Shaping Perceptions: Sustaining the Corporate Image of Public Universities in Malaysia

Shaping Perceptions: Sustaining the Corporate Image of Public Universities in Malaysia

*¹Wardatul Hayat Adnan, ¹Suhaimee Saahar @ Saabar, ¹Ireena Nasiha Ibnu, ¹Siti Fadzillah Abdul Rahman, ²Mahathir Yahaya

¹Centre of Media Information Warfare Studies, Faculty of Communication & Media Studies, Universiti Teknologi MARA, Shah Alam, Malaysia

²School of Social Sciences, Universiti Sains Malaysia, Pulau Pinang, Malaysia

DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.47772/IJRISS.2025.903SEDU0016

Received: 22 December 2024; Accepted: 01 January 2025; Published: 05 February 2025

ABSTRACT

Controversies and portrayals of media towards the public universities able to tarnish universities’ reputation and trust among the stakeholders. The implications have led to poor enrolment and low positive visibility in Malaysia’s largest public university. The corporate image of one higher institution is important to ensure the survival of one organisation specifically in a higher institution. Therefore, knowing and identifying the level of the organisation will help the institution sustainability in the long run. Besides, the aims of university ranking in comparison to private higher institutions are risking the image of public universities as the good rankings. Due to this reason, declination in placing stakeholders’ preference to choose public universities is no longer a first choice.  These issues have led the current study to explore the perception of the stakeholders of public universities and its effects on the university’s corporate image. Findings show that there is significant impact of stakeholder’s perception on the university’s corporate image sustainability. The four factors that significantly contribute to corporate image sustainability are quality confidence (r= 0.771), quality commitment (r=0.665), university responsibility and university achievement (r=0.742; r=0.819). Thus, the university must focus on improving the four (4) factors to improve corporate image sustainability to ensure its survival in the future.

Keywords: Perceptions, Public University, Corporate Image, Sustainability, Malaysia

INTRODUCTION

Due to the development of social media, educational institutions like universities run the risk of having their reputations tarnished by postings and any bogus news that may be circulated online. However, the issue of unrestrained news and social media broadcasts is concerning. Therefore, the university, especially public universities sponsored by taxpayers, must guarantee that the public has a favourable view of it, failing to do so will result in the university’s negative reputation or its corporate image (Kim, et al., 2019). The university’s corporate image, also known as reputation or brand, is influenced by a variety of factors. These factors collectively shape how the university is perceived by its stakeholders, including students, faculty, staff, alumni, donors, and the public.

Thus, to maintain one public university’s corporate image, identifying the factors that contribute to a university’s corporate image is important. Studies show that factors including quality of education, faculty expertise, research output, and academic programs all contribute to a university’s reputation. High rankings and recognition for academic achievements enhance the corporate image. Cutting-edge research, patents, publications in prestigious journals, and innovative contributions to various fields can elevate a university’s reputation and contribute to a positive image (Park & Leydesdorff, 2010).

The expertise, qualifications, reputation, and achievements of the faculty and staff members play a significant role in shaping how the university is perceived. In addition, graduation rates, employability of graduates, success stories, well-maintained campuses, libraries, and recreational facilities contribute to a positive perception of the university (Hewitt, 2020).  In addition, a commitment to diversity, equity, and inclusion is also fostering a positive image, demonstrating inclusive and welcoming environments for all members of the community. Partnerships with local communities, involvement in social and environmental initiatives, and contributions to the region can enhance a university’s reputation (Benitez et al., 2020). Adding the accomplishments of alumni, their contributions to various fields, and their ongoing engagement with the university can positively influence its image. Finally, positive coverage in the media, press releases about significant achievements, and articles about the university’s contributions can shape public perception. Effective leadership, transparent governance, and ethical decision-making contribute to a university’s reputation.

Figure 1: Research Framework on Stakeholders’ Perception and Corporate Image Sustainability (CIS)

A university’s reputation will also be boosted by high rankings and accreditation from respectable organisations. To maintain a public university’s strong reputation, understanding variables that contributed is essential to achieving corporate image sustainability. The perspective of stakeholders and the sustainability of the business image are shown in Figure 1. Thus, another present study aims to identify factors that contribute to corporate Image Sustainability (CIS) among stakeholders in public University in Malaysia.

