Original Research

SAGE Open
January-March 2023: 1–16
Ó The Author(s) 2023
Sustainability Learning in Organizations: DOI: 10.1177/21582440231155390
journals.sagepub.com/home/sgo
Integrated Model of Learning
Approaches and Contextual Factors

Murni Zarina Mohamed Razali1 and Rossilah Jamil2

Abstract
Employee learning plays a vital role in corporate sustainability strategy. Past attempts to map sustainability learning (SL) in
organizations have fallen short in explaining the interactions between key learning approaches and the dynamics within the
learning environment. This paper is based on a study conducted to explore how employees learned sustainability in organiza-
tions and the contextual factors that facilitated their learning process. The study adopted the interpretivist qualitative
approach in data collection. Semi-structured interviews were used as the main method, supported by participant observation
and document analysis. The findings found evidence suggesting an interplay between several types of learning approaches in
SL and highlighted important contextual factors that facilitated the learning environment. Based on the findings, this paper
proposes an integrated model for sustainable learning that contributes to refining understanding of the SL process and can be
used to assist organizations in enhancing their SL programs. This research addresses the dearth of studies on SL in the orga-
nizational setting. It also provides theoretical contribution by providing a clearer overview regarding how SL occurs among
employees based on the perspectives of social, experiential, and transformative learning theories.

Keywords
sustainability learning, sustainability programs, learning approach, corporate sustainability strategy

Introduction The process in which individuals learn about sustain-

ability is known as SL (Dzhengiz, 2020; Hansmann,
Business organizations are crucial in the global sustain- 2010). Formal and informal learning programs can be
ability agenda (Ponte, 2020; Rendtorff, 2019). They are implemented to expose employees to sustainability
expected to balance their economic, social, and environ- (Duarte, 2014; Garg, 2014). SL outcomes may involve a
mental goals (Hongming et al., 2020; Purvis et al., 2019), transformation of cognitive mindsets, acquisition of
and address the needs of stakeholders (Freeman, 2010). skills, and emotional changes that move people toward
The Triple Bottom Line (3Ps) (Elkington, 2018) is an sustainable behaviors (Buckley & Michel, 2020; Moyer
important mechanism for evaluating corporate perfor- et al., 2014). An effective SL ensures employee learning
mance and reputation. As such, sustainability has
transfer that helps in translating organizational sustain-
become a strategic priority for many organizations (de
ability strategy into reality. The study of SL in organiza-
Oliveira Claro & Esteves, 2020) that triggers the need for
tions has been scrutinized mostly from the macro-
sustainability learning (SL) (Boström et al., 2018;
organizational level by looking at SL in relation to
Wijethilake & Upadhaya, 2020). Human resource (HR)
is a pertinent function to turn employees into change
agents (De Silva Lokuwaduge et al., 2020; Razali & 1
Faculty of Business and Management, Universiti Teknologi MARA Puncak
Jamil, 2016). The outcomes centralize on the acquisition Alam, Bandar Puncak Alam, Selangor, Malaysia
of sustainability knowledge, attitudes, and practices 2
Azman Hashim International Business School, Universiti Teknologi
(KAP) (Salas-Zapata et al., 2018) through properly Malaysia, Jalan Sultan Yahya Petra, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
designed programs (Aboytes & Barth, 2020; Boström
Corresponding Author:
et al., 2018). Individual and organizational-level align- Rossilah Jamil, Azman Hashim International Business School, Universiti
ment ensures collective learning toward sustainability Teknologi Malaysia, Jalan Sultan Yahya Petra, 54100 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.
(Antonacopoulou, 2006; Jenkin, 2013). Email: [email protected]

Creative Commons CC BY: This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License
(https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) which permits any use, reproduction and distribution of
the work without further permission provided the original work is attributed as specified on the SAGE and Open Access pages
(https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/open-access-at-sage).
2 SAGE Open

strategic management, organizational learning, or Educational institutions often collaborate with commu-
change management (Battistella et al., 2021; nities in sustainability programs (Menon & Suresh,
Hermelingmeier & Von Wirth, 2021; Senge et al., 2006; 2020), hence contributing further to the overlapping SL
Wijethilake & Upadhaya, 2020). Exploring the perspec- literature derived from both contexts. In both settings,
tives of individual employees as learners has not received sustainability tends to focus on environmental initiatives
enough research attention. Studying SL at an individual (Aboytes & Barth, 2020; Wals, 2011). A similar coverage
level is necessary to enhance the design of sustainability on SL in business organizational settings however is
programs. lacking.
A learning theory explains how people learn in terms Business organizations deal with learners, ecosystems,
of the process, function, and outcomes of learning. It expectations, and cultural nuances that are distinctly dif-
helps instructional program designers embed key ele- ferent from those that present in educational and social
ments in a learning program for successful learning. The communities. The present SL knowledge has mostly
Experiential Learning Theory, Social Learning Theory, involved young learners and public citizens. Business
and the Transformative Learning Theory are three organizations are usually profit-driven, sensitive to com-
widely recognized theories associated with SL (Aboytes petition, and regulated by certain industry structures.
& Barth, 2020; Lankester, 2013; Moyer et al., 2014; Van The type of sustainability programs that organizations
Mierlo et al., 2020). D. A. Kolb’s (1984, 2014) pursue is often dictated by organizational strategy.
Experiential Learning views learning as a process in Therefore, the learning process that employees engage in
which individuals move between four learning modes, SL may have been influenced by their job obligations.
that is, concrete experience, reflective observation, SL knowledge involving educational and community
abstract conceptualization, and active experimentation. participants may not accurately reflect employees in
According to Kolb, a learner should undergo all four organizations.
stages to learn effectively. Whereas Bandura’s (1977) There have been attempts to explore learning theories
Social Learning Theory suggests that learning occurs in organizations (e.g., Boström et al., 2018; Lankester,
when learners observe and imitate other people’s beha- 2013; Moyer et al., 2014). For instance, Moyer et al.
viors. Bandura emphasized the element of social environ- (2014) found instrumental, communicative, and transfor-
ment in creating and reinforcing people’s behaviors. He mative learning domains in SL. Whereas, Lankester
proposed several learning assumptions that highlight the (2013) noticed the influence of collective learning and
importance of observations, consequences, behavioral active experimentation in critical reflection on sustain-
changes, and cognitive conditions. The Transformative ability issues by employees. Despite their contributions,
Learning Theory (Mezirow, 1997) considered learning as these studies have fallen short in explaining the involve-
a constructivist process in which learners interpret and ment and interaction between different learning domains
reinterpret their world experiences by transforming their toward achieving SL outcomes. This gap highlights the
‘‘frames of reference’’ (i.e., existing beliefs, assumptions, need for more research to explore SL in organizational
values, feelings, and attitudes) which results in a new set contexts.
of cognitive, conative, and emotional components. Learning is an adaptation process in behaviors and a
Transformative learning can be understood as an out- socially embedded activity in a specific environment (A.
come of the experiential learning and social learning pro- Y. Kolb & Kolb, 2005). Therefore, contextual factors
cess, hence suggesting the interrelations of all three surrounding an organization, such as the external envi-
theories in SL (Aboytes & Barth, 2020). ronment, internal ecosystems, and learners’ characteris-
Noticeable imbalance exists in the literature that tics, may affect SL (Dzhengiz, 2020; Wals & Rodela,
explains SL in organizational and non-organizational 2014). External factors may include politics, social demo-
settings. Much knowledge has concentrated mostly on graphy, technology, and legal structure can affect sus-
educational and community-based contexts (Lankester, tainability directions. An organization’s internal
2013; Warburton, 2003). Educational institutions have environment refers to its underlying assumptions (i.e.,
been the dominant platform because sustainability is culture, norms, and identity), strategy (rules, regulations,
considered a character development of young people norms, codes of conduct, mission, vision, goals, and
(Bosevska & Kriewaldt, 2020; Noy et al., 2021; Reza, objectives), and artifacts (such as organizational design,
2016; Tapia-Fonllem et al., 2017; Wamsler, 2020). structure, expected behaviors, expected performance,
Therefore, the established SL knowledge is based on resource allocation, leadership, and reward) (Dauber
studies in the educational settings (e.g., Dziubaniuk & et al., 2012; Hatch, 1993; Hatch & Cunliffe, 2006;
Nyholm, 2021). Similarly, there is substantial SL Schein, 1985). At the employee level, trainee characteris-
research on community-based sustainability initiatives tics such as capabilities, personality traits, motivations,
(Frantzeskaki & Rok, 2018; Tilbury & Wortman, 2008). and values affect the overall learning process (Bell et al.,
Mohamed Razali and Jamil 3

