Skip to main content
NCBI home page
Springer Nature - PMC COVID-19 Collection logoLink to Springer Nature - PMC COVID-19 Collection
. 2022 Dec 8:1–25. Online ahead of print. doi: 10.1007/s10961-022-09984-4

Does the intensity of use of social media influence the economic sustainability of the university?

Vera Gelashvili 1,✉, Juan Gabriel Martínez-Navalón 1, Miguel Ángel Gómez-Borja 2
PMCID: PMC9734591  PMID: 36533095

Abstract

In the last decades the term sustainability has become indispensable for society, governments and companies. Its correct implementation is of utmost importance, and therefore public institutions continuously promote the actions of sustainable development. During the pandemic, universities adapted to online teaching, using different platforms or even social media. The intensity of social media use has had positive and negative impacts. Several studies have linked the use of social media to sustainable development. Therefore, this study analyses the intensity of social media use in public universities and the relationship between the three dimensions of sustainability. To achieve the objectives set out, a sample of 447 users was used, and the data was analysed based on PLS-SEM (Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling). Variance-based SEM is a methodological option to carry out analyses that measure the simultaneous behaviour of dependence relationships. The results have shown that the intensity of the use of social media and the economic sustainability of universities is weak, even if it is positive. Furthermore, there is a strong and positive relationship between the three dimensions of sustainability at the university level. This study contributes to the academic literature on the subject and highlights the critical role of higher education institutions in promoting sustainability.

Keywords: Social media, Intensity of use, Economic sustainability, Social sustainability, Environmental sustainability

Introduction

Sustainability is becoming increasingly important as it is seen as an essential part of our lives (Segovia-Vargas et al., 2021). The three dimensions of sustainability (i.e. social, environmental and economic) play an essential role in the development of sustainable actions (Hansmann et al., 2012; Purvis et al., 2019), which is why more and more reports produced by companies emphasise the relationship between their activities and sustainability (Cunha & Moneva, 2018; Ruhnke & Gabriel, 2013; Sellami et al., 2019). A study by Hornuf et al. (2021) on sustainability-oriented crowd investors has concluded that these investors are concerned about the non-financial effects on the company of a default in their portfolios. This indicates that sustainability-oriented actions have more than just a monetary effect. Therefore, every company/business should be oriented towards having its actions have an effect on some dimension of sustainability or sustainable development in general. Among the different categories of business, the relevance of public enterprises as active agents in sustainable development is growing substantially in recent times (Gelderman et al., 2017; Hamid et al., 2017; Lăzăroiu et al., 2020). Among public businesses, we can highlight public universities as organizations that have an important impact on society as educational and research ecosystems involved with the different dimensions of sustainability (Hamid et al., 2017).

During the Covid-19 pandemic, both public and private universities and other educational institutions were forced to adapt their face-to-face activities to an online environment (Adedoyin & Soykan, 2020). Interaction between students and professors was developed on the basis of institutional platforms, although in many cases social media were also used to communicate, advertise or express opinions in the academic field (Jogezai et al., 2021). All of this has considerably increased the intensity of social media use (Ali Taha et al., 2021; Najah et al., 2021). The use of social media has had both positive and negative impacts. Negative aspects include the possibility of not controlling the time spent using social media and even becoming addicted for users (Latif et al., 2019). On the positive side, the possibility of communication, exchange of information, knowledge or the possibility of influencing users on sustainable actions (Barrot, 2021; Hamid et al., 2017; Saura et al., 2019). This indicates that the intensity of use of social media has an effect on the sustainability actions taken by users. In particular, the intensity of use of the social media Facebook was identified as one of the variables affecting environmental sustainability (Hamid et al., 2017).

The use of social media during the pandemic was not only used for communication, but also for online shopping, online work, online education, online care, etc. (Baert et al., 2020; Lucini et al., 2020; Sharma et al., 2020), which has increased the intensity of social media use (Najah et al., 2021). This in turn affected the different pillars of sustainability. In the case of economic sustainability, many unneeded resources were not purchased by users because they were afraid of unnecessary expenses, i.e. the pandemic contributed to people reflecting on their priorities (Fumero & Martín, 2020). In the case of environmental sustainability, the biggest impact has been on pollution mitigation (Coccia, 2021; Mishra, 2022). In short, we can say that the pandemic has had an impact on the intensity of use of social media and on the dimensions of sustainability, which in many cases have been studied together assuming the positive relationship between them (Purvis et al., 2019).

Taking all of this into account, the main objective of this study is to analyse the relationship between the three dimensions of sustainability and whether the intensity of use of social media is related to the economic sustainability of the universities in Spain. First, the direct relationship between intensity of use and economic sustainability is studied. Then the relationship between economic sustainability and two other dimensions of sustainability is analysed. This is because economic sustainability is considered as part of social and environmental sustainability (Purvis et al., 2019; Ranjbari et al., 2021). One of the gaps we found when conducting this study was that there were no quantitative studies on the direct relationship between social and environmental sustainability. And the qualitative studies indicated a lack of academic literature on this important relationship (Murphy, 2012), especially in the context of universities, which to the best of our knowledge is not any. Therefore, the last hypothesis analyses the relationship between social and environmental sustainability.

In order to carry out the study, data was collected using a self-administered questionnaire. The first part of the methodology was a descriptive analysis of the sample and the answers received. Then the methodology of data analysis based on PLS-SEM (Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling) was used. The analysis of the study was divided into two parts. The first part was the validation of the measurement scale and in the second part the relationship between the proposed model and its predictive ability was analysed.

Results have shown that the intensity of the use of social media and the economic sustainability of universities is weak, although positive. Furthermore, there is a strong and positive relationship between the three dimensions of sustainability at the university level.

Finally, the originality of this study is the proposed model on the relationships between the intensity of social media use and different dimensions of sustainability that have not previously been studied in the context of universities. The results obtained fill the gap in the scare academic literature on sustainability actions carried out in public universities. Moreover, it promotes and highlights the importance of sustainable development, one of the cross-cutting ideas throughout the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals proposal.

Literature background and hypothesis development

Social media and its intensity of use

In recent decades, technological advances have changed people’s habits (Adesote & Fatoki, 2013; Saura et al., 2022c), making knowledge transfer mostly based on electronic resources or even through social media (Barrot, 2021; Hamadi et al., 2021). Since the first appearance of social media, they have been successful worldwide as there are different social media for people of all ages, interests and backgrounds (Martínez-Navalón et al., 2019). Hence, more and more social media are being developed for different purposes (Troise & Camilleri, 2021). Among the most famous social media, we can highlight Facebook, YouTube, Instagram, TikTok, LinkedIn, Twitter or Snapchat (Permana & Meinarni, 2021; Rajeh et al., 2021; Troise & Camilleri, 2021). People use these social media to interact with each other, for entertainment, exchange opinions, learn more about topics of interest, promote social or non-social causes, etc. In addition to this, social media are the main means for companies to promote their products and services, announce new product launches or design specific products for their customers based on opinions and suggestions received. It is therefore normal for people to spend a lot of time browsing social media and sharing content or thoughts about products and services. The study elaborated by INE (2021) has shown that almost 65% of the Spanish population aged 16 to 74 years has used social media during the last three months (such as Instagram, Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, etc.). This percentage is 6.1 points higher than in 2019. In addition, teenagers under the age of 16, who were not the subjects of the previous study, use social media regularly (Dennen et al., 2020).

According to different studies (Martínez-Navalón et al., 2019; Saura et al., 2019), people use social media first of all for entertainment but also to transfer knowledge, and information about culture, sport, weather, business or, in many cases, it is used as a work tool as well. There are, therefore, many advantages to be gained from using social media.

A study carried out by Barrot (2021) has analysed the use of social media in 2008–2019 in the area of education, in particular the impact of social media in the language learning environment. The results showed a positive effect of social media as a tool for language learning and the teaching environment. Another study (Hamadi et al., 2021) in education has concluded that the use of social networking in higher education has a positive impact on cooperative learning, and students have expressed their intention to use social media as a learning tool. According to Latif et al. (2019), social media are powerful tools in education and learning. The study results have shown that the majority of the surveyed students used social media for communication, learning, opinions, ideas or feedback.

Apart from education, social media are used for different purposes. A study based on Italian companies has concluded that social media such as Facebook, LinkedIn and YouTube are used by companies to reach out to their consumers, communicate commercial information about products and services and promote their business (Troise & Camilleri, 2021). In addition to this, the social media Instagram and Twitter are used to let company stakeholders know about CSR (Corporate Social Responsibility) actions and initiatives.

