Are Australian Universities Making Good Use of ICT for CSR Reporting?
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. The Reform of the Australian University System and the Role of Social Responsibility
3. Empirical Research in Australian Universities
3.1. Sample
3.2. Proposed Framework to Assess Universities’ Online Publication of CSR Information
GENERAL SR INFORMATION | ||
Concept | Items | Score |
G1. Statement of vision and strategy of the university on issues about social responsibility | a) If main SR commitments are disclosed. b) If the webpage or Sustainability Report includes a declaration on SR from the governing body. | 0/0.5 based on the absence-presence of each item |
G2. Information about profile of stakeholders | a) If the university webpage or the SR/Sustainability Report identify the stakeholders. b) If there is specific information about the informational needs of each group of stakeholders. | 0/0.5 based on the absence-presence of each item |
G3. Centralized or decentralized disclosure of SR information by universities | a) If the disclosure of SR information is developed in a centralized way on the university webpage. b) If this disclosure is developed through dependent centers at said university. | 0/0.5 based on the absence-presence of each item |
G4. Data on performance indicators | a) economic indicators. b) social indicators. c) environmental indicators. | 0/0.33 based on the absence-presence of each item |
G5. Index of contents or a table to locate different elements of information about SR | Provides the reader with an index or a table to locate different SR elements. | 0/1 based on the absence-presence of that item |
SPECIFIC SR INFORMATION | ||
Concept | Items | Score |
S1. Information disclosure regarding CSR MANAGEMENT [MSR= Sa+Sb+Sc+Sd+Se+Sf] | ||
Sa. Energy | Information is disclosed about the installation of systems that save electricity such as movement sensors, incandescent light bulbs or other alternative sources of energy. | 0/1,17 based on the absence/presence of this item |
Sb. Buildings and grounds | Information is disclosed about criteria for construction, renovation and rehabilitation of existing buildings in line with “green criteria”. | 0/1,17 based on the absence/presence of this item |
Sc. Purchasing management | Information is disclosed about the need to prioritize the purchase of reusable, ecological materials that require a minimum of packaging. | 0/1,17 based on the absence/presence of this item |
Sd. Waste management and recycling | Information is disclosed about questions related to the promotion of the recycling of office material and solid waste providing recipients for articles such as paper, printer cartridges and batteries. | 0/1,17 based on the absence/presence of this item |
Se. Transportation | Information is disclosed about the creation of incentives for the university community to use public transport or alternative means of transport such as bicycles and bus. | 0/1,17 based on the absence/presence of this item |
Sf. Food | Information is disclosed about fair trade and sustainable food through the provision of ecological products in campus cafés and shops. | 0/1,17 based on the absence/presence of this item |
S2. Information disclosure regarding CSR ACADEMIC ACTIVITIES [ASR] | Information is disclosed about courses, seminars and conferences related to SR. | 0/1based on the absence/presence of this item |
S3. Information disclosure regarding CSR RESEARCH ACTIVITIES [RSR] | Information is disclosed about University research centers linked to SR. | 0/1 based on the absence/presence of this item |
QUALITATIVE CHARACTERISTICS OF SR INFORMATION | ||
Concept | Items | Score |
Q1. Completeness | It is possible to check and/or download the Report online. | 0/1 based on the absence-presence of that item |
Q2. Timeliness | It offers SR information more frequently than on a yearly basis (monthly, termly, etc.). | 0/1 based on the absence-presence of that item |
Q3. Comparability | a) It is possible to compare information from two or more years. b) It offers comparative summaries on sustainable information provided by the university. | 0/0.5 based on the absence-presence of each item |
Q4. Understandability | a) It offers ratios and graphics to help to clarify the SR information included in the Reports. b) It incIncludes comments on the SR information provided. | 0/0.5 based on the absence-presence of each item |
