Sustainability-oriented leader, please!: Effects of industry on followers' preferences

Warner-Søderholm, Gillian; éCepçenas, Simonas; Minelgaite, Inga; Akstinaitçe, Vita Article Sustainability-oriented leader, please!: Effects of industry on followers' preferences Administrative Sciences Provided in Cooperation with: MDPI – Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute, Basel Suggested Citation: Warner-Søderholm, Gillian; éCepçenas, Simonas; Minelgaite, Inga; Akstinaitçe, Vita (2024) : Sustainability-oriented leader, please!: Effects of industry on followers' preferences, Administrative Sciences, ISSN 2076-3387, MDPI, Basel, Vol. 14, Iss. 3, pp. 1-26, https://doi.org/10.3390/admsci14030046 This Version is available at: https://hdl.handle.net/10419/320869 Standard-Nutzungsbedingungen: Die Dokumente auf EconStor dürfen zu eigenen wissenschaftlichen Zwecken und zum Privatgebrauch gespeichert und kopiert werden. Sie dürfen die Dokumente nicht für öffentliche oder kommerzielle Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, öffentlich zugänglich machen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen. Sofern die Verfasser die Dokumente unter Open-Content-Lizenzen (insbesondere CC-Lizenzen) zur Verfügung gestellt haben sollten, gelten abweichend von diesen Nutzungsbedingungen die in der dort genannten Lizenz gewährten Nutzungsrechte. Terms of use: Documents in EconStor may be saved and copied for your personal and scholarly purposes. You are not to copy documents for public or commercial purposes, to exhibit the documents publicly, to make them publicly available on the internet, or to distribute or otherwise use the documents in public. If the documents have been made available under an Open Content Licence (especially Creative Commons Licences), you may exercise further usage rights as specified in the indicated licence. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ Citation: Warner-Søderholm, Gillian, Simonas ˇ Cep˙ enas, Inga Minelgaite, and Vita Akstinait˙ e. 2024. Sustainability-Oriented Leader, Please! Effects of Industry on Followers’ Preferences. Administrative Sciences 14: 46. https://doi.org/ 10.3390/admsci14030046 Received: 14 January 2024 Revised: 25 February 2024 Accepted: 27 February 2024 Published: 4 March 2024 Copyright: © 2024 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ 4.0/). administrative sciences Article Sustainability-Oriented Leader, Please! Effects of Industry on Followers’ Preferences Gillian Warner-Søderholm 1,* , Simonas ˇ Cep˙ enas 2, Inga Minelgaite 3,4 and Vita Akstinait˙ e2 1Department of Business, Strategy and Political Science, USN School of Business, University of South East Norway, 3045 Drammen, Norway 2ISM University of Management and Economics, LT-01304 Vilnius, Lithuania; [email protected] (S. ˇ C.); [email protected] (V.A.) 3School of Business, University of Iceland, 102 Reykjavík, Iceland; [email protected] 4School of Public Management Governance and Public Policy, University of Johannesburg, Johannesburg P.O. Box 524, South Africa *Correspondence: gillian.warner-soder[email protected] Abstract: With sustainability becoming the new norm, the discussion about followers’ attitudes towards sustainability-oriented leadership is growing globally. Therefore, this study investigates the extent to which employees’ industry and sector background influence their perception of the ideal leader in relation to preferred sustainability orientation. This study also examines preferred sustainability leadership values and the role of culturally endorsed leadership in this process. Using the Preferred Sustainability Leadership Orientation (PSLO) survey, we gathered and analyzed data from 11 countries and 11 industry backgrounds (n= 5530). Our findings show that there is a statistical significance in followers’ valuing a leader with a high sustainability orientation most. Moreover, our results indicate that respondents working in public administration organizations value a leader with a strong sustainability orientation in addition to environmental and equality goals. While respondents associated with agriculture and real estate do not seem to place so much value on an ideal leader focusing on gender equality, in industries such as finance, manufacturing, and real estate, followers seem to value a leader with a stronger focus on profit and less emphasis on promoting gender equality. This research offers implications for the development of the PSLO (preferred sustainable leadership orientation) as a useful sustainability leadership barometer tool for measuring an organization’s sustainability culture and suggests avenues for future research. Keywords: profit vs. environment; preferred sustainable leadership orientation; equality; demographics 1. Introduction Focusing on sustainability is becoming a new normal in all aspects of each organization’s lifecycle, starting with investment all the way to product development (Amir 2023; European Parliament 2023). Moreover, sustainability is expected to encourage strategies that ensure that top business performance includes concern for both the environment and society (Jutras 2009), which leads to the integration of sustainability practices in organizations (Hoffman 2018;Singh et al. 2024). Furthermore, research suggests that sustainability has become imperative and mainstream in today’s business world (Sanders and Wood 2024). Organizations are expected to balance the social, economic, and environmental aspects of their businesses via the responsible use of resources, giving back to society, and long-term value creation (Bressler 2024;Sanders and Wood 2024). This pressure to perform in a sustainable manner comes from diverse stakeholders, including global, regional, and local policymakers (e.g., see European Parliament 2023 ) all the way to customers with their rising expectations regarding sustainable production (Reichheld et al. 2023). Adm. Sci. 2024,14, 46. https://doi.org/10.3390/admsci14030046 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/admsci Adm. Sci. 2024,14, 46 2 of 26 Naturally, this diverse set of stakeholders is continuously appraising sustainability efforts by organizations, leading to either public endorsement or criticism. Such appraisal is increasingly significant in the context of leadership, where the congruence between a leader’s actions in sustainability and public expectations becomes critical. This public scrutiny of sustainability performance is reflected not only in various reporting metrics but also in shaping the perceived values and effectiveness of leadership (Sanders and Wood 2024). These paradigmatic shifts in business require a special kind of leadership, consequently making sustainable leadership increasingly more influential in business today (McCann and Sweet 2014). Moreover, the public’s increasing ability to scrutinize the sustainability orientation of each organization’s top management highlights the importance of leader–follower value alignment (Kristinsson et al. 2022). Here, the concept of sustainability-oriented leadership intersects with the expectations of various stakeholders, including employees. Modeling leadership behavior according to employee expectations is an established precondition for effective leadership in the scientific literature (Mitchell and Ambrose 2007; Minelgaite et al. 2018). Indeed, the well-established leadership theory on ideal leader behavior, since its inception, suggests that followers have specific mental models about preferred leader behavior, and leaders conforming to these models are perceived as more effective, contributing to better organizational outcomes (Lord and Maher 2002;Littrell et al. 2018). While a considerable body of research has provided valuable insights into various aspects of preferred leadership, the sustainability orientation of leaders and the impact of the sector present a gap in the literature. For example, a poor fit between a leader’s values and a follower’s Preferred Sustainability Leadership Orientation might lead to a weaker organizational culture and disengagement of staff. Consequently, paying attention to