The Arab world is facing critical challenges when it comes to achieving sustainability. Considering the environmental, social, and economic aspects of sustainability, the Arab world has its share of obstacles in each of these aspects that could hinder its progression toward sustainability such as the severely arid climate, extreme shortages of water, poverty, demographic transition, and using fuels as the main source of energy (Zafar, 2023). The Arab Forum for Environment and Development public opinion survey in 22 countries in the first half of 2017 revealed that weak environmental and sustainable awareness is one of the most important challenges facing the Arab World (rep.). Arab Environment in 10 Years, 2017). Unfortunately, sustainable development initiatives in the Arab World were fragmented, focused in some areas but neglected in others, and mostly ineffective (Asi, 2021). 95% of Arabs believe that their countries are not doing enough when it comes to tackling environmental challenges (rep.). Arab Environment in 10 Years, 2017)(rep.). Arab Environment in 10 Years, 2017). Hence, a comprehensive sustainability agenda is needed if the Arab World were to tackle these critical challenges, further, raising sustainability awareness could represent the key to success in such endeavors. The lack of sustainability knowledge among the Arab countries can be driven by their inability to achieve effective sustainable development initiatives which is considered the main motivation behind this study. Considering the fact that most Arab countries are embracing sustainable development plans as part of their commitment to the Paris Agreement -and yet their efforts are still characterized as fragmented and ineffective-is creating pressure to focus on the SA part of the above-mentioned connection. This research is a response to the urge to study the role SA can play in increasing the efficacy of sustainable initiatives. This research raises questions such as: Can a high SA level positively affect sustainable development? Would the process of measuring SA play a role in articulating raising SA policies? Raising SA introduces the possibility of altering the nature of sustainable initiatives into a more successful and effective form, hence, reflecting the significance of this topic as a positive factor in sustainable development. Further, this research aims to address the literature's lack of justification for cases where sustainability education programs and high levels of SA did not yield a positive impact on the organization's sustainable performance. Along with assessing the relationship between SA and sustainable initiative success, this research also aims to assess a model of measuring employees' SA that relies on deep conversations where all aspects of their sustainability knowledge are discussed. This research suggests the existence of underlying benefits behind conducting extensive studies on employees' perspectives of sustainability as a method to measure SA. These benefits will be translated into specified policies aiming to raise both employees' SA levels and their motivation to contribute to sustainable development. In order to reach a deep understanding of employees' conception of sustainability, a qualitative research approach was chosen that relies on collecting non-numerical data as a way to comprehend people's attitudes, beliefs, and motivations.

After measuring GKM’s employees' SA level and proving the positive impact a high level of SA has on the success of sustainable endeavors, serious concerns have been revealed regarding GKM's workplace culture and the value behind its sustainable initiatives.

GKM does not have a knowledge management strategy; its work environment is fractured in the sense that each department is working as a separate entity. Several sustainable projects were launched carrying GKM's name, however, this effort represents GKM's leadership and the few number of employees who worked on these projects but not GKM as a whole.

Employees' resistance to change could not be the reason behind this lack of engagement as employees were not informed about nor asked to participate in sustainable-related matters. GKM's leadership and employees working on sustainability made a mere prediction that the rest of GKM's employees will not only resist change, they predict resistance to awareness. The only reason behind this kind of prediction is to justify the low level of sustainable awareness GKM's employees have. Even if employees would resist awareness, using the wrong methods to approach them might be the cause.

The methodology this research adopted was meant to measure the level of SA of GKM's employees. However, these interviews managed to raise employees' awareness of sustainability without intention in this regard. A large number of employees asked several questions about sustainability and its application. Even after the interviews were conducted, they reached out to the researcher asking for sources to learn more about sustainability. The level of El-Shqeirat/ Environmental Science and Sustainable pg. 15 awareness GKM's employees have will probably be higher now due to a number of 25 to 60-minute interviews which makes us wonder what improvement would occur if serious efforts are dedicated to this purpose.

El-Shqeirat/ Environmental Science and Sustainable employees have will probably be higher now due to a number of 25 to 60-minute interviews which makes us wonder what improvement would occur if serious efforts are dedicated to this purpose. GKM's strategy to raise awareness on sustainability should be focused on the best method to reach employees concerning their different educational backgrounds, ages, and job requirements. Awareness efforts' nature should be specific to each group of employees to guarantee that their attention is caught and their curiosity is evoked. For instance, for employees with a low level of SA (Category 1), sustainability should be introduced as a new emerging global trend with a focus on the fact that it is normal not to know anything about it.

