Next Article in Journal
Sustainable Development of Mastery Goals and Innovative Behavior: Evidence from Chinese Faculty Members
Next Article in Special Issue
Sustainability Accounting Studies: A Metasynthesis
Previous Article in Journal
Energy Saving with Zero Hot Spots: A Novel Power Control Approach for Sustainable and Stable Data Centers
Previous Article in Special Issue
Social Responsibility of Mining Companies at a Time of COVID-19: Dear Shareholders!
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sustainability
Volume 14
Issue 15
10.3390/su14159006
sustainability-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Reporting University Performance through the Sustainable Development Goals of the 2030 Agenda: Lessons Learned from Italian Case Study

by
Gloria Fiorani
and
Chiara Di Gerio
*
Department of Management and Law, University of Rome “Tor Vergata”, 00133 Rome, Italy
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2022, 14(15), 9006; https://doi.org/10.3390/su14159006
Submission received: 14 April 2022 / Revised: 21 June 2022 / Accepted: 22 June 2022 / Published: 22 July 2022
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Social Responsibility and Sustainability Accounting: Key Corporate Performance Drivers and Measures)
Browse Figures
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:
The shift of sustainability paradigms within the academic context has prompted universities to develop additional accountability tools to respond to the resulting demand for information. However, in terms of social reporting, universities have complete discretion regarding the content and nature of their sustainability budgets. The resulting diversity has led to greater heterogeneity with regard to information systems, which in turn poses the risk of making reports for stakeholders difficult to understand and complicates benchmark comparisons between different institutions. This paper aims to summarize the state of the art of sustainability reporting in Italian state universities, and to assess the compliance of these reports with global sustainability trends. This is achieved by determining the extent to which the sustainable development goals, outlined by the 2030 Agenda, are integrated into the substantive indicators used in the preparation of sustainability reports. The results show that sustainability reporting in universities is still in its early stages. Although only 29 universities—which represent 42% of the total number of universities initially surveyed—have pursued a sustainability reporting process, this research highlights a gradual increase in the implementation of SDGs as a criterion for assessing sustainable performances.

1. Introduction

In the most recent few decades, the concept of sustainable development has received increasing attention from the private, public, and non-profit sectors, as well as educational institutions and universities. There are many definitions of sustainability [1,2], but the most widely accepted and acknowledged definition is from the Brundtland Report, which defines sustainable development as development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs [3]. Another definition was adopted by Elkington [4], who defined the term sustainability using an approach based on the triple bottom line, which involves the interrelationship and integration of the economic, social, and environmental dimensions of corporate actions. In the university sector, there have been several attempts to conceptualize sustainable development in higher education institutions [5,6]. Applying sustainability paradigms to the university context is justified, given the role universities play as social institutions and undisputed drivers of change. They serve a fundamental role in the search for means of enabling sustainable development in the economic, social, and environmental senses. A university can thus be defined as ‘sustainable’ when it is able to implement these themes in its research and teaching. It must also succeed in establishing an active dialogue with society and in ensuring a special focus on the local area in which it operates. Therefore, as stated in the reference literature, an awareness of their impact has led universities to integrate sustainability values into their own cultures, and to apply them to governance, education, research, and the third mission [7,8,9,10,11]. Universities have indicated the impact of such an approach through reporting their results [12,13]. Social reporting, which involves preparing and releasing documents describing an institutions fulfilment of its social responsibilities, can serve to reflect the performance of a university in quantitative and qualitative terms [14]. In addition, such documents may describe the activities conducted by an institution in pursuit of the triple academic mission [15], and may also assess the impact generated in terms of sustainable development [16,17]. Some universities have engaged students, creating an experiential learning exercise within the process of collecting data and producing sustainability reports [18].
There is no non-financial reporting obligation for universities in Italy [19,20]. The first social responsibility documents published by ‘pioneer’ universities date back to the early 2000s. Previously, universities’ social reporting was mostly focused on developing social reports in the broadest sense, that is, a set of evaluations concerning the performance of a company in a social context [21]. Over time, Italian universities have started to produce various documents, including end-of-term reports, environmental reports, and gender reports; however, in recent years, sustainability reports have become more widespread. They are considered to be the most appropriate and direct way of representing the performance of an organization in terms of the economic, social, and environmental dimensions [4,22]. To be defined as such, social reporting documents must comply with standards concerning the content that should be included and the principles that should be followed, to avoid self-referential content [23]. Furthermore, adhering to such standards ensures that documents are comparable over time and that documents published by different institutions can be compared [24,25]. As is described later in this paper, universities have adopted many standards over the years; however, in terms of reporting methodology, adopting one or more standards is a subjective choice made by each university based on its motivations, context, and activities. This discretion on the part of university in choosing the type and content of their social and sustainability reports increases the diversity of their information systems, which poses the risk of making it difficult for stakeholders to read such reports and does not allow adequate comparison of different approaches [26].
This paper aims to analyze the state of the art of sustainability reporting in Italian universities and to investigate the integration of the sustainable development goals (SDGs) of the 2030 Agenda into the substantial parameters that represent the foundation of the drafting of sustainability reports. Adopting the criteria linked to the SDGs in defining objectives and in sustainability reporting would make it possible to reduce the diversity of information systems within universities, thus making it easier to read sustainability reports and allowing for more accurate comparisons between the performances of various Italian universities.
The remainder of this paper is organized as follows: Section 2 provides a brief literature review on social and sustainability reporting practices in higher education institutions; Section 3 explains the choice of sample, the process of data collection, and the methodological approach used; Section 4 provides the findings; Section 5 draws conclusions, along with a discussion of the lessons learned, highlights the limitations of the study, and offers suggestions for future lines of research.

