Bachelor Thesis in Business Administration
Atlantis Program
Eco-Friendliness As A University Choice Factor
− A Study Of Swedish Students’ Attraction Towards Linköping University
Hesam Jafaei
Manon Lespinasse
Supervisor: Nandita Farhad
Spring semester 2015 ISRN number: LIU-IEI-FIL-G--15/01283--SE Department of Management and Engineering
Linköping University
Title: Eco-Friendliness As A University Choice Factor – A Study Of Swedish Students’ Attraction Towards Linköping
University
Authors: Hesam Jafaei & Manon Lespinasse
Supervisor:
Nandita Farhad
Type of publication: Bachelor Thesis in Business Administration
Atlantis Program Undergraduate level, 15 credits
Spring semester 2015 ISRN number: LIU-IEI-FIL-G--15/01283--SE
Linköping University
Department of Management and Engineering www.liu.se
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This thesis is the final part to complete our Bachelor of Science degree in Business
Administration and Economics at Linköping University in Sweden, as a part of the
Atlantis program.
We would like to express our gratitude to all the participants of this thesis process,
whether it be as counselors, contributors or influencers in either intellectual help or
moral support, and most particularly to:
• Nandita Farhad, our tutor, for her continuous support, advice and
encouragements;
• Ida van der Woude, who kindheartedly took time to answer our questions
and provided us with valuable information;
• Hugo Guyader, for his advice regarding the writing of our survey;
• Omar Moushe Ashak for her helpful answers to our statistical concerns;
• Our peer-groups, for their irreplaceable feedback and active contribution
during our refreshing discussions;
• The Swedish students from Campus Valla who made this whole project
possible by kindly answering our survey;
Hesam Jafaei & Manon Lespinasse
Linköping, Sweden
ABSTRACT
The purpose of this paper is to examine the relationship between eco-friendliness
as part of University Social Responsibility (USR) and the impact it has on students
and their attraction towards a university. Previous research have so far not
investigated on such a connection due to a general focus on the private sector,
companies and therefore Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR).
However, the literature is full of workable information, theories and conclusions
through the acceptance of a specific model considering students as customers. It
makes the assumptions being made within the private sector applicable to the
public sector of the higher education. The latter is a driving force for any country’s
economy by training and shaping a large number of future professionals and
citizens. Yet, so far, barely any association has been made with another growing
consideration of our developed economies: eco-friendliness and the protection of
the environment.
The present quantitative study seeks to find the existence of a positive impact of the
implementation of eco-friendly measures by Linköping University on Swedish
students, notably in terms of attractiveness.
Our findings demonstrate that most of LiU Swedish students are attracted towards
an eco-friendly university, around 44% of them consider eco-friendliness as a
university choice factor and the performance of Linköping University (LiU) in this
domain is largely appreciated. Therefore, LiU benefits from a positive public image
through its eco-friendly profile. It thus enables and favors attractiveness among
Swedish students, even if the latter is seen as improvable, notably through its
advertisement since it is thought to be a possible competitive advantage.
Keywords: Linköping University, University Social Responsibility, USR, Eco-
friendliness, Corporate Social Responsibility, CSR, Public Sector, Attractiveness,
Higher Education, Sweden, University choice, Impact.
Table of Contents 1. BACKGROUND ................................................................................................................................. 1 1.1. PROBLEM STATEMENT ................................................................................................................... 7 1.2. AIM OF RESEARCH ............................................................................................................................ 7 1.3. RESEARCH QUESTION ..................................................................................................................... 8 1.4. CONTRIBUTION ................................................................................................................................. 9
2. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK ............................................................................................... 10 2.1. THE STUDENT-‐CUSTOMER MODEL ........................................................................................... 10 2.2. CSR AS A STRATEGY THROUGH BRAND IMAGE .................................................................... 12 2.3. CUSTOMERS ATTRACTIONS TOWARDS CSR AND ITS ENVIRONMENTAL DIMENSIONS ................................................................................................................................................. 14 2.4. DEFINING ECO-‐FRIENDLINESS ................................................................................................... 15 2.5. ATTITUDE AND BEHAVIOR TOWARDS ECO-‐FRIENDLINESS ............................................ 16 2.6. CORPORATE SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY AND ITS ATTRACTING SIGNALS ..................... 17 2.7. SUMMARY OF THE THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK ................................................................ 20
3. METHODOLOGY ........................................................................................................................ 23 3.1. PURPOSE OF THE RESEARCH ...................................................................................................... 23 3.2. RESEARCH PHILOSOPHY .............................................................................................................. 23 3.3. RESEARCH STRATEGY ................................................................................................................... 25 3.4. RESEARCH APPROACH ...................................................................................................................... 25 3.5. RESEARCH METHOD ...................................................................................................................... 26
3.5.1. QUANTITATIVE METHOD .................................................................................. 26 3.6. DATA COLLECTION ......................................................................................................................... 27
3.6.1. KEY INFORMANT INTERVIEW (KII) .................................................................. 27 3.7. SAMPLING ......................................................................................................................................... 29
3.8. HYPOTHESES ........................................................................................................ 30 3.9. DATA ANALYSIS ............................................................................................................................... 32 3.10. CRITERIA FOR QUALITY ............................................................................................................... 34 3.11. RESEARCH ETHICS .......................................................................................................................... 36 3.12. LIMITATIONS OF THE RESEARCH ............................................................................................. 37
4. EMPIRICAL STUDY ................................................................................................................... 38 4.5. THE CASE STUDY OF LINKÖPING UNIVERSITY (LIU) .......................................................... 38 4.6. KEY INFORMANT INTERVIEW .................................................................................................... 39 4.7. EMPIRICAL RESULTS: PRESENTATION OF SURVEY DATA ................................................ 42
5. DATA ANALYSIS ........................................................................................................................... 59 5.1. CORRELATION RESULTS ................................................................................................................ 60 5.2. HYPOTHESIS TESTING .................................................................................................................... 82 5.3. HYPOTHESIS TESTING SUMMARY ............................................................................................... 84 5.4. SUMMARY OF THE DATA ANALYSIS ............................................................................................. 86
6. DISCUSSION ................................................................................................................................... 88
7. CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................................. 94 8. BIBLIOGRAPHY ............................................................................................................................ 97
APPENDIX A .................................................................................................................................... 102
APPENDIX B .................................................................................................................................... 103
APPENDIX C ..................................................................................................................................... 105
APPENDIX D .................................................................................................................................... 107
APPENDIX E ..................................................................................................................................... 116 TABLE OF FIGURES: Figure 1: Pyramid ......................................................................................................................................... 2 Figure 2: Intersecting Circles .................................................................................................................. 2 Figure 3: Concentric Circles ...................................................................................................................... 3 Figure 4: Effects of CSP-‐Environment on Organizational Attractiveness ............................... 19 Figure 5: Theoretical Framework Overview ..................................................................................... 22 TABLE OF GRAPHS: ......................................................................................................................................... Graphs 1: GENDER ...................................................................................................................................... 42 Graphs 2: AGE .............................................................................................................................................. 43 Graphs 3: FACULTY .................................................................................................................................... 44 Graphs 4: MAIN AREA OF STUDY ........................................................................................................... 45 Graphs 5: START OF STUDIES ................................................................................................................ 46 Graphs 6: DO YOU CONSIDER YOURSELF OR HABITS AS ECO-‐FRIENLDY ................................ 47 Graphs 7: RANKING “ECO-‐FRIENDLINESS” AS UNIVERSITY CHOICE FACTOR ........................ 48 Graphs 8: AWARENESS OF LIU’S ECO-‐FRIENDLINESS ..................................................................... 49 Graphs 9: SATISFACTION OF LIU’S ECO-‐FRIENDLY ATTITUDE ................................................... 50 Graphs 10: AWARENESS OF LIU’S ISB RANKING .............................................................................. 51 Graphs 11: IF YOU WERE AWARE: DID IT HAVE ANY INFLUENCE .............................................. 52 Graphs 12: RATE HOW MUCH FROM 1 TO 5 ...................................................................................... 52 Graphs 13: IF YOU WERE NOT AWARE: WOULD IT HAVE INFLUENCED YOU? ....................... 53 Graphs 14: RATE HOW MUCH FROM 1 TO 5 ..................................................................................... 54 Graphs 15: INCREASING LIU’S ADVERTISING .................................................................................... 55 Graphs 16: IS AN ECO-‐FRIENDLY UNIVERSITY ATTRACTIVE ...................................................... 55 Graphs 17: RANKING OF THE ATTRACTIVENESS LEVEL ............................................................... 56 Graphs 18: MISSING DATA ....................................................................................................................... 58 Graphs 19: GENDER & ATTRACTIVENESS .......................................................................................... 60 Graphs 20: AGE & ATTRACTIVENESS ................................................................................................... 61 Graphs 21: GENDER & HABIT ................................................................................................................. 62 Graphs 22: GENDER & IMPORTANCE ................................................................................................... 64 Graphs 23: AGE & HABIT .......................................................................................................................... 65 Graphs 24: AGE & IMPORTANCE ........................................................................................................... 67 Graphs 25: FACULTY & HABIT ............................................................................................................... 67 Graphs 26: FACULTY & IMPORTANCE ................................................................................................. 68 Graphs 27: STUDY & HABIT .................................................................................................................... 71 Graphs 28: STUDY & IMPORTANCE ...................................................................................................... 73 Graphs 29: ATTRACTIVENESS & ADVERTISING ............................................................................... 74 Graphs 30: ADVERTISING & IF YOU WERE NOT AWARE ............................................................... 75 Graphs 31: ATTRACTIVENESS & IF YOU WERE NOT AWARE ....................................................... 76 Graphs 32: ADVERTISING & HABIT ...................................................................................................... 77 Graphs 33: SATISFACTION & AWARENESS ........................................................................................ 79 Graphs 34: HABIT & AWARENESS ......................................................................................................... 80 Graphs 35: ATTRACTIVENESS & HABIT .............................................................................................. 81
LIST OF TABLES: .............................................................................................................................................. Table 1: GENDER ......................................................................................................................................... 42 Table 2: AGE ................................................................................................................................................. 43 Table 3: FACULTY ....................................................................................................................................... 44 Table 4: MAIN AREA OF STUDY .............................................................................................................. 45 Table 5: START OF STUDIES ................................................................................................................... 46 Table 6: HABIT ............................................................................................................................................ 47 Table 7: IMPORTANCE .............................................................................................................................. 47 Table 8: AWARENESS ................................................................................................................................ 49 Table 9: SATISFACTION ............................................................................................................................ 50 Table 10: LIU ISB RANKING ..................................................................................................................... 50 Table 11: IF YOU WERE AWARE ............................................................................................................ 51 Table 12: HOW MUCH DID IT INFLUENCE YOU? ............................................................................... 52 Table 13: IF YOU WERE NOT AWARE ................................................................................................... 53 Table 14: HOW MUCH WOULD IT HAVE INFLUENCED YOU? ........................................................ 54 Table 15: ADVERTISING ........................................................................................................................... 54 Table 16: ATTRACTIVENESS ................................................................................................................... 55 Table 17: ATTRACTIVENESS LEVEL ...................................................................................................... 56 Table 18: MISSING DATA .......................................................................................................................... 57 Table 19: GENDER & ATTRACTIVENESS ............................................................................................. 60 Table 20: AGE & ATTRACTIVENESS ...................................................................................................... 61 Table 21: GENDER & HABIT .................................................................................................................... 62 Table 22: GENDER & IMPORTANCE ...................................................................................................... 63 Table 23: AGE & HABIT ............................................................................................................................. 65 Table 24: AGE & IMPORTANCE .............................................................................................................. 66 Table 25: FACULTY & HABIT .................................................................................................................. 68 Table 26: FACULTY & IMPORTANCE .................................................................................................... 69 Table 27: MAIN AREA OF STUDY & HABIT ......................................................................................... 70 Table 28: MAIN AREA OF STUDY & IMPORTANCE ........................................................................... 72 Table 29: ATTRACTIVENESS & ADVERTISING .................................................................................. 73 Table 30: ADVERTISING & IF YOU WERE NOT AWARE .................................................................. 75 Table 31: ATTRACTIVENESS & IF YOU WERE NOT AWARE .......................................................... 76 Table 32: ADVERTISING & HABIT ......................................................................................................... 77 Table 33: SATISFACTION & AWARENESS ........................................................................................... 78 Table 34: HABIT & AWARENESS ............................................................................................................ 80 Table 35: ATTRACTIVENESS & HABIT ................................................................................................. 81
1
1. BACKGROUND Over the past few years, Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) has been
increasingly studied, considered, and adopted through the implementation of
various activities in the business sector (Chepkoech et al. 2013). According to CSR
Europe (2003) “Corporate Social Responsibility is the way in which a company
manages and improves its social and environmental impact to generate value for
both its shareholders and its stakeholders by innovating its strategy, organization
and operations” (Kakabadse et al., 2005, p.282).
However, even if it is understood that CSR is a concept linked with the companies’
work towards social improvements, since the beginning of the CSR era in the
1950s, its proper nature, and therefore definition, has always been alimenting a
debate among researchers and theoreticians because of both its complexity and
evolution over time with our societies (Geva, 2008; Carroll, 1999).
Indeed, CSR “means something, but not always the same thing to everybody”
(Votaw, 1972, p.25). Those discrepancies mostly depend on the different kinds of
relationships organizations enjoy with their stakeholders. The latter represents “any
group or individual who can affect or is affected by the achievement of the
organization’s objectives” (Freeman, 1984 cited in Bernardis et al., 2010, p.3). They
are the pillars of the Stakeholders Theory (Freeman, 1984 cited in Littau, 2010),
having become a reference when discussing CSR (Pedersen 2006 cited in ibid),
which is opposed to the Shareholders Theory stating that business is about
economic and not social goals (Bernardis et al., 2010).
It is critical to know that CSR is developed around three models: (1) The Pyramid
(Carroll, 1991 cited in Geva, 2008) which founded the basic CSR theory: a
hierarchy of separate responsibilities in which the economic one is the base (Geva,
2008); (2) The Intersecting Circles (Schwarz & Carroll, 2003 cited in Geva, 2008)
highlighting the interrelationships within the CSR dimensions and (3) The
Concentric Circles emphasizing how every economic responsibility also have a
legal and ethical dimension (Committee for Economic Development, 1971 cited in
Geva, 2008).
2
Figure 1: Pyramid (Geva, 2008)
Philantropic Responsability
Ethic Responsability
Legal Responsability
Economic Responsability
Philantropic
Legal
Economic
Ethical
Figure 2: Intersecting Circles (Geva, 2008)
3
Figure 3: Concentric Circles (Geva, 2008)
Indeed, each CSR model is based on three dimensions (a) the categories of social
responsibility which consist of the economic (making profit), legal (obeying the law),
ethical and philanthropic (being a good corporate citizen) responsibilities; (b) the
categories of social responsiveness including reaction, defense, accommodation
and pro-action; (c) the categories of social issues, in which the environment is
found.
Finally, despite these CSR models, four groups of CSR theories have been
distinguished (Garringa et al., 2004): (1) the instrumental theory seeing firms as
welfare creators implementing strategies aiming at developing competitive
advantages; (2) the political theory emphasizing the firms’ power and their
responsibility towards the society; (3) the integrative theory in which businesses are
seen as depending on the society and therefore incline to consider social demands;
(4) the ethical theory interpreting CSR as a tool helping to incorporate ethics within
firms’ values, notably regarding the sustainable development (Bernardis et al.,
2010; Garringa et al., 2004).
In order to deepen the understanding of CSR, studies have been conducted in order
to explore the benefits organizations obtained by implementing it. Jones et al.
(2014) focused on the attraction companies gained. One emphasized dimension
dealt with pro-environmental practices (ibid) since sustainability is an
Philantropic
Ethical
Legal
Economi
c
4
unquestionably fast-growing trend in both the business field and our societies
(Geva, 2008).
Green Marketing
According to McDaniel & Rylander (1993) “Green Marketing”, which is
environmentally oriented, is increasing together with the environmental
consciousness; and will be one of the key businesses in the future. As a matter of
fact, Wanninayake & Randiwela (2008, p.3) observed that the “Whole World is
identifying the need of Green Marketing, Environmental Marketing and Ecological
marketing […]”. Elkington (1994) and Porter & van der Linde (1995), cited in Baker
(2003), stated that the eco-performance could be seen as a competitive advantage.
This is illustrated by the example of The Co-operative Bank, which gained more
than 200 000 customers as a result of its green marketing approach (Hedstrom et
al., 2000). UK researchers also found out that the decision of a purchase is
sometimes based on environmental aspects (Baker, 2003). This can be the result of
the growing social and regulatory concerns for the environment (Wanninayake &
Randiwela, 2008).
Some authors highlighted that implementing such socially responsible measures
was about an integration within the society in order to improve a social, and more
generally, public image (Chepkoech et al. 2013). It implies a strategic reflection on
getting more attractive, and according to Bernardis et al. (2010) the CSR tools are,
regarding public organizations, to be associated with the strategic tools of the public
sector. Moreover, modern research is getting increasingly interested in how CSR
applies to the public sector (Scholl, 2001). Thus, establishing a link between CSR,
its environmental dimension, the attraction it represents and the public sector
appears innovator as well as from current preoccupation.
CSR in Public sector As a matter of fact, CSR have a different meaning in the public sector and in the
private sector (Bernardis et al., 2010). The main differences lie in (1) their different
concept of value creation; (2) their different financial perspectives: the final goal of a
private company is a financial improvement while public industries need financial
5
funds to keep on achieving their institutional mission, which is their final goal; (3) the
public sector has wider boundaries of CSR tools. While private firms aim at
satisfying their shareholders through profits improvements with social responsibility
as a constraint, public organizations aim at satisfying their stakeholders through the
production of public value with an economic balance as a constraint.
University Social Responsibility (USR) In the late 19th and early 20th centuries the social responsibility of the higher
education system has increasingly been highlighted and considered an intrinsic
aspect (Vasilescu et al., 2009). Up until recently, the focus has mostly been on
private sectors and corporates in general, even if some studies can be found
dealing with public sector actions empowering CSR, without clearly naming it (Fox
et al., 2002). As for the social responsibility of higher education, the corporate point
of view has been shifted to a framework fitting public universities, since they are
considered having a special type of organization. By implementing a “University
Social Responsibility” point of view, not only do they meet the expectations of the
stakeholders, which in this case would be the students, but they would also position
themselves clearly within society (Vasilescu et al., 2009; Von Hauff, Nguyen, 2014).
University Social Responsibility (USR) is defined in Reiser (2008) cited in Vasilescu
et al. (2009, p. 4178) as “a policy of ethical quality of the performance of the
university community (students, faculty and administrative employees) via the
responsible management of the educational, cognitive, labor and environmental
impacts produced by the university, in an interactive dialogue with society to
promote a sustainable human development.”
According to Sanford (2011) and Jimena (2011), cited in Aamir et al. (2013), it is
important for organizations to earn trust, be trusted and function in the highest
ethical standards. By incorporating social responsibility in their strategy, they will be
more competitive and attract more stakeholders (students) to their services
(education). It is also considered that it enhances the alumni’s satisfaction, which in
return, would attract more students. Many researchers argue that firms ability to
attract and retain workforce increases with the adoption of social responsibility
(Martinez, 2014). However, there has not been much research on whether
universities, that are adopting social responsibility, are attractive for students. There
6
has been adequate research on the misplaced wisdom in regards to social
responsibility and the additional costs that comes with it (Ambec & Lanoie, 2008),
yet few research has been made on the attractiveness that comes along with social
responsibility, and even fewer within the public sector, such as in the higher
education. Could the higher education also benefit, in terms of attractiveness, from
the implementation of environmentally oriented measures?
In the International Student Barometer (ISB), which is one of the largest online
benchmarking surveys for students, the international students answer a question
regarding the eco-friendliness of their exchange-university. The answers reflect the
students attention and acknowledgement towards the efforts made. The results are
then compared to other universities.
The world has opened its eyes on eco-friendliness. The society, consumers and
businesses, are worried about the environmental pollution, unethical business
practices and the natural environment. As a result, societies are in the process of
changing their behavior. The customers’ environmental needs are flourishing and
the organizations are benefiting from it. The business organizations have
recognized the competitive advantage and opportunities gained by being eco-
friendly (Wanninayake & Randiwela, 2008). So did the universities around the world
(Lang, 2009). Nonetheless, there is a gap in the literature concerning the attraction
of eco-friendliness, especially regarding its aspect as a factor for students’
University choice.
7
1.1. PROBLEM STATEMENT
Much research has been conducted in an attempt to understand the attraction of
Corporate Social Responsibility on employees within private sectors (Greening &
Turban, 2000; Jones et al., 2014). However, research lacks to inquire about the
attraction of social responsibilities on students within public universities. Not only is
there a lack of research, but the little research available is also from a Corporate
Social Responsibility point of view, which does not fit the public universities. Along
with the different expectations of the stakeholders, in this case the students, the
universities need to implement a “University Social Responsibility” (USR) framework
that fits their public organization.
Universities take measures to achieve certain social responsibility goals, and
therefore act in an eco-friendly way on a daily basis. However, the students’
reaction, knowing the eco-friendliness of universities, is unknown. With measures
taken towards eco-friendliness, a university could expect to impact students on their
choice of university and therefore, attract them. If more studies were conducted
looking at how students were interested in the eco-friendly profile of a university, not
only would the understanding of students’ behavior towards eco-friendliness be
improved, but universities would also be able to attract students more strategically.
Nonetheless, there is a real gap concerning the eco-friendliness of universities,
which would be a USR focus, and its attractiveness on students. Does the eco-
friendly profile of a university appeal students?
1.2. AIM OF RESEARCH
The current study aims to understand the correlation between eco-friendliness and
the attraction students have towards a university. It includes a focus on the
importance of eco-friendliness as a factor for Swedish students in terms of
university choice in the context of a Swedish university. The study only focuses on
one public university, namely Linköping University.
8
1.3. RESEARCH QUESTION
The research will explore the following question:
• Does the eco-friendly profile of Linköping University have a positive impact
on its perceived attractiveness among Swedish students?
Such a question led us to set up hypotheses:
H0: Less than 33.33% of the Swedish LiU students are attracted to LiU’s eco-
friendliness
H1: At least 33.33% of the Swedish LiU students are attracted to LiU’s eco-
friendliness.