employees’ preferred sustainability-focused leadership style assures that alignment between well-established leadership theory on ideal leader behavior from its inception, suggests that followers have certain mental models about preferred leader behavior, and ensures that leaders engage in certain behaviors to achieve the company’s long-term growth and success, and so build long term value for the organization (Pulusella 2020). Preferred Sustainability Leadership Orientation is generally defined as the degree to which a leader is valued and respected most, not only because of her/his excellent leadership skills in managing people and shareholder interests but also due to his/her ability to perform the following: (1) prioritize the environment and CSR initiatives over profit and (2) prioritize her/his initiatives to increase gender and race equality. The Preferred Sustainability Leadership Orientation (PSLO) survey instrument (Warner-Søderholm et al. 2021) is a five-item validated construct, which may be combined with the well-established LBDQ50 ideal leader behavior 50-item instrument (Warner-Søderholm et al. 2019) as a comprehensive leadership measurement tool that is reliable and valid across cultures and languages. The PSLO measurement of sustainability has a second-order level of measurement to investigate sub-elements of sustainability, as follows: (i) environmental vs. profit orientation, including measurement of corporate social responsibility orientation; (ii) equality orientation, with both gender and racial equality elements included. We live in a cross-culturally diverse world, where globalization and competitiveness combined with sustainability issues have become a key focus in organizational life (Dirk Van Dierendonck et al. 2017). Hence, in this study, we fill a gap in contemporary administrative and leadership research by measuring industry differences in preferred leadership values. Understanding these industry differences in the context of sustainability-oriented leadership is crucial, given that different industries face distinct environmental challenges, and therefore, stakeholders in these industries might have varying expectations from leaders with regard to sustainability. For example, manufacturing or other industries with a direct impact on the environment might face greater scrutiny and, therefore, higher expectations for sustainable practices compared to service-focused industries (Bansal and Adm. Sci. 2024,14, 46 3 of 26 Roth 2000). Moreover, regulatory pressures differ across industries, which might also have an impact on how sustainability is prioritized (Aragón-Correa et al. 2008). Therefore, to address these gaps in the literature, the purpose of this study is threefold. Firstly, we investigate to what degree the industry of employees impacts how they see the ideal leader in relation to preferred sustainability orientation. Secondly, we investigate the differences in the preferred sustainability leadership values in the public vs. private sectors. Thirdly, we assess the role of culturally endorsed leadership as a demographic control variable to assess cross-cultural invariance. By investigating the above, we offer a range of theoretical and managerial implications, including the development of the PSLO as a useful sustainability leadership barometer tool for measuring an organization’s sustainability culture. This article is organized as follows: we first present a summary of the extant literature on sustainability, cultural influences, and relevant demographics such as industry background; based on this, our hypotheses are developed. We then present our samples, the methodological procedures we deployed to collect and process data, and the results of our analyses. Finally, we discuss the implications and limitations of our study and outline future research directions in order to set the agenda for future research on Preferred Sustainability Leadership Orientation, particularly with regard to the suggested “sustainability barometer” tool. 2. Literature Review 2.1. Sustainability Orientation within Leadership The term sustainability is often discussed in management reporting and academic studies in various ways, yet often as a synonym for a greener economy, its impact on society, influencing today’s organizations, and even resulting in the emergence of new trends and movements, e.g., the Corporate Social Responsibility Movement ( Minelgaite et al. 2021 ). In truth, originating from the Latin term “sub-tenere”, sustainability refers to a situation that can be upheld and maintained in the long term without damaging or detracting value from the present state of affairs (Di Fabio and Peiró2018). Indeed, in technology, politics, economics, and ecology, the term sustainable traditionally denotes the ability to achieve current aims without endangering future ones (Di Fabio and Peiró2018). The United Nations’ 17 sustainability development goals (United Nations 2015,2023) mark the pressing urgency to join forces globally to ensure that the world can survive and prosper when faced with the danger of future extinction (United Nations 2015). The UN SDGs no. 5: Gender Equality, no. 10: Reduced Inequalities, and no. 13: Climate Action, underpin this study and are, in turn, key drivers for SDG no. 8: decent work and economic growth. Globally, countries have developed unsustainable ways of life since the last industrial revolution, and this will lead to unsustainable development of technology, individual prosperity, economics, and ecology if we do not manage organizations responsibly (Warner-Søderholm et al. 2021). As a result, companies are being called upon by policymakers and organizations (e.g., environmental) to assume responsibility for their operations and their impact on the environment and society. Furthermore, companies are expected to apply principles of sustainability by making them present in all aspects of the company and its business conduct (Quinn and Dalton 2009). However, the bottom-up approach—or how employees view the sustainability orientation in leaders, presents a gap in the literature. On a business level, the marketing literature has already established the importance of sustainability for consumers when making purchase decisions for goods (Shao and Ünal 2019) or even services (Roˇckut ˙ e et al. 2018). However, in leadership literature, followers’ preferences towards the sustainability attitudes of the leader are still under-researched. If we can better understand what followers expect of socially and environmentally responsible leaders, we can add value to society by mapping and aligning such sustainability values between followers and leaders for long-term results. This brings us back to our focus on the specific UN SDGs above, which underpin the need for the study of leadership within all industries. Adm. Sci. 2024,14, 46 4 of 26 2.2. Sustainability Analytics Modeling leadership behavior according to employee expectations is an established precondition for effective leadership in the scientific literature (Mitchell and Ambrose 2007; Minelgaite et al. 2018). Therefore, understanding followers’ attitudes towards a leader ´ s sustainability orientation would contribute to leadership effectiveness. The following question emerges: how should these sustainability attitudes be measured? In terms of specific measures, Choi and Yu (2014) developed 18 items to measure the influence of perceived corporate sustainability practices on employees and organizational performance. Similarly, Abdullah and Aziz (2013) developed 29 items to measure institutionalizing corporate social responsibility, including the effects on corporate reputation, culture, and legitimacy. (Di Fabio and Peiró2018) validated a 16-item scale to measure Human Capital Sustainability Leadership to Promote Sustainable Development and Healthy Organizations. Endorsement of the New Ecological Paradigm was measured by Dunlap et al. (2000) with a 15-item scale, whilst a novel study by Eagle et al. (2015) developed a comprehensive 36-item study to measure attitudes of undergraduate business students towards the sustainability