The structural modelling of significant organisational and individual factors for promoting sustainable campus in Saudi Arabia
Mohammad Ambarak Alsharif- Department of Architecture, Faculty of Engineering, Al-Baha University, Al Baha, Saudi Arabia
Introduction: In recent years, campus sustainability has gained global prominence, with a focus on sustainability initiatives and environmental activities within university campuses. This study aims to explore the factors contributing to the expansion of sustainability initiatives in Saudi Arabian university campuses.
Methods: The research utilizes the Interpretive Structural Model (ISM) as a framework for public universities. A literature review incorporating rational choice theory (RCT) and organizational change theory (OCT) is conducted to identify variables relevant to campus sustainability. The hierarchical interrelationships among these variables are examined, and the Matrice d’Impacts Croises-Multiplication Appliqué and Classment Analysis (MICMAC) categorize the study variables. Associations between the variables are validated through expert consultations from selected case study institutions.
Results: The findings highlight the significance of organizational structure and decision-making processes in determining the prevalence of other sustainability-related variables. Organizational structure and decision-making processes are recognized as key factors exerting significant influence over other variables. Additionally, leadership is categorized as a linkage variable, representing a strong relationship within the hierarchical model.
Discussion: The study acknowledges the challenges in implementing sustainability initiatives, including conflicts in strategic planning, absence of campus sustainability policies and regulations, financial barriers, and lack of support from leadership. The study offers valuable insights and recommendations for stakeholders involved in sustainability initiatives within higher education institutions, particularly university leaders and decision makers in facility and project management departments (F&PM). By addressing the organizational and decision-based factors, effective integration of sustainability practices into university planning and activities can be achieved. This research contributes to filling the knowledge gap regarding the factors influencing the implementation of sustainability in Saudi Arabian higher education institutions (HEIs). The study emphasizes the importance of addressing organizational structure, decision-making processes, and leadership in order to successfully implement sustainability practices on university campuses.
1 Introduction
Over the last 40 years, the notion that human activities and actions have led to harmful effects on environments and ecosystems, including climate change and resource depletion, has provided a growing area of interest and concern for policy makers and academics. Since the first United Nations Conference on the Human Environment—the ‘Earth Summit’—was convened in 1972, sustainable development has become widely acknowledged as a promising approach to fostering sustainability initiatives. Sustainable development emphasises the responsible use of natural resources, production of energy from renewable sources, living within finite resource limits, and reductions in atmospheric greenhouse gases (IPCC, 2014). At this time, the United Nations (UN) also highlighted education as a critical element in addressing the challenge of realising sustainable development approaches, particularly in terms of increasing individual awareness to facilitate involvement towards a low-carbon future. Thereafter, higher education institutions (HEIs) have made efforts to consider sustainability in their daily practices and activities (Velazquez et al., 2006; Michelsen, 2016). This movement has emerged in HEIs largely due to their role as change agents for sustainability (Cortese, 2003; Wright and Horst, 2013) through which they advance societal knowledge and create partnerships with stakeholders (Zutshi and Creed, 2018). Broadening knowledge of and interest in sustainability can lead to transformation for a range of governmental entities and other organisations beyond HEIs (Adomssent et al., 2007). According to Ngo and Trinh (2016), considered that HEIs as the wheel of development on the level of the individual (i.e., in daily practices and users behaviour) and the built environment (e.g., daily operation and construction projects). As a result, Wright (2006) argued that it is both reasonable and logical to encourage HEIs to be become leaders in sustainability initiatives.
However, many studies have addressed the challenges of implementing such initiatives, including strategic planning conflicts, a widespread lack of campus sustainability policies and regulations, financial and funding obstacles and a dearth of leadership support. Due to the interdependent nature of key dimensions of sustainability at HEIs, clarification on the nature of these dimensions is essential to recognising gaps in implementing sustainability initiatives. Whereas many HEIs at UK, European, North American and Asian universities have reported successful implementation of sustainability initiatives into their policies and daily practices (Edwards and Naboni, 2013; Leal Filho et al., 2015), others have seemingly stalled in their progress regarding campus sustainability. In fact, for many countries the level of sustainability initiatives at HEIs is still in its early stages and remains widely underreported (Velazquez et al., 2006; Zutshi and Creed, 2018). This appears to be the case for Saudi HEIs. As such, a comprehensive assessment of HEIs in Saudi Arabia for implementing campus sustainability into their planning and activities is generally lacking (Alshuwaikhat et al., 2016). The pursuit of campus sustainability has gained global recognition in recent years, with a focus on promoting sustainable practices and environmental initiatives within HEIs. In the context of Saudi Arabia, this article aims to explore the factors that contribute to the proliferation of sustainability initiatives on university campuses. Specifically, it seeks to identify the organisational and individual-related factors (i.e., organisational structure, culture, leadership and management) that play a significant role in promoting sustainable practices in HEIs in Saudi Arabia.
While previous studies have examined sustainability initiatives in various contexts, there is a dearth of comprehensive research focused on Saudi HEIs. This study aims to fill this research gap by utilising the Interpretive Structural Modelling (ISM) approach to identify and analyse the organisational and decision-related factors that influence sustainability implementation in Saudi campuses. By doing so, it seeks to contribute to the existing body of knowledge by providing insights into the specific factors and their interrelationships within the Saudi Arabian context. Accordingly, the primary research questions of this study are: What are the organisational and decision-related factors influencing the implementation of sustainability practices in Saudi HEIs? How do these factors interrelate and influence the sustainability initiatives on university campuses? By addressing these questions, the study aims to uncover the key elements that contribute to the proliferation of sustainability initiatives and practices in Saudi Arabia’s HEIs. To achieve these objectives, this article begins by providing an overview of the significance of sustainability in HEIs globally and within the Saudi context. It then outlines the research questions and aims of the study. Subsequently, it reviews relevant literature on sustainability initiatives in HEIs and the organisational factors that influence their implementation. The methodology section describes the research approach, including the use of ISM as an analytical tool. The article concludes with the presentation and discussion of the study’s findings, highlighting the key organisational and individual factors identified and their implications for promoting sustainable practices on Saudi university campuses.
2 The sustainable university campus as a notion
The importance of sustainability in higher education is underscored by the urgency of global environmental challenges and the pivotal role that educational institutions play in shaping societal values (Thompson and Green, 2005). According to the Brundtland Report (1987), Higher Education Institutions are influential establishments that ought to actively incorporate the principles of sustainability into their strategies, endeavours, and undertakings, encompassing the frameworks that regulate the functioning of college campuses. Growing concerns pertaining to global warming and climate change, in conjunction with the increasing costs connected to operational activities within campuses, have prompted novel considerations regarding educational and research programs, as well as decisions regarding the built environment of university campuses. Campus sustainability efforts typically aim to increase environmental awareness at universities, with many campuses considering sustainability as a transition on the level of institutional change (Allen, 1999; Allen, 2003). Furthermore, the progress of campus sustainability practices has led many institutions to adopt a broad range of initiatives in their teaching and research activities, to engage university communities and to establish new operations and maintenance approaches (Humblet et al., 2010).Therefore, Goni et al. (2013) highlighted that the integrating sustainability practices into HEI required a coherent planning procedures involves the systemisation and integration of campus activities. According to previous studies the focus were on the most significant areas that should be considered in developing sustainable university campus schemes include (1) education and research, (2) campus physical plant activities, (3) community connections, and (4) management and assessment processes (Karatzoglou, 2013; Alonso-Almeida et al., 2015).
In addition, The Brundtland Report (1987) stated that as influential institutions, HEIs should actively integrate sustainability principles into their organisations and activities, including those that govern campus operations (Wang and Ching, 2015). A decade later, UNESCO stated that “…the goal of higher education is to make people wiser, more knowledgeable, better informed, ethical, responsible, critical, and capable of continuing to learn. Education, in short, is to achieve sustainable development” (UNESCO, 1997, p. 40). In response, growing concerns about climate change and the escalating costs of campus operations have led to new conceptualizations of teaching and research programmes as well as the built environments of HEIs. For many HEIs, these emerging concerns have served to promote global sustainable development and increase the awareness of community members about development and environmental challenges (UNCED, 1992).
Despite the complexity that facing transitions towards the integration of environmental sustainability activities and practices in HEIs, the concept encourage researchers, decision-makers and other stakeholders to consider the implementation approaches that can transfer campuses to become more sustainable (Stephens and Graham, 2010). In response, many HEIs have incorporated sustainability initiatives into their strategic plans, educational curricula, research processes and organisational systems (Goni et al., 2013). Here, some of this shift concerns the influence HEIs, due to their size, staff and student numbers, and material consumption, have over their environmental policies, social activities, and actions with respect to stakeholders at various community levels (de Castro and Jabbour, 2013). Table 1 summarises many current and proposed campus sustainability initiatives across a range of studies.
Table 1. Classification for key sustainability dimensions at HEIs (Moganadas et al., 2013).
Humblet et al. (2010) found that establishing sustainability principles at universities requires a focus on resources, energy efficiency and enhancing built environment quality through stakeholder education as well as creating positive living and learning environments that encourage the incorporation of sustainability practices into daily activities. These transitions should aim to reduce both on-campus and off-site environmental impacts and to raise environmental consciousness on university campuses (Creighton, 1998). In sum, Wright (2006) argued that it is both logical and reasonable for universities to become sustainability leaders. Furthermore, the success of sustainability initiatives in HEIs on both individual and organisational determinants. At the individual level, educators, students, and staff play a crucial role. Their beliefs, values, and actions shape the sustainability culture of the institution (Blanco-Portela et al., 2018). Organisational factors, encompassing leadership commitment, policy frameworks, and resource allocation, are equally critical. Universities with visionary leadership, clear sustainability policies, and adequate resources tend to fare better in their sustainability endeavours (Zepeda Quintana et al., 2022). The recent literature underscores the interplay between individual actions and organisational structures. For instance, Karabetyan (2023) highlighted how individual champions, often in leadership roles, can galvanise entire institutions towards sustainable practices. Concurrently, organisational mechanisms, like sustainability committees or dedicated offices, provide the requisite support, channelling individual energies into institutional achievements (Argento et al., 2020).
