Modern organizations are witnessing a shift towards adopting proactive sustainability strategies to address environmental, social and economic challenges, and universities are considered vital institutions in promoting sustainability through scientific research and community awareness. Furthermore, organizational culture may act as a mediating factor in achieving alignment between proactive strategies and organizational performance.

Theoretical Framework

First: The Concept of Proactive Sustainability

Organizations' response to sustainability issues in general is increasing due to internal and external factors related to sustainability, such as regulatory pressures and a growing sense of social and ethical responsibility amongst senior management, therefore organizations have a growing incentive to proactively integrate sustainability issues into their strategy rather than merely complying with regulatory requirements [1]. It is stated [2] that a proactive sustainability strategy improves organisations’ sustainability performance through the efficient use of resources, increased cost advantage, reduced waste and emissions, enhanced social reputation, improved customer preferences, and the generation of new innovative capabilities.

With growing awareness of ethical responsibility and the rapid depletion and scarcity of raw materials, amidst issues such as climate change and marketing for future generations, organizations have begun to adopt clear strategies to address social and environmental challenges [3]. Eweje [4] emphasized that organizations' motivations for sustainability have shifted from merely managing reputation or meeting environmental obligations to making efforts to create value in both the short and long term; this value is created through responsible strategies that include the efficient use of resources and investment in sustainable products. According to [5] proactive sustainability is organizations' endeavor to meet the diverse expectations of stakeholders on the one hand, and on the other, to derive benefits from responsible practices that create shared value for the organization, the environment and society through the adoption of proactive strategies without environmental pressures.

The researcher considers that a proactive sustainability strategy is one of the strategies adopted by organizations to achieve standing, reputation and acceptance amongst stakeholders, as well as to seek a sustainable competitive advantage that cannot be replicated or imitated.

Secondly: The Concept of Organizational Performance

Improving organizational performance is a goal pursued by all organizations; organizational performance is defined as a comparison of the organization's performance against its established goals and objectives. In the past, performance measurement focused primarily on financial metrics such as revenue, profit, net operating income, return on assets, return on equity and return on sales. However, whilst these metrics are useful, they cannot provide competitive advantages in a highly competitive environment [6]. Al Khajeh [7] emphasized that organizational performance is a complex and multidimensional phenomenon in the business world, as it refers to an organization's actual results or outputs, which can be measured against the objectives to be achieved. According to [8], organizational performance encompasses three main areas:

• Financial performance (such as return on investment and profits)
• Shareholder returns (such as economic value added and total shareholder return)
• Product or service market performance (e.g. market share and sales)

These areas are interrelated and contribute to the assessment of the organization's overall performance.

Financial indicators reflect the economic objectives of multinational companies from a financial perspective, whilst market-based financial indicators reflect the investor’s perspective and focus on risk; these indicators point to a narrow concept of business performance, whereas operational performance is considered the broader concept [9]. Akpa et al. [10] note that operational indicators focus on the key factors that drive financial performance, whilst efficiency measures encompass reputation, survival and the achievement of objectives relative to competitors. Operational and organizational effectiveness and financial performance are interrelated, as it is assumed that improving organizational effectiveness leads to better financial performance in the medium to long term, since performance improvement is at the heart of strategic management. In summary, an organization's performance encompasses financial, operational and organizational indicators aimed at achieving a balance between the actual objectives achieved and the planned strategies.

