Analysis of Reducing the Carbon Footprint of Oil and Gas Companies in the UK Research Paper

Poster

Introduction

Reducing the carbon footprint of oil and gas companies in the UK has been one of the major objectives of the UK Energy Research Centre (Brand et al., 2020; Tennison et al., 2021; Janson et al., 2020). The topic combines elements of technology and globalization within the oil and gas sector since sustainable use of resources has become an increasing concern on a global scale (Ghazouani et al., 2020; Jäckle, 2019). The strategic value of this topic to organizations is that it enables research and innovation for the benefit of the entire UK oil and gas industry.

Background

The challenge of CO2 emissions is exacerbated by the growing concerns over global warming and climate change (Safari et al., 2018; Shahbaz et al., 2020). Oil and gas companies are prone to various risks in terms of environmental impacts due to the extraction of oil and gas reserves, which include land-use changes and pollution (Sadeghi, Ghandehariun and Rosen, 2020; Bousema et al., 2020; Dixon et al., 2020). Oil and gas companies cause about 42% of the UK’s carbon emissions within its borders (Chenic et al., 2022; Siddi, 2020; Malik et al., 2018). It has brought about growing concern over climate change and global warming issues. Several challenges result from this issue, such as the UK’s largest carbon emitter in the oil and gas industry (Murshed et al., 2022; Ahmed Ali, Ahmad, and Yusup, 2020; (Bayer & Aklin, 2020; Bag & Pretorius, 2020). Secondly, there is a lack of measurement systems and reduction processes to determine the carbon footprint of the industry; this is due to various factors, such as inadequate data collection by the industry (Bayer & Aklin, 2020; Bag & Pretorius, 2020). It has influenced how quickly an individual organization or industry can reduce its carbon footprint.

Rationale

The significance of this research is that it will help to reduce the carbon footprint of oil and gas companies in the UK. Resulting from reduced CO2 emissions in the UK, oil and gas companies will be forced to transfer more of their financial resources to the government (Lacoste et al., 2019; Solaymani, 2019; Pickl, 2019). Since companies may lose opportunities to profit from the emission-trading scheme, a new form of taxation (Gillingham & Stock, 2018; Bai et al., 2020; (Roberts et al., 2018; Charlesworth, Stewart, and Sainsbury, 2018). For industrial benefit, the research will identify ways to reduce emissions and hence the overall carbon footprint within the industry (Patterson et al., 2021; Mardani et al., 2019: Nash & Steurer, 2019). For personal benefit, this research will assist in my career progression by highlighting areas for technological development and clarifying my future research interests (Requia et al., 2018; Shindell et al., 2018; Yang and Usman, 2021). It will assist me in acquiring knowledge on ways to reduce carbon footprint emissions. For educational benefit, this research allows researchers to identify areas that need improvement within the industry and assist in reducing emissions faster (Roberts et al., 2018; Charlesworth, Stewart, and Sainsbury, 2018).

Scope

The general purposes of the study are to determine the impact of the carbon footprint on the environment and ways companies can measure carbon footprints. The research will also identify best practices for reducing carbon emissions. The samples that will be studied are oil and gas companies located in the UK.

Aims and Objectives

This research aims to create awareness for companies to understand the need to reduce carbon emissions. Research objectives include:

1. To determine the technologies used to reduce carbon footprints for oil and gas companies in the UK.
2. To determine how oil and gas companies measure their carbon footprint and what methods they use to achieve their goal of reducing carbon emissions.

Influential Theories

The key areas to cover in the final report include carbon footprint management technology, footprint quantification/measurement techniques, and organizational-level carbon emission reduction methods in the UK seen through the prism of organizational, sustainable development, and environmental management theories (Small, Owen and Paavola, 2022; Peng and Deng, 2021). The first component of the framework, organizational theory, posits that organizational entities’ decision-making and performance, including environmental-focused one, is predicted by organizational structures’ characteristics and oversight processes (Hatch, 2018; Paais and Pattiruhu, 2020; Sartipi, 2020; Zhang et al., 2019). The sustainable development theory posits that technological/economic development should incorporate consideration for future generations’ potential environmental challenges, the habitat’s long-term stability, and preserving natural capital, such as high-quality air; importantly, honest reporting and harm measurement solidify competitive advantage (Arsawan et al., 2020; Kantabutra, 2020; Peng and Deng, 2021). The environmental management approach posits that businesses’ core strategies should incorporate product/manufacturing-focused transformations to achieve environmental sustainability at the organizational level (Arsawan et al., 2020; Dhar et al., 2022; Kantabutra, 2020; Nielsen et al., 2019; Prieto-Sandoval et al., 2019; Reed et al., 2018). As shown in Figure 1, the theories underpin both objectives above by positing the need for technology-mediated natural resource preservation, environmental harm reduction, and ecological impact measurement.