2017). This literature shows that context may hinder or relation to relevant practices that shape an organiza-
facilitate employee SL. tion’s sustainability strategy, internal environment, HR
In a nutshell, although the literature has shed some practices, and external environment. Therefore, the case
light regarding SL, the knowledge is limited. Firstly, SL study methodology would enable the researchers to
has been predominantly understood in educational and simultaneously capture organizational and individual
community-based sustainability initiatives therefore, the information. The approach is considered the most suit-
knowledge may not accurately reflect how SL is engaged able research strategy when context is important (Meyer,
by employees in organizations. Secondly, the scant litera- 2001; Shakir, 2002). To mention, the research reported
ture on company-initiated SL is lacking details on the in this article was taken from doctoral research aimed to
surrounding factors that may influence employees’ pro- explore SL status, progress, and challenges in company-
cess in acquiring sustainability outcomes. Therefore, SL based sustainability programs. The research viewed both
research should consider relevant practices that shape an organizations and individuals as the units of analysis
organization’s sustainability strategy that affects (Yin, 2014). The phenomenology or the grounded theory
employee SL. SL research should adopt a methodology, research approaches were not adopted as they tend to
such as the case study design, that can simultaneously emphasize only the individuals and their lived experi-
capture organizational and individual information on ences (Creswell, 2013), and would not sufficiently view
SL. Studying SL in a specific context may provide a hol- them as part of the organization. Whereas, the grounded
istic overview that can be converted into an SL model. theory is adopted when basic theoretical foundation is
Past literature recommends that formulation of an SL obscure (Creswell, 2013).
model needs to be based on empirical research in a spe-
cific organizational setting (Boström et al., 2018;
Lankester, 2013; Pupphachai & Zuidema, 2017). Population and Sampling
Against this backdrop, case study research was con- The study population was sustainability-oriented
ducted to explore how employees learn sustainability in organizations—referred as those that focused on advan-
organizations and the contextual factors that influence cing sustainability agenda in Malaysia. Malaysia was
the SL process. The study aimed to conceptualize a chosen given its relatively recent emphasis on sustainabil-
model on that shall contribute in two ways. It will high- ity has rendered the country an interesting bed for
light specific learning approaches engaged by employees research. Under the New Economic Model that focused
that can improve the design SL programs such as in on building an inclusive and high-income nation,
terms of program objectives, learning activities, contents, Malaysia pursued sustainability-related strategies such as
and background of learners. The model will also show the Local Agenda 21, National Policy on Environment,
relevant key factors to ensure learning transfer and sus- and the National Green Technology Policy (http://www.
tainability. The SL model will benefit organizations in
nre.gov.my). However, the sustainability progress at
strategizing and achieving sustainability (Boström et al.,
business organizations level was a challenge (Hami et al.,
2018; Lankester, 2013; Pupphachai & Zuidema, 2017).
2014).
The remainder of the article is structured as follows.
The multiple case design that involves having more
The next section elaborates on the research methodol-
than a single case was adopted in which the selection
ogy. It is then followed by a thematic analysis of the
must be based on literal and theoretical replication (Yin,
data. The article then moves to a discussion section, then
2014). Theoretical replication is necessary in multiple
ends with sections on the conclusion, practical implica-
case studies to ensure compelling and robust results reach
tions, research limitations, and further research.
(Ridder, 2017). Having multiple case design adds confi-
dence, precision, validity, stability, and trustworthiness
Methodology to findings (Miles et al., 2014; Yin, 2014). In deciding the
number of cases, the concepts of appropriateness, ade-
Research Design quacy, and the purposive sampling strategy (Patton,
The study adopted the interpretivist qualitative lens that 1990 in Shakir, 2002) were observed.
views reality as a social construction process (Creswell, Three organizations were chosen, a figure considered
2013). The case study approach was adopted for a holis- enough to fit the literal and theoretical replication cri-
tic and in-depth exploration to answer the ‘‘how’’ and teria (Yin, 2014). Each case possessed established sus-
‘‘why’’ questions (Baxter & Jack, 2008), hence fitted the tainability profiles required for data reliability. Several
study objective. As argued earlier, SL research that factors were considered in the case selection. Firstly, the
intends to develop SL model should explore both chosen case must represent contextual factors that may
employee learning approaches and study its occurrence provide interesting revelations on SL. Case A was chosen
within a specific context. In this sense, SL occurs in because it had the highest sustainability performance, a
4 SAGE Open

long-term strategy toward the Sustainable Development Table 1. Interview Questions.

Goals (SDGs), and targeted specific stakeholders/pro-
grams that related to its business. Case B, despite being 1.0 How employees learn sustainability in organizations?
– Are you familiar with the term sustainability?
one of the top sustainability performers, was chosen – If the respondent answer yes. next questions is: What
because its sustainability strategy focused on various sta- sustainability means to you?
keholders and programs. It would be interesting to – If the respondent answers no. next question is: Why
explore if its external factors had strong influence on its are you unfamiliar with the term?
employees’ SL. Whilst Case C was an organization estab- – How did you learn about sustainability practices
(researcher also use other word or statement to refer to this,
lished to support the government’s agenda. Therefore, its for example, recycling, social responsibility. power saving) and
scope, target audience, and sustainability programs were its implementation?
bigger in reach and perhaps more complex that could – What kind of sustainability training or programs have you
affect its employees’ SL. Secondly, the cases must have attended so far?
– What have you learnt from the programs?
established sustainability practices and offered enough
– How does the training programs help you to know about
programs to employees to enable their reflection and sustainability?
learning. Therefore, each case represented a unique sce- – Why did you attend the training programs in the first
nario that could provide meaningful discoveries on SL. place?
Following Yin (2014), interview participants were – How does it benefit you? In what way?
– If you are required to attend the programs again, would
purposively selected. The technique could add credibility you be willing to do so, and why?
to the sample when the potential purposeful sample was – Why?
too large (Creswell, 2013). The sampling criteria included – What do you expect from the sustainability programs
having experience in attending company-initiated SL after this?
programs as the research question targeted data based 2.0 How contextual factors influence the SL process?
– In your point of view, why sustainability is important to
on personal experience. This relates to the adopted epis- you personally?
temology and ontology philosophies that view reality as – Why did you want to learn about sustainability?
an output of individual experience in sustainability pro- – How does your company help you to learn/know about
grams. Secondly, they were employees who have been sustainability?
working in the organizations for at least 2 years to ensure – Subsequent questions are based on respondent’s answer
on the organization’s influence.
they had enough experience related to SL to provide reli-
able insights. Creswell’s (2013) recommendations on
sampling access, sampling frame, and consent were based on an ordinary conversation, using terms and lan-
followed. guage that reflect the research questions. For example,
for the research question ‘‘How employees learn sustain-
ability?’’, participants were asked instead ‘‘how did you
Interview Protocol learn about sustainability practices? what kind of pro-
The semi-structured interview was the main method for grammes have you attended? what have you learnt from the
data collection, supported by other data sources for tri- programmes? and how do they benefit you?’’. The ques-
angulation purpose (Creswell, 2013; Yin, 2014). These tions were also guided by provisional themes gathered
include participant observations (made during sustain- through the literature review. Step 3 involved getting
ability programs), and documents review (on sustainabil- feedback on the interview protocol from two content
ity reports, websites, and relevant photographs on experts in the management field, and step 4 involved
company-initiated sustainability initiatives). The study piloting the interview protocol. These steps ensured that
comprised of twenty employees, based on the purposively the protocol was valid and sufficient as a guideline in the
sampling method explained earlier. The figure is consid- semi-structure interview. The interview protocol is pre-
ered an acceptable number (Creswell, 2013; Mason, sented at the end of the article (Table 1).
2017), and was finalized upon reaching the theoretical Since the study used the semi-structured approach, the
saturation (Mason, 2017). The breakdown is as follows: pre-formulated questions in the protocol were not strictly
Company A (7), Company B (7), and Company C (6). followed (Myers, 2009). Following the iterative interview
Their age ranged from 24 to 51 years old, and they pos- process (Mason, 2017), new questions were added as they
sessed an A Level to master degrees. emerged during the interview sessions. Situated question-
An interview protocol was used as a general guideline ing technique (Mason, 2017) was used that required the
and built based on the interview protocol refinement participants to respond, relate and reflect based on their
(IPR) (Castillo-Montoya, 2016). The IPR involves four actual experience attending SL programs. The session
steps. Firstly, the protocol was aligned with the research began with a conversation on participants’ knowledge
question. Secondly, it was structured and constructed and ideas on sustainability. To explore their learning
Mohamed Razali and Jamil 5

