4.1. Assessment of the USR Level in the BRICS Countries
The survey that the expert group performed revealed the coefficients of significance of particular indicators of the USR.
Table 2 illustrates the arithmetic average of the expert group coefficients of significance. The ranking of indicators according to the degree of their significance when assessing the USR and the coefficients of relative significance in the opinion of each expert is given in
Appendix B,
Table A2 and
Table A3.
Expert evaluation of the indicators’ significance was carried out in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic. Therefore, the most significant indicator of USR was indicator SR7, which characterizes these institutions’ efforts to ensure safe working conditions for employees and students and appropriate sanitary conditions. During a pandemic, this indicator is manifested in the ability to provide effective distance learning for students and remote work for teachers, compliant with anti-epidemiological measures at the university. The coefficient of relative importance of this indicator was 0.14, which is 16.7% higher compared to the next most important indicator (SR9), for which the coefficient equaled to 0.12.
The SR11 indicator also plays a significant role in the realization of USR, which characterizes the participation of universities in the provision of material, psychological assistance to health facilities and medical staff, strengthening scientific developments aimed at maintaining the health care system. This indicator significance was 0.11. Along with the mentioned indicators, the importance of which significantly increased during the pandemic, the indicators SR9 (0.12), SR13 (0.11), SR6 (0.10) are characterized by a high level of significance, which are the basis for the development of USR and the foundation of the education system performance, the direct purpose of the university activities. These are compliance with the code of ethics (SR9), provision of quality socially-oriented education (SR13), fair and non-discriminatory communication between management, teachers, and students (SR6). The significance of other indicators varies in the range of [0.02–0.09].
Based on the results of the survey aimed at assessing the USR, taking into account the significance coefficients presented in
Table 2, integral indicators of the USR were calculated using Formula (2).
Table 3 shows the average indicators of the USR in the surveyed countries for the sample of respondents. The calculation of average values was possible due to the homogeneity of the sample within the country: deviations in the values of particular indicators of USR (SR1–SR17) of the assessments given by respondents from different universities within the country are statistically insignificant according to the
t-test at a significance level of
p = 0.05.
Among the BRICS countries, the highest level of USR during 2019–2020 was demonstrated by China. Its value of the integral indicator USR (IUSR) was 3.7 according to the survey findings in 2019 and 4.2 according to the outcomes in 2020. Despite the highest values of the indicator, the actual values are significantly lower than the potential one (5 points). For other countries, the integral indicator of USR was at the level of 2.3–3.0 in 2019 and 2.5–3.3 in 2020, which indicates a low level of development of USR among the BRICS countries. The main disincentive indicator characterizing the USR development is the low level of participation of universities in ensuring the sustainable development of the geographic area (city, region, country): financing public cultural, educational, sports events (SR2); developing regional infrastructure (SR10); reducing the level of poverty; reducing social inequality; and overcoming hunger (SR12). In 2019–2020, deviation of the actual values of these indicators from the potential was 40–80%.
During the COVID-19 pandemic, an increase in the integral indicator of USR has been observed in all countries: by 0.3 in Brazil and Russia, by 0.2 in India and South Africa, and by 0.5 in China. The growth in USR is due to the growth of SR7 indicators by 22.6–25.7% and SR11 by 63.2–71.4%, which compensates for the decrease in indicators, such as SR2, SR10. The identified changes indicate the universities’ focus on countering the spread of COVID-19 in the following ways: creating safe working and learning conditions, primarily the transition to distance learning; focusing efforts on scientific developments aimed at overcoming the virus; and redistributing funding in favor of the healthcare system.
4.2. Factors Affecting the USR Development in the BRICS Countries
The structure of factors influencing the USR development in the BRICS countries, determined using factor analysis by the principal component analysis, is presented in
Table 4.
The number of factors of USR development (
Table 4) was determined using the Kaiser criterion—factors with an eigenvalue ≥ 1.0 were taken as significant. The ranges for factor eigenvalues are given in
Table 4.
The factors were interpreted using the indicators that formed them. We used factor loadings between the indicator and the factor as a criterion for assigning an indicator to a certain factor; these factor loadings are ≥|0.7| [
60].
