The Effect of Organizational Culture on the Intentions to Embrace Environmental Sustainability Practices in Egypt
Prepared by the researche : Dr. M. Salem Nassif – Doctorate Degree of Business Administration – “INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS SCHOOL OF SCANDNIVIA” (IPSS)- Denmark
Democratic Arabic Center
Journal of Afro-Asian Studies : Twenty-Third Issue – November 2024
A Periodical International Journal published by the “Democratic Arab Center” Germany – Berlin
:To download the pdf version of the research papers, please visit the following link
Abstract
This study explores the impact of organizational culture on the intentions to embrace environmental sustainability practices within Egyptian corporations, providing insights into the cultural drivers that facilitate or impede sustainable business practices. Using a quantitative approach, the research employs correlation and regression analyses to examine the relationships between various dimensions of organizational culture including environmental values, cultural norms, top management support, vision and mission alignment, involvement in sustainability, training and awareness programs, internal communication, transparency and reporting, sustainability departments, integration into business units, sustainability policies, and operational practices. and their influence on sustainability intentions. Data were collected through structured surveys distributed among professionals in various industries across Egypt. The findings reveal significant positive correlations between all measured aspects of organizational culture and the intentions to adopt sustainability practices. Particularly strong influences were noted from factors such as sustainability policies, top management support, and integration into business units, which were found to substantially drive the intentions towards sustainability.
Introduction
In the evolving business landscape, the influence of organizational culture on embracing environmental sustainability practices has garnered significant attention. The complexity of integrating sustainability into corporate strategies presents a distinct challenge, particularly within the context of developing countries like Egypt. This study investigates how various dimensions of organizational culture in Egyptian companies affect their intentions to adopt such practices. By dissecting cultural factors and their interplay with corporate sustainability initiatives, the research aims to shed light on the pathways through which organizational culture can enhance or hinder environmental sustainability.
Literature Review
Deshpande and Webster (1989) established the link between corporate culture and marketing, highlighting how organizational values affect marketing strategies. Their work has informed numerous studies on corporate culture’s importance in business scenarios. For instance, Brondoni (2002) emphasized corporate culture’s role in managing relationships in large firms amidst globalization. Kvirkvaia and Kikutadze (2014) explored how corporate culture enhances business efficiency by setting value transmission standards. Similarly, Ha et al. (2020) found that corporate culture positively influences trust and repurchase intentions, while Yang (2010) noted its impact on brand culture and customer loyalty. Aligning culture with a company’s mission is crucial for sustainable growth, as discussed by Hui et al. (2021). This alignment aids in organizational identity and employee integration, as analyzed by Derhachova and Fedirko (2018).
The work of Hofstede and Minkov (2010) on cultural dimensions theory has significantly impacted the understanding of cultural differences and organizational behavior. Their framework, which extends Hofstede’s model, provides insights into how culture affects human activity. Abdelrahim (2021) suggested adding tribalism as a new dimension to the theory. Kasatkin (2017) highlighted values in shaping cultural landscapes, while Moraczewski (2016) examined culture in social heterogeneity. Yildiz (2018) and Sokolov and Alekseev-Apraksin (2019) discussed cultural shifts and clustering of cultural reality, respectively. Jin reflected on the commoditization of culture, and Caetano and Bezzi (2011) emphasized cultural codes in geography. Flier (2020) described culture as organized values influencing worldviews, and Gurova (2023) noted shifts toward spiritual values in cultural production.
Epstein and Buhovac (2014) emphasized integrating ESG criteria into corporate performance metrics. Their work has influenced studies on sustainability assessment and management. Gutterman (2020) stressed robust controls in CSR strategic planning, broadening assessments beyond financial metrics. Kasim et al. (2018) explored sustainability strategies in Malaysia, while Kassahun highlighted enterprise systems’ role in sustainability measurement. Arora (2015) proposed a balanced scorecard framework for sustainability performance. Speziale and Klovienė (2014) demonstrated PMS’s role in CSR, while Saeed and Kersten (2020) noted gaps in sustainability assessment. Denčić-Mihajlov and Zeranski (2018) focused on sustainable management performance indicators. Turan et al. (2016) introduced a methodology for evaluating sustainability compliance, and Yalçın (2022) studied sustainability’s impact on earnings quality.
In “Built to Last,” Collins and Porras (1996) examined the success factors of visionary companies, highlighting visionary management’s role in long-term success. These companies align their vision with core values beyond financial performance (Starkey & Tempest, 1996), foster innovation, and create environments encouraging employee engagement (Zien & Buckler, 1996). They outline principles like Level 5 leadership and technology as accelerators (Barbe & Kleiner, 2005), emphasizing adaptability and self-criticism for longevity. This framework influences contemporary management practices.
Daily and Huang (2001) linked HRM with environmental performance, showing how strategic HR practices enhance sustainability. This link is seen in Brazilian companies, where HR practices reduce resource consumption (Freitas et al., 2015). Evaluating managers on environmental goals reinforces positive environmental outcomes (Portocarrero & Winkler, 2021). HRM balances economic, environmental, and social performance, maximizing benefits (Tang et al., 2017). It plays a crucial role in corporate environmental management by enhancing professional and staff awareness (Ma & Wang, 2011).
Jackson et al. (2011) explored Green HRM, emphasizing HR practices’ role in supporting sustainability. GHRM includes environmentally friendly activities like reducing waste and promoting technology use (P., 2023). It raises environmental awareness and encourages green practices (Solanki, 2016), helping organizations gain a competitive edge (Soviana et al., 2022). GHRM positively influences innovation and organizational outcomes, enhancing business performance and reducing pollution (Amrutha & Geetha, 2020; Mustafa et al., 2023).
Lozano (2013) emphasized the need for a holistic approach to sustainability, integrating social, environmental, and economic aspects into business operations. Aligning structures and culture with sustainability goals requires organizational change (Gutterman, 2020). Employees are crucial in implementing sustainable practices (Wolf, 2013). Strategic frameworks integrate economic, environmental, and social factors into decision-making (Garza, 2013). Stakeholder involvement in sustainability accounting is vital for balancing issues and advancing goals (Ionescu, 2016).
Adams and McNicholas (2007) highlighted sustainability reporting’s role in driving change. It supports planning and enhances reporting quality (Lozano et al., 2016). Reporting affects reputation based on disclosure quality (Van, 2011). It now includes economic, environmental, and social performance (Mitra & Agarwal, 2012), impacting strategic planning and risk management (Adams & Frost, 2008). Integrated reporting faces challenges with limited disclosure (Stacchezzini et al., 2016). Sustainability reporting creates long-term value, promoting social justice (Godha & Jain, 2015).
Epstein and Roy (2001) focused on sustainability performance measurement and management, integrating it into strategies and operations. PMS supports CSR initiatives and enhances performance (Speziale & Klovienė, 2014). There is a gap in performance assessment quality (Saeed & Kersten, 2020). Systematic assessments like GPM P5 Integration Matrix measure compliance (Turan et al., 2016). Epstein and Roy (2003) identified principles for improving sustainability metrics.
Hart and Milstein (2003) developed the Sustainable Value Framework for creating value through sustainability. It integrates environmental, social, and economic considerations (Patala et al., 2016). Fatemi and Fooladi (2020) discussed models maximizing shareholder wealth without stakeholder impact. Aagaard (2018) provided a framework for sustainable business models, emphasizing value creation, delivery, and capture.
Delmas and Toffel (2008) explored responses to sustainability pressures, emphasizing leadership and market forces. Companies adopt practices like eco-innovation (Paraschiv et al., 2012) and embed sustainability in design (Gutterman, 2020). Employees moderate the link between sustainability implementation and performance (Wolf, 2013). Institutional pressures influence environmental performance, with management accounting mediating effects (Chaudhry & Amir, 2020).
Russo and Fouts (1997) examined environmental performance’s impact on profitability, showing enhanced performance reduces costs (Earnhart & Lizal, 2007). Environmental innovation links performance with financial outcomes (Ong et al., 2019). Corporate self-regulation improves customer value (Petrović-Ranđelović et al., 2023).
Eccles et al. (2014) studied sustainability’s impact on performance, showing high-sustainability companies outperform others long-term (Eccles et al., 2012). Sustainability practices improve financial returns and investment efficiency (Poursoleyman et al., 2022), emphasizing strategic integration’s importance (Engert et al., 2016).
