Accounting SUSTAINABILITY Univ.-Prof. Dr. Dorothea

JOHANNES KEPLER

UNIVERSITY LINZ

Altenberger Str. 69 4040 Linz, Austria www.jku.at DVR 0093696

Author Judith Frei, MMag.a

Submission Institute of Management

Accounting

First Supervisor Univ.-Prof.in Dr.in Dorothea

Greiling

Second Supervisor Ao. Univ.-Prof.in Dr.in

Michaela Schaffhauser-

Linzatti

June 2021

SUSTAINABILITY

REPORTING AND

MANAGEMENT

CONTROL SYSTEMS OF

UNIVERSITIES

Doctoral Thesis

to confer the academic degree of

Doktorin der Sozial- und Wirtschaftswissenschaften

in the Doctoral Program

Social Sciences, Economics & Business

June, 2021 Judith Frei I/V

STATUTORY DECLARATION

I hereby declare that the submitted Doctoral Thesis has been written solely by me without any third-party assistance, information other than provided sources or aids have not been used and those used have been fully documented. Sources for literal, paraphrased and cited quotes have been accurately credited. This is a cumulative thesis and the present framework is based on the published articles. Duplications between the published articles and the framework exist. The submitted document here present is identical to the electronically submitted text document. Linz, June 2021 MMag.a Judith Frei

June, 2021 Judith Frei II/V

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

A number of people have kindly supported this dissertation project, to whom I would like to express my deep gratitude. First, I would like to sincerely thank my first supervisor, Univ.-Prof.in Dr.in Dorothea Greiling, for her continuous support, her ongoing encouragement, and the sharing of her expertise, with which she kept guiding me throughout the entire process. My gratitude goes also to my second supervisor, Ao. Univ.-Prof.in Dr.in Michaela Schaffhauser-Linzatti, and my third examiner, Ao. Univ.-Prof. Dr. René Clemens Andeßner. Furthermore, I want to express my gratitude to my colleagues of the Institute of Management Accounting, particularly Dr.in Melanie Lubinger, for the professional and personal exchange, and Ass.-Prof. Dr. Albert Traxler, for his professional and friendly support. I would also like to thank Mag.a Daniela Cortés, Astrid Eisner, Assoz. Univ.-Prof.in Dr.in Birgit Grüb-Martin, and Dr. Johannes Slacik for their collegial support. I am thankful to my interview partners for their friendly willingness to provide information. Finally, I am deeply grateful for the continuous support and motivation of my husband Markus and my beloved daughter Helena, who shared their time with me and showed much patience and loving understanding during this journey.

June, 2021 Judith Frei III/V

TABLE OF CONTENT

List of Figures ...................................................................................................................................... V

List of Tables ....................................................................................................................................... V

Abbreviations ....................................................................................................................................... V

1. Motivation ..................................................................................................................................... 1

1.1. Sustainability reporting of universities .................................................................................... 3

1.2. Management controls systems of universities ........................................................................ 4

2. Positioning in the academic field and research questions ............................................................. 6

2.1. Systematic literature review ................................................................................................... 7

2.1.1. Prior research on materiality and sustainability reporting of universities ......................... 7

2.1.2. Prior research on stakeholder inclusiveness and sustainability reporting of universities11

2.1.3. Prior research on universities’ management control systems and institutional logics ... 13

2.2. Theoretical and conceptual approaches .............................................................................. 14

2.2.1. Strategic stakeholder theory ........................................................................................ 15

2.2.2. Sociological institutionalism ......................................................................................... 16

2.2.3. Institutional logics ........................................................................................................ 17

2.3. Research questions ............................................................................................................. 18

3. Epistemology and methodology .................................................................................................. 20

3.1. Epistemology ....................................................................................................................... 20

3.2. Methodology ........................................................................................................................ 20

4. Key results of the publications .................................................................................................... 22

4.1. Results: Sustainability reporting of universities .................................................................... 22

4.2. Results: Management control systems of universities .......................................................... 24

5. Integrated discussion, contribution to the academic debate, practical implications, and directions for further research ..................................................................................................................... 25

5.1. Integrated discussion ........................................................................................................... 25

5.2. Contribution to the academic debate, practical implications, and directions for further research .............................................................................................................................. 29

References ........................................................................................................................................ 32

June, 2021 Judith Frei IV/V

APPENDIX

Appendix 1 Paper One: Lubinger, M., Frei, J. and Greiling, D. (2019), “Assessing the materiality of university G4-sustainability reports”, Journal of Public Budgeting, Accounting & Financial Management, Vol. 31 No. 3, pp. 364-391. Declarations of co-authors Appendix 2 Paper Two: Frei, J., Lubinger, M. and Greiling, D. (2020), Assessing Universities’ Global Reporting

Initiative G4 Sustainability Reports in Concurrence with Stakeholder Inclusiveness, in Manes-Rossi, F. and Orelli, R.L. (Eds.), New Trends In Public Sector Reporting – Integrated Reporting and Beyond, Public Sector Financial Management, Palgrave Macmillan, Switzerland, pp. 35-56. Declarations of co-authors Appendix 3 Paper Three: Frei, J., Greiling, D. and Schmidthuber, J. (2020), “Management Control Systems in hybrid universities – The case of Austrian public universities”, Qualitative Research in Accounting and

Management (major revision) Declarations of co-authors Appendix 4 Publication and conference list

June, 2021 Judith Frei V/V

List of Figures

Figure 1: Research fields of the dissertation Figure 2: Management control systems package (Malmi and Brown, 2008) Figure 3: Content-related foci of management control types Figure 4: Content-related foci (overlapped) of management control types Figure 5: Types of management control

List of Tables

Table 1: Overview of the papers, associated journals as well as publication status and conference presentations Table 2: Literature review on materiality and sustainability reporting of universities Table 3: Literature review on stakeholder inclusiveness and sustainability reporting of universities Table 4: Theoretical and conceptual approaches of the core publications Table 5: Overview of the methodological approaches of the core publications Table 6: Overview of the material dimensions and their coverage rates Table 7: Overview of the specific standard disclosures’ total coverage rates

Abbreviations

AC Administrative Controls CC Cultural Controls CYC Cybernetic Controls ERP Enterprise Resource Planning GRI Global Reporting Initiative HEI(s) Higher Education Institution(s) HESI Higher Education Sustainability Initiative ICR(s) Intellectual Capital Report(s) IFAC International Federation of Accountants IIRC International Integrated Reporting Council IRs Integrated Report(s) MAS(s) Management Accounting System(s) MC(s) Management Control(s) MCS(s) Management Control System(s) NGO(s) Non-Governmental Organisation(s) NPM New Public Management P Planning PMS(s) Performance Management System(s) RC Reward and Compensation RQ(s) Research Question(s) SE Stakeholder Engagement SI Stakeholder Inclusiveness SR(s) Sustainability Report(s) STARS Sustainability Tracking, Assessment, and Rating System TBL Triple Bottom Line (T)CR(s) (Total) Coverage Rate(s) UNGC United Nations Global Compact

June, 2021 Judith Frei 1/45

1. Motivation

Due to New Public Management (NPM) reforms, major neoliberal changes have found their way into universities over the past 30 years: removed from a relatively secure existence in stable markets with guaranteed government funding, they were released into internationalisation and entrusted with the responsibility to secure part of their own income (Parker, 2013; 2011). Although public funding has been decreasing, universities are still subject to governmental scrutiny (Guthrie and Neumann, 2007). Beyond that, market criteria require that university educational institutions compete for research grants, the best employees and students all over the world, as well as position themselves in international rankings. The “Humboldtian spirit” (Kallio et al., 2016:704) of freedom and autonomy in research and teaching seems to have been pushed into the background in favour of a more entrepreneurial attitude, shifting universities towards a new, market-driven culture. Universities meet these challenges in fulfilling their central missions of providing knowledge and an intellectual base for “social, economic, cultural, political, institutional and individual development” (Ntim et al., 2017:73). Teaching, research, interacting with society, and “co-creation for sustainability” (Trencher et al., 2014) represent universities’ traditional and new missions. In order to consolidate their roles in modern society, universities have to (re)consider the expectations of and relations with their various internal and external stakeholder groups (e.g., public administration, other funding organisations, teaching and research staff, students, employers, academic accreditation and quality agencies, Larrán Jorge et al., 2012). According to stakeholder theory (Freeman et al., 2010; Parmar et

al., 2010; Freeman, 1984), the relationships between organisations and their interrelated groups of stakeholders have to be considered to deal with “interconnected problems relating to business” (Parmar et al., 2010:4). Stakeholders play a crucial role and influence organisations’ long-term goals. Originally elaborated for business organisations, the stakeholder view can also be applied to universities striving for legitimacy and acceptance in society (Larrán Jorge et al., 2012). Furthermore, in terms of the availability of resources, universities have to meet the growing information needs of their prominent and growing number of stakeholder groups. In order to meet their responsibilities and to enhance effectivity and efficiency (Duh et al., 2014; Decramer et al., 2012; Melo et al., 2010; Van der Weijden et al., 2008) – i.e., in research (e.g., the number and quality of publications, conference presentations, research projects, scientific community services), teaching (e.g., the number of students actively taking examinations), or third- (i.e., interactions between universities and society) and fourth-mission agendas (i.e., expanding universities’ role including social science and humanities universities in order to contribute to the innovation process in the society; Rinaldi et al., 2018) – universities began to imitate private sector accountability reporting mechanisms and to adapt management control systems (MCSs) (Guenther, 2013; Chenhall, 2007) similar to those of for-profit-companies. Today, universities engage in a multitude of accountability reporting activities, ranging from the compilation of (voluntary and obligatory) reports (e.g., sustainability reports (SRs)) (Alonso-Almeida et al., 2015; Ceulemans et al., 2015b; Lozano et al., 2015), social reports (Del Sordo et al., 2016), and intellectual capital reports (ICRs) (Habersam et al., 2018; Habersam et al., 2013)) to the use of communication channels such as websites or press releases. Moreover, a wide variety of MCSs and performance management systems (PMSs) (Martin-Sardesai and Guthrie, 2018; Edgar and Geare, 2013; Chan and Richardson, 2012; Broadbent and Laughlin, 2009) are applied, e.g., management accounting systems (MASs) (Guenther, 2013; Chenhall, 2007), in order to satisfy internal and external stakeholder demands, but also to monitor universities’ key capabilities.


Given this development, the aim of this dissertation is to understand universities’ responses to the increased requirements and their concomitant actions by studying universities’ sustainability reporting practices and their applied MCSs. Sustainability reporting allows for the assessment and communication of organisations’ efforts and progress towards the environmental, economic, and social aims of sustainability (Bass and Dalal-Clayton, 2012). According to strategic stakeholder theory, stakeholder expectations are heterogeneous and potentially conflicting, meaning that conflicting claims have to be balanced by the respective organisation (Chen and Roberts, 2010; Freeman, 1984). Furthermore, universities are experiencing increasingly coercive pressure by governmental bodies to be accountable for their performance in research, teaching, and academic self-government, e.g., by preparing SRs (in case of the Spanish province of Andalusia) or ICRs (in case of Austria). By applying strategic stakeholder theory and neo-institutionalism, this dissertation aims to understand universities sustainability reporting practices in compiling SRs in order to meet their stakeholders’ information needs. To achieve this goal, all current Global Reporting Initiative (GRI)-G4-SRs were analysed. The concept of institutional logics is applied to analyse how Austrian public universities cope with conflicting demands, owed to a plethora of different stakeholder expectations, by means of MCSs. The above-mentioned challenges are causing “contradictory practices and beliefs” (Thornton and Ocasio, 2008:101), making “multiple logics available to individuals and organizations” (Friedland and Alford, 1991:232). According to Thornton et al. (2012), institutional logics are linked to and expressed by material practices. Practices in turn are interpreted as activities and beliefs enacted in a specific role. Because roles imply activities and beliefs, different roles can result in conflicts (Jones et al., 2013). Hence, institutional logics directly influence the selection, implementation, and application of MCSs. Furthermore, MCSs are deployed in order to cope with institutional complexity. This dissertation investigates which management control instruments are applied by Austrian public universities in order to fulfil their traditional core mission to facilitate academic research. Inasmuch as universities contribute to the welfare of society and the environment, the advancement of knowledge is at the heart of their being/existence. Austrian public universities are an interesting field to study, because contrary to the Anglo-Saxon tradition of collecting tuition fees, the federal government funds Austrian public universities to a much higher degree. They conclude contracts under public law (i.e., performance agreements) for periods of three years, where each university receives a global budget. Austria was the first country to make ICRs obligatory for universities. Indicators included in the ICR measure the achievement of particular, university-specific strategic objectives of the performance agreement. Amongst others, the ICR has to include universities performance processes, including their outputs and impacts (Universities Act of Austria, 2002), which influences universities’ internally applied MCSs. The investigation of universities’ SRs is positioned in the research field of public sector accountability and analyses, if universities do in fact use this reporting instrument in order to satisfy stakeholder-relevant information needs. Paper Three is positioned in the research field of MCSs and analyses how Austrian public universities cope with different (competing) logics through the application of MCSs to fulfil their core mission of facilitating research. The following figure provides an overview (see Figure 1):


1.1. Sustainability reporting of universities

Over the past two decades, sustainability reporting has gained relevance mainly in stock exchange-listed for-profit-companies (Cho et al., 2015). In the university sector, too, NPM has been an important driver for increasing accountability pressure (see Paper Two in Appendix 2). In addition, universities are expected to play a key role in creating new cognitive paradigms towards a more sustainable world (Ferrero-Ferrero et al., 2017). Moreover, some universities have signed declarations concerning sustainability in the higher education sector (see Paper One in Appendix 1). Advocates of (voluntary) sustainability reporting stress its contribution to more transparency and accountability (James, 2015; Malik, 2015; Nickell and Roberts, 2014; Baker, 2010). Therefore, sustainability reporting has the potential for contributing to the goal of increasing stakeholders’ trust and helping organisations to demonstrate the link between its strategy and its commitment to sustainable development. Opponents criticize sustainability reporting as a greenwashing attempt, strategic impression management or a management fad (Burritt and Schaltegger, 2010; Gray, 2010; Hopwood, 2009). Due to their voluntary and unregulated nature, sustainability disclosures may be selective and biased, leading stakeholders to false assumptions of specific organisations (Cho et al., 2015). To make SRs more stakeholder relevant, stakeholder inclusiveness (SI) and materiality have emerged as principles for defining report content (including SI, sustainability context, materiality and completeness) in sustainability reporting (Diouf and Boiral, 2017; Eccles et al., 2012). According to the GRI-G4-Guidelines, “[t]he reporting organization shall identify its stakeholders, and explain how it has

responded to their reasonable expectations and interests” (GRI, 2016:8). Concerning materiality, “[t]he

report shall cover topics that: reflect the reporting organization’s significant economic, environmental,

and social impacts; or substantively influence the assessments and decisions of stakeholders. […]

Relevant topics, which potentially merit inclusion in the report, are those that can reasonably be

considered important for reflecting the organization’s economic, environmental, and social impacts, or

influencing the decisions of stakeholders” (GRI, 2016:10). For instance, GRI-G4-Guidelines’ disclosure title “G4-19” (list of material topics) requires that all material aspects that were identified as the outcome of the stakeholder engagement (SE)-process for defining a report’s content and topic boundaries (G4-18) shall be listed and ranked according to their relevance (GRI-G4-Guidelines’ disclosure title G4-19 to G4-22) for internal and external stakeholder groups. By means of establishing a SE-process, organisations should identify their most important stakeholder groups and their information needs. According to Secundo et al. (2016), stakeholder participation and engagement have become elementary to achieving, in particular, third mission aims (i.e., social engagement and regional development). This makes engaging with all university stakeholders a necessity. In order to avoid an overload with a plethora of irrelevant information disclosed, SRs should focus on aspects which stakeholders regard as material (see Paper One in Appendix 1). As a rather new emergent principle in SRs (Diouf and Boiral, 2017; Eccles et al., 2012), materiality has a long tradition in financial reporting. Edgley (2014:255)

Figure 1: Research fields of the dissertation

Public sector accountability

Coverage of

materiality in

universities’ SRs

MCSs of public universities

SI in universities’ SRs

Research

management at

universities


identified divergent roles of materiality with a broad variety: “a moral responsibility; a solution to the

problem of over-auditing; a solid epistemic foundation for financial reporting; a scientific technique; a

quantitative rule of thumb; a risk management concept; and a mysterious shield”. In sustainability reporting, materiality is either seen as a tool for selecting the most important SR-aspects in general (KPMG, 2017; Jones et al., 2015a; Jones et al., 2015b; Manetti, 2011) or as a concept focused on the information needs of providers of financial capital (IFAC, 2021; IIRC, 2021) as well as stakeholders (AccountAbility, 2019; Calabrese et al., 2016; GRI, 2016; Edgley et al., 2015) (see Paper One in Appendix 1). In order to examine universities’ sustainability reporting practices, Paper One and Paper Two focus on the GRI-G4-Guidelines. A wide range of tools and frameworks were developed for improving and standardising sustainability reporting of universities. According to Larrán Jorge et al. (2016:690), the GRI-Guidelines are one of the most suitable options to “assess and report sustainability”, representing the most widely implemented standard (KPMG, 2017) (see Paper One in Appendix 1). Compared with other frameworks with a regional focus or a narrower definition of sustainability, and as an international framework, the GRI-Guidelines allow comparing between universities, which should consider all three dimensions of sustainability, i.e., the environmental, the economic, and the social dimension (Alonso-Almeida et al., 2015; Lopatta and Jaeschke, 2014; Lozano, 2006). The GRI-Guidelines are not only the most frequently implemented standard but also the one with the longest learning curve. Moreover, as stated above, the GRI-Guidelines focus on stakeholder relevance by defining the principle of SI and the principle of materiality. While Paper One examines the materiality of universities’ G4-SRs (see Paper One in Appendix 1), the second article deals with the content principle of SI (see Paper Two in Appendix 2). According to GRI-G4-Guidelines, “[s]ustainability reporting, […], is an organization’s practice of

reporting publicly on its economic, environmental, and/or social impacts, and hence its contributions –

positive or negative – towards the goal of sustainable development” (GRI, 2016:3). For the non-university sector, findings show that the adoption of materiality in SRs is guided by a strategic management approach (see Paper One in Appendix 1). The investigation of the content principle of materiality in universities’ SRs is still in its infancy. Furthermore, available studies do not allow for comparison between the identified material aspects and their (total) coverage rates ((T)CRs) in the SRs. Addressing the content principles of SI and SE is an even lesser addressed topic (see Paper Two in Appendix 2). Therefore, Paper Two identifies the SRs’ documentation of relevant stakeholder groups, the main communication topics, and the coverage of these categories in the analysed SRs. In analysing universities’ sustainability reporting practices in the context of stakeholder accountability, both papers build on strategic stakeholder theory and neo-institutionalism as a theoretical framework. Under resource- and support-providing aspects, universities try to meet the information needs of their most important stakeholder groups (Calabrese et al., 2016; Puroila et al., 2016). Due to the voluntary nature of sustainability reporting guidelines, a low compliance and diffusion rate has to be expected (Shabana et al., 2017; Higgins and Larrinaga, 2014; Bebbington et al., 2009) (see Paper One in Appendix 1 and Paper Two in Appendix 2).

1.2. Management controls systems of universities

Changing university environments, university corporatisation and commercialisation have “reconfigured

universities’ governance, missions, core values and the roles of their academics” (Parker, 2011:434). As stated above, universities engage in a multitude of voluntary or mandatory accountability reporting activities. In the case of Austrian public universities, the Universities Act of Austria (2002) provided universities with autonomy and concurrently introduced accountability by making ICRs obligatory (see


Figure 2: Management control systems package (Malmi and Brown, 2008)

Paper Three in Appendix 3). The compulsory preparation of ICRs and the associated obligation to measure the intellectual capital by indicators significantly influences universities’ self-concept and in the following university-internal management control instruments. Public universities were transformed into hybrid organisations that continuously incorporate elements of distinct, competing logics (Vakkuri and Johanson, 2020; Boitier et al., 2018; Upton and Warshaw, 2017; Lepori, 2016; Pache and Santos, 2013; Thornton et al., 2012) (see Paper Three in Appendix 3). While trying to uphold their traditional Humboldtian ideal of freedom and autonomy in research and teaching, public universities simultaneously have to comply with the legal requirements to conclude performance agreements and provide performance indicators as well as to enhance international competitiveness. Embedded in this complex and contradictory environment, Paper Three provides insights into the university-internal selection, implementation and application of MCSs in managing (competing) institutional logics: the academic logic, the government logic, and the business logic (Conrath-Hargreaves and Wüstemann, 2019). “[L]ogics provide the rules of the game” (Thornton et al., 1999:806), and become evident in this particular setting of practices: “practices […] are fundamentally interrelated

with institutional logics” (Thornton et al., 2012:128). Material practices represent one of the core elements of institutional logics (Thornton and Ocasio, 2008; Friedland and Alford, 1991) or “the content

of a role” (Jones et al., 2013). A given organisations’ belief system immediately influences the control mechanism and thus directly influences MCSs (Ahrens and Khalifa, 2015; Lounsbury, 2008). Vice versa, MCSs do not address a specific logic, but may help cope with the copresence of different logics by mediating between them (Busco et al., 2017). Pache and Santos (2013) state that, by combining activities from each logic, organisations gain legitimacy. Moreover, MCSs may “contribute to lock

different parties to their own logic” (Busco et al., 2017:191). Paper Three seeks to investigate the importance of MCSs in managing competing institutional logics at Austrian public universities. It shows how Austrian public universities deal with institutional complexity and how they cope with the coexistence of (competing) institutional logics by applying MCSs in the core mission area of research. In order to fulfil this purpose, the concept of MCSs as a package (Malmi and Brown, 2008) was applied in Paper Three. This concept is designed to guide employees’ behaviour intentionally (see Paper Three in Appendix 3). MCSs are defined as “those systems, rules, practices, values and other activities

management put in place in order to direct employee behaviour […]. If these are complete systems, as

opposed to a simple rule […], then they should be called MCSs” (Malmi and Brown, 2008:290). The package distinguishes cultural controls (CC), planning (P), cybernetic controls (CYC), reward and compensation (RC), and administrative controls (AC) (see Figure 2):

Flamholtz et al. (1985:158) describe organisational culture as “the set of values, beliefs and social norms

which tend to be shared by its [the organisation’s] members and, in turn, influence their thoughts and

Cultural Controls

Clans Values Symbols

Planning Cybernetic Controls

Reward and

Compensation Long range

planning

Action

planning Budgets

Financial

Measurement

Systems

Non-Financial

Measurement

Systems

Hybrid

Measurement

Systems

Administrative Controls

Governance Structure Organisation Structure Policies and Procedures


actions” (see Paper Three in Appendix 3). Within cultural controls, Malmi and Brown (2008) distinguish value-based (e.g., appointment of professors in accordance with universities’ strategic objectives), symbol-based (e.g., universities’ corporate identity), and clan controls (e.g., peer-reviews). Planning sets out goals and guides efforts and behaviour directly (e.g., target agreements). Beyond, by means of plans, standards to be met are provided and the level of effort is determined (Malmi and Brown, 2008). Furthermore, planning serves as an instrument of coordination. Cybernetic controls provide targets and measures to be achieved (e.g., the total amount and quality of publications measured by the journal impact factors), enable feedback and variance analyses, and initiate the modification of behaviour and activities (e.g., by the provision of resources or infrastructure) (Malmi and Brown, 2008). Budgets (e.g., performance dependent budgets), (non-)financial measures (e.g., dependent on the recruitment of third-party funds), and hybrid measures (e.g., ICRs or academic scorecards) are differentiated (see Figure 2). In order to control effort direction, effort duration and effort intensity (Malmi and Brown, 2008), reward

and compensation, i.e., monetary and non-monetary incentives are applied (e.g., individual performance-dependent monetary and non-monetary incentives or appreciations on the university website). By the means of organisation design and structure (administrative controls), employee behaviour is directed by organising, by monitoring (governance) and by specifying how tasks have to be performed (Malmi and Brown, 2008). In Austria, organisational design and structure are governed by the state, and specific research management systems are applied in order to gather data for the ICRs. Some measures can be categorised as different kinds of control, e.g., training as administrative or cultural control type. Provision of resources is not seen as a control instrument but as a “prerequisite for

proper work” (Malmi and Brown, 2008:295) (see Paper Three in Appendix 3). For the university sector, a comprehensive investigation of the applied management control types in the context of institutional logics is still at its beginning (e.g., Dobija et al., 2019; Gebreiter and Hidayah, 2019; Grossi et al., 2019). Institutional logics become manifest by a specific management control package and furthermore, public universities cope with (competing) institutional logics through the application of a specific management control package guided by different logics (see Paper Three in Appendix 3). By the means of narratives, the application of specific management control types out of different logics is justified. Addressing this research gap in particular, Paper Three investigates in-depth the case of the state-funded public universities in Austria from the perspective of universities’ research management. In this institutional field, a variety of factors has influenced the introduction and application of MCSs over the last 20 years, provoking an imitation of, for instance, private sector accounting and management control practices and instruments, in turn changing their structures, strategies and processes (Parker, 2013; 2011). Paper Three builds on the concept of institutional logics (Thornton et

al., 2012; Thornton and Ocasio, 2008; Friedland and Alford, 1991; Alford and Friedland, 1985; DiMaggio and Powell, 1983; Meyer and Rowan, 1977) and the framework of MCSs (Malmi and Brown, 2008) to gain a detailed understanding of how Austrian public universities cope with institutional complexity.

2. Positioning in the academic field and research questions

This dissertation is designed as a cumulative project comprising three research papers: the first and the second paper focus on the GRI-G4 content principles of materiality and SI, respectively, in order to analyse the quality of SRs’ stakeholder accountability; the third contribution analyses universities’ MCSs and investigates how institutional logics are expressed by university’s internal MCSs and the intertwining of specific control types. Furthermore, it is shown how universities cope with the existence of (competing) institutional logics. In doing so, Paper One investigates worldwide universities’ GRI-G4-SRs and the implementation of the content principle of materiality. Paper Two provides insights into SE-processes and the content principle of SI in universities’ SRs across the world and analyses to what


extent universities comply with the GRI-G4-Guidelines. Paper Three focuses on MCSs as a package in the field of institutional complexity. The following table provides an overview of the papers of this dissertation, the respective journals, and the publication status as well as conference presentations (see Table 1):

Sustainability reporting of universities MCSs of public universities

Paper One: Assessing the materiality of

university G4-sustainability reports

Paper Two: Assessing Universities’ Global

Reporting Initiative G4 Sustainability

Reports in Concurrence with Stakeholder

Inclusiveness

Paper Three: Management Control

Systems in hybrid universities – The case

of Austrian public universities

Associated journals and publication status

Published: Journal of Public Budgeting,

Accounting and Financial Management

(ISSN: 1096-3367, ABS 2)

Published: Palgrave Macmillan Book

Chapter - Public Sector Financial

Management (double-blind peer reviewed)

Major revision (due at the end of June

2021): Qualitative Research in Accounting

and Management

(ISSN: 1176-6093, VHB B)

Conference presentations

Paper One and Paper Two:

AAAJ Special Workshop (May 2017, Warsaw)

Research Forum at the 41st Annual Congress of the European Accounting Association (June 2018, Milan)

EURAM (June 2019, Lisboa)

Paper Three:

22nd Workshop „Hochschulmanagement“ (February 2020, Vienna)

Accepted: Research Forum at the 43rd Annual Congress of the European Accounting Association (May 2020, Bucharest)

Journal of Management and Governance and SIDREA (Società Italiana dei Docenti di Ragioneria e di Economia Aziendale) Virtual

Workshop (November 2020, Naples)

Accepted: Research Forum at the Virtual Annual Congress of the European Accounting Association (May 2021)

2.1. Systematic literature review

2.1.1. Prior research on materiality and sustainability reporting of universities

In order to investigate the content principle of materiality and its coverage in universities’ GRI-G4-SRs, a structured literature review was conducted using two online databases (EBSCOhost and Web of Science). The search period extended from 2000 to 2019 and was limited to peer-reviewed English-language journal articles. The literature review yielded 44 papers (see Paper One in Appendix 1).

Outside the university sector, 18 studies were identified: four studies focus specifically on user information demands, finding that stakeholder information needs are only insufficiently met. 14 articles analyse the process of identifying stakeholder material aspects. In these studies, results show that the listed material aspects are selective and not driven by strategically relevant stakeholders. Within these 14 studies, two studies were identified focusing on the content principle of materiality: Font et al. (2016) compares reported indicators of the cruise industry with the corporate social responsibility index developed by Bonilla-Priego et al. (2014). The disclosure practices based on the AccountAbility’s AA1000 Standard (AccountAbility, 2019) of the largest hotel groups worldwide are analysed in Guix et

al. (2017).

Table 1: Overview of the papers, associated journals, and publication status as well as conference presentations


Generally, research efforts concerning the preparation of universities’ SRs are increasing (Ferrero-Ferrero et al., 2017; Ceulemans et al., 2015a; Lozano et al., 2015). Inside the university sector, 26 articles could be identified: four articles are worldwide surveys, three articles represent special reports in the field of Higher Education Institutions (HEIs), three deal with the integration/implementation process of sustainability reporting HEIs, four focus on stakeholder expectations, one is a conceptual paper, and eleven papers are about (T)CRs of specific performance dimensions (see Table 2 below).

In order to analyse universities’ SRs, a variety of normative frameworks exists (Larrán Jorge et al., 2016; Ceulemans et al., 2015b), e.g., frameworks extending the GRI-framework with additional, sector-specific indicators (Lopatta and Jaeschke, 2014; Sassen et al., 2014) (see Paper One in Appendix 1). As stated above, the GRI-G4-Guidelines are international, in contrast to those developed exclusive for North America or the European context (Larrán Jorge et al., 2016). With a specific focus on materiality, research taking a holistic approach is missing (Ceulemans et al., 2015b; Lozano et al., 2015). In a single-case study, Yáñez et al. (2019) highlights the role of the SR to a holistic stakeholder accountability and therefore the materiality process. Four studies analyse internal and external stakeholder expectations (Ferrero-Ferrero et al., 2017; Larrán Jorge et al., 2016; Larrán Jorge et al., 2012; Mainardes et al., 2012). While all four studies stress the heterogeneity of stakeholder concerns, only Ferrero-Ferrero et al. (2017) includes a quantitative content analysis of ten universities’ SRs worldwide and examines whether internal stakeholder material aspects are documented in universities’ SRs. Eleven studies examine universities’ SRs CRs with an average below 50 per cent (see Paper One in Appendix 1). The systematic literature review revealed a research gap concerning the question whether identified and documented material aspects do, in fact, guide the reported content.

Jun

e, 2

021

Ju

dith

Fre

i 9

/45

Table

2: Litera

ture

revie

w o

n m

ate

rialit

y a

nd s

usta

inabili

ty r

eport

ing o

f univ

ers

itie

s

To

pic

P

ub

licati

on

R

esearc

h d

esig

n r

esp

on

den

ts/s

ecto

r

Outs

ide t

he u

niv

ers

ity s

ecto

r

Use

r in

form

atio

n de

man

ds (

four

art

icle

s)

Dee

gan

and

Ran

kin

(199

7)

Qua

ntita

tive:

123

ann

ual r

epor

t us

ers

in A

ustr

alia

O’D

wye

r et

al. (

2005

) Q

uant

itativ

e: 1

5 so

cial

and

13

envi

ronm

enta

l Non

-Gov

ernm

enta

l Org

anis

atio

ns (

NG

Os)

in I

rela

nd

De

Vill

iers

and

Van

Sta

den

(201

0)

Qua

ntita

tive:

474

sha

reho

lder

s in

Aus

tral

ia, t

he U

K a

nd th

e U

S

Dio

uf a

nd B

oira

l (20

17)

Qua

litat

ive:

33

stak

ehol

ders

and

exp

ert

s in

Can

ada

For

-pro

fit s

ecto

r st

udie

s (1

4 ar

ticle

s)

Ecc

les

et

al. (

2012

) Q

ualit

ativ

e: s

ix in

dust

ries

(48

com

pani

es)

Hsu

et al. (

2013

) C

once

ptua

l: te

chni

cal c

ompa

ny in

Tai

wan

Une

rman

and

Zap

petin

i (20

14)

Qua

litat

ive:

23

com

pani

es S

Rs

in th

e en

ergy

and

min

ing

sect

or

Cal

abre

se e

t al. (

2015

) C

once

ptua

l: re

tail

com

pany

in It

aly

Jone

s et

al. (

2015

a)

Qua

litat

ive:

20

UK

hou

sebu

ildin

g co

mpa

nies

Jone

s et

al. (

2015

b)

Qua

litat

ive:

nin

e U

K c

omm

erci

al p

rope

rty

com

pani

es

Cal

abre

se e

t al. (

2016

) C

once

ptua

l: w

ater

tec

hnol

ogy

com

pany

in I

taly

Fon

t et al. (

2016

) Q

ualit

ativ

e/qu

antit

ativ

e: 2

9 cr

uise

com

pani

es, 5

9 in

tern

al a

nd e

xter

nal s

take

hold

ers

Jone

s et

al. (

2016

a)

Qua

litat

ive:

ten

UK

ret

ailin

g co

mpa

nies

Jone

s et

al. (

2016

b)

Qua

litat

ive:

firs

t ten

for

-pro

fit c

ompa

nies

wor

ldw

ide

liste

d in

Goo

gle

havi

ng p

ublis

hed

a G

4-S

R

Jone

s et

al. (

2016

c)

Qua

litat

ive:

hos

pita

lity

sect

or

Pur

oila

et al. (

2016

) Q

ualit

ativ

e: 2

9 pu

blic

ly tr

aded

com

pani

es in

the

Glo

bal1

00 in

dex

appl

ying

GR

I-G

4-G

uide

lines

La

i et

al. (

2017

) Q

ualit

ativ

e: 1

4 G

ener

ali e

mpl

oyee

s

Gui

x et

al. (

2017

) Q

ualit

ativ

e/qu

antit

ativ

e: 5

0 ho

spita

lity

grou

ps w

orld

wid

e

Univ

ers

ity s

ecto

r

Wor

ldw

ide

surv

eys

(fou

r ar

ticle

s)

Alo

nso-

Alm

eida

et

al. (

2015

) Q

uant

itativ

e/qu

alita

tive:

GR

I da

ta b

ase

and

GR

I-S

Rs

Ceu

lem

ans

et

al. (

2015

b)

Lite

ratu

re r

evie

w:

178

artic

les

Loza

no e

t al. (

2015

) Li

tera

ture

rev

iew

: 60

art

icle

s su

rvey

84

resp

onde

nts

from

70

HE

Is

Bla

nco-

Por

tela

et

al. (

2017

) Li

tera

ture

rev

iew

: 35

art

icle

s

Spe

cial

rep

orts

in th

e fie

ld o

f un

iver

sitie

s

(thr

ee a

rtic

les)

Hab

ersa

m e

t al. (

2013

) Q

ualit

ativ

e: c

ase

stud

y at

Aus

tria

n un

iver

sitie

s

Del

Sor

do e

t al. (

2016

) Q

ualit

ativ

e: c

onte

nt a

naly

sis

of tw

elve

soc

ial r

epor

ts in

Ital

y an

d in

terv

iew

s w

ith t

heir

prep

arer

s

Hab

ersa

m e

t al. (

2018

) Q

ualit

ativ

e: lo

ngitu

dina

l cas

e st

udy

at A

ustr

ian

univ

ersi

ties

Jun

e, 2

021

Ju

dith

Fre

i 1

0/45

Table

2: Litera

ture

revie

w o

n m

ate

rialit

y a

nd s

usta

inabili

ty r

eport

ing o

f univ

ers

itie

s

To

pic

P

ub

licati

on

R

esearc

h d

esig

n r

esp

on

den

ts/s

ecto

r

Univ

ers

ity s

ecto

r

Inte

grat

ion/

impl

emen

tatio

n pr

oces

s of

sust

aina

bilit

y re

port

ing

in H

EIs

(th

ree

artic

les)

Bru

sca

et al. (

2018

) Q

ualit

ativ

e: U

nive

rsity

of C

adiz

Zor

io-G

rima

et al. (

2018

) Q

ualit

ativ

e: 4

9 pu

blic

uni

vers

ities

in S

pain

Yáñ

ez e

t al. (

2019

) Q

ualit

ativ

e: E

scue

la T

ecni

ca S

uper

ior

de I

ngen

iero

s In

dust

riale

s

Inte

rnal

and

ext

erna

l sta

keho

lder

exp

ecta

tions

(fo

ur a

rtic

les)

Larr

án J

orge

et

al. (

2012

) Q

ualit

ativ

e: s

take

hold

er g

roup

s of

ten

publ

ic u

nive

rsiti

es in

And

alus

ia

Mai

nard

es e

t al. (

2012

) Q

ualit

ativ

e/qu

antit

ativ

e: 1

669

stud

ents

’ exp

ecta

tions

at e

leve

n pu

blic

uni

vers

ities

in P

ortu

gal

Larr

án J

orge

et

al. (

2016

) Q

ualit

ativ

e: s

enio

r m

anag

emen

t mem

bers

of

eigh

t pub

lic u

nive

rsiti

es in

And

alus

ia

Fer

rero

-Fer

rero

et

al. (

2017

) Q

ualit

ativ

e/qu

antit

ativ

e: te

n un

iver

sitie

s’ S

Rs

(201

4) a

nd a

cas

e st

udy

in a

Spa

nish

pub

lic u

nive

rsity

Fra

mew

ork

Loza

no (

2006

) C

once

ptua

l

TC

Rs

or C

Rs

of p

erfo

rman

ce d

imen

sion

s

(ele

ven

artic

les)

Fon

seca

et al. (

2011

) C

once

ptua

l/qua

litat

ive:

sev

en C

anad

ian

univ

ersi

ties

(200

6-20

08)

Loza

no (

2011

) Q

ualit

ativ

e: t

wel

ve u

nive

rsiti

es w

orld

wid

e (2

002-

200

9) b

y th

e G

AS

U-F

ram

ewor

k (L

ozan

o, 2

006)

Lopa

tta

and

Jaes

chke

(20

14)

Con

cept

ual/q

ualit

ativ

e: s

ix G

erm

an a

nd A

ustr

ian

univ

ersi

ties

(unt

il 20

11)

Sas

sen

et al. (

2014

) C

once

ptua

l/qua

litat

ive:

14

Ger

man

uni

vers

ities

(24

rep

orts

) re

gard

less

the

ir ap

plie

d st

anda

rds

(200

4-20

14)

Hin

son

et al. (

2015

) Q

ualit

ativ

e: s

ix G

hana

ian

univ

ersi

ties

(201

2) b

ased

on

GR

I-G

3-G

uide

lines

and

Fon

seca

’s fr

amew

ork

(Fon

seca

et

al., 2

011)

Rom

olin

i et

al. (

2015

) Q

ualit

ativ

e: 2

0 un

iver

sitie

s w

orld

wid

e (2

012)

by

anal

ysin

g G

RI-

G3.

1-G

uide

lines

Bic

e an

d C

oate

s (2

016)

Q

ualit

ativ

e: t

en E

nglis

h la

ngua

ge r

epor

ts w

orld

wid

e (2

007

-201

4) b

ased

on

GR

I-G

3-G

uide

lines

(th

ree

univ

ersi

ties)

or

GR

I-G

3.1-

Gui

delin

es (

seve

n un

iver

sitie

s)

Dag

ilien

ė an

d M

ykol

aitie

nė (

2016

) Q

ualit

ativ

e: 4

0 Li

thua

nian

tert

iary

sec

tor

inst

itutio

ns (

2013

-201

4),

amon

g th

em e

leve

n un

iver

sitie

s

Larr

án J

orge

et

al. (

2018

) Q

ualit

ativ

e: 5

8 un

iver

sitie

s w

orld

wid

e (1

38 S

Rs)

fol

low

ing

GR

I-G

3-, G

RI-

G3.

1- o

r G

RI-

G4-

Gui

delin

es

Sas

sen

and

Azi

zi (

2018

a)

Qua

litat

ive:

20

Can

adia

n pu

blic

and

priv

ate

univ

ersi

ties

rega

rdle

ss t

heir

appl

ied

stan

dard

s (2

011-

2015

)

Sas

sen

and

Azi

zi (

2018

b)

Qua

litat

ive:

23

US

uni

vers

ities

par

ticip

atin

g in

the

Sus

tain

abili

ty T

rack

ing,

Ass

essm

ent

and

Rat

ing

Sys

tem

(S

TA

RS

) (2

014)


2.1.2. Prior research on stakeholder inclusiveness and sustainability reporting of universities

In order to investigate the content principle of SI in universities’ GRI-G4-SRs, a structured literature review was conducted using three online databases (EBSCOhost, Science Direct and Web of Science). The search period extended from 2000 to 2019 and was limited to peer-reviewed English-language journal articles. The literature review yielded 22 papers (see Paper Two in Appendix 2). Three studies concerning SI in selected SRs or integrated reports (IRs), five studies addressing internal and external stakeholder expectations, and 14 studies analysing guideline compliance of SRs were identified (see Table 3 below). Concerning the first cluster, Brusca et al. (2018) identified universities’ supervisory boards (in Spain called “Social Council”) as representative of other stakeholders and auditors as supporters of the implementation process of integrated reporting. In a case study of a South African university, Veltri and Silvestri (2015) found that stakeholder interests were not considered when drawing up the SR and defining report content; these results correspond to those of Lozano et al. (2013), who analysed the SR’s preparation process at the University of Leeds. All three studies have in common that stakeholder interests were not considered systematically when preparing SRs. With reference to internal and external stakeholder expectations, five studies show that stakeholder groups have comprehensive and diverse information needs. Regarding the research field of SI, and therefore the identification of stakeholders and organisations’ explanations of taking into account their expectations and information needs, existing literature is limited. However, the scant studies show the variety of stakeholder information needs. Comprehensive research concerning SE activities, i.e., the process of actually considering stakeholder views, the priority of stakeholder groups and topics is missing. Out of the 14 studies analysing the guideline compliance of SRs, four studies examine selected aspects of SRs/IRs (Zorio-Grima et al., 2018; Bice and Coates, 2016; Dagilienė and Mykolaitienė, 2016; Siboni et al., 2013), e.g., selected triple bottom line (TBL) indicators (Bice and Coates, 2016) or the general consistence with the GRI-Guidelines (Siboni et al., 2013). Ten studies examined universities’ TCRs and specific CRs (see Paper Two in Appendix 2). Out of these ten studies, two articles focus on the coverage of SE (Hinson et al. 2015; Fonseca et al., 2011). Hinson et al. (2015) ascertained four out of six universities reporting on this indicator. Fonseca et al. (2011) state that four out of the seven universities reported on SE. In both studies, coercive pressure from resource providing societal key stakeholders was the reason for including information about sustainability in their annual reports (Hinson et al., 2015; Fonseca et al., 2011). Across all identified 22 studies on the sustainability reporting practices of universities, with the exception of Ferrero-Ferrero et al. (2017), the SE-process and SI are scarcely addressed. No study focuses on the fit between the documented topics and the CRs of universities’ SRs in the SE-process analysed or addresses whether the relevant topics are in fact reported in the GRI-G4-SRs.