issue. Milfont and Duckitt (2010) validated the comprehensive environmental attitudes inventory to assess the structure of environmental attitudes, with 110 items measuring 11 sets of sustainability attitudes. Moreover, Gericke et al. (2019) developed a sustainability consciousness questionnaire with 27 items, measuring the values of stakeholders working with sustainable development. On a similar inquiry line, (Yol Lee and Rhee 2007) applied 20 items to measure the change in corporate environmental strategies, whilst a 16-item sustainability survey instrument was developed and validated by Brønn and VidaverCohen (2009). The 4-item Corporate Citizenship Scale was developed by Gorden et al. (1992) to map and measure employees’ positive perception of the extent to which the employer in a company is committed to social responsibility. All in all, after the rigorous Q-sorting of the above items by the international consortium team in our project, the final list of sustainability leadership orientation questions led to the selection of the validated PSLO 5 items applied in the present study as follows: • My ideal leader prioritizes gender equality in the workplace (developed by Abdullah and Aziz 2013) • My ideal leader conducts many environmental CSR practices (adapted from Choi and Yu 2014) • My ideal leader conducts many ethical CSR practices (adapted from Choi and Yu 2014) • My ideal leader has a policy on equal opportunities among the employees (Abdullah and Aziz 2013) • My ideal leader has the strongest focus on Profit—Environmental issues (adapted from Eagle et al. 2015) This measurement instrument captures sustainability behavior in an ideal leader for followers across cultures and was developed and validated in 2021 as part of project FEELS (Follower Endorsed Effective Leadership and Sustainability project (Warner-Søderholm et al. 2021). Researchers may apply the above-mentioned 5-item sustainability scale to map key elements of sustainability and the expected follower values of an ideal leader. Specifically, this can measure the following: (1) how much followers value ethical practices such as CSR and environmental ethics, and (2) to what degree followers prioritize profit vs. environmental concern. These are key elements to measure and understand in this 5-item PSLO (Preferred Sustainable Leadership Orientation). Moreover, researchers can also apply the PSLO construct with the LBDQ50 field survey, as we do in this study, for a more comprehensive mapping of all 13 constructs, which is termed project FEELS. 2.3. Culturally Endorsed Leadership Culturally endorsed leadership is a concept that is strongly related to the theme of cultural values driving organizational success in different settings (House et al. 2004; Littrell et al. 2018 ;Gerlich 2023). The literature shows that by understanding such ideal Adm. Sci. 2024,14, 46 5 of 26 leader values endorsed by followers across cultures and empirical settings (House et al. 2004;Northouse 2021;Littrell et al. 2018), the prioritization of specific drivers of sustainability leadership can be better understood and aligned. A review of the cross-cultural management literature on leadership is fascinating, yet we see a gap in better understanding follower-endorsed leadership and sustainability values across cultures. Indeed, Stogdill (1974) reviewed leadership theories and research and pointed out the following: “There are almost as many different definitions of leadership as there are persons who have attempted to define the concept”. Twenty-five years later, in 1999, Russ-Eft concludes the following from her review: “There was no consensus on what makes a good leader. Lists of skills and attributes differed from study to study. It seemed that every professor, management guru, and strategist had his or her view, and overlapping findings were relatively rare.” Clearly, comparisons of sustainability management or leadership styles across cultures and industries should be made with caution in a huge range of public sector occupations; most workers are clustered into a relatively small number of areas (i.e., health, education, social work, government, and the police) and Y leadership orientations where culture is a valuable control variable for measuring cross-culture invariance. As presented earlier in this article, this study applies the LBDQ50 instrument and data to measure a follower’s preferred culturally endorsed effective leadership values as the control variable and culturally preferred leadership values. The control variable data are aggregated to the country cluster variable, applying country clusters in line with recommendations by project GLOBE (House et al. 2004). 2.4. Industry-Endorsed Attitudes Research studies show that demographics play an essential role in understanding their predictor value and impact on the empirical data gathered (Fernandez et al. 2016). A comprehensive set of demographic questions includes characteristics such as age, gender, industry background, occupation, education, employment status, marital status, and household income and composition. Such demographics are invaluable when investigating which demographic populations act as predictor variables, moderating variables, or control variables. The literature suggests that industries can be characterized by distinctive cultures (Phillips 1994). Therefore, followers’ preferences towards leader behavior can be affected by the industry of employment of a follower (Minelgaite 2016). According to Pizam et al. (1997), industry culture transcends the culture of one company but is narrower than societal culture. Hence, in this article, we study the role of the industrial background of employees as a predictor of preferred sustainability values, such as teachers, doctors, nurses, and cluster data as control variables. The traditional industry categories applied in this study are as follows: Agriculture, Finance, Information, Manufacturing, Professional services, Public administration, Real estate, Transport, Wholesale, Hospitality sector, and “other” as a final category. We outline the sectors briefly below. 2.4.1. Public Administration Sector More than 300 different occupations are reported to be in the public sector (Office for National Statistics 2024). These include diverse business and administration roles, such as economists, accountants, human resources and office managers, teachers, nurses, social workers, and others. While there is a huge range of public sector occupations, most workers are clustered into a relatively small number of areas (i.e., health, education, social work, government, the police, and domestic services). Moreover, of all public sector workers in the UK, one-tenth are schoolteachers, and a quarter work in the health and social care sectors. The public sector has a much higher proportion of high-skilled jobs than the private sector. Almost twice as many public sector employees work in a highly skilled role Adm. Sci. 2024,14, 46 6 of 26 compared with private sector employees (46% compared with 24%, respectively) (Office for National Statistics 2024). This is likely because large occupations in the public sector, such as teachers, doctors, and nurses, now require at least a degree. 