H0: Less than 33.33% of the Swedish LiU students consider eco-friendliness as a
university choice factor
H1: At least 33.33% of the Swedish LiU students consider eco-friendliness as a
university choice factor
H0: Less than 33.33% of the Swedish LiU students consider the eco-friendly profile
of LiU would have an impact, in terms of university choice
H1: At least 33.33% of the Swedish LiU students consider the eco-friendly profile of
LiU would have an impact, in terms of university choice
9
1.4. CONTRIBUTION
This research is useful, not only for readers who would like to gain a general
understanding within the field of eco-friendliness and its impact on public
universities; it can also help universities, such as Linköping University, to gain
further knowledge on whether its focus on eco-friendliness represents any positive
effects on students, which could, later on, be considered as a competitive
advantage. The authors consider this subject important because it links the
attractiveness of a university with its environmental measures and whether it is
worth developing. It also links topics that had not been adequately researched on so
far. As a consequence of the increasing environmental consciousness, the need for
a deeper and specific understanding of this area is growing.
10
2. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK 2.1. THE STUDENT-CUSTOMER MODEL
College education has increasingly been seen as a private good purchased by a
customer (Bloom et al., 2006; Chaffee, 1998; Swagler, 1978; Wellen, 2005 cited in
Saunders 2014).
This point of view regarding students’ identity seems to have emerged with the
development of neoliberalism in the beginning of the 1970s, since such a vision
promotes the commodification of education by defining the relationship between
students and educational institutions as an economic exchange in which students
become customers (Swagler, 1978; Biesta, 2004 cited in Saunders, 2014). This
concept became the primary definition of college students in the mid-1970s (Franks,
1982 cited in Saunders, 2014).
Saunders (2014) furthers this educational orientation of students being customers of
their college or university by emphasizing the fact that the latter is no longer only
aiming at meeting curricular needs, but that it also aims at satisfying both
educational and non educational desires. Educational institutions largely use this
idea of “satisfaction” in order to tacitly refer to the “students as customers” concept.
This customer orientation vision of students has been verified by many scholars and
concerned professionals, to the point of coming up with the definition of the
relationship between students and educational institutions as one of a service
provider and its customers (Saunders, 2014).
However, in most cases, students do not pay for their entire education (Eagle &
Brennan, 2007 cited in Saunders, 2014). Scholarships and subsidies, family support
or any other possible financial support lower the price of education for students,
making it lower, and in some cases much lower, than the costs required to produce
it (Winston, 1999 cited in Saunders, 2014). Such a consideration is to be associated
with the proper definition of a customer. The latter being characterized by its role as
a purchaser, the different financiers involved in the payment of a student’s
education would have to be considered customers as well (Brennan & Bennington,
1999; Schwartzman, 1995 cited in Saunders, 2014). Following the same approach,
11
the students whose education is fully financed by a third party would not be
considered customers at all (Saunders, 2014).
Furthermore, education is not an actual product that can be purchased. It is more of
a complex process involving creativity and therefore, which cannot be
conceptualized as a “simple exchange” (Brule, 2004; Delucchi & Korgen, 2002;
Newson 2004 cited in Saunders, 2014). The main reluctance towards the student-
customer model lies in the vision of higher education as “completely separate and
distinct from the business world”, especially concerning the notions of success and
failure (Mark, 2013, p. 3). Finally, if we do consider education as a service, and not
as a product, the relationship between a student as a customer and an educational
institution presents a real lack of balance in terms of knowledge. Emphasizing the
existing balance noticeable between any other customer and a service provider
(Winston, 1999 cited in Saunders, 2014). Nonetheless, according to Hill (1995) and
Lengnick-Hall (1996) cited in Mark (2013), customers are no longer considered as
“passive recipients”, especially within the tertiary sector. In service delivery,
customers are now viewed as active participants being “co-producers” of the service
they receive. The idea is reinforced by Wilson et al. (2008, p. 273) who talk about
“the unique roles played by customers in service delivery situations”. An illustration
of this vision is made within the educational sector.
The presence in the factory is a determinant of a service customer, as well as the
interaction with both employees and other customers. Thus, the classroom is
considered as the “factory”, the place where the service is produced and consumed.
In the classroom, students are interacting with an instructor, which has the role of
employee from the educational entity, and other students, which represent the other
customers. All the requirements are fulfilled to consider students as service
customers: they are present in the factory, interacting with employees and other
customers. They are present during the service production and can therefore
contribute to it by asking questions or participating. In this way, students can control
or contribute to their own satisfaction since they are participants in the service
production and delivery. Students are thus customers, co-creating and consuming a
service, in this case, an educational one. Additionally, Saunders (2014, p. 208)
came up with the conclusion that “students cannot be anything but customers in a
12
world defined by a free-market logic”, a system in which the population is currently
evolving, through the capitalist model characterizing most of our societies.
Since the present study is focusing on Swedish students in order to determine
whether eco-friendliness is a university choice factor, it will be possible to consider
them as customers, consuming the educational services provided by Linköping
University.
2.2. CSR AS A STRATEGY THROUGH BRAND IMAGE
CSR has been included into different strategic performance models (Kolodinsky et
al., 2010 cited in Liu et al., 2014). Porter & Kramer (2006) reveal that Corporate
Social Responsibility can be more than just costs, constraints or charitable deeds. It
can be an enabler of opportunities, innovations and competitive advantages.
CSR regroups various factors proved to influence brand building (Chomvilailuk &
Butcher, 2010; Hoeffler & Keller, 2002; Roll, 2006 cited in Liu et al., 2014). Thus, an
increasing number of companies incorporate CSR measures into their strategy in
order to get branding benefits (Hoeffler & Keller, 2002 cited in Liu et al., 2014).
These benefits are mostly defined by the brand equity, building a strong brand,
which can be developed using Corporate Societal Marketing (CSM), when a “firm
publicly claims its commitment to a cause” (Liu et al., 2014; Hoeffler & Keller, 2002,
p. 87).
Overall, Kolodinsky et al. (2010) discovered that consumers’ positive attitudes
toward companies’ social activities could affect their perceptions and therefore,
behaviors accordingly. Thus, while recent studies linked CSR and marketing results,
those dealing with CSR, brand quality and brand preference are rare, as well as the
ones referring to the role of CSR influence in the service industry (Liu et al., 2014).
The question concerning the fact that brand equity could lead to brand preference
and therefore, to the customers choosing a specific brand rather than another
similar one, is important to be considered. It has been years, since brand
preference has been proved to be similar to purchase intention since the preference
for a brand has been recognized as a good predictor of purchase and choice, which
is still relevant (Banks, 1950; Taylor, 2001; Corte et al., 2010; Yoo et al., 2000 cited
13
in Liu et al., 2014). Once the importance of brand equity had been emphasized,
many businesses decided to implement CSR programs in order to develop it as part
of their strategy (Singh et al., 2008 cited in Liu et al., 2014). In fact, the performance
in some CSR dimensions has been found to have positive impacts on a company’s
brand image (Singh et al., 2008). According to the study of Sen and Bhattacharya
(2001) cited in Liu et al., 2014, there is a positive relationship between a firm’s CSR
activities and how consumers evaluate it. Another study from Luo and Bhattacharya
(2006) cited in Liu et al., 2014, revealed how the implementation of CSR, for a
company, contributed to the satisfaction of its customers and therefore, to financial
success. Liu et al. (2014) end their reasoning by concluding, “it is generally
suggested that customers respond positively towards positive CSR practices”
(Brown & Dacin, 1997; Sen & Bhattacharya, 2001; Ricks, 2005 cited by Liu et al.,
2014, p. 182).
Thus, implementing CSR for any organization is recognized to engender positive
impacts on customers. In such way, applying CSR measures within a university
(University Social Responsibility) would generate positive impacts on customers, in
other words, on students. Therefore, regarding the present study and research
subject, it seems critical to consider the link between the specific dimension related
to eco-friendliness, that is the environmental CSR, and these observed positive
impacts on customers.
14
2.3. CUSTOMERS ATTRACTIONS TOWARDS CSR AND ITS ENVIRONMENTAL DIMENSIONS
Rankings dealing with companies’ CSR performances, such as Myriad’s, are proved
to attract “considerable publicity” directly benefiting the ranked companies in spite of
their sometimes-dubious methodologies (Porter & Kramer, 2006). The study of
Singh et al. (2008) among British and Spanish customers revealed the
environmental activities of a company were the second CSR dimension attracting
the greatest degree of interest, especially among the British customers.
Moreover, implementing environmental CSR is not only benefiting manufacturers,
but also service providers with both internal and external drivers e.g. meeting
environmental policies and communicating a “green” image to improve a service
provider’s reputation (Cheung et al., 2009; Marin & Ruiz, 2007 cited in Liu et al.,
2014). In fact, environmental CSR is accessible as well as highly recognized by
customers (Rahbar & Wahid, 2011 cited in Liu et al., 2014). In this way, “the
influence of environmental CSR on consumer perceptions and intentions is widely
recognized” (Liu et al., 2014, p. 183). Those words are illustrated by the work of
Mohr and Webb (2005), which highlighted how manufacturers who put
environmental CSR into effect benefited from a considerable positive effect on
consumers’ purchase intentions, in addition to their company evaluation (Mohr &
Webb 2005 cited in Liu et al. 2014). The same analyses were made within the
tertiary sector establishing a direct correlation between a customer’s attraction to a
bank and its reputation for its CSR involvement involving the environmental
protection (Marin & Ruiz, 2007 cited in Liu et al., 2014). Thus, a firm’s eco-friendly
brand image has been declared positively linked with customers’ satisfaction (Chen,
2010 cited in Liu et al., 2014). “With supportive evidence from the literature,
implementing environmentally focused CSR programs should yield more favorable
brand preference by customers” (Liu et al., 2014, p. 183).
However, very little research has been conducted in order to specifically study the
relation between eco-friendliness and consumption habits of students (Zsóka et al.,
2013).
15
2.4. DEFINING ECO-FRIENDLINESS
Wolfe & Shanklin (2001, p. 209) define the concept of being “green” as an action to
“reduce the impact on the environment, such as eco purchasing or recycling”. By
being “environmentally responsible”, organizations are improving their operational
efficiency by “conserving resources and reusing them as much as possible” (Wu &
Dunn, 1995, p. 22). However, the term “green” has different aspects and is called
differently depending on the context it is used in (Brown et al., 1987). According to
Han et al. (2009), the term “green” is not only being called “environmentally
responsible” or “environmentally friendly”, but can also be labelled as “eco-friendly”.
The term “eco-friendly” is frequently used in a relative sense. The term can be used
for products, services or even for organizations. When the products or services life-
cycle analysis imposes a “reduction of negative externalities” of the production-
consumption cycle, it is treated as eco-friendly. The evaluation of a product, service
or organization eco-friendliness would consist of comparing them to similar
products, services or organizations in order to define reference points in terms of
eco-friendliness (Pastakia, 1998).
Having an eco-friendly product, service, organization or even process, which might
seem easy, is hard in practice, since the absolute sense of “eco-friendliness” points
out the “positive externalities for the environment”. However, since the term is used
relatively, eco-friendliness specifies that there are no negative externalities for the
environment (Pastakia, 1998). The term “eco-friendly”, within all industries, does not
only just describe the actions towards being “green”, but also portrays a concealed
desire (Pastakia, 1998). Whether it is to increase profits, boost image or attract
more stakeholders. Eco-friendliness, in the case of a university, could boost the
image, as well as attract more students. However, the behavior and decisions made
could differ from person to person and from situation to situation.
16
2.5. ATTITUDE AND BEHAVIOR TOWARDS ECO-FRIENDLINESS
In a research conducted by Dahm et al., (2009) the question on whether “eco-
friendly attitudes predict eco-friendly behavior” is answered. It states that the eco-
friendly behavior could, in addition to the indication of an environmental
consciousness, indicate a green consumption. The eco-friendly attitude leads to an
eco-friendly behavior such as, “recycling, energy conservation, water conservations,
driving hybrid cars, carpooling, ozone protection” (Dahm et al., 2009, p. 197) and so
on.
There are a few dimensions, which the researchers agree on, regarding the eco-
friendly attitude. These dimensions consist of:
(1) Perceived severity of environmental problems
(2) Inconvenience of being environmentally friendly
(3) Importance of being environmentally friendly
(4) Perceived level of corporate responsibility to be eco-friendly
The first dimension deals with the observed severity of the environmental problems
such as the limitation of resources. The second dimension recognizes that the
inconvenience of being environmentally friendly is resisted, since “Recycling is not
much trouble”. The third dimension emphasizes how important it is to be
environmental friendly, e.g. that an electric car reduces the pollution. The fourth
dimension points out that the business firms are and should aim at being
environmentally responsible. All these attitude dimensions have different degrees of
seriousness towards ecological problems (Han et al., 2011).
According to Roberts (1999, p. 559), environmentally conscious people are likely to
“engage in eco-friendly consumer behaviors” and according to the research of Han
et al. (2009) there is also a favorable attitude in the eco-friendly decision making
process. However, a few researchers, such as Malback (1993) and Roberts (1996),
mention that only a small fraction of those that are environmentally conscious
actually act favorably towards eco-friendliness. Nonetheless, the more concerns a
person has regarding the environment, the more that person’s decision-process
17
would be based on the eco-friendliness (Han et al., 2009). With the development of
societal trends towards environmental concerns amongst students, there can be
more decision-process made, based on eco-friendliness (Shetzer et al., 1991 cited
in Hodgkinson & Innes, 2001). These decision-processes could simplify the
understanding if students act favorably towards eco-friendly universities. However,
these decision-processes can also easily be influenced by CSR.
2.6. CORPORATE SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY AND ITS ATTRACTING SIGNALS
According to Greening & Turban (2000) organizations can attract job applicants by
empowering their Corporate Social Performance (CSP) progressively, since they
differentiate themselves from other organizations (Rynes, 1991). While Corporate
Social Responsibility is about the continuous improvement of both social and
environmental actions, Corporate Social Performance is about the measurement of
those improvements compared to the competitors (Luo & Bhattacharya, 2009).
Studies suggest that, by using the Signaling theory, the cause leading job
applicants to be attracted by CSP can be better understood (Rynes et al., 1991;
Jones et al., 2014). Jones et al. (2014, p. 385) argue that there are three signal-
based mechanisms that explain the link between CSP and organizational
attractiveness. They address it is through these signals that “job-seekers […] inform
their perceptions and expectations about the organization”, and impact the job-
seekers to feel attracted towards the organization.
According to Jones et al. (2014) the three mechanisms are:
(1) Anticipated pride from being affiliated with a prestigious organization
(2) Perceived value fit
(3) Expected treatment
As stated in Celani & Singh (2010) the signal-based mechanism has been rarely
tested. The relationship between the mechanism and the outcome or the
assumption drawn from those outcomes has also rarely been proven. However, it is
a good starting point as it gives a basic explanation of how the job-seekers react to
CSP.
18
(1) Anticipated pride from being affiliated with a prestigious organization
The job-seekers’ attraction towards an employer gets influenced by the signals,
which are sent out by the organization's’ reputation. Corporate Social Performance
sends out the signal that the organization could be prestigious and valued by
others, which in return convinces the pride of the job-seeker into wanting to be
associated with the organization (Behrend et al., 2009; Jones et al., 2014). Jones et
al. (2014) base their assumptions on the social identity theory, which states that
people acquire some of their identity by the feeling of being a part of something,
such as a part of an organization, mostly when it is an organization that could make
that person feel more worthy. Being a part of an organization highly valued by
others would be seen as affecting the job-seekers’ social approval. Behrend et al.
(2009), cited in Jones et al., (2014, p. 386), found out that “a company’s
environmental message on a website increased its organizational prestige and, in
turn, participants’ job pursuit intentions”.
(2) Perceived value fit
According to Jones et al., (2014) some researchers observed that CSP enhances
the attractiveness of an organization, since the signals can be interpreted as an
organizational value. If this value fitted the value of the job-seekers, the
attractiveness would be intensified, and the job-seekers would, in return, perceive it
as “value fit”. Such perceived value fit is proved to be more attractive than other
factors, e.g. pay or promotion. It also states that organizations with environmentally
friendly practices are more attractive to job-seekers having pro-environmental
values, such as preserving the natural environment.
(3) Expected treatment
Aguilera et al. (2007), cited in Jones et al. (2014), states that when CSP is directed
externally, employees would see that as an indication of organizational concern for
others within the organization as well. An externally directed CSP would be the
practices done outside the organizations, such as pro-environmental practices. The
19
“prosocial orientation” of an organization sends out a signal to job-seekers,
demonstrating that the organization cares about the welfare of the employees. The
job-seekers would receive the “expected treatment” signal, and expect to be treated
in a positive way (Jones et al., 2014).
The signals of an organization's prestige, values and expected treatment would
enhance the attractiveness towards job-seekers, since people are prone to “pursue
favorable outcomes” (Jones et al., 2014). Therefore, university social responsibility
could send out the same signals as corporate social responsibility, attracting
students with signals of perceived prestige, values and expected treatment.
Corporate Social Performance
Organizational Attractiveness
Perceived Value Fit
Anticipated Pride /Prestige
Expected Treatment
Figure 4: A Model of the Effects of CSP-Environment on Organizational Attractiveness
(Authors own creation, 2015)
20
2.7. SUMMARY OF THE THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
According to the literature (Bloom et al., 2006; Chaffee, 1998; Swagler, 1978;
Wellen, 2005 cited in Saunders, 2014), the higher education has increasingly been
seen as a good purchased by students from the 1970s and the development of the
neoliberalism, making the latter customers. This point of view has, from its
introduction, been dividing the theoreticians.
On one hand, some disagree stating that, regarding the proper definition of
customer being a purchaser, the financiers of the educational service are the only
ones to be considered customers, which excludes most of the actual students since
only few of them finance their studies by themselves and pay the total amount of the
tuition (Saunders, 2014). Moreover, the definition of education as a product and
therefore, its association to the business world bothered more than one (Brule,
2004; Delucchi & Korgen, 2002; Newson, 2004 cited in Saunders, 2014). However,
the vision evolved with the development of our societies as well as the tertiary
sector until reaching the idea of “service customer”, no longer defining education as
a product but still part of the business field. Finally, even when considered a
service, some researchers still disapproved this student's identity model because of
the discrepancy in terms of knowledge between students and educational
institutions, a nonexistent gap in the business world between customers and their
service providers (Winston, 1999 cited in Saunders, 2014).
Thus, on another hand, authors like Saunders (2014) approve this student-customer
model by invoking how higher education institutions target satisfaction, tacitly
referring to students as customers. In addition, Wilson (2008) defines a service
customer as a person present in the factory and interacting with both employees
and other customers, and illustrates it with the example of higher education
students. Finally, a general remark of Saunders (2014) helps this model to be seen
positively. He states that in a world defined by a free-market logic, as the one the
population is living in through capitalism, students cannot be anything but
customers. As a result, the authors can state that students can be considered as
service customers and therefore, associated with customers’ behaviors and other
characteristics.
21
CSR has been more and more included within strategic performance model
because its role of innovation and competitive advantage has been highlighted,
especially regarding the notion of brand image (Kolodinsky et al., 2010 cited in Liu
et al., 2014; Porter & Kramer, 2006). Indeed, it has been proved to influence the
latter. Having a good brand image implied customers interest and good evaluations
regarding the organization implementing the CSR measures, and the positive
attitude of the customers implies positive behavior like purchase intentions, which
echoes brand preference, which is a goal for most of the organizations in the world.
The environmental dimension of CSR has been specifically proved to attract
customers, it has been observed second most attractive CSR dimension in the
study of Singh et al. in 2008.
The benefits of CSR have also been proved beneficial for service providers (like
universities), and therefore not only for manufacturers. Last year, Liu et al. (2014)
recognized that the influence of environmental CSR on consumer perceptions and
intentions is widely recognized, emphasizing the fact that implementing
environmental CSR benefited the organization with increased purchase intentions
and more favorable brand preference. In other terms, the environmental CSR is the
dimension developing the eco-friendly profile of any organization implementing it.
When there are no negative externalities for the environment, a product, service or
organization can be considered as eco-friendly. However, the term “eco-friendly”,
which is frequently used in a relative sense, can be labeled differently (Pastakia,
1998). The term “green”, “environmentally responsible” or “environmentally friendly”
can, more or less, be characterized under the same category (Pastakia, 1998). It
also implies a veiled motive, such as increasing profits, boosting image or attracting
stakeholders, which in the case of a university would be the students (Han et al.,
2009).
Different attitudes indicate different behavior outcomes (Dahm et al, 2009). People
that are endowed with an environmental conscious are not only more likely to
“engage in eco-friendly consumer behaviors” but are also prone to eco-friendly
decision-making processes (Roberts, 1999, p. 559; Han et al., 2009). The societal
trend towards environmental concerns amongst student is indicating that more
decision-processes are made based on eco-friendliness (Shetzer et al., 1991 cited
in Hodgkinson & Innes, 2001). This trend towards environmental concerns is not
22
just increasing amongst student, but amongst organizations as well (Greening &
Turban, 2000). These organizations implement CSR, which, as a consequence,
sends out signals attracting job-seekers. The implementation of CSR benefits
organizations by distinguishing themselves from other organizations. It also
illustrates the organization as prestigious, enhances value perception and expected
treatment (Rynes et al., 1991; Jones et al., 2014).
Figure 5: Theoretical Framework Overview (Authors Own Creation, 2015)
23
3. METHODOLOGY There are a few important aspects to consider when conducting a research. This
section is therefore, presenting the research strategy and design, as well as a
deeper explanation of the reasons why this study has been conducted accordingly.
The methods used to gather empirical data are being introduced as well as the
sample and analysis method. Further, the limitations recognized and met while
conducting this research are being addressed, together with issues of credibility,
reliability and validity. One essential facet frequently forgotten in research studies is
the importance of research ethics, which is highlighted in the finale section of this
chapter.
3.1. PURPOSE OF THE RESEARCH
The present study is based on an exploratory case study. It concerns initial
research into a theoretical idea: students’ attraction towards eco-friendliness while
in a situation of university choice. Thus, this research will, hopefully, lead to further
future research.
3.2. RESEARCH PHILOSOPHY
In a matter of deeper understanding and in order to explicit the perspective with
which the authors chose to lead this research and reflection, it has been decided to
highlight the chosen philosophy.
