196 Abstract Attention towards sustainability reporting is very high with reference to higher education. The paper aims to assess the maturity level of sus- tainability reporting and to measure its quality by evaluating the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) indicators currently disclosed. The research was carried out using the inductive method. We de- limited the study to universities and we evaluated the quality of sustainability reporting by analyzing the indicators disclosed in 2012 reports accord- ing to GRI guidelines. The research gives an overview of sustainability reporting in universities by evaluating the quality level of their disclosure. The results confirm previous research by high- lighting the necessity to improve sustainability reporting. Moreover, the results show there are differences between universities that are con- nected to the peculiarities of each country. They also enable us to draw up an initial classification of universities. The paper provides one of the first in-depth studies of sustainability reporting quality for universities included in the GRI database. Keywords: sustainability reporting, GRI in- dicators, universities, quality assessment. QUALITY DISCLOSURE IN SUSTAINABILITY REPORTING: EVIDENCE FROM UNIVERSITIES*1 Alberto ROMOLINI Silvia FISSI Elena GORI Alberto ROMOLINI (corresponding author) Assistant Professor, Faculty of Economics, International Telematic University Uninettuno, Rome, Italy Tel.: 0039-0669-207.640/50 E-mail: a.romolini@uninettunouniversity.net Silvia FISSI Postdoctoral Research Fellow, Department of Business and Economics, University of Florence, Florence, Italy E-mail: silvia.fissi@unifi.it Elena GORI Assistant Professor, Department of Business and Economics, University of Florence, Florence, Italy E-mail: elena.gori@unifi.it * Although this work represents a joint study by the authors, paragraphs ‘Introduction’ and ‘The State of Sustainability Reporting in Higher Education’ can be attributed to Silvia Fissi; ‘Studies into the Quality of Annual Sustainability Re- ports’ and ‘Research Design’ to Alberto Romolini; ‘Analysis of Results’ and ‘Conclusions’ to Elena Gori. Transylvanian Review of Administrative Sciences, No. 44 E/2015, pp. 196-218 197 1. Introduction Sustainability is a global issue (Dryzek, 1997). In the last few years, sustainable development has become one of the dominant global discourses of ecological concern. In this context, universities can play a critical role (Orr, 1992, p. 4). Various organizations around the world define sustainability differently (Elliot, 2013, pp. 18-19), however the most frequently quoted definition is from the World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED, 1987, p. 43): sustainable de- velopment is the development that meets the needs of the present without compro- mising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs. Sustainable develop- ment is not brought about by policies only – it must be taken up by society at large as a principle guiding the many choices each citizen makes every day, as well as the big political and economic decisions. In other words, sustainable development concerns economic and social structures (Council of the European Union, 2006). Over the last few years, sustainability reporting has been acquiring increasing im- portance among corporations and their stakeholders around the world (International Integrated Reporting Committee, 2011). Also in the higher education sector, reporting for sustainability is an increasingly important issue (Walton et al., 1997). Universities use resources, own large areas of land and innumerable buildings and they are fun- damental for the development of the economy (Zilahy and Husingh, 2009). In other words, they occupy a unique position, being responsible for the education and train- ing of future generations. In the light of these considerations, Taylor et al. (1994) called universities ‘silent destroyers’ – not as high profile as chemical companies but with very considerable environmental impact. Moreover, formal education should be recognized as critical in forming environmental and ethical awareness, values, attitudes, skills and behav- ior (Johnston et al., 2003, p. 7; Lemons, 1995). Previous studies underlined that there was a broad consensus on common priorities, encouraging universities to take up the challenge of addressing environmental responsibility (Yale University, 1994; Walton, Alabaster and Jones, 2000). Now the development of methods and means of improv- ing the role of universities in spreading sustainability issues is needed more than ever (Sedlacek, 2013). However, while universities recognize they have a central role in promoting environmental citizenship across all disciplines and thus all professions, expertise and resources are often not developed or disseminated, remaining trapped in individual institutions or even within individual departments (Beringer, Wright and Malone, 2008). The education sector accounted for less than 0.75% of 2007’s global reporting output (CorporateRegister, 2008, p. 10) and few studies are addressing the perspectives of sustainability reporting in universities (Fonseca et al., 2011; Johnston et al., 2003; Newport, Chesnes and Lindne., 2003; Walton, Alabaster and Jones, 2000). Moreover, we are not aware of any studies currently engaged in international com- parison of social reporting by universities. The present study aims to show the state of sustainability reporting in higher ed- ucation and to give an assessment of the reports’ quality. To that end, it provides an 198 analysis of the extent of reports issued by universities in order to underline their main features and to contribute to the international debate about the development of sus- tainability reporting in the public sector. The paper has four sections. The section below describes the theoretical frame- work regarding the state of sustainability reporting in higher education. Section three highlights studies concerning quality in sustainability reporting. The methodology is explained in section four. Section five presents the results and implications of the anal- ysis and section six sets out the final conclusions, limits and possible future research developments. 2. Studies into the quality of Annual Sustainability Reports Many authors (Atkinson, 2000; Beloff, Tanzil and Lines, 2004; Szekely and Knirsch, 2005; Tanzil and Beloff, 2006) have made general evaluations of the notion of cor- porate sustainability performance measurement, while others have considered more specific issues such as environmental and social performance evaluation (Olsthoorn et al., 2001; Wood, 2010). In recognition of the wide variety of material that appears in sustainability reports, there have been a number of studies focusing on sustainability reporting practices, including the content, scope and structure of the reports (Beloe et al., 2006). Nation- al-level studies have also been carried out in numerous countries over the last 10 years. Differences in sustainability reporting were underlined by Doh and Guay (2006), and they were explained by concluding that social democratic traditions in Europe, com- pared to those in the USA, have resulted in more external pressures on European com- panies regarding sustainability reporting issues. Also, in European companies, inter- nal aspects of sustainability reporting (association, vocational education, fair wages, equal opportunities and non-discrimination) are well covered by all countries with the exception of human rights, while external aspects (local safety, suppliers, human rights, child labor, labor standards, ethics, indigenous people, fair trade, stakehold- ers, education, third parties, reporting) present a more mixed picture within Europe (Welford, 2005). In some countries, universities are very keen to address sustainability issues, which are also used in ‘political slogans’ (Yang, 2008). The majority of studies have focused on assessing the quality of sustainability dis- closure by evaluating the sustainability reporting of Stock Exchange listed compa- nies. Authors utilized various methods of analysis: content analysis, benchmarking analysis, case studies and so on. The studies showed that the quality of sustainability reporting depends on qualitative and quantitative information, and on the extent to which the company has managed to improve its economic, environmental and so- cial effectiveness and efficiency in the reporting period (Daub, 