Jun

e, 2

021

Ju

dith

Fre

i 1

2/45

To

pic

P

ub

licati

on

R

esearc

h d

esig

n r

esp

on

den

ts/s

ecto

r

SI i

n se

lect

ed S

Rs/

IRs

(thr

ee a

rtic

les)

Bru

sca

et al. (

2018

) S

ingl

e ca

se s

tudy

: im

plem

enta

tion

of s

usta

inab

ility

rep

ortin

g an

d in

tegr

ated

rep

ortin

g at

the

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

adiz

Vel

tri a

nd S

ilves

tri (

2015

) S

ingl

e ca

se s

tudy

: inv

estig

atio

n of

the

IR o

f the

Fre

e S

tate

Uni

vers

ity in

Sou

th A

fric

a

Loza

no e

t al. (

2013

) S

ingl

e ca

se s

tudy

: SR

pre

para

tion

proc

ess

of th

e U

nive

rsity

of L

eeds

Inte

rnal

and

Ext

erna

l Sta

keho

lder

Exp

ecta

tions

(fiv

e ar

ticle

s)

Fer

rero

-Fer

rero

et

al. (

2017

) Q

ualit

ativ

e/qu

antit

ativ

e: S

E-t

echn

ique

s in

SR

s, c

ompl

ianc

e ra

tes

betw

een

stak

ehol

der

expe

ctat

ions

and

doc

umen

ted

aspe

cts

in a

Spa

nish

pub

lic u

nive

rsity

Larr

án J

orge

et

al. (

2016

) Q

ualit

ativ

e: id

entif

icat

ion

of s

take

hold

er m

ater

ial a

spec

ts fo

r a

sust

aina

bilit

y as

sess

men

t and

rep

ortin

g to

ol in

eig

ht p

ublic

univ

ersi

ties

in A

ndal

usia

Larr

án J

orge

et

al. (

2012

) Q

ualit

ativ

e: a

naly

sis

of s

take

hold

er e

xpec

tatio

ns o

f ten

pub

lic u

nive

rsiti

es in

And

alus

ia

Ral

ph a

nd S

tubb

s (2

014)

Q

ualit

ativ

e: in

vest

igat

ion

of f

acto

rs in

fluen

cing

the

inte

grat

ion

of e

nviro

nmen

tal s

usta

inab

ility

at f

our

Eng

lish

and

four

Aus

tral

ian

univ

ersi

ties

Mai

nard

es e

t al. (

2012

) Q

ualit

ativ

e/qu

antit

ativ

e: a

naly

sis

of s

tude

nts’

exp

ecta

tions

at e

leve

n pu

blic

uni

vers

ities

in P

ortu

gal

Ana

lysi

s of

SR

s/IR

s: s

elec

ted

aspe

cts

(fou

r

artic

les)

Bic

e an

d C

oate

s (2

016)

Q

ualit

ativ

e: s

elec

tive

TB

L in

dica

tors

bas

ed o

n G

RI-

G3-

Gui

delin

es (

thre

e un

iver

sitie

s) o

r G

RI-

G3.

1-G

uide

lines

(se

ven

univ

ersi

ties)

Dag

ilien

ė an

d M

ykol

aitie

nė (

2016

) Q

ualit

ativ

e: s

elec

ted

TB

L in

dica

tors

of

the

GR

I G3

in L

ithua

nia’

s te

rtia

ry s

ecto

r in

stitu

tions

Sib

oni e

t al

. (2

013)

Q

ualit

ativ

e: a

pplic

atio

n of

inte

rnat

iona

l gui

delin

es a

t nin

e Ita

lian

univ

ersi

ties

Zor

io-G

rima

et al. (

2018

) Q

ualit

ativ

e: r

epor

ting

on t

he G

RI i

ndic

ator

s by

49

publ

ic u

nive

rsiti

es in

Spa

in

Rep

ortin

g on

TC

Rs

or s

peci

fic C

Rs

(ten

artic

les)

Fon

seca

et al. (

2011

) C

once

ptua

l/qua

litat

ive:

rep

ortin

g on

TC

R, s

peci

fic C

Rs

and

SE

at s

even

Can

adia

n un

iver

sitie

s

Loza

no (

2011

) Q

ualit

ativ

e: r

epor

ting

on s

peci

fic C

Rs

at t

wel

ve u

nive

rsiti

es w

orld

wid

e by

the

GA

SU

-Fra

mew

ork

(Loz

ano,

200

6)

Lopa

tta

and

Jaes

chke

(20

14)

Con

cept

ual/q

ualit

ativ

e: r

epor

ting

on T

CR

and

spe

cific

CR

s at

six

Ger

man

and

Aus

tria

n un

iver

sitie

s

Sas

sen

et al. (

2014

) C

once

ptua

l/qua

litat

ive:

rep

ortin

g on

spe

cific

CR

s at

14

Ger

man

uni

vers

ities

reg

ardl

ess

thei

r ap

plie

d st

anda

rds

Hin

son

et al. (

2015

) Q

ualit

ativ

e: r

epor

ting

on T

CR

and

SE

at s

ix G

hana

ian

univ

ersi

ties

base

d on

GR

I-G

3-G

uide

lines

and

Fon

seca

’s fr

amew

ork

(Fon

seca

et

al., 2

011)

Rom

olin

i et

al. (

2015

) Q

ualit

ativ

e: r

epor

ting

on s

peci

fic C

Rs

at 2

0 un

iver

sitie

s w

orld

wid

e by

ana

lysi

ng G

RI-

G3.

1-G

uide

lines

Gam

age

and

Sci

ulli

(201

7)

Qua

litat

ive:

rep

ortin

g on

spe

cific

CR

s at

Aus

tral

ian

univ

ersi

ties

in s

tand

-alo

ne S

Rs

Larr

án J

orge

et

al. (

2018

) Q

ualit

ativ

e: r

epor

ting

on T

CR

and

spe

cific

CR

s at

58

univ

ersi

ties

wor

ldw

ide

(138

SR

s) f

ollo

win

g G

RI-

G3-

, G

RI-

G3.

1- o

r G

RI-

G4-

Gui

delin

es

Sas

sen

and

Azi

zi (

2018

a)

Qua

litat

ive:

rep

ortin

g on

spe

cific

CR

s at

20

Can

adia

n pu

blic

and

priv

ate

univ

ersi

ties

rega

rdle

ss t

heir

appl

ied

stan

dard

s

Sas

sen

and

Azi

zi (

2018

b)

Qua

litat

ive:

rep

ortin

g on

spe

cific

CR

s at

23

US

uni

vers

ities

par

ticip

atin

g in

the

ST

AR

S

Table

3: Litera

ture

revie

w o

n s

takehold

er

inclu

siv

eness a

nd s

usta

inabili

ty r

eport

ing o

f univ

ers

itie

s


2.1.3. Prior research on universities’ management control systems and institutional logics

In order to investigate MCSs in the field of academic research at universities, a structured literature review was conducted using three online databases (EBSCOhost, Scopus and Web of Science). The search period extended from 2002 to 2019 and was limited to peer-reviewed English-language journal articles. The literature review yielded 60 relevant papers (43 papers concerning MCSs and 17 papers concerning institutional logics in the context of MCSs) (see Paper Three in Appendix 3). Regarding research on MCSs, most of the articles investigate several management control types (see Figure 3). Figure 4 below allows for multiple mentions (see Figure 4). Generally speaking, cultural controls, cybernetic controls as well as reward and compensation are of central importance in the literature. The management control type least investigated is planning. Figure 5 provides an overview of the examined management control types (see Figure 5):

AC

22%

CC

24%

CYC

23%

P

8%

RC

23%

AC

9%

CC

7%

CYC

21%

P

5%RC

16%

several

42%

Figure 4: Content-related foci (overlapped) of management control types Figure 3: Content-related foci of management control types

Administrative Controls

central administration vs. research offices

vice rectorate

clear division of responsibilities

communication

balance between teaching and research

"pre-/post-award"assumption of administrative and bureaucratic tasksinfrastructure

trainings

mentoring program

international assignment

Cultural Controls

research management = supporterresearch = independent, autonomous actingfreedom of organisation and content

research culture

exchange between researchers

"group understanding"

motivation

Cybernetic Controls

financial resources

system of indicators

balanced scorecard

human capital management systems

scoring system

quality systems

evaluations

Planning

long-term planningcorrespondence between plans and incentivesperformance reviews

evaluation and assessment of targets

Reward and Compensation

personal support

infrastructure support

financial incentives

subsidies

promotion

partial exemption from teaching

awards

appreciation (commendation)

Figure 5: Types of management control


In general, university culture plays an important role in supporting research efforts with a focus on maintenance of freedom and autonomy in research and teaching (Agyemang and Broadbent, 2015). Intrinsic motivation should be preserved (Sutton and Brown, 2016; Hendriks and Sousa, 2013; Adler et

al., 2009). Marketization of universities is increasing (Kallio et al., 2016). As the provision of financial resources is a prerequisite for research (Sousa and Hendriks, 2008; Kirkland, 2005; Stackhouse and Day, 2005), performance indicators are gaining increasing importance (Silander and Haake, 2017). PMSs should be employed carefully, because they may inhibit creativity (Ter Bogt and Scapens, 2012) and cause competition (Mingers and Willmott, 2013). Increasingly, they are used as a monitoring instrument (Hemlin and Rasmussen, 2006). In the literature, a wide variety of monetary (e.g., research budgets, bonuses or salary increases) and non-monetary incentives (e.g., tenure-track positions, time for research or release of teaching) were found. As stated in Paper Three, the awareness of research management has increased (Kirkland, 2005; Stackhouse and Day, 2005) (see Paper Three in Appendix 3). A key finding of the analysed studies is the instrumental character of administrative controls used to enhance motivation and to support research environment. Although the application of MCSs or specific control types in the HEI-sector plays a vital role in enhancing research efforts, and although and the influence of MCSs and PMSs on organisational culture is discussed, the literature reviewed indicates a lack of consequences if specific requirements are not fulfilled. Regarding research on institutional logics, two clusters were identified: the impact of regulations and reactions to internal and external demands (ten studies) and responses to co-existing logics in HEIs (seven studies). The first cluster focuses on effects of individual measures (e.g., university rankings, audit culture, reorganisation, accreditation, impact of qualification frameworks, the introduction of budgeting practices or an Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) system). The second cluster deals with responses to the co-existence of different logics: For instance, Gebreiter and Hidayah (2019) analysed how individual lecturers at an English business school respond to competing accountability pressures exerted by professional and commercial logic and found a wide range of reactions including compliance, defiance, combination or compartmentalisation. Dobija et al. (2019) found that four Polish universities often use performance measurement in a ceremonial and symbolic manner and that the use of performance measurement is loosely coupled with the reporting performance for accountability purposes. In addition, a co-existence of logics was found entering into robust combinations (Grossi et

al., 2019). Boitier et al. (2018) assessed organisational changes induced by managerial logic in a French and two German universities, revealing different hybrid responses in the form of segmentation and blending. Therefore, a variety of reactions was found depending on the specific situation. Only seven studies were identified as dealing with the higher education sector, six of which focus on a regional case and one conducted a Europe-wide survey. No study relates to Austrian public universities (see Paper Three in Appendix 3).

2.2. Theoretical and conceptual approaches

The following table provides an overview of the theoretical and conceptual approaches of the core publications (see Table 4):


Paper One: Assessing the materiality of

university G4-sustainability reports

Paper Two: Assessing Universities’ Global

Reporting Initiative G4 Sustainability

Reports in Concurrence with Stakeholder

Inclusiveness

Paper Three: Management Control

Systems in hybrid universities – The case

of Austrian public universities

Table 4: Theoretical and conceptual approaches of the core publications



Theoretical and conceptual approach

Strategic stakeholder theory Strategic stakeholder theory Institutional logics

Sociological institutionalism Sociological institutionalism MCSs as a package

2.2.1. Strategic stakeholder theory

As stated above, stakeholder theory considers the relationship between organisations and interrelated groups (Parmar et al., 2010; Freeman, 1984) (see Paper One in Appendix 1). According to Freeman et

al. (2010), it is essential to identify stakeholders and their perceived stakes clearly (rational level). Additionally, it is relevant to manage an organisation’s relationship with its stakeholders (process level) and to understand the set of transactions or bargains among an organisation and its stakeholders (transactional level). The identification of relevant stakeholder groups is not an easy task. A quite broad notion of stakeholders, originally advocated by Freeman (1984) and still prevalent in normative stakeholder theory today, sees stakeholders as groups or individuals who ‘‘can affect or is affected by the achievement of

an organization’s purpose’’ (Freeman, 1984:53). More narrow concepts of stakeholder identification limit stakeholders to those who are strategically relevant for achieving an organisation’s primary objectives or to those who supply critical resources or are most closely related with an organisation’s operations (Harrison et al., 2010; Mitchell et al., 1997; Hill and Jones, 1992). Strategic stakeholder theory claims that understanding the needs and concerns of an organisation’s strategic stakeholders as part of a strategic stakeholder management will lead to receiving the necessary support for survival and will create a competitive advantage (Harrison, 2013; Freeman, 1984). One of the central assumptions of strategic stakeholder theory is that a cooperative and trustful relationship with important key-stakeholder groups is a corporation’s critical success factor and a precondition for continuous resource provision (Freeman et al., 2004). Satisfying the needs and demands of strategically relevant stakeholders is seen as a win-win situation, which unlocks an additional potential for value creation (Harrison et al., 2010; Freeman et al., 2004; Donaldson and Preston, 1995). For the university sector, SRs constitute a managerial instrument to achieve and maintain legitimacy and therefore to attain resource provision of strategically relevant stakeholders (e.g., basic funding provided by the state and tuition fees or third-party funding) (Ntim et al., 2017). An essential claim within strategic stakeholder theory is that stakeholder expectations are multi-fold, heterogeneous, and conflicting. Therefore, trade-offs have to be made to balance these conflicting stakeholder demands (Chen and Roberts, 2010; Freeman, 1984) (see Paper One in Appendix 1). Providing strategically relevant stakeholders, identified in a SE-process, with relevant, complete, and coherent information for assessing an organisation’s sustainability behaviour, is the main objective of the GRI-G4 content principle of materiality (Calabrese et al., 2016). Under resource-providing aspects, the pressures on universities to serve the information needs of strategically relevant stakeholders have increased considerably. To know what strategically relevant stakeholders regard as material is in the core interest of the universities. To serve these interests with SRs focused on stakeholder material aspects is a logic consequence. Based on the reasoning of strategic stakeholder theory, it can be argued that SRs of universities should show a high compliance between the documented material aspects and the reported content.

Table 4: Theoretical and conceptual approaches of the core publications


As stated in the motivation, the first and the second paper of this dissertation focus on the content principles of materiality and SI. These principles require that universities, striving for acceptance and legitimacy (Larrán Jorge et al., 2012), identify medium or highly salient stakeholders and concentrate report content on aspects which they consider relevant. In addition, the report content should match the information needs of the identified stakeholder groups. In order to meet these requirements, the SE-process serves to identify the main stakeholder groups and consequently to identify their information needs, more specifically to classify their information needs as low, medium or highly relevant. According to Burritt and Schaltegger (2010), this approach is referred to as ‘outside-in’ approach. By means of SE, “trust between the organization and its stakeholders” is strengthened and “[T]rust, in turn, strengthens

the credibility of the report” (GRI, 2016:8).

2.2.2. Sociological institutionalism

Through the lens of sociological institutionalism, compliance with the materiality principle is seen more critically. Sociological institutionalism analyses patterns of organisational behaviour on the field and organisational level and studies the resulting impacts of conformity to those patterns (Chen and Roberts, 2010). Sociological institutionalism focuses on the effects of social pressure in terms of stability, legitimacy, and survival (Higgins and Larrinaga, 2014; Chen and Roberts, 2010) (see Paper One in Appendix 1). For universities, it is important to demonstrate that they adhere to prescribed myths of the institutional environment (Meyer and Rowan, 1991). This approach aims at explaining sustainability reporting in terms of institutional expectations. Organisational behaviour is triggered by coercive, normative, and mimetic isomorphism (Higgins and Larrinaga, 2014; DiMaggio and Powell, 1991). Coercive isomorphism results “from both formal and informal pressures exerted on organizations by

other organizations upon which they are dependent and by cultural expectations” (DiMaggio and Powell, 1991:67). Coercive isomorphism is based on power relationships and politics and therefore results from regulations by the state and other powerful actors with sanctioning powers, for instance, in the context of sustainability reporting, rating agencies, institutional investors or critical shareholders (Chen and Roberts, 2010; Heugens and Lander, 2009). In the case of the Spanish province of Andalusia, universities are legally obliged to prepare SRs. For universities, trying to avoid sanctions and to maintain legitimacy would mean to bow to this pressure and conform to these expectations and regulations. According to DiMaggio and Powell (1991), normative isomorphism stems from professionalization and demands conformity to professional standards. Sources for normative isomorphism are professional networks as well as credential and educational institutions, because similar education and training instil values considered as proper organisational behaviour (Heugens and Lander, 2009). Conformity develops through knowledge and professional networks, e.g., the GRI-Guidelines, which suggest reporting practices and recommendations concerning report content and report quality. Mimetic isomorphism develops primarily from uncertainty. As a low-cost coping strategy, organisations imitate popular peer organisations they perceive as successful (Heugens and Lander, 2009; Boxenbaum and Jonsson, 2008; DiMaggio and Powell, 1991). Accordingly, universities would adopt reporting practices of other universities to maintain legitimacy and to meet stakeholder expectations. Due to its leading role within sustainability reporting guidelines, some authors subsume the GRI-Guidelines under coercive isomorphism (Shabana et al., 2017; Chatelain-Ponroy and Morin-Delerm,


2016; Higgins and Larrinaga, 2014). Others classify the GRI-Guidelines as normative isomorphism (De Villiers and Alexander, 2014; Etzion and Ferraro, 2010; Bebbington et al., 2009) due to their voluntary nature. Sanctioning powers based on the GRI-Guidelines are de facto non-existent. However, the diversity and heterogeneity of stakeholders (e.g., ministries, private foundations, students, academic staff, and future employers) as well as stakeholder demands and information needs have increased considerably over the last decades. As stated above, universities have to compete for students and research grants, but also for governmental funding. Prioritising stakeholders and stakeholder demands is a difficult task, allowing a variety of interpretations (Unerman and Zappettini, 2014).

2.2.3. Institutional logics

As stated in Paper Three, the notion of institutional logics (Alford and Friedland, 1985) relates to contradictory practices and beliefs inherent in institutions of societies (Thornton and Ocasio, 2008) (see Paper Three in Appendix 3). According to DiMaggio and Powell (1983) as well as Meyer and Rowan (1977), institutional logics describe the influence of cultural regulations and cognitions on organisational structure. Institutions “shape individual preferences and organizational interests as well as the repertoire

of behaviors by which they may attain them. These institutions are potentially contradictory and hence

make multiple logics available to individuals and organizations. Individuals and organizations transform

the institutional relations of society by exploiting these contradictions” (Friedland and Alford, 1991:232). The institutional logics perspective posits that each of the most important institutional orders has a central logic (e.g., the institutional logics of the societal sectors profession, state or market (Thornton et

al., 2005)). Friedland and Alford (1991) identified the market, the bureaucratic state, democracy, the nuclear family, and Christian religions as characteristics of societal-level orders, each possessing a distinct institutional logic (see Paper Three in Appendix 3). Institutional logics are expressed by a set of material practices and symbolic constructions and become evident in particular settings of practices (Thornton and Ocasio, 2008; 1999; Haveman and Rao, 1997; Friedland and Alford, 1991) (see Paper Three in Appendix 3). In other words, “practices […] are fundamentally interrelated with institutional

logics” (Thornton et al., 2012:128) and represent one of the core elements of institutional logics (Thornton and Ocasio, 2008; Friedland and Alford, 1991) (e.g., management control practices). “Theories, frames, and narratives” are forms of symbolic representations (Thornton et al., 2012:149). Narratives, in turn, “reflect specific organizing practices, their development, and their outcomes”, and “help to make sense” (Thornton et al., 2012:155). By means of narratives, retro- and prospective sensemaking “materializes the identities and categories through which organizations and institutions

come into existence” (Thornton et al., 2012:96) (e.g., by justifying the application of selected management control practices). For the higher education sector, Boitier and Rivière (2016) identify the academic, political, bureaucratic, and managerial logic. Conrath-Hargreaves and Wüstemann (2019) found the academic, government, and business logic at a German foundation university. Academic logic is guided by the aim to produce knowledge and contribute to the researchers’ own and their university’s reputation. A high degree of autonomy and reputation based on the opinion of peers are its central guiding principles. Government logic is characterised by a tight corset of regulations determined by the government, leading to homogeneity and standardisation. According to business logic, universities’ identity is linked to their perception as a business-like entity. Generating financial income is a central strategic aim.


Paper Three of this dissertation adopts the classification proposed by Conrath-Hargreaves and Wüstemann (2019), Boitier and Rivière (2016), and Thornton et al. (2005) in order to analyse how public universities cope with the co-presence of different (competing) logics. Due to the emergence of contradictions, universities have to respond to and manage potentially arising conflicts. Greenwood et

al. (2011:349) emphasise that “[t]he response of an organization to competing logics, in other words, is

partly a function of how logics are given voice within the organization; but the ability of a voice to be

heard is linked to the influence of that logic’s field-level proponents over resources – including legitimacy

– that they control” (see Paper Three in Appendix 3). Universities’ changing environment, i.e., regulation by the state with simultaneously increasing liberalisation, corporatisation and commercialisation (Parker, 2011) as well as the increase and variety of stakeholder groups have led to an evolution in institutional logics (Thornton et al., 2012). Theories and frames are adapted by organisations, and changes in material practices and symbolic representations follow, provoking shifts (Thornton et al., 2012). Oliver (1991) provides an overview on how to cope with competing logics. Coping strategies range from ‘tight coupling’ in the case of financial dependency (Rautiainen and Järvenpää, 2012) to different approaches of ‘decoupling’ (i.e., superficial conformity) by symbolically adopting rituals defined by the environment to minimise legitimacy threats (Boxenbaum and Jonsson, 2008; Meyer and Rowan, 1977). Thornton et al. (2012) focus on the direction and the extent of change in institutional logics, finding forms of transformational change processes (replacement, blending and segregation) as well as developmental change processes (assimilation, elaboration, expansion and contradiction). However, as scholars indicate, major transformations (i.e., the replacement of one logic by another) may not be the rule. For the purposes of Paper Three of this dissertation (see Paper Three in Appendix 3), two processes in particular are examined more closely: blending and assimilation. Through the process of blending, institutional logics are transformed and dimensions of diverse logics are combined. More “radical” changes in practices are observed, and practices and narratives of different logics are merged into a new and distinct one (Thornton et al., 2012). In contrast, in the process of assimilation, the majority of prevailing practices remain and elements of one logic are combined into a prevalent logic. As Thornton et al. (2012:166) note, “assimilation does not imply passive acceptance” of practices of other logics. However, existing logics provide narratives to guide resistance against a new logic. The application of MCSs embedded within this institutional environment is characterised by specific cultural framework conditions (Lounsbury, 2008). Indeed, the implementation and application of management control instruments depend on the prevailing institutional culture. As Ahrens and Khalifa (2015) as well as Lounsbury (2008) state, institutional logics directly influence the respective MCSs. Furthermore, according to Schäffer et al. (2015), MCSs help to cope with institutional complexity. However, the reconciliation of distinct logics is described as a viable strategy to maintain legitimacy (Pache and Santos, 2013).

2.3. Research questions

As argued in the motivation (section 1.) and based on the systematic literature reviews (section 2.1.), the research interest regarding sustainability reporting is to gain a better understanding of universities’ compilation of SRs concerning the aspect of materiality and SI, and consequently to improve the information supply of important stakeholder groups. Proponents of sustainability reporting stress its contribution to an increase in transparency and accountability (James, 2015; Malik, 2015; Nickell and Roberts, 2014; Baker, 2010). Critical accounting scholars are sceptical as to whether sustainability reporting does, in fact, improve stakeholder accountability. It is seen as a public-relations endeavour without substance, a greenwashing attempt or a strategic impression management tactic (Burritt and


Schaltegger, 2010; Gray, 2010; Hopwood, 2009). The mostly voluntary nature of the compilation of SRs leaves room for presenting an organisation in an overly positive way by means of selective, incomplete and biased disclosures (Cho et al., 2015) (see Paper One in Appendix 1). The content principles of materiality and SI are seen as a remedy for this issue, making SRs more relevant for stakeholders. The role of materiality and SI in SRs is attracting increasing attention, and prior empirical studies have primarily focused on for-profit organisations. Empirical studies in this field do not compare the listed material aspects with their coverage in the SRs. Additionally, SI and SE in SRs within the university sector have rarely been studied, as shown in the systematic literature review. Based on the research objectives and addressing the research gaps identified, the following research questions (RQs) are pursued: Paper One: Assessing the materiality of university G4-sustainability reports RQ1: What are material aspects for internal and external stakeholders documented in the G4-SRs of

universities? RQ2: How are the documented material aspects covered by G4 reports? Paper Two: Assessing Universities’ Global Reporting Initiative G4 Sustainability Reports in Concurrence with Stakeholder Inclusiveness RQ1: What are the main stakeholder groups and topics of universities identified by SE indicators of

Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) G4? RQ2: To what extent do universities comply with the GRI G4 Guidelines (general and specific standard

disclosures), and how are the documented main topics of the SE-process covered by G4 reports? Whilst Paper One and Paper Two focus on sustainability reporting as an instrument of accountability towards important stakeholder-groups, Paper Three addresses how universities deal with institutional complexity through the application of MCSs. As mentioned above (section 2.1.), no comprehensive investigation of the implementation and application of MCSs in public universities was identified. Furthermore, research regarding MCSs as a package in the context of institutional complexity is lacking. Moreover, no research was found addressing the question of how universities cope with the existence of different (competing) logics through the application of MCSs and which narratives are used to ‘make

sense’ (Thornton et al., 2012). Addressing the research gap identified, a key aim of the research field MCSs of public universities is to understand the implementation and application of specific management control types, the intertwining of management control types, and – in the specific case of Austrian public universities – how they use MCSs to cope with the co-presence of different (competing) logics in order to fulfil their traditional core mission to facilitate academic research. Based on the research objectives and the research gaps identified, the following research questions are pursued: Paper Three: Management Control Systems in hybrid universities – The case of Austrian public universities

RQ1: What are the guiding institutional logics at Austrian public universities? RQ2: Which MCSs are applied at Austrian public universities in the area of research management? RQ3: How do Austrian public universities cope with the existence of (competing) logics through the

application of MCSs?


3. Epistemology and methodology

3.1. Epistemology

This dissertation follows the epistemology of social constructivism. Stakeholder theory, the theory of sociological institutionalism, and the concept of institutional logics are applied to explain universities’ behaviour in dependence on the social context and the culture they are embedded in.

3.2. Methodology

In order to answer the RQs of this dissertation, methodological triangulation was applied, combining systematic literature reviews with quantitative and qualitative research methods: the first and the second paper combine content analyses (qualitative and quantitative) of the documented material aspects with a correlation analysis. The third paper combines in-depth interviews with the analysis of legal regulations (Table 5 provides an overview):


Paper One:

Assessing the materiality of university G4-

sustainability reports

Paper Two:

Assessing Universities’ Global Reporting

Initiative G4 Sustainability Reports in

Concurrence with Stakeholder

Inclusiveness

Paper Three:

Management Control Systems in hybrid

universities – The case of Austrian public

universities

Methodological approaches

Systematic literature review Systematic literature review Systematic literature review

Qualitative and quantitative content

analyses

Qualitative and quantitative content

analyses

Qualitative content analysis of legal

regulations

Correlation analysis Correlation analysis Qualitative expert interviews

To answer the RQs of the first paper, all GRI-G4-SRs of universities uploaded in the GRI-database up to the end of April 2018, i.e., 33 SRs (full census), were analysed in order to examine the implementation of the content principle of materiality and the coverage of material aspects in universities’ SRs (see Paper One in Appendix 1). In order to reveal differences in the CRs due to the sample characteristics (size, ownership, ranking or membership of the Higher Education Sustainability Initiative (HESI)), t-tests at a significance level of 0.05 were carried out. To ensure the reliability of the qualitative and quantitative content analyses, coding categories and clear decision rules were established, and two persons carried out the coding independently. In order to identify the material aspects for internal and external stakeholders documented in the GRI-G4-SRs (RQ1, Paper One), a qualitative content analysis was carried out. The material aspects of each university (disclosure titles G4-17 to G4-22) were listed by analysing materiality matrices and text elements. The identified aspects were clustered into four material subcategories (economic, environment, social and education/research) and divided into 15 material dimensions. Finally, information on the relevance levels of the subcategories was collected. As shown in the results of Paper One, the material subcategory education/research is not mentioned in the GRI-G4-Guidelines, therefore the dimensions were inductively identified (campus life, student mobility, teaching, research, student diversity and student engagement). For each material subcategory and dimension, a CR was calculated (see Paper One in Appendix 1). In order to identify the coverage of the material aspects (RQ2, Paper One), a quantitative content analysis was performed, and the CRs of the material subcategories and dimensions were calculated. Further, the relevant indicators for each

Table 5: Overview of the methodological approaches of the core publications


identified material dimension were aggregated. Finally, a correlation analysis between the relevance of a material dimension and its CR in the SR was conducted, formulating two hypotheses (there is no/a correlation between the two groups; the evaluation of stakeholders regarding the relevance of the material dimension x is not/is related to the coverage of the reported indicators). In order to interpret the results, the Spearman correlation coefficient was used. If the p-value was below the significance level of 0.05, the null hypothesis was rejected and means that the extent of reporting on the specific material dimension in the SR is aligned with the respective relevance level assigned to the material dimension. If there is a negative correlation or no correlation, the documented material dimension is not reported accordingly. To answer the RQs of the second paper, i.e., examining universities’ main stakeholder groups and topics identified by SE-indicators as well as investigating the CRs of the documented main topics of the SE-process, the sample described above was used (see Paper Two in Appendix 2). Using a qualitative content analysis, the GRI-G4-Guidelines’ disclosure titles G4-24 to G4-27 (SE) were examined in order to identify universities’ SE-activities, the addressed stakeholder groups and the main topics communicated. Therefore, the stakeholder groups and topics were identified, clustered and summarised (RQ1). In order to answer RQ2 of the second paper, a quantitative content analysis was carried out. Based on its results, the SRs-compliance rates for the GRI-G4-Guidelines’ General Standard Disclosures as well as for the Specific Standard Disclosures (such as economic, environmental and social, with its subcategories of labour and decent work, human rights, society and product responsibility) were calculated. For each category, a compliance level was calculated. These were divided into the four categories and a correlation analysis between the main communicated topics and their compliance levels was performed. For strategic management, the General Standard Disclosures, for finance, the CR of the category economic, and for sustainability the CR that is in line with the TBL principle were used. The other high scoring SE-topics identified, such as research information, education programmes and campus life could not be included in the regression analysis, because the GRI-G4-Guidelines do not cover these topics. After all, hypotheses were formulated (there is no/a correlation between the two groups; the identified main communication topic does not influence/influences the coverage of this topic in the report content of the SRs). To interpret the results of these correlations, the Spearman correlation coefficient was used. If the p-value was below the significance level of 0.05, the null hypothesis was rejected and a positive correlation exists. In order to answer the RQs of the third paper, qualitative research methods were applied. Austrian public universities legal regulations were analysed and in-depth expert interviews with the research management were conducted (see Paper Three in Appendix 3). Due to the absence of previous studies in this field, an exploratory approach was chosen. The aim was to investigate all 22 public universities in Austria. Due to random acceptance, 15 semi-structured in-depth interviews with 17 experts from 14 universities were conducted (Bortz and Döring, 2016). The vast majority of the interviewees was top management, e.g., the vice-rector of research (Dai et al., 2016; Guest et al., 2006). An interview lasted between 60 and 90 minutes on average, these were carried out in person or by telephone and digitally recorded. Thereafter, they were transcribed with permission by the interviewees (Mayring, 2015). For the analysis, deductive and inductive categories were derived – the former were based on MCSs as a package by Malmi and Brown (2008); adopted classification proposed by Conrath-Hargreaves and Wüstemann (2019), Boitier and Rivière (2016), and Thornton et al. (2005) in order to analyse how public universities cope with the co-presence of different (competing) logics.


4. Key results of the publications

The three papers of this dissertation provide insights in universities’ roles in contemporary society. In fulfilling their missions, this dissertation selected sustainability reporting as an instrument of public sector accountability and additionally universities’ MCSs of Austrian public universities to understand, how universities cope with the evolved institutional complexity. The key results are presented in the following.

4.1. Results: Sustainability reporting of universities

Paper One: Material aspects in universities’ SRs

To answer the research questions of the first paper, 33 GRI-SRs worldwide were analysed to investigate the implementation of the content principle of materiality and the coverage in universities’ SRs (see Paper One in Appendix 1). The qualitative analysis identified the following four subcategories and 15 material dimensions. The subcategories and dimensions are 1. economic: economic performance; 2. environment: resources, waste/recycling, emission, biodiversity; 3. social: labour employment/diversity,

human rights, society, product responsibility; and 4. education/research (additional subcategory): campus life, student mobility, teaching, research, student diversity and student engagement. 16 of the studied SRs include materiality matrices; the other 17 SRs provide narratives of material aspects. Results show that 76 per cent of the universities rate the subcategory economic as material and, more specifically, about 50 per cent rate the material dimension economic performance as highly relevant. With 73 per cent of all universities, the subcategory social is the second most mentioned; the most frequently mentioned dimension herein is labour employment/diversity with 85 per cent. As the third-most named, environment is rated as a material subcategory by 42 per cent of the universities, the dimension of waste/recycling is the most frequently mentioned with 61 per cent. 27 per cent rate the inductively derived subcategory education/research as material; the most frequently mentioned dimension relates to teaching with 64 per cent, even 50 per cent rank this dimension as highly relevant. The material subcategories and material dimensions receive similarly high relevance marks by internal and external stakeholders, showing the highest relevance for the subcategory social (47 per cent), followed by economic (46 per cent), environment (27 per cent) and education/research (20 per cent). Coverage of material aspects in universities’ SRs (Table 6)

Regarding CRs, the dimensions labour employment/diversity, resources, human rights and economic

performance rank highest. The lowest CRs is found for biodiversity and product responsibility:

CRs economic

perfor-mance

resources waste/

recycling emission

bio-diversity

labour employ-

ment/ diversity

human rights

society product respon-sibility

no coverage 3 0 0 11 17 7 4 7 4

0,01 % to 33,33 % 13 7 17 4 16 6 9 15 15

33,33 % to 66,66 % 8 14 9 9 2 1 9 4 8

> 66,67 % 9 12 7 9 8 19 11 7 6

Table 6: Overview of the material dimensions and their coverage rates


Table 7: Overview of the specific standard disclosures’ total coverage rates

Only in the case of the material dimension biodiversity does a statistically significant correlation for internal and external stakeholders exist, and the extent of reporting on biodiversity is aligned with the respective relevance level assigned to this dimension. Concerning internal and external stakeholder-groups, the evaluation of biodiversity as a material dimension influences the coverage of this topic (middle positive correlation in both cases). Concerning the other 14 material dimension, results show no statistical significance between the identified material aspects and their CRs.

Paper Two: Universities’ main stakeholder groups and topics

To answer the research questions of the second paper, 33 GRI-SRs worldwide were analysed to identify the main stakeholder groups and topics as well as their CRs in universities’ SRs (see Paper Two in Appendix 2). The main stakeholder groups identified are the university assembly (i.e., the head of the university, the head of departments and the university council; 93 per cent of the universities report to them), university staff (scientific and non-scientific), students and the government. Parents (37 per cent) and public media partners (33 per cent) are addressed more rarely. The topics mainly addressed concern strategic management (vision, strategic objectives and upcoming strategic changes), sustainability, education programmes, research information, campus life, finance and legal issues.

Compliance with general and specific standard disclosures and documentation of main topics

Strategic management information and information on universities’ profiles are included in the general standard disclosures: 30 per cent of the universities show a CR between 80 and 100 per cent, another third between 60 and 79 per cent, and 40 per cent have a rate between 40 and 59 per cent. No university shows a CR under 40 per cent of the general standard disclosures. Furthermore, the CRs within the six specific standard disclosures were analysed (economic, environmental, society, human rights, social - labour practices/decent work and product responsibility). Within the economic category, 47 per cent of the universities report more than 50 per cent of indicators of this category. 33 per cent of the SRs’ show a CR of more than 50 per cent for the environmental indicators. For the category social – labour practices and decent work, 50 per cent of all SRs have a CR of over 50 per cent. In terms of the categories of social – human rights, society and product responsibility, 27 per cent of the investigated universities report more than 50 per cent of the indicators. The analysis shows that the specific standard disclosures exhibit the top CRs, specifically the social dimension with the sub-indicators labour practices and decent work and economic and environmental performance. Concerning the TCRs, 24 per cent show a coverage between 80 and 100 per cent, 6 per cent a coverage between 60 and 79 per cent, 12 per cent a coverage between 40 and 59 per cent, 48 per cent a coverage between 20 and 39 per cent, and 9 per cent of the examined universities show a coverage below 20 per cent of the indicators (see Table 7).

TCR amount per cent

100 % - 80 % 8 24,24 %

80 % - 60 % 2 6,06 %

60 % - 40 % 4 12,12 %

40 % - 20 % 16 48,48 %

20 % - 0 % 3 9,09 %


The correlation analysis of the main stakeholder topics shows no statistical significance. The main communication topics of the SE-process identified are not covered adequately.

4.2. Results: Management control systems of universities

Paper Three: Underlying legal regulations

The Universities Act of Austria (2002) legally mandates Austrian public universities’ principles and responsibilities as well as financing and university governance (see Paper Three in Appendix 3). Austrian public universities have to compile and publish ICRs that present the sphere of action, the intellectual capital, and the performance processes defined in their performance agreements. Performance agreements must establish quantitative and qualitative performance measures to be included in the ICRs. Considering the expected number of students and the ratio of students per professor, the federal government funds Austrian public universities based on a three-year performance agreement, which includes universities’ development plans as their strategic planning instrument. By means of research information systems, all research efforts are collected and monitored by the rectorates and the ministry. Universities’ governing bodies are the university council, the rectorate, the rector and the senate (see Paper Three in Appendix 3). Guiding institutional logics of Austrian public universities and applied MCSs

Content analysis confirmed the institutional field-level logics identified by Conrath-Hargreaves and Wüstemann (2019) (academic logic, government logic and business logic). The most salient of these is academic logic. Austrian public universities stress academic freedom in research and teaching with a maximum of autonomy. The maintenance of motivation by the provision of resources, decentral decision structures, the establishment of research cooperations and peer-reviews in order to enhance research performance are central characteristics of their core values. Furthermore, universities strive to achieve economic and social goals defined by the state (government logic). Business logic is expressed by the awareness of competition principles. Performance and positioning in the (international) scientific community plays a central role at universities, not only within the research community but also in terms of the allocation of financial resources. The selection and application of management control types at Austrian public universities depend on the level of control considered. Content analysis revealed the global, the institutional, and the individual level of control. The global level defines universities’ strategic aims concerning research profile as set out in the development plan. At the institutional level, targets are agreed and resources are distributed between the rectorate and faculties, departments, institutes or centres. At the individual level, resources are allocated between rectorate, faculties, departments, institutes or centres and researchers, At the global level of control, control types are applied depending on the identified logics: Guided by academic logic, the most frequent control type is planning intertwined with administrative and cultural controls. Determined by government logic, planning instruments are interlinked with cybernetic and administrative controls. Led by business logic, the most salient management control type is administrative, followed by cybernetic controls. At the institutional level, the identified logics are still noticeable, although not mentioned explicitly: government logic guides the application of planning linked with cybernetic and administrative controls. At the individual level of control, planning instruments are closely intertwined with cybernetic controls. Furthermore, a broad variety of reward and compensation instruments is applied at the individual level. Administration and provision of resources constitutes a key


prerequisite at Austrian public universities. Increasingly, corresponding measures are applied in case of deviation, ranging from peer reviews and external consulting to reductions in personnel and salary, but may also result in the decision to not fill job vacancies or to not remove the time limit for approval (see Paper Three in Appendix 3).

Coping with competing logics in the application of MCSs

Content analysis revealed that universities utilize four coping strategies. First, interviewees demonstrate their disagreement, although controls are not decoupled from the governmental prescribed. A second coping strategy is expressed by the adaption of performance indicators at the global level of control. The third coping strategy becomes obvious by applying key performance indicators as a university-internal control instrument and the translation of the performance agreement into measurable objectives communicated to the individual units, while simultaneously highlighting the importance of intrinsic motivation. After all, some interviewees demonstrate a clear commitment to the requirements issued by the government and deploy performance indicators as university-guiding control instrument. Moreover, interviewees try to find consensus between the identified logics: the consensus between government and academic logic is sought most strongly, followed by academic and business logic, and government and business logic (see Paper Three in Appendix 3).

5. Integrated discussion, contribution to the academic debate, practical implications, and directions for further research

5.1. Integrated discussion

In order to explore the impact that NPM reforms have had and continue to have on universities, this dissertation combines two research topics, sustainability reporting and MCSs of universities. Public universities meet their responsibilities to modern society on whose behalf they are deployed. Embedded in a complex environment, universities fulfil their missions while concurrently meeting their responsibilities to internal and external stakeholder groups. The stakeholder audiences who hold universities’ management accountable have increased considerably (e.g., ministries, other research funders, current and potential students and staff, business partners, employers of graduates, alumni) (Ntim et al., 2017) (see Paper One in Appendix 1). In order to understand how universities try to meet their obligations and to fulfil their internal and external stakeholders’ expectations and information needs, the instrument of (voluntary or non-voluntary) sustainability reporting was selected and the content principles of materiality and SI were analysed. Universities’ SRs represent an instrument of public stakeholder accountability and contribute to fulfil universities’ missions, because it is in these that universities explain and take responsibility for their sustainability efforts. A key form of legally binding accountability in Austria is the compilation of ICRs. Here, performance-driven ministerial steering (Habersam et al., 2013) influences the university-internal configuration of MCSs which are applied to accomplish universities’ missions and thus to fulfil societies’ tasks. Powerful resource-providers demand accountability reports tailor-made for their specific claims. In summary, the dissertation seeks to understand universities’ responses to the increasing requirements and their concomitant actions by gaining insights into their sustainability reporting practices and their applied MCSs.