LITERATURE REVIEW

Public University and Stakeholders

University stakeholders are individuals, groups, or entities that have an interest, influence, or investment in the activities, decisions, and outcomes of a university. These stakeholders play various roles in the functioning and development of the university and can have a significant impact on its success. The primary reason for a university’s existence is students as major stakeholders. Their educational experience, well-being, and success are central to the university’s mission. Meanwhile, Professors, instructors, researchers, and administrative personnel contribute to the university’s academic and operational functions that smoothen the process. University administrators, including the president, provost, deans, and department heads, make strategic decisions about the university’s direction, policies, and resources. Graduates of the university often maintain a lifelong connection and can influence the institution through donations, mentoring, and advocacy (Sağbaş, Saruc & Tunali, 2018). They may also provide financial support, and emotional guidance, and influence their children’s educational choices.

In addition, individuals, foundations, or corporations provide financial contributions to support scholarships, research, infrastructure, and other initiatives. The university’s presence will impact the surrounding community in terms of economy, culture, and social dynamics (McLennan & Banks, 2019). To achieve this, Government agencies and regulatory bodies may provide funding, oversight, and accreditation for the university’s programs. Businesses and industries that benefit from a skilled workforce and research collaboration with universities are also part of the major stakeholders (Mian et al., 2020).

Organisations that collaborate with the university on research projects, grants, and initiatives. Other universities can indirectly affect each other’s reputation and competitiveness. Thus, public perception, media coverage, and public opinion often shape the university’s image and influence decision-making. Organisations concerned with environmental impact and sustainability can influence a university’s policies and practices (Anwar et al., 2020). Universities with global reach may have international stakeholders, including international students, partner institutions, and governments. The items of internationalisation contribute towards high ranking and well-known at the international level, which also places a new challenge on public universities.

Public University and Corporate Image

The concept of a “corporate image” is often associated with businesses and how they are perceived by the public and stakeholders. However, the term can also be applied to public universities, albeit with some nuances due to the differences in their nature and objectives. A public university’s corporate image refers to how it is perceived by various stakeholders, including students, faculty, staff, alumni, government bodies, local communities, industry partners, and the public (Ali et al., 2021). It encompasses the university’s reputation, values, identity, and the overall impression it leaves on people’s minds. Here’s how the concept of corporate image applies to public universities: Reputation and Prestige: Public universities build their reputation over time through the quality of education, research, faculty expertise, and contributions to society (De Wit & Altbach, 2021). A positive reputation enhances the university’s corporate image and can attract talented students, faculty, and research funding.

The range and quality of academic programs offered by a public university contribute to its corporate image. Strong programs, relevant courses, and notable research can elevate its standing. The research can shape the university’s image as a hub of knowledge and innovation. Public universities often have a responsibility to engage with and serve their local communities. Collaborative initiatives, cultural events, and community partnerships contribute to the university’s image as a socially responsible institution (Fitzgerald et al., 2019). A positive student experience, including support services, extracurricular activities, and campus culture, can enhance the university’s corporate image and contribute to alumni pride.

Public universities specific mission, such as providing affordable education, conducting research for the public good, or fostering diversity and inclusion. Aligning actions with these values enhances the corporate image. Media coverage, public opinion, and social media play a role in shaping how the university is perceived by the public, both locally and nationally. Collaborations with industries and employers can impact the university’s image as a source of skilled graduates and research expertise (Aloysius et al., 2018). The achievements of alumni contribute to the university’s corporate image and reputation. Successful graduates reflect positively on the institution’s quality of education.

Public universities often receive funding and support from government bodies. Positive relationships with government officials can influence the university’s image and resources. Public universities must actively manage their corporate image to attract students, faculty, funding, and support. This involves strategic communication, transparency, consistent branding, and a commitment to fulfilling their mission and values. Unlike for-profit corporations, the focus of a public university’s corporate image extends beyond financial success to include broader societal impact and educational excellence.

University Quality Confidence

Quality assurance and confidence play a crucial role in the success and reputation of a university. Ensuring and maintaining high-quality standards across all aspects of the institution is essential for several reasons. Quality assurance helps uphold the academic rigor and standards of the university’s programs and courses (Hillman & Baydoun, 2019). This translates to providing students with a high-quality education that prepares them for their future careers and further academic pursuits. When students receive a high-quality education, they are more likely to be satisfied with their experience and achieve their academic and personal goals. Satisfied students can become loyal alumni and advocates for the university. Quality assurance directly impacts a university’s reputation both nationally and internationally. A strong reputation attracts talented students, distinguished faculty, and research funding (Tomlinson, 2018). It can also lead to higher rankings in various university ranking systems.