Q5. Relevance | a) It provides technical SR reports made by the University. b) It presents SR information in and ordered and classified manner. | 0/0.5 based on the absence-presence of each item |
Q6. Reliability | The information has been accredited. | 0/1 based on the absence-presence of that item |
USABILITY | ||
Concept | Items | Score |
U1. Reading and scanning | a) A specific section on the universities’ websites for disclosing sustainability information exists. b) Electronic formats used to process the sustainability reporting: -htlm -pdf doc -xml o xbrl -xls c) Sustainability reporting is disclosed in different languages | 0/0.33 based on the absence-presence of each item. Regarding the type of format (item b), the score of 0.33 is split in the following way: -htlm: 0.066 -pdf or doc: 0.066 -xml or xbrl: 0.099 -xls: 0.099 |
U2. Search | a) A basic search tool is included in the university website. b) An advanced search tool is included in the university website. | 0/0.5 based on the absence-presence of each item |
U3. Link characteristics | A system of hyperlinks for the information offered is provided. | 0/1 based on the absence-presence of that item |
U4.Structure of the web page | A web map showing the contents is available | 0/1 based on the absence-presence of that item |
U5. Characteristics of accesibility | All information provided on the website is freeware and it can be downloaded | 0/1 based on the absence-presence of that item |
STAKEHOLDER PARTICIPATION | ||
Concept | Items | Score |
SK1. Characteristics of interactivity | a) A different e-mail address to the web master’s is provided to request information or explanations. b) Personal contacts with responsible persons of the university for the information provided are supplied on the website. c) The website has a mailing list to update information to those information users that apply this service. | 0/0.33 based on the absence-presence of each item |
SK2. Forums/chats | a) Forums with general contents. b) Forums related to SR or sustainability. | 0.5 if the online forum/chat used allows discussion of general subjects and 1 if there is a specific forum/chat used for SR subjects |
SK3. Web 2.0 technology | a) Web 2.0 technology about the University in general. b) Web 2.0 technology about aspects of SR or sustainability. | 0.5 if the use of Web 2.0 technology is aimed at general university subjects and 1 is the Web 2.0 technology is used for |
SK4. Online surveys | a) Surveys not specific to SR. b) Surveys specific to SR. | 0.5 of the university uses online surveys of a general nature and 1 if the university uses surveys about SR |
SK5. Newsletter | a) General news. b) Specific news about SR or sustainability. | 0.5 if the news disclosed by the university is of a general nature and 1 if it is SR news |
4. Analysis of Results
a) CONTENT OF THE SR INFORMATION DISCLOSED ONLINE | MIN | MAX | MEAN | MEDIAN | SD |
a.1) General SR content | 0.00 | 3.49 | 1.31 | 1.00 | 1.02 |
G1. Expression of the vision and strategy of the university in SR subjects | 0.00 | 1.00 | 0.37 | 0.50 | 0.34 |
G2. Information on the profile of stakeholders | 0.00 | 0.50 | 0.01 | 0.00 | 0.08 |
G3. Centralized or decentralized disclosure of SR information by Universities | 0.00 | 1.00 | 0.41 | 0.50 | 0.25 |
G4. Data on performance indicators | 0.00 | 0.99 | 0.14 | 0.00 | 0.28 |
G5. Index of contents or a table to locate different elements of SR information | 0.00 | 1.00 | 0.38 | 0.00 | 0.49 |
a.2) Specific SR content | 0.00 | 2.85 | 1.37 | 1.34 | 0.97 |
S1. Information disclosure regarding CSR MANAGEMENT | 0.00 | 0.85 | 0.41 | 0.51 | 0.31 |
Sa. Energy | 0.00 | 0.17 | 0.10 | 0.17 | 0.09 |
Sb. Buildings and grounds | 0.00 | 0.17 | 0.07 | 0.00 | 0.09 |
Sc. Purchasing management | 0.00 | 0.17 | 0.05 | 0.00 | 0.08 |
Sd. Waste management and recycling | 0.00 | 0.17 | 0.12 | 0.17 | 0.08 |
Se. Transportation | 0.00 | 0.17 | 0.08 | 0.00 | 0.09 |
Sf. Food | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 |
S2. Information disclosure regarding CSR ACADEMIC ACTIVITIES | 0.00 | 1.00 | 0.56 | 1.00 | 0.50 |
S3. Information disclosure regarding CSR RESEARCH ACTIVITIES | 0.00 | 1.00 | 0.38 | 0.00 | 0.49 |
a.3) Qualitative characteristics of SR information | 0.00 | 4.00 | 0.88 | 0.50 | 1.01 |
Q1. Completeness | 0.00 | 1.00 | 0.03 | 0.00 | 0.16 |
Q2. Timeliness | 0.00 | 1.00 | 0.05 | 0.00 | 0.22 |
