The Effect of Shared and Inclusive Governance on Environmental Sustainability at U.S. Universities

Abstract

As climate change consequences intensify, higher education institutions (HEIs) have an opportunity and responsibility to model sustainable operations. This study examines how embracing shared knowledge and inclusion in sustainability decision making facilitates green human resource management (GHRM) efforts to invigorate organizational environmental performance. The study examines the effects of shared and inclusive governance on campus sustainability via a regression model and the mediating role of employee participation via a structural equation modeling approach. The results show that shared governance and inclusive governance positively predict the commitment of HEIs to reducing greenhouse gas emissions, and campus engagement mediates these relationships, underscoring the importance of participation. These findings align with stakeholder theory in demonstrating that diverse voices in decision making can enhance commitment to organizational goals like sustainability. The findings also highlight the importance of shared and inclusive governance arrangements at college campuses not only for ethical reasons but also for achieving desired outcomes like carbon neutrality. For campus leaders striving to “green” their institutions, evaluating cross-departmental representation in governance structures and promoting inclusive cultures that make all students and staff feel welcome appear as important complements to GHRM practices.

1. Introduction

Due to a climate action stalemate at the federal level, local government environmental policy making has soared across the United States to address the increasingly acute climate issues [1]. Within the local context, higher education institutions (HEIs) are at the forefront of the climate sustainability movement since they focus on critical thinking and on educating the next generation of decision makers [2,3,4]. Through teaching, conducting research, and serving their communities, HEIs act as agents of change that create more sustainable societies for future generations [5,6]. Prompted by the weight of local climate problems on the one hand and the global sustainability agenda [7,8,9] on the other, North American universities have increased efforts to make their campuses green [10,11]. According to the higher education nonprofit organization Second Nature, twelve American universities have reached total carbon neutrality [12]. Carbon neutrality is defined as “having no net operational greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, [which can be] achieved by eliminating GHG emissions, or by minimizing GHG emissions as much as possible, and using carbon offsets to cover the remaining emissions associated with the campus’ operations” [12]. Similarly, the fact that 1170 higher education institutions worldwide, out of which 909 are located in the United States, have opted to voluntarily participate in a sustainability rating system developed by the Association for the Advancement of Sustainability in Higher Education (AASHE) is illustrative of a general trend among universities to prioritize sustainability [13].

The existing literature notes that green human resources management (GHRM) is an important driver of campus sustainability [14,15,16]. Starting from the premise that an organization’s level of environmental sustainability depends on how much its employees care about the environment [17], GHRM enables organizations to develop human capital towards enhancing the organizational environmental performance [18]. It simultaneously acts as a tool to train employees on principles of environmental protection and empower them to participate in environmental activities and decision making [19,20]. As such, GHRM pivots from a traditional understanding of human resource management (HRM) as a means to achieve organizational strategy and economic outcomes towards a more rounded vision of HRM that emphasizes development of human and social capital [21]. We posit with this study that GHRM should include non-environmental components (such as shared and inclusive governance) that have impacts on green practices and outcomes.

Prior studies indicate that a diverse organizational setting inclusive of all voices and concerns creates a sense of organizational belonging among the staff, which drives organizational participation and commitment [22]. Therefore, this study asks whether shared and inclusive governance practices help drive campus environmental achievement. If such practices drive environmental achievement, they should be considered in GHRM practices. Drawing on stakeholder theory, which considers the interests and needs of all stakeholders, we test for direct and indirect effects of shared governance and inclusive governance on environmental performance within a higher education setting by relying on a sample of 279 American HEIs.

The remainder of the study is organized as follows: In Section 2, we provide more context about campus sustainability in the United States, present our theoretical argument based on stakeholder theory, describe the concepts of shared and inclusive governance and how they should be integrated into GHRM, and propose our hypotheses. The subsequent two parts, Section 3 and Section 4, focus on methodology and results. We discuss our findings in Section 5 and conclude in Section 6, with practical implications of our findings for the higher education sector in the United States and future research directions.

2. Literature Review and Theoretical Argument

2.1. HEIs and Environmental Sustainability

Broadly speaking, HEIs contribute to sustainability in two primary ways—by educating and qualifying future sustainability professionals and by implementing eco-friendly management practices in campus operations [23]. In this paper, the emphasis is on the latter. Sustainable campus operations include direct aspects of environmental pollution, such as waste generation and emissions to air, water, and land [24]. The term is often a starting point in a broader concept of campus sustainability that includes other institutional dimensions such as research, curricula, and programing [25]. While we primarily focus on campus operations in our paper, we use the term interchangeably with campus sustainability.

Campus sustainability in the United States has evolved from a rather informal and strictly environmentally focused movement of the 1970s to a more institutionalized and comprehensive approach of the new century embodying greenhouse gas emission measurements, sustainability reporting tools, and partnerships with city and local communities [26]. Likewise, within organizations, environmental management has gradually become more open and holistic, shifting from top-down processes to bottom-up and participatory perspectives [27,28]. As a result, modern-day campus sustainability management in the United States has grown to be more representative of various environmental aspects and, as such, conducive to stakeholder analysis.