Integration with the Oil and Gas MBA

Integration with the oil and gas MBA has increased the oil and gas major capabilities in managing change. To address sustainability issues within the oil and gas industry, organizations must develop more efficient methods to achieve their sustainability targets and reduce their carbon footprint.

Method of Analysis

The analytical framework used in this research is a systematic review. A systematic review is defined as selecting, reviewing, and forming the findings using systematic procedures, be it qualitative or quantitative methods (Newman & Gough, 2020; Cooper et al., 2018). The method was selected because it helps determine the overall impact of oil and gas companies in the UK on climate change.

Step 1: The scope of the study: the researcher will start with a literature review of previous studies on this topic to look at and develop the methods, methods of analysis, and related factors that can influence the research outcome and then proceed by collecting data by reviewing studies based on the same topic.

Step 2: The search process will focus on developing strategies that can be used in measurement and reduction processes and introducing new technologies to ensure reduction occurs faster.

Step3: Quality appraisal; the research will support decision-making regarding environmental issues that significantly impact climate change. The qualitative thematic analysis explores the themes, patterns, and topics in qualitative research and looks at how they can be grouped to form a category (Lochmiller, 2021).

Step 4: A preliminary list of sources includes Onat & Kucukvar, 2020; Lenzen et al., 2020; Abbasi et al., 2021; Griffin, Hammond & Norman, 2018; Adedoyin & Zakari, 2020; Ahmad & Zhang, 2020; Lin & Jia 2018; Usman & Radulescu, 2022; Erdoğan et al., 2020; Li et al., 2020; Ashraf, 2022, and Nassani, Aldakhil & Zaman, 2021.

Step 5: Analysis: The study will provide an overview of the carbon footprint of oil and gas companies in the UK, measurement systems, and reduction processes to determine the industry’s carbon footprint.

Step 6: Conclusion: It will also provide information on how relevant technologies can be used to reduce carbon footprint by identifying their impact on reducing carbon footprint within the industry.

Evidence and Data

O1: Reviewing the scope of technological solutions for CO2 emission reduction available to UK-based companies in the oil and gas sector is an urgent research-related objective, which is evident from the issue’s size. Ben Jebli, Ben Youssef, and Apergis (2019) and Agozie et al. (2022) emphasize that the UK’s carbon emissions are mainly produced by the transportation industry, whereas Caineng et al. (2021), Gyamfi et al. (2021), Bekun et al. (2019), and Keith et al. (2021) highlight the oil and gas sector’s particular contributions to the UK’s total CO2 emissions. A 2022 Greenpeace UK report also problematizes emissions from oil and gas operations and assesses the industry’s carbon dioxide emission intensity to have experienced a 15% increase in 2021, reaching 23 kilograms of CO2 per barrel of oil equivalent (Boren, 2022). From the government’s estimates, addressing the crisis requires reducing GHG emissions, including CO2, by at least 34% (Sovacool et al., 2021; Filipović, Lior and Radovanović, 2022).

O2: Addressing the problem above requires in-depth research into carbon footprint measurement techniques and emission reduction methods for the sector. Based on research, some footprint quantification/measurement frameworks incorporate life cycle analysis and emission factors (Clabeaux et al., 2020; Mohsin et al., 2019). There are various measurements, including the Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Protocol and the System of Environmental-Economic Accounting (SEEA) standards (Keith et al., 2019; Sylla et al., 2021; Hunt et al., 2022). As opposed to less specific footprint reduction opinions, Hunt et al. (2022), Boren (2022), Behun et al. (2019), and Keith et al. (2021) mention that entities in the oil and gas sector have to consider incorporating novel analytical areas and reduction approaches, including biofuels, renewable power generation, and flaring policies, to address the 34% emission reduction suggestion.