Employers value graduates from universities with a reputation for quality education. When graduates are well-prepared and possess relevant skills, it enhances their employability and contributes to the university’s reputation (Noah & Aziz, 2020). Quality assurance in research ensures credibility and impact of the university’s scholarly contributions. This, in turn, attracts research funding, collaborations, and opportunities for innovation. Many universities seek accreditation from reputable accrediting bodies. Accreditation confirms that a university meets certain quality standards and can enhance its credibility and recognition both nationally and internationally.

High-quality universities attract renowned faculty members who are experts in their fields. A strong academic environment encourages faculty to engage in impactful research and teaching (Jessani et al., 2020). Governments, funding agencies, industry partners, and donors are more likely to invest in universities with a proven quality and impact track record. Quality assurance can open doors to various funding opportunities and partnerships. In an increasingly globalised world, universities are competing on an international stage. Quality assurance helps a university stand out and compete effectively for international students, faculty, and collaborations.

A university with a commitment to quality assurance is better equipped to adapt to changing educational landscapes, technological advancements, and societal needs. This long-term approach enhances the university’s sustainability (Mohamed Hashim, Tlemsani, & Matthews, 2022). Quality assurance includes adherence to ethical and social responsibilities, ensuring that the university contributes positively to society, and addressing important societal issues. In summary, quality assurance is essential for maintaining a university’s integrity, attracting, and retaining stakeholders, and achieving its mission of providing meaningful and impactful education. It is a continuous process that requires commitment, collaboration, and a focus on excellence across all aspects of the institution.

University Responsibility

A university has several important responsibilities to its stakeholders, which include students, faculty, staff, alumni, local communities, industry partners, government bodies, and the public. These responsibilities are rooted in the university’s mission to provide quality education, conduct research, and contribute positively to society. The primary responsibility of a university is to provide high-quality education that equips students with the knowledge, skills, and critical thinking abilities needed for their personal and professional growth. Universities are expected to conduct impactful research that advances knowledge, addresses societal challenges, and contributes to technological and scientific advancements.

Universities should provide adequate support services, counseling, and resources to ensure the well-being, academic success, and personal development of their students. Ensuring a conducive environment for faculty to engage in research, teaching, and professional growth is essential. This includes opportunities for continuing education, research funding, and collaboration. Universities have a responsibility to foster a diverse and inclusive environment that respects and celebrates differences and provides equal opportunities for all stakeholders (Claeys-Kulik, Jørgensen & Stöber, 2019). Universities should actively engage with their local communities through cultural events, outreach programs, partnerships, and initiatives that address community needs. Upholding ethical standards and promoting responsible behaviour among all stakeholders, including students, faculty, and staff, is crucial.

Universities must responsibly manage their financial, human, and physical resources to ensure their sustainability and effectiveness in fulfilling their mission. Universities should practice transparency in their operations, decision-making processes, and use of resources. They are accountable to their stakeholders for the outcomes and impact of their activities. Maintaining a relationship with alumni through networking opportunities, mentorship, and collaboration helps strengthen the university’s community and support system (Skrzypek et al., 2019). Universities should actively seek partnerships with industries, governments, and other organisations to enhance their educational and research endeavors.

Universities have a role in addressing societal challenges through research, education, and community engagement, contributing to the betterment of society. Universities should promote sustainability and environmentally responsible practices on campus and in their activities (Vives, 2022). Universities need to continuously adapt to changing educational, technological, and societal trends to provide relevant and effective educational experiences. Effectively communicating the university’s mission, values, achievements, and impact to the public and stakeholders is important for maintaining a positive image and garnering support. Overall, a university’s responsibilities to its stakeholders are multifaceted and interconnected, reflecting its role as an educational, research, and societal institution. Meeting these responsibilities requires a commitment to excellence, ethical conduct, and a holistic approach to fulfilling its mission and serving the needs of its diverse stakeholders.

University Achievement

University achievements can have a significant impact on university sustainability in various ways. When a university achieves academic, research, and societal goals, it enhances its reputation, attracts resources, and contributes positively to its long-term viability (Mohiuddin et al., 2022). A strong reputation attracts students, faculty, research funding, and partnerships, contributing to the university’s sustainability. Achievements such as high graduation rates, successful career placements, and intense student satisfaction contribute to attracting and retaining students. Satisfied and successful students become loyal alumni who may contribute to the university’s sustainability through donations, advocacy, and support. Research achievements, including publications in prestigious journals, patents, and grants, can lead to increased research funding from government agencies, industry partners, and philanthropic sources (Fasi, 2022). This funding supports ongoing research initiatives and enhances the university’s research capabilities.