approaches, a backward view process was applied by first bank with an equally strong presence in the Asian mar-
exploring the outcomes or changes that they had experi- ket. Sustainability strategy was emphasized in organiza-
enced from attending the programs. Then, the questions tional values and core business. Yearly, it conducted
focused on excavating details on relevant aspects regard- between 80 and 110 activities on various sustainability
ing their learning process and contextual factors. Each areas including community empowerment, education,
interview lasted between 1 and 2 hours. The longest inter- healthy living, environmental diversity, and arts and cul-
view session was 2 hours, while the shortest interview was ture. Its flagship sustainability program required employ-
1 hour. The cumulative interview hours were around ees to get involve in volunteering activities with the
30 hours. underprivilege. Between 2016 and 2018, the employees
had spent 108,863 to 134,718 of total volunteer hours.
Case C was an organization established to support the
Data Analysis government’s agenda. Its roles were to promote, initiate,
Data was analyzed based on the interpretative analysis and improve sustainability-related education to various
approach that required researchers to completely stakeholders in Malaysia. These include corporate enti-
immerse themselves in the data and view it from each ties, societies, and educational institutions. It had actively
participant’s lens. The thematic content analysis tech- organized sustainability-related programs such as carni-
nique was used to analyze the interview data, supported vals, camps, and roadshows. The organization was par-
by input from observations and secondary documents ticularly committed in green technology and practices
(Miles & Huberman, 1994). The interviews were audio- holding programs throughout Malaysia. Through partic-
recorded, verbatim transcribed, and analyzed in the ipation in these programs, employees at Case C also
Nvivo software. The software was used to perform cog- engaged in SL themselves.
nitive mapping that helped in illustrating data nodes to
produce emerging themes (Myers, 2009). Memos, taken
during the fieldwork, were used as a starting point in the Data Analysis
data analysis. The memos described the researcher’s The data analysis raised two themes and several sub-
thinking, feeling, and doing at a certain time (Myers, themes that explain the approach and context of employ-
2009). The data was both analyzed in terms of within- ees’ SL (Figure 1).
case and cross-case analysis based on the emergent
themes (Yin, 2014). Both inductive and deductive data
Theme 1: How Employees Learned Sustainability
codes were considered in the data analysis. For this
Sub-theme: Transformative Learning. The findings found
study, the researcher organized the data coding by cate-
that all participants showed ‘‘sustainability awareness.’’
gorizing them into themes, sub-themes, and codes. The
They mentioned reasons such as to enable their organi-
categorization was deemed sufficient based on the aim of
zations to ‘‘move forward,’’ ‘‘to be strong,’’ and to shape
the study and upon reaching a reasonable explanation
public image (‘‘we want all customers and consumers to
(Yin, 2014).
recognise this company as a bank of heart’’). They recog-
nized sustainability for its impact on staff, that is, ‘‘.
Results company giving back to the community . is one way of
instilling a goodness in the staff,’’ and for its altruism pur-
Background of Cases pose ‘‘the world having problem .. we need to find a new
Case A belonged to the telco sector and was one of the way or alternative resources.’’ The findings suggested that
champions in sustainability performance in the country. their perceptions were predominantly made from the
It was one of the earliest that began to subscribe to the organizational lense.
UN SDG since 2016. Sustainability strategy was formally All participants demonstrated some ‘‘understanding of
formulated and well-governed across various organiza- sustainability.’’ They associated sustainability with phrases
tional levels including the Board, management, depart- such as ‘‘continuous,’’ ‘‘long term impact,’’ ‘‘to achieve bal-
ments, and working groups. The strategy was monitored ance in life,’’ ‘‘perpetual self-fulfilling/self-running (of
by the corporate affairs Office. It had implemented many resources),’’ and ‘‘do something that lasts.’’ Sustainability
initiatives to share sustainability values with its work- was described in relation to the CSR concept, although
force. One of its signature commitments was to reduce the participants seemed to be more familiar with the latter.
inequalities by providing meaningful access of internet Sustainability was seen ‘‘like CSR, but not so deep,’’ and
services for all Malaysians. The organization had won evolved from CSR—‘‘it’s just like how CSR . initially
several local awards in sustainability. Whereas, Case B ..then, we move on to sustainability.’’ Another respondent
was one of the top three companies in Malaysia with the opined that ‘‘. sustainability is a very big word . not
highest sustainability performance. It was a top local ready to use the word yet .,’’ and instead suggested that
6 SAGE Open

Figure 1. Thematic analysis.

‘‘. prospect (efforts/journey) towards sustainability .’’ about sustainability practices (e.g., recycling and urban
that mattered. As shown in Table 2, organizational sus- farming), and reported affective outcomes that resulted
tainability practices seemed to be the key source of their them to be more conscious about their societal roles.
understanding. Interestingly, the pronoun ‘‘we/us’’ instead Some participants made remarks such as: ‘‘. when we
of ‘‘I’’ was often used suggesting the close organizational- are in their shoes, we feel (their problems) .,’’ ‘‘. (the
individual linkage in the perceptions. programme) change my view towards life .,’’ and ‘‘. this
Gaining such awareness and understanding toward (programme) makes me realise we should be thankful for
sustainability had translated into certain ‘‘changes toward whatever we have ..’’ The findings showed that these les-
sustainability.’’ Most participants acquired knowledge sons were transferred beyond their work setting into their
Mohamed Razali and Jamil 7