2.4.2. Private Sector Traditional demographics-related to company or industry background consist of items to help understand which industries the respondents’ primarily middle managers work in. In most management research (see House et al. 2004;Littrell et al. 2018;Stogdill 1974), the following response options are available: • Agriculture (including forestry and fishing industries—may be state-supported in some countries) •Finance (including banking and investment) •Information (including communication) •Manufacturing (including industrial manufacturing) •Professional services (consultancy services) •Real estate •Transport (including logistics) •Wholesale (including the culture of one company) •Other Based on the mapping of the extant literature, we developed a conceptual model (see Figure 1below) and raised the following hypotheses: H1: Industry background impacts a follower’s Preferred Sustainability Leadership Orientation. H2: There are significant differences in preferred sustainability orientation between demographic backgrounds in public and private sector employees. H3: The prioritization of sustainability leadership will exhibit distinct preferences for equality over environmental values. Adm. Sci. 2024, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW 6 of 26 2.4.1. Public Administration Sector More than 300 different occupations are reported to be in the public sector (Office for National Statistics 2024). These include diverse business and administration roles, such as economists, accountants, human resources and office managers, teachers, nurses, social workers, and others. While there is a huge range of public sector occupations, most workers are clustered into a relatively small number of areas (i.e., health, education, social work, government, the police, and domestic services). Moreover, of all public sector workers in the UK, one-tenth are schoolteachers, and a quarter work in the health and social care sectors. The public sector has a much higher proportion of high-skilled jobs than the private sector. Almost twice as many public sector employees work in a highly skilled role compared with private sector employees (46% compared with 24%, respectively) (Office for National Statistics 2024). This is likely because large occupations in the public sector, such as teachers, doctors, and nurses, now require at least a degree. 2.4.2. Private Sector Traditional demographics-related to company or industry background consist of items to help understand which industries the respondents’ primarily middle managers work in. In most management research (see House et al. 2004; Littrell et al. 2018; Stogdill 1974), the following response options are available: • Agriculture (including forestry and fishing industries—may be state-supported in some countries) • Finance (including banking and investment) • Information (including communication) • Manufacturing (including industrial manufacturing) • Professional services (consultancy services) • Real estate • Transport (including logistics) • Wholesale (including the culture of one company) • Other Based on the mapping of the extant literature, we developed a conceptual model (see Figure 1 below) and raised the following hypotheses: H1: Industry background impacts a follower’s Preferred Sustainability Leadership Orientation. H2: There are significant differences in preferred sustainability orientation between demographic backgrounds in public and private sector employees. H3: The prioritization of sustainability leadership will exhibit distinct preferences for equality over environmental values. Figure 1. Conceptual model. Figure 1. Conceptual model. To sum up, the literature suggests that the sustainable way is the new reality of managing organizations. While the expectations of some stakeholders (e.g., policymakers) towards the sustainability and leadership of organizations are relatively well-expressed, the attitudes of employees towards sustainability-oriented leadership remains a domain of little knowledge. However, this knowledge is important, as followers’ attitudes towards leader behavior provide valuable insights for leadership effectiveness. Furthermore, the followers’ attitudes need to be investigated in a way that unveils the specificity of particular follower groups, as the literature suggests that differences in follower attitudes exist due to societal culture and the industry of employment. Adm. Sci. 2024,14, 46 7 of 26 3. Method, Sample and Procedure Data were collected in all 11 geographically and culturally diverse countries and industry backgrounds. Surveys were distributed to individuals via online survey tools; Qualtrics and Google Forms. Rigorous data collection procedures were applied within leadership research developed by Project GLOBE (House et al. 2004). Confidentiality and anonymity were ensured as per GDPR regulations. More details on data storage and processing are available from the corresponding author upon request. In this research, we included the countries that had a minimum of 250 respondents who filled out the full survey (n= 5530). We applied random quota sampling, selecting from finite populations; in this case, employed businesspeople between the ages of 18 and 65 from the following countries: Denmark (n= 415), China (n= 549), Finland (n= 628), Germany (n= 554), Iceland (n= 297), India (n= 548), Lithuania (n= 306), Norway (n= 415), Sweden (n= 630), the UK (n= 638), and the USA (n= 550). All respondents confirmed in the initial control question in the online survey that they were citizens and residents of each specific country with a permanent full-time position in their given industry. After data collection, only participants who provided complete responses to all survey items were retained. These samples meet robust sample size requirements in leadership research and are sufficiently diverse for us to assume that they provide a broad enough sample of opinions, attitudes, and beliefs in the societies and industries covered in this study. This allows us to draw conclusions about the effects of industry on followers’ sustainability-oriented leadership preferences. When initiating this research project, we solicited country research collaborators in line with Project GLOBE research practices and ethics. Hence, we ensured the inclusion of research collaborators who were in countries yielding a cross-section of empirical, institutional, and industry settings. Consequently, in this study, we adopt a positivist and quantitative methodological approach. Given that we employ previously developed reliable and valid field survey instruments, the Preferred Sustainability Leadership Orientation (PSLO) survey instrument (Warner-Søderholm et al. 2021) was employed in this study; this is a 5-item validated construct, combining the well-established LBDQ50 ideal leader behavior 50-item instrument plus sustainability items (Warner-Søderholm et al. 2019). A mapping of the literature on sustainability measurement items within management research revealed a database of over 300 possible survey items. A stepwise process was carried out to select survey items that measured specifically broad areas of sustainability, namely social responsibility, environmental values, equality, gender equity, and CSR ethical values preferred in a leader. Q-sorting techniques were applied to select and refine a set of valid and reliable sustainability measures in the context of the values an ideal leader should manifest. The PSLO measurement of sustainability has a second-order level of measurement to investigate sub-elements of sustainability as follows: (i) environmental vs. profit orientation, including measurement of corporate social responsibility orientation; (ii) equality orientation, with both gender and racial equality elements included; (see Appendix Ifor the full set of items). For the instrument translation, we employed the Brislin model, using at least two independent bilingual translators for each translation (Brislin 1970). After this initial translation, local collaborating researchers administered pilot studies, distributing the translated survey to a smaller number of 20–50 participants for discussion about the face validity of the items and dimensions. Collected data were subjected to standard descriptive and inferential parametric statistical tests to facilitate making inferences from the analyses (see Littrell et al. 2018 for further details of the survey validation). More details regarding further survey instruments and analysis syntax are available from the corresponding author upon request. 