check for errors and to be able to comment on the descriptive of the sample. The numerical variables were tested using Little’s MCAR (Missing Completely at Random) test; χ2 (df = 77, N = 93) = 87.32, p = 0.198. Since this value is not significant, MCAR can be assumed. Because the sample size is rather small, the missing cases we replaced with the series’ mean. All tests were conducted with the statistical software IBM SPSS Statistics 24.
Due to the layout of the survey, the direction of the answers had to be reversed (see Appendix A). Thus, before further testing, questions were recoded into different variables so that all of the items were listed in the same direction in accordance to the original scales. After that, the mean total for the mediating and dependent variables was computed as new variables and thereby ready for further testing.
The reliability of the scales was tested using Cronbach’s alpha (see Table 2). For attitude towards corporate sustainability, the Cronbach’s alpha is 0.819 and no item would affect the reliability if they were deleted. Moreover, the New Ecological Paradigm Scale, measuring personal environmental concern, was reliable with a Cronbach’s alpha of 0.748. The corrected item-total correlation was not above 0.300 in four cases and for two items the Cronbach’s alpha would be higher when deleted. However, the alpha would increase by only 0.006 and 0.002, which is lower than 0.100 and therefore acceptable. Concluding that both scales are reliable.
Table 2: Cronbach's Alpha Variable
Personal Environmental Concern 0.748
Attitude Towards Corporate Sustainability 0.819
3.4.3 Correlation and Regression
To examine the relationship between the variables, a Pearson correlation analysis was performed first, to show the strength of the linear relationship between the variables. Afterward, regression analyses using Hayes’ Process Model 4 (Mediation; see Figure 5) in SPSS, determined the direction of the relationship and tested the hypotheses. Process Model 4 is suitable for this test because it is able to test the entire model at the same time including the control variables and can therefore test hypothesis 1a, 2 and 3 (Hayes, 2012). For the independent variable, a dummy variable was created in which 0 = did not follow education in sustainability and 1 = followed education in sustainability, because working with 0 and 1 was more convenient than with 1 and 2 when comparing it to the sub-groups, however it was not a necessity for any statistical tests. Similarly, dummy variables were created for students that followed elective courses and students that follow track courses in sustainability, in order to
analyze the correlations of the groups with the other variables and to analyze whether these were different among the two. Finally, a dummy variable was created for gender in which men were coded as 0 and women as 1.
In addition to the regression, an analysis of variance (ANOVA) was conducted to test the differences between the students that followed elective courses in sustainability and the students that followed track courses in sustainability to test hypothesis 1b. The ANOVA analysis was preferred over a Student’s t-test since the ANOVA analysis was extensively discussed during the workshops in Quantitative Data Analysis and both tests generate in this case the same results.
4 Results
In this chapter, the results of the tests are presented. First, the assumptions of a regression analysis are supported. Second, the descriptive statistics of the data are displayed. Third, the correlation matrix is presented and interpreted. Fourth, the results of the regression analyses are
Figure 5: The Statistical Diagram of Process Model 4; Indirect effect of X on Y through M!= a!b!, Direct effect of X on Y = c’ (Hayes, 2017, p.4)
presented and the hypotheses 1a, 2 and 3 are rejected or supported. Finally, the results of the ANOVA analysis, testing hypothesis 1b, are presented.
4.1 Testing Assumptions
In order to run a regression successfully, the data must match the assumptions of a regression analysis. The data must be normally distributed, homoscedastic; meaning that the residuals are equally distributed, non-collinear; meaning that there are no relationships between the independent variables. Moreover, the residuals must be independent and there must be a linear relationship between the independent and dependent variable (Poole & O’Farrell, 1971).