Thirdly: The concept of organizational culture

Researchers in organizational theory have pointed out that there is a relationship between culture, organizational performance and the behavior of individuals within organizations, as culture is considered a key factor in organizational success [11]. Elsbach [12] wrote that organizational culture has become a growing concern for leaders of global organizations, as fostering the right culture naturally leads to improved customer service, the building of a strong brand, and increased levels of enthusiasm amongst staff and customers. Pathiranage [13] explains that organizational culture refers to the norms that members of an organization experience and describe as their working environment; and these norms determine how members behave in their organizational roles and adapt to achieve results within the organization; organizational culture also reflects the way in which members of the organization interact with one another and with other stakeholders. Tan [14] emphasized that organizations with a competitive advantage based on their organizational culture can enjoy sustainable profitability, whereas organizations lacking this advantage are unable to change their culture in order to gain such an advantage. Conversely, [15] wrote that valuable and rare cultural traits give an organisation a short-term advantage, but these traits also invite imitation. Cultural traits that can be imitated become commonplace in the long term and lose the ability to sustain high profitability.

Organizational culture is a complex and important concept; it can be difficult to understand, utilize thoughtfully and capitalize on. It operates on three levels: manifestations (including observable symbols and mission and vision statements), adopted beliefs and values, and underlying basic assumptions. All of this helps us to understand how culture is shaped within an organization and how it influences performance and interactions. In contrast, [10] defined it as the shared philosophies, ideologies, values, assumptions, beliefs, expectations, attitudes and norms that bind a community together. The main dimensions of organizational culture include assumptions, attitudes, ethical behavior, beliefs, knowledge, leadership, management, meanings, mission and vision, standards, organizational capabilities, perspective, rules, strategy, symbols and values.

The researcher considers organizational culture to be one of the most important organizational factors, which has a direct impact on the performance of employees on the one hand, and on the other hand helps to integrate new members into the organization.

Firstly/ The Significance of the Study

The significance of this study lies in highlighting the role of proactive sustainability in improving the performance of Iraqi public academic institutions, particularly in light of recent trends towards the private sector and private universities, which are creating a highly competitive environment between the public and private academic sectors, as well as exploring the impact of organizational culture as a mediating factor in this context.

Secondly/ Research Problem

The present study poses the main question: Does proactive sustainability contribute to enhancing the performance of Maysan University and its faculties through the mediating role of organizational culture?

In addition, there is a research gap represented by the scarcity of studies linking proactive sustainability and organizational performance in the Iraqi academic environment, and a lack of focus on organizational culture as a mediating factor in this context.

Thirdly/ Objectives of the Study

• To analyses the concept of proactive sustainability and its dimensions in academic institutions
• To measure the impact of proactive sustainability on the performance of Maysan University and its faculties
• To determine the role of organizational culture as a mediator between proactive sustainability and performance
• To understand lecturers’ views on the implementation of sustainability strategies in the workplace

Fourth/ Research Hypotheses

• Hypothesis 1: (There is a statistically significant correlation between proactive sustainability and organizational culture).
• Hypothesis 2: (There is a statistically significant correlation between proactive sustainability and organizational performance)
• Hypothesis 3: (There is a statistically significant correlation between organizational culture and organizational performance.)
• Hypothesis 4: (There is a statistically significant causal relationship between proactive sustainability and organizational culture.)
• Hypothesis 5: (There is a statistically significant causal relationship between proactive sustainability and organizational performance)
• Hypothesis 6: (There is a statistically significant causal relationship between organizational culture and organizational performance).
• Hypothesis 7: (There is a statistically significant indirect relationship between proactive sustainability and organizational performance, mediated by organizational culture).

  Fifth/ Hypothesis Framework of the Study

  In light of the study’s objectives and hypotheses, the hypothesis framework to be tested later in the empirical phase of the study is illustrated in Figure (1).

Figure 1:  Fifth/ Hypothesis Framework of the Study

Sixth/ Research Methodology

The present study is a descriptive-analytical study that employs a quantitative approach to data analysis. The study population consists of lecturers and administrative staff at the University of Maysan and its affiliated faculties; the sample was selected at random and comprised 215 working individuals. The data collection tools comprised an electronic questionnaire designed according to a five-point Likert scale, as well as semi-structured interviews with a selected sample (10–15 lecturers). A range of statistical analyses was carried out using SPSS and AMOS software, namely:

• Confirmatory factor analysis
• Cronbach’s alpha coefficient for reliability
• Pearson’s correlation test
• Linear regression to assess direct relationships
• Structural Equation Modelling (SEM) to test mediating effects.

