No abstract

Purpose The purpose of this study is to evaluate the comprehensiveness of sustainability reporting in higher education institutions. Design/methodology/approach This study adopts a university sustainability rating framework and uses it to evaluate the comprehensiveness of sustainability reporting in higher education institutions. Findings The results of the study demonstrate that notwithstanding growing concerns over sustainability issues; higher education institutions have been slow to adopt sustainability reporting practices including publishing consistent and periodic reports, receiving third-party assurance and integrating sustainability reporting into university’s sustainability management systems. Research limitations/implications The results of the study suggest that the quality of sustainability reporting varies quite significantly, and important dimensions such as education and outreach programs are ill-treated in universities’ sustainability reports. The quality presents a tremendous challenge for sustainability reporting as more organizations are joining the sustainability reporting process, the quality would become a differentiator and competitive advantage, the study concludes. Two main limitations were identified. First, the number of reports examined were limited and are not representative of all higher education institutions. Second, data from other sources, like websites, were not factored in the analysis, as the study focuses on evaluating the comprehensiveness of sustainability reporting in higher education institutions. Practical implications The results provide useful insights into comprehensiveness (one aspect of quality of sustainability reporting) in higher education institutions and help to better navigate the future trends in sustainability reporting practices of universities. Originality/value Sustainability reporting is well established in the corporate environment; however, the extent to which it has been adopted and its quality in universities remains relatively unexamined. The study attempts to fill the research gap in the quality of sustainability reporting (comprehensiveness) in higher education institutions to better navigate the future trends in sustainability reporting practices of universities.

Businesses have integrated sustainability reporting into their corporate responsibility efforts. However, universities, as the hubs of sustainability awareness, have been struggling with reporting their sustainability practices. The purpose of this study is to examine sustainability assessment tools in higher education institutions and develop a sustainability reporting assessment tool suitable for evaluating sustainability reporting in these institutions. The study attempts to fill the research lacuna in sustainability reporting in these institutions. In doing so, this study proposes a tool for assessing sustainability reporting in higher education institutions and applies the framework to the University of California. The result of the study shows that University of California is performing stronger in environmental and educational dimensions while social and governance/economic dimensions are lagging behind. Finally, it is concluded that assessment tools have failed to recognize reporting as an integral part of sustainability in universities and sustainability reporting among these institutions is still embryonic.

No abstract

Retailers serve as the main interface between business and society. This study explores the Corporate Social Responsibility priorities and performance of the largest 23 global retailers. This set of global retailers, who have a major impact on society, were studied in terms of social, environmental and sustainability practices and strategy, and there performance was analysed and evaluated. The study uses a four-dimensional Social, Economic, Environmental, Supply Chain model for sustainability performance evaluation. We rely on data collected from annual reports, and find that global retailers have addressed the business-society interface in relatively balanced ways for the different dimensions of CSR. Further, our findings indicate that global retailers in different regions have different CSR priorities. In particular, the data indicates that the US retailers place a lower priority on supply chain sustainability performance, followed by the Australians, while European retailers place a higher priority. The study concludes that while global retailers all pay attention to the same dimensions of CSR and do so differently in the different regions, the variation and lack of significant progress indicates that there is a role for stronger government regulation. This study contributes to the literature by shifting the analysis from country to a global level, is more objective in relying on reported data rather than interviews or surveys and provides a new analytical tool.