References

Abbasi, K.R., Hussain, K., Redulescu, M., & Ozturk, I. (2021). Does natural resources depletion and economic growth achieve the carbon neutrality target of the UK? A way forward towards sustainable development. Resources Policy, 74, p.102341.

Adedoyin, F.F., & Zakari, A., (2020). Energy consumption, economic expansion, and CO2 emission in the UK: the role of economic policy uncertainty. Science of the Total Environment, 738, p.140014.

Agozie, D. Q., Gyamfi, B. A., Bekun, F. V., Ozturk, I., & Taha, A. (2022). Environmental Kuznets Curve hypothesis from the lens of economic complexity index for BRICS: evidence from second generation panel analysis. Sustainable Energy Technologies and Assessments, 53, 102597. Web.

Ahmad, T., & Zhang, D. (2020). A critical review of comparative global historical energy consumption and future demand: The story told so far. Energy Reports, 6, pp.1973-1991.

Ahmed Ali, K., Ahmad, M.I., & Yusup, Y., (2020). Issues, impacts, and mitigations of carbon dioxide emissions in the building sector. Sustainability, 12(18), p.7427.

Arsawan, I.W.E., Koval, V., Rajiani, I., Rustiarini, N.W., Supartha, W.G., & Suryantini, N.P.S., (2020). Leveraging knowledge sharing and innovation culture into SMEs sustainable competitive advantage. International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management. Web.

Ashraf, J., (2022). The spillover effects of political risk, financial risk, and economic freedom on ecological footprint: empirical evidence from belt and road initiative countries. Borsa Istanbul Review, 22(5), pp.873-885.

Ashrafi, M., Magnan, G.M., Adams, M., & Walker, T.R. (2020). Understanding the conceptual evolutionary path and theoretical underpinnings of corporate social responsibility and corporate sustainability. Sustainability, 12(3), p.760.

Bag, S., & Pretorius, J.H.C., (2020). Relationships between industry 4.0, sustainable manufacturing and circular economy: proposal of a research framework. International Journal of Organizational Analysis. Web.

Bai, C., Feng, C., Yan, H., Yi, X., Chen, Z., & Wei, W., (2020). Will income inequality influence the abatement effect of renewable energy technological innovation on carbon dioxide emissions? Journal of environmental management, 264, p.110482.

Bayer, P., & Aklin, M., (2020). The European Union emissions trading system reduced CO2 emissions despite low prices. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 117(16), pp.8804-8812.

Bekun, F.V., Alola, A.A., & Sarkodie, S.A., (2019). Toward a sustainable environment: Nexus between CO2 emissions, resource rent, renewable and nonrenewable energy in 16-EU countries. Science of the Total Environment, 657, pp.1023-1029. Web.

Ben Jebli, M., Ben Youssef, S., & Apergis, N., (2019). The dynamic linkage between renewable energy, tourism, CO2 emissions, economic growth, foreign direct investment, and trade. Latin American Economic Review, 28(1), pp.1-19.

Boren, Z. (2022) “UK oil and gas emissions intensity rises to record high,” Unearthed Greenpeace UK. Web.

Bousema, T., Selvaraj, P., Djimde, A.A., Yakar, D., Hagedorn, B., Pratt, A., Barret, D., Whitfield, K., & Cohen, J.M., (2020). Reducing the carbon footprint of academic conferences: the example of the American Society of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene. The American Journal of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene, 103(5), p.1758. Web.

Brand, C., Anable, J., Ketsopoulou, I., & Watson, J. (2020). Road to zero or road to nowhere? Disrupting transport and energy in a zero-carbon world. Energy Policy, 139, p.111334.

Caineng, Z.O.U., Xiong, B., Huaqing, X.U.E., ZHENG, D., Zhixin, G.E., Ying, WANG, JIANG, L., Songqi, P.A.N., & Songtao, W.U., (2021). The role of new energy in carbon neutrality. Petroleum exploration and development, 48(2), pp.480-491.

Charlesworth, K.E., Stewart, G.J., & Sainsbury, P. (2018). Addressing the carbon footprint of health organizations: eight lessons for implementation. Public Health Res Pract, 28(4), p.e2841830.