Q3. Comparability | 0.00 | 1.00 | 0.13 | 0.00 | 0.34 |
Q4. Understandability | 0.00 | 1.00 | 0.18 | 0.00 | 0.35 |
Q5. Relevance | 0.00 | 1.00 | 0.49 | 0.50 | 0.44 |
Q6. Reliability | 0.00 | 1.00 | 0.03 | 0.00 | 0.16 |
b) CONTEXT OF THE SR INFORMATION DISCLOSED ONLINE | MIN | MAX | MEAN | MEDIAN | SD |
b.1) Usability | 1.63 | 4.13 | 3.33 | 3.57 | 0.64 |
U1. Reading and scanning | 0.00 | 0.46 | 0.13 | 0.13 | 0.09 |
U2. Search | 0.00 | 1.00 | 0.67 | 0.50 | 0.29 |
U3. Link characteristics | 0.00 | 1.00 | 0.97 | 1.00 | 0.16 |
U4.Structure of the web page | 0.00 | 1.00 | 0.59 | 1.00 | 0.50 |
U5. Characteristics of accesibility | 0.00 | 1.00 | 0.97 | 1.00 | 0.16 |
b.2) Stakeholders participation | 0.00 | 11.83 | 2.40 | 2.16 | 1.71 |
SK1. Characteristics of interactivity | 0.00 | 0.66 | 0.27 | 0.33 | 0.27 |
SK2. Forums or chats | 0.00 | 0.50 | 0.36 | 0.50 | 0.23 |
SK3. Uses 2.0 Web technology (facebook, twitter…) | 0.00 | 1.00 | 0.53 | 0.50 | 0.16 |
SK4. If there are online surveys on university matters | 0.00 | 9.50 | 0.51 | 0.50 | 1.50 |
SK5. If there is a university newsletter | 0.00 | 1.00 | 0.73 | 0.50 | 0.28 |
5. Discussion and Conclusions
Acknowledgments
Author Contributions
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Gordon, T.; Fischer, M.; Malone, D.; Tower, G. A comparative empirical examination of extent of disclosure by private and public colleges and universities in the United States. J. Account. Public Policy 2002, 21, 235–275. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Costigan, A.T. New Urban Teachers Transcending Neoliberal Educational Reforms: Embracing Aesthetic Education as a Curriculum of Political Action. Urban Educ. 2012, 48, 116–148. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hursh, D.W.; Henderson, J.A. Contesting global neoliberalism and creating alternative futures. Discourse Stud. Cult. Polit. Educ. 2011, 32, 171–185. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lukman, R.; Glavič, P. What are the key elements of a sustainable university? Clean Technol. Environ. Policy 2007, 9, 103–114. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Australian Government. Living Sustainably: The Australian Government’s National Action Plan for Education for Sustainability. 2009. Available online: https://www.environment.gov.au/sustainability/education/publications/educating-sustainable-future (accessed on 3 November 2015). [Google Scholar]
- Glasser, H.; Calder, W.; Fadeeva, Z. Definition: Research in Higher Education for Sustainability; Halifax Central Library: Halifax, NS, Canada, 2005. [Google Scholar]
- Segalàs, J.; Ferrer-Balas, D.; Svanström, M.; Lundqvist, U.; Mulder, K.F. What has to be learnt for sustainability? A comparison of bachelor engineering education competences at three European universities. Sustain. Sci. 2009, 4, 17–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Kopnina, H. An Exploratory Case Study of Dutch Children’s Attitudes toward Consumption: Implications for Environmental Education. J. Environ. Educ. 2013, 44, 128–144. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lämsä, A.M.; Vehkaperä, M.; Puttonen, C.; Pesonen, H.L. Effect of Business Education on Women and Men Students’ Attitudes on Corporate Responsibility in Society. J. Bus. Eth. 2008, 82, 45–58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wals, A.E.J. Social Learning towards a Sustainable World: Principles, Perspectives and Praxis; Wageningen Academic Publishers: Wageningen, The Netherlands, 2007. [Google Scholar]
- Durlauf, S.N.; Blume, L.E. The New Palgrave Dictionary of Economics, 2nd ed.; Palgrave Macmillan: Basingstoke, UK, 2008. [Google Scholar]
- Hernández, M.M. Social Responsibility in the Public Sector. Ekonomiaz 2007, 65, 84–107. [Google Scholar]
- Lozano, R. A tool for a Graphical Assessment of Sustainability in Universities (GASU). J. Clean. Prod. 2006, 14, 963–972. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lozano, R.; Lukman, R.; Lozano, F.J.; Huisingh, D.; Lambrechts, W. Declarations for sustainability in higher education: Becoming better leaders, through addressing the university system. J. Clean. Prod. 2011, 48, 10–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Vallaeys, F. Brief Theoretical Framework of University Social Responsibility. Pontificia Universidad Católica de Perú. 2006. Available online: http://blog.pucp.edu.pe/item/4880/breve-marco-teorico-de-rsu (accessed on 2 November 2015).