2007). Previous studies on sustainability reporting quality reached common conclusions: that their quality is quite far from acceptable levels, and questions remain on the quality of the informa- tion, according to the different needs of different stakeholders (Daub, 2007). More- over, the insufficiency of social disclosures will eventually change due to external 199 media pressure, especially in developing countries (Yang and Yaacob, 2012). Most publications on sustainability performance measurement have focused on the design of sets of indicators (Spangenberg, 2002). Research into indicators and indices has fo- cused on both the individual corporation and sector levels. Searcy (2012) pointed out that previous research has focused on short time horizons in evaluating sustainability indicators and this is a particularly serious oversight, given the explicit long-term fo- cus of sustainability (Lenzen et al., 2004). Little research has been conducted on the indicators used to convey quantitative information in sustainability reports, yet, as Daub (2007) explains, indicators represent the concrete data on the corporation’s performance with respect to sustainability, and thus are considered at least as important as the qualitative part of sustainability re- porting. Other examples of studies into indicators are those of Adams and Frost (2008) who highlighted the importance of including key performance indicators for sustain- ability reporting, but few studies have explored the specific indicators disclosed. In the university sector, sustainability reporting continues to receive little atten- tion either in literature or in practice and most studies are of a normative nature (del Sordo, Pazzi and Siboni, 2010). Research highlights that the practice of sustainability reporting in the university context is not widespread, and the sustainability reports issued are mainly pivotal versions (Frey, Melis and Vagnoni, 2010). Moreover, a lack of quantitative information and little attention to the disclosure of environmental as- pects were found (Cassone and Zaccarella, 2009). Nowadays, universities have no legal requirement of disclosure regarding sustainability reporting issues. The Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) contains the reporting guidelines most com- monly used by international companies, even though these guidelines do not make for standardization of reporting (Morhardt, Baird and Freeman, 2002). In fact, GRI guidelines do not require companies to fulfil or handle all topics. The aim of GRI is to mainstream ‘disclosure on environmental, social and governance performance’ (GRI, 2011a). Thus, companies are free to choose from the guidelines in any way they prefer, and this contributes to the difficulty of assessing social reporting quality. The generic indicators developed by GRI have been criticized on several grounds, including for being overly general and too numerous (Moneva et al., 2006; Smith and Lessen, 2009). However, many criticisms derive from the analysis of specific sectors, while comparisons between different countries require standardized indicators, such as those of GRI (Verschoor, 2011). In general, previous studies highlight that the most commonly reported source for the content of social and environmental disclosures is the GRI (KPMG, 2013). New- port, Chesnes and Lindner (2003) underlined that if a university wants to benchmark its sustainability performance, it has to compare itself by using GRI indicators, as most other existing instruments suffer from egocentrism and/or lack of comparability. Moreover, no previous studies made a comparison between differences in sustain- ability reporting quality by assessing GRI indicators in different countries. Given the 200 above, if we want to measure the quality of information of higher education sustain- ability annual reporting, we can refer to GRI indicators of quality in sustainability reports, defined in its Framework as Application Levels A, B, or C, depending on the number and set of disclosures addressed by the organizations (Romolini, Fissi and Gori, 2014). Since Italian universities use the Gruppo di Studio per il Bilancio Sociale (Study Group on Social Reporting – GBS) standard, it is not possible to compare their sus- tainability reports with those of other countries (GBS, 2008). The same problem arises if we consider a specific nation, but as our aim is to make an international comparison it is necessary to identify comparable sustainability reporting systems. A recent study (Fonseca et al., 2011) analyzed the sustainability reporting in Ca- nadian universities focusing on GRI indicators. According to the results, sustainabil- ity reporting is at an early stage and reports have limited value and are potentially misleading, moreover only few universities (less than 30%) disclosed sustainability performance by emphasizing eco-efficiency and green architecture. Moreover, previ- ous studies highlight that few universities have external assurance and consequently reports have a limited value and are potentially misleading as a tool to inform sustain- ability-oriented decisions (Walton et al., 1997). Another frequent problem of sustain- ability reporting in higher education is connected with the discontinuity in drawing up reports (Ricci, 2013). 3. The state of sustainability reporting in higher education Attention towards sustainability reporting is very high in Europe and America, but also in developing countries (United Nations Environment Program – UNEP, 2010; United Nations, 2007). In recognition of the wide variety of material that ap- pears in corporate sustainability reports, there have been a number of studies focusing on sustainability reporting practices, including the content, scope and structure of the reports (Beloe et al., 2006; Manetti, 2011; Slater, 2008; Stakeholder Research Asso- ciates Canada, United Nations Environment Programme and AccountAbility, 2005). National-level studies have also been carried out in numerous countries over the last 10 years, including Austria (Langer, 2006), Bangladesh (Sobhani, Amran and Zainud- din, 2009), Canada (Davis and Searcy, 2010), Germany (Gamerschlag, Möller and Ver- beeten, 2011), Greece (Skouloudis, Evangelinos and Kourmousis, 2010), Italy (Perrini, Pogutz and Tencati, 2006; Secchi, 2006), Norway (Vormedal and Ruud, 2009), Sweden (Hedberg and Von Malmborg, 2003), Switzerland (Stiller and Daub, 2007) and Thai- land (Ratanajongkol, Davey and Low, 2006). The role of education in promoting sustainability has been emphasized by inter- national environmental education declarations, such as the Belgrade Charter (UNES- CO-UNEP, 1975) and the Tbilisi Declaration (UNESCO-UNEP, 1977). However, spe- cific declarations for higher education started to emerge in the early 1990s (Wright, 2004). These declarations stated the moral responsibility of higher education towards green education. 201 Whether at national or international level, studies of sustainability reporting in universities concentrate on normative or empirical aspects, focusing on illustrating case studies (del Sordo, Pazzi and Siboni, 2010). Indeed, consideration of the state of implementation of sustainability policies often derives precisely from analysis of a single case study (Christensen et al., 2009; Sedlacek, 2013; Walton, Alabaster and Jones, 2000). While a great heterogeneity of solutions is used by universities for social report- ing, there seems to be general consensus regarding the contents of reports. On this point, Neumann and Guthrie (2004) state that an effective system of measurement and reporting for universities should be based on financial information, relating to intellectual capital and social and environmental performance. Coy and Pratt (1998), who focus their research on New Zealand universities, underline the importance of accountability that also gives information regarding the university’s use of financial resources. With reference to research into case studies, a common denominator is represented by the doubt as to whether these initiatives have been effective. How well the univer- sity sector is progressing towards sustainability remains a conundrum (Ricci, 2013; Walton, Alabaster and Jones, 2000; Wright, 2003). In this context, it is important to test a method for scoring sustainability reporting in higher education (Shriberg, 2004, pp. 75-77). The studies into sustainability reporting in universities are mainly focused on the link between university and stakeholder (Brown