To address the ontological question, a brief reminder of its proper meaning appears
necessary. Ontology is to be associated with how we, as human beings, see the
world. Bryman & Bell (2011) depict two possible ways under the terms of
objectivism and constructionism (or constructivism). Being objectivist would be to
assume that humans are confronted to external facts they cannot influence; social
phenomena are independent from actors and minds, it is an objective reality. Being
constructionist, on the contrary, is to be linked with a reality “constructed” by social
actors’ perceptions and actions, and therefore a form and nature which is “in a
constant state of revision” (Bryman & Bell, 2011, p. 22). The second notion that is to
be cited while dealing with philosophy concerns the epistemology. The
24
epistemological question is to be related to how the knowledge is deducted and
thus to the nature, origin and scope of the latter (Bryman & Bell, 2007). Two
variations do exist within the epistemological position: the interpretive and positivist
epistemology. Both refer to clarifying objectives in order to define what is to be
possible to find out. In other words, how people think about facts. Even though its
definition can vary according to different authors, positivism is a vision implying a
connection between the world, such as objects or phenomena, and a human’s
perception and thus understanding of it (Willig, 2004). Interpretivism is about
interpreting a meaning of things with the idea of the no absolute truth; there is no
statement of one reality. Mainly adopted in qualitative research, this view is when
researchers want to provide causal explanations to an action and its effects.
These research philosophy choices have been strongly influenced by the following
quote from Descartes (1968): “Those who are seeking the strict way of truth should
not trouble themselves about any object concerning which they cannot have a
certainty equal to arithmetical or geometrical demonstration”.
Thus, regarding the present study, the results expected and the overall vision the
authors have of it, the ontological position has to be objectivist. Consequently, the
epistemological consideration goes towards positivism, the heart of the subject
dealing with students’ perception of eco-friendliness when choosing a university.
Moreover, a positivist approach is allowing the authors to reach much more
respondents. In the case of this research, such a parameter is critical since a
quantitative research strategy is adopted. The accuracy of the survey conducted in
order to collect the required data thoroughly depends on such a positivist point of
view since it is about maximizing the representativeness of the sample (Bryman &
Bell, 2011).
This adopted philosophy regroups every aspect of the present research: a theory
developed in order to generate hypotheses that are tested in order to get a
“scientific truth” (epistemology) through a survey based on the principle of
deductivism (methodology) with science being conducted in a “value-free” way
demonstrating objectivism (ontology) (Bryman & Bell, 2011).
25
3.3. RESEARCH STRATEGY
Kerliner (1986, p. 10) defines research as ”systematic, controlled, empirical, and
critical investigation of natural phenomena guided by theory and hypotheses about
the presumed relations among such phenomena.” Depoy & Gitlin (2010, p. 6) take
that definition further by including “logical, understandable, confirmable and useful”.
To be able to conduct a research study in an academic context, it is fundamental to
reflect and understand what kind of research approach to adopt. According to
Bryman & Bell (2011) there are different ways to conduct an academic research:
experimental design; cross-sectional or social survey design; longitudinal design;
comparative design and case study design. Since the present study is based on a
single organization, Linköping University, within a single geographical location,
Campus Valla, it is conducted following a case study design.
As a result of the limited timeframe and resources met at a bachelor level, the
authors are conducting a study entailing a detailed and intensive analysis of a single
case study. This research also requires the usage of a formal sampling to
accurately represent a population. Therefore, the case study approach appears to
be the most beneficial.
3.4. RESEARCH APPROACH
Bryman & Bell (2011) emphasize the importance of linking the process of an
academic research with a theoretical framework. The authors describe two
contrasting approaches to link theory with research, namely deductive theory and
inductive theory. An academic research, based on a deductive theory approach,
starts the deduction process with a theoretical development, followed by the
establishment of hypotheses deduced with theoretical considerations. From then
on, the hypotheses are “subjected to empirical scrutiny” (Bryman & Bell, 2007, p.
17). On the contrary, while the inductive theory approach involves the same steps,
the latter are developed in the opposite direction. The researcher comes up with a
theory depending on the implication of the findings. According to Bryman & Bell
26
(2011, p. 14) “[…] deductive and inductive approaches are possibly better thought
of as tendencies rather than as a hard-and-fast distinction.” Both approaches entail
elements of one another. However, the authors define their academic research
through an approach that has its tendencies found in the deductive reasoning, as
they come up with hypotheses to be tested and do not aim to generate a new
theory.
3.5. RESEARCH METHOD
In order to be able to establish a relationship between theory and research, an
appropriate research method needs to be established and presented. There are
three different research methods: quantitative, qualitative and mixed methods. The
one the researchers decided to adopt regarding their subject and the nature of the
research question is the quantitative method.
3.5.1. QUANTITATIVE METHOD
Conducting a quantitative study enable researchers to acquire primary data, which
is argued to give uniqueness to a research study. Primary data is the data collected
by the researchers themselves.
The present research needs to quantify its problem: whether eco-friendliness
attracts students when choosing a university. Therefore, a sample out of the larger
population needs to be taken into consideration. In this sense, the quantitative
method provides both an overview and statistical information enabling reliable
statements. This study is a survey-based research (Bryman & Bell, 2011).
Besides primary data, researchers need to acquire secondary data. This category
corresponds to information that have already been collected by other researchers
as part of previous studies, or which can be provided by a third party. Secondary
data is particularly useful as the process to obtain it is not as time consuming or as
expensive as the one to gather primary data. In addition, secondary data help
improving the understanding of a problem as well as supporting the researchers’
study (Bryman & Bell, 2011).
27
3.6. DATA COLLECTION
3.6.1. KEY INFORMANT INTERVIEW (KII)
Conducting a KII allows the researchers to acquire information that is not
documented, in order to provide a survey-based research with enough material. Therefore, the key informant interview is a supportive one having the intent to
collect data; there is no interest in the “interviewee’s own behavior or that of others,
attitudes, norms, beliefs, and values” (Bryman & Bell, 2011, p. 201). It deals with
collecting secondary data from a primary source. The conducted KII aims at aiding
the authors into both constructing their survey questionnaire and gathering critical
secondary data, which does not require any analysis, and is developed in the
empiricism section (Bryman & Bell, 2011).
Thus, an important part of the secondary data is gathered through a “Key Informant
Interview” or “KII”. The chosen approach allows the authors to set the focus of the
interview since the area of discussion wanted with the interviewee is known: the
International Student Barometer (ISB) survey and more particularly its
environmental section, as part of general questions. The flexibility of the method is
critical since the authors want to adapt their questions according to both the
answers they get along the interview and the information they want to figure out.
An interview guide has been established on the model of one of an in-depth
interview for effectiveness, credibility and organization purposes. It lists areas to be
covered in order to make sure the specific topics the authors are interested in are
approached and the answers to their questions are found. The aim is for a freely
spoken discussion during which the data is gathered by taking notes (Bryman &
Bell, 2011).
3.5.2. SURVEY In this study the researchers chose to conduct a self-completed questionnaire with
the Swedish students of Linköping University as respondents. The term self-
completed questionnaire indicates that the respondents answer the questions by
completing the questionnaire by them selves. The participants read the questions
28
and answer it on their own. Instead of sending the survey form to participants
through mail or e-mail contact, it has been decided to walk around Campus Valla
asking respondents to complete the established questionnaire (Bryman & Bell,
2011).
Since there is no interviewer involved in the process of self-completed
questionnaires, it consists of only few open questions compared to the amount of
closed ones and an easy-to-follow design for it to be rather short. Such measures
aim at making it easier for the respondents to answer the questions and therefore,
reduce the “risk of ‘respondent fatigue’” (Bryman & Bell, 2011). In addition, the
questionnaire is not cramped with text but should have both a clear presentation
and clear instructions on how to respond (Appendix B).
The researchers are aware of the existence of some risks associated with self-
completion. The case of a participant not understanding a question can be cited, in
that case, he or she might just choose a random answer and therefore falsify the
answer which could negatively impact the final results, considering that “there will
not be an interviewer present to clear up any confusion” (Bryman & Bell, 2011, p.
262). There is also no possibility to contact any participant afterwards for some
further elaborations or collection of additional data. The authors are aware of the
possible response bias, which can occur within self-completion questionnaires, as
part of the “social desirability effect” (e.g. students claiming to be more eco-friendly
than what they really are) (Bryman & Bell, 2011).
However, the authors’ awareness regarding such hazards is helping them to
maximize their chances to avoid them. Thus, before handing out the self-completed
questionnaires, they are making sure the design of the form is both easily
understandable and not causing any distress, since it could harm the potential
answers. The “social desirability effect” where the responses are in line with “their
perceptions of […] desirability”, is being avoided by the anonymity of the survey
(Bryman & Bell, 2011, p. 271). The anonymity presents the respondents the
possibility of not having anything to prove socially. The authors have decided to
conduct the survey in English, as one of them is not Swedish. They are convinced
the English language does not represent any barrier for the Swedish students. It is
29
believed that it is not impacting the results in any way. In this sense, it has been
decided to conduct a pilot study with a sample composed of both LiU students and
a doctoral student in Marketing: Hugo Guyader, in order to assure the quality of the
survey since “piloting [...] is not solely to do with trying to ensure that survey
questions operate well; piloting also has a role in ensuring that the research
instrument as a whole functions well” (Bryman & Bell, 2011, p. 262). This pre-testing
phase is critical to perfect the final survey questions.
Moreover, the use of self-completed questionnaires presents, as well, numerous
advantages and sizeable assets. Therefore, implementing self-completed
questionnaires is not only cheaper but also much easier to administer. This makes it
also more efficient and effective for the authors, as bachelor students, to gather a
large sample size. Unlike interviews, the questions are not asked in different ways
or different orders (Bryman & Bell, 2011).
3.7. SAMPLING
The researchers have chosen to conduct their business research on Linköping
University (LiU) and more particularly on Campus Valla; the reasons for such a
decision are numerous. First, LiU is a public university, which, in addition, happens
to be among the most eco-friendly universities in the world (based on the
International Student Barometer): two criteria at the heart of the present study and
research question. Then comes a convenient dimension; they are both currently
studying in this university and precise campus. Such a detail cannot be left out
regarding the resources and time pressure they are confronted with.
There are around 27,000 students studying at Linköping University (LiU). Since LiU
is a large university, the researchers do not have enough time or resources to
conduct a survey or interview of all the present student population. Therefore, a
sample of students from the total population of 27,000 students is being made. The
one collected for the present study needs to be a representative sample of all the
Swedish students located on Campus Valla. The total student population is divided
as following: 25,500 Swedish students and 1,500 international students. From the
25,500 students, 18,000 are studying at Campus Valla.
30
There are some sources of bias that can be identified when conducting a survey. If
a non-random sampling method is being used, the human judgment can influence
the process of selection, and the population cannot be represented by the sample
used. In the case of an inadequate sampling frame, the consequences would be the
same. By having a non-response, those who agree to participate in the survey or
interview could differ from those who do not agree. This could result in a different
sample misrepresenting the populations (Bryman & Bell, 2011).
With the sources of bias in mind, the authors conduct a probability sampling. The
population, which consists of Swedish students, is 18,000. The sample size has
been decided to be 149 to obtain reliable data at 95% confidence level with the
significance level being denoted by p < 0,05 (p means here probability). In order to
make sure any possible mistake is being prevented, the authors have been deciding
to conduct 8 more surveys. Therefore, the sample size increases to 157, which is
decreasing the confidence interval of this study from 8 to 7.79. The increase of a
sample size engenders the increase of the “the likely precision of a sample”
(Bryman & Bell, 2011, p. 187). Thus, 157 answers are sought to study whether
eco-friendliness is a factor influencing a university choice among Swedish students.
Since it has been decided to approach every one in five students at different
locations on Campus Valla, the authors’ sample model is based on the “simple
random sample”.
The survey is a self-completed questionnaire since it is easy and convenient for the
respondents as well as cheaper and faster to administer in addition to help avoiding
what are being called the “interviewer effects”. They tend to influence people’s
answers, as well as the “interviewer variability”: asking questions in different ways
(Bryman & Bell, 2011).
3.8. HYPOTHESES
The scientific side of the business research leads the authors to set up hypotheses
to be tested. These informed speculations involve the possible relationship between
the eco-friendly profile of Linköping University, its attractiveness in terms of
university choice and the Swedish students from campus Valla.
31
H0: Less than 33.33% of the Swedish LiU students are attracted to LiU’s eco-
friendliness
H1: At least 33.33% of the Swedish LiU students are attracted to LiU’s eco-
friendliness.
H0: Less than 33.33% of the Swedish LiU students consider eco-friendliness as a
university choice factor
H1: At least 33.33% of the Swedish LiU students consider eco-friendliness as a
university choice factor
H0: Less than 33.33% of the Swedish LiU students consider the eco-friendly profile
of LiU would have an impact, in terms of university choice
H1: At least 33.33% of the Swedish LiU students consider the eco-friendly profile of
LiU would have an impact, in terms of university choice
The definition of the actual “impact” eco-friendliness would have on Swedish
students have been defined around three variables: the attraction towards eco-
friendliness, the consideration of eco-friendliness as a university choice factor and
whether eco-friendliness would have an impact on students’ university choice. It has
been decided to interpret and analyze these variables on the basis of 33.33%. This
percentage has been based on the authors’ considerations only. The percentage is
set in order to evaluate the relevance of the author’s hypotheses as well as if it is
relevant for at least one third of the population. The authors do believe a variable is
worth being considered as having an important enough impact when it, at least,
involves one third of the population.
For the authors, more than 33.33% would mean the studied variable has a sizeable
effect on Swedish students, which is worth being considered as “positive impact”
because of the importance it represents. If a studied variable happened to be
inferior to 33.33%, the authors would still consider it as “having an impact” on
Swedish students (as long as it does not equal 0%) but not as important, especially
in terms of benefits for the university, and would therefore, be considered as having
a “minor impact”.
32
3.9. DATA ANALYSIS
By conducting the survey, the researchers are able to code the response for further
analysis. The questions asked generate different types of variables, consisting of
interval/ratio variables, nominal variables, ordinal variables as well as dichotomous
variables. These four main types are to be considered when analyzing the
quantitative data, since some variables have a specific levels of measurement,
while other variables cannot be measured and analyzed in the same way (Bryman
& Bell, 2011).
Interval/ratio variables have a range of categories with identical distances. Ordinal
variables can be rank ordered, however, the distances are unproportionate across
the range. Nominal variables, which are also termed categorical, cannot be rank
ordered. Dichotomous variables have only two categories, such as yes or no
variables. Some of these variables can be analyzed one by one, on their own: this is
called univariate analysis. However, other variables need to be analyzed together
with other single variables in order to explore relationships. By doing so, in the case
of two variables a bivariate analysis is being used, while in the case of three or
more variables, it is a multivariate analysis, which is being adopted.
The use of the statistical software “Statistical Package for the Social Sciences”, also
called “IBM SPSS Statistics” (SPSS), enables the analysis of the data collected
from the survey conducted among Swedish students in Campus Valla through both
elementary and advanced statistical tools. SPSS allows the use of some of the most
efficient methods of data analysis, such as Frequency tables, Contingency tables
and Chi-square tests (X2). By using SPSS the authors are not only saving time and
increasing their productivity, they are also simplifying the data understanding. Excel
is also being used in order to create charts with the help of the frequency tables,
which are assisting the researchers into further analyzing their data.
The authors want to be able to make conclusions about the whole population from
which the sample has been obtained: Linköping University (Campus Valla), and not
only about the randomly chosen respondents.
33
Using a simple random sample is ensuring a certain quality: not favoring or miss-
favoring anyone. Therefore, it can be said that it is the chance, which decides who
gets selected to participate in the survey. In return, such a method makes a sample
appropriate to be used as a reflection of the population. All the elements in the
concerned population have the chance to be apart of the sample. The known
possibility to be apart of it is x > 0.
In order to analyze statistics, statistical inference is being used, which includes the
art of drawing conclusions about a population from a sample. The calculation of the
confidence interval enables the "hypotheses testing". This interval marks with a
certain level of confidence in which interval the unknown population parameter is
located. Through hypotheses testing, the collected data is examined in order to find
out how likely two established hypotheses are. The following requirements are
essential to make use of this method:
• The sample must be drawn as a “simple random sample”
• The sampling distribution of the sample mean is, considered to be, normally
distributed
• np (1 -p ) > 5
(Wahlin, 2011)
34
3.10. CRITERIA FOR QUALITY
There are some criteria that are useful and important to consider when carrying out
such a business research. They are those used when evaluating academic
research. The most prominent criteria are: reliability, replication, which is the main
evaluation criteria for quantitative research and validity (Bryman & Bell, 2011).
The criteria of reliability deal with research consistency. It must be considered as a
reliable measure, especially within quantitative research. The term reliability can be
divided into stability, intern reliability and inter-observer consistency. Stability refers
to the measure being repeatable with high correlation between the first and second
measures. However, if the correlation of the second measure was low, it would
indicate that the study is unstable, and therefore, impossible to be relied on. If
different questions and different answers were combined into one overall mark,
internal reliability would raise the question of whether there is a lack of coherence. It
should be clear how the indicators are related and how the correlation is being
established. How different indicators are related when performing a qualitative
research could, by some means, be difficult, such as interview, since different
observers can interpret information differently (Bryman & Bell, 2011).
Replication and reliability are two very similar ideas. This criterion is very important
for a quantitative research as the present one. Replication should be done in a way
allowing researchers to replicate the findings. For this reason, the authors are
making sure to detail their research for it to be replicable. The way the survey
(Appendix B) and key informant interview (Appendix A) are being conducted as part
of this business research has been mentioned previous (Bryman & Bell, 2011).
According to Bryman & Bell (2011) the most crucial evaluation criteria is the validity.
Validity refers to the issue of the measurement of a concept. If the measurements
do measure the concept, the research is valid. There are, however, various ways of
establishing validity: measurement validity, internal validity, external validity,
ecological validity, face validity, concurrent validity and convergent validity.
35
Measurement validity, also called construct validity, is mainly for quantitative
research. It questions whether the measurements for the concept are of the right
type, hence, the encouragement to deduce hypotheses related to the theory. This is
closely connected to reliability. Internal validity concerns the fact that the variable
and its causal relationship concluded in a research are proved to be the right
variable. By the implementation of a survey, validity is critical for the authors since
their study aims to examine the relationship between the attractiveness of an eco-
friendly university and its impact on students. External validity is essential, since it
will take the chosen organization into crucial scrutiny, to find out if the results of a
study can be “generalized beyond the specific research context” (Bryman & Bell, p.
43). By adopting a representative sample, the authors are able to provide external
validity. If the findings are relevant to a person’s everyday life, it is considered as
ecological validity. In this research, future and existing students choose universities
continuously, it is relevant to their everyday situation and therefore, has ecological
validity. By asking third parties, such as a doctoral student in Marketing from
Linköping University, to give their opinion on the chosen measures and their
relativeness to the concept, the authors are able to ensure the face validity of their
research. It has also been decided to test the present research survey on a couple
of students, as previously mentioned, in order to observe what their reactions are, if
the questions asked are easy enough to be well-understood and if they are suitable.
Concurrent validity concerns the measurements of how well the study corresponds
to previously validated measures. However, there has not been any past studies on
the topic of this particular research, except for the International Student Barometer
(ISB) which has its focus on international students. Convergent validity concerns the
measurements and if it is comparable to other methods. Since a survey is being
conducted for the present study, the convergent validity is relevant.
To ensure the researchers' reflection upon each criterion to reach the highest
research quality possible as students, a PhD student from Linköping University is
reviewing the survey and a statistical student, appointed by a statistical Ph.D., is
advising the statistical parts of this paper. This is helping to reconsider some
aspects as well as providing others not thought of.
36
3.11. RESEARCH ETHICS
When conducting a study, ethical issues appear, dealing with both researchers and
participants; that is why they are important to be considered by the researchers who
will have to handle them efficiently: “Ethical issues cannot be ignored, in that they
relate directly to the integrity of a piece of research and of the disciplines that are
involved” (Bryman & Bell, 2011, p. 122). The four main domains of research ethics
concerning what is and is not ethical lay in (1) the harm to participants (2) the lack
of informed consent (3) the invasion of privacy (4) deception (Diener & Crandall
1978 cited in Bryman & Bell, 2011).
The harm to participants is a wide area, which is, in the case of the present study,
taken care of through the implementation of anonymity regarding the participants
and their identity when taking part of the chosen quantitative study: the survey.
Moreover, a third party, is reading and reviewing this thesis before its final printing
and release, making sure no harm is being made to any participant in any possible
form (e.g. the gender question of the survey giving the participants three choices:
male, female and other).
The second main issue dealing with the lack of informed consent is being taken into
account by making sure every single participant knows about the researchers’
identity, thesis research subject, study, aim and outcome. Also, it is being made
sure that all the respondents are adults and not under-aged students. The next
ethical dimension the authors make sure to control regards the avoidance of
invasion of privacy, the implementation of anonymity being the main step, which has
been focused on.
Finally, an ethical concern is dealing with deception, which is characterized by the
presentation of a study as something different from what it really is. This aspect of
ethics, which is the most widespread in business research, is being handled by
solely providing accurate information regarding any aspect of the authors’ research
and identity, while ensuring a complete independence from Linköping University
and any type of possible influence the educational identity would exercise. The non-
affiliation is being emphasized in order to avoid conflicts of interest.
37
Regarding other types of ethics, the notions of reciprocity and trust are also being
considered in a matter of honesty and reliability. The aim is to emphasize how the
results of the study could possibly benefit the participants if ever used by the
university as part of any type of improvements linked with eco-friendliness, which
would directly impact the latter.
The authors are aware of the fact that reaching perfect ethical conditions would be
presumptuous regarding their complexity and variations, however, they did
maximize the formerly cited ethical concerns.
3.12. LIMITATIONS OF THE RESEARCH
One of the main limitations deals with having a small sampling. The bigger the
sampling, the more representative it is. In consequence of the limited time and
resources available, the authors are only able to conduct the study on Campus
Valla. For the same reasons, they are unable to focus on several public universities.
By conducting a study on Linköping University (Campus Valla), it is only possible to
make conclusions restricted to LiU, and therefore impossible to generalize results to
the wider population, which would be the Swedish students. In this university, both
Swedish and international students are represented, and the present thesis is
investigating on whether there is any impact of eco-friendliness on the Swedish
student’s university choice. International students are being excluded. The main
reason for such a decision has to do with the fact that international students
represent different countries and therefore different cultures. The different
background makes it difficult to come up with any conclusion that would accurately
represent the students in LiU. The sample gathered from the international students
population would also not be sufficient enough in terms of representativeness.
It has been chosen to limit the survey to both closed-questions and short-answer
questions only, in order to make it easier for the students but also for the
researchers as part of their time limitation. Since the sample is done with
consideration of the criteria mentioned in the data analysis, no calculations of
statistical inference are being generated to provide population parameters. The
sample is representative and will therefore be used for our analysis and
conclusions.