Table 2. Sustainability to the Participants. A: Emm . it’s from my own definition . from my own
observation of all this . so it’s basically from my own obser-
Sustainability is. vation (about sustainability) . that is why I called it perpe-
‘‘sustain-ability’’ tually self-sustainable initiative ..
‘‘.our (the company’s) model of sustainability look at 4 areas..’’
‘‘.at this company sustainability is very broad topic. it includes
the four pillars.’’ Lastly, the phase ‘‘active experimentation’’ completed the
‘‘.at this company, we tight it up with our mission and branding.’’ EL cycle as the participants were given opportunities to
‘‘.sustainability means, when we say from the perspective of this personally apply newly-learned sustainability ideas by
company . For us, to maintain, it refers to our mission.. our performing hands-on activities (e.g., urban farming activ-
customer.. our products.’’
ity, recycling, cybser safety, etc.) in the fields.
‘‘.after coming to this company, my understanding of sustainability
is much deeper now’’
‘‘I think sustainability means, how we maintain resources that we Sub-theme: Social Learning. The findings discovered
have. As I am concerned, (sustainability) involves three aspects.
socialization aspect in the learning process. ‘‘Information
sharing’’ had occurred through informal and formal con-
versations, sharing sessions, and gatherings on sustain-
personal and social lives. The following quotes illustrated ability issues, practices, and achievements. These were
this observation: ‘‘. sustainability not only for work, even done throughout the organizations, that is, amongst par-
at home, as a family, as a person, that makes you a better ticipants, with peers, superiors, and subordinates. The
person .’’; ‘‘so, all this thing for me, make me realise and sharing helped in strengthening sustainability knowledge
pass on to my kids, my family and nephews .’’; and ‘‘. and changes as reflected here: ‘‘. when I sat down with
this company gave me an exposure to go to this people and the team, I became to understand, why the company does
help them . in the future, when I retire, I’ll do it by my this programme . I understand these are the statistics .
own. I’ll be a volunteer .’’; and ‘‘. this company is the hence, I learned . (why sustainability is important).’’
one who make me very CSR person ..’’ These findings The participants also shared their SL with their family/
showed evidence that to a certain extent TL had occurred social circles that further helped in reinforcing SL, that
within the participants, and this translated in behavioral is,: ‘‘. when I go home I tell to my parent, siblings (about
changes toward their work practices. the sustainability) . then we practice it,’’ and ‘‘we applied
this concept and shared it with our (colleagues) . then,
they tell their friends, so that, the knowledge will be
Sub-theme: Experiential Learning. The EL approach was
expanded.’’‘Learning through observations’ was also
also evident in the findings. Participants were exposed to
reported as social learning could help elevate SL inter-
‘‘concrete experience’’ through self-involvement and par-
ests. It was remarked: ‘‘. learning in group, it will be
ticipation in company-initiated sustainability initiatives
much better and fun to learn . rather than you go alone
such as CSR programs, sustainability workshops, and
without your friends.’’ The programs conducted by the
volunteering projects. Some participants remarked that
organizations utilized a lot of hands-on activities. These
it was a new and eye-opening experience. The evidence
activities had allowed participants to observe and model
of ‘‘reflective observation’’ was recorded as they engaged
others’ behaviors.
in self-questioning and self-reflection on preconceived
The participants reported learning through ‘‘technol-
notions toward sustainability as reflected in the follow-
ogy-based sharing.’’ The case organizations utilized tools
ing example:
such as web portals, emails, e-bulletins, electronic videos,
and social media platforms to disseminate sustainability
. (reflecting on his experience participating in a recent pro-
gramme with visually-impaireds) . I learned . the simple messages. The participants considered them effective to
thing . I figured out even addressing ‘blind’ people is wrong, keep them up-to-date about latest issues. Platform like
actually, you should address them as ‘VIP’. This is a real Facebook encouraged them to respond (sharing, like,
thing . and small thing that I learn and it is kind of exciting and comment) on sustainability news. Technology-based
to know all of this . sharing was considered an ‘‘easier,’’ ‘‘faster,’’ ‘‘wider,’’
and ‘‘cheaper’’ way to engage with more people. As noted
Similarly, ‘‘abstract conceptualization’’ was evident in by a participant: ‘‘. we have few videos of information
the interview data as the participants contextualized their about the green technology. . eventually they also shared
personal experience to form their own understanding of it with others, so it (knowledge) will be viral. . I think
sustainability. The following quote illustrates this: social media especially Facebook is a very powerful tool.’’
In summary, the findings suggested that the socialization
Q: . how did you come up with the (sustainability) aspect had naturally occurred across the organizations
definition? and contributed to the particpants’ SL process.
8 SAGE Open

Theme 2: Influence of Contextual Factors in SL. The findings about the cash flow. Rather, sustainability strategy was
revealed that the participants’ SL were influenced by a about doing a good business by simultaneously fulfilling
certain contextual factor categorized into three sub- all the 3Ps obligations. Sustainability was seen as a con-
themes: organizational internal factors, individual fac- cept that could kill two birds with one stone, in the sense
tors, and organizational external factors. Out of these that customers would tend to support moral
three, the organizational internal factors were the most organizations.
evident. The findings also found the role of rules and regula-
tions in the SL. Employees engaged in SL because their
Sub-theme: Organizational Internal Factors. The findings ‘‘company policies,’’ ‘‘corporate governance,’’ and ‘‘code of
found four organizational internal factors had influenced conducts’’ mandated such behavior. Although these could
SL: organizational culture, organizational strategic com- be externally imposed by the government on their organi-
ponents, organizational artifacts, and leadership and top zations, the participants translated them as their personal
management. work obligation. The following quote reflected this atti-
A majority of the participants highlighted the influ- tude: ‘‘. we have to attend (sustainability programme)
ence of ‘‘organizational culture’’ in their SL. Their SL because (it is) compulsory . if can’t attend, we must pro-
occurred gradually within an organizational setting vide a valid reason.’’
through consistent emphasis and promotion of sustain- Forms of ‘‘organizational artifacts’’ consisting of
ability elements in their daily work activities. organizational design and operation systems also influ-
Sustainability was perceived as ‘‘a way of working,’’ ‘‘way enced SL. The companies created dedicated sustainabil-
of life and doing business,’’ and ‘‘DNA’’ in the companies. ity departments and positions in the organizational
They remarked that sustainability had been ‘‘interna- structures. The SL seemed to follow chains of command
lized’’ and become ‘‘automatic’’ where ‘‘everybody gets whereby instructions and information trickled down
used to it.’’ The culture inspired them to learn more from the top. This structure was also followed when
about sustainability, eased the learning process, and assigning sustainability initiatives, as a participant
made them felt belong to the organizational sustainabil- remarked: ‘‘(sustainability initiative) goes by small unit
ity efforts. As one participant highlighted: ‘‘. the work first, then it works for the entire sector and then the whole
culture and environment allows us (to learn sustainability) entire organisation . so it has three stages.’’ Accordingly,
. so, when you realise, it’s something important to the key performance indicators (KPIs) were created as illu-
company, we do it .. you get inspired by the culture . strated here: ‘‘we have performance review (on sustainabil-
and . to be part of it.’’ ity),’’ ‘‘. we track KPIs,’’ and ‘‘(KPIs) need to be
Overwhelming evidence was found suggesting the reported.’’ Consistently, rewards and incentives were
influence ‘‘organizational strategic components’’ on SL. established to encourage SL and learning transfer:
‘‘Mission’’ and ‘‘vision’’ were frequently mentioned.
Maintaining the organizations’ position was considered ‘‘. we (track and evaluate KPIs, and give) marks and
important: ‘‘I like to support the vision and mission of this rewards . let say there are reduction in water and electricity
bill, it shows staff commitment on it. We can assume that,
organisation . so I must have the same view .,’’ there-
employees have learned, understand, and internalise the sus-
fore, ‘‘when something is important to the company, we do
tainability practice.’’
it.’’ The shared vision was perceived in a business sense:
‘‘. when we all practise the same vision of giving . we Leadership and top management were also found as the
connect to our customers.’’ Organizational core values influencing factor to SL. However, their roles were
also influenced the SL in guiding their responsibilities as explained in the context of organizational culture, strate-
employees. It was remarked: ‘‘. this company set the
gies, and artifacts. Leaders functioned as the role models,
core values, we have to portray ourselves to that core val-
to ‘‘walk the talk’’ and ‘‘go to the ground and drive
ues . so once we understood the responsibility as a worker
together’’ sustainability efforts. For instance, it was men-
of this company, I think all those things (to practice sus-
tioned: ‘‘. (leadership is important because) a (sustain-
tainability) are not issues.’’
ability) culture need to be driven by management.’’
Sustainability was perceived as a business strategy.
Another quote below further illustrates this influence:
They used the words ‘‘business model,’’ ‘‘strategy,’’ and
‘‘customers.’’ Consistently, phrases such as ‘‘for us to . I like to support the vision and mission of this organisation
make business,’’ ‘‘sustainability is a branding,’’ and ‘‘sus- . it is from the CEO himself. He (CEO) has a view, so I
tainability is a business’’ were expressed. Each case had must have the same view as him, we should align the vision
branding taglines to reflect their public image on sustain- and mission. So, that the objective where we are heading will
ability. Despite the strong business case for adopting sus- be reached. If possible, I want to achieve all the (company’s
tainability, some participants denied that it was only sustainability) objectives. I need to support my boss, . help
Mohamed Razali and Jamil 9