and Cloke, 2009; Jongbloed et al., 2008) or on the content of teaching dedicated to sustainability issues (Idowu, 2008; Matten and Moon, 2004). Few studies analyze the sustainability reporting system of higher education in general terms (Beringer, Wright and Malone, 2008). In fact, comparative studies of sustainability reporting in general are relatively rare (Williams and Aguilera, 2008), while theoretical perspectives on corporate sustain- ability performance or stakeholder management have been developed for over two decades (Freeman, 1984; Clarkson, 1995; McWilliams and Siegel, 2000). It is only in the last decade that studies have begun to explore differences in sustainability reporting from a comparative perspective. Comparative studies on legal and institutional anal- ysis compared the perspectives and strategies of sustainability reporting inherent in different corporate governance systems, for example, comparing Anglo-American to Continental European approaches to sustainability issues (Scott, 2004; Doh and Guay, 2006). Other studies aimed to show differences in companies’ approaches to sustain- ability reporting in countries with seemingly similar socio-political traditions within these corporate governance systems (Kolk, 2008). No previous studies have made a comparison between differences in sustainability reporting quality by assessing GRI indicators in different countries. Those issues are addressed by our study. We have focused our attention on a spe- cific part of sustainability annual reporting by analyzing GRI indicators of universities at an international level, for which no previous studies are available. 202 On the basis of our analysis of the literature, we believe it is possible for the higher education sector: Hp1: to assess the maturity level of sustainability reporting and to measure its quality by evaluating the GRI indicators currently disclosed; and Hp2: to assess the differences in quality of sustainability reporting within exam- ined countries. 4. Research Design The method of research used in this study is inductive in order to analyze the state of the art of sustainability reporting in higher education. The question of social report- ing in universities is of international significance. Considering that the sustainability reporting model chiefly used at supra-national level is the GRI, we examined its da- tabase to identify the universities that conform to that standard 1. In particular, we analyzed reports published in 2012 by entities classified by the database as belonging to the category of ‘universities’ (Table 1). 1 htt p://database.globalreporting.org, as of September 11, 2013 Table 1: The population of the research Country (Number of universities) Universities Austria (2) Boku University Karl-Franzens Universität Graz Australia (1) La Trobe University Belgium (1) Hoge School-Universiteit Brussel Bolivia (1) Universidad Tecnológica de Bolívar Brazil (1) Universidade Feevale Canada (1) University of Calgary Chile (1) Universidad de Santiago de Chile China (1) University of Hong Kong Finland (2) Saimaa University of Applied Science Turku University of Applied Science Germany (1) Leuphana Universität Lüneburg Russia (1) Vladivostok State University of Economic and Service Spain (6) Esade Business School Universidad de Santiago de Compostela Universidad de Zaragoza Universidad Internacional de Andalucía Universidad de Cantabria Universidad de Cádiz Switzerland (1) École Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne (EPFL) Turkey (1) Kadir Has Üniversitesi USA (7) Ball State University Michigan State University North Carolina State University Ohio University University of Massachusetts Dartmouth University of Michigan Brown University 203 Not included in the research population were those universities which, although in the database, returned reports that were not coherent with the structure of the GRI model. The universities excluded were: Brown University, Michigan State University, North Carolina State University, Ohio University, Saimaa University of Applied Sci- ence, Universidad Tecnológica de Bolívar, University of Michigan, and Vladivostok State University of Economics and Service. The first phase of research evaluated the quality of reports by analyzing the indica- tors contained in documents published in 2012 according to GRI 3.1 guidelines (GRI, 2011b). The approach used was derived from that of Graves and Waddoch (2000), Mio (2010), Callan and Thomas (2009), and Romolini, Fissi and Gori (2014). This analysis was carried out in clearly distinct steps. Firstly, the presence of indi- cators was identified according to the table in the GRI standard. To do this, we began by evaluating the use of each indicator from the model. Subsequently, we calculated the average value of indicators, grouped based on the reporting categories laid down by the standard (economic performance, environmental performance, and social per- formance). Next, to ‘measure’ the maturity reached by the practice of sustainability reporting, a further study was conducted, giving a weight to each of the indicators. Then, a dif- ferent value was assigned to the two types of indices – core (weight ‘1’) and addition- al (weight ‘0.5’), as per the model. Consequently, the weights of the indicators were specified for each area of reporting: economic, environmental and social; the latter, in turn, being divided into ‘labor practices and decent work’, ‘human rights’, ‘society’ and ‘product responsibility’. In the second phase, the geographic distribution of the university population was examined to highlight the areas where sustainability reporting was more extensively applied. In particular, the use of indicators in the single countries making up the pop- ulation studied was further examined. The investigation was carried out using two ap- proaches for discovering the use of the GRI indicators, first, by calculating the average value, and then by giving weight to the ‘core’ and ‘additional’ indicators. The number of universities is therefore not homogeneous with reference to the single countries. 5. Analysis of results The aim of the research was to analyze the international panorama for sustainabil- ity reporting in universities. Twenty universities that had drawn up a sustainability report in 2012 were found in the GRI database (Table 1). From a geographical viewpoint, we observed in general a dispersion of the phe- nomenon for the single countries involved, with a distinct prevalence of Spain, repre- senting about 30% of the population. This result is also confirmed by the huge pres- ence of European universities, which alone represent 65% of those analyzed. Within this context, Spain however maintains its position of dominance, while other coun- tries represented are Austria, Switzerland, Belgium, Turkey, Germany and Finland. It should be noted that no evidence of sustainability reporting was found in the GRI database for Italian universities. This result confirms the findings of previous studies 204 (Ricci, 2013), clearly showing the use of customized reporting structures based on the GBS model, which cannot be inserted into the GRI database nor compared at interna- tional level. Similar to the Italian case is that of the United States, with only two universities present in the population. Another five American universities were excluded from analysis because, although present in the database, they used structures different from the GRI model. Counting the excluded cases, the USA have the greatest diffusion of the practice of sustainability reporting, even more so than Spain, but their customized reporting structures, as in the case of Italy, raise doubts as to their comparability. With reference to our investigation into the quality of sustainability reporting, an initial study was carried out into the use of indicators, which are unquestionably an element of disclosure. The research measured the quality level of disclosure, eval- uating the use in absolute terms of sustainability reporting indicators (Table 2). An element common to all the areas was achieving a score that, on average, was close to half of the maximum possible. This evaluation highlights the fact that, in the context of disclosure relating to sustainability reporting by universities, there is still consider- able room for improvement and development. The analysis found notably high use of indicators in the macro-areas of ‘economic’ and ‘environmental’ performance. Within the broader area of ‘social’ performance, the greatest levels of disclosure were found in the sub-section ‘labor practices and decent work’. Under ‘economic’ performance, universities showed great use of indicators re- ferring to financial-economic results and, vice versa, less attention towards ‘market presence’ and ‘indirect economic impacts’. This result shows significant interest in communicating to stakeholders the economic value produced by activities of research and education, rather than evaluating market conditions and indirect effects. In the environmental area, on the other hand, questions of greater interest con- cerned environmental emissions deriving from management, consumption of energy, water and raw materials and biodiversity. The environmental impact of the sector of research and education is clearly much reduced, compared with that of manufac- turing and industry. So, it was reasonable to expect less use of indicators – as indeed research findings confirmed. Lastly, in social performance, attention was clearly focused on impacts on inter- nal working conditions, with particular importance given to effects on employment, safety at work, training and equal opportunity. The question of ‘training and educa- tion’ gave a significant result of 2.30 points, corresponding to 76.67% of the maximum score. Similarly, the ‘human rights’ area returned good results – in particular ‘non- discrimination’ reached 65% of the maximum score. Under ‘society’, particular atten- tion was given to ‘community’ (65%), ‘compliance’ (55%) and ‘corruption’ (41.67%). By contrast, questions regarding ‘product responsibility’ remained more in the back- ground. This would appear to have little connection with the university system and its products, since education does not have material connotations, while research has particularly long and uncertain response times. 205 Our research also aimed at examining the quality of reports, considering the use of indicators not in absolute terms but rather from the perspective of the GRI model, which distinguishes between core and additional indices. To this end, we decided to allot different ‘weights’ to mandatory (core) indicators with respect to voluntary (additional) ones. The total weight of the indicators, calculated for each reporting Table 2: GRI indicators in universities’ sustainability reports Reporting areas Score Max Economic performance indicators 5.75 9.00 Economic performance (EC1-EC4) 3.05 4.00 Market presence (EC5-EC7) 1.45 3.00 Indirect economic impacts (EC8-EC9) 1.25 2.00 Environmental performance indicators 14.59 30.00 Raw materials (EN1-EN2) 1.30 2.00 Energy (EN3-EN7) 3.25 5.00 Water (EN8-EN10) 1.55 3.00 Biodiversity (EN11-EN15) 1.50 5.00 Direct and indirect emissions (EN16-EN25) 4.75 10.00 Products and services (EN26-EN27) 0.75 2.00 Conformity (EN28) 0.55 1.00 Transport (EN29) 0.55 1.00 General (EN30) 0.40 1.00 Social performance indicators 21.05 40.00 Labor practices and decent work 9.95 14.00 Employment (LA1-LA3) 2.30 3.00 Industrial relations (LA4-LA5) 1.25 2.00 Health and safety at work (LA6-LA9) 2.50 4.00 Training and education (LA10-LA12) 2.30 3.00 Diversity and equal opportunity (LA13-LA14) 1.60 2.00 Human rights 3.45 9.00 Investment and procurement practices (HR1-HR3) 1.00 3.00 Nondiscrimination (HR4) 0.75 1.00 Freedom of association and collective bargaining (HR5) 0.50 1.00 Child labor (HR6) 0.30 1.00 Forced and compulsory labor (HR7) 0.35 1.00 Security practices (HR8) 0.35 1.00 Indigenous rights (HR9) 0.20 1.00 Society 3.60 8.00 Community (S01) 0.65 1.00 Corruption (S02-S04) 1.25 3.00 Public policy (app. to political parties) (S05-S06) 0.90 2.00 Anti-competitive behavior (S07) 0.25 1.00 Compliance (S08) 0.55 1.00 Product responsibility 4.05 9.00 Customer health and safety (PR1-PR2) 0.75 2.00 Product and service labelling (PR3-PR5) 1.45 3.00 Marketing communications (PR6-PR7) 0.90 2.00 Customer privacy (PR8) 0.50 1.00 Compliance (PR9) 0.45 1.00 Source: Reports 2012 206 macro-area contained in the GRI model, was found as a mean value, taking account of the great number of universities making up the population. The maximum result achievable was also indicated for each indicator. A higher average result for each reporting macro-area clearly indicates a better level of disclosure for economic, social and environmental performance (Table 3). Table 3: Qualitative analysis of sustainability reporting in universities Reporting areas Score Max Economic performance indicators 5.20 8.00 Economic performance (EC1-EC4) 3.05 4.00 Market presence (EC5-EC7) 1.20 2.50 Indirect economic impacts (EC8-EC9) 0.95 1.50 Environmental performance indicators 12.11 23.50 Raw materials (EN1-EN2) 1.30 2.00 Energy (EN3-EN7) 2.45 3.50 Water (EN8-EN10) 1.23 2.00 Biodiversity (EN11-EN15) 1.10 3.50 Direct and indirect emissions (EN16-EN25) 4.25 8.50 Products and services (EN26-EN27) 0.75 2.00 Conformity (EN28) 0.55 1.00 Transport (EN29) 0.28 0.50 General (EN30) 0.20 0.50 Social performance indicators 17.57 32.50 Labor practices and decent work 8.33 11.50 Employment (LA1-LA3) 1.93 2.50 Industrial relations (LA4-LA5) 1.25 2.00 Health and safety at work (LA6-LA9) 1.95 3.00 Training and education (LA10-LA12) 1.60 2.00 Diversity and equal opportunity (LA13-LA14) 1.60 2.00 Human rights 3.01 7.50 Investment and procurement practices (HR1-HR3) 0.83 2.50 Nondiscrimination (HR4) 0.75 1.00 Freedom of association and collective bargaining (HR5) 0.50 1.00 Child labor (HR6) 0.30 1.00 Forced and compulsory labor (HR7) 0.35 1.00 Security practices (HR8) 0.18 0.50 Indigenous rights (HR9) 0.10 0.50 Society 3.28 7.00 Community (S01) 0.65 1.00 Corruption (S02-S04) 1.25 3.00 Public policy (approach to political parties/institutions) (S05-S06) 0.70 1.50 Anti-competitive behavior (S07) 0.13 0.50 Compliance (S08) 0.55 1.00 Product responsibility 2.95 6.50 Customer health and safety (PR1-PR2) 0.60 1.50 Product and service labelling (PR3-PR5) 0.95 2.00 Marketing communications (PR6-PR7) 0.70 1.50 Customer privacy (PR8) 0.25 0.50 Compliance (PR9) 0.45 1.00 Source: Reports 2012 207 The qualitative investigation also confirmed the results mentioned previously, that is the pre-eminence of the ‘economic’ and ‘environmental’ performance macro-areas and of ‘labor practices and decent work’ only, as part of ‘social performance’. These macro-areas had a better quality score compared with that shown in Table 2, which shows results over 50% of the maximum score achievable. By contrast, attention waned regarding the areas of ‘human rights’, ‘society’ and ‘product responsibility’, with an even more marked drop in results in qualitative terms. Further analysis into the quality of reports was made by evaluating the average number of indicators in relation to the single countries that made up the population under examination (Table 4). The best results were achieved, in descending order, by Turkey (72 points), the United States (67.5 points), Australia (66 points) and Chile (63 points). Although Eu- ropean countries had the larger presence in the GRI database, they did not have an equally positive level of disclosure, with the exception of Germany, which reached 62 points. Furthermore, although Spain had by far the greatest number of universities involved in sustainability reporting, it achieved levels of disclosure that were fairly modest (34.88 points), albeit in line with other countries in northern Europe. An examination of the scores achieved in each macro-area of reporting is of inter- est. In the overall scoring for ‘economic performance indicators’ and ‘environmental performance indicators’, with the exception of Canada, no significant differences were found, while there was more marked variability in ‘social performance indicators’. In other words, the differences that account for wide gaps in the overall scores are re- lated to the ‘social performance indicators’ area, where Turkey and Chile ‘stand out’ with 38 points, and the USA and Australia with 37 and 34 points respectively. Lastly, the qualitative analysis of the reports confirms the results from previous research phases (Table 5). The podium is again made up of Turkey (58.5 points), the United States (55 points), Australia (54 points) and Chile (51 points), with Canada in last place with only 8.5 points. A comparison of scores from universities in absolute and qualitative terms (Tables 4 and 5) reveals greater variation in scores for the ‘social performance indicators’, with some universities not reporting on certain topics, such as ‘human rights’ and ‘product responsibility’. 