38
4. EMPIRICAL STUDY
4.5. THE CASE STUDY OF LINKÖPING UNIVERSITY (LIU)
Linköping University (LiU) is a multi-faculty and a research-based university.
Linköping University is a young university, with its root in the 1960’s. The latest
report, from 2014, shows that there are around 27,000 students, 1,300 doctoral
students and 4,000 employees at the university. LiU has revenue of SEK 3.5 M
(Linköping University, 2014).
According to Linköping University’s webpage, LiU has a “responsibility for the
development of a better environment and long-term sustainable social
development”. LiU is actively working with environmental issues and at the same
time using the research done at the university to work towards a better environment
and a sustainable social development. Its operations are adapted towards the
environment (Linköping University, 2014).
Every year, the Indonesian university, Universitas Indonesia conducts
environmental and sustainability ranking, called GreenMetrics, among the world’s
universities. In 2011 and 2012, which was the first respectively second year LiU
participated in the ranking, LiU was ranked as fifth-best environmental university in
the world, twice. In 2013, which was the third year, LiU was placed 20th in the
GreenMetric rankings. LiU was also the greenest university in Sweden (Linköping
University, 2012; Linköping University, 2014). According to LiU’s webpage, Anders
Carlsson, which is the former environmental strategist, said: “[…] it is a proof that
we are on the right track. LiU performs best of all Swedish universities. This is also
a strong international competitive edge for LiU” (Linköping University, 2012).
Linköping University also participates in the International Student Barometer (ISB),
which is an online benchmarking survey. This is one of the largest student surveys.
In one of the category, that questions how the students perceive the university’s
eco-friendly attitude, LiU received the highest mark of the universities participating
in the ISB in that particular category. LiU was number one year 2010, 2011, 2012
and 2013. However, in year 2014, LiU was ranked third place, which is still a high
place (Linköping University, 2014; Linköping University, 2015).
39
In 2011, in collaboration with other European universities, Linköping University
signed a declaration, as an aim that the universities “should act as a driving force
for sustainability issues within their regions” (Linköping University, 2014) even if
eco-friendliness is not part of the top five university choice criteria known as
reputation, quality of faculty, variety of courses, campus size and number of
students (Vaughn et al., 1978). The rankings have shown that the students
recognized the eco-friendly attitude Linköping University has. In comparison to other
universities LiU is ranked as on of the best environmental university as well.
4.6. KEY INFORMANT INTERVIEW
A meeting with Ida van der Woude, Linköping University International Coordinator,
was held on Tuesday April, 28th 2015 at 10 in the morning in order to discuss the
International Student Barometer (ISB) and LiU’s latest results, particularly regarding
eco-friendliness.
Mrs. van der Woude is, among many other responsibilities, in charge of the LiU part
of the ISB survey. She, together with another colleague and the international faculty
coordinators, is the one making some suitable changes for the University results’ to
be the most representative possible. During this interview the authors got to learn
about the grading scale style used by the ISB survey and the fact that it only
presents one single question dealing with universities eco-friendliness. In this
survey, the “green” parameter is evoked by asking about a university “eco-friendly
attitude to the environment” and whether the respondent is feeling very dissatisfied,
dissatisfied, satisfied or very satisfied about it. This method has been replicated for
the elaboration of the present research survey in order to facilitate any comparison.
No definition of “eco-friendly” is provided prior to the answering process.
The authors have been given the latest results concerning LiU eco-friendly attitude
according to international students. Thus, LiU happens to be the third most eco-
friendly university in the world (after having held the first position from 2010 to 2013)
with being ranked third in Europe and first in Sweden.
40
Regarding the Swedish perspective, Mrs. van der Woude mentioned that “we [in
Sweden] go quite far in terms of eco-friendliness” referring to the Swedish culture
and its sustainable way of life largely developed and adopted. Therefore, she
evoked the “high expectations” some international students had when joining the
university. Indeed, thanks to the “open comment” section of the ISB survey, it has
been discovered that some international students selected LiU as “study abroad
university” mostly because of its eco-friendly profile and high rank in this category.
Finally, Ida van der Woude provided the authors with additional contacts among the
Linköping University staff in case of a need for further information concerning the
ISB survey, especially regarding its communication and strategy. The quantitative
data, which has been obtained from the ISB survey, is summarized in Appendix C.
The data presented in Appendix C deal with the results of the only question about
eco-friendliness that compose the ISB survey and which have been received from
Ida van der Woude further to the interview. This unique question is about
international students’ satisfaction regarding the eco-friendly attitude of Linköping
University.
Through these results, it has been discovered that LiU percentage of satisfaction
regarding its international students was of 96%, above both the national Swedish
average (93%) and the global ISB average (90%). In addition, the results
demonstrate an equal satisfaction of 96% for men and women. The non-EU
nationalities happen to be the most satisfied with a 98% satisfaction against 95% for
the EU students. However, when international students are divided by nationalities,
disparities are noticeable. The detail for the twelve most present nationalities in LiU
is observable in the “nationality” section of Appendix C. Thus, while Austrians
appear to be the least satisfied students (80%) countries like India, Taiwan, Greece,
the Netherlands and Pakistan show an impressive student satisfaction of 100%.
The most satisfied age category is the 18-20 (98%) closely followed by the 25-29
(97%) and the 21-24 (96%). The oldest category composed of students ranging
from 30 to 39 years old are the least satisfied students (92%) which could be
interesting to analyze in terms of generation difference.
41
Among the three campuses composing Linköping University, the one on which is
the focus (Campus Valla) is the one showing the weakest student satisfaction (96%)
compared to the other two: Campus US (98%) and Campus Norrköping (97%). The
different LiU faculties share the same satisfaction rate among its international
students (96%) except for the Health faculty, which presents the maximal
percentage (100%). More globally, among the different international study types LiU
offers, the overall students’ satisfaction is 96%. The 23% characterizing the “derived
importance” of the “Global ISB” is revealing that the eco-friendly attitude of LiU is
responsible for international students’ global satisfaction at a level of 23%.
42
4.7. EMPIRICAL RESULTS: PRESENTATION OF SURVEY DATA
GENDER (Q1):
Table 1: Gender
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Cumulative Percent
Valid Male 67 42,7 42,7 42,7 Female 88 56,1 56,1 98,7 Other 2 1,3 1,3 100,0
Total
157
100,0 100,0
More than half of the respondents are females (56.05%). However, the ratio
male/female is relatively well scattered. 1.3% of the studied population do not
identify as being either male or female.
Male 67
42.68%
Female 88
56.05%
Other 2
1.27%
Graph 1
GENDER
43
28.03%
55.41%
12.10%
1.27% 1.91% 0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
19-21 22-24 25-27 28-30 31+
Perc
enta
ge o
f res
pond
ents
Age
AGE
AGE (Q2):
The main respondents of the survey are between 19 and 24 years old with a
majority belonging to the 22 to 24 years old category (55.41%).
Table 2: Age Frequency Percent
Valid Percent
Cumulative Percent
Valid 19 6 3,8 3,9 3,9 20 13 8,3 8,4 12,3 21 25 15,9 16,1 28,4 19-21 44 28,0 28,4 22 25 15,9 16,1 44,5 23 32 20,4 20,6 65,2 24 30 19,1 19,4 84,5 22-24 87 55,4 56,1 25 13 8,3 8,4 92,9 26 3 1,9 1,9 94,8 27 3 1,9 1,9 96,8 25-27 19 12,1 12,3 28 1 ,6 ,6 97,4 29 1 ,6 ,6 98,1 28-30 2 1,3 1,3 35 1 ,6 ,6 98,7 36 1 ,6 ,6 99,4 38 1 ,6 ,6 100,0 31+ 3 1,9 1,9 Total 155 98,7 100,0
Missing x 2 1,3 Total 157 100,0
Graph 2
44
FACULTY (Q3): The biggest part of the surveyed students depends on either the Faculty of Arts and
Sciences (42.04%) or the Institute of Technology (32.48%). The Faculty of Health
Sciences appears in minority because it mainly belongs to the Campus US of
Linköping University.
Table 3: Faculty Frequency Percent Valid
Percent Cumulative
Percent Valid Institute of
Technology 51 32,5 32,5 32,5
Faculty of Arts and Sciences
66 42,0 42,0 74,5
Faculty of Educational Sciences
29 18,5 18,5 93,0
Faculty of Health Sciences
11 7,0 7,0 100,0
Total 157 100,0 100,0
32.48%
42.04%
18.47%
7.01%
0% 5%
10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45%
Institute of Technology
Faculty of Arts and Sciences
Faculty of Educational
Sciences
Faculty of Health
Sciences
Perc
enta
ge o
f res
pond
ents
Faculties
FACULTY
Graph 3
45
MAIN AREA OF STUDY (Q4): The students who answered this survey are mainly within engineering studies
(29.9%), social studies (22.1%) and business and administrative studies (17.5%).
Table of 4: Main Area Of Study Frequency Percent
Valid Percent
Cumulative Percent
Valid Engineering 46 29,3 29,9 29,9 Other 5 3,2 3,2 33,1 Mathematical and Computer Sciences
5 3,2 3,2 36,4
Sociql Studies 34 21,7 22,1 58,4 Technologies 2 1,3 1,3 59,7 Business and Administrative Studies
27 17,2 17,5 77,3
Biological Sciences 9 5,7 5,8 83,1
Education 15 9,6 9,7 92,9 Medicine 11 7,0 7,1 92,9 Physical Sciences 0 0,0 0,0 100,0
Total 154 98,1 100,0 Missing X 3 1,9 Total 157 100,0
3.2%
29.9%
3.2%
22.1%
1.3%
17.5%
5.8%
9.7%
7.1%
0.0%
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35%
Other
Engineering
Mathematical and Computer
Social Studies
Technologies
Business and Administrative
Biological Sciences
Education
Medicine
Physical Sciences
Percentage of studies
Mai
n A
rea
of S
tudi
es
MAIN AREA OF STUDY
Graph 4
46
START OF STUDIES (Q5): The majority of Swedish students who completed this survey started their studies at
Linköping University in 2014 and is therefore on its first academic year of studies
(24.84%). However, the results are well scattered among the respondents: students
having begun their studies at LiU in 2013, 2012, and 2011 respectively represent
20.38%, 22.93%, and 21.66%. These values are all fairly close from each other’s.
Table 5:
Start of
Studies Frequency Percent Valid
Percent Cumulative
Percent Valid 2006 1 ,6 ,6 ,6
2009 1 ,6 ,6 1,3 2010 13 8,3 8,3 9,6 2011 34 21,7 21,7 31,2 2012 36 22,9 22,9 54,1 2013 32 20,4 20,4 74,5 2014 39 24,8 24,8 99,4 2015 1 ,6 ,6 100,0 Total 157 100,0 100,0
0.64% 0.64%
8.28%
21.66% 22.93%
20.38%
24.84%
0.64% 0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
2006 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
Perc
enta
ge o
f res
pond
ents
Year
START OF STUDIES
Graph 5
47
DO YOU CONSIDER YOURSELF OR HABITS AS ECO-FRIENDLY (Q6)?
The majority of the
participants (63.06%)
recognize itself, efforts or
habits as mostly “green”
or “eco-friendly”.
RANKING "ECO-FRIENDLINESS" FROM 1 (MOST) TO 6 (LEAST) REGARDING ITS IMPORTANCE AS UNIVERISTY CHOICE FACTOR (Q7):
Table 6: Habit Frequency Percent Valid
Percent Cumulative
Percent Valid Yes -
Completely 1 ,6 ,6 ,6
Yes - Mostly 99 63,1 63,1 63,7
Not Really 53 33,8 33,8 97,5 No - Never 4 2,5 2,5 100,0 Total 157 100,0 100,0
Table 7: Importance Frequency Percent
Valid Percent
Cumulative Percent
Valid 1 2 1,3 1,3 1,3 2 5 3,2 3,2 4,5 3 8 5,1 5,1 9,6 4 33 21,0 21,2 30,8 5 31 19,7 19,9 50,6 6 77 49,0 49,4 100,0 Total 156 99,4 100,0
Missing X 1 ,6 Total 157 100,0
0.64%
63.06%
33.76%
2.55% 0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
Yes - Completely
Yes - Mostly Not Really No - Never Perc
entA
ge o
f res
pond
endt
s
DO YOU CONSIDER YOURSELF OR HABITS AS ECO-FRIENDLY?
Graph 6
48
When asked to rank six criteria from the most to the least important when in a
university choice situation, almost half of the participants (49.04%) put the criteria
“eco-friendliness” in last position (6) after: quality of faculty, reputation, variety of
courses, campus size and number of students.
However, it means that a bit more than half of the respondents (50.32%) is seeing
eco-friendliness as a criteria to be considered while choosing a university as it is
illustrated by the “cumulative %” part of the graphic. 9.55% of the studied population
even consider it to be among the top three criteria.
Graph 7
1.27% 3.18% 5.10%
21.02% 19.75%
49.04%
0.64% 1.27% 4.46% 9.55%
30.57%
50.32%
99.36% 100.00%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
120%
1 2 3 4 5 6 Missing
Perc
enta
ge o
f res
pond
ents
Ranking
RANKING "ECO-FRIENDLINESS" FROM 1 (MOST) TO 6 (LEAST) REGARDING ITS IMPORTANCE AS UNIVERISTY CHOICE
FACTOR
Percent (%)
Cumulative %
49
AWARENESS OF LIU’S ECO-FRIENDLY ATTITUDE (Q8):
The majority of the respondents have little knowledge about the environmental
measures and objectives LiU is implementing and trying to achieve. The majority of
the participants are either “somewhat informed” (46.50%) or “not informed” at all
(35.67%) about the university’s eco-friendliness. That leaves only around 17% that
are “informed” or “well informed”.
Graph 8
Table 8: Awareness Frequency Percent
Valid Percent
Cumulative Percent
Valid Well informed 2 1,3 1,3 1,3
Informed 25 15,9 16,0 17,3 Somewhat informed 73 46,5 46,8 64,1
Not informed 56 35,7 35,9 100,0
Total 156 99,4 100,0 Missing z 1 ,6 Total 157 100,0
1.27%
15.92%
46.50%
35.67%
0.64% 1.27% 17.31%
64.10%
99.36% 100.00%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
120%
Well informed Informed Somewhat informed
Not informed Missing
Perc
enta
ge o
f res
pond
ents
AWARENESS OF LIU´S ECO-FRIENDLINESS
Awareness Cumulative %
50
SATISFACTION OF LiU’S ECO-FRIENDLY ATTITUDE (Q9):
LiU’s eco-friendly
attitude to the
environment is
seen as satisfying
by more than 80%
of the participants.
Only a minority
(7.64%) declares to
be dissatisfied of it,
and a nearly non-existent part appears to be very dissatisfied (0.64%).
Graph 9
AWARENESS OF LIU’S ISB RANKING (Q10): (Being the most eco-friendly university 2010-2013)
Less than 10% of the
Swedish students studying
at Linköping University (LiU)
know about it being awarded
the “Most eco-friendly
6.37%
80.25%
7.64% 0.64%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Very satisfied Satisfied Dissatisfied Very dissatisfied Perc
enta
ge o
f res
pond
ents
SATISFACTION OF LIU’S ECO-FRIENDLY ATTITUDE TO THE ENVIRONMENT?
Table 9: Satisfaction Frequency Percent
Valid Percent
Cumulative Percent
Valid Very satisfied 10 6,4 6,7 6,7
Satisfied 126 80,3 84,6 91,3 Dissatisfied 12 7,6 8,1 99,3 Very dissatisfied 1 ,6 ,7 100,0
Total 149 94,9 100,0 Missing x 3 1,9
X 5 3,2 Total 8 5,1
Total 157 100,0
Table 10: LiU ISB Ranking Frequency Percent
Valid Percent
Cumulative Percent
Valid Yes 14 8,9 9,0 9,0 No 142 90,4 91,0 100,0 Total 156 99,4 100,0
Missing 1 ,6 Total 157 100,0
51
university” in the world three years in a row: from 2010 to 2013. Such an
assessment reveals that more than 90% of the respondents were clueless about
LiU’s top ranking before participating in the survey.
Graph 10
Ø IF YOU WERE AWARE OF THE ABOVE FACT (LiU was the most eco-
friendly university from 2010-2013) DID IT INFLUENCE YOUR CHOICE TO STUDY IN LIU (Q11)?
Among the 8.92% of the participants who knew about LiU being the most eco-
friendly university from 2010 to 2013, 12.5% acknowledge this title of “eco-friendly
leader” influenced them into choosing to study at LiU.
8.92%
90.45%
0.64% 0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Yes No Missing
Perc
enta
ge o
f res
pond
ents
AWARENESS OF LIU'S ISB RANKING
Table 11: If you were aware Frequency Percent
Valid Percent
Cumulative Percent
Valid Yes 1 ,6 8,3 8,3 No 11 7,0 91,7 100,0 Total 12 7,6 100,0
Missing 145 92,4 Total 157 100,0
52
Graph 11
IF LiU’S ECO-FRIENDLY STATUS HAD AN INFLUENCE ON YOUR UNIVERISTY CHOICE (answer YES on Q11), THEN RATE HOW MUCH (Q12)? 50% of the respondents who
declared having been
influenced to choose LiU by
knowing its award of “nr.1
eco-friendly university” from
2010 to 2013 declared it
influenced them on a scale of 2 out of 5. Only one person knew and graded 2.
Graph 12
0.64% 7.01%
92.36%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80%
100%
Yes No Did not know LiU being the most eco-
friendly Perc
enta
ge o
f res
pond
ents
IF YOU WERE AWARE:
DID IT HAVE ANY INFLUENCE ON YOUR CHOICE TO STUDY IN LIU?
0% 0.64% 0% 0% 0%
99.36%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80%
100% 120%
1 2 3 4 5 Were not influenced by knowing LiU was the most eco-
friendly
Perc
enta
ge o
f res
pond
ents
RATE HOW MUCH FROM 1 (LEAST) TO 5 (MOST)
Table 12: How much did it influence you? Frequency Percent
Valid Percent
Cumulative Percent
Valid 2 1 ,6 100,0 100,0 Missing 156 99,4 Total 157 100,0
53
Ø IF YOU WERE NOT AWARE OF THE ABOVE FACT (LiU was the most eco-friendly university from 2010-2013), WOULD IT HAVE INFLUENCED YOUR CHOICE TO STUDY IN LIU (Q13)?
Among the 90.45% of Swedish students who did not know about LiU’ eco-
friendliness award, more than one third (35.67%) declared it would have influenced
them to choose LiU if they had known about it. However, more than half of them
(55.41%) still would not have considered it when they got to choose their university.
Graph 13
35.67%
55.41%
8.92% 7.01%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
Yes No Missing Knew about LiU being the most
eco friendly
Perc
enta
ge o
f res
pond
ents
IF YOU WERE NOT AWARE: WOULD IT HAVE INFLUENCED YOU?
Table 13: If you were not aware Frequency Percent
Valid Percent
Cumulative Percent
Valid Yes 56 35,7 39,2 39,2 No 87 55,4 60,8 100,0 Total 143 91,1 100,0
Missing x 2 1,3 X 1 ,6 z 11 7,0 Total 14 8,9
Total 157 100,0
54
IF LiU’S ECO-FRIENDLY STATUS WOULD HAVE HAD AN INFLUENCE ON YOUR UNIVERISTY CHOICE (answer YES on Q13), THEN RATE HOW MUCH (Q14)? When considering all the
respondents, 13.38%
declare that if they had
known about LiU awards in
eco-friendliness, it would
have influenced them to
choose LiU on a scale of 3
out of 5.
Graph 14
INCREASING LIU’S ADVERTISING OF ITS ECO FRIENDLINESS (Q15): 86% of the respondents
affirms that LiU should
increase the advertising of its
eco-friendly profile.
5.73% 7.64% 13.38%
7.01% 1.27%
61.78%
3.18% 0%
10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%
Perc
enta
ge o
f res
pond
ents
RATE HOW MUCH FROM 1 (LEAST) TO 5 (MOST)
Table 14: How much would it have influenced you? Frequency Percent
Valid Percent
Cumulative Percent
Valid 1 9 5,7 16,4 16,4 2 12 7,6 21,8 38,2 3 21 13,4 38,2 76,4 4 11 7,0 20,0 96,4 5 2 1,3 3,6 100,0 Total 55 35,0 100,0
Missing x 3 1,9 X 2 1,3 z 97 61,8 Total 102 65,0
Total 157 100,0
Table 15: Advertising Frequency Percent
Valid Percent
Cumulative Percent
Valid Yes 135 86,0 86,0 86,0 No 22 14,0 14,0 100,0 Total 157 100,0 100,0
55
Graph 15
IS AN ECO FRIENDLY UNIVERSITY ATTRACTIVE (Q16)? 77.71% of the studied
Swedish students
acknowledge finding an
eco-friendly university
attractive.
85.99%
14.01%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90%
100%
Yes No
Perc
enta
ge o
f res
pond
ents
INCREASING LIU’S ADVERTISING OF ITS ECO
FRIENDLINESS
Table 16: Attractiveness Frequency Percent
Valid Percent
Cumulative Percent
Valid Yes 122 77,7 78,2 78,2 No 34 21,7 21,8 100,0 Total 156 99,4 100,0
Missing System 1 ,6 Total 157 100,0
77.71%
21.66%
0.64% 0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
Yes No Missing
Perc
enta
ge o
f res
pond
ents
IS AN ECO FRIENDLY UNIVERSITY ATTRACTIVE?
Graph 16
56
RANKING OF THE ATTRACTIVENESS LEVEL (Q17): Most of the respondents who are attracted to an eco-friendly university rank their
attraction on a scale of 3 out of 5. Overall, these people represent 38.85% of the
participants. If the data is accumulated, it is revealed that 67.52% of the overall
respondents declare being attracted to an eco-friendly university and rank this
attraction from 3 to 5 out of 5, in other words, from averagely attractive to really
attractive.
Table 17: Attractiveness Level Frequency Percent
Valid Percent
Cumulative Percent
Valid 1 5 3,2 4,2 4,2 2 9 5,7 7,5 11,7 3 61 38,9 50,8 62,5 4 34 21,7 28,3 90,8 5 11 7,0 9,2 100,0 Total 120 76,4 100,0
Missing x 1 ,6 X 2 1,3 z 34 21,7 Total 37 23,6
Total 157 100,0
7.01%
21.66%
38.85%
5.73% 3.18%
21.66%
1.91% 7.01% 28.66%
67.52% 73.25% 76.43% 98.09% 100.00%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
120%
5 4 3 2 1 Not Attractive
Missing
Perc
enta
ge o
f res
pons
es
Ranking
RANKING OF THE ATTRACTIVENESS LEVEL FROM 1 (LEAST) TO 5 (MOST)
%
Cumulative %
Graph 17
57
MISSING DATA:
In a matter of understandability and accuracy, an evaluation of missing answers has
been conducted after the data collection. Therefore, a percentage of missing
answers have been calculated for each question of the survey (red bars) in order to
come up with a valid percentage of answers for each one of those (green bars).