Table 3. Individual Factors Influencing SL. role, and community factors. The influence of ‘‘govern-
ment role’’ was consistent with the earlier findings on
Codes Examples of quotes organizational rules and regulations. The government
Personal job I learned sustainability because: functioned to ‘‘standardise,’’ ‘‘monitor,’’ and ‘‘enforce’’
role ‘‘.it’s my responsibility’’ policies, rules and regulations toward sustainability. In
‘‘(it’s) my role’’ Malaysia, the sustainability agenda is predominantly a
‘‘(it’s) my job’’ government-led initiative. The participants mentioned
‘‘. before I can communicate to others, I that certain ministries were involved in promoting sus-
need to understand what sustainability
means.’’ tainability activities. Surprisingly, the government’s role
Personal ‘‘. if the programme matches with my interest, could also be in the opposite direction. One participant
interest (then) I would venture more and like to know mentioned that an environmental cause was halted
more.’’ because it was ‘‘against’’ certain authorities and interests.
Self-values ‘‘. as a person you should do (sustainability ‘‘Communities’’ influenced SL, in motivating or dis-
practices) . the way you think must be
different, (sustainability) is not only for work, couraging employees. The participants mentioned about
but it makes you a better person. Even at community readiness and sustainability needs.
home, as a family, as a person.. makes you a Sustainability programs depended on the ‘‘local
better person’’ demand,’’ and ‘‘mindset.’’ One of the participants
Educational ‘‘I took environmental course management. So remarked:
background even since at school level I’ve involved in event
or activity that related to environmental and
sustainability. At school, I learned too . I used . when we go to rural area, the (community) minded are
to involve with related activity. So am quite different . some of them not seeing the (sustainability) issues
knowledgeable about environmental issues.’’ as something that important . (After sustainability pro-
Religiosity ‘‘In the perspective religion, changes in human gramme) we can see, they still burning the garbage not bury
itself, God already showed us, if you help it. so, it’s quite difficult to educate (them).
others, it considers as donation that will
help you in hereafter . .
Basically, this (sustainability) is a religious
When such situation occurred, the participants felt as if
concept.’’ they were ‘‘alone (in sustainability efforts, while) others
(community) seem not care about it’’ and being ‘‘ignor-
ant.’’ Another participant suggested that ‘‘. it will be
good, if we (relevant authorities) can enforce .’’ sustain-
this organisation in playing its role as one of the forefront of ability changes in the community and introduce ‘‘punish-
this (sustainability) . as a champion in green technology. ment’’ to make sure that they did not ‘‘get back to (their)
old practice.’’
Sub-theme: Individual Factors. This study identified sev- Table 4 depicts a summary of within-case and cross-
eral individual factors that influenced employees’ SL case analysis based on the emergent themes that incorpo-
(Table 3). Consistent to the other findings, personal job rated inductive and deductive codes derived from the
role was as a major factor in influencing SL. As shown interviews, supported by data from participant observa-
earlier, the participants attributed their involvement in tions (made during sustainability programs), and docu-
SL to their job. It was simply perceived as their job obli- ments review. The table shows that most data codes were
gation. Personal interest was also mentioned, as they found in each case organization, suggesting a conver-
would be more motivated to learn if they liked the sus- gence of the study findings.
tainability programs or cause, therefore would make the
learning ‘‘interesting’’ and ‘‘enjoyable.’’ Positive self-
values influenced behavioral and affective changes Discussions
toward sustainability. Other factors such as educational The study was conducted to explore how employees
background and religiosity were also found, but the data learned SL in organisations. It had found evidence sug-
was not as evident. Generally, participants who had gesting an interplay between experiential, social and
prior knowledge or experience in a sustainability cause transformative learning approaches in the SL process.
found SL more relatable and easier. SL that involved in By participating in company-initiated programs, the
‘‘helping others’’ and ‘‘caring for future generation’’ had employees went through D. A. Kolb’s (1984, 2014) four
been considered a religious obligation. modes in experiential learning. The organizations had
created platforms through specific programs that
Sub-theme: Organizational External Environment. Two exposed the employees toward sustainability (i.e., con-
external factors emerged from the data that could inhibit crete experience). This experience triggered them to ques-
or encourage SL in organizations, that is, government tion and reflect (i.e., reflective observation) on issues that
10 SAGE Open

Table 4. Mapping of Cross-case Analysis.

Sub-themes Codes A B C

Theme 1: Sustainability learning approaches

Transformative learning Sustainability awareness ü ü ü
Understanding of sustainability ü ü ü
Changes toward sustainability ü ü ü
Experiential learning Concrete experience ü ü ü
Abstract conceptualization ü ü ü
Reflective observation ü ü ü
Active experimentation ü ü ü
Social learning Information sharing ü ü ü
Learning through observation ü ü ü
Technology-based sharing ü ü ü
Theme 2: Contextual factors in SL
Organizational internal factors Organizational culture ü ü ü
Organizational strategic components ü ü ü
Organizational artifacts ü ü ü
Leadership and management ü ü ü
Individual factors Personal job-role ü ü ü
Personal interest ü ü ü
Self-value ü ü
Education background ü ü
Religiosity ü
Organizational external environment Government role ü ü
Community factor ü ü

necessitated sustainability, and led them to form own understanding, attitudes, and behaviors toward sustain-
ideas (i.e., abstract conceptualization). Self-involvement ability (Law et al., 2017). Transformed habits-of-the-
in the programs then allowed them to apply their learn- mind is the essence of transformative learning (Leal
ing (i.e., active experimentation) in real settings that Filho et al., 2018). The study suggested that the employ-
enabled a natural feedback mechanism on their personal ees had acquired cognitive and affective changes, to a
impact on the sustainability cause. This cycle continued certain extent, translated into sustainable behavioral
and reinforced SL. The study supported the strengths of changes in work practices. However, the transformation
experiential learning in sustainability programs (Marican seemed to be limited within the organizational boundary.
et al., 2018; Su & Cheng, 2019). Lack of evidence was found to suggest that the cognitive
The study revealed that the employees also engaged in and affective transformations had fully resulted into sus-
the social learning approach (Bandura, 1977) when they tainable behavioral changes outside work. Ideally, trans-
collectively shared, observed, imitated, and reflected on formative learning needs to result an enduring change in
their learning with people inside, and to a certain extent the whole person in terms of thoughts and actions
outside, the organizations. Communication, cooperation, toward sustainability (Moyer et al., 2014). A carefully
leadership, and collective actions are critical elements in designed sustainability program, built upon the experien-
SL (Dlouha et al., 2013; Su & Cheng, 2019; Wals, 2011). tial learning foundation and nurtured through a condu-
The top management leveraged on positions to share cive social environment, can result in transformative
information with subordinates, hence signaling a strong learning. In other words, the combination of these three
mandate to learn about sustainability. The sharing was learning approaches characterized the SL process among
also done with outside networks that helped in strength- employees.
ening SL, and indirectly benefited other recipients. The The study discovered that SL was facilitated by three
study further found an extensive use of technology-based contextual factors, that is, organizational internal fac-
communication and social media in information sharing tors, individual factors, and organizational external fac-
that eased SL. These natural and deliberate socialization tors. Organizational factors may enable or limit the
processes engaged by the employees facilitated in encul- success of any change initiatives, including sustainability
turating SL. efforts (Young et al., 2015). Internal factors comprise of
The transformative learning (Mezirow, 1997) had culture, strategy, artifacts, and leadership (i.e., Dauber
occurred as an outcome of the SL process. et al., 2012; Hatch & Cunliffe, 2006). Culture stimulated
Transformative learning involved a shift in perceptions, SL by guiding and nurturing employees toward
Mohamed Razali and Jamil 11