Seventh/ Challenges of the Study

• Difficulty in obtaining accurate data on the university’s performance.
• The possibility that some participants may be reluctant to express their opinions.
• Limited financial resources for the study.

Eighth/ Timetable for the Study

Practical Aspects

First: Tests of the Research Scale (questionnaire)

Testing the Normality of the Data: The Kolmogorov-Smirnov and Shapiro-Wilk tests whether the data collected follow a normal distribution or not, with the aim of determining the statistical methods to be used in hypothesis testing; parametric methods are used if the data follow a normal distribution, and non-parametric methods if they do not. The data is assessed based on the significance level (Sig); if the value is greater than 0.05, the data follows a normal distribution, whereas if the value is less than 0.05, it means the data does not follow a normal distribution.

Tables (1-3) show that the Sig values for the variables ‘proactive sustainability’, ‘organizational culture’ and ‘organizational performance’ are all greater than 0.05, meaning that the data follow a normal distribution. This justifies the researcher’s use of parametric statistical methods. Similarly, Figures (2-4) illustrate the normal distribution of the variables.

Table 1: The Normal Distribution of the Proactive Sustainability Variable

Table 2: The Normal Distribution of the Organizational Culture Variable

Table 3: The Normal Distribution of the Organisation’s Performance Variable

Figure 2: The Normal Distribution Curve for the Proactive Sustainability Variable

Figure 3: The Normal Distribution Curve for the Organizational Culture Variable

Figure 4: The Normal Distribution Curve for the Organisation’s Performance Variable

Confirmatory Factor Analysis

The researcher conducts a test to ensure that the data collected from the questionnaire corresponds to the hypothetical measurement model. This is done using fit indices, as shown in Table 4, based on these indices, the measurement model is either accepted or rejected. The researcher also verifies the extent to which the measurement model represents the study variables (proactive sustainability, organizational culture, organizational performance) to the dimensions specified in the scales, and the statistical validity of its items. This is done through the aforementioned indices and the standardized regression weights that link the latent variables to each item of the scale, where reliability coefficients exceeding 0.40 indicate the reliability of the item.

The goodness-of-fit value shown in Figure 5 indicates the validity of the structural framework of the Proactive Sustainability Scale, which is measured across three sub-dimensions, namely (environmental strategy: 4 items; economic strategy: 3 items; social strategy: 4 items). It should be noted that item (SS1) was omitted because its regression coefficient did not exceed the cut-off value of 0.40; furthermore, two of the adjustment indices recommended by the Amos programme were utilised. Furthermore, the values shown in Table 5 confirm that these items measure the three dimensions of the proactive sustainability variable, as indicated by the critical ratio (C.R.), since all their values are significant and exceed the standard value of 1.96, indicating that the data collected from the questionnaire are consistent with the measurement model used. The goodness-of-fit values shown in Figure (6) indicate the validity of the structural framework of the organizational culture scale, which is measured across four sub-dimensions: organizational values (5 items), organizational beliefs (5 items), organizational norms (5 items) and rituals (5 items). Furthermore, the values shown in Table (6) confirm that these items measure the four dimensions of the organizational culture variable, as indicated by the critical ratio (C.R.) values. All values are significant and exceed the standard threshold of 2.56, indicating that the data collected from the questionnaire are consistent with the measurement model used.

The adequate model fit value shown in Figure (7) indicates the validity of the structural model for the organizational performance variable scale, which is measured on a single dimension comprising six items. It should be noted that items FP6, FP7, FP8 and FP9 were omitted because their regression coefficients did not exceed the cut-off value of 0.40; furthermore, three of the adjustment indicators recommended by the Amos programmer were utilized. Furthermore, the values shown in Table 7 confirm that these items measure the one-dimensional organizational performance variable in terms of the critical ratio (C.R.), as all their values are statistically significant and exceed the standard value of 1.96, indicating that the data collected from the questionnaire are consistent with the measurement model used.

