INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)

ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue XI November 2025

Internalizing ESG: Validating Psychological Drivers as Leading Non-

Financial Indicators (NFIs) In University Sustainability

Rosmawati Mahfar^*., Sakinah Mohamed Tajularifin., Rosita Husain., Halimi Poniran., Zulkiflee Abd

Rahim

Faculty of Business and Accountancy, Universiti Selangor, Malaysia

DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.47772/IJRISS.2025.91100086

Received: 13 November 2025; Accepted: 21 November 2025; Published: 29 November 2025

ABSTRACT

This study addresses a critical accountability gap in contemporary sustainability reporting by empirically

examining the internal psychological factors that can serve as reliable leading Non-Financial Indicators (NFIs)

for predicting Pro-Environmental Behaviour (PEB). Currently, institutional sustainability practices suffer from

an over-reliance on lagging, retrospective output indicators that inherently fail to provide the predictive, timely,

and actionable insights crucial for effective institutional governance and proactive policy intervention.

Therefore, this research empirically validates whether internal psychological elements, categorised as normative,

value-based, and cognitive drivers, can serve as reliable leading NFIs for PEB among students in Higher

Learning Institutions (HLIs) in Malaysia. A quantitative, cross-sectional survey was conducted, collecting data

from 338 university students using stratified sampling. The analysis employed Partial Least Squares Structural

Equation Modelling (PLS-SEM), and the results revealed a critical dual challenge for behavioural governance.

Personal Norms emerged as the most significant positive driver of PEB, confirming that intrinsic moral

commitment is the primary control mechanism. Conversely, Social Norms exhibited a significant negative

influence, indicating that PEB is currently perceived as a cultural barrier or outlier behaviour subject to peer

disapproval. Other measured drivers, including General Values, Attitude toward PEB, and Environmental

Awareness, were found to be statistically weak or insignificant predictors. This research provides a crucial

methodological contribution by substantiating these internal psychological elements as measurable, forward-

looking NFIs. The findings recommend a strategic shift for HLIs, prioritising high-impact Moral Reinforcement

interventions to strengthen Personal Norms over traditionally ineffective, awareness-based campaigns. The

study’s core proposition is the formal inclusion of validated NFIs into governance dashboards, thereby enhancing

the credibility and predictive capability of sustainability and ESG performance reporting. Furthermore, this study

offers valuable insights for policymakers seeking to operationalise behavioural indicators within broader

environmental governance systems.

Keywords: Non-Financial Indicators, Pro-Environmental Behaviour, ESG Reporting, Internal Psychological

Drivers, Sustainability Reporting

INTRODUCTION

Background of the Study: The Imperative for Behavioural ESG Metrics

The escalating global risks of climate change, resource depletion, and environmental pollution have intensified

the commitment to Sustainable Development (SD) worldwide. In this context, corporate accountability is

increasingly guided by Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) frameworks, requiring comprehensive

disclosure beyond traditional financial statements. For organisations such as HLIs, demonstrating ESG integrity

is essential, not only because of their significant operational impact but also due to their central role in developing

future societal leaders (Steg & Vlek, 2009).

Central to an HLI's environmental and social performance is the collective PEB of its stakeholders, particularly

its students. PEB, which includes daily activities such as efficient resource use (air conditioning, lighting), waste

management, and responsible consumption, serves as a crucial mechanism for achieving operational efficiency

Page 1051

www.rsisinternational.org

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)

ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue XI November 2025

and reducing environmental externalities. The consistent adoption of PEB functions as a pervasive internal

control system, translating institutional policy intent into tangible environmental outcomes. Therefore, HLIs are

uniquely positioned to measure, influence, and report on these behaviours as part of their comprehensive

sustainability strategy. The challenge lies in developing metrics that effectively capture the behavioural inputs

that precede and predict material environmental performance.

Problem Statement: The Accountability Gap in Sustainability Reporting

Current sustainability accounting and ESG reporting frameworks suffer from a critical accountability gap, rooted

in a pervasive over-reliance on lagging output indicators (e.g., aggregate carbon emissions, water usage)

(Papaspyropoulos & Karamanolis, 2016; Sun, 2025). While these retrospective metrics are necessary for

compliance and historical disclosure, they inherently fail to provide the timely, predictive, and actionable

insights required for effective organizational governance, policy effectiveness, or robust external assurance.

This systemic shortfall highlights an urgent need to identify and validate leading NFIs that focus specifically on

human capital inputs. In the context of HLIs, this is profoundly critical, as students represent the future

generation of leaders and professionals whose sustained behaviour is essential for achieving broader societal

sustainable development goals. Consequently, for HLIs to secure genuine sustainability and enhance their ESG

credibility, they are strongly recommended to successfully influence and change student behaviour (i.e. PEB).

However, institutional efforts are frequently undermined by a persistent Knowledge-Action Gap, where students

demonstrate high environmental awareness yet fail to consistently translate this awareness into PEB (Colombo

et al., 2023; Parker & Prabawa-Sear, 2020).

This ongoing gap suggests that reliance on simple awareness campaigns is inefficient. To effectively bridge this

gap and internalise ESG values, psychological drivers are to be acknowledged and validated as strong leading

indicators that influence sustained PEB. This study addresses this theoretical and practical gap by empirically

examining the influence of these internal psychological drivers, thereby integrating these factors as leading NFIs

within a quantifiable framework for HLI governance and robust ESG assurance.

Research Objectives

The main objective of this research is to empirically investigate the internal psychological factors influencing

PEB and to translate the significant findings into a quantifiable framework for developing behavioural NFIs.

The specific objectives of the study are:

1. To empirically examine the predictive influence of core internal psychological drivers (personal norms,

general values, social norms, attitude towards PEB, and environmental awareness) on students' daily PEB.

2. To develop practical, data-driven recommendations and NFI strategies for HLIs to enhance student PEB,

thereby strengthening their sustainability governance and ESG assurance.

Research Questions

Aligned to generate actionable NFIs, the study seeks to answer the following research questions:

1. How do core internal psychological drivers (personal norms, general values, social norms, attitudes towards

PEB, and environmental awareness) significantly influence the daily PEB of students in HLIs?

2. What evidence-based practical strategies and behavioural NFIs can HLIs implement to effectively foster PEB,

thereby contributing to robust sustainability accounting and ESG governance?

Significance of the Study

This research paper makes three distinct and significant contributions to the fields of Sustainability Accounting,

ESG Governance, and Environmental Psychology:

Page 1052

www.rsisinternational.org

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)

ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue XI November 2025

1. Methodological Contribution to NFI Development: This study provides the empirical validation of

psychological constructs as quantifiable, leading NFIs for the environmental pillar of ESG. By establishing

the predictive strength of internal drivers on behaviour, it provides a statistical basis for incorporating an

"Attitude Score" or "Personal Norm Index" directly into institutional leading NFIs, thereby improving the

quality and measurability of human capital performance disclosure.

2. Enhancing Governance and Assurance: The findings provide HLI governance structures with a data-driven

model to identify the most impactful leverage points for resource allocation. Rather than investing blindly in

generic campaigns, institutions can target interventions that strengthen specific, high-impact psychological

drivers (e.g., Personal Norms), ensuring greater assurance of the efficacy of their internal controls for

sustainability.

3. Contextual Insight and Policy Relevance: By focusing on the unique HLI context in Selangor, Malaysia, the

research provides culturally and institutionally relevant insights. These findings directly support local and

national sustainability agendas (Ganapathy, 2016) and offer a blueprint for other universities participating in

global rankings (e.g., UI Green Metric) by providing measurable human capital metrics.

Scope and Limitation of the Study

The geographical and demographic scope of this study is confined to undergraduate students enrolled at

Universiti Selangor (UNISEL), Bestari Jaya campus. The core constructs examined are the five internal

psychological variables (Personal Norms, General Values, Social Norms, Attitude toward PEB, and

Environmental Awareness), all influencing seven specific daily environmental practices. This publication

focuses on establishing the predictive validity of these internal drivers for NFI development. Although the

research employs rigorous quantitative analysis (PLS-SEM) on a large, stratified sample, caution is advised

when generalising results to institutions with markedly different cultural or infrastructural contexts.