2.2. Stakeholder Theory

We draw on stakeholder theory to conceptualize the importance of diverse representation for influencing environmental behavior of HEIs. Stakeholder theory posits that organizations should address the interests of all stakeholders to achieve long-term success [29]. Originally developed within the corporate context, the central idea of stakeholder theory is that a company’s success does not only depend on following a vision set by traditional leadership (e.g., shareholders) but also on tending to the needs of employees, customers, suppliers, nonprofits, local government members, etc. [29,30,31]. This was a monumental shift when initially introduced in the 1980s because it has, theoretically at least, empowered traditionally voiceless stakeholders by effectively bringing them into the process of corporate policy making. While organizations still answer to shareholders (or investors), they should strive to meet the needs of all parties that are influenced by or could influence the operations of the organization [32].

From the perspective of normative stakeholder theory, organizations adopt progressive view of their role in a post-modern society (i.e., they have a moral obligation to contribute to the public good) [33]. Likewise, organizations are expected to treat all stakeholders equally regardless of how crucial they are to an organization’s success. In other words, each stakeholder party is perceived as important rather than just those providing critical resources to the organization [34].

Applying these principles to the context of higher education sector, stakeholder theory suggests that organizational goals are better met when pursued in line with the needs of the wider campus body compared to only the desires of the exclusive circle of shareholders. The main university stakeholders would be students, employees, graduates, teachers, researchers, and suppliers [35]. Tending to the needs and values of all interested parties increases diversity in university policy making, leading to a more holistic, representative, and participative organizational culture [36].

2.3. The Importance of Shared and Inclusive Governance Practices

Starting from the premise that knowledge is crucial to the organization’s success [37], shared governance is primarily concerned with how to integrate the specialist knowledge of organizational members from different units and departments into decision-making processes [38]. Individual employees develop knowledge, but organizations and their management processes amplify it [39]. Therefore, use of knowledge is more efficient and effective when organizational structures consist of open and fluid memberships in cross-functional teams rather than under closed and hierarchical leadership systems [38]. Shared governance is facilitated by diffused power structures and open management where collaboration, collective learning, and employee empowerment prevail [40].

Inclusive governance pertains to inclusion of members of diverse demographics and identities in the workplace. Diversity can be both visible and invisible [41]. Visible characteristics include such characteristics as race, gender, ethnicity, and age; invisible dimensions pertain to cultural and cognitive differences [42]. Inclusive governance transcends the notion of mere incorporation of diversity in the decision-making processes to also call for active removal of barriers that have traditionally blocked marginalized employee groups from using their competencies and participating [43]. As such, inclusive management emphasizes belongingness and uniqueness where employees feel accepted and valued based on who they are and their authenticity and not because of being able to blend in [44]. Inclusive governance relies on participatory management, providing a platform for all employees and groups in the organization to offer their opinion about organizational practices while simultaneously feeling appreciated and important.

Employee participation is a defining characteristic of shared governance and inclusive governance. As organizations seek to increase the social capital of organizational knowledge by embracing the diversity of technical specializations and demographic characteristics in decision making, they simultaneously promote a sense of ownership and commitment among the employees in developing innovative solutions [45,46]. This may be of particular importance for sustainability-related issues whose complex and often contradictory solutions often require trade-offs. When employees believe and feel that their workplace is making an effort to engage and empower them in matters of pollution prevention, their participation and creativity increases [47]. Innovation capacities under these types of conditions could prove pivotal for achieving an organizational competitive advantage.

2.4. Integrating Shared and Inclusive Governance into GHRM

Within the GHRM literature, employee participation in the process of formulating environmental strategies is considered of paramount importance for creating an organizational culture of sustainability [48]. Wider employee participation ensures that organizations can draw on their employees’ knowledge of production processes when developing pro-environmental practices and policies [45]. This simultaneously empowers employees to make even more suggestions for environmental improvements [45,49].

Through formal and informal communication channels, GHRM establishes a green learning climate for employees to become well-informed, aware, and curious about environmental challenges [50]. Improved awareness fosters green behavior ranging from simple energy-saving practices, such as switching off the lights and equipment, reducing paper waste, using stairs instead of elevators, relying on car-sharing, and working remotely, to more elaborate initiatives, such as forming green teams and environmental training programs [45,51,52,53]. These practices are associated with greater organizational environmental performance, such as reduced levels of carbon emissions, and especially so within the education and training sector [54].

Callenbach et al. [55] suggested that employees must feel inspired and empowered to adopt and cultivate eco-friendly behavior at work for greening to be successful. Prior research has examined multiple factors as predictors of organizational environmental participation. These include employee-level variables such as environmental awareness [56], environmental knowledge [57], and intrinsic motivation [56] as well as organizational-level variables such as internal environmental orientation [36] and employees’ organizational commitment [20]. However, the antecedent effects of collective knowledge and inclusive university governing have not been previously examined in the context of pro-environmental employee engagement. Given the current trend in prioritization of diversity, equity, and inclusion practices in North American universities as well as recent instances of select state governments openly prohibiting such initiatives, it is timely to examine these factors within the context of higher education environmental sustainability.

