Green practices as branding tools: an empirical study in the context of higher education

Green practices can be considered as a marketing tool that facilitates branding communication and behavioral intention. Most of the past studies, focusing on tourism and hospitality, found that green practices of a hotel can promote its brand equity (i.e. brand awareness, brand association and brand loyalty), word-of-mouth behavior (Moise et al., 2019), perceived value fit and visit intention (Dang‐Van et al., 2023). In higher education, sustainability and green practices have also emerged significantly (Amaral et al., 2020), particularly as most university rankings, such as Times Higher Education, QS Ranking and The Princeton Review, offer a ranking table for top green/sustainable universities. The literature review has explored various perspectives of green initiatives in higher education, such as sustainability management strategies for higher education (Leal Filho et al., 2023; Petratos and Damaskou, 2015), students’ emotions and attitudes about green campuses (Liu et al., 2022) and green energy campuses (Fonseca et al., 2018).

Green practices in universities can engage students in immediate actions with a sense of responsibility while empowering them to actively adopt and sustain green practices in the future (Al-Dmour, 2023; Dagiliūtė et al., 2018). Additionally, green practices in universities can have a spillover effect on local communities and serve as a role model for sustainable living. This study proposes a strong association between green practices and student value co-creation in the context of higher education. Student value co-creation is also at the center of universities’ goals because of the high competition and the transition to the student-centric approach in higher education. Additionally, value co-creation can be applied widely in higher education because of the long period of education, as well as the long relationship between universities and students (Le et al., 2021).

The connection between green practices and student value co-creation can be fascinating to investigate. In higher education, past studies consider both students’ value co-creation and green practices as extra roles, as universities typically focus on one-way delivery of professional knowledge and skills (Dollinger et al., 2018). Additionally, green practices are typically integrated with the university’s developing strategy, brand image and student engagement (Al-Dmour, 2023; Dagiliūtė et al., 2018). As universities compete globally, they also demand student value co-creation to strengthen university–student ties and service quality (Foroudi et al., 2019; Zarandi et al., 2024). In other words, most universities currently encourage both green practices and student value co-creation because of the benefits for universities, students and their relationship. In particular, a well-known survey on green colleges by The Princeton Review (2025b) has integrated aspects of student value co-creation (e.g. co-curricular activities, student life) into the questionnaire.

However, the literature review reveals several research gaps. First, most existing research on green practices in tourism and hospitality has primarily focused on the practices implemented by brands, such as hotels (Dang‐Van et al., 2023; Merli et al., 2019; Moise et al., 2019). In contrast, the role of customers in green practices remains unexplored. In the context of higher education, the long-term interactions and commitment between universities (brands) and students (customers) offer an opportunity to investigate the green practices of both actors. Second, despite the significance of both concepts in the context of higher education, research on green practices and student value co-creation is isolated. Specifically, the literature on green universities focuses on the impact of sustainability initiatives on student satisfaction, loyalty and university reputation (Al-Dmour, 2023; Atici et al., 2021; Liu et al., 2022). Meanwhile, past studies on student value co-creation typically link this concept with its drivers and outcomes, such as student satisfaction (Dollinger et al., 2018) and the university’s image and attraction (Foroudi et al., 2019; Le et al., 2021). There is scarce research examining the possible relationship between a university’s green practices, students’ green engagement and student value co-creation. Finally, although relationships between green strategy, green operation and rewarding outcomes are suggested (Bhardwaj et al., 2025), some problems remain questionable: how green practices can become a branding tool and how customers actively respond to green practices through brand factors. There is an emerging call for research on the relationships between customer perceptions, green branding and behavioral outcomes (Bhardwaj et al., 2025).

This study addresses these gaps by investigating the influence of green practices in universities (i.e. including universities’ green management and students’ green engagement) on branding factors (i.e. brand green image and self–brand connection) and student value co-creation behaviors (i.e. participation behaviors and citizenship behaviors). This study argues that once a university implements green practices with contributions of universities’ green management and students’ green engagement, the university’s green image and students’ self–brand connection can be enhanced. Additionally, student satisfaction and students’ value co-creation behaviors are also facilitated.