Successful collaboration with industries and local communities based on achievements and expertise can lead to increased partnerships, joint projects, and funding opportunities. These partnerships contribute to the university’s financial sustainability and relevance to real-world challenges. Achievements contribute to alumni pride and engagement (Smith, 2023). Engaged alumni are more likely to contribute financially, participate in mentoring programs, and advocate for the university’s interests, thereby supporting its sustainability efforts. Academic achievements and a strong research environment attract talented faculty members. A strong faculty team, in turn, contributes to the university’s reputation, research output, and overall sustainability (Yigitcanlar et al., 2020). International recognition for achievements enhances the university’s competitiveness on the global stage. This can lead to increased international student enrolment, collaborative research opportunities, and a diverse and inclusive campus community.

Visible achievements demonstrate the university’s contributions to society, which can lead to increased public and government support, including funding, grants, and policy advocacy. Achievements related to sustainability practices, such as green initiatives, renewable energy adoption, and responsible resource management, align with the university’s commitment to environmental responsibility and can positively impact its image and support. Achievements often result from innovation and the ability to adapt to changing educational and societal needs (Oeij et al., 2019). This adaptability is a crucial component of a sustainable university that can thrive in evolving landscapes. Overall, a university’s achievements contribute to its long-term viability by attracting resources, fostering a positive environment for stakeholders, and enabling it to fulfill its mission of providing quality education and impactful research. By consistently striving for excellence and achieving meaningful milestones, a university enhances its sustainability by establishing a strong foundation for growth, resilience, and a positive impact on its stakeholders and society.

Corporate Image Sustainability

The concept of university corporate image sustainability refers to the ongoing efforts of a university to maintain a positive and reputable image over the long term. It is crucial for several reasons for positive corporate images to enhance a university’s reputation and prestige. This reputation attracts top-tier students, faculty, researchers, and collaborators, contributing to the overall quality and success of the institution (Maiya & Aithal, 2023). With a strong corporate image, it can positively influence students’ decisions to enroll and stay at the university. Students are more likely to choose institutions that are well-regarded and have a positive image. Engaged alumni are more likely to give back to their alma mater, contribute to fundraising campaigns, and support the university’s initiatives (Feng, 2023). This proven, quality graduates will act as an agent in proving the corporate image.

An institution with a positive image is more appealing to talented faculty and staff. Educators and researchers contribute to academic excellence and institutional success. An attractive partner for collaborations with other institutions, industries, and research organisations. Moreover, funding agencies are more likely to invest in institutions with a strong track record and image of excellence. Thus, sustainable corporate images are more likely to garner public and government support forms of funding, policy advocacy, and positive media coverage. A university with a sustainable corporate image is more likely to be recognised and respected on the global stage than able to attract international students, faculty, and research opportunities.

Building a sustainable corporate image involves establishing a strong foundation of trust and goodwill. In times of crisis or challenges, the institution’s positive reputation can help mitigate damage and maintain stakeholder confidence. A sustainable corporate image reinforces the university’s brand identity, core values, and mission. It can also enhance the university’s relationship with its local community. The sustainability of the corporate image involves ethical conduct and a commitment to social responsibility (Lessa & Coelho, 2023). A university with a positive image is perceived as an institution that contributes positively to society. In summary, university corporate image sustainability is vital for attracting and retaining stakeholders, fostering growth and innovation, and ensuring the institution’s long-term success. It requires continuous efforts to uphold values, maintain high standards, and demonstrate a positive impact on the academic community and society.

METHODOLOGY

In this study, a survey was used to collect data on stakeholders’ preferences and perceptions of public universities thoroughly and efficiently. To gain a more comprehensive understanding of the subject under study, surveys give researchers access to a sizable and varied group of respondents. In addition to discussing the implications of the survey results for the corporate reputation of public universities. The survey uses structured questions to collect data consistently, making it simpler to compare responses between groups and spot trends (Sugiharto et al., 2023). Using conducting a survey, researchers can inquire respondents about the specific criteria they deem to be of utmost significance when deciding to select a university. The criteria encompass a range of factors, including but not limited to academic reputation, faculty expertise, research opportunities, campus facilities, extracurricular activities, cost of education, location, and alumni success. By analysing the responses, it is possible to discern the factors that hold the greatest significance in influencing the decision-making process of stakeholders. The survey may encompass inquiries about stakeholders’ perspectives on the caliber and standing of public universities about private institutions. Examining stakeholders’ perceptions of academic excellence, prestige, and overall reputation of public universities can provide valuable insights into areas that require enhancement to bolster their corporate image (Ressler & Abratt, 2009).

