Search results

The purpose of this paper is to analyze how faculty, staff and students at one American University define the term sustainability.

The authors analyze student, staff and faculty definitions by comparing word frequency counts to a list of the 25 most frequently found words in over 100 definitions of sustainability. Next, the authors analyze the definitions through content analysis, producing a list of emergent themes.

The authors find that our definitions do not rate highly when compared to a list of the most frequent words from published definitions, but examining them more closely highlights nuances in understanding.

These results can only speak to one university’s population, but may be similar to that of comparable schools. Further studies should include comparisons to a range of campus communities, including environmental leaders and laggards.

Administrators and educators at institutes of higher education must determine whether an ambiguous understanding of sustainability is sufficient for their own goals in producing an educated citizenry.

When a community fails to understand sustainability, it impacts how they conceptualize environmental problems and make decisions to solve them.

This study shows that unless one has polled a campus population, one cannot know how its members understand a fundamental concept such as sustainability. It also shows that the work of sustainability education is just beginning.

The purpose of this paper is to present an exploratory analysis of campus community member (i.e. students, faculty, staff) definitions of sustainability, their perceptions of select elements of sustainability culture and the relationship between the two.

Researchers implemented a cross-sectional design where participants from two higher education institutions in the USA completed an online survey. The 352 respondents from James Madison University and 349 respondents from Wofford College included students, faculty and staff members. Descriptive statistics were used to examine patterns in the quantitative data, and an inductive theme approach was used to analyze the qualitative data.

This study provides evidence that sustainability is often viewed from an environmental lens, and personal definitions of sustainability may impact perceptions of campus sustainability culture elements. Generally, the highest rated elements of culture examined (i.e. university actions, signs and symbols and institutional commitments) were all aligned with the environment dimension of sustainability and consistent across sustainability definitions. However, respondents with a more integrative definition of sustainability expected to see elements of culture that aligned with the social dimension of sustainability at a considerably higher rate than the respondents who reported more narrow definitions of sustainability.

Lack of generalizability, low response rates and self-selection bias are some of the limitations of the study.

Personal definitions of sustainability may impact campus community member perceptions of sustainability culture and progress on their campuses. Practitioners may use this study to inform development of more effective strategies for creating and assessing the culture of sustainability that colleges and universities are pursuing.

The empirical analysis of campus community members on two very different campus communities responds to Owens and Legere (2015) who argue for further studies to understand the concept of sustainability at other higher education institutions that are at different stages of pursuing sustainability. This paper links research about sustainability definitions to the emergent research on campus sustainability culture, filling a gap between these two areas.

This paper aims to investigate different ways in which faculty members of sustainability-related departments in universities across the world perceive, understand and define sustainability and how these definitions are linked to their demographics and epistemological beliefs.

Scholars from different disciplines investigate the sustainability of social-ecological systems from different perspectives. Such differences in the understanding of, and approaches to, sustainability have created ambiguity within the field and may weaken its effectiveness, impact and reputation as a field of research. To contribute to the discussion about sustainability definition, a survey was conducted involving university faculty members working in sustainability-related academic departments around the world. Participants’ responses were analyzed using SPSS 24.0 involving descriptive and inferential statistics and principle component analysis. Additionally, responses to open-ended questions were qualitatively analyzed.

Factor analysis on sustainability definition items reveal four emergent universal definitions of sustainability, labeled as Environmentalism concerns, Common understanding, neo-Malthusian environmentalism and Sustainability as well-being. Statistical analyses indicate that individuals from developed countries are more likely to define sustainability as Environmentalism and Common understanding; however, individuals from developing countries tend to define sustainability as well-being. Also, more heavily engaged scholars in interdisciplinary research of sustainability are more likely to perceive sustainability as Common understanding. Logistic Regression models demonstrate a connection between epistemological perspectives of researchers and sustainability definitions. Qualitative content analysis indicates that interdisciplinarity and collaboration are the most common challenges to sustainability research.

The findings of this study demonstrate disconnects between scholars from developing and developed countries in understanding and defining sustainability, and these disconnects may present further challenges for global sustainability scholarship.

This study explores practitioners' perspectives on and definitions of sustainable supply chain management (SSCM), which are then compared to academic definitions to identify new implications for researchers, educators and practitioners.

An abductive, explorative and qualitative approach was followed in the form of a review and classification of 31 academic definitions of SSCM as well as 30 interviews with supply chain (SC) practitioners.