Among the consequences of COVID-19 is the rapid adoption of new technologies and digital platforms by businesses (Saura et al., 2021c). For this reason during the pandemic, the use of social media has been increased (Valdez et al., 2020; Zhong et al., 2020). That has allowed people to stay informed, stay in touch with other people, or keep working. Although, the use of social media has not only been positive, but also negative (González-Padilla & Tortolero-Blanco, 2020; Obi-Ani et al., 2020; Venegas-Vera et al., 2020). Among the positive outcomes, Venegas-Vera et al. (2020) considered the possibility of sharing critical data rapidly across geographical boundaries, social interaction between medical and non-medical specialists to see the progress and discuss the results or better management of the crisis by taking advantage of social media tools. The same study has identified the negative points of using social media in health care, which include much low-quality information, a tendency of data depending on users’ core beliefs or panic transmission.

Another study (González-Padilla & Tortolero-Blanco, 2020) on the influence of social media on people during the pandemic concluded that the worst disadvantage of using social media platforms during the Covid-19 was that it often spread erroneous, alarmist and exaggerated information. All this is a cause of depression, stress or anxiety, and diseases considered among the most common in the 21st century. Disadvantages of using social media can also include addiction, distraction and privacy problems (Latif et al., 2019). But it should not be forgotten that the use of social media has had significant advantages both for individuals to interact with family members or other people, as well as for companies that have used social media to develop their work better during the pandemic (Dubbelink et al., 2021; Hashim et al., 2020; Pennington, 2021). Another advantage of social media platforms during the Covid-19 pandemic has been the possibility of arranging collaborative research projects, surveys, and multi-centre studies (González-Padilla & Tortolero-Blanco, 2020).

Therefore, all these essential aspects have considerably increased the intensity of the use of social media (Pennington, 2021). The power of social media use is a variable that has been extensively analysed in the academic literature (Boer et al., 2021; Charoensukmongkol, 2016; Mieczkowski et al., 2020; Roberts & David, 2022). The intensity of social media use is measured through a scale that considers the frequency of social media use, length of time people spend on different social platforms, or taking into account people’s subjective experiences on social media (Mieczkowski et al., 2020). Therefore, the intensity of social media use shows the degree of social media integration in people’s daily lives and not the symptoms of addiction to social media use. Addiction to social media use is directly related to anxiety, depression, attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder symptoms, and obsessive–compulsive disorder (Andreassen et al., 2016). The age variable is also important when discussing the intensity of social media use or addiction to social media use (Andreassen et al., 2016; Boer et al., 2021; Silmi et al., 2020). Excessive use of social media and phone use, in general, in teenagers has been shown to have an impact on reduced sleep time (Royant-Parola et al., 2017). It also affects negatively young people’s daily school performance and mood.

In Spain, the latest data provided by the INE (2021), in 2020, the frequency of use of information and communication technologies (ICT) by the population was 91.3% connecting at least once a week (3.6 points more than in 2019), 83.1% daily (5.5 points more) and 81.0% several times a day (6.1 points more). If we concentrate further, 93.8% of students and young people aged 16 to 24 (93.0%) are the most active on the social media. By sex, the activity of women (66.4%) is higher than that of men (62.9%). From here, we can see that in the Spanish population, the intensity of use of social media is relatively high.

Sustainability: evolution and key data

Sustainability is an important concept, first appearing in the Brundtland Report in 1987 in the United Nations General Assembly Report of the World Commission on Environment and Development. This report defines sustainability as the development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs. Although there have been more general definitions of sustainability, this is the most commonly used definition in the academic literature. Sustainability has been studied in different sectors (Al Hawaj & Buallay, 2022; Qorri et al., 2018; Sardianou et al., 2021), where studies have primarily focused on the importance and meaning of sustainable development for both individuals and companies or governmental institutions. In the last decades, the concept of sustainability has been introduced into every person’s life. Governments and official institutions are continuously trying to promote sustainability actions and new sustainability regulations (Flores, 2006; Howes et al., 2017; Liao et al., 2020; Plumed Lasarte et al., 2018). Sustainability reporting is not mandatory for large companies, although IFRS (International Financial Reporting Standards)1 is studying the possibility of implementing the need for this report in the coming years. The information would inform stakeholders about companies’ sustainability actions carried out. Although it is not a binding document, a voluntary one, there are many large companies nowadays that prepare it (Borga et al., 2009; Ruhnke & Gabriel, 2013; Sellami et al., 2019), thus gaining the trust of internal and external users and a good image of their company in the business world. Several studies have concluded that corporate sustainability is related to good performance and growth, and competitive advantage in the market (Alshehhi et al., 2018; Malesios et al., 2018; Ojo et al., 2015). Although there are studies that point out that sustainability is a business strategy for many companies, knowing that they can gain more consumers or the trust of existing consumers (Ajmal et al., 2018; Haseeb et al., 2019). Another purpose of the sustainability reports for the companies is to provide transparent and legitimate information about their activities (Cunha & Moneva, 2018). Taking all this into account, it can be confirmed that sustainable development plays a crucial role in the life of companies.

There are three pillars (models) of sustainability: economic sustainability, social sustainability, and environmental sustainability (Hansmann et al., 2012; Purvis et al., 2019). Over the years, the three sustainability models have been studied extensively in the academic literature and implemented in practice (Alshehhi et al., 2018; Kuhlman & Farrington, 2010; Purvis et al., 2019; Sardianou et al., 2021). All three together make up sustainable development for the business and society. Generally, sustainable development is understood as the development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.2

Social sustainability is related to reducing social poverty and achieving a more balanced world for everybody (Atanda, 2019; Basiago, 1998; Eizenberg & Jabareen, 2017). According to a study elaborated by Polèse and Stren (2000, p.15), social sustainability refers to the development that is compatible with harmonious evolution of civil society, fostering an environment conductive to the compatible cohabitation of culturally and socially diverse groups while at the same time encouraging social integration, with improvements in the quality of life for all segments of the population. i.e. the search for a balance in social welfare to achieve social goals with a particular focus on the most vulnerable people. Therefore, companies practising social sustainability must prioritise social equity, health, wellness and well-being (Amrutha & Geetha, 2020). The great importance of this issue calls for more academic studies to give visibility and promote social sustainability actions (Eizenberg & Jabareen, 2017).

One of the definitions of environmental sustainability in the academic literature is set out by Goodland (1998), who refers to it as the maintenance of natural capital that includes the use of renewable and nonrenewable resources on the source side and pollution and waste assimilation on the sink side. In other words, the main objective of environmental sustainability is protecting the natural balance of the planet while limiting the impact of human activities on the earth, i.e. caring for the vitality of ecosystems and environmental health. Apart from this definition, some researchers have defined environmental sustainability and has been studied more extensively than the other sustainability models (Howes et al., 2017; Moldan et al., 2012; Morelli, 2011). According to several studies (Centobelli et al., 2020; Koul et al., 2022; Naidoo & Gasparatos, 2018), companies in different sectors are obliged or advised to follow environmental sustainability policies and strategies. Although the study by Howes et al. (2017) has pointed out that environmental sustainability strategies have not been met over the last decades due to their complex implementation.

Looking at economic sustainability separately, it refers to maintaining and protecting scarce natural resources, taking into account and ensuring positive social and environmental outcomes (Cadil et al., 2018). If economic sustainability is carried out in the right way, it will guarantee a responsible return on resources in the long term (Segovia-Vargas et al., 2021). Therefore, economic sustainability must have a circular effect that will strengthen the economy and society; that is why companies must focus on renewable, reusable and recyclable actions and practices, among others (Rai et al., 2021). Considering all this, we can see that economic sustainability is directly related to social and environmental sustainability.

One of the main objectives of this study is to analyse the relationship between the intensity of use of social media and economic sustainability in Spanish universities. Therefore, the following table (Table 1) analyses the evolution of the relationship between these two variables in the academic literature.

Table 1.