Specifically, this research addresses two research questions:

The findings from this study can advance the literature on green practices by examining the practices of two main stakeholders, indicating a collaborative process when implementing green initiatives. Moreover, this study responds to the emerging call for investigating relationships between green practices, green branding and behavioral outcomes (Bhardwaj et al., 2025). Accordingly, universities can consider green practices as an effective marketing tool to facilitate their green image and brand connection.

The implementation of green practices varies across higher education institutions, depending on managerial priorities and the specific context of each university. By reviewing both the literature (Atici et al., 2021; Farag and Aktas, 2024) and white reports of ranking institutions (The Princeton Review, 2025; UI GreenMetric, 2025), this study found common green practices across universities in the world (see Table 1). Past studies highlighted that campus buildings and energy management are the focus of universities (Amaral et al., 2020, 2021). In this study, we adopt two concepts suggested by Dabija et al. (2023) to represent universities’ efforts in common green practices: green campus management and green energy campus management. These two concepts have important roles because of their high impact in the short and medium term and the huge investments by universities in these areas (Amaral et al., 2021).

Green campus management refers to the implementation of a university in multiple on-campus areas, including infrastructure, waste management, energy and water management, transportation and research and education (Dabija et al., 2023; Fachrudin and Fachrudin, 2021). Most of the dimensions of this concept reflect common green practices in higher education institutions, as shown in Table 1.

The latter concept, green energy campus management, refers to strategic and operational efforts by universities to integrate sustainable energy practices into their campus infrastructure, operations and policies for the efficient use of all possible resources within a university (Dabija et al., 2023). Because green campus management primarily emphasizes campus design, its components involve infrastructure and landscape development. In particular, the energy dimension of green campus management focuses on design strategies that enhance energy efficiency, such as incorporating open spaces to reduce energy consumption. Meanwhile, green energy campus management involves managerial strategy and daily operations, e.g. renewable energy adoption, energy efficiency standards and regulations and incentives to reduce energy consumption (Dabija et al., 2023).

Green practices in higher education demand the engagement of students. This study reviews and discusses the concept of students’ green engagement from the lens of theories of customer engagement (CE) and value co-creation. The debate on whether the consideration of students as customers or not has been raised for a long time. Guilbault (2016) suggests that students should be treated as customers, but with the inclusion of more educational issues, such as academic integrity and curriculum design. A recent systematic review study synthesizes and compares the perspectives against and in favor of the student-as-customer in eight paradigms, including: student roles, university role, value of higher education, academic perception, teacher–student relationship, student satisfaction, educational philosophy and business perception (Goyzueta Mejía et al., 2025). Following this comparison, this study considers students as customers of higher education for several reasons:

• universities provide the necessary resources and instructions (i.e. green campus management and green energy campus management) for students to actively engage in green practices;

• students can join the value co-creation process with the universities (customer value co-creation);

• green practices in higher education align with practical education and training; and

• students’ satisfaction and sustainable development are the main objectives of higher education (customer-oriented principle).

Therefore, this study applies CE and value co-creation theories to examine student engagement in green practices and the behavioral outcomes.

CE theory, first founded in the 1990s and significantly developed in the 2010s, is a foundational concept in relationship marketing (Vivek et al., 2012). This theory helps explain how customers interact with a brand/organization beyond mere transactions. The engagement involves cognitive, affective and behavioral connections that customers develop with a brand/organization (Brodie et al., 2011). In particular, CE goes beyond traditional customer satisfaction or loyalty models by focusing on active participation, relationship building and value creation through interactions (Vivek et al., 2012).