2. Literature Review

2.1. Diffusion of Social and Sustainability Reporting in Universities

In recent years, numerous universities both in Italy and abroad, have introduced aspects of social reporting. This has led to the adoption of documentation including social, environmental, and end-of-term reports, and—more recently and increasingly widespread—sustainability reports.
Universities have adopted these documents for many reasons; however, it is worth highlighting the fact that they complement economic and financial accounting documents, including budgets and final statements [27]. These documents aim to make the results obtained by university institutions more transparent and understandable [28]. Furthermore, sustainability reports can help universities to communicate their own sustainability efforts to their stakeholders [29,30,31]. Indeed, the purpose of social reporting documents is to present and publicize the services provided, the educational services offered, and the overall picture of the initiatives undertaken [32,33]. They also promote an understanding of the individual characteristics of the institution from a sustainability point of view, sharing information related to environmental, social, and economic issues, with the ultimate goal of fulfilling the informational needs of various stakeholders. From a managerial point of view, these documents are also an important factor in the conscious and effective implementation of policy and management activities, allowing for the assessment of sustainable performance and for reflection on both their potential and weaknesses. In this sense, the sustainability report is a tool which is able to support planning processes and internal strategic improvement [28,34]. They help to monitor the results achieved and set new sustainable objectives.
To date, universities are only required by law to report on financial matters. This has meant that adherence to sustainability reporting processes has been limited to those universities that have voluntarily adopted the principles. Furthermore, this has delayed the full implementation of reporting systems in the education sector on a global level.
According to data from the GRI [35], over the last 20 years more than 15,000 organizations have initiated a reporting process and more than 63,000 sustainability reports have been published. Industrial, financial, mining, and energy companies are taking the lead in sustainability reporting, demonstrating that sectors with a higher environmental impact are the main proponents of voluntary sustainability disclosure [36,37]. The higher education sector is among those falling behind; currently, it accounts for just over 1% of global reporting (Figure 1).
In line with this trend, there is a significant amount of international published research on corporate social and environmental reporting [38,39,40,41,42,43,44,45,46,47,48,49,50,51]. Although numerous scholars have examined sustainability reporting in the for-profit sector, few studies have addressed such perspectives in public sector organizations and even fewer in the education sector, particularly in university institutions [52,53]. However, universities play an important role in educating future leaders and in promoting sustainable development [54,55]. They integrate these sustainability values into their own culture and develop them into their own operations and within the three missions [56]. Considering these factors, stakeholders—students, administrative technical staff, teaching faculty, etc.—should be well-informed on sustainability issues, and this can be easily achieved by means of sustainability reports [57,58].
According to data from the GRI (Global Reporting Initiative, 2021), social reporting started to become popular in the education sector in the early 2000s, when the first pioneer universities published sustainability documents. Universities started to adopt these reports in significant numbers in 2010, and this has continued along a relatively upward trend, demonstrating how more higher education institutions are slowly moving towards sustainability reporting [35,59,60]. This is a clear sign of the wider international attention toward this issue. A closer look at the information contained in the GRI sustainable disclosure database shows that the first university sustainability report was published in 2001, and to date, sustainability reports have been produced by 179 universities globally (Figure 2).
It is evident that there is growing interest from universities towards adopting sustainability reporting practices. However, some authors reveal that sustainability reporting is not a common practice in the higher education sector, and it is at a rather early stage [12,13,60]. This is indicated both by the relatively small number of institutions involved and the information they choose to disclose [61]. A reduced level of reporting compared to private companies can also be observed [59]. This stems from the fact that higher education institutions have not yet taken the challenge of reporting their sustainability efforts seriously. The GRI guidelines were not designed for higher education institutions [59].
Sustainability 14 09006 g001 550
Figure 1. Sustainability reports across global sectors. Source: adapted from Fonseca et al. (2011) [60]; GRI Sustainability Disclosure Database (6 July 2021).
Figure 1. Sustainability reports across global sectors. Source: adapted from Fonseca et al. (2011) [60]; GRI Sustainability Disclosure Database (6 July 2021).
Sustainability 14 09006 g001

2.2. Empirical Research on the Social and Sustainability Reporting of Universities

Empirical research regarding the topic of social reporting by universities appears to be limited [62]. In order to provide a theoretical overview of the evolution of the relevant literature, we have taken international studies into account, which demonstrate how the field is attempting to fill this gap [63]. Using the work of Jorge et al. [5] as a reference, it is possible to give an overview at an international level. In Europe, some authors have contextualized their research to Italy [19,20,64], Lithuania [65], France [66], Spain [30], the UK [67], and Germany [68,69]. Comparisons have also been made between Germany and Austria [61]. In North America, some studies have been conducted in Canada [60,70] and the United States [71,72,73]. Gamage and Sciulli [63] and Melles [74] instead focused on Australian universities while, in the same time period, An et al. [75,76] analyzed an institution in New Zealand and examined the state of the art in the Hong Kong higher education sector. African research is limited to the Ghanaian [77] and South African [78,79] experience. Finally, some studies have taken an international perspective [5,13,59]. In terms of the sample analyzed and the research method applied, most of the literature has carried out a content analysis, making reference to a limited sample of universities that have produced and published their own sustainability reports. For example, the work of Fonseca et al. [60] referred to seven universities that had published sustainability reports between 2006 and 2008. The study carried out by Lopatta and Jaeschke [61] examined six universities (four German and two Austrian) that produced sustainability reports between 2005 and 2011. Gamage and Sciulli [63] explored eight reports published by Australian universities in 2013. At the same time, Alonso-Almeida et al. [13], used regression curves to investigate the prevalence of sustainability reports prepared by universities between 2001 to 2012 in 18 countries, and this resulted in a sample of 45 universities that published a total of 78 sustainability reports. Other studies employed alternative methodologies, such as data collection through surveys administered to universities that had published sustainability reports [12]. Some studies utilized several methods simultaneously, for example, data collection based on content analysis and interviews [61] or surveys [19]. The table in the Appendix summarizes the main studies based on their different approaches.
It is evident that content analysis is the “dominant research method for collecting empirical evidence” in social and environmental reporting [44,80]. In this case, analysis is mainly focused on examining the instruments adopted by universities and the type of indicators considered.
Sustainability 14 09006 g002 550
Figure 2. Geographical distribution of sustainability reporting in universities worldwide for the period 1999–2020. Source: adapted from Sepasi et al. (2018) [73]; GRI Sustainability Disclosure Database (6 July 2021).
Figure 2. Geographical distribution of sustainability reporting in universities worldwide for the period 1999–2020. Source: adapted from Sepasi et al. (2018) [73]; GRI Sustainability Disclosure Database (6 July 2021).
Sustainability 14 09006 g002

3. Research Methodology

Starting from this theoretical reference scenario, this paper aims to analyze the state of the art of sustainability reporting in Italian universities and to investigate the integration of the sustainable development goals (SDGs) of the 2030 Agenda into the substantial parameters that represent the foundation of the drafting of sustainability reports. Adopting the criteria linked to the SDGs in defining objectives and in social reporting would make it possible to reduce the diversity of information systems within universities, thus making it easier to read sustainability reports and allowing for more accurate comparisons between the performances of various Italian universities.
To address this research topic, 2 RQs were formulated:
  • RQ1. Regarding the diffusion of sustainability reporting in universities, to what extent have Italian state universities implemented sustainability reporting?
  • RQ2. Regarding the inclusion of SDGs, how do these sustainability reports align with the sustainable development goals (SDGs) promoted by the 2030 Agenda?
The methodology used in this paper is based on the content analysis application; this is a “qualitative research technique used to interpret and draw inferences in an objective/systematic and quantifiable manner by evaluating textual material such as reports against predetermined criteria” [81].
To conduct this analysis, a full list of Italian universities (the complete list is available here: http://ustat.miur.it/dati/didattica/italia/atenei#tabistituti, accessed on 29 February 2020) was examined, focusing on 68 state universities. The institutional and sustainability websites of each university were then consulted to verify that each of these institutions had been publishing social responsibility reports since 2015, when the 2030 Agenda was approved. The choice to consider Italian universities derives from the absence of linguistic barriers which facilitated the search for data and the understanding of the report contents.
As Figure 3 illustrates, the research showed that only 29 universities, accounting for 42% of the total number of state universities, produce documentation on their economic, social, and environmental performance (updated to 31 December 2021).
The model described here takes into account previous research on social reporting in universities [19,20,64,82], while attempting to determine the degree to which Italian state universities focus on achieving the 2030 Agenda goals and apply the SDGs in their reporting processes.
The social reporting documents of the 29 universities were analyzed by examining 4 parameters. The first parameter classifies the social reporting process based on the document type, which generally coincides with the name assigned to it by the publishing university (generally ‘social report’ or ‘sustainability report’). The second parameter identifies the reporting standards adopted by the 29 universities in drawing up the documents under analysis. Linked to the first two parameters, the third research parameter concerns time, in order to verify the continuity of the reports over the 6-year period considered in this paper. Finally, the fourth parameter concerns the use of the 2030 Agenda survey as a means of communicating and reporting on the sustainability performance of Italian universities.
Figure 4 shows the content analysis process used in the current research. The information was inserted into a specific database where records were analyzed. The data were then discussed by the authors to validate the results. The results are presented in the next section.