First, the variables; personal environmental concern and attitude towards corporate sustainability were checked for normality. Based on multiple tests; skewness & kurtosis, a histogram of frequency distributions, Q-Plots, the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test and the Shapiro-Wilk test, personal environmental concern (NEP scale) was normally distributed with a skewness of -0.045. On the contrary, attitude towards corporate sustainability was not normally distributed, confirmed by all the aforementioned tests. The variable had a substantial negative skewness of -1.11 and was therefore reflected and transformed with Log to normalize the distribution, following the formula Log10(K-X) in which K is the highest value of the variable X, + 1. The new transformed variable was normally distributed, confirmed by its skewness, histogram, Q-Plot, Kolmogorov-Smirnov test and Shapiro-Wilk test. Test results show that there were no univariate outliers for personal environmental concern and the transformed variable for attitude, since all the standardized scores of the variables have values higher than 0.3. Extreme outliers have the effect of influencing the mean, standard deviation and skewness. Second, based on the scatterplot of residuals, the data was found to be homoscedastic. Third, since the data is normality distributed and homoscedastic, checking for linearity therefore becomes redundant. Fourth, the variance inflation factor (VIF) values show that there is no
collinearity between the independent variables (VIF = 1.03), this is also visible in the correlation matrix, since there is no correlation above 0.8.
4.2 Descriptive Statistics
In the descriptive statistics (see Table 3), both the original and the transformed variables for attitude are displayed. The statistics show that the original variable is skewed and the transformed variable is not. What also strikes in the descriptive statistics is that education in sustainability has three less cases compared to the other variables. This is because three respondents did not fully complete the survey. The missing data for the other variables could be replaced with the series mean, however this is not the case for the categorical variable.
4.3 Correlation Analysis
In the correlation matrix (see Table 4), the N also differs among the variables, this is partly caused by the aforementioned reason. In addition to that, 10 people chose not to disclose their age intentionally and 4 people indicated that they followed education in sustainability but failed to indicate whether it was elective of track courses or followed sustainability courses outside of their business curriculum. When interpreting correlations with the dependent variable, the direction of the interpretation should be reversed since the variable is reflected (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2007).
Hypothesis 1a & 1b
Table 3: Descriptive Statistics
Variable Minimum Maximum Mean
Std.
Deviation Median N
Personal Environmental Concern 2.53 4.73 3.61 0.49 3.67 93
Attitude 2.78 7.00 5.55 0.84 5.67 93
Attitude (Transformed) 0.00 0.72 0.37 0.14 0.37 93
There was a small negative correlation found between the independent variable education and dependent variable attitude (r = -0.18), however this relation was not significant. A regression analysis will be performed before drawing a conclusion for hypothesis 1a. The dummy variables for elective courses (r = -0.16) and track courses (r = -0.01) were independently also not significantly correlated with the dependent variable attitude. Moreover, the independent variable was significantly correlated with the control variable age (r = 0.26, p = 0.021 and N = 80) at the 0.05 level (2-tailed). Finally, education in sustainability correlated strongly and significantly with its own sub-groups: elective courses (r = 0.63, p < 0.001 and N = 86) and track courses (r = 0.52, p < 0.001 and N = 86). These two groups also significantly correlated witch each other (r = -0.34, p = 0.001 and N = 86) at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
Hypothesis 2
Between the independent variable education and mediating variable personal environmental concern, there was also a relatively small but insignificant correlation (r = 0.16) found. Conclusions regarding this hypothesis will also be drawn after a regression analysis. Moreover, the mediating variable significantly correlated with gender (r = 0.26, p = 0.015 and N = 90) at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).
Hypothesis 3
A medium strong negative correlation was found between the mediating variable personal environmental concern and attitude (r = -0.35, p = 0.001 and N = 93). This correlation was significant at the p = 0.01 level (2-tailed). A reversed interpretation of the coefficient applies to this correlation due to the reflection of the variable. The regression analyses will provide more insight to better understand the relationship between these variables.