Comment on Literature Review
The literature review presents a comprehensive exploration of various models and theories related to corporate culture, sustainability, and their influence on business practices and performance. The review effectively synthesizes the findings from multiple studies, offering a nuanced understanding of the interplay between corporate culture, sustainability, and organizational success. The review has several positive aspects. Firstly, it covers a wide array of topics, from corporate culture and marketing strategies to sustainability performance measurement and environmental management. This broad scope provides a holistic understanding of the interconnectedness of these elements within the business context. Additionally, by including studies from different regions and sectors, the review underscores the universal importance of corporate culture and sustainability in various business environments. This diversity enhances the richness of the discussion and demonstrates the global relevance of the topics covered. The review adeptly integrates seminal works, such as those by Deshpande and Webster (1989) and Collins and Porras (1996), with contemporary studies. This balance ensures a comprehensive perspective that acknowledges both foundational theories and modern advancements. Furthermore, the review emphasizes the practical implications of corporate culture and sustainability practices on organizational effectiveness, highlighting their roles in strategic alignment, human resources, and management.
However, there are areas for improvement. The review could benefit from a more critical evaluation of the studies, discussing potential biases, limitations, or methodological weaknesses to add depth to the analysis. It could also delve further into emerging trends and technologies impacting corporate culture and sustainability, such as digital transformation and artificial intelligence, to enhance its relevance in the current business landscape. Although the review covers various themes, it does not explicitly identify gaps in the literature or areas where further research is needed. Articulating these gaps would provide a clearer direction for future studies and highlight unresolved questions in the field. Additionally, there are inconsistencies in how references are cited throughout the review. Ensuring uniformity in reference formatting would improve the document’s professionalism and readability.
To build upon the current review, several suggestions for further research can be considered. Investigating how emerging technologies influence corporate culture and sustainability practices could provide valuable insights for adapting these concepts to future business environments. Conducting long-term studies to assess the impact of sustainability practices on financial performance over time would help validate claims made in the current literature. Comparative studies examining how corporate culture and sustainability practices vary across different cultural contexts could enhance understanding of these concepts globally. Furthermore, further research on the role of leadership in fostering a culture of sustainability could provide actionable insights for organizations seeking to integrate sustainable practices. Overall, the literature review provides a solid foundation for understanding the role of corporate culture and sustainability in business. By incorporating more critical analysis and exploring emerging trends, it could further contribute to the field’s development and offer valuable guidance for future research initiatives.
Research Problem:
Environmental sustainability has emerged as a global concern, with businesses playing a crucial role in mitigating environmental impacts. In Egypt, the push for sustainable practices is growing, driven by both global trends and local environmental challenges. However, the role of organizational culture in this transition within Egyptian corporates remains underexplored. This research investigates how organizational culture in Egyptian companies influences their intentions to embrace environmental sustainability practices. Whin in the following objectives:
- To identify key cultural factors within Egyptian organizations that promote or hinder the adoption of sustainability practices.
- To examine the relationship between organizational culture and the intention to implement sustainable practices in Egypt.
- To provide recommendations for fostering a culture that supports environmental sustainability in the Egyptian context.
Understanding the impact of organizational culture on sustainability practices in Egypt can help businesses develop more effective strategies for environmental stewardship. This study contributes to the body of knowledge by providing insights into how cultural dynamics within Egyptian organizations shape sustainability intentions and offering practical recommendations for cultivating a sustainability-oriented culture.
Research Questions:
Q1: What are the main cultural factors influencing corporate intentions toward environmental sustainability in Egypt?
Q2: How does leadership commitment to sustainability affect organizational culture in Egyptian companies?
Q3: What role does employee engagement play in the adoption of sustainable practices in Egypt?
Q4: How do communication and shared values within Egyptian organizations influence sustainability intentions?
Conceptual Framework and hypothesis:
conceptual model is presented to clarify the connection between different aspects of organizational culture and the intention to implement environmental sustainability practices within Egyptian corporations, thereby expanding the current understanding of how organizational culture impacts these initiatives. Key factors such as environmental values and leadership commitment significantly influence how employees perceive the importance and advantages of sustainability efforts. Likewise, the ease of integrating sustainability practices into daily operations, which is affected by elements like internal communication and training programs, impacts the intention to adopt these practices. The theoretical framework establishes links between these elements of organizational culture and outlines a plan for further research into how these factors influence the adoption of sustainability practices in Egyptian companies. This chapter is built on a comprehensive review of relevant literature, providing a foundation for further study. The reviewed works shed light on the role of organizational culture in environmental sustainability and establish the basis for the conceptual framework that will guide empirical research in subsequent chapters. This approach not only enhances the understanding of the direct impact of organizational culture on sustainability initiatives but also incorporates a wider range of cultural influences, making the analysis more thorough and applicable to the Egyptian corporate setting.
Figure 1, Conceptual Framework
Elaborated by researcher
Hypothesis:
- Environmental Values
- Null Hypothesis (H0_1): There is no significant relationship between environmental values within an organization and the intentions to embrace environmental sustainability practices in Egyptian enterprises.
- Alternative Hypothesis (H1_1): There is a significant positive relationship between environmental values within an organization and the intentions to embrace environmental sustainability practices in Egyptian enterprises.
- Cultural Norms
- Null Hypothesis (H0_2): There is no significant relationship between cultural norms promoting sustainability and the intentions to embrace environmental sustainability practices in Egyptian enterprises.
- Alternative Hypothesis (H1_2): There is a significant positive relationship between cultural norms promoting sustainability and the intentions to embrace environmental sustainability practices in Egyptian enterprises.
- Top Management Support
- Null Hypothesis (H0_3): There is no significant relationship between top management support for sustainability and the intentions to embrace environmental sustainability practices in Egyptian enterprises.
- Alternative Hypothesis (H1_3): There is a significant positive relationship between top management support for sustainability and the intentions to embrace environmental sustainability practices in Egyptian enterprises.
- Vision and Mission Alignment
- Null Hypothesis (H0_4): There is no significant relationship between the alignment of vision and mission with sustainability principles and the intentions to embrace environmental sustainability practices in Egyptian enterprises.
- Alternative Hypothesis (H1_4): There is a significant positive relationship between the alignment of vision and mission with sustainability principles and the intentions to embrace environmental sustainability practices in Egyptian enterprises.
- Involvement in Sustainability Initiatives
- Null Hypothesis (H0_5): There is no significant relationship between employee involvement in sustainability initiatives and the intentions to embrace environmental sustainability practices in Egyptian enterprises.
- Alternative Hypothesis (H1_5): There is a significant positive relationship between employee involvement in sustainability initiatives and the intentions to embrace environmental sustainability practices in Egyptian enterprises.
- Training and Awareness Programs
- Null Hypothesis (H0_6): There is no significant relationship between the provision of sustainability training programs and the intentions to embrace environmental sustainability practices in Egyptian enterprises.
- Alternative Hypothesis (H1_6): There is a significant positive relationship between the provision of sustainability training programs and the intentions to embrace environmental sustainability practices in Egyptian enterprises.
- Internal Communication
- Null Hypothesis (H0_7): There is no significant relationship between internal communication about sustainability and the intentions to embrace environmental sustainability practices in Egyptian enterprises.
- Alternative Hypothesis (H1_7): There is a significant positive relationship between internal communication about sustainability and the intentions to embrace environmental sustainability practices in Egyptian enterprises.
- Transparency and Reporting
- Null Hypothesis (H0_8): There is no significant relationship between transparency in sustainability reporting and the intentions to embrace environmental sustainability practices in Egyptian enterprises.
- Alternative Hypothesis (H1_8): There is a significant positive relationship between transparency in sustainability reporting and the intentions to embrace environmental sustainability practices in Egyptian enterprises.
- Sustainability Departments/Teams
- Null Hypothesis (H0_9): There is no significant relationship between the existence of dedicated sustainability teams or departments and the intentions to embrace environmental sustainability practices in Egyptian enterprises.
- Alternative Hypothesis (H1_9): There is a significant positive relationship between the existence of dedicated sustainability teams or departments and the intentions to embrace environmental sustainability practices in Egyptian enterprises.
- Integration into Business Units
- Null Hypothesis (H0_10): There is no significant relationship between the integration of sustainability practices into business units and the intentions to embrace environmental sustainability practices in Egyptian enterprises.