In 2015, the international community embraced the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, encompassing the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). This comprehensive framework serves as a global roadmap for fostering sustainable development across five interconnected pillars: people, planet, prosperity, peace, and partnership (United Nations, 2015). The SDGs comprise 17 ambitious goals, demanding transformative interventions across economic, social, and environmental dimensions, relevant to both developed and developing contexts(Sachs et al., 2019). The visibility of the SDGs has increased in recent years, and HEIs play a crucial role in supporting their achievement. HEIs have the capacity to engage in sustainability efforts and contribute to various SDGs (Chankseliani and McCowan, 2021). These goals encompass social aspects and address economic aspects, infrastructure, and sustainable practices, including energy (SDG 7), economic growth (SDG 8), sustainable cities (SDG 11), and responsible consumption (SDG 12). Additionally, SDGs cover urgent issues like climate change (SDG 13). Notably, SDG 4, in particular, is closely linked to other goals and aims to ensure providing quality education at all levels, including lifelong learning opportunities and unlocking the transformative potential of knowledge for a more sustainable future (Fonseca et al., 2020).
In relation to campus daily operation, HEIs play a crucial role in promoting sustainable development by adopting green practices such as using renewable energy, improving energy efficiency in buildings, and promoting energy conservation (SDG11; Gui et al., 2021). HEIs are also urged to enhance their solid waste management strategies, which are often overlooked, thereby impeding sustainability (Rimantho et al., 2019). Campuses can strive to reduce their carbon footprint by improving transportation systems within the institution, including travel between and within campuses. This could involve the use of public transportation such as buses and promote carpooling and eco-friendly transportation methods such as cycling and walking (Logan et al., 2020), which could help in reducing carbon emissions and contributing to SDGs like SDG13. Additionally, academic courses can stimulate students to design innovative renewable energy systems for campus use (SDG4; Wang and Guo, 2021).
While the trajectory appears promising, integrating sustainability into higher education is fraught with challenges. Institutional inertia, competing priorities, and a lack of resources often hinder the seamless integration of sustainability principles (Zepeda Quintana et al., 2022). However, one possible explanation for the limited integration of sustainability into mainstream academia and management of HEIs could lie in its inherent complexity. Achieving sustainability necessitates systemic transformation rather than mere adaptation (Lattu and Cai, 2020; Bauer et al., 2021). While any transition to a more sustainable HEI can be challenging, this process does not generally involve ‘reinventing the wheel’ or making radical changes to existing practices. However, this process does not occur without planning and action, but rather requires commitment, motivation and strategic approaches (Eagan and Keniry, 1998). Moreover, many studies have addressed the challenges of implementing such initiatives, including strategic planning conflicts, a general lack of campus sustainability policies and regulations, financial and funding obstacles and a dearth of leadership support (Ramos et al., 2015; Aasa et al., 2020; Amaral et al., 2020). In this research, the focus will be on exploring the influence of management and decision making aspects including organisational structure and culture, leadership and management in achieving and implementing sustainability and sustainable development goals.
3 Policy and regulation for HEI sustainability initiatives
Beyond national and regional regulations, institutional policies play a critical role. Progressive HEIs are proactively formulating sustainability strategies, often surpassing regulatory requirements. These policies, tailored to the unique context of each institution, emphasise a holistic approach, integrating sustainability into education, research, operations, and community engagement (Ruiz-Mallén and Heras, 2020). While a range of initiatives have contributed to promoting sustainability at HEIs, these must also be enacted as concrete policy to achieve local and regional sustainability targets (Abaza, 2003). Velazquez et al. (2006) found that “a policy leads the aim of the goals and objectives and also the procedures to fulfil the goals.” Moreover, Sterling (2004) stated that for any system, ‘four Ps’—paradigms, purposes, policies and practical changes—are required for any successful transition. This suggests that university administrators can create paths towards enacting sustainability strategies (Wright, 2004; Velazquez et al., 2006). As a first step, many HEIs have implemented environmental policies in ways that appeal to the morality of university communities (Wright, 2006). Nevertheless, Nomura and Abe (2010) asserted that governments and universities should ground their sustainability discussions in terms of research, education, awareness, operations and funding concerns.
Campus sustainability policies often require government support to succeed (Vaughter et al., 2013). For instance, the Japanese government drafts and supports sustainability policies at its universities, and Swedish government policy has driven most of its sustainability approaches. The UK document Securing the Future: Delivering UK Sustainable Development Strategy (2005) is one of that country’s primary guides for enacting campus sustainability initiatives, as is its Sustainable Development in Higher Education (HEFCE, 2005a, 2005b), which details strategic positions critical to bringing about campus environmental policies (Shiel and Williams, 2015). Thereafter, in 2009 the UK’s Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE) set its HEI carbon emissions reduction targets at 34% by 2020 and 80% by 2050 (HEFCE, 2009). As Shiel and Williams (2015) stated, these targets have helped to focus HEIs policies on sustainability issues and have allowed for an organisational context for environmental initiatives. It is evident that a strategic, policy-driven approach, complemented by effective regulation and institutional commitment, is pivotal in embedding sustainability into the fabric of HEIs.
4 Sustainability within Saudi Arabian university campuses
Compared with other global universities, particularly those of developed countries, Saudi HEIs lag somewhat behind in implementing sustainability policies (Alshuwaikhat and Mohammed, 2017). Moreover, to date only limited research on campus sustainability has been conducted in Saudi Arabia, with only three Saudi campuses currently showing signs of progress. One of these, King Abdullah University of Science and Technology (KAUST), which promotes research in renewable energy and environmental initiatives, has adopted several sustainability initiatives in its operations, including recycling 75% of its building materials, using daylighting and ventilation systems, and building waste composting and recycling systems. As a result, the U.S. Green Building Council’s (USGBC) awarded its main academic building a LEED platinum rating.
Abubakar et al. (2016) evaluated student perception and awareness of campus sustainability along three axes: campus operations, community involvement, and curriculum and research. The authors found that despite the considerable knowledge about environmental sustainability found among respondents, participants largely showed little interest and willingness to engage with HEI sustainability initiatives. In terms of curricula, students indicated few examples of integration of sustainability concepts into courses and research activities, and in terms of campus operations, they reported knowledge of sustainability initiatives with respect to transportation and energy and water use programmes but few landscape design and waste recycling practices.
Similarly, Alshuwaikhat et al. (2016) investigated the uptake of sustainability initiatives on Saudi public universities and found that these institutions have been relatively unsuccessful in these efforts, with participating HEIs showing a general lack of commitment to operational practices with respect to reduced energy consumption, resource use and waste generation. For instance, the authors reported that most institutions had yet to employ high-efficiency HVAC and lighting systems and set energy use standards, which suggests that Saudi HEIs require further initiatives to enhance their efficiency and performance. In addition, the authors found that one of the key challenges Saudi HEIs face is securing financial support for campus sustainability initiatives.
Alsharif et al. (2020) carried out a study that reflects the level of recognition and action on the three central sustainability ‘pillars’ as a strategic priority by facilities and projects management (F&PM) decision makers through the lens of rational choice theory. The study emphasised that F&PM decision makers are considering the cost as a dominant their choices and decisions, alongside other key organisational factors such as leadership and organisational culture. A number of barriers facing the incorporation of sustainability emerged with clarity, such as the lack of supportive leadership, the lack of sustainability knowledge and awareness among senior management and an absence of sustainability-related legislation policy or strategic direction in the HEIs concerned.
5 Theoretical perspective
5.1 HEIs as a unique organisation
The distinctiveness of university campuses is grounded in their unique management style, organisational structures and operational requirements. In particular, due to the loosely coupled and independently operating academic and administrative divisions of HEIs (Goldman et al., 2004; Lechtchinskaia et al., 2011) and their authority structures and decentralised decision-making approaches (Rabaa'i, 2009; Lechtchinskaia et al., 2011), campus management approaches are deeply influential in terms of institutional change and transformation. In addition, Pittman (2004) found that the organisational structures of universities are key in effecting change in their activities and performance.
Conversely, Bekessy et al. (2007) found that top-down management approaches at HEIs can be detrimental due to their complex structures and diverse values. However, it remains unclear if bottom-up approaches can deliver campus sustainability initiatives due to the often-shifting cultural values of university communities (Brinkhurst et al., 2011). As a result, a mix of top-down and bottom-up strategies with respect to management approaches and staff and student engagement can hold the potential to deliver campus sustainability initiatives (Lozano et al., 2013; UNEP, 2013).
Moreover, Walton and Galea (2005) found that HEIs can benefit from adapting the best practices of like organisations with respect to management, implementation, and operations, rather than focusing on the differences between HEI and other organisational types. A number of studies concluded that most campus activities explored in the literature were managed by top leaders that could assist in the implementation campus sustainability initiatives (Sharp, 2002; Bolman and Deal, 2008; Wang et al., 2013). To this end, due to the relatively unique structure of HEIs, a broad range of challenges and opportunities exist with respect to sustainability programs, which suggests the importance of understanding the role change actors can play in moving these programs into practice.
5.2 Rational choice theory
For this study, rational choice theory (RCT) was employed to better understand the influence on decision makers within F&PM departments have with respect to campus sustainability initiatives. Specifically, RCT was used to investigate the influence of social interactions and the outcomes of individual decisions (Zey, 1997; Scott and Davis, 2007). A primary assumption of RCT is that rational thought processes guide individual decisions and actions (Friedman and Allen, 2011). However, these actions and decisions are also influenced by factors such as knowledge, beliefs, time and structural environment (Voss and Abraham, 2000).
5.3 Organisational change theory
As discussed previously, the primary aim of this study is to investigate the organisational factors that affect campus sustainability initiatives. This research focuses on how implementing these initiatives can be influenced by the following factors: decision-making process, organisational structure and culture, leadership, and management and stakeholder participation. According to the organisational change theory literature, investigating the nature of complex organisations is critical in understanding the culture and behaviour of individuals and groups within these organisations. Doppelt (2003) defined organisation as a system comprised of two or more parts, whereby individuals and structures cooperate to shape collective performance. Further, understanding the cultural and structural interactions between organisational components can provide frameworks for organisational change (Kegan and Lahey, 2001; Lozano, 2012; Verhulst, 2012; Verhulst and Lambrechts, 2014). For HEIs, these individuals and groups often include management, administration, faculty, academic staff, and students.