In higher education, past studies suggested that universities can share some common features with a commercial business, especially regarding brand management, value creation and customer purchasing decisions (i.e. enrollment and retention) (Goyzueta Mejía et al., 2025). However, the branding strategy of universities also has some distinct characteristics, such as a lifelong connection with customers during and after their consumption. Accordingly, CE has become more important in the branding strategy of universities. This study adopts the definition of CE as a psychological state rather than a process (Brodie et al., 2011), including three dimensions: cognitive, affective and action (Vivek et al., 2012). The CE theory can be integrated with value co-creation under the lens of service-dominant (S-D) theory when consumers, as a crucial stakeholder, continually interact and contribute to the value (Vargo and Lusch, 2016).

The concept of value co-creation, derived from the perspective of the S-D theory, indicates that customers (and other stakeholders) can actively participate in value creation (Vargo and Lusch, 2016). Specifically, there are two types of customer co-creation behavior: participation behavior, which includes necessary (in-role) actions essential for successful value co-creation, and citizenship behavior, which involves voluntary (extra-role) actions that provide additional value to the firm (Yi and Gong, 2013; Zadeh et al., 2019). In higher education, students can be considered as special customers with long-term commitments, persistent interactions and a high degree of university brand awareness (Goyzueta Mejía et al., 2025). For these reasons, students can co-create value through their interactions, including participation behaviors and citizenship behaviors (Foroudi et al., 2019; Le et al., 2021). Participation behaviors, such as information exchange (i.e. seeking and sharing information about the university’s green practices), responsibility exhibition (i.e. fulfilling personal tasks offered by the university) and personal interactions (i.e. conversations, affections and other interactions with the university’s staff), help shape educational services to better align with students’ preferences (Yi and Gong, 2013). Citizenship behaviors, including feedback (i.e. direct two-way communication with the university), advocacy (i.e. positive word-of-mouth communication with external stakeholders), helping (i.e. supporting other stakeholders in the university in green practices) and tolerance (i.e. a psychological state to be patient and willing to implement green practices in the university), further shape the value when students have a strong feeling of commitment to universities (Yi and Gong, 2013).

Water and energy consumption, buildings, waste management, landscape, transportation and education are components of a green campus (Amaral et al., 2021; Farag and Aktas, 2024; UI GreenMetric, 2025). To accomplish long-term sustainability goals, green campus management incorporates environmental issues into campus operations (Amaral et al., 2021; Fonseca et al., 2018). In this study, green campus management is proposed as a critical factor influencing the university’s green image (Al-Dmour, 2023; Fachrudin and Fachrudin, 2021). The university’s green image refers to the students’ perceptions of the commitments and daily activities of the university in relation to the issues of environment and sustainability (Al-Dmour, 2023; Chen, 2010). Universities can enhance their reputation among students and external stakeholders by implementing effective green practices. The university’s commitment to environmental issues is reinforced by this alignment with sustainability, which also encourages student participation in an era where sustainability is increasingly valued (Dabija et al., 2023). We hypothesize that:

Green energy campus management refers to the systematic implementation of sustainable energy practices and technologies at educational campuses aimed at reducing energy consumption, carbon emissions and environmental impacts (Dabija et al., 2023). It involves the use of renewable energy sources, energy-efficient construction, waste minimization and sustainable infrastructure to create a more environmentally responsible and energy-efficient campus environment (Petratos and Damaskou, 2015). A past study discovered that adopting renewable energy can facilitate stakeholder trust and brand equity (Wang et al., 2022). Additionally, a university’s green image is significantly influenced by its green energy campus management. Universities demonstrate their environmental commitment by aggressively implementing resource-efficiency initiatives. Consequently, students can develop their impression of the university’s green image. The hypothesis is as follows:

Students’ green engagement represents a psychological state of students when they experience and implement green practices in their universities, including both cognitive (i.e. logical thinking) and affective (i.e. feelings and emotions) dimensions (Brodie et al., 2011). CE has been found to have a positive association with self–brand connection (Harrigan et al., 2018). Specifically, the study by Berger et al. (2018) reveals that customers’ interaction and engagement, including both cognitive and affective engagement, can facilitate their self–brand connection once they can join voluntarily and without any pressure. Following this logic, this research hypothesizes the relationship between green engagement and self–brand connection. Specifically, this study proposes that higher green engagement can lead to more participation and connection between students and the university’s green identity. By aligning students’ personal values with the university’s sustainability efforts, students develop a sense of shared responsibility and pride, reinforcing their identification with their institution. The hypothesis is developed as follows:

Similar to the business area, the literature of marketing for higher education highlights that student satisfaction has been at the center of the university’s priorities (e.g. Elsharnouby, 2015; Zarandi et al., 2024). Student satisfaction refers to the overall short-term evaluation and attitude of students toward the service quality of a university (Elsharnouby, 2015). In higher education, Chaudhary and Dey (2021) suggested that student satisfaction is positively influenced by how they perceive a university’s sustainability practices. A recent study also highlighted that quality of identity and quality of university status have strongly positive impacts on student satisfaction (Teeroovengadum et al., 2024). In line with the literature, our research argues that a green university can provide a green environment that better serves students’ study and daily on-campus activities. Additionally, the green image of a university can facilitate a sense of belonging and pride in students (Yan et al., 2024), which can lead to student satisfaction. The hypothesis is presented below:

The S-D theory suggests value co-creation as a process of resource integration and reciprocal service exchange between actors (Vargo and Lusch, 2016). In higher education, a green university image represents the continued implementation and integration of green practices across multiple activities, including teaching, research and operations. These interactions can facilitate a stronger sense of environmental responsibility and engagement among students.

Past studies have found the contributions of green brand image to value co-creation in different services. In the context of hospitality, a green image of hotels is found to positively facilitate guests’ co-creation behaviors, including their willingness to participate in eco-friendly practices during their stay (Lee et al., 2010), as well as guest satisfaction and loyalty toward the hotel and other green hotels (Merli et al., 2019). Meanwhile, in airline services, an airline’s green image is shown to have impacts on consumer attitudes and their subsequent citizenship behaviors, such as advocacy and helping other customers (Hwang and Lyu, 2020). These findings indicate that a strong green image fosters positive consumer attitudes, which in turn enhance customers’ value co-creation behaviors, including both participation and citizenship behaviors. In the context of higher education, a strong university’s green image can facilitate students’ sense of pride and identification, encouraging students to engage in in-role behaviors such as information seeking, information sharing, responsible behavior and personal interaction (Yi and Gong, 2013). Following these arguments, we posit H5 as follows:

Moreover, when students perceive their university as a green leader, they are more likely to internalize these values and translate them into proactive behaviors that align with the university’s sustainability goals. Citizenship behaviors include extra-role activities, such as providing feedback, advocacy, helping others and demonstrating tolerance (Yi and Gong, 2013). These activities, derived from value alignment and internalization (Yan et al., 2024), are beyond formal requirements but can significantly contribute to the values of universities. This study argues that when recognizing a university’s green image, students are more inclined to conduct extra-role activities such as actively providing more feedback on green practices, promoting the university’s green initiatives to others, supporting others in green implementation and being patient with the greening process. The hypothesis is postulated as follows:

Self–brand connection can mediate the relationship between students’ green engagement and student satisfaction. Self–brand connection expresses the alignment between students’ personal identity and university brand identity (Harrigan et al., 2018). This study argues that once students perceive the match between their personal values and the university brand identity, they can integrate green practices encouraged by the university into their responsibilities. Accordingly, given the perception of self–brand connection, more engagement in green practices can lead to a higher degree of satisfaction.