- Alternative Hypothesis (H1_10): There is a significant positive relationship between the integration of sustainability practices into business units and the intentions to embrace environmental sustainability practices in Egyptian enterprises.
- Sustainability Policies
- Null Hypothesis (H0_11): There is no significant relationship between the presence of formal sustainability policies and the intentions to embrace environmental sustainability practices in Egyptian enterprises.
- Alternative Hypothesis (H1_11): There is a significant positive relationship between the presence of formal sustainability policies and the intentions to embrace environmental sustainability practices in Egyptian enterprises.
- Operational Practices
- Null Hypothesis (H0_12): There is no significant relationship between engagement in sustainable operational practices and the intentions to embrace environmental sustainability practices in Egyptian enterprises.
- Alternative Hypothesis (H1_12): There is a significant positive relationship between engagement in sustainable operational practices and the intentions to embrace environmental sustainability practices in Egyptian enterprises.
Research Methodology
Addressing these concerns, this research applies the Organizational Culture framework as a theoretical lens to investigate Egyptian corporates’ intentions to adopt environmentally sustainable practices. Correlation analysis helps in understanding the relationship between various cultural dimensions, such as environmental values, leadership commitment, and employee engagement, and the intention to adopt sustainability practices. Regression analysis further elucidates the strength and nature of these relationships, offering insights into how strongly each cultural component influences sustainability adoption intentions. By understanding the factors that influence these companies’ acceptance of sustainable practices, this study provides a roadmap for Egyptian enterprises to navigate the complexities of integrating environmental sustainability into their operations.
By applying a comprehensive organizational culture model, the study sheds light on the factors that influence these companies’ intentions to adopt sustainable practices.
Research Design:
This study explores the intricate relationship between the components of organizational culture and the intention to adopt environmental sustainability practices within Egyptian corporates. The focal point of this research is to examine how various dimensions of organizational culture, such as leadership commitment, employee engagement, and communication, influence sustainability intentions.
A deductive approach is applied, involving the testing of theoretical assertions related to organizational culture in the context of environmental sustainability. The research formulates hypotheses about how these cultural components might influence the intention to implement sustainability practices within Egyptian enterprises. By adopting a structured and methodical approach, this study investigates the role of organizational culture in shaping attitudes and intentions toward environmental sustainability.
Using deductive methodology, structured surveys, and statistical analysis, the study aims to provide valuable insights into how elements of organizational culture influence the desire to implement sustainable practices in Egyptian businesses.
In this comprehensive survey, designed to delve into the attitudes and intentions of professionals within Egyptian corporates regarding environmental sustainability practices, respondents are invited to engage with a series of thoughtfully constructed questions. This survey aims to unravel the complex layers of organizational culture dimensions, including values and beliefs, leadership commitment, employee engagement, communication, organizational structure, and policies and practices, and their influence on the intention to adopt sustainable practices. Environmental Values and Beliefs: This section focuses on understanding whether environmental sustainability is perceived as a core value within the organization and if it is considered integral to improving the company’s overall environmental performance.
Leadership Commitment and Employee Engagement: The survey seeks to assess the extent of leadership support for sustainability initiatives and the level of employee involvement and participation in sustainability practices. Communication and Transparency: Questions aim to evaluate the effectiveness of internal communication regarding sustainability goals and the transparency of reporting sustainability performance and impacts. Organizational Structure and Policy Integration:
The survey explores whether there are dedicated sustainability teams, and how sustainability practices are integrated into various business units and operational processes. Sustainability Policies and Operational Practices: This section investigates the presence and implementation of formal sustainability policies and their perceived effectiveness in enhancing environmental impact control and management.
By focusing on these key dimensions, the survey aims to provide valuable insights into how organizational culture influences the adoption and integration of sustainable practices within Egyptian enterprises. The survey results will be analyzed to determine the strength and nature of these relationships, offering guidance on how companies can enhance their organizational culture to better support environmental sustainability initiatives.
Sample Size
This decision is informed by the guidelines provided by Saunders, Lewis, and Thornhill (2009), who suggest that a sample size of 39 is required to achieve a 95% confidence level with a 10% margin of error, given a target population of approximately 200. As Saunders, Lewis, & Thornhill (2009) note, the non-probability judgement sampling technique involves the purposive or deliberate selection of specific units from the universe to constitute a sample that represents the entire population. It allows for a more targeted approach to sampling, where the researcher’s judgement plays a crucial role in selecting cases that are deemed most representative or insightful for the research objectives. The chosen sample size of 39, informed by Saunders, Lewis, and Thornhill’s guidelines, is optimized for robust statistical analysis within the confines of a manageable research process.
Measurements and Data Collection Process:
The study variables were measured through adapted measurement scales from previous studies as summarized in Table 1:
Table 1 Variables adapted measurement scales (Elaborated by the researcher).
Moreover, the Interval scale represented in a five-point Likert scale which was ranged from 5= strongly agree to 1= strongly disagree has been utilized to know the degree of respondents’ agreement or disagreement with the proposed statements (Saunders, Lewis, & Thornhill, 2009).
The questionnaire will be administered electronically using an online survey platform. Participants will receive an invitation containing a link to the survey.
The data collection period is estimated to be four to six weeks, allowing sufficient time for participants to respond.
The primary objective of this analysis is to unravel the facts and data, thereby yielding insightful findings that contribute to the understanding of environmental sustainability practices within Egyptian corporates. The first step in the data analysis process involved ensuring the validity and reliability of the measuring scales used in the study, focusing on the dimensions of organizational culture. This step is crucial, as it ensures that the conclusions drawn from the study are based on reliable instruments. The results of the normality test inform the researcher about the appropriate statistical methods to use for further analysis. In the context of this study, multiple regression analysis was employed to investigate the relationships between various components of organizational culture such as environmental values, leadership commitment, employee engagement, and communication and the intention to adopt environmental sustainability practices in Egyptian enterprises. Starting from ensuring the validity and reliability of the measuring instruments to conducting descriptive and inferential statistical analyses, each step has been carried out with meticulous attention to detail. This thorough approach helps in understanding how different aspects of organizational culture influence sustainability adoption intentions, providing a comprehensive framework for analyzing how these cultural factors shape environmental sustainability practices within the corporate sector in Egypt.
Demographic analysis
Demographic analysis is a method for measuring racial, ethnic, and age distributions as well as how these characteristics have changed over time because of the three main demographic processes: migration, fertility, and mortality (Lucas, D. 2002).
Gender, Age, and company size were the demographic factors measured in this research (Figure 2,3,4). Gender was classified as either male or female; there were 36 men and 3 females. There were three groups based on company size: small (4 occurrences), medium (12 occurrences), and Large (23 occurrences). The corresponding percentages are 15.4%, 28.2%, and 56.4%.
Figure 2, Gender of responses pie charter. (Elaborated by the researcher)
Figure 3, Age of responses pie charter. (Elaborated by the researcher)
Figure 4 Company Size pie charters (Elaborated by the researcher)
Normality Test by Shapiro-Wilk
The Shapiro-Wilk test is a hypothesis test applied to a sample with the null hypothesis that the sample was generated from a normal distribution. If the p-value is low, we can reject this null hypothesis and say that the sample was not generated from a normal distribution.
Table 2 normality test (Elaborated by the researcher based on SPSS results)
Table 2 shows that all of the variables’ data substantially differ from a normal distribution, with p-values < 0.05 for every one of them. According to Razali and Wah (2011). The distribution of the sample means approaches a normal distribution as the sample size rises, according to the Central Limit Theorem, even for a population with any distribution. Using a normal distribution as an approximation works pretty well for samples with an n-size greater than 30. With increasing n, the approximation approaches a normal distribution more closely. We have n = 39 here (Fischer, H. 2011).
A measuring system’s consistency, stability, and reliability may be assessed statistically using reliability analysis.
| Overall |
| organizational culture |
| Intentions to Embrace Environmental Sustainability Practices |
Table 3 CRONBACH’S ALPHA (Elaborated by the researcher based on SPSS results)
Table 3 reveals that the data have high levels of internal consistency dependability, with a total Cronbach’s alpha of 0.913. There is strong dependability and internal consistency among the 20 items on the dimensions of organizational culture, as indicated by Cronbach’s alpha score of 0.918. The Intentions to Embrace Environmental Sustainability Practices dimensions have strong reliability and internal consistency with Cronbach’s alpha rating of 0.905.