In short, the current understanding of GHRM does not go far enough in understanding the process of how employees become engaged in green solutions. Our paper attempts to fill this void by supplementing GHRM aspects of employee participation, based primarily on ecological values, with elements of social diversity norms and needs. Similar attempts, albeit not empirical in nature, have been developed elsewhere in the literature [58]. We understand social diversity as shared governance and inclusive governance. A climate that embraces diverse, shared governance enables the “contribution of contextual, processual, interorganizational knowledge by workers” [45]. The feeling of being a part of an environmental solution increases employee participation. Similarly, a culture that promotes inclusion empowers employees to “be themselves” regardless of whether they are or are not members of the mainstream [59]. In turn, this creates a stronger sense of commitment to organizational values, such as environmental sustainability, and an increased desire for participation towards these ideals [38].

2.5. Hypotheses Development

We argue that higher levels of intra-organizational diversity in environmental decision making create conditions where all employees can use their knowledge in identifying pollution sources and environmental solutions [45]. Such “synergies of knowledge” [39] are highly desirable for environmental process improvements, which are often “cross boundary” in character due to their heavy dependency on inputs (i.e., renewables) to improve the outputs [60]. For example, intra-organizational knowledge is applied in those cases when discarded materials from operations in one department are repurposed by another [60]. Intra-organizational knowledge is also useful for scheduling and understanding of how technical and other changes interact with other internal processes [60].

Combining knowledge from different parts of the organization brings together not only various expertise but also different types of knowledge such as contextual knowledge [60]. When employees exchange their explicit knowledge from different parts/specialties of the organization, their overall tacit knowledge increases [39]. This is critical for innovating technical solutions and narrowing inconsistencies of waste reduction processes [60].

Intra-organizational exchange of expertise increases a sense of ownership in developing green initiatives, motivating the wider campus community to more readily adopt and practice on an individual basis the principles of conservation espoused by GHRM. This is especially important in countries with extensive natural resources, such as the United States, where energy management continues to rely on the notion that resources are freely available for economic gains [61].

Intra-organizational diversity in environmental decision making coordinates knowledge usage and knowledge creation, improves technologies, and increases energy savings, thus leading to greater levels of organizational environmental performance. We test this in Hypothesis 1.

Hypothesis 1 (H1). 

Shared governance in environmental decision making is likely to increase the environmental performance of higher education institutions.

Similarly, diversity of thought and knowledge can also be achieved through increased racial, ethnic, gender, physical/mental capabilities, age, and religious representation. This type of human diversity goes beyond professional/skill diversity by emphasizing belonging and equity as critical differentiators of the concept [62]. A workspace built around the values of belonging and equity makes people from diverse backgrounds feel equally valued, appreciated, and supported [63]. This provides for psychological safety and empowerment [64,65], which nurture emotional and mental connection to the workplace, resulting in a sense of pride, inclusion, and self-investment [66]. A sense of belonging fosters employees’ commitment to organizational goals and a desire to contribute actively in problem solving [65].

Existing research shows that inclusive and equitable decision-making processes are associated with higher employee participation in organizational environmental initiatives. For example, Shafaei and Nejati [67] showed that green inclusive leadership fosters a sense of reciprocity in employees to engage in furthering the existing organizational eco-friendly policies, such as “thinking about how to reduce waste, conserve energy, preserve environment, and use resources efficiently” (p. 12). In addition, other scholars have found that green inclusive decision-making practices also empower employees to freely suggest novel and bold sustainability solutions that they otherwise may be reserved to propose under more hierarchical and closed leadership systems [58,68].

Hence, a feeling of inclusion acts as a motivator for employees to identify with their workplace and adopt and refine green values espoused by GHRM. By engaging in green behavior, they contribute to greater levels of organizational environmental sustainability. We test this in Hypothesis 2.

Hypothesis 2 (H2). 

Inclusive governance is positively associated with the environmental performance of higher education institutions.

However, we suspect that the relationship between governance practices and environmental outcomes contains more nuance. Apart from having a direct influence on HEI environmental outcomes, we postulate that shared governance and inclusive governance will also indirectly and positively have a mediating effect via employee participation. Employee engagement has been previously identified as a mediator between GHRM-related practices and organizational environmental outcomes. For example, Pellegrini et al. [69] found that green training and reward systems increase corporate sustainability through peer involvement. In the context of higher education, we expect that diversity of professional expertise and of human characteristics in environmental decision making will drive up employee participation and, through it, organizational environmental outcomes. These mediating relationships are proposed in Hypotheses 3 and 4.

Hypothesis 3 (H3). 

Environmental employee participation will positively mediate the relationship between the shared governance and environmental performance of higher education institutions.

Hypothesis 4 (H4). 

Environmental employee participation will positively mediate the relationship between the inclusive governance and environmental performance of higher education institutions.

Figure 1 represents the conceptual model developed and tested in our study, including both direct and indirect relationships.

3. Materials and Methods

3.1. Sample and Data Collection

Data was obtained from the Association for the Advancement of Sustainability in Higher Education (AASHE)’s Sustainability Tracking, Assessment, and Rating System (STARS) platform. STARS is a “transparent, self-reporting framework for colleges and universities to measure their sustainability performance” [13]. It rates two-year and four-year public and private HEIs worldwide across the five broad categories of academics, engagement, operations, planning and administration, and innovation and leadership, with specific performance indicators under each category [70].