A variety of components involved in affecting change exist within organisations. Lippitt et al. (1958) classified these components into six elements consistent with organisational change theory:
Outcomes including goals and direction;
History including causality, motives and context;
Actors including their roles and other social dimensions;
Phases including sequences and activities;
Communication including interactions, culture and sense making; and
Steering including guiding, managing and raising awareness.
Moreover, organisational change processes encompass myriad actors operating on multiple levels (Brinkhurst et al., 2011). Thus, transitions towards new states require the analysis of a broad range of assumptions and considerations, including leadership, individual and group relationships, organisational structure and culture, and change management processes (Kuh, 2003). In addition, Verhulst and Lambrechts (2014) highlighted that sustainability initiatives within HEIs require transitional approaches that concentrated on organisational components and processes. Several factors common among HEIs can hinder organisational change, including cultural diversity, lack of accountability, competing power structures and loosely coupled systems (Sharp, 2002). Nonetheless, Fantini (1981, p. 402) notes that organisational change can succeed even under very strong and adverse bureaucratic conditions.
5.3.1 Organisational structure and culture
To better understand the unique structures of HEIs, Schiefen (2010) considered them to be hierarchical and functionally structured institutions. However, HEI governance systems are not analogous to business organisations (Tierney, 1999), as campus decision-making processes are often distributed across individuals and groups such as university presidents, vice chancellors and academic staff (Barnett, 2005). Further, the nature of HEI governance systems is broadly acknowledged to affect campus sustainability initiatives. Brinkhurst et al. (2011) emphasised that the governance structures of HEIs pose challenges to promoting organisational change. Moreover, HEIs typically exhibit functional arrangement structures, bureaucracies, high turnover and unclear and widespread responsibilities, all of which suggest complexity in understanding the mechanisms for facilitating sustainability initiatives (Cameron and Freeman, 1991; Breyman, 1999). Finally, Evangelinos et al. (2009) found that an absence of control centres in these systems can further hinder to sustainability initiatives and policies for change.
However, Rogers (2010) found that organisations can adopt new practices within current cultures and thus foster positive perceptions of their organisational environments. Many factors can be considered in moving organisations towards more sustainable practices, including cultural concerns, new technologies, and investments in building performance. At the same time, engagement of organisational communities in these issues can result in reductions in energy, water and waste consumption (Levy and Marans, 2012). Thus, addressing organisational culture is vital in enacting new practices and facilitating organisational change. However, failure can sometimes occur due to disparities between institutional goals and entrenched organisational mindsets (Adams et al., 2007; Doppelt, 2009). As Cameron and Freeman (1991) and Raimi (2020) maintained that without accompanying cultural change, most organisational changes fail or remain temporary. In addition, Dyer (1986) showed that organisational culture can affect a broad range of factors such as structure, management approach and decision-making processes. Finally, Turner (1986) found that organisational culture can indeed be changed to facilitate campus sustainability policies.
5.3.2 Leadership and management approach
Campus leadership and management systems play a critical role in shaping a broad range of the informational, behavioural and emotional attitudes of organisations (Kotler and Armstrong, 2010; Lozano, 2012) as well as their organisational structures and cultures (Creighton, 1998; Blanco-Portela et al., 2017). In the HEI context, complex leadership systems encompass an array of stakeholders, including governing boards, students, faculty and administrative staff. Further, HEIs often exhibit decentralised systems of authority, serve a diverse range of participants and depend on distinct institutional cultures (Birnbaum and Edelson, 1989; Storberg-Walker and Torraco, 2004; Leal Filho et al., 2020) all of which pose formidable challenges for leadership bodies (McRoy and Gibbs, 2009; Leal Filho et al., 2020; Klein et al., 2022; Lozano, 2022). In addition, many campus stakeholders (i.e., academic staff, deans and mid-level managers) can behave in a divided manner when interacting with leadership figures. For example, academic staff typically exhibit greater loyalty to their respective departments than to senior management bodies, particularly with respect to issues of academic freedom and autonomy (Gibbs and Murphy, 2009; Murphy, 2009; Moutsios, 2023). In an organisational change context, the knowledge, skills and capabilities of senior management figures and their ability to enact their visions have increasingly become essential requirements within campus senior management structures (Boyett, 1996; Breakwell and Tytherleigh, 2008; Amaral et al., 2020; Rieg et al., 2021).
Thus, the nature of leadership should not be underestimated in university environments (Ramsden, 1998; Breakwell, 2006; Ghasemy et al., 2023), as accomplishing goals requires leadership figures to inspire confidence and manage uncertainty in their organisations (Jarzabkowski, 2003; van Niekerk and Jansen van Rensburg, 2022), support stakeholders at various levels (Shattock, 2010; Marshall, 2019) and consult academic staff in the process (Ramsden, 1998; Jarzabkowski, 2003). As Allen (2003) stated, the organisational complexity and bureaucracy of HEIs requires leadership capabilities to bring about change with respect to sustainability initiatives.
5.3.3 Governance and decision-making system
According to Jones (2007), decision-making is the process of addressing issues or problems by providing alternatives that add value for stakeholders. Harrison (1999) stated that organisational decision-making processes occur “primarily through the basic functions of the manager, which include planning, organising, staffing, directing and controlling.” Hambrick et al. (1996) found that as managers and other decision makers of course possess bounded knowledge and perceptions, this results in limited capabilities that do not allow for the anticipation and management of all outcomes within organisational environments. Moreover, managers generally tend to perceive only a limited range of phenomena in their areas and often do not possess the knowledge or experience to objectively react to these phenomena, thus basing their decisions mostly on their values, experiences and belief systems (Ambrosini et al., 2009; Finkelstein et al., 2009). Thus, tight schedules often make decision makers more likely to rely on their limited breadth of knowledge and experience, and as decision makers tend to perceive their reality through their prior experience and knowledge, they also use these foundations as a basis for unconsciously evaluating their organisations (Davis, 1993). As a result, organisations develop strategies and policies to help guide decision-making processes, as they are often grounded in bounded rationality.
However, sustainability initiatives should ideally serve to invigorate organisations and change the belief systems and practices of management figures (Waas et al., 2011; Valente, 2015). Thus, incorporating sustainability measures into organisational directives should be encoded within organisational goals and targets and managerial activities (Avery and Bergsteiner, 2011; Ameer and Othman, 2012). This process requires (1) an integration of environmental and social sustainability initiatives within economic and financial decision-making processes, (2) leadership interventions by leadership and establishment of sustainability cultures, and (3) organisational arrangements that support and promote environmental policies (Harris and Crane, 2002; Linnenluecke and Griffiths, 2010; Avery and Bergsteiner, 2011). Such changes can facilitate organisational actions by senior management and can result in longer-term adoption of sustainability initiatives (Wiley, 2007; Avery and Bergsteiner, 2011). Thus, the decisions of governing bodies and organisations are often critical to adoption of sustainability efforts, an attribute that distinguishes them from other organisations (Harrison, 1999).
Embedding sustainability principles into decision-making processes also creates challenges for decision makers, including diverse and wide-ranging interpretations of sustainability principles (Dahl, 2012; Nambiar and Chitty, 2014; Fonseca et al., 2021), which can hinder the adoption of sustainability programs. Accordingly, requiring senior management figures to account for sustainability initiatives into their decision-making processes requires a broad shift from a singular focus on financial considerations (Gladwin et al., 1995; Crane and Ruebottom, 2011; Dyllick and Muff, 2016) to one that considers the social, financial and environmental facets of sustainability programs that take into account a range of stakeholders (Avery and Bergsteiner, 2011; Perrott, 2014).
5.3.4 Stakeholder consideration
Generally speaking, complex HEI administrations tend to resist change, as change is often considered a threat to existing institutional culture and practices (Farmer, 1990; Kezar, 2011). However, one of the more successful approaches to enacting sustainability programs at HEIs concerns the participation of a broad range of university stakeholders (Shepard and Johnson, 2009; Vaughter et al., 2013). Indeed, programs that consider only limited stakeholder participation can hinder the enaction of environmental initiatives and can lead to organisational resistance (Evangelinos et al., 2009). As Spira et al. (2013) found, increasing stakeholder involvement in decision-making activities can facilitate the adoption of campus sustainability measures and play a deep role in changing organisational cultures. Conversely, limited or absent participation in these processes can also limit to knowledge of environmental issues and lead to the perception that responsibility for environmental issues does not fall to HEIs (Evangelinos et al., 2009).
In sum, sustainability-related transitions require changes in both culture and behaviour across a broad range of decision-making structures. As campus administrations typically involve a range of stakeholders (i.e., managers, faculty, administrative staff and leaders), it is often a challenge to forge common purpose across the orientations, shared beliefs, values, and norms of these groups (Hedstrom, 2005; Sharp, 2009).
To investigate the influence F&PM decision makers have on implementing sustainability initiatives in HEIs, this framework incorporates factors related to RCT and organisational change theory. These factors included levels of sustainability knowledge, perceptions and preferences senior administrators on sustainability initiatives, and exogenous constraints on administrators with respect to enacting sustainability programs. In addition, the participants discussed the respective organisational climates of their institutions, which assisted the researchers in identifying the connections across organisational factors (i.e., culture, structure, leadership and management, decision-making processes and stakeholder participation) and in investigating their effects on the implementation of sustainability initiatives, issues that deter sustainability innovation and strategies for optimising organisational cultures.
The ISM approach was also employed to determine the influences of relationships between the identified individuals and organisational factors on implementing sustainability across the case study universities. This method identified and ranked the primary relationships among specific variables, which could facilitate defining their respective levels of influence. The framework was expressed as a diagram (see Figure 1) that highlights the links between and strategies related to each critical organisational factor, which can guide F&PM decision makers in implementing sustainability initiatives.
Figure 1. Theoretical framework.