Chenic, A.Ș., Cretu, A.I., Burlacu, A., Moroianu, N., Vîrjan, D., Huru, D., Stanef-Puica, M.R., & Enachescu, V., (2022). Logical Analysis of the Strategy for a Sustainable Transition of the World to Green Energy—2050. Smart Cities and Villages Coupled to Renewable Energy Sources with Low Carbon Footprint. Sustainability, 14(14), p.8622. Web.

Clabeaux, R., Carbajales-Dale, M., Ladner, D., & Walker, T. (2020). Assessing the carbon footprint of a university campus using a life cycle assessment approach. Journal of Cleaner Production, 273, p.122600.

Cooper, C., Booth, A., Varley-Campbell, J., Britten, N., & Garside, R. (2018). Defining the process of literature searching in systematic reviews: a literature review of guidance and supporting studies. BMC medical research methodology, 18(1), pp.1-14.

Dhar, B.K., Harymawan, I., & Sarkar, S.M., (2022). Impact of corporate social responsibility on financial expert CEOs’ turnover in heavily polluting companies in Bangladesh. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management. Web.

Dixon, J., Bukhsh, W., Edmunds, C., & Bell, K. (2020). Scheduling electric vehicle charging to minimize carbon emissions and wind curtailment. Renewable Energy, 161, pp.1072-1091.

Erdoğan, S., Yıldırım, S., Yıldırım, D.Ç., & Gedikli, A., (2020). The effects of innovation on sectoral carbon emissions: evidence from G20 countries. Journal of environmental management, 267, p.110637.

Filipović, S., Lior, N., & Radovanović, M., (2022). The green deal–just transition and sustainable development goals Nexus. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 168, p.112759.

Ghazouani, A., Xia, W., Ben Jebli, M., & Shahzad, U., (2020). Exploring the role of carbon taxation policies on CO2 emissions: contextual evidence from tax implementation and non-implementation European Countries. Sustainability, 12(20), p.8680.

Gillingham, K., & Stock, J.H., (2018). The cost of reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 32(4), pp.53-72.

Griffin, P.W., Hammond, G.P., & Norman, J.B. (2018). Industrial energy use and carbon emissions reduction in the chemicals sector: A UK perspective. Applied Energy, 227, pp.587-602. Web.

Gyamfi, B.A., Adedoyin, F.F., Bein, M.A., Bekun, F.V., & Agozie, D.Q., (2021). The anthropogenic consequences of energy consumption in E7 economies: juxtaposing roles of renewable, coal, nuclear, oil and gas energy: evidence from panel quantile method. Journal of Cleaner Production, 295, p.126373. Web.

Hatch, M.J., (2018). Organization theory: Modern, symbolic, and postmodern perspectives. Oxford university press.

Hunt, J.D., Nascimento, A., Nascimento, N., Vieira, L.W., & Romero, O.J., (2022). Possible pathways for oil and gas companies in a sustainable future: From the perspective of a hydrogen economy. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 160, p.112291.

Jäckle, S. (2019). We have to change! The carbon footprint of ECPR general conferences and ways to reduce it. European Political Science, 18(4), pp.630-650.

Janson, C., Henderson, R., Löfdahl, M., Hedberg, M., Sharma, R., & Wilkinson, A.J., (2020). Carbon footprint impact of the choice of inhalers for asthma and COPD. Thorax, 75(1), pp.82-84.

Kantabutra, S., (2020). Toward an organizational theory of sustainability vision. Sustainability, 12(3), p.1125. Web.

Keith, H., Vardon, M., Obst, C., Young, V., Houghton, R.A., & Mackey, B. (2021). Evaluating nature-based solutions for climate mitigation and conservation requires comprehensive carbon accounting. Science of the Total Environment, 769, p.144341.

Keith, H., Vardon, M., Stein, J.A., & Lindenmayer, D., (2019). Contribution of native forests to climate change mitigation–A common approach to carbon accounting that aligns results from environmental-economic accounting with rules for emissions reduction. Environmental science & policy, 93, pp.189-199. Web.

Lacoste, A., Luccioni, A., Schmidt, V., & Dandres, T., (2019). Quantifying the carbon emissions of machine learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:1910.09700. Web.