Further, the language used to deliver sustainability-related knowledge should be informal and friendly by keeping in mind that raising employees' awareness is not the same as lecturing them. Employees should not feel ashamed of themselves for their lack of awareness which could repel them and lead to losing their interest. When it comes to employees who tried to identify sustainability using their own logic and experience (Category 2-4), sustainability should be explained by using their own -close to the term-examples and conceptions.

For example, for employees who associated sustainability with smart cities (Category 4), the connection they made should be used to illustrate what sustainability is. The same goes for employees who used linguistic structural analysis (category 2), the notion that "sustainability does indeed represent the concept of a long-lasting performance, however, this performance has to meet a set of requirements if we were to consider it sustainable" should be emphasized when sustainability is introduced to them. Using employees' own interpretation of sustainability and trying to link it to "what sustainability really is" -instead of asking them to neglect their wrong conception-could make them feel relevant. Hence, leading to an efficient type of communication where employees start exploring their interpretation from a sustainability perspective.

On the other hand, employees with a higher level of sustainability awareness (Category 5) should be praised for their knowledge even if it's not comprehensive, making the employees feel proud of what they already know would make them eager to expand their knowledge. The awareness effort dedicated to such employees should focus on reminding them of the importance of what they already know and how beneficial it could be to improve this knowledge.

Interviews with GKM's employees showed their interest in storytelling. Even when employees stated their ignorance of the term sustainability, the researcher kept asking questions about their lifestyle as a way to find any environmentfriendly behaviors which included giving them examples of responsible practices. As mentioned in the previous section, some employees realized that they have been environmentally responsible by recycling paper or plastic, using solar energy, and driving hybrid cars. When such realization came to the surface, employees were engaged in the discussion and started to explain those behaviors.

They did not expect such modest behaviors to be a positive contribution to the term sustainability which they stated they never heard about moments earlier. GKM should use these stories to minimize the gap between employees and sustainability. When addressing employees, using such stories about their coworkers could prove that "even if youemployees-do not have a deep understating of sustainability, you are contributing to the planet". This contradiction would act as a hook driving employees' attention, hence, their curiosity to learn more.

All awareness efforts should emphasize behavioral change as well as the relationship GKM's employees have with the environment rather than associating sustainability with only GKM's success. It is important to create value at this level by answering questions such as "how sustainability can benefit our future generations?" instead of "how sustainability can benefit GKM?" A solid foundation of sustainability knowledge would lead to employees' active participation in GKM's sustainability-related initiatives, in addition, employees' behaviors and their everyday routines could change to become a part of a sustainable lifestyle.

Awareness should also consider the wide range of services GKM provides through its 19 departments. Sustainability should be connected with employees' different job requirements to avoid questions like "What is the relationship between sustainability and my work?" For instance, awareness efforts dedicated to the Transportation Department should rely more on giving examples of GHG emissions and the benefits of using hybrid vehicles, the Studies Department -which is responsible for designing and constructing GKM's buildings-should be given examples of the benefits of using sustainable building materials and utilizing natural light.

To sum up, in order to exploit awareness, differences among employees should be respected. Although this strategy might take more time to raise awareness, it will lead to a permanent shift in the employees' mindset.

GKM should adopt an incremental change approach if employees' mindsets are to be sustainably oriented. The change from a low level of SA to sustainability being embedded in GKM's culture should occur gradually and thoughtfully. When adopting such an approach, raising SA will be the pilot project that will act as the momentum for change. GKM should design this pilot project with respect to its culture and status quo, it should also be specified to groups of employees based on their SA level. GKM should acknowledge that raising SA is not a mere requirement that can be achieved through staff meetings where sustainability is explained, instead, it's a preparation phase where value is created. Creating a value with the capability to positively affect success may take a long time considering the complexities of altering the mindsets of GKM's diverse workplace.