4. Results

4.1. Document Analysis

This research begins by investigating the types of social documentation published by the 29 universities that have implemented social reporting practices.
Following the classification of social reporting documents proposed by Moggi, Leardini, and Campedelli [83], the conducted analysis showed a high degree of inhomogeneity in the solutions adopted for social reporting.
Table 1 shows that 12 Italian state universities, equivalent to 41% of the analysis sample, draw up and publish social reports, while 16 out of 29 universities publish sustainability reports.
Due to the diversity of approaches, the research also set out to investigate the names given to the reports. The term bilancio sociale appears to have been used consistently for social reports, yet the situation is quite different for sustainability reports, for which various expressions are used. The most commonly used term is rapporto di sostenibilità (used by nine universities), although there are also expressions such as bilancio di sostenibilità (used by three universities), report di sostenibilità (used by two universities), and sustainability report (used by one university). The University of Rome La Sapienza changed the name of its social report several times, from bilancio sociale (2015, 2016, 2017) to rapporto di sostenibilità (2019) to bilancio sociale e di sostenibilità (2018, 2020).
Social and sustainability reports are evidently the documents most widely used by universities to report on their economic, social, and environmental performance. However, the overall framework also comprises other types of documents that report on sustainable performance. For example, the bilancio ambientale (environmental report) was drawn up by the University of Bari to establish and report on the main environmental impacts of its activities, as well as to inform stakeholders about the relevance of the environmental dimension within the three missions of the university [84]. The bilancio integrato of the University of Tuscia aims to establish the connections and relationships between all the factors that affect a university’s ability to create value over time [85,86]. The report on U.N. Sustainable Development Goals, published by the University of Bologna, describes the university’s contributions to achieving the SDGs of the 2030 Agenda, and ‘Un Ateneo verso la sostenibilità’ was drawn up by the University of Verona as a preparatory document for starting the reporting process.
This overview of social responsibility documents shows that three state universities (Bari, Bologna, and Perugia) draw up more than one document, likely due to their need to inform multiple stakeholders.
Finally, it should be noted that the University of Rome Tor Vergata is the only institution in Italy that also publishes its sustainability report in accordance with its Dichiarazione Non Finanziaria (non-financial reporting directive), as per legislative decree 254/2016.

4.2. Analysis of the Reporting Tools

The analysis then moved on to begin studying the tools used for report drafting. To identify the standards used, it was necessary to read the reporting frameworks (most of the reports analyzed have an introductory section which provides information on the working group, the structure of the document, the reference standards, and the time frame of the activities described).
The research shows that universities employ a range of different standards, which leads to the creation of documents with customized structures [64]. The adoption of multiple tools is likely due to the lack of a comprehensive tool specific for universities with sustainable performance indicators (economic, social, and environmental).
Such a diverse range of methodologies does not allow for an adequate comparison between the different approaches and could even impair stakeholders’ understanding of the information presented in these reports. In fact, in the analysis of the social responsibility documents published by the 29 state universities, a total of nine national and international standards were identified (Table 2).
A widely used national standard is GBS (Gruppo di Studio per il Bilancio Sociale), which includes five frameworks: principles of social reporting [88,89], social reporting in the public sector [87], and research papers number five and number seven, for performance indicators in social reporting and social reporting in universities, respectively [90,91]. The latter has been adopted by 12 universities in their sustainability performance reports.
As public institutions, universities have adopted an additional reference standard in drawing up their social reports based on the guidelines provided by the Ministry of Public Administration in 2006. These guidelines facilitate social reporting that satisfies the knowledge needs of various stakeholders and have been adopted by seven universities in publishing their social responsibility documents.
The guidelines for local authorities, issued by the Ministry of Internal Affairs in 2007, were distributed to only two universities. It is also worth noting that, due to their lack of applicability to the peculiarities of the academic world, universities decided not to use these guidelines as the only reference standard, but to combine them with at least one other model.
Furthermore, the growing challenge of globalization and the need for international comparison and comparability have encouraged the adoption of international reference standards for social reporting. Foremost among these standards is the GRI, which is currently the standard most widely utilized by Italian universities (19 universities use it). This framework is mainly used for the quantitative measurement of corporate, economic, social, and environmental performance. The University and the Politecnico of Torino also took into account the provisions of other international guidelines and principles (such as Green Metric, ISCN-GULF, and IIRC).
Table 2 highlights how Italian state universities that have implemented a social reporting process have done so using several standards simultaneously (44% of the universities examined have adopted two or more standards). Specifically, ten universities indicate that they employ at least three social reporting models, with some universities using up to five. Conversely, 11 out of 29 universities use only one. It should also be mentioned that for four universities, no indication of the reference standard could be found.

4.3. Time Analysis

There is great diversity in approaches adopted over the period under review with regard to time analysis (Table 3).
The documentation shows that the majority of reports cover a one-year period, while others report on periods of two years or longer. Therefore, where a cross is marked with an asterisk in Table 3, it indicates that the document(s) published by that institution cover a period of several years. This is the case for the University of L’Aquila, which drafted a single sustainability report covering the years 2014–2019 (corresponding to the dean’s term in office), the universities in Puglia (the University of Bari has published a seven-year social report for 2010–2017 and a specific environmental report for the years 2012–2018; the University of Salento has drafted three-year social reports for 2014–2016 and 2017–2019), and the universities of Pisa and Verona, which have each compiled two-year reports.
In addition, in Table 3, grey backgrounds indicate universities that have recently started social reporting (i.e., that they have published the first editions of their respective documents).
Another noteworthy change over time is the increasing tendency of universities to emphasize continuity in the drafting of social responsibility documents. These documents become ‘living’ tools [82] for reporting sustainable performance. In fact, Figure 5 shows that the curve of use is constantly growing, highlighting how more and more universities find these documents an effective tool for communicating sustainability.