The results of the factor analysis, carried out separately for countries in 2019 and 2020, indicate an identical structure of the factors for the studied countries but with different priorities. Differences in the structure of factors include particular indicators: FS11 is included in the factor of socially responsible management for Brazil and Russia, FS3 and FS5 in the factor of socially oriented students’ learning for Brazil and India, respectively. For other countries, these indicators are not referred to any factor in the case that the values of factor loadings for them are <|0.7|. For this reason, the FS26 indicator is not included in the list of factors given in
Table 4.
The priority factors influencing the USR development in the BRICS countries are as follows:
1. The factor of socially responsible management describes the possibilities for USR development due to the social orientation of the university administration, having the professional and personal characteristics necessary for the development of social responsibility. The factor is formed from indicators of the availability of effective experience in the country’s USR management; the administration’s awareness of the need to develop USR and support socially responsible events at the university; defining the USR development as a priority goal of the university development, which is accompanied by information sessions aimed to promote the administration and teachers’ social responsibility; and USR development through a high level of administrative creativity.
2. The factor of the effectiveness of communication between universities and stakeholders describes the effectiveness of the organization of interaction between universities on the one hand and stakeholders on the other. Within the framework of this factor, the USR development is facilitated by an effective communication system between administration, teachers, students, and stakeholders; the focus on the interests of teachers, students, stakeholders in the development of strategies and tasks for universities’ functioning; the consistency of opinions and interests of stakeholders in the university management process; the consistency of the responsibilities of administration, teachers, staff, and students with the universities’ institutional development goals; the orientation of universities to the social and cultural development of society, regions, and their country.
3. The factor of socially oriented students’ learning describes the focus of university curricula on the USR development by orienting students toward the implementation of sustainable development goals; teaching students environmentally friendly, resource-saving habits and energy-saving innovative technologies; raising students’ awareness to protect the environment; and the formation of the ability to constantly learn, work with information, quickly master new technologies, and think critically.
4. The university funding factor determines the financial opportunities for USR development through public and private funding, the attraction of domestic and foreign investments, and the commercialization of universities.
5. The factor of the universities’ research potential characterizes the universities’ innovative activity, the orientation toward research work, and the level of research potential. A high research potential contributes to the implementation of socially oriented developments, for instance, aimed to introduce resource-saving technologies, programs for efficient resource use, combating climate change, technologies for protecting aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems, programs to combat poverty and hunger, treatment technologies, and programs for health system development.
The indicated list of factors correlates with the studies of [
30,
38,
40], but it is more extended and more specific in terms of priority for the BRICS countries.
For the BRICS countries, the socially responsible management factor has the highest percentage of variance. However, this does not mean that this factor determines the trends in these countries’ USR development. The regression models were built to determine the significance of factors in USR development and the test research hypotheses (
Table 5).
The significance of the factor influence on the USR development is statistically confirmed by the model adequacy indicators: the F-criterion and the t-criterion. Empirical values of F-criterion range within 43.65–95.11, and critical values equal to 2.22–2.23 at a significance level of p = 0.05. The excess of empirical values over critical ones indicates the adequacy of the constructed regression models of the factor impact on USR development.
The empirical values of t-criterion for the independent variables exceed the critical one, making 1.96 at p = 0.05 (excluding the FL indicator for China). This result indicates a statistically significant (with the exception of FL) influence of the selected factors on USR development in the BRICS countries.
The possible influence of the study period on the simulation results was tested using the Chow test in the EViews 10 program. The probability of accepting the null hypothesis about the insignificance of the influence of the study period on the simulation results is not lower than 0.694. The excess of the calculated value over the critical 0.05 asserts that the revealed patterns of the factors impact on the USR indicator are identical over the period of 2019–2020. In this regard, models presented in
Table 5 are built on a single data set for 2019 and 2020.
All FS1–FS27 indicators that affect the USR development have positive values of factor loadings with the factors to which they are assigned. This means that the nature of the influence of particular indicators on USR development is similar to the influence of the factors that formed these indicators.
The constructed models showed that the most significant influence on the USR integral indicator in the BRICS countries is exerted by the factor of the effectiveness of university communication with stakeholders (FC). The t-criterion by country is in the 7.5–9.2 range. Positive values of the criterion and positive values of the coefficients of significance near this factor in the constructed models indicate the stimulating influence of this factor on USR development.