Table 4: Model Fit Indices for the Scale

Source: Applying And Interpreting Statistics: A Comprehensive Guide [16].‏

Table 5: Standardized Estimates for the Proactive Sustainability Variable

Table 6: Standardised Estimates for the Organizational Culture Variable

Table 7: Standardised Estimates for the Organizational Performance Variable

Figure 5: Confirmatory Factor Analysis of the Proactive Sustainability Variable

Figure 6: Confirmatory factor Analysis of the Organizational Culture Variable

Figure 7: Confirmatory Factor Analysis of the Organizational Performance Variable

Reliability of The Research Scale

Table 8 shows the Cronbach’s alpha values for the three research variables. It is clear that all values exceeded 0.70, which are statistically acceptable values, meaning that the research scale used has acceptable reliability.

Table 8: Cronbach’s Alpha test for the Research Scale

Second: Testing the Research Hypotheses

Testing the Correlation Hypotheses

Table 9 indicates the existence of a positive and statistically significant correlation between the research variables, with the Pearson correlation coefficient between the proactive sustainability variable and the organizational culture variable being (^**8750.) and between the proactive sustainability variable and organizational performance (**0.888), and between organizational culture and organizational performance (**0.963). These values illustrate the strength of the direct relationship between the variables, as the presence of one inevitably leads to the presence of the other. This conclusion is supported by the statistical significance of the correlation achieved at a 1 per cent significance level, which implies a high degree of confidence in the results, with a confidence level of 99 per cent. Table 9 clearly presents the details of these relationships, thereby validating the first main hypothesis, which states (there is a statistically significant correlation between proactive sustainability and organizational culture), and the second main hypothesis, which states (there is a statistically significant correlation between proactive sustainability and organizational performance). The third main hypothesis, which states (that there is a statistically significant correlation between organizational culture and organizational performance), was tested using the responses from the research sample at Misan University and its affiliated faculties.

Table 9: Simple Pearson’s Correlation Coefficient

Testing the impact hypotheses

The study examines two types of impact hypotheses. The first type consists of the direct impact hypotheses namely, hypotheses four, five and six and these will be tested using the simple regression coefficient provided by the AMOS V.25 software package, The second type, Hypothesis 7, involves indirect effects through the mediating role of another variable in the relationship between the independent and dependent variables. Multiple regression analysis, as provided by the AMOS V.25 software package, will be used as follows:

Testing Hypothesis 4, which states (there is a statistically significant relationship between proactive sustainability and organizational culture). Figure 8 illustrates the test of this hypothesis, showing that the standardized effect size of the proactive sustainability variable on organizational culture was 63, which is a significant value at a significance level of (2.56), given the critical ratio (C.R.) of 7.992. This effect means that the proactive sustainability variable explains 63 per cent of the variation in the organizational culture variable; Furthermore, the coefficient of determination (R²) was 0.39, representing the variation in the organizational culture variable explained by the proactive sustainability variable; the remaining 0.41 is attributable to other factors not included in the hypothesis design of the present study.

Testing the fifth hypothesis, which states that (there is a statistically significant relationship between proactive sustainability and organizational performance). Figure 9 illustrates the testing of this hypothesis, showing that the standardised effect size of the proactive sustainability variable on organizational performance was 0.89, which is statistically significant at a significance level of 2.56, given the critical ratio (C.R.) of 19.078. This effect can be interpreted as meaning that the proactive sustainability variable explains 9 per cent of the variation in the organizational performance variable. Furthermore, the coefficient of determination (R²) was 0.79, representing the variation in organizational performance explained by the proactive sustainability variable; the remaining 0.31 is attributable to other factors not included in the hypothesis design of the present study.