Beside their core missions of research and teaching, universities are increasingly required to address growing societal and economic challenges. Knowledge from research and teaching will be used to fulfil their third mission in society and economy in order to solve societal challenges and provide knowledge by cooperation’s with external stakeholders. Trencher et al. (2014) provide evidence for a fourth mission, i.e., “co-creation for sustainability”, where universities collaborate in order to advance the “sustainable

transformation of a specific geographical area or societal sub-system” (Trencher et al., 2014:151). Therefore, universities engage in a variety of (voluntary and obligatory) activities, including sustainability and intellectual capital reporting. Sustainability has gained relevance for the university sector, which is confronted with the expectation of playing a key role in creating new mental paradigms towards a more sustainable world (Ntim et al., 2017; Alonso-Almeida et al., 2015). The United Nations Global Compact (UNGC, 2012:8) stresses that HEIs need to shift “from short-term corporate visions to a broader, multi-

stakeholder focus”. A number of universities have self-committed to sustainability development by signing international declarations (Alonso-Almeida et al., 2015). Sustainability reporting is seen as an integral element of universities’ sustainability efforts (Alonso-Almeida et al., 2015; Lozano et al., 2015). By introducing the Universities Act of Austria in 2002, “[t]he underlying idea of governance combines

autonomy with accountability and public legitimation” (Habersam et al., 2018:35). In order to accomplish their “third mission”, universities have to “navigate multi-stakeholder ecosystems” and “[t]he Ministry

understands the mandatory KBS [knowledge balance sheet] as a suitable tool with which to present

relevant information on how universities achieve their purposes” (Habersam et al., 2018:35). Accountability reporting instruments are seen as appropriate instruments to control and monitor universities’ efficient goal achievement and to supply information to important stakeholder groups. While the provision of SRs, with the exception of the Spanish province of Andalusia, is voluntary for universities worldwide, the mandatory compilation of ICRs has far-reaching consequences for the selection, implementation and application of MCSs for the university-internal control systems at Austrian public universities. The first paper examines material aspects for internal and external stakeholders. As shown in Paper One, significant differences among the inclusion rates were found (see Paper One in Appendix 1). The subcategories economic and social both achieved much higher relevance levels from internal and external stakeholder groups than environmental and education/research. The low level of inclusion of the subcategory education/research is in line with other empirical studies (Sassen and Azizi, 2018a; 2018b; Lopatta and Jaeschke, 2014; Fonseca et al., 2011), indicating that SRs are not seen as an instrument to communicate universities’ efforts and achievements concerning their key capabilities. Following universities’ traditional core missions, as well as their third- and fourth mission agendas, this is a problematic sign at first glance, because it clearly shows that SRs are not seen as a suitable reporting instrument for these areas and may never fulfil this function. Evidently, there are other voluntary accountability clubs or obligatory communication channels (e.g., university rankings or ICRs) providing more focused information. In the Austrian case, the legally standardised performance agreement comprises universities’ development plans, including universities’ research profile and, more specifically, their sphere of action, their intellectual capital and their performance processes. For instance, Austrian public universities’ development plans include sustainability aspects (e.g., the development plans of University of Vienna 2028, University of Innsbruck 2019 - 2024, University of Graz 2019 - 2024, and University of Linz 2022 - 2027). Although all analysed SRs provide information on stakeholder relevant aspects and their relevance levels, these topics do not serve as a content-selection principle, as the examination of RQ2 of Paper One has shown, with the exception of the material dimension biodiversity. The materiality principle can be interpreted as a ticking-off exercise (see Paper One in Appendix 1). Nevertheless, universities clearly document their main stakeholder groups and their


heterogeneous information needs (see Paper Two in Appendix 2). The relevant topics concern general management issues and university-specific agendas. Moreover, sustainability is regarded as highly relevant. Again, the identified communication topics are not covered sufficiently in the SRs and the analysed universities are far off guideline compliance. Viewed from the theoretical point of view, universities’ SRs are not used for the purpose suggested by strategic stakeholder theory. As stated in section 2.2.1., the understanding of the concerns of universities’ strategic stakeholders will lead to receiving the necessary support (Harrison, 2013; Freeman, 1984). The small number of SRs available (33 SRs) and the poor CRs show that sustainability reporting is not yet an institutionalised practice. Furthermore, there is a substantial gap between the information needs of internal and external stakeholder groups on material aspects and the actual supply of information by the SRs. It can be concluded that the sustainability reporting practice is far from achieving holistic stakeholder accountability (Puroila et al., 2016). From the theoretical view of sociological institutionalism, the GRI-Guidelines (due to their voluntary nature) exert weak pressure (Shabana et al., 2017; Bebbington et al., 2009), leaving the degree of implementation and the CRs at the discretion of the universities which have advanced sustainability reporting. Universities are de facto not exposed to mimetic pressure to imitate successful peers. Moreover, the GRI does not have sanctioning power in case of low compliance. Consequently, the required documentation in GRI-G4-Guidelines’ disclosure title G4-19 is reduced to a symbolic exercise without any substantial impact on the content of the SRs (see Paper One in Appendix 1). The investigation has shown that universities do not use SRs as an instrument to serve stakeholder information needs and thereby achieve greater accountability in the spirit of their missions (see also Diouf and Boiral, 2017; Puroila et al., 2016; Ceulemans et al., 2015b; Lozano et al., 2015; Deegan and Rankin, 1997). Unlike obligatory ICRs, important stakeholder groups of Austrian public universities (e.g., national legislators or financial resource providers) do not demand the compilation of SRs. After all, important stakeholder groups (the university assembly, scientific and non-scientific university staff, students, government, parents and public media partners) are mentioned in universities’ SRs and sustainability is a highly relevant communication topic (see Paper Two in Appendix 2). However, their pressure does not seem strong enough to enforce an adequate provision of sustainability information. Nevertheless, national accountability requirements are very specific and differ between the countries, which may hinder the mutual deployment of a sector-neutral worldwide sustainability reporting standard. The increased complexity of requirements, as outlined above, has not left universities’ traditional self-image unaffected. Given Austrian public universities historical tradition, academic freedom in research and teaching represents universities’ uppermost maxim. As stated above, knowledge from research and teaching will be used to fulfil universities’ third mission in society and the economy to solve societal challenges and provide knowledge in the form of cooperation’s with external stakeholder groups. From the theoretical perspective of institutional logics, the investigation of Paper Three has shown that universities’ mission of academic research to provide knowledge is centrally guided by academic logic. This is also reflected on a global level of control by the intertwining of development planning, establishing research foci, and the appointment of professors. Reliance on high personal and individual responsibility guides the research strategy at the global level of control. Down to the institutional level of control, control types are increasingly guided by government logic, as the intertwining of target and qualification agreements with cybernetic and administrative controls indicates. Reward and compensation instruments gain importance on the individual level of control. Guided by business logic, Austrian public universities see themselves as international businesses, market-oriented and competitive with efficient


goal achievement, striving for financial income achieved by the acquisition of high-grade competitive research grants. This shows the discrepancy to which Austrian public universities are exposed. The co-existence and experienced competition of academic, government and business logic leads them to new practices made, in part, of the prevalent logic. Obviously, traditional material practices have changed, and the new logics have induced a shift between the identified logics (Busco et al., 2017; Dai et al., 2016; Thornton et al., 2012). Austrian public universities do, of course, comply with legal requirements, but the actual extent of implementation and the university-internal fine-tuning of legal requirements differs between the universities studied (see Paper Three in Appendix 3). This finding is particularly interesting, because indicators and rankings (e.g., in the form of benchmarks) are sometimes employed for university-internal purposes in a more sophisticated way than required. However, the implementation practice is not superficial and far removed from loose coupling. External stakeholders (resource providers) exert power not only by claiming the provision of information, but as an ‘extended arm’ by influencing university-internal decision-making structures. Managerial practices are imported by Austrian public universities’ and adapted for internal purposes but are not fully accepted without contradiction. The investigation showed that universities’ coping strategies with these contradictions differ in the way of sense-making to facilitate concurrent resistance and assimilation as well as finding a consensus by means of narratives (Townley, 1997) (see Paper Three in Appendix 3). Austrian public universities integrate management control practices of newly emerged logics into their prevalent academic logic, resulting in hybrid practices (Thornton et al., 2012). The process of assimilation shapes their narratives around national requirements and competition by which they try to seek a consensus. In summary, the universities’ stakeholder orientation and stakeholder accountability have become more complex in quantity and, presumably, also in quality. The multiplication of crucial stakeholders has led to more hybrid models of university governance and reporting where universities have to position themselves on the global market for higher education (Jongbloed, 2015). Sustainability reporting is one voluntary instrument for addressing increased stakeholder accountability. Sustainability assessing and reporting to key stakeholders is an integrated element of models for a sustainable development in universities (Alonso-Almeida et al., 2015; Lozano et al., 2015; Lozano, 2006). However, as the results of this dissertation have shown, sustainability reporting is still an emerging practice. Furthermore, stakeholder-relevant aspects are not depicted sufficiently in the SRs, therefore this instrument is not used for stakeholder accountability purposes. Besides, due to their voluntary nature, the GRI-Guidelines exert weak pressure and the content-selection principles of materiality and SI deteriorate to a task of diligence. On the other hand, the Universities Act of 2002 introduced accountability in Austria, and the legislator determines the content to be included in the ICR. However, a far-reaching impact on the university-internal selection, implementation, and application of MCSs can be observed. Performance-driven ministerial steering (Habersam et al., 2013) has a strong impact. These practices are integrated through the process of assimilation and are argued consensually (“[I]t’s about a balancing act”, as one interviewee put it). The legally determined accountability instrument of intellectual capital reporting fundamentally affects Austrian public universities’ beliefs and guiding principles concerning universities’ self-concept, understanding of control as well as university structure and the applied MCSs. Given the impact of NPM, Austrian public universities see themselves exposed to a plethora of (contradicting) demands, challenging them to fulfil a multiplicity of requirements concurrently, and leading them to use coping strategies in order to maintain their hybrid nature.


5.2. Contribution to the academic debate, practical implications, and directions for further research

Universities contribute to the welfare of society and environment, making the advancement of knowledge one of their core missions. Moreover, universities play a key role in creating new mental paradigms towards a more sustainable world (Ferrero-Ferrero et al., 2017). To serve academic research and research-led teaching represent universities’ key capabilities. Although universities have a broad societal mission and are exposed to a rather pluralistic stakeholder structure, holding universities’ management accountable, few studies have analysed sustainability reporting and its contribution to transparency and accountability and the impact of accountability pressures on the use of university-internal MCSs to accomplish this mission. More precisely, studies concerning the increasing relevance of SRs for the addressed stakeholder groups and comparisons between the identified stakeholder material aspects and their coverage in the SRs are lacking. Furthermore, the content principle of SI and the coverage of the SE-process are even lesser addressed topics (Ferrero-Ferrero et al., 2017; Hinson et al., 2015). In the research context of institutional logics and HEIs, a small number of empirical studies exists (e.g., Dobija et al., 2019; Gebreiter and Hidayah, 2019; Grossi et al., 2019). No prior study was found combining MCSs and institutional logics in the public university context. Hence, by analysing all GRI-G4-SRs of universities worldwide, this dissertation empirically contributes to the academic debate by focusing on the content and implementation principles of materiality and SI. Furthermore, this is the first study to analyse the coverage of stakeholder material aspects in GRI-G4-SRs and address the question whether the identified and documented material aspects actually guide the reported content. Additionally, this dissertation contributes to the research field sustainability reporting as an important part of stakeholder communication and management requiring effective SE, stressing participative inclusion of stakeholders and taking into account their expectations in the SRs (Ferrero-Ferrero et al., 2017). This dissertation extends previous research in two ways: first, by focusing on the fit between the documented material topics and their respective CRs in universities’ SRs in the SE-process; second, by addressing the research question whether the relevant topics identified in the SE-process actually guide the content of the GRI-G4-SRs. Additionally, this dissertation raises awareness beyond the university sector of the debate on materiality and SI in sustainability reporting, suggesting a serious dialogue with stakeholders to enhance the quality of SRs. Concerning the research topic of MCSs as a package, this is the first study to analyse MCSs in the situation of institutional complexity at public universities. This dissertation thus extends previous research by drawing on the perspective of institutional logics to facilitate the understanding of public universities’ coping strategies when implementing and applying MCSs. From a theoretical point of view, this dissertation contributes to academic research by demonstrating that the expectations in line with strategic stakeholder theory are not met. Sustainability reporting is not an institutionalised practice and materiality and SI as content-selection principles deteriorate to a ticking-

off exercise. Universities pay lip service to materiality as a content-selection principle, while their actual practices are far removed from achieving holistic stakeholder accountability. From the theoretical perspective of sociological isomorphism, this dissertation shows that the GRI-Guidelines do not hardly exert any pressure leaving ample room for manoeuvre to the universities’ implementation practices. Sustainability reporting practices do not, in fact, meet the institutional expectations of important stakeholder groups as documented in the materiality matrices. Due to a lack of sanctioning power, missing entrance requirements, a lack of peer visits, and a low diffusion rate of GRI-G4-SRs, isomorphism does not work. Therefore, stronger incentives must be provided for universities, which


remain at a very early stage of sustainability reporting. From the point of view neither of strategic stakeholder theory nor with regard to isomorphism universities can be seen as using the instrument of sustainability reporting in order to achieve social acceptance, the support of strategically relevant stakeholders, and for gaining or maintaining legitimacy. Universities do not even superficially adopt sustainability reporting practices in order to pretend conformity (Meyer and Rowan, 1977); rather, they purposefully enact specific selected practices (e.g., the provision of materiality matrices and the identification of main stakeholder groups and topics), while not applying the principles consistently by covering the information in the SRs. This dissertation shows that sustainability reporting allows universities to satisfy symbolic concerns and therefore to escape an institutional conflict by a narrative

selective coupling strategy. Furthermore, on the theoretical level, this dissertation contributes to academic research by revealing Austrian public universities MCSs. Universities’ underlying different, conflicting roles becoming evident in their structures and management control practices (Jones et al., 2013). Additionally, at the level of control, a logic-hierarchy could be determined. Normative academic logic centrally guides Austrian public universities self-concept at a global level of control by the rectorate. Down to the institutional level of control, coercive pressure is becoming increasingly noticeable and government logic is beginning to be more dominant. Market principles have begun to play a key role in the university sector by the necessity to generate grants income. Sometimes, market logic acts as a mediator between academic and government logic. By means of hybrid practices derived from the different logics, Austrian public universities succeed in manoeuvring through the different levels of control resulting in specific MCSs-packages, as this dissertation shows. By narrative compromising, Austrian public universities facilitate resistance and assimilation concurrently (Townley, 1997) and therefore reconciliate multiple (conflicting) logics. This dissertation also has practical implications. Concerning the content-selection principles, standard setters should provide clear guidelines and a user-friendly manual on how to report specific indicators. In case of the content principle of materiality, the role of the materiality matrix must be well introduced, enabling the users to adapt the materiality principle in its core. This may be a starting-point to improve the GRI-Guidelines (GRI, 2016) towards greater stakeholder accountability. Moreover, preparers of SRs should make better use of the information they collect from highly or medium salient stakeholders in the SE-process. A focus on highly relevant material topics in reporting would improve stakeholder orientation in the field of sustainability reporting. Sector-specific indicators are also included in obligatory reports (e.g., ICRs), therefore standardisation would enhance comparability. As the analysis has shown, cybernetic controls are seen critically and there is awareness – which should be fostered and maintained – that organisational culture is the strongest driver of employees’ motivation, which has to be supported by the provision of resources, administrative controls (e.g., supporting networking) and collegial support (Tucker and Tilt, 2019; Sutton and Brown, 2016; Edgar and Geare, 2013). In order to analyse the communication of sustainability performance, further research could be extended to other communication channels, e.g., in the case of Austria public universities’ development plans. In general, it might be worthwhile to analyse the function of SRs compared with other university sector-specific accountability instruments (e.g., websites or press releases). Furthermore, it would be interesting to analyse the entire range of universities’ tasks (e.g., teaching) and to examine the efficiency and effectivity of MCSs in this context.


A major limitation of the study relates to the small number of SRs (33 SRs). Furthermore, the study of Paper Three focused on research; consequently, teaching and third or fourth mission agendas are not considered. In order to analyse the impact of the implementation of MCSs future research should include longitudinal studies and integrate the perspective of the affected researchers. Furthermore, the mutual reinforcement of commonly seen conflicting logics at public universities (e.g., academic and business logics) offers an interesting field of research (e.g., whether department funds are allocated in order to support research in potential fields).


References

AccountAbility (2019), https://www.accountability.org/standards/ (accessed 15 February 2021). Adler, N., Elmquist, M. and Norrgren, F. (2009), “The challenge of managing boundary-spanning

research activities: Experiences from the Swedish context”, Research Policy, Vol. 38 No. 7, pp. 1136-1149.

Agyemang, G. and Broadbent, J. (2015), “Management control systems and research management in universities: An empirical and conceptual exploration”, Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Vol. 28 No. 7, pp. 1018-1046.

Ahrens, T. and Khalifa, R. (2015), “The impact of regulation on management control: Compliance as a strategic response to institutional logics of university accreditation”, Qualitative Research in Accounting & Management, Vol. 12 No. 2, pp. 106-126.

Alford, R.R. and Friedland, R. (1985), Powers of Theory: Capitalism, the State, and Democracy, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Alonso-Almeida, M.D.M., Marimon, F. and Casani, F. (2015), “Diffusion of sustainability reporting in universities: current situation and future perspectives”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 106 No. 12, pp. 144-154.

Baker, M. (2010), “Re-conceiving managerial capture”, Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Vol. 23 No. 7, pp. 847-867.

Bass, S. and Dalal-Clayton, B. (2012), Sustainable Development Strategies, Taylor & Francis Ltd., UK. Bebbington, J., Higgins, C. and Frame, B. (2009), “Initiating sustainable development reporting:

evidence from New Zealand”, Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Vol. 22 No. 4, pp. 588-625.

Bice, S. and Coates, H. (2016), “University Sustainability Reporting: Taking Stock of Transparency”, Tertiary Education and Management, Vol. 22 No. 1, pp. 1-18.

Blanco-Portela, N., Benayas, J., Pertierra, L.R. and Lozano, R. (2017), “Towards the integration of sustainability in Higher Education Institutions: A review of drivers of and barriers to organisational change and their comparison against those found of companies”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 166, pp. 563-578.

Boitier, M. and Rivière, A. (2016), “Management control systems, vectors of a managerial logic: institutional change and conflicts of logics at university”, Comptabilité Contrôle Audit, Vol. 22 No. 3, pp. 47-79.

Boitier, M., Rivière, A., Wenzlaff, F. and Hattke, F. (2018), “Hybrid Organizational Responses to Institutional Complexity: A Cross-Case Study of Three European Universities”, Management international, Vol. 22 No. 4, pp. 121-135.

Bonilla-Priego, M.J., Font, X. and Pacheco-Olivares, R. (2014), “Corporate sustainability reporting index and baseline data for the cruise industry”, Tourism Management, Vol. 44, pp. 149-460.

Bortz, J. and Döring, N. (2016), Forschungsmethoden und Evaluation in den Sozial- und Humanwissenschaften, Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg.

Boxenbaum, E. and Jonsson, S. (2008), Isomorphism, Diffusion and Decoupling, in Greenwood, R., Oliver, C., Sahlin, K. and Suddaby, R. (Eds.), The SAGE Handbook of Organizational Institutionalism, SAGE Publications, London, pp. 78-98.

Broadbent, J, and Laughlin, R. (2009), “Performance management systems: A conceptual model”, Management Accounting Research, Vol. 20 No. 4, pp. 283-295.

Brusca, I., Labrador, M. and Larran, M. (2018), “The challenge of sustainability and integrated reporting at universities: A case study”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 188, pp. 347-354.

Burritt, R.L. and Schaltegger, S. (2010), “Sustainability accounting and reporting: fad or trend?”, Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Vol. 23 No. 7, pp. 829-846.

Busco, C., Giovannoni, E. and Riccaboni, A. (2017), “Sustaining multiple logics within hybrid organisations: Accounting, mediation and the search for innovation”, Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Vol. 30 No. 1, pp. 191-216.

Calabrese, A., Costa, R. and Rosati, F. (2015), “A feedback-based model for CSR assessment and materiality analysis”, Accounting Forum, Vol. 39 No. 4, pp. 312-327.

Calabrese, A., Costa, R., Levialdi, N. and Menichini, T. (2016), “A fuzzy analytic hierarchy process method to support materiality assessment in sustainability reporting”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 121, pp. 248-264.


Ceulemans, K., Lozano, R. and Alonso-Almeida, M.D.M. (2015a), “Sustainability Reporting in Higher Education: Interconnecting the Reporting Process and Organisational Change Management for Sustainability”, Sustainability, Vol. 7 No. 7, pp. 8881-8903.

Ceulemans, K., Molderez, I. and Van Liedekerke, L. (2015b), “Sustainability reporting in higher education: a comprehensive review of the recent literature and paths for further research”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 106, pp. 127-143.

Chan, L.Y. and Richardson, W.A. (2012), “Board governance in Canadian universities”, Accounting Perspectives, Vol. 11 No. 1, pp. 31-55.

Chatelain-Ponroy, S. and Morin-Delerm, S. (2016), “Adoption of sustainable development reporting by universities, An analysis of French first-time reporters”, Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Vol. 29 No. 5, pp. 887-918.

Chen, J.C. and Roberts, R.W. (2010), “Toward a More Coherent Understanding of the Organization- Society Relationship: A Theoretical Consideration for Social and Environmental Accounting Research”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 97 No. 4, pp. 651-665.

Chenhall, R.H. (2007), Theorizing Contingencies in Management Control Systems Research, in Chapman, C.S., Hopwood, A.G. and Shields, M.D. (Eds.), Handbooks of Management Accounting Research, 1st Ed. Elsevier, Amsterdam, Boston, pp. 163–205.

Cho, C.H., Laine, M., Roberts, R.W. and Rodrigue, M. (2015), “Organized hypocrisy, organizational façades, and sustainability reporting”, Accounting, Organizations and Society, Vol. 40 No. 1, pp. 78-94.

Conrath-Hargreaves, A. and Wüstemann, S. (2019), “Multiple institutional logics and their impact on accounting in higher education: The case of a German foundation university”, Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Vol. 32 No. 3, pp. 782-810.

Dagilienė, L. and Mykolaitienė, V. (2016), “Sustainability reporting in the higher education sector – Case study of Lithuania”, ZögU/Journal for Public and Nonprofit Services, Vol. 39 No. 1-2, pp. 163-174.

Dai, N.T., Tan, Z.S., Tang, G. and Xiao, J.Z. (2016), “IPOs, Institutional Complexity, and Management Accounting in Hybrid Organisations: A Field Study in a State-Owned Enterprise in China”, Management Accounting Research, Vol. 36, pp. 2-23.

De Villiers, C. and Van Staden, C.J. (2010), “Shareholders’ requirements for corporate environmental disclosures: A cross country comparison”, The British Accounting Review, Vol. 42 No. 4, pp. 227-240.

De Villiers, C. and Alexander, D. (2014), “The Institutionalisation of Corporate Social Responsibility Reporting”, The British Accounting Review, Vol. 46 No. 2, pp. 198-212.

Decramer, A., Smolders, C., Vanderstraeten, A. and Christiaens, J. (2012), “The Impact of Institutional Pressures on Employee Performance Management Systems in Higher Education in the Low Countries”, British Journal of Management, Vol. 23 No. 51, pp. 88-103.

Deegan, C. and Rankin, M. (1997), “The materiality of environmental information to users of annual reports”, Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Vol. 10 No. 4, pp. 562-583.

Del Sordo, C., Farneti, F., Guthrie, J., Pazzi, S. and Siboni, B. (2016), “Social reports in Italian universities: disclosures and preparers’ perspective”, Meditari Accountancy Research, Vol. 24 No. 1, pp. 91-110.

Development plan of University of Graz 2019 – 2024, https://strategische-entwicklung.uni-graz.at/, (accessed 15 February 2021).

Development plan of University of Innsbruck 2019 – 2024, https://www.uibk.ac.at/, (accessed 15 February 2021).

Development plan of University of Linz 2022 – 2027, https://www.jku.at/, (accessed 15 February 2021). Development plan of University of Vienna 2028, https://rektorat.univie.ac.at/, (accessed 15 February

2021). DiMaggio, P.J. and Powell, W.W. (1983), “The Iron Cage Revisited: Institutional Isomorphism and

Collective Rationality in Organizational Fields”, American Sociological Review, Vol. 48 No. 2, pp. 147-160.

DiMaggio, P.J. and Powell, W.W. (1991), The Iron Cage Revisited: Institutional Isomorphism and Collective Rationality in Organization Fields, in Powell, W.W. and DiMaggio, P.J. (Eds.), The New Institutionalism in Organizational Analysis, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, London, pp. 63-82.


Diouf, D. and Boiral, O. (2017), “The quality of sustainability reports and impression management: A stakeholder perspective”, Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Vol. 30 No. 3, pp. 643-667.

Dobija, D., Górska, A.M., Grossi, G. and Strzelczyk, W. (2019), “Rational and symbolic uses of performance measurement”, Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Vol. 32 No. 3, pp. 750-781.

Donaldson, T. and Preston, L.E. (1995), “The Stakeholder Theory of the Corporation: Concepts, Evidence, and Implications”, The Academy of Management Review, Vol. 20 No. 1, pp. 65-91.

Duh, R.R., Chen, K.T., Lin, R.C. and Kuo, L.C. (2014), “Do internal controls improve operating efficiency of universities?”, Annals of Operations Research, Vol. 221 No. 1, pp. 173-195.

Eccles, R.G., Krzus, M.P., Rogers, J. and Serafeim, G. (2012), “The Need for Sector-Specific Materiality and Sustainability Reporting Standards”, Journal of Applied Corporate Finance, Vol. 24 No. 2, pp. 65-71.

Edgar, F. and Geare, A. (2013), “Factors influencing university research performance”, Studies in Higher Education, Vol. 38 No. 5, pp. 774-792.

Edgley, C. (2014), “A genealogy of accounting materiality”, Critical Perspectives on Accounting, Vol. 25 No. 3, pp. 255-271.

Edgley, C., Jones, M. and Atkins, J. (2015), “The adoption of the materiality concept in social and environmental reporting assurance: A field study approach”, The British Accounting Review, Vol. 47 No. 1, pp. 1-18.

Etzion, D. and Ferraro, F. (2010), “The Role of Analogy in the Institutionalization of Sustainability Reporting”, Organization Science, Vol. 21 No. 5, pp. 1092-1107.

Ferrero-Ferrero, I., Fernández-Izquierdo, M.Á., Muñoz-Torres, M.J. and Bellés-Colomer, L. (2017), “Stakeholder engagement in sustainability reporting in higher education, An analysis of key internal stakeholders’ expectations”, International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, Vol. 19 No. 2, pp. 313-336.

Flamholtz, E.G., Das, T.K. and Tsui, A.S. (1985), “Toward an integrative framework of organizational control”, Accounting, Organizations and Society, Vol. 10 No. 1, pp. 35-50.

Fonseca, A., Macdonald, A., Dandy, E. and Valenti, P. (2011), “The state of sustainability reporting at Canadian universities”, International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 22-40.

Font, X., Guix, M. and Bonilla-Priego, M.J. (2016), “Corporate social responsibility in cruising: Using materiality analysis to create shared value”, Tourism Management, Vol. 53 No.1, pp. 175-186.

Freeman, R.E. (1984), Strategic management: A Stakeholder Approach, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Freeman, R.E., Wicks, A.C. and Parmar, B.L. (2004), “Stakeholder Theory and “The Corporate Objective Revisited””, Organization Science, Vol. 15 No. 3, pp. 364-369.

Freeman, R.E., Harrison, J.S., Wicks, A.C., Parmar, B.L. and De Colle, S. (2010), Stakeholder theory: The state of the art, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Friedland, R. and Alford, R.R. (1991), Bringing Society Back In: Symbols, Practices, and Institutional Contradictions, in Powell, W.W. and DiMaggio, P.J. (Eds.), The New Institutionalism in Organizational Analysis, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, London, pp. 232-263.

Gamage, P. and Sciulli, N. (2017), “Sustainability Reporting by Australian Universities”, Australian Journal of Public Administration, Vol. 76 No. 2, pp. 187-203.

Gebreiter, F. and Hidayah, N.N. (2019), “Individual responses to competing accountability pressures in hybrid organisations: The case of an English business school”, Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Vol. 32 No. 3, pp. 727-749.

Gray, R. (2010), “Is accounting for sustainability actually accounting for sustainability…and how would we know? An exploration of narratives of organisations and the planet”, Accounting, Organizations and Society, Vol. 35 No. 1, pp. 47-62.

Greenwood, R., Raynard, M., Kodeih, F., Micelotta, E.R. and Lounsbury, M. (2011), “Institutional Complexity and Organizational Responses”, The Academy of Management Annals, Vol. 5 No.1, pp. 317-371.

GRI (2016), GRI Standards, GRI 101: Foundation 2016, available at: https://www.globalreporting.org/ (accessed 15 February 2021).


Grossi, G., Kallio, K.M., Sargiacomo, M. and Skoog, M. (2019), “Accounting, performance management systems and accountability changes in knowledge-intensive public organizations”, Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Vol. 33 No. 1, pp. 256-280.

Guenther, T.W. (2013), “Conceptualisations of ‘controlling’ in German-speaking countries: analysis and comparison with Anglo-American management control frameworks”, Journal of Management Control, Vol. 23 No. 4, pp. 269-290.

Guest, G., Bunce, A. and Johnson, L. (2006), “How Many Interviews Are Enough?: An Experiment with Data Saturation and Variability”, Field Methods, Vol. 18 No. 59, pp. 59-82.

Guix, M., Bonilla-Priego, M.J. and Font, X. (2017), “The process of sustainability reporting in international hotel groups: an analysis of stakeholder inclusiveness, materiality and responsiveness”, Journal of Sustainable Tourism, Vol. 26 No. 7, pp. 1063-1084.

Guthrie, J. and Neumann, R. (2007), “Economic and non-financial performance indicators in universities”, Public Management Review, Vol. 9 No. 2, pp. 231-252.

Habersam, M., Piber, M. and Skoog, M. (2013), “Knowledge balance sheets in Austrian universities: The implementation, use, and re-shaping of measurement and management practices”, Critical perspectives on Accounting, Vol. 24 No. 4-5, pp. 319-337.

Habersam, M., Piber, M. and Skoog, M. (2018), “Ten years of using knowledge balance sheets in Austrian public universities, A retrospective and prospective view”, Journal of Intellectual Capital, Vol. 19 No. 1, pp. 34-52.

Harrison, J.S. (2013): Stakeholder Theory, in Kessler E.H. (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Management Theory, SAGE Publications, Los Angeles, pp. 763-767.

Harrison, J.S., Bosse, D.A. and Phillips, R.A (2010), “Managing for stakeholders, stakeholder utility function, and competitive advantage”, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 31 No. 1, pp. 58-74.

Haveman, H.A. and Rao, H. (1997), “Structuring a Theory of Moral Sentiments: Institutional and Organizational Coevolution in the Early Thrift Industry”, American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 102 No. 6, pp. 1606-1651.

Hemlin, S. and Rasmussen, S.B. (2006), “The Shift in Academic Quality Control”, Science, Technology, & Human Values, Vol. 31 No. 2, pp. 173-198.

Hendriks, P.H.J. and Sousa, C.A.A. (2013), “Practices of management knowing in university research management”, Journal of Organizational Change Management, Vol. 26 No. 3, pp. 611-628.

Heugens, P.P.M.A.R. and Lander, M.W. (2009), “Structure! Agency! (And Other Quarrels): A Meta-Analysis of Institutional Theories of Organization”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 52 No. 1, pp. 61-85.

Higgins, C. and Larrinaga, C. (2014), Sustainability reporting: insights from institutional theory, in Bebbington, J., Unerman, J. and O’ Dwyer, B. (Eds.), Sustainability Accounting and Accountability, Routledge, London, pp. 273-289.

Hill, C.W.L. and Jones, T.M. (1992), “Stakeholder-Agency Theory”, Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 29 No.2, pp. 131-154.

Hinson, R., Gyabea, A. and Ibrahim, M. (2015), “Sustainability reporting among Ghanaian universities”, Communicatio - South African Journal for Communication Theory and Research, Vol. 41 No. 1, pp. 22-42.

Hopwood, A. G. (2009), “Accounting and the environment”, Accounting, Organizations and Society, Vol. 34 No. 3-4, pp. 433-439.

Hsu, C.W., Lee, W.H. and Chao, W.C. (2013), “Materiality analysis model in sustainability reporting: a case study at Lite-On Technology Corporation”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 57, pp. 142-151.

IFAC (2021), https://www.ifac.org/ (accessed 15 February 2021). IIRC (2021), https://integratedreporting.org/ (accessed 15 February 2021). James, M.L. (2015), “The benefits of sustainability and integrated reporting: An investigation of

accounting majors’ perceptions”, Journal of Legal, Ethical and Regulatory Issues, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 1-20.

Jones, C., Boxenbaum, E. and Anthony C. (2013), “The immateriality of material practices in institutional logics”, Research in the Sociology of Organizations, Vol. 39A, pp. 51-75.

Jones, P., Comfort, D. and Hillier, D. (2015a), “Materiality and external assurance in corporate sustainability reporting: An exploratory study of UK house builders”, Property Management, Vol. 33 No. 5, pp. 430-450.


Jones, P., Comfort, D. and Hillier, D. (2015b), “Sustainability, materiality, assurance and the UK’s leading property companies: A briefing paper for occupiers”, Journal of Corporate Real Estate, Vol. 17 No. 4, pp. 282-300.

Jones, P., Comfort, D. and Hillier, D. (2016a), “Materiality in corporate sustainability reporting within UK retailing”, Journal of Public Affairs, Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 81-90.

Jones, P., Comfort, D. and Hillier, D. (2016b), “Managing materiality: a preliminary examination of the adoption of the new GRI G4 guidelines on materiality within the business community”, Journal of Public Affairs, Vol. 16 No. 3, pp. 222-230.

Jones, P., Hillier, D. and Comfort, D. (2016c), “Sustainability in the hospitality industry - Some personal reflections on corporate challenges and research agendas”, International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, Vol. 28 No. 1, pp. 36-67.

Jongbloed, B. (2015), “Universities as Hybrid Organizations”, International Studies of Management and Organization, Vol. 45 No. 3, pp. 207-225.

Kallio, K.M., Kallio, T.J. and Tienari, J. (2016), “Ethos at stake: Performance management and academic work in universities”, Human Relations, Vol. 69 No. 3, pp. 685-709.

Kirkland, J. (2005), “Towards an integrated approach: university research management in an institutional context”, International Journal of Technology Management & Sustainable Development, Vol. 4 No. 3, pp. 155-166.

KPMG (2017), The road ahead, The KPMG Survey of Corporate Responsibility Reporting 2017, available at: https://assets.kpmg.com/content/dam/kpmg/xx/pdf/2017/10/kpmg-survey-of-corporate-responsibility-reporting-2017.pdf (accessed 15 February 2021).

Lai, A., Melloni, G. and Stacchezzini, R. (2017), “What does materiality mean to integrated reporting preparers? An empirical exploration”, Meditari Accountancy Research, Vol. 25 No. 4, pp. 533-552.

Larrán Jorge, M., López Hernández, A. and Calzado Cejas, M.Y. (2012), “Stakeholder Expectations in Spanish Public Universities: An Empirical Study”, International Journal of Humanities and Social Science, Vol. 2 No. 10, pp. 1-13.

Larrán Jorge, M., Herrera Madueño, J., Calzado Y. and Andrades, J. (2016), “A proposal for measuring sustainability in universities: a case study of Spain”, International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, Vol. 17 No. 5, pp. 671-697.

Larrán Jorge, M., Andrades, J. and Herrera Madueño, J. (2018), “An analysis of university sustainability reports from the GRI database: an examination of influential variables”, Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Vol. 62 No. 6, pp. 1019-1044.

Lepori, B. (2016), “Universities as Hybrids: Applications of Institutional Logics Theory to Higher Education”, Theory and Method in Higher Education Research, Vol. 2, pp. 245-264.

Lopatta, K. and Jaeschke, R. (2014), “Sustainability Reporting at German and Austrian Universities”, International Journal of Education Economics and Development, Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. 66-90.

Lounsbury, M. (2008), “Institutional rationality and practice variation: New directions in the institutional analysis of practice”, Accounting, Organizations and Society, Vol. 33 No. 4-5, pp. 349-361.

Lozano, R. (2006), “A tool for a Graphical Assessment of Sustainability in Universities (GASU)”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 14 No. 9-11, pp. 963-972.

Lozano, R. (2011), “The state of sustainability reporting in universities”, International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 67-78.

Lozano, R., Llobet, J. and Tideswell, G. (2013), “The process of assessing and reporting sustainability at universities: Preparing the report of the University of Leeds”, Revista Internacional de Tecnología, Sostenibilidad y Humanismo, No. 8, pp. 85-112.

Lozano, R., Ceulemans, K., Alonso-Almeida, M., Huisingh, D., Lozano, F.J., Waas, T., Lambrechts, W., Lukman, R. and Hugé, J. (2015), “A review of commitment and implementation of sustainable development in higher education: results from a worldwide survey”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 108, pp. 1-18.

Mainardes, E., Raposo, M. and Alves, H. (2012), “Public University Students’ Expectations: An Empirical Study Based on the Stakeholders Theory”, Transylvanian Review of Administrative Sciences, Vol. 8 No. 35, pp. 173-196.

Malik, M. (2015), “Value-Enhancing Capabilities of CSR: A Brief Review of Contemporary Literature”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 127 No. 2, pp. 419-438.


Malmi, T. and Brown, D.A. (2008), “Management control systems as a package - Opportunities, challenges and research directions”, Management Accounting Research, Vol. 19 No. 4, pp. 287-300.

Manetti, G. (2011), “The Quality of Stakeholder Engagement in Sustainability Reporting: Empirical Evidence and Critical Points”, Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, Vol. 18 No. 2, pp. 110-122.

Martin-Sardesai, A. and Guthrie, J. (2018), “Human capital loss in an academic performance measurement system”, Journal of Intellectual Capital, Vol. 19 No. 1, pp. 53-70.

Mayring, P. (2015), Qualitative Inhaltsanalyse: Grundlagen und Techniken, Beltz, Weinheim, Basel. Melo, A.I., Sarrico, C.S. and Radnor, Z. (2010), “The Influence of Performance Management Systems

on Key Actors in Universities: The case of an English university”, Public Management Review, Vol. 12 No. 2, pp. 233-254.

Meyer, J.W. and Rowan, B. (1977), “Institutionalized Organizations: Formal Structure as Myth and Ceremony”, American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 83 No. 2, pp. 340-363.

Meyer, J.W. and Rowan, B. (1991), Institutionalized Organizations: Formal Structure as Myth and Ceremony, in Powell, W.W and DiMaggio, P.J. (Eds.), The New Institutionalism in Organizational Analysis, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, London, pp. 41-62.

Mingers, J. and Willmott, H. (2013), “Taylorizing business school research: On the ‘one best way’ performative effects of journal ranking lists”, Human Relations, Vol. 66 No. 8, pp. 1051-1073.

Mitchell, R.K., Agle, B.R. and Wood, D.J. (1997), “Toward a Theory of Stakeholder Identification and Salience: Defining the Principle of Who and What Really Counts”, The Academy of Management Review, Vol. 22 No. 4, pp. 853-886.

Nickell, E.B. and Roberts, R.W. (2014), “The Public Interest Imperative in Corporate Sustainability Reporting Research”, Accounting and the Public Interest, Vol. 14 No.1, pp. 79-86.

Ntim, C.G., Soobaroyen, T. and Broad, M.J. (2017), “Governance structures, voluntary disclosures and public accountability: The case of UK higher education institutions”, Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Vol. 30 No. 1, pp. 65-118.

O'Dwyer, B., Unerman, J. and Hession, E. (2005), “User Needs in Sustainability Reporting: Perspectives of Stakeholders in Ireland”, European Accounting Review, Vol. 14 No. 4, pp. 759-787.

Oliver, C. (1991), “Strategic Responses to Institutional Processes”, The Academy of Management Review, Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 145-179.

Pache, A.C. and Santos, F. (2013), “Inside the hybrid organization: Selective coupling as a response to competing institutional logics”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 56 No. 4, pp. 972-1001.

Parker, L. (2011), “University corporatisation: Driving redefinition”, Critical Perspectives on Accounting, Vol. 22 No. 4, pp. 434-450.

Parker, L. (2013), “Contemporary University Strategising: The Financial Imperative”, Financial Accountability & Management, Vol. 29 No. 1, pp. 1-25.

Parmar, B.L., Freeman, R.E., Harrison, J.S., Wicks, A.C., Purnell, L. and De Colle S. (2010), “Stakeholder Theory: The State of the Art”, The Academy of Management Annals, Vol. 4 No. 1, pp. 403-445.

Puroila, J., Kujala, J. and Mäkelä, H. (2016), “Reframing Materiality in Sustainability Reporting”, Academy of Management Proceedings, Vol. 2016 No. 1, p. 12697.

Ralph, M. and Stubbs, W. (2014), “Integrating environmental sustainability into universities”, Higher Education, Vol. 67 No. 1, pp. 71-90.

Rautiainen, A. and Järvenpää M. (2012), “Institutional Logics and Responses to Performance Measurement Systems”, Financial Accountability & Management, Vol. 28 No. 2, pp. 164-188.

Rinaldi, C., Cavicchi, A., Spigarelli, F., Lacchè L. and Rubens, A. (2018), “Universities and smart specialisation strategy: From third mission to sustainable development co-creation”, International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, Vol. 19 No. 1, pp. 67-84.

Romolini, A., Fissi, S. and Gori, E. (2015), “Quality disclosure in sustainability reporting: evidence from universities”, Transylvanian Review of Administrative Science, Vol. 11 No. 44, pp. 196-218.

Sassen, R., Dienes, D. and Beth, C. (2014), „Nachhaltigkeitsberichterstattung deutscher Hochschulen“, Zeitschrift für Umweltpolitik und Umweltrecht, Vol. 37 No. 3, pp. 258-277.

Sassen, R. and Azizi, L. (2018a), “Voluntary disclosure of sustainability reports by Canadian universities”, Journal of Business Economics, Vol. 88 No. 1, pp. 97-137.


Sassen, R. and Azizi, L. (2018b), “Assessing sustainability reports of US universities”, International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, Vol. 19 No. 7, pp. 1158-1184.

Schäffer, U., Strauss, E. and Zecher, C. (2015), “The role of management control systems in situations of institutional complexity”, Qualitative Research in Accounting & Management, Vol. 12 No. 4, pp. 395-424.

Secundo, G., Dumay, J., Schiuma, G. and Passiante, G. (2016), “Managing intellectual capital through a collective intelligence approach: An integrated framework for universities”, Journal of Intellectual Capital, Vol. 17 No. 2, pp. 298-319.

Shabana, K.M., Buchholtz, A.K. and Carroll, A.B. (2017), “The Institutionalization of Corporate Social Responsibility Reporting”, Business & Society, Vol. 56 No. 8, pp. 1107-1135.

Siboni, B., Del Sordo, C. and Pazzi, S. (2013), “Sustainability Reporting in State Universities: An Investigation of Italian Pioneering Practices”, International Journal of Social Ecology and Sustainable Development, Vol. 4 No. 2, pp. 1-15.

Silander, C. and Haake, U. (2017), “Gold-diggers, supporters and inclusive profilers: strategies for profiling research in Swedish higher education”, Studies in Higher Education, Vol. 42 No. 11, pp. 2009-2025.

Sousa, C.A.A. and Hendriks, P.H.J. (2008), “Connecting Knowledge to Management: The Case of Academic Research”, Organization, Vol. 15 No. 6, pp. 811-830.

Stackhouse, J. and Day, R. (2005), “Global and regional practices in university research management: emerging trends”, International Journal of Technology Management & Sustainable Development, Vol. 4 No. 3, pp. 189-205.

Sutton, N.C. and Brown, D.A. (2016), “The illusion of no control: management control systems facilitating autonomous motivation in university research”, Accounting & Finance, Vol. 56 No. 2, pp. 577-604.

Ter Bogt, H. J. and Scapens, R.W. (2012), “Performance Management in Universities: Effects of the Transition to More Quantitative Measurement Systems”, European Accounting Review, Vol. 21 No. 3, pp. 451-497.

Thornton, P.H. and Ocasio, W. (1999), “Institutional Logics and the Historical Contingency of Power in Organizations: Executive Succession in the Higher Education Publishing Industry, 1958 – 1990”, American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 105 No. 3, pp. 801-843.

Thornton, P.H., Jones, C. and Kury, K. (2005), “Institutional Logics and Institutional Change in Organizations: Transformation in Accounting, Architecture, and Publishing”, Research in the Sociology of Organizations, Vol. 23, pp. 125-170.

Thornton, P.H. and Ocasio, W. (2008), Institutional Logics, in Greenwood, R., Oliver, C., Sahlin, K. and Suddaby, R. (Eds.), The SAGE Handbook of Organizational Institutionalism, SAGE Publications, London, pp. 99-129.

Thornton, P.H., Ocasio, W. and Lounsbury, M. (2012), The institutional logics perspective: A New Approach to Culture, Structure, and Process, Oxford University Press, UK.

Townley, B. (1997), “The Institutional Logic of Performance Appraisal”, Organization Studies, Vol. 18 No. 2, pp. 261-285.

Trencher, G., Yarime, M., McCormick, K.B., Doll, C.N.H. and Kraines, S.B. (2014), “Beyond the third mission: Exploring the emerging university function of co-creation for sustainability”, Science and Public Policy, Vol. 41 No. 2, pp. 151-179.

Tucker, B.P. and Tilt, C.A. (2019), “‘You know it when you see it’: In search of ‘the ideal’ research culture in university accounting faculties”, Critical Perspectives on Accounting, Vol. 64, pp. 1-21.

Unerman, J. and Zappettini, F. (2014), “Incorporating materiality considerations into analyses of absence from sustainability reporting”, Social and Environmental Accounting Journal, Vol. 34 No. 3, pp. 172-186.

UNGC (2012), A Practical Guide to the United Nations Global Compact for Higher Education Institutions, available at: https://www.unglobalcompact.org/ (accessed 14 February 2021).

Universities Act of Austria 2002, available at: https://www.ris.bka.gv.at, (accessed 14 February 2021). Upton, S. and Warshaw, J.B. (2017), “Evidence of hybrid institutional logics in the US public research

university”, Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, Vol. 39 No. 1, pp. 89-103. Vakkuri, J. and Johanson, J.E. (2020), “Failed promises – performance measurement ambiguities in

hybrid universities”, Qualitative Research in Accounting & Management, Vol. 17 No. 1, pp. 33-50.


