Search results

Women are dramatically under‐represented in upper level managerial positions. Although they comprise about one‐third of all managers and professionals in the work‐force (Hellwig, & Tedeschi, 1986), women seem to confront a “glass ceiling” when they seek high level managerial positions. According to a recent survey of the 1,000 largest companies in the United States, less than 4% of their upper level managers are female (“Ten years later”, 1990). A more subtle problem, but one of equal concern, is the way in which women who do achieve managerial positions may be treated. There is good evidence to suggest that, relative to their male counterparts, many female managers encounter serious problems in areas such as pay, prestige of their positions, and evaluations of their abilities and performance (see, for example, Mount, & Ellis, 1989; Wittig, & Lowe, 1989).

The purpose of this study is to improve the understanding of stakeholder engagement in the context of sustainability reporting (SR) for higher education institutions (HEIs), together with the materiality principle and stakeholder expectations.

This research uses an exploratory approach based on content analysis, a case study and descriptive and inferential statistics.

Three key findings come out of this research. First, the results indicate that HEIs use diverse criteria for grouping stakeholders and that stakeholder engagement is a heterogeneous process. Second, the expectations of internal stakeholders align with the material aspects of SR. Finally, among internal stakeholders, students and academics disagree on the prioritisation of some sustainability aspects, with non-academic staff adopting an intermediate position.

This analysis improves our knowledge of stakeholder engagement in HEIs. It helps to identify the relevant impacts of stakeholder engagement, enhances the quality of reporting and encourages a real dialogue with stakeholders.

The study examines stakeholder engagement and how the materiality principle is adopted by HEIs through SR. Furthermore, it compares these results with stakeholder expectations, considering the discrepancies between stakeholders. The results open the way to future research to explore the potential conflicts and collaborations between and within stakeholders to advance towards more sustainable institutions in the higher education sector.

The porpose of this study is to critically consider the use of global reporting initiative (GRI) guidelines in universities’ sustainability reports.. In light of the recent literature and Habermas’s thinking, the study advances the research field by considering the process of internal colonisation from steering institutions and makes suggestions regarding the future role of GRI in the higher education (HE) context.

This study presents a systematic literature review and content analysis for enhancing the critical reading of GRI applications in HE studies. The results are analysed in light of Habermas’s thinking, considering the GRI as a steering institution and its guidelines as steering mechanisms.

This study updates the literature review on sustainability reporting (SR) at universities and underlines the general trend in the employment of the GRI in this context. The results highlight the need to adapt the GRI to enhance its applicability in the HE context by considering additional dimensions such as research, teaching and operations. In doing so, the framework loses effectiveness and weakens the role of the GRI as a steering institution.

The results suggest that the GRI guidelines should be reframed to enhance comparability among reports and increase its wider employment at universities.

Universities need to be guided in their accountability process towards SR by dedicated frameworks. This study suggests the potentially pivotal role that the GRI could play in providing dedicated tools for HE to steer and enhance the development of SRs at universities.

This study presents an updated review of studies on SR at universities and suggests possible paths for the future of the GRI framework applicability to universities’ SR.