Analysis of the relevant literature in the context of intensity of social media use and economic sustainability

Author(s) Year Objectives Methods employed Findings/Implications
Hamid et al 2017 Analyse the role of social media (in particular Facebook) in attracting student interest related to environmental sustainability issues Systematic literature review

Social media plays an important role in enhancing the vision of environmental sustainability at the university

Environmental sustainability actions carried out by universities have a positive effect on students where social media serve to convey information and policies about it
Pouri and Hilty 2018 Analysing the relationship between ICTs and the Enabled Sharing Economy and Environmental Sustainability Systematic literature review

Online platforms can encourage a type of consumption in which available resources are shared and consumed collaboratively between people

The sharing economy has an effect on sustainability by reducing the number of goods or services to be produced
Latif et al 2019 Analysing the growing trend to social media intensity use for teaching and learning Systematic literature review Social media is identified as a powerful tool for social interactions and academic activities as well as for teaching and learning
Ur Rahman et al 2020 Analysing the role of social media use in SMEs’ financial sustainability Survey of 383 owners /managers. Consistent Partial Least Square method Social media use as a communication platform reduces the costs of internal operations of SMEs, which implies the possibility of improving the financial sustainability of these companies
Nchofoung and Asongu 2022 Study the relevance of ICT for sustainable development

Data provided from140 countries

Cuantitative analysis (different statistical methods)

 ICTs have a positive effect on sustainable development, in particular this relationship is modulated by trade openness and foreign direct investment
Open in a new tab

Source own elaboration

The literature review has not shown papers that directly analyse the relationship between the intensity of use of social media and economic sustainability, but there is literature that points to the relationship of these two variables indirectly. For example, the study by Pouri and Hilty (2018) studies the effect of ICTs on the sharing economy and environmental sustainability. The results of the work show that ICTs have an effect on both variables studied. Therefore, if ICTs affect positively to the sharing economy, it will affect economic sustainability too. Since the latter aims to conserve and maintain resources for future generations (Cadil et al., 2018) what is the goal of the sharing economy too—sharing resources and services to avoid unnecessary use of them. Another international study (Nchofoung & Asongu, 2022) has shown the positive relationship between the use of ICTs in sustainable development, which in addition to economic sustainability also includes environmental and social sustainability.

Hypothesis development

As seen in the literature review, the use of social media in times of pandemic has been intense, having both positive and negative impacts on users and companies and governmental organisations. In addition to this, the Covid-19 pandemic has changed people’s habits (Favale et al., 2020; Izzo et al., 2021; Sibley et al., 2020). People prefer to do most of their activities online for fear of becoming infected, such as taking yoga classes online or other physical or mental activities, shopping, meeting online instead of meeting in person, etc. (Bhatti et al., 2020; Lucini et al., 2020; Sharma et al., 2020). Companies, in turn, had to adapt to online work (Baert et al., 2020; Belzunegui-Eraso & Erro-Garcés, 2020), so all communication between employees or customers was done via telephone or social media. All this has considerably increased the intensity of social media use (Ali Taha et al., 2021; Najah et al., 2021). In addition, face-to-face classes have been transformed into online courses in universities, so students and university staff had to adapt to the new normal. This, of course increased the use of social media for higher education students.

But what is the relationship between the intensity of social media use by the university students and economic sustainability? According to the study by Segovia-Vargas et al. (2021), economic sustainability ensures economic balance and guarantees long-term income for all. Therefore, if the intensity of social media use is done for work or to generate profits and not for addiction, as in some cases (Latif et al., 2019), there may be a positive relationship between these two variables. Ur Rahman et al. (2020) has concluded that the use of social media in SMEs positively affects the financial sustainability of SMEs by helping to reduce costs. The positive relationship between ICTs and sustainable development is also proven (Nchofoung & Asongu, 2022). Another study elaborated by Hamid et al. (2017) has pointed out that social media sites, particularly Facebook, among higher education students, can influence students’ environmental sustainability actions.

On this basis, the following hypothesis is formulated:

Hypothesis H1

The intensity of use has a direct and positive impact on Economic sustainability.

The three pillars or dimensions of sustainability are interrelated to achieve sustainable development (Gelashvili et al., 2021a, 2021b; Kuhlman & Farrington, 2010; Purvis et al., 2019). According to Purvis et al. (2019), economic sustainability is part of environmental and social sustainability (see Fig. 1). Based on a study elaborated by Albareda-Tiana et al. (2017), the academic literature has focused on sustainability in higher education on environmental management, ecological footprint and greening campuses, where work has mainly been done on the economic and environmental dimensions of sustainability. Still, less progress has been made on the social dimension of sustainability.

Fig. 1.

Fig. 1

Open in a new tab

Interaction of the three pillars of sustainability.

Source: own elaboration based on Purvis et al. (2019)

It is essential to underline the role of higher education institutions in the proper development of the sustainability pillars (Parrado Castañeda & Trujillo Quintero, 2015). Sustainable universities are defined (Velazquez et al., 2006) as those institutions that direct, involve, and promote the minimisation of environmental, economic and social impacts at regional and global levels. Likewise, paying attention to the effects generated on human health by using resources in teaching, research, and administration to help society transition to sustainable lifestyles. Thus, universities have an important impact on sustainability as future generations are educated there. Furthermore, universities should promote sustainable actions (Pappas, 2012) and be examples for other entities or society to achieve sustainable development and transmit it to students (Amaral et al., 2020; Parrado Castañeda & Trujillo Quintero, 2015).

Taking all this into account, the following hypotheses are intended to analyse whether there is a positive relationship between economic sustainability and social and environmental sustainability in higher education.

Therefore, the following hypotheses are raised:

Hypothesis H2

Economic sustainability has a direct and positive impact on social sustainability.

Hypothesis H3

Economic sustainability has a direct and positive impact on environmental sustainability.

Finally, the relationship between social sustainability and environmental sustainability in higher education is studied. A study elaborated by Murphy (2012) has highlighted the lack of academic studies on the relationship between social sustainability and environmental sustainability. Although, it is worth noting the abundant literature on sustainability in general (Alshehhi et al., 2018; Liao et al., 2020; Sardianou et al., 2021), where the importance of sustainability for private or public institutions for the proper development of a country or individuals is studied (Amaral et al., 2020; Qorri et al., 2018; Sardianou et al., 2021; Segovia-Vargas et al., 2021). According to Purvis et al. (2019), three different possible relationships can be between social and environmental sustainability. In the first one, it can be assumed that the three dimensions of sustainability are related. In the second, economic sustainability is understood as part of environmental sustainability, and finally, there is no relationship between the three dimensions of sustainability. If we consider the first possibility, we can say that there is a positive relationship between social and environmental sustainability.

Taking this into account the following hypothesis on the relationship between social sustainability and environmental sustainability in universities, the following hypothesis is proposed:

Hypothesis H4

Social sustainability has a direct and positive impact on environmental sustainability.

According to theoretical studies consulted, acceptance is expected for the four hypotheses proposed. Therefore, the following research model is proposed (Fig. 2):

Fig. 2.

Fig. 2

Open in a new tab

Research model.

Source: own elaboration

Methodology

Data

Data collection was carried out using a self-administered questionnaire to carry out the study. This questionnaire was elaborated using the measurement scales analysed in the bibliographical analysis shown above.

The questionnaire was disseminated online through students’ social media and email databases in the Spanish public universities. The social media used for the study were Instagram, LinkedIn and Facebook. Both dissemination methods were chosen for the safety of data collection during the pandemic.

In terms of the questionnaire structure, it should be noted that it is divided into three parts. The first part is for the classification of the individuals in the sample. The second part is to analyse whether individuals have sufficient knowledge about what sustainability is and its three dimensions. Finally, the relevant questionnaire has been carried out to carry out the analysis of the proposed model.

The type of questionnaire chosen is a Likert scale questionnaire. This scale ranges from strongly agree “5” to strongly disagree “0”. The reason for choosing this type of questionnaire is that it is the most widely used and reliable type of scale found in the area of social sciences as it can pick up the level of feeling of the individual comma, which helps to make a more accurate analysis of their thoughts (Alismail & Zhang, 2020).

The number of completed questionnaires was 480 individuals, but after analysing the respondents’ sustainability knowledge, 33 questionnaires were eliminated as they did not meet the minimum levels of basic sustainability knowledge.

Table 2 shows the classification of the individuals analysed. It can be seen that the majority of individuals (58.84%) are women compared to 47.74% of men. In terms of hours of use of social media, it can be seen that most individuals use social media between one and two hours a day. They are followed by users who use social media between 2 and 3 h per day. It is also worth noting the extremes of the sample in terms of daily hours of social media use 4.35% of the sample use social media less than 30 min compared to 16.23% of the sample who use social media more than 4 h a day. Between 1 and 2 h is the most predominant range of social media use per day with 23.87%. Regarding the number of social media used by the individuals in the sample, 24.6% have more than five social media, followed by individuals who have three social media with 23.77%, and only 5.22% of the individuals surveyed have only one social media.

Table 2.