Data collection and sampling

The sample consists of public university stakeholders involved (Students, Staffs, Parents or Guardians, Alumni, Employers and international Collaborators). For data collection, the stratified sampling method was used as supported by stated researchers dividing subjects into subgroups called strata based on characteristics that they share (e.g., race, gender, and educational attainment (Hair et al., 2010; Cooper, Schindler & Sun, 2003). Once divided, each subgroup is randomly sampled using another probability sampling method. To decide on the sample size of the respondents, the G-power software has been used to calculate the minimum required sample size with effect size medium (0.15) and power needed as 0.95. A set of 1,800 questionnaires was distributed, of which 1,291 usable responses were collected for further data analysis. A sample size of 1,000 is generally considered large enough to provide reliable results if the sample is representative of the population (Arndt et al., 2022).

Respondents Groups

The research participants include a diverse group of public universities stakeholders, as detailed in Table 1. Overall, this research has successfully gathered a well-balanced representation of stakeholders, providing valuable insights into their perceptions of the corporate image.

Table 1: Public University Stakeholders

Instrument development

The questionnaire is structured into two distinct sections: the first being the demographic profile, and the second encompassing measurements of five latent constructions. The demographic profile encompasses various characteristics, such as gender, age, ethnicity, location, marital status, stakeholder category, highest education level, type of employment, and individual income, which are outlined in Table 2. The second part of the questionnaire focuses on measuring five latent constructs, namely UQC, UQM, URY, UAT, and CIS, which reflect stakeholders’ perceptions of the corporate image of public universities. The items used to measure these constructions were adapted from prior research and are rated on a 5-point Likert-type scale, ranging from 1 (strongly disagree’) to 5 (‘strongly agree’). The specific items constituting these constructions are provided in Table 2. Instrument was distributed to 30 samples during pilot testing to ensure its reliability and validity of instrument. Reliability results show all instruments obtained r=>0.6, meanwhile KMO reading = 0.00 for all constructs.

Table 2: Instrument

FINDINGS

Data was collected to 1,291 respondents from 6 different stakeholders’ groups. Details of respondent profiles participated in the present study are as per table 3 below. There are (1) gender, (2) Age, (3) Ethnicity, (4) Current Location, (5) Marital Status, (6) Stakeholders Category, (7) Education Level, (8) Type of Employment and (9) Individual Income.

Table 3: Respondent Profile

The demographic characteristics of the respondents are presented in Table 1. The profile encapsulates a comprehensive range of demographic attributes, including gender, age, ethnicity, current location, type of location, marital status, stakeholder category, highest education level, type of employment, and individual income. Within the cohort, the most prominent gender distribution is female (58.4%). In terms of age distribution, the highest percentage falls within the 36 to 46 years old range, constituting 26.7%. Predominantly, the group identifies as Malay, with 96.1% representation, and is largely situated in urban areas (77.6%) across Malaysia. Marital status reveals 58.3% of respondents are married. There is a good mixture of public university stakeholders across students (23.2%), staff (23.2%), parents/guardians (23.2%), employers (13.2%), alumni (15.6%), and international collaborators (1.5%).  Notably, 38.7% hold a bachelor’s degree, and the majority are employed in the public sector (34.3%), while the highest income bracket is RM2,501 to RM4,850, accounting for 26.0%.

RESULTS OF PEARSON CORRELATION

The conducted Pearson correlation analysis has elucidated substantial positive correlations among the variables – Quality Confidence (UQC), Quality Commitment (UQM), University Responsibility (URY), University Achievement (UAT), and Corporate Image Sustainability (CIS). These results, ranging from r=0.665 to r=0.819, signify the interconnectedness of these constructs in shaping stakeholder perceptions of the university’s corporate image. Notably, strong positive correlations emerged between Quality Commitment (UQM) and Quality Confidence (UQC) (r=0.771, p<0.01), University Responsibility (URY) and Quality Confidence (UQC) (r=0.753, p<0.01), and University Achievement (UAT) and University Responsibility (URY) (r=0.819, p<0.01). Additionally, Corporate Image Sustainability (CIS) exhibited positive correlations with Quality Confidence (UQC) (r=0.665, p<0.01), Quality Commitment (UQM) (r=0.676, p<0.01), University Responsibility (URY) (r=0.742, p<0.01), and University Achievement (UAT) (r=0.762, p<0.01). It is noteworthy that all reported correlations held statistical significance at the p<0.01 confidence level. In essence, this correlation analysis unveils the intricate connections among Quality Confidence, Quality Commitment, University Responsibility, University Achievement, and Corporate Image Sustainability in shaping stakeholder perceptions of the university’s corporate image. These insights emphasise the collaborative impact of stakeholders’ confidence, commitment, responsibility, and perceived achievements, underscoring the need for comprehensive strategies to enhance stakeholder perceptions and uphold a positive university image.