Nevertheless, the NFI approach based on internal drivers is expected to have broad methodological applicability.

LITERATURE REVIEW AND THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

The Nexus of Behaviour, Accountability, and Sustainability Reporting (SR)

The current shift in corporate reporting from financial performance to holistic ESG disclosure has increased the

demand for reliable non-financial data (Eccles et al., 2014). For an organisation to claim genuine sustainability

performance, its reporting should go beyond mere compliance (such as reporting energy consumption) to

demonstrate the underlying organisational controls and human capital inputs that enable or hinder sustainable

practices. This includes HLIs, which, given their role in shaping societal norms, are under increasing pressure

to demonstrate the effectiveness of their sustainability policies (Sewak et al., 2021).

A major challenge in sustainability accounting is the assurance deficit surrounding non-financial metrics. Unlike

financial data, which is governed by strict rules, non-financial data, particularly those related to the "Social" and

"Environmental" pillars, often lack consistent measurement protocols. There is an over-reliance on lagging

indicators (e.g., waste generated) and a lack of leading indicators that predict future performance and provide

timely feedback for management intervention. This study proposes that the internal psychological state of

students, as key agents of institutional environmental impact, can be quantified and used as robust, leading NFIs,

thereby directly addressing the assurance deficit by mapping inputs to expected outputs. Studies in similar

institutional settings have also measured behavioural aspects in relation to sustainable outcomes (Blok et al.,

2015).

Psychological constructs such as attitudes, subjective norms, and perceived behavioural control are significant

predictors of PEB. The Theory of Planned Behaviour (TPB) has been extensively used to explain these

relationships. Studies on environmental conservation behaviour show that individuals with positive

environmental attitudes and beliefs are more likely to intend and choose to protect the environment. Research

consistently highlights attitude as a key factor shaping PEB, with evidence showing that it significantly

influences conservation actions both at home and in the workplace (Akhir et al., 2022).

Page 1053

www.rsisinternational.org

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)

ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue XI November 2025

Psychological constructs are critical in understanding and promoting PEB due to their direct influence on

individual motivations, attitudes, and social norms. While structural and operational factors are important, they

often do not address the underlying psychological drivers that motivate individuals to engage in sustainable

practices. Therefore, focusing on psychological constructs can lead to more effective and targeted interventions

for promoting PEB (Akhir et al., 2022; Ebrahimi et al., 2024).

Theoretical Lens: Behavioural Antecedents as Intrinsic Management Control Systems

To situate internal psychological drivers within the sustainability accounting framework, this study adopts the

perspective of Management Control Systems (MCS). MCS theory states that controls are mechanisms designed

to increase the likelihood of achieving organisational goals (Malmi & Brown, 2008). In the context of

environmental performance, institutional policies (such as mandates to recycle or rules against excessive

printing) serve as formal or diagnostic controls. However, for these controls to be effective in daily discretionary

activities such as PEB, they should be supported by strong intrinsic controls held by the individual. Intrinsic

control refers to the internal mechanisms and motivations that govern an individual's behaviour and decision-

making processes. This concept encompasses various aspects, including intrinsic motivation, cognitive control,

and self-regulation. Intrinsic motivation is a dominant factor in encouraging PEB. Studies show that individuals

with higher intrinsic motivation are more likely to engage in behaviours that benefit the environment, such as

recycling, conserving resources, and supporting environmental policies (Sharpe et al., 2021; Silvi & Padilla,

2021). Intrinsic control leads to more lasting PEB because it builds long-term commitment (Kácha & Ruggeri,

2019), strengthens self-efficacy (Hua & Mi, 2025), and enhances personal agency (Chiang et al., 2019).

Behavioural models, such as the Theory of Planned Behaviour (TPB) (Ajzen, 1991) and the Value-Belief-Norm

(VBN) Theory (Stern et al., 1999), provide the theoretical foundation for these intrinsic controls. These theories

explain that an individual's decision to perform a behaviour is driven not only by rational knowledge, but also

by deep-seated personal values, moral obligations (norms), and perceived social pressure. The application of

these models is relevant even in specific local contexts to understand sustainability intentions (Empidi & Emang,

2021). By positioning the five internal variables (Values, Norms, Attitude, Awareness) as intrinsic feed-forward

control mechanisms, this research paper aims to provide a diagnostic tool. For example, a high measured

'Personal Norm' score serves as a leading NFI, indicating a high probability of compliance with formal

environmental policies and allowing governance to proactively assess and adjust resource allocation for

behavioural interventions.

Deep Antecedents: General Values and Personal Norms

General values refer to abstract, desirable goals that guide an individual’s life and environmental actions. The

VBN theory highlights that biospheric values (caring for nature) and altruistic values (caring for others) are

fundamental determinants that activate environmental concern, serving as the deep-seated, stable foundation for

PEB (Stern et al., 1999). In an HLI context, strong biospheric values among students serve as an important NFI

of human capital quality, particularly in shaping ESG behaviour, indicating an innate predisposition towards the

institution's environmental goals.

Personal norms, or moral obligations, refer to an individual's sense of moral responsibility to perform a specific

action (Schwartz, 1992). Personal norms are often considered the most powerful psychological predictor, as they

connect general values to concrete behaviour by internalising a moral cost for non-compliance. In accounting

terms, a strong personal norm represents a highly effective internalised control mechanism, whereby the

individual enforces the policy themselves. This study hypothesises that personal norms will be the most

significant predictor, reflecting the depth of individual commitment to institutional sustainability targets.

Proximal Predictors: Social Norms and Attitude toward Pro-Environmental Behaviour

While values and personal norms are deep antecedents, social norms and attitudes towards PEB serve as more

immediate, proximal drivers of PEB, which are often easier for management to influence through

communication and feedback.

Page 1054

www.rsisinternational.org

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)

ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue XI November 2025

Social norms refer to the perceived standards of behaviour within a specific social group. Descriptive norms

(what others do) and injunctive norms (what others approve of) are crucial in the collective environment of a

university campus (Cialdini, 2003). Descriptive norms often outperform injunctive norms in encouraging

behaviours like donations to environmental causes (Hamann et al., 2015; Ren et al., 2025). When these

behaviours are visible, their influence through social norms becomes even stronger (Vesely & Klockner, 2018).

University campuses serve as effective environments for promoting PEB due to the concentration of individuals

and the potential for social influence. Interventions on campuses often use social norms to encourage behaviours

like energy conservation, waste management, and sustainable consumption.

In ESG reporting, collective adherence to PEB is often measured through campus-wide resource usage. This

study aims to demonstrate that the perceived social norm itself can be measured as a leading NFI. A high

measured social norm score indicates successful institutional cultural control, suggesting that management has

effectively leveraged peer pressure to minimise environmentally detrimental behaviours such as waste or

excessive energy use.

Attitude toward PEB is defined as an individual's favourable or unfavourable evaluation of performing a specific

pro-environmental action (Ajzen, 1991). A positive attitude reduces the perceived 'cost' of engaging in PEB and

increases the likelihood of action. Institutional interventions, such as successful waste separation programmes

and clear communication on energy savings, are intended to enhance this attitude. Therefore, a high measured

'Attitude Score' serves as an NFI, validating the effectiveness of management’s communication and programme

design.

Environmental Awareness and the Knowledge-Action Gap

Environmental awareness refers to an individual's knowledge of environmental issues, consequences, and

solutions. Historically, it was assumed that greater knowledge directly leads to greater action. However,

extensive literature highlights the Knowledge-Action Gap, showing that high environmental awareness often

does not translate into consistent PEB (Colombo et al., 2023; Lin et al., 2025). This gap poses a significant risk

for governance, as investment in awareness campaigns yields poor behavioural returns (Parker & Prabawa-Sear,

2020).