6 Research method
The Interpretive Structural Model (ISM) is a systematic and interactive learning process designed to identify relationships among specific items or issues. In essence, it provides a structured modelling approach that aids in arranging complex sociotechnical systems into well-defined structures. By identifying and structuring variables or elements interconnected within a system, ISM offers a multi-level, interconnected model that depicts the relationships among these elements in a diagraph or hierarchical pattern (Warfield, 1974a). This approach was first proposed by Warfield in 1973 (Warfield, 1974a, 1974b; Sage, 1977) to analyse complex socioeconomic systems. Thus, it can be applied to investigate complex and subjective phenomena. The method is also useful in multilevel research design and for cases in which research outcomes are difficult to predict (Klein and Kozlowski, 2000). The basis of ISM lies in using expert experience and knowledge to decompose complicated systems into sub-systems or elements and to construct multilevel structural models (Warfield, 1976; Anantatmula and Kanungo, 2005). The ISM approach was used in this research to identify the relationships between factors with respect to implementing sustainability across the case study universities. This method supports the identification of primary relationships between specific variables, which can help in identifying challenges or issues (Sage, 1977; Charan et al., 2008). This approach can also impose order and direction on the complexity of relationships among variables (Kannan and Haq, 2007). There are various features of this methodology, some of which are given below (Warfield, 1974b; Kumar et al., 2019; Arantes and Ferreira, 2023; Bianco et al., 2023): (1) ISM is characterised by an interpretive nature, in which a panel of experts deliberates on the connections between variables. (2) ISM concentrates on shared associations to construct a framework for a complex array of dimensions. (3) ISM aids in the modelling of variables and the identification of existing interrelationship structures among them. (4) ISM is not limited to any specific domain but rather exhibits flexibility, as it has been effectively used in various fields including supply chain management, environmental studies, healthcare, and organisational behaviour (Mandal and Deshmukh, 1994). (5) ISM is inherently collaborative, involving multiple stakeholders in the construction of the model. This method ensures a comprehensive comprehension of the system being studied, taking into account different perspectives and areas of expertise (Attri et al., 2013).
As the objective of this study is to explore the interrelationships between organisational and decision-related factors that influence the adoption of sustainability measures for three Saudi HEI case studies. Case study methods allow for the use of a range of data collection and analysis techniques necessary to satisfy the research and data analysis aims (Corcoran et al., 2004; Kyburz-Graber, 2015). A case study-based research design was adopted due to the need to capture a sufficiently broad understanding of the phenomena involved in this context. This method not only facilitated the identification of organisational and human-related factors that affect the implementation of sustainability practices within Saudi HEIs from the perspective of F&PM departments, but also the determination of relationships between these factors and the confluence of issues associated with Saudi campuses in terms of sustainability.
This method was selected and designed based on the theoretical framework and the study aims and objectives. Focus group participants were selected based on their knowledge of the perspectives of decision makers within F&PM departments in Saudi universities, and they contributed to the exploration of the effect of organisational and human factors on the integration of sustainability principles into mainstream thinking and practice. The researcher acted as the facilitator. Table 2 lists the participants’ positions and areas of expertise.
Table 2. Participants list.
The data were collected from focus group discussions. Focus group approaches are commonly used to capture expert and stakeholder opinions, to obtain knowledge concerning phenomena and to steer discussions (Kitzinger, 1994; Stewart and Shamdasani, 2014). According to Hugé et al. (2016), this technique is also commonly used to collect knowledge concerning participant preferences, opinions, and values, as it enriches the topic under study. However, Kitzinger (1994) maintained that the success of this method depends on the skill of the researcher and the careful selection of study participants. In addition, consideration of the power dynamics between participants during focus group sessions and employing effective session management strategies must be taken into account (Kitzinger, 1994). For this reason, it was necessary to provide an open and welcoming environment during discussions that facilitated unrestricted interaction between participants.
The number of experts and specialists fluctuates in accordance with the specific investigation being conducted, presenting a considerable degree of variation, as evidenced by the range typically falling within the parameters of 5 to 15 individuals (Goyal and Kumar, 2017; Ribeiro et al., 2022; Kaur et al., 2023). In this study, seven participants were involved in focus group sessions of approximately one to one and a half hours. Based on participant preference, Arabic was used in conducting these sessions, as using the native language of participants can assist in obtaining interview data. Ethical concerns were crucial in our approach. Consent was obtained from participants before sessions, ensuring their awareness of the study’s purpose, their involvement, and their rights. The study followed strict confidentiality protocols, anonymizing and storing data securely to protect participant identity. According to Merriam (2014), interview data can be obtained in three ways: (1) recording entire sessions; (2) noting the salient information that emerges in sessions; and (3) recalling details from memory post-session. It is worth noting that the third method of recording data is not recommended, as it can be inaccurate. For this study, sections of the sessions were recorded and transcribed, and notes were taken and translated into English. The discussions centred on an ISM protocol and showed a pairwise relationship between identified organisational and human factors (Figure 1). Based on the adopted framework, an ISM methodology was used to analyse the transcript data. This process culminated in the development of an ISM-based model that represented the relationships between the identified factors.
7 Results and discussion
7.1 Interrelationships between human and organisational elements within HEIs
Organisational components are often interrelated and thus influence the adoption of new systems and practices (e.g., sustainability). For instance, university organisational structures often play an important role in shaping governance and decision-making approaches. This phenomenon is also linked to the influence of leaders and the impact of senior administrators. University culture, including shared values, goals and strategies and how choices and decisions are made can also contribute to realising university goals. Moreover, stakeholder participation and involvement can influence shifts in organisational culture. Thus, it is essential to identify interconnections and relationships between these organisational components.
In addition, the actions and choices of decision makers could influence the adoption and emergence of new practices (i.e., sustainability) due to other limitations and boundaries such as their beliefs, knowledge, interests, time and budgets. Based on the participant data, the interdependences between organisational variables were identified (see Figure 2). In addition, issues that relate to organisational elements are often internally connected. For example, a lack of sustainability policies and effective leadership within HEIs can lead to challenges in considering sustainability in decision-making processes, as some senior administrators and decision makers struggle with processing such decisions.
Figure 2. The relationship between organisational elements.
7.2 The development of influential factors on implementing sustainability across HEIs
The main points were derived from the rational choice theory (RCT) and organisational change theory (OCT) literatures (see Figure 2). These points represent the most influential factors on decision makers within F&PM departments and the organisational factors related to the delivery of plans for the establishment and promotion of campus sustainability. As Figure 2 shows, an interpretive structural methodology was used to identify the relationships between organisational elements, which allowed the researcher to evaluate mutual influences among factors and to map their complex interactions in the decision-making process (Charan et al., 2008). For this study, an interpretive structural model (ISM) was used to develop a model that assisted in identifying and ranking the relationships among factors and defining their level of influence.
7.2.1 Self-interaction matrix
The first step in this process was to identify contextual relationships by developing a structural self-interaction matrix (SSIM), which was based on the results shown in Figure 2. The comparisons of the relationships between variables were derived from the interview data.
When adopting a SSIM approach, in order to define the contextual relationship for each dimension, the existence of the relationship between any two factors (i and j) and the direction of this relationship must be defined (see Table 3). To denote the direction of the relationship between the factors (i and j), four symbols were used:
Table 3. Structural self-interaction matrix (SSIM).
V: Factor i influences Factor j;
A: Factor j influences Factor i;
X: Factor i and j influence each other; and
O: Factor i and j are unrelated.
The SSIM then was transformed into a binary matrix called the initial reachability matrix by substituting the symbols V, A, X and O with 1 and 0, respectively per. The rules for the substitution of 1 s and 0 s follow:
• If the (i, j) entry in the SSIM is V, then the (i, j) entry in the reachability matrix becomes 1 and the (j, i) entry becomes 0.
• If the (i, j) entry in the SSIM is A, then the (i, j) entry in the reachability matrix becomes 0 and the (j, i) entry becomes 1.
• If the (i, j) entry in the SSIM is X, then the (i, j) entry in the reachability matrix becomes 1 and the (j, i) entry becomes 1.
• If the (i, j) entry in the SSIM is O, then the (i, j) entry in the reachability matrix becomes 0 and the (j, i) entry also becomes 0.
The initial reachability matrix for the variables is shown in Table 4. The final reachability matrix for the factors was achieved by incorporating the transitivity of some entries from the pairwise comparisons and some inferred entries (see Table 5). It is important to note that for this matrix, the sum of each row represents the drive power for each factor, or how much each factor can affect other factors. The sum of each column represents the dependent power of each factor, or how much each factor can be affected by the others.
Table 4. Initial reachability matrix.
Table 5. Final reachability matrix.
7.2.2 Specifying relationships and level partitioning between factors
After the reachability matrix was created, a level partition was conducted to determine the hierarchy of all variables. The reachability and antecedent sets for each variable were then derived from the final reachability matrix (Warfield, 1974a, b; see Table 5). The driving and dependence power of each variable are also shown for this matrix. The driving power of a particular variable consists of the total number of variables (including itself) that it may help to achieve. The dependence is the total number of variables which may help in achieving the variable in question. These driving and dependence values were used in the MICMAC analysis, for which the variables be classified into four groups: autonomous, dependent, linkage and independent.
Table 6 shows that the locations of ‘organisational culture’ and ‘stakeholder participation’ were identified at Level I. The top-level factor in the hierarchy would not greatly assist the achievement of any other factors above its own level. The act of separating the other factors is done after the recognition of the top-level factor. The same process is then repeated to discern the next level of variables. This pattern is continued until the levels of each measure are obtained. Both the diagraph and the final model of the ISM are assisted by the recognition of these levels. The results show that ‘leadership’ and ‘organisational structure’ are both infrastructure factors and are the most influential factors in adopting sustainability across university campuses at Level III for formatting of ISM based model as clarified from the level partitions for factors, given in Table 5. Thus, these infrastructure factors play a crucial role in supporting the ‘decision-making approach’ and ‘senior administrators and F&PM decision makers’ which were placed at Level II. The identified levels assist in building the directed graph and the final ISM framework (see Figure 3).
Table 6. Levels of factors.
Figure 3. Final digraph depicting the relationships among variables.
The ISM model was then built based on the final analysis of variables (see Figure 3) in order to interpret the contextual relationships between the influential organisational factors and their representation in the hierarchy graph. The use of directed graphs, or digraphs, is a common representation technique that is derived through modelling (Iyer and Sagheer, 2009). Here, the digraph represents the relationships and links among organisational factors with arrows indicating the direction of influence to depict the hierarchical flow of interrelationships among these factors.