Table 4: Pearson Correlation Analysis

**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed)

CONCLUSION

The sustainability of a public university’s corporate image is influenced by four key criteria: University Quality, Commitment, Responsibility, and Achievement. Among these, university achievement emerges as one of the most significant variables in portraying and ensuring the institution’s survival. Stakeholders consistently emphasise the importance of improving the university’s image and reputation by contributing to societal economic growth, ensuring high levels of security and safety for stakeholders, and providing the highest quality of education. This is supported by Sharma & Al Sinawi, (2021) highlighted that further study needs to be done as public universities are caught up with variety of issues such as globalisation, accountability, competition and global ranking, as this is due to the concern from the public. Thus, positive portrayals and notable accomplishments shared through social media platforms will further enhance the university’s corporate image, creating a self-sustaining cycle of improvement and recognition. In addition, the differences of nature for the public in compare to private which focused on monetary basis, has somehow led towards high competitive among private institution in its visibility and its image (Sharma & Al Sinawi, 2021).  Research supports this notion, as evidenced by Damayanti et al. (2022), who highlight that a single significant achievement can lead to sustained corporate image success for an institution. Hence, this competitive environment has intensified among universities, each striving to excel and showcase their successes to build and maintain corporate image sustainability. However, recent studies and data indicate a worrying trend among younger generations, who are increasingly disinterested in pursuing higher education. This decline in university enrolment presents long-term challenges, including reduced societal health, diminished tax revenues, and exacerbated divisions in politics, socioeconomic status, and race. Such factors collectively threaten economic stability and the relevance of educational institutions. In the context of public universities, focusing on the identified contributing factors, particularly university achievements, is crucial for mitigating these challenges. Achievements may include visibility and engagement with society through outreach programs and initiatives that demonstrate the university’s societal impact. Additionally, enhancing employability by ensuring graduates possess the skills and qualifications demanded by the industry is vital. Delivering quality education that meets industry standards and adapts to evolving workforce requirements further solidifies the university’s standing. By concentrating efforts on these aspects, public universities can effectively address stakeholder expectations, bolster their corporate image, and secure long-term sustainability.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

The authors acknowledge all the university stakeholders who participated in the study and the UiTM Research Management Centre (RMC) for the opportunity and trust given in conducting the study.

