Environmental literacy andattitudes among Malaysian

business educatorsCorina Joseph, Esmie Obrin Nichol, Tamoi Janggu and Nero Madi

Faculty of Accounting, Universiti Teknologi MARA Sarawak,Kota Samarahan, Malaysia

Abstract

Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to examine the level of environmental literacy amongbusiness lecturers in Malaysia.

Design/methodology/approach – A survey, which involved a combination of newly developeditems and items adopted from past studies, was used to collect data from 35 respondents (out of 70).

Findings – The overall mean score for environmental literacy is 3.22 (out of 5), indicating that therespondents’ level of literacy is slightly more than just fair knowledge. The most widely understoodenvironmental literacy term is corporate social responsibility (CSR). The respondents were apparentlyaware of the recent mandatory disclosure requirement, i.e. to include the environmental information incompanies’ annual reports and the initiative moving towards “Green Malaysia”.

Practical implications – Universities in Malaysia could learn from environmental initiativesundertaken by universities in developed countries in terms of implementation, organizational policiesand strategies. It is important for business lecturers to influence students to favourably perceiveenvironmental issues as one of the core business activities, using a participative approach in teachingand learning.

Originality/value – This paper adds to the limited literature of CSR education research, particularlyin Malaysia, by filling the gap with the development of 13 items to determine the level of awarenesstoward environmental initiatives in Malaysia.

Keywords Malaysia, Academic staff, Business studies, Environmental literacy, Environment,Corporate social responsibility, Attitude

Paper type Research paper

IntroductionGlobal environmental issues, such as climate change, unsustainable management ofwater resources, and pollution arising from business activities, are becoming morecomplex and require urgent attention (Johannsdottir, 2009). Johannsdottir (2009, p. 4)argued that “one way to educate businesses about environmental and sustainabilityissues is through the business school curriculum”. On a similar note, Holt and Anthony(2000, p. 144) said that the sources of awareness include “a range of informal andformal environmental education experiences, through school, the arts and media”.However, the level of environmental awareness is higher in developed countriescompared to developing economies like Malaysia (Amran and Siti-Nabiha, 2009).

Basically, the environmental issue is everyone’s concern, including that oftertiary institutions. University educators, specifically those in business schools, play animportant role in promoting environmental literacy (Probert, 2002). As maintained byJohannsdottir (2009, p. 9), “it is clear that business curriculum and knowledge communicatedin business school can be critical in the fight against climate change consequences”.

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at

www.emeraldinsight.com/1467-6370.htm

International Journal of Sustainabilityin Higher EducationVol. 14 No. 2, 2013pp. 196-208q Emerald Group Publishing Limited1467-6370DOI 10.1108/14676371311312897

IJSHE14,2

196

In addition, an educated person is highly concern on natural environment and highlyknowledgeable on the impact of human on the ecological and mitigating the environmentalproblems (Wolfe, 2001).

Hence, the perspective presented here is that educators should possess knowledge onenvironmental matters so that they can adequately deliver the information to theirstudents. The knowledge acquired from the educators is important to ensure students’readiness, in their role as future decision makers, to face future environmentalchallenges, “acting more as an agent in search of sustainability” (Palma et al., 2011,p. 251). Probert (2002) similarly contended that business students must be familiar withadvanced management techniques that are relevant to the business world such asEnvironment management systems (ISO 14001) and Eco-Management and AuditScheme (EMAS).

Universities in other countries have integrated the environment in their policystatements. For example, Middlesex University in the UK has incorporated onenvironmental ethos into its institutional practice, minimized waste, and maximizedrecycling of materials (Holt, 2003). In the Asia Pacific region, Tongji University inChina has developed its resource-saving strategies to develop conservation awarenessthrough educational activities, to promote conservation efficiency through effectivemanagement; and to realize maximum resource savings through technologicalinnovation (Niu et al., 2010).

Environmental literacy has been studied on various groups, such as teachers(Pe’er et al., 2007; Hsiu and Roth, 1999; Said et al., 2003), and university students(Johannsdottir, 2009; Moody et al., 2005; Wolfe, 2001). Past studies have been conducted incountries such as Taiwan (Hsiu and Roth, 1999), the UK (Holt and Anthony, 2000), China(Yang and Lam, 2009), the USA (Wolfe, 2001), and Malaysia (Said et al., 2003). However,far too little attention has been paid to business educators in the university. Hence, thispaper will add to the literature, as it examines the level of environmental literacy amongbusiness academics in Universiti Teknologi MARA (UiTM) Sarawak, Malaysia.