4.4. Incorporating the 2030 Agenda into Social Responsibility Documents

As mentioned above, the UN 2030 Agenda aims to address the most urgent global challenges affecting all facets of human life and the planet in an active and integrated way through its 17 SDGs [92,93]. In this regard, universities are presented as a driver of sustainability, as they can contribute to achieving the 17 SDGs and fulfilling the 2030 Agenda through their education, research, and third mission activities [94]. Universities can achieve this by integrating and aligning SDGs into their own governance systems and then by making these goals explicit in their own performance-monitoring, evaluation, and reporting processes [95]. The final part of this paper aims to determine whether the 24 state universities have incorporated SDGs into their reporting processes and how this has been achieved. Four specific approaches are identified:
  • No approach (N): This cluster contains documents that do not feature any reference to the international programme of the 2030 Agenda. This means that the 2030 Agenda is not explicitly mentioned.
  • Partial approach (P): The reports in this cluster feature a certain focus on the 2030 Agenda, but these universities merely indicate their intention to commit to the SDGs without making any direct reference to the goals in the topics covered.
  • Integration approach (I): In this approach, the key performance areas reported in the sustainability report are analyzed in conjunction with the 17 SDGs of the 2030 Agenda. Within this cluster, it is possible to identify a link between the topics covered in the report and the related SDGs, in order to describe the importance of the university’s strategic orientation towards international programs for sustainable development.
  • Transformational approach (T): This approach involves referring to the SDGs when describing the activities undertaken and the results achieved by a university. In this case, under each SDG, reference is made to the activities undertaken by the university, highlighting actions implemented and results achieved that contribute to the implementation of the specific sustainability goal.
The substantial difference between the integration and transformational approaches is that, while the integration approach makes it possible to maintain the structure of a report based on key areas, each of which features an explicit reference to how a university is implementing the SDGs in its strategies and actions, the transformational approach involves rethinking the structure of sustainability reports so that they are no longer organized by area but rather based on the 17 SDGs. For example, the University of Rome Tor Vergata and the University of ‘Ca Foscari, which follow the integration approach, include for each topic covered in the report the relevant SDGs (for example, right to study: SDGs 4 and 10; university-work integration: SDGs 4, 8, and 17; waste management: SDGs 11, 12, and 15). The universities of Rome La Sapienza and L’Aquila, on the other hand, which embrace the transformational approach, start from the SDG to describe the actions taken (for example, SDG 3: university welfare, staff conventions, student prevention activities; SDG 15: environmental training pathways, management of the university botanical garden, biodiversity protection initiatives).
Clearly, universities have gradually begun to apply and integrate the SDGs (first in their strategic planning and daily activities, and then in the measurement of sustainable performance), which indicates that the entire process is in the evolutionary phase. When considering the two years following the introduction of the 2030 Agenda, it is evident that universities only paid a limited degree of attention to it; no reports published in 2015 refer to the 2030 Agenda, and in 2016 only the University of Bologna and the University ‘Ca Foscari of Venice started to explicitly mention these goals in their reports. The lack of implementation in the early years is mainly due to the 2030 Agenda having been approved in September 2015; as such, it had not yet been fully implemented by the Italian universities considered in 2015. However, since 2017, state universities engaged in social reporting processes have begun to adopt SDGs as an innovative performance measurement and reporting tool. The reason for this implementation as well as for the exponential growth in the use of such forms of reporting, as indicated by the analysis of time parameters (Figure 5), is likely due to the establishment of RUS (Rete delle Università per lo Sviluppo Sostenibile) in July 2015 and the subsequent endorsement thereof by universities. RUS, the University Network for Sustainable Development, is the first initiative focused on coordination and sharing among Italian universities committed to the issues of environmental sustainability and social responsibility. The main aims of the RUS are: (a) to spread the culture and good practices of sustainability; (b) to promote SDGs and contribute to their achievement; and (c) to strengthen the recognition and value of the Italian experience at an international level. As of December 2021, 81 Italian universities are part of the RUS (https://reterus.it/aderenti-e-modalita-di-adesione/, accessed on 30 December 2021).
Despite increasing recognition of the 2030 Agenda, Table 4 indicates that the universities of Bari, Parma, Siena, Verona, IUAV, and Politecnico of Torino only mention it, without making any reference to the activities and projects undertaken at their institutions. Rather, the documents published by these institutions merely express a strong commitment to integrating sustainability concepts into their strategies, cultures, and daily operations and to contributing to the achievement of SDGs.
The most widespread approach to adopting the 2030 Agenda within the reports is the integration approach (I), in which universities demonstrate their commitment to the systematic adoption of the 2030 Agenda by indicating how each topic addressed in a report links to the SDGs and contributes to the implementation of the 2030 Agenda. The commitment to promote the systematic adoption of the United Nations Agenda is expressed by the university by highlighting the connection of the SDGs to each topic specified in the report, to understand how it contributes to implementing the 2030 Agenda. In some documents, the connection between sustainable key performance areas and SDGs is indicated through a graphical depiction of the relevant goals; this is the case for the reports published by the universities of Florence (2018, 2019, 2020), Ca’ Foscari (2018, 2019, 2020), Tor Vergata of Rome (2017–2020), Turin (2018 and 2019), Genova (2019), Brescia (2019), Perugia (2020), Milano-Bicocca (2020), and Chieti-Pescara (2020). This approach allows for a more intuitive and accessible interpretation of the actions that these universities have undertaken in support of the 2030 Agenda.
In contrast, the University of Bologna has employed the transformational approach (T) for the drafting of its reports on progress regarding the SDGs since 2016. Since then, the university has adopted a reporting tool which indicates its contributions in the institutional domains of education, research, and the third mission, starting with the list of SDGs. This approach to sustainability reporting has only been adopted by three other universities, namely Trieste, La Sapienza of Rome, and L’Aquila.
It is also evident that many of the universities considered in this paper had not yet adopted the use of SDGs as a measurement tool in the first editions of their respective reports. Nonetheless, as stated in the methodological notes in the University of Urbino’s social report, future editions could integrate SDGs to yield social responsibility documents that comply with international standards and take into account the goals of the 2030 Agenda. Despite the wide variety of experiences and approaches, the 2030 Agenda enables stakeholders to make greater comparisons between sustainable performances, thanks to its easy application and simple visual language.
The research conducted for this paper ultimately made it possible to explore the connection between two of the examined parameters, namely the form of reporting chosen and the integration of SDGs (Table 5). The inclusion of information on the 2030 Agenda within the reports offered interesting points for the analysis; for example, it was found that sustainability reports are considered the logical location for the discussion of SDGs. This is a clear sign that the universities which choose to report on their sustainable performance using this type of document tend to provide information that is more readily applicable to the SDGs. In particular, the analysis shows that only 4 of the 12 universities that published social reports address the international programme for sustainable development; this is in contrast with the sustainability reports, in which all universities have addressed the 2030 Agenda and the SDGs.