This study re-examines the role of awareness as a precursor to more influential drivers such as personal norms

and attitude, rather than as a direct predictor of behaviour. Its inclusion is crucial for NFI development, as it

enables HLIs to measure the initial informational input (awareness score) against the actual behavioural output

(PEB score), thereby auditing the efficiency of their knowledge dissemination efforts.

Moreover, contemporary research emphasises that environmental awareness does not operate in isolation; rather,

it interacts dynamically with other psychological constructs that ultimately shape behaviour. Awareness can

strengthen personal norms, influence attitudes, and enhance perceived behavioural control, thereby indirectly

contributing to PEB. For example, individuals with high awareness may still fail to act unless they also

experience moral obligation, strong attitudes, or supportive social norms (Bamberg & Möser, 2007). In this

sense, awareness functions as an enabling condition that amplifies the effects of other determinants, suggesting

that its influence on behaviour is contingent upon its integration with broader motivational and social factors.

Pro-Environmental Behaviour

Pro-environmental behaviour (PEB) is commonly defined as deliberate actions undertaken to protect the

environment and support sustainability outcomes (Tian & Liu, 2022). These behaviours function as non-financial

indicators of individuals’ environmental responsibility, reflected through practices such as conserving energy,

recycling, minimising waste, and making responsible consumption choices. Because of its relevance to

understanding how people contribute to environmental well-being, PEB continues to attract strong interest across

various academic fields, particularly in efforts to address global environmental challenges.

General values serve as a deep motivational foundation for PEB. These values shape how individuals interpret

environmental issues and determine whether they view environmental protection as a moral priority. Within the

Page 1055

www.rsisinternational.org

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)

ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue XI November 2025

Value-Belief-Norm framework, such values activate environmental beliefs that strengthen personal norms,

which are internalised moral obligations to act responsibly toward the environment (Nkaizirwa et al., 2022;

Hidalgo-Crespo et al., 2023; Ly, 2024; Prasetyo et al., 2024). Personal norms have been consistently shown to

exert a direct influence on PEB, functioning as a strong psychological driver even when external incentives are

weak. Thus, general values initiate the motivational process, while personal norms translate these values into

concrete environmental actions.

Social norms also play a critical role by shaping behaviour through social expectations and perceived approval

from others. These normative pressures can directly influence pro-environmental intentions and are often

internalised into personal norms that further strengthen behaviour (Cedrún-Vázquez et al., 2025; Kim & Seock,

2019; Ly, 2024). In parallel, attitudes toward environmental actions, whether an individual views them positively

or negatively, can predict behavioural intentions, although attitudes often exert a weaker influence compared to

normative and control factors. Within frameworks such as the Theory of Planned Behaviour, attitudes work

alongside subjective norms to shape an individual’s willingness to engage in PEB. Together, social norms

provide external motivational cues while attitudes reflect internal evaluations, both contributing to variations in

pro-environmental actions.

Environmental awareness adds another important layer by shaping how individuals understand environmental

problems, their consequences, and possible solutions. Awareness does not simply precede behaviour; rather, it

interacts with norms and attitudes by heightening perceived responsibility and reinforcing the belief that

individual actions matter (Ly, 2024). Higher awareness is associated with stronger behavioural intentions and

can moderate the relationship between moral norms and behaviour by providing the cognitive basis for informed

action. Although awareness alone may not close the knowledge-action gap, it enhances the effect of other

psychological drivers, making individuals more likely to translate their environmental concerns and moral

obligations into consistent PEB.

Synthesis and Hypotheses Development

Based on the established theoretical framework of behavioural models and their reinterpretation as intrinsic

management control systems, this research hypothesises that the five core internal psychological drivers are

significant predictors of PEB. The statistical validation of these relationships provides the empirical basis

required to translate these constructs into reliable accountability metrics for ESG reporting.

The following hypotheses will be tested:

H₁: Personal Norms positively and significantly influence students' PEB.

H₂: General Values positively and significantly influence students' PEB.

H₃: Social Norms positively and significantly influence students' PEB.

H₄: Attitude toward PEB positively and significantly influences students' PEB.

H₅: Environmental Awareness positively and significantly influences students' PEB.

THE RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

Introduction: Linking Behavioural Metrics to ESG Accountability

This section outlines the research design and systematic procedures used to investigate the relationship between

students’ psychological drivers and PEB within an HLI context. The methodological approach aims not only to

validate the psychological model but also to provide the empirical foundation for translating these intangible

drivers into verifiable NFIs for institutional ESG reporting. This chapter presents the research design, sampling

strategy, instrumentation, and the PLS-SEM analysis used for model testing. The study focuses on the Universiti

Selangor (UNISEL) Bestari Jaya campus as its specific context.

Page 1056

www.rsisinternational.org

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)

ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue XI November 2025

The Research Design and Approach

This study employs a quantitative survey design to examine the relationships and predictive patterns between

constructs on PEB in the context of HLIs. This approach is suitable for capturing behavioural tendencies at a

single point in time and evaluating the associations between the constructs. In line with the study’s objective to

validate internal psychological constructs as key leading NFIs for ESG accountability purposes, this approach

enables the systematic measurement of intangible behavioural drivers that cannot be directly observed but are

crucial to sustainable governance.

The PLS-SEM technique was used as the analytical method because of its prediction-oriented approach and

suitability for theory-building research. PLS-SEM is recognised as a robust method for analysing complex

models with multiple latent constructs, especially when data do not meet the assumption of normality (Hair et

al., 2021). Most importantly, the use of PLS-SEM aligns with this study’s objective of identifying significant

behavioural predictors that can be translated into behavioural accountability metrics as the main NFIs in ESG

reporting by HLIs. This method, therefore, supports both the theoretical contribution and the practical application

of ESG-NFI in this study.

Target Population and Sampling

This study was conducted at Universiti Selangor (UNISEL), Bestari Jaya campus, Malaysia. The campus was

chosen because it offers a suitable ecosystem for examining PEB, as students represent a key population

influencing daily resource consumption patterns such as energy use, waste generation, and water consumption.

The target population comprised all full-time students residing or studying at the UNISEL Bestari Jaya campus

during the data collection period. A stratified random sampling method was used to ensure balanced

representation across study levels (Foundation, Diploma, and Bachelor’s Degree) and academic faculties. This

sampling approach enhanced the generalisability of the study results and reflected the diversity of behaviours

within the student population. Based on Cochran's formula, with a confidence level of 95% and a sampling error

of 5%, the recommended minimum sample size was 353. The study achieved 338 valid responses, amounting to

96% of the required sample. The sample remains acceptable for PLS-SEM, provided that the model is not overly

complex (Hair et al., 2021). Data collection took place between October and November 2024 using self-

administered questionnaires. Before the main study, a pilot study involving 32 students was conducted to ensure

the clarity and reliability of the instrument, and minor revisions were made based on the feedback received. A

summary of the respondents’ demographic profile is presented in Table 1.

Table 1: Demographic Profile of Respondents

Variables Items

Frequency

273

64

Percent

81

Age

17 - 21 years old

22 to 26 years old

Total

19

337

112

225

337

237

86

100

Gender

Race

Male

33.2

66.8

100

Female

Total

Malay

70.3

25.5

0.6

Indian

Chinese

2

Page 1057

www.rsisinternational.org

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)

ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue XI November 2025

Others

12

3.6

Total

337

46

100

13.6

57.6

25.2

Faculty

PUSAT PENGAJIAN ASASI DAN UMUM (PADU)

FAKULTI PENDIDIKAN DAN SAINS SOSIAL (FPSS)

194

FAKULTI

KOMUNIKASI,

SENI

VISUAL

& 85

PENGKOMPUTERAN (FKSVP)

FAKULTI KEJURUTERAAN DAN SAINS HAYAT (FKSH)

10

3

FAKULTI PERNIAGAAN DAN PERAKAUNAN (FPP)

2

0.6

Total

337

46

100

13.6

58.2

28.2

100

87.5

12.5

100

Study

Level

Foundation

Diploma

Bachelor Degree

Total

196

95

337

295

42

Accommo Hostel Resident

dation

Non-Resident

Total

337

Pro-Environmental Behaviour (PEB)

The dependent variable, PEB, focuses on specific daily actions undertaken by students that directly impact the

HLI's environmental performance. The seven areas of behaviour measured are as depicted in Table 2.