The theory of CE suggests that customer satisfaction can be either an antecedent (for existing customers) or a consequence of CE (for new customers) (Brodie et al., 2011). This study adapts this argument when considering student engagement in green practices in their universities. In line with other university activities, most green practices can be regarded as part of training and education programs. Accordingly, when students start to engage their cognitive and affective learning in green practices offered by the universities, their satisfaction can be facilitated significantly. The hypothesis is postulated as follows:

Self–brand connection represents the alignment between students’ identity and personal values with the university brand (Harrigan et al., 2018). Therefore, when students perceive a strong self–brand connection, they are highly motivated to engage in co-creation activities because they consider the university brand as an extension of themselves. Moreover, based on the S-D theory (Vargo and Lusch, 2016), self–brand connection can encourage students to integrate their resources (e.g. efforts, time and social networks) into the co-creation process. Consumers are more willing to share insights or skills when they align themselves with the brand (Dwivedi, 2014).

In higher education, students with a strong self–brand connection can become co-creators in their long-term study (Goyzueta Mejía et al., 2025), driven by a sense of alignment with their academic institution. When universities integrate green practices into their educational programs, participation behaviors represent essential in-role actions (Yi and Gong, 2013), where students engage in activities such as seeking information, sharing knowledge, demonstrating responsible actions and interacting with peers and instructors. These behaviors are the focus of the learning process that helps students actively contribute to their educational experience. A strong self–brand connection to the university enhances these participation behaviors by fostering a deeper sense of responsibility and commitment (Harrigan et al., 2018). H8 is developed following these arguments:

Additionally, citizenship behaviors can be considered as extra-role and voluntary actions contributing to a broader educational community (Yi and Gong, 2013). Citizenship behaviors such as providing feedback, advocating, helping and showing tolerance are not obligated by universities and their educational programs. However, students with a strong self–brand connection are more likely to engage in these extra-role activities, because they recognize that the success of universities aligns with their well-being and pride. Based on these arguments, this study proposes the following hypotheses:

All hypotheses are summarized and visualized in the research model (see Figure 1).

The measurement scales were adapted from existing literature to fit the green university context: green campus management, green energy campus management and the university’s green image adopted from Dabija et al. (2023); student satisfaction adapted from Jebbouri et al. (2021); students’ green engagement adapted from Hollebeek et al. (2014); self–brand connection adapted from Escalas and Bettman (2003); and two constructs of value co-creation behaviors adapted from Yi and Gong (2013). The scale development was also adapted from past studies to ensure validity and reliability, i.e. green-related constructs are measured on a five-point Likert scale, and students’ behaviors are measured on a seven-point Likert scale. Table 2 shows the measurement items in detail.

A pilot survey was conducted with 60 Vietnamese students in Ho Chi Minh City to ensure reliability, face validity and predictive validity (Saunders et al., 2009). We revised the questionnaire, especially clarifying the question items measuring green engagement and co-creation behaviors. After refining several questions based on the feedback obtained from the pilot survey, the official survey was randomly distributed via Google Forms across various universities in Vietnam. A recent report by Ministry of Education and Training (Vietnam) (2026) shows that Vietnam has 242 universities and around 2.2 million students in 2021. Although there are only 12 universities in the QS World University Rankings ^[1] for sustainability, green practices in Vietnamese universities have been recognized and implemented following the Sustainable Development Goals in Viet Nam ^[2].

This study followed a stratified sampling technique: after framing the sample from a list of universities in a big city, the form was distributed to collect data across groups of students in terms of schooling years and major (business, economics, art and engineering). The respondents were recruited to be balanced between groups of schooling years and majors.

The survey asked for informed consent and included several screening questions about the green practices in respondents’ universities. The main part of our survey consisted of two sections: demographic information (gender, education level and major) and measurement items. After gathering 645 responses from January to February 2025, data screening and cleaning reduced the final valid sample to 619 for analysis.