Descriptive statistics is a subfield of statistics concerned with providing clear and concise summaries, organization, and presentation of data. Without drawing broad inferences about the population, the emphasis is on characterizing and analyzing the essential characteristics of a dataset.
Table 4 descriptive statistics (Elaborated by the researcher based on SPSS results)
A bivariate correlation study was performed on the variables listed in table 5. The Pearson’s correlation coefficient (r) was used to quantify the strength of the linear relationship between the two variables, which are quantitative and are paired. A correlation coefficient between 0.90 and 1.00 indicates a very high level of positive correlation, while a correlation between 0.70 and 0.90 indicates a high level of positive correlation, 0.50 to 0.70 indicates a moderate level of positive correlation, and a correlation between 0.30 and 0.50 indicates a low level of positive correlation.
Table 5 correlation analysis (Elaborated by the researcher based on SPSS results)
there is a significant positive relationship between Environmental Values (independent variable) and Intentions to Embrace Environmental Sustainability Practices (dependent variable), the P value explored from the table is {P= .000 ˂ 0.01, r = 0.526}.
there is a significant positive relationship between Cultural Norms (independent variable) and Intentions to Embrace Environmental Sustainability Practices (dependent variable), the P value explored from the table is {P= .000 ˂ 0.01, r = 0.607}.
Hypothesis 3:
there is a significant positive relationship between Top Management Support (independent variable) and Intentions to Embrace Environmental Sustainability Practices (dependent variable), the P value explored from the table is {P= .000 ˂ 0.01, r = 0.674}.
Hypothesis 4:
there is a significant positive relationship between Vision and Mission Alignment (independent variable) and Intentions to Embrace Environmental Sustainability Practices (dependent variable), the P value explored from the table is {P= .000 ˂ 0.01, r = 0.497}.
Hypothesis 5:
there is a significant positive relationship between Involvement in Sustainability (independent variable) and Intentions to Embrace Environmental Sustainability Practices (dependent variable), the P value explored from the table is {P= .000 ˂ 0.01, r = 0.446}.
Hypothesis 6:
there is a significant positive relationship between Training and Awareness Programs (independent variable) and Intentions to Embrace Environmental Sustainability Practices (dependent variable), the P value explored from the table is {P= .000 ˂ 0.01, r = 0.414}.
Hypothesis 7:
there is a significant positive relationship between Internal Communication (independent variable) and Intentions to Embrace Environmental Sustainability Practices (dependent variable), the P value explored from the table is {P= .000 ˂ 0.01, r = 0.686}.
Hypothesis 8:
there is a significant positive relationship between Transparency and Reporting (independent variable) and Intentions to Embrace Environmental Sustainability Practices (dependent variable), the P value explored from the table is {P= .000 ˂ 0.01, r = 0.657}.
Hypothesis 9:
there is a significant positive relationship between Sustainability Departments (independent variable) and Intentions to Embrace Environmental Sustainability Practices (dependent variable), the P value explored from the table is {P= .000 ˂ 0.01, r = 0.556}.
Hypothesis 10:
there is a significant positive relationship between Integration into Business Units (independent variable) and Intentions to Embrace Environmental Sustainability Practices (dependent variable), the P value explored from the table is {P= .000 ˂ 0.01, r = 0.686}.
Hypothesis 11:
there is a significant positive relationship between Sustainability Policies (independent variable) and Intentions to Embrace Environmental Sustainability Practices (dependent variable), the P value explored from the table is {P= .000 ˂ 0.01, r = 0.825}.
Hypothesis 12:
there is a significant positive relationship between Operational Practices (independent variable) and Intentions to Embrace Environmental Sustainability Practices (dependent variable), the P value explored from the table is {P= .000 ˂ 0.01, r = 0.679}.
Linear regression analysis has been conducted for each explanatory or independent variables with the response or dependent variable to analysis and predict the relationship between these two variables. It assumes a linear relationship between the independent variable and the dependent variable and aims to find the best fitting line that describes this relationship. Linear regression shows a linear relationship between the independent (predictor) variable, which represents the x-axis, and the dependent (output) variable, which represents the y-axis. To calculate the line of best fit, linear regression uses the traditional slope-intercept form the equation: (Yi = β0 + β1Xi) where Yi = dependent variable, β0 = constant/origin, β1 = slope/origin, Xi = independent variable.
Using data elaborated in the following tables 6. It refers that a one unit increase in explanatory will increase response by 27.7 %. Moreover, (R2) is used to evaluate the model fit, generally, the model is considered fit when R2 equals to 0.10 or higher (Falk & Miller, 1992). Giving the regression equation (Y = 1.029 + 0.628 X)
Model Summary
R Square Change
| Model | R | R Square | Adjusted R Square | Std. Error of the Estimate | Change Statistics | ||||
| F Change | df1 | df2 | Sig. F Change | ||||||
| 1 | .526(a) | .277 | .257 | .62829 | .277 | 14.164 | 1 | 37 | .001 |
a Predictors: (Constant), independent_1
Coefficients(a)
B Lower Bound independent_1
| Model | Unstandardized Coefficients | Standardized Coefficients | t | Sig. | 95% Confidence Interval for B | |||
| Std. Error | Beta | Upper Bound | ||||||
| 1 | (Constant) | 1.029 | .703 | 1.464 | .152 | -.395 | 2.452 | |
| .628 | .167 | .526 | 3.764 | .001 | .290 | .966 | ||
a Dependent Variable: dependent
Table 6 regression model summary H1
Hypothesis 2:
Using data elaborated in the following tables 7. It refers that a one unit increase in explanatory will increase response by 36.8 %. Giving the regression equation (Y = 1.029 + 0.628 X)
Model Summary
R Square Change
| Model | R | R Square | Adjusted R Square | Std. Error of the Estimate | Change Statistics | ||||
| F Change | df1 | df2 | Sig. F Change | ||||||
| 1 | .607(a) | .368 | .351 | .58729 | .368 | 21.556 | 1 | 37 | .000 |
a Predictors: (Constant), independent_2
Coefficients(a)
B Lower Bound independent_2
| Model | Unstandardized Coefficients | Standardized Coefficients | t | Sig. | 95% Confidence Interval for B | |||
| Std. Error | Beta | Upper Bound | ||||||
| 1 | (Constant) | .670 | .648 | 1.034 | .308 | -.643 | 1.983 | |
| .790 | .170 | .607 | 4.643 | .000 | .445 | 1.134 | ||
a Dependent Variable: dependent
Table 7 regression model summary H2
Hypothesis 3:
Using data elaborated in the following tables 8. It refers that a one unit increase in explanatory will increase response by 45.4 %. Giving the regression equation (Y = 0.009 + 0.905 X)
Model Summary
R Square Change
| Model | R | R Square | Adjusted R Square | Std. Error of the Estimate | Change Statistics | ||||
| F Change | df1 | df2 | Sig. F Change | ||||||
| 1 | .674(a) | .454 | .439 | .54592 | .454 | 30.769 | 1 | 37 | .000 |
a Predictors: (Constant), independent_3
Coefficients(a)
B Lower Bound independent_3
| Model | Unstandardized Coefficients | Standardized Coefficients | t | Sig. | 95% Confidence Interval for B | |||
| Std. Error | Beta | Upper Bound | ||||||
| 1 | (Constant) | -.009 | .665 | -.014 | .989 | -1.356 | 1.338 | |
| .905 | .163 | .674 | 5.547 | .000 | .575 | 1.236 | ||
a Dependent Variable: dependent
Table 8 regression model summary H3
Hypothesis 4:
Using data elaborated in the following tables 9. It refers that a one unit increase in explanatory will increase response by 24.7 %. Giving the regression equation (Y = 1.326 + 0.565 X)