Table 2: Measurement of Pro-Environmental Behaviour

Behavioural

Domain

Description of Behaviour Items

Resources

Energy Conservation Practices related to reducing energy use on campus, such as Zhang et al. (2021); Zacher

responsible use of air-conditioning, fans, and lighting. & Bissing-Olson (2018)

Printing and Paper Behaviours focused on minimising paper consumption, Barr (2007)

Usage

such as limiting printing, using double-sided printing, and

opting for digital documents.

Single-Use

Reduction

Plastic Actions aimed at reducing plastic consumption, such as Prakash & Pathak (2017)

bringing reusable bottles or reducing the purchase of

bottled drinks.

Sustainable

Environmentally responsible purchasing decisions, Joshi & Rahman (2015);

Consumption Habits including buying eco-friendly products and avoiding Testa et al. (2020)

unnecessary consumption.

Page 1058

www.rsisinternational.org

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)

ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue XI November 2025

Digital

Device Responsible usage of electronic devices to reduce energy, Siero et al. (1989); Yu et al.

Energy Management such as turning off devices when not in use and enabling (2022)

power-saving settings.

Waste Separation and Engagement in recycling, waste sorting, and proper Wan et

al.

(2017);

Recycling

disposal of recyclable materials on campus.

Kollmuss

(2002)

&

Agyeman

Water Usage Habits

Practices related to conserving water, including turning off Dolnicar et al. (2012);

taps properly and avoiding water wastage. Fielding et al. (2012)

Measures (Internal Factor Focus)

The internal constructs influencing PEB were measured using established scales adapted from previous research.

All measurement items for these constructs were rated using a five-point Likert scale, ranging from strongly

disagree (1) to strongly agree (5), as summarized in Table 3.

Table 3: Measurement of Internal Constructs Influencing Pro-Environmental Behaviour

Internal Factors

Constructs

Definition

Key Sources

Personal

Norms

Internal

moral obligation

to

act

in Stern et al. (1999); Van der Werff et al.

(2013); Helferich et al. (2023)

environmentally responsible ways.

General

Values

Enduring principles guiding

(biospheric, altruistic, egoistic).

behaviour Schwartz (1992); Stern et al. (1999); Schultz

et al. (2005)

Social Norms Perceived expectations or behaviours approved Goldstein et al. (2008); Bai & Bai (2020)

by others (descriptive & injunctive norms).

Attitudes

Toward PEB

Positive/negative evaluation of performing Chen & Chai (2010); Chen & Tung (2014);

environmentally friendly actions. Janmaimool & Khajohnmanee (2019)

Environmental Knowledge and understanding of environmental Handoyo et al. (2021, Mkumbachi et al.

Awareness issues and human impact on nature. (2024); Arya & Kumar (2023)

Table 4 presents the mean and standard deviation for each variable related to PEB. Both General Values and

Social Norms recorded the highest mean of 4.14, with relatively low variation in responses. This is followed by

Personal Norms with a mean of 4.06, and Attitudes Toward PEB is 4.02. While the Situation Factors recorded

the lowest mean at 3.75.

Table 4: Descriptive Statistics for Pro-Environmental Behaviour Construct

Construct

Mean

4.06

4.14

4.02

3.95

Standard Deviation

Personal Norms

General Values

1.024

0.0853

0.938

0.822

0.972

Social Norms

Attitudes Toward PEB

Environmental Awareness

Page 1059

www.rsisinternational.org

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)

ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue XI November 2025

The Data Analysis

The hypotheses were tested using structural equation modelling (SEM) with a Partial Least Squares (PLS)

approach. Data were analysed using SmartPLS 3.0 software (Ringle, 2005), with the application of bootstrapping

techniques to assess the significance level of loadings, weights, and path coefficients (Ramayah et al., 2013).

Then followed by a two-stage procedure proposed by Anderson and Gebing (1988), which is a test for validity

and reliability of the measurement model, followed by an assessment of the relationships in the structural model.

The Measurement Model Assessment

The measurement model was assessed for reliability and validity before conducting the structural model analysis.

As shown in Table 5, all items showed outer loading values exceeding 0.70, while the Composite Reliability

(CR) and Cronbach’s Alpha values also exceeded the threshold of 0.7 (Hair et al., 2021). The Average Variance

Extracted (AVE) values for each construct also exceeded 0.5, thus confirming convergent validity (Bagozzi,

1988). Table 6 further shows that the AVE value for each construct is higher than the correlation with other

constructs, confirming discriminant validity according to the criteria of Fornell and Larcker (1981). In addition,

the cross-loading results in Table 7 show that each indicator loads higher on the contract it represents than on

other constructs, confirming the differentiation of constructs as discussed and suggested by Hair (2014).

Table 5: Composite reliability, Outer Loading and Average Variance Extracted

Construct Items

Loading

Composite

Reliability

Cronbach's Alpha

Average

Extracted

Variance

Attitude

towards

PEB

AT1

AT2

AT3

AT5

0.885403

0.878945

0.922202

0.886509

0.905642

0.895247

0.89749

0.916

0.798

0.781

0.713

0.941

0.935

Environme EA1

ntal

Awareness

0.907

0.901

EA2

EA4

EA5

GV1

GV3

GV4

GV7

GV8

LS3

0.83578

General

Values

0.830597

0.845445

0.872815

0.853514

0.8177

0.925

0.938876

0.921277

0.867885

LS5

PEB

PEB_P1

0.891

0.836

0.671

Page 1060

www.rsisinternational.org

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)

ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue XI November 2025

PEB_P2

0.864103

0.791143

0.748345

0.87274

PEB_P3

PEB_P4

PN1

Personal

Norms

0.9

0.865

0.694

PN3

0.901803

0.718412

0.827956

0.89653

PN4

PN5

SF2

Social

Norms

SN4

0.88045

0.928

0.867

SN5

0.978891

Table 6: Discriminant Validity

Constructs

Attitude

towards PEB Awareness

Environmental

General PEB

Values

Personal

Norms

Social

Norms

Attitude towards PEB

0.893

Environmental

Awareness

0.679

0.884

General Values

PEB

0.631

0.309

0.455

0.488

0.565

0.226

0.369

0.387

0.844

0.227

0.51

0.819

Personal Norms

Social Norms

0.374 0.833

0.147 0.578

0.444

0.931

Table 7: Outer Loading

Items

Attitude

towards PEB

Environmental

Awareness

General

Values

PEB

Personal

Norms

Social

Norms

AT1

AT2

AT3

AT5

EA1

EA2

0.885

0.879

0.922

0.887

0.906

0.895

Page 1061

www.rsisinternational.org

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)

ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue XI November 2025

EA4

EA5

GV1

GV3

GV4

GV7

GV8

PEB

PN1

PN3

PN4

PN5

SN4

SN5

0.897

0.836

0.831

0.845

0.873

0.854

0.818

0.868

0.864

0.791

0.748

0.873

0.902

0.718

0.828

0.880

0.979

Structural Model Assessment

The structural model was evaluated using a bootstrapping procedure with 1,000 resamples to obtain the t-values.

Table 8 presents the structural model results that showed significant differences in the strength and direction of

the relationship between internal psychological factors and PEB among students. Personal Norms emerged as

the strongest and most significant predictor (β = 0.386, p<0.001), with a clearly positive 95% confidence interval,

confirming that an internalized sense of moral responsibility is a key driver for promoting sustainable practices.