4. Results 4.1. The Empirics: The Effect of Industries on Sustainability Items In this section, we select and employ various statistical tests on survey data to explore the relationship between the respondent’s work activity and sustainability barometer items. The basic descriptive exploration of the data is followed by inferential statistical analysis. Adm. Sci. 2024,14, 46 8 of 26 4.2. Descriptive Analysis Within the scope of quantitative analysis, we treat each item from the sustainability barometer as an individual dependent variable. However, within the descriptive portion of our study, we also integrate these items into a singular sustainability index. This index is formulated by averaging the values from the five sustainability items. This consolidated metric gives a better first look at the distribution of the data and initial intuition about the differences across different parameters. There is a visible variation across different sustainability items. Respondents prioritize gender equality, ethics, and equal opportunities in the workplace more frequently than other sustainability items. Surprisingly, the distribution of responses for environment-related items is denser in the middle. That is, respondents seem to put less emphasis on the environment than on gender. Below is a detailed graph with bar plots for categories within each sustainability item as well as the aggregate sustainability barometer score (see Figure 2). Adm. Sci. 2024, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW 8 of 26 face validity of the items and dimensions. Collected data were subjected to standard descriptive and inferential parametric statistical tests to facilitate making inferences from the analyses (see Littrell et al. 2018 for further details of the survey validation). More details regarding further survey instruments and analysis syntax are available from the corresponding author upon request. 4. Results 4.1. The Empirics: The Effect of Industries on Sustainability Items In this section, we select and employ various statistical tests on survey data to explore the relationship between the respondent’s work activity and sustainability barometer items. The basic descriptive exploration of the data is followed by inferential statistical analysis. 4.2. Descriptive Analysis Within the scope of quantitative analysis, we treat each item from the sustainability barometer as an individual dependent variable. However, within the descriptive portion of our study, we also integrate these items into a singular sustainability index. This index is formulated by averaging the values from the five sustainability items. This consolidated metric gives a better first look at the distribution of the data and initial intuition about the differences across different parameters. There is a visible variation across different sustainability items. Respondents prioritize gender equality, ethics, and equal opportunities in the workplace more frequently than other sustainability items. Surprisingly, the distribution of responses for environment-related items is denser in the middle. That is, respondents seem to put less emphasis on the environment than on gender. Below is a detailed graph with bar plots for categories within each sustainability item as well as the aggregate sustainability barometer score (see Figure 2). Adm. Sci. 2024, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW 9 of 26 Figure 2. Preferred Sustainability Leadership Items and the aggregate barometer score. While the first look at the distinction between public-private sectors (1227 and 4184 observations accordingly) does not reveal apparent differences in the most common choice, we observe that the responses in the private sector are much more varied. We will analyze this further in the empirical section (see Figure 3). Figure 3. Preferred Sustainability Orientation Index by Sector. The plot features violin plots that illustrate the kernel density of responses across public-private sectors and sustainability scores. Boxplots depict key statistics for each sector, such as the minimum, median, and maximum values and the 25th and 75th quartiles. If we break down the industries further into 11 individual categories, the differences in respondent choices are more visible. Professional Services scored highest across different sustainability items, whereas respondents associated with Agriculture chose the lowest values. The respondents from different industries seem to share different concerns regarding sustainability items (see Figure 4). The frequency tables and graphs for each sustainability item across industries are available in the Appendices (see Appendices A–F). Figure 2. Preferred Sustainability Leadership Items and the aggregate barometer score. Adm. Sci. 2024,14, 46 15 of 26 Adm. Sci. 2024, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW 15 of 26 Figure 8. Graphical representation of odds ratios for industries from ordinal logistic regressions on all five sustainability items. Figure 8. Graphical representation of odds ratios for industries from ordinal logistic regressions on all five sustainability items. Adm. Sci. 2024,14, 46 16 of 26 Table 2. Odds Ratios: Ordinal Regressions for Sustainability Items. Dependent Variable: Has the Strongest Focus on Profit-Environment Prioritizes Gender Equality in the Workplace Conducts Many Environmental CSR Practices Conducts Many Ethical CSR Practices Has a Policy on Equal Opportunities among the Employees (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) Agriculture 1.538 1.508 0.555 ** 0.580 ** 1.050 0.991 0.789 0.795 0.872 0.901 (0.278) (0.281) (0.246) (0.248) (0.244) (0.247) (0.248) (0.250) (0.259) (0.263) Finance 1.300 * 1.190 1.143 1.165 1.031 0.900 1.042 1.010 1.092 1.093 (0.150) (0.153) (0.143) (0.145) (0.139) (0.141) (0.140) (0.143) (0.146) (0.149) Information 1.329 * 1.215 0.856 0.912 1.038 0.885 0.931 0.909 0.838 0.846 (0.146) (0.151) (0.137) (0.141) (0.135) (0.139) (0.136) (0.141) (0.141) (0.145) Manufacturing 1.302 * 1.172 0.995 1.056 0.985 0.903 0.987 1.006 0.990 1.019 (0.147) (0.151) (0.139) (0.143) (0.136) (0.140) (0.138) (0.142) (0.143) (0.147) Other 1.401 ** 1.261 * 1.049 0.987 1.066 0.969 0.963 0.900 1.047 0.963 (0.135) (0.137) (0.129) (0.130) (0.126) (0.127) (0.128) (0.129) (0.133) (0.135) Professional services 1.605 *** 1.409 ** 1.321 * 1.312 * 1.357 ** 1.149 1.334 ** 1.261 1.426 ** 1.397 ** (0.156) (0.159) (0.150) (0.153) (0.145) (0.148) (0.145) (0.149) (0.154) (0.158) Public administration 2.164 *** 1.853 *** 1.195 1.061 1.124 0.948 1.147 0.992 1.276 * 1.132 (0.128) (0.131) (0.122) (0.124) (0.119) (0.122) (0.121) (0.123) (0.126) (0.129) Real estate 1.012 1.023 0.887 0.950 0.903 0.903 0.837 0.899 0.742 ** 0.777 * (0.153) (0.155) (0.145) (0.147) (0.143) (0.144) (0.143) (0.145) (0.148) (0.150) Transport 1.649 *** 1.591 *** 1.035 1.051 1.032 0.980 0.953 0.975 0.997 1.015 (0.161) (0.162) (0.150) (0.152) (0.147) (0.149) (0.148) (0.150) (0.155) (0.158) Wholesale 1.000 1.004 0.856 0.884 0.908 0.905 0.823 0.889 0.883 0.948 (0.141) (0.142) (0.133) (0.135) (0.132) (0.133) (0.133) (0.135) (0.138) (0.140) Demographic and Cultural Controls ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Observations 5349 5339 5360 5350 5355 5345 5360 5350 5359 5349 Note: Exponentiated coefficients. Standard errors in the parentheses. * p< 0.10, ** p< 0.05, *** p< 0.01. Tick icon denotes specific observations. Overall, the results reveal interesting patterns across public and private sectors as well as different areas of employment activity and show strong support for hypotheses 1–3. 5. Discussion This paper set out to investigate industry differences in preferred sustainability values in a leader and also investigated differences in second-order constructs of environment-CSR and equality orientation. With a composite sample of 5530 individuals, we were able to validate our conceptual model and provide findings with robust predictive values. Although Reiche (2017) suggests that sustainability is everywhere, our research shows that it is not equally distributed in the sustainability preferences of followers regarding leadership. Our findings highlight the prioritization of gender equality and equal opportunities among respondents over other sustainability items, which may stem from the longstanding global recognition of the importance of addressing these issues (Hailemariam and Erdiaw-Kwasie 2023). The heightened focus on these issues could be a response to the growing awareness and advocacy around gender issues driven by movements like #MeToo and various international campaigns promoting women’s rights (Pellegrini 2018). Adm. Sci. 2024,14, 46 17 of 26 Moreover, our findings show that public sector employees assign a higher value to each sustainability item (environment focus, gender equality, ethical CSR, equal opportunities) than private sector employees. Such results align with research by Ritz et al. (2016), which suggests that employees from public service organizations have a “public service motivation” (PSM), which allows them to derive satisfaction from serving the public interest. Moreover, previous research evidenced that individuals with high PSM are more likely to seek employment in the public sector and prioritize social and communal goals over personal gain (Houston 2000;Ritz et al. 2016). Our study also discovered the existence of industry preferences towards specific sustainability items. For example, employees from the Transport industry put a strong emphasis on the environment over profits; however, Agriculture and Real estate do not seem to place much importance on sustainability items. Although such findings, especially with regard to Agriculture, might seem counterintuitive, they are in line with the literature regarding the existence of sector cultures. That is, there are considerable differences in how much importance followers attach to the need for leaders to be oriented towards various behaviors of sustainability (Phillips 1994;Minelgaite 2016;Pizam et al. 1997). Such findings could also potentially be explained through the “proximity paradox” where those closest to an issue (i.e., environmental impact in Agriculture) may become desensitized, leading to a lower prioritization of sustainability in daily operations. Additionally, employees of the Agricultural or Real estate sector might perceive sustainability as a constraint to profitability, especially in regions where sustainable practices are not economically incentivized. Hence, while seemingly paradoxical, the lower emphasis on sustainability items among certain industries such as Real estate or Agriculture might be attributed to a mix of psychological, economic, and contextual factors. The industry-specific preferences towards certain sustainability items can be explained through a combination of reasons, including direct industry impact, regulatory pressures, public perception, and others. For example, employees in the Transport industry, which is a significant contributor to carbon emissions, may emphasize environmental sustainability due to direct regulatory pressures to reduce emissions and public scrutiny of their environmental impact (Lynes and Dredge 2006). In contrast, industries that are less directly impacted by environmental regulations or public pressure (i.e., Agriculture, Real estate) may not prioritize environment-related sustainability items to the same extent. Moreover, the nature of industries with immediate economic pressure can lead to a lesser focus on broader sustainability issues, while industries with direct client demands (i.e., Professional services) might naturally favor sustainable and ethical business practices due to the increasing global pressure for sustainability to become a competitive advantage and a key element of corporate reputation (Epstein 2018;Babiak and Trendafilova 2011). Furthermore, our findings on high preference for sustainability-oriented leader behavior by professional service employees could also be attributed to the education level of the respondents. Previous research supports such a hypothesis (Vecchio and Boatwright 2002), with some attributing it to variations in scientific disciplines on reflecting upon attitudes, values, and behaviors of people (Littrell and Snaebjornsson 2016), which could also correspond to sustainability as a value. Besides theoretical contributions, as discussed above, our research also offers important practical implications. Our research has identified and measured preferred sustainable leader behavior dimensions that are similar or different across industries. Such information can be used for the development of global leaders with regard to various sustainability items and ethical conduct and also for the education and training of leaders for success in multiple countries and across a range of industries (Akstinait˙ e 2023). In addition, our research addresses previous calls for a tool or a “moral compass” for sending leaders in the right direction in terms of sustainability and ethics-related behaviors and values (Sadler-Smith and Akstinait ˙ e 2022). Hence, an important managerial implication stemming from our findings is that the PSLO can be applied as a validated online tool or an application for organizations to map different sustainability vs. profit orientations as Adm. Sci. 2024,14, 46 18 of 26 well as different equality expectations of employees at all levels in the organization as a “sustainability barometer”. Such a barometer can be utilized in management training to enhance self-awareness at all management levels, to prepare, educate, and develop new teams, and to strengthen the organization’s culture and sustainability reputation. In summary, our results and the confirmation of our hypotheses offer valuable insights into the interplay between industry background, public versus private sector employees, and the prioritization of different aspects of sustainability leadership. 6. Conclusions, Limitations, and Future Research The findings of this study have confirmed that although the sustainability focus is growing globally, the industry background impacts a follower’s Preferred Sustainability Leadership Orientation. Our research builds on the earlier paper by Warner-Søderholm et al. (2021), confirming the significance of Preferred Sustainability Leadership Orientation and extends the research by providing empirical findings from 11 countries to test and confirm the original conceptual model. All studies have limitations, as is the case with this present study. We have a limited dataset from 11 countries, and we only focus on one demographic outcome variable: industry background. Future research could also include demographic items to investigate seniority and years worked in each industry to tease out possible nuances on industry impact. Another limitation is that the demographic aspects of culturally endorsed leadership data are only applied as control variables. Future research should study these more in depth and develop the project into a larger global study and investigate the predictive values of all demographics, including gender, age, educational level, and nationality. Another limitation might arise due to the potential impact of possible positive question phrasing on the participant responses as we apply traditional survey question frameworks used in the literature over the last 60 years. Future research could investigate if more neutral question phrasing has an impact on the responses, both in this study and in other international leadership studies. Despite the above-mentioned limitations, this research has successfully discovered an answer to the probing question, “do followers prefer a leader with sustainability orientation”? Empirically proven results of this study point to a clear answer: yes, they do. Such preference is an indication of a significant shift in leadership expectations, where leaders are now expected to integrate sustainability into their strategic organizational vision. In line, the varying sustainability item preferences across different sectors and industries point to the nuanced understanding of sustainability by the followers in various domains. All in all, the sustainability-oriented leadership trend is likely to continue to grow. Hence, organizations and leaders across all sectors must adapt to the evolving expectations of their followers, recognizing that effective leadership today entails a strong commitment to sustainable practices. Author Contributions: Conceptualization: I.M., S. ˇ C., V.A. and G.W.-S., Methodology; G.W.-S., I.M. and S. ˇ C., formal analysis: I.M., G.W.-S. and S. ˇ C.; writing of original draft; G.W.-S., I.M., S. ˇ C. and V.A., Review and editing; I.M., V.A., S. ˇ C. and G.W.-S., Visualization: S. ˇ C. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript. Funding: This research received no external funding. Institutional Review Board Statement: No specific ethics board application to start the study was required as we meet the ethical standards within the EU GDPR data protection requirements set by European Commission (europa.eu), and we are not including medical trails on humans or animals in our research. In addition, we detail and confirm in our manuscript footnote, which co-author contributed to the development of each section, to secure that we meet the San Fransisco protocol for ethical co-authorship. (sfdora.org). Adm. Sci. 2024,14, 46 19 of 26 Informed Consent Statement: Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study. Data Availability Statement: Please contact corresponding author for dataset. Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflicts of interest. Appendix A. My Ideal Leader Has the Strongest Focus on Which Industry Most Closely Describes Your Organization? Profit More on Profit, Little on the Environmental Issues Both Profit and Environmental Issues More on the Environment, Little on Profit Issues Environmental Issues Accommodation 46 44 182 18 11 Agriculture 7 16 30 10 7 Finance 55 48 265 35 17 Information 66 56 299 46 21 Manufacturing 64 50 294 43 16 Other 73 89 504 48 33 Professional services 33 45 225 46 10 Public administration 80 106 810 148 67 Real estate 66 46 226 32 9 Transport 37 41 191 51 11 Wholesale 99 66 358 37 16 Appendix B. My Ideal Leader Has a Policy on Equal Opportunities among the Employees Which Industry Most Closely Describes Your Organization?—Selected Choice Never Seldom Occasionally Often Always Accommodation 8 17 39 73 165 Agriculture 4 2 10 18 36 Finance 4 12 46 135 224 Information 3 19 67 174 225 Manufacturing 6 10 60 155 237 Other 12 19 103 218 404 Professional services 3 6 32 103 214 Public administration 10 31 119 359 697 Real estate 5 14 63 130 166 Transport 0 12 52 92 173 Wholesale 12 15 85 181 280 Adm. Sci. 2024,14, 46 20 of 26 Appendix C. My Ideal Leader Conducts Many Ethical CSR Practices Which Industry Most Closely Describes Your Organization?—Selected Choice Never Seldom Occasionally Often Always Accommodation 8 23 62 90 119 Agriculture 3 8 10 27 22 Finance 6 16 90 158 151 Information 8 30 100 187 163 Manufacturing 7 23 103 169 166 Other 18 31 174 265 268 Professional services 4 10 60 137 147 Public administration 20 57 222 447 470 Real estate 6 23 90 140 119 Transport 6 15 75 120 114 Wholesale 13 37 136 203 184 Appendix D. My Ideal Leader Conducts Many Environmental CSR Practices Which Industry Most Closely Describes Your Organization? Never Seldom Occasionally Often Always Accommodation 9 16 73 104 100 Agriculture 2 3 14 29 21 Finance 4 24 96 166 130 Information 5 22 112 203 146 Manufacturing 11 23 107 187 140 Other 16 34 168 295 241 Professional services 7 17 62 137 135 Public administration 25 54 253 485 398 Real estate 8 20 98 142 110 Transport 7 15 78 125 105 Wholesale 13 33 141 220 166 Appendix E. My Ideal Leader Prioritizes Gender Equality in the Workplace Which Industry Most Closely Describes Your Organization? Never Seldom Occasionally Often Always Accommodation 9 12 57 75 149 Agriculture 5 8 9 24 24 Finance 12 16 59 119 215 Information 12 26 74 172 204 Manufacturing 9 25 70 144 220 Other 21 29 112 228 366 Professional services 8 13 52 86 199 Public administration 29 44 160 355 628 Real estate 11 17 71 108 171 Transport 5 16 54 95 160 Wholesale 17 22 106 181 247 Adm. Sci. 2024,14, 46 21 of 26 Appendix F. Bar Charts for Sustainability Leadership Orientation Items by Industry Adm. Sci. 2024, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW 21 of 26 Appendix F. Bar Charts for Sustainability Leadership Orientation Items by Industry Appendix G. Ordinal Logistic Regressions with Original Coefficients: Sustainability Items and Private-Public Sectors Dependent Variable: Has the Strongest Focus on ProfitEnvironment Prioritizes Gender Equality in the Workplace Conducts Many Environmental CSR Practices Conducts Many Ethical CSR Practices Has a Policy on Equal Opportunities among the Employees (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) Public Sector compared to Private Sector 0.530 *** 0.438 *** 0.193 *** 0.056 0.093 −0.001 0.175 *** 0.034 0.267 *** 0.141 ** (0.067) (0.069) (0.062) (0.064) (0.060) (0.062) (0.060) (0.062 ) (0.063) (0.066) Adm. Sci. 2024,14, 46 22 of 26 Appendix G. Ordinal Logistic Regressions with Original Coefficients: Sustainability Items and Private-Public Sectors Dependent Variable: Has the Strongest Focus on Profit-Environment Prioritizes Gender Equality in the Workplace Conducts Many Environmental CSR Practices Conducts Many Ethical CSR Practices Has a Policy on Equal Opportunities among the Employees (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) Public Sector compared to Private Sector 0.530 *** 0.438 *** 0.193 *** 0.056 0.093 −0.001 0.175 *** 0.034 0.267 *** 0.141 ** (0.067) (0.069) (0.062) (0.064) (0.060) (0.062) (0.060) (0.062) (0.063) (0.066) Demographic and Cultural Controls ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Observations 5349 5339 5360 5350 5355 5345 5360 5350 5359 5349 Note: Standard errors in the parentheses. ** p< 0.05, *** p< 0.01. Tick icons confirm specific observations Appendix H. Ordinal Logistic Regressions: Sustainability and Industries with Original Coefficients Dependent Variable: Has the Strongest Focus on Profit-Environment Prioritizes Gender Equality in the Workplace Conducts Many Environmental CSR Practices Conducts Many Ethical CSR Practices Has a Policy on Equal Opportunities among the Employees (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) Agriculture 0.430 0.411 −0.589 ** −0.544 ** 0.049 −0.010 −0.237 −0.229 −0.137 −0.105 (0.278) (0.281) (0.246) (0.248) (0.244) (0.247) (0.248) (0.250) (0.259) (0.263) Finance 0.262 * 0.174 0.134 0.153 0.030 −0.105 0.041 0.010 0.088 0.089 (0.150) (0.153) (0.143) (0.145) (0.139) (0.141) (0.140) (0.143) (0.146) (0.149) Information 0.284 * 0.195 −0.155 −0.092 0.038 −0.122 −0.072 −0.095 −0.177 −0.167 (0.146) (0.151) (0.137) (0.141) (0.135) (0.139) (0.136) (0.141) (0.141) (0.145) Manufacturing 0.264 * 0.158 −0.005 0.055 −0.015 −0.102 −0.013 0.006 −0.010 0.019 (0.147) (0.151) (0.139) (0.143) (0.136) (0.140) (0.138) (0.142) (0.143) (0.147) Other 0.337 ** 0.232 * 0.048 −0.013 0.064 −0.032 −0.037 −0.106 0.046 −0.038 (0.135) (0.137) (0.129) (0.130) (0.126) (0.127) (0.128) (0.129) (0.133) (0.135) Professional services 0.473 *** 0.343 ** 0.278 * 0.271 * 0.305 ** 0.139 0.288 ** 0.232 0.355 ** 0.335 ** (0.156) (0.159) (0.150) (0.153) (0.145) (0.148) (0.145) (0.149) (0.154) (0.158) Public administration 0.772 *** 0.617 *** 0.178 0.059 0.117 −0.053 0.138 −0.008 0.244 * 0.124 (0.128) (0.131) (0.122) (0.124) (0.119) (0.122) (0.121) (0.123) (0.126) (0.129) Real estate 0.012 0.022 −0.119 −0.052 −0.102 −0.102 −0.177 −0.106 −0.299 ** −0.252 * (0.153) (0.155) (0.145) (0.147) (0.143) (0.144) (0.143) (0.145) (0.148) (0.150) Transport 0.500 *** 0.465 *** 0.034 0.050 0.032 −0.020 −0.048 −0.025 −0.003 0.015 (0.161) (0.162) (0.150) (0.152) (0.147) (0.149) (0.148) (0.150) (0.155) (0.158) Wholesale −0.0003 0.004 −0.155 −0.124 −0.097 −0.100 −0.195 −0.117 −0.124 −0.053 (0.141) (0.142) (0.133) (0.135) (0.132) (0.133) (0.133) (0.135) (0.138) (0.140) Demographic and Cultural Controls ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Observations 5349 5339 5360 5350 5355 5345 5360 5350 5359 5349 Note: Standard errors in the parentheses. * p< 0.10, ** p< 0.05, *** p< 0.01. Tick icon denotes specific observations Adm. Sci. 2024,14, 46 23 of 26 Appendix I. Follower Endorsed Effective Leadership and Sustainability Survey Items 1. Acts as the spokesman of the group 2. Waits patiently for the results of a decision 3. Gets along well with the people above him/her 4. Publicises the activities of the group 5. His/her arguments are convincing 6. Fails to take necessary action 7. Keeps the group working together as a team 8. Speaks as the representative of the group 9. Argues persuasively for his/her point of view 10. Encourages initiative in the group members 11. Puts suggestions made by the group into operation 12. Seems able to predict what is coming next 13. Accepts delays without becoming upset 14. Is a very persuasive talker 15. Lets the members do their work the way they think best 16. Lets some members take advantage of him/her 17. Treats all group members as his/her equals 18. Keeps the work moving at a rapid pace 19. His/her superiors act favourably on most of his/her suggestions 20. Represents the group at outside meetings 21. Is very skillful in an argument 22. Is the leader of the group in name only 23. Gives advance notice of changes 24. Pushes for increased production 25. Things usually turn out as he/she predicts 26. Assigns group members to particular tasks 27. Backs down when he/she ought to stand firm 28. Is accurate in predicting the trend of events 29. Gets his/her superiors to act for the welfare of the group members 30. Is overwhelmed by situations requiring attention to many details 31. Faced with problems, can wait patiently for a time, but then reacts with anger or annoyance 32. Sees to it that the work of the group is coordinated 33. His/her word carries weight with superiors 34. His/her behavior tends to make complex and confused situations worse. 35. Remains calm when uncertain about coming events 36. Schedules the work to be done 37. Allows the group a high degree of initiative 38. Is willing to make changes 39. Drives hard when there is a job to be done 40. Helps group members settle their differences 41. Gets what he/she asks for from his/her superiors 42. Is able to delay action until the proper time occurs 43. Maintains definite standards of performance 44. Trusts members to exercise good judgement 45. Urges the group to beat its previous record 46. Anticipates problems and plans for them 47. Gets confused when too many demands are made of him/her 48. Worries about the outcome of any new procedure 49. Asks that group members follow standard rules and regulations 50. Keeps the group working up to capacity 51. My ideal leader prioritizes gender equality in the workplace 52. My ideal leader conducts many environmental CSR practices 53. Conducts many ethical CSR practices 54. Has a policy on equal opportunities among the employees 55. My ideal leader has the strongest focus on: Profit both profit and environmental issues environmental issues 1 2 3 4 5 Adm. Sci. 2024,14, 46 24 of 26 References Abdullah, Zulhamri, and Yuhanis Abdul Aziz. 2013. Institutionalizing corporate social responsibility: Effects on corporate reputation, culture, and legitimacy in Malaysia. Social Responsibility Journal 9: 344–61. [CrossRef] Akstinait ˙ e, Vita. 2023. Understanding hubris and heuristics in CEO decision-making: Implications for management. Organizational Dynamics 52: 100–978. [CrossRef] Amir, Ahmed. 2023. The Rise of ESG: Sustainable Investing Becomes the New Norm. Available online: https://www.linkedin.com/ pulse/rise-esg-sustainable-investing-becomes-new-norm-ali-amir-fcca/ (accessed on 4 January 2024). Aragón-Correa, J. Alberto, Nuria Hurtado-Torres, Sanjay Sharma, and Víctor J. García-Morales. 2008. Environmental strategy and performance in small firms: A resource-based perspective. Journal of Environmental Management 86: 88–103. [CrossRef] Babiak, Kathy, and Sylvia Trendafilova. 2011. CSR and environmental responsibility: Motives and pressures to adopt green management practices. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management 18: 11–24. [CrossRef] Bansal, Pratima, and Kendall Roth. 2000. Why companies go green: A model of ecological responsiveness. Academy of Management Journal 43: 717–36. [CrossRef] Bressler, R. Daniel. 2024. Science and Challenges of Sustainability. In Sustainability: Business and Investment Implications. Singapore: World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., pp. 9–38. Brislin, Richard W. 1970. Back-translation for cross-cultural research. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology 1: 185–216. [CrossRef] Brønn, Peggy Simcic, and Deborah Vidaver-Cohen. 2009. Corporate motives for social initiative: Legitimacy, sustainability, or the bottom line? Journal of Business Ethics 87: 91–109. [CrossRef] Choi, Yongrok, and Yanni Yu. 2014. The influence of perceived corporate sustainability practices on employees and organizational performance. Sustainability 6: 348–64. [CrossRef] Di Fabio, Annamaria, and JoséMaría Peiró. 2018. Human Capital Sustainability Leadership to promote sustainable development and healthy organizations: A new scale. Sustainability 10: 2413. [CrossRef] Dunlap, Riley E., Kent D. Van Liere, Angela G. Mertig, and Robert Emmet Jones. 2000. New trends in measuring environmental attitudes: Measuring endorsement of the new ecological paradigm: A revised NEP scale. Journal of Social Issues 56: 425–42. [CrossRef] Eagle, Lynne, Peter Case, David Low, and Lisa Vandommele. 2015. Attitudes of undergraduate business students toward sustainability issues. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education 16: 650–68. [CrossRef] Epstein, Marc J. 2018. Making Sustainability Work: Best Practices in Managing and Measuring Corporate Social, Environmental AND Economic Impacts. London: Routledge. European Parliament. 2023. Deal on New EU rules to Make Sustainable Products the Norm. Available online: https://www.europarl. europa.eu/news/en/press-room/20231204IPR15634/deal-on-new-eu-rules-to-make-sustainable-products-the-norm (accessed on 7 January 2024). Fernandez, Todd, Jacqueline Doyle, Allison Godwin, Hank Boone, Dina Verdin, Lisa Benson, Adam Kirn, and Geoff Potvin. 2016. More Comprehensive and Inclusive Approaches to Demographic Data Collection. Paper presented at the 2016 ASEE Annual Conference and Exposition, New Orleans, LA, USA, June 26–29. Gericke, Niklas, Teresa Berglund, Jelle Boeve-de Pauw, and Daniel Olsson. 2019. The Sustainability Consciousness Questionnaire: The theoretical development and empirical validation of an evaluation instrument for stakeholders working with sustainable development. Sustainable Development 27: 35–49. [CrossRef] Gerlich, Michael. 2023. How Short-Term Orientation Dominates Western Businesses and the Challenges They Face—An Example Using Germany, the UK, and the USA. Administrative Sciences 13: 25. [CrossRef] Gorden, William I., Carolyn M. Anderson, and Stephen D. Bruning. 1992. Employee perceptions of corporate partnership: An affective-moral quid pro quo. Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal 5: 75–85. [CrossRef] Hailemariam, Abebe, and Michael Odei Erdiaw-Kwasie. 2023. Towards a circular economy: Implications for emission reduction and environmental sustainability. Business Strategy and the Environment 32: 1951–65. [CrossRef] Hoffman, Andrew John. 2018. The next phase of business sustainability. Stanford Social Innovation Review 16: 34–39. [CrossRef] House, Robert J., Mansour Javidan, Paul J. Hanges, Peter W. Dorfman, and Vipin Gupta, eds. 2004. Culture, Leadership, and Organizations: The GLOBE Study of 62 Societies. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications. Houston, David J. 2000. Public-service motivation: A multivariate test. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 10: 713–28. [CrossRef] Jutras, Cory. 2009. The ROI of Sustainability: Making the Business Case. Available online: http://www.aberdeen.com/summary/ report/benchmark/5908-RA-sustainability-environmental-stewardship.asp (accessed on 6 January 2024). Kristinsson, Kári, Inga Minelgaite, and Olga Stangej. 2022. In the eye of the beholder? Gendered perception of ceos ethical and unethical leadership. Economics & Sociology 15: 21–38. Lenz, Gabriel S., and Alexander Sahn. 2021. Achieving Statistical Significance with Control Variables and Without Transparency. Political Analysis 29: 356–69. [CrossRef] Littrell, Romie Frederick, and Inga Minelgaite Snaebjornsson. 2016. Comparison of managerial leadership behavior preferences across nationalities, industries, and gender. Paper presented at Academy of International Business 2016 Conference, New Orleans, LA, USA, June 27–30.