7.2.3 The MICMAC analysis
This study employed a Matrice d’Impacts Croisés Multipication Appliquée a un Classment (MICMAC) or Cross-Impact Matrix Multiplication Applied to Classification analysis (Godet, 1986). The MICMAC principle is grounded in using multiplication properties of matrices (Sharma et al., 1995) to evaluate both driving and dependence power of variables (Mathiyazhagan et al., 2013). For this study, the organisational variables were categorised into four clusters based on driving and dependence power (Mandal and Deshmukh, 1994; Guo et al., 2012):
• Independent (driving) variables which have strong driving power and weak dependence;
• Linkage variables which have strong driving power and dependence;
• Dependent variables which have weak driving power but strong dependence; and
• Autonomous variables which have a weak driving power and weak dependence
Figure 4 shows that ‘senior administrator and decision makers’, ‘organisational culture’ and ‘stakeholder participation’ were categorised as dependent variables, as they exhibited a very high degree of dependence but a weak driving power of 2 and 5, respectively. These organisational factors placed at the top and middle levels (II and I) of the ISM hierarchy as the result of the other variables in this system. The model revealed that these factors depend on others (i.e., driving and linkage variables) in order to achieve the adoption of sustainability measures.
Figure 4. Driving power and dependence power diagram.
The final reachability matrix (see Table 5) shows that ‘organisational structure’ and ‘decision-making process’ were classified as driving (independent) variables with high driving power but low dependence. Thus, these two variables were considered to be important factors that exert influence on the others and that require immediate attention. It is obvious that ‘organisational structure’ (6) and ‘decision-making process’ (5) have similar driving power and provide a meaningful contribution to encouraging university campuses towards sustainability initiatives. Thus, providing enough room to accommodate sustainability into organisational structure and decision-making process could lead to great strides in implementing sustainability within HEIs.
Moreover, the ‘leadership’ factor fell into the linkage variables category, which suggests that this variable represents a strong linkage element in the model hierarchy due to its high driving and dependence power. Linkage variables are unstable factors, as any action towards these variables has consequences not only for them but also for other variables (Hu et al., 2009; Iyer and Sagheer, 2009). For this study, ‘leadership’ was located in the bottom of the model, with ‘organisational structure’ as a driving variable. This suggests that this variable, along with ‘organisational structure’, has influence over the ‘decision-making process’, ‘senior administrator and decision makers’, ‘organisational culture’ and ‘stakeholder participation’ factors. Moreover, the apparent significance of the ‘leadership’ variable in the model suggests that to implement and deliver sustainability initiatives, it is important for HEIs to introduce sustainability into their organisational culture, provide space within their organisational structures for sustainability, enhance sustainability knowledge and awareness among senior administrators, decision makers and other stakeholders, integrate sustainability into decision-making process, and increase stakeholder engagement and involvement.
8 Research implications
The ISM-based model can assist Saudi university F&PM departments in guiding their implementation efforts. Ideally, these outcomes can provide guidance in encouraging the incorporation of sustainability initiatives into the operation of HEIs. The findings suggest recommendations and strategies relevant for a broad range of university campus structures, and are outlined below.
• Campus sustainability efforts tend to originate from the shared views and interests of a group, and can emerge from a range of disciplines and departments. Therefore, decision makers in positions within an organisational hierarchy structure often have a high level of influence that can increase sustainability-related practices.
• The model emphasises the importance of the ‘leadership’ factor, as it constitutes a link between various factors in promoting campus sustainability measures. Senior management commitment seems essential in encouraging campus sustainability initiatives and identifying both common and specific modes of communication as well as in considering current communication cultures and preferences.
• Despite preferences and choices, cost is a dominant factor in implementing sustainability at selected case studies. Cost saving benefits of sustainability are recognised, but implementation is often considered prohibitive. Financial issues are challenging for decision makers concerned about sustainability. Opposition to initial costs of sustainable design cannot be overcome, however, supporting a strategic process could provide sufficient financial resources and incentives in terms of sustainability.
• Organisational culture is crucial for promoting campus sustainability. Shifting campus culture requires short-term and long-term strategies, effective leadership, and stakeholder involvement. Advancing awareness, changing behaviour, and engaging stakeholders can be achieved by integrating sustainability into a university’s mission and values.
Thus, the model provides a step-by-step guide to establishing a proper approach to campus sustainability and assists in tackling obstacles that can hinder campus sustainability movements. The study findings can also assist Saudi universities in more effectively prioritising and allocating resources that contribute to the implementation of sustainability initiatives.
9 Conclusion
This study explores the influence of organisational and individual factors in integrating sustainability practices into university planning and operations practices in Saudi HEIs. Using an Interpretive Structural Model (ISM) approach based on input from stakeholders in the Saudi university context, the research illustrates the relationships between these factors. The results of the ISM-based model suggest that two factors—organisational structure and decision-making process—influenced the other organisational and human factors. Moreover, the analysis showed that leadership is a crucial factor, as it is presumed to be a link between various factors that relate to both human and organisational variables. Essentially, leadership plays a crucial role in embedding sustainability within the organisational structure and decision-making processes, fostering a culture of sustainability, and promoting sustainability knowledge and awareness among stakeholders. Accordingly, as similar studies have shown, the absence of inspiring leadership and effective communication can contribute to undermining sustainability efforts and implementation at HEIs.
The exploration of decision- and organisation-related factors in an under-researched area has presented challenges in this study. The selection of three case study campuses was intended to allow for in-depth analysis, as opposed to a breadth of inquiry across many cases. The study also contributes to scientific knowledge of understanding the impact of organisational and decision-related elements in HEIs and provides a new framework for designing and implementing sustainability practices on university campuses. Lastly, it introduces a set of guidelines for effective management and policy-making within Saudi Arabian HEIs. However, it is important to note that the scope of this study was to understand the relationships between decision and organisational factors that influence the implementation of sustainability practices in a case study context. Thus, Technical aspects of sustainability or the integration of sustainability into teaching and research practices were not extensively analysed. Nonetheless, there were references made to technical concerns regarding infrastructure, the local surroundings, applications, technologies, and educational challenges associated with the broader sustainability of the campus. Conversely, the primary emphasis was on exploring barriers in management, decision-making, and organisational factors. These limitations are mitigated to some extent by the study’s findings serving as a foundation for further research on sustainability implementation in the context of Saudi Arabian HEIs.
Nevertheless, it is important to interpret these findings cautiously as they were obtained within a controlled research framework and specific timeframe. In terms of the research method, while the use of ISM to illustrate the relationships between decision and organisational factors was successful, it is necessary to be stated that the outcomes reached in this study should be subjected to further generalisation in subsequent studies. These studies could involve comparing different HEIs across various geographic and economic contexts. Furthermore, the findings and limitations of this study lead to recommendations for future research. Firstly, additional research is needed to provide more evidence on key factors such as leadership by examining the organisational environment from different perspectives. A focused study on leadership and interpersonal relationships could contribute to the development of a model for organisational change strategies. Secondly, research is suggested to explore the relationship between leadership strategies for campus sustainability in different countries. Thirdly, there is a need for research on the interactions between stakeholders and different departments within universities to understand their impact on sustainability. Lastly, this study primarily focuses on internal conditions within Saudi HEIs and does not consider external factors and pressures. Future research examining external factors could provide a deeper understanding of campus sustainability.
Data availability statement
The datasets presented in this article are not readily available to protect the anonymity of the participants. The data was generated for the purpose of this research and the participants agreed to take part on the agreement that their names and organizations would remain anonymous. Requests to access the datasets should be directed to
Author contributions
The author confirms being the sole contributor of this work and has approved it for publication.
Funding
The author(s) declare financial support was received for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article. The author provided self-funding to cover the Open Access publication fees (Moganadas et al., 2013). This publication is funded by the Deanship of Scientific Research at Al-Baha University, under the research project titled “University Stakeholders’ Assessment of Campus Sustainability: Al-Baha University case study.”
Conflict of interest
The author declares that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
Publisher’s note
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.
References
Aasa, O., Jesuleye, O., and Ajayi, O. (2020). Towards greening decisions on the university campus: initiatives, importance and barriers. Int. J. Eng. Manag. Res. 10, 82–88. doi: 10.31033/ijemr.10.3.13
Abaza, H. (2003). “The role of integrated assessment in achieving sustainable development” in New directions in impact assessment for development: Methods and practice conference (Manchester: Enterprise Development Impact Assessment Information Service (EDIAIS)).
Abubakar, I. R., Al-Shihri, F. S., and Ahmed, S. M. (2016). Students’ assessment of campus sustainability at the University of Dammam, Saudi Arabia. Sustain. For. 8:59. doi: 10.3390/su8010059
Adams, C. A., Larrinaga-González, C., Adams, C. A., and McNicholas, P. (2007). Making a difference: sustainability reporting, accountability and organisational change. Account. Audit. Account. J. 20, 382–402. doi: 10.1108/09513570710748553
Adomssent, M., Godemann, J., Michelsen, G., Adomssent, M., Godemann, J., and Michelsen, G. (2007). Transferability of approaches to sustainable development at universities as a challenge. Int. J. Sustain. High. Educ. 8, 385–402. doi: 10.1108/14676370710823564
Allen, A. (1999). “Institutional change and leadership in greening the campus” in Sustainability and university life: Environmental education, communication and sustainability. ed. W. L. Filho (Switzerland: Peter Lang)
Allen, D. K. (2003). Organisational climate and strategic change in higher education: Organisational insecurity. High. Educ. 46, 61–92. doi: 10.2307/3447562
Alonso-Almeida, M. D. M., Marimon, F., Casani, F., and Rodriguez-Pomeda, J. (2015). Diffusion of sustainability reporting in universities: current situation and future perspectives. J. Clean. Prod. 106, 144–154.