5. Discussion and Conclusions

This paper provides a complete and thorough overview of the situation in Italy with regard to social and sustainability reporting by analyzing the reporting practices developed by Italian universities over the last five years. However, the findings indicate a scenario that is far from defined or uniform. In fact, sustainability reporting in higher education institutions remains in an inchoate state in terms of both the number of reporting institutions [69] and the level of reporting in comparison with the private sector [59,96]. The literature analysis shows that, although they play a leading role in promoting sustainable development movements, universities lag behind on sustainability reporting, often because of missing reporting guidelines.
Due to the diversity of approaches in terms of report format and the lack of a universal standard, the different practices employed by the various universities were fragmented and thus difficult to compare. The GBS and RUS are also aware of the issue posed by the lack of a uniform approach: since 2019 they have been working to provide universities with guidelines on social reporting in an attempt to update and streamline the 2008 standard. This initiative confirms the current lack of a comprehensive reference model for universities.
Mapping the state of the art with regard to social reporting in universities was also a prerequisite for defining an innovative performance measurement approach based on the SDGs of the 2030 Agenda. These are increasingly included in the sustainability reports of universities as a frame of reference for describing awareness of sustainability issues, responsibility of activity developed, and the evaluation of the impacts produced. Therefore, the second lesson learned is to consider the application of SDGs within sustainability reports. The voluntary use of SDGs as a performance measurement could represent a first step towards this in a heterogeneous context; should it be difficult or impossible to compare results in terms of sustainable development, considering the 2030 Agenda and the SDGs could make a university’s strategic planning process and performance narrative more systematic. This would also promote economic growth, social inclusion, and environmental protection.
This consideration was also expressly mentioned in the ‘open letter’ issued by RUS during the health emergency period, which urged universities to implement a systematic and systemic focus on sustainability in all their operations and to declare their commitment to the topics of the 2030 Agenda [97].
The 17 SDGs were introduced by the UN in 2015 and have rapidly come to represent a shared and universal reference framework for sustainability. It is therefore reasonable to believe that they could also have a powerful influence on the sustainability narrative in the years to come. From this perspective, this study shows that sustainability reporting can be an important driver behind an organization’s sustainability orientation [98,99]. Sustainability reports can allow organizations to measure, understand, and communicate their SDGs efforts while setting internal goals and managing the transition towards more sustainable development [100]. At the same time, SDGs can also play an important role in the progress of sustainability reporting [101]. According to Bebbington and Unerman [102] and Stafford-Smith et al. [103], SDGs have the potential to inform and advance research and practice on sustainability accounting and reporting, as they represent a sufficiently consistent and generally accepted definition of sustainable development [104], and a compelling call for sustainability action [105,106,107]. In this regard, this study could be applied to other sectors to start an initial reflection about the state of the art of SDG reporting at national and global levels. It could also kick-start a new field of study which could predict the most effective use of SDGs for a wide range of organizations, in the development of policies and practices that will contribute to their achievement [102,108].
However, the research presented in this paper suffers from some limitations, mainly related to the fact that it only analyzes state universities. Future studies should be extended to include all Italian universities. There are some critical issues associated with the period under review: the information available for 2020 could be not exhaustive because some universities have not yet published such documents, in view of the drafting of reports referring to the two- or three-year period. Therefore, even though it is possible to identify a growing trend, it is recommended that future research takes into account newly published reports. Furthermore, some authors have also criticized the application of SDGs in sustainability reports. Although SDG reporting can present an opportunity for organizations to understand their contribution toward sustainable development, one of the main risks of the diffusion of reporting practices through SDGs has been identified as “rainbow washing” [109]. This is the practice of adopting SDGs for style rather than substance, with the consequence that organizations make excessive use of colorful icons such as mosaics or rainbow wheels in documents without matching the content [102,110].
From a research perspective, there is a need to constantly evaluate the application of the objectives of the 2030 Agenda in the sustainability reports and associated content published by universities, as well as to investigate, possibly through a survey, the factors that promote the use of voluntary reporting processes based on SDGs.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization: G.F. and C.D.G.; data curation: G.F. and C.D.G.; formal analysis: G.F. and C.D.G.; methodology: G.F. and C.D.G.; writing—original draft preparation: C.D.G.; writing—review and editing: G.F. and C.D.G.; supervision: G.F. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was supported and funded by the “MARIS” Master Program in Reporting Innovation Sustainability of the University of Rome Tor Vergata, Department of Management and Law, Grant Number FioraniG_Maris_2019-20.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Calvano, G. Educare Per Lo Sviluppo Sostenibile; Aracne Editore: Roma, Italy, 2017. [Google Scholar]
  2. Elliot, S. A Transdisciplinary exploratory model of corporate responses to the challenges of environmental sustainability. Bus. Strategy Environ. 2013, 22, 269–282. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED). Our Common Future; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 1987. [Google Scholar]
  4. Elkington, J. Cannibals with Forks. In The Triple Bottom Line of 21st Century Business; Capstone Publishing: Oxford, UK, 1997. [Google Scholar]
  5. Jorge, M.L.; Peña, F.J.A.; Madueño, J.H. An analysis of university sustainability reports from the GRI database: An examination of influential variables. J. Environ. Plan. Manag. 2018, 62, 1019–1044. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Hoover, E.; Harder, M.K. What Lies Beneath the Surface? The Hidden Complexities of Organisational Change for Sustainability in Higher Education. J. Clean. Prod. 2015, 106, 175–188. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  7. Lozano, R. Incorporation and institutionalization of SD into universities: Breaking through barriers to change. J. Clean. Prod. 2006, 14, 787–796. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Calder, W.; Clugston, R.M. International Efforts to Promote Higher Education for Sustainable Development. Plan. High. Educ. 2003, 31, 30–44. [Google Scholar]
  9. Cortese, A.D. The critical role of higher education in creating a sustainable future. Plan. High. Educ. 2003, 31, 15–22. [Google Scholar]
  10. Wals, A.E.J.; Jickling, B. Sustainability in higher education. From doublethink and newspeak to critical thinking and meaningful learning. Int. J. Sustain. High. Educ. 2002, 3, 221–232. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Wright, T. Definitions and frameworks for environmental sustainability in higher education. Int. J. Sustain. High. Educ. 2002, 3, 203–220. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Ceulemans, K.; Lozano, R.; Alonso-Almeida, M.M. Sustainability Reporting in Higher Education: Interconnecting the Reporting Process and Organisational Change Management for Sustainability. Sustainability 2015, 7, 8881–8903. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  13. Alonso-Almeida, M.M.; Marimon, F.; Casani, F.; Rodriguez-Pomeda, J. Diffusion of sustainability reporting in universities: Current situation and future perspectives. J. Clean. Prod. 2015, 106, 144–154. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Litten, L.; Newport, D. Measure Today, Here Tomorrow: Exploring IR’s Role in Producing Indicators That Will Help Assure Sustainable Institutions and a Sustainable Society. 2004. Available online: https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED491009.pdf (accessed on 20 November 2019).