- Aras, G.; Crowther, D. Corporate Sustainability Reporting: A Study in Disingenuity? J. Bus. Eth. 2009, 87, 279–288. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Global Reporting Initiative (GRI). Sustainability Reporting Guidelines. Available online: https://www.globalreporting.org/resourcelibrary/G3-Sustainability-Reporting-Guidelines.pdf (accessed on 2 November 2015).
- Mainardes, E.; Alves, H.; Raposo, M. Identifying stakeholders in a Portuguese university: A case study. Rev. Educ. 2009, 362, 429–457. [Google Scholar]
- Deephouse, D.L.; Carter, S.M. An Examination of Differences between Organizational Legitimacy and Organizational Reputation. J. Manag. Stud. 2005, 42, 329–360. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Branco, M.C.; Rodrigues, L.L. Corporate social responsibility and resource based perspectives. J. Bus. Eth. 2006, 69, 111–132. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Meijer, A. Understanding modern transparency. Int. Rev. Adm. 2009, 75, 255–269. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Debreceny, R.; Ellis, A. Managing student access to university information networks—The Australian experience. Campus-Wide Inf. Syst. 1998, 15, 48–53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Castelo, B.M.; Lima, R.L. Factors Influencing Social Responsibility Disclosure by Portuguese Companies. J.Bus. Eth. 2008, 83, 685–701. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- European Commission. Green Paper. Promoting a European Framework for Corporate Social Responsibility. 2001. Available online: http://www.eldis.org/go/home&id=26409&type=Document#.VjiJroUh7Zg (accessed on 3 November 2015).
- Proyecto Universidad Construye País. Responsabilidad Social Universitaria: Una manera de Estar en la Universidad. Teoría y Práctica en la Experiencia Chilena. 2006. Available online: http://rsuniversitaria.org/web/images/stories/memoria/UCP%202006.pdf (accessed on 3 November 2015). (In Spanish)
- Sterling, S.; Scott, W. Higher education and ESD in England: A critical commentary on recent initiatives. Environ. Educ. Res. 2008, 14, 386–98. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Beringer, A.; Adomßent, M. Sustainable university research and development: Inspecting sustainability in higher education research. Environ. Educ. Res. 2008, 14, 607–623. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Quazi, A.M. Identifying the determinants of corporate managers’ perceived social obligations. Manag. Decis. 2003, 41, 822–831. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Setó-Pamies, D.; Domingo-Vernis, M.; Rabassa-Figueras, N. Corporate social responsibility in management education: Current status in Spanish universities. J. Manag. Organ. 2011, 17, 604–620. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- McKenna, R.J. Business ethics education: Should we? Can we? J. Aust. N. Z. Acad. Manag. 1995, 1, 44–63. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Abbott, M.; Doucouliagos, C. The efficiency of Australian universities: Adata envelopment analysis. Econ. Educ. Rev. 2003, 22, 89–97. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pratt, G.; Poole, D. Globalisation and Australian universities: Policies and impacts. Int. J. Public Sect. Manag. 1999, 12, 533–544. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Carrington, R.; Coelli, T.I.M.; Rao, D.S.P. The performance of Australian universities: Conceptual issues and preliminary results. Econ. Pap. 2005, 24, 145–163. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mazzarol, T.W.; Soutar, G.N. Australian educational institutions’ international markets: A correspondence analysis. Int. J. Educ. Manag. 2008, 22, 229–238. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dawkins, J.S. Higher Education: A Policy Discussion Paper (‘Green Paper’); Australian Government Publishing Service: Canberra, Australian, 1987. [Google Scholar]
- Von der Heidt, T.; Lamberton, G. Sustainability in the undergraduate and postgraduate business curriculum of a regional university: A critical perspective. J. Manag. Organ. 2011, 17, 670–690. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bradley, D.; Noonan, P.; Nugent, H.; Scales, B. Review of Australian Higher Education: Final report [Bradley Review]. 2008. Available online: http://hdl.voced.edu.au/10707/44384 (accessed on 3 November 2015).