Alsharif, M. A., Peters, M. D., and Dixon, T. J. (2020). Designing and implementing effective campus sustainability in Saudi Arabian universities: an assessment of drivers and barriers in a rational choice theoretical context. Sustain. For. 12:5096. doi: 10.3390/su12125096
Alshuwaikhat, H. M., Adenle, Y. A., and Saghir, B. (2016). Sustainability assessment of higher education institutions in Saudi Arabia. Sustain. For. 8:750. doi: 10.3390/su8080750
Alshuwaikhat, H. M., and Mohammed, I. (2017). Sustainability matters in National Development Visions—Evidence from Saudi Arabia’s vision for 2030. Sustain. For. 9:408. doi: 10.3390/su9030408
Amaral, A. R., Rodrigues, E., Gaspar, A. R., and Gomes, Á. (2020). A review of empirical data of sustainability initiatives in university campus operations. J. Clean. Prod. 250:119558. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.119558
Ambrosini, V., Bowman, C., and Collier, N. (2009). Dynamic capabilities: an exploration of how firms renew their resource base. Br. J. Manag. 20, S9–S24. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8551.2008.00610.x
Ameer, R., and Othman, R. (2012). Sustainability practices and corporate financial performance: a study based on the top global corporations. J. Bus. Ethics 108, 61–79. doi: 10.1007/s10551-011-1063-y
Anantatmula, V., and Kanungo, S. (2005). Establishing and structuring criteria for measuring knowledge management efforts. System sciences, 2005. HICSS'05. Proceedings of the 38th annual Hawaii international conference on system science.
Arantes, A., and Ferreira, L. M. D. (2023). Development of delay mitigation measures in construction projects: a combined interpretative structural modeling and MICMAC analysis approach. Prod. Plan. Control. 1–16.
Argento, D., Einarson, D., Mårtensson, L., Persson, C., Wendin, K., and Westergren, A. (2020). Integrating sustainability in higher education: A Swedish case. Int. J. Sustain. High. Educ. 21, 1131–1150.
Attri, R., Dev, N., and Sharma, V. (2013). Interpretive structural modelling (ISM) approach: an overview. Res. J. Manag. Sci. 2319:1171.
Avery, G. C., and Bergsteiner, H. (2011). Sustainable leadership practices for enhancing business resilience and performance. Strateg. Leadersh. 39, 5–15. doi: 10.1108/10878571111128766
Barnett, K. (2005). Creating meaning in organisational change: a case in higher education University of South Carolina]. Available at: http://etd.lsu.edu/docs/available/etd-04132005-153531/unrestricted/Barnett_dis.pdf.
Bauer, M., Rieckmann, M., Niedlich, S., and Bormann, I. (2021). Sustainability governance at higher education institutions: equipped to transform? Front. Sustain. 2:640458.
Bekessy, S., Samson, K., and Clarkson, R. (2007). The failure of non-binding declarations to achieve university sustainability: a need for accountability. Int. J. Sustain. High. Educ. 8, 301–316. doi: 10.1108/14676370710817165
Bianco, D., Godinho Filho, M., Osiro, L., Ganga, G. M. D., and Tortorella, G. L. (2023). The driving and dependence power between Lean leadership competencies: an integrated ISM/fuzzy MICMAC approach. Prod. Plan. Control. 34, 1037–1061.
Birnbaum, R., and Edelson, P. J. (1989). How colleges work: the cybernetics of academic organization and leadership. J. Contin. High. Educ. 37, 27–29. doi: 10.1080/07377366.1989.10401184
Blanco-Portela, N., Benayas, J., Pertierra, L. R., and Lozano, R. (2017). Towards the integration of sustainability in higher education institutions: a review of drivers of and barriers to organisational change and their comparison against those found of companies. J. Clean. Prod. 166, 563–578. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.07.252
Blanco-Portela, N., R-Pertierra, L., Benayas, J., and Lozano, R. (2018). Sustainability leaders’ perceptions on the drivers for and the barriers to the integration of sustainability in Latin American higher education institutions. Sustainability 10:2954.
Bolman, L. G., and Deal, T. E. (2008). Reframing organizations: Artistry, choice and leadership. Hoboken: Jossey-Bass.
Boyett, I. (1996). New leader, new culture, “old” university. Leadersh. Org. Dev. J. 17, 24–30. doi: 10.1108/01437739610127487
Breakwell, G. M. (2006). Leadership in education: the case of vice-chancellors. Perspectives 10, 52–58. doi: 10.1080/13603100600644555
Breakwell, G. M., and Tytherleigh, M. Y. (2008). UK university leaders at the turn of the 21st century: changing patterns in their socio-demographic characteristics. High. Educ. 56, 109–127. doi: 10.1007/s10734-007-9092-2
Breyman, S. (Ed.). (1999). Sustainability through incremental steps? The case study of campus greening at Rensselaer. Switzerland: Peter Lang.
Brinkhurst, M., Rose, P., Maurice, G., and Ackerman, J. D. (2011). Achieving campus sustainability: top-down, bottom-up, or neither? Int. J. Sustain. High. Educ. 12, 338–354. doi: 10.1108/14676371111168269
Cameron, K. S., and Freeman, S. J. (Eds.). (1991). Cultural congruence, strength and type: Relationships to effectiveness. US: JAI Press.
Chankseliani, M., and McCowan, T. (2021). Higher education and the sustainable development goals. High. Educ. 81, 1–8. doi: 10.1007/s10734-020-00652-w
Charan, P., Shankar, R., and Baisya, R. K. (2008). Analysis of interactions among the variables of supply chain performance measurement system implementation. Bus. Process. Manag. J. 14, 512–529. doi: 10.1108/14637150810888055
Corcoran, P. B., Walker, K. E., and Wals, A. E. (2004). Case studies, make-your-case studies, and case stories: a critique of case-study methodology in sustainability in higher education. Environ. Educ. Res. 10, 7–21. doi: 10.1080/1350462032000173670
Cortese, A. D. (2003). Education for an environmentally sustainable future. Environ. Sci. Technol. 26, 1108–1114. doi: 10.1021/es50002a012
Crane, A., and Ruebottom, T. (2011). Stakeholder theory and social identity: rethinking stakeholder identification. J. Bus. Ethics 102, 77–87. doi: 10.1007/s10551-011-1191-4
Creighton, S. H. (1998). Greening the ivory tower: Improving the environmental track record of universities, colleges, and other institutions. US: MIT Press.
Dahl, A. L. (2012). Achievements and gaps in indicators for sustainability. Ecol. Indic. 17, 14–19. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolind.2011.04.032
de Castro, R., and Jabbour, C. J. C. (2013). Evaluating sustainability of an Indian university. J. Clean. Prod. 61, 54–58. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.02.033
Doppelt, B. (2009). Leading change toward sustainability-: A change-management guide for business, Government and Civil Society. Greenleaf Publishing. UK.
Dyer, J. W. G. (1986). Cultural change in family firms: Anticipating and managing business and family transactions. US: Jossey-Bass.
Dyllick, T., and Muff, K. (2016). Clarifying the meaning of sustainable business: introducing a typology from business-as-usual to true business sustainability. Organ. Environ. 29, 156–174. doi: 10.1177/1086026615575176
Eagan, D. J., and Keniry, J. (1998). Green Investment, Green Return: How Practical Conservation Projects Save Millions on America's Campuses. ERIC: US.
Edwards, B. W., and Naboni, E. (2013). Green buildings pay: Design, productivity and ecology. UK: Routledge.
Evangelinos, K. I., Jones, N., and Panoriou, E. M. (2009). Challenges and opportunities for sustainability in regional universities: a case study in Mytilene, Greece. J. Clean. Prod. 17, 1154–1161. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2009.02.020
Fantini, M. D. (1981). On effecting change in educational bureaucracies. Educ. Urban Soc. 13, 399–416. doi: 10.1177/001312458101300403
Farmer, D. (1990). Strategies for change. N. Dir. High. Educ. 1990, 7–18. doi: 10.1002/he.36919907103
Finkelstein, S., Hambrick, D. C., and Cannella, A. A. (2009). “Strategic leadership: Theory and research on executives, top management teams, and boards,” In Strategic Management. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Fonseca, L. M., Domingues, J. P., and Dima, A. M. (2020). Mapping the sustainable development goals relationships. Sustain. For. 12:3359. doi: 10.3390/su12083359
Fonseca, R. A., Thomé, A. M. T., and Milanez, B. (2021). “Decision-making process on sustainability: a systematic literature review” in Industrial engineering and operations management: XXVI IJCIEOM. 2nd ed. eds. A. M. Tavares Thomé, R. G. Barbastefano, L. F. Scavarda, J. C. Gonçalves dos Reis, and M. P. C. Amorim (Cham: Springer).
Friedman, B. A., and Allen, N. K. (2011). “Systems theory” in Theory & practice in clinical social work. ed. J. R. Brandell. 2ed ed (US: Sage), 3–20.
Ghasemy, M., Elwood, J. A., and Scott, G. (2023). A comparative study on turnaround leadership in higher education and the successful implementation of the UN’s sustainable development goals. Int. J. Sustain. High. Educ. 24, 602–636. doi: 10.1108/IJSHE-01-2022-0001
Gibbs, P., and Murphy, P. (2009). Implementation of ethical higher education marketing. Tert. Educ. Manag. 15, 341–354. doi: 10.1080/13583880903335472
Gladwin, T. N., Kennelly, J. J., and Krause, T.-S. (1995). Shifting paradigms for sustainable development: implications for management theory and research. Acad. Manag. Rev. 20, 874–907. doi: 10.2307/258959
Godet, M. (1986). Introduction to la prospective: seven key ideas and one scenario method. Futures 18, 134–157. doi: 10.1016/0016-3287(86)90094-7
Goldman, C. A., Goldman, C., Gates, S. M., Brewer, A., and Brewer, D. J. (2004). In pursuit of prestige: Strategy and competition in US higher education. US: Transaction Publishers.
Goni, F. A., Muriati,, Sahran, S., Shukor, S. A., and Chofreh, A. G. (2013). Aligning an information system strategy with sustainability strategy towards sustainable campus. 2013 International Conference on Research and innovation in information systems (ICRIIS).
Goyal, P., and Kumar, D. (2017). Modeling the CSR barriers in manufacturing industries. Benchmarking Int J. 24, 1871–1890.