208 Ta bl e 4: G RI in di ca to rs in U ni ve rs itie s’ Su st ai na bi lity 2 01 2 Re po rts . R es ul ts fo r e ac h co un try Re po rti ng a re as Au st ra lia Au st ria Be lg iu m Br az il Ca na da Ch ile Ch in a Fi nl an d G er m an y Sp ai n Sw itz er la nd Tu rk ey US A Ec on om ic pe rfo rm an ce in di ca to rs 9. 00 5. 50 4. 00 3. 00 2. 00 6. 00 5. 00 8. 00 9. 00 5. 00 5. 00 9. 00 7. 00 Ec on om ic pe rfo rm an ce (E C1 -E C4 ) 4. 00 3. 50 3. 00 1. 00 1. 00 3. 00 3. 00 4. 00 4. 00 3. 00 3. 00 4. 00 3. 00 M ar ke t p re se nc e (E C5 -E C7 ) 3. 00 0. 50 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 2. 00 3. 00 1. 17 0. 00 3. 00 2. 50 In di re ct e co no m ic im pa ct s (E C8 -E C9 ) 2. 00 1. 50 0. 00 1. 00 0. 00 2. 00 1. 00 2. 00 2. 00 0. 83 2. 00 2. 00 1. 50 En vir on m en ta l p er fo rm an ce in di ca to rs 23 .0 0 10 .5 0 11 .0 0 4. 00 7. 00 19 .0 0 16 .0 0 10 .0 0 22 .0 0 11 .5 0 18 .0 0 25 .0 0 23 .5 0 Ra w m at er ia ls (E N1 -E N2 ) 2. 00 1. 50 2. 00 2. 00 0. 00 2. 00 0. 00 1. 00 2. 00 0. 83 2. 00 1. 00 2. 00 En er gy (E N3 -E N7 ) 4. 00 3. 50 3. 00 0. 00 2. 00 4. 00 3. 00 2. 00 5. 00 3. 00 5. 00 5. 00 3. 50 W at er (E N8 -E N1 0) 2. 00 0. 50 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 3. 00 3. 00 1. 00 3. 00 1. 17 0. 00 3. 00 2. 50 Bi od ive rs ity (E N1 1- EN 15 ) 3. 00 1. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 1. 00 1. 00 0. 00 3. 00 1. 17 2. 00 4. 00 3. 50 Di re ct a nd in di re ct e m iss io ns (E N1 6- EN 25 ) 9. 00 2. 50 5. 00 0. 00 3. 00 6. 00 8. 00 5. 00 5. 00 3. 33 7. 00 8. 00 7. 00 Pr od uc ts a nd s er vic es (E N2 6- EN 27 ) 1. 00 0. 50 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 1. 00 1. 00 0. 83 1. 00 1. 00 2. 00 Co nf or m ity (E N2 8) 1. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 1. 00 1. 00 0. 00 1. 00 0. 67 0. 00 1. 00 1. 00 Tr an sp or t ( EN 29 ) 1. 00 0. 50 0. 00 0. 00 1. 00 1. 00 0. 00 0. 00 1. 00 0. 33 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 G en er al (E N3 0) 0. 00 0. 50 0. 00 1. 00 0. 00 1. 00 0. 00 0. 00 1. 00 0. 17 0. 00 1. 00 1. 00 So cia l p er fo rm an ce in di ca to rs 34 .0 0 13 .0 0 17 .0 0 6. 00 1. 00 38 .0 0 12 .0 0 16 .0 0 31 .0 0 19 .3 8 18 .0 0 38 .0 0 37 .0 0 La bo r p ra ct ice s an d de ce nt w or k 13 .0 0 8. 00 11 .0 0 3. 00 1. 00 14 .0 0 10 .0 0 11 .0 0 14 .0 0 9. 84 9. 00 14 .0 0 12 .0 0 Em pl oy m en t ( LA 1- LA 3) 3. 00 1. 50 3. 00 1. 00 0. 00 3. 00 2. 00 2. 00 3. 00 2. 50 3. 00 3. 00 2. 50 In du st ria l r el at io ns (L A4 -L A5 ) 2. 00 1. 00 2. 00 0. 00 1. 00 2. 00 0. 00 2. 00 2. 00 1. 00 0. 00 2. 00 2. 00 He al th a nd s af et y at w or k (L A6 -L A9 ) 4. 00 2. 50 2. 00 0. 00 0. 00 4. 00 3. 00 2. 00 4. 00 2. 50 1. 00 4. 00 3. 00 Tr ai ni ng a nd e du ca tio n (L A1 0- LA 12 ) 3. 00 1. 50 3. 00 1. 00 0. 00 3. 00 3. 00 3. 00 3. 00 2. 17 3. 00 3. 00 2. 50 Di ve rs ity a nd e qu al o pp or tu ni ty (L A1 3- LA 14 ) 1. 00 1. 50 1. 00 1. 00 0. 00 2. 00 2. 00 2. 00 2. 00 1. 67 2. 00 2. 00 2. 00 Hu m an ri gh ts 7. 00 2. 00 2. 00 1. 00 0. 00 9. 00 1. 00 0. 00 3. 00 2. 35 3. 00 8. 00 8. 50 In ve st m en t a nd p ro cu re m en t p ra ct ice s (H R1 -H R3 ) 3. 00 1. 00 1. 00 0. 00 0. 00 3. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 50 0. 00 3. 00 2. 50 No nd isc rim in at io n (H R4 ) 1. 00 1. 00 0. 00 1. 00 0. 00 1. 00 1. 00 0. 00 1. 00 0. 67 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 Fr ee do m o f a ss oc ia tio n an d co lle ct ive ba rg ai ni ng (H R5 ) 1. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 1. 00 0. 00 0. 00 1. 00 0. 67 0. 00 1. 00 1. 00 Ch ild la bo r ( HR 6) 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 1. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 17 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 Fo rc ed a nd c om pu lso ry la bo r ( HR 7) 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 1. 00 0. 00 0. 00 1. 00 0. 17 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 Se cu rit y pr ac tic es (H R8 ) 1. 00 0. 00 1. 00 0. 00 0. 00 1. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 17 0. 00 1. 00 1. 00 In di ge no us ri gh ts (H R9 ) 1. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 1. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 1. 00 209 So cie ty 7. 00 1. 50 2. 00 2. 00 0. 00 8. 00 1. 00 2. 00 6. 00 2. 50 3. 00 8. 00 7. 50 Co m m un ity (S 01 ) 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 0. 00 1. 00 0. 00 1. 00 0. 00 0. 50 0. 00 1. 00 1. 00 Co rru pt io n (S 02 -S 04 ) 3. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 3. 00 0. 00 0. 00 3. 00 1. 17 1. 00 3. 00 2. 50 Pu bl ic po lic y (a pp ro ac h to p ol itic al p ar tie s/ in st itu tio ns ) ( S0 5- S0 6) 1. 00 0. 00 0. 00 1. 00 0. 00 2. 00 0. 00 1. 00 2. 00 0. 50 2. 00 2. 00 2. 00 An ti- co m pe tit ive b eh av io r ( S0 7) 1. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 1. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 1. 00 1. 00 Co m pl ia nc e (S 08 ) 1. 00 0. 50 1. 00 0. 00 0. 00 1. 00 1. 00 0. 00 1. 00 0. 33 0. 00 1. 00 1. 00 Pr od uc t r es po ns ib ilit y 7. 00 1. 50 2. 00 0. 00 0. 00 7. 00 0. 00 3. 00 8. 00 4. 69 3. 00 8. 00 9. 00 Cu st om er h ea lth a nd s af et y (P R1 -P R2 ) 1. 00 0. 50 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 2. 00 0. 00 0. 00 2. 00 0. 50 0. 00 2. 00 2. 50 Pr od uc t a nd s er vic e la be llin g (P R3 -P R5 ) 3. 00 1. 00 1. 00 0. 00 0. 00 1. 00 0. 00 1. 00 3. 00 1. 50 2. 00 2. 00 2. 50 M ar ke tin g co m m un ica tio ns (P R6 -P R7 ) 2. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 2. 00 0. 00 0. 00 2. 00 0. 86 0. 00 2. 00 2. 00 Cu st om er p riv ac y (P R8 ) 1. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 1. 00 0. 00 1. 00 1. 00 0. 33 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 Co m pl ia nc e (P R9 ) 0. 00 0. 00 1. 00 0. 00 0. 00 1. 00 0. 00 1. 00 0. 00 0. 50 0. 00 1. 00 1. 00 TO TA L 66 .0 0 29 .0 0 32 .0 0 13 .0 0 10 .0 0 63 .0 0 33 .0 0 34 .0 0 62 .0 0 34 .8 8 41 .0 0 72 .0 0 67 .5 0 210 Ta bl e 5: Q ua lita tiv e an al ys is in U ni ve rs itie s’ Su st ai na bi lity 2 01 2 Re po rts .R es ul ts fo r e ac h co un try Re po rti ng a re as Au st ra lia Au st ria Be lg iu m Br az il Ca na da Ch ile Ch in a Fi nl an d G er m an y Sp ai n Sw itz er la nd Tu rk ey US A Ec on om ic pe rfo rm an ce in di ca to rs 8. 00 5. 00 3. 50 2. 50 1. 50 5. 00 4. 50 7. 50 8. 00 4. 67 4. 50 8. 00 6. 50 Ec on om ic pe rfo rm an ce (E C1 -E C4 ) 4. 00 3. 50 3. 00 1. 00 1. 00 3. 00 3. 00 4. 00 4. 00 3. 00 3. 00 4. 00 3. 00 M ar ke t p re se nc e (E C5 -E C7 ) 2. 50 0. 50 0. 50 1. 00 0. 50 0. 50 0. 50 2. 00 2. 50 1. 00 0. 00 2. 50 2. 25 In di re ct e co no m ic im pa ct s (E C8 -E C9 ) 1. 50 1. 00 0. 00 0. 50 0. 00 1. 50 1. 00 1. 50 1. 50 0. 67 1. 50 1. 50 1. 25 En vir on m en ta l p er fo rm an ce in di ca to rs 18 .5 0 8. 25 10 .5 0 3. 50 6. 00 15 .0 0 14 .0 0 10 .0 0 16 .5 0 9. 92 14 .5 0 19 .5 0 18 .7 5 Ra w m at er ia ls (E N1 -E N2 ) 2. 00 1. 50 2. 00 2. 00 0. 00 2. 00 0. 00 1. 00 2. 00 0. 83 2. 00 1. 00 2. 00 En er gy (E N3 -E N7 ) 3. 00 2. 25 2. 50 0. 00 2. 00 3. 00 2. 50 2. 00 3. 50 2. 33 3. 50 3. 50 2. 50 W at er (E N8 -E N1 0) 1. 50 0. 50 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 2. 00 2. 00 1. 00 2. 00 1. 08 0. 00 2. 00 1. 75 Bi od ive rs ity (E N1 1- EN 15 ) 2. 00 1. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 50 1. 00 0. 00 1. 50 0. 92 1. 50 3. 00 2. 50 Di re ct a nd in di re ct e m iss io ns (E N1 6- EN 25 ) 7. 50 2. 00 5. 00 0. 00 2. 50 5. 50 7. 50 5. 00 4. 50 3. 08 6. 00 7. 00 6. 00 Pr od uc ts a nd s er vic es (E N2 6- EN 27 ) 1. 00 0. 50 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 1. 00 1. 00 0. 83 1. 00 1. 00 2. 00 Co nf or m ity (E N2 8) 1. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 1. 00 1. 00 0. 00 1. 00 0. 67 0. 00 1. 00 1. 00 Tr an sp or t ( EN 29 ) 0. 50 0. 25 0. 00 0. 00 0. 50 0. 50 0. 00 0. 00 0. 50 0. 17 0. 50 0. 50 0. 50 G en er al (E N3 0) 0. 00 0. 25 0. 00 0. 50 0. 00 0. 50 0. 00 0. 00 0. 50 0. 08 0. 00 0. 50 0. 50 So cia l p er fo rm an ce in di ca to rs 24 .5 0 10 .7 5 14 .5 0 6. 00 1. 00 31 .0 0 10 .0 0 14 .0 0 25 .5 0 15 .7 6 16 .0 0 31 .0 0 30 .7 5 La bo r p ra ct ice s an d de ce nt w or k 8. 50 6. 50 9. 00 3. 00 1. 00 11 .5 0 8. 00 10 .0 0 11 .5 0 8. 33 7. 55 11 .5 0 10 .0 0 Em pl oy m en t ( LA 1- LA 3) 2. 50 1. 25 2. 50 1. 00 0. 00 2. 50 1. 50 2. 00 2. 50 2. 08 2. 50 2. 50 2. 00 In du st ria l r el at io ns (L A4 -L A5 ) 2. 00 1. 00 2. 00 0. 00 1. 00 2. 00 0. 00 2. 00 2. 00 1. 00 0. 00 2. 00 2. 00 He al th a nd s af et y at w or k (L A6 -L A9 ) 3. 00 1. 