Conversely, Social Norms demonstrated a moderately significant negative influence on PEB (β = -0.236,

p<0.001), thus suggesting that social pressures in the current context have the potential to hinder, rather than

support, sustainable behaviour.

Table 8: Significance Testing Results of the Structural Model

Hypothesis

Path

Sample

Standard

T statistics 95%

Interval

Confidence P-

values

Coefficient mean (M) deviation

(STDEV)

Lower

-0.056

Upper

0.270

Attitude towards PEB - 0.111

> PEB

0.106

0.082

1.353

0.176

Page 1062

www.rsisinternational.org

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)

ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue XI November 2025

Environmental

-0.013

-0.010

0.063

0.202

-0.132

0.113

0.840

Awareness -> PEB

General Values -> PEB -0.073

-0.068

0.383

0.060

0.061

1.208

6.325

-0.185

0.257

0.052

0.498

0.227

0.000

Personal Norms -> 0.386

PEB

Social Norms -> PEB

-0.236

-0.222

0.065

3.602

-0.345

-0.082

0.000

Discussion on Data Analysis and Findings

This study examines the factors influencing PEB among students of HLIs, focusing on the predictive influence

of five internal psychological factors 1: Personal Norms, 2: General Values, 3: Social Norms, 4: Attitudes

Towards PEB, and 5: Environmental Awareness on daily environmentally friendly practices. The results show

that Personal Norms are the most significant predictor of PEB (β = 0.386, p<0.001), highlighting the importance

of internalized moral responsibility in motivating students to adopt sustainable behaviours.

On the contrary, Social Norms show a significant negative relationship with PEB (β = -0.236, p<0.001),

suggesting that social pressures can sometimes prevent individuals from taking environmentally friendly actions.

Other factors, that are the Attitudes towards PEB, Environmental Awareness, and General Values, showed weak

or insignificant effects, indicating that their influence may require stronger support to influence daily behaviour.

Critically, the results revealed that Social Norms can suppress PEB, highlighting the complexity of the

interaction between individual motivation and social pressures, reminding educators and institutions that

developing a sustainable culture requires an approach that is sensitive to social dynamics. The finding is

consistent with previous research by Cedrún-Vázquez et al. (2025), Wu et al. (2024), and Kácha (2021), who

confirmed the role of Social Norms as important catalysts for the formation of pro-environmental intentions and

behaviours through descriptive and injunctive norms. However, the contribution of this study shows that Social

Norms can influence individuals’ perceptions of what is commonly done and accepted by society.

Data-Driven Recommendations For Enhancing Student Peb And Strengthening Esg Assurance

This section addresses the second research objective, which is to develop practical, data-driven recommendations

and NFI strategies for HLIs to enhance student PEB, thereby strengthening overall sustainability governance

and ESG assurance. The recommendations are directly based on the empirical findings of the study, particularly

the dominant role of Personal Norms and the unexpected, yet significant, negative influence of Social Norms.

The research confirms that internal psychological factors are quantifiable predictors, making them ideal leading

NFIs. The structural model reveals a critical dual challenge, which suggests that HLIs should strategically

leverage the strong internal moral driver (Personal Norms) while simultaneously addressing the negative cultural

barrier posed by Social Norms. By measuring these leading NFI inputs, HLIs can proactively assess the

effectiveness of their governance and internal control environment before the lagging environmental outcomes

(e.g., waste volume, energy consumption) are realised.

Based on the findings of this study, several evidence-based strategies and behavioural NFIs are recommended

for HLIs to effectively foster PEB and strengthen sustainability accounting and ESG governance. The empirical

results require a fundamental shift in intervention strategy, moving away from reliance on general information

(Awareness on PEB) and external social pressure, which is currently suppressing PEB. Thus, the strategies of

HLI should move toward reinforcing individual moral commitment and re-engineering the campus culture and

environment.

Targeted Interventions for Personal Norms (The Dominant Moral Driver)

Given that Personal Norms emerged as the strongest predictor of PEB, HLIs should consider giving greater

attention to strategies that help nurture students’ sense of moral responsibility and internal motivation.

Approaches such as integrating ethical and environmental themes into the curriculum, encouraging reflective

Page 1063

www.rsisinternational.org

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)

ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue XI November 2025

learning, and offering community-based sustainability activities may contribute to strengthening students’

personal accountability toward environmental action. Corresponding behavioural NFIs may include measures

such as the percentage of students participating in sustainability-oriented initiatives, self-reported environmental

commitment indices, and frequency of voluntary pro-environmental acts on campus.

Since Personal Norms are often the most potent predictor, interventions should shift from rational appeals

(knowledge) to moral and ethical appeals (Schwartz, 1992; Steg & Vlek, 2009). Other actions under Personal

Norms that can enhance PEB among students are:

1. Formal Ethics Integration in Academic Curriculum: Integrate modules on sustainability ethics and personal

accountability into the first-year curriculum or orientation program. Crucially, these sessions should ethically

frame environmental action as an intrinsic moral duty to the campus, local community, and future generations,

rather than simply a matter of compliance with HLI rules, while respecting student autonomy in their decision-

making.

2. Moral Framing in Communication: All sustainability campaigns in HLI are advised to utilise a moral framing

that links PEB directly to the student’s identity as an ethical stakeholder. For example, replace technical

messaging like "Reduce kWh" with ethical appeals such as "Your decision to switch off the light fulfils your

moral duty to conserve shared resources." This must be done with transparency to avoid manipulative

pressure.

3. Measurable Commitment Ceremonies: Introduce a voluntary, non-punitive Sustainability Pledge during

registration, focusing on the moral obligation to protect the campus and the community, rather than rules

compliance. This external commitment strengthens the internal norm. The non-punitive and voluntary nature

of this pledge is paramount to upholding ethical standards and promoting genuine internalisation.

4. Role Model Integration: Actively recruit and promote students who demonstrate high PEB and articulate their

actions as a moral duty, leveraging their example as an aspirational moral standard.

Interpretation and Nuance of Social Norms

The finding that Social Norms negatively influence PEB (β = -0.236) is highly significant but requires careful

interpretation, as it runs counter to established theory. While the result strongly indicates that students perceive

PEB as an isolating or culturally discouraged activity, this complex relationship must be examined through

alternative lenses. The negative association may stem from factors such as misperceived norms (students

overestimating peer apathy toward sustainability), genuine subgroup differences in norm adherence (where the

peer influence is only negative in specific faculties or cohorts), or potential measurement bias related to social

desirability in self-reported data. Future qualitative research is explicitly advised to fully explore the underlying

reasons for this critical cultural barrier.

By measuring these leading NFI inputs, HLIs can proactively assess the effectiveness of their governance and

internal control environment before the lagging environmental outcomes (e.g., waste volume, energy

consumption) are realised.

Mitigating the Social Norms Barrier (The Cultural Risk)

The significant negative path coefficient for Social Norms suggests that PEB is currently perceived as an outlier

behaviour with high social cost that is being viewed as overly inconvenient or subject to peer judgment.

Interventions should focus on removing this perceived social penalty, and HLIs may therefore design positive

social influence mechanisms. Programs like peer-led sustainability campaigns, green ambassador programs, and

visible recognition systems can reward environmentally friendly behaviours. These interventions can help

reshape social norms to align with sustainability goals. Relevant accountability metrics could include peer

influence scores, student perception surveys on environmental culture, and participation rates in sustainability

recognition programs.

Page 1064

www.rsisinternational.org

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)

ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue XI November 2025

Social Norms are effective in the collective environment of a university. The HLI can intentionally shape the

perception of what is "normal" and "approved" (Cialdini, 2003). Other actions under Social Norms that can

increase PEB among students in HLIs are:

1. Visible Descriptive Norms: Publicize true, positive behaviours. For example, instead of focusing on poor

recycling rates, state, "85% of UNISEL students bring reusable water bottles to class." This leverages the

descriptive norm to make the desired behaviour seem common and expected.