Sample Characteristics (n = 347)

Classification variable Variable Frequency Percentage
Gender Female 203 58.84%
Male 144 47.74%
Daily networking  < 30 min 15 4.35%
30 min/1 h 39 11.30%
1/2 h 96 27.83%
2/3 h 80 23.19%
3/4 h 61 17.68%
 > 4 h 56 16.23%
Number of social media used 1 18 5.22%
2 49 14.20%
3 82 23.77%
4 69 20.00%
5 44 12.75%
 > 5 83 24.06%
Open in a new tab

Source own elaboration

Method of data analysis

The methodology applied in this study for the validation of the measurement scale and its subsequent measurement analysis is the method of Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM). This method of structural equations based on variances makes it possible to obtain the estimation of the measurement model proposed, taking into account the dependent and independent variables that form it (Hilkenmeier et al., 2021). It also allows the possibility of obtaining the size of the indirect and direct effects that exist in the relationship between variables (Del-Castillo-Feito et al., 2020). Its use is also common when conducting analyses of composite models, allowing the estimation of latent variables and the measurement of the structural model (Hair et al., 2018). Such models can be composed of both reflective and formative variables since PLS-SEM is able to analyse with both in the same model (Gelashvili et al., 2021a, 2021b), as well as decide whether or not to impose the direction and sign of the hypotheses stated in the model (Hair et al., 2011).

This methodology is an excellent option for conducting analyses in social science studies (Cachón-Rodríguez et al., 2021) and is supported by published studies in the areas of economics, sociology, business and others (Schnelbächer and Heidenreich, 2020). This is not only evidence of the exponential increase in the use of PLS-SEM in research articles, but also of the introduction of PLS-SEM as one of the main methods of analysis in statistical analysis books (Cepeda-Carrión et al., 2022). In the case of novel studies, Hair et al. (2019) advise using PLS-SEM, since its analysis allows a more sensitive study of these experimental relationships. As for Sarstedt et al. (2020), they indicate that the requirements of PLS-SEM analysis are currently increasing in complexity and stringency, confirming the critical importance of the analysis methods of this methodology and further demonstrating its robustness.

For the analysis of this study, the SmartPLS software has been used, whose reliability is proven and which is highly applied in most studies using the PLS-SEM methodology (Stolze & Sailer, 2022).

Analysis of the results

Measurement model

In the analysis of the study results, it should be noted that the research is divided into two parts. In the first part of this study, the analysis of the validation of the measurement scale is carried out. Checking that the items used in the questionnaire are valid, the scale of measurement is acceptable for analysis. Once the measurement scale has been validated, the second part of the analysis is carried out. In this second part, the study of the relationships of the proposed model and its predictive capacity is carried out.

To carry out the first part of the analysis, it must be considered that all variables are reflective in nature. This indicates that a series of studies must be applied to validate it. The calculations used are Individual reliability, composite reliability, convergent validity and discriminant validity. The results obtained in these analyses can be seen in Tables 3 and 4.

Table 3.

Measurement items

Constructs Items Correlation loading CA rho_A CR AVE
Intensity of use (ITU-1) Social networking is part of my daily activity 0.776*** 0.72 0.777 0.807 0.586
(ITU-2) I am proud when I say to people that I use social media 0.881***
(ITU-3) I would have a hard time if social media disappeared 0.617**
Economic sustainability (SUSEC-1) My university tries to maximise its profit to ensure its continuity 0.636*** 0.867 0.880 0.905 0.658
(SUSEC-2) My university tries to build long-term relationships with its iter groups to ensure its long-term success 0.843***
(SUSEC-3) My university is continuously trying to improve the quality of the services it offers 0.866***
(SUSEC-4) My university tries to have a competitive pricing policy 0.805***
(SUSEC-5) My university tries to do everything possible to be more productive 0.881***
Social sustainability (SUSS-1) My university supports and sponsors public health programmes 0.749*** 0.91 0.913 0.928 0.650
(SUSS-2) My university sponsors social and cultural events (music, sport, etc.) 0.728***
(SUSS-3) My university is involved in and financially supports social causes 0.857***
(SUSS-4) My university helps to improve the quality of life of the local community 0.831***
(SUSS-5) My university treats employees fairly (no discrimination or abuse, regardless of gender, race, origin or religion) 0.821***
(SUSS-6) My university provides training and promotion opportunities for employees 0.819***
(SUSS-7) My university helps to solve social problems 0.828***
Evironmental sustainability (SUSE-1) My university has a recycling policy 0.873*** 0.94 0.94 0.952 0.768
(SUSE-2) My university promotes positive environmental ethics among stakeholders 0.879***
(SUSE-3) My university values and protects the environment 0.902***
(SUSE-4) My university has pollution awareness campaigns 0.853***
(SUSE-5) My university defends the diversity of nature, encouraging it to be valued and protected 0.881***
(SUSE-6) My university tries to use only the necessary natural resources 0.870***
Open in a new tab

CA = Cronbach’s alpha; CR = Composite Reliability; AVE = Average Variance Extracted

*p-valor < 0,05, **p-valor < 0,01, ***p-valor < 0,001

Source: own elaboration

Table 4.

Measurement discriminant validity

Constructs Fornell-Lakert Heterotrait-Monotrait ratio (HTMT)
Intensity of use Environmental sustainability Economic sustainability Social Sustainability Intensity of use Environmental sustainability Economic sustainability Social Sustainability
Intensity of use 0.766
Environmental sustainability 0.108 0.876 0.134
Economic sustainability 0.133 0.687 0.811 0.158 0.757
Social sustainability 0.157 0.714 0.798 0.806 0.184 0.772 0.893
Open in a new tab

Source: own elaboration

First, we carried out the analysis of individual reliability. The research is applied by taking into account the loadings (λ) of the items. The criterion chosen for this study sets the threshold at 0.707 (Carmines & Zeller, 1979; Del-Castillo-Feito et al., 2020); the threshold was exceeded for all the items in this study. The same applies to the study of composite reliability, where Cronbach’s Alpha is analysed using the criterion of Nunnally and Bernstein (1994). The level of reliability of this study is high. To increase the robustness of the study, we have also carried out the analysis of Dijkstra and Henseler (2015) by setting a cut-off ratio (rho_A) of 0.7 (Gelashvili et al., 2021a, 2021b), which also outperformed by all the variables in the study.

As for the convergent validity analysis, the average variance extracted (AVE) is analysed and measured using the criterion of Fornell and Larcker (1981). This criterion states that the AVE must obtain at least a 50% explanation of the underlying constructs, with a cut-off point of 0.5 (Hair et al., 2018). After analysing the convergent validity, all the study constructs exceed the cut-off score.

To satisfactorily complete the analysis of the measuring instrument, it is necessary to carry out the last analysis criterion. The study of discriminant validity analyses the amount of variance that a construct obtains from its indicators (AVE) and whose contribution must be more significant than that which it can share with other constructs in the model (Cachón-Rodríguez et al., 2021; Del-Castillo-Feito et al., 2020).

Two criteria are used for this analysis, the Fornell-Lakers criterion (1981), which analyses the amount of variance of a variable captured from its indicators. This must be greater than what it shares with other variables (Del-Castillo-Feito et al., 2019). The second criterion is the Heterotrait-monotrait ratio (HTMT) criterion. This criterion is more current and more rigorous than the analysis of (Hair et al., 2019). This analysis fixes that the confidence intervals should not exceed 0.9. This would indicate that the variables in the model analysed would be empirically different from (Dijkstra & Henseler, 2015). All items pass the Fornell-Lakert criterion, but not the Heterotrait-monotrait ratio (HTMT) criterion, where item ITU-4 had to be removed for the criterion to be met (Cachón Rodríguez et al., 2019).

Once all the analyses carried out have been satisfactory, it can be said that the scale of measurement proposed has been validated. This statement indicates that the items are valid to measure the relationships proposed in the model of this study.

Structural model analysis

Once the measurement scale has been studied, the structural model is studied. For this purpose, a bootstrapping of 50,000 samples is carried out, which allows us to obtain the t-statistics and the standard errors. Hair et al. (2019) state that for studies with experimental relationships, a bootstrapping of 10,000 samples can be used, but in this case, to make the study more robust, it was decided to bootstrap 50,000 samples.

Obtaining t-statistics and standard errors allow the possibility of measuring the relationships in the structural model and analysing the model’s predictive capacity. Before starting, a study should be carried out to show no multicollinearity in such a model. The criterion used is the VIF criterion, which measures whether there is multicollinearity in the model. The maximum level of VIF indicators of the endogenous variables is five points (Gelashvili et al., 2021a, 2021b).

Applying this analysis, scores of less than 2.74 have been obtained so that the structural model is considered to show no symptoms of multicollinearity. Therefore, the PLS analysis is carried out to measure the relationship between the different variables analysed.

The model analysis shows that all hypotheses are validated (Table 5 and Fig. 3) and accepted. The hypothesis “H.1” Intensity of use → Economic Sustainability has a low significance while the other three hypotheses; “H.2” Economic Sustainability → Social Sustainability, (H.3) Economic Sustainability → Environmental Sustainability and “H.4” Social Sustainability → Environmental Sustainability have a high significance. Similarly, the t-statistics and confidence intervals also indicate the acceptance of all hypotheses stated in the model.

Table 5.