The practitioners' answers show a lack of awareness of upstream and downstream challenges as the practitioners' focus on practices within the practitioners' firms, where the economic and environmental dimensions prevail. However, the practitioners highlighted understudied topics in SSCM: human resources policies, leadership for sustainability and ethics.

This research stimulates discussion on how to teach an SSCM course and which directions to follow to ensure that research has an impact on practices. Practitioners' focus on the practitioners' everyday practices confirms that practice-based theories, amongst others, are relevant in the field and that more interdisciplinary research is needed to highlight the contributions of human resource management (HRM) and business ethics to SSCM.

The proposed framework clearly defines the scope of the practices and research (upstream or downstream of the SC or within the firm), which will allow practitioners to contribute to SSCM more holistically.

Educators and researchers have a crucial role to play in clarifying the meaning of SSCM for students who are future practitioners and consumers. Interacting more with practitioners could help.

This research is targeted not only to researchers and practitioners but also educators.

A key issue to manage sustainability is to be able to operationalise it. Relevant indicators require an appropriate definition of sustainability and sustainable development for the studied organisation. A common problem is inadequate understanding of what sustainability is from an organisational perspective. The purpose of this paper is to propose how to understand, define and measure diagnosing of sustainability from an outside-in perspective.

The building, health care, education and tourism value chains are studied. Based on interpreted stakeholder sustainability needs the stages of understanding, defining and measuring of diagnosing are reviewed, and interpretations proposed. This is with focus on identifying the vital few sustainability impacts in the studied value chains.

The resulting definitions and proposed performance indicators for the chosen areas indicate that the approach works resulting in proposed definitions and indicators for sustainability and sustainable development based on stakeholders need focus. Having clear definitions and performance indicators will support working effectively with sustainable development.

The resulting definitions and proposed performance indicators for the chosen areas indicate that the approach works. Further, proposed definitions and indicators for sustainability and sustainable development based on stakeholder needs focus is useful. Having clear definitions and performance indicators will help an organisation engage with sustainability and be sustainable within an organisational context.

The proposed approach enables using quality management for sustainable development.

Social sustainability is viewed from a poverty and affordability perspective.

Results indicate that there is a value in using an outside-in approach with focus on stakeholder needs in connection with a process-based approach. The approach is in contrast with the customary way of defining sustainability which mostly is based on an inside-out approach identifying several indicators and then adding these to a measure of sustainability.

The purpose of this paper is to examine the diverse definitions of sustainability in higher education, focusing on the rhetorical uses of the term among various institutions within the Association for the Advancement of Sustainability in Higher Education (AASHE).

The paper begins with an overview of the term sustainability in political and public discourse, using that as a gateway to understanding the rhetorical uses of the term. Through this framework, the paper begins a vital discussion about university texts and what they reveal about sustainability in US higher education.

The author finds that university definitions of sustainability reveal a similar malleability and fluidity as definitions in political and public discourse, while at the same time revealing particular trends in the ways in which concepts of interconnection, technological problem-solving and temporality persist in definitions of the term in higher education.

This analysis is limited to definitions of sustainability used by several representative institutions within AASHE. Further studies should provide a more comprehensive analysis of a larger sampling of AASHE institutions as well as universities not affiliated with AASHE.

Administrators and educators at institutes of higher education must account for the ways in which definitions of sustainability are tied to an institution’s goals, agendas and material circumstances. Developing a better understanding of how such definitions emerge can provide greater clarity in enacting change.

This paper melds together rhetorical theories on sustainability with broader research on the use of the term in higher education. As such, it offers a unique interdisciplinary perspective on rhetoric, sustainability and higher education.

The university social responsibility (USR) is still in embryonic stage compared to corporate social responsibility (CSR) which is still debatable by researchers. The purpose of this paper is to propose the contemporary dimension (on top of teaching and research dimensions) of USR in most educational institutes. Based on this new definition, a proposal of a mechanism to quantify USR sustainability was presented.

Based on a review of the theme of the CSR with the inter-related recent research on USR with researchers perspectives, characteristics of USR were identified and incorporated in the proposed newly definition of USR. The new definition takes into account the interrelationship of university–corporate communication and create shared value (CSV) principle, as well as the knowledgeability and sustainability.

