Received: 7 October 2016 | Revised: 7 February 2017 | Accepted: 16 February 2017

DOI: 10.1111/hequ.12122

ARTICLE
bs_bs_banner

Analysing the literature on university social

responsibility: A review of selected higher
education journals

Manuel Larr
an Jorge | Francisco Javier Andrades Pen

~a

Department of Finance and Accounting,

University of Cadiz, Cadiz, Spain
Abstract
In the last 30 years, different economic, political and social changes
have taken place in the university sector and this has led to an exten-
sive reform to meet the new societal challenges that these
institutions are facing today. This emphasises the social dimension of
universities and their important role in society as educators of future
leaders and policy makers. This reveals the need to integrate social
responsibility principles into the mainstream functions of universities.
In view of these comments, this paper offers a review of the literature
about university social responsibility during the period from 2000 to
2015. The objectives of the review are to: explore patterns in publica-
tion outlets; collect, scrutinise and critically analyse the current
literature on this field; to identify gaps in the literature and make rec-
ommendations for further research in this field. To accomplish this
task, data were collected from 15 specialist academic journals that
focus on higher education.

1 | INTRODUCTION

Over the last decades, many economic, political and social changes have taken place in the university sector and this
has led to an extensive reform to meet the new societal challenges that these institutions are facing today in their
main activities (Vasilescu, Barna, Epure, & Baicu, 2010).
First, and adopting a view based on education, different institutional initiatives have been developed to establish a
better interaction between universities and society in order to respond to specific demands from the different agents
involved (Brennan, 2008). Among these initiatives, in 2004 the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural
Organization approved the United Nations Decade of Education for Sustainable Development for the period from
2005 to 2014. This initiative aimed to ‘promote education as a basis for a more sustainable human society and to inte-
grate sustainable development into education systems at all levels’ (Vel

asquez, Munguia, & Sanchez, 2005, p. 385).
More recently, in 2007, the United Nations Global Compact developed the Principles for Responsible Management
Education aimed at business and management schools (Burchell, Murray, & Kennedy, 2015). The Principles for Respon-
sible Management Education initiative ‘addresses the responsibilities of management education institutions in

302 | V
C 2017 John Wiley & Sons Ltd. wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/hequ Higher Educ Q. 2017;71:302–319.

JORGE ~
LARRAN AND ANDRADES PENA bs_bs_banner
| 303

preparing today’s and tomorrow’s business professions for the challenge of bringing about more responsible and sus-
tainable business’ (Godemann, Haertle, Herzig, & Moon, 2014, p. 16). Focusing on the European higher education sys-
tem, universities have implemented a full process aimed at consolidating a common legal framework of their national
university systems named as the Bologna Process (Larr
an, Andrades, & Muriel, 2015). One of the main points of this
initiative is linked with the encouragement of civic and social values in European universities, which represents a clear

-Pamies, Domingo-Vernis, &
opportunity to ensure that universities incorporate social issues into their curricula (Seto
Rabassa-Figueras, 2011).
Second, and on the basis of university management, one of the most relevant changes is explained by the New
Public Management (NPM) reforms (Carvalho & Santiago, 2010). The origin of NPM reforms was framed in the early
1980s in Australia and New Zealand and this process was subsequently carried out in other Anglo-American countries
(Christensen, 2011). Since then, NPM initiatives have been transferred more widely around the world on the basis of a
new governance approach which emphasised increasing competition for funding among public organisations (such as
universities) while these institutions were required to be more accountable for their performance outputs (Christensen
& Lægreid, 2015; Swiatczak, Morner, & Finkbeiner, 2015). Thus, the main tenets of the NPM reforms are connected
with the need to improve the efficacy, efficiency, accountability and transparency of public organisations (Carvalho &
Santiago, 2010; Christensen, 2011).
Third, and based on the arguments made by Jongbloed, Enders, and Salerno (2008), there has been a process of
change in the university context as a result of the interrelationship between universities, society and the economy
which has derived from the knowledge society. This has motivated a new social contract between universities and
society, whose origins are framed in 1973 under International Labour Organization (ILO) principles (Neave, 2006). In
the context of these guidelines, universities, in addition to the transfer of knowledge to society, were being called
upon to address the following issues: to play a key role in achieving greater equality of opportunity; to provide educa-
tion adapted to the needs and demands of society; to make easier the process of lifelong learning; and to assume an
active role in contributing to the solution of major societal problems (Jongbloed et al., 2008). This increased interaction
between universities and society has been defined under the term third mission, which supposes a third role beyond
teaching and research that focuses on contributing to socio-economic regional development (Brennan, 2008). In
accordance with Jongbloed et al. (2008, p. 313), the third mission consists of ‘a knowledge transfer function as well as
a more general community function. It is an umbrella term that refers to a wide variety of principles and strategies for
economic and social development’. This has also been debated in the World Declaration on Higher Education in the
Twenty-First Century drawn up at the World Conference of Higher Education organised by the United Nations Educa-
tional, Scientific, and Cultural Organization in Paris in 1998 and 2009 (Vasilescu et al., 2010).
In summary, the institutional context highlights the social dimension of universities and their important role in society
as an educator of future leaders and policy makers. This suggests that there is a need to integrate social responsibility prin-
ciples into their teaching and research activities as well as into their management and community engagement activities

pez, 2013; Ralph & Stubbs, 2014). For these reasons it is important to undertake a review of the
(Garde, Rodríguez, & Lo
literature to explore the extent to which social responsibility principles are incorporated within universities. Webster and
Watson (2002; cited by Ceulemans, Molderez, & Van Lidekerke, 2015, p. 128) stated that ‘an effective literature review
facilitates theory development, points out areas where research is needed, and identifies areas where a plethora of
research exists’. Although there are few papers that have examined social responsibility in universities, papers by Wals and
Blewitt (2010) and Karatzoglou (2013) review contributions on the subject of sustainability in higher education and to do
this they analysed academic articles published in specialist academic journals in the field of Higher Education for Sustain-
able Development (such as International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education or Journal of Cleaner Production).
Based on the above arguments, the aim of this paper is to provide a review of the literature on research about uni-
versity social responsibility during the period from 2000 to 2015. The objectives of the review are to: explore patterns
in publication outlets; collect, scrutinise and critically analyse the current literature on this field; and to identify gaps in
the literature and make recommendations for further research in this field. To accomplish this task, data were collected
from 15 specialist academic journals that focus on higher education.