Analysis of the hypotheses in the structural model proposed

Path coeff (β) Statistics t (β/STDEV) f2 Confidence interval
5.0% 95.0%
H1. Intensity of use Economic Sustainability 0.133* 1.78 0.11 0.042 0.249
H2. Economic Sustainability Social Sustainability 0.798*** 33.422 1.748 0.758 0.837
H3. Economic Sustainability Environmental Sustainability 0.324*** 3.972 0.15 0.188 0.459
H4. Social Sustainability Environmental Sustainability 0.456*** 5.347 0.167 0.312 0.596

R2: Environmental Sustainability = 0.548; Economic Sustainability = 0.18; Social Sustainability = 0.636

Q2: Environmental Sustainability = 0.416; Economic Sustainability = 0.10; Social Sustainability = 0.407
Open in a new tab

For n = 50,000 subsamples. Students in single queue *p < 0.05; **p < 0.01 ***p < 0.001

Source: own elaboration

Fig. 3.

Fig. 3

Open in a new tab

Proposed research model (results).

Source: own elaboration

Similarly, the t-statistics and confidence intervals also indicate the acceptance of all hypotheses stated in the model (Aldás-Manzano, 2014). If we look at the explained variance of the constructs “Economic Sustainability” and “Social Sustainability”, they have a medium but close to high or substantial predictive power. In the case of the predictive power of the construct “Economic Sustainability,” it has a weak predictive power (Chin, 1998).

Finally, effect size analysis studies how an exogenous variable contributes to explaining an endogenous variable. It can be seen that hypotheses “H.1” and “H.3” have a negligible effect, while hypotheses “H.2” and “H.4” have a moderate explanatory effect (Cohen, 1988). As for the predictive relevance of the model (Q2) obtained by blindfolding, we can see that the model has predictive validity (Hair et al., 2019).

Discussion

As we can see in Fig. 3, four hypotheses have been analysed in this study to see the direct relationship between the intensity of use of social media and economic sustainability in relation to Spanish public universities. This relationship has been established as academic literature (Purvis et al., 2019; Ranjbari et al., 2021) considers economic sustainability as part of social and environmental sustainability (see Fig. 1). The measurement of these relationships using PLS-SEM with reflective and formative variables and the analysis of the sign of the hypothesis, significance, path coefficient and t-statistics has provided important insights into the field of sustainability. The analyses carried out show us through data analysis reliable results for practical analysis (Saura et al., 2022a). The results have shown that the relationship between intensity of use and economic sustainability is significant. Therefore, based on the result, hypothesis 1 is accepted although the relationship between the two variables is not very strong. Studies by (Hair, et al., 2019) consider that the results obtained between intensity of use and economic sustainability are valid for acceptance.

Other hypotheses make reference to the relationship between the three dimensions of sustainability at the university level. According to Purvis et al. (2019) the largest dimension of sustainability is environmental sustainability, which includes social sustainability and within social sustainability we can find economic sustainability. On this basis we can assume that economic sustainability is part of social and environmental sustainability. Therefore, hypotheses 2 and 3 have been proposed, which study the relationship between economic sustainability and social and environmental sustainability. PLS-SEM has again been used to measure the proposed relationships and the results have shown that there is a direct and positive relationship between the proposed relationships. Hypotheses 2 and 3 are therefore accepted. According to the results obtained, both hypotheses have been accepted with a high significance and a strong relationship.

Finally, the relationship between the social and environmental dimensions has been studied. The relationship established between these two variables is direct and positive with a high level of significance. The assessment has also been done with PLS-SEM and has fulfilled the hypothesis sign, significance, path coefficient and t-statistics.

Summarising the analysis of the study where the relationship between intensity of use and the dimensions of sustainability is studied, it is important to analyse these relationships because as demonstrated in the study their relationship exists both theoretically and practically.

Conclusions and implications

This study aimed to determine whether the intensity of use of social media in public universities in Spain impacted economic sustainability. Also, to check whether there was a relationship between social, economic and environmental sustainability at the university level. It is considered essential to analyse this aspect because the pandemic caused by Covid-19 has led universities to change their face-to-face teaching style to online teaching, which has increased the use of social media. In order to achieve the objectives set out in the study, we have used the methodology of PLS-SEM and through this we have verified the relationship between the study variables, which were intensity of use of social media, economic sustainability, social sustainability and environmental sustainability in the Spanish public universities. A sample of 447 students from the university was used for this purpose.

The first hypothesis that studied the relationship between the intensity of social media use and economic sustainability in higher education has shown that there is a positive and direct relationship between them, although the relationship is rather weak. There are no previous studies that have studied this relationship before so it is not possible to compare and see if this result is in line or not with other academic literature. In all ways we can conclude that the intensity of social media use by university students has a positive effect on economic sustainability. This relationship could be caused by cost savings related to the intensive use of ICTs during the pandemic. Other hypotheses of the study focused on the relationship between the three dimensions of sustainability at university level. The results obtained have confirmed a strong and positive relationship between economic sustainability and social and environmental sustainability. The relationship between social sustainability and environmental sustainability has also been established. These results align with some of the literature (Purvis et al., 2019; Ranjbari et al., 2021), where it was confirmed that the three dimensions of sustainability work together and each of them is positively related to the others. Therefore, we can affirm that the three pillars of sustainability have a positive and strong relationship at the university level. This implies that if the actions of only one dimension of sustainability are carried out by the university, this will automatically positively affect the other two dimensions of sustainability, allowing to work as a set of dimensions. Theoretical and practical implications derived from the results of this work are proposed below.

Theoretical Implications

This study has theoretical implications for the academic literature. The review of the academic literature has shown many studies on the three dimensions of sustainability but very few that analyse these dimensions together, measuring the impact they have on each other (Murphy, 2012). Furthermore, most of the studies are theoretical, without being able to use quantitative data. In addition to this, it has been seen that the use of social media has increased considerably in the last two years, which has its advantages and disadvantages for both companies and users. With that in mind (i) This study contributes to the literature on the excessive use of social media that during the pandemics had to be used as teaching tools. Future literature should focus on the importance of this variable because apart from the advantages, it has disadvantages that are extremely dangerous (Latif et al., 2019) in the long term; (ii) This study contributes to the academic literature on the relationship between the three dimensions of sustainability, which is not much, and most of the studies are theoretical; (iii) More focus should be on the relationship between social media use and economic sustainability, since the result is weak. If other studies confirm this result, it may be interesting in the future to promote its practical implementation in higher education institutions.

Practical implications

From a practical point of view, this study contributes to and underlines the importance of implementing sustainable actions in higher education institutions. Universities are bridges to promote sustainable activities that will be developed in the future by students who are the future generations. Therefore, much attention must be paid to the correct implementation of each of the three pillars of sustainability at the university level. One of the main implication of the study is that universities should promote and lead to creation of sustainable knowledge, as a study by the Saura et al., (2022a, 2022b, 2022c) has concluded that the creation of sustainable knowledge is an important factor in driving sustainability and the circular economy. These practices can be generalised to public or private companies too. Therefore, it should be noted that an increase in the intensity of the organisation’s social media use will lead to better economic sustainability. Investments in social network management will be necessary. And in turn, this improvement in economic sustainability will lead to an improvement in social and environmental sustainability.

Limitations and future research

This study is not free of limitations. The first limitation is the sample analysed, the low number of responses and analysing only some universities, not all Spanish public universities may influence the results. Having a complete sample is important because several studies have indicated that location can be an important factor in Spain as it is a country with several autonomous communities and a lot of difference between them in terms of economic and social level. Another limitation is the non-existence of another robustness test of the methodology. Therefore, future lines of research will focus on improving these aspects, firstly to try to get a larger and more generalised sample and secondly to use another type of methodology and compare the results in order to have more robust results.

Acknowledgements

This research paper was presented at the BENI Conference 2022—Business, Entrepreneurship & Innovation. We would like to express our sincere gratitude to the organizers of this Conference and our session chair for valuable comments and suggestions.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Declarations

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Footnotes

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Contributor Information

Vera Gelashvili, Email: vera.gelashvili@urjc.es.

Juan Gabriel Martínez-Navalón, Email: juangabriel.martinez@urjc.es.

Miguel Ángel Gómez-Borja, Email: Miguelangel.GBorja@uclm.es.