In an incremental change strategy, GKMs should follow three main criteria when it comes to the preparation phase (raising SA). First, GKM should focus on using unconventional tools to approach employees instead of indoctrination. This may include sustainability-related competitions among departments, field visits to GKM's sustainable projects, hosting external expertise, and having a benchmarking phase where employees are allowed to share their insights and personal experiences about what has been achieved. Second, creating a change agent position. The change agent will be responsible for outlining and designing the preparation stage, managing the success of the SA raising, and modifying externally designed programs to fit GKM's work environment. Looking internally for change agents is also recommended to guarantee that knowledge and capabilities are internalized which is necessary for organizational learning to occur and for the skills to be preserved for use in future change initiatives (Benn et al., 2018).

Third, celebrating small successes. GKM's strategy does not involve setting targets for its employees, hence, celebrating both small and big wins is not embedded in GKM's workplace culture. If this was not the case, employees would have known about their organization's sustainable achievements. Although this may sound like a disadvantage, the change agent can exploit this situation. The fact that employees are not familiar with celebrating small wins could drive their enthusiasm to step up, participate, and eventually be part of this new work culture. Introducing this technique might accumulate and deepen the momentum for change (Weick, 1984). Once the number of small wins is increased and employees start setting targets through their sustainability learning process, their routines, values, and beliefs could be altered, hence, offering the possibility for transformational changes in the long run (Termeer & Dewulf, 2019).

In conclusion, GKM should follow the clues to achieve sustainability. The SECAP showed the importance of SA in numbers, some of GKM's sustainability initiatives did not meet their objectives, and employees have a low level of SA, yet associated with willingness for improvement and efficient contribution.

Despite the low level of SA that employees have as well as the time and efforts needed to raise this level, GKM could benefit from the situation. GKM is offered an exceptional opportunity to solidify and deepen a comprehensive understanding of sustainability. The current situation allows GKM to build a solid belief system that is based on experience, efficient communication, insights sharing, and value creation. This represents a privilege that can guarantee a constructive relationship between a high level of SA and sustainability Success.

Other organizations may have a higher level of SA, however, a higher level does not necessarily associate with the existence of values and beliefs. For instance, employees could be fully aware of what sustainability is, however, they do not believe in its core concept nor are they willing to incorporate sustainable behavior into their daily routine. This type of awareness could be unbeneficial as it represents a mere set of obtained information without the passion nor the interest to contribute to the success of sustainability ambitions, hence, exemplifying an inefficient form of high SA level. GKM should avail its status quo by raising both SA and passion towards sustainability leading eventually to effective participation and involvement.

In sum, these research findings add to the current literature on sustainability awareness by emphasizing the crucial role of sustainability knowledge and awareness in achieving successful sustainability endeavors. In their research entitled "Employees Give Business its Green Edge", (Klinkers & Nelissen, 1997) found that Employees are key when it comes to the implementation process; their support of sustainable initiatives will increase the potential of successful implementation. in a descriptive cross-sectional study conducted in different organizations in Erbil-Iraq that aimed to identify the impact of an organization's environmental awareness policies on employees' behavior and the relationship between them, (Yilmaz & Ameen, 2022) found that an organization's environmental awareness policies can lead to improving employees' behavior which eventually leads to the achievement of the organization goals and implementation of the organization plans and strategies.

(Remmen & Lorentzen, 2000) conducted practical experiments in five Danish firms within different industrial sectors aiming to develop a more active role for employees in environmental activities. These experiments showed that the firms' employees who had a comprehensive understanding of environmental problems and solutions enabled them to improve the firms' environmental activities. Hence, emphasizing the notion that employee participation can have a strong effect on increasing environmental consciousness which leads to a successful implementation of sustainable initiatives. These research findings also agree with Haugh and Talwar's (2010) perspective of how organizations can address sustainability issues; they stated: "The dissemination of information about sustainability should be company- wide and not restricted to small groups of selected employees".

However, this research argues that awareness efforts are not necessarily translated into successful sustainable achievements. Raising SA is a critical phase of an organization's journey toward sustainability that requires time and effort and can be outlined by data collected in the SA measuring process. Otherwise, the benefits of sustainable initiatives will most probably not be realized. Furthermore, this research argues that even if sustainability awareness efforts were made and an organization conducted training programs that meant to embrace its employees with sustainability and environmental knowledge, it is not necessarily that employees would use this knowledge to participate in the organization's sustainable ambitions nor it will drive any success for such endeavors. In support of this argument, (Perron et al., 2006) presented a case study of the environmental management education and awareness training efforts in two Canadian electricity companies.