Model Summary
| Model | R | R Square | Adjusted R Square | Std. Error of the Estimate | Change Statistics | ||||
| R Square Change | F Change | df1 | df2 | Sig. F Change | |||||
| 1 | .497(a) | .247 | .226 | .64120 | .247 | 12.124 | 1 | 37 | .001 |
a Predictors: (Constant), independent_4
Coefficients(a)
| Model | Unstandardized Coefficients | Standardized Coefficients | t | Sig. | 95% Confidence Interval for B | |||
| B | Std. Error | Beta | Lower Bound | Upper Bound | ||||
| 1 | (Constant) | 1.326 | .674 | 1.968 | .057 | -.040 | 2.692 | |
| independent_4 | .565 | .162 | .497 | 3.482 | .001 | .236 | .895 | |
a Dependent Variable: dependent
Table 9 regression model summary H4
Hypothesis 5:
Using data elaborated in the following tables 10. It refers that a one unit increase in explanatory will increase response by 19.9%. Giving the regression equation (Y = 2.151 + 0.427 X)
Model Summary
R Square Change
| Model | R | R Square | Adjusted R Square | Std. Error of the Estimate | Change Statistics | ||||
| F Change | df1 | df2 | Sig. F Change | ||||||
| 1 | .446(a) | .199 | .177 | .66130 | .199 | 9.184 | 1 | 37 | .004 |
a Predictors: (Constant), independent_5
Coefficients(a)
B Lower Bound independent_5
| Model | Unstandardized Coefficients | Standardized Coefficients | t | Sig. | 95% Confidence Interval for B | |||
| Std. Error | Beta | Upper Bound | ||||||
| 1 | (Constant) | 2.151 | .505 | 4.261 | .000 | 1.128 | 3.173 | |
| .427 | .141 | .446 | 3.031 | .004 | .142 | .713 | ||
a Dependent Variable: dependent
Table 10 regression model summary H5
Hypothesis 6:
Using data elaborated in the following tables 11. It refers that a one unit increase in explanatory will increase response by 17.2%. Giving the regression equation (Y = 2.361 + 0.393 X)
Model Summary
R Square Change
| Model | R | R Square | Adjusted R Square | Std. Error of the Estimate | Change Statistics | ||||
| F Change | df1 | df2 | Sig. F Change | ||||||
| 1 | .414(a) | .172 | .149 | .67246 | .172 | 7.664 | 1 | 37 | .009 |
a Predictors: (Constant), independent_6
Coefficients(a)
B Lower Bound independent_6
| Model | Unstandardized Coefficients | Standardized Coefficients | t | Sig. | 95% Confidence Interval for B | |||
| Std. Error | Beta | Upper Bound | ||||||
| 1 | (Constant) | 2.361 | .477 | 4.954 | .000 | 1.395 | 3.327 | |
| .393 | .142 | .414 | 2.768 | .009 | .105 | .681 | ||
a Dependent Variable: dependent
Table 11 regression model summary H6
Hypothesis 7:
Using data elaborated in the following tables 12. It refers that a one unit increase in explanatory will increase response by 47%. Giving the regression equation (Y = 1.653 + 0.587 X)
Model Summary
R Square Change
| Model | R | R Square | Adjusted R Square | Std. Error of the Estimate | Change Statistics | ||||
| F Change | df1 | df2 | Sig. F Change | ||||||
| 1 | .686(a) | .470 | .456 | .53783 | .470 | 32.822 | 1 | 37 | .000 |
a Pr Coefficients(a)
B Lower Bound independent_7
| Model | Unstandardized Coefficients | Standardized Coefficients | t | Sig. | 95% Confidence Interval for B | |||
| Std. Error | Beta | Upper Bound | ||||||
| 1 | (Constant) | 1.653 | .358 | 4.613 | .000 | .927 | 2.379 | |
| .587 | .102 | .686 | 5.729 | .000 | .379 | .794 | ||
a Dependent Variable: dependent
Table 12 regression model summary H7
Hypothesis 8:
Using data elaborated in the following tables 13. It refers that a one unit increase in explanatory will increase response by 43.2%. Giving the regression equation (Y = 1.662 + 0.591 X)
Model Summary
R Square Change
| Model | R | R Square | Adjusted R Square | Std. Error of the Estimate | Change Statistics | ||||
| F Change | df1 | df2 | Sig. F Change | ||||||
| 1 | .657(a) | .432 | .416 | .55704 | .432 | 28.089 | 1 | 37 | .000 |
a Predictors: (Constant), independent_8
Coefficients(a)
B Lower Bound independent_8
| Model | Unstandardized Coefficients | Standardized Coefficients | t | Sig. | 95% Confidence Interval for B | |||
| Std. Error | Beta | Upper Bound | ||||||
| 1 | (Constant) | 1.662 | .385 | 4.318 | .000 | .882 | 2.442 | |
| .591 | .111 | .657 | 5.300 | .000 | .365 | .817 | ||
a Dependent Variable: dependent
Table 13 regression model summary H8
Hypothesis 9:
Using data elaborated in the following tables 14. It refers that a one unit increase in explanatory will increase response by 30.9%. Giving the regression equation (Y = 2.216 + 0.419 X)
Model Summary
R Square Change
| Model | R | R Square | Adjusted R Square | Std. Error of the Estimate | Change Statistics | ||||
| F Change | df1 | df2 | Sig. F Change | ||||||
| 1 | .556(a) | .309 | .290 | .61434 | .309 | 16.515 | 1 | 37 | .000 |
a Predictors: (Constant), independent_9
Coefficients(a)
B Lower Bound independent_9
| Model | Unstandardized Coefficients | Standardized Coefficients | t | Sig. | 95% Confidence Interval for B | |||
| Std. Error | Beta | Upper Bound | ||||||
| 1 | (Constant) | 2.216 | .365 | 6.064 | .000 | 1.475 | 2.956 | |
| .419 | .103 | .556 | 4.064 | .000 | .210 | .628 | ||
a Dependent Variable: dependent
Table 14 regression model summary H9
Hypothesis 10:
Using data elaborated in the following tables 15. It refers that a one unit increase in explanatory will increase response by 47%. Giving the regression equation (Y = 1.805 + 0.517 X)
Model Summary
R Square Change
| Model | R | R Square | Adjusted R Square | Std. Error of the Estimate | Change Statistics | ||||
| F Change | df1 | df2 | Sig. F Change | ||||||
| 1 | .686(a) | .470 | .456 | .53776 | .470 | 32.840 | 1 | 37 | .000 |
a Predictors: (Constant), independent_10
Coefficients(a)
B Lower Bound independent_10
| Model | Unstandardized Coefficients | Standardized Coefficients | t | Sig. | 95% Confidence Interval for B | |||
| Std. Error | Beta | Upper Bound | ||||||
| 1 | (Constant) | 1.805 | .333 | 5.427 | .000 | 1.131 | 2.479 | |
| .517 | .090 | .686 | 5.731 | .000 | .334 | .699 | ||
a Dependent Variable: dependent
Table 15 regression model summary H10
Hypothesis 11:
Using data elaborated in the following tables 16. It refers that a one unit increase in explanatory will increase response by 68.1%. Giving the regression equation (Y = 1.278 + 0.667 X)
Model Summary
R Square Change
| Model | R | R Square | Adjusted R Square | Std. Error of the Estimate | Change Statistics | ||||
| F Change | df1 | df2 | Sig. F Change | ||||||
| 1 | .825(a) | .681 | .672 | .41759 | .681 | 78.819 | 1 | 37 | .000 |
a Predictors: (Constant), independent_11
Coefficients(a)
B Lower Bound independent_11
| Model | Unstandardized Coefficients | Standardized Coefficients | t | Sig. | 95% Confidence Interval for B | |||
| Std. Error | Beta | Upper Bound | ||||||
| 1 | (Constant) | 1.278 | .275 | 4.645 | .000 | .720 | 1.835 | |
| .667 | .075 | .825 | 8.878 | .000 | .515 | .819 | ||
a Dependent Variable: dependent
Table 16 regression model summary H11
Hypothesis 12:
Using data elaborated in the following tables 17. It refers that a one unit increase in explanatory will increase response by 46.1%. Giving the regression equation (Y = 1.839 + 0.511 X)
Model Summary
R Square Change
| Model | R | R Square | Adjusted R Square | Std. Error of the Estimate | Change Statistics | ||||
| F Change | df1 | df2 | Sig. F Change | ||||||
| 1 | .679(a) | .461 | .446 | .54239 | .461 | 31.652 | 1 | 37 | .000 |
a Predictors: (Constant), independent_12
Coefficients(a)
B Lower Bound independent_12
| Model | Unstandardized Coefficients | Standardized Coefficients | t | Sig. | 95% Confidence Interval for B | |||
| Std. Error | Beta | Upper Bound | ||||||
| 1 | (Constant) | 1.839 | .333 | 5.526 | .000 | 1.165 | 2.513 | |
| .511 | .091 | .679 | 5.626 | .000 | .327 | .695 | ||
a Dependent Variable: dependent
Table 17 regression model summary H12
Both the Sustainability Policies and the Top Management Support, which are selected explanatory factors, and the response variable, Intentions to Embrace Environmental Sustainability Practices, is the dependent variable in a multiple regression analysis.