sustainability. This points to the importance of shared factors concerning their readiness and needs for sustain-
assumptions and beliefs among members for a successful ability indirectly influenced employees SL. Being a key
sustainability strategy and HR role in driving sustain- stakeholder and an ultimate recipient in sustainability
ability culture (Bertels et al., 2015; Galpin et al., 2012). initiatives, the study participants believed that the com-
Organizational strategy (comprised of mission, vision, munities must first have the right sustainability mindset.
core values, rules, and regulations) emerged strongly in Based on the analysis, an integrated model of SL in
the thematic analysis. The participants consistently organizations is proposed (Figure 2) that explains how
referred to their organizations as a source of their SL. employees engage in SL and its surrounding contextual
This highlights the importance for organizations in factors. Organizational strategy is the principal and pre-
establishing specific objectives and aligning its decisions liminary drive in SL due to its prominence in the study
to produce focused strategy execution (Baumgartner & findings. Strategy serves as the key source and overall
Ebner, 2010; Hengst et al., 2020). Specific rules and regu- direction in employees’ SL. It guides the design of formal
lations conditioned employees to portray expected con- and informal company-initiated learning programs based
ducts to support the strategy. This finding relates the on the principles of experiential learning and social
notion that a company’s sustainability performance is an learning theories. Experiential SL programs provide a
outcome of complex decisions and behaviors of its concrete experience that enables employees to reflect,
employees (Lulfs & Hahn, 2014), and that employee conceptualize and experiment sustainability practices.
ownership is important for a successful sustainability Concurrently, a conducive social learning environment
strategy (Bhattacharya, 2019). The study showed that a helps in enculturating SL through communication, social
good strategy must be supported with appropriate orga- networking, and cooperation among organizational
nizational artifacts (organizational design and operation members. The experiential and social learning
components) with a clear chain of command, specific approaches will consequently influence transformative
departmentalization, performance standards, reward sys- learning that may result cognitive, behavioral and affec-
tems, and other supporting mechanisms to create a holis- tive outcomes toward sustainability. Contextual factors
tic internal ecosystem for SL. The study also emphasized comprising of individual, organizational and external
leadership in influencing SL (Eide et al., 2020; factors are placed at the heart of the model to acknowl-
Pantouvakis & Vlachos, 2020). Employees’ SL depended edge their integral role in facilitating SL.
on leaders’ behaviors (commitment, encouragement, and The study contributions are three-fold. Firstly, this
role modeling) toward sustainability issues. Hence, orga- study extends understanding on the experiential, social,
nizations that embarked on sustainability need transfor- and transformative learning approaches by identifying
mative leaders to actualize the vision and mission. its structure and roles in the SL process. It shows that to
The study discovered that individual factors (i.e., per- produce the desired transformative changes, programs
sonal job role, personal interest, self-values, educational must incorporate the experiential approach, and the
background, and religiosity) influenced SL. Employees social environment needs to be concurrently established
would learn sustainability if expected by their jobs, sug- to nurture and reinforce the changes. Furthermore, it
gesting a conformity culture often found in the proves that the learning theories, more prevalent in sus-
Malaysian society (Abu Bakar et al., 2018). Personal tainable educational setting (Bosevska & Kriewaldt,
interests in the sustainability cause motivated participa- 2020; Wamsler, 2020) are also applicable in business
tion and eased SL transfer, hence this finding agrees with organizations involving adult learners. Secondly, explo-
the role of interests in training effectiveness ration of the contextual factors has refined the SL pro-
(Gegenfurtner et al., 2020). Having self-values for cess by identifying the nature in which they can facilitate
altruistic purpose could ease learning and openness to the employees’ SL. Past studies (Dlouha et al, 2013;
sustainability experience, and influenced the extent of Henry, 2009; Lankester, 2013) have offered a fundamen-
sustainability changes. The literature acknowledges that tal overview about SL, but most has fallen short in cap-
altruism values support sustainability efforts (Florea turing the dynamics of important factors to properly
et al., 2013: Guinot et al., 2016). Learning about sustain- promote SL in organizations. The study discovers three
ability was considered a religious obligation and was categories of contextual factors, the most influential
supported by past literature (e.g., Bratton, 2020). In being organizational strategic dimensions that act as the
terms of external factors, the study found evidence sug- key source, sense of direction, and reasoning in employee
gesting the influence of government’s role and commu- SL. Thirdly, the study suggested that business organiza-
nities that could encourage or inhibit employees SL. tions are an important and effective medium in pushing
National policies, rules and regulations enforced on national sustainability agenda. Through properly
organizations played a role in pushing the national sus- designed programs, organizations may develop employ-
tainability agenda to the employees. Whereas community ees into sustainability change agents who may gradually
12 SAGE Open

Figure 2. Integrated model of employees’ SL in organizations.

activate positive impacts in the society (De Silva down perspectives. Scant attention has been paid to the
Lokuwaduge et al, 2020). The study found a clear cas- importance of SL process at the individual employee level.
cading effect and macro-meso-micro alignment (Boeren, The research findings highlight the relevant learning the-
2019) within the organizational layers originating from ories and the key factors that facilitate employees’ SL that
the national level sustainability agenda. While the study may improve the ways SL programs are designed and
had found cognitive and affective changes toward sus- implemented in organizations. This knowledge piece helps
tainability, limited evidence was discovered to suggest in strengthening sustainability efforts that may contribute
the achievement of transformative behavioral outcomes toward financial performance.
outside organizations, needed for a real and lasting sus-
tainability impact (Brown, 1982; Kaivo-oja et al., 2014).
This further pointed to the need for stronger collabora-
Conclusion and Implications
tive efforts between stakeholders. Promoting sustainability agenda requires people to learn
The discovery about employee SL helps in connecting and embrace sustainability. The study suggested that
and describing the link between corporate sustainability employees learned sustainability by engaging in the
strategy and financial performance (Lassala et al., 2017; experiential, social, and transformative learning
Lo & Liao, 2021). Literature agrees that it is no longer approaches. However, before transformative outcomes
about whether sustainability pays, but on ‘‘how’’ and could be fully attained, the SL process required the pres-
‘‘when’’ it pays (Grewatsch & Kleindienst, 2018; Orlitzky ence of contextual factors resided within their organiza-
et al., 2011). As such, various research efforts are under- tions, external environment, and self. Organizational
way to determine factors that can alleviate or reinforce internal factors were the most significant in shaping and
the sustainability-financial performance link (e.g., nurturing SL. The study observed that employees’
Hermelingmeier & von Wirth, 2021; Maletič et al., 2021). knowledge on sustainability was strongly influenced by
A myriad of factors has been proposed such as the firm’s their organizations. The findings proved that most of the
characteristics, stakeholder engagements, leadership, participants’ understanding of sustainability related to
industry structure, and innovation. In general, these fac- their organizational practices. This signals that employ-
tors tend to look at sustainability from strategic or top- ees’ knowledge on sustainability is mostly triggered by
Mohamed Razali and Jamil 13

the organizational efforts toward sustainability. This dis- employees to test the proposed SL model and measure
covery points to the significant role that business organi- the factors. Another limitation may come from the
zations play through sustainability strategy, carefully chosen study context, that is, Malaysia, a country who
designed learning programs, and HR function. The pro- is relatively young in sustainable development journey.
posed integrated model contributes by refining the The study has provided localized insights on how orga-
understanding of SL process and its contextual factors. nizations can move forward with sustainability strat-
This research contributes to the theoretical under- egy, and how the government can leverage on them to
standing of SL. It portrays utilization and simultaneous support the national agenda. Further research may
interaction of surrounding factors behind experiential, examine countries with more advanced sustainability
social, and transformative learning theories in organiza- efforts to discover how SL in their setting.
tion based SL. Previous studies on SL have not only con-
centrated mostly in education setting but are limited in Declaration of Conflicting Interests
explaining how individuals engage in certain learning
approaches. This research has filled these gaps by high- The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with
respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this
lighting the nature of the three learning theories as the
article.
basis for SL among employees in organizations.
Identifying the contextual factors is theoretically valu-
able because SL process needs to be understood, hence, Funding
designed as a holistic intervention by embedding the rele- The author(s) received no financial support for the research,
vant organizational, individual, and external elements to authorship, and/or publication of this article.
motivate employees to learn sustainability. The proposed
model provides a clear framework to understand SL ORCID iD
among employees in an organization.
Rossilah Jamil https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0137-0172
The research provides some implications to relevant
departments. To ensure SL effectiveness, HR needs to
design programs that incorporate cognitive and practical References
engagement with employees. More sustainability-related
Aboytes, J. G. R., & Barth, M. (2020). Transformative learning
events need to be organized as a platform for experiential
in the field of sustainability: A systematic literature review
learning for SL. Companies need to emphasize collabora- (1999-2019). International Journal of Sustainability in Higher
tion and teamwork and gain support beyond its boundary Education, 21(5), 993–1013. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJSHE-
such with community stakeholders. Stakeholder colla- 05-2019-0168
boration helps in sustaining employees’ sustainability out- Abu Bakar, H., Bahtiar, M., Halim, H., Subramaniam, C., &
comes. The creation of a shared vision to drive employees Choo, L. S. (2018). Shared cultural characteristics similari-
toward sustainability is needed to ensure the strategy is ties in Malaysia’s multi-ethnic society. Journal of Intercul-
delivered successfully to employees. The enforcement of tural Communication Research, 47(3), 243–267.
rules and regulations related to sustainability practices Antonacopoulou, E. P. (2006). The relationship between individ-
can be enhanced in ensuring the process of SL happens ual and organizational learning: New evidence from manage-
accordingly. Since employees see their personal-job role rial learning practices. Managerial Learning, 37(4), 455–473.
Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of
as an important factor in SL, top management needs to
behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84(2), 191.
embed sustainability elements in employees’ job descrip-
Battistella, C., Cicero, L., & Preghenella, N. (2021). Sustainable
tions. Personal interest in sustainability may influence organisational learning in sustainable companies. The Learn-
employees’ SL. Therefore, top management can ensure ing Organization, 28(1), 15–31.
interest or basic knowledge as a base level requirement in Baumgartner, R. J., & Ebner, D. (2010). Corporate sustainabil-
the recruitment and selection process in the company. ity strategies: Sustainability profiles and maturity levels. Sus-
tainable Development, 18(2), 76–89.
Baxter, P., & Jack, S. (2008). Qualitative case study methodol-
Limitations and Further Research ogy: Study design and implementation for novice research-
ers. The Qualitative Report, 13(4), 544–559.
The study may be limited in its methodology. Although Bell, B. S., Tannenbaum, S. I., Ford, J. K., Noe, R. A., & Krai-
multiple methods and data sources were used, the find- ger, K. (2017). 100 years of training and development
ings were predominantly informed by interview data. research: What we know and where we should go. Journal
Further research should consider extending the of Applied Psychology, 102(3), 305.
research design to include more samples from different Bertels, S., Papania, L., & Papania, D. (2015). Embedding sus-
types of organizations. Future efforts to understand SL tainability in organizational culture. A systematic review of
can adopt the quantitative survey method on the body of knowledge. Network for Business Sustainability.
14 SAGE Open

Bhattacharya, C. B. (2019). Small actions, big difference: Lever- Florea, L., Cheung, Y. H., & Herndon, N. C. (2013). For all
aging corporate sustainability to drive business and societal good reasons: Role of values in organizational sustainabil-
value. Routledge. ity. Journal of Business Ethics, 114(3), 393–408.
Boeren, E. (2019). Understanding sustainable development goal Frantzeskaki, N., & Rok, A. (2018). Co-producing urban sus-
(SDG) 4 on ‘‘quality education’’ from micro, meso and tainability transitions knowledge with community, policy
macro perspectives. International Review of Education, 65(2), and science. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transi-
277–294. tions, 29, 47–51.
Bosevska, J., & Kriewaldt, J. (2020). Fostering a whole-school Freeman, R. E. (2010). Strategic management: A stakeholder
approach to sustainability: Learning from one school’s jour- approach. Cambridge University Press.
ney towards sustainable education. International Research in Galpin, T., Whittington, J. L., & Bell, G. (2012). Leading the
Geographical and Environmental Education, 29(1), 55–73. sustainable organization: Development, implementation and
Boström, M., Andersson, E., Berg, M., Gustafsson, K., Gus- assessment. Routledge.
tavsson, E., Hysing, E., Lidskog, R., Löfmarck, E., Ojala, Garg, B. (2014). Human resource driving force of sustainable
M., Olsson, J., Singleton, B. E., Svenberg, S., Uggla, Y., & business practices. International Journal of Innovative
Öhman, J. (2018). Conditions for transformative learning Research and Development, 3(7), 378–382.
for sustainable development: A theoretical review and Gegenfurtner, A., Knogler, M., & Schwab, S. (2020). Transfer
approach. Sustainability, 10(12), 4479. interest: Measuring interest in training content and interest
Bratton, S. P. (2020). Religion and the environment: an introduc- in training transfer. Human Resource Development Interna-
tion. Routledge. tional, 23(2), 146–167.
Brown, L. R. (1982). Building a sustainable society. Society, Grewatsch, S., & Kleindienst, I. (2018). How organizational
19(2), 75–85. cognitive frames affect organizational capabilities: The con-
Buckley, J. B., & Michel, J. O. (2020). An examination of higher text of corporate sustainability. Long Range Planning, 51(4),
education institutional level learning outcomes related to 607–624.
sustainability. Innovative Higher Education, 45(3), 201–217. Guinot, J., Chiva, R., & Mallén, F. (2016). Linking altruism
Castillo-Montoya, M. (2016). Preparing for interview research: and organizational learning capability: A study from excel-
The interview protocol refinement framework. The Qualita- lent human resources management organizations in Spain.
tive Report, 21(5), 811–831. Journal of Business Ethics, 138(2), 349–364.
Creswell, J. W. (2013). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Hami, N., Muhamad, M. R., & Ebrahim, Z. (2014). Explring
Choosing among five approaches. SAGE. sustainable manufacturing practices and sustainability per-
Dauber, D., Fink, G., & Yolles, M. (2012). A configuration formance among Malaysian manufacturing firms. Interna-
model of organizational culture. Sage Open, 2(1), tional Symposium on Research in Innovation and
2158244012441482. Sustainability, Malacca, Malaysia (pp. 1691–1696).
de Oliveira Claro, P. B., & Esteves, N. R. (2020). Sustainability- Hansmann, R. (2010). ‘‘Sustainability learning’’: An introduc-
oriented strategy and sustainable development goals. Mar- tion to the concept and its motivational aspects. Sustainabil-
keting Intelligence & Planning, 39(4), 613–630. ity, 2, 2873–2897.
De Silva Lokuwaduge, C. S., Smark, C., & Mir, M. (2020). Sus- Hatch, M. J. (1993). The dynamics of organizational culture.
tainable development goals and businesses as active change Academy of Management Review, 18(4), 657–693.
agents. Australasian Accounting, Business and Finance Jour- Hatch, M. J., & Cunliffe, A. (2006). Organization theory: Mod-
nal, 14(3), 1–5. ern, postmodern, and symbolic perspectives. Oxford Univer-
Dlouha, J., Barton, A., Janouskova, S., & Dlouhy, J. (2013). sity Press.
Social learning indicators in sustainability-oriented regional Hengst, I. A., Jarzabkowski, P., Hoegl, M., & Muethel, M.
learning networks. Journal of Cleaner Production, 49, 64–73. (2020). Toward a process theory of making sustainability
Duarte, F. D. (2014). Sustainability learning in Brazilian orga- strategies legitimate in action. Academy of Management
nizations: A six-dimensional framework. Anthropologist, Journal, 63(1), 246–271.
18(1), 43–52. Henry, A. D. (2009). The challenges of learning for sustainabil-
Dzhengiz, T. (2020). A literature review of inter-organizational ity: A prolegomenon theory. Human Ecology Review, 16(2),
sustainability learning. Sustainability, 12(12), 4876. 131–140
Dziubaniuk, O., & Nyholm, M. (2021). Constructivist approach Hermelingmeier, V., & von Wirth, T. (2021). The nexus of busi-
in teaching sustainability and business ethics: A case study. ness sustainability and organizational learning: A systematic
International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, literature review to identify key learning principles for busi-
22, 177–197. ness transformation. Business Strategy and the Environment,
Eide, A. E., Saether, E. A., & Aspelund, A. (2020). An investi- 30(4), 1839–1851.
gation of leaders’ motivation, intellectual leadership, and Hongming, X., Ahmed, B., Hussain, A., Rehman, A., Ullah, I.,
sustainability strategy in relation to Norwegian manufactur- & Khan, F. U. (2020). Sustainability reporting and firm per-
ers’ performance. Journal of Cleaner Production, 254, formance: The demonstration of Pakistani firms. SAGE
120053. Open, 10(3), 2158244020953180.
Elkington, J. (2018). 25 years ago, I coined the phrase ‘‘triple Jenkin, T. A. (2013). Extending the 4I organizational learning
bottom line.’’ Here’s why it’s time to rethink it. Harvard model: Information sources, foraging processes and tools.
Business Review, 25, 2–5. Administrative Sciences, 3, 96–109.
Mohamed Razali and Jamil 15