According to AASHE, a total of 1170 institutions have registered to use the STARS tool since it was first introduced in 2008; of these, 601 have participated in at least one STARS rating, and 349 currently hold a valid STARS rating [13]. Only currently active STARS ratings are publicly available. Of the 349 HEIs, 293 are located in the United States. We further excluded 14 of these institutions, which had reported data to AASHE but chose not to pursue a rating [71]. This left 279 HEIs for our final analysis. Among these 279 HEIs, 160 are public and four-year institutions, 110 are private-nonprofit and four-year institutions, and 9 are public and two-year institutions. According to the National Center for Education Statistics [72], there were approximately 3646 public and private-nonprofit Title IV HEIs in the United States in 2020–2021, meaning that our sample represents about 7.7% of such HEIs in the country. While the overall representation is low, STARS is the most widely used reporting system for sustainability of HEIs [73], with more universities signing up every year in order to appeal to the modern students’ demands for more transparency into campus sustainability efforts [74].

Given the voluntary nature of the report, it is expected that the self-selected respondents are likely those HEIs that have had at least modest experiences in developing sustainability plans. Therefore, the findings are most likely to be relevant to universities in the United States (and possibly abroad) with at least some exposure to sustainability activities.

3.2. Dependent Variable

The dependent variable is the GHG emissions reduction score compiled by STARS. Given that carbon emission is one of the leading causes of global warming [75], this is an appropriate measure of environmental sustainability at HEIs. The score is based on comparing the institution’s emissions from the performance year to a baseline year (normally the year when the institution first started tracking emissions) [70,76]. Different types of emissions are considered: (1) Scope 1 includes direct emissions from sources owned or controlled by the institution (e.g., combustion of fuels to produce energy, such as boilers, and to run institution-owned cars, buses, etc.); and (2) Scope 2 includes indirect emissions from internal activities but that are supported by purchased sources of energy (e.g., purchased electricity, purchased heating, purchased cooling, etc.) [70]. Larger reductions are associated with higher scores. The highest number of points that an HEI can earn is 8, consisting of a maximum of 4 points for each of the two separate parts. Part 1 measures reduction in GHG emissions per person, and Part 2 assesses GHG emissions per unit of floor area [70].

The equation for calculating points earned for Part 1 is as follows:

Points Earned = 4 × {[(A/B) − (C/D)]/(A/B)}

where A represents a baseline statistic for adjusted net Scope 1 and 2 GHG emissions, calculated by subtracting net carbon sinks from gross emissions. Carbon sinks include generated, purchased, and transferred carbon offsets. Gross emissions refer to both stationary combustion and imported energy. B stands for a baseline value of weighted campus users, a normalized measure of HEI’s population to account for differences in user intensity. For example, HEIs with a high percentage of students who live on campus are expected to produce more GHG emissions than otherwise comparable non-residential HEIs. C and D measure the same concepts as A and B, respectively, but for the performance year [70]. Additional information on required reporting fields to determine each value is available in Appendix C.

The points earned for Part 2 are calculated based on this formula:

Points Earned = 4 × {[A − (B/C)]/A}

where A is the minimum performance threshold, calculated based on the ten lowest scores of all institutions that reported under STARS 2.0; B represents adjusted net Scope 1 and 2 GHG emissions for performance year as explained above; and C is a measure of energy use intensity (EUI) per floor area and adjusted to accommodate for differences in energy use based on building/room type for performance year [70]. Examples of energy-intensive spaces include laboratories and healthcare spaces. Please refer to Appendix C for detailed explanations on how each factor is measured.

The final GHG emissions reduction score is obtained by adding the points earned for Part 1 and Part 2, dividing it by 8, and finally multiplying by 100. Given that the score is calculated as a percentage of total possible points, it is conducive to regression analysis. A scoring example is available in Appendix C.

3.3. Independent Variables

Our first independent variable, shared governance, is measured by a performance indicator under the category of Planning and Administration in the STARS reporting. It measures the extent to which institutions “engage campus and community stakeholders [understood as students, academic staff and non-academic staff] in the ongoing governance of the college or university” [70]. We use this indicator for our first hypothesis to measure how representative the sustainability decision-making process is in terms of students, staff, faculty, administration, and other university stakeholders. The maximum number of points an institution can receive under this criterium is 3, specifically a maximum of 0.75 points for each of the four independently scored parts (Shared Governance Bodies, Campus Stakeholder Representation in Governance, Gender Equity in Governance, and Community Engagement Bodies) [70]. Therefore, the final score for shared governance is a percentage of the maximum score of 3. We expect a positive relationship between this variable and the GHG emissions reduction score.

Our second independent variable, inclusive governance, is also measured by a performance metric included under the category of Planning and Administration in the STARS reporting. This metric measures the extent to which an institution “promot[es] a culture of inclusiveness” in response to “the historical legacy and persistence of discrimination based on racial, gender, religious, and other differences” [70]. We use this metric for our second hypothesis to measure how inclusive the policy making process is at each institution. The maximum number of points an institution can receive under this criterium is 10 or a maximum of 2, 1, 3, and 4 points, respectively, across four independently scored parts (Diversity and Equity Coordination, Assessing Diversity and Equity, Support for Underrepresented Groups, and Affordability and Access) [70]. Hence, the final score for inclusive governance is a percentage of the maximum score of 10. We expect to find a positive relationship between this variable and the GHG emissions reduction score.