75 1. 50 0. 00 0. 00 3. 00 2. 50 2. 00 3. 00 2. 00 1. 00 3. 00 2. 25 Tr ai ni ng a nd e du ca tio n (L A1 0- LA 12 ) 2. 00 1. 00 2. 00 1. 00 0. 00 2. 00 2. 00 2. 00 2. 00 1. 58 2. 00 2. 00 1. 75 Di ve rs ity a nd e qu al o pp or tu ni ty (L A1 3- LA 14 ) 1. 00 1. 50 1. 00 1. 00 0. 00 2. 00 2. 00 2. 00 2. 00 1. 67 2. 00 2. 00 2. 00 Hu m an ri gh ts 5. 50 1. 75 1. 50 1. 00 0. 00 7. 50 1. 00 0. 00 3. 00 2. 18 4. 00 7. 00 7. 00 In ve st m en t a nd p ro cu re m en t p ra ct ice s (H R1 -H R3 ) 2. 50 0. 75 1. 00 0. 00 0. 00 2. 50 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 42 0. 00 2. 50 2. 00 No nd isc rim in at io n (H R4 ) 1. 00 1. 00 0. 00 1. 00 0. 00 1. 00 1. 00 0. 00 1. 00 0. 67 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 Fr ee do m o f a ss oc ia tio n an d co lle ct ive ba rg ai ni ng (H R5 ) 1. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 1. 00 0. 00 0. 00 1. 00 0. 67 0. 00 1. 00 1. 00 Ch ild la bo r ( HR 6) 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 1. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 17 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 Fo rc ed a nd c om pu lso ry la bo r ( HR 7) 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 1. 00 0. 00 0. 00 1. 00 0. 17 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 Se cu rit y pr ac tic es (H R8 ) 0. 50 0. 00 0. 50 0. 00 0. 00 0. 50 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 08 0. 00 0. 50 0. 50 In di ge no us ri gh ts (H R9 ) 0. 50 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 50 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 50 211 So cie ty 6. 50 1. 50 2. 00 2. 00 0. 00 7. 00 1. 00 2. 00 5. 50 2. 33 2. 50 7. 00 7. 50 Co m m un ity (S 01 ) 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 0. 00 1. 00 0. 00 1. 00 0. 00 0. 50 0. 00 1. 00 1. 00 Co rru pt io n (S 02 -S 04 ) 3. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 3. 00 0. 00 0. 00 3. 00 1. 17 1. 00 3. 00 2. 50 Pu bl ic po lic y (a pp ro ac h to p ol itic al p ar tie s/ in st itu tio ns ) ( S0 5- S0 6) 1. 00 0. 00 0. 00 1. 00 0. 00 1. 50 0. 00 1. 00 1. 50 0. 33 1. 50 1. 50 1. 50 An ti- co m pe tit ive b eh av io r ( S0 7) 0. 50 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 50 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 50 0. 50 Co m pl ia nc e (S 08 ) 1. 00 0. 50 1. 00 0. 00 0. 00 1. 00 1. 00 0. 00 1. 00 0. 33 0. 00 1. 00 1. 00 Pr od uc t r es po ns ib ilit y 4. 00 1. 00 2. 00 0. 00 0. 00 5. 00 0. 00 2. 00 5. 50 2. 92 2. 00 5. 50 6. 25 Cu st om er h ea lth a nd s af et y (P R1 -P R2 ) 1. 00 0. 50 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 1. 50 0. 00 0. 00 1. 50 0. 42 0. 00 1. 50 1. 50 Pr od uc t a nd s er vic e la be llin g (P R3 -P R5 ) 2. 00 0. 50 1. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 50 0. 00 0. 50 2. 00 1. 00 1. 50 1. 00 1. 75 M ar ke tin g co m m un ica tio ns (P R6 -P R7 ) 1. 50 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 1. 50 0. 00 0. 00 1. 50 0. 83 0. 00 1. 50 1. 50 Cu st om er p riv ac y (P R8 ) 0. 50 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 50 0. 00 0. 50 0. 50 0. 17 0. 50 0. 50 0. 50 Co m pl ia nc e (P R9 ) 0. 00 0. 00 1. 00 0. 00 0. 00 1. 00 0. 00 1. 00 0. 00 0. 50 0. 00 1. 00 1. 00 TO TA L 54 .0 0 24 .0 0 28 .5 0 12 .0 0 8. 50 51 .0 0 28 .5 0 31 .5 0 50 .0 0 30 .4 2 34 .0 0 58 .5 0 55 .0 0 212 6. Conclusions Despite the growing interest in sustainability reporting, descriptive studies exam- ining how companies build their reports are, to date, extremely scarce (Perrini, 2006). Moreover, notwithstanding the proliferation of these reports, questions remain on the information they should contain and on how they should be structured (Davis and Searcy, 2010). This paper provides one of the first in-depth studies of sustainability reporting quality within universities, and the research has sought to understand the state of sustainability reporting in higher education by evaluating its completeness and its quality. Our first research hypothesis was confirmed by measuring the maturity and the quality of sustainability reporting in higher education. The analysis found the high use of indicators in the macro-areas of ‘economic’ and ‘environmental performance’ in the GRI model. The main topics in the economic area are referred to financial and economic results, while the higher use of environmental indicators concerned en- vironmental emission, energy, water, raw materials and biodiversity. In the social performance area the greatest level of disclosure were found in the internal working conditions with topics like effects on employment, safety at work, training and equal opportunity. In particular, regarding the qualitative level of disclosure, the results confirmed that significant improvements are required since the universities’ scores are generally below 50% of the maximum score achievable (Daub, 2007). The results confirmed previous research by highlighting some reporting that was extremely limited in scope, depth and quality (United Nations, 2010), for instance in the case of human rights and product responsibility. This reflects current practices in which sustainability reporting tends to focus more on how issues are managed rather than measuring the actual business impacts on communities and the environment (IE School of Communication, 2010). The second research hypothesis was also confirmed: sustainability reporting qual- ity is different within examined countries and, moreover, some areas are effectively more developed in some universities compared with others. In particular, the differ- ences between the qualities of indicators disclosed in sustainability reporting may be linked to the peculiarities of each country: different countries have different national business systems that are shaped by a variety of national institutions. Institutional fea- tures such as the political, financial, educational and labor, and cultural systems have a number of implications for the structural features of corporations, the organization of market processes, and the corporate governance (Matten and Moon, 2004). The results of this study are significant in that they enable us to draw up an ‘initial classification’ of disclosure of universities in the GRI database. Furthermore, these results offer interesting points of consideration for further studies. It would appear interesting to extend the analysis carried out to more years, in order to highlight a possible trend and the continued presence of differences in attention to disclosure in the various reporting macro-areas. These differences might then be investigated in order to understand their motivations. 213 Moreover, the research provides an overview of the situation regarding sustain- ability reporting in universities using GRI indicators, and it is a response to the need for more CSR research in the context of higher education (Coy and Pratt, 1998; Shrib- erg, 2004). Another contribution of this study worth mentioning relates to the methodolo- gy used to assess the social reporting quality. This research went beyond previous studies by adding a proposal to evaluate the social reporting quality. Our research examined the GRI indicators and evaluated the quality of sustainability reporting ac- cording to those indicators. The paper shows that there are numerous possibilities for future research in this area that might be developed, arising out of the very limits of this paper. The main limitations of this study concern the universities analyzed, as the popu- lation comes from the GRI database. Secondly, many entities do not have their social reports certified by a third party. A recent research highlighted differences in external verification of social reports, with 45% of European reports being externally verified, as opposed to 24% of Japanese reports, and only 3% of American reports (Kolk, 2008). As a result, the possibility remains that companies may overstate their performance when disclosing social responsibilities. We believe it would be useful to carry out content analysis into the quality of what has been reported in sustainability communications. References: 1. Adams, C.A. and Frost, G.R., ‘Integrating Sustainability Reporting into Management Practices’, 2008, Accounting Forum, vol. 32, no. 4, pp. 288-302. 2. Atkinson, G., ‘Measuring Corporate Sustainability’, 2000, Journal of Environmental Plan- ning and Management, vol. 43, no. 2, pp. 235-252. 3. Beloe, S., Elkington, J., Hester, K.F., Loose, M. and Zollinger, P., Tomorrow’s Value. The Global Reporters 2006 Survey of Corporate Sustainability Reporting, London: SustainAbil- ity, 2006. 