1.      Introduction

Social responsibility (SR) came into being as an entrepreneurial initiative during the 1960s. The field has since been expanded by various organizations through actions that are geared toward fostering and accomplishing not only economic benefits but also social and environmental goals. In this sense, inclusion is afforded not only to bodies whose ultimate aim is the maximization of profits but also to those that have other fundamental goals and specifically social and environmental goals. Such is the case of universities, which, in Gaete’s (2011) view, are superior institutions of higher education that “must establish a relationship with society that allows for it to consolidate its teaching and research duties, whilst at the same time seeing the interest that it awakens in different people, groups, the State, the Markets and Civil Society”. Universities have witnessed their original role as institutions that transform society through research and through the generation and dissemination of knowledge and development become downgraded to a “preparatory tool to help find a professional post” (Vallaeys, 2006; Gasca-Pliego and Olvera-García, 2011). In turn, institutions dating back more than a thousand years must now redefine their identity and role in society.

As a result, university social responsibility (USR), defined as “those duties on the part of university managers to make decisions or follow desirable lines of action in compliance with the terms of society’s aims and values” (Gaete, 2011), has been borne. Cuesta (2011) extends this definition as a means of “offering educational services and knowledge transfer following the principles of ethics, good governance, respect for the environmental, social commitment and the fostering of the values of citizenship, duly taking responsibility for the consequences and impact thereby derived from these actions”. However, we argue that Vallaeys (2006) has devised a conceptualization of USR that is more in line with our definition: “a strategy of ethical and smart management of the impact created by the organization on the human, social and natural environment. This impact created by the University is specified as Organizational Impact (industrial and environmental), Educational Impact, Cognitive Impact or Social Impact. Within this context, it is essential that university institutions raise awareness on the part of future alumni, who can then act in a responsible manner from the their working posts and duties, thus limiting the impact of their activities on the environment (Disterheft et al, 2012).

In this sense, the university is compelled to promote entrepreneurial responsibility, social scientific responsibility and social responsibility on the part of citizens, and it does so on three levels (Gasca-Pliego and Olvera-García, 2011): a) internal USR, which focuses on students, teaching and research staff, and service and administrative personnel; b) external USR, which focuses on employers, alumni, strategic direct suppliers and partners and c) extra USR, which focuses on the state, society, development and the global environment. The means by which such goals are reached and consequent levels of development may be analyzed from the perspectives put forth by Gaete (2011) (Table 1). However, in reality and in line with the open system formed, a specific university does not apply a perspective in a unilateral fashion but rather in a multifaceted manner.

Source: Gaete, 2011

Table 1. USR initiatives according to the focus of the analysis

The means through which universities tackle USR have been the subject of several studies. Nejati, Shafaei, Salamzadeh and Daraei (2011) carried out an analysis of USR strategies employed at the world’s top 10 universities based on the communication tool with most the outreach and usage: official web pages. While information offered in line with the 8 principles of the ISO 26000:2010 standard was standardized, it was unclear whether this standard has been implemented or whether said openness has responded less to notifications and reductions of the impacts of such strategies on stakeholders than to an interest in raising awareness of activities, policies, etc. to attract stronger flows of human capital.

In Spain, similar research has been conducted. The Ministry of Education, through its University Strategy 2015 program, considers USR to be a strategic goal along with knowledge transfer, representing the two pillars on which professional training and research are based as would be expected (Table 2).

Source: Ministry of Education (2015)

Table 2. Integrator scheme for social responsibility. Source: Ministry of Education (2015)

Gaete (2011) analyzes USR principles employed in Spanish higher education institutions based on the 3 perspectives that form the USR model. In this sense, a managerial focus based on interest group accountability is employed by the University of Santiago de Compostela, which is at the forefront of this field with its publication of a GRI report in 2003. The transformational perspective was developed by the University de Castilla la Mancha, an institution that is socially committed through voluntary activities and cooperative development. Finally, the third approach, the legislative approach, is based on a model developed by the Polytechnic University of Catalonia, which created the Global University Network for Innovation (GUNI), which is mandated to foster the role of higher education in public services of relevance to USR.