Lenzen, M., Malik, A., Li, M., Fry, J., Weisz, H., Pichler, P.P., Chaves, L.S.M., Capon, A., & Pencheon, D., (2020). The environmental footprint of health care: a global assessment. The Lancet Planetary Health, 4(7), pp.e271-e279.

Li, J., Zhang, Y., Tian, Y., Cheng, W., Yang, J., Xu, D., Wang, Y., Xie, K., & Ku, A.Y., (2020). Reduction of carbon emissions from China’s coal-fired power industry: Insights from the province-level data. Journal of Cleaner Production, 242, p.118518.

Lin, B., & Jia, Z., (2019). The energy, environmental and economic impacts of carbon tax rate and taxation industry: A CGE based study in China. Energy, 159, pp.558-568. Web.

Lochmiller, C.R., (2021). Conducting Thematic Analysis with Qualitative Data. Qualitative Report, 26(6).

Malik, A., Lenzen, M., McAlister, S., & McGain, F. (2018). The carbon footprint of Australian health care. The Lancet Planetary Health, 2(1), pp.e27-e35.

Mardani, A., Streimikiene, D., Cavallaro, F., Loganathan, N., & Khoshnoudi, M., (2019). Carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions and economic growth: A systematic review of two decades of research from 1995 to 2017. Science of the total environment, 649, pp.31-49.

Mohsin, M., Rasheed, A.K., Sun, H., Zhang, J., Iram, R., Iqbal, N., & Abbas, Q. (2019). Developing low carbon economies: an aggregated composite index based on carbon emissions. Sustainable Energy Technologies and Assessments, 35, pp.365-374.

Murshed, M., Saboori, B., Madaleno, M., Wang, H., & Doğan, B., (2022). Exploring the nexuses between nuclear energy, renewable energy, and carbon dioxide emissions: The role of economic complexity in the G7 countries. Renewable Energy, 190, pp.664-674.

Nash, S.L., & Steurer, R., (2019). Taking stock of climate change acts in Europe: Living policy processes or symbolic gestures? Climate Policy, 19(8), pp.1052-1065.

Nassani, A.A., Aldakhil, A.M., & Zaman, K., (2021). Ecological footprints jeopardy for mineral resource extraction: Efficient use of energy, financial development, and insurance services to conserve natural resources. Resources Policy, 74, p.102271.

Newman, M., & Gough, D. (2020). Systematic reviews in educational research: Methodology, perspectives, and application. Systematic reviews in educational research, pp.3-22.

Nielsen, J.E., Babić, V., Stojanović-Aleksić, V., & Nikolić, J., (2019). Driving forces of employees’ entrepreneurial intentions-leadership style and organizational structure. Management: Journal of Sustainable Business and Management Solutions in Emerging Economies, 24(3), pp.59-71. Web.

Onat, N.C., & Kucukvar, M., (2020). Carbon footprint of construction industry: A global review and supply chain analysis. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 124, p.109783.

Paais, M., & Pattiruhu, J.R., (2020). Effect of motivation, leadership, and organizational culture on satisfaction and employee performance. The Journal of Asian Finance, Economics, and Business, 7(8), pp.577-588.

Patterson, D., Gonzalez, J., Le, Q., Liang, C., Munguia, L.M., Rothchild, D., So, D., Texier, M., & Dean, J., (2021). Carbon emissions and large neural network training. arXiv preprint arXiv:2104.10350. Web.

Peng, T., & Deng, H. (2021). Research on the sustainable development process of low-carbon pilot cities: the case study of Guiyang, a low-carbon pilot city in south-west China. Environment, Development and Sustainability, 23(2), pp. 2382-2403. Web.

Pickl, MJ. (2019). The renewable energy strategies of oil majors–From oil to energy. Energy Strategy Reviews, 26, p.100370.

Prieto-Sandoval, V., Jaca, C., Santos, J., Baumgartner, R.J., & Ormazabal, M., (2019). Key strategies, resources, and capabilities for implementing circular economy in industrial small and medium enterprises. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 26(6), pp.1473-1484. Web.