4. Beloff, B., Tanzil, D. and Lines, M., ‘Sustainable Development Performance Assess- ment’, 2004, Environmental Progress, vol. 23, no. 4, pp. 271-276. 5. Beringer, A., Wright, T. and Malone, L., ‘Sustainability in Higher Education in Atlantic Canada’, 2008, International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, vol. 9, no. 1, pp. 48-67. 6. Brown, E. and Cloke, J., ‘Corporate Social Responsibility in Higher Education’, 2009, ACME: An International E-Journal for Critical Geographies, vol. 8, no. 3, pp. 474-483. 7. Callan, S.J. and Thomas, J.M., ‘Corporate Financial Performance and Corporate Social Performance: An Update and Reinvestigation’, 2009, Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, vol. 16, no. 2, pp. 61-78. 8. Cassone, A. and Zaccarella, P., ‘Il bilancio sociale delle università: inventario dei prob- lemi e analisi comparata delle esperienze italiane’, Working Papers no. 130, University of Eastern Piedmont, 2009, [Online] available at http://www.researchgate.net/publica- tion/23954788_Il_bilancio_sociale_delle_universita%27._Inventario_dei_problemi_e_ analisi_comparata_delle_esperienze_italiane, accessed on March 22, 2014. 214 9. Christensen, P., Thrane, M., Tine Herreborg, J. and Lehmann, M., ‘Sustainable Devel- opment. Assessing the Gap between Preaching and Practice at Aalborg University’, 2009, International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, vol. 10, no. 1, pp. 4-20. 10. Clarkson, M.B.E., ‘A Stakeholder Framework for Analyzing and Evaluating Corporate Social Performance’, 1995, The Academy of Management Review, vol. 20, no. 1, pp. 92-117. 11. CorporateRegister, CRRA CR Reporting Awards’ 07, ‘Global Winners and Reporting Trends’, 2008, [Online] available at http://www.corporateregister.com, accessed on March 22, 2014. 12. Council of the European Union, ‘Review of the EU Sustainable Development Strategy’, 2006, [Online] available at http://www.ec.europa.eu, accessed on March 23, 2014. 13. Coy, D. and Pratt, M., ‘An Insight into Accountability and Politics in Universities: A Case Study’, 1998, Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal, vol. 11, no. 5, pp. 540-561. 14. Daub, C.H., ‘Assessing the Quality of Sustainability Reporting: An Alternative Meth- odological Approach’, 2007, Journal of Cleaner Production, vol. 15, no. 1, pp. 75-85. 15. Davis, G. and Searcy, C., ‘A Review of Canadian Corporate Sustainable Development Reports’, 2010, Journal of Global Responsibility, vol. 1, no. 2, pp. 316-329. 16. del Sordo, C., Pazzi, S. and Siboni, B., ‘Il bilancio sociale nelle università: analisi delle prime esperienze’, 2010, Non Profit, vol. 16, no. 4, pp. 67-112. 17. Doh, J.P. and Guay, T.R., ‘Corporate Social Responsibility, Public Policy, and NGO Activities in Europe and the United States: An Institutional Stakeholder Perspective’, 2006, Journal of Management Studies, vol. 43, no. 1, pp. 47-73. 18. Dryzek, J.S., The Politics of the Earth, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1997. 19. Elliot, J.A., An Introduction to Sustainable Development, Abingdon: Routledge, 2013. 20. Fonseca, A., Macdonald, A., Dandy, E. and Valenti, P., ‘The State of Sustainability Re- porting at Canadian Universities’, 2011, International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, vol. 12, no. 1, pp. 22-40. 21. Freeman, R.E., Strategic Management: A Stakeholder Approach, Boston: Pitman, 1984. 22. Frey, M., Melis, M. and Vagnoni, E., ‘Recent Developments in Social and Environmen- tal Reporting among Italian Universities: A Critical Evaluation of Leading-edge Prac- tices’, in Baldarelli, M.G. (ed.), Civil Economy, Democracy, Transparency and Social and Environmental Accounting Research Role, Milan: McGraw-Hill, 2010, pp. 251-272. 23. Gamerschlag, R., Möller, K. and Verbeeten, F., ‘Determinants of Voluntary CSR Dis- closure: Empirical Evidence from Germany’, 2011, Review of Managerial Science, vol. 5, no. 2-3, pp. 233-262. 24. GBS (Gruppo di studio per il bilancio sociale), Il bilancio sociale. Documenti di ricerca n.7. La rendicontazione sociale nelle Università, Milan: Giuffré, 2008. 25. Graves, S.B. and Waddock, S.A., ‘Beyond Built to Last ... Stakeholder Relations in ‘Built- to-Last’ Companies’, 2000, Business and Society Review, vol. 105, no. 4, pp. 393-418. 26. GRI (Global Reporting Initiative), ‘Sustainability Reporting Guidelines. Version 3.1’, 2011b, [Online] available at http://www.globalreporting.org, accessed on March 24, 2014. 27. GRI (Global Reporting Initiative), ‘What is a GRI?’, 2011a, [Online] available at http:// www.globalreporting.org, accessed on March 24, 2014. 215 28. Hedberg, C.J. and von Malmborg, F., ‘The Global Reporting Initiative and Corporate Sustainability Reporting in Swedish Companies’, 2003, Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, vol. 10, no. 3, pp. 153-164. 29. Idowu, S.O., ‘An Empirical Study of What Institutions of Higher Education in the UK Consider to Be Their Corporate Social Responsibility’, in Aravossis, K., Brebbia, C.A. and Gomez, N., Environmental Economics and Investment Assessment II, Ashurt, UK: WIT Press, 2008, pp. 263-273. 30. IE School of Communication, ‘CSR Communication Exploring European Cross-nation- al Differences and Tendencies’, 2010, [Online] available at http:// www.ie.edu, accessed on March 21, 2014. 31. International Integrated Reporting Committee, ‘Towards Integrated Reporting – Communicating Value in the 21st Century’, 2011, [Online] available at http://theiirc. org/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/IR-Discussion-Paper-2011_spreads.pdf, accessed on March 21, 2014. 32. Johnston, A., White, E., Buckland, H., Parkin, S. and Brookes, F., Reporting for Sustain- ability. Guidance for Higher Education Institutions, London: HEPS – Higher Education Partnership for Sustainability, 2003. 33. Jongbloed, B., Enders, J. and Salerno, C., ‘Higher Education and Its Communities: In- terconnection, Interdependencies and a Research Agenda’, 2008, Higher Education, vol. 56, no. 3, pp. 303-324. 34. Kolk, A., ‘Sustainability, Accountability and Corporate Governance: Exploring Multi- nationals’ Reporting Practices’, 2008, Business Strategy and the Environment, vol. 17, no. 1, pp. 1-15. 35. KPMG, ‘The KPMG Survey of Corporate Responsibility Reporting 2013’, 2013, [On- line] available at http://www.kpmg.com/global/en/issuesandinsights/articlespublica tions/corporate-responsibility/pages/corporate-responsibility-reporting-survey-2013. aspx, accessed on March 15, 2014. 36. Langer, M., ‘Comparability of Sustainability Reports. A Comparative Content Analysis of Austrian Sustainability Reports’, in Schaltegger, S., Bennet, M. and Burrit, R. (eds.), Sustainability Accounting and Reporting: Development, Linkages and Reflection. An Intro- duction, Dordrecht: Springer, 2006, pp. 581-602. 37. Lemons, J., ‘Sustainable Development and Environmental Protection: A Perspective on Current Trends and Future Options for Universities’, 1995, Environmental Management, vol. 19, no. 2, pp. 157-165. 38. Lenzen, M., Dey, C. and Murray, S., ‘Historical Accountability and Cumulative Im- pacts: The Treatment of Time in Corporate Sustainability Reporting’, 2004, Ecological Economics, vol. 51, no. 3-4, pp. 237-250. 39. Manetti, G., ‘The Quality of Stakeholder Engagement in Sustainability Reporting: Em- pirical Evidence and Critical Points’, 2011, Corporate Social Responsibility and Environ- mental Management, vol. 18, no. 2, pp. 110-122. 40. Matten, D. and Moon, J., ‘Corporate Social Responsibility Education in Europe’, 2004, Journal of Business Ethics, vol. 54, no. 4, pp. 323-337. 41. McWilliams, A. and Siegel, D., ‘Corporate Social Responsibility and Financial Perfor- mance: Correlation or Misspecification?’, 2000, Strategic Management Journal, vol. 21, no. 5, pp. 603-609. 216 42. Mio, C., ‘Corporate Social Reporting in Italian Multi-utility Companies: An Empirical Analysis’, 2010, Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, vol. 17, no. 5, pp. 247-271. 43. Moneva, J.M., Archel, P. and Correa, C., ‘GRI and the Camouflaging of Corporate Un- sustainability’, 2006, Accounting Forum, vol. 30, no. 2, pp. 121-137. 44. Morhardt, J.E., Baird, A. and Freeman, K., ‘Scoring Corporate Environmental and Sus- tainability Reports using GRI 2000, ISO 14031 and Other Criteria’, 2002, Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, vol. 9, no. 4, pp. 215-233. 