Van der Weijden, I., De Gilder, D., Groenewegen, P. and Klasen, E. (2008), “Implications of managerial control on performance of Dutch academic (bio)medical and health research groups”, Research Policy, Vol. 37 No. 9, pp. 1616-1629.

Veltri, S. and Silvestri, A. (2015), “The Free State University integrated reporting: a critical consideration”, Journal of Intellectual Capital, Vol. 16 No. 2, pp. 443-462.

Yáñez, S, Uruburu, Á., Moreno, A. and Lumbreras, J. (2019), “The sustainability report as an essential tool for the holistic and strategic vision of higher education institutions”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 207, pp. 57-66.

Zorio-Grima, A., Sierra-Gracía, L. and Garcia-Benau, M.A. (2018), “Sustainability reporting experience by universities: a causal configuration approach”, International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, Vol. 19 No. 2, pp. 337-352.

Appendix 1

Paper One: Lubinger, M., Frei, J. and Greiling, D. (2019), “Assessing the materiality of

university G4-sustainability reports”, Journal of Public Budgeting, Accounting & Financial

Management, Vol. 31 No. 3, pp. 364-391.

Assessing the materiality ofuniversity G4-sustainability reports

Melanie Lubinger, Judith Frei and Dorothea GreilingInstitute for Management Accounting, Faculty of Social Science,

Economics and Business, Johannes Kepler University Linz, Linz, Austria

Abstract

Purpose – Materiality, as a content-selection principle, is an emerging trend in sustainability reporting formaking sustainability reports (SRs) more relevant for stakeholders. The purpose of this paper is to investigatewhether materiality matters in the reporting practice of universities which have adopted the Global ReportingInitiative G4 Guidelines.Design/methodology/approach – Strategic stakeholder theory and sociological institutionalism serve forderiving conflicting expectations about the compliance of universities with the materiality principle. In theempirical section of this paper, content analyses are conducted on the documented material aspects, followedby a correlation analysis for examining to which extent the identified material aspects are reported in the SRs.Findings – Although universities document G4-19 stakeholder-material aspects according to differentrelevance levels and for internal and external stakeholder groups, the identified material aspects are notappropriately reported in the SRs. The adoption of the materiality principle is a superficial one and thereforemore in line with the expectations of sociological institutionalism.Research limitations/implications – The main limitation for this study is the small number of universitySRs available. The chance to make SRs more relevant by focusing on stakeholder-material aspects is not used.Originality/value – This paper reports the first study looking at the compliance between the documentedmaterial aspects and the content of SRs in a particular challenging organisational field, the university sector.This paper also adds to the emerging theoretical discussion about the extent universities implementmateriality in SRs.Keywords Materiality, University, Global reporting initiative, Sustainability report,Sociological institutionalism, Strategic stakeholder theoryPaper type Research paper

1. Motivation and research questionsSustainability reporting has gained relevance in the past 20 years, especially in stockexchange listed for-profits (Cho et al., 2015). Proponents of sustainability reporting stress itscontribution to transparency and accountability, in particular with regard to environmentaland social impacts (Burrell and Roberts, 2014). Critics see sustainability reporting as a publicor investor relations endeavour without substance, a greenwashing attempt, a strategicimpression management tactic or a management fad which will disappear over time (Burrittand Schaltegger, 2010; Gray, 2010; Hopwood, 2009). The voluntary nature of sustainabilityreporting makes room for incomplete and biased disclosures, strategically omitting potentiallydamaging information and over-reporting positive aspects (Cho et al., 2015).

As a remedy to make sustainability reports (SRs) more relevant for stakeholders,materiality has emerged as a fairly new content principle for SRs (Diouf and Boiral, 2017;Eccles et al., 2012). SRs should focus on those aspects which stakeholders regard as materialfor their decision making (Calabrese et al., 2016). Materiality aims at terminating the practicethat stakeholders are confronted with a vast variety of irrelevant indicators. The GlobalReporting Initiative (GRI) G4 Guidelines have put stakeholder materiality on the centrestage with the expectation that it will lead to shorter, more focused reports, aiming to giveSRs more relevance and greater credibility (Puroila et al., 2016; Unerman and Zappettini,2014). Materiality “is the threshold at which aspects become sufficiently important that theyshould be reported” (GRI, 2013b). G4-19 requires a list of all material aspects andclassifications in accordance to their relevance (low, medium or high) for internal and

Journal of Public Budgeting,Accounting & FinancialManagementVol. 31 No. 3, 2019pp. 364-391© Emerald Publishing Limited1096-3367DOI 10.1108/JPBAFM-10-2018-0117

Received 18 October 2018Revised 7 May 2019Accepted 18 June 2019

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:www.emeraldinsight.com/1096-3367.htm

364

JPBAFM31,3

external stakeholders. The G4-Implementation Manual suggests that material aspects of ahigh reporting relevance should be reported in detail; those with a medium priority shouldbe considered for inclusion and information; those with a low reporting priority arecandidates for exclusion (GRI, 2013a).

In financial reporting, materiality has been an important accounting concept with aplurality of different discourses over time starting at the late nineteenth century. Despitethis long tradition, materiality is still a pluralistic and elusive concept. Based on ahistorical discourse analysis, Edgley (2014) identified divergent roles of materialityranging from pragmatic rules of thumb for preparers and auditors, technical and legalinterpretations of stressing importance or substance for economic decision makers orfocusing on its role as a professional standard, to framing it as a risk managementstrategy. Other concepts define materiality as a political and social process, as a moralresponsibility or as a mystical object with divergent meaning for preparers, users andauditors. Materiality is seen as part of the truth game with a broad variety of figuresof speeches for managing and hiding errors and subjectivities in the translation ofaccounting inscriptions (Edgley, 2014).

Compared to the extensive body of research in financial accounting, the debate ofdifferent frameworks and distinctive roles of materiality in SR is in its early days (Puroilaet al., 2016; Edgley et al., 2015; Jones et al., 2015a; Unerman and Zappettini, 2014). Regardingmateriality in SR, only few empirical cross-sectoral (Diouf and Boiral, 2017; Puroila et al.,2016; Muñoz-Torres et al., 2012; Manetti, 2011), industry specific ( Jones et al., 2016a, b) orsingle-case studies (Calabrese et al., 2016; Janek et al., 2016; Hsu et al., 2013) exist.

Materiality is either seen as a tool for selecting the most important SR aspects ingeneral (KPMG, 2017; Jones et al., 2015a, b; Manetti, 2011), or a concept focused oninformation needs of providers of financial capital (IIRC, 2013; IFAC, 2015) or stakeholders(AccountAbility, 2019; Calabrese et al., 2016; Edgley et al., 2015; GRI, 2013a, b). Mostattempts have a broad user concept by stressing stakeholder orientation. Furthermore,materiality is seen as a part of a company’s risk management for preventing negativeimpacts on business, a business opportunity framework for creating long-term (economic)growth, or as a communication tool for existing sustainability strategies to outsidestakeholders (Puroila et al., 2016). In line with the Burritt and Schaltegger’s (2010)outside-in approach towards sustainability reporting, materiality can serve as alegitimation tool for communicating those sustainability aspects an organisation’snon-management stakeholders are aware of (Puroila et al., 2016).

Empirical, non-university sector findings show that the adoption of materiality in SR isheterogeneous, dominated by a strategic management approach in its early days and aneven more complex and ambiguous concept than in financial accounting (Puroila et al., 2016;Jones et al., 2015a, b; Unerman and Zappettini, 2014). Selectivity and subjectivity ofmateriality are accompanying effects (Unerman and Zappettini, 2014). The present practiceis far away from a holistic, moral and ethical concept of materiality (Puroila et al., 2016).Such a holistic interpretation of materiality would be a great step towards improvedstakeholder accountability in higher education institutions (HEIs). In this line, the UnitedNations Global Compact (UNGC, 2012) stresses that in HEIs a shift “from short-termcorporate visions to a broader, multi-stakeholder focus” is necessary. So far the focus ofmaterial aspects in measuring HEI embeddedness of sustainability in education, researchand community engagement activities is missing (Adams, 2013).

For determining expectations about the implementation of the materiality principle inSRs, this paper builds on two competing schools of thought. Strategic stakeholder theorysuggests to concentrate the reporting content on material aspects of medium or highlysalient stakeholders. Serving the information needs of salient stakeholders aims atproviding a greater transparency and at achieving a better accountability securing for a

365

University G4-sustainability

reports

continuous flow of support and resources (Calabrese et al., 2016; Puroila et al., 2016).Sociological institutionalism is used to build up the counter-argument. Prior researchwhich used sociological institutionalism in the context of sustainability reporting raisedsome doubts whether one can expect more than a low compliance with stakeholderexpectations in SRs due to the voluntary and ambiguous nature of sustainability reportingguidelines and, with the exception of stock exchange listed companies, low diffusion rates(Shabana et al., 2017; Higgins and Larrinaga, 2014; Bebbington et al., 2009). Therefore, thecongruence between the in the SR listed material aspects and the reported content mostlikely will be low.

This paper concentrates on universities for various reasons. Prior empirical studies onthe implementation of the materiality principle have focused primarily on for-profitcompanies. In contrast, universities have a broader societal mandate of providing anintellectual basis for the economic, cultural, political, environmental and social developmentof societies, institutions and individuals (Ntim et al., 2017). The few existing empiricalstudies of the state of the art of SRs in universities (see Section 2) allow no comparisonbetween the listed material aspects and how they are covered. With New PublicManagement, universities are moving towards a market-driven culture and are competingglobally (Parker, 2013, 2011). While public funding is decreasing, this development is notmatched by declining government scrutinies and sector regulations (Guthrie and Neumann,2007). The stakeholder audiences who hold universities’ management accountable haveincreased considerably (e.g. ministries, other research funders, current and potentialstudents and staff, business partners, employers of graduates, alumni) (Ntim et al., 2017).To address this plethora of stakeholders, universities engage in a variety of activities,including SRs. Sustainability reporting has gained societal relevance because societyexpects universities to play a key role in creating new mental paradigms towards a moresustainable world (Ferrero-Ferrero et al., 2017). A growing number of universities havesigned declarations concerning sustainability in higher education. Sustainability reportingis seen as an integral element of universities’ sustainability efforts (Alonso-Almeida et al.,2015; Lozano et al., 2015).

This paper focuses on the GRI G4 Guidelines because they are the most widelyimplemented standard (KPMG, 2017). While the GRI G4 Guidelines have a global outreach,all other sustainability reporting frameworks for universities have a regional focus andtherefore are designed for a narrower environmental context (e.g. Central Europe orNorthern America, Larrán et al., 2016). Furthermore, GRI G4 Guidelines include an explicitdefinition of materiality.

Therefore, the guiding research questions are:

RQ1. What are material aspects for internal and external stakeholders documented inthe G4-SRs of universities?

RQ2. How are the documented material aspects covered by G4 reports?

Regarding RQ1, all current G4 reports of universities uploaded by March 2018 in the GRIdatabase are analysed. The GRI G4 Guidelines demand that in G4-19 a list of materialaspects is provided, either in the form of a materiality matrix or as a narrative. For RQ2, thisstudy evaluates how focused G4-university SRs are on the documented material aspects toevaluate if materiality services as a content-selecting principle matters.

This study contributes to the literature as follows: the paper analyses G4 reportsof universities worldwide, irrespective of their publication language. Additionally,this study contributes to the emerging field of studies focusing on the implementationof the materiality principle. It is the first study which analyses how well in the G4 reportsdocumented stakeholder-material aspects are covered in the SRs. Prior studies so far haveconcentrated on identifying and clustering what is regarded as stakeholder material.

366

JPBAFM31,3

The findings of our study indicate that universities document what internal and externalstakeholders regard as material and are able to classify the stakeholder-material aspectsinto low, medium and highly relevant ones, but do not concentrate their SRs on the identifiedmaterial aspects. Materiality deteriorates to a “ticking-off” documentation exercise. Theinternal consistency of the SRs between the documented material aspects and the reportedones is low.

2. Prior research about materiality and sustainability reporting of universitiesFor investigating the aspect of materiality for internal and external stakeholders and itscoverage within universities’ SRs, a structured literature review was conducted using twoonline databases (EBSCOhost and Web of Science). The search period was from 2000 to2019, limited to peer reviewed English journal articles. A title, abstract and keyword searchwas conducted. The literature review resulted in 44 relevant papers which can be clusteredas displayed in Table I.

Outside the university sector (Section A), 18 studies were identified. The idea to makeSRs more stakeholder-relevant is connected to a much earlier discussion on user informationdemands. A common observation of the four identified studies is that information needs ofstrategically relevant external stakeholders are not adequately addressed in SRs.

In total, 14 articles addressed ways of identifying and selecting stakeholder-materialaspects. The complexity and degree of subjectivity of these processes were addressed.These studies also analyse if and to what extent SRs provide a list of material aspects andhow sector-specific these lists are. A central finding in those studies evaluating the results ofthe materiality documentation process was that the listed material aspects are imbalanced,selective and driven by the SR preparers’ interests instead of those of (other) strategicrelevant stakeholders.

In the for-profit sector, two studies performed a materiality analysis: Font et al. (2016)conducted a comparison between corporate sustainability reporting index, developedspecifically for the cruise industry by Bonilla-Priego et al. (2014), and the actual reportingindicators. They used the comparative sustainability reporting indicator as a framework toevaluate to what extent these framework indicators are reported. Also Guix et al. (2018)assessed the disclosure practices of the largest hotel groups worldwide based on theAccountAbility’s AA1000 Standard (AccountAbility, 2019). The stakeholder engagementprocess, the relevance of sustainability issues and organisations’ responsiveness wereanalysed. In this paper we chose a different approach. We examine in GRI G4 reports towhat extent the documented material aspects guide the reporting practices.

Empirical research about SRs prepared by universities is still in an early stage but issignificantly gaining momentum (Ferrero-Ferrero et al., 2017; Ceulemans et al., 2015; Lozanoet al., 2015). For analysing SR of universities, a few normative frameworks exist on how toevaluate the sustainability performance of universities (Larrán et al., 2016; Ceulemans et al.,2015). Among them is the framework by Lozano (2006), the Fonseca Framework (2011), theGRI G4 Framework and frameworks which augment the GRI framework with additionalindicators (e.g. Lopatta and Jaeschke, 2014; Sassen et al., 2014). With the exception of GRI G4Guidelines, all sustainability assessment frameworks for universities were developed for theNorth-American or European context (Larrán et al., 2016).

Four papers deal with sustainability reporting in a global context. In 2015, Ceulemanset al. provided a comprehensive overview of the fragmented research on sustainabilityreporting and identified as a research gap a lack of studies focusing on materiality in SRs ofuniversities. Although, many HEIs engage in various sustainability efforts, there was noholistic concept behind it (Lozano et al., 2015). Alonso-Almeida et al. (2015) analysed thediffusion of SRs (2001–2012) based on GRI in 18 countries worldwide (45 reports) showingthat only few universities were disclosing consecutive reports. These authors criticised the

367


reports

Topic

Author(s)/year

Researchdesign

respondents/

sector

Contribution/major

finding

s

Section

Aoutsideuniversity

sector(18articles)

Userinform

ation

demands

(4articles)

Deeganand

Rankin(1997)

Quantita

tive123annu

alreportusersin

Australia

Analysisof

theim

portance

ofenvironm

entalinformationforshareholders’decision-m

aking

processes:shareholders

with

anoversigh

tfunctio

n(e.g.g

overnm

ent)consider

environm

entalissuesas

materialfor

theirdecisions.The

annu

alreportisconsidered

tobe

moreim

portantthan

othersourcesof

environm

entalinformationproviding

O’Dwyeretal.

(2005)

Quantita

tive15

social

and13

environm

entaln

on-

governmentalo

rganisations

(NGOs)in

Ireland

Examinationof

corporation’ssustainabilityreportingin

orderto

fulfilN

GOsinform

ation

needsandto

hold

corporations

accoun

table:NGOsdemandmandatedandexternally

verifiedsustainabilityreporting(in

reportsor

websites)in

orderto

evaluatehowwellu

sers’

inform

ationneedsaremet

orto

exertNGOspressure

oncompanies

DeVilliers

and

Van

Staden

(2010)

Quantita

tive474shareholders

inAustralia,the

UKandthe

US

Analysisof

coun

tryandgend

erdifferencesam

ongshareholders

concerning

environm

ental

inform

ationneeds:themajority

oftheshareholdersrequ

irethedisclosureofspecific,audited

environm

entalinformationforfin

ancial

decisions.Accountability

andredu

ctionof

inform

ationasym

metry

areim

portantfactors

Diouf

andBoiral

(2017)

Qualitative33

stakeholders

andexpertsin

Canada

Analysisof

view

sof

socially

responsibleinvestmentpractitioners

regardingthequ

ality

ofGRIreports:SR

sareun

balanced

concerning

TBLdimensions.GRIreportswerepositiv

ely

evaluatedregardingtherelevance,credibility

andinform

ationqu

ality

.Contin

uous

improvem

entof

sustainabilityreportingisseen

positiv

ely

For-profit

sector

stud

ies(14articles)

Ecclesetal.(2012)

Qualitative6indu

stries

(48

companies)

Proposalo

fan

approach

forthedeterm

inationof

sector-specific

indicators

toenable

comparabilityof

environm

ental,social

andgovernance

indicators:a

greatvariation

concerning

disclosure

inform

ationaboutclim

atechange

was

foun

d.Materiala

spects

for

non-fin

ancial

reportingshould

bedefin

edindu

stry

specific

Hsu

etal.(2013)

Conceptualtechn

ical

company

inTaiwan

Provision

ofasystem

aticmethodology

forprioritisingmaterialinformationin

SRs

Unerm

anand

Zappettini(2014)

Qualitative23

companies

SRs

intheenergy

andmining

sector

Re-exam

inationof

Boiral’s

(2013)

contentanalysis:the

author

foun

dthat

90%

ofthe

negativ

eeventswerenotm

entio

nedinSR

s.The

materialitydeterm

inationprocesshastobe

considered

whileinterpretin

gabsenceof

social/env

ironmentald

isclosures

inSR

sCalabrese

etal.

(2015)

Conceptualretailcom

pany

inItaly

Analysisof

thegapbetw

eenthedisclosed(CSR

)-com

mitm

entinSR

s,thecustom

errequ

ired

andcustom

erperceivedcommitm

entby

aCSR

custom

ermatrix

Jonesetal.(2015a)Qualitative20

UK

housebuildingcompanies

Investigationof

theroleof

external

assuranceandmaterialityas

apartof

themateriality

reportingprocess:almostallcom

panies

provided

inform

ationon

theirsustainability

approach,b

utonly

aminority

embraced

thematerialityprincipleor

provided

independ

ent

external

assurance

(continued)

Table I.Mapping of seminalworks by researchdesign andcontribution/majorfindings

368

JPBAFM31,3

Topic

Author(s)/year

Researchdesign

respondents/

sector

Contribution/major

finding

s

Jonesetal.(2015b)Qualitative9UKcommercial

property

companies

Investigationifmaterialaspectswereidentifiedwith

inthesustainabilityreportingprocess:

although

companies

provided

aSR

orinform

ationon

theirsustainability

approach,lessthan

halfprovided

inform

ationon

theidentificationandthecontentof

selected

materialaspects.

Sixcompanies

provided

anindepend

entexternal

assurancestatem

ent

Calabrese

etal.

(2016)

Conceptualw

ater

technology

company

inItaly

Methodbasedon

theGRIG

uidelin

es,for

defin

ingmaterialaspects:tosupp

ortcom

panies

toidentifytheappropriatereportcontent

Fontetal.(2016)

Qualitative/qu

antitative29

cruise

companies,59internal

andexternal

stakeholders

Analysisof

thematchingbetw

eenstakeholderexpectations

andsustainabilityreporting

with

inthecruise

indu

stry

basedon

acorporatesocial

responsibilityindexdevelopedby

Bonilla-Priegoetal.(2014):a

sign

ificant

gapoccurred

betw

eentheaspectsmanagers

classifiedas

materiala

ndtheinform

ationneedsof

otherstakeholders

Jonesetal.(2016a)Qualitative10

UKretailing

companies

Investigationof

theroleof

external

assuranceandmaterialityas

apartof

themateriality

reportingprocess:sixoutof

tenretailers

embraced

materialityin

theirSR

s,four

identified

priorities,bu

tthereweresign

ificant

differencesintheextent

andscarce

evidence

ofasector-

specificapproach

Jonesetal.(2016b)Qualitativefirst

10for-profit

companies

worldwidelistedin

Googlehaving

publishedaG4

SR

Exp

loratio

nof

theadoptio

nof

theG4Guidelin

eswith

incompanies:a

variability

ininform

ationon

theidentificationanddocumentatio

nof

materialaspectscouldbe

observed.

The

reportsfocusedprim

arily

oninform

ationaboutb

usinesscontinuity

andenvironm

ental

issues.E

xternala

ssurance

was

provided

only

inafew

cases

Jonesetal.(2016c)

Qualitativehospita

litysector

Provision

ofpersonalreflections

ontheaspectof

materialityandexternalassuranceof

SRs

with

inthehospita

litysector:aninsufficient

documentatio

nof

materialaspectsandlacking

external

assurancewith

inthehospita

lityindu

stry

canbe

observed

Puroilaetal.(2016)

Qualitative29

publicly

traded

companies

intheGlobal100

indexapplying

G4

Identificationof

four

differentframes

used

insustainabilityreporting,therisk

managem

ent,

thebu

siness

opportun

ity,the

sustainabilitystrategy

andthelegitim

acyfram

e.Materiality

was

mostly

used

tocreate

anidealised

image

Lai

etal.(2017)

Qualitative14

Generali

employees

Analysisof

thedeterm

inationof

materialityin

anIR

contexta

ndaddressees

oftheIR:w

hat

isregarded

asmaterialisdeterm

ined

exclusivelyinternally

underthesupervisionof

the

chieffin

ancial

officer

andthefirm’sstrategy

.Capita

lproviders

arethemainaddressees

Guixetal.(2018)

Qualitative/qu

antitative50

hospita

litygroups

worldwide

Analysisof

stakeholderinclusiveness,materialityandhow

stakeholderconcerns

were

addressedin

SRsby

applying

theAA1000

StakeholderEng

agem

entStandard

(Accountability,2019):the

results

show

ed,thathotelsdisclose

thematerialityanalysis

outcom

es,b

utnottheidentificationof

stakeholderengagement

(continued)

Table I.

369


reports

Topic

Author(s)/year

Researchdesign

respondents/

sector

Contribution/major

finding

s

Section

Buniversity

sector(26articles)

Worldwidesurveys

(4articles)

Alonso-Alm

eida

etal.(2015)

Quantita

tive/qu

alita

tiveGRI

database

andGRISR

sWorldwidediffusionof

sustainabilityreporting:

thediffusionof

sustainabilityreportingis

still

atthebeginn

ing

Ceulemansetal.

(2015)

Literature

review

178articles

Articlesconcerning

sustainabilityreporting,

sustainabilityassessmentandenvironm

ental

managem

entwereanalysed:researchaboutsustainabilityreportingin

HEIisfragmented

andtheim

plem

entatio

nof

sustainabilityislagg

ingbehind

othersectors

Lozanoetal.(2015)

Literature

review

60articles

survey

84respondentsfrom

70HEIs

The

categories

background

,institutionalframew

ork,

campu

soperations,edu

catio

n,research,outreachandcollaboratio

n,on-cam

pusexperiences,assessmentandreporting

wereidentified:although

severalinitia

tives

andeffortsconcerning

sustainabledevelopm

ent

areexistin

gworldwide,theim

plem

entatio

nof

sustainabledevelopm

enthasbeen

compartmentalised

Blanco-Portela

etal.(2017)

Literature

review

35articles

Driversandbarriersprom

otingtheprocessofOrganisationalC

hang

eManagem

enttow

ards

sustainability:

thecategories

stakeholder,internal

structure,external

factors,institu

tional

fram

eworkandresourceswereidentified.

Aplethora

ofstud

iesidentifiedstakeholders’

concerns

asthemostrelevant

one

Specialreports

inthe

field

ofun

iversities

(3articles)

Habersam

etal.

(2013)

Qualitativecase

stud

yat

Austrianun

iversities

Usage

ofalegally

requ

ired

non-fin

ancialreportingtool(knowledg

ebalancesheets,K

BS)

bydifferentstakeholder

groups

ofAustrianpu

blicun

iversities:thefin

ding

sshow

edthat

KBSs

play

anim

portantroleforinternal

decision

makingandcontrola

gend

asDelSordoetal.

(2016)

Qualitativecontentanalysis

of12

social

reportsin

Italy

andinterviewswith

their

preparers

Motives

forthedisclosure

ofnotlegallyrequ

ired

socialreportsandtheaccompany

ingmain

difficulties:theanalysed

reportsdidnotprovidein

depthinform

ationon

social

and

environm

entalissues

Habersam

etal.

(2018)

Qualitativelong

itudinalcase

stud

yat

Austrianun

iversities

Usage

ofmandatory

KBSin

Austrianpu

blicun

iversities:theim

plem

entatio

nprocesswas

analysed

from

differentperspectives

(com

mun

icationcultu

re,organisationof

change

processesor

allocatio

nof

resources)

Integration/

implem

entatio

nprocessof

sustainability

reportingin

HEIs

(3articles)

Bruscaetal.(2018)

QualitativeUniversity

ofCadiz

Analysisof

theim

plem

entatio

nof

sustainabilityandintegrated

reportingat

theUniversity

ofCadizby

applying

thefram

eworkof

Secund

oetal.(2016):m

ainlysocial

and

“sustainability”

values

wereaddressed.

The

mostim

portantstakeholdergroupwas

the

university’ssocial

coun

cil

(continued)

Table I.

370

JPBAFM31,3

Topic

Author(s)/year

Researchdesign

respondents/

sector

Contribution/major

finding

s

Zorio-Grimaetal.

(2018)

Qualitative49

public

universitiesin

Spain

Identificationof

factorsleadingto

sustainabilityreportingexperience:com

binatio

nsof

innovatio

nprofile,p

oliticala

ndinternal

factorslead

toexperience

insustainability

reporting.

The

implem

entatio

nof

asustainabilitycommittee

andexternal

assuranceof

the

SRaregettingpartsof

universitiessustainabilitystrategies

Yáñez

etal.(2019)

QualitativeEscuela

Tecnica

Superior

deIngenieros

Indu

striales

Analysisof

thesustainabilityreportingprocess(th

reeSR

s)du

ring

aneigh

tyearperiod

ina

Spanishpu

blicengineeringschool

basedon

theGRIGuidelin

es:the

stud

yhigh

lightsthe

transfer

ofsustainabilityvalues

across

theentireorganisatio

nandtheincreasing

participationof

stakeholders

inthedecision-m

akingprocesswith

anaccompany

ing

institu

tionalisationof

theidentificationof

relevant

aspects

Internal

andexternal

stakeholder

expectations

(4articles)

Larránetal.(2012)

Qualitativestakeholder

groups

of10

public

universitiesin

And

alusia

Analysisofdifferentstakeholderexpectations

inAnd

alusianpu

blicun

iversities:43

relevant

stakeholderconcerns

wereidentified.

Com

mon

areaswhere

allstakeholder

groups

wanted

moreinform

ationwere:governance

ofun

iversities,em

ployability,transferabilityof

university

research

tocompanies,allocatio

nof

resources

Mainardes

etal.

(2012)

Qualitative/qu

antitative1,669

stud

ents’expectations

at11

publicun

iversitiesinPortugal

Analysisof

stud

ents’expectations

ofpu

blicun

iversitiesin

Portugal:themostim

portant

expectations

were:un

iversity

quality

standardsforthedegrees,im

provem

entofp

artnership

betw

eenstud

ents

andun

iversity,employability,p

ersonalfulfilmentandaboutthecurrent

environm

entalconditio

nsin

university

Larránetal.(2016)

Qualitativesenior

managem

entmem

bers

of8

publicun

iversitiesin

And

alusia

Identificationof

stakeholderexpectations

forthedevelopm

entof

asustainability

assessmentandreportingtool

inHEIs:155

materiala

spects

wereclusteredin

seven

dimensions.The

high

estrelevance

show

edthecorporategovernance

andenvironm

ent.The

leastrelevant

dimensionswereindicators

oncompanies

andcontinuous

improvem

ent

Ferrero-Ferrero

etal.(2017)

Qualitative/qu

antitative10

SRsof

universities(2014)

and

acase

stud

yin

aSp

anish

publicun

iversity

AnalysisofstakeholderengagementinHEIsinthecontextofthe

adoptio

nofthemateriality

principlein

GRISR

sanddifferencesin

expectations

ofthesestakeholdergroups:a

high

compliancerate

betw

eentheexpectations

ofinternal

stakeholders

andthedocumented

materiala

spects

couldbe

foun

din

thesing

le-casestud

y.Differencesexistedbetw

eenthe

expectations

ofinternal

stakeholdergroups

across

the10

universities

Framew

ork

Lozano(2006)

Conceptual

Developmentof

theGraph

ical

Assessm

entof

Sustainabilityin

Universities

(GASU

)fram

ework:

theGRIGuidelin

eswereaugm

entedby

aneducationald

imension

Total

coverage

rates

(TCR)o

rcoverage

ratesof

performance

Fonseca

etal.

(2011)

Conceptual/q

ualitative7

Canadianun

iversities

(2006–2008)

Developmentof

afram

ework(based

onG3andCam

pusSu

stainabilityAssessm

ent

Framew

ork,

CSA

F)for

analysingSR

spu

blishedby

Canadianun

iversities:less

than

30%

publishedSR

s.Based

ontencategories

and56

indicators

anaveragetotalcoveragerateof

(continued)

Table I.

371


reports

Topic

Author(s)/year

Researchdesign

respondents/

sector

Contribution/major

finding

s

dimensions

(11articles)

36%

was

identified(economic:19%

,env

ironmental:63%,social:21%,u

niversity

:25%

).Fouroutof

sevenun

iversitiesreported

onstakeholderengagement

Lozano(2011)

Qualitativetw

elve

universitiesworldwide

(2002–2009)b

ytheGASU

Framew

ork(Lozano,2006)

Analysisof

universitiesSR

performance

(followingtheGRIGuidelin

es)w

orldwideby

applying

GASU

:12un

iversitiesworldwideprovided

aSR

covering

TBLindicators.T

heappliedGASU

fram

eworkconsistof

126indicators.T

heresults

indicate

acentralfocus

ontheeconom

ic(coverageof

11%)a

ndtheenvironm

entald

imension

(coverageof

17%).

Concerningthesocialdimension

acoverage

of7%

andon

theeducationald

imension,one

of6%

was

foun

dLopatta

and

Jaeschke

(2014)

Conceptual/q

ualitative6

German

andAustrian

universities(until2011)

Developmentof

afram

eworkbasedon

theGRIGuidelin

es(G3)

andsupp

lementedby

aneducationald

imension

toassess

SRsin

GermanyandAustria:4%

oftheun

iversities

publishedaSR

.The

fram

eworkhas87

indicators.T

hehigh

estcoverage

ratescouldbe

foun

don

theenvironm

ental(29%)and

ontheeducationald

imension

(30%

),followed

bythe

econom

icdimension

(25%

)and

thesocial

one(14%

),adding

upto

aTCR

of26%

Sassen

etal.(2014)

Conceptual/q

ualitative14

German

universities(24

reports)regardless

their

appliedstandards

(2004–2014)

Developmentof

afram

eworkbasedon

theGRIGuidelin

esaugm

entedby

aneducational

dimension

toassess

24SR

sin

Germany:

thefram

eworkhas130

indicators.4%

ofthe

universitiespu

blishedaSR

.65outof

130indicators

werereported.T

hehigh

estcoverage

rate

show

edtheeconom

icdimension

(40%

),followed

bytheenvironm

ental(31%),the

university

(27%

)and

finally

thesocial

(11%

)Hinsonetal.(2015)

Qualitative6Hinsonetal.

(2015)

basedon

G3and

Fonseca’sfram

ework

(Fonseca

etal.,2011)

App

licationof

Fonseca’sfram

ework(Fonseca

etal.,2011),basedon

theGRIG

uidelin

esand

campu

ssustainabilityassessmenttools,to

analysethestateof

sustainabilityreporting:

anaveragecoverage

rate

of57%

was

foun

d.Allsixun

iversitiespu

blishedaSR

.Stakeholder

engagementplaysan

importantrole(fouroutof

sixun

iversitiesreporton

thisindicator).

Economic(financial)ind

icators,social

performance

aswella

sresearch/curriculum

and

teaching

wereequally

wellcovered.T

heenvironm

entald

imension

played

aminor

role

Rom

olinietal.

(2015)

Qualitative20

universities

worldwide(2012)

byanalysingG3.1

Analysisof

thematurity

levelofsustainabilityreportingin

HEIb

yevaluatin

g20

GRIS

Rs.

65%

oftheanalysed

universitiescomefrom

Europe.A

coverage

rate

of64%

forthe

econom

icdimension,49%

fortheenvironm

entala

nd53%

forthesocial

dimension

was

detected

BiceandCoates

(2016)

Qualitative10

Eng

lish

lang

uage

reportsworldwide

(2007–2014)b

ased

onG3

Analysisofselectivesustainabilityperformance

measures,basedmainlyon

GRI,concerning

theirapplicability

formeasuring

universitiessustainabilitycontribu

tionto

society:

all

university

reportsdisclosedtw

oor

moreeconom

icindicators,clim

atechange

was

atopicin

(continued)

Table I.

372

JPBAFM31,3

Topic

Author(s)/year

Researchdesign

respondents/

sector

Contribution/major

finding

s

(threeun

iversities)or

G3.1

(7un

iversities)

50%

oftheanalysed

reports,andbiodiversity

was

identifiedas

anim

portantarea.A

llun

iversitiesprovided

inform

ationon

stakeholders.T

woreportshadan

external

assurance

Dagilienėand

Myk

olaitienė

(2016)

Qualitative40

Lith

uanian

tertiary

sector

institu

tions

(2013–2014),am

ongthem

11un

iversities

Analysisof

inform

ationdisclosure

inthehigh

ereducationsector:p

erform

ance

indicators

relatedto

indirect

econom

icim

pactsandmarketpresence,env

ironmentalexp

enditure

aswella

senergy

andbiodiversity,ong

oing

campaigns

oreffortsin

makingaun

iversity’s

environm

entfriendlierfordisabled

stud

entswereidentifiedas

wellcovered

areasintheSR

sLarránetal.(2018)

Qualitative58

universities

worldwide(138

SRs)

followingG3,G3.1or

G4

Analysisof

thecoverage

ratesof

SRsfrom

theGRIdatabase

inorderto

exam

inethe

influ

ence

ofcertainvariablesin

relatio

nto

thedisclosure

ofsustainabilityinform

ation:

the

analyses

show

edaTCRof

44%.T

heeconom

icdimension

performed

thebest

with

acoverage

rateof54%,followed

bythesocialdimension

with

44%

andtheenvironm

entalone

with

41%.Institutionalisation,

geograph

ical

region

andexternal

assurancehave

been

the

mostinflu

entia

lvariables

Sassen

andAzizi

(2018a)

Qualitative20

Canadian

publicandprivate

universitiesregardless

their

appliedstandards

(2011–2015)

Assessm

entof2

0SR

sby

applying

afram

eworkbasedon

theGRIG

uidelin

esaugm

entedby

aneducationald

imension

(Sassenetal.,2014):13%

publishedaSR

.The

high

estcoverage

show

edtheenvironm

entald

imension

(15%

)and

theun

iversity

dimension

(13%

),thelowest

onetheeconom

ic(4%)a

ndthesocial

dimension

(1%).Noreportdisplayedexternal

assurance

Sassen

andAzizi

(2018b)

Qualitative23

USun

iversities

participatingin

the

SustainabilityTracking,

Assessm

entandRating

System

(AASH

E)(2019)

Assessm

entof2

3SR

sby

applying

afram

eworkbasedon

theGRIG

uidelin

esaugm

entedby

aneducationald

imension

(Sassenetal.,2014):7%

oftheUSun

iversitiespu

blisheda

comprehensive

SR.T

heauthorsdiscovered

areportinglevelo

f30%

with

inthe

environm

ental,21%

with

intheeducational,11%

with

intheeconom

icand7%

with

inthe

social

dimension

Table I.

373


reports

low diffusion rates and stressed the importance of sustainability reporting for stakeholdersfor comparing the sustainability development activities among different universities.Regarding organisational change management for sustainability, Blanco-Portela et al. (2017)identified drivers and barriers for the integration of sustainability.

Three studies focus on special aspects of performance assessment of universities:Del Sordo et al. (2016) analysed the content of social reports as a voluntary practice inItalian universities. Habersam et al. (2018, 2013) analysed with a qualitative casestudy approach the interpretation and use of mandatory knowledge balance sheets ofAustrian universities.

Three single-case studies analysed the implementation process concerning sustainabilityreporting in HEIs. Only one single-case study (Yáñez et al., 2019) emphasised theoutstanding role of the SR. In this single-case study, the SR contributed to the developmentof a holistic stakeholder accountability and a standardisation of the materiality process.

Four papers studied the issue of what stakeholder regard as material. OnlyFerrero-Ferrero et al. (2017) sought to determine if the selected material aspects ofinternal stakeholders also were documented in SRs in the case of one Spanish university. Allfour studies showed the heterogeneity and extensiveness of stakeholder concerns.

In total, 11 studies evaluated the coverage rates of triple bottom line performanceindicators; 3 studies additionally reported the total coverage rates (TCRs). With theexception of the Ghanesian case (Hinson et al., 2015 found an average coverage rate of57 per cent), the TCRs and the coverage rates of selected performance indicators weredisappointing (on the average below 50 per cent).

This brief overview shows that inside and outside the university sector, no study existswhich evaluated if the in GRI G4-19 documented material aspects guide the reportedcontent. Prior studies of coverage rates merely focused on quantitative guidelinecompliances, operationalised by the amount of indicators reported. In the university sector,only Ferrero-Ferrero et al. (2017) performed a quantitative content analysis of ten SRsworldwide for identifying material aspects, as addressed in RQ1. This paper extendsthis search to the 33 universities worldwide, which appeared in the GRI database. WhileFerrero-Ferrero et al. (2017) used the GRI G4-Framework modified by Lozano (2006) toanalyse which stakeholders are involved and how they are involved for determiningmaterial aspects, the current study is based on an inductive identification of materialaspects. Furthermore, the current study is the first to examine the internal consistencybetween the listed material aspects and their coverage in the SRs.

3. Theoretical consideration on materiality disclosures by universitiesWhile theoretical reflections on general motives, implementation levels in and across countriesand factors driving the implementation of SRs are well advanced (Shabana et al., 2017),stakeholder materiality is still under-researched (Ferrero-Ferrero et al., 2017). Strategicstakeholder theory and sociological institutionalism are used here for formulatingcontradictory expectations about the extent in which SRs comply with themateriality principle.

Strategic stakeholder theoryStakeholder theory, popularised by Freeman (1984), considers the relationship between anorganisation and its stakeholders (Harrison, 2013; Freeman, 2010, 1984). According toFreeman (2010), it is essential to clearly identify stakeholders and their perceived stakes.Additionally, it is relevant to manage an organisation’s relationship with its stakeholders andto understand the set of transactions or bargains among an organisation and its stakeholders.An essential claim within the strategic stakeholder theory is that stakeholder expectations aremulti-fold, heterogeneous and conflicting. Therefore, trade-offs have to be made to balancethese conflicting stakeholder demands (Chen and Roberts, 2010; Freeman, 1984).

374

JPBAFM31,3

Strategic stakeholder theory claims that a cooperative and trustworthy relationship withrelevant stakeholders is regarded as a critical part for a firm’s ongoing success and forsecuring a continuous flow of resources (Freeman et al., 2004). Strategic stakeholder theorystresses the instrumental value of good stakeholder relations. Satisfying needs anddemands of salient stakeholders is seen as a win-win situation which unlocks an additionalpotential for value creation (Harrison et al., 2010; Freeman et al., 2004). The managementchoices of how well it satisfies its most important stakeholders are essential for the survivalof an organisation (Rowley, 1997).

Not all stakeholders have the same relevance. For classifying stakeholders, Mitchell et al.(1997) introduced to the debate three criteria, namely, legitimacy, power and urgency.Depending whether one, two or three criteria are fulfilled, stakeholders can be classified intothree groups, i.e. latent, expecting and definite stakeholders. With respect to salience,defined as “the degree to which managers give priority to competing stakeholder claims”(Mitchell et al., 1997, p. 869) it is important to pay attention to the claims of definitestakeholders, the dominant and the dangerous stakeholders. On the other stakeholdergroups, a watchful eye should be kept if their status changes because they acquire anothersource of stakeholder influence (power, legitimacy or urgency).

Identifying for an organisational survival medium or highly salient stakeholders andproviding them with relevant information is a crucial part of a strategic stakeholdermanagement. For universities, the United Nations Global Compact stresses that inuniversities a shift “from short-term corporate visions to a broader, multi-stakeholder focus”is necessary (UNGC, 2012, p. 8). For universities, SRs are regarded as a managerialinstrument for gaining social acceptance and support of strategically relevant stakeholders(Ntim et al., 2017). Under resource-providing aspects, the pressures on universities to servethe information needs to salient stakeholders have increased considerably in the universitysector. The hybridisation of the funding sources and the increase of stakeholderaccountability pressures have led in the university sector to a development that the numberof stakeholders which hold universities accountable has increased considerably in thepast decades.

To know what the most important stakeholders regard as material and to serve theseinterests is of instrumental value for universities. Therefore, based on the reasoning ofstrategic stakeholder theory, it can be argued that university SRs should show a highcompliance between the SRs documented material aspects of under resource-providingaspects relevant stakeholders. The reported content should be in line with the informationneeds of the medium or highly salient stakeholders.

Sociological institutionalismSociological institutionalism provides a more sceptical position regarding the compliancewith the materiality principle. Sociological institutionalism focuses on the shaping effects ofsocial pressures for stability, legitimacy and survival reasons (Higgins and Larrinaga, 2014;Chen and Roberts, 2010). Organisational behaviour is triggered by coercive, normative andmimetic isomorphism (Higgins and Larrinaga, 2014; DiMaggio and Powell, 1991).For DiMaggio and Powell (1991, p. 67) coercive isomorphism results “both from formaland informal pressures exerted on organisations by other organisations upon which theyare dependent on and by cultural expectations”. Coercive isomorphism is based onpower relationships and politics and therefore results from regulations by the state andother powerful actors with sanctioning powers. GRI does not have these powers.Furthermore, publishing a SR is, with the exception of the Spanish province of Andalusia, inno country obligatory for universities. Normative isomorphism primarily stems fromprofessionalisation (DiMaggio and Powell, 1991) and demands conformity with professionalstandards by professional networks, credential and educational institutions (Heugens and

375


reports

Lander, 2009). GRI is such a normative pressure. Compared to other voluntaryaccountability clubs (i.e. accreditations and certifications) for universities, GRI is a weakone due to missing entrance requirements, lack of peer visits and a lack of sanctioningpowers. Mimetic isomorphism arises from uncertainty and high implementation rates in thechosen field. As a low-cost coping strategy, organisations imitate peer organisations, whichthey perceive as successful (Heugens and Lander, 2009; Boxenbaum and Jonsson, 2008;DiMaggio and Powell, 1991). The literature review has shown that so far the implementationrates of sustainability reporting are far behind those of stock exchange listed companies.

Another central claim of sociological institutionalism is that organisations adopt newpractices in a symbolic way leading to a ceremonial compliance or decoupling (Heugens andLander, 2009; Boxenbaum and Jonsson, 2008; Meyer and Rowan, 1991). Organisations abideonly superficially to institutional pressures (Boxenbaum and Jonsson, 2008). Heterogeneousor harmful stakeholder demands are among the reasons for decoupling (Cho et al., 2015).