Gui, X., Gou, Z., and Lu, Y. (2021). Reducing university energy use beyond energy retrofitting: the academic calendar impacts. Energ. Buildings 231:110647. doi: 10.1016/j.enbuild.2020.110647
Guo, Z., Li, Y., and Stevens, K. J. (2012). Analyzing students’ technology use motivations: an interpretive structural modeling approach. Commun. Assoc. Inf. Syst. 30, 199–224. doi: 10.17705/1CAIS.03014
Hambrick, D. C., Cho, T. S., and Chen, M.-J. (1996). The influence of top management team heterogeneity on firms' competitive moves. Adm. Sci. Q. 41, 659–684. doi: 10.2307/2393871
Harris, L. C., and Crane, A. (2002). The greening of organizational culture: management views on the depth, degree and diffusion of change. J. Organ. Chang. Manag. 15, 214–234. doi: 10.1108/09534810210429273
Harrison, E. F. (1999). The managerial decision-making process. US: Houghton Mifflin College Division.
Hedstrom, P. (2005). Dissecting the social: On the principles of analytical sociology. US: Cambridge University Press.
HEFCE. (2005a). Sustainable development in higher education: Strategic statement and action plan Bristol: Higher Education Funding Council for England
HEFCE. (2005b). Sustainable development in higher education: Consultation on a support strategy and action plan Bristol: Higher Education Funding Council for England.
HEFCE. (2009). Carbon reduction target and strategy for higher education in England London: Higher Education Funding Council for England.
Hu, H.-Y., Chiu, S.-I., and Yen, T.-M. (2009). Modified IPA for order-winner criteria improvement: a MICMAC approach. J. Appl. Sci. 9, 3792–3803. doi: 10.3923/jas.2009.3792.3803
Hugé, J., Block, T., Waas, T., Wright, T., and Dahdouh-Guebas, F. (2016). How to walk the talk? Developing actions for sustainability in academic research. J. Clean. Prod. 137, 83–92. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.07.010
Humblet, E. M., Owens, R., and Roy, L. P. (2010). Roadmap to a Green Campus. Washington, DC: U.S. Green Building Council (USGBC).
IPCC. (2014). Climate change 2014: Mitigation of climate change the fifth assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change issue. CU. Press.
Iyer, K., and Sagheer, M. (2009). Hierarchical structuring of PPP risks using interpretative structural modeling. J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 136, 151–159. doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0000127
Jarzabkowski, P. (2003). Strategic practices: an activity theory perspective on continuity and change. J. Manag. Stud. 40, 23–55. doi: 10.1111/1467-6486.t01-1-00003
Kannan, G., and Haq, A. N. (2007). Analysis of interactions of criteria and sub-criteria for the selection of supplier in the built-in-order supply chain environment. Int. J. Prod. Res. 45, 3831–3852. doi: 10.1080/00207540600676676
Karabetyan, L. (2023). “The relationship between sustainable leadership and organizational identification in universities,” in Considerations on education for economic, social, and environmental sustainability. ed. G. Sart (IGI Global), 136–155. doi: 10.4018/978-1-6684-8356-5.ch007
Karatzoglou, B. (2013). An in-depth literature review of the evolving roles and contributions of universities to education for sustainable development. J. Clean. Prod. 49, 44–53.
Kaur, G., Singh, M., and Gupta, S. (2023). Analysis of key factors influencing individual financial well-being using ISM and MICMAC approach. Qual. Quant. 57, 1533–1559.
Kegan, R., and Lahey, L. L. (2001). The real reason people won’t change. Harvard Business Review. Available at: https://hbr.org/2001/11/the-real-reason-people-wont-change
Kezar, A. (2011). Understanding and facilitating organizational change in the 21st century: Recent research and conceptualizations. ASHE-ERIC higher education report 28:4.
Kitzinger, J. (1994). The methodology of focus groups: the importance of interaction between research participants. Sociol. Health Illn. 16, 103–121. doi: 10.1111/1467-9566.ep11347023
Klein, K. J., and Kozlowski, S. W. (2000). Multilevel theory, research, and methods in organizations: Foundations, extensions, and new directions. US: Jossey-Bass.
Klein, N., Ramos, T. B., and Deutz, P. (2022). Factors and strategies for circularity implementation in the public sector: an organisational change management approach for sustainability. Corp. Soc. Responsib. Environ. Manag. 29, 509–523. doi: 10.1002/csr.2215
Kuh, G. D. (2003). “Organisational theory” in Student services: A handbook for the profession. eds. S. R. Komives and D. B. Woodard Jr. (US: Jossey-Bass)
Kumar, D., Goyal, P., and Kumar, V. (2019). Modeling and classification of enablers of CSR in Indian firms. J. Model. Manag. 14, 456–475. doi: 10.1108/JM2-07-2018-0100
Kyburz-Graber, R. (2015). “Case study research on higher education for sustainable development: epistemological foundation and quality challenges” in Routledge handbook of higher education for sustainable development. eds. M. Barth, G. Michelsen, M. Rieckmann, and I. Thomas (UK: Routledge), 150–165.
Lattu, A., and Cai, Y. (2020). Tensions in the sustainability of higher education—The case of finnish universities. Sustainability 12:1941. doi: 10.3390/su12051941
Leal Filho, W., Eustachio, J. H. P. P., Caldana, A. C. F., Will, M., Lange Salvia, A., Rampasso, I. S., et al. (2020). Sustainability leadership in higher education institutions: an overview of challenges. Sustain. For. 12:3761. doi: 10.3390/su12093761
Leal Filho, W., Manolas, E., and Pace, P. (2015). The future we want: key issues on sustainable development in higher education after Rio and the UN decade of education for sustainable development. Int. J. Sustain. High. Educ. 16, 112–129. doi: 10.1108/IJSHE-03-2014-0036
Lechtchinskaia, L., Uffen, J., and Breitner, M. H. (2011). “Critical success factors for adoption of integrated information systems in higher education institutions-a meta-analysis,” in Proceedings of the seventeenth Americas Conference on Information Systems AMCIS 4 - 7 August 2011. Michigan, USA: Detroit.
Levy, B. L., and Marans, R. W. (2012). Towards a campus culture of environmental sustainability: recommendations for a large university. Int. J. Sustain. High. Educ. 13, 365–377. doi: 10.1108/14676371211262317
Linnenluecke, M. K., and Griffiths, A. (2010). Corporate sustainability and organizational culture. J. World Bus. 45, 357–366. doi: 10.1016/j.jwb.2009.08.006
Lippitt, R., Watson, J., Westley, B., and Spalding, W. B. (1958). The dynamics of planned change: a comparative study of principles and techniques. US: Harcourt, Brace & World.
Logan, K. G., Nelson, J. D., Osbeck, C., Chapman, J. D., and Hastings, A. (2020). The application of travel demand management initiatives within a university setting. Case Studies on Transport Policy 8, 1426–1439. doi: 10.1016/j.cstp.2020.10.007
Lozano, R. (2012). Towards better embedding sustainability into companies’ systems: an analysis of voluntary corporate initiatives. J. Clean. Prod. 25, 14–26. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2011.11.060
Lozano, R. (2022). “Organisational Change Management for Sustainability,” in Toward sustainable organisations. Strategies for sustainability. Cham: Springer, 75–88.
Lozano, R., Lukman, R., Lozano, F. J., Huisingh, D., and Lambrechts, W. (2013). Declarations for sustainability in higher education: becoming better leaders, through addressing the university system. J. Clean. Prod. 48, 10–19. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2011.10.006
Mandal, A., and Deshmukh, S. (1994). Vendor selection using interpretive structural modelling (ISM). Int. J. Oper. Prod. Manag. 14, 52–59. doi: 10.1108/01443579410062086
Marshall, S. (ed.). (2019). “Leading and managing strategic change” in Strategic leadership of change in higher education (UK: Routledge), 22–34.
Mathiyazhagan, K., Govindan, K., NoorulHaq, A., and Geng, Y. (2013). An ISM approach for the barrier analysis in implementing green supply chain management. J. Clean. Prod. 47, 283–297. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2012.10.042
McRoy, I., and Gibbs, P. (2009). Leading change in higher education. Educ. Manag. Admin. Leadership 37, 687–704. doi: 10.1177/1741143209339655
Merriam, S. B. (2014). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation (3rd ed.). Hoboken: Wiley.
Michelsen, G. (2016). “Policy, politics and polity in higher education for sustainable development” in Routledge handbook of higher education for sustainable development. eds. M. Barth, G. Michelsen, I. Thomas, and M. Rieckmann (UK: Routledge)
Moganadas, S. R., Corral-Verdugo, V., and Ramanathan, S. (2013). Toward systemic campus sustainability: gauging dimensions of sustainable development via a motivational and perception-based approach. Environ. Dev. Sustain. 15, 1443–1464. doi: 10.1007/s10668-013-9451-3
Moutsios, S. (2023). The bureaucratisation of the university: the case of Denmark. Educ. Philos. Theory 55, 379–391. doi: 10.1080/00131857.2022.2097069
Murphy, M. (2009). Bureaucracy and its limits: accountability and rationality in higher education. Br. J. Sociol. Educ. 30, 683–695. doi: 10.1080/01425690903235169
Nambiar, P., and Chitty, N. (2014). Meaning making by managers: corporate discourse on environment and sustainability in India. J. Bus. Ethics 123, 493–511. doi: 10.1007/s10551-013-1848-2
Nations, U. (2015). Transforming our world: The 2030 agenda for sustainable development. United Nations. Available at: https://sdgs.un.org/2030agenda
Ngo, L. M., and Trinh, T. A. (2016). A university-city complex, a model for sustainable development: a case study in Vietnam. Procedia Engineering 142, 92–99. doi: 10.1016/j.proeng.2016.02.018
Nomura, K., and Abe, O. (2010). Higher education for sustainable development in Japan: policy and progress. Int. J. Sustain. High. Educ. 11, 120–129. doi: 10.1108/14676371011031847
Perrott, B. (2014). The sustainable organisation: blueprint for an integrated model. J. Bus. Strateg. 35, 26–37. doi: 10.1108/JBS-07-2013-0061
Pittman, J. (2004). “Living sustainably through higher education: a whole systems design approach to organizational change” in Higher education and the challenge of sustainability. eds. P. B. Corcoran, and A. E. J. Wals (US: Springer), 199–212.