Tables 18 provide the full results of the best fit multiple regression model, which shows that Sustainability Policies is the most important variable (68.1% of the total) and that Top Management Support is the second most important (11.3%).
Considering the total R2 value in model 2 reveals that both have a 79.4% impact on Intentions to Embrace Environmental Sustainability Practices, indicating the optimal multiple regression model. Y = 0.280 + 0.529 X1 + 0.507 X2 is the regression equation that provides the relationship between Intentions to Embrace Environmental Sustainability Practices, Sustainability Policies (X1), and Top Management Support (X2). The results show that the residuals follow a distribution that is close to normal (Figures 5&6).
Model Summary(c)
R Square Change .825(a).681.672.41759.68178.819137.000
| Model | R | R Square | Adjusted R Square | Std. Error of the Estimate | Change Statistics | Durbin-Watson | ||||
| F Change | df1 | df2 | Sig. F Change | |||||||
| 1 | ||||||||||
| 2 | .891(b) | .794 | .782 | .34005 | .113 | 19.797 | 1 | 36 | .000 | 2.311 |
a Predictors: (Constant), independent_11
b Predictors: (Constant), independent_11, independent_3
c Dependent Variable: dependent
Coefficients(a)
B Lower Bound independent_11 independent_11 independent_3
| Model | Unstandardized Coefficients | Standardized Coefficients | t | Sig. | 95% Confidence Interval for B | |||
| Std. Error | Beta | Upper Bound | ||||||
| 1 | (Constant) | 1.278 | .275 | 4.645 | .000 | .720 | 1.835 | |
| .667 | .075 | .825 | 8.878 | .000 | .515 | .819 | ||
| 2 | (Constant) | -.280 | .416 | -.674 | .505 | -1.123 | .563 | |
| .529 | .069 | .654 | 7.704 | .000 | .390 | .668 | ||
| .507 | .114 | .378 | 4.449 | .000 | .276 | .739 | ||
a Dependent Variable: dependent
Table 18 model summary of multiple regression
Correlation Analysis
The study conducted a bivariate correlation analysis using Pearson’s correlation coefficient to measure the linear relationships between organizational culture dimensions and the intentions to embrace environmental sustainability practices. Results from Table 5 indicate varying strengths of correlation: Environmental Values (r = 0.526) showed a moderate positive correlation with intentions to embrace sustainability practices, suggesting a reasonable link between these values and sustainability actions. Cultural Norms (r = 0.607) and Top Management Support (r = 0.674) both exhibited high positive correlations, indicating strong influences on sustainability intentions, reflecting the critical role of cultural attitudes and leadership in promoting sustainability. Vision and Mission Alignment (r = 0.497) and Involvement in Sustainability (r = 0.446) demonstrated lower yet significant positive correlations, suggesting that while important, they are among the lesser predictors compared to other variables. Training and Awareness Programs (r = 0.414), Internal Communication (r = 0.686), and Transparency and Reporting (r = 0.657) also showed significant correlations, with Internal Communication being particularly strong, emphasizing the importance of clear, consistent communication in fostering sustainability practices. Sustainability Departments (r = 0.556), Integration into Business Units (r = 0.686), Sustainability Policies (r = 0.825), and Operational Practices (r = 0.679) displayed high to very high correlations, particularly Sustainability Policies, which suggests that formal policies are highly effective in promoting sustainability intentions.
Regression Analysis
Linear regression analysis further explored the relationships between these variables. Key findings include: A one-unit increase in Sustainability Policies is associated with a significant increase in the intentions to embrace sustainability practices, with the highest impact among all tested variables (68.1%). Top Management Support also significantly increases sustainability intentions, reinforcing the importance of leadership in driving sustainability efforts. The regression models consistently showed significant positive effects across all variables on sustainability intentions, confirming the predictive power of organizational culture dimensions on sustainability actions. The model summaries provide the equations and statistics necessary to predict how changes in these cultural dimensions affect sustainability intentions, with R² values indicating good model fits, particularly when combined variables like Sustainability Policies and Top Management Support are considered.
This comprehensive analysis highlights the substantial impact of various facets of organizational culture on the sustainability practices within corporations, particularly in Egyptian contexts. The findings not only support the hypotheses but also offer actionable insights for organizations looking to enhance their sustainability initiatives.
This research underscores the significant influence of organizational culture on the intention to embrace environmental sustainability practices in Egyptian enterprises. Among the twelve dimensions examined, sustainability policies and top management support are identified as the most impactful, highlighting the importance of strategic alignment and leadership in driving sustainability initiatives. Theoretical contributions of this study include a deeper understanding of the cultural dimensions influencing sustainability within a specific geographical context. Practically, the findings offer actionable insights for organizations to cultivate a culture that supports sustainable practices. By focusing on robust sustainability policies and strong top management support, companies can enhance their sustainability efforts and achieve long-term success.
Theoretical Implications
The study enriches the theoretical discourse on organizational culture and sustainability by identifying key cultural dimensions that drive sustainable practices. It highlights the role of strategic leadership and formal policies in shaping organizational behaviors and intentions towards sustainability.
Practical Implications
Practically, this research provides actionable strategies for Egyptian businesses to strengthen their sustainability initiatives. By prioritizing sustainability policies and top management support, organizations can create a supportive cultural environment that fosters sustainability and enhances competitive advantage.
Areas for Future Research
Future research could delve into the impact of digital transformation on organizational culture and sustainability, as well as conduct comparative studies across different cultural and economic contexts to broaden the applicability of the findings.
- Adams, C. A., & McNicholas, P. (2007). Exploring the relationship between corporate sustainability and financial performance: The impact of stakeholder engagement and transparency. Journal of Business Ethics, 73(1), 23-45.
- Ambec, S., & Lanoie, P. (2009). Does it pay to be green? A systematic overview. Academy of Management Perspectives, 23(4), 45-62.
- Amrutha, V. N., & Geetha, S. N. (2020). A systematic review on green human resource management: Implications for social sustainability. Journal of Cleaner Production, 247, 119131.
- Aragon-Correa, J. A., & Sharma, S. (2003). A contingent resource-based view of proactive corporate environmental strategy. Academy of Management Review, 28(1), 71-88.
- Barbe, F., & Kleiner, B. H. (2005). New developments concerning the Hawthorne effect: A review of the literature. International Journal of Management, 22(3), 376-383.
- Bansal, P. (2005). Evolving sustainably: A longitudinal study of corporate sustainable development. Strategic Management Journal, 26(3), 197-218.
- Bateh, J., Horner, D., Broadbent, A., & Fish, A. (2014). Towards a theoretical integration of sustainability: A literature review. Journal of Management and Sustainability, 4(4), 57.
- Brondoni, S. M. (2002). Global markets and market-space competition. Symphonya Emerging Issues in Management, (1), 28-42.
- Caetano, J. N., & Bezzi, M. L. (2011). Cultural geography and symbolic landscapes: Exploring cultural codes. Journal of Cultural Geography, 28(2), 167-188.
- Cardoni, A., Kiseleva, E., & Lombardi, R. (2020). A sustainable corporate governance framework: Implications for integrated reporting. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 27(3), 1304-1316.
- Carmona, L., Fuentes, C. M., & Ruiz, C. F. (2017). Evaluation of sustainability performance in Brazilian electricity companies using TOPSIS. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 78, 554-570.
- Chaudhry, S., & Amir, M. M. (2020). Institutional pressures and proactive environmental strategies: The mediating role of environmental management accounting. Journal of Business Strategy and the Environment, 29(2), 912-927.
- Collins, J. C., & Porras, J. I. (1996). Building your company’s vision. Harvard Business Review, 74(5), 65-77.
- Corrales-Estrada, M. (2019). Sustainable business models: A customer-centric approach. Sustainability, 11(10), 2826.
- Cristófalo, M. A., Félix, J. C., & Paulo, E. P. (2016). Sustainability index and stock market performance in Brazil. Revista de Administração de Empresas, 56(3), 315-328.
- Daily, B. F., & Huang, S. (2001). Achieving sustainability through attention to human resource factors in environmental management. International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 21(12), 1539-1552.
- Delmas, M. A., & Toffel, M. W. (2008). Organizational responses to environmental demands: Opening the black box. Strategic Management Journal, 29(10), 1027-1055.
- Demartini, M., Pinna, C., Aliakbarian, B., Tonelli, F., & Terzi, S. (2017). Manufacturing value modeling methodology: A structured approach to evaluate eco-efficiency performance. Sustainability, 9(5), 791.
- Denčić-Mihajlov, K., & Zeranski, S. (2018). Performance indicators for sustainable management in the agribusiness sector. Economics of Agriculture, 65(1), 305-320.
- Deshpande, R., & Webster, F. E. (1989). Organizational culture and marketing: Defining the research agenda. Journal of Marketing, 53(1), 3-15.
- Doppelt, B. (2003). Overcoming the seven sustainability blunders. Systems Thinker, 14(5), 2-7.
- Dunlap, R. E., & Van Liere, K. D. (1978). The “New Environmental Paradigm”. Journal of Environmental Education, 9(4), 10-19.
- Dyllick, T., & Hockerts, K. (2002). Beyond the business case for corporate sustainability. Business Strategy and the Environment, 11(2), 130-141.
- Earnhart, D., & Lizal, L. (2007). Effect of pollution control on corporate financial performance in a transition economy. European Environment, 17(5), 278-290.
- Eccles, R. G., Ioannou, I., & Serafeim, G. (2014). The impact of corporate sustainability on organizational processes and performance. Management Science, 60(11), 2835-2857.
- Eccles, R. G., Serafeim, G., & Krzus, M. P. (2012). Market interest in nonfinancial information. Journal of Applied Corporate Finance, 24(2), 113-127.
- Engert, S., Rauter, R., & Baumgartner, R. J. (2016). Corporate sustainability strategies: A systematic review and research agenda. Journal of Cleaner Production, 112, 2830-2845.
- Epstein, M. J., & Buhovac, A. R. (2014). Making sustainability work: Best practices in managing and measuring corporate social, environmental, and economic impacts. Berrett-Koehler Publishers.
- Epstein, M. J., & Roy, M. J. (2001). Sustainability in action: Identifying and measuring the key performance drivers. Long Range Planning, 34(5), 585-604.
- Epstein, M. J., & Roy, M. J. (2003). Improving sustainability performance: Specifying, implementing, and measuring key principles. Journal of General Management, 29(1), 15-31.
- Esen, E., & Çalışkan, A. (2019). Green human resource management: Recommendations for business leaders. Journal of Industrial Engineering and Management, 12(2), 284-300.
- Fatemi, A., & Fooladi, I. J. (2020). Sustainability and corporate value creation. Global Finance Journal, 45, 100473.
- Fitriani, N. (2013). The impact of corporate environmental performance on stock prices in Indonesia. Journal of Economics, Business, and Accountancy Ventura, 16(1), 67-78.
- Flier, A. Y. (2020). Culture as a system of hierarchical values: Theoretical and methodological aspects. Philosophy and Culture, 12(1), 22-36.
- Freitas, A. S., & Freitas, R. A. (2015). Corporate environmental responsibility and profitability: A study in the mechanical metal sector in Brazil. Independent Journal of Management & Production, 6(1), 95-112.
- Fujii, H., Iwata, K., Kaneko, S., & Managi, S. (2013). Corporate environmental and economic performance of Japanese manufacturing firms: Empirical study for sustainable development. Business Strategy and the Environment, 22(3), 187-201.
- Fuzi, N. M., Habidin, N. F., & Hibadullah, S. N. (2022). Exploring sustainability management accounting and performance: Evidence from manufacturing companies. Management Research Review, 45(2), 240-258.
- Garza, R. (2013). Mission-driven management: Leading the way with strategic planning. Nonprofit Management and Leadership, 23(3), 341-357.
- Godha, A., & Jain, P. (2015). Sustainability reporting trends in India. IOSR Journal of Business and Management, 17(1), 1-7.
- Goyal, P., & Rahman, Z. (2014). Corporate sustainability performance in the oil and gas industry: An AHP model for sustainability assessment. Global Business Review, 15(4), 735-746.
- Grove, H., & Clouse, M. (2018). ESG sustainability metrics: The key to long-term business success. Business Horizons, 61(5), 677-684.
- Gurova, I. V. (2023). The role of culture in shaping modern society: Global, national, and ethnic dimensions. Cultural Studies Review, 29(1), 15-31.
- Gutterman, A. S. (2020). Developing a sustainable business model. Journal of Management and Sustainability, 10(1), 1-14.
- Ha, T., & Perks, H. (2020). Aligning corporate culture with brand values: The role of brand orientation. Journal of Business Research, 107, 317-328.
- Hannelie, J. (2015). The link between environmental responsibility and financial performance: The South African case. Journal of Corporate Citizenship, 60, 101-119.
- Hart, S. L., & Milstein, M. B. (2003). Creating sustainable value. Academy of Management Executive, 17(2), 56-69.
- Hofstede, G., Hofstede, G. J., & Minkov, M. (2010). Cultures and organizations: Software of the mind. McGraw-Hill.
- Hui, W., Cheng, K., & Wang, F. (2021). Cultural alignment and organizational performance: The role of strategic human resource management. Chinese Management Studies, 15(2), 343-360.
- Ionescu, C. (2016). Stakeholder engagement in sustainability accounting: A comprehensive approach. Sustainability Accounting, Management and Policy Journal, 7(3), 404-430.
- Jackson, S. E., Renwick, D. W. S., Jabbour, C. J. C., & Müller-Camen, M. (2011). State-of-the-art and future directions for green human resource management: Introduction to the special issue. Zeitschrift für Personalforschung, 25(2), 99-116.
- Jin, B., & McCauley, M. (2012). Exploring the influence of culture on retail service quality expectations. Journal of Global Marketing, 25(3), 155-172.
- Jin, Y., Qi, S., & Liu, Y. (2021). Sustainable management activities and firm performance: The mediating role of competitive advantage. Sustainability, 13(3), 1219.
- Johari, R. J., & Komathy, S. (n.d.). Sustainability reporting and firm performance: Evidence from Malaysia. Asian Academy of Management Journal, 20(2), 39-56.
- Kalaivani, N. (2020). Green human resource management: A new paradigm in achieving organizational sustainability. Journal of Business Strategy, 41(1), 23-30.
- Kamande, E. G., & Lokina, R. B. (2013). The relationship between eco-efficiency and firm financial performance: Evidence from Kenya’s manufacturing firms. Environment, Development and Sustainability, 15(4), 1145-1165.
- Kasim, E. S., Syed Ali, R. R., & Norwani, N. M. (2018). Sustainability performance measurement in Malaysian public-listed companies: Drivers and challenges. Management & Accounting Review (MAR), 17(1), 53-74.
- Kasatkin, P. I. (2017). Values as a key component of cultural systems: A theoretical and methodological perspective. Russian Journal of Cultural Studies, 20(2), 145-160.
- Kim, H., & Kim, K. (2012). The sustainable value chain: A model for integrating environmental, social, and economic concerns. Journal of Business Ethics, 110(3), 223-237.
- Korga, P., & Aslanoğlu, E. (2022). The impact of corporate sustainability on firm size and financial performance: Evidence from Turkish manufacturing firms. Journal of Cleaner Production, 334, 130213.
- Kvirkvaia, T., & Kikutadze, V. (2014). Corporate culture and business efficiency: The Georgian case. International Journal of Social Sciences, 3(1), 38-50.
- Lee, J. (2020). The influence of organizational ethical values and leader-member exchange on employee behaviors: An empirical study of Korean companies. Journal of Business Ethics, 162(1), 83-98.
- Lozano, R. (2013). A holistic perspective on corporate sustainability drivers. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 20(4), 224-242.
- Ma, C., & Wang, Q. (2011). A study on the relationship between human resource management and corporate environmental performance. Management Science Letters, 1(2), 167-174.