The sample size in this study was determined by the inverse square root method by Kock and Hadaya (2018), with 160 observations as a minimum sample size. After data collection and analysis, we rechecked the sample size requirement using the inverse square root method. The calculation was conducted following the below formula (Kock and Hadaya, 2018):

where $n^$⁠: sample size; z-score: 1.645 and 0.842 for z.₉₅ and z.₈, respectively, following the standard normal distribution; beta: the minimum significant coefficient obtained from the model. Given that 0.138 (self–brand connection → student satisfaction) is the minimum significant coefficient, the calculation indicates 325 as the minimum sample size. Accordingly, our sample size of 619 observations is satisfactory.

Among the 619 valid respondents, females account for 378 respondents (61.1%), while males account for 241 respondents (38.9%). Regarding academic level, more than half of the respondents are sophomores, totaling 349 students (56.4%). Freshmen represent 156 respondents (25.2%), whereas juniors and seniors make up smaller proportions of the sample, with 60 students (9.7%) and 54 students (8.7%), respectively.

This study evaluated the measurement model by examining the convergent validity, discriminant validity and construct reliability. Table 3 represents the results of reliability and convergent validity. All construct values of composite reliability and Cronbach’s alpha were higher than 0.708, representing good internal consistency reliability (Hair and Alamer, 2022). Additionally, most of the factor loadings were higher than 0.708 (Hair and Alamer, 2022), except for some items. Specifically, AFF3 (0.681) was slightly below the benchmark, but after considering the meaning of the question items, we decided to retain AFF3. For other items, we removed GCM2, GCM5, GECM5, HP4, PI4, PI5, RB4 and UGI2, which had factor loadings significantly lower than 0.7. For the convergent validity, all values of AVE were larger than 0.5, indicating the good convergent validity in this model (Hair and Alamer, 2022).

We used the Fornell–Larcker evaluation to examine the discriminant validity. The square root of the AVE of each construct was larger than its correlation with other constructs (Table 4). Moreover, the heterotrait–monotrait (HTMT) values in Table 5 are less than 0.90 (Hair and Alamer, 2022), indicating good discriminant validity.

The measurement evaluations for second-order constructs (i.e. students’ green engagement, students’ participation behavior and students’ citizenship behavior) include three steps suggested by Hair and Alamer (2022):

1. first-order construct evaluation;

2. multicollinearity investigation; and

3. nomological validity.

The first-order constructs that form the second-order constructs were already evaluated in the previous section.

The variance inflation factor (VIF) of the first-order reflective variables that form the second-order constructs is examined. As shown in Table 7, VIF values are significantly below the recommended threshold of 5 (Hair and Alamer, 2022). Therefore, multicollinearity is not a concern, ensuring reliable and robust analysis in subsequent evaluations.

To evaluate the nomological validity of the construct, the coefficients and their significance in the relationships between the first-level reflective variables and the second-level reflective variables are analyzed. The results indicate that all coefficients between the first-level variables and their corresponding constructs surpass the threshold of 0.1 and are significant, confirming the nomological validity of the construct (see Table 6).

The structural model is assessed by several criteria: absence of multicollinearity, explanatory power (R-square), effect size (f-square) and path relationships (Hair and Alamer, 2022).

To assess multicollinearity, this study evaluates the VIF, which indicates how much the variance of a variable’s coefficient is inflated because of multicollinearity. All values in Table 7 are below 3, suggesting no multicollinearity problem in this model (Hair and Alamer, 2022).

R² values obtained from SmartPLS show that the model can explain 16.3% (modest), 47.4% (moderate) and 50.8% (strong explanatory power) of the variance of student satisfaction, student participation behavior and student citizenship behavior (Hair and Alamer, 2022).

Additionally, the effect size (f²) was assessed to measure each predictor’s impact on endogenous constructs (see Table 8). With thresholds of 0.02, 0.15 and 0.35 for small, medium and large effects (Hair and Alamer, 2022), key findings show that most coefficients are acceptable, except the effect of self–brand connection on student satisfaction (0.017).