Table 18: Missing Data
GENDER AGE FACULTY STUDY YEAR HABIT
IMPORTANCE
N Valid 157 155 157 154 157 157 156 Missing 0 2 0 3 0 0 1
AWARENESS
SATISFACTION RANKING IF_YES
IF_YES_B IF_NO IF_YES_C
N Valid 156 149 156 12 1 143 55 Missing 1 8 1 0 0 3 5
ADVERTISING
ATTRACTIVENES
S
ATTRACTIVENESS_LE
VEL N Valid 157 156 120 Missing 0 1 3
58
100.00%
98.73%
100.00%
98.09%
100.00%
100.00%
99.36%
99.36%
94.90%
99.36%
7.64%
0.64%
91.08%
35.03%
100.00%
99.36%
76.43%
1.27%
1.91%
0.64%
0.64%
5.10%
0.64%
1.91%
3.18%
0.64%
1.91%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
GENDER
AGE
FACULTY
STUDY
YEAR
HABIT
IMPORTANCE
AWARENESS
SATISFACTION
RANKING
IF_YES
IF_YES_B
IF_NO
IF_YES_C
ADVERTISING
ATTRACTIVENESS
ATTRACTIVENESS_LEVEL
Perc
enta
ge o
f re
spon
se
Missing Data
N % Missing
Graph 18
59
5. DATA ANALYSIS The analysis is organized around the statistical testing of the hypotheses, which is
allowing us to determine the statistical significance of the obtained results and
therefore whether they are due to chance.
The method used is known as “Chi-Square Test” and aims at conducting tests of
independence by the creation of contingency tables in order to determine whether
some variables are dependent or independent. In the process, the P-Value is
calculated (Appendix E): it represents the probability of achieving the differences
and results obtained from the sample. In the favored model, when this P-Value is
less than 0.05, it represents a justification to declare that the statement is rejected.
Thus, such values for the P-Value demonstrate a relationship between the involved
variables. However, the structure of the relationship is not defined.
The Chi-Square Test requires the use of the following formula:
𝜒2 = (𝑂! − 𝐸!)
𝐸!
!
!!!
To determine the P-Value the use of a Chi-Square Distribution Table is required.
The readers should be aware that depending on the program used, the results can
show minor differences. The authors are, in this case, using the program SPSS.
60
5.1. CORRELATION RESULTS
GENDER & ATTRACTIVENESS: The chi-square value (χ2) for
“gender” and
“attractiveness, of an eco-
friendly university”, is
14.3938, the P-Value is
0.000749. The X2 value is
then significant for those
variables at the P <0.05
levels In other words, they
are dependent variables: the
“attractiveness of an eco-
friendly university” is related
to the “gender”. Thus, finding an eco-friendly university attractive would depend on
the students’ gender.
Female students (88.6%) seem to be more inclined to find attractive a university,
which would be eco-friendly than male students (63.6%).
TABLE 19: GENDER * ATTRACTIVENESS Crosstabulation
ATTRACTIVENESS
Total Yes No GENDER Male Count 42 24 66
% within GENDER 63,6% 36,4% 100,0% % within ATTRACTIVENESS 34,4% 70,6% 42,3%
Female Count 78 10 88 % within GENDER 88,6% 11,4% 100,0% % within ATTRACTIVENESS 63,9% 29,4% 56,4%
Other Count 2 0 2 % within GENDER 100,0% 0,0% 100,0% % within ATTRACTIVENESS 1,6% 0,0% 1,3%
Total Count 122 34 156 % within GENDER 78,2% 21,8% 100,0% % within ATTRACTIVENESS 100,0% 100,0% 100,0%
Graph 19
61
AGE & ATTRACTIVENESS: The chi-square value (χ2) for “age” and
“attractiveness, of an eco-friendly
university”, is 8.0372, the P-Value is
0.090226. Those statistical results
reveal that the X2 value is not
significant for those variables at the P
<0.05 levels In other words, they are
independent variables: the
“attractiveness of an eco-friendly
university” is not related to the “age”.
Therefore, finding an eco-friendly
university attractive would not depend
on students’ age.
Graph 20
TABLE 20: AGE * ATTRACTIVENESS Crosstabulation
ATTRACTIVENESS
Total Yes No AGE 19-
21 Count 39 6 45 % within AGE 86,7% 13,3% 100,0% % within ATTRACTIVENESS 32,5% 17,6% 29,2%
22-24
Count 59 26 85 % within AGE 69,4% 30,6% 100,0% % within ATTRACTIVENESS 49,2% 76,5% 55,2%
25-27
Count 17 2 19 % within AGE 89,5% 10,5% 100,0% % within ATTRACTIVENESS 14,2% 5,9% 12,3%
28-30
Count 2 0 2 % within AGE 100,0% 0,0% 100,0% % within ATTRACTIVENESS 1,7% 0,0% 1,3%
31+ Count 3 0 3 % within AGE 100,0% 0,0% 100,0% % within ATTRACTIVENESS 2,5% 0,0% 1,9%
Total Count 120 34 154 % within AGE 77,9% 22,1% 100,0% % within ATTRACTIVENESS 100,0% 100,0% 100,0%
62
GENDER & HABIT: The chi-square value
(χ2) for “gender” and
“being eco-friendly”, is
15.8989, the P-Value is
0.014307. The X2 value
is then significant for
those variables at the P
< 0.05 levels: these
variables are
dependent, which
means that “being eco-
friendly” is related to
the “gender”. Thus,
students being eco-friendly would depend on the students’ gender. Female students
seem to be more predisposed to be eco-friendly than male students since 75% of
them declare considering themselves, efforts, or habits as “green” or “eco-friendly”
against 49.3% of the male students.
Graph 21
TABLE 21: GENDER * HABIT Crosstabulation
HABIT
Total Yes -
Completely Yes -
Mostly Not
Really No -
Never GENDER Male Count 1 33 30 3 67
% within GENDER 1,5% 49,3% 44,8% 4,5% 100,0%
% within HABIT 100,0% 33,3% 56,6% 75,0% 42,7%
Female
Count 0 66 21 1 88 % within GENDER 0,0% 75,0% 23,9% 1,1% 100,0%
% within HABIT 0,0% 66,7% 39,6% 25,0% 56,1%
Other Count 0 0 2 0 2 % within GENDER 0,0% 0,0% 100,0% 0,0% 100,0%
% within HABIT 0,0% 0,0% 3,8% 0,0% 1,3%
Total Count 1 99 53 4 157 % within GENDER ,6% 63,1% 33,8% 2,5% 100,0%
% within HABIT 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0%
63
GENDER & IMPORTANCE:
The chi-square value (χ2) for “gender” and “importance of eco-friendliness as a
university choice factor”, is 19.339, the P-Value is 0.03616. The X2 value is
significant for those variables at the P <0.05 levels In other words, they are
dependent variables: the “importance of eco-friendliness as a university choice
factor” is related to the “gender”. Thus, considering eco-friendliness as an important
university choice factor would depend on students’ gender.
Female students appear more willing to give importance to eco-friendliness as a
university choice factor than male students. If we have a look at graph nr 22, the
best two ratings (1, 2) are similar between the two genders, however, the distinction
in favor of female students begins with the “3 out of 6” ranking (5.7% of the studied
women again 4.5% of the studied men) and is confirmed with the “4 out of 6” one
(26.1% for women against 15.2% for men).
TABLE 22: GENDER * IMPORTANCE Crosstabulation
IMPORTANCE
Total 1 2 3 4 5 6 GENDER Male Count 1 2 3 10 14 36 66
% within GENDER 1,5% 3,0% 4,5% 15,2% 21,2% 54,5% 100,0%
% within IMPORTANCE 50,0% 40,0% 37,5% 30,3% 45,2% 46,8% 42,3%
Female Count 1 2 5 23 16 41 88 % within GENDER 1,1% 2,3% 5,7% 26,1% 18,2% 46,6% 100,0%
% within IMPORTANCE 50,0% 40,0% 62,5% 69,7% 51,6% 53,2% 56,4%
Other Count 0 1 0 0 1 0 2 % within GENDER 0,0% 50,0% 0,0% 0,0% 50,0% 0,0% 100,0%
% within IMPORTANCE 0,0% 20,0% 0,0% 0,0% 3,2% 0,0% 1,3%
Total Count 2 5 8 33 31 77 156 % within GENDER 1,3% 3,2% 5,1% 21,2% 19,9% 49,4% 100,0%
% within IMPORTANCE 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0%
64
Graph 22
65
AGE & HABIT:
The chi-square value (χ2) for
“age” and “being eco-friendly”,
is 4.5828, the P-Value is
0.970485. Those statistical
results reveal that the X2
value is not significant for
those variables at the P <
0.05 levels: they are
independent. “Being eco-
friendly” is not related to the
“age”. Therefore, being eco-
friendly would not depend on
students’ age. The statistical
analysis failed to provide
information on whether the
variables correlate.
TABLE 23: AGE * HABIT Crosstabulation
HABIT
Total Yes -
Completely Yes - Mostly
Not Really
No - Never
AGE 19-21
Count 0 31 13 1 45 % within AGE
0,0% 68,9% 28,9% 2,2% 100,0%
% within HABIT
0,0% 31,6% 25,0% 25,0% 29,0%
22-24
Count 1 50 32 3 86 % within AGE
1,2% 58,1% 37,2% 3,5% 100,0%
% within HABIT
100,0% 51,0% 61,5% 75,0% 55,5%
25-27
Count 0 13 6 0 19 % within AGE
0,0% 68,4% 31,6% 0,0% 100,0%
% within HABIT
0,0% 13,3% 11,5% 0,0% 12,3%
28-30
Count 0 1 1 0 2 % within AGE
0,0% 50,0% 50,0% 0,0% 100,0%
% within HABIT
0,0% 1,0% 1,9% 0,0% 1,3%
31+ Count 0 3 0 0 3 % within AGE
0,0% 100,0% 0,0% 0,0% 100,0%
% within HABIT
0,0% 3,1% 0,0% 0,0% 1,9%
Total Count 1 98 52 4 155 % within AGE
,6% 63,2% 33,5% 2,6% 100,0%
% within HABIT
100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0%
Graph 23
66
AGE & IMPORTANCE:
The chi-square value (χ2) for “age” and “importance of eco-friendliness, as a
university choice factor”, is 39.609, the P-Value is 0.0056. The X2 value is
significant for those variables at the P <0.05 levels In other words, they are
dependent variables: the “importance of eco-friendliness as a university choice
factor” is related to the “age”. Thus, considering eco-friendliness as an important
university choice factor would depend on students’ age.
As it is observable on graph nr 24 the trend of the green, brown and purple
histograms, respectively the grades from 2 to 4 out of six, is decreasing with the
increase of respondents’ age.
TABLE 24: AGE * IMPORTANCE Crosstabulation
IMPORTANCE
Total 1 2 3 4 5 6 AGE 19-
21 Count 0 4 4 12 7 18 45 % within AGE 0,0% 8,9% 8,9% 26,7% 15,6% 40,0% 100,0% % within IMPORTANCE 0,0% 80,0% 57,1% 37,5% 22,6% 23,4% 29,2%
22-24
Count 0 1 3 12 20 50 86 % within AGE 0,0% 1,2% 3,5% 14,0% 23,3% 58,1% 100,0% % within IMPORTANCE 0,0% 20,0% 42,9% 37,5% 64,5% 64,9% 55,8%
25-27
Count 2 0 0 5 3 9 19 % within AGE 10,5% 0,0% 0,0% 26,3% 15,8% 47,4% 100,0% % within IMPORTANCE 100,0% 0,0% 0,0% 15,6% 9,7% 11,7% 12,3%
28-30
Count 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 % within AGE 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 100,0% 0,0% 0,0% 100,0% % within IMPORTANCE 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 3,1% 0,0% 0,0% ,6%
31+ Count 0 0 0 2 1 0 3 % within AGE 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 66,7% 33,3% 0,0% 100,0% % within IMPORTANCE 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 6,3% 3,2% 0,0% 1,9%
Total Count 2 5 7 32 31 77 154 % within AGE 1,3% 3,2% 4,5% 20,8% 20,1% 50,0% 100,0% % within IMPORTANCE 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0%
67
Graph 24
FACULTY & HABIT: The chi-square value (χ2) for “faculty” and “being eco-friendly”, is 12.4895, the P-
Value is 0.1871. Those statistical results reveal that the X2 value is not significant
for those variables at the P < 0.05 levels: they are independent. “Being eco-friendly”
is not related to the “faculty”. Therefore, being eco-friendly would not depend on the
faculty students belong to. The statistical analysis failed to provide information on
whether the variables correlate.
Graph 25
68
FACULTY & IMPORTANCE: The chi-square value (χ2) for “faculty” and “importance of eco-friendliness, as a
university choice factor”, is 28.316, the P-Value is 0.01967. The X2 value is
significant for those variables at the P <0.05 levels In other words, they are
dependent variables: the “importance of eco-friendliness as a university choice
factor” is related to the “faculty”. Thus, considering eco-friendliness as an important
university choice factor would depend on the faculty students depend on.
TABLE 25: FACULTY * HABIT Crosstabulation
HABIT
Total Yes -
Completely Yes - Mostly
Not Really
No - Never
FACULTY Institute of Technology
Count 1 38 11 1 51 % within FACULTY 2,0% 74,5% 21,6% 2,0% 100,0%
% within HABIT 100,0% 38,4% 20,8% 25,0% 32,5%
Faculty of Arts and Sciences
Count 0 33 30 3 66 % within FACULTY 0,0% 50,0% 45,5% 4,5% 100,0%
% within HABIT 0,0% 33,3% 56,6% 75,0% 42,0%
Faculty of Educational Sciences
Count 0 20 9 0 29 % within FACULTY 0,0% 69,0% 31,0% 0,0% 100,0%
% within HABIT 0,0% 20,2% 17,0% 0,0% 18,5%
Faculty of Health Sciences
Count 0 8 3 0 11 % within FACULTY 0,0% 72,7% 27,3% 0,0% 100,0%
% within HABIT 0,0% 8,1% 5,7% 0,0% 7,0%
Total Count 1 99 53 4 157 % within FACULTY ,6% 63,1% 33,8% 2,5% 100,0%
% within HABIT 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0%
Graph 26
69
TABLE 26: FACULTY * IMPORTANCE Crosstabulation
IMPORTANCE
Total 1 2 3 4 5 6 FACULTY
Institute of Technology
Count 1 0 3 12 11 24 51 % within FACULTY 2,0% 0,0% 5,9% 23,5% 21,6% 47,1% 100,0
% % within IMPORTANCE
50,0% 0,0% 37,5% 36,4% 35,5% 31,2% 32,7%
Faculty of Arts and Sciences
Count 0 1 0 11 13 40 65 % within FACULTY 0,0% 1,5% 0,0% 16,9% 20,0% 61,5% 100,0
% % within IMPORTANCE
0,0% 20,0% 0,0% 33,3% 41,9% 51,9% 41,7%
Faculty of Educational Sciences
Count 1 2 3 8 6 9 29 % within FACULTY 3,4% 6,9% 10,3% 27,6% 20,7% 31,0% 100,0
% % within IMPORTANCE
50,0% 40,0% 37,5% 24,2% 19,4% 11,7% 18,6%
Faculty of Health Sciences
Count 0 2 2 2 1 4 11 % within FACULTY 0,0% 18,2% 18,2% 18,2% 9,1% 36,4% 100,0
% % within IMPORTANCE
0,0% 40,0% 25,0% 6,1% 3,2% 5,2% 7,1%
Total Count 2 5 8 33 31 77 156 % within FACULTY 1,3% 3,2% 5,1% 21,2% 19,9% 49,4% 100,0
% % within IMPORTANCE
100,0%
100,0%
100,0%
100,0%
100,0%
100,0%
100,0%
MAIN AREA OF STUDY & HABIT: The chi-square value (χ2) for “main area of study” and “being eco-friendly”, is
18.446, the P-Value is 0.78085. Those statistical results reveal that the X2 value is
not significant for those variables at the P < 0.05 levels: they are independent.
“Being eco-friendly” is not related to the “main area of study”. Therefore, being eco-
friendly would not depend on the main area students are studying. The statistical
analysis failed to provide information on whether the variables correlate.
70
TABLE 27: MAIN AREA OF STUDY * HABIT Crosstabulation
HABIT
Total Yes -
Completely Yes - Mostly
Not Really
No - Never
STUDY Engineering Count 1 34 10 1 46 % within STUDY 2,2% 73,9% 21,7% 2,2% 100,0%
% within HABIT 100,0% 35,1% 19,2% 25,0% 29,9%
Other Count 0 4 1 0 5 % within STUDY 0,0% 80,0% 20,0% 0,0% 100,0%
% within HABIT 0,0% 4,1% 1,9% 0,0% 3,2%
Mathematical and Computer Sciences
Count 0 2 3 0 5 % within STUDY 0,0% 40,0% 60,0% 0,0% 100,0%
% within HABIT 0,0% 2,1% 5,8% 0,0% 3,2%
Sociql Studies
Count 0 18 14 2 34 % within STUDY 0,0% 52,9% 41,2% 5,9% 100,0%
% within HABIT 0,0% 18,6% 26,9% 50,0% 22,1%
Technologies Count 0 2 0 0 2 % within STUDY 0,0% 100,0% 0,0% 0,0% 100,0%
% within HABIT 0,0% 2,1% 0,0% 0,0% 1,3%
Business and Adöinistrative Studies
Count 0 12 14 1 27 % within STUDY 0,0% 44,4% 51,9% 3,7% 100,0%
% within HABIT 0,0% 12,4% 26,9% 25,0% 17,5%
Biological Sciences
Count 0 5 4 0 9 % within STUDY 0,0% 55,6% 44,4% 0,0% 100,0%
% within HABIT 0,0% 5,2% 7,7% 0,0% 5,8%
Education Count 0 12 3 0 15 % within STUDY 0,0% 80,0% 20,0% 0,0% 100,0%
% within HABIT 0,0% 12,4% 5,8% 0,0% 9,7%
Medicine Count 0 8 3 0 11 % within STUDY 0,0% 72,7% 27,3% 0,0% 100,0%
% within HABIT 0,0% 8,2% 5,8% 0,0% 7,1%
Total Count 1 97 52 4 154 % within STUDY ,6% 63,0% 33,8% 2,6% 100,0%
% within HABIT 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0%
71
MAIN AREA OF STUDY & IMPORTANCE: The chi-square value (χ2) for “main area of study” and “importance of eco-
friendliness, as a university choice factor”, is 52.708, the P-Value is 0.086. Those
statistical results demonstrate that the X2 value is not significant for those variables
at the P <0.05 levels. Those variables are independent, meaning that the
“importance of eco-friendliness as a university choice factor” is not related to the
“main area of study”. In other words, considering eco-friendliness as an important
university choice factor would not depend on the students’ main area of study. The
statistical analysis failed to provide information on whether the variables correlate.
Graph 27
72
TABLE 28: MAIN AREA OF STUDY * IMPORTANCE Crosstabulation
IMPORTANCE
Total 1 2 3 4 5 6 STUDY
Engineering Count 0 0 3 9 10 24 46 % within STUDY 0,0% 0,0% 6,5% 19,6% 21,7% 52,2% 100,0
% % within IMPORTANCE
0,0% 0,0% 37,5% 28,1% 32,3% 31,6% 30,1%
Other Count 0 0 1 2 1 1 5 % within STUDY 0,0% 0,0% 20,0% 40,0% 20,0% 20,0% 100,0
% % within IMPORTANCE
0,0% 0,0% 12,5% 6,3% 3,2% 1,3% 3,3%
Mathematical and Computer Sciences
Count 0 0 0 2 1 2 5 % within STUDY 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 40,0% 20,0% 40,0% 100,0
% % within IMPORTANCE
0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 6,3% 3,2% 2,6% 3,3%
Sociql Studies
Count 0 1 1 7 9 16 34 % within STUDY 0,0% 2,9% 2,9% 20,6% 26,5% 47,1% 100,0
% % within IMPORTANCE
0,0% 20,0% 12,5% 21,9% 29,0% 21,1% 22,2%
Technologies
Count 0 0 0 2 0 0 2 % within STUDY 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 100,0
% 0,0% 0,0% 100,0%
% within IMPORTANCE
0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 6,3% 0,0% 0,0% 1,3%
Business and Adöinistrative Studies
Count 0 0 0 2 4 20 26 % within STUDY 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 7,7% 15,4% 76,9% 100,0
% % within IMPORTANCE
0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 6,3% 12,9% 26,3% 17,0%
Biological Sciences
Count 0 0 0 3 2 4 9 % within STUDY 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 33,3% 22,2% 44,4% 100,0
% % within IMPORTANCE
0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 9,4% 6,5% 5,3% 5,9%
Education Count 1 2 1 3 3 5 15 % within STUDY 6,7% 13,3% 6,7% 20,0% 20,0% 33,3% 100,0
% % within IMPORTANCE
100,0% 40,0% 12,5% 9,4% 9,7% 6,6% 9,8%
Medicine Count 0 2 2 2 1 4 11 % within STUDY 0,0% 18,2% 18,2% 18,2% 9,1% 36,4% 100,0
% % within IMPORTANCE
0,0% 40,0% 25,0% 6,3% 3,2% 5,3% 7,2%
Total Count 1 5 8 32 31 76 153 % within STUDY ,7% 3,3% 5,2% 20,9% 20,3% 49,7% 100,0
% % within IMPORTANCE
100,0%
100,0%
100,0%
100,0%
100,0%
100,0%
100,0%
73
ATTRACTIVENESS & ADVERTISING:
The chi-square value
(χ2) for “LiU should
increase the
advertising of its eco-
friendly profile” and
“attractiveness of an
eco-friendly university”,
is 46.2479, the P-Value
is 0. Those statistical
results demonstrate
that the X2 value is significant for those variables at the P <0.05 levels. Those
variables are dependent. In other words, whether LIU should increase the
advertising of its eco-friendliness would depend on whether students find an eco-
friendly university attractive. The statistical analysis succeeded into proving that the
variables correlate.