REFERENCES

1. Ali, M., Mustapha, I., Osman, S., & Hassan, U. (2021). University Social Responsibility: A Review of Conceptual Evolution and Its Thematic Analysis. Journal of Cleaner Production, 286, 124931. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.124931.
2. Aloysius, O. I., Ismail, I. A., Suandi, T., & Arshad, M. M. (2018). Enhancing University’s and Industry’s Employability-Collaboration among Nigeria Graduates in the Labor Market. International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences, 8(7), 32-48. http://dx.doi.org/10.6007/IJARBSS/v8-i7/4322.
3. Anwar, N., Mahmood, N. H. N., Yusliza, M. Y., Ramayah, T., Faezah, J. N., & Khalid, W. (2020). Green Human Resource Management for Organisational Citizenship Behaviour towards the Environment and Environmental Performance on A University Campus. Journal of Cleaner Production, 256, 120401. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.120401.
4. Aristovnik, A., Keržič, D., Ravšelj, D., Tomaževič, N., & Umek, L. (2020). Impacts of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Life of Higher Education Students: A Global Perspective. Sustainability, 12(20), 8438. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12208438.
5. Arndt, A. D., Ford, J. B., Babin, B. J., & Luong, V. (2022). Collecting Samples from Online Services: How to Use Screeners to Improve Data Quality. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 39(1), 117-133. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijresmar.2021.05.001.
6. Benitez, J., Ruiz, L., Castillo, A., & Llorens, J. (2020). How Corporate Social Responsibility Activities Influence Employer Reputation: The Role of Social Media Capability. Decision Support Systems, 129, 113223. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dss.2019.113223.
7. Boafo, N. D., Agyapong, F., Asare, P., & Amponsah, G. (2020). The Balance between Corporate Identity and Corporate Image and Its Impact on the Marketing of Universities in Ghana. Archive of Business Research, 8(5), 302-315. https://doi.org/10.14738/abr.85.8323.
8. Claeys-Kulik, A. L., Jørgensen, T. E., & Stöber, H. (2019). Diversity, Equity and Inclusion in European Higher Education Institutions. Results from the INVITED Project. Brussel: European University Association Asil, 51.
9. Cooper, D. R., Schindler, P. S., & Sun, J. (2003). Business Research Methods. McGraw-Hill International Edition.
10. Damayanti, T., Dida, S., Hidayat, D. R., & Cho, S. K. (2022). Nation Brand Image and Trust Level of Foreign Citizens. PRofesi Humas Jurnal Ilmiah Ilmu Hubungan Masyarakat, 7(1), 1-16.
11. De Wit, H., & Altbach, P. G. (2021). Internationalization in Higher Education: Global Trends and Recommendations for Its Future. Higher Education in the Next Decade (pp. 303-325). Brill.
12. Farahian, M., & Parhamnia, F. (2020). Nursing Students’ Information-Seeking Behavior in ESP Courses: Do Quality of Education and Reflective Practice Matter? Future of Medical Education Journal, 10(2), 9-15. https://doi.org/10.22038/fmej.2020.45189.1307.
13. Fasi, M. A. (2022). An Overview of Patenting Trends and Technology Commercialization Practices in the University Technology Transfer Offices in USA and China. World Patent Information, 68, 102097. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wpi.2022.102097.
14. Feng, Y. (2023). The Moral Education Function and Implementation Strategies of “Ceremonial Education” in Higher Education Institutions. Journal of Education and Educational Research, 4(2), 23-27. https://doi.org/10.54097/jeer.v4i2.10638.
15. Fitzgerald, H. E., Karen, B., Sonka, S. T., Furco, A., & Swanson, L. (2019). The Centrality of Engagement in Higher Education. Building the Field of Higher Education Engagement (pp. 312-331). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003443353.
16. Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. (2010). Multivariate Data Analysis: Pearson College Division. Person: London, UK.
17. Hewitt, R. (2020). Getting On: Graduate Employment and Its Influence on UK Higher Education. Higher Education Policy Institute.
18. Hillman, J. R., & Baydoun, E. (2019). Quality Assurance and Relevance in Academia: A Review. Major Challenges Facing Higher Education in the Arab World: Quality Assurance and Relevance, 13-68. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-03774-1_2.
19. Jaakson, K. (2008). Students’ Perceptions about University Values: Some Influencing Factors. Journal of Human Values, 14(2), 169-180. https://doi.org/10.1177/097168580801400207.
20. Jessani, N. S., Valmeekanathan, A., Babcock, C. M., & Ling, B. (2020). Academic Incentives for Enhancing Faculty Engagement With Decision-Makers—Considerations and Recommendations from One School of Public Health. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, 7(1), 1-13. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-020-00629-1.
21. Kanwar, A., & Sanjeeva, M. (2022). Student Satisfaction Survey: A Key for Quality Improvement in the Higher Education Institution. Journal of Innovation and Entrepreneurship, 11(1), 1-10. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13731-022-00196-6.
22. Khosroabadi, S., & Bahramzadeh, H. (2012). A Survey for Assessing University Performance. Management Science Letters, 2(8), pp. 3061-3066. http://dx.doi.org/%2010.5267/ j.msl.2012.08.025