  15. Etzkowitz, H. The triple helix of university-industry-government. Implic. Policy Eval. Work. Pap. 2002. Available online: http://www.donorth.co/appurtenancy/pdfs/etzkowitz_triple_helix.pdf (accessed on 18 November 2019).
  16. Godemann, J.; Bebbington, J.; Herzig, C.; Moon, J. Higher education and sustainable development: Exploring possibilities for organisational change. Account. Audit. Account. J. 2014, 27, 218–233. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Velazquez, L.; Munguia, N.; Platt, A.; Taddei, J. Sustainable university: What can be the matter? J. Clean. Prod. 2006, 14, 810–819. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Sulkowski, A.J.; Kowalczyk, W.; Ahrendsen, B.L.; Kowalski, R.; Majewski, E. Enhancing sustainability education through experiential learning of sustainability reporting. Int. J. Sustain. High. Educ. 2020, 21, 1233–1247. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Del Sordo, C.; Farneti, F.; Guthrie, J.; Pazzi, S.; Siboni, B. Social report in Italian universities: Disclosures and preparers’ perspective. Meditari Account. Res. 2016, 24, 91–110. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  20. Siboni, B.; Del Sordo, C.; Pazzi, S. Sustainability Reporting in State Universities: An Investigation of Italian Pioneering Practices. Int. J. Soc. Ecol. Sustain. Dev. 2013, 4, 1–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  21. Rusconi, G. Il ruolo del bilancio sociale nel contesto dell’economia aziendale. Riv. Ital. Ragioneria Econ. Aziend. 1987, 3, 171–187. [Google Scholar]
  22. Gray, R. Thirty years of social accounting, reporting and auditing: What (if anything) have we learnt? Bus. Ethics A Eur. Rev. 2001, 10, 9–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Siboni, B. La rendicontazione di sostenibilità nelle imprese. In La Rendicontazione Di Sostenibilità. Evoluzione, Linee Guida Ed Esperienze in Imprese, Amministrazioni Pubbliche E Aziende Non Profit; Ricci, P., Siboni, B., Nardo, M.T., Eds.; Rirea: Roma, Italy, 2014; pp. 1–60. [Google Scholar]
  24. Rode, H.; Michelsen, G. Levels of indicator development for education for sustainable development. Environ. Educ. Res. 2008, 14, 19–33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Shriberg, M. Institutional assessment tools for sustainability in higher education. Int. J. Sustain. High. Educ. 2002, 3, 254–270. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  26. Ricci, P. What future for social reporting and accountability in academic systems. An overview of the Italian case. Rev. Int. Comp. Manag. 2013, 14, 202–221. [Google Scholar]
  27. Parker, L.D. Twenty-one years of social and environmental accountability research: A coming of age. Account. Forum 2011, 35, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Meneguzzo, M.; Fiorani, G. Scelte di sviluppo, innovazione organizzativa e rendicontazione sociale: Il bilancio di mandato dell’Università degli Studi di Roma “Tor Vergata”. Riv. Ragioneria Econ. Aziend. 2009, 109, 347–359. [Google Scholar]
  29. Mio, C. La Rendicontazione Sociale Negli Atenei Italiani. Valori, Modelli, Misurazioni; FrancoAngeli: Milano, Italy, 2016. [Google Scholar]
  30. Moneva, J.M.; Martín, E. Universidad y Desarrollo Sostenible: Análisis de la Rendicíon de Cuentas de las Universidades Públicas desde un Enfoque de Responsabilidad Social. Rev. Iberoam. Contab. Gestíon 2012, 10, 1–18. [Google Scholar]
  31. Lukman, R.; Krajnc, D.; Glavič, P. University ranking using research, educational and environmental indicators. J. Clean. Prod. 2010, 18, 619–628. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Grandinetti, R. Produzione e marketing dei servizi universitari. In L’azienda Università. Le Sfide Del Cambiamento; Strassoldo, M., Ed.; Isedi: Torino, Italy, 2001. [Google Scholar]
  33. Mazzei, A. La Comunicazione Per Il Marketing Dell’Università; FrancoAngeli: Milano, Italy, 2000. [Google Scholar]
  34. Nardo, M.T. La rendicontazione di sostenibilità nelle Università. In La Rendicontazione Di Sostenibilità. Evoluzione, Linee Guida Ed Esperienze in Imprese, Amministrazioni Pubbliche E Aziende Non Profit; Ricci, P., Siboni, B., Nardo, M.T., Eds.; Rirea: Roma, Italy, 2014; pp. 229–284. [Google Scholar]
  35. Global Reporting Initiative (GRI). Sustainability Disclosure Database. 2021. Available online: https://www.globalreporting.org/how-to-use-the-gri-standards/register-your-report/ (accessed on 6 July 2021).
  36. Alonso-Almeida, M.M.; Llach, J.; Marimon, F. A closer look at the ‘global reporting initiative’ sustainability reporting as a tool to implement environmental and social policies: A worldwide sector analysis. Corp. Soc. Responsib. Environ. Manag. 2012, 21, 318–335. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Wanderley, L.S.O.; Lucian, R.; Farache, F.; de Sousa Filho, J.M. CSR information disclosure on the web: A context-based approach analysing the influence of country of origin and industry sector. J. Bus. Ethics 2008, 82, 369–378. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Atkins, J.F.; Solomon, A.; Norton, S.; Joseph, N.L. The emergence of integrated private reporting. Meditari Account. Res. 2015, 23, 28–61. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Fifka, M.S. Corporate responsibility reporting and its determinants in comparative perspective–A review of the empirical literature and a meta-analysis. Bus. Strategy Environ. 2013, 22, 1–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Samkin, G. Changes in sustainability reporting by an African defence contractor: A longitudinal analysis. Meditari Account. Res. 2012, 20, 134–166. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Adams, C.A.; Larringa-González, C. Engaging with organisations in pursuit of improved sustainability accounting and performance. Account. Audit. Account. J. 2007, 20, 333–355. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Gray, R. Social environmental and sustainability reporting and organisational value creation? Whose value? Whose creation? Account. Audit. Account. J. 2006, 19, 793–819. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Yongvanich, K.; Guthrie, J. Extended performance reporting: An examination of the Australian mining industry. Account. Forum 2005, 29, 103–119. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Parker, L. Social and environmental accountability research: A view from the commentary box. Account. Audit. Account. J. 2005, 18, 842–860. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Antonites, E.; De Villiers, C.J. Trends in South African corporate environmental reporting: A research note. Meditari Account. Res. 2003, 11, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  46. De Villiers, C.J.; Barnard, P. Environmental reporting in South Africa from 1994 to 1999: A research note. Meditari Account. Res. 2000, 8, 15–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  47. Gray, R.H.; Kouchy, R.; Lavers, S. Constructing a research database of social and environmental reporting by UK companies: A methodological note. Account. Audit. Account. J. 1995, 8, 78–101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Gray, R.; Bebbington, J. The global environment and economic choice. In Environmental Issues: The Response of Industry and Public Authorities; Adams, D.K., Ed.; Ryburn Publishing: Halifax, UK, 1993; pp. 21–35. [Google Scholar]
  49. Guthrie, J.; Parker, L.D. Corporate social disclosure practice: A comparative international analysis. Adv. Public Interest Account. 1990, 3, 159–176. [Google Scholar]
  50. Zeghal, D.; Ahmed, S.A. Comparison of social responsibility information disclosure media used by Canadian firms. Account. Audit. Account. J. 1990, 3, 38–53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Guthrie, J.; Mathews, M.R. Corporate social accounting in Australasia. Res. Corp. Soc. Perform. Policy 1985, 7, 251–277. [Google Scholar]
  52. Mauro, S.G.; Cinquini, L.; Simonini, E.; Tenucci, A. Moving from social and sustainability reporting to integrated reporting: Exploring the potential of Italian public-funded universities’ reports. Sustainability 2020, 12, 3172. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  53. Thomson, I. Mapping the terrain of sustainability accounting. In Sustainability Accounting and Accountability; Unerman, J., Bebbington, J., O’Dwyer, B., Eds.; Routledge: London, UK, 2007; pp. 38–55. [Google Scholar]