Testing the sixth hypothesis, which states that ‘there is a statistically significant relationship between organizational culture and organizational performance’. Figure 10 illustrates the test of this hypothesis; it is evident that the standardised effect size of the organizational culture variable on organizational performance was (0.65), which is a significant value at a significance level of (2.56), given the critical ratio (C.R.) of 8.441. This effect indicates that the organizational culture variable accounts for 65 per cent of the variation in the organizational performance variable, Furthermore, the coefficient of determination, R², was 0.42, representing the variation in organizational performance explained by the organizational culture variable; the remaining 0.68 is attributable to other factors not included in the hypothesis design of the present study.

Testing the seventh hypothesis, which states that (there is a statistically significant indirect relationship between proactive sustainability and organizational performance, mediated by organizational culture). Figure 11 illustrates the testing of this hypothesis; it shows that the overall effect of the organizational culture variable on organizational performance, mediated by the organizational culture variable, was (0.96), which is a significant value at a significance level of (2.56) based on the critical ratio (C.R.) shown in Table (13). This effect can be interpreted as meaning that the variables ‘proactive sustainability’ and ‘organizational culture’ account for 96 per cent of the variation in organizational performance; Furthermore, the coefficient of determination (R²) was 93 per cent, representing the variation in organizational performance explained by these two variables together; the remaining 7 per cent is attributable to other factors not included in the present study.

Table 10: Regression paths and Weights for Testing the Effect of Proactive Sustainability on Organizational Culture

Table 11: Regression Paths and Weights for Testing the effect of Proactive Sustainability on Organizational Performance

Table 12: Regression Paths and Weights for Testing the Impact of Organizational Culture on Organizational Performance

Table 13: Regression paths and Weights for Testing the Indirect Effect

Figure 8: Proactive Sustainability Test in Organizational Culture

Figure 9: Proactive Sustainability Test on Organizational performance

Figure 10: Testing the Organizational Culture Strategy’s Impact on Organizational Performance

Figure 11: Testing the direct Moderating Effect

• A proactive sustainability strategy is a key factor in both the global and Iraqi academic environments; particularly given recent trends towards private universities, this factor is crucial for providing a sustainable and competitive environment for the University of Maysan and its affiliated faculties
• The teaching and administrative staff of Maysan University and its affiliated faculties contribute to promoting a proactive approach, thereby helping to foster a culture of proactivity which enhances the university’s standing and raises its scientific and academic standards amongst other universities
• Organizational culture is a key element in fostering a spirit of cooperation and teamwork, enabling the effective achievement of strategic objectives and the optimal utilization of human resources and their capabilities to secure a sustainable competitive advantage across all sectors of the University’s scientific, academic, administrative and legal operations
• Although there is significant support from the leadership of Maysan University for fostering an organizational culture that promotes proactive work, there is a clear lack of definition regarding the vision and key strategies for achieving this objective
• Maysan University and its constituent faculties are characterized by a high level of organizational performance and smooth workflow in both academic and administrative matters. They successfully achieve their long-term objectives and strategies, whilst addressing obstacles and problems in a straightforward and innovative manner, thereby creating a conducive and comfortable working environment that fosters innovation
• The research findings indicate a lack of courses, seminars or workshops that clearly explain the university’s vision and mission to its teaching and administrative staff, as well as a failure to clarify the methods employed by the university’s senior management under investigation to realise this vision and mission; this hinders the efficient and effective achievement of these objectives
• The research findings indicate a strong positive correlation between a proactive sustainability strategy and organizational culture on the one hand, and between organizational culture and organizational performance on the other. Furthermore, there is an indirect relationship between a proactive sustainability strategy and organizational performance, mediated by the variable of organizational culture