The research model was evaluated via a bootstrapping procedure (10,000 subsamples). As shown in Table 9, all hypotheses were supported. Notably, green campus management and green energy campus management positively affect university green image, whereas students’ green engagement positively affects self–brand connection. Additionally, the university’s green image and self–brand connection are found to have positive impacts on student satisfaction and value co-creation behaviors.

This study further validates the mediating roles of self–brand connection and university green image (Table 10). The final results are visualized in Figure 2 based on the research model and data analysis.

Based on the theory of CE and the lens of S-D theory, this study develops a conceptual framework to examine the role of green-relevant factors, branding factors and students’ behaviors. The structural analysis of the data from 619 students shows that all hypotheses in the model are supported. Specifically, our findings highlight the positive impacts of student engagement on self–brand connection. This study’s findings provide empirical evidence for the linkage between CE and self–brand connection, which was found in previous studies but in different contexts (Berger et al., 2018; Harrigan et al., 2018). Additionally, the findings demonstrate that the green management efforts of a university can enhance its brand image. Although the association between green practices and brand image was mentioned in different contexts (Chen, 2010; Dabija et al., 2023), this study found this positive relationship in the context of higher education. Finally, this study investigates the positive impacts of self–brand connection and the university’s green image on student satisfaction and students’ value co-creation. Some of the relationships have been mentioned in some past studies; for example, the university’s brand image and student satisfaction (Teeroovengadum et al., 2024), self–brand connection and customers’ trust, commitment and perceived benefits (Dwivedi, 2014) and the university’s affiliation and students’ value co-creation behaviors. This study’s findings confirm and further clarify the relationships between branding factors, such as self–brand connection and brand green image, and customer satisfaction and more contributive behaviors.

This study’s findings contribute to the literature of green practices in higher education and university branding in several ways.

First, this study integrates two prioritized but still isolated research streams in higher education: green practices and student value co-creation. The literature has examined these domains separately, focusing either on the influence of sustainability initiatives on student satisfaction and loyalty (Amaral et al., 2020; The Princeton Review, 2025; UI GreenMetric, 2025) or on the antecedents and outcomes of value co-creation (Foroudi et al., 2019; Le et al., 2021). By integrating these concepts into a unified framework, this research advances theoretical understanding by positioning green practices as a strategic foundation for facilitating student co-creation behaviors.

Second, while most of the past studies on green practices focused on green management from the organizational perspective (Dang‐Van et al., 2023; Merli et al., 2019), this study advances knowledge by examining green practices from multiple key stakeholders in the higher education context: universities’ green management and students’ green engagement. By incorporating this collaboration in green practices, this study broadens the scope of sustainability research beyond brand-centric perspectives. This approach can pave the way for future research in green practice by suggesting that green practices should be investigated from multiple perspectives and through collaboration of different stakeholders.

Third, the findings of this study contribute to green practices in universities by emphasizing the role of students’ green engagement. By applying the theory of CE (Brodie et al., 2011), this study demonstrates that students’ engagement in green practices in universities includes both cognitive and affective dimensions. Additionally, students’ green engagement, as a starting point, can facilitate more rewarding outcomes. The literature on green practices in higher education revealed potential outcomes of green practices found by past literature, including student satisfaction (Chaudhary and Dey, 2021), academic performance (Atici et al., 2021), mental health (Liu et al., 2022), students’ loyalty (Dabija et al., 2023) and universities’ brand image (Al-Dmour, 2023). This study extends the existing studies by identifying additional critical outcomes: students’ value co-creation behaviors. It advances the literature on green universities by demonstrating the merits of engaging students in green practices.

Lastly and most interestingly, this study advances the literature of university branding by examining the roles of branding factors in the process from green engagement and green management to students’ behaviors. Specifically, this study explores the mediating roles of branding factors (i.e. self–brand connection and green image) on the relationships between green practices (the university’s green management and students’ green engagement) and students’ outcomes (student satisfaction and students’ value co-creation behaviors). This finding advances the university branding literature by positioning green practices not merely as operational implementation but as a more strategic approach for brand differentiation and relational value creation.