  54. Madeira, A.C.; Carravilla, M.A.; Oliveira, J.F.; Costa, C.A. A methodology for sustainability evaluation and reporting in higher education institutions. High. Educ. Policy 2011, 24, 459–479. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Myers, O.E., Jr.; Beringer, A. Sustainability in Higher Education: Psychological Research for Effective Pedagogy. Can. J. High. Educ. 2010, 40, 51–77. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Salvioni, D.M.; Franzoni, S.; Cassano, R. Sustainability in the Higher Education System: An Opportunity to Improve Quality and Image. Sustainability 2017, 9, 914. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  57. Nicolò, G.; Aversano, N.; Sannino, G.; Polcini, P.T. Investigating web-based sustainability reporting in Italian public universities in the era of COVID-19. Sustainability 2021, 13, 3468. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Adams, C.A. Sustainability reporting and performance management in universities, Challenges and Benefits. Sustain. Account. Manag. Policy J. 2013, 4, 384–392. [Google Scholar]
  59. Lozano, R. The state of sustainability reporting in universities. Int. J. Sustain. High. Educ. 2011, 12, 67–78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Fonseca, A.; Macdonald, A.; Dandy, E.; Valenti, P. The state of sustainability reporting at Canadian universities. Int. J. Sustain. High. Educ. 2011, 12, 22–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Lopatta, K.; Jaeschke, R. Sustainability Reporting at German and Austrian Universities. Int. J. Educ. Econ. Dev. 2014, 5, 66–90. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Ceulemans, K.; Molderez, I.; Van Liedekerke, L. Sustainability reporting in higher education: A comprehensive review of the recent literature and paths for further research. J. Clean. Prod. 2015, 106, 127–143. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Gamage, P.; Sciulli, N. Sustainability reporting by Australian universities. Aust. J. Public Adm. 2017, 76, 187–203. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Fissi, S.; Gori, E.; Romolini, A. Un’indagine sulla qualità della rendicontazione sociale degli atenei italiani: Quali prospettive per il futuro? Econ. Aziend. Online 2014, 5, 111–120. [Google Scholar]
  65. Dagiliene, L.; Mykolaitiene, V. Disclosure of Social Responsibility in Annual Performance Reports of Universities. Procedia-Soc. Behav. Sci. 2015, 213, 586–592. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  66. Chatelain-Ponroy, S.; Morin-Delerm, S. Adoption of Sustainable Development Reporting by Universities: An Analysis of French First-Time Reporters. Account. Audit. Account. J. 2016, 29, 887–918. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Lozano, R.; Lozano, F.; Mulder, K.; Huisingh, D.; Waas, T. Advancing Higher Education for Sustainable Development: International Insights and Critical Reflections. J. Clean. Prod. 2013, 48, 3–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Sassen, R.; Dienes, D.; Beth, C. Nachhaltigkeitsberichterstattung deutscher Hochschulen (Sustainability reporting of German higher education institutions). ZfU Z. Umweltpolit. Umweltr. 2014, 37, 258–277. [Google Scholar]
  69. Azizi, L.; Bien, C.; Sassen, R. Recent trends in sustainability reporting by German universities. NachhaltigkeitsManagementForum Sustain. Manag. Forum 2018, 26, 65–85. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Sassen, R.; Azizi, L. Voluntary Disclosure of Sustainability Reports by Canadian Universities. J. Bus. Econ. 2018, 88, 97–137. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Garde, R.; Rodríguez Bolívar, M.P.; López-Hernández, A.M. Online Disclosure of University Social Responsibility: A Comparative Study of Public and Private US Universities. Environ. Educ. Res. 2013, 19, 709–746. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Sassen, R.; Azizi, L. Assessing Sustainability Reports of US Universities. Int. J. Sustain. High. Educ. 2018, 19, 1158–1184. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Sepasi, S.; Rahdari, A.; Rexhepi, G. Developing a sustainability reporting assessment tool for higher education institutions: The University of California. Sustain. Dev. 2018, 26, 672–682. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Melles, G. Sustainability Reporting in Australian Universities: Case Study of Campus Sustainability Employing Institutional Analysis. In International Business, Trade and Institutional Sustainability; Filho, W.L., de Brito, P.B., Frankenberger, F., Eds.; World Sustainability Series; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2020; pp. 945–974. [Google Scholar]
  75. An, Y.; Davey, H.; Harun, H. Sustainability Reporting at a New Zeland Public University: A Longitudinal Analysis. Sustainability 2017, 9, 1529. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  76. An, Y.; Davey, H.; Harun, H.; Jin, Z.; Qiao, X.; Yu, Q. Online sustainability reporting at universities: The case of Hong Kong. Sustain. Account. Manag. Policy J. 2020, 11, 887–901. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Hinson, R.; Gyabea, A.; Ibrahim, M. Sustainability reporting among Ghanaian universities. Communicatio 2015, 41, 22–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Nhamo, G. Sustainability Reporting Through UNGC at Unisa: Opportunities and Challenges in Mainstreaming GRI Standards and the SDGs. Sustain. Dev. Goals Soc. 2021, 1, 187–201. [Google Scholar]
  79. Mawonde, A.; Togo, M. Implementation of SDGs at the University of South Africa. Int. J. Sustain. High. Educ. 2019, 20, 932–950. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Guthrie, J.; Abeysekera, I. Using content analysis as a research method to inquire into social and environmental disclosure: What is new? J. Hum. Resour. Costing Account. 2006, 10, 114–126. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  81. Aggarwal, P.; Singh, A.K. CSR and sustainability reporting practices in India: An in-depth content analysis of top-listed companies. Soc. Responsib. J. 2019, 15, 1033–1053. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Moggi, S. Il sustainability reporting nelle università. In Modelli, Processi E Motivazioni Che Inducono Al Cambiamento; Maggioli Editore: Roma, Italy, 2016. [Google Scholar]
  83. Moggi, S.; Leardini, C.; Campedelli, B. Social and environmental reporting in the Italian Higher Education System: Evidence from two best practices. In Integrative Approaches to Sustainable Development at University Level: Making the Links; Filho, W.L., Kuznetsova, O., Brandli, L., do Paço, A.M.F., Eds.; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2015. [Google Scholar]
  84. Pollifroni, M. Public Sector Social Responsibility; Giuffrè Editore: Milano, Italy, 2007. [Google Scholar]
  85. Adams, C.A. The international integrated reporting council: A call to action. Crit. Perspect. Account. 2015, 27, 23–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Brusca, I.; Labrador, M.; Larran, M. The challenge of sustainability and integrated reporting at universities: A case study. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 188, 347–354. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Gruppo di Studio per il Bilancio Sociale (GBS). La rendicontazione sociale nel settore pubblico; Giuffré: Milano, Italy, 2005. [Google Scholar]
  88. Gruppo di Studio per il Bilancio Sociale (GBS). Principi di redazione del Bilancio Sociale; Giuffré: Milano, Italy, 2013. [Google Scholar]
  89. Gruppo di Studio per il Bilancio Sociale (GBS). Standard GBS 2001—Principi di redazione del bilancio sociale; Giuffré: Milano, Italy, 2001. [Google Scholar]
  90. Gruppo di Studio per il Bilancio Sociale (GBS). Documento Di Ricerca n. 5. Gli Indicatori Di Performance Nella Rendicontazione Sociale; Giuffrè: Milano, Italy, 2008. [Google Scholar]
  91. Gruppo di Studio per il Bilancio Sociale (GBS). Documento Di Ricerca n. 7. La Rendicontazione Sociale Nelle Università; Giuffrè: Milano, Italy, 2008. [Google Scholar]
  92. Giovannini, E. L’Utopia Sostenibile; Editori Laterza: Roma-Bari, Italy, 2018. [Google Scholar]
  93. UN. Transforming Our World: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. 2015. Available online: https://www.un.org/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=a/res/70/1&Lang=E (accessed on 18 November 2019).
  94. Paletta, A.; Bonoli, A. Governing the university in the perspective of the United Nations 2030 Agenda: The case of the University of Bologna. Int. J. Sustain. High. Educ. 2019, 2, 500–514. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  95. SDSN Australia/Pacific. Getting started with the SDGs in universities: A guide for universities, higher education institutions, and the academic sector. Australia, New Zealand and Pacific Edition; Sustainable Development Solutions Network—Australia/Pacific: Melbourne, VIC, Australia, 2017. [Google Scholar]
  96. Lundberg, K.; Balfors, B.; Folkeson, L. Framework for environmental performance measurement in a Swedish public sector organization. J. Clean. Prod. 2009, 17, 1017–1024. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  97. RUS. Lettera aperta della Rete delle Università per lo Sviluppo Sostenibile. 2020. Available online: https://reterus.it/public/files/Press/Lettera_RUS.pdf (accessed on 17 April 2020).