Finally, there was a significant strong negative correlation found between control variables level of education and age (r = -0.46, p < 0.001, N = 80) at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
Table 4: Means, Standard Deviations and Correlations
Variable M SD N 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Personal Environmental Concern 3.61 0.49 93 (0.748)
Attitude (Transformed) 0.37 0.14 93 -0.35** (0.819) Education in Sustainability 0.53 0.50 90 0.16 -0.18 - Elective Courses 0.29 0.46 86 0.17 -0.15 0.63** - Track Courses 0.22 0.42 86 -0.01 -0.01 0.52** -0.34** - Gender 0.63 0.48 90 0.26* -0.20 0.07 0.02 0.06 - Age 23.35 2.02 80 0.08 0.00 0.26* 0.13 0.18 -0.12 - Level of Education 3.00 2.14 90 -0.13 0.08 -0.10 -0.18 0.05 -0.11 -0.46** - Institution 1.83 1.79 90 -0.02 0.01 0.11 -0.01 0.09 0.14 0.05 0.04 -
.** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). .* Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).
4.4 Regression Analyses
In addition to the correlation analysis, regression analyses were able to reject or support the hypotheses. A mediation analysis using ordinary least square path analysis with Process Model 4 from Hayes (2012) was conducted to investigate the ability of education in sustainability to predict levels of attitude towards corporate sustainability, mediated by personal environmental concern, after controlling for gender, level of education and institution. In the regression analyses, age was not included as a control variable since age decreases the sample size by 10 cases, while all of the students have very similar ages. The regression used a sample size of 90 cases. The relevant values to interpret the regression are presented in Table 5.
Hypothesis 1a
Even though the model was significant (F (5,84) = 2.963, p = 0.016) at the 0.05 level and explained 15% of the variance in attitude towards corporate sustainability (R² = 0.150). There was no significant direct relation found between de independent and dependent variable (c’ = -0.036, p = 0.235). In addition, Table 6 also shows that the direct effect is insignificant with p = 0.235. None of the control variables had significant values in this relationship. Thus, there was no empirical evidence found to support hypothesis 1a.
Table 5: Regressions results
Consequent
Personal Env. Concern (M!) Attitude towards CS (Y)
Antecedent Coeff. SE p Coeff. SE p
Educ. in Sustainability (X) a! 0.142 0.103 0.172 c' -0.036 0.030 0.235 Personal Env. Concern (M!) --- --- --- b! -0.087** 0.031 0.006
Gender 0.249* 0.107 0.022 -0.034 0.031 0.279 Level of Educ. -0.020 0.024 0.410 0.001 0.007 0.900 Institution -0.018 0.029 0.543 0.003 0.008 0.708 Constant 3.222 0.207 < 0.001 0.748 0.116 < 0.001 R²= 0.098 R²= 0.150 F (4,85) = 2.315, p = 0.064 F (5,84) = 2.963*, p = 0.016 * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01
Hypothesis 2
In line with the findings from the correlation analysis, education did not have a significant direct positive relationship with personal environmental concern (a! = 0.142, p = 0.172). There was a significant relationship found between gender and personal environmental concern (b = 0.249, p = 0.022) at the 0.05 level, so that women have 0.249 more personal environmental concern compared to men. Note that male is coded as 0 and female coded as 1 in this research. The other control variables had insignificant values. Moreover, the model explained 9.8% of the variance of Personal Environmental Concern (R² = 0.098), however this was also not statistically significant (F (4,85) = 2.315, p = 0.064). There was therefore no empirical evidence found to support hypothesis 2.
Hypothesis 3
The correlation analysis only found a significant correlation between the variables personal environmental concern and attitude towards corporate sustainability. The results from the regression support the significance of this relationship. The model was significant (F (5,84) = 2.963, p = 0.016) at the 0.05 level and explained 15% of the variance in attitude towards corporate sustainability (R² = 0.150). A significant negative relationship was found between the mediating and dependent variable (b! = -0.087, p = 0.006) at the 0.01 level; however, the direction of the interpretation should be reversed due to the reflection. In other words, if a person’s personal environmental concern increases by one, their attitude towards corporate
Table 6: Regression; direct, indirect and total effect
Effect SE p LLCI ULCI
Direct Effect c' -0.036 0.030 0.235 -0.094 0.023
Total Effect -0.048 0.031 0.121 -0.108 0.013
Boot SE Boot LLCI Boot ULCI