References

  1. Adedoyin OB, Soykan E. Covid-19 pandemic and online learning: The challenges and opportunities. Interactive Learning Environments. 2020 doi: 10.1080/10494820.2020.1813180. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  2. Adesote SA, Fatoki OR. The role of ICT in the teaching and learning of history in the 21st century. Educational Research and Reviews. 2013;8(21):2155–2159. doi: 10.5897/ERR2013.1617. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  3. Ajmal MM, Khan M, Hussain M, Helo P. Conceptualizing and incorporating social sustainability in the business world. International Journal of Sustainable Development & World Ecology. 2018;25(4):327–339. doi: 10.1080/13504509.2017.1408714. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  4. Al Hawaj AY, Buallay AM. A worldwide sectorial analysis of sustainability reporting and its impact on firm performance. Journal of Sustainable Finance & Investment. 2022;12(1):62–86. doi: 10.1080/20430795.2021.1903792. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  5. Albareda-Tiana S, Fernández Morilla M, Mallarach Carrera JM, Vidal Raméntol S. Barreras para la sostenibilidad integral en la Universidad. Revista Iberoamericana De Educación. 2017;73:253–272. doi: 10.35362/rie730301. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  6. Aldás-Manzano MJ. Confirmatory Tetrad Analysis as a tool to decide between the formative/reflective nature of constructs in marketing and management research. In: Moutinho AK, Bigné L, Manrai E, editors. The Routledge Companion to the Future of Marketing. Routledge; 2014. pp. 348–378. [Google Scholar]
  7. Ali Taha V, Pencarelli T, Škerháková V, Fedorko R, Košíková M. The use of social media and its impact on shopping behavior of Slovak and Italian consumers during COVID-19 pandemic. Sustainability. 2021;13(4):1710. doi: 10.3390/su13041710. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  8. Alismail S, Zhang H. Exploring and understanding participants’ perceptions of facial emoji Likert scales in online surveys: A qualitative study. ACM Transactions on Social Computing. 2020;3(2):1–12. doi: 10.1145/3382505. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  9. Alshehhi A, Nobanee H, Khare N. The impact of sustainability practices on corporate financial performance: Literature trends and future research potential. Sustainability. 2018;10(2):494. doi: 10.3390/su10020494. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  10. Amaral AR, Rodrigues E, Gaspar AR, Gomes Á. A review of empirical data of sustainability initiatives in university campus operations. Journal of Cleaner Production. 2020;250:119558. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.119558. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  11. Amrutha VN, Geetha SN. A systematic review on green human resource management: Implications for social sustainability. Journal of Cleaner Production. 2020;247:119131. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.119131. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  12. Andreassen CS, Billieux J, Griffiths MD, Kuss DJ, Demetrovics Z, Mazzoni E, Pallesen S. The relationship between addictive use of social media and video games and symptoms of psychiatric disorders: A large-scale cross-sectional study. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors. 2016;30(2):252. doi: 10.1037/adb0000160. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Atanda JO. Developing a social sustainability assessment framework. Sustainable Cities and Society. 2019;44:237–252. doi: 10.1016/j.scs.2018.09.023. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  14. Baert S, Lippens L, Moens E, Weytjens J, Sterkens P. The COVID-19 crisis and telework: A research survey on experiences, expectations and hopes. SSRN Electronic Journal. 2020 doi: 10.2139/ssrn.3596696. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Barrot JS. Social media as a language learning environment: A systematic review of the literature (2008–2019) Computer Assisted Language Learning. 2021 doi: 10.1080/09588221.2021.1883673. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  16. Basiago AD. Economic, social, and environmental sustainability in development theory and urban planning practice. The Environmentalist. 1998;19(2):145–161. doi: 10.1023/A:1006697118620. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  17. Belzunegui-Eraso A, Erro-Garcés A. Teleworking in the Context of the Covid-19 Crisis. Sustainability. 2020;12(9):3662. doi: 10.3390/su12093662. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  18. Bhatti A, Akram H, Basit HM, Khan AU, Raza SM, Naqvi MB. E-commerce trends during COVID-19 Pandemic. International Journal of Future Generation Communication and Networking. 2020;13(2):1449–1452. [Google Scholar]
  19. Boer M, Stevens GW, Finkenauer C, de Looze ME, van den Eijnden RJ. Social media use intensity, social media use problems, and mental health among adolescents: Investigating directionality and mediating processes. Computers in Human Behavior. 2021;116:106645. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2020.106645. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  20. Borga F, Citterio A, Noci G, Pizzurno E. Sustainability report in small enterprises: Case studies in Italian furniture companies. Business Strategy and the Environment. 2009;18(3):162–176. doi: 10.1002/bse.561. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  21. Cachón Rodríguez G, Prado Román C, Zúñiga-Vicente JÁ. The relationship between identification and loyalty in a public university: Are there differences between (the perceptions) professors and graduates? European Research on Management and Business Economics. 2019;25(3):122–128. doi: 10.1016/J.IEDEEN.2019.04.005. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  22. Cachón-Rodríguez G, Blanco-González A, Prado-Román C, Diez-Martin F. Sustainability actions, employee loyalty, and the awareness: The mediating effect of organization legitimacy. Managerial and Decision Economics. 2021 doi: 10.1002/mde.3340. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  23. Cadil J, Mirosnik K, Petkovova L, Mirvald M. Public support of private R&D–effects on economic sustainability. Sustainability. 2018;10(12):4612. doi: 10.3390/su10124612. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  24. Carmines E, Zeller R. Reliability and validity assessment. SAGE Publications, Inc.; 1979. [Google Scholar]
  25. Centobelli P, Cerchione R, Esposito E. Evaluating environmental sustainability strategies in freight transport and logistics industry. Business Strategy and the Environment. 2020;29(3):1563–1574. doi: 10.1002/bse.2453. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  26. Cepeda-Carrión G, Hair JF, Ringle CM, Roldán JL, García-Fernández J. Guest editorial: Sports management research using partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM) International Journal of Sports Marketing and Sponsorship. 2022;23(2):229–240. doi: 10.1108/IJSMS-05-2022-242. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  27. Charoensukmongkol P. Mindful Facebooking: The moderating role of mindfulness on the relationship between social media use intensity at work and burnout. Journal of Health Psychology. 2016;21(9):1966–1980. doi: 10.1177/1359105315569096. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  28. Chin WW. The partial least squares approach to structural equation modeling. In: Marcoulides GA, editor. Modern methods for business research. Lawrence E; 1998. pp. 295–336. [Google Scholar]
  29. Coccia M. High health expenditures and low exposure of population to air pollution as critical factors that can reduce fatality rate in COVID-19 pandemic crisis: A global analysis. Environmental Research. 2021;199:111339. doi: 10.1016/j.envres.2021.111339. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  30. Cohen J. Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Routledge; 1988. [Google Scholar]
  31. Cunha DR, Moneva JM. The elaboration process of the sustainability report: A case study. Revista Brasileira De Gestão De Negócios. 2018;20:533–549. doi: 10.7819/rbgn.v0i0.3948. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  32. Del-Castillo-Feito C, Blanco-González A, González-Vázquez E. The relationship between image and reputation in the Spanish public university. European Research on Management and Business Economics. 2019;25(2):87–92. doi: 10.1016/j.iedeen.2019.01.001. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  33. Del-Castillo-Feito C, Cachón-Rodríguez G, Paz-Gil I. Political disaffection, sociodemographic, and psychographic variables as state legitimacy determinants in the European Union. American Behavioral Scientist. 2020 doi: 10.1177/0002764220981116. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  34. Dennen VP, Choi H, Word K. Social media, teenagers, and the school context: A scoping review of research in education and related fields. Educational Technology Research and Development. 2020;68(4):1635–1658. doi: 10.1007/s11423-020-09796-z. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  35. Dijkstra TK, Henseler J. Consistent partial least squares path modeling. MIS Quarterly. 2015;39(2):297–316. doi: 10.25300/MISQ/2015/39.2.02. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  36. Dubbelink SI, Herrando C, Constantinides E. Social media marketing as a branding strategy in extraordinary times: Lessons from the COVID-19 pandemic. Sustainability. 2021;13(18):10310. doi: 10.3390/su131810310. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  37. Eizenberg E, Jabareen Y. Social sustainability: A new conceptual framework. Sustainability. 2017;9(1):68. doi: 10.3390/su9010068. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  38. Favale T, Soro F, Trevisan M, Drago I, Mellia M. Campus traffic and e-Learning during COVID-19 pandemic. Computer Networks. 2020;176:107290. doi: 10.1016/j.comnet.2020.107290. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  39. Flores RM. La Agenda 21 impulsora del desarrollo sostenible y de la protección del medio ambiente en Europa y en España. Boletín Económico De Ice. 2006;2899:31–46. [Google Scholar]