JORGE ~
304 | bs_bs_banner
LARRAN AND ANDRADES PENA

2 | C O N C E P T U A L P O S I T I O N I N G O F U N I V E R S I T Y S O C I A L RESPONSIBILITY

To undertake a more comprehensive review of the literature, there is a need to conceptualise the term university social
responsibility (USR) and its theoretical implications. In a business context, there are a number of definitions of the term
corporate social responsibility (CSR). One of the definitions most commonly employed in the literature was developed
by the European Union in its Green Paper on ‘Promoting a European Framework for CSR’ approved in 2001 (Garde
et al., 2013; Vasilescu et al., 2010). This Green Paper states that CSR could be defined as a ‘concept whereby compa-
nies integrate social and environmental concerns in their business operations and in their interaction with their stake-
holders on a voluntary basis. Being socially responsible means not only fulfilling legal expectations, but also going
beyond compliance and investing “more” into human capital, the environment and the relations with stakeholders’
(Commission of the European Communities, 2001, p. 6). After reading this definition, it was assumed that the main
characteristics of CSR are as follows: the main dimensions of the CSR concept are associated with social and environ-
mental issues; CSR should be embedded into business strategy; the implementation of CSR practices are understood
as a voluntary initiative; and the application of CSR involves the need to identify the expectations and needs of differ-
ent stakeholders both internal and external. On this basis, stakeholders require that business should behave in a
responsible manner by increasing their accountability and transparency practices (Vasilescu et al., 2010).
In the university context, there are many definitions that have been developed to conceptualise USR. As an example,
the Latin American University Builds Country Project in 2001 defined social responsibility (USR) ‘as the capacity of the
university to disseminate and implement a body of principles and general and specific values, by means of four key proc-
esses—management, teaching, research, and community engagement—to respond to the needs of the university commu-
nity, and in this framing, their “country” as a whole’ (Garde et al., 2013, p. 710). Reiser (2008; cited by Vasilescu et al.,
2010, p. 4178) defined the USR concept as ‘a policy of ethical quality of the performance of the university community
(students, faculty and administrative employees) via the responsible management of the educational, cognitive, labour
and environmental impacts produced by the university, in an interactive dialogue with society to promote a sustainable
human development’. De la Cuesta, Porras, Saavedra, and S
anchez et al. (2010, p. 236) noted that USR is understood as
‘to offer educational services and knowledge transfer following principles of ethics, good governance, respect for the
environment, social commitment and promotion of citizen values under the premise of being accountable to society in
regards to the commitments with their stakeholders’. Larr
an and Andrades (2013, p. 280) pointed out that USR could be
defined as ‘the voluntary commitment of universities to incorporate social, labor, ethical, and social concerns into their
different main functions (teaching, research, management, and environmental factors) derived from the externalities that
arise from their activities, for which they must take into account the social demands of their stakeholders’.
From these texts, the term USR suggests that universities are institutions that have to incorporate ethical, social
and environmental principles and values within their main functions and this must be achieved from a perspective
based on satisfying the needs and expectations of stakeholders. In other words, a university will be socially responsible
within their different activities such as follows:

 in training, by means of the incorporation of social, ethical and environmental issues into the curricula to respond to
the demands of society emanating from the principles stated by United Nations Decade of Education for Sustainable
Development or Principles for Responsible Management Education;
 in research, by means of transferring knowledge to society;
 in management, by means of the implementation of practices of good governance and accountability, and that this
is associated with the development of codes of good governance, reporting practices on social and environmental
affairs, and the greater role of external stakeholders in university governance;
 community engagement activities, defined through the promotion of corporate citizenship and civic values and the
contribution to their socio-economic environment.

From a theoretical perspective, the previous definitions of USR are strongly associated with the underpinnings of the
stakeholder theory, whose principles stem from the interests of all agents involved in the university sector (Freeman,

JORGE ~
LARRAN AND ANDRADES PENA bs_bs_banner
| 305

1984). The concept of stakeholder emerges from the business literature (Alves, Mainardes, & Raposo, 2010) and could
be defined as ‘any group or individual who can affect or is affected by the achievement of the firm’s objectives’ (Freeman,
1984; cited by Jongbloed et al., 2008, p. 305). Mitchell, Agle, and Wood (1997) employed Freeman’s stakeholder concept
to define three main attributes of stakeholders’ influence: power, legitimacy and urgency. According to Benneworth and
Jongbloed (2010), the stakeholders’ power is understood as the social relationship in which one actor can get another to
do something that they would not otherwise have done. As an example, in the case of universities, the growing pressure
exerted by students, parents and legislators to require universities to carry out more cost-conscious operating principles
can be noted. Following the arguments by Jongbloed et al. (2008), legitimacy is conceptualised as a common perception
that actions of an organisation are desirable within a system of norms and values that are socially constructed. Nowa-
days, the relevance of traditional stakeholders (e.g. students) has been replaced by other stakeholders, such as business
(Benneworth & Jongbloed, 2010). The urgency attribute is linked with the extent to which actors’ claims call for immedi-
ate action (Jongbloed et al., 2008). An example is a greater emphasis on engineering research as a response to the social
demands of discussions about renewable energy.
Following the principles derived from stakeholder theory, universities have to develop and implement their main-

pez, 2016;
stream functions to meet the expectations and needs of different stakeholders (Garde, Rodríguez, & Lo
Reverte, 2009). In the current context, characterised by changes to the basic functions that universities perform, these
institutions are required to be more connected with society and interact with more numerous and more varied stake-
holders (Brennan, 2008). This involves the need to maintain a close relationship between universities and stakeholders
as a result of the external impact that they generate (economic, social and environmental externalities) as well as by
the internal activities that they provide, such as teaching, research and knowledge transfer (Benneworth & Jongbloed,
2010).

3 | DATA COLLECTION AND METHOD

Following the arguments of the paper by Bimrose, Barnes, and Brown (2005), the data collection was conducted in dif-
ferent sequential phases. The first step was to identify the initial and potential relevant studies (searching); secondly,
an exhaustive examination of report titles, abstracts and full texts was carried out (screening); thirdly, an in-depth anal-
ysis was made of studies aimed at assessing their quality and obtaining evidence to support the in-depth reviews (data
extraction); fourthly, a framework for data analysis was developed (synthesis); and finally, the main findings of the
review were presented (reporting). To accomplish this task, the process that was followed is similar to the structure of

mez, Larr
an, and Andrades (2016): (a) journal selection; (b) selection of keywords and search; and (c)
the paper by Go
analysis of the thematic of articles is described in the following section.

3.1 | Journal selection

The first step was the identification of the journals to be incorporated in the sample of this study. Following the same
method as Tight (2012), a list of 15 specialist higher education journals was selected. This criterion allowed a theoreti-
cal contribution to be made along the lines of Tight (2012). By contrast, other researchers, such as Vallejo (2014),
selected for his review of the literature the top four higher education journals published in the United States (The Jour-
nal of Higher Education, The Review of Higher Education, Research in Higher Education and The Journal of College Student
Development). In accordance with Tight (2012), the rationale for this criteria selection is as follows: firstly, the publica-
tion of articles in these academic journals is subjected to peer review which ensures a certain level of quality. Secondly,
articles published by these academic journals are also usually research-based which involves a process of collecting
data and a further analysis of these data. Thirdly, the selection of specialist academic journals that focus on higher edu-
cation research is likely to be significant because the analysis will be more focused. This implies that other academic
journals have not been selected for this study, such as professional or popular journals or academic journals not speci-
alised in higher education that in some cases publish articles on higher education. The 15 journals selected for this

JORGE ~
306 | bs_bs_banner
LARRAN AND ANDRADES PENA

study are edited and/or published in the following regions: Australasia, the United Kingdom (UK), the rest of Europe
and North America:

Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education (AEHE)

Higher Education (HE)

Higher Education Management and Policy (HEMP)

Higher Education Policy (HEP)
Higher Education Quarterly (HEQ)
Higher Education Research and Development (HERD)
Innovative Higher Education (IHE)

Journal of College Student Development (JCSD)

Journal of Higher Education (JHE)
Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management (JHEPM)
Research in Higher Education (ResHE)

Review of Higher Education (RevHE)

Studies in Higher Education (SHE)
Teaching in Higher Education (THE)
Tertiary Education and Management (TEAM)

The analysis covered the period from 2000 to 2015. The reason for selecting this period is explained by the process of
change in response to the demands of society that has occurred in the university sector during the last 20 years. Insti-
tutional initiatives such as the World Declaration on Higher Education for the Twenty-First Century held in 1998, the
NPM reforms carried out in the 1980s and 1990s, the Bologna Process (1999) or the United Nations Decade Educa-
tion for Sustainable Development (2005–2014) have emphasised the role of universities in society as well as a greater
interrelationship between universities, society and the economy.

3.2 | Selection of keywords and search

The second step of the data collection process was based on looking for specific code words. Based on the different
definitions of the term USR and its implications (De la Cuesta et al., 2010; Larr
an & Andrades, 2013), it was assumed
that a socially responsible university could be categorised by means of the following words (which have been selected):
sustainable development, knowledge transfer, ethics, good governance, citizenship, accountability, stakeholders, envi-
ronment. Taking as a reference these terms, the databases were searched on the following categories: article titles,
keywords and abstracts (Bimrose et al., 2005). When this process was insufficient, the introductions of the articles

mez et al., 2016).
were examined to explore their subject matter in accordance with the words previously selected (Go
Following the same structure as previous review papers (Tight, 2012), the following publications were excluded from
the study: book reviews, dissertation abstracts, research or editorial notes and review essays, because these publica-
tions had no apparent relationship to the topic. By contrast, articles published in special issues related to the topic

mez et al., 2016).
were kept in the dataset because they could provide a significant contribution to the literature (Go
The searches yielded 314 papers and all were duly examined for this paper. Each publication was subjected to a
thorough examination to extract key information about their main sections: purpose, design, sampling, methodology,
findings and implications of the study. In addition, 14 papers were incorporated after these publications were cited by
some articles selected initially for this review (De Boer, Enders, & Leisyte, 2007; Holland, 2001; Paytas, Gradeck, &
Andrews, 2004, among others). Although these publications were not framed in the initial review, they were added in
a second round because the results of such articles supported the findings of the publications selected in the review.