Scholars investigating institutionalisation processes of sustainability reporting practicesargue that a full institutionalisation takes considerable time. For a full institutionalisation,Shabana et al. (2017) state that the reporting practice must have reached a critical mass.Bebbington et al. (2009) suggest that coercive and normative isomorphism are influencingmore the activity than the content of SRs. As materiality is a fairly new practice for SRs, afull institutionalisation cannot be expected. The challenges already start with selectingstakeholder-material aspects. Identifying, selecting and prioritising stakeholder-materialaspects is a challenge which is potentially leading to a low alignment. Universities areinstitutions which have to serve multiple stakeholders. In the past decades, the number ofmedium or highly salient stakeholders has increased considerably in the university sector.Traditionally, public-funded universities relied mostly on government’s money. Today,students’ fees, competitive research grants from various providers or industry money arealso relevant income sources. Stakeholder plurality makes a stakeholder prioritisation notan easy task. Unerman and Zappettini (2014) argue that any definition of materiality, wheremeanings are constructed by external stakeholders and within an organisation, presents acontested area which gives room to a variety of interpretations. As the literature review hasshown (Ferrero-Ferrero et al., 2017; Larrán et al., 2012, 2016; Mainardes et al., 2012),stakeholder information preferences are plentiful and heterogeneous in the universitysector. Universities as stakeholder-pluralistic organisations with broad missions areconfronted with rather heterogeneous stakeholder information demands where a lot oftrade-offs have to be made to deal with this. An additional challenge is that the willingnessof powerful resource providers of universities (i.e. governments, research funding agenciesand accreditation agencies) to engage themselves in a meaningful stakeholder engagementprocess is most likely low as they have the power to impose or negotiate more to theirinformation needs tailored accountability requirements.

Based on sociological institutionalism, two gaps are likely which result in a lowcompliance with the materiality principle. The first gap consists of shortcomings in theidentification and listing of material aspects in the SRs, as required by the GRI G4Guidelines. The in GRI G4-19 displayed list is not in line with the preferences of salientstakeholders. A second gap can occur if SR preparers do not take materiality as acontent-selection principle seriously, resulting in the situation of a low internal consistency.In this situation, the content of the SR is not focused on the documented material aspects.

4. Sample description and methodologyThe assessment of SRs is based on GRI G4 Guidelines. All the newest GRI G4-SRs ofuniversities uploaded to the GRI database up to 30 April 2018 are included irrespective ofthe publication’s language ( full census). In total, 33 reports could be included into the studyfor evaluating the implementation of the materiality principle of GRI SRs globally. The low

376

JPBAFM31,3

number of available reports presents a limitation we share with other studies empiricallyanalysing the state of the art of sustainability reporting universities, as shown in theliterature review. Compared to prior studies, this is the first study which provides aninternational comparison of sustainability reporting at universities under the focus ofmateriality. A list of all 33 universities is provided in Table II.

Regarding the geography of the analysed universities, they are distributed in thefollowing way, two from North America, eight from Europe, eight from Asia and two fromAustralia. In all, 20 are private (with 8 of the 20 in private, non-profit ownership) and 13are public. Enrolments vary with 42 per cent under 15,000 students, 49 per cent between15,001 and 55,000 students, and 9 per cent with over 55,000 students. In total, 36 per centwere ranked by one of the major ranking institutions (Times Higher Education, QS WorldUniversity Ranking or Academic Ranking of World Universities). Due to the importancefor sustainability reporting, membership to the Higher Education Sustainability Initiative(HESI), which is a partnership of universities with UN Organisations created in 2012, wasexamined. Seven universities have a HESI membership. To analyse the influence of thesecharacteristics in regard of coverage rates of the identified material dimensions, t-tests at a

Country UniversitySize (numbers of

students)Public/private

HESImembership

Australia Deakin University 34,968 Public ×

Australia University of Melbourne 42,273 Public ×

Belgium Ghent University 41,000 Public ×

Brazil Instituto Superior de Administraceo eEconomica (ISAE)

6,173 Private ×

Brazil Anhanguera Educacional 441,900 Private ×

Brazil Universidad Feevale 19,000 Private ×

Brazil Estació 334,200 Private ×

Chile Pontificia Universidad Católica de Valparaiso 15,241 Private ×

Chile Universidad de Santiago de Chile 22,720 Public |

Chile Ponificia Universidad Católica de Chile 26,188 Private ×

Columbia Fundación Universitaria del Área Andina 4,900 Private |

Columbia Universidad Cooperativa de Columbia 55,187 Private |

Columbia Red Ilumno 47,000 Private ×

France INSEAD – The Business School for the World 1.399 Private ×

Italy Università degli Studi di Torino 67,043 Public ×

Mexico University de Monterrey (UDEM) 13,062 Private ×

Peru Universidad del Pacifico 5,460 Private |

Peru Universidad San Ingnanco de Loya 6,581 Private ×

Philippines University of Asia and the Pacific 2,129 Private |

Philippines Ateneo de Manila University 10,333 Private ×

Portugal Universidade do Minho 18,475 Public ×

South Korea Wonkwang University 25,189 Private ×

Spain ESADE Business School 11,037 Private |

Spain Escuela técnica superior de ingenierosindustrials de la UPM

4,431 Public ×

Switzerland ETH Zürich 19,233 Public ×

Taiwan Nanhua University 5,200 Private ×

Taiwan Hungkuang University 13,107 Private ×

Taiwan Ming Chi University of Technology 4,039 Private ×

Taiwan National University of Tainan 31,591 Public ×

UK Plymouth University 19,772 Public |

USA Ball State University 21,988 Public ×

USA University of California, Berkley 38,204 Public ×

Table II.List of the 33

analysed universities

377


reports

significance level of 0.05 were carried out. These tests show if there is a difference withinthe coverage rates due to the characteristics such as size, ownership, ranking or havingHESI membership.

The methodology used in the empirical part includes two different content analyses(a qualitative and a quantitative one), followed by a correlation analysis. For ensuring thereliability of the content analyses, which “is a technique for gathering data that uses a set ofprocedures to make valid interferences from text” (Guthrie and Abeysekera, 2006: 120), thesuggestions by Guthrie and Abeysekera (2006) based on Milner and Adler (1999) werefollowed. In an iterative process, coding categories and clear decision rules were established.Coding was done independently by two persons. Discrepancies were discussed andreconciled. Content analyses are limited to analysing the documented aspects and thereforeallow only an insight on the explicitly stated aspects.

A qualitative content analysis was completed to address RQ1 about the documentedmaterial aspects. GRI G4-17 to G4-22 indicators address the aspects of materiality.In particular, G4-19 demands that all material aspects that were identified as the outcome ofa stakeholder engagement process for defining a report’s content (G4-18) are listed andranked according to relevance (G4-19 to G4-22) for two stakeholder groups (internal andexternal ones). All 33 universities provided information on material aspects, either in avisual form of a materiality matrix (16 universities) or in a narrative form (17 universities).

The qualitative content analysis on material aspects was done in three steps. First, theinformation on material aspects was listed for each university. In this step of the qualitativecontent analysis process, all material aspects of the analysed universities were identified byreading and analysing the material matrices and the provided text elements of the GRIG4-materiality indicators. Second, the list of material aspects identified in the first step ofour qualitative content analysis was summarised by content leading to four materialsubcategories (economic, environmental, social and education/research) and then dividedinto 15 material dimensions. Third, the information on the relevance levels of alldocumented material subcategories for internal and external stakeholders was collected.As internal stakeholders were mentioned in the analysed SRs: president or rector(ate),university board, university assembly/senate, academic staff, technical and administrativestaff, students and alumni. Identified external stakeholders are parents of students,government bodies, business partners, public decision makers/politicians, media and thepublic. For the analysis, four relevance levels were used (0¼ not mentioned, 1¼ lowrelevance, 2¼middle relevance and 3¼ high relevance). The G4-19 only has three relevancelevels (low, middle and high). The category “not mentioned” was added to indicatehow many universities did not include a specific material dimension in their SRs. If auniversity had a materiality matrix, the information could be taken directly from it as theyprovide information on the three G4 relevance levels (low, medium or high). If the SR of auniversity did not provide a materiality matrix, an evaluation grid was compiled accordingto the importance/extensiveness of a mentioned material dimension and if projects werelinked to it.

The GRI indicators were used as follows: G4-EC1-EC9 for the material dimension ofeconomic performance, G4-EN1-10 for the material dimension resources, the G4-EN22-26 forwaste and recycling, the G4-EN15-21 for emission and G4-EN11-14 for the materialdimension of biodiversity. G4-LA1-3 indicators were used for the material dimensionof employment and diversity, HR1-12 for the material dimension of human rights andG4-SO1-11 for the material dimension of society. G4-PR1-9 was used for the materialdimension of product responsibility.

For each material subcategory and dimension, a coverage rate was calculated as follows.For example, the material subcategory employment/diversity has three indicators. Ifuniversity one reports two of these three indicators the compliance level is 66.67 per cent (2/3).

378

JPBAFM31,3

These compliance levels were divided into four categories (0¼ no coverage, 1¼ low coverage,2¼middle coverage and 3¼ high coverage). The classification of the compliance levelsis the following: no coverage¼ 0,W0–33.33 per cent¼ 1,W33.33–66.66 per cent¼ 2andW66.66 per cent¼ 3. t-Tests at a significance level of 0.05 were carried out to analyse ifthe sample characteristics had an influence on the coverage rates.

A quantitative content analysis was performed to address RQ2. Here, the coverage ratesfor material subcategories and dimensions were calculated based on GRI G4 Guidelines.The coverage was rated on four levels: no, low, middle and high coverage. The relevantindicators for each identified material dimension were aggregated. The aggregation processof the quantitative process was necessary because the documented material dimensions( for RQ1) are also based on the aggregation of dimension-specific indicators. Otherwise, acomparison on the same level would not have been possible. To guarantee the reliability ofthe process of aggregating the G4 indicators for the certain material dimensions, the codingprocess was done by two independent coders. The level of intercode reliability for theaggregate coverage levels is at 0.9.

Finally, a correlation analysis between the relevance of a material dimension and itscoverage in the SRs was conducted to address RQ2, which deals with the research gap if theanalysed universities consider the relevance of a material dimension in their SRs. It wasdone to evaluate if the stakeholder-material aspects were reported in the analysed G4-SRs.To test the correlation hypotheses for each identified material dimension, the followingstructure was formulated:

H0. There is no correlation between the two groups. The evaluation of stakeholders onthe relevance of the material dimension X has no relation to the coverage of thereported indicators of this dimension.

H1. There is a correlation between the two groups. The evaluation of stakeholders on therelevance of the material dimension X has a relation to the coverage of the reportedindicators of this dimension.

To interpret the results of these correlations, the Spearman correlation coefficient was used.If the p-value is under the significance level of 0.05, the null hypothesis is rejectedand a correlation between the two groups exists. A positive correlation means that theextension of reporting on the specific material dimension in the SRs is aligned with therespective relevance level (no relevance, low, medium, high) assigned to the materialdimension by the group of either internal stakeholders or external stakeholders. Forexample, if a specific material dimension is highly relevant, the coverage in the SRs is alsohigh. If there is a negative correlation or no correlation, the documented material dimensionis not reported accordingly.

5. Findings

Material subcategories and dimensionsFrom the qualitative analysis, four material subcategories and 15 material dimensions wereinductively identified (1. “economic”: economic performance; 2. “environmental”: resources,waste/recycling, emission, biodiversity; 3. “social”: employment/diversity, human rights,society, product responsibility; 4. “education/research”: campus life, student mobility, teaching,research, student diversity and student engagement). While “economic”, “environmental” and“social” are subcategories of the G4 Guidelines, the material subcategory “education/research”is an additional field-specific subcategory outside the GRI G4 Guidelines which emerged in themateriality matrix. The dimension of “education/research” is defined as follows: campus lifefocuses on the infrastructure and campus services while student mobility concentrates ongoing abroad programmes and international scholarships. Teaching focuses on all aspects

379


reports

concerning study programmes, degrees and curricula while research deals with the researchactivities of a university. Finally, student diversity addresses the structure of the studentpopulation and the integration of students of different gender, nationalities and religions whilestudents’ engagement focuses on the relationship and interactions between students and theuniversity. All the material dimensions in the subcategory “education/research” are not part ofthe GRI G4 material categories and indicators. That they emerged in the analysis is notsurprising, because teaching a research belongs to the core mission of universities.

All SRs include information on what aspects are material for the stakeholders. Therefore,the SRs comply (in a varying degree) with the G4-19 to G4-22 requirements. Thedocumentation of the material aspects is more transparent in those 16 universities whichinclude a materiality matrix in their SR. In the other 17 universities, which do not have amatrix in their reports, the narrative formmakes it more ambiguous andmuch less structured.

The following figures provide an overview of the reported material subcategories andtheir material dimensions grouped according to the location of the stakeholder group (beingeither internal or external). The figures also show the levels of relevance. Figure 1 displaysthe results for the subcategory “economic”. Approximately 76 per cent (25/33) of alluniversities rate economic as a material subcategory and half of all universities see theeconomic performance as a highly relevant dimension (Figure 2).

Internal External Internal External Internal External Internal External

Employment/diversity Human rights Society Product responsibility

No evaluation 5 5 10 10 9 9 12 12

Low 1 6 1 8 3 4 1 6

Middle 6 8 3 3 5 6 4 4

High 21 14 19 12 16 14 16 11

5 5

10 109 9

12 12

16

1

8

3 4 16

6 8 3 3 5 6 4 4

21

14

19

12

1614

16

11

0

5

10

15

20

25Material Subcategory: Social

Figure 2.Frequency of thematerial subcategory– social

Internal External

Economic performance

No evaluation 8 8

Low 1 4

Middle 8 7

High 16 14

8 8

1 4

87

16

14

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

Material Subcategory: Economic

Figure 1.Frequency of thematerial subcategory– economic

380

JPBAFM31,3

The material subcategory “social” is the second most mentioned category (see Table II).In total, 73 per cent (24/33) of all universities regard one of the four dimensions as material.The material dimension “employment/diversity” is the most highly rated one across allmaterial dimensions with 85 per cent (28/33).

Figure 3 describes the material subcategory “environmental”, subdivided in fourmaterial dimensions. Waste/recycling is the most frequently mentioned material dimensionand evaluated with the highest relevance.

Figure 4 displays frequencies of the material subcategory “education/research” with itssix material dimensions. This material subcategory is not specified in the G4 Guidelines.Within this material subcategory, “teaching” is the most frequently mentioned materialdimension. In total, 50 per cent of the analysed universities ranked this material dimensionas highly important.

If identified as material, the material subcategories and material dimensions reachsimilar high relevance marks, albeit there is a slightly higher relevance evaluation byinternal stakeholders than by the external ones. Summing up, the social materialsubcategory shows a high relevance (based on a weighted average) of 47 per cent (123/264),the economic 46 per cent (30/66), the environmental 27 per cent (71/264) and the education/research 20 per cent (80/396).

In addition, differences in the material subcategories andmaterial dimensions appear whenlooking at the number of universities that do not include them. The “economic” and “social”subcategories appear more frequently than the “environmental” and “education/research”subcategories. The dimensions of emission and biodiversity show a particularly low relevance

Internal External Internal External Internal External Internal External Internal External Internal External

Campus life Student mobility Teaching Research Student diversity Student engagement

No evaluation 28 28 26 26 12 12 18 18 30 30 29 29

Low 0 1 0 1 0 2 0 1 0 0 0 2

Middle 1 1 1 4 0 7 3 3 1 2 0 0

High 4 3 6 2 21 12 12 11 2 1 4 2

28 2826 26

12 12

18 18

30 30 29 29

0 1 0 1 0 2 0 1 0 0 0 21 1 1 4 0 7 3 3 1 2 0 04 3 6 2

21

12 12 11

2 1 4 20

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Material Subcategory: Education/Research

Figure 4.Frequency of the

material subcategory– education/research

Internal External Internal External Internal External Internal External

Resources Waste/recyling Emission Biodiversity

No evaluation 16 16 13 13 21 21 27 27

Low 0 3 1 2 1 0 3 1

Middle 5 4 6 4 3 4 0 2

High 12 10 13 14 8 8 3 3

16 1613 13

21 21

27 27

0 3 1 2 1 0 3 15 4 6 4 3 4 0 2

1210

13 14

8 83 3

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Material Subcategory: Environment

Figure 3.Frequency of the

material subcategory– environmental

381


reports

within the “environmental” subcategory. Four material dimensions of the materialsubcategory “education/research” are also low performers. The material dimension ofstudent mobility is 21 per cent (7/33), the material dimension campus life 15 per cent (5/33),student engagement 12 per cent (4/33) and student diversity 9 per cent (3/33). On average72 per cent (143/198) of universities do not include any of the material dimensions of thematerial subcategory “education/research”.

Quantitative content and correlation analysisTop coverage rates in the SRs achieve the dimensions of resources, employment/diversity,human rights and economic performance. The material dimensions with the lowestcoverage rates are biodiversity and product responsibility (see Table III).

A t-test of the sample was calculated for the factors size (small:M (47.31, SD 31.98) large:M (43.55, SD 29.09), t(31)¼ 0.354, p¼ 0.726), ownership (public: M (43.85, SD 29.73) private:M (47.73, SD 31.74), t(31)¼−0,357, p¼ 0.723) ranking (no: M (45.05, SD 28.81) yes: M(45.94, SD 33.56), t(31)¼−0.080, p¼ 0.936) and the membership of HESI (no: M 42.50, SD26.50) yes:M (56.07, SD 41.7), t(31)¼−1.601, p¼ 0.297). Except for the membership of HESI,no statistical significance of these factors on the TCRs of the SRs was found. HESI membershave a higher coverage rate.

The mere quantitative coverage rates do not allow an assessment if the documentedrelevance levels of the material dimensions are matched with the appropriate levels of SRcoverages. The correlation analyses for the material dimensions proved to be onlysignificant for the case of biodiversity (at a significance level of 0.05). For both stakeholdergroups, the null hypothesis was rejected. The evaluation of internal stakeholders on therelevance of the material dimension has an influence on the coverage in the SRs. For internalstakeholders, the correlation coefficient is 0.375. It is a middle positive correlation: if theevaluation of internal stakeholders on the relevance of biodiversity is high, the coveragerates of the indicators of biodiversity are also high. The correlation of the coverage rate ofbiodiversity and the relevance for external stakeholders is 0.368. That is also a middlepositive correlation. The correlation analyses of all other material dimensions were notstatistically significant. In 14 of 15 dimensions, there is no correlation between the identifiedmaterial aspects and their coverage in the reports.

6. Discussion and conclusionsAlthough the GRI is one of the most important and used frameworks in the field ofsustainability, reporting our analysis includes only 33 GRI G4 reports of universitiesworldwide. For comparing the implementation rates globally in a structured way,international guidelines such as GRI are necessary. The small sample size is something thisstudy shares with other guidelines or framework-based content analysis of SRs. However,an additional search of SRs of universities worldwide shows that a growing number ofuniversities, that are not included in our analysis, publish SRs or include information onsustainability issues in their reports. This fact shows that SRs of universities are compiledindividually and the attempts to standardise them by adapting frameworks such as the GRIG4 are low. In the past few years, the overall importance of sustainability reporting atuniversities is increasing but is not yet a widely institutionalised practice within this sector.

Identifying material aspects and ranking them was done by all universities listed in the GRIG4 database, albeit with differences in the communication quality. Less than 50 per cent provideda materiality matrix which is, due to its visual form, more user friendly. The transparency onwhat is regarded as stakeholder-material aspects was lower in the 17 universities which relied ona narrative presentation. This leads to the conclusion that transparency of the documentation ofstakeholder-material aspects leaves room for improvement. This is a finding shared with results

382

JPBAFM31,3

Coveragerates

Economic

Resources

Waste/recyclin

gEmission

Biodiversity

Labour

employment/diversity

Env

ironmentHum

anrigh

tsSociety

Produ

ctresponsibility

Nocoverage

30

011

177

14

74

0.01–33.33%

137

174

166

179

1515

33.33–66.66%

814

99

21

79

48

Over66.67%

912

79

819

811

76

Table III.Coverage rates

383


reports

in other sectors, displayed in the literature review (Lai et al., 2017; Calabrese et al., 2016; Font et al.,2016; Jones et al., 2016a, b, c, 2015a, b).

RQ1, which focuses on the documented material aspects, showed marked differencesamong the inclusion rates of the four subcategories. In the G4-19 documentations, thematerial subcategories “economic” and “social” achieve a much higher level of interest fromboth stakeholder groups than the other two material subcategories (“environmental” and“education/research”). This finding is a problematic sign, if one compares it with thetraditional core missions of universities, namely, education and research. In particular,the low inclusion of the material subcategory “education/research”, which is a finding in linewith the above-mentioned other empirical studies focusing on coverage rates in theuniversity sector (Sassen and Azizi, 2018a, b; Lopatta and Jaeschke, 2014; Fonseca et al.,2011), is a signal that SRs are not seen as an information source for communicatinguniversity achievements in its core areas. Research is not even listed in 18 universities as amaterial dimension. Only a third of external stakeholders attached a high relevance to thedimension “teaching”. An explanation for this low inclusion of university sector-specificcore mission aspects might be that there are other voluntary and obligatory communicationinstruments (e.g. university rankings, teaching and research excellence reports, knowledgebalance sheets and research prizes) which allow a more focussed communication. On a morefundamental level, this warrants the question about the function SRs have for universities, ifthe listed material aspects have such a low concentration on aspects addressing the coremissions of universities. Given the growing importance that the “third mission” has foruniversities, it came as a surprise that the analysed G4-19 documentations did not mention itat all. Content wise the existing G4-SO1-11 indicators (society) are far from a universitysector-specific understanding of a third mission. In line with Eccles et al. (2012) and theresults of Jones et al. (2015a, b), there are no signs that the documented material aspects arefocussed enough on the sector-specific stakeholder information needs. With the low or norelevance of teaching/research and the third mission important areas of the core universitymandates do not show up. That finding warrants the question about the role SRs have as acommunication instrument for universities and if SRs will ever gain importance as a corecommunication tool.

While all 33 reports provided some form of documentation what stakeholders regard asmaterial and also provide information on the relevance level, the documented materialaspects did not work as a content-selecting principle for the SRs. RQ2 on the coveragerates of the documented material aspects was addressed by performing a quantitativecontent analysis and a correlation analysis. These analyses showed that there is nocorrelation between the classification as a material dimension and its coverage rate in thereport. The only exception was in the material dimension “biodiversity” which was notregarded as material by 27 out of 33 universities. Therefore, materiality does not guidethe reported content of the 33 universities’ SR. The results among universities were quitehomogeneous. There was no positive or negative outlier. Even the ETH Zürich, which hadthe most advanced materiality matrix, did not perform well in the way it addresses thedocumented material aspects in its SR. This result can be underlined by the correlationanalysis of the ETH Zürich that showed no significance at a level of 0.05 as well as at alevel of 0.01.

Interpreting the findings through the two theoretical lenses, the following can be stated:the G4-reporting universities do not use their SRs for what strategic stakeholder theorysuggests. The gap between the G4-19 listed information needs of external and internalstakeholders on material aspects and the information provision by the SRs is too wide.All 33 universities do not walk the extra mile, suggested by strategic stakeholder theory forusing SRs as part of a resource-flow securing stakeholder management. The reportingpractice is also far from the idea of a holistic stakeholder accountability, suggested by

384

JPBAFM31,3

Puroila et al. (2016). As nearly 2/3 of the universities in the sample are public or non-profituniversities, one would have expected a better information provision in this group dueto a higher priority of a broad societal mission. t-Tests on the coverage rates did not supportthis expectation.

The findings of this study are in line with prior research which also observed a lack ofstakeholder orientation of SRs (Diouf and Boiral, 2017; Puroila et al., 2016; Ceulemans et al.,2015; Lozano et al., 2015; Deegan and Rankin, 1997). Putting materiality on the central stage,as done in GRI G4, has not improved in any meaningful way that the documentedstakeholder information needs receive enough attention in the SRs as a content-selectionprinciple. The core intention of the materiality principle defined by the GRI is not put intoreporting practice and the fact that the materiality principle of the GRI G4 is a ticking-offexercise for the analysed universities can be confirmed.

In line with sociological institutionalism, the SRs do not focus in a comprehensive way onthe material aspects listed in GRI G4-19. This result supports the claim of Bebbington et al.(2009), that the influence of sustainability reporting guidelines can be low with respect tothe selection of the reported content. Sustainability reporting guidelines as a weakpressure (Shabana et al., 2017; Bebbington et al., 2009) opens discretionary space for a lowimplementation in a field where sustainability reporting is not an institutionalised practiceand where other, more established voluntary accountability clubs are well established(e.g. accreditation of business schools, ranking of HEIs). The required documentation inG4-19 deteriorates to a symbolic exercise without any substantial consequences for thecontent of the SRs. The documentation of stakeholder-material aspects is deteriorated tomere ticking-off exercise.

SRs are only slowly gaining momentum as a communication instrument of universities,as the literature review in Section 2 showed. Compared to stock exchange listed companies,it might take a very long time till SRs will be an established practice. The weak mimeticpressure also might be an explanation of the low compliance with the materiality principlein the analysed SRs of universities.

Unlike with multinationals, there are no powerful external stakeholders which use theirpower to make SRs de facto obligatory. Neither governments nor external research fundersor teaching quality evaluating agencies demand SRs from universities. Therefore,sustainability reporting has a low relevance in the accountability jungle universities have todeal with. With respect to the analysed SRs, the findings indicate that the universities paylip-service to materiality as a content-selection principle.

Compared to the discussion of materiality in financial reporting, the relevance of themateriality principle as a guidance for selecting the reported content is in sustainabilityreporting in its early stage. The results from the presented empirical study are in line withmost of the studies included in our literature review (Ferrero-Ferrero et al., 2017; Larránet al., 2012, 2016).

The overall disappointing findings for how materiality influences the reported contentraises a fundamental level question about the role SRs have in universities. So far, only asmall number of universities compile SRs which are guided by a sustainability reportingstandard. One sector-specific explanation is that universities use other communicationchannels for communicating and documenting what they have achieved. Financial resourceproviders have the power to demand more specific information than the non-sector-specificG4 Guidelines can offer. Worldwide implementable sustainability reporting guidelines aremost likely too abstract for meeting the specific information needs of international, nationaland regional sector-specific powerful stakeholders (e.g. ministries, research and teachingfunding agencies, research funding foundations, accreditation bodies, etc.). In comparison,materiality of GRI G4 is a ticking-off exercise. To be in line with the GRI requirements,universities make some effort to list material aspects but do not focus their SRs on it which

385


reports

leads to a low internal consistency of the SRs. What is reported is not in line with thedocumented outcome of the stakeholder engagement process. Therefore, we conclude thatthe reporting quality in the case of materiality is low.

With this study we add to the debate about the implementation of the materiality principlein SRs. In comparison to the academic body of research focusing on materiality in financialaccounting, the body of literature on the implementation practice in SR is at the beginning, asthe literature review has shown. By focusing on universities, the paper analyses a field wherethe diffusion rate of sustainability reporting guideline-guided SRs is so far low and thereforeno mimetic pressures exist. This study also contributes to evaluating the state of the art ofSRs in a sector with a broad societal mission and a rather pluralistic stakeholder structure.Theoretically, the findings support more the low expectations of sociological institutionalismfor the implementation of materiality as a content-defining principle than the highercompliance expectation in line with strategic stakeholder theory which suggests that underresource-providing aspects the orientation of SRs on the information needs of definite,dominant or dangerous stakeholders should be high. The high hopes that the materialityprinciple will be a great step forward towards SRs focussing on highly stakeholder-relevantaspects proved to be unrealistic in the case of the analysed 33 SRs.

In line with the findings, the following practical implications can be derived. Concerningthe standard setters, they should provide clear guidelines what the materiality principle is anda user-friendly manual how to report on the materiality indicators. In case of the principle ofmateriality, it is necessary that the role of the materiality matrix, that is part of the G4indicators (mainly G4-19–G4-22), is well introduced so that the users of the GRI Guidelines areable to adapt the materiality principle in its core. Besides, preparers of SRs should make abetter use of the information they collect from highly or medium salient stakeholders in thestakeholder engagement process. A concentration of highly relevant material topics inreporting would improve the stakeholder orientation in the field of sustainability reportingand reduce the risk of being accused of greenwashing or hypocrisy.

A major limitation of this study relates to the small number of university G4 reportsavailable. The second limitation, shared with other studies using content analysis as aresearch method, is that the documented picture does not allow any conclusions about theactual preferences of internal and external stakeholder groups for material aspects. A thirdlimitation is that this study focused on SRs which are only one written form of stakeholdercommunication. Therefore, for analysing the communication on sustainability performance,further research could extend the research to other forms of stakeholder communication (e.g.social media and financial reports). Further research should be conducted about universities’motives in publishing SRs and their attitudes on the benefits of materiality for improvingtheir decision making. It also might be worthwhile to investigate the function SRs fulfilcompared to other university sector-specific accountability instruments and stakeholdercommunication channels (websites, press releases, obligatory reports to funders, etc.). Thelow implementation rates of SRs in universities might be caused by an accountabilityoverload. The value-added of compiling a SR might be lower than meeting the specificcompulsory reporting obligations of a research or teaching excellence framework.

References

AASHE (2019), “STARS technical manual”, available at: https://stars.aashe.org/resources-support/technical-manual/ (accessed 27 August 2019).

AccountAbility (2019), available at: www.accountability.org/standards/ (accessed 30 January 2019).

Adams, C.A. (2013), “Sustainability reporting and performance management in universities, challengesand benefits”, Sustainability Accounting, Management and Policy Journal, Vol. 4 No. 3,pp. 384-392.

386

JPBAFM31,3

https://stars.aashe.org/resources-support/technical-manual/

https://stars.aashe.org/resources-support/technical-manual/

www.accountability.org/standards/

Alonso-Almeida, M.D., Marimon, F. and Casani, F. (2015), “Diffusion of sustainability reporting inuniversities: current situation and future perspectives”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 106No. 12, pp. 144-154.

Bebbington, J., Higgins, C. and Frame, B. (2009), “Initiating sustainable development reporting:evidence from New Zealand”, Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal, Vol. 22 No. 4,pp. 588-625.

Bice, S. and Coates, H. (2016), “University sustainability reporting: taking stock of transparency”,Tertiary Education and Management, Vol. 22 No. 1, pp. 1-18.

Blanco-Portela, N., Benayas, J., Pertierra, L.R. and Lozano, R. (2017), “Towards the integration ofsustainability in higher education institutions: a review of drivers of and barriers toorganisational change and their comparison against those found of companies”, Journal ofCleaner Production, Vol. 166, pp. 563-578.

Boiral, O. (2013), “Sustainability reports as simulacra? A counter-account of A and A + GRI reports”,Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal, Vol. 26 No. 7, pp. 1036-1071.

Bonilla-Priego, M.J., Font, X. and Pacheco-Olivares, R. (2014), “Corporate sustainability reporting indexand baseline data for the cruise industry”, Tourism Management, Vol. 44, pp. 149-460.

Boxenbaum, E. and Jonsson, S. (2008), “Isomorphism, diffusion and decoupling”, in Greenwood, R.,Oliver, C., Suddaby, R. and Sahlin, K. (Eds), The SAGE Handbook of OrganizationalInstitutionalism, Sage Publications, London, pp. 78-98.

Brusca, I., Labrador, M. and Larran, M. (2018), “The challenge of sustainability and integrated reportingat universities: A case study”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 188 No. 1, pp. 347-354.

Burrell, N.E. and Roberts, R.E. (2014), “The public interest imperative in corporate sustainabilityreporting research”, Accounting and The Public Interest, Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 79-86.

Burritt, R.L. and Schaltegger, S. (2010), “Sustainability accounting and reporting: fad or trend?”,Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal, Vol. 23 No. 7, pp. 829-846.

Calabrese, A., Costa, R. and Rosati, F. (2015), “A feedback-based model for CSR assessment andmateriality analysis”, Accounting Forum, Vol. 39 No. 4, pp. 312-327.

Calabrese, A., Costa, R., Levialdi, N. and Menichini, T. (2016), “A fuzzy analytic hierarchy processmethod to support materiality assessment in sustainability reporting”, Journal of CleanerProduction, Vol. 121, pp. 248-264.

Ceulemans, K., Molderez, I. and Van Liedekerke, L. (2015), “Sustainability reporting in highereducation: a comprehensive review of the recent literature and paths for further research”,Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 106, pp. 127-143.

Chen, J.C. and Roberts, R.W. (2010), “Toward a more coherent understanding of the organization–societyrelationship: a theoretical consideration for social and environmental accounting research”, Journalof Business Ethics, Vol. 97 No. 4, pp. 651-665.

Cho, C.H., Laine, M., Roberts, R.W. and Rodriguez, M. (2015), “Organized hypocrisy, organizationalfaçades, and sustainability reporting”, Accounting, Organizations and Society, Vol. 40 No. 1,pp. 78-94.

Dagilienė, L. and Mykolaitienė, V. (2016), “Sustainability reporting in the higher education sector – casestudy of Lithuania”, ZögU/Journal for Public and Nonprofit Services, Vol. 39 Nos 1-2, pp. 163-174.

De Villiers, C. and Van Staden, C.J. (2010), “Shareholders’ requirements for corporate environmentaldisclosures: a cross country comparison”, The British Accounting Review, Vol. 42 No. 4,pp. 227-240.

Deegan, C. and Rankin, M. (1997), “The materiality of environmental information to users of annualreports”, Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal, Vol. 10 No. 4, pp. 562-583.

Del Sordo, C., Farneti, F., Guthrie, J., Pazzi, S. and Siboni, B. (2016), “Social reports in Italian universities:disclosures and preparers’ perspective”, Meditari Accountancy Research, Vol. 24 No. 1,pp. 91-110.

387


reports

DiMaggio, P.J. and Powell, W.W. (1991), “The iron cage revisited: institutional isomorphism andcollective rationality”, in Powell, W.W. and DiMaggio, P.J. (Eds), The new Institutionalism inOrganizational Analysis, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL and London, pp. 63-82.

Diouf, D. and Boiral, O. (2017), “The quality of sustainability reports and impression management:a stakeholder perspective”, Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal, Vol. 30 No. 3,pp. 643-667.

Eccles, R.G., Krzus, M.P., Rogers, J. and Serafeim, G. (2012), “The need for sector-specific materialityand sustainability reporting standards”, Journal of Applied Corporate Finance, Vol. 24 No. 2,pp. 8-14.

Edgley, C. (2014), “A genealogy of accounting materiality”, Critical Perspectives on Accounting, Vol. 25No. 3, pp. 255-271.

Edgley, C., Jones, M. and Atkins, J. (2015), “The adoption of the materiality concept in social andenvironmental reporting assurance: a field study approach”, British Accounting Review, Vol. 47No. 1, pp. 1-18.

Ferrero-Ferrero, I., Fernández-Izquierdo, M.Á., Muñoz-Torres, M.J. and Bellés-Colomer, L. (2017),“Stakeholder engagement in sustainability reporting in higher education: an analysis of keyinternal stakeholders’ expectations”, International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education,Vol. 19 No. 2, pp. 313-336.

Fonseca, A., Macdonald, A., Dandy, E. and Valenti, P. (2011), “The state of sustainability reporting atCanadian universities”, International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, Vol. 12 No. 1,pp. 22-40.

Font, X., Guix, M. and Bonilla-Priego, M.J. (2016), “Corporate social responsibility in cruising:using materiality analysis to create shared value”, Tourism Management, Vol. 53 No. 1,pp. 175-186.

Freeman, R.E. (1984), Strategic Management: A Stakeholder Approach, Harper Collins College Division,Boston, MA.

Freeman, R.E. (2010), Stakeholder Theory: The State of The Art, Cambridge University Press,Cambridge.

Freeman, R.E., Wicks, A.C. and Pramar, P. (2004), “Stakeholder theory and ‘the corporate objectiverevisited’ ”, Organization Science, Vol. 15 No. 3, pp. 364-369.

Gray, R. (2010), “Is accounting for sustainability actually accounting for sustainability and how wouldwe know? An exploration of narratives of organisations and the planet”, Accounting,Organizations and Society, Vol. 35 No. 1, pp. 47-62.

GRI (2013a), “Sustainability reporting guidelines: implementation manual”, available at: www.globalreporting.org/ (accessed 24 July 2018).

GRI (2013b), available at: https://g4.globalreporting.org/how-you-should-report/reporting-principles/principles-for-defining-report-content/materiality/Pages/default.aspx (accessed 13 February 2018).

Guix, M., Bonilla-Priego, M.J. and Font, X. (2018), “The process of sustainability reporting ininternational hotel groups: an analysis of stakeholder inclusiveness, materiality andresponsiveness”, Journal of Sustainable Tourism, Vol. 26 No. 7, pp. 1063-1084.

Guthrie, J. and Abeysekera, I. (2006), “Content analysis of social environmental reporting: what isnew?”, Journal of Human Resource Costing and Accounting, Vol. 10 No. 2, pp. 114-126.

Guthrie, J. and Neumann, R. (2007), “Economic and non-financial performance indicators inuniversities”, Public Management Review, Vol. 9 No. 2, pp. 231-242.

Habersam, M., Piber, M. and Skoog, M. (2013), “Knowledge balance sheets in Austrian universities: theimplementation, use, and re-shaping of measurement and management practices”, Criticalperspectives on Accounting, Vol. 24 Nos 4-5, pp. 319-337.

Habersam, M., Piber, M. and Skoog, M. (2018), “Ten years of using knowledge balance sheets inAustrian public universities, A retrospective and prospective view”, Journal of IntellectualCapital, Vol. 19 No. 1, pp. 34-52.

388

JPBAFM31,3

www.globalreporting.org/

www.globalreporting.org/

https://g4.globalreporting.org/how-you-should-report/reporting-principles/principles-for-defining-report-content/materiality/Pages/default.aspx

https://g4.globalreporting.org/how-you-should-report/reporting-principles/principles-for-defining-report-content/materiality/Pages/default.aspx

Harrison, J.S. (2013), “Stakeholder theory”, in Kessler, E.H. (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Management Theory,Sage Publications, Los Angeles, CA, pp. 763-767.

Harrison, J.S., Bosse, D.A. and Phillips, R.A. (2010), “Managing for stakeholders, stakeholderutility function and competitive advantage”, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 31 No. 1,pp. 58-74.

Heugens, P. and Lander, M.W. (2009), “Structure! agency! (and other quarrels): a meta-anaylysis ofinstitutional theories of organisations”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 52 No. 1,pp. 61-85.

Higgins, C. and Larrinaga, C. (2014), “Sustainability reporting. Insights from institutional theory”, inBebbington, J., Unerman, J. and O’ Dwyer, B. (Eds), Sustainability Accounting and Accountability,Routledge, Oxon and New York, NY, pp. 273-289.

Hinson, R., Gyabea, A. and Ibrahim, M. (2015), “Sustainability reporting among Ghanaian universities”,Communicatio, Vol. 41 No. 1, pp. 22-42.

Hopwood, A.G. (2009), “Accounting and the environment”, Accounting, Organization and Society,Vol. 34 No. 3, pp. 433-439.

Hsu, C.W., Lee, W.H. and Chao, W.C. (2013), “Materiality analysis model in sustainability reporting: acase study at lite-on technology corporation”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 57, pp. 142-151.

IFAC (2015), “Materiality in integrated reporting”, available at: http://integratedreporting.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/1315_MaterialityinIR_Doc_4a_Interactive.pdf (accessed 27 August 2019).

IIRC (2013), “The International o IRW Framework”, available at: integratedreporting.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/13-12-08-THE-INTERNATIONAL-IR-FRAMEWORK-2-1.pdf(accessed 27 August 2019).

Janek, C., Ricceri, F., Sangiorgi, D. and Guthrie, J. (2016), “Sustainability and integrated reporting: a casestudy of a large multinational organisation”, International Conference on Accounting Studies(ICAS), Langkawi, 15–18 August.

Jones, P., Comfort, D. and Hillier, D. (2015a), “Materiality and external assurance in corporatesustainability reporting: an exploratory study of UK house builders”, Property Management,Vol. 33 No. 5, pp. 430-450.

Jones, P., Comfort, D. and Hillier, D. (2015b), “Sustainability, materiality, assurance and the UK’sleading property companies: a briefing paper for occupiers”, Journal of Corporate Real Estate,Vol. 17 No. 4, pp. 282-300.

Jones, P., Comfort, D. and Hillier, D. (2016a), “Materiality in corporate sustainability reporting withinUK retailing”, Journal of Public Affairs, Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 81-90.

Jones, P., Comfort, D. and Hillier, D. (2016b), “Managing materiality: a preliminary examination of theadoption of the new GRI G4 guidelines on materiality within the business community”, Journalof Public Affairs, Vol. 16 No. 3, pp. 222-230.

Jones, P., Comfort, D. and Hillier, D. (2016c), “Sustainability in the hospitality industry, Some personalreflections on corporate challenges and research agendas”, International Journal ofContemporary Hospitality Management, Vol. 28 No. 1, pp. 36-67.

KPMG (2017), “The road ahead, the KPMG survey of corporate responsibility reporting 2017”,available at: https://assets.kpmg.com/content/dam/kpmg/xx/pdf/2017/10/kpmg-survey-of-corporate-responsibility-reporting-2017.pdf (accessed 24 July 2018).

Lai, A., Melloni, G. and Stacchezzini, R. (2017), “What does materiality mean to integrated reportingpreparers? An empirical exploration”,Meditari Accountancy Research, Vol. 25 No. 4, pp. 533-552.

Larrán, M.J., Andrades, J. and Madueño, J.H. (2018), “An analysis of university sustainability reportsfrom the GRI database: an examination of influential variables”, Journal of EnvironmentalPlanning and Management, Vol. 62 No. 6, pp. 1019-1044.

Larrán, M.J., López Hernández, A. and Calzado Cejas, M.Y. (2012), “Stakeholder expectations in Spanishpublic universities: an empirical study”, International Journal of Humanities and Social Science,Vol. 2 No. 10, pp. 1-13.

389


reports

http://integratedreporting.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/1315_MaterialityinIR_Doc_4a_Interactive.pdf

http://integratedreporting.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/1315_MaterialityinIR_Doc_4a_Interactive.pdf

integratedreporting.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/13-12-08-THE-INTERNATIONAL-IR-FRAMEWORK-2-1.pdf

integratedreporting.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/13-12-08-THE-INTERNATIONAL-IR-FRAMEWORK-2-1.pdf

https://assets.kpmg.com/content/dam/kpmg/xx/pdf/2017/10/kpmg-survey-of-corporate-responsibility-reporting-2017.pdf

https://assets.kpmg.com/content/dam/kpmg/xx/pdf/2017/10/kpmg-survey-of-corporate-responsibility-reporting-2017.pdf

Larrán, M.J., Madueño, J.H., Calzado, Y. and Andrades, J. (2016), “A proposal for measuringsustainability in universities: a case study of Spain”, International Journal of Sustainability inHigher Education, Vol. 17 No. 5, pp. 671-697.

Lopatta, K. and Jaeschke, R. (2014), “Sustainability reporting at German and Austrian universities”,International Journal Education Economics and Development, Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. 66-90.

Lozano, R. (2006), “A tool for a graphical assessment of sustainability in universities (GASU)”, Journalof Cleaner Production, Vol. 14 Nos 9-11, pp. 963-972.

Lozano, R. (2011), “The state of sustainability reporting in universities”, International Journal ofSustainability in Higher Education, Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 67-78.

Lozano, R., Ceulemans, K., Alonso-Almeida, M., Huisingh, D., Lozano, F.J., Waas, T., Lambrechts, W.,Lukman, R. and Huge, J. (2015), “A review of commitment and implementation of sustainabledevelopment in higher education: results from a worldwide survey”, Journal of CleanerProduction, Vol. 108, pp. 1-18.

Mainardes, E., Raposo, M. and Alves, H. (2012), “Public university students’ expectations: an empiricalstudy based on the stakeholders theory”, Transylvanian Review of Administrative Sciences,Vol. 8 No. 35, pp. 173-196.

Manetti, G. (2011), “The quality of stakeholder engagement in sustainability reporting: empiricalevidence and critical points”, Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management,Vol. 18 No. 2, pp. 110-122.

Meyer, J.W. and Rowan, B. (1991), “Institutionalized organizations: formal structure as myth andceremony”, in Powell, W.W. and DiMaggio, P.J. (Eds), The New Institutionalism inOrganizational Analysis, Princeton University Press, Chicago, IL, pp. 41-62.

Milner, M. and Adler, R. (1999), “Exploring the reliability of social and environmental disclosurescontent analysis”, Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal, Vol. 12 No. 2, pp. 237-256.

Mitchell, R.K., Agle, B.R. and Wood, D.J. (1997), “Toward a theory of stakeholder identification andsalience: defining the principle of who and what really counts”, The Academy of ManagementReview, Vol. 22 No. 4, pp. 853-886.

Muñoz-Torres, M.J., Fernández-Izquierdo, M.Á., Rivera-Lirio, J.M., Leon-Soriano, R., Escrig-Olmedo, E.and Ferrero-Ferrero, I. (2012), “Materiality analysis for CSR reporting in Spanish SMEs”,International Journal of Management Knowledge and Learning, Vol. 1 No. 2, pp. 231-250.

Ntim, C.G., Soobaroyon, T. and Broad, M.J. (2017), “Governance structures voluntary disclosures andpublic accountability: the case of UK higher education organisations”, Accounting, Auditing andAccountability Journal, Vol. 20 No. 1, pp. 65-118.

O’Dwyer, B., Unerman, J. and Hession, E. (2005), “User needs in sustainability reporting: perspectives ofstakeholders in Ireland”, European Accounting Review, Vol. 14 No. 4, pp. 759-787.

Parker, L. (2011), “University corporatization: driving redefinition”, Critical Perspectives on Accounting,Vol. 22 No. 3, pp. 434-450.

Parker, L. (2013), “Contemporary university strategizing: the financial imperative”, Critical FinancialAccountability & Management, Vol. 29 No. 1, pp. 1-15.

Puroila, J., Kujala, J. and Mäkelä, H. (2016), “Reframing materiality in sustainability reporting”,Academy of Management Proceedings, Vol. 2016 No. 1, p. 12697.

Romolini, A., Fissi, S. and Gori, E. (2015), “Quality disclosure in sustainability reporting: evidencefrom universities”, Transylvanian Review of Administrative Science, Vol. 11 No. 44,pp. 196-218.

Rowley, T.J. (1997), “Moving beyond dyadic ties: a network theory of stakeholder influences”,The Acadamy of Management Review, Vol. 22 No. 4, pp. 887-910.

Sassen, R. and Azizi, L. (2018a), “Voluntary disclosure of sustainability reports by Canadianuniversities”, Journal of Business Economics, Vol. 88 No. 1, pp. 97-137.

Sassen, R. and Azizi, L. (2018b), “Assessing sustainability reports of US universities”, InternationalJournal of Sustainability in Higher Education, Vol. 19 No. 7, pp. 1158-1184.

390

JPBAFM31,3

Sassen, R., Dienes, D. and Beth, C. (2014), “Nachhaltigkeitsberichterstattung deutscher Hochschulen”,Zeitschrift für Umweltpolitik und Umweltrecht, Vol. 37 No. 3, pp. 258-277.

Secundo, G., Dumay, J., Schiuma, G. and Passiante, G. (2016), “Managing intellectual capital through acollective intelligence approach”, Journal of Intellectual Capital, Vol. 17 No. 2, pp. 298-319.

Shabana, K.M., Buchholtz, A.K. and Carroll, A.B. (2017), “The institutionalisation of corporate socialresponsibility reporting”, Business & Society, Vol. 56 No. 8, pp. 1107-1135.

Unerman, J. and Zappettini, F. (2014), “Incorporating materiality considerations into analyses ofabsence from sustainability reporting”, Social and Environmental Accounting Journal, Vol. 34No. 3, pp. 172-186.

UNGC (2012), “A practical guide to the United Nations Global Compact for higher educationinstitutions”, United Nation Global Compact, available at: www.unglobalcompact.org/library/318 (accessed 24 July 2018).

Yáñez, S., Uruburu, Á., Moreno, A. and Lumbreras, J. (2019), “The sustainability report as an essentialtool for the holistic and strategic vision of higher education institutions”, Journal of CleanerProduction, Vol. 207, pp. 57-66.

Zorio-Grima, A., Sierra-Gracía, L. and Garcia-Benau, M.A. (2018), “Sustainability reporting experienceby universities: a causal configuration approach”, International Journal of Sustainability inHigher Education, Vol. 19 No. 2, pp. 337-352.

Corresponding authorMelanie Lubinger can be contacted at: [email protected]

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htmOr contact us for further details: [email protected]

391


reports

www.unglobalcompact.org/library/318

www.unglobalcompact.org/library/318

Univ.-Prof.in Dr.in Dorothea GreilingJohannes Kepler Universität Linz, lnstitut für Management Accounting

+ [email protected]

Koautorenschaft : Erkläru ng

Hiermit erkläre ich, dass der Aufsatz/Artikel

Lubinger, M., Frei, J. and Greiling, D. (2019), Assessing the materiality of university G4-sustainabilityreports, in: Journal of Public Budgeting, Accounting & Financial Management, Vol. 31, No. 3, pp. 364-39L, DOt 10.L108/JpBAFM-10-201 8-OtL7

von den angeführten Autoren betreffend lnhalt, Umfang und der grundlegenden Forschungsideesowie des -konzeptes gemeinschaftlich entwickelt und verfasst wurde. Nachfolgender Übersicht kannder Beitrag der Dissertantin zu dem verfassten Aufsatz/Artikel entnommen werden.

6. Discussion andconclusions

5. Findings

4. Sample description andmethodology

3. Theoreticalconsideration onmateriality disclosuresby universities

2. Prior research aboutmateriality andsustainability reportingof universities

AbstractL Motivation and

research questions

Abschnitt

p.t2

p. I

p. 1

p.8

p.2

AnteilDissertantin

ss%

33%

5O o/o

too%

67%

AnteilProzent

p.22

p.3

p.3

p.3

p.2

p.8

p.3

Seitenanzahlgesamt

pp. 364-386

t3e1l

pp.384-386

pp.380-382

t383.|

pp.377-379

pp.375-376

pp.367-374

pp. 364-366

Seitenzahlvon-bis

U

?q*Knterschrft der roaut(j'r

Appendix 2

Paper Two: Frei, J., Lubinger, M. and Greiling, D. (2020), Assessing Universities’ Global

Reporting Initiative G4 Sustainability Reports in Concurrence with Stakeholder Inclusiveness,

in Manes-Rossi, F. and Orelli, R.L. (Eds.), New Trends In Public Sector Reporting – Integrated

Reporting and Beyond, Public Sector Financial Management, Palgrave Macmillan,

Switzerland, pp. 35-56.

35© The Author(s) 2020F. Manes-Rossi, R. Levy Orelli (eds.), New Trends in Public Sector Reporting, Public Sector Financial Management, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-40056-9_3

Assessing Universities’ Global Reporting Initiative G4 Sustainability Reports in Concurrence with Stakeholder

Inclusiveness

Judith Frei, Melanie Lubinger, and Dorothea Greiling

Motivation and ReseaRch Questions

In the public and private sectors, stakeholder accountability demands have increased considerably, leading to many forms of obligatory and voluntary reporting practices. New Public Management (NPM) has been a main driver in the public sector for the increased accountability pressures. The managerial drive of NPM reforms has affected the role and functions of public universities as well as values of higher education (Parker 2011). As a result, universities across the globe are moving towards a market-driven enterprise culture (Parker 2011; Lucas 2006). Universities are confronted with rather pluralistic accountability demands by a broad spectrum of

J. Frei (*) • M. Lubinger • D. Greiling Institute of Management Accounting, Johannes Kepler University, Linz, Austriae-mail: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]

36

stakeholders. To address their main stakeholders, universities engage in a variety of accountability activities. Sustainability reporting is one of them.

Sustainability reporting has gained relevance especially amongst multi-national private sector companies and to a lesser degree for the public and the non-proit sector (Cho et al. 2015; Manetti and Toccafondi 2014; Guthrie and Farneti 2008). Sustainability reporting is a reaction to stake-holder pressures, resulting in reputational, competitive, political and mar-ket opportunities (Burritt and Schaltegger 2010). Proponents of sustainability reporting stress its contribution to an increase in transpar-ency and accountability (James 2015; Malik 2015; Burrell and Roberts 2014; Baker 2010). Critical accounting scholars are sceptical as to whether sustainability reporting does improve stakeholder accountability. It is seen as a public-relation endeavour without substance, a greenwashing attempt or a strategic impression management tactic (Burritt and Schaltegger 2010; Gray 2010; Hopwood 2009). The voluntary nature of sustainability reports (SRs) provides room for presenting an organisation in a too posi-tive way by selective, incomplete and biased disclosures (Cho et al. 2015).

As a remedy for the improving stakeholder accountability of SRs, stake-holder inclusiveness (SI) is advocated by sustainability reporting guidelines. Organisations have to establish a stakeholder engagement (SE) process in order to understand what key stakeholders want to know. A well-advanced SE process is seen as a core requirement for a higher quality of sustainability reporting and towards SRs that focus on stakeholder- material aspects.

However, whether SI leads to improved stakeholder accountability is an open question. On the one hand, meeting the information needs of rele-vant stakeholders under resource-providing aspects is in line with strategic stakeholder theory. On the other hand, prior research on sustainability reporting practices, using neo-institutionalism as a theoretical lens, pro-vides arguments that SRs are not focused on stakeholder-relevant aspects and therefore stakeholder accountability is most likely low (Shabana et al. 2017; Higgins and Larrinaga 2014; Bebbington et al. 2009).

Concerning the institutional ield, this chapter concentrates on univer-sities, which are an interesting ield to study because of their complex social mandate (Ntim et al. 2017). Compared to other sectors, studies evaluating the state of the art of sustainability reporting are still at an early stage (Ferrero-Ferrero et al. 2017; Ceulemans et al. 2015). Combining this with a focus on SE is an even lesser addressed topic (Ferrero-Ferrero et al. 2017; Hinson et al. 2015). Universities are also interesting to study because the number of key stakeholders who hold universities accountable has increased considerably in the past decades.

J. FREI ET AL.

37

Based on a systematic literature review and an empirical study the fol-lowing research questions (RQs) are addressed:

RQ 1. What are the main stakeholder groups and topics of universities identi-ied by SE indicators of Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) G4?

RQ 2. To what extent do universities comply with the GRI G4 Guidelines (general and speciic standard disclosures) and how are the documented main topics of the SE process covered by G4 reports?

To address RQ1, the indings from a systematic literature review on the key stakeholder groups and their information needs are combined with the results of what is documented in the most recent GRI G4 reports. The GRI Guidelines are chosen because they are still the most widely applied sustainability reporting guidelines and allow a global comparison. To gain an insight into RQ2, prior studies in GRI G4 Guidelines compliance serve as a basis for analysing the extent to which public and private universities of our sample comply with the GRI G4 Guidelines in order to evaluate whether the information disclosure in the SRs is a comprehensive or supericial one.

The remainder of the paper is structured as follows:In Section “Theoretical Background”, strategic stakeholder theory and

neo-institutionalism are introduced to identify arguments for and against comprehensive stakeholder accountability in universities’ SRs. After a very brief introduction to sustainability reporting frameworks in the university context, Section “Sustainability Reporting at Universities and Prior Empirical Studies” presents the main results of a systematic literature review and discusses main stakeholders, their information needs and the adoption of sustainability reporting guidelines. Section “Methodology, Sample Description and Findings” then presents the research design of the study along with the indings. A concluding assessment of the research questions is presented in Section “Conclusions and Directions for Further Research” together with a short discussion, as well as limitations and implications of this research project.

theoRetical BackgRound

Although there is a broad stream of literature of theoretical relections on general motives, implementation levels in and across countries and factors driving the implementation of SRs (Shabana et al. 2017; Cho et al. 2015),

ASSESSING UNIVERSITIES’ GLOBAL REPORTING INITIATIVE G4…

38

studies focusing on sustainability reporting in universities are not always theory-based (Sassen and Azizi 2018b; Gamage and Sciulli 2017; Bice and Coates 2016; Larrán et al. 2016; Lopatta and Jaeschke 2014; Ralph and Stubbs 2014; Lozano et al. 2013; Siboni et al. 2013; Fonseca et al. 2011; Lozano 2011). The theory-based ones primarily use three theories con-cerning the relationship between universities and their stakeholders: stake-holder theory, legitimacy theory and neo-institutionalism (Brusca et al. 2018; Larrán et al. 2019; Sassen and Azizi 2018a; Dagiliene and Mykolaitiene 2016; Hinson et al. 2015; Larrán et al. 2012; Mainardes et al. 2012).

In this chapter, strategic stakeholder theory and neo-institutionalism are used for formulating contradictory expectations about high or low guideline compliance and for assessing the extent to which SRs are guided by the results from the SE process.

Strategic stakeholder theory, introduced by Freeman (1984) to a wider audience, is used for making a pro-argument. Strategic stakeholder theory stresses that a cooperative relationship of an organisation with its most relevant stakeholders is essential (Freeman et al. 2004). In strategic stake-holder theory, the stakeholder focus is limited to co-operations based on economic usefulness. An excellent relationship with key stakeholders cre-ates a win-win situation that unlocks an additional potential for value cre-ation (Harrison et al. 2010; Freeman et al. 2004). Two essential preconditions for stakeholder-oriented SRs (in the university sector and outside) are that the reporting entity knows who the most relevant stake-holders are and understands the main information needs these key stake-holders require. Meeting the information needs of key stakeholders is an integral part of strategic stakeholder management. In line with strategic stakeholder theory, it can be argued that SRs of universities should be focused on the information needs of key stakeholders. To know who the key stakeholders are is one main aim of the SE process; the second aim is to know what information key stakeholders regard as relevant. The GRI G4 Guidelines demand that the preparer lists the information needs and classiies them as low, medium or highly relevant. Moreover, SRs should be focused on the stakeholder-relevant aspects in order to unlock the value potential suggested by strategic stakeholder theory. Under the resource- securing aspects, it is therefore essential that universities’ SRs show high compliance with the information needs of key stakeholder groups. This reasoning is in line with the ‘outside-in’ approach of Burritt and Schaltegger (2010) towards sustainability reporting.

J. FREI ET AL.

39

Knowing and prioritising the information needs of key stakeholders is not a simple task for universities because substantial changes in the univer-sity sector have led to a situation in which universities are nowadays con-fronted with a wide range of heterogeneous accountability demands of internal and external stakeholders. The stakeholder audiences which hold universities’ management accountable have increased considerably (e.g., ministries, other public research funders, private foundations, current and potential students and staff, business partners, employers of graduates, alumni) in the last two decades (Ntim et al. 2017).

For a counterargument resulting in low stakeholder orientation and low stakeholder accountability, neo-institutionalism is used. This theory focuses on the inluences of societal pressures on organisations. Coercive, normative and mimetic isomorphisms are drivers for complying with soci-etal pressures for legitimacy and survival reasons (Higgins and Larrinaga 2014; DiMaggio and Powell 1991). Coercive isomorphism requires com-pliance with external norms imposed by the state and other powerful actors with sanctioning rights. In the case of normative isomorphism, pro-fessional standards are the driver for management practice (DiMaggio and Powell 1991). When organisations imitate seemingly more successful peer organisations, DiMaggio and Powell (1991) label such behaviour as mimetic isomorphism.

So far sustainability reporting and in particular guideline-compliant SRs are still an emerging practice for universities, although there have been a few voluntary endeavours towards SRs. The institutionalisation process of sustainability reporting is not well advanced. In addition, universities are starting to integrate information on selected aspects of their sustainability performance, mostly in an unsystematic way. In the past years, the guide-line compliance has been low. Sustainability reporting is not yet a relevant professional practice for universities. A decent position in international ranking or accreditations in business schools is much more important than sustainability reporting for most universities under the strategic position aspects. Mimetic isomorphism requires that the non-complying universi-ties regard it as risky not to adopt this practice. This can also be ruled out due to the low number of universities publishing SRs. Coercive isomor-phism requires external stakeholders with powerful sanctioning rights. Only the Spanish province of Andalusia has introduced an obligation to implement SRs in the university sector. Sustainability reporting is a volun-tary endeavour in nearly all regions of the world and sustainability


40

standard setters have de facto no sanctioning power. Therefore, coercive isomorphism can also be ruled out as a strong pressure.

Summing up these counterarguments, it is likely that sustainability reporting guidelines can be classiied as a weak pressure and therefore most likely lead to low compliance. Stakeholder orientation, and in conse-quence stakeholder accountability, is most probably supericial and far removed from holistic stakeholder accountability. The GRI Guideline compliance in this case will most likely be low.

sustainaBility RepoRting at univeRsities and pRioR

eMpiRical studies

Universities play a fundamental role in contributing to a more sustainable society and in the integration of sustainable development in society. Sustainability assessment and reporting are regarded by some authors as a relevant part of sustainability efforts by universities (Alonso-Almeida et al. 2015; Lozano et al. 2015; Lozano 2006). For evaluating the content of universities’ SRs, quite a few normative assessment frameworks exist (for an overview, see Larrán et al. 2016; Ceulemans et al. 2015). Frequently referred to university sector–speciic assessment frameworks are those by Lozano (2006), Fonseca et al. (2011) and frameworks which augment the GRI Framework with additional sector-speciic indicators (e.g., Lopatta and Jaeschke 2014; Sassen et al. 2014). All sector-speciic frameworks have the disadvantage that they were developed in a particular institutional context, predominately in North America and Europe, which makes them less suitable for international comparison. Only the GRI and the International Integrated Reporting Council (IIRC) have developed vol-untary worldwide reporting guidelines, which are also used in the univer-sity sector. The drawback of both is that they are not sector-speciic.

The majority of empirical studies focusing on the status quo of sustain-ability or integrated reporting in universities use various versions of the GRI Guidelines (Larrán et al. 2016). Despite the rising relevance of inte-grated reporting, the GRI Guidelines are still the most widely used ones for preparing and assessing the current state of an organisation’s eco-nomic, environmental and social performance for universities (Alonso- Almeida et al. 2015; Lopatta and Jaeschke 2014; Lozano 2006).

To achieve transparent, stakeholder-oriented accountability, the GRI Guidelines deine reporting principles concerning the report quality and

J. FREI ET AL.

41

report content (GRI 2013). The principles for deining the content of SRs consist of SI, sustainability context, materiality and completeness. To apply the principle of SI, GRI requires that “the organization should iden-tify its stakeholders, and explain how it has responded to their reasonable expectations and interests” (GRI 2013: 16). The importance of SE within universities is also stressed by scholars and is seen as a demanding process due to the plethora of key stakeholders, which might also be a barrier for integrating sustainability in universities (Blanco-Portela et al. 2017; Disterheft et al. 2015).

Prior Empirical Studies

Empirical studies on the state of the art of sustainability reporting prac-tices of universities are on the rise, but so far, it is still an under-researched ield as the systematic literature review resulted only in 22 studies. The search period was from 2000 to 2018, limited to peer-reviewed English journal articles.

Content-wise three main clusters were identiied, namely single case studies on the SI, studies addressing stakeholder expectations and studies on the guideline compliance of SRs. While the irst two clusters refer to RQ1, the third cluster provides some insight into RQ2.

SI in Selected Sustainability Reports/Integrated Reports (Three Studies)

Regarding RQ1, the literature review revealed three single case studies dealing with SI. Brusca et al. (2018) analysed the implementation of sus-tainability and integrated reporting at the University of Cadiz by applying the framework of Secundo et al. (2016). As the most important stake-holder group, the university’s social council could be identiied as a repre-sentative of other stakeholders with the aim of enhancing competitiveness and attaining third mission objectives. In addition, auditors represented an important stakeholder group, based on the fact that they supported the integrated reporting implementation process. According to the Spanish case, SI plays a key role in the value-creation and strategic-management processes. Veltri and Silvestri (2015) investigated the integrated report (IR) of the Free State University in South Africa to answer the question as to whether intellectual and non-intellectual capital content was included and interconnected within one single report to enhance stakeholders’


42

information needs. Due to the results, content elements of the IIRC Framework were mentioned but there was neither any capital-speciic reporting nor any reporting on the interconnectedness of the capitals. When deining report content, managers of the university did not consider stakeholder interests; furthermore, there were no references concerning a stakeholder dialogue. Lozano et al. (2013) described the SR preparation process of the University of Leeds as an ‘inside-out’ approach. It was a management decision not to consider stakeholders’ interests.

A common inding of the three identiied single case studies is that dif-ferent stakeholder groups should be engaged to develop and validate SRs, but with the exception of the Andalusian case, external stakeholders’ inter-ests were not considered in a systematic way.

Internal and External Stakeholder Expectations (Five Studies)

Referring to the main topics identiied by SE, ive studies were found. Ferrero-Ferrero et al. (2017) analysed the SE techniques in SRs in depth. Surveys, stakeholder workshops and panels have been mostly applied by more than the half of the analysed G4 SRs. For an in-depth analysis of stakeholder expectations, a case study was conducted in a Spanish univer-sity. Economic and environmental issues, labour practices and decent work, human rights, local communities and ethical issues were the most mentioned expectations of stakeholders. Furthermore, the compliance rate between the expectations of internal stakeholders and the docu-mented material aspects has been analysed. In Andalusia, sustainability reporting of universities is obligatory. In a working group with senior managers of eight public Andalusian universities, stakeholder material aspects for a sustainability assessment and reporting tool were identiied (Larrán et al. 2016). A total of 155 material aspects clustered into seven categories were found: corporate governance, students, staff, society, envi-ronment, companies and continuous improvement. The categories of cor-porate governance and environment showed the highest relevance, followed by students, staff and society. In a prior study, Larrán et al. (2012) analysed expectations of stakeholder groups of ten public universities in Andalusia. All stakeholder groups required more information on gover-nance of universities, employability and value education for students, uni-versities’ commitment to society, transferability of university research to companies and the allocation of resources. Ralph and Stubbs (2014) investigated factors that inluence the integration of environmental

J. FREI ET AL.

43

sustainability at four English and four Australian universities. Stakeholder pressure was identiied as the second most important driver for providing information on the environmental sustainability in the eight SRs. In the analysis of students’ expectations at 11 public universities in Portugal, the ‘academic level of demand’ or employability played the most important role, but also improvement of partnership with the university staff, employ-ability, personal fulilment and the current environmental conditions were mentioned (Mainardes et al. 2012).

A common inding of all ive papers is that stakeholder information needs are quite extensive. The four papers focusing on more than one stakeholder group also revealed the great heterogeneity of stakeholder expectations.

Based on the systematic literature review the following can be con-cluded with respect to RQ1. The small number of studies shows that this is still an under-researched ield. Prior literature primarily focuses on the plethora and variety of information needs of key stakeholders. Studies ana-lysing SE-activities of universities and empirically investigating and rank-ing the main stakeholder groups and topics within universities are far less frequent.

(Coverage) Analysis of SRs/IRs Based on the GRI Guidelines (14 Studies)

Moving on to RQ2, few studies exist which focus on a quantitative guide-line compliance. As displayed in Table 1, ten studies report on total cover-age rates (TCRs) or speciic coverage rates of performance dimensions, while two out of them provide additional insights into SE.

Table 1 Studies reporting on TCRs of speciic coverage rates

Author(s) (year) TCR Economic Environmental Social Educational SE

Fonseca et al. (2011) 36% 19% 63% 21% 25% 57%Lozano (2011) 11% 17% 7% 6%Lopatta and Jaeschke (2014) 26% 25% 29% 14% 30%Sassen et al. (2014) 40% 31% 11% 27%Hinson et al. (2015) 57% 67%Romolini et al. (2015) 64% 49% 53%Gamage and Sciulli (2017) 9% 63% 31% 52%Larrán et al. (2019) 44% 54% 41% 44%Sassen and Azizi (2018a) 4% 15% 1% 13%Sassen and Azizi (2018b) 11% 30% 7% 21%


44

Additionally, four studies provide insights into selected aspects, for example, selective triple bottom line (TBL) indicators of universities’ SRs (Bice and Coates 2016) or selected TBL indicators of the GRI G3 Guidelines in Lithuania’s tertiary sector institutions (Dagiliene and Mykolaitiene 2016). In nine Italian university SRs, Siboni et al. (2013) found a low consistency with the GRI Guidelines. Italian universities applied Italian and international guidelines. Zorio-Grima et al. (2018) found that nearly one third of 49 public Spanish universities reported on the GRI indicators, but only 6 out of 49 registered their reports to the GRI.

The (quantitative) coverage of SE in SRs was an issue in four studies in this cluster. Sustainability reporting is seen as a communication instru-ment to satisfy stakeholder demands (Sassen and Azizi 2018a, b; Lozano 2011) with the ability to improve stakeholder relations (Gamage and Sciulli 2017) and to lower information asymmetries (Lopatta and Jaeschke 2014). Bice and Coates (2016) revealed that all ten universities included in the analysis provided information on internal and external stakeholders. Hinson et al. (2015) found that four out of six universities included infor-mation on their SE process. Four of the nine examined Italian universities engaged with their stakeholders at different levels within the sustainability reporting process (Siboni et al. 2013). Fonseca et al. (2011) state that four out of seven analysed universities reported on SE. Coercive pressure from resource-providing societal key stakeholders was mentioned as a possible reason for including information about sustainability in annual reports of universities (Hinson et al. 2015; Fonseca et al. 2011).

Summing up, the following can be concluded: Although the potential of sustainability and integrated reporting for the improvement of stake-holder accountability is emphasised in many papers of the systematic lit-erature review, detailed information on the SE process and SI is not well addressed, with the exception of one study which analyses SE techniques, stakeholder groups and stakeholder expectations (Ferrero-Ferrero et al. 2017). Studies analysing universities which address main stakeholder groups and main communication topics are scarce. Only selected aspects of the information needs of stakeholder groups were analysed and the stakeholder focus of the studies was unbalanced. The indings of Ceulemans et al. (2015) that the importance of SE within the sustainability reporting process is under-researched is still valid. There is no study analysing the it

J. FREI ET AL.

45

between the documented topics and the coverage rates of universities’ SRs in the SE process analysed. What is missing is a systematic analysis of the main stakeholder groups as well as additional information on the commu-nication topics universities focus on in their stakeholder dialogue. Additionally, there is no study analysing whether the relevant topics iden-tiied in the SE process are indeed reported in the GRI G4 SRs. Addressing this research gap is a relevant issue if one recalls that nowadays universities have to position themselves strategically within a broader group of stakeholders.

Methodology, saMple descRiption and Findings

Methodology and Sample Description

The assessment of SRs is based on G4 Guidelines. The sample consists of 33 SRs in line with G4 that have been uploaded until April 2018. Therefore, we excluded all other kinds of SRs of universities that are not in line with the GRI G4 Framework.

Regarding the geography of the analysed universities, they are distrib-uted in the following way: two universities are from North America, eight from Europe, eight from Asia and two from Australia. Twenty universities are private and 13 are public. Besides this, the numbers of students per analysed university varies from 42% under 15,000 students to 49% between 15,001 and 55,000 students, to 9% over 55,000 students. Of these, 36% were ranked by one of the following major ranking institutions: Times Higher Education (THE), QS World University Ranking (QS)], Academic Ranking of World Universities (ARWU).

For empirically investigating the two research questions, a mixed- method research design was used. It included two different content anal-yses—a qualitative one and a quantitative one—followed by a correlation analysis. Two persons coded them independently and the discrepancies were discussed and reconciled.

A qualitative content analysis was completed to analyse the documented SE of universities based on the reported G4 SE indicators. For this the G4-24 to G4-27 indicators of the 33 SRs were analysed. These indicators give an overview of the SE activities of the universities including a list of addressed stakeholders and the main topics universities communicate to their stakeholders. In a irst step of the qualitative content analysis, the stated topics and stakeholders of each university were identiied. In a


46

second step, the stakeholders and identiied topics were clustered and summarised into stakeholder groups and main communication topics.

In the quantitative content analysis, compliance rates for the Standard Disclosures of G4 SRs as well as for the Speciic Standard Disclosures such as economic, environmental and social with its subcategories of labour and decent work, human rights, society and product responsibility were calcu-lated. For each category, a compliance level was calculated as shown in the following example.

Example: Category EconomicNumber of economic performance indicators: 13University 1 reports 7 of 13Compliance level: 7/13∗100 = 53.85%The classiication of the compliance levels is the following: no cover-

age = 0, > 0–33.33% = 1, > 33.33–66.66% = 2 and > 66.66% = 3.

In a inal step, a correlation analysis between the main topics universi-ties communicate to their stakeholders and the compliance rate was per-formed. This was done to evaluate the it between the topics documented in G4-26 and G4-27 and the indicator-based parts of the SRs. To evaluate this it, the indicators and their extension of coverage in the form of the calculated coverage rate of the GRI reports were used. For strategic man-agement the General Standard Disclosures—for inance the coverage rate of the category economic and for sustainability the TCR that is in line with the triple-bottom-line principle—were used. The other high-scoring SE topics identiied, such as research information, education programmes and campus life, could not be included in the regression analysis because GRI G4 does not cover these topics.

To test the correlation, the following hypotheses were formulated:

H0: There is no correlation between the two groups. The identiied main com-munication topic has no inluence on the coverage of this topic in the report content of G4 SRs.

H1: There is a correlation between the two groups. The identiied main com-munication topic has an inluence on the coverage of this topic in the report content of G4 SRs.

To interpret the results of these correlations, the Spearman correlation coeficient was used. If the p value is under the signiicance level of 0.05

J. FREI ET AL.

47

the null hypothesis is rejected and a correlation between the two groups exists. A positive correlation means that the extension of reporting on the identiied main communication topic in the stakeholder process of G4 SRs is aligned with the value of this topic according to the SE process. For example, if an identiied main communication topic of the SE process such as strategic management issues, sustainability and inance is valued as highly important, the coverage of this topic in the SR is also at a high level. If there is a negative correlation or no correlation, the identiied main communication topics of the SE process are not reported accordingly in the SRs.

Findings

Concerning the main stakeholder groups addressed by certain universities, the analysis shows that 93.33% of the investigated universities report to the university assembly. This group includes the head of the university, head of departments as well as the university council. Other frequently mentioned stakeholder groups are university staff (scientiic and non- scientiic), students and government. Only 36.67% of the analysed univer-sities mentioned parents and public media partners (33.33%) as important stakeholders.

The most important communication topics that are addressed to the certain stakeholder groups are issues concerning strategic management like vision, strategic objectives as well as upcoming strategic changes of the reporting universities. Information on sustainability, education pro-grammes, research information and campus life are also very relevant top-ics in the communication of universities towards their main stakeholders. Other important topics that have been identiied are inance and legal issues.

Considering the results of the quantitative content analysis, there are differences within certain categories. In terms of the General Standard Disclosure compliance, which includes strategic management information as well as information on the universities’ proile, it can be stated that 30% of the universities have a rate between 80% and 100%, 30% a rate between 79% and 60%, and 40% a rate between 59% and 40%. No university that was analysed has a coverage rate of the General Standard Disclosures under 40%.

We further analysed the coverage rates within the six GRI categories. The results are represented in the form of pie charts and tables. There are


48

pie charts for every GRI category that show the detailed coverage of each indicator. The additional tables show the general coverage of the category.

A criterion for this analysis was the question of whether the investigated universities report more than 50% of indicators of certain categories. As for the Economic category, 46.67% of the universities that have been investigated report more than 50% of all indicators. Eleven out of the 33 (33.33%) universities report more than 50% of the indicators in the Environmental category. As for the Social – Labour Practices and Decent Work category, 50% of all reports have a coverage rate of over 50%. In terms of the categories of Social – Human Rights, Society and Product Responsibility, 26.67% of the investigated universities report more than 50% of the indicators. Summing up, this means that 10 out of 33 universi-ties use more than 50% of the stated indicators of the GRI Framework and 23 universities report less than 50% in these three categories (Human Rights, Society, Product Responsibility). Consequently, the categories with the top coverage rates are the Standard Disclosures, and in the social dimension, the subgroup Labour Practices and Decent Work followed by the Economic and Environmental performance.

The TCR of the analysed SRs are the following: 8 universities (24.24%) have a coverage rate between 80% and 100%, 2 universities (6.06%) between 79% and 60%, 4 universities (12.12%) between 59% and 40% of all indicators, 16 universities (48.48%) between 39% and 20% and 3 uni-versities (9.09%) report less than 20% of the indicators from the G4 line.

However, the mere quantitative coverage rates do not allow an assess-ment if the main communication topics that are identiied in the SE pro-cess are in fact reported in the G4 SRs. The correlation analysis of the main communication topics identiied of the SE process had no statistical signiicance. The main communication topics of the SE process are not reported at an adequate coverage level in the G4 SRs. Therefore, the G4 SR is not a main reporting tool for the identiied topics of the SE process.

conclusions and diRections FoR FuRtheR ReseaRch

The indings are based on the results of a systematic literature review and an analysis of the most recent 33 GRI G4 SRs worldwide uploaded in the GRI database. The low number of relevant prior studies as well as the fact that only 33 reports were uploaded clearly limits the generalisability of the results. Therefore, our results only provide a irst insight into an under- researched ield.

J. FREI ET AL.

49

With respect to RQ1, the results of the systematic literature review showed that prior studies focused primarily on information needs of uni-versity stakeholders. Less systematic was the evaluation of main stake-holder groups. Moreover, the analysis of the relevant stakeholder groups had a narrow focus because they were limited either to one single case (Brusca et al. 2018) or to a small sample number of universities (Ferrero- Ferrero et al. 2017). Although the multitude and the interests of different stakeholder groups are emphasised in the studies, only Brusca et al. (2018) identiied the university’s social council as the main stakeholder group and a key driver for sustainability reporting. Ferrero-Ferrero et al. (2017) identiied stakeholder groups of ten SRs worldwide to answer the question of whether material aspects mentioned by internal stakeholders are aligned with the documented aspects in the SRs. Our own empirical study showed that universities clearly document who their main stakeholders are. The indings reveal that a mixture of internal and external stakeholder groups are in line with the expectations of the heterogeneity of main stakeholder groups in the university context. Seven different stakeholder groups were classiied in the analysed 33 SRs as highly relevant. While the systematic literature review identiied a rather unstructured and wide list of potential information needs concerning topics such as corporate governance and environment, employability or university quality standards for degrees (e.g. Larrán et al. 2012, 2016; Mainardes et al. 2012), our own study showed that universities are able to identify main communication topics with their main stakeholders as required by the GRI G4 Guidelines. The topics are a mixture of general management topics (strategic management issues, sustainability, inance and legal issues) and university-speciic aspects (education programmes, research information and campus life). Information on sustainability is regarded as highly relevant. A caveat is that the reports are quite vague regarding what is meant by sustainability.

Regarding RQ2, the results are far less positive. The systematic litera-ture review revealed ten studies analysing quantitative guideline compli-ance by reporting on total or special coverage rates. Two studies out of them report on SE (Hinson et al. 2015; Fonseca et al. 2011). None of these studies analysed the coverage of main communication topics of the SE process. Our empirical study showed that the coverage of these catego-ries in the 33 analysed G4 SRs is not in line with the relevance of the main communication topics identiied in the SE process. There is no statistical correlation between the relevance of main communication topics which universities document as the outcome in the SE process and the coverage


50

of these topics in the analysed G4 SRs. Therefore, the main topics of the SE process that are addressed are not covered in an adequate way in the G4 SRs.

Besides this, the indings indicate that sustainability reporting, in par-ticular the guideline-driven one, is still in its early stage in the university sector. The literature review revealed TCRs and coverage rates of selected performance indicators are on average less than 50% (with the exception of the study of Hinson et al. 2015, with an average of 57%). This is in line with our result: in our global sample of all GRI G4 registered SRs, 19 out of 33 universities have a TCR of less than 40%. The indings can be inter-preted as a clear sign that SRs of universities are far removed from compre-hensive guideline compliance. While low levels of coverage might be tolerated for the time being, it might ire back if the practice matures in the sector. Then selective reporting might be seen as a greenwashing attempt.

As shown by the systematic literature review, the small number of SRs available for an analysis is something we share with other quantitative con-tent analyses in the university sector (between 6 and 28 reports). Only Larrán et al. (2019) had a larger sample size, as they analysed 138 SRs published from 58 universities on the GRI website, following the G3, G3.1 or G4 Guidelines.

Theoretically, the reporting behaviour is more in line with the expecta-tions of neo-institutionalism than with strategic stakeholder theory, which stresses the value-adding potential of a stakeholder-oriented reporting as an essential part of the stakeholder management process. The small num-ber of reports available and the poor coverage rates of the three triple- bottom- line dimensions are signs that sustainability reporting is not an institutionalised practice.

A closer look at the three isomorphistic pressures might give some indi-cations as to why this is the case, despite the societal relevance universities should attribute towards a more sustainable world. Due to the low imple-mentation rates, universities are not under any mimetic pressure to imitate sustainability reporting as a practice implemented by successful peers. The coercive pressure of GRI (and other sustainability reporting standards) is very low because GRI does not have any direct sanctioning power if uni-versities show low compliance. So far, universities are not under any legal pressures to implement sustainability reporting in line with GRI. Although universities classify seven different stakeholder groups as highly relevant and sustainability is classiied as a highly relevant communication topic,

J. FREI ET AL.

51

stakeholder pressures are not strong enough to cover sustainability issues suficiently. Neither national legislators nor main funders require SRs. Powerful resource-providers use their power to demand accountability reports from universities tailor-made for their speciic information needs. The accountability requirements of public funders of universities vary from country to country, sometimes with different funding categories, for example if it is funding for research or for student programmes. The idea to develop a sector-neutral worldwide relevant sustainability reporting standard might not work under the very speciic accountability require-ments powerful university funders have. The scope of GRI is likely too broad for meeting the speciic information need of powerful stakeholders of universities.

In comparison with other voluntary reputation signals universities can select from, GRI is a weak one. While under reputation-enhancing aspects, best performing accreditation requirements for universities have quite high entrance barriers and require obligatory peer visits, which can result in no accreditation or frequently lead to accreditation with recommenda-tions, the implementation costs of GRI are low, especially if one takes into account the low levels of guideline compliance.

From strategic stakeholder management perspectives, the low focus of the SRs on the topics, which universities document as highly relevant for their communications with main stakeholders, is problematic. Stakeholder orientation is not taken seriously enough. While universities abide by ful-illing a certain coverage rate of GRI SE indicators, this is not mirrored in other parts of the SRs. Universities might not be clear about the role SRs could play in the sustainability performance related to the communication process. To comply with the GRI, G4-24 to G4-27 indicators do not lead suficiently to SRs addressing the main communication topics.

For improving the relevance of SRs in universities, standard setters of GRI SRs might want to consider whether their sector- and industry- neutral approach leads to the desired outcomes. If standard setters are convinced of the need of a high-quality framework for university sustain-ability reporting, it might be worthwhile considering the development of a sector-speciic university supplement.

On a more fundamental level, the question can be raised as to whether sustainability reporting is an appropriate instrument for universities. The beneits of sustainability reporting are far less obvious for universities than in the case of stock-listed companies where sustainability reporting has become a major trend.


52

Our study gives rise to a number of future research areas. Future research could investigate the reasons and motives for such a low it between the main communication topics and the SRs. This would require interviews with preparers and powerful stakeholders under resource- providing aspects. Furthermore, our study focuses on universities’ SRs based on G4 Guidelines. Only a very small number of universities across the globe prepare and publish SRs based on GRI Guidelines. It might be worthwhile to investigate if sector-speciic guidelines lead to higher adop-tion and compliance rates in those areas which are regarded by the main stakeholders as highly relevant.

As our study has focused on the documented outcome of the SE pro-cess and therefore only on the preparer-declared outcome, it might also be interesting to investigate the quality of the SE process from the perspec-tive of the main users of SRs.

ReFeRences

Alonso-Almeida, M. D. M., Marimon, F., & Casani, F. (2015). Diffusion of Sustainability Reporting in Universities: Current Situation and Future Perspectives. Journal of Cleaner Production, 106(12), 144–154.

Baker, M. (2010). Re-conceiving Managerial Capture. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 23(7), 847–867.

Bebbington, J., Higgins, C., & Frame, B. (2009). Initiating Sustainable Development Reporting: Evidence from New Zealand. Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal, 22(4), 588–625.

Bice, S., & Coates, H. (2016). University Sustainability Reporting: Taking Stock of Transparency. Tertiary Education and Management, 22(1), 1–18.

Blanco-Portela, N., Benayas, J., Pertierra, L. R., & Lozano, R. (2017). Towards the Integration of Sustainability in Higher Education Institutions: A Review of Drivers of and Barriers to Organizational Change and Their Comparison Against Those Found of Companies. Journal of Cleaner Production, 166, 563–578.

Brusca, I., Labrador, M., & Larran, M. (2018). The Challenge of Sustainability and Integrated Reporting at Universities: A Case Study. Journal of Cleaner Production, 188, 347–354.

Burrell, N. E., & Roberts, R. E. (2014). The Public Interest Imperative in Corporate Sustainability Reporting Research. Accounting and The Public Interest, 14, 79–86.

Burritt, R. L., & Schaltegger, S. (2010). Sustainability Accounting and Reporting: Fad or Trend? Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 23(7), 829–846.

J. FREI ET AL.

53

Ceulemans, K., Lozano, R., & Alonso-Almeida, M. D. M. (2015). Sustainability Reporting in Higher Education: Interconnecting the Reporting Process and Organisational Change Management for Sustainability. Sustainability, 7(7), 8881–8903.

Cho, C. H., Laine, M., Roberts, R. W., & Rodrigue, M. (2015). Organized Hypocrisy, Organizational Façades, and Sustainability Reporting. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 40, 78–94.

Dagiliene, L., & Mykolaitiene, V. (2016). Sustainability Reporting in the Higher Education Sector – Case Study of Lithuania. ZögU/Journal for Public and Nonproit Services, 39(1–2), 163–174.

DiMaggio, P. J., & Powell, W. W. (1991). The Iron Cage Revisited: Institutional Isomorphism and Collective Rationality. In W. W. Powell & P. J. DiMaggio (Eds.), The New Institutionalism in Organizational Analysis (pp. 63–82). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Disterheft, A., Caeiro, S., Azeiteiro, U. M., & Leal Filho, W. (2015). Sustainable Universities – A Study of Critical Success Factors for Participatory Approaches. Journal of Cleaner Production, 106, 11–21.

Ferrero-Ferrero, I., Fernández-Izquierdo, M. Á., Muñoz-Torres, M. J., & Bellés- Colomer, L. (2017). Stakeholder Engagement in Sustainability Reporting in Higher Education, an Analysis of Key Internal Stakeholders’ Expectations. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 19(2), 313–336.

Fonseca, A., Macdonald, A., Dandy, E., & Valenti, P. (2011). The State of Sustainability Reporting at Canadian Universities. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 12(1), 22–40.

Freeman, R. E. (1984). Strategic Management: A Stakeholder Approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Freeman, R. E., Wicks, A. C., & Pramar, P. (2004). Stakeholder Theory and “The Corporate Objective Revisited”. Organization Science, 15(3), 364–369.

Gamage, P., & Sciulli, N. (2017). Sustainability Reporting by Australian Universities. Australian Journal of Public Administration, 76(2), 187–203.

Global Reporting Initiative GRI. (2013). G4 Sustainability Reporting Guidelines. https://www.globalreporting.org/. Accessed 9 Jan 2019.

Gray, R. (2010). Is Accounting for Sustainability Actually Accounting for Sustainability and How Would We Know? An Exploration of Narratives of Organisations and the Planet. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 35(1), 47–62.

Guthrie, J., & Farneti, F. (2008). GRI Sustainability Reporting by Australian Public Sector Organizations. Public Money & Management, 28(6), 361–366.

Harrison, J. S., Bosse, D. A., & Phillips, R. A. (2010). Managing for Stakeholders, Stakeholder Utility Function and Competitive Advantage. Strategic Management Journal, 31(1), 58–74.


54

Higgins, C., & Larrinaga, C. (2014). Sustainability Reporting. Insights from Institutional Theory. In J. Bebbington, J. Unerman, & B. O’Dwyer (Eds.), Sustainability Accounting and Accountability (pp. 273–289). London: Routledge.

Hinson, R., Gyabea, A., & Ibrahim, M. (2015). Sustainability Reporting Among Ghanaian Universities. Communication, 41(1), 22–42.

Hopwood, A. G. (2009). Accounting and the Environment. Accounting, Organization and Society, 34(3), 433–439.

James, M. L. (2015). The Beneits of Sustainability and Integrated Reporting: An Investigation of Accounting Majors’ Perceptions. Journal of Legal, Ethical and Regulatory Issues, 18(1), 1–20.

Larrán, M. J., López Hernández, A., & Calzado Cejas, M. Y. (2012). Stakeholder Expectations in Spanish Public Universities: An Empirical Study. International Journal of Humanities and Social Science, 2(10), 1–13.

Larrán, M. J., Madueño, J. H., Calzado, Y., & Andrades, J. (2016). A Proposal for Measuring Sustainability in Universities: A Case Study of Spain. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 17(5), 671–697.

Larrán, M. J., Peña, F. J. A., & Madueño, J. H. (2019). An Analysis of University Sustainability Reports from the GRI Database: An Examination of Inluential Variables. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 62(6), 1019–1044.

Lopatta, K., & Jaeschke, R. (2014). Sustainability Reporting at German and Austrian Universities. International Journal of Education Economics and Development, 5(1), 66–90.

Lozano, R. (2006). A Tool for a Graphical Assessment of Sustainability in Universities (GASU). Journal of Cleaner Production, 14(9–11), 963–972.

Lozano, R. (2011). The State of Sustainability Reporting in Universities. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 12(1), 67–78.

Lozano, R., Llobet, J., & Tideswell, G. (2013). The Process of Assessing and Reporting Sustainability at Universities: Preparing the Report of the University of Leeds. Revista Internacional de Tecnología, Sostenibilidad y Humanismo, 8, 85–112.

Lozano, R., Ceulemans, K., Alonso-Almeida, M., Huisingh, D., Lozano, F. J., Waas, T., & Hugé, J. (2015). A Review of Commitment and Implementation of Sustainable Development in Higher Education: Results from a Worldwide Survey. Journal of Cleaner Production, 108, 1–18.

Lucas, L. (2006). The Research Game in Academic Life. Maidenhead: Open University Press.

Mainardes, E., Raposo, M., & Alves, H. (2012). Public University Students’ Expectations: An Empirical Study Based on the Stakeholders Theory. Transylvanian Review of Administrative Sciences, 8(35), 173–196.

J. FREI ET AL.

55

Malik, M. (2015). Value-Enhancing Capabilities of CSR: A Brief Review of Contemporary Literature. Journal of Business Ethics, 127(2), 419–438.

Manetti, G., & Toccafondi, S. (2014). Deining the Content of Sustainability Reports in Nonproit Organizations: Do Stakeholders Really Matter? Journal of Nonproit & Public Sector Marketing, 26(1), 35–61.

Ntim, C. G., Soobaroyon, T., & Broad, M. J. (2017). Governance Structures Voluntary Disclosures and Public Accountability: The Case of UK Higher Education Organisations. Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal, 20(1), 65–118.

Parker, L. (2011). University Corporatization: Driving Redeinition. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 22(3), 434–450.

Ralph, M., & Stubbs, W. (2014). Integrating Environmental Sustainability into Universities. Higher Education, 67(1), 71–90.

Romolini, A., Fissi, S., & Gori, E. (2015). Quality Disclosure in Sustainability Reporting: Evidence from Universities. Transylvanian Review of Administrative Science, 11(44), 196–218.

Sassen, R., & Azizi, L. (2018a). Voluntary Disclosure of Sustainability Reports by Canadian Universities. Journal of Business Economics, 88(1), 97–137.

Sassen, R., & Azizi, L. (2018b). Assessing Sustainability Reports of US Universities. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 19(7), 1158–1184.

Sassen, R., Dienes, D., & Beth, C. (2014). Nachhaltigkeitsberichterstattung deutscher Hochschulen. Zeitschrift für Umweltpolitik & Umweltrecht, 37(3), 258–277.

Secundo, G., Dumay, J., Schiuma, G., & Passiante, G. (2016). Managing Intellectual Capital Through a Collective Intelligence Approach. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 17(2), 298–319.

Shabana, K. M., Buchholtz, A. K., & Carroll, A. B. (2017). The Institutionalization of Corporate Social Responsibility Reporting. Business & Society, 56(8), 107–1135.

Siboni, B., Del Sordo, C., & Pazzi, S. (2013). Sustainability Reporting in State Universities: An Investigation of Italian Pioneering Practices. International Journal of Social Ecology and Sustainable Development, 4(2), 1–15.

Veltri, S., & Silvestri, A. (2015). The Free State University Integrated Reporting: A Critical Consideration. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 16(2), 443–462.

Zorio-Grima, A., Sierra-Gracía, L., & Garcia-Benau, M. A. (2018). Sustainability Reporting Experience by Universities: A Causal Coniguration Approach. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 19(2), 337–352.

Judith Frei is a researcher and senior lecturer at the Institute of Management Accounting at the Johannes Kepler University, Linz, Austria.


56

Melanie Lubinger is a researcher and university assistant at the Institute of Management Accounting at the Johannes Kepler University, Linz, Austria.

Dorothea Greiling is a full-professor and head of the Institute of Management Accounting at the Johannes Kepler University, Linz, Austria.

J. FREI ET AL.

Appendix 3

Paper Three: Frei, J., Greiling, D. und Schmidthuber J. (2020), “Management Control Systems

in hybrid universities – The case of Austrian public universities”, Qualitative Research in

Accounting and Management (major revision)

Management Control Systems in hybrid universities – The case of Austrian public universities

Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to explore how a member of the European Higher

Education Area (EHEA) responds to New Public Management (NPM) requirements and

copes with the challenge of maintaining academic freedom while simultaneously

complying with legal requirements and enhancing competitiveness by using Management

Control Systems (MCSs) to control one of their key capabilities: research performance.

Design/methodology/approach – The institutional logics perspective serves as the

theoretical lens for analysing how Austrian public universities cope with distinct,

competing logics. To understand their resulting hybrid nature is the aim of this paper. The

concept of MCSs as a package, as developed by Malmi and Brown (2008), informs the

analysis of how Austrian public universities try to achieve their strategic research aims.

The empirical section combines a systematic literature review and in-depth interviews on

research management to identify which MCSs are applied under competing institutional

logics. The investigation was complemented by the analysis of underlying legal

regulations.

Findings – On a global level of control, the logic of academia guides the identified control

types. On an institutional level, research control is centrally directed by government logic.

The application of different control types depends on the level of control considered. Our

findings indicate that Austrian public universities have established a robust set of

management control types on different levels of control that co-exist in a highly

competitive and internally conflicted institutional environment.

Research implications – The scope of this study is limited by the small number (22) of

public universities in Austria. Furthermore, the interaction between the different types of

control and the control effect would be well worth investigating.

Originality/value – This study is the first to analyse the use of MCSs at Austrian public

universities in the context of competing institutional logics. Having experienced

fundamental change over the last two decades, the Austrian public university system is

governed by a wide variety of factors influencing the application of MCSs. Austria was

the first country to implement intellectual capital reporting as obligatory. Additionally, this

paper contributes to the discussion of how knowledge-intensive public organisations cope

with the co-existence of competing logics.

Keywords – Management control systems, institutional logics, research management,

public universities

Paper type – Research paper

2

1. Motivation and research questions

The introduction of New Public Management (NPM) over recent decades in the university

sector has established a new logic: Managerialism has found its way into public

universities, bringing private sector approaches to the management of public services

(Broadbent, 2007) and transforming them into hybrid organisations incorporating elements

of distinct, competing logics continuously and for a long period (Vakkuri and Johanson,

2020; Boitier et al., 2018; Upton and Warshaw, 2017; Lepori, 2016; Pache and Santos,

2013; Thornton et al., 2012).

Today, public universities face the challenge of maintaining academic freedom while

simultaneously complying with legal requirements and enhancing competitiveness. On the

way from a Humboldtian to a market-driven ideal (Kallio et al., 2016) universities must

prepare for these transformations and adapt management accounting practices for steering

one of their key capabilities, i.e., research performance. Effectivity and efficiency must be

increased (Duh et al., 2014; Decramer et al., 2012; Melo et al., 2010; Van der Weijden et

al., 2008). The performance of public universities plays an important role in the allocation

of public or third-party funds, the selection of attractive study locations and even in

employers’ selection of future employees. Since the introduction of NPM, a variety of

accounting practices have been applied: Management Control Systems (MCSs) and

Performance Management Systems (PMSs) (Martin-Sardesai and Guthrie, 2018; Edgar

and Geare, 2013; Chan and Richardson, 2012).

Quality and quantity in research output, performance in international academic rankings,

competitive project-based research embedded in a complex legal and legislative

environment as well as accountability demands have to be reconciled with public

universities’ strategies and objectives (Kirkland, 2008) to enhance research, teaching and

third mission (Melo et al., 2010; Laredo, 2007; Abernethy and Brownell, 1997).

Universities depend on resources from various stakeholder groups, i.e., money from the

government, third parties, industry or student fees, which are partly dependent on

performance targets. Continuous negotiation processes with relevant stakeholder groups

and continual positioning in society have become central tasks (Lechner et al., 2013).

In light of such complexity, this paper investigates the importance of MCSs in managing

competing institutional logics in the public university sector: the academic logic, the

government logic and the business logic (Conrath-Hargreaves and Wüstemann, 2019).

While academic freedom is driven by the Humboldtian ideal to “carry on their research wherever it leads” (Fallon, 1980:19), and although free decisions about peer collaboration

are central in any organisation of professionals (Mintzberg, 1991), governmental

regulation may restrict universities’ decision-making. Institutional logics become evident

in this particular setting of practices: “practices […] are fundamentally interrelated with institutional logics” (Thornton et al., 2012:128). Vice versa, accounting does not address

a specific logic but may help to cope with the copresence of different logics by mediating

between them (Busco et al., 2017). More importantly, reconciling competing logics by

combining activities from each logic is described as a viable strategy to gain legitimacy

(Pache and Santos, 2013). According to Lounsbury (2008), MCSs are characterised by

cultural framework conditions, such as the categories or classifications of a belief system.

Control elements are selected, implemented and applied depending on the prevailing

3

culture. Thus, institutional logics directly influence the MCSs (Ahrens and Khalifa, 2015;

Lounsbury, 2008). In addition, MCSs can help to deal with institutional complexity

through the existence of multiple logics (Schäffer et al., 2015) and accounting may

“contribute to lock different parties” (Busco et al., 2017:196).

The comprehensive investigation of the way MCSs are applied at public universities is still

in its early days. Several types of controls have been studied albeit only in isolation. The

influence of MCSs and PMSs on organisational culture is also receiving increasing

attention. To the best of our knowledge, however, research concerning MCSs as a package

in contexts of institutional complexity at public universities is still lacking. Universities’ value systems and the relation between MCSs and underlying logics have not yet been

analysed, indicating a strong incentive for research.

To address this lack, this paper analyses in depth the case of the 22 Austrian state-funded

public universities from the perspective of universities’ research management. Austria has

been a full member of the European Higher Education Area (EHEA) since 1999, which

was a response to the NPM requirements of the “Bologna Process” (EHEA, 2020) as

initiated in the late 1990s. International competitiveness, comparability, compatibility and

coherence of the final degrees of European universities were to be achieved by creating a

system of internationally comparable degrees, a three-cycle higher education system, the

introduction of a credit system, the support of mobility and European cooperation

concerning quality assurance and evaluation, and the European dimension in the range of

universities. The participating countries agreed to “adopt reforms on higher education on the basis of common key values - such as freedom of expression, autonomy for institutions,

independent student unions, academic freedom, free movement of students and staff”

(EHEA, 2020). While the 48 participating countries determine the basic principles of this

project at the European level, their actual implementation with consideration of the

different educational systems happens at the national level (Lange, 2008; Wächter, 2004).

Regarding the Austrian public university system, a large variety of factors (legislation and

reforms) has influenced the application of MCSs over the last two decades. Due to public

management reforms, universities have experienced a change of values, which in turn has

triggered the implementation of instruments resembling those used in the private sector.

The increased application of quantitative indicators and the strategy of linking rewards to

control indicates a transformed understanding of research management. The Federal Act

on the Organisation of Universities and their Studies (UG, 2002) legally mandates Austrian

public universities’ principles and responsibilities as well as financing and university

governance.

The UG 2002 gave public universities in Austria autonomy and concurrently introduced

accountability. According to the UG 2002, Austrian public universities have to draw up

and publish intellectual capital reports, which present the sphere of action, the intellectual

capital and the performance processes defined in their performance agreement

(distinguishing between human, structural and relationship capital). Performance

agreements must establish quantitative and qualitative performance measures to be

included in the intellectual capital report. Austria was the first country to implement an

intellectual capital report and can therefore look back on nearly 15 years of performance-

4

driven ministerial steering that may influence managerial processes of decision making

and control (Habersam et al., 2013).

To address the research gap identified above, the following research questions (RQs) are

pursued:

RQ 1: What are the guiding institutional logics at Austrian public universities?

RQ 2: Which MCSs are applied at Austrian public universities in the area of research

management?

RQ 3: How do Austrian public universities cope with the existence of (competing) logics

in the application of MCSs?

To answer these research questions and achieve a holistic picture on the macro level, the

empirical section combines a systematic literature review with in-depth expert interviews

on research management to identify the types of management control distinguished by

Malmi and Brown (2008) and the guiding institutional logics. The investigation is

complemented by a document analysis of underlying legal regulations.

The remainder of the paper is structured as follows: Section 2 provides a literature review

of prior research on MCSs and institutional logics. Section 3 presents theoretical

considerations on MCSs and institutional logics. Sample description and methodology are

presented in section 4, followed by data analysis and findings in section 5. Section 6

comprises discussion, contribution and research limitation.

This study extends previous research by drawing on institutional logics to facilitate the

understanding of public universities’ coping strategies when implementing and applying

MCSs. For this purpose, the MCSs-framework of Malmi and Brown (2008) and

institutional logics are used as a theoretical framework. The study provides practical

insights into public universities’ applied management control types and universities’ coping strategies in this institutional environment.

2. Prior research about MCSs and institutional logics at universities

Prior literature on MCSs

To investigate the use of MCSs at universities, a structured literature review (Tranfield et

al., 2003) was conducted using three online databases (Scopus, EBSCOhost and Web of

Science). The search period encompassed 2002 to 2019 and was limited to peer-reviewed

English-language journal articles. A search by title, abstract, keyword, topic and subject

was conducted. The search, combining the keywords “university”, “management control systems” and “research”, yielded 43 relevant papers. The topics identified overlap with

other types of control; consequently, individual articles were assigned to multiple

categories.

Administrative controls (AC)

Over the last two decades, awareness of research management and therefore organised and

professionalised research management structures at universities has increased (Kirkland,

2005; Stackhouse and Day, 2005). In a global survey of the Association of Commonwealth

Universities, Stackhouse and Day (2005) found that the vast majority of universities had a

5

central office for externally funded research projects. Fostering business contacts and

negotiations for financial and time resources were the main responsibilities of such offices

(Hendriks and Sousa, 2013; Sousa et al., 2010; Kirkland, 2005; Stackhouse and Day,

2005). Proactive research management, establishing offices with the primary responsibility

of steering research and developing inter-disciplinary research centres should enhance

research performance (Beerkens, 2013; Kirkland, 2005).

Kirkland (2005) emphasises the existence of research support offices for establishing

effective relationships within the organisation. Supporting facilities should provide

assistance in bureaucratic and administrative tasks (Sousa and Hendriks, 2008), e.g. access

to international journals and support for publishing in English (Gaus and Hall, 2016). Time

management should be supported by research management to enhance research

performance (White et al., 2012). Universities in developing countries generally lack

financial resources for human resource management (Nguyen, 2016; Kirkland, 2005). The

implementation of boundary management should help researchers protect themselves

against more regulation and control (Agyemang and Broadbent, 2015; Sousa et al., 2010;

Sousa and Hendriks, 2008). Cultural-administrative structures should be designed to

protect and enhance motivation (Sutton and Brown, 2016). An appropriate infrastructure

must be provided and an excellent research context, e.g., in the form of group meetings or

research seminars, must be developed (Sutton and Brown, 2016; Bazeley, 2010; Sousa and

Hendriks, 2008). Training and experience as well as opportunities and resources are

important factors for achieving a supportive institutional environment (Bazeley, 2010).

Information and communication technology, human resource management and training

programmes are generally seen as important measures for achieving and enhancing both

competences and motivation (Nguyen, 2016; Bazeley, 2010; Kagaari et al., 2010;

Kirkland, 2008 and 2005). Introducing mentoring programs to support young researchers

(Kirkland, 2005), offering tutorials and workshops (Sutton and Brown, 2016) as well as

international exchange programs may add value to researchers’ work (Nguyen, 2016).

Cultural controls (CC)

Freedom and autonomy in research are fundamental to enhancing research performance

for academics. Although academic freedom remains important to universities’ belief

systems (Agyemang and Broadbent, 2015), the Humboldtian ideal seems to have been

pushed into the background by the new market-driven and managerialist approach (Kallio

et al., 2016). The resulting feeling of being controlled can undermine intrinsic motivation,

which is characterised by researchers’ contribution to research, the process of doing

research and the inherent interest in the subject matter (Sutton and Brown, 2016). Thus,

the challenge of research management is to establish an organisational culture that

maintains this motivation (Sutton and Brown, 2016; Hendriks and Sousa, 2013; Adler et

al., 2009).

Concerning work environment, collegiality plays an important role (Edgar and Geare,

2013). Research culture, i.e. institutional and collegial support and a common

understanding of ‘good’ research, are fundamental (Tucker and Tilt, 2019). Cooperation

and exchange between researchers of different organisational units are important elements

of research culture with regard to avoiding redundancies and inefficiency (Hendriks and

Sousa, 2013; Jin and Sun, 2010; Sousa and Hendriks, 2008), but national and international

6

networking also influences research performance (Edgar and Geare, 2013). Coordination

mechanisms and administrative structures are useful instruments (Sutton and Brown, 2016;

Hendriks and Sousa, 2013). Establishing reputation is central for successful research

(Sousa et al., 2010), and the research manager should have a good relationship with his

employees (Kirkland, 2005). The opinions of peers and the scientific community are

important factors for research (Sousa and Hendriks, 2008), making it nearly impossible to

control employees through hierarchical structures (Hendriks and Sousa, 2013). Managing

a large variety of disciplines, faculties and researchers of different sciences has been shown

to be a substantial challenge (Adler et al., 2009). Intrinsic motivation, appreciation (Edgar

and Geare, 2013; Kagaari et al., 2010; Hendriks and Sousa, 2008; Sousa and Hendriks,

2008), job satisfaction, engagement and work-life-balance influence research quality

(Kagaari et al., 2010). Recruiting the right employees (e.g., by interviews, White et al.,

2012) and facilitating exchange with colleagues are seen as prerequisites for good research

performance (Hendriks and Sousa, 2008), whereas incentives increase the possibility of

hiring appropriate staff (Nguyen, 2016).

Cybernetic controls (CYC)

Research managers have to provide financial resources (governmental funds) as a

prerequisite for research (Sousa and Hendriks, 2008; Kirkland, 2005; Stackhouse and Day,

2005). Resources distribution often depends on research performance (Silander and Haake,

2017). Woelert and McKenzie (2018) analysed the degree to which Australia’s

‘Performance-based research funding system’ has been adapted and found different levels

of implementation in the internal PMS, but the system must be viewed critically (Martin-

Sardesai et al., 2017a and 2017b). Additionally, resources and infrastructure are necessary

to enhance performance (Gaus and Hall, 2016). ‘Learning and growth’ is an important

perspective of the PMS (Sousa et al., 2010; Umashankar and Dutta, 2007; Cullen et al.,

2003), while human capital and management systems serve to control processes (Rahimnia

and Kargozar, 2016). Such systems also serve as performance measures to satisfy national

requirements (Martin-Sardesai and Guthrie, 2018). ter Bogt and Scapens (2012) analysed

PMSs in the Netherlands and in the UK and found that performance measures may inhibit

creativity in teaching and innovation in accounting and research.

In addition, research quality systems and peer-evaluation are applied (Sousa et al., 2010;

Hemlin and Rasmussen, 2006). International journal rankings and the inherent

quantification of evaluation must be viewed with scepticism (Sousa et al., 2010). Quality

management is moving from control to monitoring, while interdisciplinarity and

stakeholder demands require research management and organisational learning (Hemlin

and Rasmussen, 2006). Moreover, rankings and performance indicators cause competition

over resources and reputation (Mingers and Willmott, 2013).

Planning (P)

Two decades ago, strategic research planning became an established and widely used tool

(Beerkens, 2013) to determine long-term goals (Nguyen and Van Gramberg, 2017; Chan

and Richardson, 2012; Lanskoronskis et al., 2009). Travaille and Hendriks (2010) identify

the management context of knowledge as a critical success factor for science by stressing

the adequacy of regulation. Management may be regarded as a responsibility of the entire

institution. The qualification of the group leader as a group manager, collaboration, and

7

communication through a well-defined mission statement are important factors in

enhancing productivity and reputation (Travaille and Hendriks, 2010). Hendriks and Sousa

(2013:611) stress organisational structures as a “key management domain” for fostering

academic research. Research planning should depend on the individual researcher, while

annual performance reviews facilitate evaluation (ter Bogt and Scapens, 2012).

Reward and compensation (RC)

Reward and compensation should enhance research performance and motivation (Walter

et al., 2018; Nguyen, 2016) and may influence performance (Walter et al., 2018; Duh et

al., 2014). Funding environments have to be considered in the development of incentive

systems (Auranen and Nieminen, 2010). Research budgets, bonuses, research assistants,

infrastructure, salary increases, travel subsidies, professorships and time for research and

release of teaching are mentioned, based on quantitative and qualitative indicators (Sutton

and Brown, 2016; Edgar and Geare, 2013; Sousa et al., 2010; Manning and Barrette, 2005).

Kirkland (2005) distinguishes between departmental, career and personal incentives.

Vogel and Hattke (2018) distinguish between input controls (career opportunities) and

output controls (monetary incentives). Bonuses depend on the total amount of publications

and citations (ter Bogt and Scapens, 2012; Stephan, 2008) as well as patent application

(Walter et al., 2018), serving as a clear sign of universities’ goals (Lanskoronskis et al.,

2009; Manning and Barrette, 2005). Pay-for-performance systems comprise basic salary

and bonuses (Türk, 2008), and fairness and transparency are their prerequisites (Hendrik

and Sousa, 2008; Türk, 2008; Manning and Barrette, 2005) in order to avoid deterioration

of the organisational climate because of competitiveness and conflicts (Türk, 2008).

Academics’ motivations are determined by a wider peer group, leading to less efficiency

of internal management systems (McCormack et al., 2014), while extrinsic incentives may

enhance motivation (Hendrik and Sousa, 2008).

Figure one to figure three provide an overview of the control types and their quantitative

distribution as indicated in the literature. If an article is only weighted according to one

cluster (figure one), this is listed in the specific cluster. If several categories are identified

in an article, they are subsumed under ‘several’. This graphic shows that most of the articles

address several topics. Articles concerning cybernetic controls as well as reward and

compensation are in second and third place. In figure two, the category ‘several’ has been

eliminated. Multiple naming of clusters per article was thus permitted. The weighting no

longer relates to the number of items, as in figure one, but to the total number of clusters

assigned. Cultural controls with a share of 24 %, followed by reward and compensation

and cybernetic controls, each with a share of 23 %, are the most commonly assigned

categories. Administrative controls achieved 22 %. Little information was found on the

subject of planning with an 8 % share. Figure three shows a summary of the examined

control types.

8

AC

22%

CC

24%

CYC

23%

P

8%

RC

23%

Figure 2: Content-related foci (overlapped), adapted from Schmidthuber (2019)

AC

9%CC

7%

CYC

21%

P

5%RC

16%

several

42%

Figure 1: Content-related foci, adapted from Schmidthuber (2019)

9

administrative controls

central administration vs. research offices

vice rectorate

clear division of responsibilities

communication

balance between teaching and research

"pre-/post-award"

assumption of administrative and bureaucratic tasks

infrastructure

trainings

mentoring program

international assignment

cultural controls

research management = supporter

research = independent, autonomous acting

freedom of organisation and content

research culture

exchange between researchers

"group understanding"

motivation

cybernetic controls

financial resources

system of indicators

balanced scorecard

human capital management systems

scoring system

quality systems

evaluations

planning

long-term planning

correspondence between plans and incentives

performance reviews

evaluation and assessment of targets

reward & compensation

personal support

infrastructure support

financial incentives

subsidies

promotion

partial exemption from teaching

awards

appreciation (commendation)

Figure 3: Types of MC. adapted from Schmidthuber (2019)

10

Prior work on institutional logics

Empirical research on institutional logics in the context of MCSs in higher education is

scarce. The literature search yielded 17 relevant articles.

Impact of regulations and reactions on internal (institutional or organisational) and

external demands (ten studies)

In a longitudinal case study, Aleksandrov (2020) investigated the dynamics and processes

of individual actors at a Russian university during hybridisation and revealed various forms

of reflexivity. Czarniawska (2020) analysed the global trend related to mergers and

acquisitions of higher education institutions, especially university rankings and examined

the effects on research and teaching. Guarini et al. (2020) analysed academic staff’s coping

strategies for the introduction of changing PMSs at an Italian university and found, that, as

a response to external pressure, academics change their publication strategies. Kallio et al.

(2020) investigated the acceptance of audit culture and related public sector reforms by

Finnish universities and found a shift from “professional bureaucracy” towards

“competitive bureaucracy”. Conrath-Hargreaves and Wüstemann (2019) examined a

German institution of higher education that voluntarily reorganised from a public into a

foundation university. Results show that organisational characteristics play an important

role in increasing autonomy through self-motivated reform processes. Based on participant

observations conducted at three universities, Ahrens and Khalifa (2015) investigated the

impact of accreditation on management control practices at three universities. Management

control compliance as a creative process of arranging and translating general prescriptions

into specific contexts is used as a strategic response. Pettersen (2015) analysed how two

qualification frameworks in organisations of higher education (Norwegian and Swedish)

are transformed by professional (academic) knowledge into metrics derived from

managerial logic. A combination of professional and administrative values was found.

Ezzamel et al. (2012) examined the introduction of budgeting practices in the field of

education in the UK and found that the extant logics of professionalism and governance

have remained influential. Moll and Hoque (2011) investigated how budgeting is involved

in processes of legitimation at an Australian university and found that it was undermined

by university staff because of separate and compartmentalised systems. Wagner et al.

(2011) analysed consequences of implementing a new Enterprise Resource Planning

system at an American university. Because of resistance by the management accountants,

the post-roll-out modifications have to be considered and depend on the entanglement of

users and technology.

Responses to co-existing logics in Higher Education Institutions (seven studies)

In a single case study at an English business school, Gebreiter and Hidayah (2019) found

that the juxtaposition of professional and commercial logic leads to compliance, defiance,

combination and compartmentalisation by individual academics. Dobija et al. (2019)

provide insights into four Polish universities using performance measurement systems.

Their (internal) use, depending on internal and external factors, was loosely coupled with

accountability purposes. Grossi et al. (2019) conducted a longitudinal case study at a Polish

university and investigated how shifts in logics affected performance measurement at the

organisational and individual level. Logics were found to co-exist and enter into robust

combinations. In a cross-case study of three European universities, Boitier et al. (2018)

11

assessed organisational changes induced by managerial logic in a French and two German

universities and revealed different hybrid responses in the form of segmentation and

blending. In 2017, Upton and Warshaw investigated to what extent universities display a

transformation of their core values by means of a longitudinal case study of three American

universities, finding multiple strategies of response. In a longitudinal case study at a

multidisciplinary French university, Boitier and Rivière (2016) analysed how several

dimensions of logics contribute to the specification of their compatibility and how

interactions with MCSs contribute to their institutionalisation. Canhihal et al. (2016)

conducted a large-scale survey of 26 universities in eight European countries and showed

how compatibility is achieved through the adoption of different logics: Managerial

pressure affects the adoption of managerial practices but has no significant effect on

academic aspects.

In summary, literature provides a balanced examination of different types of control with

the exception of planning. There is a strong focus on cybernetic and cultural controls as

well as on reward and compensation, showing that cultural controls play an important role

in research and organisational culture. Increasingly, the influence of MCSs and PMSs on

organisational culture is discussed (Agyemang and Broadbent, 2015; Edgar and Geare,

2013; Adler et al., 2009). While the significance of different research communities is

evident, the ways in which research management can influence research culture remain

unclear. The lack of potential consequences in case of non-fulfilment is becoming obvious.

Inside the research context of institutional logics, one quantitative study and a handful of

case-studies have either explored responses to a single event (reorganisation, accreditation,

introduction of a new framework; implementation of a new instrument) or have studied

how institutions of higher education and universities deal with the co-existence of distinct

logics. Only seven studies were identified as dealing with the higher education sector, six

of which focus on a regional case and one conducted a Europe-wide survey. No study

relates to Austrian public universities.

3. Theoretical considerations on institutional logics and MCSs

Management Control Systems as a package

As stated above, institutional logics emerge in a particular setting (Thornton et al., 2012).

Accounting practices can be regarded as expressions of specific logics. MCSs may act as

mediator (Busco et al., 2017), e.g., if performance-dependent rewards or administrative

systems support researchers’ autonomy (Sutton and Brown, 2016).

In this research, the concept of MCSs as a package (Malmi and Brown, 2008) is applied to

analyse the accounting practices by which Austrian public universities try to live up to their

core values. The typology is designed to guide employees’ behaviour intentionally (i.e., to

create goal congruence). MCSs are defined as “those systems, rules, practices, values and

other activities management put in place in order to direct employee behaviour should be

called management controls. If these are complete systems, as opposed to a simple rule

[…], then they should be called MCSs” (Malmi and Brown, 2008:290). The concept

distinguishes cultural controls, planning, cybernetic controls, reward and compensation,

and administrative controls.

12

Organisational culture is defined as “the set of values, beliefs and social norms which tend

to be shared by its [the organisation’s] members and, in turn, influence their thoughts and actions” (Flamholtz et al., 1985:158). Malmi and Brown (2008) differentiate between

value-based controls (recruiting employees, socialising to attain a fit with organisational

goals, explicated values), symbol-based controls (visible expression) and clan controls

(within individual groups). For instance, the appointment of new professors, in accordance

with universities’ mission statements, expresses universities’ belief systems. Planning is a form of control in advance and defines objectives to increase effort and direct behaviour.

Furthermore, planning serves as an expression of the level of effort and expected

behaviour, and can help achieve congruence by aligning actual practice with the goals set

in planning (e.g., performance agreements). Cybernetic controls provide the quantification

of standards to be met, which allows feedback processes, variance analyses and the

opportunity for modification (Hansen et al., 2003; Otley, 1999). Malmi and Brown (2008)

include budgets, financial and non-financial measures (Ittner and Larcker, 1998), and

hybrids (e.g., intellectual capital reports). To control the direction of effort, duration and

intensity directly, rewards (monetary and non-monetary) and compensation are used (e.g.,

performance-dependent incentives, appreciations). Organisational structure and design,

governance, policies and procedures (Simons, 1987) are controls that direct employee

behaviour through organising individuals and groups. As organisational design and

structure are governed by the Austrian state, Austrian public universities also apply

specific research management systems to gather data for the intellectual capital report.

Although some measures can be categorised as different kinds of control, i.e. training as

administrative or cultural control, provision of resources is not seen as a control instrument

but as a “prerequisite for proper work” (Malmi and Brown, 2008:295).

Multiplicity of Institutional logics and strategic responses

The notion of institutional logics, introduced by Alford and Friedland (1985), relates to

contradictory practices and beliefs inherent in institutions of societies (Thornton and

Ocasio, 2008). According to DiMaggio and Powell (1983) and Meyer and Rowan (1977)

institutional logics describe the influence of cultural regulations and cognitions on

organisational structure; furthermore, “an institutional logic informs organizational

identity and internal decision-making” (Townley, 1997). Institutions “shape individual preferences and organizational interests as well as the repertoire of behaviors by which

they may attain them. These institutions are potentially contradictory and hence make

multiple logics available to individuals and organizations. Individuals and organizations

transform the institutional relations of society by exploiting these contradictions”

(Friedland and Alford, 1991:232).

Each of the most important institutional orders has a central logic, i.e., a set of material

practices and symbolic constructions, which provides social actors with reasoning

(Thornton and Ocasio, 2008 and 1999; Haveman and Rao, 1997; Friedland and Alford,

1991). Thornton et al. (2012:149) highlight three forms of symbolic representations:

“theories, frames, and narratives”. Furthermore, Thornton et al. (2012:161) constitute

dynamism in logics at the level of institutional fields, involving “a combination of changes in narratives and practices”. Narratives reflect “specific organizing practices, their development, and their outcomes”, and “help to make sense” (Thornton et al., 2012:155).

By the means of narratives, retro- and prospective sensemaking “materializes the identities

13

and categories through which organizations and institutions come into existence”

(Thornton et al., 2012:96). Through sensemaking, institutional logics are transformed.

Initially, Friedland and Alford (1991) identified the market, the bureaucratic state,

democracy, the nuclear family and Christian religions as characteristics of societal-level

orders, each possessing a distinct institutional logic. Thornton et al. (2012:148) further

developed institutional orders at the level of institutional fields, positing that “field-level

logics are both embedded in societal-logics and subject to field-level processes that

generate distinct forms of instantiation, variation, and combination of societal logics”.

For the higher-education industry, Thornton et al. (2005) identified editorial and market

logics as ideal types, editorial logic as a variant of professional logic and market logic as

an instantiation of societal-level logics, as specific contingencies in the field lead to field-

specific variations. For universities, Boitier and Rivière (2016) identified academic logic

(decentralised, autonomous and flexible structures characterise governance structures;

clans and peers without quantification serve as control modes), political (importance of

collegiality, and control is originated from election), bureaucratic (the administrative

structure guides governance, and legal and regulatory compliance is the key type of

control) and managerial logic (characterised by decentralisation, project groups,

assessment and funding groups, while cybernetic controls, contracts, accountability and

quantification are the dominant control mechanisms). Conrath-Hargreaves and

Wüstemann (2019) identified academic, government and business logic. Academic logic,

an instantiation of the professional societal-level logic, is guided by the aim to produce

knowledge and contribute to the researchers’ own and their university’s reputation. A high degree of autonomy and reputation dependent on collegial assessment are its central

guiding principles. Government logic, a lower order logic and an instantiation of the

societal-level logic of the state, is characterised by a tight corset of regulations determined

by the government, leading to homogeneity and standardisation. Compliance with

regulations and laws are universities’ main tasks. According to business logic, an

instantiation of the societal-level of the corporation and the market, universities’ identity is linked to their perception as a business-like entity, and generating financial income is a

central strategic aim. The present research adopts the classification proposed by Conrath-

Hargreaves and Wüstemann (2019), Boitier and Rivière (2016) and Thornton et al. (2005).

Hybrid universities are characterised by institutional complexity, i.e., the number of logics

and the degree of incompatibility between them (Greenwood et al., 2011). Thornton and

Ocasio (2008) argue that there are multiple sources of rationality in the inter-institutional

system and that, therefore, contradictions between logics of different institutional orders

can arise. The need to manage contradictions raises the question as to how organisations

respond to these demands. Greenwood et al. (2011:349) emphasise that “[t]he response of

an organization to competing logics, in other words, is partly a function of how logics are

given voice within the organization; but the ability of a voice to be heard is linked to the

influence of that logic’s field-level proponents over resources - including legitimacy - that

they control”. Furthermore, Greenwood et al. (2011) stress that the sustainability of

organisational responses as well as their alteration and variability also have to be

considered in this context.

14

According to Thornton et al. (2012), resource environments (e.g., financing, competition)

affect the construction of institutional logics and are shaped by institutional logics. Hence,

exogenous changes in institutional logics, changes in resource environment but also

internal contradictions between symbolic representations may lead to evolution and change

in institutional logics (Thornton et al., 2012). In this process, theories and frames are not

entirely transmitted, but they are adapted. The same happens with imported institutional

logics: they are adapted to the institutional field. Furthermore, critical (external) events

may evoke changes in material practices and symbolic representations, provoking shifts

from one logic to another (Thornton et al., 2012).

A given organisations’ members hold different options on how to cope with competing

logics and how to handle institutional complexity. In literature, there is a wide range of

research dealing with possible coping-strategies (e.g., Oliver, 1991), ranging from ‘tight

coupling’ in the public sector in case of financial dependency (Rautiainen and Järvenpää,

2012), ‘decoupling’ by symbolically adopting rituals defined by the environment to

minimize legitimacy threats (Boxenbaum and Jonsson, 2008; Scott, 1983; Meyer and

Rowan, 1977) or ‘selective coupling’ in order to lower the risk of losing external

organisational legitimacy by satisfying symbolic concerns (Pache and Santos, 2013).

Thornton et al., 2012 identified (more radical) transformational change and developmental

change, where a majority of prevailing practices remains. Smets et al. (2015) investigated

the role of MCSs in managing dynamic tensions between competing logics and found

segmenting (i.e., separating different logics), bridging (i.e., linking coexisting logics) and

demarcating (i.e., reinforcing the different logics) as organisational responses. More

precisely, bridging is described as a coping strategy that consist of importing aspects of

one logic into situations dominated by the other: “Bridging generates complementarities between competing logics by skilfully importing pertinent aspects of one logic into the

enactment of another, as and when it appears valuable and in ways that preserve

legitimacy with representatives of both logics” (Semts et al., 2015:958). Different logics

can be combined and reconfigured to create hybrid organisational forms, logics, practices

or identities. Reconciling competing logics by combining activities from each logic is

described as a viable strategy to gain legitimacy (Pache and Santos, 2013).

4. Austrian public universities as a case study - sample description and

methodology

As stated above, the UG 2002 legally mandates Austrian public universities’ principles and

responsibilities as well as financing and university governance. To support academic

research and teaching constitutes a key principle within this act; freedom of science and

teaching is already enshrined in the constitution (State constitution on the general rights of

citizens, 2020). Furthermore, universities as legal entities under public law shall be free of

ministerial instruction and free to adopt statutes within the limits of the act (UG, 2002).

The Federal Government, considering the expected number of students and the ratio of

students per professor, funds Austrian public universities based on a three-year

performance agreement, which includes universities’ development plans as their strategic

planning instrument. The content of universities’ development plans will be based on the objectives of the Austrian National Development Plan for public universities (UG, 2002).

It serves as a basis for each university’s performance agreement with the ministry.

15

In this planning framework, each university pursues a specific research profile, promoting

some areas more than others do. Performance agreements must establish quantitative and

qualitative performance measures for specific objectives, to be included in the annual

intellectual capital report that presents the sphere of action, the intellectual capital and the

performance processes as set out in the performance agreement. This instrument led to the

introduction of so-called research information systems at universities, which collect all

relevant research efforts (e.g. publications in number and quality, scientific lectures,

research projects or scientific community services). All governance levels of universities

are affected by this measure, because it provides rectorates with a central management

system to monitor the performance of faculties, centres and individuals.

The Austrian Federal Ministry of Education, Science and Research monitors these

performance indicators continuously. As stated above, universities’ budgets are distributed according to specific indicators (e.g. the number of students who are actively taking

examinations). Furthermore, with the introduction of a new legislative act in 2020,

additional budget-relevant indicators, depending on competitive third-party funding and

the number of doctoral students in structured thesis programmes, will become relevant for

university-funding. If targets are not met, budgets will be reduced for the next period. In

order to assure quality and the attainment of objectives, every university has to develop a

quality management system. Universities’ governing bodies are the university council, the

rectorate, the rector and the senate.

To answer the research questions, a qualitative research method combined with a single

case study was applied. Given the absence of previous studies in this field, an exploratory

approach was chosen to gain new insights. Moreover, due to the limited research context,

a full census on the basis of in-depth interviews was not only feasible but the most suitable

method for answering the research questions from the perspective of university research

management (Bortz and Döring, 2016; Mayring, 2016; Hussy et al., 2013; Schnell, et al.,

2013). The interviews lasted between 60 and 90 minutes. Interviews were digitally

recorded and transcribed with permission of the interviewees (Mayring, 2015). Data

analysis was conducted by two persons using MAXQDA and supported with a

spreadsheet-program; categories were derived by means of deduction and induction. The

aim of the investigation was a full census of all 22 Austrian public universities. Due to

random acceptance, 15 semi-structured in-depth interviews with 17 experts from 14

universities were conducted (Bortz and Döring, 2016); the vast majority of these were key

personnel, i.e. the vice-rector for research (Dai et al., 2016; Guest et al., 2006).

5. Data analysis and findings

Characteristics and universities’ logics

Figure four displays the guiding institutional logics and the MCSs implemented and

applied at Austrian public universities. The qualitative analysis inductively identified the

‘core values’ (fundamental beliefs and guiding principles concerning universities’ self-

concept, understanding of control as well as the planning process and the source of

legitimacy) and three different ‘levels of control’ (global, institutional and individual). The

global level affects universities’ strategic aims concerning research profile as set out in the

development plan. On the institutional level, targets are agreed and resources are

16

distributed between the rectorate and faculties, departments, institutes or centres. On the

individual level, resources are allocated between rectorate, faculties, departments,

institutes or centres and researchers. Subsequently, the derived types of control according

to Malmi and Brown (2008) are assigned to the three levels of control:

17

sensemaking

Institutional

Logics ACADEMIC LOGIC GOVERNMENT LOGIC BUSINESS LOGIC

Core Values

Academic freedom in research and

teaching with a maximum of autonomy on

the highest international level

Achievement of economic and social goals

defined by the state

The university as a business, market

orientation, efficient goal achievement

Maintaining motivation by support,

provision of resources as well as good

conditions

Compliance with laws and regulations

Performance and competition,

(international) positioning in the research

community

Autonomy and decentral decision making,

research cooperation to build profile

Administrative structures (ministry,

rectorate, units)

Research (cooperation) to enhance

competitiveness and positioning within the

international scientific community

Reputation as a research university on the

highest international level

Fulfilment of political and economic

interests of the ministry

Positioning of the university in a highly

competitive international research

environment

Global-level

control types

Planning, Administrative controls,

Cultural controls, Provision of resources,

Cybernetic controls

Planning, Cybernetic controls,

Administrative controls

Administrative controls,

Cybernetic controls

Institutional-level

control types Planning, Cybernetic controls, Administrative controls, Reward and Compensation, Provision of resources

Individual-level

control types Planning, Cybernetic controls, Reward and Compensation, Administrative controls, Provision of resources

Figure 4: Institutional logics und MCSs at Austrian public universities, adapted from Conrath-Hargreaves and Wüstemann (2019), Boitier and Rivière (2016), Thornton et al. (2005)

18

What are the guiding institutional logics at Austrian public universities? (RQ 1)

Content analysis confirmed the co-existence of three salient logics based on Conrath-

Hargreaves and Wüstemann (2019). Similar to findings reported by Conrath-Hargreaves

and Wüstemann (2019), Austrian public universities exhibit strong competition and partial

contradictions between grown institutional logics, as will be shown.

Findings indicate that the academic logic is the most advocated in the interviews. In their

self-concept, representatives of Austrian public universities stress academic freedom in

research and teaching with a maximum of autonomy at the highest international level.

Universities’ research reputation (including basic research) and maintaining ethical

standards plays the most significant role, e.g., “freedom of science is paramount” (I 6),

“ethical standards and rules must be respected” (one interviewee). Generally, the vast

majority of the interviewees reject the controllability of research performance, e.g.,

“university is not a ballpoint-factory” (I 3), “it is not like this, only what you can measure, you can govern” (I 7). Reliance on high personal and individual responsibility guides the

research strategy. An understanding of control as expressed by support and provision of

resources is shared, e.g., “not extinguishing the fire of intrinsic motivation” (I 7), results

have to be monitored, if deviations are recognised, possibly goals have to be redefined

(one interviewee). Universities’ targets should be achieved by decentral and consensual decision-making, e.g., I 13: “research topics are always defined bottom-up and we try to

build the right structure to make that possible”.

However, government logic strongly guides the control system. Austrian public

universities strive to fulfil the political and economic interests of the state and try to meet

the economic and social goals defined in the performance agreement, as is clearly

expressed in the following statement: “we will adjust the research profile to the

performance agreement” (I 6). A prioritisation of governmental goals is accompanied by

a narrow understanding of control, e.g., “key figures of the formula-bound budget have to

be met; therefore research control is very important; legally required indicators will

improve research performance” (one interviewee). The planning process is characterised

by administrative structures where key figures set by the ministry are communicated top-

down, as I 12 states: “we have a system based on the key figures of the intellectual capital

report, where the performance agreement goals are broken down to the individual

departments”.

Moreover, high-impact research and being successful in securing grants is dominantly

guided by business logic. Austrian public universities try to position themselves primarily

as (inter)national research universities, market-oriented and competitive with efficient goal

achievement striving for financial income, achieved by the acquisition of high-grade

competitive research grants, e.g., “what we want to achieve is a maximum of visibility of

the university in the international research area” (I 8).

Which MCSs are applied at Austrian public universities in the area of research

management? (RQ 2)

According to figure four, the selection and application of management control types at

Austrian public universities depends on the level of control considered. Therefore, the

control types examined were assigned to the identified levels and, are named according to

the frequency of mention. In addition, content analysis revealed, that at the global level of

19

control, the application of control types depends on the institutional logics confirmed. This

also applies to the institutional level, albeit not mentioned explicitly. At the individual level

of control, no particular logic guides the implementation and application of specific control

types. Rather, at this level of control, various types are applied and argued from various

perspectives.

Global-level control types

Guided by academic logic in order to fulfil university’s specific mission, the most

frequently applied control type is planning (profile building and development planning)

followed by and intertwined with administrative (by establishing interdisciplinary research

areas) and cultural controls (appointment and application of professors). The vast majority

of the interviewees stress these control types, as the following examples show:

“strengthening interdisciplinary research fields” (one interviewee), “establishing

research foci” (I 13), “appointment and application of new professors” (I 8). The

provision of resources is a central aspect of supporting research efforts directly, as

mentioned by I 8: “funding of research infrastructure and funding appliances”. To a lesser

degree, cybernetic controls in the form of budgets and peer-reviews (in case of

appointments) exist on this level of control: “optional budgets for promoting research

directly” (I 8), “peer-evaluation and clan controls accompanied by the advisory council”

(I 12). Reward and compensation are of no importance.

Led by government logic, planning instruments (by concluding performance agreements

with the ministry) interlinked with the deployment of cybernetic controls (budgets and

(non-)financial indicators) and administrative controls (monitoring and reporting key

figures in the intellectual capital report) are applied by Austrian public universities, as I 8

expressed: “governmental budget-relevant indicators are deployed by the university”.

Other control types have no relevance at the global level of control. Entrepreneurship

becomes increasingly visible by stressing the amount of external (highly competitive)

funds and contracts raised, which should be achieved by establishing research foci,

collaborations and networking among national and international scientists.

From the perspective of business logic, the mostly applied control type is administrative

followed, to a lesser extent, by cybernetic, e.g., I 13 stated “development of research foci

to become a world leader in specific research fields”. Using indicators, Austrian public

universities’ success in the acquisition of highly competitive third-party funds or research

grant competitions is measured by the research management system: “quantitative output

indicators and metrics (projects, collaborations and publications) for funding research

projects and for the acquisition of (high-grade) research grants” (I 8). Cultural controls,

planning instruments, and reward and compensation are not mentioned.

Institutional-level control types

At the institutional level of control, government logic strongly guides the employed control

types. Planning in the form of target and qualification agreements between the rectorate

and the units are the most frequently applied controls, as the following quotation shows

exemplarily: “[the] rectorate periodically agrees specific targets (teaching, research and

personnel) derived from universities’ development plan and the performance agreement

with their faculties and organisational units” (I 1). These are closely intertwined with

cybernetic and administrative controls, particularly by the setting and monitoring of

20

indicators, e.g., “evaluation is based on a broad set of quantitative and qualitative

indicators” (I 3); “internal and external (national and international) benchmarks are

applied” (I 7); “assessment is done periodically” (I 2). Furthermore, a wide variety of

different budgets is applied, as the following quotations show: “budgets dependent on master data (personnel, students and facilities)” (I 6, I 8), “variable ministerial budgets

(according to the need of investments in teaching and fundamental research” (I 2),

“performance-dependent budgets - on excellence of applications (external peer-reviewed)

- or budgets distributed for projects to support interdisciplinary research by alliances and

to enable networking” (I 12). Performance reviews, the recruitment of personnel, meetings

and initiatives across units are also applied, e.g., “appointment of tenure track professors”

(I 12), “doctoral schools across departments” (one interviewee). At this level of control,

incentives gain importance: “‘overhead incentives’ [certain percentage of project funding

to support expenses such as administrative costs] are sometimes removed to the rectorate”

(I 5) in other cases “they remain (partly, (one interviewee)) at the faculty or institute or at

the department” (I 2, I 13). Additionally, administrative controls together with

infrastructure support are mentioned: “project database” (I 13), “formal structures

(policies and procedures for appointing professors” (I 5) or “designing curricula and

support for third-party funding and legal certainty” (I 4), “networking-symposia and

doctoral colleges” (I 12). Cultural controls could not be identified at the institutional level

of control.

Individual-level control types

At the individual level of control, planning instruments (target and qualification

agreements) interlinked with cybernetic controls (quantitative and qualitative measures,

internal and external benchmarks) and subsequent evaluation (periodical evaluation

instruments) are the most frequently applied control types, as the majority of the

interviewees mentioned: “target and qualification agreements, (partially) based on

indicators of the intellectual capital report (e.g., concerning the amount of (high-impact)

publications, co-authorship, monographs, high competitive third-party funding, peer-

reviews)”. In addition, budgets as incentives are deployed at the individual level of control,

e.g., I 7: “budgets for good performance in publishing or third-party funding […] budgets

for special (innovative, interdisciplinary) research projects”. Furthermore, a wide range

of reward and compensation (monetary and non-monetary incentives) are important

controls at the individual level (e.g., qualification agreements or boni for highly

competitive third-party funding, removal of time limits for approval, sabbaticals,

appreciation in the form of mentions in newspapers or on the university’s website, and

even individual financial incentives for publications) as the following examples illustrate:

“removal of the time limit for approval (e.g., tenure track positions)” (I 6), “monetary

incentives as variable salary components dependent on specific indicators” (I 13),

“possibility for salary increase in case of positive evaluation, bonus systems for successful

project applications” (also for private use - I 3). Administrative controls (databases,

policies and procedures or coordination units) together with the provision of resources in

the form of infrastructure support (e.g., core facilities or offices for research funding) are

used. Placement, trainings and contracts are deployed, e.g., “recruitment of tenure track professors” (I 8) or “doctoral students” (I 5), “mobility and mentoring programmes for young scientists” (I 6), “personalised coaching, if positive evaluated project applications are rejected” (I 1). The provision of resources constitutes an important support: “subsidies

for publishing and conferences, research applications, absorption of translations costs,

support to foster networking and interpersonal exchange (internal interdisciplinary

21

meeting once a year) to gain know-how, absorption of seminar/travel costs” (I 4). In case

of deviations, corresponding measures are agreed increasingly (I 8), peer reviews and

external consulting are applied (I 6). Non-fulfilment (e.g., if a doctoral thesis is not

finished) in some cases leads to job vacancies not being filled (one interviewee), to a

reduction in personnel and salary (I 2), and no removal of time limits, if qualification

agreements are not met (I 7).

The in-depth analysis revealed that, from the global level down to the institutional level,

the application of MCSs changes from a guidance by academic logic to government logic.

Furthermore, reward and compensation gain importance. At every level, planning is

applied ranging from profile-building instruments, development planning and the

ministerial performance agreement to target agreements with the units and individual

qualification agreements. Administration and provision of resources constitutes a key

prerequisite. More and more strongly, corresponding measures are applied in case of

deviation: these range from peer reviews and external consulting to reduction in personnel

and salary, but may also result in not filling job vacancies or not removing the time limit

for approval.

How do Austrian public universities cope with the existence of (competing) logics in the

application of MCSs? (RQ3)

Content analysis revealed four types of coping strategies; in particular, Austrian public

universities cope differently with the pressure arisen from governmental regulations (table

one). Key personnel has to bridge universities core values and governmental requirements,

concurrently, universities have to maintain and enhance their competitiveness. First,

interviewees demonstrate their disagreement as I 3 describes the performance agreement

as “a conglomeration of pseudo-tasks and as a waste of resources” and emphasises that

“university is not a ballpoint-factory”, though controls are not decoupled from the

governmental prescribed. A second coping strategy is expressed by the adaption of

governmental guidelines on the global level of control, as I 8 expressed: “we try to adjust

the research profile to the performance agreement”. A third coping strategy concerns the

translation of agreements in the intellectual capital report into measurable objectives

communicated to the individual units, while simultaneously highlighting the importance

of intrinsic motivation (I 13). After all, some interviewees demonstrate a clear commitment

to the requirements issued by the government, as one interviewee mentioned exemplarily:

“key figures of the formula-bound budget have to be met; therefore research control is

very important”.

Universities’ coping strategies

Exemplary quotations translated from German

Disagreement

AL: researchers see themselves as highly creative people […] they need one thing and that is a certain form of freedom and the ability to do what they want GL: the ministry

gives us requirements and university has to meet it […] maybe in the medium term I will

inhibit performance […] maybe someone who does something really great, innovative, disruptive, may not get his publications published in the journal […] it is hardly about the core tasks of the university BL: we have to be internationally competitive, we want

to collaborate (I 3)

Adaption on a

global level

AL: no scientist is supported or not supported if he pursues a certain research topic or

direction […] but from a management and a public perspective, our strengths interest us GL: our budget will be dependent on the acquisition of third-party funding and the

amount of doctoral students in structured doctoral programs; university 8 tries to adapt

research profile to the performance agreement BL: to be recognized internationally as

a research university at the highest level […] by encouraging scientists to present themselves as qualitatively and internationally visible as possible (I 8)

22

Application as

university-internal

control instrument

AL: research control works very strongly through the motivation of the employees and

on an upper level through our research focus system […] research topics are always

given bottom up, not always but 99 % of the time and we try to build the right structure

to make this possible GL: there is a legal requirement to make an intellectual capital

report […] from this obligation certain systems have developed […] certain objectives,

which can be derived from the development plan and the performance agreement, are

communicated to the faculties and from the faculties to the institutes and, ideally, also

to the individual employees BL: when someone applies for an ERC grant, automatically

a qualification agreement position is offered (I 13)

Application as

university-guiding

control instrument

GL: we have a system based on key figures from the intellectual capital report […] we

break down the performance agreement […] to the individual departments and institute

or […] heads […] there are specific goals which are then assessed in the annual

discussions or on the basis of the key figures in the published intellectual capital report

and then reflected with the people with whom we have agreed them; in some cases,

salary components are linked to these performance agreements BL: we try to reward

those projects that are more competitive (I 12)

Beyond, interviewees try to make sense between the logics identified. Experts seek to

reconcile elements of one logic with elements of another, as the following quotations show

(table two): the consensus between government and academic logic is sought most

strongly, followed by academic and business logic, and, government and business logic.

Exemplary quotations translated from German

Government

logic

Academic

logic

we rely heavily on financial and non-financial indicators […] the art herein is to define a street or a corridor where you can clearly identify, that is the one in which you can move and

those are the rules […] (I 3) research control is not a good term […] we talk about research custody […] we also control, we also use output- and input-oriented dimensions, of course […] at some faculties, budget

allocation depends on performance indicators […] we have a de facto budget penalty (I 5)

it is clear MCSs are increasingly effective […] this is neo-liberalisation of the universities

[…] that is the international trend and it’s hard to resist and in Austria we have an increasing grip of the UG, at the beginning I felt barriers, in the meantime that has subsided […] it’s about a balancing act; that must be interlinked; performance indicators of the performance

agreement are communicated top-down; it would be a lie to say it doesn’t exist (I 7)

Academic

logic

Government

logic

visibility and appreciation are very important, besides the point system (I 3)

we are not talking about MCSs we talk about support systems […] we have a more positive

approach, not a controlling one […] certain processes are standardised […] everything that goes beyond - absolute freedom of research has priority […] you always have to look between these poles where is it also possible […] the aim is not to specify key figures, our aim is to

increase or to maintain stability […] hard key figures contradict universities’ autonomy and may impede potentials (I 4)

we have to be sensitive to the research culture (I 5)

Academic

logic

Business

logic

we know that the standing of our scientists in the international community is extremely high

[…] we are doing everything we can to support the key people to maintain this (I 4) our aim is increase in visibility, ability to cooperate and competitiveness of the research

performance and scientists of our university in the international scientific communities […] do what you are interested in but it should be excellent […] high appreciation of successful third-party finding in highly competitive funding projects […] we can communicate the

meaningfulness of the goals and create attractive offers (I 5)

one the one hand to produce excellent internationally outstanding research – on the other

hand freedom of science is always in the foreground, these two poles have to be reconciled

[…] there are certain areas where key figures have to be met, but if not, nothing happens (I 6)

Government

logic

Business

logic

concerning indicators, it is important to bring competitive funding to the university (I 1)

we have a management information system for the rectorate […] we look how many third-

party funds do people raise […] for raising third-party funding we use quantitative indicators

[…] we want to achieve a maximum of visibility (I 8)

Table 1: Universities’ coping strategies

23

6. Discussion, contribution and research limitation

At Austrian public universities, given their historical academic tradition, academic

freedom is more than just lip service. At the global level, research control is clearly guided

by academic logic (RQ 1). Of course, universities have to adhere to government mandates,

but the actual extent of implementation and the university-internal fine-tuning of

ministerial requirements differs between the universities studied here. NPM requirements

forced Austrian public universities into a situation where they face national and

international competition. Intellectual capital reports were implemented very quickly.

Since then, there have been a number of further acts and regulations and, with the

introduction of a recent legislative act in 2020, additional budget-relevant indicators will

become relevant for university funding. Financing and competition have contributed to the

emergence of government and business logic in a long-term process and have transformed

Austrian public universities into hybrids. Consequently, this led to a change in traditional

material practices in academia, and the imported logics induced a shift between the

identified logics (Busco et al., 2017; Dai et al., 2016; Thornton et al., 2012). For instance,

Austrian public universities deny controllability of research by performance metrics, but

indicators and rankings are, in fact, employed for university-internal purposes, sometimes

even in a more sophisticated fashion than required by law.

Government and business logic, expressed by explicit indicators (e.g., indicators for high-

impact research and highly competitive research funding), as well as their practices were

adapted for internal purposes, leading to hybrid practices (Thornton et al., 2012). However,

the imported practices, shaped by academic logic, are not accepted without contradiction.

That is why universities’ coping strategies differ in the extent of the university-internal

implementation and in their efforts in making sense to facilitate resistance and assimilation

concurrently (Townley, 1997). These results are also confirmed by earlier studies,

predominantly analysing commercial and professional logic (e.g., Murray, 2010; Swan et

al., 2010; Townley, 1997). Results can also be interpreted in light of academic tradition:

Grossi et al. (2019) found the co-existence of potentially competing logics but argue, inter

alia, with a strong historical focus on commercial activities due to the private nature of the

university they examined. Finally, compartmentalisation (Canhihal et al., 2016) was found

with no significant effect on academic aspects (e.g., teaching and research). The authors

argue that “useful counterbalances help to avoid the negative consequences of

managerialism by taking into account the specific characteristics of the field” (Canhihal

et al., 2016:191). Regarding the Austrian case, our interviewees strive to find a consensus

by establishing a common language.

Regarding RQ 2 at the global level of control, the control mechanism perceived as the

strongest and most powerful is an entanglement of planning, administrative and cultural

controls; at the institutional level, planning, cybernetic and cultural controls are

intertwined. The strong commitment to budgets as well as (non-)financial and hybrid

measures indicates practices of an efficiency- and result-oriented culture (Boitier and

Rivière, 2016). At the individual level, planning, a wide variety of cybernetic controls as

well as reward and compensation instruments and administrative controls are evident. At

Table 2: Sensemaking of interviewees

24

all levels of control, the provision of resources is strongly emphasised. The applied control

instruments differ only marginally between the universities examined and, as a whole,

show a very compact and highly differentiated set of controls. Differences concern the

design of cybernetic and administrative controls as well as reward and compensation. For

instance, some universities have a highly differentiated system of key figures, differently

elaborated systems of research management or individual financial incentives.

Contrary to the results of the literature review, planning instruments play a central role in

Austria. In accordance with literature, cybernetic controls are seen critically, and there is

awareness that organisational culture is the strongest driver of employees’ motivation,

which has to be supported by the provision of resources, administrative controls (e.g.

supporting networking) and collegial support (Tucker and Tilt, 2019; Sutton and Brown,

2016; Edgar and Geare, 2013). The literature review showed a lack of potential

consequences in case of non-fulfilment. In the Austrian case, however, sanctions are

becoming increasingly established on the part of the ministry and the university

management.

In their developmental change (Thornton et al., 2010), Austrian public universities

integrate new practices into the prevalent academic logic. Elements are not only combined,

as the core elements of the academic logic prevail (RQ 3) and result in hybrid practices.

Austrian public universities uphold their core values and are simultaneously proud of their

elaborate key figure systems. They combine narratives and practices to create consensus

by creating hybrid practices and identities. The applied control instruments should act as

mediator (Busco et al., 2017). Corresponding coping strategies range from acknowledged

disagreement with governmental obligations to adoption on the holistic level of control,

application by adapting governmental control instruments for university-internal purposes,

and application as university-internal control instruments. Practices of the external logics

are made part of the academic logic. By means of “explicit accounts” (Thornton et al.,

2012), Austrian public universities are mediating within their own institutional

development and trying to find a consensus: “it’s about a balancing act”.

This study contributes to research on MCSs and institutional logics at public universities

in the context of institutional complexity. First, the coexistence of academic, government

and business logics was confirmed in a self-governing setting highly exposed to

governmental regulations. Second, while literature focuses equally on different types of

control, whereas planning instruments are rarely discussed, this study conceptualises

MCSs as a package (Malmi and Brown, 2008). Third, this study contributes to the

literature, extending previous research by drawing on the perspective of institutional logics

to facilitate the understanding of public universities’ coping strategies when implementing

and applying MCSs exposed to this regulated and competitive institutional environment.

Four types of coping strategies could be observed. Actors try to make sense and find a

consensus by assimilating and incorporating elements, practices and symbols of the

identified external logics into academic logic.

A major limitation of the study relates to the small number of public universities in Austria

(22 universities). Furthermore, the study focused only on research; consequently, teaching

and third mission are not considered. The efficiency and effectivity of MCSs are also not

examined. To analyse the impact of the implementation of MCSs, future research should

25

include longitudinal studies and integrate the perspective of the affected researchers.

Furthermore, the interaction between different types of control, also outside the scope of

this paper, would be well worth investigating. As this study considers MCSs as a package,

the interplay between the different control types and levels of controls is not regarded. It

would be interesting to study whether cybernetic (legally required) indicators or

competition (because of limited resources) actually undermine researchers’ intrinsic

motivation or, more specifically, whether or not universities are, in fact, ‘ballpoint

factories’. Furthermore, the mutual reinforcement of commonly seen conflicting logics at

Austrian public universities (e.g., academic and business logics) offers an interesting field

of research (Guarini et al., 2020).

26

References

Abernethy, M.A. and Brownell, P. (1997), “Management control systems in research and development organizations: The role of accounting, behavior and personnel controls”, Accounting, Organizations and Society, Vol. 22 No. 3-4, pp. 233-248.

Adler, N., Elmquist, M. and Norrgren, F. (2009), “The challenge of managing boundary-

spanning research activities: Experiences from the Swedish context”, Research Policy, Vol. 38

No. 7, pp. 1136-1149.

Aleksandrov, E. (2020), “Actors’ reflexivity and engagement in the formation of new accounting tools during university hybridization”, Qualitative Research in Accounting and


Agyemang, G. and Broadbent, J. (2015), “Management control systems and research management in universities: An empirical and conceptual exploration”, Accounting, Auditing

& Accountability Journal, Vol. 28 No. 7, pp. 1018-1046.

Ahrens, T. and Khalifa, R. (2015), “The impact of regulation on management control: Compliance as a strategic response to institutional logics of university accreditation”, Qualitative Research in Accounting & Management, Vol. 12 No. 2, pp. 106-126.

Alford, R.R. and Friedland, R. (1985), Powers of Theory: Capitalism, the State, and

Democracy, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Auranen, O. and Nieminen, M. (2010), “University research funding and publication

performance – An international comparison”, Research Policy, Vol. 39 No. 6, pp. 822-834.

Bazeley, P. (2010), “Conceptualising research performance”, Studies in Higher Education, Vol.

35 No. 8, pp. 889-903.

Beerkens, M. (2013), “Facts and fads in academic research management: The effect of management practices on research productivity in Australia”, Research Policy, Vol. 42 No. 9,

pp. 1679-1693.

Boitier, M. and Rivière, A., (2016), “Management control systems, vectors of a managerial

logic: institutional change and conflicts of logics at university”, Comptabilité - Contrôle –

Audit, Vol. 22 No. 3, pp. 47-79.

Boitier, M., Rivière, A., Wenzlaff, F. and Hattke, F. (2018), “Hybrid Organizational Responses to Institutional Complexity: A Cross-Case Study of Three European Universities”, Management international, Vol. 22 No. 4, pp. 121-135.

Bortz, J. and Döring, N. (2016), Forschungsmethoden und Evaluation in den Sozial- und

Humanwissenschaften, Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg.

Boxenbaum, E. and Jonsson, S. (2008), “Isomorphism, Diffusion and Decoupling”,

Greenwood, R., Oliver, C., Sahlin, K. and Suddaby, R. (Ed.s), The SAGE Handbook of

Organizational Institutionalism, SAGE, London, pp. 78–98.

Broadbent, J. (2007), “Performance Management Systems in and of Higher Education

Institutions in England: professionalism, managerialism and management.”, Research Papers

from the School of Business and Social Sciences, pp. 1-25.

27

Busco, C., Giovannoni, E. and Riccaboni, A. (2017), “Sustaining multiple logics within hybrid

organisations: Accounting, mediation and the search for innovation”, Accounting, Auditing &

Accountability Journal, Vol. 30 No. 1, pp. 191-216.

Canhilal, S.K., Lepori, B. and Seeber, M. (2016), “Decision-Making Power and Institutional

Logic in Higher Education Institutions: A comparative Analysis of European Universities”, Towards A Comparative Institutionalism: Forms, Dynamics And Logics Across The

Organizational Fields Of Health Care And Higher Education (Research in the Sociology of

Organizations), Emerald Group Publishing Limited, Vol. 45, pp. 169-194.

Chan, L.Y. and Richardson, W.A. (2012), “Board governance in Canadian universities”, Accounting Perspectives, Vol. 11 No. 1, pp. 31-55.

Conrath-Hargreaves, A. and Wüstemann, S. (2019), “Multiple institutional logics and their impact on accounting in higher education: The case of a German foundation university”, Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Vol. 32 No. 3, pp. 782-810.

Cullen, J., Joyce, J., Hassall, T. and Broadbent, M. (2003), “Quality in higher education: From

monitoring to management”, Quality Assurance in Education, Vol. 11 No. 1, pp. 5-14.

Czarniawska, B. (2020), “Mergers and acquisitions: the latest university fashion?”, Qualitative

Research in Accounting and Management, Vol. 17 No. 1, pp. 18-32.

Dai, N.T., Tan, Z.S., Tang, G. and Xiao, J.Z. (2016), “IPOs, Institutional Complexity, and

Management Accounting in Hybrid Organisations: A Field Study in a State-Owned Enterprise

in China”, Management Accounting Research, Vol. 36, pp. 2-23.

Decramer, A., Smolders, C., Vanderstraeten, A. and Christiaens, J. (2012), “The Impact of

Institutional Pressures on Employee Performance Management Systems in Higher Education

in the Low Countries”, British Journal of Management, Vol. 23 No. 51, pp. 88-103.

DiMaggio, P.J. and Powell, W.W. (1983), “The Iron Cage Revisited: Institutional Isomorphism and Collective Rationality in Organizational Fields”, American Sociological Review, Vol. 48

No. 2, pp. 147-160.

Dobija, D., Górska, A.M., Grossi, G. and Strzelczyk, W. (2019), “Rational and symbolic uses of performance measurement”, Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Vol. 32 No. 3,

pp. 750-781.

Duh, R.R., Chen, K.T., Lin, R.C. and Kuo, L.C. (2014), “Do internal controls improve operating efficiency of universities?”, Annals of Operations Research, Vol. 221 No. 1, pp. 173-

195.

European Higher Education Area (2020), available at: http://www.ehea.info/, (accessed 16

October 2020).

Edgar, F. and Geare, A. (2013), “Factors influencing university research performance”, Studies

in Higher Education, Vol. 38 No. 5, pp. 774-792.

Ezzamel, M., Robson, K. and Stapleton, P. (2012), “The logics of budgeting: Theorization and practice variation in the educational field”, Accounting, Organizations and Society, Vol. 37 No.

5, pp. 281-303.

Fallon, D., (1980), The German University: A Heroic Ideal in Conflict with the Modern World.

Colorado Associated University Press, Boulder.

http://www.ehea.info/

28

Flamholtz, E.G., Das, T.K. and Tsui, A.S. (1985), “Toward an integrative framework of organizational control”, Accounting, Organizations and Society, Vol. 10 No. 1, pp. 35-50.

Friedland, R. and Alford, R.R. (1991), “Bringing Society Back In: Symbols, Practices, and

Institutional Contradictions”, Powell, W.W. and DiMaggio, P.J. (Ed.s), The New

Institutionalism in Organizational Analysis, University of Chicago Press, Chicago and London,

pp. 232-263.

Gaus, N. and Hall, D. (2016), “Performance Indicators in Indonesian Universities: The

Perception of Academics”, Higher Education Quarterly, Vol. 70 No. 2, pp. 127-144.

Gebreiter, F. and Hidayah, N.N. (2019), “Individual responses to competing accountability pressures in hybrid organisations: The case of an English business school”, Accounting,

Auditing & Accountability Journal, Vol. 32 No. 3, pp. 727-749.

Greenwood, R., Raynard, M., Kodeih, F., Micelotta, E.R. and Lounsbury, M. (2011),

“Institutional Complexity and Organizational Responses”, Walsh, J.P. and Brief, A.P. (Ed.s),

The Academy of Management Annals, Routledge, Essex.

Grossi, G., Kallio, K.M., Sargiacomo, M. and Skoog, M. (2019), “Accounting, performance management systems and accountability changes in knowledge-intensive public organizations”, Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Vol. 33 No. 1, pp. 256-280.

Guarini, E., Magli, F. and Francesconi, A. (2020), “Academic logics in changing performance measurement systems: An exploration in a university setting”, Qualitative Research in

Accounting and Management, Vol. 17 No. 1, pp. 109-142.

Guest, G., Bunce, A. and Johnson, L. (2006), “How Many Interviews Are Enough?: An

Experiment with Data Saturation and Variability”, Field Methods, Vol. 18 No. 59, pp. 59-82.

Habersam, M., Piber, M. and Skoog, M. (2013), „Knowledge balance sheets in Austrian

universities: The implementation, use, and re-shaping of measurement and management

practices”, Critical Perspectives on Accounting, Vol. 24, No. 4-5, pp. 319-337.

Hansen, S.C., Otley, D.T. and van der Stede, W.A. (2003), “Practice Developments in

Budgeting: An Overview and Research Perspective”, Journal of Management Accounting

Research, Vol. 15 No. 1, pp. 95-116.

Haveman, H.A. and Rao, H. (1997), “Structuring a Theory of Moral Sentiments: Institutional and Organizational Coevolution in the Early Thrift Industry”, American Journal of Sociology,

Vol. 102 No. 6, pp. 1606-1651.

Hemlin, S. and Rasmussen, S.B. (2006), “The Shift in Academic Quality Control”, Science,

Technology, & Human Values, Vol. 31 No. 2, pp. 173-198.

Hendriks, P.H. and Sousa, C.A.A. (2008), “Motivating University Researchers”, Higher

Education Policy, Vol. 21 No. 3, pp. 359-376.

Hendriks, P.H. and Sousa, C.A.A. (2013), “Practices of management knowing in university research management”, Journal of Organizational Change Management, Vol. 26 No. 3, pp.

611-628.

Hussy, W., Schreier, M. and Echterhoff, G. (2013), Forschungsmethoden in Psychologie und

Sozialwissenschaften für Bachelor, Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg.

29

Ittner, C.D. and Larcker, D.F. (1998), “Innovations in Performance Measurement: Trends and

Research Implications”, Journal of Management Accounting Research, Vol. 10, pp. 205-238.

Jin, L. and Sun, H. (2010), “The effect of researchers' interdisciplinary characteristics on team innovation performance: evidence from university R&D teams in China”, The International

Journal of Human Resource Management, Vol. 21 No. 13, pp. 2488-2502.

Kagaari, J., Munene, J.C. and Mpeera Ntayi, J. (2010), “Performance management practices, employee attitudes and managed performance”, International Journal of Educational


Kallio, T.J., Kallio, K.M. and Blomberg, A. (2020), “From professional bureaucracy to competitive bureaucracy – redefining universities’ organization principles, performance measurement criteria, and reason for being”, Qualitative Research in Accounting and


Kallio, K.M., Kallio, T.J. and Tienari, J. (2016), “Ethos at stake: Performance management and academic work in universities”, human relations, Vol. 69 No. 3, pp. 685-709.

Kirkland, J. (2005), “Towards an integrated approach: university research management in an institutional context”, International Journal of Technology Management & Sustainable

Development, Vol. 4 No. 3, pp. 155-166.

Kirkland, J. (2008), “University research management: an emerging profession in the

developing world”, Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, Vol. 20 No. 6, pp. 717-726.

Lange, S. (2008), „New Public Management und die Governance der Universitäten“, Zeitschrift für Public Policy, Recht und Management, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 235-248.

Lanskoronskis, M., Ramoniene, L. and Barsauskas, P. (2009), “Innovative research management as a tool for institutional competitiveness”, Baltic Journal of Management, Vol.

4 No. 3, pp. 353-368.

Laredo, P. (2007), “Revisiting the Third Mission of Universities: Toward a Renewed

Categorization of University Activities?”, Higher Education Policy, Vol. 20 No. 4, pp. 441-

456.

Lechner, K., Egger, A. und Schauer, R. (2013), Einführung in die Allgemeine

Betriebswirtschaftslehre, 26. überarbeitete Auflage, Linde Verlag, Wien.

Lepori, B. (2016), “Universities as Hybrids: Applications of Institutional Logics Theory to Higher Education”, Theory and Method in Higher Education, Vol. 2, pp. 245-264.

Lounsbury, M. (2008), “Institutional rationality and practice variation: New directions in the institutional analysis of practice”, Accounting, Organizations and Society, Vol. 33 No. 4-5, pp.

349-361.

Malmi, T. and Brown, D.A. (2008), “Management control systems as a package - Opportunities,

challenges and research directions”, Management Accounting Research, Vol. 19 No. 4, pp.

287-300.

Manning, L.M. and Barrette, J. (2005), “Research Performance Management in Academe”, Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences, Vol. 22 No. 4, pp. 273-287.

30

Martin‐Sardesai, A., Irvine, H., Tooley, S. and Guthrie, J. (2017a), “Accounting for Research:

Academic Responses to Research Performance Demands in an Australian University”, Australian Accounting Review, Vol. 27 No. 3, pp. 329-343.

Martin-Sardesai, A., Irvine, H., Tooley, S. and Guthrie, J. (2017b), “Organizational change in an Australian university: Responses to a research assessment exercise”, The British Accounting

Review, Vol. 49 No. 4, pp. 399-412.

Martin-Sardesai, A. and Guthrie, J. (2018), “Human capital loss in an academic performance

measurement system”, Journal of Intellectual Capital, Vol. 19 No. 1, pp. 53-70.

MAXQDA (2019), available at: https://www.maxqda.de/ (accessed 05 October 2019).

Mayring, P. (2015), Qualitative Inhaltsanalyse: Grundlagen und Techniken, Beltz, Weinheim,

Basel.

Mayring, P. (2016), Einführung in die qualitative Sozialforschung, Beltz, Weinheim, Basel.

McCormack, J., Propper, C. and Smith, S. (2014), “Herding cats? Management and University

Performance”, The Economic Journal, Vol. 124 No. 578, pp. 534-564.

Melo, A.I., Sarrico, C.S. and Radnor, Z. (2010), “The Influence of Performance Management

Systems on Key Actors in Universities: The case of an English university”, Public

Management Review, Vol. 12 No. 2, pp. 233-254.

Meyer, J.W. and Rowan, B. (1977), “Institutionalized Organizations: Formal Structure as Myth and Ceremony”, American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 83 No. 2, pp. 340-363.

Mingers, J. and Willmott, H. (2013), “Taylorizing business school research: On the ‘one best way’ performative effects of journal ranking lists”, human relations, Vol. 66 No. 8, pp. 1051-

1073.

Mintzberg, H. (1991), Mintzberg über Management: Führung und Organisation Mythos und

Realität, Springer Gabler, Wiesbaden.

Moll, J. and Hoque, Z. (2011), “Budgeting for legitimacy: The case of an Australian university”, Accounting, Organizations and Society, Vol. 36 No. 2, pp. 86-101.

Murray, F.E. (2010), “The Oncomouse that Roared: Hybrid Exchange Strategies as a Source

of Distinction at the Boundary of Overlapping Institutions”, American Journal of Sociology,

Vol. 116 No. 2, pp. 341-388.

Nguyen, H.T.H. (2016), “Building human resources management capacity for university research: The case at four leading Vietnamese universities”, Higher Education, Vol. 71 No. 2,

pp. 231-251.

Nguyen, H.T.L. and Van Gramberg, B. (2017), “University strategic research planning: a key to reforming university research in Vietnam?”, Studies in Higher Education, Vol. 43 No. 12,

pp. 2130-2147.

Oliver, C. (1991), “Strategic Responses to Institutional Processes”, The Academy of

Management Review, Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 145-179.

Otley, D. (1999), “Performance management: a framework for management control systems research”, Management Accounting Research, Vol. 10 No. 4, pp. 363-382.

https://www.maxqda.de/

31

Pache, A-C. and Santos, F. (2013), “Inside the hybrid organization: Selective coupling as a response to competing institutional logics”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 56 No. 4,

pp. 972-1001.

Pettersen, I.J. (2015), “From Metrics to Knowledge? Quality Assessment in Higher Education”, Financial Accountability & Management, Vol. 31 No. 1, pp. 23-40.

Rahimnia, F. and Kargozar, N. (2016), “Objectives priority in university strategy map for resource allocation”, Benchmarking: An International Journal, Vol. 23 No. 2, pp. 371-387.

Rautianinen, A. and Järvenpää M. (2012), “Institutional Logics and Responses to Performance

Measurement Systems”, Financial Accountability & Management, Vol. 28 No. 2, pp. 164-188.

Schäffer, U., Strauss, E. and Zecher, C. (2015), “The role of management control systems in situations of institutional complexity”, Qualitative Research in Accounting & Management,

Vol. 12 No. 4, pp. 395-424.

Schmidthuber, J. (2019), “Management Control Systems zur Steuerung des Forschungsbereichs österreichischer öffentlicher Universitäten“, Master-Thesis, Linz.

Schnell, R., Hill, P.B. and Esser, E. (2013), Methoden der empirischen Sozialforschung,

Oldenburg Verlag, München.

Scott, W.R. (1983), “Healthcare organizations in the 80s: The convergence of public and professional control systems”, Meyer, J.W. and Scott, W.R. (Ed.s), Organizational

Environments: Ritual and Rationality, SAGE, Beverly Hills, pp. 99-114.

Silander, C. and Haake, U. (2017), “Gold-Diggers, Supporters and Inclusive Profilers:

Strategies for Profiling Research in Swedish Higher Education”, Studies in Higher Education,

Vol. 42 No. 11, pp. 2009-2025.

Simons, R. (1987), “Accounting control systems and business strategy: An empirical analysis”, Accounting, Organizations and Society, Vol. 12 No. 4, pp. 357-374.

Smets, M., Jarzabkowski, P., Burke G.T. and Spee, P. (2015), Reinsurance trading in Lloyd’s of London: Balancing conflicting-yet-complementary logics in practice, Academy of

Management Journal, Vol. 58 No. 3, pp. 932-970.

Sousa, C.A.A. and Hendriks, P.H. (2008), “Connecting Knowledge to Management: The Case

of Academic Research”, Organization, Vol. 15 No. 6, pp. 811-830.

Sousa, C.A.A., de Nijs, W.F. and Hendriks, P.H. (2010), “Secrets of the beehive: Performance management in university research organizations”, Human Relations, Vol. 63 No. 9, pp. 1439-

1460.

Stackhouse, J. and Day, R. (2005), “Global and regional practices in university research management: emerging trends”, International Journal of Technology Management &

Sustainable Development, Vol. 4 No. 3, pp. 189-205.

State constitution on the general rights of citizens (2020), available at:

https://www.ris.bka.gv.at, (accessed 16 October 2020).

Stephan, P.E. (2008), “Science and the University: Challenges for Future Research”, CESifo

Economic Studies, Vol. 54 No. 2, pp. 313-324.

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/action/doSearch?ContribAuthorStored=J%C3%A4rvenp%C3%A4%C3%A4%2C+Marko

https://www.ris.bka.gv.at/

32

Sutton, N.C. and Brown, D.A. (2016), “The illusion of no control: management control systems facilitating autonomous motivation in university research”, Accounting & Finance, Vol. 56 No.

2, pp. 577-604.

Swan, J., Bresnen, M., Newell, S.M., Robertson, M. and Dopson, S. (2010, “When Policy Meets Practice: Colliding Logics and the Challenge of ‘Mode2’ Initiatives in the Translation of Academic Knowledge”, Organization Studies, Vol. 31, pp. 1311-1340.

ter Bogt, H. J. and Scapens, R.W. (2012), “Performance Management in Universities: Effects

of the Transition to More Quantitative Measurement Systems”, European Accounting Review,

Vol. 21 No. 3, pp. 451-497.

Thornton, P.H. and Ocasio, W. (1999), “Institutional Logics and the Historical Contingency of Power in Organizations: Executive Succession in the Higher Education Publishing Industry,

1958 – 1990”, American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 105 No. 3, pp. 801-843.

Thornton, P.H., Jones, C. and Kenneth, K. (2005), “Institutional Logics and Institutional Change: Transformation in Accounting, Architecture, and Publishing.”, Jones, C. and Thornton, P.H. (Ed.s), Research in the Sociology of Organizations, JAI Press, Greenwich, pp. 125-170.

Thornton, P.H. and Ocasio, W. (2008), “Institutional Logics”, Greenwood, R., Oliver, C., Sahlin, K. and Suddaby, R. (Ed.s), The SAGE Handbook of Organizational Institutionalism,

SAGE, London, pp. 99-129.

Thornton, P.H., Ocasio, W. and Lounsbury, M. (2012), The institutional logics perspective: A

New Approach to Culture, Structure, and Process, Oxford University Press, USA.

Townley, B. (1997), “The Institutional Logic of Performance Appraisal”, Organization Studies,

Vol. 18 No. 2, pp. 261-285.

Tranfield, D., Denyer, D. and Smart, P. (2003), “Towards a Methodology for Developing

Evidence-Informed Management Knowledge by Means of Systematic Review”, British

Journal of Management, Vol. 14 No. 3, pp. 207-222.

Travaille, A.M. and Hendriks, P.H. (2010), “What keeps science spiralling? Unravelling the

critical success factors of knowledge creation in university research”, Higher Education, Vol.

59 No. 4, pp. 423-439.

Tucker, B.P. and Tilt, C.A. (2019), “‘You know it when you see it’: In search of ‘the ideal’ research culture in university accounting faculties”, Critical Perspectives on Accounting, Vol.

64, pp. 1-21.

Türk, K. (2008), “Performance appraisal and the compensation of academic staff in the University of Tartu”, Baltic Journal of Management, Vol. 3 No. 1, pp. 40-54.

Umashankar, V. and Dutta, K. (2007), “Balanced scorecards in managing higher education institutions: an Indian perspective”, International Journal of Educational Management, Vol.

21 No. 1, pp. 54-67.

Universities Act of Austria 2002 – UG (2020), available at: https://www.ris.bka.gv.at,

(accessed 16 October 2020).

Upton, S. and Warshaw, J.B. (2017), “Evidence of hybrid institutional logics in the US public

research university”, Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, Vol. 39 No. 1, pp.

89-103.

https://www.ris.bka.gv.at/

33

Vakkuri, J. and Johanson, J.E. (2020), “Failed promises – performance measurement

ambiguities in hybrid universities”, Qualitative Research in Accounting & Management, Vol.

17 No. 1, pp. 33-50.

Van der Weijden, I., De Gilder, D., Groenewegen, P. and Klasen, E. (2008), “Implications of managerial control on performance of Dutch academic (bio)medical and health research

groups”, Research Policy, Vol. 37 No. 9, pp. 1616-1629.

Vogel, R. and Hattke, F. (2018), “How is the Use of Performance Information Related to Performance of Public Sector Professionals? Evidence from the Field of Academic Research”, Public Performance & Management Review, Vol. 41 No. 2, pp. 390-414.

Wächter, B. (2004), “The Bologna Process: developments and prospects”, European Journal

of Education, Vol. 39 No. 3, pp. 265-273.

Wagner, E.L., Moll, J. and Newell, S. (2011), “Accounting logics, reconfiguration of ERP systems and the emergence of new accounting practices: A socio-material perspective”, Management Accounting Research, Vol. 22 No. 3, pp. 181-197.

Walter, T., Ihl, C., Mauer, R. and Brettel, M. (2018), “Grace, gold, or glory? Exploring incentives for invention disclosure in the university context”, The Journal of Technology

Transfer, Vol. 43 No. 6, pp. 1725-1759.

White, C.S., James, K., Burke, L.A. and Allen, R.S. (2012), “What makes a “research star”? Factors influencing the research productivity of business faculty”, International Journal of

Productivity and Performance Management, Vol. 61 No. 6, pp. 584-602.

Woelert, P. and McKenzie, L. (2018), “Follow the money? How Australian universities

replicate national performance-based funding mechanisms”, Research Evaluation, Vol. 27 No.

3, pp. 184-195.

Appendix 4

Publication list

Frei, J., Greiling, D. and Schmidthuber, J. (2020), “Management Control Systems in hybrid universities – The case of Austrian public universities”, Qualitative Research in Accounting and Management (major revision).

Frei, J., Greiling, D. and Schmidthuber, J. (2020), „Management Control Systeme zur

Forschungssteuerung an österreichischen öffentlichen Universitäten“, Hochschulmanagement - Zeitschrift für die Leitung, Entwicklung und Selbstverwaltung von Hochschulen und Wissenschaftseinrichtungen, Vol. 15 No. 4, pp. 123-129.

Frei, J., Lubinger, M. and Greiling, D. (2020), Assessing Universities’ Global Reporting

Initiative G4 Sustainability Reports in Concurrence with Stakeholder Inclusiveness, in Manes-Rossi, F. and Orelli, R.L. (Eds.), New Trends In Public Sector Reporting – Integrated Reporting and Beyond, Public Sector Financial Management, Palgrave Macmillan, Switzerland, pp. 35-56.

Frei, J., Lubinger, M. and Slacik, J. (2020), Kostenmanagement – Einführung, 2nd Edition,

Linde, Wien. Lubinger, M., Frei, J. and Greiling, D. (2019), “Assessing the materiality of university G4-

sustainability reports”, Journal of Public Budgeting, Accounting & Financial Management, Vol. 31 No. 3, pp. 364-391.

Frei, J. and Riezinger, M. (2014), Kostenmanagement – Einführung anhand eines

Modellunternehmens, Linde, Wien.

Conference list

Research Forum at the Virtual Annual Congress of the European Accounting Association (May

2021) - accepted

Journal of Management and Governance and SIDREA (Società Italiana dei Docenti di

Ragioneria e di Economia Aziendale) Virtual Workshop (November 2020, Naples)

Research Forum at the 43rd Annual Congress of the European Accounting Association

(May 2020, Bucharest) - accepted

22nd Workshop „Hochschulmanagement“ (February 2020, Vienna)

EURAM (June 2019, Lisboa)

Research Forum at the 41st Annual Congress of the European Accounting Association

(June 2018, Milan)

AAAJ Special Workshop (May 2017, Warsaw)

Documents

Accounting SUSTAINABILITY Univ.-Prof. Dr. Dorothea