- ACTS. 1997. Available online: www.acts.asn.au (accessed on 3 November 2015).
- Reynolds, P.; Cavanagh, R. Sustainable Education: Principles and Practices. 2009. Available online: http://www.aare.edu.au/publications-database.php/5958/Sustainable-education:-Principles-and-practices (accessed on 3 November 2015).
- Moon, J.; Orlitzky, M. Corporate social responsibility and sustainability education: A trans-Atlantic comparison. J. Manag. Organ. 2011, 17, 583–603. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- USLF. The Talloires Declaration. 2001. Available online: www.ulsf.org/programs_talloires_td.html (accessed on 3 November 2015).
- Holdsworth, S.; Wyborn, C.; Bekessy, S.; Thomas, I. Professional development for education for sustainability: How advanced are Australian universities? Int. J. Sustain. High. Educ. 2008, 9, 131–146. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- UNESCO. UNESCO Institute of Statistics. 2007. Available online: http://stats.uis.unesco.org (accessed on 3 November 2015).
- Bekessy, S.; Burgman, M. Universities and sustainability. Tela Environ. Econ. Soc. 2003, 11, 1–41. [Google Scholar]
- Tilbury, D.; Keogh, A.; Leighton, A.; Kent, J. A National Review of Environmental Education and its Contribution to Sustainability in Australia: Further and Higher Education. 2005. Available online: http://aries.mq.edu.au/projects/national_review/files/volume5/Volume5_Final05.pdf (accessed on 3 November 2015).
- Woods, P. Setting the Stage for a Strategic Research Agenda for the UNDESD. 2006. Available online: www.deh.gov.au/education/publications/esd-research.html (accessed on 3 November 2015). [Google Scholar]
- Australian Government. Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations. 2009. Available online: http://www.deewr.gov.au/HigherEducation/Documents/TransformingAusHigherED.pdf (accessed on 3 November 2015). [Google Scholar]
- Kameoka, Y. The internationalisation of higher education. OECD Obs. 1996, 202, 34–36. [Google Scholar]
- Banks, W.; Fisher, J.; Nelson, M. University accountability in England, Wales, and Northern Ireland: 1992–1994. J. Int. Account. Audit. Tax. 1997, 6, 211–226. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Borkowski, S.C.; Welsh, M.J.; Wentzel, K. Johnson & Johnson: A Model for Sustainability Reporting. 2010. Available online: http://www.imanet.org/docs/default-source/sf/09_2010_borkowski-pdf.pdf?sfvrsn=0 (accessed on 3 November 2015).
- Archel, P.; Husillos, J.; Larrinaga, C.; Spence, C. Social disclosure, legitimacy theory and the role of the state. Account. Audit. Account. J. 2009, 22, 1284–1307. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Spennemann, D.H.R. Learning and teaching 24/7: Daily internet usage patterns at nine Australian universities. Campus-Wide Inf. Syst. 2007, 24, 27–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Vuontisjärvi, T. Corporate Social Reporting in the European Context and Human Resource Disclosures: An Analysis of Finnish Companies. J. Bus. Eth. 2006, 69, 331–354. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Davidson, K.M. Reporting Systems for Sustainability: What Are They Measuring? Soc. Indic. Res. 2011, 100, 351–365. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Caba, P.C.; López, H.A.M.; Rodríguez, B.M.P. Citizens’ access to on-line governmental financial information: Practices in the European Union countries. Gov. Inf. Q. 2005, 22, 258–276. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rodríguez, B.M.P. Evaluating Corporate Environmental Reporting on the Internet: The Utility and Resource Industries in Spain. Bus. Soc. 2009, 48, 179–205. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gallego-Álvarez, I.; Rodríguez-Domínguez, L.; García-Sánchez, I.M. Information disclosed online by Spanish universities: Content and explanatory factors. Online Inf. Rev. 2011, 35, 360–385. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Holzer, M.; Kim, S.T. Digital Governance in Municipalities Worldwide—A Longitudinal Assessment of Municipal Websites throughout the World. 2007. Available online: http://unpan1.un.org/intradoc/groups/public/documents/aspa/unpan031374.pdf (accessed on 2 November 2015).
- Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB). Qualitative Characteristics of Accounting information. Norwalk. 1980. Available online: http://www.fasb.org/cs/BlobServer?blobkey=id&blobwhere=1175820900499&blobheader=application%2Fpdf&blobcol=urldata&blobtable=MungoBlobs (accessed on 2 November 2015).
- International Accounting Standards Board (IASB). Framework for the preparation and presentation of financial statements. 1989. Available online: http://kuap.ru/docs/ifrs/2009/en/framework.pdf (accessed on 2 November 2015).
- Cyberspace Policy Research Group. Web Attribute Evaluation System (WAES). 2010. Available online: http://www.cyprg.arizona.edu/waes.htm (accessed on 2 November 2005).
- Jones, K.; Alabaster, T.; Walton, J. Virtual Environments for Environmental Reporting. Green. Manag. Int. 1998, 21, 121–137. [Google Scholar]
- Ho, P.; Tower, G.; Barako, D. Improving governance leads to improved corporate communication. Corp. Ownersh. Control 2008, 5, 26–33. [Google Scholar]
- Benneworth, P.; Jongbloed, V. Who matters to universities? A stakeholder perspective on humanities, arts and social sciences valorization. High. Educ. 2010, 59, 567–588. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Al-Khatar, K.; Naser, K. User’s perceptions of corporate social responsibility and accountability: Evidence from an emerging economy. Manag. Audit. J. 2003, 18, 538–548. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jongbloed, B.; Enders, J.; Salerno, C. Higher Education and its Communities: Interconnections, Interdependencies and a research agenda. High. Educ. 2008, 56, 303–324. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Krazimierz, M. Redefining external stakeholders in Nordic Higher Education. Tert. Educ. Manag. 2010, 16, 45–60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Apple, M. Between Neoliberalism and Neoconservatism: Education and Conservatism in a Global Context. In Globalization and Education: Critical Perspectives; Burbles, N.C., Torres, C.A., Eds.; Routledge: London, UK, 2000; pp. 57–77. [Google Scholar]
- Australian Government. Interacting with Government. Australians’ use and satisfaction with e-government services. 2008. Available online: http://www.finance.gov.au/sites/default/files/interacting-with-government-report.pdf (accessed on 2 November 2015). [Google Scholar]
- Shephard, K. Higher education’s role in ‘education for sustainability’. Aust. Univ. Rev. 2010, 52, 13–22. [Google Scholar]
- Hammond, C.; Churchman, D. Sustaining academic life: A case for applying principles of social sustainability to the academic profession. Int. J. Sustain. High. Educ. 2008, 9, 235–245. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Eccles, R.G.; Krzus, M.P. One Report: Integrated Reporting for a Sustainable Strategy. 2010. Available online: http://hbswk.hbs.edu/item/6541.html (accessed on 2 November 2015).
- Sherren, K. Higher environmental education: core disciplines and the transition to sustainability. Aust. J. Environ. Manag. 2008, 15, 189–196. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
© 2015 by the authors; licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Sánchez, R.G.; Bolívar, M.P.R.; Hernández, A.M.L. Are Australian Universities Making Good Use of ICT for CSR Reporting? Sustainability 2015, 7, 14895-14916. https://doi.org/10.3390/su71114895
Sánchez RG, Bolívar MPR, Hernández AML. Are Australian Universities Making Good Use of ICT for CSR Reporting? Sustainability. 2015; 7(11):14895-14916. https://doi.org/10.3390/su71114895
Chicago/Turabian StyleSánchez, Raquel Garde, Manuel Pedro Rodríguez Bolívar, and Antonio M. López Hernández. 2015. "Are Australian Universities Making Good Use of ICT for CSR Reporting?" Sustainability 7, no. 11: 14895-14916. https://doi.org/10.3390/su71114895