The FS12 indicator is among the indicators that form the factor F
M. This indicator describes the level of management creativity. The positive value of the factor loading between FS12 indicator and F
M factor, together with the direct nature of the F
M factor influence on the level of the USR development (as reflected by the constructed regression models) indicates the same nature of the FS12 indicator influence on the I
USR. However, based on these data, one cannot state the statistical significance of such an influence. In this regard, additional regression models were built, reflecting the influence of the particular indicators forming the F
M factor on the level of USR development (
Table 6). A similar situation arises when testing H6 hypothesis: the indicator characterizing the commercialization of the university (FS20) is included in the university funding factor (F
F).
Table 6 shows the models describing the influence of this factor indicators on the level of USR development.
The influence of the FS12 indicator on IUSR is directly proportional and statistically significant, as evidenced by the t-criterion values in the range of 6.8–8.9 with a critical value of the criterion, making 1.96. This confirms the H2 hypothesis regarding the stimulating influence of the university management creativity on the USR development in the BRICS countries.
According to the FS20 indicator, a statistically significant positive impact was recorded for India and China. After analyzing the structure of the indicators that formed the factors influencing the USR development for India and China, a close direct relationship was found between the FS20 and FS24 indicators (the value of the paired correlation coefficient is 0.77). For other countries, the value of the correlation coefficient between these indicators is in the (−0.21) − (+0.08) range. The revealed regularity can be explained as follows: the commercialization of universities brings a positive effect provided that universities are socially oriented, when the key principles of university functioning include an orientation toward the social and cultural development of society, regions, and the country, the achievement of sustainable development goals through research activities. In this case, a double positive effect is created: (1) developments lead to an increase in USR since they have a social orientation; (2) the applied nature of the developments stimulates new similar orders, which expands the financial base of universities and stimulates USR growth. This confirms H6 hypothesis that the commercialization of universities is a USR development driver. The hypothesis is not confirmed for countries, where the commercialization of universities is not social in nature.
H3, H5 hypotheses were tested based on the factors of socially oriented students’ learning (FL) and university funding (FF), respectively.
Models presented in
Table 5 indicate the stimulating influence of the factor of socially oriented students’ learning (F
L) on USR development in the BRICS countries. However, if for Brazil, Russia, India, and South Africa this influence is statistically significant in terms of the t-criterion, then for China, the empirical value of the criterion is 1.9 (as shown in
Table 5), which is lower than the critical one. This indicates an insignificant influence of this factor on USR development in the country. The regularity is also noted that the positive influence of the factor decreases (the empirical values of the t-criterion decrease at the same level of critical value) with an increase in the USR level in the country. In China, the level of USR development is the highest, and the influence of the factor of socially oriented students’ learning is insignificant; in Brazil and India, the level of USR development is the lowest, and the influence of the factor has the most significant positive effect. In countries with a lower level of USR development, the orientation of the educational process toward the formation of students’ competencies for achieving sustainable development goals, the ability to constantly learn, work with information, quickly master brand new technologies, and think critically contribute to USR development [
61]. This confirms H3 hypothesis but it is adjusted for the level of USR development in the country.
The acceptance of H5 hypothesis is evidenced by the statistically significant positive influence of the funding factor on the integral indicator of USR development. This factor is more significant for Brazil and India.
To test H4 hypothesis, we used the respondents’ assessments for the 1st block of questions. These assessments were made regarding the USR development at the university represented by the respondent, rather than in the country as a whole.
Based on these values, the integral indicator of USR development for 2019 and 2020 was calculated and used as a data set for calculating the paired correlation coefficient. The second data set was formed from universities’ ranking positions in the QS World University Rankings 2019 and the QS World University Rankings 2020. The calculated values of the correlation coefficient were 0.73 for 2019 and 0.68 for 2020, which is statistically significant, since the empirical t-criterion values (4.91, 5.65) exceed the critical one 2.76 at a significance level of 0.01.
The positive value of the correlation coefficient and its static significance, confirmed by the t-criterion, indicate a direct relationship between the level of USR development and university rankings, which validates H4 hypothesis. This connection is explained by the fact that the highest positions in the ranking indicate the high quality of the educational process, confirmed by a high academic reputation and employers’ reputation, a high proportion of foreign teachers and students, and the availability of high-quality research (including the field of sustainable development), which the citation index demonstrates [
62]. This creates the prerequisites for the USR development.