  40. Fornell C, Larcker DF. Structure equation models: LISREL and PLS applied to customer exist-voice theory. Journal of Marketing Research. 1981;18(2):39–50. doi: 10.2307/3151718. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  41. Fumero, N. P., & Martín, R. H. (2020). Reflexiones sobre sostenibilidad turística durante la pandemia: una agenda para el sector frente a los ODS. Turismo pos-COVID-19. Cátedra de Turismo CajaCanarias-Ashotel de la Universidad.
  42. Gelashvili V, Martínez-Navalón JG, Enríquez GH. How stress and anxiety when using mobile restaurant reservation Apps influence users’ satisfaction and trust. Journal of Indian Business Research. 2021;13(3):395–412. doi: 10.1108/JIBR-08-2020-0276. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  43. Gelashvili V, Martínez-Navalón JG, Saura JR. Using partial least squares structural equation modeling to measure the moderating effect of gender: An empirical study. Mathematics. 2021;9(24):3150. doi: 10.3390/math9243150. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  44. Gelderman CJ, Semeijn J, Vluggen R. Development of sustainability in public sector procurement. Public Money & Management. 2017;37(6):435–442. doi: 10.1080/09540962.2017.1344027. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  45. González-Padilla DA, Tortolero-Blanco L. Social media influence in the COVID-19 pandemic. International Braz j Urol. 2020;46:120–124. doi: 10.1590/S1677-5538.IBJU.2020.S121. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  46. Goodland R. The urgent need for ecosystem integrity and ethics to support environmental sustainability. Global Bioethics. 1998;11(1–4):29–46. doi: 10.1080/11287462.1998.10800729. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  47. Hair JF, Ringle CM, Sarstedt M. PLS-SEM: Indeed a silver bullet. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice. 2011;19(2):139–152. doi: 10.2753/MTP1069-6679190202. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  48. Hair JF, Risher JJ, Sarstedt M, Ringle CM. When to use and how to report the results of PLS-SEM. European Bussines Review. 2019;31(1):2–24. doi: 10.1108/EBR-11-2018-0203. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  49. Hair JF, Sarstedt M, Ringle CM, Gudergan SP. Advance issues in partial least squares structural equation modeling. Sage Publishing; 2018. [Google Scholar]
  50. Hamadi M, El-Den J, Azam S, Sriratanaviriyakul N. Integrating social media as cooperative learning tool in higher education classrooms: An empirical study. Journal of King Saud University-Computer and Information Sciences. 2021;34(6):3722–3731. doi: 10.1016/j.jksuci.2020.12.007. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  51. Hamid S, Ijab MT, Sulaiman H, Anwar RM, Norman AA. Social media for environmental sustainability awareness in higher education. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education. 2017;18(4):474–491. doi: 10.1108/IJSHE-01-2015-0010. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  52. Hansmann R, Mieg HA, Frischknecht P. Principal sustainability components: Empirical analysis of synergies between the three pillars of sustainability. International Journal of Sustainable Development & World Ecology. 2012;19(5):451–459. doi: 10.1080/13504509.2012.696220. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  53. Haseeb M, Hussain HI, Kot S, Androniceanu A, Jermsittiparsert K. Role of social and technological challenges in achieving a sustainable competitive advantage and sustainable business performance. Sustainability. 2019;11(14):3811. doi: 10.3390/su11143811. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  54. Hashim S, Masek A, Abdullah NS, Paimin AN, Muda WHNW. Students’ intention to share information via social media: A case study of COVID-19 pandemic. Indonesian Journal of Science and Technology. 2020 doi: 10.17509/ijost.v5i2.24586. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  55. Hilkenmeier F, Fechtelpeter C, Decius J. How to foster innovation in SMEs: Evidence of the effectiveness of a project-based technology transfer approach. The Journal of Technology Transfer. 2021 doi: 10.1007/s10961-021-09913-x. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  56. Hornuf L, Stenzhorn E, Vintis T. Are sustainability-oriented investors different? Evidence from equity crowdfunding. The Journal of Technology Transfer. 2021 doi: 10.1007/s10961-021-09896-9. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  57. Howes M, Wortley L, Potts R, Dedekorkut-Howes A, Serrao-Neumann S, Davidson J, Nunn P. Environmental sustainability: A case of policy implementation failure? Sustainability. 2017;9(2):165. doi: 10.3390/su9020165. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  58. Izzo L, Santonastaso A, Cotticelli G, Federico A, Pacifico S, Castaldo L, Ritieni A. An Italian survey on dietary habits and changes during the COVID-19 lockdown. Nutrients. 2021;13(4):1197. doi: 10.3390/nu13041197. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  59. Jogezai NA, Baloch FA, Jaffar M, Shah T, Khilji GK, Bashir S. Teachers’ attitudes towards social media (SM) use in online learning amid the COVID-19 pandemic: The effects of SM use by teachers and religious scholars during physical distancing. Heliyon. 2021;7(4):e06781. doi: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2021.e06781. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  60. Koul B, Yakoob M, Shah MP. Agricultural waste management strategies for environmental sustainability. Environmental Research. 2022;206:112285. doi: 10.1016/j.envres.2021.112285. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  61. Kuhlman T, Farrington J. What is sustainability? Sustainability. 2010;2(11):3436–3448. doi: 10.3390/su2113436. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  62. Lasarte MP, Bruna DG, Duque CM. Planificación turística, promoción y sostenibilidad ambiental: el caso de España. Retos. 2018;8(15):7–17. doi: 10.17163/ret.n15.2018.01. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  63. Latif MZ, Hussain I, Saeed R, Qureshi MA, Maqsood U. Use of smart phones and social media in medical education: Trends, advantages, challenges and barriers. Acta Informatica Medica. 2019;27(2):133. doi: 10.5455/aim.2019.27.133-138. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  64. Lăzăroiu G, Ionescu L, Uță C, Hurloiu I, Andronie M, Dijmărescu I. Environmentally responsible behavior and sustainability policy adoption in green public procurement. Sustainability. 2020;12(5):2110. doi: 10.3390/su12052110. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  65. Liao L, Warner ME, Homsy GC. When do plans matter? Tracking changes in local government sustainability actions from 2010 to 2015. Journal of the American Planning Association. 2020;86(1):60–74. doi: 10.1080/01944363.2019.1667262. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  66. Lucini D, Gandolfi CE, Antonucci C, Cavagna A, Valzano E, Botta E, Biganzoli E. # StayHomeStayFit: UNIMI’s approach to online healthy lifestyle promotion during the COVID-19 pandemic. Acta Bio Medica: Atenei Parmensis. 2020;91(3):e2020037. doi: 10.23750/abm.v91i3.10375. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  67. Malesios C, Skouloudis A, Dey PK, Abdelaziz FB, Kantartzis A, Evangelinos K. Impact of small-and medium-sized enterprises sustainability practices and performance on economic growth from a managerial perspective: Modeling considerations and empirical analysis results. Business Strategy and the Environment. 2018;27(7):960–972. doi: 10.1002/bse.2045. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  68. Martínez-Navalón JG, Gelashvili V, Debasa F. The impact of restaurant social media on environmental sustainability: An empirical study. Sustainability. 2019;11(21):6105. doi: 10.3390/su11216105. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  69. Mieczkowski H, Lee AY, Hancock JT. Priming effects of social media use scales on well-being outcomes: the influence of intensity and addiction scales on self-reported depression. Social Media + Society. 2020;6(4):1–15. doi: 10.1177/2056305120961784. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  70. Mishra A. Positive side effects of the Covid-19 pandemic on environmental sustainability: Evidence from the quadrilateral security dialogue countries. Management of Environmental Quality: An International Journal. 2022;33(3):674–691. doi: 10.1108/MEQ-09-2021-0214. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  71. Moldan B, Janoušková S, Hák T. How to understand and measure environmental sustainability: Indicators and targets. Ecological Indicators. 2012;17:4–13. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolind.2011.04.033. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  72. Morelli J. Environmental sustainability: A definition for environmental professionals. Journal of Environmental Sustainability. 2011;1(1):2. doi: 10.14448/jes.01.0002. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  73. Murphy K. The social pillar of sustainable development: a literature review and framework for policy analysis. Sustainability: Science, Practice and Policy. 2012;8(1):15–29. doi: 10.1080/15487733.2012.11908081. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  74. Naidoo M, Gasparatos A. Corporate environmental sustainability in the retail sector: Drivers, strategies and performance measurement. Journal of Cleaner Production. 2018;203:125–142. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.08.253. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  75. Najah FFL, Nurazizah YS, Mulyana AA. The effect of social media use intensity on anxiety, depression and stress level during covid-19 pandemic outbreak. International Journal of Nursing and Health Services (IJNHS) 2021;4(5):522–529. doi: 10.35654/ijnhs.v4i5.508. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  76. Nchofoung TN, Asongu SA. ICT for sustainable development: Global comparative evidence of globalisation thresholds. Telecommunications Policy. 2022;46(5):102296. doi: 10.1016/j.telpol.2021.102296. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  77. Nunnally, J. C., & Bernstein, I. H. (1994). Psychometric theory. (MCGraw-Hil). 3aed. Michigan.