Reed, M.S., Vella, S., Challies, E., De Vente, J., Frewer, L., Hohenwallner‐Ries, D., Huber, T., Neumann, R.K., Oughton, E.A., Sidoli del Ceno, J., & van Delden, H., (2018). A theory of participation: what makes stakeholder and public engagement in environmental management work? Restoration ecology, 26, pp.S7-S17. Web.

Requia, W.J., Mohamed, M., Higgins, C.D., Arain, A., & Ferguson, M. (2018). How clean are electric vehicles? Evidence-based review of the effects of electric mobility on air pollutants, greenhouse gas emissions, and human health. Atmospheric environment, 185, pp.64-77. Web.

Roberts, C., Geels, F.W., Lockwood, M., Newell, P., Schmitz, H., Turnheim, B., & Jordan, A., (2018). The politics of accelerating low-carbon transitions: Towards a new research agenda. Energy research & social science, 44, pp.304-311.

Sadeghi, S., Ghandehariun, S., & Rosen, M.A., (2020). Comparative economic and life cycle assessment of solar-based hydrogen production for oil and gas industries. Energy, 208, p.118347. Web.

Safari, A., Das, N., Langhelle, O., Roy, J., & Assadi, M., (2019). Natural gas: A transition fuel for sustainable energy system transformation? Energy Science & Engineering, 7(4), pp.1075-1094.

Sartipi, F. (2020). The organizational structure of construction entities based on the cooperative game theory. Journal of Construction Materials, 1(2). Web.

Shahbaz, M., Nasir, M.A., Hille, E., & Mahalik, M.K., (2020). UK’s net-zero carbon emissions target: Investigating the potential role of economic growth, financial development, and R&D expenditures based on historical data (1870–2017). Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 161, p.120255. Web.

Shindell, D., Faluvegi, G., Seltzer, K., & Shindell, C., (2018). Quantified, localized health benefits of accelerated carbon dioxide emissions reductions. Nature climate change, 8(4), pp.291-295.

Siddi, M. (2020). The European Green Deal: Assessing its current state and future implementation. Web.

Small, A., Owen, A., & Paavola, J. (2022). Organizational use of ecosystem service approaches: A critique from a systems theory perspective. Business Strategy and the Environment, 31(1), pp. 284-296. Web.

Solaymani, S. (2019). CO2 emissions patterns in 7 top carbon emitter economies: the case of the transport sector. Energy, 168, pp.989-1001.

Sovacool, B.K., Griffiths, S., Kim, J., & Bazilian, M. (2021). Climate change and industrial F-gases: A critical and systematic review of developments, sociotechnical systems and policy options for reducing synthetic greenhouse gas emissions. Renewable and sustainable energy reviews, 141, p.110759. Web.

Sylla, M., Harmáčková, Z.V., Grammatikopoulou, I., Whitham, C., Pártl, A., & Vačkářová, D., (2021). Methodological and empirical challenges of SEEA EEA in developing contexts: towards ecosystem service accounts in the Kyrgyz Republic. Ecosystem Services, 50, p.101333.

Tennison, I., Roschnik, S., Ashby, B., Boyd, R., Hamilton, I., Oreszczyn, T., Owen, A., Romanello, M., Ruyssevelt, P., Sherman, J.D., & Smith, A.Z., (2021). Health care’s response to climate change: a carbon footprint assessment of the NHS in England. The Lancet Planetary Health, 5(2), pp.e84-e92.

Usman, M., & Radulescu, M., (2022). Examining the role of nuclear and renewable energy in reducing carbon footprint: does the role of technological innovation create some difference? Science of The Total Environment, 841, p.156662.

Vitolla, F., Raimo, N., Rubino, M., & Garzoni, A., (2019). The impact of national culture on integrated reporting quality. A stakeholder theory approach. Business strategy and the environment, 28(8), pp.1558-1571. Web.

Yang, B., & Usman, M. (2021). Do industrialization, economic growth, and globalization processes influence the ecological footprint and healthcare expenditures? Fresh insights based on the STIRPAT model for countries with the highest healthcare expenditures. Sustainable Production and Consumption, 28, pp.893-910. Web.

Zhang, Y., Khan, U., Lee, S., & Salik, M., (2019). The influence of management innovation and technological innovation on organization performance. A mediating role of sustainability. Sustainability, 11(2), p.495.