Our mediating variable, employee participation, is measured by an indicator for Campus Engagement, which is under the category of Engagement. More specifically, it includes nine independently scored parts, namely Employee Educators Program, Employee Orientation, Staff Professional Development and Training, Student Educators Program, Student Orientation, Student Life, Outreach Materials and Publications, Outreach Campaign, and Assessing Sustainability Culture [70]. The final score is represented as a percentage of the total points possible for this category (21 points) [70]. While imperfect in that it includes both employees and students, the variable is multifaceted and representative of employee participation.

3.4. Control Variables

In line with the previous findings stemming from the GHRM literature, we included controls for leadership and employee environmental training. The literature shows that leadership is important for employee participation [77,78]. Transformational leadership and supportive mentorship in environmental initiatives, such as policy communication, rewards, and recognition, are shown to increase employee eco-friendly behavior and involvement [45,79]. Similarly, green servant leadership is shown to motivate employees’ commitment to environmental matters and increase their green voice behavior [80]. We use a metric for the STARS category of innovation and leadership to control for the effect of leadership.

Along with leadership initiatives, education and training are considered to be a key component in facilitating participation and creating a green culture [81,82]. A study conducted in the European Union showed that over 90% of institutions with established institutional values in support of a green culture had relevant education programs in place [83]. This is measured by a STARS metric for staff professional development and training, which is under the category of Engagement.

In addition, our model controls for state-level percentage of gross domestic product (GDP) that is derived from industries that contribute to the pollution of the environment.

These include the industries of mining, manufacturing, and transportation. This variable was sourced from the Bureau of Economic Analysis [84] and subsequently added to our STARS-based dataset. The corresponding percentage for each state for the year of a university’s application to STARS was used. For example, if a university submitted their STARS application in the year 2020, the GDP pollutant percentage data for the state associated with that submission would be calculated from the same year of 2020.

Finally, we included commonly used control variables in the higher education literature, such as total number of students, endowment size, and institutional control. Information on the student count and endowment came from STARS and from DataUSA (a collaborative project between MIT Media Lab and Deloitte [85]) when data was missing in STARS. Institutional control information was pulled from the Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS). We normalized the student count and endowment size variables by 1000 and 1,000,000, respectively. We expect HEIs with a larger student body to pollute more and thus be positively correlated with our DV. On the other hand, it seems reasonable to expect that HEIs with larger endowments would have more resources to dedicate to relatively novel initiatives such as sustainability. As for institutional control, we follow the conventional thought that public universities are more concerned with the public good than private universities [86] and, hence, expect them to be more environmentally responsible than private-nonprofit HEIs in our sample. The descriptive statistics for all variables are available in

Table 1. Descriptive statistics for all variables used in the analysis (n = 279).

Variable	Mean	Std. Dev.	Min	Max
Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reduction Score (%)	46.808	24.325	0	100
Shared Governance (%)	61.637	21.119	0	100
Inclusive Governance (%)	73.559	15.276	17.8	99.8
Campus Engagement (%)	67.778	18.146	8.57	98.81
Employee Educators Program (%)	29.208	33.787	0	100
Innovation & Leadership (%)	83.244	26.534	0	100
Staff Professional Development (%)	51.12	30.478	0	100
Polluting Industry (% of state GDP)	15.007	5.921	0.59	35.904
Total Student Number/1000	17.172	16.985	0.097	124.477
Endowment/1,000,000	1423.407	4343.589	1.1	42,300
Institutional Control (1 = public; 2 = private-nonprofit)	1.394	0.49	1	2

.

The mean value of 46.8 for the GHG emission reduction score indicates that, on average, the HEIs in our sample have almost halved their carbon emissions since their initial applications. The mean scores of 61.6 for shared governance and 73.6 for inclusive governance indicate that HEIs in the United States, on average, consider professional diversity and human diversity as important in developing sustainability policies.

3.5. Model Specification

Two modeling strategies are used to test the hypotheses. Standard OLS analysis with robust standard errors was deployed for H1 and H2 to assess the direct effects of shared and inclusive governance on the GHG emissions reduction score. Then, structural equation modeling (SEM) was performed for H3 and H4 to evaluate more complex relationships among the variables.

The main specifications of the OLS models estimating the effect of shared governance and inclusive governance on HEI environmental performance are as follows:

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill Greenhouse Gas& \left(GHG\right) Emissions Reduction Score\hfill \\ & ={\gamma }_0+{\gamma }_{1}Shared Governance+{\gamma }_{2}Inclusive Governance\hfill \\ & +{\gamma }_{3}Innovation and Leadership\hfill \\ & +{\gamma }_{4}Employee Environmental Training\hfill \\ & +{\gamma }_{5}Polluting Industry as \% of State GDP\hfill \\ & +{\gamma }_{6}Total Number of Students+{\gamma }_{7}Endowment Size\hfill \\ & +{\gamma }_{8}Institutional Control\hfill \end{array}$$

The GHG Emissions Reduction Score is for a given HEI in the United States and measured as a percentage of total points earned by total points possible. The main independent variables—shared governance and inclusive governance—represent knowledge and human diversity, respectively, in the environmental decision-making process. Both independent variables are operationalized as percentages of the maximum number of 3 points. Institution-level controls include leadership and employee environmental training, measured as percentages, as well as normalized values for the number of students and endowment size. Finally, institutional control is dichotomous, indicating whether the institution is publicly funded or independent of the state. State-level control is a percentage of gross domestic product that is derived from polluting industries of the state in which an HEI is located. In addition to this comprehensive model, we also estimated two models where the components (Shared Governance and Inclusive Governance) are separated to isolate their effects.