Business and accounting are two out of the five faculties under the business andmanagement cluster in the whole UiTM system throughout Malaysia. UiTM Sarawakwas chosen as a research setting in this study because it offers business andaccounting courses that integrate corporate social responsibility (CSR) issues in thesyllabus (for example, accounting theory and practice and corporate governance).At present, based on “Halatuju 2”[1], the CSR aspect is integrated together with theethics element in a few courses[2] such as accounting theory and practice, andcorporate governance for the bachelor in accounting degree programme offered bypublic universities in Malaysia.

UiTM Sarawak has always strived for research excellence among its academic staff,under the administration of Research Management Unit. One of the activities organizedby the unit is the weekly Lunch time Seminar Series which aims to encourageresearchers to share their research findings. Another milestone for UiTM Sarawak isthe setting up of the Asia Pacific Centre of Excellence for Sustainability (APCeS, 2010)Sarawak Chapter in 2011 that aims to promote research on CSR among lecturers in theuniversity[3]. Indirectly, UiTM has implemented the campus sustainability frameworkproposed by Alshuwaikhat and Abubakar (2008) via public participation, includingcommunity service at selected villages and CSR research, which are integrated as partsof the overall organizational practices.

Environmentalliteracy

197

University educators are considered role models for students as future businessleaders to acquire business knowledge concerning environmental issues. Therefore, theresearch question posited in this paper is, “what is the overall level of environmentalliteracy among business lecturers in UiTM Sarawak?” The paper has two mainobjectives:

(1) to determine the level of environmental literacy; and

(2) to explore the environmental attitudes among business lecturers in UiTMSarawak.

Literature reviewThe current paper is motivated by Johannsdottir’s (2009) study which examined theknowledge of MBA students at the University of Iceland in relation to15 environmentally related concepts that served as proxies for the environmentalliteracy term. His study revealed that the MBA students had low or limitedenvironmental literacy due to the lack of environmental education. It was also suggestedin Johannsdottir’s (2009) study that students from the business schools did not acquiresufficient environmental training compared to those from other faculties.

Business educators are claimed to be generally less knowledgeable aboutenvironmental agendas compared to their colleagues from other disciplines. Hoffman(1999, p. 5) indicated that “business educators are lagging well behind their counterpartsin engineering, law, public policy and public health in recognizing the relevance of theseissues”. This is due to the fact that the environment is not regarded as a core aspect ofbusiness decisions, but considered as a part of borderline decisions (Hoffman, 1999).Alternatively, Holt (2003, p. 342) maintained that “environmental issues are in factbusiness issues and as such would be expected in a modern business school curriculumirrespective of an institution’s mission statement on environmental education”.

Grinnell and Hunt (2000) argued that the natural environment is to be treated asequally important, with a sound management practice, and hence, taken intoconsideration in business decisions and corporate environmental strategy. In additionto teaching and learning activities, environmental issues can also be integrated intoother activities that will increase the awareness of the university community towardsthe environment. Among others, Jabbour (2010, pp. 53-4) suggested how businessschools could contribute to the adoption of knowledge of environment management:

1) by direct adoption of environmental management practice in schools, with or without aformal environmental management system, by practice of reuse, recycling, reducing (3R)consumption of inputs, such as paper, which can be optimized used for printing in both sidesof the sheets; and, 2) by the awareness of employees, teachers, and students, about thepossibilities of a environmentally proactive business school.

The reviewed literature also addresses the evaluation of environmental education inbusiness schools. Rohweder (2004) cited two reasons that support the exclusion ofenvironmental education as part of the business courses. First, the general lack of interestin environmental issue and the perception of being less important. Second, the exclusion isdue to the lack of competence among the teaching staff. Rohweder (2004) also found thatonly those teachers devoted to environmental education promote the cause.

A survey by Said et al. (2003), on environmental knowledge, practices and gapsamong Malaysian teachers, was among the limited environmental education studies

IJSHE14,2

198

in Malaysia. Their findings revealed high environmental concerns, fair level ofenvironmental knowledge, and poor understanding of the underlying causes ofenvironmental problems. It was suggested that teachers should fully equip themselveswith sufficient knowledge, proper attitudes, and appropriate consumption patterns andlifestyles.

Environmental attitude has been used in various dimensions in past literature.For example, environmental attitude was used as a predictor for environmentalbehaviour (Pe’er et al., 2007) and also as one of the environmental literacy variables inpredicting responsible environmental behaviour among Taiwanese secondary teachers(Hsiu and Roth, 1999). However, environmental attitude was not employed either as apredictor or a dependent variable because it is out of the scope of this research work.

MethodologyA questionnaire was developed to elicit information from the participants in the study.The questionnaire consisted of four sections. Part A elicited the respondents’demographic information, which included gender, faculty, number of years in teaching,other working experience, experience in teaching environmental-related courses, andattendance at environmental-related seminars/conferences/talks.

Part B contained 20 terms used as proxies to determine the respondents’ level ofenvironmental literacy, which is the central issue of this paper. Here, environmentalliteracy is defined as “a basic understanding of the concepts and knowledge of theissues and information relevant to the health and sustainability of the environment”(Wolfe, 2001, p. 302). Further, Krnel and Naglic (2009) inferred that a strong conceptionof environmental literacy includes knowledge (facts, skills, and habits of mind).The first 15 terms were adopted from Johannsdottir’s (2009) study, and the remainingterms (terms 16-19) were taken from the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI, 2006) Version3.0 (G3) environmental indicators. The final term, i.e. Kyoto Protocol, was taken fromreadings related to environmental issue (Okereke, 2007). The five-point Likert scaleranges from 1 (no knowledge) to 5 (excellent knowledge).

This paper fills the gap in Malaysian CSR literature, with the development of13 items in part C to determine the level of awareness towards environmentalinitiatives in Malaysia. This paper argues that environment awareness is related toenvironmental literacy. Coyle (2005, cited in Krnel and Naglic, 2009, p. 6) categorizedenvironmental literacy into three levels, as follows:

The first level is environmental awareness; the second level is environmental knowledge,which involves a combination of awareness and action called personal conduct knowledge(e.g. saving electricity, water and gasoline, buying green products); and the final level isenvironmental literacy, which is distinct from the second level because of its depth ofinformation and actual skills.

All the 13 statements have commonly been used by Malaysian CSR researchers[4] asthe introductory statement in their publications (Sumiani et al., 2007; Janggu et al.,2007; Yusoff et al., 2006). The level of awareness was assessed using a five-point Likertscale ranging from 1 (not aware) to 5 (strongly aware).

Part D examined the level of respondents’ interest in their participation inenvironmental activities (intention to act) using the five-point Likert scale, which is themeasurement for environmental attitude. The first item developed (i.e. the level ofinterest in participating in seminars covering environmentally sound or sustainable

Environmentalliteracy

199

business practice) was adopted from Johannsdottir’s (2009) study. The two questionson the level of interest in the environmental community services and the involvementas a committee member of environmental certification programme are similar to theitems constructed in Said et al. (2003). The remaining seven items in this paper werespecifically developed in relation to the Malaysian university’s core activities such asresearch, committee, community service, and consultancy work. Therefore, these itemsadd substantially to the CSR and the literature on sustainability education.

The data were analysed using the Statistical Package for Social Science, Version16.0. Meanwhile, a descriptive statistics was used to calculate frequency, mean andstandard deviation. The questionnaires were distributed to all 70 business lecturers inUiTM Sarawak between March and April 2010. Nonetheless, only 35 (50 percent)usable questionnaires were collected, in spite of the few reminders given to them toreturn the completed questionnaires to the researchers.

Results and discussionsThe percentage of female respondents (67.6 percent) was apparently higher in thisstudy compared to their male counterparts. The majority of the respondents wererepresented by academic members of the Faculty of Business Management (56.3 percent)who mostly (45.5 percent) have had five to ten years of teaching experience.Apart from lecturing, 80 percent of the respondents reported to have other workingexperiences. Meanwhile, 56 percent of the respondents have been involved or attendedseminars/conferences/talks on environmental-related issues. This is supported by variousefforts UiTM Sarawak has made in ensuring academic excellence among its lecturersthrough activities such as Lunch time Seminar Series. It is not surprising to discover that80 percent of the respondents have never taught any course that directly or indirectlyincludes some aspects of environmental literacy. This is because CSR or environmentrelated issues are only integral parts of the overall undergraduate curriculum for thebachelor degree in accounting and bachelor degree in finance and marketing programmesat this university.

The Cronbach’s a-coefficients for environmental literacy and environmentalattitude were found to be reliable, as shown in Table I.

Based on the data presented above, the coefficients for environmental literacy, levelof awareness of environmental initiatives and intention to act are more than 0.9,indicating their validity and reliability (George and Mallery, 2001).

The means for all the 20 environmental terms in part B of the survey were computedin order to achieve the first objective of this study. The overall mean score for theenvironmental literacy is 3.22 (out of 5), suggesting that the respondents’ level ofliteracy is slightly more than merely having fair knowledge. Table II presents the meanscore for each environmental term examined in this study.

Variables Number of items Cronbach’s a

Environmental literacy 20 0.917Awareness of environmental initiatives 13 0.935Environmental intention to act 10 0.944

Table I.Cronbach’s afor environmentalliteracy andenvironmental attitude

IJSHE14,2

200

Table II shows that the respondents have some knowledge about CSR, as indicated bythe highest mean score (4.2). The second highest mean score is global warming (3.94),which is followed by climate change (3.83). The mean score for climate change in thisstudy is lower (3.83) than the highest mean score (3.2) obtained in Johannsdottir’s(2009) study because of the different scale used. Johannsdottir’s (2009) study startedwith scale 1, which indicates “little knowledge”, and this is equivalent to scale 2 in thisstudy. The lower mean score in this study could be due to the different samples used,whereby the business educators might not have kept themselves abreast with thecurrent literature as compared to the MBA students in Johannsdottir’s (2009) study.The lower rating on general terms, such as climate change, could be due to theminimum media coverage by the local media compared to the wider coverage byforeign media on the same issue reported in Johanndottir (2009). The lowest rated scorein this study is EMAS (2.34), and this finding is also consistent with that ofJohannsdottir’s (2009) study.

Table III presents the mean scores of the level of awareness on 13 environmentalinitiatives.

The overall mean score for the level of awareness on environmental initiatives is3.08 (out of 5), which is slightly above average. Table III shows that the respondentsrated between moderately aware (3) and aware (4) on the recent environmentinitiatives introduced by the government. These include knowledge of the mandatorydisclosure requirement by public listed companies and the initiative of moving towards“Green Malaysia”. The third statement rated by the respondents is the knowledge

Environmental terms/conceptsMeans score in the current study

(2010)Mean score in Johanndottir’s

(2009) study

EMAS 2.34 1.2CSR 4.20 2.8Carbon offset/carbon neutrality 2.91 2.5Carbon footprint 2.83 1.6Life cycle assessment 2.97 1.9Climate change 3.83 3.2Greenhouse gas emission 3.54 3.1Sustainable business 3.63 2.3Environmental accounting 3.09 1.7Environmental audit 2.89 1.6Eco-label 2.71 2.2Environmental management system 2.69 1.6Emission trading 2.49 2.0Eco-friendly 3.57 2.9Triple bottom line 2.49 1.2Global warming 3.94Waste management 3.74Energy 3.69Biodiversity 3.57Kyoto Protocol 2.80

Notes: Scale in this study (2010): 1 – no knowledge; 2 – poor knowledge ; 3 – fair knowledge; 4 – goodknowledge; 5 – excellent knowledge; scale in Johanndottir’s (2009) study: five-point Likert scales,where 1 indicates “very little” and 5 indicates “very good” knowledge of the terms

Table II.Mean score

for environmentliteracy terms

Environmentalliteracy

201

regarding the responsibility of the relevant authority in preventing and controllingenvironmental pollution in Malaysia. It seems that the respondents have littleawareness (below 3) about the inclusion of environmental aspects in various nationalpolicies, such as in the five-year Malaysian Plan and Vision 2020, the NationalEconomic Policy and the National Integrity Plan. This could be due to the fact thatonly those academics who have been involved in CSR research would be moreinterested in exploring the history and development of environmental initiatives inMalaysia. Moreover, only 20 percent of the lecturers involved have taught CSR or theenvironmental component in the undergraduate curriculum. This is consistent withthe findings of Rohweder (2004) who found that only teachers devoted to environmentaleducation would promote the cause.

The mean for all the ten environmental intention to act items in part D of the surveywas computed. The overall mean score for the environmental intention to act is 3.9(out of 5), indicating that the respondents’ level of interest is slightly higher than theaverage level. Table IV presents the descriptive results for each environmental termexamined in this study.

Environmental initiatives Mean

Working towards progressive environment management, planning and practices is includedas a national objective in the five-year Malaysian Plan and in Vision 2020 2.83The protection of the environment and ecology in maintaining the long term sustainabilityof the country’s development has also been emphasized in the National Economic Policy 2.94All public companies are required to disclose their corporate environmental and social (CSR)activities in their annual reports, or to make a statement that those activities are in place,beginning with the financial year ending 31 December 2007 3.54The GRIs issue guidelines for sustainability reporting 3.26Our country is moving towards “Green Malaysia” that emphasizes green technology,well-being of our people, and a holistic approach to sustainable development 3.46The environmental aspect is one of the four dimensions in the CSR framework launchedby Bursa Malaysia in 2006 3.00Tax deduction is an example of the incentives given to companies that provide publicfacilities and adopt green technology 3.06The Malaysian Prime Minister’s Hibiscus Award, the Prime Minister’s CSR Awards, andthe ACCA Malaysia Sustainability Reporting Award are examples of the recognitions givento companies for their superior performance in their CSR activities 2.94The Chair of G-77 that drafted the Langkawi Declaration on Environment and Developmentand the Chair of the United Nations Commission of Sustainable Development in 1993 are therecognitions given to the Malaysian Government for actively leading the internationalenvironmental initiatives 2.60The involvement of NGOs and professional accounting bodies on the green movement hascontributed extensively to social and environmental awareness in Malaysia 3.00The Malaysian Securities Commission has included CSR provisions in the MalaysiaCorporate Governance Code for public listed companies 3.00The Malaysian Government has incorporated CSR as public policies in the NationalIntegrity Plan 2.97The main authority for the prevention and control of environmental pollution in Malaysiais the Department of Environment under the Ministry of Science, Technology andEnvironment 3.29

Notes: 1 – not aware; 2 – slightly aware; 3 – moderately aware; 4 – aware; 5 – strongly aware

Table III.The mean score of thelevel of awareness onenvironmental initiatives

IJSHE14,2

202

Generally, the majority of the respondents were found to be quite interested in all theenvironmental actions listed in Table IV. Interestingly, three environmental actionswere rated with a mean score exceeding 4.0, namely seminars covering environmentallysound or sustainable business practice, corporate social and environmentalresponsibility research, and exchanging views regarding environmental issues. Thisfindings suggest that more intellectual discourses should be regularly organized at theuniversity, and this was also proposed by Alshuwaikhat and Abubakar (2008). Table IValso indicates that the respondents are interested in participating in the communityservice programme related to environmental issues, such as tree planting and recycling

Item no. Mean

Nointerest

(%)

Littleinterest

(%)Indifferent

(%)

Quiteinterested

(%)

Extremelyinterested

(%)

To what extent are you interestedin participating in seminars coveringenvironmentally sound or sustainablebusiness practice? 4.17 2.9 5.7 54.3 37.1To what extent are you interested incorporate social and environmentalresponsibility research? 4.20 2.9 2.9 5.7 48.6 40.0To what extent are you interestedin exchanging views regardingenvironmental issues? 4.14 2.9 5.7 57.1 34.3To what extent are you interestedin participating in the environmentaleducation policy formulation? 3.77 2.9 8.6 20.0 45.7 22.9To what extent are you interestedin becoming a panel member or anassessor for any related environmentalaward? 3.77 2.9 14.3 11.4 45.7 25.7To what extent are you interestedin community services relatingto environmental issues such astree planting, recycling campaigns,etc.? 4.17 2.9 11.4 51.4 34.3To what extent are you interestedin providing consultancy services andtraining relating to environmentalissues? 3.63 2.9 14.3 20.0 42.9 20.0To what extent are you interestedin joining the NGOs that deal withenvironmental matters, such as theEnvironment Protection Society? 3.91 8.6 20.0 42.9 28.6To what extent are you interestedin becoming a Committee Member of anEnvironment Management System(ISO 14001)? 3.57 14.3 31.4 37.1 17.1To what extent are you interestedin obtaining a certification as aqualified assessor of sustainabilityreporting in public companies? 3.77 11.4 25.7 37.1 25.7

Table IV.Descriptive results

for environmentintention to act terms

Environmentalliteracy

203

campaigns (mean ¼ 4.17). This finding is consistent with that of Said et al.’s (2003)who noted a high level of environmental concern among teachers in Malaysia.

Conclusions, limitations, implications, and future researchAs noted earlier, the main objective of this paper was to determine the level ofenvironmental literacy among business lecturers in UiTM Sarawak. Based on the overallmean score (3.22) for environmental literacy, it can be concluded that the level ofknowledge among business academics is slightly more than fair. The highest mean scorewas indicated for the CSR term, which was possibly due to its common use in the media.Further, the respondents are more aware of certain general terms, such as “climatechange” and “global warming” compared to a more technical term like “triple bottomline”. The main reason for this is that 80 percent of the respondents had never taught anycourse which directly or indirectly included some aspects of environmental literacy.

The second objective of this paper was to explore environmental attitudes amongbusiness lecturers in UiTM Sarawak. Overall, the majority of the respondents possesspositive environmental attitude, based on their level of interest in getting involved inenvironmental initiatives. Likewise, the findings from this study have successfullyprovided an early indication of environmental concerns among business lecturers inUiTM Sarawak.

The current study also revealed that the respondents are more aware of the recentmandatory disclosure requirement for public listed companies to includeenvironmental information in their annual reports and the initiatives of movingtowards “Green Malaysia”. On the contrary, the current study confirmed that theknowledge about the inclusion of environmental agenda in various action plans andstrategies among the respondents is rather limited. Thus, the government should bemade aware of this gap (mismatch) so that appropriate measures can be taken toincrease the academics’ awareness toward environmental issues, such as by involvingthem in decision-making and policy formulation processes.

At the same time, the lecturers should equip themselves with adequate knowledge ofthe environment so that they can train their business students to apply the knowledgegained in their later decision making. This includes “switching” the students’ mindset sothat they perceive environmental issues as one of the core business activities. This canbe done through two-way interactions such as encouraging students to be more directlyinvolved, reflective and critical in their learning process to ensure that they have abroader perspective on sustainability (Stubbs and Cocklin, 2008). Apart from that, usingcase studies and inviting guest speakers from the business sector (especially those whoare directly engaged with sustainability issues) are two teaching methodologies thatmay encourage more students’ personal involvement in the learning process.

It is important to note that this paper has its limitations. First, there is no theoreticalframework used to explain the level of environmental literacy among businesslecturers. Future research may consider other aspect, such as culture, to explain thelevel of environmental literacy (Holt and Anthony, 2000). Besides, behavioural theory(e.g. theory of planned behaviour) could be used to explain the reasons for individuals’certain level of interest and knowledge on ecological matters. In addition, severalhypotheses could also be tested using the theory of planned behaviour to explain therelationship between certain explanatory variables and the level of environmentalliteracy.

IJSHE14,2

204

Second, this paper does not aim to find out “why” the respondents provided theirresponses in the questionnaire. This is associated with the usual disadvantage of surveyresearch, that is, the inability to explain certain underlying phenomena or responses.Hence, future research may consider interviews to obtain in-depth understandingon why there is a low (or high) level of environmental awareness among the businessacademics.

Third, the small sample size utilized in this paper does not permit generalization.The findings from this paper can only represent the responses from business lecturers inUiTM Sarawak. Thus, future study can be expanded on a nation-wide scale to obtain amore accurate generalization of the findings. Meanwhile, a comparative study between abusiness group and a non-business group (e.g. science and technology disciplines) is alsoimportant to determine any gap in the environmental literacy between the two groups.

Finally, the small data used in this study did not permit rigorous statistical analysis,such as factor analysis and multiple regressions. Hence, future research shoulddetermine the significant relationship between demographic factors (as independentvariable) and the level of the environmental literacy (dependent variable) using largerdataset. Results from multiple regression analysis may also assist in determining thesignificant predictors that can significantly explain the level of environmental literacy.

The findings of the current study suggest several courses of action to help improvethe level of environmental literacy among business academic staff. First, variousinitiatives could be undertaken at the university level to promote environmental literacyand awareness. Universities in Malaysia could learn from the initiatives undertaken byuniversities in developed countries, such as incorporating environmental element intotheir policy, and implementing a mandatory subject for all undergraduate students fromall disciplines, in order to inculcate the environmental values among students (Niu et al.,2010; Chhokar, 2010). In line with Japan (Kitamura and Hoshii, 2010), the MalaysianGovernment could promote education for sustainable development (ESD) by integratingor implementing sustainability action plans and curricula involving several ministries,including the Ministry of Higher Education, the Ministry of Housing and LocalGovernment and the Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment.

Second, local universities may consider giving bonus marks in the annualperformance appraisals of those lecturers involved in the community service.Educational enhancement of lecturers is encouraged through active involvement inconsultancy, public lectures, sustainability staff development courses and seminar series,with an interdisciplinary approach involving guest speakers from a variety of disciplinesrelated to sustainability. This is important to ensure the effective communication of thesustainability message in higher education institutions (Djordjevic and Cotton, 2011).Lecturers’ environmental literacy can be simultaneously improved via direct participationsin environmental campaigns, such as river-cleaning campaigns, partnerships withother government agencies, and non-governmental organizations (NGOs), and “throughorganizing focus group discussions, interview with some stakeholders’ representativesto get their input into the process” (Alshuwaikhat and Abubakar, 2008, p. 1782).

Finally, the business school in UiTM can fully utilize the entrepreneurship courseto improve the students’ awareness toward environmental issues. This can be done byrequiring the students to incorporate environmental issues in their business plans.For example, the university can emphasize the requirement for businesses to incorporatepackaging that does not have a detrimental impact on the environment.

Environmentalliteracy

205

Notes

1. This is a special report on the reassessment of accounting programmes at public universitiesin Malaysia and is especially prepared for the Ministry of Higher Education (2007) ofMalaysia.

2. “Course” refers to a subject taught at the university level in Malaysia. “Programme” reflectsthe type of degree offered at the university level; for example, bachelor in accountancy ormasters of accountancy.

3. APCeS is a joint project initiated by the Accounting Research Institute, Faculty ofAccountancy (UiTM) with ACCA Malaysia, a leading international professionalaccountancy body dedicated to environmental and social issues (www.apces.net/index.php?id¼2&mnu¼2). The APCeS Sarawak Chapter is the branch of APCeS UiTM Malaysia..

4. Only one item was included on the awareness toward the international perspective onsustainability reporting by GRI.

References

Alshuwaikhat, H.M. and Abubakar, I. (2008), “An integrated approach to achieving campussustainability: assessment of the current campus environmental management practices”,Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 16, pp. 1777-85.

Amran, A. and Siti-Nabiha, A.K. (2009), “Corporate social reporting in Malaysia: a case ofmimicking the West or succumbing to local pressure”, Social Responsibility Journal, Vol. 5No. 3, pp. 358-75.

APCeS (2010), “About us”, Asia-Pacific Center for Sustainability, available at: www.apces.net/index.php?id¼2&mnu¼2 (accessed 25 September 2011).

Chhokar, K.B. (2010), “Higher education and curriculum innovation for sustainable developmentin India”, International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, Vol. 11 No. 2,pp. 141-52.

Coyle, K. (2005), Environmental Literacy in America, available at: www.neefusa.org/pdf/ELR2005.pdf (accessed 27 January 2009).

Djordjevic, A. and Cotton, D.R.E. (2011), “Communicating the sustainability message in highereducation institutions”, International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, Vol. 12No. 4, pp. 381-94.

George, D. and Mallery, P. (2001), SPSS Version 10 – A Step by Step Simple Guide and Reference,Allyn & Bacon, Boston, MA.

GRI (2006), Sustainability Reporting Guidelines Version 3.0, Global Reporting Initiative,Amsterdam, available at: www.globalreporting.org/NR/rdonlyres/ED9E9B36-AB54-4DE1-BFF2-5F735235CA44/0/G3_GuidelinesENU.pdf (accessed 31 December 2008).

Grinnell, D.J. and Hunt, H.G. III (2000), “Development of an integrated course in accounting:a focus on environmental issues”, Issues in Accounting Education, Vol. 15 No. 1, pp. 19-42.

Hoffman, A.J. (1999), “Environmental education in business school”, Environment, Vol. 41 No. 1,pp. 4-5.

Holt, D. (2003), “The role and impact of the business school curriculum in shaping environmentaleducation at Middlesex University”, International Journal of Sustainability in HigherEducation, Vol. 4 No. 4, pp. 324-42.

Holt, D. and Anthony, S. (2000), “Exploring ‘green’ culture in Nortel and Middlesex University”,Eco-Management and Auditing, Vol. 7, pp. 143-54.

IJSHE14,2

206

Hsiu, S.-J. and Roth, R.E. (1999), “Predicting Taiwanese secondary teachers’ responsibleenvironmental behaviour through environmental literacy variables”, The Journal ofEnvironmental Education, Vol. 30 No. 4, pp. 11-18.

Jabbour, C.J.C. (2010), “Greening of business schools: a systemic view”, International Journal ofSustainability in Higher Education, Vol. 11 No. 1, pp. 49-60.

Janggu, T., Joseph, C. and Madi, N. (2007), “The current state of corporate social responsibilityamong industrial companies in Malaysia”, Social Responsibility Journal, Vol. 3 No. 3,pp. 9-18.

Johannsdottir, L. (2009), Environmental Literacy of Business Students, University of Iceland,Reykjavik.

Kitamura, Y. and Hoshii, N. (2010), “Education for sustainable development at universities inJapan”, International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, Vol. 11 No. 3,pp. 202-16.

Krnel, D. and Naglic, S. (2009), “Environmental literacy comparison between eco-schools andordinary schools in Slovenia”, Science Education International, Vol. 20 Nos 1/2, pp. 5-24.