45. Neumann, R. and Guthrie, J, ‘Australian Public Sector Reform: Research and Doctoral Education in the Context of the Management of Knowledge’, 2004, Public Management Review, vol. 6, no. 4, pp. 473-492. 46. Newport, D., Chesnes, T. and Lindner, A., ‘The ‘Environmental Sustainability’ Prob- lem. Ensuring that Sustainability Stands on Three Legs’, 2003, International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, vol. 4, no. 4, pp. 357-363. 47. Olsthoorn, X., Tyteca, D., Wehrmeyer, W. and Wagner, M., ‘Environmental Indicators for Business: A Review of Literature and Standardization Methods’, 2001, Journal of Cleaner Production, vol. 9, no. 5, pp. 453-463. 48. Orr, D.W., ‘The Problem of Education’, in Eagan, D.J. and Orr, D.W. (eds.), The Campus and Environmental Responsibility, San Francisco: Hossey-Bass, 1992. 49. Perrini, F., ‘The Practitioner’s Perspective on Non-financial Reporting’, 2006, California Management Review, vol. 48, no. 2, pp. 73-103. 50. Perrini, F., Pogutz, S. and Tencati, A., ‘Corporate Social Responsibility in Italy: State of the Art’, 2006, Journal of Business Strategies, vol. 23, no. 1, pp. 65-91. 51. Ratanajongkol, S., Davey, H. and Low, M., ‘Corporate Social Reporting in Thailand: The News Is All Good and Increasing’, 2006, Qualitative Research in Accounting & Man- agement, vol. 3, no. 1, pp. 67-83. 52. Ricci, P., ‘What Future for Social Reporting and Accountability in Academic Systems. An Overview of the Italian Case’, 2013, Review of International Comparative Management, vol. 14, no. 2, pp. 202-221. 53. Romolini, A., Fissi, S. and Gori, E., ‘Scoring CSR Reporting in Listed Companies – Evi- dence from Italian Best Practices’, 2014, Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, vol. 21, no. 2, pp. 65-81. 54. Scott, C., ‘Regulation in the Age of Governance: The Rise of the Post-regulatory State’, in Jordana, J. and Levi-Faur, D.D. (eds.), The Politics of Regulation, Chentenham, UK: Edward Elgar, 2004, pp. 145-174. 55. Searcy, C., ‘Corporate Sustainability Performance Measurement Systems: A Review and Research Agenda’, 2012, Journal of Business Ethics, vol. 107, no. 3, pp. 239-253. 56. Secchi, D., ‘The Italian Experience in Social Reporting: An Empirical Analysis’, 2006, Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, vol. 13, no. 3, pp. 135-149. 57. Sedlacek, S., ‘The Role of Universities in Fostering Sustainable Development at the Re- gional Level’, 2013, Journal of Cleaner Production, vol. 48, no. June, pp. 74-84. 58. Shriberg, M., ‘Assessing Sustainability: Criteria, Tools, and Implications’, in Corcoran, P.B. and Wals, A.E.J. (eds.), Higher Education and the Challenge of Sustainability, New York: Kluwer Academic, 2004, pp. 71-86. 217 59. Skouloudis, A., Evangelinos, K.I. and Kourmousis, F., ‘Assessing Non-financial Re- ports according to the Global Reporting Initiative Guidelines: Evidence from Greece’, 2010, Journal of Cleaner Production, vol. 18, no. 5, pp. 426-438. 60. Slater, A., KPMG International Survey of Corporate Responsibility Reporting 2008, The Netherlands: KPMG Global Sustainability Services, 2008. 61. Smith, N.C. and Lenssen, G., ‘Mainstreaming Corporate Responsibility: An Introduc- tion’, in Smith, N.C. and Lenssen, G. (eds.), Mainstreaming Corporate Responsibility, West Sussex: Wiley, 2009, pp. 2-8. 62. Sobhani, F.A., Amran, A. and Zainuddin, Y., ‘Revisiting the Practices of Corporate So- cial and Environmental Disclosure in Bangladesh’, 2009, Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, vol. 16, no. 3, pp. 167-183. 63. Spangenberg, J.H., ‘Institutional Sustainability Indicators: An Analysis of the Institu- tions in Agenda 21 and a Draft Set of Indicator for Monitoring Their Effectivity’, 2002, Sustainable Development, vol. 10, no. 2, pp. 103-115. 64. Stakeholder Research Associates Canada, United Nations Environment Programme and AccountAbility, ‘The Stakeholder Engagement Manual’, 2005, [Online] available at http://www.uneptie.org, accessed on March 16, 2014. 65. Stiller, Y. and Daub, C.H., ‘Paving the Way for Sustainable Communication: Evidence from A Swiss Study’, 2007, Business Strategy and the Environment, vol. 16, no. 7, pp. 474- 486. 66. Szekely, F. and Knirsch, M., ‘Responsible Leadership and Corporate Social Responsi- bility: Metrics for Sustainable Performance’, 2005, European Management Journal, vol. 23, no. 6, pp. 628-647. 67. Tanzil, D. and Beloff, B., ‘Assessing Impacts: Overview on Sustainability Indicators and Metrics’, 2006, Environmental Quality Management, vol. 15, no. 4, pp. 41-56. 68. Taylor, B., Hutchinson, C., Pollack, S. and Tapper, R., Environmental Management Hand- book, London: Pitman, 1994. 69. UNEP (United Nations Environment Programme), KPMG, GRI and Unit for Corpo- rate Governance in Africa, ‘Carrots and Sticks. Promoting Transparency and Sustain- ability’, 2010, [Online] available at https://www.globalreporting.org/resourcelibrary/ Carrots-And-Sticks-Promoting-Transparency-And-Sustainbability.pdf, accessed on March 17, 2014. 70. UNESCO-UNEP, ‘Declaration of the Tbilisi Intergovernmental Conference on Envi- ronmental Education’, Tbilisi: United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Or- ganization and United Nations Environment Programme, 1977. 71. UNESCO-UNEP, ‘The Belgrade Charter: A Global Framework for Environmental Ed- ucation’, Belgrade: United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization and United Nations Environment Programme, 1975. 72. United Nations, ‘International Accounting and Reporting Issues. 2007 Review’, 2007, [Online] available at http://unctad.org/en/docs/iteteb20075_en.pdf, accessed on March 16, 2014. 73. United Nations, ‘Investment and Enterprise Responsibility Review’, 2010, [Online] available at http://unctad.org/en/docs/diaeed20101_en.pdf, accessed on March 16, 2014. 74. Verschoor, C.C., ‘Should Sustainability Reporting be Integrated?’, 2011, Strategic Fi- nance, vol. 93, no. 6, pp. 12-14. 218 75. Vormedal, I. and Ruud, A., ‘Sustainability Reporting in Norway – An Assessment of Performance in the Context of Legal Demands and Socio-political Drivers’, 2009, Busi- ness Strategy and the Environment, vol. 18, no. 4, pp. 207-222. 76. Walton, J., Alabaster, T. and Jones, K., ‘Environmental Accountability: Who’s Kidding Whom?’, 2000, Environmental Management, vol. 26, no. 5, pp. 515-526. 77. Walton, J., Alabaster, T., Richardson, S. and Harrison, R., ‘Environmental Reporting for Global Higher Education Institutions Using the World Wide Web’, 1997, The Environ- mentalist, vol. 17, no. 3, pp. 197-208. 78. Welford, R., ‘Corporate Social Responsibility in Europe, North America and Asia: 2004 Survey Results’, 2005, Journal of Corporate Citizenship, vol. 17, pp. 33-52. 79. Williams, C.A. and Aguilera, R.A., ‘Corporate Social Responsibility in a Comparative Perspective’, in Crane, A., McWilliams, A., Matten, D., Moon, J. and Siegel, D.S. (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Corporate Social Responsibility, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008, pp. 452-472. 80. Wood, D.J., ‘Measuring Corporate Social Performance: A Review’, 2010, International Journal of Management Reviews, vol. 12, no. 1, pp. 50-84. 81. World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED), Our Common Future, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1987. 82. Wright, T.S.A., ‘A Tenth Year Anniversary Retrospect: The Effect of the Halifax Dec- laration on Canadian Signatory Universities’, 2003, Canadian Journal of Environmental Education, vol. 8, no. 1, pp. 233-248. 83. Wright, T.S.A., ‘The Evolution of Sustainability Declarations in Higher Education’, in Corcoran, P.B. and Wals, A.W.J. (eds.), Higher Education and the Challenge of Sustain- ability: Problematics, Promise, and Practice, New York: Kluwer Academic, 2004, pp. 7-20. 84. Yale University, ‘Campus Blueprint for a Sustainable Future’, New Haven: Yale Uni- versity Press, 1994. 85. Yang, C., ‘Corporate Social Responsibility and China’s Overseas Extractive Industry Operations: Achieving Sustainable Natural Resource Extraction’, 2008, [Online] avail- able at http://www.fess-global.org/publications/issuebriefs/csr_china.pdf, accessed on March 18, 2014. 86. Yang, L. and Yaacob, Z.B., ‘A Comparative Analysis of Corporate Social Disclosure of Top Listed Companies in China and Malaysia’, 2012, World Review of Business Research, vol. 2, no. 2, pp. 45-61. 87. Zilahy, G. and Huisingh, D., ‘The Roles of Academia in Regional Sustainability Initia- tives’, 2009, Journal of Cleaner Production, vol. 17, no. 12, pp. 1057-1066.