2. Peer-to-Peer Intervention: Empower student sustainability clubs to run campaigns, as peer influence is more

impactful than top-down administration directives. This supports the injunctive norm (what is approved) by

demonstrating social sanction for PEB.

Managing Weak/Insignificant NFIs (General Values, Attitude and Awareness)

Although Attitudes toward PEB, Environmental Awareness, and General Values exhibited comparatively

weaker effects, their potential relevance over the longer term should not be overlooked. The modest influence

of these factors suggests that information provision and positive messaging alone may not be enough to

encourage consistent behavioural change. HLIs may therefore consider strengthening ongoing environmental

education, incorporating experiential learning opportunities, and refining communication strategies to better

support the translation of awareness into practice. Possible behavioural NFIs applied with care and without

implying direct influence could include environmental literacy indicators, records of sustainability-related

workshops, and student self-reports of confidence in applying sustainable practices.

These factors are strongly recommended to serve as preconditions or diagnostics, not primary intervention

targets, for resource allocation. Recommendations should focus on improving the situational context to make

the desired behaviour the default choice. Actions that can increase PEB among students in HLIs are:

1. Infrastructure as a Nudge (Environmental Awareness): Systematically audit and improve campus facilities to

lower the effort required for PEB. These examples include locating accessible, clearly marked recycling bins

next to every general waste bin (not distant from them) and pre-setting photocopiers and computer lab printers

to double-sided printing as the default option.

2. Instantaneous, Positive Reinforcement (General Values): Implement digital dashboards in residential colleges

showing real-time, comparative energy or water consumption, coupled with positive recognition for high-

performing floors or blocks, thereby reinforcing the positive attitude towards resource conservation.

3. Focus on Specificity (Attitude towards PEB): Interventions aimed at attitude are strongly recommended to be

hyper-specific and linked to immediate benefit. For example, "Using the smart tap saves water and reduces

campus operational costs, which benefits your facilities fund," rather than the generic message of “saving the

planet."

Strengthening Sustainability Governance and ESG Assurance

The implementation of these NFIs provides a robust mechanism for the governance structure to enhance its ESG

assurance capability, moving beyond basic compliance reporting. The leading metrics are essential for enhancing

ESG assurance, particularly in the behavioural domain (Social and Environmental pillars). Some methods that

can strengthen the sustainability governance and ESG assurance in HLIs are as below:

1. Formal Integration into the Governance Dashboard: The Internalized Obligation Index and Program

Receptivity Score are recommended to be formally included in the quarterly reports provided to the

University’s Sustainability Committee or Board of Governors. This ensures behavioural performance is

assessed alongside traditional financial and operational metrics.

2. Enhanced Behavioural Control Reporting: The validated NFIs provide a quantifiable measure of the HLI’s

human capital control environment within the "Social" pillar of ESG. Assurance providers can use the

trending NFI scores as evidence to support or to verify the efficacy and commitment of the HLI’s internal

Page 1065

www.rsisinternational.org

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)

ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue XI November 2025

controls regarding student behaviour, thereby supporting the leading NFIs disclosure. This approach offers a

basis for improved confidence in behaviourial data as a leading NFI in sustainability reporting.

3. Resource Allocation Strategy: Governance can utilize the relative predictive strength (path coefficients) of

the NFIs (e.g., if Personal Norms are twice as strong as Awareness) to reallocate funds. This guarantees that

resources are directed toward strengthening the most impactful psychological drivers (e.g., moral appeals)

rather than less effective avenues (e.g., generic awareness campaigns), maximizing the return on investment

for sustainability initiatives.

CONCLUSION

Overall, the study underscores the necessity of integrating behavioural insights into a sustainability governance

framework and validating the predictive power of internal psychological drivers over traditional knowledge-

based approaches. By systematically tracking behavioural NFIs aligned with the Theory of Planned Behaviour

and the Value-Belief-Norms Theory, the findings from this Malaysian HLI context indicate that institutions can

not only assess progress in promoting PEB but also embed sustainability as a measurable and reportable

component of their non-financial performance. The study reveals a dual challenge where the HLI should leverage

the strong internal moral driver of Personal Norms while simultaneously mitigating the negative cultural barrier

of Social Norms.

Theoretical Contribution and Empirical Insights

This study offers two significant empirical refinements to the environmental psychology and sustainability

literature, particularly within the HLI setting. Firstly, the primary empirical insight is the dominant predictive

power of Personal Norms, confirming its role as the most robust leading NFI in driving consistent daily PEB.

This finding fundamentally mandates that institutional policy should prioritise the cultivation of internal ethical

commitment (moral obligation) over generic attitude or knowledge campaigns, thereby maximising the return

on behavioural investment.

Secondly, the statistically significant and unexpected negative influence of Social Norms provides a crucial,

context-specific insight into cultural barriers. This result indicates that within the tested HLI culture, PEB is

currently perceived as an outlier behaviour subject to peer disapproval, demonstrating that external social

pressure, typically viewed as a positive motivator, is instead functioning as a significant cultural risk and active

barrier to PEB adoption. Finally, the concurrent finding of the limited direct influence of General Values,

Attitude towards PEB, and Environmental Awareness further reinforces the critical 'Knowledge-Action Gap',

cementing the fact that simple information dissemination alone is ineffective. However, caution is advised

against broad generalisation of these findings without further replication across diverse institutional contexts.

The Core Proposition: Integrating Psychological Drivers as Leading NFIs

Methodologically, this study provides a crucial, data-driven framework for Sustainability Accounting and ESG

Governance. The empirical validation confirms that internal psychological factors are not merely latent variables

but quantifiable predictors, making them ideal Leading NFIs (Kaplan & Norton, 1996). By establishing the

predictive strength of the psychological constructs, the research lays the statistical foundation required to

translate these factors into reliable, leading NFIs and directly addresses the pervasive assurance deficit in non-

financial reporting. Crucially, while the formal inclusion of these validated psychological drivers as key leading

NFIs within the HLI accountability framework is proposed, their deployment as policy instruments (e.g., in

framing or pledges) must be ethically governed. Future policy design based on these NFIs must carefully

navigate the boundaries of student autonomy, explicitly acknowledging the potential for unintended pressure

and prioritising the reinforcement of intrinsic motivation over coercive compliance mechanisms. This

proposition repositions performance measurement by shifting focus from measuring historical outputs to

measuring predictive inputs:

1. Predictive Capability and Assurance: By establishing the predictive strength of Personal Norms and the

cultural risk of Social Norms as measurable NFIs, governance bodies can measure behavioural inputs

Page 1066

www.rsisinternational.org

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)

ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue XI November 2025

proactively rather than merely reacting to environmental outputs. This enables a higher level of credibility

and external assurance in ESG disclosures, as the institution can report on the internal commitment and

behavioural drivers, which are the true markers of an Internalising ESG strategy.

2. Strategic Resource Reallocation: The findings suggest a strategic shift in organisational resource allocation.

Investment is strongly recommended to pivot away from ineffective awareness campaigns and be heavily

weighted toward moral reinforcement that strengthens the NFI (Personal Norms) through targeted ethics

modules and moral framing. Conversely, active cultural risk mitigation is required to normalise PEB and

address the negative influence of Social Norms.

3. Human Capital Accountability: The framework provides robust evidence-based tools necessary to enhance

the credibility and predictive capability of sustainability and ESG performance reporting, particularly by

providing a quantifiable metric for the Social (S) pillar of ESG through the quality of the HLI's human capital

disposition.

In summary, this framework provides a significant methodological contribution by integrating psychological

theory into the performance management architecture, offering HLIs an advanced, quantifiable solution for

robust sustainability accounting and ESG assurance.

Limitations And Future Research

Despite the rigorous quantitative analysis and the development of a robust predictive model, this study is subject

to limitations, primarily its cross-sectional design and the single-institution context. Future research is, therefore,

encouraged to proceed in two critical directions:

Firstly, to address the methodological limitations inherent in cross-sectional data, future studies should consider

employing longitudinal designs to track changes in NFIs scores and PEB adoption over time, thereby

strengthening the empirical foundation for establishing temporal precedence and predictive validity. This level

of analysis is crucial for providing concrete, time-series evidence that justifies the initial resource allocation and

policy implementation.