Managers of Company 1 invested a lot of time and money in an environmental awareness training program; the level of sustainability knowledge obtained by this company's employees was compared to the level of knowledge (Company 2)'s employees have -(Company 2)'s employees were not subjected to training programs- (Perron et al., 2006). The study assessed the environmental knowledge acquired by the employees of both companies and found that the employees of Company 1 did not meet the level of environmental awareness that the literature associates with better environmental performance. (Perron et al., 2006) also found that "The environmental knowledge of employees in Company 1 was not found to be different from the environmental knowledge of the employees of Company 2. .... although a higher mean score was found for Company 1 for half of the questions pertaining to environmental knowledge,... the difference was not significant". (Perron et al., 2006) predicted that the awareness training provided to Company 1 was not sufficient enough to increase the environmental awareness of their employees and they suggested a pre-training assessment program if Company 1 were to ensure the effectiveness of the training.

The Canadian companies' case study supports the argument of this research. Not all SA efforts are qualified enough to offer the possibility of succeeding in sustainable initiatives. In addition, what this research recommends is to exploit the SA measurement process as a database to outline SA programs instead of a pre-assessment training program. Further, the slight difference between the two companies -Company 1 scored higher in questions related to the environment-did not lead Company 1 to perform better than Company 2 regarding environmental issues. This contradiction proves what this research introduced as "the inefficient form of high SA level".

The findings of the present research should be interpreted in the context of its limitations. The results of this study should be treated cautiously considering the contextual effects and cultural differences that may affect individuals' attitudes and behavior toward sustainability. The cross-sectional nature of the research could also represent a limitation. Although the selected two departments shared major similarities regarding work logistics and general procedures, the services offered by each department differed in some aspects. Another limitation is the relatively long timeframe the qualitative approach would need to measure SA compared to a quantitative approach.

This research establishes a basis for future studies to examine a model to increase the potential of a successful sustainable initiative implementation where the SA-raising process fully relies on the measurement process. Scholars should also consider examining indicators of the existence of an inefficient type of high SA level in an organization which can jeopardize its progress toward sustainability.

The different results between this research experiment on two of GKM's departments and (Perron et al., 2006)'s case study might be driven by differences in the study sample size and nature of the targeted performance. In other words, GKM's case study is focused on a relatively controllable issue -paper consumption-that involved a small number of participants.

However, other variables should be examined such as organizations' leadership approach and characteristics, work culture, employees' sense of belonging and commitment to their organization, and the size of the targeted employees' group. Such examination could justify the differentiation in the level of employee participation in sustainability initiatives between companies that share the same level of SA.

In seeking to assess the level of SA and its effect on sustainable development progression, this research used a qualitative research approach that involved running intense individual interviews to measure GKM's employees' SA levels. It also used a sustainable initiative as an experiment in two departments with different SA levels to assess the relationship between SA and sustainability endeavors' success. The results showed that SA cannot be measured without exploring employees' beliefs, attitudes, and conceptions of sustainability. Such a deep measurement process can allocate employees on different scales of sustainability understating.

Hence, different levels of SA require an in-house tailored strategy to approach employees and raise SA levels instead of packaged and off-the-shelf change programs. The results also showed that a higher level of SA can lead to more potential for success when it comes to sustainability initiatives. These results represent the need for GKM to prioritize raising SA as a crucial factor that leads to the success of its sustainable ambitions. Raising SA should be seen as a value and belief-building phase that can overcome any leadership transitions that GKM could encounter. Building value will assist more of GKM's employees in joining Category 6 where a comprehensive understanding of sustainability and its applications is acquired. Hence, offering an active participation in sustainability-related initiatives as well as consideration for sustainability in employees' lifestyles. This research also introduces the possibility that organizations with low SA levels have the opportunity to build a comprehensive and deep understanding of sustainability from scratch. (Winston, 2017) argues that if you run a business or a government as if the future will look exactly like the past, you will become irrelevant. In GKM's case, looking internally is the key to a relevant, sustainable future.

(Winston, 2017) argues that if you run a business or a government as if the future will look exactly like the past, you will become irrelevant. In GKM's case, looking internally is the key to a relevant, sustainable future.

Not applicable