TABLE 29: ATTRACTIVENESS * ADVERTISING Crosstabulation
ADVERTISING
Total Yes No ATTRACTIVENESS
Yes Count 117 5 122 % within ATTRACTIVENESS 95,9% 4,1% 100,0%
% within ADVERTISING 87,3% 22,7% 78,2%
No Count 17 17 34 % within ATTRACTIVENESS 50,0% 50,0% 100,0%
% within ADVERTISING 12,7% 77,3% 21,8%
Total Count 134 22 156 % within ATTRACTIVENESS 85,9% 14,1% 100,0%
% within ADVERTISING 100,0% 100,0% 100,0%
Graph 28
74
The students thinking LiU should increase the advertising of its eco-friendly profile
are the ones finding an eco-friendly university attractive at 87.3%.
Graph 29
ADVERTISING & IF YOU WERE NOT AWARE (LiU was the most eco-friendly university from 2010-2013), WOULD IT HAVE INFLUENCED YOUR CHOICE TO STUDY IN LIU? The chi-square value (χ2) for “LIU should increase the advertising of its eco-friendly
profile” and “knowing about LIU eco-friendliness award would have influenced
students into choosing LIU”, is 6.8002, the P-Value is 0.009115. Those statistical
results prove that the X2 value is significant for those variables at the P <0.05 levels.
The variables are dependent. Therefore, whether LIU should increase the
advertising of its eco-friendliness would depend on whether students would have
been influenced into choosing LIU if they had known about its award in eco-
friendliness. The statistical analysis succeeded into proving that the variables
correlate.
75
The ones who declared that
knowing about LIU’s eco-
friendliness recognition would
have influenced them into
choosing LIU stated that LIU
should increase its advertising at
96.4%.
TABLE 30: ADVERTISING * IF YOU WERE NOT AWARE Crosstabulation
Knowing about LiU's eco-
friendliness recognition would have influenced
students into choosing LiU
Total Yes No ADVERTISING Yes Count 54 71 125
% within ADVERTISING 43,2% 56,8% 100,0%
% within IF_NO 96,4% 81,6% 87,4%
No Count 2 16 18 % within ADVERTISING 11,1% 88,9% 100,0%
% within IF_NO 3,6% 18,4% 12,6%
Total Count 56 87 143 % within ADVERTISING 39,2% 60,8% 100,0%
% within IF_NO 100,0% 100,0% 100,0%
Graph 30
76
ATTRACTIVENESS & IF YOU WERE NOT AWARE (LiU was the most eco-friendly university from 2010-2013), WOULD IT HAVE INFLUENCED YOUR CHOICE TO STUDY IN LIU? The chi-square value (χ2)
for “attractiveness of an
eco-friendly university”
and “knowing about LIU
eco-friendliness award
would have influenced
students into choosing
LIU”, is 15.2289, the P-
Value is 9.5E-05. Those
statistical results prove
that the X2 value is
significant for those
variables at the P <0.05 levels. The variables are dependent. Thus, seeing LIU eco-
friendliness recognition as a university choice factor would depend on whether
students find an eco-friendly university attractive. The statistical analysis succeeded
into proving that the
variables correlate.
Among the students
who see LIU’s eco-
friendliness recognition
as a university choice
factor since they
declared that knowing
about it would have
influenced them into
choosing LIU, 96.4% find
an eco-friendly university
attractive in general.
TABLE 31: ATTRACTIVENESS * IF YOU WERE NOT AWARE Crosstabulation
Knowing about LiU's eco-
friendliness recognition would have influenced
students into choosing LiU
Total Yes No ATTRACTIVENESS
Yes Count 54 60 114 % within ATTRACTIVENESS 47,4% 52,6% 100,0%
% within IF_NO 96,4% 69,8% 80,3% No
Count 2 26 28 % within ATTRACTIVENESS 7,1% 92,9% 100,0%
% within IF_NO 3,6% 30,2% 19,7% Total Count 56 86 142
% within ATTRACTIVENESS 39,4% 60,6% 100,0%
% within IF_NO 100,0% 100,0% 100,0%
Graph 31
77
ADVERTISING & HABIT: The chi-square value (χ2) for “LIU should increase the advertising of its eco-friendly
profile” and “being eco-friendly”, is 12.7033, the P-Value is 0.0055324. Those
statistical results demonstrate that the X2 value is significant for these two variables
at the P < 0.05 levels: they are dependent. In other words, students’ vision on
whether LIU should increase the advertising of its eco-friendly profile would depend
on if they are eco-friendly. The variables correlate.
The students in favor of an increase of LIU’s eco-friendliness advertising declare
themselves, efforts or habits as “mostly” eco-friendly at 91.9%.
TABLE 32: ADVERTISING * HABIT Crosstabulation
HABIT
Total Yes -
Completely Yes - Mostly
Not Really
No - Never
ADVERTISING Yes Count 0 91 41 3 135 % within ADVERTISING 0,0% 67,4% 30,4% 2,2% 100,0%
% within HABIT 0,0% 91,9% 77,4% 75,0% 86,0%
No Count 1 8 12 1 22 % within ADVERTISING 4,5% 36,4% 54,5% 4,5% 100,0%
% within HABIT 100,0% 8,1% 22,6% 25,0% 14,0%
Total Count 1 99 53 4 157 % within ADVERTISING ,6% 63,1% 33,8% 2,5% 100,0%
% within HABIT 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0%
Graph 32
78
SATISFACTION & AWARENESS:
The chi-square value (χ2) for “awareness of LIU eco-friendliness” and “satisfaction
of LIU eco-friendly attitude”, is 18.701, the P-Value is 0.027859. Those statistical
results highlight that the chi-square value is significant for those variables at the
P<0.05 levels: the variables are dependent. Therefore, students’ satisfaction of LIU
eco-friendly attitude would be related to their awareness of it: the variables
correlate.
It seems that the more informed, the more satisfied are the students. As the table
illustrates it, among the “not informed” students, only 2.1% are very satisfied of
LIU’s eco-friendly attitude while 50% of the well-informed ones declared being very
satisfied of it.
TABLE 33: SATISFACTION * AWARENESS Crosstabulation
AWARENESS
Total Well
informed Informed Somewhat informed
Not informed
SATISFACTION Very satisfied
Count 1 4 4 1 10 % within SATISFACTION 10,0% 40,0% 40,0% 10,0% 100,0%
% within AWARENESS 50,0% 16,0% 5,5% 2,1% 6,8%
Satisfied Count 1 21 65 39 126 % within SATISFACTION ,8% 16,7% 51,6% 31,0% 100,0%
% within AWARENESS 50,0% 84,0% 89,0% 81,3% 85,1%
Dissatisfied Count 0 0 4 7 11 % within SATISFACTION 0,0% 0,0% 36,4% 63,6% 100,0%
% within AWARENESS 0,0% 0,0% 5,5% 14,6% 7,4%
Very dissatisfied
Count 0 0 0 1 1 % within SATISFACTION 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 100,0% 100,0%
% within AWARENESS 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 2,1% ,7%
Total Count 2 25 73 48 148 % within SATISFACTION 1,4% 16,9% 49,3% 32,4% 100,0%
% within AWARENESS 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0%
79
Graph 33
HABIT & AWARENESS: The chi-square value (χ2) for “being eco-friendly” and “satisfaction of LIU eco-
friendly attitude”, is 7.8546, the P-Value is 0.548859. Those statistical results
demonstrate that the X2 value is not significant for those variables at the P <0.05
levels. The latter are independent, which means that students’ satisfaction
regarding LIU eco-friendly attitude would not depend on whether the students are
eco-friendly or not. The statistical analysis failed to provide information on whether
the variables are correlated.
80
TABLE 34: HABIT * AWARENESS Crosstabulation
AWARENESS
Total Well
informed Informed Somewhat informed
Not informed
HABIT Yes - Completely
Count 0 0 0 1 1 % within HABIT 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 100,0% 100,0%
% within AWARENESS 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 1,8% ,6%
Yes - Mostly
Count 2 18 48 31 99 % within HABIT 2,0% 18,2% 48,5% 31,3% 100,0%
% within AWARENESS 100,0% 72,0% 65,8% 55,4% 63,5%
Not Really Count 0 7 25 20 52 % within HABIT 0,0% 13,5% 48,1% 38,5% 100,0%
% within AWARENESS 0,0% 28,0% 34,2% 35,7% 33,3%
No - Never
Count 0 0 0 4 4 % within HABIT 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 100,0% 100,0%
% within AWARENESS 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 7,1% 2,6%
Total Count 2 25 73 56 156 % within HABIT 1,3% 16,0% 46,8% 35,9% 100,0%
% within AWARENESS 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0%
Graph 34
81
ATTRACTIVENESS & HABIT: The chi-square value (χ2) for “being eco-friendly” and “attractiveness of an eco-
friendly university” is 31.0487, the P-Value is < 0.00001. Those statistical results
highlight that the chi-square value is significant for those variables at the P < 0.05
levels: the variables are dependent. Therefore, students considering an eco-friendly
university attractive would depend on whether they are themselves eco-friendly or
not. These variables correlate. TABLE 35: ATTRACTIVENESS * HABIT Crosstabulation
HABIT
Total Yes -
Completely Yes - Mostly
Not Really
No - Never
ATTRACTIVENESS Yes
Count 1 89 32 0 122 % within ATTRACTIVENESS ,8% 73,0% 26,2% 0,0% 100,0%
% within HABIT 100,0% 89,9% 61,5% 0,0% 78,2% No
Count 0 10 20 4 34 % within ATTRACTIVENESS 0,0% 29,4% 58,8% 11,8% 100,0%
% within HABIT 0,0% 10,1% 38,5% 100,0% 21,8% Total Count 1 99 52 4 156
% within ATTRACTIVENESS ,6% 63,5% 33,3% 2,6% 100,0%
% within HABIT 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0%
Graph 35
82
5.2. HYPOTHESIS TESTING
In this section the three hypotheses are being tested with a 95% confidence level
and therefore, 5% significance level. The z-score (𝑧∝), which is retrieved through the
confidence level, is compared to the z-value (z).
In the case of 95% confidence level 𝑧∝ = 1.96.
• If z > 𝑧∝ à H0 is rejected
• If z < 𝑧∝ à H0 is not rejected
1. Hypothesis testing for the population percentage: Investigating if at least 33.33% of the students think that an eco-friendly
university is attractive.
𝐻!: 𝜋 ≤ 0.3333
𝐻!: 𝜋 > 0.3333
𝑝 =𝑛𝑁 =
122156 = 0.7820
𝑧 = 𝑝 − 𝜋!𝜋!(1− 𝜋!)
𝑛
=0.7820− 0.3333
0.3333(1− 0.3333)156
= 11.88
11.88 > 1.96 ⇔ z > 𝑧∝
𝐻! is rejected at the 5% significance level.
Downward limited confidence interval for the population proportion: Examines the minimum percentage of students who think an eco-friendly university
is attractive.
π > p− z !!∝ p 1− p
n = π >122156− 1.64
0.7820 1− 0.7820156 = π > 0.7278
𝜋 = 72.78%
83
2. Hypothesis testing for the population percentage:
Investigating if at least 33.33% of the students rank the importance of eco-
friendliness at the spot 5 out of 6.
𝐻!: 𝜋 ≤ 0.3333
𝐻!: 𝜋 > 0.3333
𝑝 =𝑛𝑁 =
79156 = 0.5064
𝑧 = 𝑝 − 𝜋!𝜋!(1− 𝜋!)
𝑛
=0.5064− 0,3333
0.3333(1− 0.3333)156
= 4.59
4.59 > 1.96 ⇔ z > 𝑧∝
𝐻! is rejected at the 5% significance level.
Downward limited confidence interval for the population proportion: Examines the minimum percentage of students who rank the importance of eco-
friendliness of a university at least 5 out of 6.
𝜋 > 𝑝 − 𝑧 !!∝ 𝑝 1− 𝑝
𝑛 = 𝜋 >79156− 1.64
0.5064 1− 0.5064156 = 𝜋 > 0.4407
𝜋 = 44.07%
3. Hypothesis testing for the population percentage:
Investigating if at least knowing of LiU’s recognition within eco-friendliness
would have influenced 33.33% of the students, into choosing LiU.
𝐻!: 𝜋 ≤ 0.3333
𝐻!: 𝜋 > 0.3333
𝑝 =𝑛𝑁 =
57155 = 0.3677
84
𝑧 = 𝑝 − 𝜋!𝜋!(1− 𝜋!)
𝑛
=0.3677− 0.3333
0.3333(1− 0.3333)155
= 0.9096
0.9096 < 1.96 ⇔ z < 𝑧∝
𝐻! is rejected at the 5% significance level.
Downward limited confidence interval for the population proportion: Examines the minimum percentage of students who would have been influenced by
LiU being eco-friendly university.
𝜋 > 𝑝 − 𝑧 !!∝ 𝑝 1− 𝑝
𝑛 = 𝜋 >57155− 1.64
0.3677 1− 0.3677155 = 𝜋 > 0.3042
𝜋 = 30.42%
85
5.3. HYPOTHESIS TESTING SUMMARY
A 95% confidence level, which makes the significant level 5%, is being used in
these calculations.
For the first hypothesis testing regarding the attractiveness of an eco-friendly
university, 𝐻! is rejected at the 5% significance level. Therefore, it can be stated
that there are more than one third of the students who find an eco-friendly university
attractive. With further calculations it can also be claimed that the minimum
percentage of students who think an eco-friendly university is attractive lies at
around 72.78%.
The second hypothesis testing investigates if at least one third of the students rank
the importance of eco-friendliness at the spot 5 out of 6. The 𝐻! is rejected at the
5% significance level. This means that more than 33.33% of the students would
rank the importance of an eco-friendly university between 1 and 5. The minimum
percentage of students who rank the importance of a university’s eco-friendliness at
least 5 out of 6 is around 44%.
The last hypothesis testing studies whether knowing about LiU’s recognition within
eco-friendliness would have influenced at least one third of the students. 𝐻! is not
rejected at the 5% significance level. By calculating the minimum percentage of the
students who would have been influenced by knowing LiU’s recognition in eco-
friendliness, the authors find that it lies at 30.42%.
All of these three hypotheses testing results not only statistically indicate that the
eco-friendliness of a university is something Swedish LiU students care about and
notice, but that it is also something that influences them positively.
86
5.4. SUMMARY OF THE DATA ANALYSIS
The analysis, of the gathered survey data, lead to the establishment of various
variable correlations. Thus, it can be noticed that gender as a lot to do with the
survey results. It is linked with three of the researchers’ main considerations, which
formed three of the main questions which have been formulated for the survey,
namely: the attractiveness of an eco-friendly university, the importance of eco-
friendliness as a university choice criteria and the eco-friendliness of Swedish
students at LiU. In each one of these categories, the analysis lead us to position the
female Swedish students of LiU (Campus Valla) as generally more inclined towards
eco-friendliness than the males.
More generally, finding an eco-friendly university attractive would, in addition to the
gender, depend on whether the students consider himself/herself eco-friendly. The
importance students give to eco-friendliness as a university choice criterion also
seems to depend on their age and faculty they are part of. Finally, students
declaring that knowing about LiU being the most eco-friendly university in the world
(according to the ISB) from 2010 to 2013 would have influenced them into choosing
LiU seems to mainly find an eco-friendly university attractive.
Being eco-friendly or considering an eco-friendly university as attractive would not
depend on students’ age. However, the consideration of eco-friendliness as a
university choice factor seems to be. The authors observed that the rank students
gave to eco-friendliness as a criterion for choosing a university worsen with the
increase of the respondents’ age. What can be inferred from such an observation is
that there might be a generational dimension when it comes to university choice
criteria and considering eco-friendliness as an important one. The trend observable
from the survey results would be in favor of the idea that the new generations are
considering eco-friendliness as a more important aspect than the older generations
and therefore that there might be a growing trend of considering eco-friendliness as
a university choice factor. However, this idea has to be tempered since, as
mentioned earlier, the present study didn’t show any link between age and being
eco-friendly or considering an eco-friendly university as attractive.
87
No specific area of study seems to count a wider part of its students as eco-friendly
or green. However, a student considering eco-friendliness as an important
university choice factor would be linked with the faculty he or she is part of. It
highlights a correlation between what a student generally study and how important
he or she considers eco-friendliness as a university choice factor.
Globally, most of the students (77.71%) find an eco-friendly university attractive and
an even bigger amount (85.99%) thinks LiU should increase its advertising of being
one, especially since they have been ranked best eco-friendly university from 2010
to 2013 by the ISB. Among these 85.99%, the majority is “mostly” eco-friendly and
find an eco-friendly university attractive at 87.3%.
Overall, Swedish students’ satisfaction regarding LiU’s eco-friendly attitude doesn’t
seem to depend on whether they are themselves eco-friendly.
88
6. DISCUSSION Implementing USR Generates Positive Impacts Saunders (2014) who declared: “students cannot be anything but customers in a
world defined by a free-market logic” legitimated what is known as the “Student-
Customer Model” after having analyzed the opposed and divergent theories of
education as an economic exchange. In such way, since implementing CSR for any
organization is recognized to engender positive impacts on customers, applying
CSR measures within a university (University Social Responsibility) would generate
positive impacts on customers, and therefore, on students. The CSR/USR
dimension which is particularly focused on deals with eco-friendliness.
Universities’ Concerns: Public Image And Stakeholders Attraction As it has been highlighted by the work of Pastakia (1998), being “eco-friendly” for an
organization, no matter the industry it is part of, is not only about being
environmental friendly. It is also about some kind of other desire. The nature of the
latter can be numerous whether it deals with profits, public image or attraction of
stakeholders. One kind of any organization’s stakeholders is its customers. Thus, if
organizations were being eco-friendly partly because of some benefits they would
receive from it, in the present study, the adoption of an eco-friendly profile would be
through University Social Responsibility (USR) actions.
The specific benefits for a university would be the boost of public image and
attraction of more “stakeholders” which, according to the “Student-Customer
Model”, can be assimilated as students, the latter being considered as customers.
Linköping University’s Positive Public Image In the survey the researchers conducted, Swedish students of Linköping University
(LiU) in Campus Valla have been questioned about their satisfaction regarding its
“eco-friendly attitude”. The results show that 86.62% of Swedish students are being
either “satisfied” or “very satisfied” of it. The latest results from the International
89
Student Barometer (ISB) display that international students from Campus Valla are
satisfied from it at 96%.
Such figures are definitely in favor of a positive brand image in addition to the
attraction of students: when Swedish students are asked whether an eco-friendly
university is attractive, around 77% answer yes. Moreover, Singh et al. (2008)
highlight in their research that the performance in some CSR dimensions has been
found to have positive impacts on a company’s brand image. Such a remark seems
now completely applicable to LiU through the ideas of USR, eco-friendliness and
university image. Indeed, LiU has been declared most eco-friendly university by the
International Student Barometer (ISB) from 2010 to 2013. It is a particularly
remarkable performance regarding the eco-friendliness (a dimension of USR) and
the positive impacts the authors demonstrated through the results of their
quantitative study.
Attractiveness And Strategy: The Importance Of Eco-Friendliness
As it has been mentioned in the theoretical chapter, rankings are proved to attract
“considerable publicity” (Porter & Kramer, 2006). Thus, the exposition Linköping
University (LiU) is benefiting from its position on various rankings, and more
particularly on the ISB one, favors and even advertises its positive image. And the
positive image of an organization, especially when linked with the implementation of
environmentally focused programs, “should yield more favorable brand preference”
(Liu et al., 2014, p. 183). This assumption is definitely linkable with the case of LiU.
Indeed, the survey reveals that a bit more than 35% of the students would have
been influenced into choosing LiU if they had known about its eco-friendliness
recognition when they got to choose which university to join: it represents more than
one third of the Swedish LiU students.
The literature, which has been analyzed, led us to see CSR as a strategy through
brand image: it attracts and influences positively. A correlation is made with USR,
the specific CSR for universities, and it is proved by the results gotten from the
survey: the major part of Swedish LiU students is attracted to eco-friendly
universities (77.71%) and therefore positively influenced by it. Such results draw
90
attention towards the rather sizeable importance the eco-friendly profile of a
university has for some students.
The idea is reinforced when a closer look is taken at the analyzed results from the
survey: a bit more than half of the respondents (50.32%) is seeing eco-friendliness
as a criteria to be considered while choosing a university when they are asked to
rank six criteria from most to least important in a context of university choice.
Eco-friendliness has definitely an impact on Swedish students when choosing a
university, and it is a positive one.
Eco-Friendly Attitude And Behaviors: A Favorable Attitude In The Decision-Making Process
An eco-friendly behavior not only indicates that a person has an environmental
consciousness, it also illustrates a green consumption (Dahm et al., 2009). One of
the survey question, “Do you consider yourself, efforts or habits as “green” or “eco-
friendly”, determines how the students would consider their eco-friendly behavior
and attitude. Identifying their attitude and behavior towards eco-friendliness enables
to build a foundation toward the student’s eco-friendly decision-making process.
Environmentally conscious people have a favorable attitude in the eco-friendly
decision-making process (Han et al., 2009). 63% of the Swedish students answer
“Yes – Mostly” to this question and therefore, consider themselves, efforts, or habits
as “green” or “eco-friendly” (Graph 7). As a result, the authors are able to declare
that the majority of the Swedish students have an eco-friendly behavior and attitude.
By looking at a different question, asking the students to rank different university
choice criteria according to their importance (Graph 8), assumptions can be made
on whether their eco-friendly behavior had an impact on their decision-making
process. More than 50% did not rank eco-friendliness on the last spot, which makes
eco-friendliness an important decision-making factor when choosing a university.
On the question dealing with whether the students knew about LiU being ranked the
most eco-friendly university in the world (from 2010-2013 by the ISB), 90% of the
91
students answered that they did not know. However, more than 35% of the
student’s decision-making process would have been influenced when considering
applying to a university if they had known.
Out of the students who answered “Yes – Mostly” to the question on how they
consider themselves “green or eco-friendly”, almost 90% answered considering an
eco-friendly university as attractive (Graph 35). The establishment of such a
correlation is critical since it makes the relationship between the eco-friendly
behavior and its consequences on their favorable attitude towards eco-friendly
decision-making process clear. Eco-friendly students find an eco-friendly university
attractive. However, a tendency of “not really” green students feeling attracted to
eco-friendly universities has been noticed (Graph 35), widening the sphere of
influence of eco-friendliness.
The Development Of Societal Trends Shetzer et al. (1991) cited in Hodgkinson & Innes (2001) state that there is a
development of societal trends towards environmental concerns amongst
students. They also specify that, with the development of societal trends, more
decision-processes can be made, which will be based on eco-friendliness.