  98. Lozano, R. A holistic perspective on corporate sustainability drivers. Corp. Soc. Responsib. Environ. Manag. 2015, 22, 32–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  99. Siebenhüner, B.; Arnold, M. Organizational learning to manage sustainable development. Bus. Strategy Environ. 2007, 16, 339–353. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  100. Global Reporting Initiative (GRI). About Sustainability Reporting. 2018. Available online: https://www.globalreporting.org/information/sustainabilityreporting/Pages/default.aspx (accessed on 6 July 2021).
  101. Rosati, F.; Faria, L. Addressing the SDGs in sustainability reports: The relationship with institutional factors. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 215, 1312–1326. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  102. Bebbington, J.; Unerman, J. Achieving the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals: An enabling role for accounting research. Account. Audit. Account. J. 2018, 31, 2–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  103. Stafford-Smith, M.; Griggs, D.; Gaffney, O.; Ullah, F.; Reyers, B.; Kanie, N.; Stigson, B.; Shrivastava, P.; Leach, M.; O’Connell, D. Integration: The key to implementing the Sustainable Development Goals. Sustain. Sci. 2017, 12, 911–919. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  104. Bebbington, J.; Russell, S.; Thomson, I. Accounting and sustainable development: Reflections and propositions. Crit. Perspect. Account. 2017, 48, 21–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  105. Araya, H.M.B.; Garrido, F.P.; Mas, E.S. Reporting on SDG: To be a nonprofit organisation matter? In Proceedings of the XVIII Congreso Internacional de Investigadores en Economía Social y Cooperativa, Mataró, Spain, 17–18 September 2020.
  106. Shoaf, V.; Jermakowicz, E.K.; Epstein, B.J. Toward sustainability and integrated reporting. Rev. Bus. 2018, 38, 1–15. [Google Scholar]
  107. Thorlakson, T.; de Zegher, J.F.; Lambin, E.F. Companies’ contribution to sustainability through global supply chains. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2018, 115, 2072–2077. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  108. Venturelli, A.; Caputo, F.; Adamo, S. SDG accounting e informativa non finanziaria: Prime evidenze empiriche sul contesto italiano. In Nuove Frontiere Del Reporting Aziendale. La Comunicazione Agli Stakeholders Tra Vincoli Normativi e Attese Informative; Corbella, S., Marchi, L., Rossignoli, F., Eds.; FrancoAngeli: Milano, Italy, 2020; pp. 701–723. [Google Scholar]
  109. Izzo, M.F.; Ciaburri, M.; Tiscini, R. The challenge of sustainable development goal reporting: The first evidence from italian listed companies. Sustainability 2020, 12, 3494. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  110. Griggs, D.J.; Nilsson, M.; Stevance, A.; McCollum, D. A Guide to SDG Interactions: From Science to Implementation; International Council for Science: Paris, France, 2017. [Google Scholar]
Sustainability 14 09006 g003 550
Figure 3. Italian universities that publish social responsibility documents. Source: Authors’ elaboration.
Figure 3. Italian universities that publish social responsibility documents. Source: Authors’ elaboration.
Sustainability 14 09006 g003
Sustainability 14 09006 g004 550
Figure 4. The content analysis process/flowchart. Source: Authors’ elaboration.
Figure 4. The content analysis process/flowchart. Source: Authors’ elaboration.
Sustainability 14 09006 g004
Sustainability 14 09006 g005 550
Figure 5. Reporting trends of Italian state universities. Source: Authors’ elaboration.
Figure 5. Reporting trends of Italian state universities. Source: Authors’ elaboration.
Sustainability 14 09006 g005
Table
Table 1. Types of documents provided by Italian universities.
Table 1. Types of documents provided by Italian universities.
Bilancio Sociale
Social Report		Bilancio Sostenibilità
Sustainable Report		Bilancio Ambientale
Environmental Report		Bilancio Integrato
Integrated Report		Report on U.N. SDGsUn Ateneo Verso
la Sostenibilità
Università Chieti-Pescara X
Università L’Aquila X
Università NapoliX
Università SannioX
Università Parma X
Università BolognaX X
Università TriesteX
Università UdineX
Università Roma La Sapienza X
Università Roma Tor Vergata X
Università Tuscia X
Università Genova X
Università Brescia X
Università Milano-Bicocca X
Università UrbinoX
Università Politecnica Marche X
Università Torino X
Politecnico di Torino X
Università BariX X
Università SalentoX
Università PalermoX
Università FirenzeX
Università Pisa X
Università Siena X
Università PerugiaXX
Università Ca’ Foscari Venezia X
Università IUAV Venezia X
Università Padova X
Università Verona X
Total12161111
Source: Authors’ elaboration.
Table
Table 2. Mapping of the social reporting standards applied.
Table 2. Mapping of the social reporting standards applied.
GBS—Doc. n.7GRILG Min. Funz. PubblicaLG Min. Int. Enti Loc.GBS Principi GeneraliGreen MetricISNCGULFIIRCLG Governo-UniversitàNot specified
Chieti-Pescara X
L’Aquila X
NapoliX
SannioX
ParmaXX
Bologna *XXX
TriesteXX X 3
Udine X
Roma La SapienzaX XX
Roma Tor Vergata X
Tuscia X X
Genova X
Brescia X
Milano-Bicocca X
UrbinoXXX X 1
Politecnica MarcheX
Torino X XXX
Politecnico Torino X XX
Bari *XXXX
Salento X X
PalermoXXX X 1,3
FirenzeXX X 2
Pisa X
Perugia *XXX
Ca’ Foscari Venezia X
IUAV Venezia X
Padova X
Verona X
Total121972622214
Source: Authors’ elaboration. * In the case of the three universities that produce two documents, the social report is considered. The environmental report of the University of Bari, the sustainability report of the University of Perugia, and the report on U.N. SDGs of the University of Bologna do not specify the standards applied. 1 applies two GBS models: social reporting in the public sector [87] and principles of social reporting [88]. 2 applies the GBS model for principles of social reporting [89]. 3 applies the GBS model for performance indicators in social reporting [90].
Table
Table 3. Years included in the university reports.
Table 3. Years included in the university reports.
201520162017201820192020
Chieti-Pescara X
L’Aquila X *
NapoliX
Sannio X
Parma XX
Bologna (bilancio sociale)XXXXXX
Bologna (UN SDGs) XXXXX
Trieste X
Udine XX
Roma La SapienzaXXXXXX
Roma Tor Vergata XXXX
Tuscia X
Genova X X
Brescia X *
Milano-Bicocca X X
Urbino X
Politecnica Marche XXX
TorinoXXXXX
Politecnico Torino X XX
Bari (bilancio sociale) X *
Bari (bilancio ambientale) X *
Salento X * X *
Palermo XX
Firenze XXXXX
Pisa X * X *X *
Siena X
Perugia (bilancio sociale) X
Perugia (bilancio di sostenibilità) X X
Ca’ Foscari VeneziaXXXXXX
IUAV Venezia XXXX
Padova XXX
Verona X *
Total51014151917
Source: Authors’ elaboration. Asterisks (*) refers to universities that produce several year reports. Grey background indicate universities that have recently started social reporting.
Table
Table 4. Incorporating the SDGs into the topics of reports.
Table 4. Incorporating the SDGs into the topics of reports.
201520162017201820192020
Chieti-Pescara I
L’Aquila T
NapoliN
Sannio N
Parma PP
Bologna (bilancio sociale)NPPPPP
Bologna (UN SDGs) TTTTT
Trieste T
Udine NN
Roma La SapienzaNNNTTT
Roma Tor Vergata IIII
Tuscia I
Genova N I
Brescia I
Milano-Bicocca P I
Urbino N
Politecnica Marche NNN
TorinoNNIII
Politecnico Torino N PP
Bari (bilancio sociale) N
Bari (bilancio ambientale) P
Salento N N
Palermo NI
Firenze NNIII
Pisa N PI
Siena P
Perugia (bilancio sociale) N
Perugia (bilancio sostenibilità) I I
Ca’ Foscari VeneziaNPPIII
IUAV Venezia PPPP
Padova III
Verona P
Total no. of approach (N)577330
Total other approaches (P, I, T)037121617
Source: Authors’ elaboration.
Table
Table 5. Approaches to the SDGs by document type.
Table 5. Approaches to the SDGs by document type.
Bilancio Sociale
Social Report		Bilancio Sostenibilità
Sustainable Report		Bilancio Ambientale
Environmental Report		Bilancio Integrato
Integrated Report		Report on U.N. SDGsUn Ateneo Verso
la Sostenibilità
No approach8
Partial approach141 1
Integration approach210 1
Transformational approach12 1
Total no. of approach (N)800000
Total other approaches (P, I, T)4161111
Source: Authors’ elaboration.
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Fiorani, G.; Di Gerio, C. Reporting University Performance through the Sustainable Development Goals of the 2030 Agenda: Lessons Learned from Italian Case Study. Sustainability 2022, 14, 9006. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14159006

AMA Style

Fiorani G, Di Gerio C. Reporting University Performance through the Sustainable Development Goals of the 2030 Agenda: Lessons Learned from Italian Case Study. Sustainability. 2022; 14(15):9006. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14159006

Chicago/Turabian Style

Fiorani, Gloria, and Chiara Di Gerio. 2022. "Reporting University Performance through the Sustainable Development Goals of the 2030 Agenda: Lessons Learned from Italian Case Study" Sustainability 14, no. 15: 9006. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14159006

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop