IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v17y2025i3p824-d1572442.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Reevaluating Propensity to Support Sustainability

Author

Listed:
  • Alec Andrew Theisz

    (Department of Informatics, Indiana University Bloomington, Bloomington, IN 47405, USA)

  • Aehong Min

    (Department of Informatics, University of California, Irvine, CA 92697, USA)

  • Patrick C. Shih

    (Department of Informatics, Indiana University Bloomington, Bloomington, IN 47405, USA)

Abstract

In a world faced with ever-growing crises of climate change, economic inequality, and social injustice, sustainability has become a catch-all term to address these challenges and more. However, efforts to measure the social, environmental, and economic factors of sustainability are undermined by inconsistent understandings of the term. This research seeks to address this gap in sustainability research by constructing a wide-reaching propensity instrument that incorporates the different constructs of sustainability. A literature review informed propensity instrument construction. The first version of the instrument included 269 items, which were narrowed to 100 after an iterative process of merging, refinement, and elimination. The 100 scale items were deployed through an online survey, where 162 responses were collected to inform data analysis. Principal component analysis revealed two primary factors of Sustainable Behavior and Sustainability Attitude. After further refinement based on items’ factor-loading scores and communalities, 13 items remained that described sustainability as environmentally and socially conscious behaviors and attitudes. The third construct of sustainability, economics, was not present after such refinements, suggesting that purely economic behaviors and attitudes are disparate from individuals’ sustainability propensity. This new propensity instrument informs the understanding of sustainability and provides a tool for measuring sustainability with more breadth.

Suggested Citation

  • Alec Andrew Theisz & Aehong Min & Patrick C. Shih, 2025. "Reevaluating Propensity to Support Sustainability," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 17(3), pages 1-15, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:17:y:2025:i:3:p:824-:d:1572442
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/17/3/824/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/17/3/824/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Mirjam Visser & Valentin Gattol & Rosan Van der Helm, 2015. "Communicating Sustainable Shoes to Mainstream Consumers: The Impact of Advertisement Design on Buying Intention," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 7(7), pages 1-17, June.
    2. K. Parboteeah & Helena Addae & John Cullen, 2012. "Propensity to Support Sustainability Initiatives: A Cross-National Model," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 105(3), pages 403-413, February.
    3. Joel Marcus & Heather MacDonald & Lorne Sulsky, 2015. "Do Personal Values Influence the Propensity for Sustainability Actions? A Policy-Capturing Study," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 127(2), pages 459-478, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Valentina Carfora & Patrizia Catellani, 2022. "Advertising Innovative Sustainable Fashion: Informational, Transformational, or Sustainability Appeal?," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(23), pages 1-21, December.
    2. Dienes, Christian, 2015. "Actions and intentions to pay for climate change mitigation: Environmental concern and the role of economic factors," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 109(C), pages 122-129.
    3. Mirjam Visser & Ab Stevels & Jan Schoormans, 2021. "Comparing the Recommendations of Buyers of Energy-Efficient and Inefficient Vacuum Cleaners," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(23), pages 1-14, November.
    4. Adrián Ferreras & Paula Castro & María T. Tascón, 2024. "Carbon performance and financial debt: Effect of formal and informal institutions," Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 31(4), pages 2801-2822, July.
    5. Talavera, Oleksandr & Yin, Shuxing & Zhang, Mao, 2016. "Managing the diversity: board age diversity, directors’ personal values, and bank performance," MPRA Paper 71927, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    6. Juliane Peters & Ana Simaens, 2020. "Integrating Sustainability into Corporate Strategy: A Case Study of the Textile and Clothing Industry," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(15), pages 1-35, July.
    7. Gu, Yuandong & Zhang, Hong & Zhou, Wenli & Zhong, Weiguo, 2019. "Regional culture, top executive values, and corporate donation behaviors," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 140(C), pages 1-13.
    8. Rizomyliotis, Ioannis & Konstantoulaki, Kleopatra & Kostopoulos, Ioannis, 2018. "Reassessing the effect of colour on attitude and behavioural intentions in promotional activities: The moderating role of mood and involvement," Australasian marketing journal, Elsevier, vol. 26(3), pages 204-215.
    9. Liang, H. & Marquis, C. & Renneboog, L.D.R. & Li Sun, Sunny, 2014. "Speaking of Corporate Social Responsibility," Discussion Paper 2014-018, Tilburg University, Tilburg Law and Economic Center.
    10. Wafa Alwakid & Sebastian Aparicio & David Urbano, 2020. "Cultural Antecedents of Green Entrepreneurship in Saudi Arabia: An Institutional Approach," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(9), pages 1-20, May.
    11. Rok Črešnar & Zlatko Nedelko, 2020. "Understanding Future Leaders: How Are Personal Values of Generations Y and Z Tailored to Leadership in Industry 4.0?," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(11), pages 1-19, May.
    12. Lewellyn, Krista B. & Bao, Shuji ‘Rosey’, 2014. "A cross-national investigation of IPO activity: The role of formal institutions and national culture," International Business Review, Elsevier, vol. 23(6), pages 1167-1178.
    13. Elias Hadjielias & Alfredo Massis & Michael Christofi & Danae Manika & Stephen Brammer, 2025. "Ethical Issues in Family Business: Toward a Deeper Understanding and a New Research Agenda," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 198(4), pages 715-731, May.
    14. Sushant Kumar & Vishlavath Giridhar & Pradip Sadarangani, 2019. "A Cross-national Study of Environmental Performance and Culture: Implications of the Findings and Strategies," Global Business Review, International Management Institute, vol. 20(4), pages 1051-1068, August.
    15. Cinthia Leonora Murillo‐Avalos & Mitzi Cubilla‐Montilla & Miguel Ángel Celestino Sánchez & Purificación Vicente‐Galindo, 2021. "What environmental social responsibility practices do large companies manage for sustainable development?," Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 28(1), pages 153-168, January.
    16. Lewellyn, Krista B. & Bao, Shuji ‘Rosey’, 2015. "R&D Investment in the Global Paper Products Industry: A Behavioral Theory of the Firm and National Culture Perspective," Journal of International Management, Elsevier, vol. 21(1), pages 1-17.
    17. Eduardo Ordonez‐Ponce, 2023. "The role of local cultural factors in the achievement of the sustainable development goals," Sustainable Development, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 31(2), pages 1122-1134, April.
    18. Ilaria Tutore, 2021. "Exploring the Effect of National Culture on Corporate Environmental Proactivity," International Journal of Operations Management, Inovatus Services Ltd., vol. 2(1), pages 17-22, October.
    19. Paul Shrivastava & Günter Schumacher & David Wasieleski & Marko Tasic, 2017. "Aesthetic Rationality in Organizations: Toward Developing a Sensibility for Sustainibility," Post-Print hal-01515126, HAL.
    20. Tatjana Korte & Lars Otte & Henning Amel & Marco Beeken, 2022. "“ Burger.i.doo ”—An Innovative Education Game for the Assessment of Sustainability from Meat and Substitute Products in Science Education," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(1), pages 1-14, December.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:17:y:2025:i:3:p:824-:d:1572442. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.