Kaivo-oja, J., Panula-Ontto, J., Vehmas, J., & Luukkanen, J. Miles, M. B., Huberman, M. A., & Saldana, J. (2014). Qualita-
(2014). Relationships of the dimensions of sustainability as tive data analysis: A methods sourcebook (Vol. 3). SAGE.
measured by the sustainable society index framework. Inter- Moyer, J. M., Sinclair, A. J., & Diduck, A. P. (2014). Learning
national Journal of Sustainable Development & World Ecol- for sustainability among faith-based organizations in Kenya.
ogy, 21(1), 39–45. Environmental Management, 54(2), 360–372.
Kolb, A. Y., & Kolb, D. A. (2005). Learning styles and learn- Myers, M. D. (2009). Qualitative research in business & manage-
ing spaces: Enhancing experiential learning in higher educa- ment. SAGE.
tion. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 4(2), Noy, S., Capetola, T., & Patrick, R. (2021). The wheel of for-
193–212. tune as a novel support for constructive alignment and
Kolb, D. A. (1984). Experiential learning: Experience as the transformative sustainability learning in higher education.
source of learning and development. Prentice Hall. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education,
Kolb, D. A. (2014). Experiential learning: Experience as the 22(4), 854–869.
source of learning and development. FT Press. Orlitzky, M., Siegel, D. S., & Waldman, D. A. (2011). Strategic
Lankester, A. J. (2013). Conceptual and operational under- corporate social responsibility and environmental sustain-
standing of learning for Sustainability: A case study of the ability. Business & Society, 50(1), 6–27.
beef industry in north-eastern Australia. Journal of Environ- Pantouvakis, A., & Vlachos, I. (2020). Talent and leadership
mental Management, 119, 182–193. effects on sustainable performance in the maritime industry.
Lassala, C., Apetrei, A., & Sapena, J. (2017). Sustainability Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment,
matter and financial performance of companies. Sustainabil- 86, 102440.
ity, 9(9), 1498. Ponte, S. (2020). Green capital accumulation: Business and sus-
Law, M. M. S., Hills, P., & Hau, B. C. H. (2017). Engaging tainability management in a world of global value chains.
employees in sustainable development: A case study of New Political Economy, 25(1), 72–84.
environmental education and awareness training in Hong Pupphachai, U., & Zuidema, C. (2017). Sustainability indica-
Kong. Business Strategy and the Environment, 26(1), tors: A tool to generate learning and adaptation in sustain-
84–97. able urban development. Ecological Indicators, 72, 784–793.
Leal Filho, W., Raath, S., Lazzarini, B., Vargas, V. R., de Purvis, B., Mao, Y., & Robinson, D. (2019). Three pillars of
Souza, L., Anholon, R., Quelhas, O. L. G., Haddad, R., sustainability: In search of conceptual origins. Sustainability
Klavins, M., & Orlovic, V. L. (2018). The role of transfor- Science, 14(3), 681–695.
mation in learning and education for sustainability. Journal Razali, M. Z. M., & Jamil, R. (2016). Sustainability learning in
of Cleaner Production, 199, 286–295. organizations: The role of human resource development and
Lo, F. Y., & Liao, P. C. (2021). Rethinking financial perfor- proposed framework. Sains Humanika, 8(1–2). https://doi.
mance and corporate sustainability: Perspectives on org/10.11113/sh.v8n1-2.839
resources and strategies. Technological Forecasting and Rendtorff, J. D. (2019). Sustainable development goals and
Social Change, 162, 120346. progressive business models for economic transformation.
Lulfs, R., & Hahn, R. (2014). Sustainable behavior in the busi- Local Economy, 34(6), 510–524.
ness sphere: A comprehensive overview of the explanatory Reza, M. I. H. (2016). Sustainability in higher education: Per-
power of psychological models. Organization & Environment, spectives of Malaysian higher education system. SAGE
27(1), 43–64.https://doi.org/10.1177/1086026614522631 Open, 6(3), 2158244016665890.
Maletič, M., Gomišček, B., & Maletič, D. (2021). The missing Ridder, H. G. (2017). The theory contribution of case study
link: Sustainability innovation practices, non-financial per- research designs. Business Research, 10, 281–305
formance outcomes and economic performance. Manage- Salas-Zapata, W. A., Rı́os-Osorio, L. A., & Cardona-Arias, J.
ment Research Review, 44(11), 1457–1477. A. (2018). Knowledge, attitudes and practices of sustainabil-
Marican, N. W., Nawi, N. M., Kamarulzaman, N. H., & Zai- ity: Systematic review 1990-2016. Journal of Teacher Educa-
ton, S. (2018). Public perception towards sustainable man- tion for Sustainability, 20(1), 46–63.
grove forest programs in Malaysia. Journal of Sustainability Schein, E. H. (1985). Defining organizational culture. Classics
Science and Management, 13(1), 189–199. of Organization Theory, 3(1), 490–502.
Mason, J. (2017). Qualitative researching. SAGE. Senge, P. M., Laur, J., Schley, S., & Smith, B. (2006). Learning
Menon, S., & Suresh, M. (2020). Synergizing education, for sustainability. SoL (The Society for Organizational
research, campus operations, and community engagements Learning, Incorporated).
towards sustainability in higher education: A literature Shakir, M. (2002). The selection of case studies: Strategies and
review. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Edu- their applications to IS implementation case studies. Research
cation, 21(5), 1015. Letters in the Information and Mathematical Sciences, 3, 69–77.
Meyer, C. B. (2001). A case in case study methodology. Field Su, C. H., & Cheng, T. W. (2019). A sustainability innovation
Methods, 13(4), 329–352. experiential learning model for virtual reality chemistry
Mezirow, J. (1997). Transformative learning: Theory to prac- laboratory: An empirical study with PLS-SEM and IPMA.
tice. New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education, Sustainability, 11(4), 1027.
1997(74), 5–12. Tapia-Fonllem, C., Fraijo-Sing, B., Corral-Verdugo, V., &
Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data anal- Ortiz Valdez, A. (2017). Education for sustainable develop-
ysis: An expanded sourcebook. SAGE. ment in higher education institutions: Its influence on the
16 SAGE Open

pro-sustainability orientation of Mexican students. SAGE sustainability. International Journal of Sustainability in

Open, 7(1), 2158244016676295. Higher Education, 21(1), 112–130.
Tilbury, D., & Wortman, D. (2008). How is community educa- Warburton, K. (2003). Deep learning and education for sustain-
tion contributing to sustainability in practice? Applied Envi- ability. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Edu-
ronmental Education and Communication, 7(3), 83–93. cation, 4(1), 44–56.
Van Mierlo, B., Halbe, J., Beers, P., Scholz, G., & Vinke-de Wijethilake, C., & Upadhaya, B. (2020). Market drivers of sus-
Kruijf, J. (2020). Learning about learning in sustainability tainability and sustainability learning capabilities: The mod-
transitions. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transi- erating role of sustainability control systems. Business
tions, 34, 251–254. Strategy and the Environment, 29(6), 2297–2309.
Wals, A. E. J. (2011). Learning our way to sustainability. Jour- Yin, R. K. (2014). Case study research: Design and methods
nal of Education for Sustainable Development, 5(2), 177–186. (Vol. 5). SAGE.
Wals, A. E. J., & Rodela, R. (2014). Social learning towards Young, W., Davis, M., McNeill, I. M., Russell, S., Unsworth,
sustainability: Problematics, Perspectives and promise. K., & Clegg, W. (2015). Changing behaviour: Successful
NJAS-Wageningen Journal of Life Sciences, 69, 1–3. environmental programmes in the workplace. Business
Wamsler, C. (2020). Education for sustainability: Fostering a Strategy and the Environment, 24(8), 689–703. https://doi.
more conscious society and transformation towards org/10.1002/bse.1836