Secondly, future research is strongly recommended to integrate these internal psychological NFIs from the

current study with the external institutional factors (such as Situational Factors and Leadership Behaviour) that

are concurrently measured. This comprehensive, multi-level modeling approach could establish a truly holistic

control system, providing university governance with the complete map of both the leading internal behaviour

NFIs and the external structural NFIs required for comprehensive and durable sustainable performance.

In conclusion, this research provides HLI governance with the evidence-based tools necessary to treat

behavioural inputs as quantifiable NFI. By prioritizing the cultivation of Personal Norms and the urgent

mitigation of negative Social Norms, HLIs can ensure their sustainability policies are not only well-intended but

are also highly effective, measurable, and ultimately accountable to stakeholders under the modern ESG

reporting mandate.

REFERENCES

1. Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behaviour. Organizational Behaviour and Human Decision

Processes, 50(2), 179–211.

2. Almencion, S. J., Otagan, R. J., Tingal, J. L., & Davin, J. M. (2024). Environmental education and pro-

environmental behaviour among UM Peñaplata college students (Doctoral dissertation).

3. Anderson, J., & Gerbing, D. (1988). Structural equation modelling in practice: a review and

recommended two-step approach. Psychological Bulletin, 103(3), 411-423. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033

2909.103.3.411

4. Arya, B., & Kumar, H. (2023). Value behaviour norm theory approach to predict private sphere pro-

environmental behaviour among university students. Rigas Tehniskas Universitates Zinatniskie Raksti,

27(1), 164-176.

Page 1067

www.rsisinternational.org

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)

ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue XI November 2025

5. Bagozzi, R. P., & Yi, Y. (1988). On the evaluation of structural equation models. Journal of the academy

of marketing science, 16(1), 74-94.

6. Bai, G., & Bai, Y. (2020). Voluntary or forced: different effects of personal and social norms on urban

residents’ environmental protection behaviour. International Journal of Environmental Research and

Public Health, 17(10), 3525.

7. Balundė, D., Juškevičienė, A., & Juškevičius, R. (2020). Factors influencing pro-environmental

behaviour among young people. Rural Economy and Culture, 16(2), 7-19.

8. Barr, S. (2007). Factors influencing environmental attitudes and behaviours: A UK case study of

household waste management. Environment and behaviour, 39(4), 435-473.

9. Blok, V., Wesselink, R., Studynka, O., & Kemp, R. (2015). Encouraging sustainability in the workplace:

A survey on the pro-environmental behaviour of university employees. Journal of Cleaner Production,

106, 55-67.

10. Cedrún-Vázquez, E., Núñez-Ríos, J. E., Sánchez-García, J. Y., Sosa-Gómez, G., & Rojas, O. (2025).

Structural

Equation

Modeling

for

Analyzing

Pro-Environmental

Behaviour

in

Switzerland. Sustainability, 17(8), 3624.

11. Chen, T. B., & Chai, L. T. (2010). Attitude towards the environment and green products: consumers'

perspective. Management science and engineering, 4(2), 27.

12. Chen, M. F., & Tung, P. J. (2014). Developing an extended theory of planned behaviour model to predict

consumers’ intention to visit green hotels. International journal of hospitality management, 36, 221-230.

13. Chiang, Y.-T., Fang, W.-T., Kaplan, U., & Ng, E. (2019). Locus of control: The mediation effect between

emotional stability and pro-environmental behaviour. Sustainability (Switzerland).

14. Cialdini, R. B. (2003). Crafting normative messages to protect the environment. Current Directions in

Psychological Science, 12(4), 105–109.

15. Colombo, S. L., Chiarella, S. G., Lefrançois, C., Fradin, J., Raffone, A., & Simione, L. (2023). Why

knowing about climate change is not enough to change: A perspective paper on the factors explaining

the environmental knowledge-action gap. Sustainability, 15(20), 14859.

16. Dolnicar, S., Hurlimann, A., & Grün, B. (2012). Water conservation behaviour in Australia. Journal of

environmental management, 105, 44-52.

17. Domingues, R. B., & Gonçalves, G. (2020). Assessing environmental attitudes in Portugal using a new

short version of the Environmental Attitudes Inventory. A Journal for Diverse Perspectives on Diverse

Psychological Issues, 39, 629–639.

18. Ebrahimi, M., Zeidi, I. ., Maleki, M. R., & Zeidi, B. . (2024). Explaining the Psychological Variables

Effective on Pro-Environmental Behaviour in the Elementary School Students at Qazvin City:

Application of the Theory of Planned Behaviour. Pajouhan Scientific Journal.

19. Eccles, R. G., Ioannou, I., & Serafeim, G. (2014). The impact of corporate sustainability on

organizational processes and performance. Management Science, 60(11), 2831–2857.

20. Empidi, A. V. A., & Emang, D. (2021). Understanding public intentions to participate in protection

initiatives for forested watershed areas using the theory of planned behaviour: a case study of Cameron

Highlands in Pahang, Malaysia. Sustainability, 13(8), 4399.

21. Fielding, K. S., Head, B. W., Laffan, W., Western, M., & Hoegh-Guldberg, O. (2012). Australian

politicians’ beliefs about climate change: political partisanship and political ideology. Environmental

Politics, 21(5), 712-733.

22. Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables

and measurement error. Journal of marketing research, 18(1), 39-50.

23. Ganapathy, M. (2016). Transformation of Malaysia’s higher education system: Malaysia Education

Blueprint (2015-2025). Bulletin of Higher Education Research, 5(1), 10-11.

24. Goldstein, N. J., Cialdini, R. B., & Griskevicius, V. (2008). A room with a viewpoint: Using social norms

to motivate environmental conservation in hotels. Journal of consumer Research, 35(3), 472-482.

25. Hamann, K. R. S., Reese, G., Seewald, D., & Loeschinger, D. C. (2015). Affixing the theory of normative

conduct (to your mailbox): Injunctive and descriptive norms as predictors of anti-ads sticker use. Journal

of Environmental Psychology, 44, 1–9.

26. Handoyo, B., Astina, I. K., & Mkumbachi, R. L. (2021, March). Students’ environmental awareness and

pro-environmental behaviour: preliminary study of geography students at state university of malang. In

IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science (Vol. 683, No. 1, p. 012049). IOP Publishing.

Page 1068

www.rsisinternational.org

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)

ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue XI November 2025

27. Hair, J. F. (2014). A primer on partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM). sage.

28. Hair, J. F., Astrachan, C. B., Moisescu, O. I., Radomir, L., Sarstedt, M., Vaithilingam, S., & Ringle, C.

M. (2021). Executing and interpreting applications of PLS-SEM: Updates for family business

researchers. Journal of Family Business Strategy, 12(3), 100392.

29. Helferich, M., Thøgersen, J., & Bergquist, M. (2023). Direct and mediated impacts of social norms on

pro-environmental behaviour. Global Environmental Change, 80, 102680.

30. Hidalgo-Crespo, J., Velastegui-Montoya, A., Amaya-Rivas, J. L., & Riel, A. (2023). The Role of

Personality in the Adoption of Pro-Environmental Behaviours through the Lens of the Value-Belief-

Norm Theory. Sustainability (Switzerland), 15(17).

31. Hua, Y., & Mi, J. (2025). Can pro-environmental behaviour in the private sphere drive such behaviour

in the public domain? Behavioural feedback mechanisms based on the Chinese General Social Survey.

Cities, 165.

32. Janmaimool, P., & Khajohnmanee, S. (2019). Roles of environmental system knowledge in promoting

university students’ environmental attitudes and pro-environmental behaviours. Sustainability, 11(16),

4270.