To properly test Hypotheses 3 and 4, we specified an additional round of analysis using SEM with robust standard errors. As illustrated in Figure 1, this model tests the direct and indirect (via campus engagement) pathways of influence of shared and inclusive governance on the GHG Emissions Reduction Score. The following section offers the findings of these analyses.

4. Results

Since the dependent variable is continuous, we used an OLS regression to test our first two hypotheses. Appendix A notes additional tests conducted to ensure that the OLS assumptions of normal distribution of residuals and noncollinearity were met. We used robust standard errors to mitigate heteroskedasticity [87].

Table 2. OLS parameter estimates for Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions Reduction Score.

	(1)	(2)	(3)
VARIABLES	Model 1	Model 2	Model 3
Shared Governance (%)	0.238 ***	0.282 ***
	(0.065)	(0.064)
Inclusive Governance (%)	0.302 ***		0.394 ***
	(0.110)		(0.110)
Innovation and Leadership (%)	0.186 ***	0.255 ***	0.196 ***
	(0.067)	(0.065)	(0.068)
Staff Professional	0.052	0.067	0.063
Development and Training (%)	(0.044)	(0.046)	(0.044)
Pct GDP Pollutant (%)	−0.550 **	−0.573 **	−0.623 ***
	(0.237)	(0.240)	(0.240)
TotalStudentNumberPer1K	0.043	0.082	0.037
	(0.099)	(0.095)	(0.105)
EndowmentPer1Mil	−0.000	−0.000	−0.000
	(0.000)	(0.000)	(0.000)
Institutional Control	9.292 ***	11.318 ***	6.742 **
	(3.362)	(3.310)	(3.365)
Constant	−13.106	−3.529	−1.928
	(9.932)	(9.294)	(9.584)
Observations	279	279	279
R-squared	0.274	0.253	0.239
F-Stat	9.808	10.85	8.587
Prob > F	0	0	1.65 × 10−9

Note: Standard errors in parentheses.** p < 0.05; *** p < 0.01.

shows the results of analysis.

As hypothesized, the results in Model 1 demonstrate a positive and statistically significant relationships between shared governance and the GHG reduction score and between inclusive governance and the GHG reduction score. To better isolate the role of governance, we then split shared governance and inclusive governance into separate estimations (Model 2 and Model 3, respectively). For every unit of increase in shared governance, the emissions reduction score is expected to increase by 0.28 units, holding other variables in the model constant. Based on R-squared, about 25.3% of variation in the dependent variable is explained by this model. This confirms H1. Similarly, Model 2 shows that inclusive governance is positively and significantly associated with the emissions reduction score. For every unit of increase in inclusive governance, the GHG reduction score is expected to increase by 0.39 units, holding other variables in the model constant. Based on R-squared, about 23.9% of variation in the dependent variable is explained by this model. This confirms H2.

Furthermore, our results support the existing findings in the literature about the importance of leadership in fostering environmental sustainability of HEIs, as evidenced by the positive and significant coefficient across all three estimations. Notably, staff training, endowment size, and student body size are not influential factors in terms of GHG reductions. Being located in a state where more of the economy is related to polluting industries inhibits progress on carbon emissions while being a private-nonprofit HEI as opposed to a public HEI is conducive to GHG emission abatement.

To test our last two hypotheses, which postulate a mediating effect of employee engagement, we adopted a structural equation model (SEM) with maximum likelihood estimation. SEM is particularly suitable for our analysis to help us understand better the process of why and how shared and inclusive governance styles influence environmental performance of HEIs. An assumption of multivariate normality was confirmed (see Appendix B). Due to the presence of multivariate non-normality in our sample, we used robust maximum likelihood method (MLM) estimator, which is robust to non-normality [88]. The overall goodness of fit of the model is represented by RMSEA = 0.000 < 0.05 and CFI = 1.0 > 0.9 (see

Table 3. Structural equation model robust parameter estimates and goodness-of-fit statistics, (n = 279).

Estimates and Fit Statistics		Standardized Estimate	Ratio of Indirect to Total Effects	Sobel Test
Direct effects
	SG → CE	0.17
	SG → GGES	0.17
	IG → CE	0.48
	IG → GGES	0.38
	CE → GGES	0.31
Indirect effects
	SG → CE → GGES	0.05	23%	Z = 2.46, p = 0.014
	IG → CE → GGES	0.15	28%	Z = 3.30, p = 0.001
Total effects
	SG → GGES	0.22
	IG → GGES	0.53
Goodness of fit statistics
	RMSEA = 0.000
	CFI = 1.000

), which is a good model fit [89]. The overall goodness-of-fit is based on standard errors rather than on robust standard errors because the goodness-of-fit indices are unavailable in STATA (version 15, StataCorp LP, College Station, TX, USA) when using SEM with vce(robust); however, there is no significant difference in estimators between MLM with standard errors and MLM with robust standard errors.