  78. Obi-Ani NA, Anikwenze C, Isiani MC. Social media and the Covid-19 pandemic: Observations from Nigeria. Cogent Arts & Humanities. 2020;7(1):1799483. doi: 10.1080/23311983.2020.1799483. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  79. Ojo, E., Mbohwa, C., & Akinlabi, E. (2015). Sustainability-competitive advantage. In: Proceedings of the 2015 International Conference on Operations Excellence and Service Engineering, Florida. pp. 592–600.
  80. Pappas E. A new systems approach to sustainability: University responsibility for teaching sustainability in contexts. Journal of Sustainability Education. 2012;3(1):3–18. [Google Scholar]
  81. Parrado Castañeda ÁM, Trujillo Quintero HF. Universidad y sostenibilidad: Una aproximación teórica para su implementación. AD-Minister. 2015;26:149–163. doi: 10.17230/ad-minister.26.7. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  82. Pennington N. Communication outside of the home through social media during COVID-19. Computers in Human Behavior Reports. 2021;4:100118. doi: 10.1016/j.chbr.2021.100118. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  83. Permana IPH, Meinarni NPS. Ratio analysis on Tiktok (social media) for qualitative research using explorative methods. Jurnal Ekonomi & Bisnis JAGADITHA. 2021;8(1):30–38. doi: 10.22225/jj.8.1.2944.30-38. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  84. Pouri MJ, Hilty LM. ICT-enabled sharing economy and environmental sustainability—a resource-oriented approach. In: Bungartz HJ, Kranzlmüller D, Weinberg V, Weismüller J, Wohlgemuth V, editors. Advances and new trends in environmental informatics: Managing disruption, big data and open science. Cham: Springer International Publishing; 2018. pp. 53–65. [Google Scholar]
  85. Purvis B, Mao Y, Robinson D. Three pillars of sustainability: In search of conceptual origins. Sustainability Science. 2019;14(3):681–695. doi: 10.1007/s11625-018-0627-5. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  86. Qorri A, Mujkić Z, Kraslawski A. A conceptual framework for measuring sustainability performance of supply chains. Journal of Cleaner Production. 2018;189:570–584. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.04.073. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  87. Rai SS, Rai S, Singh NK. Organizational resilience and social-economic sustainability: COVID-19 perspective. Environment, Development and Sustainability. 2021;23(8):12006–12023. doi: 10.1007/s10668-020-01154-6. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  88. Rajeh MT, Sembawa SN, Nassar AA, Al Hebshi SA, Aboalshamat KT, Badri MK. Social media as a learning tool: Dental students’ perspectives. Journal of Dental Education. 2021;85(4):513–520. doi: 10.1002/jdd.12478. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  89. Ranjbari M, Esfandabadi ZS, Zanetti MC, Scagnelli SD, Siebers PO, Aghbashlo M, Tabatabaei M. Three pillars of sustainability in the wake of COVID-19: A systematic review and future research agenda for sustainable development. Journal of Cleaner Production. 2021;297:126660. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.126660. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  90. Roberts JA, David ME. On the outside looking in: Social media intensity, social connection, and user well-being: The moderating role of passive social media use. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science/Revue canadienne des sciences du comportement. 2022 doi: 10.1037/cbs0000323. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  91. Royant-Parola S, Londe V, Tréhout S, Hartley S. The use of social media modifies teenagers’ sleep-related behavior. L’encephale. 2017;44(4):321–328. doi: 10.1016/j.encep.2017.03.009. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  92. Ruhnke K, Gabriel A. Determinants of voluntary assurance on sustainability reports: An empirical analysis. Journal of Business Economics. 2013;83(9):1063–1091. doi: 10.1007/s11573-013-0686-0. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  93. Sardianou E, Stauropoulou A, Evangelinos K, Nikolaou I. A materiality analysis framework to assess sustainable development goals of banking sector through sustainability reports. Sustainable Production and Consumption. 2021;27:1775–1793. doi: 10.1016/j.spc.2021.04.020. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  94. Sarstedt M, Ringle CM, Cheah JH, Ting H, Moisescu OI, Radomir L. Structural model robustness checks in PLS-SEM. Tourism Economics. 2020;26(4):531–554. doi: 10.1177/1354816618823921. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  95. Saura JR, Herráez BR, Reyes-Menendez A. Comparing a traditional approach for financial Brand communication analysis with a big data analytics technique. IEEE Access. 2019;7:37100–37108. doi: 10.1109/ACCESS.2019.2905301. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  96. Saura JR, Ribeiro-Soriano D, Palacios-Marqués D. Assessing behavioral data science privacy issues in government artificial intelligence deployment. Government Information Quarterly. 2022 doi: 10.1016/j.giq.2022.101679. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  97. Saura JR, Ribeiro-Soriano D, Palacios-Marqués D. Adopting digital reservation systems to enable circular economy in entrepreneurship. Management Decision. 2022 doi: 10.1108/MD-02-2022b-0190. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  98. Saura JR, Ribeiro-Soriano D, Saldaña PZ. Exploring the challenges of remote work on Twitter users’ sentiments: From digital technology development to a post-pandemic era. Journal of Business Research. 2022;142:242–254. doi: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2021.12.052. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  99. Schnellbächer B, Heidenreich S. The role of individual ambidexterity for organizational performance: Examining effects of ambidextrous knowledge seeking and offering. The Journal of Technology Transfer. 2020;45(5):1535–1561. doi: 10.1007/s10961-020-09781-x. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  100. Segovia-Vargas MJ, Camacho-Miñano MDM, Pedrosa Alberto FC, Gelashvili V. Sheltered employment centres: Sustainability and Social Value. Sustainability. 2021;13(14):7900. doi: 10.3390/su13147900. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  101. Sellami YM, Hlima NDB, Jarboui A. An empirical investigation of determinants of sustainability report assurance in France. Journal of Financial Reporting and Accounting. 2019;17(2):320–342. doi: 10.1108/JFRA-02-2018-0019. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  102. Sharma K, Anand A, Kumar R. The role of Yoga in working from home during the COVID-19 global lockdown. Work. 2020;66(4):731–737. doi: 10.3233/WOR-203219. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  103. Sibley CG, Greaves LM, Satherley N, Wilson MS, Overall NC, Lee CH, Houkamau CA. Effects of the COVID-19 pandemic and nationwide lockdown on trust, attitudes toward government, and well-being. American Psychologist. 2020;75(5):618–630. doi: 10.1037/amp0000662. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  104. Silmi ZK, Rachmawati WR, Sugiarto A, Hastuti TP. Correlation of Intensity of Use of Social Media with The Level of Social Anxiety In Adolescents. Midwifery and Nursing Research. 2020;2(2):60–64. doi: 10.31983/manr.v2i2.5880. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  105. Stolze A, Sailer K. Advancing HEIs’ third-mission through dynamic capabilities: The role of leadership and agreement on vision and goals. The Journal of Technology Transfer. 2022;47(2):580–604. doi: 10.1007/s10961-021-09850-9. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  106. Troise C, Camilleri MA. The use of digital media for marketing, CSR communication and stakeholder engagement. In: Camilleri MA, editor. Strategic corporate communication in the digital age. Emerald Publishing Limited; 2021. pp. 161–174. [Google Scholar]
  107. Ur Rahman R, Ali Shah SM, El-Gohary H, Abbas M, Haider Khalil S, Al Altheeb S, Sultan F. Social media adoption and financial sustainability: Learned lessons from developing countries. Sustainability. 2020;12(24):10616. doi: 10.3390/su122410616. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  108. Valdez D, Ten Thij M, Bathina K, Rutter LA, Bollen J. Social media insights into US mental health during the COVID-19 pandemic: Longitudinal analysis of Twitter data. Journal of Medical Internet Research. 2020;22(12):e21418. doi: 10.2196/21418. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  109. Velazquez L, Munguia N, Platt A, Taddei J. Sustainable university: What can be the matter? Journal of Cleaner Production. 2006;14(9–11):810–819. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2005.12.008. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  110. Venegas-Vera AV, Colbert GB, Lerma EV. Positive and negative impact of social media in the COVID-19 era. Reviews in cardiovascular medicine. 2020;21(4):561. doi: 10.31083/j.rcm.2020.04.195. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  111. Zhong B, Jiang Z, Xie W, Qin X. Association of social media use with mental health conditions of nonpatients during the COVID-19 outbreak: Insights from a national survey study. Journal of Medical Internet Research. 2020;22(12):e23696. doi: 10.2196/23696. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from The Journal of Technology Transfer are provided here courtesy of Nature Publishing Group

RESOURCES