33. Joshi, Y., & Rahman, Z. (2015). Factors affecting green purchase behaviour and future research

directions. International Strategic management review, 3(1-2), 128-143.

34. Kácha, O., & Ruggeri, K. (2019). Nudging intrinsic motivation in environmental risk and social policy.

Journal of Risk Research.

35. Kácha, O., & van der Linden, S. (2021). The moderating role of moral norms and personal cost in

compliance with pro-environmental social norms. Current Research in Ecological and Social

Psychology, 2, 100020.

36. Kaplan, R. S., & Norton, D. P. (1996). The balanced scorecard: Translating strategy into action. Harvard

Business School Press.

37. Kim, S. H., & Seock, Y.-K. (2019). The roles of values and social norm on personal norms and pro-

environmentally friendly apparel product purchasing behaviour: The mediating role of personal norms.

Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 51, 83–90.

38. Koessler A-K, Vorlaufer T, Fiebelkorn F (2022). Social norms and climate-friendly behaviour of

adolescents. PLoS ONE 17(4): e0266847.

39. Kollmuss, A., & Agyeman, J. (2002). Mind the gap: why do people act environmentally and what are

the barriers to pro-environmental behaviour? Environmental education research, 8(3), 239-260.

40. Ly, B. (2024). Understanding pro-environmental behaviour: the effects of social influence and

environmental awareness in Cambodian context. Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences, 14,

710–719.

41. Malmi, T., & Brown, D. A. (2008). Management control systems as a package—Opportunities,

challenges and research directions. Management Accounting Research, 19(3), 287–300.

42. Md. Akhir, N., Wei Lun, A., Mee Yeang, C., Abd Rahman, N., & Halim, L. (2022). Establishing the

value-psychological-educational dimensions for “learning to action” model for pro-environmental

behaviour. Cogent Education, 9(1). https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2022.2156748

43. Mkumbachi, R. L., Astina, I. K., & Handoyo, B. (2024). Environmental awareness and pro-

environmental behaviour: A case of university students in Malang city. Jurnal Pendidikan Geografi:

Kajian, Teori, dan Praktek dalam Bidang Pendidikan dan Ilmu Geografi, 25(2), 6.

44. Nkaizirwa, J. ., Nsanganwimana, F., & Aurah, C. M. (2022). On the predictors of pro-environmental

behaviours: integrating personal values and the 2-MEV among secondary school students in Tanzania.

Heliyon.

45. Papaspyropoulos, K. G., & Karamanolis, D. (2016). Drivers and barriers of sustainability reporting in

the Greek public forest service. Open Journal of Accounting, 5(03), 35.

46. Parker, L., & Prabawa-Sear, K. (2020). Environmental education in Indonesia: creating responsible

citizens in the global south? (p. 280). Taylor & Francis.

47. Poškus, M. S. (2000). An Evolutionary Approach Toward Pro-Environmental Behaviour. Evolutionary

Psychological Science, 7, 69–75.

48. Prakash, G., & Pathak, P. (2017). Intention to buy eco-friendly packaged products among young

consumers of India: A study on developing nation. Journal of cleaner production, 141, 385-393.

Page 1069

www.rsisinternational.org

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)

ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue XI November 2025

49. Prasetyo, Y. T., Kurata, Y. B., Zahra, K., Cahigas, M. M. L., Nadlifatin, R., & Gumasing, M. J. J. (2024).

Factors affecting compliance with vehicular environmental laws and pro-environmental behaviour in

Lahore, Pakistan. Acta Psychologica, 251.

50. Ramayah, T. Y. J. A., Yeap, J. A., & Ignatius, J. (2013). An empirical inquiry on knowledge sharing

among academicians in higher learning institutions. Minerva, 51(2), 131-154.

51. Ren, M., Fan, W., Yang, L., & Zhong, Y. (2025). Navigating Nested Social Dilemmas: The Impact of

Social Norms on Pro-Environmental Behaviour. International Journal of Psychology, 60(6).

52. Ringle, C. M. (2005). SmartPLS 2.0 (M3). http://www. smartpls. de.

53. Schultz, P. W., Gouveia, V. V., Cameron, L. D., Tankha, G., Schmuck, P., & Franěk, M. (2005). Values

and their relationship to environmental concern and conservation behaviour. Journal of Cross-Cultural

Psychology, 36(4), 457–475. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022022105275962

54. Schwartz, S. H. (1992). Universals in the content and structure of values: Theoretical advances and

empirical tests in 20 countries. In Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 25, pp. 1-65).

Academic Press.

55. Sewak, A., Singh, S., & Ahmed, S. (2021). Pro-environmental behaviour of students in higher education

institutions: A cross-sectional study. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 22(5),

951–967.

56. Silvi, M., & Padilla, E. (2021). Pro-environmental behaviour: Social norms, intrinsic motivation and

external conditions. Environmental Policy and Governance.

57. Shadiqi, M. A., Djuwita, R., Febriana, S. K. T., Septiannisa, L., Wildi, M., & Rahmawati, Y. (2022).

Environmental Self-Identity and Pro-Environmental Behaviour in Climate Change Issue: Mediation

Effect of Belief in Global Warming and Guilty.

58. Sharpe, E. J., Perlaviciute, G., & Steg, L. (2021). Pro-environmental behaviour and support for

environmental policy as expressions of pro-environmental motivation. Journal of Environmental

Psychology.

59. Siero, S., Boon, M., Kok, G., & Siero, F. (1989). Modification of driving behaviour in a large transport

organization: A field experiment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74(3), 417.

60. Steg, L., & Vlek, C. (2009). Encouraging pro-environmental behaviour: An integrative review and

research agenda. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 29(3), 309–317.

61. Stern, P. C., Dietz, T., Abel, T., Guagnano, G. A., & Kalof, L. (1999). A value-belief-norm theory of

support for social movements: The case of environmentalism. Human Ecology Review, 6(2), 81–97.

62. Sun, Q. (2025). Forensic Accounting Approaches to Detecting and Preventing Greenwashing and Data

Manipulation in ESG Reporting. Advances in Economics, Management and Political Sciences.

63. Testa, F., Iovino, R., & Iraldo, F. (2020). The circular economy and consumer behaviour: The mediating

role of information seeking in buying circular packaging. Business Strategy and the Environment, 29(8),

3435-3448.

64. Tian, H., & Liu, X. (2022). Pro-environmental behaviour research: Theoretical progress and future

directions. International journal of environmental research and public health, 19(11), 6721.

65. Vesely, S., & Klockner, C. A. (2018). How anonymity and norms influence costly support for

environmental causes. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 58, 27–30.

66. Wan, C., Shen, G. Q., & Choi, S. (2017). A review on political factors influencing public support for

urban environmental policy. Environmental Science & Policy, 75, 70-80.

67. Werff, E. van der, Steg, L., & Keizer, K. (2013). The value of environmental self-identity: The

relationship between biospheric values, environmental self-identity and environmental preferences,

intentions and behaviour. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 34, 55–63.

68. Wu, Y., Chen, Y., Jin, C., Qin, J., Zheng, L., & Chen, Y. (2024). Working-together normative appeals

to promote pro-environmental donations. Behavioural Sciences, 14(4), 273.

69. Yu, W., Patros, P., Young, B., Klinac, E., & Walmsley, T. G. (2022). Energy digital twin technology for

industrial energy management: Classification, challenges and future. Renewable and Sustainable Energy

Reviews, 161, 112407.

70. Zacher, H., & Bissing-Olson, M. J. (2018). Between-and within-person variability in employee pro-

environmental behaviour. Research handbook on employee pro-environmental behaviour, 128-147.

Page 1070

www.rsisinternational.org

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)

ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue XI November 2025

71. Zhang, Z., Zhang, Y., & Jia, M. (2021). Does a sense of calling facilitate sustainability? Research on the

influence of calling on employee green behaviour. Business Strategy and the Environment, 30(7), 3145-

3159.

Page 1071

www.rsisinternational.org