23. Kim, T. K., Yong, H. I., Kim, Y. B., Kim, H. W., & Choi, Y. S. (2019). Edible Insects as A Protein Source: A Review of Public Perception, Processing Technology, and Research Trends. Food Science of Animal Resources, 39(4), 521. https://doi.org/10.5851/kosfa.2019.e53.
24. Lessa, C., & Coelho, A. (2023). Building Trust in Higher Education Institutions: Using Congruence to Overcome Scepticism and Increase Credibility, Reputation, and Student Employability Through CSR. Corporate Reputation Review, 1-15. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41299-023-00159-x.
25. Maiya, AK, & Aithal, PS, (2023). A Review based Research Topic Identification on How to Improve the Quality Services of Higher Education Institutions in Academic, Administrative, and Research Areas. International Journal of Management, Technology, and Social Sciences (IJMTS), 8(3), 103-153.
26. McLennan, S., & Banks, G. (2019). Reversing the Lens: Why Corporate Social Responsibility Is Not Community Development. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 26(1), 117-126. https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.1664.
27. Mian, S. H., Salah, B., Ameen, W., Moiduddin, K., & Alkhalefah, H. (2020). Adapting Universities for Sustainability Education in Industry 4.0: Channel of Challenges and Opportunities. Sustainability, 12(15), 6100. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12156100.
28. Mohamed Hashim, M. A., Tlemsani, I., & Matthews, R. (2022). Higher Education Strategy in Digital Transformation. Education and Information Technologies, 27, 3171-25. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-021-10739-1.
29. Mohiuddin, M., Hosseini, E., Faradonbeh, S. B., & Sabokro, M. (2022). Achieving Human Resource Management Sustainability in Universities. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 19(2), 928. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19020928.
30. Noah, J. B., & Aziz, A. A. (2020). A Systematic Review on Soft Skills Development Among University Graduates. EDUCATUM Journal of Social Sciences, 6(1), 53-68. https://doi.org/10.37134/ ejoss.vol6.1.6.2020.
31. Oeij, P. R., Van Der Torre, W., Vaas, F., & Dhondt, S. (2019). Understanding Social Innovation as An Innovation Process: Applying the Innovation Journey Model. Journal of Business Research, 101, 243-254. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.04.028.
32. Park, H. W., & Leydesdorff, L. (2010). Longitudinal Trends in Networks of University–Industry–Government Relations in South Korea: The Role of Programmatic Incentives. Research Policy, 39(5), 640-649. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2010.02.009.
33. Phong, L. T., Thi Hanh, N.T., Dat, L. T., & Hoang, N. T. How Do Lecturers Upgrade from University-Industry Linkages? Evidence from Vietnam. International Journal of Social Science and Human Research, 4(12). https://doi.org/10.47191/ijsshr/v4-i12-53.
34. Radu, M. C., Schnakovszky, C., Herghelegiu, E., Ciubotariu, V. A., & Cristea, I. (2020). The Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on the Quality of Educational Process: A Student Survey. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 17(21), 7770. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17217770.
35. Ressler, J., & Abratt, R. (2009). Assessing the Impact of University Reputation on Stakeholder Intentions. Journal of General Management, 35(1), 35-45. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 030630700903500104.
36. Sharma, S., & Al Sinawi, S. (2021). Organizational performance influenced by academic service quality: an investigation in public universities in Malaysia. Education Research International, 2021(1), 8408174.
37. Sağbaş, İ., Saruc, N. T., & Tunali, Ç. B. (2018). How Do Universities Contact Their Alumni? Practices of the Best Universities in the World University Rankings. Yükseköğretim Dergisi, 8(3), 334-345. https://doi.org/10.2399/yod.18.030.
38. Skrzypek, C., Diebold, J., Kim, W., & Krause, D. (2019). Mentoring Connections: Implementing A Student–Alumni Mentor Program in Social Work. Journal of Social Work Education, 55(3), 449-459. https://doi.org/10.1080/10437797.2019.1600445.
39. Smith, C. L. (2023). Community‐Engaged Sociology within an University‐Based Research Center: Successes and Challenges in Doing the Work and Meeting Outcomes in an Institutional Context. In Sociological Forum. https://doi.org/10.1111/socf.12905.
40. Sugiharto, D. P. S., Almanik, Y. I. A., & Wiyarni, W. (2023). The Influence of Service Quality and Company Image on Customer Satisfaction and Word of Mouth. International Journal of Scientific Research and Management, 11(02), 4516–4527. https://doi.org/10.18535/ijsrm/v11i02.em01.
41. Tomlinson, M. (2018). Conceptions of the Value of Higher Education in A Measured Market. Higher Education, 75(4), 711-727. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-017-0165-6.
42. Vives, A. (2022). Social and Environmental Responsibility in Small and Medium Enterprises in Latin America. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781351288484.
43. Yigitcanlar, T., Desouza, K. C., Butler, L., & Roozkhosh, F. (2020). Contributions and Risks of Artificial Intelligence (AI) in Building Smarter Cities: Insights from A Systematic Review of the Literature. Energies, 13(6), 1473. https://doi.org/10.3390/en13061473.