Figure 2 depicts the structural model with the standardized path coefficients. We assume that all variables can be observed, which is why we use rectangles (rather than circles) to represent them. Error terms are not connected, indicating that errors are independent of one another [90].

All paths are statistically significant and pointed in the hypothesized direction, which shows that campus engagement has a significant mediating effect between both shared governance and the GHG Emissions Reduction Score as well as between inclusive governance and the GHG Emissions Reduction Score. This is even more visible from Table 3, which reports the ratio of indirect to total effects.

The total effect of shared governance is 0.22, and it is statistically significant. This is the effect that we would find if there was no mediator in our model. When the mediator is present, the direct effect of shared governance is 0.17, which, while significant, is weaker than the total effect. According to Baron and Kenny (1986), one of the key conditions for mediation to exist is a decrease in the effect of the independent variable (or shared governance in this case) on the dependent variable (or the greenhouse gas emissions reduction score) when a mediator variable is introduced in the model [91]. The indirect effect of shared governance that passes through employee engagement is 0.05 and is also statistically significant. Therefore, the ratio of indirect to total effects for shared governance or the proportion of relationship explained by mediation is 23%. This, in addition to statistically significant Sobel test of indirect effects, demonstrates the presence of partial mediation in the model, which confirms H3.

Similarly, the statistically significant total effect of inclusive governance is 0.53, while the direct and indirect effects are 0.38 and 0.15, respectively. Put differently, the ratio of indirect to total effects for inclusive governance is 28%, which is how much of the relationship is explained by the campus engagement intermediary variable. The Sobel test confirms the significance of indirect effect. This demonstrates that campus engagement partially mediates the relationship between human diversity and environmental performance of HEIs, confirming H4.

5. Discussion

This study provides evidence that management decisions such as expanding stakeholder voice boosts environmental outcomes, a finding supported elsewhere in the literature [92]. This means that, even aside from being able to tackle environmental metrics directly, there are ways management can create an environment that is more conducive to achieving such impacts. Ergo, human resource processes do not directly need to address an environmental practice in order to encourage green HRM.

The results of this study provide support for the hypotheses that shared governance and inclusive governance positively relate to environmental sustainability performance in HEIs. Specifically, shared governance is associated with a 0.282 unit increase and inclusive governance with a 0.394 unit increase in the GHG reduction score, even when accounting for other influencers like leadership, training, economic factors, number of students, endowment size, and institutional control. These findings address an important gap in the literature, where matters of organizational ecological sustainability are often studied separately from diversity/inclusivity principles [58,93]. Furthermore, consistent with existing research [94], campus engagement is found to mediate these relationships, suggesting employee participation plays a key role in translating cross-campus professional diversity and inclusion initiatives into enhanced sustainability pursuits. Please see

Table 4. Hypotheses testing results.

		Statistical Approach	Coefficient	p-Values	% Explained by Mediator	Note
H1	SG → GHG Reduction	OLS	0.28	0.000		Supported
H2	IG → GHG Reduction	OLS	0.39	0.000		Supported
H3	SG → CE → GHG Reduction	SEM	0.05	0.014	0.23	Supported
H4	IG → CE → GHG Reduction	SEM	0.15	0.001	0.28	Supported

for a summary of the hypotheses testing.

The hypothesis tests based on OLS and SEM statistical analyses and the relevant p-values indicate that all four of our hypotheses are supported. Likewise, the coefficient values demonstrate a positive relationship, as theorized for all hypotheses. In the case of H3 and H4 specifically, the proportion of the relationship explained by the mediator between shared governance and GHG reduction score and between inclusive governance and GHG reduction score is 23% and 28%, respectively.

Our observations align with stakeholder theory in demonstrating the value of engaging multiple voices in decision making. We show that enabling participation from diverse stakeholders fosters new ideas and commitment to organizational goals like environmental sustainability, thus corroborating the validity of existing results pertinent to inclusive green campus initiatives [95]. From a practical perspective, this highlights the importance of shared and inclusive governance arrangements on college campuses not only for ethical reasons but also for achieving desired outcomes like carbon neutrality [96]. Campus leaders aiming to “green” their institutions would be wise to evaluate representation in their governance structures and promote inclusive decision making to make all students and staff feel welcome, valuable, and committed.

This research makes the case for universities to integrate environmentally responsible initiatives into their human resource practices to earnestly respond to intensifying climate challenges. As bastions of public good, public universities in particular have a responsibility to model sustainability not just through operations but also by nurturing an organizational culture that champions environmental values. The findings here demonstrate that embracing diversity of thought, expertise, and human background in decision making provides a pathway for enhancing commitment and participation in campus sustainability efforts among students and staff.

Our findings answer the recent call from the sustainability literature for integrating ecological and diverse/inclusive practices towards a more holistic sustainability model [58] by providing empirical validation within the higher education sector in the United States that professional and human diversity is indeed correlated with improved employee engagement and the overall organizational sustainability performance. To drive employee participation and commitment to green values and practices, organizations promoting GHRM would be wise to promote employee well-being, work–life balance, and mental health initiatives in addition to environmental goals. Our results align with previous findings demonstrating that personal and organizational sustainability are interconnected [97]. The more valued employees perceive themselves to be at their workplace, the more eager they will be to adopt the principles of GHRM.