According to Han et al. (2011) the eco-friendly attitude has different degrees of
seriousness towards ecological concerns, which cause people to make decisions
influenced by those concerns.
Therefore, by analyzing the attitude and behavior of the Swedish students together
with their age, it has been found that a societal trend seems to thrive among the
younger generation of students. An increasing number of young students are being
eco-friendly (Graph 23). This could simplify the understanding of students acting
favorably towards eco-friendly universities.
92
The Attracting Signals Of Advertisement
The decision-making process of a student can easily be influenced in other ways as
well. As mentioned before, 90% of the students did not know about LiU being
ranked the most eco-friendly university by ISB. However, if they had known, 35% of
the students would have been influenced into choosing LiU. The reason why they
did not know is that LiU is not advertising this more than just publishing it on their
websites.
If Greening & Turbans’ (2000) theory is being applied to LiU, it is assumed that the
university is able to attract more students if they advertise their Corporate Social
Performance (CSP), which is about the measurement of the social responsibility
improvements compared to the competitors (Luo & Bhattacharya, 2009). This could
e.g. be achieved by increasing the advertising of the International Student
Barometer (ISB) results. By doing so, LiU would not only differentiate itself from
other public universities (Rynes, 1991), but it would also inform the future students
of its perceptions and expectations, and thus impact the future students into feeling
attracted to it. In terms of awareness of LiU's eco-friendliness, it is observed through
the results of the survey that the majority of the students are only “somewhat
informed” or “not informed” at all. It shows that there is a weak link between the
awareness of the students and the universities environmental friendly intentions.
However, the link between CSP and organizational attractiveness can be explained
through the three signal-based mechanism from the signaling theory (Jones et al.,
2014). This can also help LiU to strengthen their link between the awareness of the
students and the universities environmental friendly intentions.
The future students attraction towards a university gets influenced by the signals,
which are sent out by the universities’ reputation. Corporate Social Performance
(CSP) sends out the signal that the organization could be prestigious and valued by
others, which in return convinces the pride of the future student into wanting to be
associated with the university (Behrend et al., 2009; Jones et al., 2014). However,
this is hard to establish, since the students have little knowledge about LiU’s eco-
friendliness.
93
According to Jones et al. (2014) people with pro-environmental values, would be
more attracted towards organizations with environmentally friendly practices,
therefore the signal “value fit” is applied. As stated above, almost 90% of the
students answering “Yes – mostly” on their efforts and habits regarding being
“green” or “eco-friendly” find a eco-friendly university attractive.
Behrend et al. (2009), cited in Jones et al., (2014, p. 386), found out that “a
company’s environmental message on a website increased its organizational
prestige and, in turn, participants’ job pursuit intentions”. Since more than 90% of
the students answered that they did not know about LiU’s ISB ranking, the authors
assumes that it is not having such an effect on the Swedish students. However, by
looking at the results of the ISB survey answered by LiU’s international students, it
is discovered that they are more aware of LiU’s ranking. This could therefore be
more applicable for international students rather than Swedish students.
By increasing the advertising of their eco-friendly profile together with the
awareness of LiU’s eco-friendliness, students would see the CSP as an indication of
organizational concern for others within the organization. It would send out a signal
to a future student, demonstrating that the university cares about the welfare of its
students. Therefore, by increasing the advertising and awareness, LiU would send
out signals of its prestige, values and expected treatment, which in return, would
enhance the attractiveness through public image.
94
7. CONCLUSION The eco-friendliness of Linköping University (Campus Valla) has a significant impact
on its Swedish students, which is positive, particularly in terms of attractiveness.
More than 72% of LiU Swedish students are attracted towards the eco-friendliness
of a university. Eco-friendliness’ satisfaction is a domain in which LiU demonstrates
a remarkable satisfaction from its students, to the point where it brought it the title of
“Most eco-friendly university” according to the International Student Barometer (ISB)
four years in a row, from 2010 to 2013.
When a university is considered as “eco-friendly”, it is part of some University Social
Responsibility (USR) adopted measures. Its counterpart within the private sector is
the Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR), a widespread term for its wider-spread
actions. While the research is mainly focused on CSR and the private sector, this
paper has been decided to shed light on a neglected relationship involving the
association of two critical aspects of any country’s economy: the higher education,
shaping the professionals and citizens of tomorrow, and the eco-friendliness, a
growing trend but also environmental consideration. The literature presents a gap
dealing with eco-friendliness as part of USR and its impact on students.
Overall, the present study has been proving that eco-friendliness is a considered
university choice criteria among LiU Swedish students, and that it could even be
favored compared to some others, largely known as main influencers, such as the
quality of faculty, variety of courses or campus size. More than 44% of the Swedish
students rank the importance of an eco-friendly university between 1 and 5 out of
six.
With their findings, the authors give first, an additional argument in favor of the
student-customer model. Indeed, the workable information gathered from the
existing and released research was mostly thanks to the acceptance of the model
preaching that students were nothing else than customers, especially in terms of
behaviors.
Thus, a number of some recognized theories involving CSR and customers have
been made possible to be drawn closer to the conclusions we got from our
95
quantitative data such as the fact that performance in some CSR dimensions lead
to positive public image, that rankings are a source of attraction, that a positive
image associated with CSR environmental measures leads to more favorable brand
preference, that CSR attracts and influences positively, and finally, that there is the
development of societal trends towards environmental concerns amongst students,
environmentally conscious people having favorable attitudes in the eco-friendly
decision-making process. The findings of this research also give a first hint on eco-
friendliness being a university choice criteria not to be neglected since more than
half of the LiU Swedish students find it attractive for a university, and since it seems
to be a growing generational trend most likely to be linked with the worldwide
growing awareness and consciousness of the importance of sustainability.
The authors are aware of the fact that the present quantitative research can be
seen as some kind of pilot study: it is a first step in attempting to shed light on a
relationship we believe of current relevance which may become critical in the near
future. Therefore, more study should be conducted in order to confirm the obtained
results, expand the latter to a wider population as well as looking deeper into this
captivating relationship by the adoption of a strategic vision with the notion of
competitive advantage within the higher education sector, since the results verified
the theory that a university is able to attract more students if it advertises its
Corporate Social Performance (CSP). The minimum percentage of students who
would have been influenced to choose LiU by knowing about its eco-friendly
recognition lays around 30%.
Moreover, some correlations obtained from the survey analysis gave rise to some
wonders such as the reasons why females seem more sensitive and concerned
towards eco-friendliness than males. By comparing the satisfaction results of
international and Swedish students, we also came up with thoughts concerning a
possible cultural dimension to be taken into account regarding the different kind of
feelings and considerations students might have according to their very own cultural
background.
Finally, this research is a first step into proving that eco-friendliness is worth
developing for a university; not only because it is in favor of the environment and
because it is a big step towards the protection of the environment and related
awareness, but also because it enables something else, something more, which
96
directly and fully benefits the university as an organization: it improves its public
image and attract stakeholders. In other words, it participates into the positive
development of the university in the long term, especially by positively impacting
students, and may therefore be associated to strategic concerns.
97
8. BIBLIOGRAPHY Ambec, S. & Lanoie, P., 2008. Does It Pay to Be Green? A Systematic Overview. Academy of Management Perspectice, 22(4), p.45. Anon., 1995. Environmentally responsible logistics systems. International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, 25(2), pp.20-38. Baker, M.J., 2003. The Marketing Book. Fifth Edition ed. Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann. Barrena-Martinez, J., Lopez-Fernandez, M., Marquez-Moreno, C. & Romero-Fernandez, P.M., 2014. Corporate Social Responsibility in the Process of Attracting College Graduates. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environment Management. Behrend, T.S. & Becca, A.B., 2009. Effects of Pro-Environmental Recruiting Messages: The Role of Organizational Reputation. Journal of Business and Psychology, 24(3), pp.341 - 350. Bernardis, L., Maiolini, R. & Braccini, A.M., 2010. Corporate Social Responsibility in Private and Public Sector. Sustainability of Business versus Effectiveness of Action. In In Proceedings of XXXIII Convegno AIDEA. Milan: CeRSI. Brown, B.J., Hanson, M.E., Liverman, D.M. & Merideth Jr, R.W., 1987. Global sustainability: Toward definition. Environmental Management, 11(6), pp.713-19. Bryman, A. & Bell, E., 2007. Business Research Methods. New York: Oxford University Press. Bryman, A. & Bell, E., 2011. Business Research Methods. Third ed. New York: Oxford University Press. Celani, A. & Parbudyal, S., 2011. Signaling theory and applicant attraction outcomes. Personnel Review, 40(22), pp.222-38. Chepkoech, L.L., Mqangi, J.K. & Motiindi, T.M., 2013. The Role of Corporate Social Responsibility Activities on Egerton University's Public Image: A Case of Njoro Division Community. International Journal of Research in Commerce and Management, 4(4), pp.33-38. Dahm, M.J., Samonte, A.V. & Shows, A.R., 2009. Do Eco-Friendly Attitudes Predict Eco-Friendly Behaviors? Journal of American College Health, 58(3), pp.195-202.
98
DePoy, E. & Gitlin, L.N., 2010. Introduction to Research: Understanding and Applying Multiple Strategies. 4th ed. Missouri: Elsevier Mosby. Descartes, R., 1968. Discourse on Method and Meditations. London: Tavistock. Garrina, M., Garria, E. & Mele, D., 2004. Corporate Social Responsibility Theories: Mapping the Territory. Journal of Business Ethics, 53(1/2), pp.51-71. Geva, A., 2008. Three Models of Corporate Social Responsibility: Interrelationships between Theory, Research, and Practice. Business & Society Review, 113(1), pp.1-41. Greening, W. & Turban, B., 2000. Corporate Social Performance as a Competitive Advantage in Attracting a Quality Workforce. Business & Society, 39(3), pp.254-80. Han, H., Hsu, L.-T. & Lee, J.-S., 2009. Empirical investigation of the roles of attitudes toward green behaviors, overall image, gender, and age in hotel customers’ eco-friendly decision-making process. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 28(4), pp.519-28. Han, H., Hsu, L.-T., Lee, J.-S. & Sheu, C., 2011. Are lodging customers ready to go green? An examination of attitudes, demographics, and eco-friendly intentions. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 30(2), pp.345-55. Hoeffler, S. & Keller, K.L., 2002. Building Brand Equity Through Corporate Societal Marketing. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 21(1), pp.78-89. Hogdkinson, S.P. & Innes, M.J., 2001. The Attitudinal Influence of Career Orientation in 1st-Year University Students: Environmental Attitudes as a Function of Degree Choice. The Journal of Environmental Education, 32(3), pp.37-40. Jones, D.A., Willness, C.R. & Madey, S., 2014. why are job seekers attracted by corporate social performance? Experimental and field tests of three signal-based mechanisms. Academy of Management Journal, 57(2), pp.383-404. Kakabadse, N.K., Cecile , R. & Lee-Davies, L., 2005. Corporate social responsibility and stakeholder approach: a conceptual review. International Journal of Buiness Governance and Ethics, 1(4), pp.277-301. Kerlinger, F.N. & Rinehart, N., 1986. Foundations of Behaviour Research. New York: Winston Inc. Kolodinsky, R.W., Madden, T.M., Zisk, D.S. & Henkel, E.T., 2010. Attitudes about Corporate Social Responsibility: Business Student Predictors. Journal of Business Ethics, 91(2), pp.167-81.
99
Lang, P., 2009. Sustainability at Universities - Opportunities, Challenges and Trends. Fankfurt am Main: Internationaler Verlag der Wissenschaft. Leita, J. & Silva, M.J., 2007. CSR and Social Marketing: What is the desired role for Universities in fostering Public Policies? Thesis. MPRA Paper. Linköping University, 2012. LiU ranked as fifth-best environmental university in the world. [Online] Available at: http://www.iei.liu.se/envtech/envtechnytt/1.314080/1.314099?l=en [Accessed 22 April 2015]. Linköping University, 2014. Linköping University for a sustainable future. [Online] Available at: http://www.liu.se/om-liu/strategi/miljoarbete?l=en [Accessed 22 April 2015]. Linköping University, 2014. LiU for a better environment. [Online] Available at: http://www.liu.se/insidan/miljo?l=en [Accessed 22 April 2015]. Linköping University, 2014. LiU greenest in Sweden. [Online] Available at: http://www.liu.se/insidan/nyhetsarkiv/1.540780?l=en [Accessed 22 April 2015]. Linköping University, 2014. Welcome to Linköping University. [Online] Available at: http://www.liu.se/om-liu?l=en [Accessed 22 April 2015]. Linköping University, 2015. Students recommend LiU. [Online] Available at: http://www.liu.se/liu-nytt/LiU-nytt?l=en&newsitem=628439 [Accessed 22 April 2015]. Littau, P. & Jujagiri, N.J., 2010. 25 years of stakeholder theory in project management literature (1984–2009). Project Management Journal, 41(4), pp.17-29. Liu, M.T. et al., 2014. The impact of corporate social responsibility (CSR) performance and perceived brand quality on customer-based brand preference. Journal of Service Marketing, 28(3), pp.181-94. Luo, X. & Bhattacharya, C.B., 2009. The Debate over Doing Good: Corporate Social Performance, Strategic Marketing Levers, and Firm-Idiosyncratic Risk. Journal of Marketing, 73(6), pp.198-213. Maibach, E., 1993. Social marketing for the environment: Using information campaigns to promote environmental awareness and behavior change. Health Promotion International, 8(3), pp.209-24. Mark, E., 2013. Student satisfaction and the customer focus in higher education. Journal of Higher Education Policy & Management. 35(1), pp.2-10. McDaniel, S.W. & Rylander, D.H., 1993. Strategic green marketing. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 10(3), pp.4-10.
100
Pastakia, A., 1998. Grassroots ecopreneurs: change agents for a sustainable society. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 11(2), pp.157-73. Porter, M.E. & Kramer, M.R., 2006. "Strategy and Society: The Link between Competitive Advantage and Corporate Social Responsibility." Harvard Business Review, 84(12), pp.78-93. Roberts, A.J., 1996. Green consumers in the 1990s: Profile and implications for advertising. Journal of Business Research, 36(3), pp.217-31. Rynes, S., Bretz, B. & Gerhart, B., 1991. The importance of recruitment in job choice: A different way of looking. Working Paper. NY: Center for Advanced Human Resources Studies Cornell University. Saunders, D.B., 2014. Exploring a Customer Orientation: Free-Market Logic and College Students. The Review of Higher Education, 37, pp.197-219. Scholl, H.J., 2001. Researchgate. [Online] Reesarchgate Available at: http://www.researchgate.net/profile/Hans_Scholl/publication/245457246_Applying_stakeholder_theory_to_e-government_benefits_and_limits/links/54b6aedc0cf24eb34f6d5d55.pdf. [Accessed 09 April 2015]. Singh, M.G. & Dawra, J., 2008. Evaluating Aaker ’ s sources of brand equity and the mediating role of brand image. Journal of Targeting, Measurement & Analysis for Marketing, 18(3/4), pp.189-98. Straughan, R.D. & Roberts, J.A., 1999. Environmental segmentation alternatives: a look at green consumer behavior in the new millennium. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 16(6), pp.558-75. Vasilescu, R., Barna, C., Epure, M. & Baicu, C., 2010. Developing university social responsibility: A model for the challenges of the new civil society. Prodedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 2(2), pp.4177-82. Vaughn, R., Pitlik, J. & Hansotia, B., 1978. Understanding University Choice: a Multi-Attribute Approach. Advances in Consumer Research, 5, pp.26-31. Von Hauff, M. & Nguyen, T., 2014. Universities as Potential Actors for Sustainable Development. Sustainability, 6(5), pp.3043-63. Votaw, D., 1972. Genius Becomes Rare: A Confiment on the Doctrine of Social Responsibility Pt. I. California Management Review, XV(2), pp.25-31. Wahlin, K., 2011. Tillämpad statistik - en grundkurs. Stockholm: Bonniers Utbildning AB.
101
Wanninayake, W.M.C.B. & Radiwela, P., 2008. Consumer attractiveness towards green products of FMCG Sector: An empirical study. International Journal of Research in Commerce & Management , 3(2), pp.34-39. Willig, C., 2001. Introducing qualitative research in psychology: adventures in theory and method. Open Univ. Press. Wilson, A., Zeithaml, V.A., Bitner, M.J. & Gremler, D.D., 2008. Services Marketing, Integrating Customer Focus Across the Firm. First European ed. Berkshire: McGraw-Hill Higher Education. Wolge, K.L. & Shanklin, C.W., 2001. Environmental Practices and Management Concerns of Conference Center. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism, 25(2), pp.209-16. Zsoka, A. & Szerenyi, M., 2012. Greening due to environmental education? Environmental knowledge, attitudes, consumer behavior and everyday pro-environmental activities of Hungarian high school and university students. Journal of Cleaner Production, 48, pp.126-38.
102
APPENDIX A INTERVIEW GUIDE Nr. 1
PRESENTATION OF OUR RESEARCH Before the proper start of our interview we are presenting ourselves as well as our
business research regarding our bachelor thesis in order to set the topic of our
conversation and clarify our intentions.
ETHICAL / PRACTICAL CONSIDERATIONS We ask our candidate if she wants to apply the principle of anonymity, or if we are
allowed to use his/her name, job title, etc.
We also present the participant the way the interview is going to be conducted, for
him/her to be encouraged to ask questions and be comfortable.
QUESTIONS
Information about the participant and his/her link to ISB
How are you involved in the ISB survey?
What are the questions asked regarding the environmental part?
→ Can we get them?
Is eco-friendliness defined in the survey?
→ If so, how?
What are the latest ISB results for LiU?
Did international students find the eco-friendliness of LiU attractive?
→ Figures? How did you come up with this answer/result?
Who is analyzing the results?
→ Analysis method?
Is ISB part of LiU’s marketing strategy?
→ How important is this survey for LiU?
103
APPENDIX B Eco-friendliness Survey
We are two undergraduate business students conducting a survey for our bachelor thesis. This survey is designed to obtain information on the Swedish student’s attitude towards the eco-friendliness of a public university (Linköping University) and the potential impact it could
have on their university choice.
All answers from the questionnaire will be confidential and destroyed once coded. Please carefully consider your answer before responding.
Thank you for you participation.
1. Gender?
O Male O Female O Other
2. Age?
3. Which faculty are you in?
O Institute of Technology O Faculty of Arts and Sciences
O Faculty of Educational Sciences O Faculty of Health Sciences
4. Select your main area of study.
O Engineering
O Social Studies (incl Economics,
Politics)
O Business and Administrative Studies O Education
O Mathematical and Computer Sciences
O Technologies
O Biological Sciences (Incl Psychology,
Sport Science)
O Physical Sciences (Incl Geography)
O Others
5. Which year did you start to study in LiU?
Eco-friendliness: Actions that reduce the impact on the environment (e.g. organic purchases, recycling, energy
savings, energy-efficient bulbs, transportation, veganism, etc.)
6. Do you consider yourself, efforts or habits as “green” or “eco-friendly?
O Yes – Completely O Yes – Mostly O Not really O No – Never
104
7. Rank these criteria from the most (1) to the least important (6) when choosing a University: Campus Size ___ Reputation ___
Quality of faculty ___ Variety of courses ___ Eco-friendliness ___ Number of Students ___
8. How well aware are you of LiU´s eco-friendliness?
O Well informed O informed O somewhat informed O Not informed
9. LiU’s eco-friendly attitude to the environment (e.g. recycling, energy etc.)?
O Very Satisfied O Satisfied O Dissatisfied O Very Dissatisfied
10. Did you know about LiU being ranked the most eco-friendly university in the world
from 2010 – 2013?
O Yes O No
11. If YES: did it have any influence into choosing LiU?
O Yes O No
11 a. If YES à How much would it have influenced you?
1 = lowest; 5 = Highest
1 2 3 4 5
O O O O O
12. If NO: would it have influenced you?
O Yes O No
12 a. If YES à How much would it have influenced you?
1 = lowest; 5 = Highest
1 2 3 4 5
O O O O O
13. Do you think LiU should increase the advertising of its eco-friendly profile?
O Yes O No
14. Is an eco-friendly university attractive for you?
O Yes O No
14 a. If YES à How attractive? 1 = lowest; 5 = Highest
1 2 3 4 5
O O O O O
Thank you for you participation.
Hesam Jafaei & Manon Lespinasse
105
APPENDIX C Linköping University Breakdown
Satisfaction % are based on: very satisfied / satisfied (4 point scale)
ISB -‐ Autumn 2014 Base numbers of responses are shown at the top of each column
Labels are standardized, not the exact terminology used in the questionnaire
Global ISB LIVING
SATISFACTION
Derived Importance Living elements
23% Eco-‐friendly attitude
% SATISFIED
Global ISB Sweden LiU
90% 93% 96%
REGION
EU Non-‐EU
95% 98%
GENDER
Male Female
96% 96%
AGE
18 to 20 21 to 24 25 to 29 30 to 39
98% 96% 97% 92%
CAMPUS
Campus Valla Campus US Campus Norrköping
96% 98% 97% STUDY TYPE
Student Exchange
Full time Sandwich Study Abroad Other
96% 97% 93% 100% 95%
106
NATIONALITY
Germany France Spain India China 96% 95% 94% 100% 95% Greece Netherlands Iran Austria Pakistan 100% 100% 92% 80% 100%
FACULTY LEVEL
Institute of Technology
Arts and Sciences Educational Sciences Health Sciences
96% 96% 96% 100%
MAIN AREA OF STUDY
Engineering Business and Administration
Social Studies (incl. Economics, Politics)
Mathematical & Computer Sciences Education
97% 96% 98% 92% 97%
Technologies Biological Sciences (incl. Psychology, Sports Science)
Physical Sciences (incl. Geography) Other
95% 96% 100% 95%
YEAR OF STUDY
First/single year Last year Other year 96% 96% 97%
107
APPENDIX D SPSS CODING
In a matter of clarifying the method used to get the quantitative data, the basis of this
study, the authors demonstrates with the present appendix the coding process they
used with their survey’s answers in order to use SPSS and get accurate results and
data analysis. ID# = Questionnaire numbers (from 1 to 157) Q = Question (from 1 to 17) X, x = Missing Data Q1. Gender?
1 = Male 2 = Female 3 = Other
Q2. Age?
Q3. Which faculty are you in?
1 = Institute of Technology 2 = Faculty of Arts and Sciences
3 = Faculty of Educational Sciences 4 = Faculty of Health Sciences
Q4. Select your main area of study.