Based on the review of most active research in the USR development and the concluded contemporary definition of USR, this paper proposes a new extended version of sustainability suitable for educational institutes, where it is composed of different zones, and each zone was defined in terms of value of sustainability with associated knowledgeability in each zone. The Green Cloud project was taken as a vehicle to demonstrate collaboration between a university and cloud service provider located in Middle East (Dubai). Sustainability quantification was provided with hypothetical numbers to illustrate the technique.

This paper is focused on University-specific social responsibility rather than general CSR. The proposed contemporary definition of the USR is a hybrid of a mutated latest research on CSR as well as cascaded recent development on USR. The view of this new definition can have different arguments depending on the ideology (communitarianism as opposed to individualism) adopted by specific university admiration of the objective of social responsibility which is sometimes driven by the political and strategic views of countries and the regions. However, the proposed sustainability zone-split between the CSV type of projects and the reputation values (described via hypothetical example) can minimize the gap between the two ideologies.

This paper attempts to provide a universally acceptable definition of the USR based on different points of views of researchers and tries to accommodate both ideologies toward social responsibility into one coherent framework. The sustainability Venn diagram was extended and made suitable for educational institutes. This approach facilitates the mechanism of quantifying the value of sustainability of a university or educational institutes. Hypothetical “Green Cloud” project was used as a mechanism to show the quantification process.

The purpose of this paper is to examine user perceptions toward consumer-facing words used by fashion brands to stimulate sustainable consumption and post consumption behavior.

A self-completion, survey based matching exercise was administered to 100 active fashion-shoppers in Hong Kong aged between 18 and 35 years old. A probability sampling method was used for on-street intercepts to ensure a random selection within the defined population. This was accompanied by 20 individual ethnographic interviews.

A lack of understanding and comprehension of key green language terminology used frequently in user facing communications is problematic for fashion brand marketers as the impact of their messages is often unclear, distributed and more likely to lead to user frustration rather than positive engaged consumer decision making and action. Further, there is an emerging indication that this approach is highly unlikely to enhance knowledge, engagement and action or to influence brand loyalty.

Data were collected in Hong Kong and is culturally bounded, so while providing a good indication of the findings in situ this can also be replicated in other locations.

Recommended outcomes from the findings suggest that brand messages should be delivered that are intended to stimulate sustainability behaviors that are core to one key brand theme so that user outcome decision making and actions fit with the core brand values. This suggested approach will have a greater likelihood of leading to brand trust, responsible business action and greater clarity about the issue of sustainability and related action to be taken on behalf of the user.

The paper raises concerns about the effectiveness and outcomes of fashion brand marketing communications and findings provide insights into the confusion of understanding and the rise in frustration among targeted fashion shoppers 18-35 years, despite the use of frequently used words in brand communications to promote sustainable fashion consumption behaviors.

The purpose of this research paper is to explore the understanding of sustainable development and sustainability reporting concepts among Malaysian local authorities' personnel.

The research involved interviews with 23 respondents from 16 selected councils in Malaysia. Interview results were analysed by using the interpretive textual analysis.

The meaning of the sustainable development concept is quite broad from the local authority's perspective in Malaysia. Local authorities' personnel view sustainable development as: societalist, ecologist and individualist. Only staff directly involved in the sustainable development activity implementation understood the meaning of the sustainable development concept. The respondents indicated the importance of educating people on the awareness of sustainable development in their understanding on this concept. Consistent with the western values, 13 councils (81 per cent) agreed with the definition by GRI.

The research is restricted to Malaysian local authorities and is descriptive in nature. The findings are limited to case studies in several states, thus generalizing the results is not possible at this stage.

There is a deeper appreciation of where local authority personnel gain their understanding of sustainable development issues, and how they participate in the discourse around sustainable development.

Very little research has been undertaken into how local authority personnel gain their knowledge, either about sustainable development and sustainability reporting or about their views on the subject. The research attempts to fill this gap and the way for similar work to be undertaken overseas. Accordingly, this paper calls for further discussion on local authorities' role in achieving sustainable development and on the public sector interpretation of sustainable development in general.

This chapter reviews different definitions of firm's sustainability then clarifies own definition. The definition consists of three dimensions of firm sustainability other than the economic – namely, environmental, social and governance which have been discussed and analysed separately in this chapter. In the last section of this chapter, the combination of the three dimensions of firm sustainability (environmental, social and governance) are jointly considered and analysed.