Rabaa'i, A. A. (2009). “Identifying critical success factors of ERP Systems at the higher education sector,” In ISIICT 2009: The third international symposium on innovation in information and communication technology, 15-17 December, 2009. Amman, Jordan: Philadelphia University.
Raimi, B. (2020). An investigation of the relationship between Organisational culture and sustainability performance in higher education institutions in Ilorin, Nigeria. UK: Cardiff Metropolitan University.
Ramos, T. B., Caeiro, S., van Hoof, B., Lozano, R., Huisingh, D., and Ceulemans, K. (2015). Experiences from the implementation of sustainable development in higher education institutions: Environmental Management for Sustainable Universities. J. Clean. Prod. 106, 3–10. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.05.110
Ramsden, P. (1998). Managing the effective university. High. Educ. Res. Dev. 17, 347–370. doi: 10.1080/0729436980170307
Ribeiro, A. M., Arantes, A., and Cruz, C. O. (2022). Barriers to the adoption of modular construction in Portugal: an interpretive structural modeling approach. Buildings 12:1509.
Rieg, N. A., Gatersleben, B., and Christie, I. (2021). Organizational change management for sustainability in higher education institutions: a systematic quantitative literature review. Sustain. For. 13:7299. doi: 10.3390/su13137299
Rimantho, D., Hidayah, N., and Herzanita, A. (2019). Analysis of risk failure of solid waste management processes in universities: Case study of Pancasila university Jakarta. IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environ. Sci. 399:012045. doi: 10.1088/1755-1315/399/1/012045
Ruiz-Mallén, I., and Heras, M. (2020). What sustainability? higher education institutions’ pathways to reach the agenda 2030 goals. Sustainability 12:1290. doi: 10.3390/su12041290
Sachs, J. D., Schmidt-Traub, G., Mazzucato, M., Messner, D., Nakicenovic, N., and Rockström, J. (2019). Six transformations to achieve the sustainable development goals. Nature Sustainability 2, 805–814. doi: 10.1038/s41893-019-0352-9
Sage, A. (1977). Interpretive structural modeling: Methodology for large-scale systems. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Schiefen, K. M. (2010). Entrepreneurial orientation of community college workforce divisions and the impact of organisational structure: A grounded theory study (Publication Number UMI 3409196) Capella University]. ProQuest LLC Dissertations and Theses.
Scott, W. R., and Davis, G. F. (2007). Organizations and organizing: Rational, natural and open systems perspectives. Routledge.
Sharma, H., Gupta, A., and Sushil, A. (1995). The objectives of waste management in India: a futures inquiry. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 48, 285–309. doi: 10.1016/0040-1625(94)00066-6
Sharp, L. (2002). Green campuses: the road from little victories to systemic transformation. Int. J. Sustain. High. Educ. 3, 128–145. doi: 10.1108/14676370210422357
Sharp, L. (2009). Higher education: the quest for the sustainable campus. (Vol. 5, pp. 1–8). England: Taylor & Francis.
Shepard, J., and Johnson, L. (2009). Implementing sustainable institutional practices. J. Educ. Sustain. Dev. 3, 217–220. doi: 10.1177/097340820900300220
Shiel, C., and Williams, A. (2015). “Working together, driven apart: reflecting on a joint Endeavour to address sustainable development within a university” in Integrative approaches to sustainable development at university level. eds. W. Leal Filho, L. Brandli, O. Kuznetsova, and A. Paço (US: Springer), 425–447.
Spira, F., Tappeser, V., and Meyer, A. (2013). “Perspectives on sustainability governance from universities in the USA, UK, and Germany: how do change agents employ different tools to Alter organizational cultures and structures?” in Sustainability assessment tools in higher education institutions. eds. S. Caeiro, W. L. Filho, C. Jabbour, and U. M. Azeiteiro (US: Springer International Publishing), 175–187.
Stephens, J. C., and Graham, A. C. (2010). Toward an empirical research agenda for sustainability in higher education: exploring the transition management framework. J. Clean. Prod. 18, 611–618. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2009.07.009
Sterling, S. (2004). “HEIs, sustainability, and the role of systemic learning” in HEIs and the challenge of sustainability: Problematics, promise, and practice. eds. P. Corcoran and A. E. J. Wals (Amsterdam: Kluwer Academic Publishers)
Stewart, D. W., and Shamdasani, P. N. (2014). Focus groups: Theory and practice (Vol. 20). US: Sage publications.
Storberg-Walker, J., and Torraco, R. (2004). Change and Higher Education: A Multidisciplinary Approach: The Academy of Human Resource Development International Conference (AHRD) (Austin, TX, 3-7 March 2004). United States. Available at: https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED492430.pdf
Thompson, R., and Green, W. (2005). When sustainability is not a priority: an analysis of trends and strategies. Int. J. Sustain. High. Educ. 6, 7–17.
Turner, B. A. (1986). Sociological aspects of organizational symbolism. Organ. Stud. 7, 101–115. doi: 10.1177/017084068600700202
UNCED. (1992). Promoting education and public awareness and training United Nations conference on environment and development, Rio de Janeiro.
UNEP. (2013). Green university toolkit, transforming universities into green and sustainable campuses: a toolkit for implementers (GREEN, TRANSFORMING UNIVERSITIES INTO CAMPUSES, SUSTAINABLE, issue. U. N. E. P. (UNEP).
UNESCO. (1997). Thessaloniki Declaration. Retrieved 2014-4-15 from http://portal.unesco.org/education/es/file_download.php/d400258bf583e49cd49ab70d6e7992f6Thessaloniki+declaration.doc.
Valente, M. (2015). Business sustainability embeddedness as a strategic imperative: a process framework. Bus. Soc. 54, 126–142. doi: 10.1177/0007650312443199
van Niekerk, K., and Jansen van Rensburg, M. (2022). Middle managers’ Strategising practices to effect strategic change. J. Chang. Manag. 22, 273–291. doi: 10.1080/14697017.2022.2040572
Vaughter, P., Wright, T., McKenzie, M., and Lidstone, L. (2013). Greening the ivory tower: a review of educational research on sustainability in post-secondary education. Sustain. For. 5, 2252–2271. doi: 10.3390/su5052252
Velazquez, L., Munguia, N., Platt, A., and Taddei, J. (2006). Sustainable university: what can be the matter? J. Clean. Prod. 14, 810–819. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2005.12.008
Verhulst, E. (2012). The human side of sustainable design implementation from the perspective of change management [Ph.D., Universiteit Antwerpen (Belgium)]. ProQuest Dissertations & Theses a&I. Ann Arbor.
Verhulst, E., and Lambrechts, W. (2014). Fostering the incorporation of sustainable development in higher education. Lessons learned from a change management perspective. J. Cleaner 106, 189–204. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.09.049
Voss, T., and Abraham, M. (2000). Rational choice theory in sociology: a survey. The international handbook of sociology 49:50. doi: 10.4135/9781848608405.n3
Waas, T., Hugé, J., Verbruggen, A., and Wright, T. (2011). Sustainable development: a Bird’s eye view. Sustain. For. 3, 1637–1661. doi: 10.3390/su3101637
Walton, S. V., and Galea, C. E. (2005). Some considerations for applying business sustainability practices to campus environmental challenges. Int. J. Sustain. High. Educ. 6, 147–160. doi: 10.1108/14676370510589864
Wang, W.-S., and Ching, G. S. (2015). Developing sustainability indicators for higher education institutions in Taiwan. Int. J. Info. Educ. Technol. 5, 905–909. doi: 10.7763/IJIET.2015.V5.635
Wang, X., and Guo, L. (2021). How to promote university students to innovative use renewable energy? An inquiry-based learning course model. Sustain. For. 13:1418. doi: 10.3390/su13031418
Wang, Y., Shi, H., Sun, M., Huisingh, D., Hansson, L., and Wang, R. (2013). Moving towards an ecologically sound society? Starting from green universities and environmental higher education. J. Clean. Prod. 61, 1–5. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.09.038
Warfield, J. N. (1974a). Developing interconnection matrices in structural modeling. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and SMC 4, 81–87. doi: 10.1109/TSMC.1974.5408524
Warfield, J. N. (1974b). Developing subsystem matrices in structural modeling. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and SMC 4, 74–80. doi: 10.1109/TSMC.1974.5408523
Wiley, D. (2007). On the sustainability of open educational resource initiatives in higher education. US: Citeseer.
Wright, T. (2004). Giving teeth to a university sustainability policy: Using the Delphi method to develop a meaningful implementation plan. Mexico: Environmental Management Sustainable Universities, Monterrey.
Wright, T. S. A. (2006). Giving “teeth” to an environmental policy: a Delphi study at Dalhousie University. J. Clean. Prod. 14, 761–768. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2005.12.007
Wright, T., and Horst, N. (2013). Exploring the ambiguity: what faculty leaders really think of sustainability in higher education. Int. J. Sustain. High. Educ. 14, 209–227. doi: 10.1108/14676371311312905
Zepeda Quintana, D. S., Esquer, J., and Munguía, N. (2022). “Factors that hinder the implementation of sustainability initiatives in higher education institutions,” in The wiley handbook of sustainability in higher education learning and teaching. eds. K. A. A. Gamage and N. Gunawardhana (Wiley-Blackwell), 79–98.
Zey, M. (1997). Rational choice theory and organizational theory: A critique. US: Sage Publications.
Keywords: campus sustainability, higher education, facility and Project Management (F&PM) department, organisational factors, individual-related factors, organisational change theory, rational choice theory, Interpretive Structural Modelling (ISM)
Citation: Alsharif MA (2024) The structural modelling of significant organisational and individual factors for promoting sustainable campus in Saudi Arabia. Front. Sustain. 5:1231468. doi: 10.3389/frsus.2024.1231468
Edited by:
Alberto Paucar-Caceres, Manchester Metropolitan University, United KingdomReviewed by:
Suresh M, Amrita Vishwa Vidyapeetham University, IndiaKhaled Obaideen, University of Sharjah, United Arab Emirates
Copyright © 2024 Alsharif. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
*Correspondence: Mohammad Ambarak Alsharif, malsharif@bu.edu.sa