1 = Engineering
3 = Social Studies (incl Economics,
Politics)
5 = Business and Administrative Studies 7 = Education
10 = Others
2 = Mathematical and Computer
Sciences
4 = Technologies
6 = Biological Sciences (Incl
Psychology, Sport Science)
8 = Physical Sciences (Incl Geography)
9 = Medical Science
Q5. Which year did you start to study in LiU?
Q6. Do you consider yourself, efforts or habits as “green” or “eco-friendly?
1 = Yes – Completely 2 = Yes – Mostly 3 = Not really 4 = No – Never
108
Q7. Rank these criteria from the most (1) to the least important (6) when choosing a University: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 = Eco-Friendliness Q8. How well aware are you of LiU´s eco-friendliness?
1 = Well informed 2 = informed 3 = somewhat informed 4 = Not informed
Q9. LiU’s eco-friendly attitude to the environment (e.g. recycling, energy etc.)?
1 = Very Satisfied 2 = Satisfied 3 = Dissatisfied 4 = Very Dissatisfied
Q10. Did you know about LiU being ranked the most eco-friendly university in
the world from 2010 – 2013?
1 = Yes 2 = No
Q11. If YES: did it have any influence into choosing LiU?
1 = Yes 2 = No
Q12. If YES à How much would it have influenced you?
1 = lowest; 5 = Highest
1 2 3 4 5
O O O O O
Q13. If NO: would it have influenced you?
1 = Yes 2 = No
Q14. If YES à How much would it have influenced you?
1 = lowest; 5 = Highest
1 2 3 4 5
O O O O O Q15. Do you think LiU should increase the advertising of its eco-friendly
profile?
1 = Yes 2 = No
Q16. Is an eco-friendly university attractive for you?
1 = Yes 2 = No
Q17. If YES à How attractive? 1 = lowest; 5 = Highest
1 2 3 4 5
O O O O O
109
SURVEY DATA - CODED ID#
Q1
Q2
Q3
Q4
Q5
Q6
Q7
Q8
Q9
Q10
Q11
Q12
Q13
Q14
Q15
Q16
Q17
1 2 25 3 5 2010 2 6 4 2 2
2 2 1 1 3
2 2 23 3 10 2014 2 6 2 1 2
1 2 1 1 3
3 2 21 3 7 2012 2 5 4 2 2
1 2 1 1 3
4 1 38 3 7 2011 2 4 3 2 2
1 3 1 1 3
5 2 24 3 7 2011 2 6 4 3 2
1 3 1 1 5
6 2 25 3 7 2010 2 1 2 2 2
1 4 1 1 4
7 2 24 3 7 2011 2 6 2 2 2
1 2 1 1 3
8 2 24 3 5 2010 3 5
3 2
2
1 1 4
9 2 20 3 10 2014 3 3 4 x 2
1 3 1 1 3
10 3 23 3 7 2012 3 2 3 2 2
1 4 1 1 4
11 1 27 3 7 2011 2 6 4 3 2
2
1 1 3
12 1 23 1 1 2012 4 6 4 2 2
2
1 2
13 1 22 1 1
2012 2 4 3 2 2
1 3 1 1 4
14 2 22 1 2 2011 2 4 3 2 2
1 2 1 1 2
15 2 22 2 2 2011 3 4 4 2 2
2
1 1 3
16 1 22 1 1 2013 2 4 1 2 1 2
1 2
17 1 20 1 1
2013 2 6 3 2 2
2
1 1 x
18 1 23 1 1 2011 2 5 4 2 1
1 1 1 1 3
19 1 24 1 1 2010 2 6 2 2 2
2
2 2
20 1 24 1 1
2010 3 6 3 2 2
2
1 1 1
21 2 23 1 1 2012 2 4 2 2 1 2
1 1 3
22 1 23 1 1 2012 2 5 4 2 2
2
1 1 4
110
23 1 22 1 1 2012 2 6 3 2 2
2
1 1 3
24 1 22 1 1 2012 2 5 2 2 2
1 2 1 1 3
25 1 24 1 1 2012 2 5 3 2 2
2
1 1 3
26 2 25 1 1 2010 2 4 4 x 2
2
1 1 4
27 1 29 3 3 2013 3 4 3 2 2
2
1 1 3
28 2 23 3 3 2014 2 5 3 2 2
1 4 1 1 4
29 2 21 3 3 2014 2 4 3 2 2
2
1 1 4
30 2 22 2 3 2013 3 6 2 1 2
1 1 1 1 3
31 2 22 2 3 2013 4 6 4 1 2
2
2 2
32 1 20 2 3
2013 3 6 3 2 2
2
1 2
33 2 23 2 3
2013 3 6 3 2 2
2
1 1 3
34 2 23 2 3 2012 3 6 4 2 2
2
1 2
35 2 21 3 6
2013 3 6 4 3 2
2
1 2
36 2 23 3 7
2013 3 5 4 2 2
1 3 1 1 4
37 1 23 3 5 2013 2 5 4 2 2
2
1 2
38 1 24 2 5
2012 2 4 4 2 2
2
1 1 3
39 2 26 2 3 2013 2 4 3 3 2
1 x 1 1 3
40 2 19 2 10 2015 2 4 3 2 2
2
1 1 3
41 2 24 2 6 2012 2 6 2 2 2
1 1 1 1 2
42 2 22 2 6 2012 2 6 3 2 2
x x 1 1 4
43 1 24 2 6 2010 3 4 3 2 2
2
1 1 3
44 3 21 2 6 2013 3 5 3 2 2
1 2 2 1 2
45 2 23 3 7 2012 2 4 3 2 2
1 3 1 1 3
46 2 23 3 7 20 2 6 4 x 2
2
1 1 3
111
12
47 2 35 2 6 2013 2 4 4 2 2
2
2 1 4
48 2 21 2 6 2013 2 4 2 2 2
2
1 1 3
49 1 21 2 6 2013 3 6 3 2 1 2
1 1 1
50 2 23 2 6 2013 2 5 2 2 2
1 1 1 1 3
51 1 20 2 10 2013 2 5 3 2 2
2
1 1 2
52 2 x 3 3 2014 3 3 3 2 2
1 5 1 1 5
53 1 23 3 7 2014 2 5 2 2 1 2
1 1 3
54 2 21 4 9 2014 2 2 4 2 2
1 3 1 1 3
55 2 20 4 9 2014 2 2 3 2 2
1 3 1 1 3
56 2 20 4 9 2014 2 3 3 2 2
2
1 1 4
57 2 22 4 9 2014 3 3 3 2 2
x x 1 1 3
58 2 25 4 9 2014 3 5 4 2 2
1 4 1 1 3
59 2 x 4 9 2014 2 4 3 2 2
1 3 1 1 5
60 1 24 3 7 2014 3 6 2 2 1 2
2 2
61 2 21 4 9
2014 2 4 4 2
1 4 1 1 4
62 2 24 4 9 2014 2 6 4 2 2
1 5 1 1 5
63 1 19 4 9 2014 3 6 4 4 2
2
1 1 2
64 2 20 3 7 2014 2 4 3 2 2
2
1 1 3
65 1 21 3 7 2014 2 2 3 2 2
2
1 1 4
66 1 22 3 10 2013 2 4 3 2 2
1 4 1 1 5
67 2 25 4 9 2014 2 6 4 2 2
2
1 1 3
68 1 24 3 7 2014 2 3 3 2 2
2
1 1 3
69 1 24 1 1 2011 1 6 4 2 2
2
2 1 4
112
70 1 24 1 1 2011 3 6 3 2 1
2
2 2
71 2 25 3 3
2011 3 6 3 2 2
2
1 1 3
72 1 19 1 1 2014 2 3 3 2 2
1 3 1 1 4
73 1 20 1 1 2014 2 3 3 2 2
2
1 1 3
74 2 19 1 1 2014 2 4 4 2 2
2
1 1 3
75 2 22 1 1 2013 2 3 2 1 2
1 3 1 1 4
76 1 22 1 1 2013 3 5 4 2 2
2
1 2
77 2 21 1 1
2014 2 6 3 3 2
1 3 1 1 5
78 2 21 1 1 2014 2 6 3 2 2
1 1 1 1 3
79 2 21 1 1 2013 2 6 3 2 2
2
1 1 3
80 2 21 1 1 2013 2 4 4 2 2
1 2 1 1 4
81 2 21 1 1 2014 2 4 3 2 2
1 3 1 1 5
82 2 21 4 9 2012 2 6 4 2 2
2
1 1 4
83 1 20 1 1 2013 3 6 3 2 1 2
1 1 3
84 1 23 1 1 2014 3 5 3 2 2
1 3 1 1 4
85 2 19 1 2 2014 3 5 2 2 2
2
1 2
86 2 21 1 1
2014 2 6 3 2 2
2
2 2
87 2 21 1 1
2012 2 4 2 2 2
2
1 1 4
88 2 19 1 1 2014 2 6 4 2 2
2
1 2
89 2 22 1 1
2014 2 6 3 2 2
1 2 2 2
90 2 24 1 1
2013 2 6 3 2 2
2
1 1 3
91 2 20 1 1 2014 2 6 3 2 2
1 2 1 1 3
92 2 20 1 1 2014 3 6 3 2 2
1 4 1 1 3
93 2 20 3 3 20 2 4 4 2 2
1 3 1 1 5
113
14
94 2 20 3 3 2014 2 4 3 2 2
2
1 1 1
95 2 24 1 1 2011 2 4 1 1 2
1 4 1 1 5
96 2 23 1 1 2011 2 5 3 2 2
1 3 1 1 4
97 2 22 1 1 2011 2 5 2 2 2
2
1 1 3
98 2 24 1 1 2010 3 6 2 2 2
1 1 1 1 1
99 2 23 1 1 2010 2 6 3 2 2
2
1 1 3
100 1 24 1 1
2014 2 6 2 2 1 2
2
2 2
101 1 22 1 1
2014 2 6 2 2 2
1 4 1 1 4
102 1 22 1 1
2014 3 6 3 1 2
2
1 2
103 2 25 1 4
2011 2 4 3 1 2
1 4 1 1 4
104 2 25 1 4
2011 2 4 3 1 2
1 1 1 1 3
105 1 23 2 3
2011 3 6 2 2 1 2
2 2
106 1 23 2 3
2011 3 6 3 2 2
1 1 1 2
107 2 24 2 5
2011 2 6 4 X 2
2
1 1 4
108 1 23 2 3
2011 4 6 4 X 2
2
1 2
109 2 22 2 3
2012 2 5 4 2 2
2
1 1 3
110 2 24 2 3
2012 2 5 3 2 2
1 3 1 1 3
111 2 27 2 5
2013 2 6 4 2 2
1 2 1 1 2
112 2 24 2 5
2013 3 6 3 2 2
2
1 1 X
113 2 21 2 5
2013 3 5 2 1 1 1 2
1 1 4
114 1 36 1 1
2006 2 5 3 2 2
2
2 1 4
115 2 27 2 5
2013 2 6 3 2 1 2
1 2
116 1 21 2 3
2014 3 6 3 2 2
2
1 1 2
114
117 1 22 2 3
2012 2 4 3 2 2
2
1 1 3
118 1 21 2 3
2012 3 2 3 2 2
2
1 1 5
119 2 25 2 5
2010 2 6 3 2 2
2
1 1 2
120 2 24 2 3
2010 2 4 4 2 2
1 3 1 1 3
121 2 24 2 3
2011 2 6 4 3 2
1 3 1 1 4
122 1 25 1 X
2011 2 1 3 2 2
1 2 1 1 3
123 2 23 2 X
2012 2 6 2 2 2
X X 1 1 5
124 2 23 2 2
2012 2 6 2 2 2
2
1 1 4
125 2 23 2 3
2011 2 5 3 2 2
2
1 1 3
126 2 25 1 1
2011 3 5 3 2 2
2
1 1 4
127 2 21 1 1
2013 3 6 4 X 2
2
2 1 3
128 2 23 1 1
2012 2 6 3 3 2
1 4 1 1 4
129 1 25 2 5
2011 2 6 4 2 2
1 X 1 1 4
130 1 24 2 5
2011 2 6 3 3 2
1 3 1 1 3
131 1 24 2 5
2012 3 6 4 2 2
2
2 2
132 2 23 2 5
2012 3 6 3 2 2
2
1 1 4
133 1 24 2 5
2011 3 6 3 1 2
2
2 2
134 1 23 2 5
2010 3 6 4 2 2
2
2 2
135 2 23 2 3
2012 2 6 4 3 2
1 3 1 1 3
136 1 28 2 5
2009 2 X 4 X 2
2
1 1 4
137 2 22 2 5
2011 2 6 2 2 1 2
2 2
138 2 26 2 3
2012 3 5 4 2 2
2
1 1 3
139 1 26 2 X
2011 3 4 3 2 2
2
1 1 3
14 2 21 2 3 20 2 5 3 2 2
2
1 1 3
115
0 12 141 1 23 2 5
2011 3 6 4 2 2
2
2 2
142 1 21 2 3
2012 2 5 4 3 2
2
1 1 3
143 1 22 2 5
2012 2 4 3 2 2
2
1 1 3
144 1 24 2 5
2011 3 6 4 2 2
2
1 2
145 1 23 2 5
2011 3 6 2 2 1 2
2 2
146 1 22 2 3
2011 3 5 4 2 2
2
1 1 3
147 1 22 2 3
2011 3 6 3 2 2
2
2 2
148 1 22 2 2
2013 3 6 4 2 2
2
1 X X
149 1 21 2 5
2013 4 6 4 2 2
2
1 2
150 1 24 2 5
2013 3 5 4 X 2
2
1 1 1
151 2 24 2 3
2010 2 6 3 2 2
2
2 2
152 1 24 2 3
2011 2 6 4 3 2
1 1 1 1 2
153 1 21 2 3
2012 2 6 4 2 2
2
1 1 3
154 1 22 2 3
2012 2 5 3 2 2
2
1 1 3
155 1 25 2 5
2012 3 6 4 2 2
2
2 2
156 1 23 2 5
2012 3 6 4 2 2
2
1 2
157 1 23 2 5
2012 3 6 4 2 2
2
1 2 0
116
APPENDIX E GENDER & ATTRACTIVENESS:
Case Processing Summary
Cases
Valid Missing Total
N Percent N Percent N Percent GENDER * ATTRACTIVENESS 156 99,4% 1 ,6% 157 100,0%
Chi-Square Tests
Value df
Asymp. Sig. (2-sided)
Pearson Chi-Square
14,394a 2 ,001
Likelihood Ratio 14,745 2 ,001
N of Valid Cases 156
a. 2 cells (33,3%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is ,44.
AGE & ATTRACTIVENESS:
Case Processing Summary
Cases
Valid Missing Total
N Percent N Percent N Percent AGE * ATTRACTIVENESS 154 98,1% 3 1,9% 157 100,0%
Chi-Square Tests
Value df
Asymp. Sig. (2-sided)
Pearson Chi-Square
8,469a 4 ,076
Likelihood Ratio 9,783 4 ,044
N of Valid Cases 154
a. 5 cells (50,0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is ,44.
117
GENDER & HABIT: Case Processing Summary
Cases
Valid Missing Total
N Percent N Percent N Percent GENDER * HABIT 157 100,0% 0 0,0% 157 100,0%
Chi-Square Tests
Value df Asymp. Sig.
(2-sided) Pearson Chi-Square
15,899a 6 ,014
Likelihood Ratio 16,783 6 ,010
N of Valid Cases 157
a. 8 cells (66,7%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is ,01.
GENDER & IMPORTANCE:
Case Processing Summary
Cases
Valid Missing Total
N Percent N Percent N Percent GENDER * IMPORTANCE 156 99,4% 1 ,6% 157 100,0%
Chi-Square Tests
Value df
Asymp. Sig. (2-sided)
Pearson Chi-Square
19,339a 10 ,036
Likelihood Ratio 10,634 10 ,387
N of Valid Cases 156
a. 12 cells (66,7%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is ,03.
118
AGE & HABIT:
Case Processing Summary
Cases
Valid Missing Total
N Percent N Percent N Percent AGE * HABIT 155 98,7% 2 1,3% 157 100,0%
Chi-Square Tests
Value df
Asymp. Sig. (2-sided)
Pearson Chi-Square
4,901a 12 ,961
Likelihood Ratio 6,767 12 ,873
N of Valid Cases 155
a. 14 cells (70,0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is ,01.
AGE & IMPORTANCE:
Case Processing Summary
Cases
Valid Missing Total
N Percent N Percent N Percent AGE * IMPORTANCE 154 98,1% 3 1,9% 157 100,0%
Chi-Square Tests
Value df
Asymp. Sig. (2-sided)
Pearson Chi-Square
38,254a 20 ,008
Likelihood Ratio 32,541 20 ,038
N of Valid Cases 154
a. 23 cells (76,7%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is ,01.
119
FACULTY & HABIT: Case Processing Summary
Cases
Valid Missing Total
N Percent N Percent N Percent FACULTY * HABIT 157 100,0% 0 0,0% 157 100,0%
Chi-Square Tests
Value df
Asymp. Sig. (2-sided)
Pearson Chi-Square
12,489a 9 ,187
Likelihood Ratio 13,634 9 ,136
N of Valid Cases 157
a. 9 cells (56,3%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is ,07.
FACULTY & IMPORTANCE:
Case Processing Summary
Cases
Valid Missing Total
N Percent N Percent N Percent FACULTY * IMPORTANCE
156 99,4% 1 ,6% 157 100,0%
Chi-Square Tests
Value df
Asymp. Sig. (2-sided)
Pearson Chi-Square
28,316a 15 ,020
Likelihood Ratio 28,198 15 ,020
N of Valid Cases 156
a. 14 cells (58,3%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is ,14.
120
STUDY & HABIT: Case Processing Summary
Cases
Valid Missing Total
N Percent N Percent N Percent STUDY * HABIT 154 98,1% 3 1,9% 157 100,0%
Chi-Square Tests
Value df
Asymp. Sig. (2-sided)
Pearson Chi-Square
18,446a 24 ,781
Likelihood Ratio 19,958 24 ,699
N of Valid Cases 154
a. 26 cells (72,2%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is ,01.
STUDY & IMPORTANCE:
Case Processing Summary
Cases
Valid Missing Total
N Percent N Percent N Percent STUDY * IMPORTANCE 153 97,5% 4 2,5% 157 100,0%
Chi-Square Tests
Value df
Asymp. Sig. (2-sided)
Pearson Chi-Square
52,708a 40 ,086
Likelihood Ratio 43,959 40 ,308
N of Valid Cases 153
a. 43 cells (79,6%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is ,01.
121
ATTRACTIVENESS & ADVERTISEMENT:
Case Processing Summary
Cases
Valid Missing Total
N Percent N Percent N Percent ATTRACTIVENESS * ADVERTISING
156 99,4% 1 ,6% 157 100,0%
Chi-Square Tests
Value df
Asymp. Sig. (2-sided)
Exact Sig. (2-sided)
Exact Sig. (1-sided)
Pearson Chi-Square
46,248a 1 ,000
Continuity Correctionb 42,536 1 ,000
Likelihood Ratio 38,056 1 ,000
Fisher's Exact Test ,000 ,000
N of Valid Cases 156
a. 1 cells (25,0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 4,79. b. Computed only for a 2x2 table
ADVERTISING & KNOWING ABOUT LiU RECOGNITION:
Case Processing Summary
Cases Valid Missing Total
N Percent N Percent N Percent ADVERTISING * IF_NO 143 91,1% 14 8,9% 157 100,0%
Chi-Square Tests
Value df
Asymp. Sig. (2-sided)
Exact Sig. (2-sided)
Exact Sig. (1-sided)
Pearson Chi-Square
6,800a 1 ,009
Continuity Correctionb 5,520 1 ,019
Likelihood Ratio 7,941 1 ,005
Fisher's Exact Test ,009 ,007
N of Valid Cases 143
a. 0 cells (0,0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 7,05. b. Computed only for a 2x2 table
122
ATTRACTIVENESS & KNOWING ABOUT LiU’S RECOGNITION: Case Processing Summary
Cases
Valid Missing Total
N Percent N Percent N Percent ATTRACTIVENESS * IF_NO 142 90,4% 15 9,6% 157 100,0%
Chi-Square Tests
Value df
Asymp. Sig. (2-sided)
Exact Sig. (2-sided)
Exact Sig. (1-sided)
Pearson Chi-Square
15,229a 1 ,000
Continuity Correctionb 13,591 1 ,000
Likelihood Ratio 18,336 1 ,000
Fisher's Exact Test ,000 ,000
N of Valid Cases 142
a. 0 cells (0,0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 11,04. b. Computed only for a 2x2 table
ADVERTISING & HABIT:
Case Processing Summary
Cases
Valid Missing Total
N Percent N Percent N Percent ADVERTISING * HABIT 157 100,0% 0 0,0% 157 100,0%
Chi-Square Tests
Value df
Asymp. Sig. (2-sided)
Pearson Chi-Square
12,703a 3 ,005
Likelihood Ratio 10,446 3 ,015
N of Valid Cases 157
a. 4 cells (50,0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is ,14.
123
SATISFACTION & AWARENESS: Case Processing Summary
Cases
Valid Missing Total
N Percent N Percent N Percent SATISFACTION * AWARENESS
148 94,3% 9 5,7% 157 100,0%
Chi-Square Tests
Value df
Asymp. Sig. (2-sided)
Pearson Chi-Square 18,701a 9 ,028
Likelihood Ratio 16,680 9 ,054
Linear-by-Linear Association 13,908 1 ,000
N of Valid Cases 148
a. 12 cells (75,0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is ,01.
AWARENESS & HABIT:
Case Processing Summary
Cases
Valid Missing Total
N Percent N Percent N Percent HABIT * AWARENESS 156 99,4% 1 ,6% 157 100,0%
Chi-Square Tests
Value df
Asymp. Sig. (2-sided)
Pearson Chi-Square
11,270a 9 ,258
Likelihood Ratio 13,213 9 ,153
N of Valid Cases 156
a. 10 cells (62,5%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is ,01.
124
ATTRACTIVENESS & HABIT: Case Processing Summary
Cases
Valid Missing Total
N Percent N Percent N Percent ATTRACTIVENESS * HABIT 156 99,4% 1 ,6% 157 100,0%
Chi-Square Tests
Value df
Asymp. Sig. (2-sided)
Pearson Chi-Square
31,049a 3 ,000
Likelihood Ratio 29,484 3 ,000
N of Valid Cases 156
a. 4 cells (50,0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is ,22.