JORGE ~
LARRAN AND ANDRADES PENA bs_bs_banner
| 307

These 14 articles were published during the period from 2000 to 2015 but they were not published by the 15 higher
education journals selected for this study. They were only examined in the qualitative analysis, which was added to the
314 publications collected in the initial review of the 15 specialist journals that focus on higher education. The quanti-
tative analysis was made on the basis of the 314 academic articles resulting from the initial review (see below).

3.3 | Article thematic analysis

After collecting the data, the following step was to perform a thematic analysis, a common qualitative method that
emphasises pinpointing, examining and recording themes which are important to describe a phenomenon associated
with a particular research question (Hemsley-Brown & Oplatka, 2006). For the purposes of this paper, this process was
structured in four main stages as stated by Schmitt and Raufflet (2015, p. 24). (a) ‘Classification of the focus of the
papers, (b) construction of the initial analytical framework and preliminary analysis of all articles, (c) refinement of the
previous analytical framework resulting in the final analytical framework, and (d) analysis of articles selected in the
qualitative review’.
Firstly, all academic articles were examined to determine their focus and orientation. According to the theoretical
implications of the term USR, it was assumed that the integration of social responsibility principles must be imple-
mented within the four main university activities: education, research, management and community engagement.
Therefore, the first step was to categorise all academic articles based on these activities.
Secondly, a framework was developed in accordance with the main implications and constructs derived from the
term USR. After examining the contributions and using as a reference the main points of the different institutional ini-
tiatives carried out in the university sector, it was assumed that all articles selected for this review paper were associ-
ated with the following main topics embedded in four main university activities:

 education: incorporation of social responsibility themes into the curricula;

 research: transfer of knowledge to society;

 management: implementation of practices on good governance and improvements in accountability;

 community engagement: promotion of civic values, such as social justice or equity and diversity, education for citizen-
ship and contribution to socio-economic development.

In the third step, a more refined examination of the initial analytical framework developed was conducted. This was
performed to gain a better theoretical organisation of the literature, highlighting certain overlaps between constructs.
On this basis, the contributions of the literature were structured as follows.
Regarding education on social responsibility themes in university curricula, the review paper was classified accord-
ing to three main approaches clearly stated in the literature: descriptive, prescriptive and emancipatory. The descriptive
approach focuses on examining the extent to which social responsibility themes are incorporated into university curric-
ula and to determine whether or not these themes are being well incorporated within the curricula. The prescriptive
approach suggests how social responsibility themes should be taught which suggests the need to adopt a view based
on pedagogical methods. The emancipatory approach focuses on exploring whether or not social responsibility themes
could modify attitudes and perceptions about social values.
Concerning research, the literature was structured in accordance with those academic articles associated with the
transfer of knowledge to society.
Based on management activities, the publications were grouped following the principles associated with the imple-
mentation of NPM reforms and their implications for university governance. This main research theme derived from
three main sub-themes: the changes in university governance and its implications for accountability and reporting, the
role of external and internal stakeholders in new university governance models, and the impact of NPM reforms on
the structure or management of universities.
Fourthly, and according to community engagement activities, the literature was divided in two main types of con-
tributions: one composed of publications addressed to examine the promotion of civic values and practices oriented to

JORGE ~
308 | bs_bs_banner
LARRAN AND ANDRADES PENA

TA BL E 1 Number of publications studied per journal

Articles on social
Academic journals % Total articles %
responsibility

Tertiary Education and Management 55 17.51 370 14.86

Higher Education 37 11.78 1,258 2.94

Higher Education Policy 36 11.46 454 7.92

Higher Education Management 29 9.23 316 9.17

and Policy

Higher Education Quarterly 29 9.23 341 8.50

Studies in Higher Education 28 8.91 887 3.15

Journal of College Student Development 25 7.96 628 3.98

Higher Education Research 16 5.09 741 2.16

and Development

Journal of Higher Education 16 5.09 466 3.43

Journal of Higher Education Policy 12 3.82 567 2.11

and Management

Innovative Higher Education 12 3.82 408 2.94

Assessment and Evaluation in 8 2.55 915 0.87

Higher Education

Teaching in Higher Education 5 1.59 839 0.59

Research in Higher Education 3 0.9 628 0.47

Review of Higher Education 3 0.9 322 0.9

Total 314 100 8,512 3.52

Source. Own elaboration.

community engagement, and the other consists of papers aimed at discussing the contribution of universities to socio-
economic development.
Finally, the content of the articles included in the database in stage four was analysed to provide guidance on the
topic, identifying the main areas of interest, uncovering gaps and inconsistencies in the literature, and finding new
paths for research.

4 | ANALYSIS OF QUANTITATIVE FINDINGS

4.1 | Classification of publications by group of journals

The analysis of the data contained in Table 1 allows the classification of the 15 higher education academic journals in
two main groups according to the number of publications about USR issues. The first group is composed of a set of
academic journals that have published more than 25 articles about USR issues during the period examined. In depth,
this group consists of the following academic journals: Tertiary Education and Management (57), Higher Education (37),
Higher Education Policy (36), Higher Education Quarterly (29), Higher Education Management and Policy (29), Studies in
Higher Education (28) and Journal of College Student Development (25). In summary, this group of journals has published
more than 75 per cent of academic articles about USR issues included in the sample. The second group is composed of
academic journals that have published a small proportion of articles about USR, including Higher Education Research
and Development (16), Journal of Higher Education (16), Innovative Higher Education (12), Assessment and Evaluation in

JORGE ~
LARRAN AND ANDRADES PENA bs_bs_banner
| 309

Higher Education (8), Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management (12), Research in Higher Education (3) and Review
of Higher Education (3). The reason for such differences between both groups of academic journals may derive from
their aims and scope. While the first group is composed of journals whose aims contemplate the publication of articles
with a focus on issues related to social responsibility, the second group of journals is more focused on multidisciplinary
themes in the field of higher education. In more detail, Tertiary Education and Management (TEAM) ‘is an international
peer-reviewed publication intended to create a better linkage of research, policy and practice in teaching and learning
as well as in higher education management, governance and organization’. In view of the aims and scope of Tertiary
Education and Management, it was assumed that a key research theme for this journal is to analyse the relationship
between institutional changes and university governance. Higher Education ‘features contributions from leading schol-
ars from different countries who tackle the problems of teachers as well as students and of planners as well as adminis-
trators’. On this basis, Higher Education journal is interested in discussing the role of stakeholders in the management
of universities. Higher Education Policy considers ‘submissions that discuss national and supra-national higher education
policies and/or analyse their impacts on higher education institutions or the academic community: leadership, faculty,
staff and students, but also considers papers that deal with governance and policy issues at the level of higher educa-
tion institutions’, which infers that this journal is interested in publishing articles examining the ways in which univer-
sities engage the needs of society and community and to report about the impact of reforms on university governance.
Similar arguments could be used for the cases of Higher Education Management and Policy and Higher Education Quar-
terly. Higher Education Management and Policy ‘is addressed to leaders, managers, researchers and policy makers in the
field of higher education institutional management and policy’. Higher Education Quarterly ‘publishes evaluations of the
impact of policy at institutional, national or international level, backed up by research evidence’. Meanwhile, Studies in
Higher Education ‘welcomes contributions that seek to enhance understanding of higher education policy, institutional
management and performance, teaching and learning, and the contribution of higher education to society and the
economy’. In view of the above comments, Studies in Higher Education seeks to publish articles that focus on the trans-
fer of knowledge to society as well as to analyse the impact of reforms on university governance. Finally, Journal of Col-
lege Student Development is known for the publication of articles about the role of students in the teaching activities of
universities.
On the other hand, the second group of academic journals does not focus their aims and scope on the publication of
articles related to the discussion and debate of social responsibility themes in universities. These journals are characterised
by providing a forum for discussion of varied issues affecting higher education, which suggests that they often publish
articles on the academic study of higher education from a wide range of topics.

4.2 | Patterns and trends

This section describes those patterns in publication outlets on the topic of USR during the period from 2000 to 2015.
Figure 1 shows that, comparing 2000 and 2015, the number of publications about USR issues has experienced an
important growth in the 15 specialist higher education academic journals. While only 10 articles were published in
2000 and nine articles were published in 2001, the number of articles published in 2013 was 42, followed by 25 in
2014 and 41 in 2015. To support this argument, how this has influenced the research on the influence of NPM
reforms in university governance should be focused on. In the early 2000s (2000 and 2001), researchers focused their
attention on discussing the effect of NPM reforms in university governance adopting a perspective based on structure

Number of publications
50
40
30
20
10
0
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

FIGURE 1 Number of articles by year


JORGE ~
310 | bs_bs_banner
LARRAN AND ANDRADES PENA

and management (seven articles per year). Recently, academic articles published in 2013, 2014 and 2015 have
addressed the role of stakeholders in the new context of university governance and its implications for accountability
and reporting (28, 25 and 25 articles in 2013, 2014 and 2015, respectively). In addition, the other two main arguments
can be used to explain the greater amount of academic articles published over time related to the interconnection
between university governance, accountability and stakeholders. Firstly, the publication of a special issue by Assess-
ment and Evaluation in Higher Education in 2015 entitled: ‘Assessing and Evaluating Sustainable Development in Higher
Education’. Academic articles published in this special issue were focused on developing assessment tools for meas-
uring social and environmental performance in universities, a topic strongly linked with accountability; secondly, the
changing role exerted by Studies in Higher Education in the last five years, whose aims and scope are now linked to the
publication of articles that seek to enhance understanding of higher education policy, institutional management and
performance, teaching and learning, and the contribution of higher education to society and the economy. In fact, 24
of the 28 academic articles published in Studies in Higher Education have been carried out during the period from 2010
to 2015. More specifically, 14 of these 24 publications have examined the interconnection between university gover-
nance, accountability and stakeholders. In relation to the incorporation of social responsibility themes into the other
university activities (education, community outreach and research), the trend has been stable over the years.
Table 2 indicates those themes that have been most commonly investigated in the literature on USR. Based on the
theoretical assumptions of the term USR, the literature was structured on the basis of the four main university activities:
education, research, management and community outreach. The findings show that 38 of the 314 academic articles
selected for this study are focused on analysing the incorporation of social responsibility themes into university curricula.
In more detail, 16 of these 38 publications described the extent to which social responsibility themes are incorporated
into the curricula (descriptive approach), 11 of these 38 articles have examined how social responsibility themes can be
taught and which pedagogical methods could be used to do this (prescriptive approach) and the other 11 articles have
analysed the effect of university education on the social behaviour of students (emancipatory approach). In view of the
findings, it is appreciated that 55 academic articles have been addressed to examine USR from a community engagement
perspective. Forty-two of these 55 publications have examined issues related to the promotion of civic values and social
justice while the other 13 publications have been addressed to analyse the contribution of universities to their socio-
economic region. The topic of USR from a perspective based on research contained a total of 38 publications. More spe-
cifically, these academic articles have examined the role of transfer of knowledge in regards to the social contract

TA BL E 2 Number of articles per theme

Total of articles Topic (number Number of articles

University activity per dimension of articles) per topic

Education on social responsibility 38 Descriptive approach 16

Prescriptive approach 11
Emancipatory approach 11

Community engagement 55 Socio-economic development 13

Civic values and corporate 42
citizenship

Research 38 Transfer of knowledge 38

to society

Management 183 Effects of NPM reforms 74

in university governance
University governance 57
and implications
on stakeholders
University governance 52
and implications on
accountability and reporting

Source. Own elaboration.


JORGE ~
LARRAN AND ANDRADES PENA bs_bs_banner
| 311

between universities and society. Finally, the largest number of publications about USR issues has been focused on man-
agement and policy issues. The findings show that 181 of the 314 publications included in this literature review are con-
cerned with management issues, which were oriented to analysing the interrelationship between accountability,
stakeholders and university governance. In depth, 74 of these 181 academic articles have explored the effect of NPM
reforms in university governance, mainly from a perspective based on the structure of governing bodies. Fifty-seven pub-
lications have examined the influence exerted by internal and external stakeholders on new models of university gover-
nance. Finally, 52 articles have analysed the role of university governance and its implications for accountability and
reporting issues.

5 | ANALYSIS OF QUALITATIVE FINDINGS: PUBLICATIONS PER THEME

5.1 | Education
Universities play an important role in addressing global environmental and social challenges because they are responsi-
ble for educating good citizens and good leaders (Ralph & Stubbs, 2014). This has resulted in a concern of researchers
who have examined university education in relation to the incorporation of social responsibility themes into the curric-
ula (Fisher & Bonn, 2011; Young & Nagpal, 2013). An analysis of the literature allows the contributions to be classified
on the basis of three main approaches: descriptive, prescriptive and emancipatory.
The first approach focuses on analysing the extent to which social responsibility themes have been incorporated
within university curricula. Fisher and Bonn (2011) explored the extent to which social responsibility themes were
incorporated into undergraduate business and management courses in Australian universities. They found that more
than 50 per cent of Australian universities did not explicitly incorporate social responsibility themes into their business
and management curricula. They found that those that did, did so but in a limited manner. Similar conclusions were
reached by Young and Nagpal (2013). These authors stated that more work needs to be undertaken to foster responsi-
ble and sustainable education. In view of earlier findings, it was assumed that there are many barriers to overcome to
introduce social responsibility themes into the university curricula. Young and Nagpal (2013) highlighted that some of
the barriers to introduce this are a lack of resources and resistance to change. In turn, Ralph and Stubbs (2014) pointed
out that one of the main barriers to this was associated with the lack of knowledge and understanding of this topic.
In response to this, the second approach is to analyse how social responsibility themes can be incorporated into
university curricula, highlighting possible ways of overcoming barriers. MacVaugh and Norton (2011) examined how
active learning may facilitate the introduction of social responsibility themes into business-related degree programmes.
They found that an approach based on active learning could move learners away from dependence on educators
towards a personal responsibility approach. Boni and Lozano (2007) pointed out that the acquisition of interpersonal
and systemic competences is positively associated with ethical and social learning.
Therefore, in view of the above arguments, further research could investigate different ways to overcome barriers
to incorporating social responsibility themes into the curricula of universities. Students trained in social responsibility
themes will be able to deal with environmental, social and ethical challenges. This argument is supported by the find-
ings of previous studies that have analysed the effect of social responsibility education on students’ behaviour (emanci-
patory approach). These studies found that the inclusion of social responsibility themes into university curricula
contributed to a higher level of civic awareness of graduates (Clarkeburn, Downie, Gray, & Matthew, 2002; Ishitani &
McKitrick, 2013).

5.2 | Community engagement

Universities are public entities that have been linked to society since their origins and this interconnection has acquired
wider relevance in recent years (Hart & Northmore, 2011). This has raised expectations that society has of universities
to reflect a greater diversity, and these institutions are now interacting with an increased and varied number of stake-
holders (Boland, 2011). The linking up of universities and their communities leads to engagement being considered as

JORGE ~
312 | bs_bs_banner
LARRAN AND ANDRADES PENA

another dimension on which these institutions are judged by stakeholders (Jongbloed et al., 2008). Conceptually, Hol-
land (2001, p. 7; cited by Boland, 2011, p. 103) considered that an engaged university is an institution ‘committed to
direct interaction with external constituencies and communities through the mutually beneficial exchange, exploration
and application of knowledge, expertise and information’. Jongbloed et al. (2008, p. 313) referred to engagement as a
‘set of activities through which the university can demonstrate its relevance to the wider society and be held accounta-
ble’. Extracting from these terms, community engagement in universities involves a set of actions, including the contri-
bution to socio-economic regional development, the creation of social capital, a contribution to the development of a
just and equitable society, and education for responsible and democratic citizenship (Brennan, 2008; Jongbloed et al.,
2008). From a research point of view, the two most commonly investigated themes have been associated with the

rez, & Fern
andez, 2013) and the
contribution of universities to the socio-economic regional development (Pastor, Pe
multifaceted interconnections between universities and the ideals of responsible citizenship (Killick, 2013).

5.3 | Socio-economic regional development

Different authors have noted that universities can play a pivotal role as change agents of socio-economic development
in their regions and this has resulted in a growing debate (Goddard & Puuka, 2008; Simha, 2005). Paytas et al. (2004)
reviewed the literature on the contribution of universities to regional economic development. Contributions on this
topic have addressed two main approaches (McArthur, 2011; Simha, 2005). One theme that has been investigated is
associated with the factors that can facilitate the achievement of sustained growth based on productivity improve-
ments (Pastor et al., 2013). These factors are related to human capital, innovation and investment in research and
development. Another theme commonly investigated is related to the definition of activities which could impact on
the socio-economic environment (Pastor et al., 2013). In accordance with Rowan-Kenyon (2007), university activities
are strongly related to invested resources in two main dimensions: firstly, investment by students to increase their
stock of human capital, and secondly, investment by universities to improve their level of knowledge and intellectual
capital. From this point of view, these investments could produce some economic returns measured by the improve-
ments in the increased quality of production factors (Cross & Pickering, 2008). Nevertheless, the economic impact of
university activities goes beyond that. They also generate cultural activities, location advantages for firms and environ-
mental impacts (McArthur, 2011).
In summary, activities undertaken by universities that generate economic impacts include: (a) creation of knowl-
edge and its infrastructure; (b) building of human capital; (c) technology transfer and know-how; (d) technological inno-
vation; (e) investment in capital goods and increased local demand; (f) regional leadership; and (g) impact on the
regional environment (Goddard & Puuka, 2008; Pastor et al., 2013; Simha, 2005).

5.4 | Responsible citizenship

During the last two decades, there has been an increasing debate about the linkage between universities and the ideals
of responsible citizenship (Killick, 2013). Previous studies have covered a wide range of themes, including among
others the role of universities in the knowledge society; studies based on events of public participation; models of part-
nership between university and community, or education for citizenship (Hart & Northmore, 2011; Iverson & James,
2010). One topic commonly investigated is associated with education for citizenship, motivated by the notion that
society benefits when students learn civic engagement at university (Thornton & Jaeger, 2007). Other papers have
examined both the civic actions of institutions and of different internal stakeholders, such as faculty, staff and students
(Iverson & James, 2010). Nevertheless, the measurement of civic engagement activities presents important challenges
and this could be examined in further research (Boland, 2011). Hart and Northmore (2011) pointed out that the crea-
tion of tools for university civic engagement is still in its early stage. On this basis, the problems in relation to the mea-
surement of civic engagement in universities include a lack of focus on performance, a lack of standardised tools and
the diversity of approaches currently being adopted (Hart, Northmore, & Gerhardt, 2009).

JORGE ~
LARRAN AND ANDRADES PENA bs_bs_banner
| 313

5.5 | Research
Within the literature on USR, the journal contributions have been addressed in relation to the role of universities in
transferring knowledge to society.

5.5.1 | Transfer of knowledge

Different researchers have pointed out that the global market has exerted an important influence on universities that
are expected to increase the socio-economic impact of their research (Albert, 2003). Universities are not only required
to provide excellent education and research, they also have to deliver these outputs in ways that are relevant to the
process of developing the knowledge society (Vorley & Nelles, 2008). Many claims have been made in the last few
years about the key role of universities in regards to the creation and transfer of knowledge to society (Brennan,
2008). This has stemmed from several governmental initiatives aimed at driving universities to become more entrepre-
neurial and more interactive with business (Albert, 2003; Jongbloed et al., 2008).
Empirical research has been focused on three main themes: firstly, how public and private sector investment in
research has evolved; secondly, the redefinition of policies to motivate the socio-economic impact of research; and
finally, the application of bibliometric measurements to explore the state of scientific production (Albert, 2003). Other
studies have examined the external influences of the knowledge production model, highlighting topics such as mode 2
knowledge or the legal configurations of intellectual property (Brennan, 2008; Jongbloed et al., 2008). The principles
associated with the knowledge production model are problem-solving research orientations, the involvement of politi-
cal and economic agents in defining priorities of research, and the enhancement of transdisciplinarity and multiple
research sites outside the university (Albert, 2003). The changes associated with this model may involve a greater
emphasis on the role of universities as active actors in the transmission of socio-economic change sponsored by
others, and this could represent an evolution from discipline to application (Brennan, 2008). This has been defined by
some researchers as an important change in the social contract between universities and the State, which requires the
latter agent to have more interest regarding the outputs produced by universities in comparison with the funding that
these institutions receive (Laredo, 2007).
In spite of this, Brennan (2008) stated that much of the debate on the topic of transfer of knowledge has focused
on rhetorical issues. Future research could analyse the impact of different forms of knowledge produced in different
organisational settings.

5.6 | Management
From the 1980s onwards, the institutional and management reforms associated with NPM principles have triggered
several changes in the university sector, from a perspective based on governance and accountability as well as from an
approach based on the role of internal and external stakeholders. As a result, three main themes have been investi-
gated in the literature.

5.6.1 | Changes in university governance and its implications on accountability and reporting
According to the NPM reforms, changes in the university sector have been oriented towards the improvement of effi-
ciency, legitimacy and participation (Ferlie, Musselin, & Andresani, 2008). In the current context, characterised by the
declining role of governments with respect to funding, universities, as public organisations, are required to legitimise
their actions to be accepted and valued by their stakeholders (Jongbloed et al., 2008). To achieve a greater social legiti-
macy, universities have to be accountable to the different agents involved in their activities, including the main funding
body, the government, and other stakeholders, both internal and external (Christensen, 2011; Tandberg, 2013).
Therefore, universities are held more accountable, which involves reporting more to central authorities to obtain
more public funding and to legitimise their actions to society (Durand & Pujadas, 2004). Hence, universities are
expected to behave in a more responsive, effective and efficient manner (Capano, 2010). On this basis, the big chal-
lenge for universities is to combine the goals of efficiency and accountability (Tandberg, 2013). The overall argument

JORGE ~
314 | bs_bs_banner
LARRAN AND ANDRADES PENA

of efficiency is linked with the need to enhance accountability to society (Amaral, 2008). As a result, universities have
experienced a remarkable growth in their commitment to reporting on social and environmental issues and different
studies have addressed the development of tools and indicators to measure and report on social and environmental
practices in universities (Brunstein, Jaime, Curi, D’Angelo, & Mainardes, 2015; Madeira, Carravilla, Oliveira, & Costa,
2011). Indicators and tools to measure social and environmental performance in universities have been considered as a
key point of reference (Lambrechts, 2015). In response to this, numerous tools have been created and applied from a
global perspective (Waheed, Khan, & Veitch, 2011). Some tools have been addressed to measure environmental
aspects while other tools have been developed to report on social issues (Shriberg, 2002). This has led to some
authors, such as Madeira et al. (2011), to state that tools specifically addressed to measure and report on social respon-
sibility in universities present some weaknesses. Among these shortcomings, most of these tools do not enable com-
parison making among different institutions (benchmarking); other tools are too focused on environmental aspects
(Shriberg, 2002); some are intended to measure the integration of social responsibility themes into the curricula; and
finally, there is no methodology available to select indicators on USR that have been adapted to the needs of univer-
sities. In view of these issues, it was assumed that there is a need to develop a universal tool to measure and report on
social and environmental issues in universities which facilitates comparison among universities.

5.6.2 | Changes in university governance and its implications on the role of external and internal
stakeholders
As has been mentioned above, the discourse on the management of universities has changed in the last 20 years (Ben-
neworth & Jongbloed, 2010; Musial, 2010). Following the principles derived from the NPM reforms and their implica-
tions for the knowledge society, universities worldwide are being required to identify and classify stakeholders in
relation to their relevance (De Boer et al., 2007; Jongbloed et al., 2008). This has involved universities in adopting new
governance models to respond to external demands, following the principles associated with Stakeholder Theory
(Musial, 2010). On this basis, several studies have analysed the influential role exerted by external stakeholders in the
context of new models of governance. Authors such as Amaral and Magalh~
aes (2002) and Taylor and de Lourdes
Machado (2008) appreciate how changes in the role and status of external stakeholders in universities have evolved in
a similar way to changes in management. This is supported by Musial (2010), whose study revealed that the greater
influence of external stakeholders in senior management teams may be interpreted as a paradigm change from tradi-
tional participatory democratic governance towards the current approach to good governance. Jongbloed et al. (2008)
pointed out that the inclusion of members from society (understood as external stakeholders) in governing bodies of
universities is an exercise of democracy. On this basis, the relationship between universities, funding bodies and exter-
nal stakeholders is redefined under the principles emanating from the NPM reforms. Powell (2008) found that the
most influential stakeholders in Ontario’s universities are administrations, while faculty unions/associations are the
least influential agents involved.
In spite of the greater influence of external stakeholders in senior management teams of universities, there is a
long way to go. Pavicic, Alfirevic, and Mihanovic (2009) found that social orientation currently does not exist in univer-
sities from Croatia, which implies that the idea of the knowledge society is still limited. This suggests the need to exam-
ine in depth the concept of networked governance (Boland, 2005), that is, the balance between the needs and
demands of a set of stakeholders, in helping to reduce government and market failure (Jongbloed et al., 2008).

5.6.3 | Changes in university governance and its implications on the structure or management of
universities
Following the principles derived from NPM reforms, there is a need to provide a more direct and dynamic interaction
between universities and society, and this could be achieved by the streamlining of institutional management and gov-
ernance structures (Larsen, Maasen, & Stensaker, 2010). New decision-making structures do not always lead to the
changes that are anticipated, and the impact of new governance arrangements could have unintended results (Green-
halgh, 2015; Macheridis, 2015). In response to this, Slaughter, Thomas, Johnson, and Barringer, (2014) noted that

JORGE ~
LARRAN AND ANDRADES PENA bs_bs_banner
| 315

universities have to become more structurally autonomous, which involves the development of modern financial sys-
tems and being more professional in their management structures.
This has resulted in an increasing number of publications about the governance structures of universities (Kezar &
Eckel, 2004). Shattock (2008, p. 1) defined the term governance as ‘the constitutional forms and processes through
which universities govern their affairs’. Governance structures distribute responsibility and authority for making deci-
sions as well as for regulating relationships between different stakeholders to achieve overall goals for various actors
(Macheridis, 2015). Among governance tasks, the creation and design of structures to ensure that management com-
plies with directives, overall strategies, practices and procedures can be noted (Middlehurst, 2013). The idea behind
this argument is that there should be a connection between governance and decision-making structures (Donina,
Meoli, & Paleari, 2015). During the last few years, the different governance models that have emerged in universities
(collegial, corporate, bicameral, stakeholder and so on) are each oriented towards balancing the interests of different
stakeholders and guiding them towards the fulfilment of strategic goals (Greenhalgh, 2015).
As a consequence of the NPM reforms, there have been some environmental and political changes that have influ-
enced university governance during the last two decades (Middlehurst, 2004; Salter, 2002). These changes have been
carried out in different areas, such as the introduction of new managerial practices in combination with accreditation
and quality audits or the influence of globalisation processes and international competitiveness (Macheridis, 2015).
Another key change has been associated with the performance orientation, with a special focus on how academic edu-
cation is funded (Tandberg, 2013). All of these changes have resulted in structural changes affecting the governance of
universities from an educational point of view and this includes, among other issues, the creation of new Masters’ pro-
grammes and the creation of new roles, such as programme leader (Middlehurst, 2013). In addition, this has had struc-
tural consequences concerning the formalisation and standardisation of course and programme curricula, which could
result in a reduction of autonomy and an increase in the complexity of universities (Middlehurst, 2004). The ability of
universities to manage complexity and to respond to changes derived from governance is an important issue for the
quality of teaching and education offered (Salter, 2002).

6 | DISCUSSION OF RESULTS

The purpose of this study has been to review the literature about USR during the period from 2000 to 2015. This is
justified by the fact that institutional changes have emphasised the social dimension of the university and its important
role in society. This review paper makes several important contributions. First, it was found that 314 academic articles
have been published during the period from 2000 to 2015 by the 15 selected higher education academic journals.
Most of these articles have been published in specialist journals that focus on management and governance issues in
higher education, such as Tertiary Education and Management, Higher Education, Higher Education Policy, Higher Educa-
tion Management and Policy or Higher Education Quarterly. The most commonly investigated themes have been associ-
ated with the influence of institutional changes derived from the principles of NPM reforms and its implications on
university governance. Over time, the literature has demonstrated a significant change. Whereas in the 2000s research
interest was focused on analysing changes in university governance and its implications for structures and manage-
ment, this trend shifted in the 2010s to a strong emphasis on analysing the changes in university governance and its
implications for accountability and stakeholders.
Second, the analysis of the literature shows that, in spite of the changes carried out in the university sector which
have emphasised the social dimension of universities, there is still a long way to go on the subject of USR. This sug-
gests a number of difficulties in incorporating social responsibility principles in the four main areas: education, research,
management and community engagement. Potential solutions for the future associated with such barriers might
include: the determination of a research agenda and training programmes of universities; the lack of an entrepreneurial
culture in universities; and the reward system of academics and faculty members (Jongbloed et al., 2008). Adopting an
educational perspective, some of the problems associated with a lack of awareness and understanding of social respon-
sibility could be solved by implementing active learning methods. In relation to management, different points need to

JORGE ~
316 | bs_bs_banner
LARRAN AND ANDRADES PENA

be highlighted. From an accountability perspective, there is a need to develop a common and universal tool for meas-
uring and reporting on social and environmental issues in universities. Larr
an, Herrera, Calzado, and Andrades (2016)
pointed out that this needs to measure the integration of social, economic and environmental aspects of universities.
To do this, a multi-stakeholder approach has to be implemented where all stakeholders are involved. This is in line with
the views of Jongbloed et al. (2008), who take an approach based on Stakeholder Theory, stating that universities
should introduce changes aimed at networked governance with the idea of ensuring accountability according to the
principles of USR.

7 | LIMITATIONS AND FUTURE RESEARCH

As with all types of research, this literature review has certain limitations. Firstly, this study has been restricted to
higher education academic journals and does not consider specialist journals on social responsibility. Future research
could ensure greater objectivity by setting up a greater number of academic journals to provide a broader and more
detailed analysis of research on USR. Secondly, in order to create clear boundaries for a systematic review, only peer-
reviewed scientific articles were included. In future research, it would be interesting to expand this study to include
conference proceedings of the professional organisations related to these journals. Thirdly, the use of key search terms
involves limitations. Using as a reference a list of keywords according to the definitions of USR could not take into
account other terms related to social issues. In future, this limitation could be solved by means of a broad list of
keywords.

OR CI D
~a
Francisco Javier Andrades Pen http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2924-0430

RE FE RE NCE S
Albert, M. (2003). Universities and the market economy: The differential impact on knowledge production in sociology
and economics. Higher Education, 45, 145–182.
Alves, H., Mainardes, E. W., & Raposo, M. (2010). A relationship approach to higher education institution stakeholder
management. Tertiary Education and Management, 16, 159–181.
Amaral, A. (2008). Transforming higher education. In A. Amaral, I. Bleiklie, & C. Musselin (Eds.), From governance to iden-
tity. A Festschrift for Mary Henkel (pp. 81–94). Berlin, Germany: Springer.
Amaral, A., & Magalh~aes, A. (2002). The emergent role of external stakeholders. In A. Amaral, G. A. Jones, & B. Karseth
(Eds.), Governing higher education: National perspectives on institutional governance (pp. 1–23). Dordrecht, the Nether-
lands: Kluwer Academic.
Benneworth, P., & Jongbloed, B. W. (2010). Who matters to universities? A stakeholder perspective on humanities, arts,
and social sciences valorisation. Higher Education, 59(5), 567–588.
Bimrose, J., Barnes, S. A., & Brown, J. (2005). A systematic review of research into career-related interventions for higher edu-
cation. Coventry, England: Institute for Employment Research, University of Warwick.
Boland, J. (2005). Student participation in shared governance: A means of advancing democratic values? Tertiary Education
and Management, 11(3), 199–217.
Boland, J. (2011). Positioning civic engagement on the higher education landscape: Insights from a civically engaged peda-
gogy. Tertiary Education and Management, 17(2), 101–115.
Boni, A., & Lozano, J. F. (2007). The generic competences: An opportunity for ethical learning in the European conver-
gence in higher education. Higher Education, 54(6), 819–831.
Brennan, J. (2008). Higher education and social change. Higher Education, 56, 381–393.
Brunstein, J., Jaime, P., Curi, D. P., D’Angelo, M. J., & Mainardes, E. W. (2015). Assessment and evaluation of higher edu-
cation in business management: An analysis of the brazilian case in the light of social learning theory for sustainability.
Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 40(6), 833–854.
Burchell, J., Murray, A., & Kennedy, S. (2015). Responsible management education in uk business schools: Critically
examining the role of the UN Principles for Responsible Management Education (PRME) as a driver for change.
Management Learning, 46(4), 479–497.

JORGE ~
LARRAN AND ANDRADES PENA bs_bs_banner
| 317

Capano, G. (2010). A sisyphean task: Evaluation and institutional accountability in italian higher education. Higher
Education Policy, 23, 39–62.
Carvalho, T., & Santiago, R. (2010). New public management and ‘middle management’: How do deans influence insti-
tutional policies? In V. L. Meek, L. Goedegebuure, R. Santiago, & T. Carvalho (Eds.), The changing dynamics of higher
education middle management (pp. 165 –196). Berlin, Germany: Springer, 165–196.
Ceulemans, K., Molderez, I., & Van Lidekerke, L. (2015). Sustainability reporting in higher education: A comprehensive
review of the recent literature and paths for further research. Journal of Cleaner Production, 106(1), 127–143.
Christensen, T. (2011). University governance reforms: Potential problems of more autonomy. Higher Education, 62(4),
503–517.
Christensen, T., & Lægreid, P. (2015). Performance and accountability—A theoretical discussion and an empirical assess-
ment. Public Organization Review: A Global Journal, 15(2), 207–225.
Clarkeburn, H., Downie, J. R., Gray, C., & Matthew, R. G. S. (2002). Measuring ethical development in life sciences stu-
dents: A study using Perry’s developmental model. Studies in Higher Education, 28(4), 443–456.
Commission of the European Communities. (2001). Promoting a European framework for corporate social responsibility.
Brussels: Green Paper.
Cross, E., & Pickering, H. (2008). The contribution of higher education to regional cultural development in the North East
of England. Higher education management and policy, 20(2), 90–99.
De Boer, H. F., Enders, J., & Leisyte, L. (2007). Public sector reform in dutch higher education: The organizational trans-
formation of the university. Public Administration, 85(1), 27–46.
De la Cuesta, M., Porras, A., Saavedra, I., & S
anchez, D. (2010). El Compromiso Social de la UNED. In M. De la Cuesta, C. De
la Cruz, & J. M. Rodríguez Fern
andez (Eds.), Responsabilidad Social Universitaria (pp. 232–272). La Corun
~a, Spain: Netbiblo.
Donina, D., Meoli, M., & Paleari, S. (2015). The new institutional governance of italian state universities: What role for
the new governing bodies? Tertiary Education and Management, 21(1), 16–28.
Durand, J., & Pujadas, C. (2004). Self-assessment of governance teams in an argentine private university: Adapting to dif-
ficult times. Tertiary Education and Management, 10(1), 27–44.
Ferlie, E., Musselin, C., & Andresani, G. (2008). The steering of higher education systems: A public management perspec-
tive. Higher Education, 56(3), 325–348.
Fisher, J., & Bonn, I. (2011). Business sustainability and undergraduate management education: An australian study. Higher
Education, 62(5), 563–571.
Freeman, R. E. (1984). Strategic management: A stakeholder approach. Boston, MA: Pitman Press.

pez, A. M. (2013). Online disclosure of university social responsibility: A comparative
Garde, R., Rodríguez, M. P., & Lo
study of public and private US universities. Environmental Education Research, 19(6), 709–746.

pez, A. M. (2016). Corporate and managerial characteristics as drivers of social responsibility
Garde, R., Rodríguez, M. P., & Lo
disclosure by state-owned enterprises. Review of Managerial Science. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11846-016-0199-7
Goddard, J., & Puuka, J. (2008). The engagement of higher educational institutions in regional development: An overview
of the opportunities and challenges. Higher Education Management and Policy, 20(2), 13–33.
Godemann, J., Haertle, J., Herzig, C., & Moon, J. (2014). United Nations supported principles for responsible management
education: Purpose, progress and prospects. Journal of Cleaner Production, 62, 16–23.

mez, M., Larr
an, M., & Andrades, F. J. (2016). Gender differences between faculty members in higher education: A lit-
Go
erature review of selected higher education journals. Educational Research Review, 18, 58–69.
Greenhalgh, T. (2015). Higher education governance as language games: A wittgensteinian case study of the breakdown of
governance at the London School of Economics 2004–2011. Higher Education Quarterly, 69(2), 193–213.
Hart, A., & Northmore, S. (2011). Auditing and evaluating university–community engagement: Lessons from a UK case
study. Higher Education Quarterly, 65(1), 34–58.
Hart, A., Northmore, S., & Gerhardt, C. (2009). Auditing, benchmarking and evaluating public engagement. Bristol, England:
National Co-Ordinating Centre for Public Engagement.
Hemsley-Brown, J., & Oplatka, I. (2006). Universities in a competitive global marketplace. International Journal of Public
Sector Management, 19(4), 316–338.
Holland, B. (2001). Measuring the role of civic engagement in campus missions: Key concepts and challenges. Paper presented
at the ASHE Symposium, Broadening the Carnegie Classifications’ Attention to Mission: Incorporating Public Service.
Ishitani, T. T., & McKitrick, S. A. (2013). The effects of academic programs and institutional characteristics on postgradu-
ate civic engagement behaviour. Journal of College Student Development, 54, 379–396.
Iverson, S., & James, J. (2010). Becoming ‘effective’ citizens? Change-oriented service in a teacher education program.
Innovative Higher Education, 35(1), 19–35.

JORGE ~
318 | bs_bs_banner
LARRAN AND ANDRADES PENA

Jongbloed, B., Enders, J., & Salerno, C. (2008). Higher education and its communities: Interconnections, interdependencies
and a research agenda. Higher Education, 56(3), 303–324.
Karatzoglou, B. (2013). An in-depth literature review of the evolving roles and contributions of universities to education
for sustainable development. Journal of Cleaner Production, 49, 44–53.
Kezar, A. J., & Eckel, P. D. (2004). Meeting today’s governance challenges: A synthesis of the literature and examination
of a future agenda for scholarship. Journal of Higher Education, 75(4), 371–399.
Killick, D. (2013). Global citizenship, sojourning students and campus communities. Teaching in Higher Education, 18(7),
721–735.
Lambrechts, W. (2015). The contribution of sustainability assessment to policy development in higher education. Assessment and
Evaluation in Higher Education, 40(6), 801–816.
Laredo, P. (2007). Revisiting the third mission of universities: Toward a renewed categorization of university activities?
Higher Education Policy, 20(4), 441–456.
Larr
an, M., & Andrades, F. J. (2013). Una Aproximacio
n Conceptual a la Responsabilidad Social Universitaria desde un

n
Enfoque Gerencial: la Teoría de los Stakeholders. In J. L. Abreu, M. J. Araiza, J. G. Cruza, & C. Parra (Eds.), La Gestio
de la RSE: Enfoques Interdisciplinarios (pp. 255–282). Albuquerque, NM: Universidad de Nueva Mexico.
Larr
an, M., Andrades, F. J., & Muriel, M. J. (2015). Factors influencing the presence of ethics and CSR stand-alone
courses in the accounting masters curricula: An international study. Accounting Education: An International Journal,
24(5), 361–382.
Larr
an, M., Herrera, J., Calzado, Y., & Andrades, F. 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.
Larsen, I. M., Maasen, P., & Stensaker, B. (2010). Four basic dilemmas in university governance reform. Higher Education
Management and Policy, 21(3), 1–18.
Macheridis, N. (2015). Coordination between governance actors in universities: The role of policy documents. Tertiary
Education and Management, 21(3), 173–185.
MacVaugh, J., & Norton, M. (2011). Introducing sustainability into business education contexts using active learning.
Higher Education Policy, 24, 439–457.
Madeira, A. C., Carravilla, M. A., Oliveira, J. F., & Costa, C. (2011). A methodology for sustainability evaluation and report-
ing in higher education institutions. Higher Education Policy, 24, 459–479.
McArthur, J. (2011). Reconsidering the social and economic purposes of higher education. Higher Education Research and
Development, 30(6), 737–749.
Middlehurst, R. (2004). Changing internal governance: A discussion of leadership roles and management structures in UK univer-
sities. Higher Education Quarterly, 58(4), 258–279.
Middlehurst, R. (2013). Changing internal governance: Are leadership roles and management structures in United King-
dom universities fit for the future? Higher Education Quarterly, 67(3), 275–294.
Mitchell, R. K., Agle, B. R., & Wood, D. J. (1997). Toward a theory of stakeholder identification and salience: Defining the
principle of who and what really counts. Academy of Management Review, 22(4), 853–886.
Musial, K. (2010). Redefining external stakeholders in nordic higher education. Tertiary Education and Management, 16(1),
45–60.
Neave, G. (2006). Redefining the social contract. Higher Education Policy, 19, 269–286.

rez, F., & Fern
andez, J. (2013). Measuring the local economic impact of universities: An approach that
Pastor, J. M., Pe
considers uncertainty. Higher Education, 65(5), 539–564.
Pavicic, J., Alfirevic, N., & Mihanovic, Z. (2009). Market orientation in managing relationships with multiple constituencies
of croatian higher educations. Higher Education, 57(2), 191–207.
Paytas, J., Gradeck, R., & Andrews, L. (2004). Universities and the development of industry clusters. (Report prepared for the
Economic Development Administration of the United States Department of Commerce).
Powell, B. (2008). Stakeholders’ perception of who influences the decision-making processes in Ontario’s public postse-
condary education institutions. Higher Education Research and Development, 27(4), 385–397.
Ralph, M., & Stubbs, W. (2014). Integrating environmental sustainability into universities. Higher Education, 67, 71–90.
Reiser, (2008). University social responsibility definition. Retrieved from http://www.usralliance.org/resources/Aurilla_
Presentation_Session6.pdf.
Reverte, C. (2009). Determinants of corporate social responsibility disclosure ratings by spanish listed firms. Journal of
Business Ethics, 88(2), 351–366.
Rowan-Kenyon, H. T. (2007). Predictors of delayed college enrollment and the impact of socioeconomic status. Journal of
Higher Education, 78(2), 188–214.

JORGE ~
LARRAN AND ANDRADES PENA bs_bs_banner
| 319

Salter, B. (2002). The external pressures on internal governance of universities. Higher Education Quarterly, 56(3), 245–256.
Schmitt, P., & Raufflet, E. (2015). Sustainability in higher education: A systematic review with focus on management edu-
cation. Journal of Cleaner Production, 106, 22–33.

-Pamies, D., Domingo-Vernis, M., & Rabassa-Figueras, N. (2011). Corporate social responsibility in management edu-
Seto
cation: Current status in spanish universities. Journal of Management and Organization, 17(5), 604–620.
Shattock, M. (2008). Managing good governance in higher education. Abingdon, England: Taylor & Francis.
Shriberg, M. P. (2002). Institutional assessment tools for sustainability in higher education: Strengths, weaknesses, and
implications for practice and theory. Higher Education Policy, 15, 153–167.
Simha, R. (2005). The economic impact of eight research universities on the boston region. Tertiary Education and Man-
agement, 11(3), 269–278.
Slaughter, S., Thomas, S. L., Johnson, D. R., & Barringer, S. N. (2014). Institutional conflict of interest: The role of interlocking
directorates in the scientific relationships between universities and the corporate sector. Journal of Higher Education, 85
(1), 1–35.
Swiatczak, M., Morner, M., & Finkbeiner, N. (2015). How can performance measurement systems empower managers? An
exploratory study in state-owned enterprises. International Journal of Public Sector Management, 28(4/5), 371–403.
Tandberg, D. A. (2013). The conditioning role of state higher education governance structures. Journal of Higher Education,
84(4), 506–543.
Taylor, J. S., & de Lourdes Machado, M. (2008). Governing boards in public higher education institutions: A perspective
from the United States. Tertiary education and management, 14(3), 243–260.
Thornton, C. H., & Jaeger, A. J. (2007). A new context for understanding civic responsibility: Relating culture to action at
a research university. Research in Higher Education, 48(8), 993–1020.
Tight, M. (2012). Higher education research 2000–2010: Changing journal publication patterns. Higher education research
and development, 31(5), 723–740.
University Builds Country Project. (2001). Observando la Responsabilidad Social Universitaria (Working Paper). Santiago de
Chile.
Vallejo, E. (2014). Marginalization of published scholarship on students with disabilities in higher education journals. Jour-
nal of college student development, 55(1), 30–40.
Vasilescu, R., Barna, C., Epure, M., & Baicu, C. (2010). Developing university social responsibility: A model for the chal-
lenges of the new civil society. Procedia—Social and Behavioral Sciences, 2(2), 4177–4182.
Vel
asquez, L., Munguia, N., & Sanchez, M. (2005). Deterring sustainability in higher education. An appraisal of the factors
which influence sustainability in higher education institutions. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education,
6(4), 383–391.
Vorley, T., & Nelles, J. (2008). (Re)conceptualising the academy. Institutional development of and beyond the third mis-
sion. Higher Education Management and Policy, 20(3), 1–17.
Waheed, B., Khan, F., & Veitch, B. (2011). An integrated decision-making framework for sustainability assessment: A case
study of memorial university. Higher Education Policy, 24, 581–498.
Wals, A., & Blewitt, J. (2010). Third-wave sustainability in higher education: some (inter)national trends and developments.
In P. Jones, D. Selby & S. Sterling (Eds.), Sustainability education: Perspectives and practice across higher education
(pp. 55–74). London: Earthscan.
Webster, J., & Watson, R. T. (2002). Analyzing the past to prepare for the future: Writing a literature review.
MIS Quarterly, 26(2), 13–23.
Young, S., & Nagpal, S. (2013). Meeting the growing demand for sustainability-focused management education: A case
study of a prme academic institution. Higher Education Research and Development, 32, 493–506.

How to cite this article: Larr
an Jorge M, Andrades Pen

~ a FJ. Analysing the literature on university social respon-
sibility: A review of selected higher education journals. Higher Educ Q. 2017;71:302–319. https://doi.org/
10.1111/hequ.12122
Copyright of Higher Education Quarterly is the property of Wiley-Blackwell and its content
may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright
holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for
individual use.