This study provides practical implications for both universities and students to foster co-creation processes on campus. For universities, this study implies the role of green practices as an effective marketing tool that can improve customers’ perception of the brand, satisfaction and co-creation behaviors. In particular, the findings highlight the critical role of students’ green engagement and university green image in driving student participation and citizenship behaviors. To enhance engagement, universities should implement initiatives that connect students’ cognition and affection with green practices. For instance, besides daily activities integrated with green practices, some green challenges and competitions can empower students to develop energy-saving or waste-reduction innovations and facilitate emotional involvement in green practices. More importantly, the findings show that more engagement can lead to a higher self–brand connection and co-creation value behaviors. The findings offer implications that universities should align their brand identity with green practices, which can facilitate the self–brand connection of students with universities.

The findings also highlight the impacts of green campus management and energy management on a university’s green image. Among the extensive green initiatives available for a university, the manager can focus more on campus design, such as open areas, and energy utilization, such as regulations, standards and the integration of renewable energy. Additionally, universities should prioritize visible and measurable green initiatives, such as energy-saving programs, to strengthen their environmental reputation and boost student satisfaction. These strategies help universities integrate green practices into their culture while facilitating student involvement and long-term commitment. The findings also imply a sustainable process when universities conduct green practices: earlier engagement in green practices can enable a university’s green image and students’ self–brand connection, which can subsequently lead to student satisfaction and value co-creation behaviors. Additionally, once students become more active in co-creating values, they continue engaging more in green practices. Accordingly, our findings suggest that university managers should provide more incentives to immediately engage students in green practices and communicate green management messages to students.

For students, this study’s findings encourage their engagement in green practices in universities. In some situations, students might perceive multiple barriers to green practices at universities because green practices are considered new, extra and long-term responsibilities (Gramatakos and Lavau, 2019). However, the findings of this study suggest that more engagement in on-campus green practices can enhance the connection of students with universities and improve their satisfaction.

The key findings and contributions of this research are summarized in Table 11.

This study has several limitations. First, although we collected data from multiple universities, the sample was geographically limited to Vietnam. This limitation might reduce the generalizability of the findings. Future studies can put more effort into collecting data in universities on an international scale to examine the validity of the findings.

Second, reliance on self–reported surveys may introduce response biases. Measures of student satisfaction are susceptible to social desirability bias, recall errors, intention–behavior gaps and non-response bias. For instance, a student may report being “satisfied” despite not feeling so. Additionally, including academic performance as part of the student satisfaction measure may further affect its validity. Future research could combine online surveys with in-person interviews and/or field observations to reduce biases and improve data credibility.

Third, this study examines students’ perceptions and behavior from the perspective of the customer. Despite some benefits, such as explaining student satisfaction and co-creation behaviors based on customer orientation (Goyzueta Mejía et al., 2025), this approach can suffer from potential problems of missing academic factors. Additionally, another limitation is the exclusion of one dimension of CE, i.e. activation (Brodie et al., 2011), with the argument that this dimension can overlap with some aspects of the concept of value co-creation. Future research can revisit this dimension and explore its unique contributions to the model. Moreover, future studies could also investigate the gaps between green “activation” engagement and other value co-creation behaviors; for example, some students can deny implementing green practices but still advocate for the university.

Finally, this study includes two main concepts of green practices at universities: green campus management and green energy campus management. Both constructs cover multiple aspects of infrastructure, waste management, energy and water management, transportation, research and education. Future studies can separate these concepts to identify specific impacts of different green practices on students’ value co-creation behaviors.

This research follows all regulations of research ethics and integrity. Because there is no ethics review board at the authors’ university, this research cannot obtain official clearance. Additionally, this research does not involve any sensitive and identifiable information of participants, and there is no requirement for ethics review board clearance.

The data was obtained anonymously with informed consent and agreement from the participants. There is no sensitive information in the data or the research.