Given the escalating environmental crises facing communities worldwide, prioritizing GHRM would be of strategic importance for HEIs. Those serving as early adopters in this realm stand to gain competitive advantage over latecomers in appealing to today’s environmentally conscious students and faculty [98]. Furthermore, by catalyzing more eco-friendly attitudes and behaviors within their campus boundaries, sustainable universities can have a positive spillover effect in moving their surrounding communities in a greener direction [99].

While this study makes useful contributions, some limitations provide opportunities for future research. First, the employee engagement variables currently reflect both students and staff. This means that our characterization of human resources is quite broad: we directly imply those employed by the university but also contain measures of those attending the university. Though both are valid stakeholder groups, we recognize that the inclusion of student voice in the engagement variable may capture responsiveness to student as well as employee concerns. Since we do not have any cause to believe that universities would be more sensitive to student concerns or engagement rather than staff, we do not suspect that this introduces bias in a particular direction. However, teasing apart the influences of these two stakeholder groups would be a worthwhile endeavor.

Second, the sample includes only U.S. institutions currently rated through the voluntary STARS program. This implies a challenge to generalizability in that the findings may not generalize to higher education institutions abroad. This ambiguity is amplified if we try to apply our findings to the international community, where the forms of university governance vary widely across countries. Such comparative work would be a very fruitful avenue of future study, as would the use of new analytical techniques such as the analytic hierarchy process (AHP).

Further, using self-reported cross-sectional data also presents internal validity concerns [100]. It is likely that the universities choosing to submit their STARS reports already have relatively well-developed sustainability initiatives, which poses a threat of endogeneity in our findings. While inclusion of control variables in our models does mitigate the possible endogeneity concerns [101], this could be further addressed by deploying longitudinal studies that incorporate STARS scores from earlier years. It is possible that selection bias exists due to top-performing universities offering to report their reductions in emissions. Though this may bias the sample toward those with more reductions, we do not have cause to believe that non-reporting universities would have more shared or inclusive governance structures than those who participated. Further research should pursue qualitative studies that explore how collective campus knowledge and inclusive initiatives translate into internalization and adoption of shared and inclusive GHRM.

6. Conclusions

6.1. Summary and Contribution

This study fused the fields of Green Human Resource Management (GHRM) and equitable governance practices by examining whether shared and inclusive governance enhanced environmental outcome assessment at U.S. universities. We found empirical evidence that organizational endorsement of shared and inclusive decision making is likely to increase employee participation. This is subsequently likely to lead to greater organizational environmental sustainability through improved employee participation and internalization of GHRM practices. Therefore, our findings simultaneously utilize and contribute to stakeholder theory by showing how governance mechanisms and management practices can have direct and positive effects on both stakeholder commitment and organizational environmental performance.

This study contributes towards better application of GHRM in educational institutions, which have lagged tremendously behind the private sector [19]. Broadening participation and improving knowledge capital of environmental decision making has the potential to address some of the major policy and procedural challenges that educational institutions face when it comes to implementing GHRM [19]. This boost is because represented and included employees are more likely to engage not only in formal, task-related behavior but also in voluntary green practices. This makes the implementation of GHRM initiatives easier and less costly [102].

Notwithstanding the limitations, our findings are insightful because they show that the extent to which HEIs invest in human sustainability (or the development and fulfillment of human needs) is important beyond good will and can lead to improved environmental sustainability outcomes. As such, we show that integrating shared knowledge and inclusive practices into managerial practices at HEIs is both meaningful and consequential for campus sustainability, arguably contributing to more sustainable forms of environmental decision making itself. Diversity in talent and origin strengthens green management principles because it creates an empowered and environmentally conscious workforce that understands, participates in, and perpetuates organizational sustainable culture. This is a major finding for managers and executives at modern-day universities increasingly populated by environmentally literate, socially responsible, and passionate students and advocates.

6.2. Future Research Directions

A natural extension of present research is studying the intricacies of how shared governance and inclusive initiatives motivate employees to internalize, endorse, and practice the ideals of GHRM. This can best be achieved by interviewing university stakeholders to understand better the causal mechanisms at play that our study only partially hints at via the structural equation model. Such qualitative study would provide a window of opportunity to comprehend at a deeper level how being valued at work as a professional and a human being translates into eagerness to follow green management rules and principles. An even more intriguing (albeit demanding) research project would be to collect such qualitative information from stakeholders at STARS and non-STARS HEIs to tease out the influence of governance and management mechanisms when sustainability reporting is and is not a factor.

Another valuable avenue of research would be to test our findings in the international context to build a more contextualized understanding of the relationship between governance structures and campus sustainability. National culture matters for organizational diversity and inclusion management [103], public perceptions of environmental issues [104], and campus sustainability assessment tools [105]. Therefore, empirically testing our results in a different cultural context with its own sustainability assessment framework would not only validate our research, but it would also provide an important insight into how geographic, economic, technological, and legal dimensions impact the interplay between shared knowledge, inclusivity, and environmental campus outcomes.

We hope that our work will prompt more empirical data collection and analyses that unveil explanatory mechanisms undergirding our results and reflect the diversity of campus sustainability perspectives in the U.S. and abroad.