Recommendations

• Senior management at the university and its constituent faculties must support research initiatives amongst academic and administrative staff to promote proactive work. This should be achieved by encouraging the sharing of innovative ideas and listening to proposed solutions to the problems and obstacles they face, thereby fostering a spirit of cooperation between management and staff
• Senior management at the university and its faculties should work to increase the number of open dialogue sessions with administrative staff across the university and its faculties, in order to clearly explain what is required of them to achieve the objectives
• Organize courses and workshops for academic staff in various fields to explain the concepts presented in this study, which contribute to enhancing the university’s competitive advantage
• Work to foster an organizational culture that promotes a spirit of innovation and proactive work by offering financial and non-financial rewards for every proactive initiative undertaken by staff members at the university and its affiliated faculties under study
• The researchers recommend expanding the research by applying the findings of this study to private universities and colleges, as well as to other international contexts
• The researchers recommend conducting research into the impact of inspirational leadership on the promotion of proactive work

1. Wijethilake, C. “Proactive sustainability strategy and corporate sustainability performance: The mediating effect of sustainability control systems.” Journal of Environmental Management, vol. 19, no. 6, 2017, pp. 569–582.
2. Wijethilake, C. and A. Ekanayake. “Proactive strategic responses to corporate sustainability pressures: A sustainability control system framework.” Advances in Management Accounting, vol. 30, no. 2, Emerald Publishing Limited, 2018, pp. 129–173.
3. Ghosh, B. et al. “Controlling for sustainability strategies: Findings from research and directions for the future.” Journal of Management Control, vol. 30, no. 1, 2019, pp. 5–24.
4. Eweje, G. “Proactive environmental and social strategies in a small-to medium-sized company: A case study of a japanese SME.” Business Strategy and the Environment, vol. 29, no. 7, 2020, pp. 2927–2938.
5. Nwoba, A.C. et al. “Corporate sustainability strategies in institutional adversity: Antecedent, outcome, and contingency effects.” Business Strategy and the Environment, vol. 30, no. 2, 2021, pp. 787–807.
6. Novak, A. “Knowledge management and organizational performance–literature review.” Management Challenges in a Network Economy: MakeLearn and TIIM International Conference, vol. 17, no. 8, 2017, pp. 433–440.
7. Al Khajeh, E.H. “Impact of leadership styles on organizational performance.” Journal of Human Resources Management Research, vol. 18, no. 20, 2018, pp. 1–10.
8. George, B. et al. “Does strategic planning improve organizational performance? A Meta-Analysis.” Public Administration Review, vol. 79, no. 6, 2019, pp. 810–819.
9. Conţu, E.G. “Organizational performance–theoretical and practical approaches: Study on students’ perceptions.” Proceedings of the International Conference on Business Excellence, vol. 14, no. 1, 2020, pp. 398–406.
10. Akpa, V.O. et al. “Organizational culture and organizational performance: A review of literature.” International Journal of Advances in Engineering and Management, vol. 3, no. 1, 2021, pp. 361–372.
11. Warrick, D.D. “What leaders need to know about organizational culture.” Business Horizons, vol. 60, no. 3, 2017, pp. 395–404.
12. Elsbach, K.D. and I. Stigliani. “Design thinking and organizational culture: A review and framework for future research.” Journal of Management, vol. 44, no. 6, 2018, pp. 2274–2306.
13. Pathiranage, J. “Organizational culture and business performance: An empirical study.” International Journal of Economics and Management, vol. 24, no. 2, 2019, pp. 264–278.
14. Tan, B.S. “In search of the link between organizational culture and performance: A review from the conclusion validity perspective.” Leadership & Organization Development Journal, vol. 40, no. 3, 2019, pp. 356–368.
15. Paais, M. and J.R. Pattiruhu. “Effect of motivation, leadership, and organizational culture on satisfaction and employee performance.” The Journal of Asian Finance, Economics and Business, vol. 7, no. 8, 2020, pp. 577–588.
16. McPherson, G. Applying and Interpreting Statistics: A Comprehensive Guide. Springer, 2001.