- McGrady, D., & Golicic, S. (2023). Barriers to corporate sustainability: Insights from the US and beyond. Journal of Business Logistics, 44(1), 43-57.
- Mendez-Leon, E., Rodrigues, P., & Lopez, F. (2021). A holistic framework for sustainable value analysis in business models. Sustainability, 13(15), 8239.
- Milliman, J., & Grosskopf, J. (2011). Integrated sustainability management: Enhancing environmental and business performance. Environmental Quality Management, 21(1), 31-42.
- Minciullo, M., Signori, S., & Monti, A. (2022). Corporate governance and sustainability performance: The role of sustainability-related governance mechanisms. Journal of Business Research, 139, 421-433.
- Molamohamadi, Z., Ismail, W. R., & Ali, H. M. (2014). Sustainable human resource management: A comprehensive literature review. International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, 63(5), 571-593.
- Montiel, I., & Delgado-Ceballos, J. (2014). Defining and measuring corporate sustainability: Are we there yet? Organization & Environment, 27(2), 113-139.
- Moraczewski, K. (2016). Reconsidering culture: The impact of social heterogeneity on cultural concepts. Culture and Society, 14(3), 45-58.
- Munawar, A., Jabeen, F., & Riaz, M. T. (2022). Green human resource management and green innovation in the hotel industry: The mediating role of green human capital. Journal of Hospitality Marketing & Management, 31(5), 1-24.
- Mustafa, G., Zhang, W., & Memon, M. H. (2023). The role of green human resource management practices in achieving green competitive advantage. Sustainable Development, 31(4), 600-616.
- Olegário, M. J., Lopes, E., & Morais, R. (2016). Sustainability incorporation in organizations: Benefits and best practices. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 17(4), 549-567.
- Ong, T. S., Lee, Y. C., & Lee, C. S. (2019). The role of environmental innovation in translating environmental performance into financial performance. Sustainable Development, 27(2), 290-298.
- Ordonez-Ponce, E., & Clarke, A. (2020). Partnering for sustainability: A typology of sustainability-related partnerships. Business Strategy and the Environment, 29(3), 157-175.
- Osch, F. P. A. M., Hertog, J. F. D., & Bossink, B. A. G. (2010). Sustainable value creation by stakeholder collaboration. Sustainability Science, 5(1), 35-49.
- Özevin, M. G. (2022). Measuring corporate sustainability performance: The entropy-TOPSIS method. Journal of Cleaner Production, 334, 130119.
- Paraschiv, D. M., Nemoianu, E. L., Langa, C. A., & Szabo, T. (2012). Eco-innovation, responsible leadership and organizational change for corporate sustainability. Amfiteatru Economic Journal, 14(32), 404-419.
- Patala, S., Jalkala, A., Keränen, J., Väisänen, S., Tuominen, V., & Soukka, R. (2016). Sustainable value propositions: Framework and implications for technology suppliers. Industrial Marketing Management, 59, 144-156.
- Petrović-Ranđelović, M., Stevanović, S., & Nikolić, M. (2023). The impact of self-regulation practices on corporate profitability: Evidence from the European Union. Journal of Business Research, 149, 413-423.
- Pogutz, S., Micale, V., & Winn, M. (2011). Corporate environmental sustainability beyond organizational boundaries: Market growth, ecosystems complexity and supply chain structures. Journal of Cleaner Production, 19(2-3), 189-200.
- Portocarrero, F. F., & Winkler, M. (2021). Environmental management practices in the Brazilian mechanical metal sector: The role of managerial performance. Journal of Cleaner Production, 287, 125048.
- Poursoleyman, N., Khademi, A., & Gholami, R. (2022). Business sustainability performance and financial performance: The mediating role of investment efficiency. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 29(4), 5161-5175.
- Post, J. E., Preston, L. E., & Sachs, S. (2002). Redefining the corporation: Stakeholder management and organizational wealth. Stanford University Press.
- Ramus, C. A. (2001). Organizational support for employees: Encouraging creative ideas for environmental sustainability. California Management Review, 43(3), 85-105.
- Ramus, C. A., & Steger, U. (2000). The roles of supervisory support behaviors and environmental policy in employee eco-initiatives at leading-edge European companies. Academy of Management Journal, 43(4), 605-626.
- Renwick, D. W. S., Redman, T., & Maguire, S. (2013). Green human resource management: A review and research agenda. International Journal of Management Reviews, 15(1), 1-14.
- Ruiz, C. (2020). Sustainable finance models and the financial sector’s role in promoting a low-emission growth model. Journal of Sustainable Finance & Investment, 10(4), 323-338.
- Russo, M. V., & Fouts, P. A. (1997). A resource-based perspective on corporate environmental performance and profitability. Academy of Management Journal, 40(3), 534-559.
- Saeed, M., & Kersten, W. (2020). Corporate sustainability performance and measurement practices in Germany: An analysis of cross-industry challenges. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 27(1), 91-107.
- Salvo, M. D. (2023). Performance management for sustainability in agricultural-based social enterprises: Insights from Italy. Journal of Cleaner Production, 345, 131118.
- Schaltegger, S., & Wagner, M. (2006). Managing and measuring the business case for sustainability: Capturing the relationship between sustainability performance, business competitiveness and economic performance. International Journal of Sustainable Development, 9(1), 41-63.
- Schein, E. H. (1985). Organizational culture and leadership. Jossey-Bass Publishers.
- Seçil Gül Meydan Yildiz, T. (2018). The influence of cultural shifts on the spatial structure of human settlements. Journal of Planning Literature, 33(3), 271-288.
- Solanki, R. (2016). Green human resource management: A sustainable approach. International Journal of Research in Commerce & Management, 7(3), 59-64.
- Sokolov, B. G., & Alekseev-Apraksin, A. M. (2019). Cultural reality and modern consciousness: Clusters and networks. Philosophy and Culture, 13(1), 44-61.
- Soviana, M. M., & Dewi, F. A. (2022). Green HRM and its impact on business sustainability: Evidence from Indonesia. Journal of Environmental Management, 301, 113820.
- Speers, S. J., & Sroufe, R. (2017). Corporate social responsibility and performance measurement systems. Business Strategy and the Environment, 26(7), 915-929.
- Stacchezzini, R., Melloni, G., & Lai, A. (2016). Sustainability management and reporting: The role of integrated reporting for organizational change. Journal of Cleaner Production, 139, 204-218.
- Starkey, K., & Tempest, S. (1996). Building the adaptive organization: A simulation approach to organizational change. Journal of Strategic Change, 5(5), 277-289.
- Tanova, C., & Bayighomog, S. W. (2022). The role of GHRM practices and employee green behavior in organizational sustainability: Insights from the service industry. Sustainable Development, 30(2), 317-330.
- Tasçıoğlu, M. (2018). Primary stakeholder pressure and managers’ environmental sustainability intentions: Evidence from Turkey. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 61(11), 1933-1951.
- Tang, G., Chen, Y., Jiang, Y., Paillé, P., & Jia, J. (2017). Green human resource management practices: Scale development and validity. Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources, 55(1), 31-55.
- Turan, F., Turan, G., & Gunes, G. (2016). Evaluation of sustainability compliance in Malaysian industry: A new methodology. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 59, 11-25.
- Van, L. B. (2011). The influence of sustainability reporting on corporate reputation: An analysis of stakeholder perceptions. Corporate Communications: An International Journal, 16(4), 282-299.
- Wolf, J. (2013). Improving the sustainable development of firms: The role of employees. Business Strategy and the Environment, 22(3), 121-136.
- Xiao, Y., Ma, L., & Yuan, F. (2018). The effects of sustainability performance on financial returns: Evidence from countries with high and low sustainability performance. Journal of Cleaner Production, 172, 1838-1846.
- Yang, J. (2010). Corporate culture and brand culture: The mutual influence and interactive relationship. Journal of Business Research, 63(9), 1007-1010.
- Yalçın, N. (2022). Corporate sustainability performance and earnings quality: Evidence from the BIST Sustainability Index. Sustainability, 14(4), 2071.
- Yousif Abdelrahim, A. (2021). Rethinking Hofstede’s cultural dimensions: Introducing tribalism as a new dimension. Cross Cultural & Strategic Management, 28(2), 201-221.
- Zien, K. A., & Buckler, S. A. (1996). From experience: Dreams to market: Crafting a culture of innovation. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 13(4), 274-287.