Forética (González et al, 2016) focuses on long-term strategies disclosed through the issuance of technical reports classified based on ways in which USR has or has not been integrated into management models globally or partially (Table 3).

Source: González et al (2016)

Table 3. Classification of Spanish Universities by USR adoption (2016)

This study is complemented by Madorrán-García (2012), in which the status of USR is outlined based on the web pages of Spanish universities. It is worth highlighting that while there is a noted interest in this form of social responsibility, only five universities achieve commitments through openness and through the issuance of GRI or similar reports.

It is thus customary for universities to disclose their efforts through sustainability reports (Barnes and Jerman, 2002; Clark and Dickson, 2003a and 2003b; Clark, 2007; Clarke and Kouri, 2009; Crespy and Miller, 2011; Bero et al, 2012; Madorrán-García, 2012; Alonso-Almeida et al, 2015; Ceulemans, Molderez and Van Liedekerke, 2015), in turn basing their commitment on their openness and issuance of GRI or similar reports (Adams and Petrella, 2010; González et al, 2016). We must stress that GRIs (Global Reporting Initiatives) are non-governmental organizations based on networks aimed at the promotion of sustainability and ESG (Environment, Social and Corporate Governance) reports (GRI, 2011).

This model of sustainability reporting is the most widely used in the world, which allows promoting greater transparency regarding the economic, environmental and social performance of organizations (GRI, 2011). It leads us to think that the universities have been considering an RSU based on the principles of communication and reporting promoted by GRI (Lozano, 2006a and 2006b). However, GUNI (2014) considers that the role of the University can not be merely a document maker, but must take concrete actions.

In addition to the foregoing, in 2010, the ISO 26000:2010 Standard, outlining implementation guidelines on SR for private and public sector organizations, was established. This guide is not certifiable because if it were, it would eliminate the voluntary nature of SR, although it can be audited its implementation in an organization through, for example, the NEN-NPR 2011: 96 Application Code (NEN, 2012)

Since its formation, only one higher education institution has validated the guide as a means of reaping the benefits of operating in a socially responsible manner: The Higher Technical School of Engineering for Forestry and the Natural Environment (ETSIMFMN) at the University Politécnica of Madrid (UPM). This validation is ground breaking from a university viewpoint, not only for Spain but across the international sphere. On the other hand, it validates the application of the ISO 26000:2010 guidelines in 2015, meaning that this university is the first Spanish organization to do so. In this work, we show how this application was performed with two aims: 1) to raise awareness of this case, 2) to present a model with “low cost” action plans for other universities or higher education establishments to follow, and 3) to express that a university social responsibility could be performed by teaching and research staff and students, rather than consultants.

2.      Responsible, sustainable and university-based     

The ETSIMFMN is a “Public Law Entity that is bestowed with full legal standing and with its own assets for the development of its functions and for the accomplishment of its aims and goals” (Article 1, UPM, 2010) with aims to train engineers in the spheres of Forestry and Natural Environment Engineering and to shape the environments in which such activities generally take place. A proposal has also been made to encourage the development of scientific research and knowledge transfer to society along with the professional training of experts in basic and applied research (ETSIMFMN, 2013:32).

From 2012 onward, the institution decided to implement USR, and as such, exhibits a commitment to sustainable management given the features of subjects taught in its installations and its combined efforts to achieve efficiency in the use of resources. Such commitment can be summarized in 3 terms: Responsible, Sustainable and University-based (Figure 1).

From the outset of this quest, the need to juggle all three approaches mentioned by Gaete (2011) has been an underlying goal (Table 4) with several limitations. The first of these challenges relates to the limited autonomy of the school, as the school depends largely on decisions made by the Rectorate, especially with regard to economic matters but also to a large extent regarding social and professional issues. Even so, the result may not be labeled, in our view, as being scarcely relevant or even irrelevant, and especially when considering the fact that this process is being undertaken by components of the organization itself: PDI – teaching and research staff and alumni – and PAS – administrative and service staff with the support of the school’s management personnel. The second limitation relates to the fact that the school uses its own resources, which are to a large extent limited and scarce, meaning that measures put in place cannot be particularly ambitious or require the use of a significant portion of the school’s budget.

Table 4. ETSIMFMN USR initiatives (2012-2015)

3.      Methodology

The implementation of social responsibility guidelines adherent to ISO 26000:2010 in an organization requires the publication of a sequence of actions compiled in a document that include a series of fundamental key actions (ISO, 2010). Two questions raised from the outset must be addressed as essential issues: i) the observance of principles of social responsibility (accountability, openness, ethical behavior, respect for the interests of involved parties, respect for the principle of legality, respect for international regulations on behavior, and respect for human rights) and ii) acknowledgement of social responsibility and the involvement of interested parties or interest groups. The two concepts are itemized based on specific points and key concepts. The involvement of and dialogue with interest groups is a fundamental aspect of strategies and a means for the identification of issues deemed significant.

The preparatory stage of an audit is then entered in adherence with the NEN-NPR 9026:2011 code of practice (NEN, 2012). Since NEN in Holland began to publish codes of practice in its implementation of ISO 26000:2010, almost one hundred organizations of all types and sizes have published self-assessments that have been audited by third parties as proposed in this work.

The NPR9026 Code of Practice (NEN Standards Committee 400178 “Social Responsibility”) was drafted based on requirements outlined in NEN-EN-ISO/IEC 17050-1 and NEN-EN-ISO/IEC 17050-2, whose scope is defined by organizations that support responsible practice. The voluntary nature of social responsibility has been preserved as such to the present day. However, providing added value to the responsible actions of companies and organizations along with monitoring them, undertaking suitable commitments and doing so in tune with international guidelines will mean that they stand out from others on such key aspects of organizational strategy. It furthermore serves as an unmatched framework for the drafting of sustainability reports whose relevance continues to rise in light of new European directives on non-financial reporting. The procedure allows organizations to carry out self-assessments on ISO 26000:2010 applications in compliance with requirements set forth in NEN-EN-ISO/IEC 17050-1 and NEN-EN-ISO/IEC 17050-2 and whose scope is defined by actual organizations that employ responsible practices.

3.1.    Observance of principles of social responsibility

Governance institution levels of involvement in an organization are of the utmost importance for the effective implementation of ISO 26000. Strategic guidance based on social responsibility requires exhibiting expressed knowledge of its principles, a process of internalization and internal decision-making that is shared with interest groups.

The briefing of motivations and sustainable guidance from bodies of governance are accessible, and all interest groups may have access to instruments through which the publication of values, principles and strategic visions of the school can be consulted.

The entity boasts acknowledged and broad-reaching experience and publishes on matters of social responsibility while also being in the process of drafting its first sustainability report in accordance with GRI G4 at the essential level (GRI, 2013). This parallel work duly facilitates a transfer toward the governance of a comprehensive review of social responsibility principles and toward the publication of documents that thereby accredit the same.

3.2.    Identification of interest groups

The identification process for interest groups is vital to the implementation of ISO 26000:2010. For this reason, a prior analysis of the given context and a bibliographical review are performed to locate interlocutors and opinion leaders related to the school’s activities and who, as a result of such interactions, may be identified as sources of influence or receivers of direct or indirect impacts of the organization’s activities. Our search criteria are focused on action plans and documentation related to matters and topics defined in the ISO 26000:2010 guide and specifically those that were set through internal analysis as standard spheres of the school’s activity.

Actual academic guidance for the organization encourages focusing on matters of the environment, though the need to consider at least one aspect of each item listed in the guide means that a broad-encompassing internal and external review is necessary.

In compliance with ISO 26000:2010, the following have been taken into consideration: i) organization types, purposes, operations and sizes; ii) locales in which the organization operates, considering the most significant social, environmental and economic features; iii) historical performance in social responsibility; iv) the supply chain; v) external organizations with which agreements and relations or alliances are held; and vi) directives included in the quality standards manual of the UPM duly referenced in the ANECA.

The purpose of this initial stage of the identification process was to obtain large groups and framework levels for focusing our subsequent analysis at the most basic level, thus allowing us to collect a sample of individuals likely to be involved in identification tasks concerning significant topics.

3.3.    Determination of appropriate and significant issues

As Jonker stated (2000), a transitional period from the concept of quality products to total quality has emerged. It can in turn be deduced that this has led to growing demand from interest groups for the consideration of social and environmental effects in organization working processes and action plans overall (Maas and Reniers, 2014). Quality systems consider issues of social responsibility. The ISO 26000:2010 guide foresees essential facets of organizations geared toward the measurement of social and environmental effects that these processes may have (Maas and Reniers, 2014). 

The identification of significant issues requires the determination of their appropriateness. It is necessary to assume seven fundamental matters and to at least identify issues of each (ISO 26000, 2011). Once this initial stage has been entered, this is determined from identified issues that are meaningful and that must be addressed through action plans. In turn, effects on each issue, potential effects and levels of concern among interest groups are taken into consideration. Our study was conducted over three phases based on a modified RAND method: i) bibliographical review of ISO 26000:2010 subjects and issues listed in the academic literature on university institutions, ii) surveys of interest groups and iii) focus groups for points of contrast. 

In recent years, the RAND methodology has been used for the drafting of quality indicators and process evaluations. The method is often performed over three successive stages: bibliographical review, expert panel and decision-making process (González et al., 2009). The literature describes the continually more frequent use of expert panels to guarantee quality standards in the construction of compliance diagnostic models in organizations (Vveinhardt and Gulbovaité, 2015). In this work, survey results were used in our focus group to compare and prioritize subjects identified based on group dynamics and Likert scale scores.

3.4.    Self-assessment and external auditing

The school’s ISO 26000:2010 implementation process involves the publication of a self-assessment document in compliance with the NEN-NPR 9026:2011 Code of Practices. In this way, a secondary aim involves showing interest groups that ISO 26000:2010 specifications have been followed. Once the self-assessment has been accepted by the school’s senior management team, an external audit will be performed by a recognized and standardized body, which will issue a certificate of compliance on the process undertaken. 

4.      Results

Principles of social responsibility are enshrined in various entity documents: in a letter written by the Director on the 2015 sustainability report and in the ETSIMFMN quality control manual (2013). The decision-making process is carried out by the Social Board, a part of the UPM Rectorate with broad representation, and the School Board. On the other hand, the organization has made a values statement in preambles II and III of its statutes (UPM, 2010) and has devised an action plan to draft a specific code of conduct. All of these actions are overseen from a regulatory and legislative perspective, as they affect public universities through the Regional Government of Madrid in accordance with national and international legislation based on the European Higher Education Area (EHEA, 2015).

4.1.    Identification of interest groups

Interest groups were examined based on internal and external perspectives. In this way, some dialogue referring to the university’s internal history or to conditions of applicable legislation in force could be pinpointed. Once the selection process was completed, these were categorized into six major groups. Said groups broadly represented collectives that may be affected by the school’s activity or that might influence the school’s daily operations.    

Interest groups were identified over several stages: i) through internal debates on standard interlocutors of the school based on the organization’s activity and ii) through a bibliographical review and contextualized documentation. We examined the impact of the academic sector and of more specific works on Forestry and the Environment on the mainstream press and on publications. In regards to university social responsibility, existing reports were reviewed and compared with the interest group maps presented.

Through our documentation analysis, a working group was formed on an internal level to determine a final map of interested parties at the school shown in Figure 2.