Ministry of Higher Education (2007), Halatuju 2 – Reassessment Report on AccountingProgrammes at Public Universities in Malaysia. Penilaian Semula Halatuju 2 ProgramPerakaunan IPTA, UPENA, Shah Alam.

Moody, G., Alkaff, H., Garrison, D. and Golley, F. (2005), “Assessing the environmental literacyrequirement at the University of Georgia”, The Journal of Environmental Education,Vol. 36 No. 4, pp. 3-9.

Niu, D., Jiang, D. and Li, F. (2010), “Higher education for sustainable development in China”,International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, Vol. 11 No. 2, pp. 153-62.

Okereke, C. (2007), “An exploration of motivations, drivers and barriers to carbon management:the UK FTSE 100”, European Management Journal, Vol. 25 No. 6, pp. 475-86.

Palma, L.C., de Oliveira, L.M. and Viacava, K.R. (2011), “Sustainability in Brazilian federaluniversities”, International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, Vol. 12 No. 3,pp. 250-8.

Pe’er, S., Goldman, D. and Yauetz, B. (2007), “Environmental literacy in teacher training:attitudes, knowledge and environmental behaviour of beginning students”, The Journal ofEnvironmental Education, Vol. 39 No. 1, pp. 45-59.

Probert, E.J. (2002), “An environmental initiative with university business students”, AppliedEnvironmental Education and Communication, Vol. 2, pp. 53-9.

Rohweder, L. (2004), “Integrating environmental education into business schools’ educationalplans in Finland”, GeoJournal, Vol. 60, pp. 175-81.

Said, A.M., Ahmadun, F.-R., Paim, L.R. and Masud, J. (2003), “Environmental concerns,knowledge and practices gap among Malaysian teachers”, International Journal ofSustainability in Higher Education, Vol. 4 No. 4, pp. 305-13.

Stubbs, W. and Cocklin, C. (2008), “Teaching sustainability to business students: shiftingmindsets”, International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, Vol. 9 No. 3,pp. 206-21.

Sumiani, Y., Haslinda, Y. and Lehman, G. (2007), “Environmental reporting in a developingcountry: a case study on status and implementation in Malaysia”, Journal of CleanerProduction, Vol. 15 No. 10, pp. 895-901.

Wolfe, V. (2001), “A survey of the environmental education of students in non-environmentalmajors at four-year institutions in the USA”, International Journal of Sustainability inHigher Education, Vol. 2 No. 4, pp. 301-15.

Environmentalliteracy

207

Yang, G. and Lam, C.-C. (2009), “ESD in Chinese secondary schools: Beijing teachers’ views”,Geography, Vol. 94 No. 1, pp. 22-7.

Yusoff, H., Lehman, G. and Mohd-Nasir, N. (2006), “Environmental engagements through thelens of disclosure practices”, Asian Review of Accounting, Vol. 14 Nos 1/2, pp. 122-48.

About the authorsCorina Joseph is a Senior Lecturer in Accounting at Universiti Teknologi MARA Sarawak,Malaysia. She has a doctorate from Curtin University of Technology, Perth, Australia, where sheresearched sustainability reporting on Malaysian local authority websites. She has subsequentlypublished on public sector reform, as well as on corporate social responsibility and sustainabilityissues. She is currently the Coordinator of the Sarawak Chapter of Asia Pacific Centre ofExcellence for Sustainability (APCeS), a project that aims to promote research on CSR amonglecturers of UiTM Sarawak. Corina Joseph is the corresponding author and can be contacted at:corina@sarawak.uitm.edu.my

Esmie Obrin Nichol is a Senior Lecturer in Accounting at Universiti Teknologi MARASarawak. She was awarded a Master of Accounting degree from Curtin University ofTechnology, Perth, Australia. Her publications include the principal authorship of threeaccounting books and her research interests are in the areas of environmental and sustainabilityeducation, public sector performance and accountability disclosures.

Tamoi Janggu is a Lecturer in Accounting at Universiti Teknologi MARA Sarawak.He obtained a Master of Accounting degree from the same university. Currently he is pursuing adoctoral programme in the area of risk management. His previous publications include publicsector reform, as well as on corporate social responsibility and sustainability issues.

Nero Madi is a Senior Lecturer in Accounting at Universiti Teknologi MARA Sarawak.He has a Master of Accounting degree from Curtin University of Technology, Perth, Australiaand researched taxation as part of his Master programme. Subsequently, he developed aninterest in and has published on corporate social responsibility, as well as on taxation.

IJSHE14,2

208

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.comOr visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints