Repositório ISCTE-IUL

Deposited in Repositório ISCTE-IUL:

2023-03-29

Deposited version:
Accepted Version

Peer-review status of attached file:

Peer-reviewed

Citation for published item:

Fonseca, S. & Fernandes, J. L. (2022). A self-assessment tool for social responsibility in higher
education. Reporting on a national policy development process in Portugal. International Journal of
Sustainability in Higher Education. 23 (4), 848-864

Further information on publisher's website:

10.1108/IJSHE-03-2021-0119

Publisher's copyright statement:

This is the peer reviewed version of the following article: Fonseca, S. & Fernandes, J. L. (2022). A
self-assessment tool for social responsibility in higher education. Reporting on a national policy
development process in Portugal. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education. 23 (4),
848-864, which has been published in final form at https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/IJSHE-03-2021-0119.
This article may be used for non-commercial purposes in accordance with the Publisher's Terms and
Conditions for self-archiving.

Use policy

Creative Commons CC BY 4.0

The full-text may be used and/or reproduced, and given to third parties in any format or medium, without prior permission or
charge, for personal research or study, educational, or not-for-profit purposes provided that:
• a full bibliographic reference is made to the original source
• a link is made to the metadata record in the Repository
• the full-text is not changed in any way
The full-text must not be sold in any format or medium without the formal permission of the copyright holders.

Serviços de Informação e Documentação, Instituto Universitário de Lisboa (ISCTE-IUL)

Av. das Forças Armadas, Edifício II, 1649-026 Lisboa Portugal
Phone: +(351) 217 903 024 | e-mail: administrador.repositorio@iscte-iul.pt
https://repositorio.iscte-iul.pt
A self-assessment tool for Social Responsibility in Higher Education. Reporting on a national
policy development process in Portugal.

Susana Fonseca
ISCTE-Instituto Universiário de Lisboa, CIS_Iscte, Lisboa, Portugal, and
Joana Lobo Fernandes
Instituto Politécnico de Coimbra, Escola Superior de Educação de Coimbra, CERNAS,
Coimbra, Portugal

We would like to thanks to ORSIES and all the Portuguese Higher Education Institutions. The
ISHREI is the result of all the contributions of the Working Group participants to strength
the SR in Portuguese HEIs.

Abstract
Purpose – Providing higher education institutions (HEIs) with a tool for self-assessing their
social responsibility (SR) that generates the information and knowledge necessary to a
strategic approach to adopting the Green Paper recommendations about the SR of HEIs.
Setting out the collaborative policy development process in order to construct the tool
“Indicators of SR of HEIs” (ISRHEI).
Design/methodology/approach – After a literature review, including self-assessment (SA)
tools and leading guidelines, a working group of 24 Portuguese HEIs was created to co-
construct the ISRHEI tool, which was then subject to validation in a pilot study.
Findings – There are 34 indicators in the ISRHEI tool, structured by sequential levels according
to the HEI alignment with SR (policies, procedures, practices and monitoring along a strategic
continuum) hoping to achieve impacts on the organisational, educational, cognitive and social
level.
Originality – This is an innovative and national policy development process for SR in Portugal.
It gives insights into guiding documents, SA indicators for SR, and the process of developing
consensus on this topic among 24 HEIs in Portugal. The ISRHEI tool is tailored to the specific
characteristics and level of development of HEIs.

Keywords Social Responsibility, Higher Education Institutions, Performance Indicators, Self-

assessment, Portugal, Policy Development

1. Introduction
Higher Education Institutions (HEIs) perform a relevant role due to the ways in which they
may contribute towards society through the development of Social Responsibility (SR),
whether at the strategic or practical level, in terms of reflection and research on this topic as
well as spanning the level of training and education in citizenship values.
The Observatory of HEIs SR (Portuguese acronym ORSIES hereafter) represents a collaborative
network that fosters the social dimension of Portuguese HEIs and promotes the sharing of
experiences and practices for SR in Higher Education (HE). ORSIES drafted the first Green
Paper on SR and HEIs in Portugal, which reflects the debate with various stakeholders (ORSIES,
2018). The Book’s structure reflects the triple mission of HEIs – teaching, researching and
transferring knowledge (Law no. 62/2007) – and the conceptualisation of university social
responsibility (USR) in which universities generate impacts on governance, training, cognition
and social participation (Vallaeys et al., 2009).
HEIs thereby encountered the need to produce a self-diagnosis tool that would enable them
to define and evaluate the implementation strategies for these recommendations and,
simultaneously, to foster good practices and analyse the level of institutional commitment
towards SR. The present paper focuses on the process of developing the Indicators of SR of
HEIs (ISRHEI) in a self-assessment (SA) tool with the objective of setting out the development
of an instrument for ascertaining the level of HEI commitment towards SR and sustainability.
The ISRHEI strive to be representative of the experiences of Portuguese HEI members of the
ORSIES as regards their exercising of SR, without overlooking the scope for its broader scale
usage by other, national and international, HEIs.

2. Theoretical background
2.1. Social Responsibility
The United Nations (UN) conference, ECO-92, introduced a new global level concern on
sustainability, pointing to solutions that require new partnerships without jeopardising the
full development of future generations (United Nations, 1992). This appeal generated strong
impacts on HEIs in demanding they rethink their role in society and mobilise for sustainable
development (SD).
The Green Paper “Promoting a European framework for the SR of companies” sought to
launch a broader debate about corporate SR (CSR) at the national, European and international
level (Commission of the European Communities, 2001). The strategy of the European Union
(EU) for fostering CSR (Commission of the European Communities, 2002) includes the
development of CSR management competences. This, therefore, draws attention to the
importance of HEIs stimulating the SR of citizens and calling for dialogue with companies.
However, there was a certain inertia over the application of this strategy and only in 2011 was
there the redefinition of the CSR concept that came to represent the responsibility of
companies towards their impacts on society. This emerged within the framework of a new EU
strategy for the 2011-2014 period (European Commission, 2011) that assumed the
commitment to integrate CSR into education, training and research. This called on HEIs to
incorporate CSR into their teaching and research programmes.
The Magna Charta Universitatum, renewed in 2020, highlights the major changes ongoing in
the world and in universities that require academia to identify responsibilities and
commitments vital to the 21st century. This convenes members of the academic community
to undertake their alignment with the principles of SR (Wigmore-Alvarez and Ruiz-Lozano,
2012), through transparent and ethical strategies (Dima et al., 2015) to generate trust in the
institution and its leadership (Marulanda and Rojas, 2019). This requires a new vision from
HEIs that is both strategic and proactive and interrelates with stakeholders (Massen et al.,
2019). This expects HEIs to get involved on the local scale without giving up on a global
orientation and aligned with the UN Goals for SD set out in 2015 (GUNi, 2017). As agents of
social change and transformation, HEIs should make their students aware of the importance
of SR and sustainability, valuing the inclusion of such content in teaching and nurturing an
orientation towards the future (Argento et al., 2020).
The SR of HEIs benefits from the contribution of CSR (Wallace and Resch, 2017) and from the
awareness on sustainability (Larrán Jorge et al., 2015). This expects to identify positive
impacts in order to leverage them while minimising and offsetting negative aspects. An SR
orientation implies adopting an integrated vision of the impacts of HEIs and thus requiring
specific knowledge based on a holistic vision arising from a self-diagnosis process.
Nevertheless, both SR and sustainability act as moving targets (Zeisel, 2020), as goals for
orientation but undergoing constant evolution. Dealing with moving targets demands specific
competences for a systematic monitoring of the context prevailing, up-to-date self-knowledge
about the organisational performance and the pre-empting of future needs. Osagie et al.
(2014, p. 240) designate this "foresight thinking", the capacity to mentally construct scenarios
about how SR related challenges are going to develop into the future and how these
challenges may impact on the organisation.

2.2. HEIs as knowledge producers

A knowledge-based economy (European Council, 2000) presumes that HEIs acquire positions
favourable to creating an innovation and knowledge-focused Europe. Unger and Polt (2017)
highlight the idea of orchestration for the knowledge creation process, with the mobilisation
of resources that generate added value and furthermore defend how innovation necessarily
requires collaborative processes. Wallace and Resch (2017) approach HEIs as drivers of
societal well-being reflecting the importance of the social dimension to HEIs, which requires
new partnerships to solve wicked problems. It thus becomes evident that HEIs are crucial
elements in the knowledge production process, however they must involve stakeholders in a
collaborative way.
The community involvement takes place through the two core functions of HEIs, teaching and
research (Jongbloed et al., 2008). Marulanda and Rojas (2019) refer to a third mission as the
generator of value for the interested parties while remaining necessary to articulate this facet
with the other missions. Ali et al. (2021) affirm that HEIs are required to undertake their
responsibility for developing students, creating research and community outreach initiatives,
and evolving in accordance with the concept of USR. Dentoni and Bitzer (2015) then propose
a fourth mission that stipulates the coordination between HEIs and the private sector, civil
society and government, as wicked problems need solutions negotiated among multiple
groups, hence, multi-stakeholder cooperation.
Recently, various HEIs incorporated SR and sustainability into their management and teaching
practices, ongoing research and outreach activities while with differentiated levels of
development (Larrán Jorge et al., 2016; Aleixo et al., 2018). Diverse initiatives have brought
about the adoption of declarations and commitments by HEIs on SR related issues (Lozano et
al., 2013).
In Europe, transnational projects have generated new knowledge (e.g., Dima et al., 2015) and
fostered awareness among the academic community. In Portugal, leading initiatives include
the setting up of ORSIES and the drafting of the Green Paper on SR and HEIs (ORSIES, 2018) as
a driver and a benchmark for the integration of SR into HEIs.

2.3. Social Responsibility models for Higher Education

The concept of SD in HE became even more pertinent with the UN Decade of Education for
SD, the Conference Committing University to SD and the 2009 World Conference on HE
(UNESCO, 2009). Furthermore, between 2000 and 2015, the publication of papers on SR in
scientific journals specialized in HE varied between 0.9% and 14.86% (Larrán Jorge and Peña,
2017). While the literature on HEIs is disparate, there has been a greater production of
knowledge around sustainability, when compared to SR, in recent years.
The concept of USR has undergone debate, especially in Latin America (Ribeiro and
Magalhães, 2014) and relates to the commitment of universities to development for human
promotion, overcoming social problems, constructing values and ethical principles and
building more equal and democratic societies. Examples include a consortium of universities
in Chile "Universidad Construye País" (Gaete, 2011). Issue 36 of Estudos (Brasil) held the
objective of stimulating the discussion about ethics and USR. Within this framework, Vallaeys
(2006) presents four lines of USR action. Later, Vallaeys et al. (2009) proposed a model around
four impacts: organisational, educational, cognitive and social. While the first and fourth
impacts are common to any organisation, the educational and cognitive impacts are specific
and differentiate HEIs as organisations (Fernandes and Fonseca, 2020).

In Europe, the EU-USR project (Dima et al., 2015) presents a framework for USR, proposing
four standards: research, teaching, support for learning and public engagement; governance;
social and environmental sustainability; and fair practices.
Both in Latin America and Europe, USR incorporates the four dimensions or standards for HEIs
and a commitment to managing their impacts.
Gaete (2011) stresses three approaches to the concept of USR – on management (production
of USR reports based on the directives stipulated by the Global Reporting Initiative – GRI),
transformative (classification of different initiatives across four areas: training, research,
social leadership and social commitment) and normative (as proposed by the UN Global
Compact – Principles for Responsible Management Education, with its principles especially
formulated for HEIs) and defines USR as the obligation of university managers to promote
university policies, take decisions or implement lines of actions that are desirable in terms of
the objectives and values of the surrounding society. The relationship between the
perspectives on USR (Gaete, 2011) resides in how the transformative aspect establishes the
key directives for socially responsible behaviours for university work (the what), while the
management and the normative facets set out the ways in which universities are to express
these behaviours (the how), oriented within the scope of the guidelines set for SR at the
conceptual level: transparency and participation.
The common aspects of these models enables the structuring of the USR around four axes:
the socially responsible campus, professional and citizenship training, social management of
knowledge and social participation, highlighting how USR has to involve an integrated
governance model, in which the transversal aspects of HEI management and its relationship
with different stakeholders require democratic, transparent and responsible leadership,
incorporating SR into HEI strategic planning in Portugal (ORSIES, 2018).
Modelling the impacts returns a holistic perspective on the scope of HEI actions, identifying
positive and negative results. This enables the pre-empting of action scenarios, dilemmas that
may emerge and elicit recommendations for actions appropriate to overcoming these
challenges.

2.4 Commitment to USR

When Portuguese HEIs assume their commitment to SR, the resulting evidence should feature
the inclusion of SR in their strategic documents. This is necessary to convey the awareness
that the impacts of all their actions are subject to consideration.
Vallaeys et al. (2009) put forward a methodology that proposes the integration of SR into the
strategic reflection of HEIs and providing a trajectory that unfurls over the course of time. The
four stages to this methodology are: commitment, self-diagnosis, compliance and
management reporting. This methodology describes a never-ending process but one in which
each stage seeks to deepen the HEI commitment to SR (Vallaeys et al., 2009). According to
Dima et al. (2015), the stages to implement USR policies and practices are knowing, raising
awareness and convincing, and committing and getting involved. Commitment is essential in
both proposals, but also the need to know by making a diagnosis.
SR in HE requires a long-term commitment that generates repercussions for the mission and
objectives, procedures, annual reports and the various other HEI decision-making processes
(Wigmore-Álvarez and Ruiz-Lozan, 2012). For any USR strategy, the key barrier is the lack of
financial resources while the main facilitator arises from the involvement of all stakeholders
(Dima et al., 2015).
Wallace and Resch (2017) detail how the key principles in the USR promotion process are the
top-to-bottom management model, not reducing USR to an administrative unit, perceiving
and evaluating the impacts produced by the HEIs, prioritising specific dimensions of USR, the
dialogue with stakeholders and the transparency and evaluation of the results of this dialogue.
Larrán Jorge and Peña (2017) conclude that despite the changes taking place as regards the
social dimension of universities, there still remains a long path ahead for USR, especially in
terms of incorporating the SR principles in their core areas – education, research,
management and community involvement. They also propose solutions for overcoming some
of these barriers, for example, developing a tool for measuring and reporting SR, university
training programmes and approaches to involve a diversity of stakeholders. This paper seeks
to demonstrate how these solutions can be operationalized.

2.5 HEI/stakeholder interactions and accountability reporting

HEIs review their relationships with stakeholders, with the importance placed on mapping
them to achieve mutual commitment (Dima et al., 2015). Such processes are collaborative
and beneficial to both parties and are thus sustained to bring about continuous improvement
(Osagie et al., 2014). Classifying stakeholders is urgent as HEI´s management model requires
them to adopt quasi-commercial management practices (Langrafe et al., 2010).
The concept of stakeholder expresses the idea of an organisation acting in networks, that it
draws upon governance characterised by interconnections and interdependencies and
clarifies how the relationship between HEIs and society occurs within an interface context and
through a broad scrutiny (Jongbloed et al., 2008).
Mohamed (2015) sets out a structure for USR and Sustainability that integrates SR into the
strategic management, drafting of policies, undertaking of actions, evaluating services and the
development of social collaboration with stakeholders for meeting the current and future
needs of the surrounding environment. The structure makes the connection between the
different internal and external stakeholders, deploying communication tools and reporting.
Nevertheless, such reporting is not reducible to its communication function and requires
understanding as a dynamic instrument for planning the intended changes (Celeumans et al.,
2015). Blasco et al. (2019) interrelate the integrated evaluation of the economic, social and
environmental impacts to the performance of HEIs but Lozano et al. (2015) demonstrate that
there is no such approach to sustainability. Therefore, integration still emerges as a target for
achieving: “Today, more than ever, full accountability is an obligation for HEIs” (GUNi, 2017,
p. 515).
While distinct, the practices for reporting and accounting and those for SA are complementary
with the latter preceding the former in order to benefit from the information and knowledge
returned by the self-evaluation process. Thus, HEIs need to acquire the tools capable of
boosting their capacity for monitoring, which should be flexible and adaptable to the multiple
organisational realities while sufficiently robust to justify a development plan and an
orientation towards targets able to mobilise stakeholders.
These instruments are core criteria for improving the quality of HE within a context of
globalisation and bringing about a broad evaluation of the institution (Berzina et al., 2017),
while demonstrating a willingness to better understand each other and provide more
information and knowledge. From the identification of the strengths and weaknesses, the pre-
empting of opportunities and threats, the organisation becomes empowered for strategic
planning. This enables a broader awareness of the organisation, sets down a path for
continuous improvement (Berzina et al., 2017) and presents a diagnosis for organisational
solutions.
The performance of SA for the purposes of reporting requires understanding as a learning
experience, transversal to the different stakeholders, the didactic concept that results in
gaining attention, focus and the sharing of knowledge among the HEI’s members, acting as a
driver contributing to change (Celeumans et al., 2015). Rahman et al. (2019) suggest that SA
processes should be a systematic practice driving the capacity to monitor the evolution and
to map the challenges needing consideration, which explains the importance of SR reporting
in terms of its institutionalisation.

2.6. Portuguese HEIs commitment to SR

The proposal for SR indicators for Portuguese HEIs followed the Green Paper (ORSIES, 2018).
This presents recommendations to achieve the commitment to SR and sustainability and the
ISRHEI representing a SA grid to orient the HEIs in their operational implementation.
Measuring and assessing the performance of HEIs across the economic, social and
environmental facets, in an integrated way, constitutes a complex and challenging process.
Thus, this paper sets this challenge by addressing the research questions: How to measure
and evaluate SR in HEIs? What tool to use or how to create this tool?
The ISRHEI tool provides the desired response for the need to promote SR in Portuguese HEIs,
analysing, communicating and interconnecting all stakeholders and reporting the impacts of
their actions: organisational impacts (the organisational performance and the responsible
ways in which HEIs manage their processes, based upon democratic and ethical practices,
respect for human rights, valuing labour relationships and environment sustainability),
educational impacts (the commitment of HEIs to educate socially responsible citizens),
cognitive impacts (that the research undertaken, developed and disseminated by HEIs,
articulates the principles of open science, trans-disciplinarity and community involvement),
and social impacts (the relationship with the surrounding community provides processes for
SD and social transformation).

3. Policy development process: Developing the ISRHEI in Portugal

The methodology used in the ISRHEI development process is participatory action research.
The development process of the ISRHEI tool began after the publication of the Green Paper
(ORSIES, 2018) at the request of Portuguese HEIs. A working group was then established with
members from 24 HEIs who worked together for two years. ISRHEI is, therefore, the result of
a collaborative process. Co-construction was developed around sessions to build a consensus
where all the parties see themselves in the joint solution.

3.1 Reference documents

Developing the ISRHEI took into account the following assumptions:
● Performance indicators stem from a holistic vision of HEIs and the impacts they
generate (Vallaeys et al., 2009), integrating the three dimensions to sustainability in a
balanced approach guided by ethical and transparent practices (Dima et al., 2015).
● Implementation of SA provides a learning experience for HEIs (Celeumans et al., 2015)
and underpins deep reaching self-knowledge.
● Process of SR self-assessment requires tailoring to serve the purpose, taking into
consideration the distinctive characteristics of HEIs. Wallace and Resch (2017)
recommend the adaptation of the GRI indicators to obtain a more precise portrait of
the impacts of HEIs. Lozano (2006) introduces the Education dimension to GRI within
the scope of proposing the tool – the Graphical Assessment of Sustainability in
Universities (GASU).
● SA should be periodical in order to endow HEIs with updated information. As a
dynamic process, the SA enables organisational change, creating the opportunities to
foster internal communication and contributing to clarifying the positioning of HEIs
(Celeumans et al., 2015).
● Results of SA processes should consolidate a strategic vision of SR for HEIs, common
and shared understanding of what is SR and what this requires. Aleixo et al. (2018)
refer to sustainability as more than a collection of diverse projects. Celeumans et al.
(2015) highlight the capacity to generate greater internal involvement, a deeper
understanding and greater openness to SD in those HEIs that produce reports on
sustainability.
● Success of any SR self-assessment process depends on the involvement of the HEI
leadership. Larrán Jorge et al. (2016) conclude that the absence of this top-down
orientation is a barrier to the sustainability of HEIs.
Additionally, the core guidelines for a commitment to sustainability and/or SR in HEIs were
identified. The framework for the ISRHEI fulfils two purposes: designing a strategic vision and
drafting a specific assessment tool. For the first, the UN Global Compact sets out the main
goals of socially responsible actions towards sustainability; the UN 2030 Agenda aligns HEIs
with the main and global concerns for the world's transformation; and the Guiding principles
on Business and Human Rights guarantee that these rights are fully respected by HEIs. For the
second, GRI Indicators are a reference pattern for reporting and balancing the three pillars of
SD; the ISO 26000 proposes a holistic perspective for HEIs/stakeholders involvement; and the
Standards and Guidelines for Quality Assurance in European HEIs allow the alignment of
SR/sustainability with internal quality assurance systems. Guidance by recognized and global
references aligns the Portuguese tool with the purposes of SR and SD and facilitates its
adoption by foreign HEIs.
The construction of the ISRHEI tool adopted the structure and organisation of the indicators
put forward by the Ethos Institute of Sustainable and Responsible Business (2017/18)
following their adaptation to the specific characteristics of HE and the ORSIES objectives. Four
advantages to the Ethos Institute proposal were identified:
(1) Organisation into indicators: Lozano (2006) defends that opting for performance
indicators generally guarantees the best results as they are both measurable and
comparable and thus producing objective results.
(2) Aggregation of indicators by themes and dimensions in accordance with an integrated
perspective on sustainability and/or SR and thereby reflecting the interdependent
characteristics of organisations acting in networks (Jongbloed et al., 2008).
 (3) Structured by levels and that reflects an evolutionary process, a particularly useful
option when SR in HEIs still remains at an initial phase (Goméz et al., 2015), as is the
case with the Portuguese context (Aleixo et al., 2018).
(4) Tool that facilitates the comparison of performance levels within a logic of mutual
enrichment and the sharing of experiences.

3.2. Participants in the development process

Out of the total HEIs belonging to ORSIES, 24 public and private HEIs signed up to the Working
Group (WG) for establishing the ISRHEI tool. Of these, the majority are polytechnic institutes
(n=15) and public HEIs (n=16).
The representation of the HEIs at the WG sessions included both faculty and non-teaching
staff members, and also representatives from the management level. Students were
integrated into one session.

3.3. Co-construction procedure for the ISRHEI tool

The working methodology was based on the sharing of good practices and joint reflection on
the guidelines for this process in a consensus-based approach towards the co-construction of
the ISRHEI tool.
This collaborative model was essential to the voluntary implementation of the tool and to the
shared reflection on each of the barriers thereby encountered in the Indicator’s contents. This
procedure involved participation in six WG sessions:
(1) In the first, the 23 participants defined the WG targets and objectives, the model, the
co-creation process of the ISRHEI, and the chronogram, using a cooperative and
collaborative work methodology.
(2) In the second, the participants (n=35) established an interrelationship among the four
types of impact generated by HEIs (Vallaeys et al., 2009) and the Green Paper chapters
(ORSIES, 2018), and approved the structure of the ISRHEI. The methodologies used
were explanation, discussion in small groups, and debate in a large group.
(3) Establishing an interrelationship among the Green Paper recommendations (ORSIES,
2018) and the Ethos Indicators was the objective of the third meeting (n=22). This
deployed the same methodologies as in the second session.
(4) In the fourth, the 19 participants analysed the first ISRHEI draft, by cooperative and
collaborative work methodology.
(5) The analysis of the second ISRHEI draft, applying the World Café dynamic, gathered 17
participants, which included 10 students from different HEIs. After this session, a pilot
study was conducted to pre-test the ISRHEI.
(6) In the last session, the 21 participants analysed the pilot study results: the current
situation of the process, difficulties encountered, determinants for the success of SA,
and next steps for improving the ISRHEI tool. This used a cooperative and collaborative
work methodology.
The diversity in the perspectives and the collaboration established are both the strengths and
benefits of the co-creation model that underwent implementation. The different
methodologies used in the WG sessions also facilitate an identification of the model
underlying the Indicators and a greater understanding of its relevance.

3.4 The instrument

The self-assessment ISRHEI tool thus contains indicators grouped into themes, themes
grouped into four dimensions, highlighting the articulation between dimension, theme and
indicator.
The structure of each indicator incorporates a set of statements organised into a sequence of
levels oriented towards the integration of SR into the policies, procedures, practices and
monitoring of HEIs. With the scope for binary answers (Yes/No) as well as “Does not apply”,
each option requires the identification of data/evidence.
Some indicators provide quantitative measurements to facilitate their monitoring.

3.5 Pilot study

The initial version of the tool incorporated 46 indicators. Next, a pilot study was applied to
test and validate this version, with two goals: i. undertaking a pre-testing of the indicators –
ease of application, understanding of the structure and validation of the contents; ii. gathering
information about the facilitators and obstacles to implementing self-evaluation –
organisation of compliance teams, strategies applied for completion and the involvement of
senior leadership.
Out of the total HEIs belonging to the WG, 13 took part in the pilot study. Of these, the
majority are polytechnic institutes (n=8) and public HEIs (n=8).
The pilot study took place between September 2019 and March 2020. A WG session (sixth
session detailed above) took place for the presentation of the results, highlighting the lessons
learned from the pilot study before discussing the final proposal for the ISRHEI tool.

4. Results
4.1 Pilot study
According to the goals of the pilot study, the results identified how HEIs applied different
methodologies to complete the initial version of the ISRHEI, whether focusing on a team
attributed responsibility or integrating all relevant departments. In itself, this option, to a
greater or lesser extent, impacted on the scope of the treatment and dissemination of the
collected information. Some HEIs warned of the excessive size of the ISRHEI’s initial version -
46 indicators - as well as an imbalance in the distribution of indicators by dimension. Two
specific difficulties were mentioned: firstly, in identifying evidence and secondly, in answering
the sequential level statements for each indicator. The binary response was perceived as
overly reductive. The HEIs suggested a user manual and an online platform for completing the
tool should be made available.
Regarding the obstacles to the use of the ISRHEI’s initial version, difficulties in getting the
different stakeholders involved and the lack of articulation with the management bodies were
emphasized. As facilitators of the process, the importance of a fixed schedule that ensures
periodicity was highlighted as well as ensuring the dissemination of results and the
subsequent formalization of commitments by the management bodies. This also valued the
student involvement in SR teams.

4.2 Final tool

In accordance with the results of the pilot study, a set of changes was integrated into the final
version of the ISRHEI tool:
● Reviewing and reorganising the indicators: cut from 46 to 34 indicators without losing
information.
 ● Reviewing the methodology for completing the levels to facilitate a sequential
approach.
● Highlighting the grouping of indicators relating to the specific impacts of HEIs:
educational and cognitive.
● Highlighting the importance of how data enables institutional registration.
● Beyond the binary answers, the “Does not apply” response, requires justification in
the final version.
● Defining an annual application process and the respective scheduling.
● Distributing a user manual and launching an IT platform to manage automatic
reporting.

Table I details the main characteristics of the final version of the self-assessment ISRHEI tool,
organised according to the proposal by Du et al. (2020).

[Insert Table I. here]

The 34 indicators of the self-assessment ISRHEI tool are distributed across 14 themes and
grouped into four dimensions in accordance with Table II. The definition of the themes
resulted from the Green Paper recommendations (ORSIES, 2018) and presents the impacts
generated by HEIs around four dimensions (Vallaeys et al., 2009). The breakdown of the
themes into 34 indicators is also a result of the aforementioned Green Paper and the
Indicators of the Ethos Institute. The latter are linked to the UN Global Compact, GRI Indicators
and ISO 26000, which guarantees the inclusion of items relevant to SR and SD and adapted to
the sphere of action in HE.

[Insert Table II. here]

Table III illustrates the sequence of the four levels, with the respective statements, of one
indicator.

[Insert Table III. here]

Finally, publishing the ISRHEI tool (Fernandes and Fonseca, 2020) sets out the shared
understanding and co-construction of SR by the HEIs participating in ORSIES. This shared vision
represents one of the factors for success of the ISRHEI tool and an important stage in
generating an institutional culture oriented towards SR based on the practice of SA. As a result
of the SA tool developed from a consensus between HEIs, it’s guaranteed that the indicators
are relevant and significant; this also applies upstream of training and HEI accreditation
processes; the preparation of sustainability reports; and also in the review and improvement
of internal quality assurance systems. These are the main results achieved by ISHREI insofar
as it was intended to provide HEIs with a tool to support strategic reflection and the adoption
of mechanisms for continuous improvement oriented towards sustainability.

5. Discussion
One of the main innovations of this policy development process in Portugal in the HE sector
was the establishing of an SA tool comprising 34 indicators for the measurement of USR. To
this end, there was a wide-reaching review of the literature, including the core guidelines, the
setting up of a collaborative WG with several HEIs, the testing of an initial version of the tool
in a pilot study and, consequently, the integration of the results into the final ISRHEI version.
The final tool represents a benefit for all HEIs in Portugal and is strategic to the HEIs taking
part in this policy process, especially given its consensus-based approach and shared
conceptual understanding of USR. The methodology used ensures that the design of the tool
is tailored to the reality of Portuguese HEIs, with added guarantees of its applicability and
appropriation.
The ISRHEI self-assessment tool enables each HEI to implement all of the principles set out by
Wallace and Resch (2017) on the grounds that only through knowing are we able to monitor
and evaluate impacts (organisational, educational, cognitive and social). Undertaking the self-
diagnosis process allows HEIs to define priorities and new targets.
This tool contributes to a greater awareness of SR in HEIs, for a consolidation of practices
oriented towards sustainability and anchored in formalized policies and procedures. It also
contributes to the entire academic community - faculty, non-teaching staff and students -
directing their management, teaching and research practices to socially relevant purposes,
working as a means of training for the exercise of active citizenship.
The ISRHEI tool equally facilitates organised and systematic communication with stakeholders
based on disseminating the report generated by the IT platform. Within this scope, Wallace
and Resch (2017) advocate the annual production of a SR report as such cyclical regularity
enables the tracing of the path taken and the accompanying process of monitoring,
interpreting and rectifying any eventual deviations from that originally planned.
Both the process around designing the ISRHEI tool and that of implementing it strengthen the
need to conjugate a top-down driver (the leadership as the promoters of an orientation
towards SR and as facilitators of an internal SA process) with the dynamic of a bottom-up
movement, involving the stakeholders and integrating their contributions in order to
consolidate a strategic change that is emerging as essential for HEIs: the turnaround towards
systematic practices of SA, self-learning and the orientation towards socially responsible
actions.
Wallace and Resch (2017) identify other features considered determinant to USR, specifically,
the training of key staff members and the involvement and participation of students. As
regards the former, this relates to how prior to integrating the tool into HEIs, empowerment
sessions were first held for designated members of HEIs. A set of training sessions organised
by ORSIES, available for SR teams, were implemented in order to acquire and/or develop
specific competences, such as the understanding of SR in HEIs, the challenges of SA
procedures, and the applications of the ISRHEI tool and IT platform. This stage appears to be
fundamental for greater familiarity with the principles and assumptions of USR as well as a
better understanding of the logics and importance of this exercise. Osagie et al. (2014)
highlight the existence of specific competences acquired within the course of socially
responsible actions. As regards the latter factor, we would highlight the importance of
integrating students into the different phases of the ISRHEI development process. Upstream,
students were integrated into one of the WG sessions, prior to the pilot study, and added a
complementary vision based on their own experiences and expectations then duly
incorporated into the initial version of the ISRHEI tool. The reaction of students participating
in the WG session was enthusiastic and very active and they expressed different points of view
while underlining the importance of their participation not only due to the newness of the
initiative but also the importance of their perspectives on the topic. There is thus the
recommendation that the SA process includes establishing teams that are representative of
the different HEI members and include students. This was highlighted as a positive and
determinant benefit by some of the HEIs that integrated students into their SR teams during
the pilot study. Downstream, this seeks to empower students to act in these domains,
contributing towards raising their levels of awareness (Argento et al., 2020) and enabling
future actions in professional and community contexts through acquiring new mental
paradigms (Alonso-Almeida et al., 2015).
Furthermore, the Portuguese ISRHEI tool is innovative in its digital implementation as it
receives full support from an IT platform that records the responses and data. Du et al. (2020)
highlight the scope for the online recording of SA processes so as to enable more direct and
convenient approaches capable of providing an incentive for participation. The completion of
the ISRHEI tool on the platform opens up the scope for obtaining section reports, which are
automatically generated, in keeping with the submission of the respective data, and made
available in graphic formats that effectively portray the data while enabling comparisons
between the different indicators.
Beyond the immediate gains the platform provides and its intuitive operation and adaptation
to the timings of each HEI, it also serves as a repository because it simultaneously enables not
only the aggregation of the data identified for the HEIs but also the scope for making
comparative analysis between cycles of evaluation. The ISRHEI user manual enables the
accompanying of each stage in this process.
We may identify the following limitations as regards the process of drafting the ISRHEI tool as
well as the tool itself. The WG sessions do not amount to an exhaustive consultation of all
stakeholders (e.g., alumni). The limited extent of participation by HEI management bodies in
the WG sessions may generate negative impacts, especially in terms of HEIs adopting the
ISRHEI tool. A third limitation derives from the different options of HEIs as regards the extent
of the SA process: across every HEI, only some schools or faculties, through centralised
processes or by organic units. A fourth limitation derives from the pilot study in which only
54% of the HEIs in the WG participated and thereby prevented more exhaustive feedback
from across the diversity of the HEIs in the WG. Finally, the production of the ISRHEI tool was
specifically tailored to the national context in Portugal and, therefore, its generalised
application may require adaptation in other European contexts.

6. Conclusion
The reflection around SR in Portuguese HEIs is relatively recent, although there were previous
projects with the intervention of national actors. The creation of ORSIES in 2017, supported
by the State Secretariat for Science, Technology and HE, gave rise to a movement that
aggregates the plurality of Portuguese HEIs with the aim of integrating SR in their practices
and making a commitment to SD. The Green Paper was the fundamental step to understand
the state of development of the topic and to assume a theoretical referential guiding model
that mobilized for action. Thus, the option for the model by Vallaeys et al. (2009) is at the base
of the Green Paper, the elaboration of the recommendations that emerged there and the
creation of the SA tool that this paper describes.
For the elaboration of the tool, a collaborative methodology was chosen, which starts with a
recognition of the existing reality, which learns from the sharing of practices and which is
supported by the main global references on the topic. Likewise, a review was carried out,
valuing the contexts and realities with greater proximity to Portugal, namely, the
Iberoamerican countries.
The main results achieved with the elaboration of ISHREI tool show gains for HEIs, namely in
the mobilization of its members, in the revision/reframing of strategic guidelines for
management, in the integration of these themes in the context of training and in activities
related to surrounding communities and fostering applied research that promotes the
creation and dissemination of knowledge about SR and SD.
For a higher level of appropriation and the continuous utilisation by all Portuguese HEIs, we
recommend that the sector supervisor and the national accreditation agency integrate this
HEI self-assessment exercise into the criteria for evaluating the quality of HEIs and hence
deploying Social Responsibility as a national priority.

7. References
Aleixo, A.M., Azeiteiro, U.M. and Leal, S. (2018), “The implementation of sustainability
practices in Portuguese higher education institutions”, International Journal of
Sustainability in Higher Education, Vol. 19 No. 1, pp. 146-178. DOI
https://doi.org/10.1108/IJSHE-02- 2017-0016
Ali, M., Mustapha, I., Osman, S. and Hassan, U. (2021), “University social responsibility: A
review of conceptual evolution and its thematic analysis”, Journal of Cleaner
Production, Vol. 2861 No. 1, pp. 1-19. DOI
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.124931
Alonso-Almeida, M.M., Marimon, F., Casani F. and Rodriguez-Pomeda, J. (2015), “Diffusion of
sustainability reporting in universities: current situation and future perspectives”,
Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 106 No.1, pp. 144-154. DOI
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.02.008
Argento, D., Einarson, D., Mårtensson, L., Persson, C., Wendin K. and Westergren, A. (2020),
“Integrating sustainability in higher education: a Swedish case”, International Journal
of Sustainability in Higher Education, Vol. 21 No. 6, pp. 1131-1150. DOI
https://doi.org/10.1108/IJSHE-10-2019-0292
Berzina, K., Zicmane. I. and Kuckovskis, J. (2017), “Self-assessment as a key criterion for
increase of quality of Higher Education in Modern Conditions”, paper presented at
International Conference on Electromechanical and Power Systems (SIELMEN), 11-13
October, Iasi, pp. 16-19. DOI 10.1109/SIELMEN.2017.8123373
Blasco, N., Brusca, I. and Labrador, M. (2019), “Assessing sustainability and its performance
implications: an empirical analysis in Spanish Public Universities”, Sustainability Vol.
11 No 19, 5302, pp. 1-21. DOI https://doi.org/10.3390/su11195302
Celeumans, K., Lozano, R. and Alonso-Almeida, M.M. (2015), “Sustainability Reporting in
Higher Education: Interconnecting the reporting process and organisational change
management for sustainability”, Sustainability, Vol. 7 No.7, pp. 8881-8903. DOI
https://doi.org/10.3390/su7078881
Commission of the European Communities (2001), Livro Verde - Promover um quadro europeu
para a responsabilidade social das empresas, CCE, Bruxelas.
Commission of the European Communities (2002), Comunicação da Comissão -
Responsabilidade Social das Empresas: Um contributo das empresas para o
desenvolvimento sustentável, CCE, Bruxelas.
Dentoni, D. and Bitzer, V. (2015), “The role(s) of universities in dealing with global wicked
problems through multi-stakeholder initiatives”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol.
106, pp. 68-78. DOI https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.09.050.
Dima, G. et al. (2015), University Social Responsibility: A Common European Reference
Framework. Final Public Report of the EU-USR Project, 52709-LLP-2012-1-RO-
ERASMUS- ESIN, February 2015. DOI 10.13140/RG.2.1.4539.5362
Du, Y., Arkesteijn, M., den Heijer, A. and Song, K. (2020), “Sustainable assessment tools for
Higher Education Institutions”, Sustainability, Vol. 12 No. 16, 6501, pp. 1-30. DOI
https://doi.org/10.3390/su12166501.
European Commission (2011), Comunicação da Comissão ao Parlamento Europeu, ao
Conselho, ao Comité Económico e Social Europeu e ao Comité das Regiões -
Responsabilidade Social das Empresas: uma nova estratégia da UE para o período de
2011-2014, CCE, Bruxelas.
European Council (2000), “Conselho Europeu extraordinário de Lisboa (Março de 2000): para
uma Europa da inovação e do conhecimento”, available at: https://eur-
lex.europa.eu/legal-content/PT/TXT/HTML/?uri=LEGISSUM:c10241&from=PT
(accessed 14 February 2021).
Fernandes, J. and Fonseca, S. (2020), Indicadores de Responsabilidade Social das Instituições
de Ensino Superior, Forum Press, Lisboa, available at:
https://www.orsies.forum.pt/images/PDF/IRSIES_Livro_Indicadores_RS.pdf
Gaete, R. (2011), “La responsabilidad social universitaria como desafío para la gestión
estratégica de la Educación Superior: el caso de España”, Revista de Educación, Vol.
355, pp. 109-133.
Goméz, F., Sáez-Navarrete, C., Lioi, S. and Marzuca, V. (2015), “Adaptable model for assessing
sustainability in higher education”, Journal of Cleaner production, Vol. 107, pp. 475-
485. DOI http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.07.047
GUNi (2017), “Higher Education in the World 6. Towards a Socially Responsible University:
Balancing the Global with the Local”, available at:
http://www.guninetwork.org/files/download_full_report.pdf (accessed 14 January
2021)
Jongbloed, B., Enders, J. and Salerno, C. (2008), “Higher education and its communities:
Interconnections, interdependencies and a research agenda”, Higher Education, Vol.
56, pp. 303–324. DOI https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-008-9128-2
Langrafe T.F., Barakat, S.R., Stocker, F. and Boaventura, J.M.G. (2010), “A stakeholder theory
approach to creating value in higher education institutions”, The Bottom Line, Vol. 33
No. 4, pp. 297-313. DOI https://doi.org/10.1108/BL-03-2020-0021
Larrán Jorge, M., Madueño, J.H., Calzado, Y. and Andrades, J. (2016), “A proposal for
measuring sustainability in universities: a case study of Spain”, International Journal of
Sustainability in Higher Education, Vol. 17 No. 5, pp. 671-697. DOI
https://doi.org/10.1108/IJSHE-03-2015-0055
Larrán Jorge, M.L., Madueno, J.H., Cejas, M.Y.C. and Peña, F. (2015), "An approach to the
implementation of sustainability practices in Spanish universities", Journal of Cleaner
Production, Vol. 106, pp. 34- 44. DOI http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.07.035
Larrán Jorge, M. and Peña, F. (2017), “Analysing the literature on university social
responsibility: A review of selected higher education journals”, Higher Education
Quarterly, Vol. 71, pp. 302-319. DOI 10.1111/hequ.12122
Law No. 62/2007 10th September, “Regime jurídico das instituições de ensino superior”,
Diário da República, 1ª série, No. 174, pp. 6358–6389. Available at:
https://data.dre.pt/eli/lei/62/2007/09/10/p/dre/pt/html
Lozano, R. (2006), “A tool for a graphical assessment of sustainability in universities (GASU)”,
Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 14, pp. 963-972. DOI
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2005.11.041
Lozano, R., Llobet, J. and Tideswell, G. (2013), “The process of assessing and reporting
sustainability at universities: preparing the report of the University of Leeds”, Cátedra
UNESCO de Sostenibilidad-Revista Internacional STH, pp. 85-112. DOI
http://dx.doi.org/10.5821/sth.v0i8.3584
Lozano, R., Ceulemans K., Alonzo-Almeida, M., Huisingh, D., Lozano, F., Wass, T., Lambrecht,
W., Luckman, R. and Hugé, J. (2015), “A review of commitment and implementation of
sustainable development in higher education: results from a world view survey”,
Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 108 Part A, pp. 1-18. DOI
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.09.048
Magna Charta Universitatum (2020), “Magna Charta Universitatum 2020”, available at:
http://www.magna-charta.org/magna-charta-universitatum/mcu-2020
Marulanda, N. and Rojas, M.D. (2019), “Ética en Instituciones de Educación Superior para la
Construcción de Relaciones de Confianza con Grupos de Interés (Stakeholders)”,
Información Tecnológica, Vol. 30 No. 3, pp. 269-276. DOI
http://dx.doi.org/10.4067/S0718-07642019000300269
Massen, P., Andreadakis, Z., Gulbrandsen, M. and Stensaker, B. (2019), “The place of
universities in society”, working paper, University of Oslo commissioned by the Körber
Foundation in preparation for the 2019 Global University Leaders Council Hamburg,
2019.
Mohamed, A.T.E. (2015), “A framework for University Social Responsibility and Sustainability:
The case of South Valley University, Egypt”, International Journal of Economics and
Management Engineering, Vol. 9 No. 7, pp. 2407-2416.
ORSIES (2018), Livro Verde sobre Responsabilidade Social e Instituições de Ensino Superior,
Forum Press, Lisboa, available at
https://www.orsies.forum.pt/images/PDF/Livro_Verde.pdf
Osagie, E.R., Wesselink, R., Blok, V., Lans, T. and Mulder, M. (2014), “Individual competencies
for corporate social responsibility: a literature and practice perspective”, Journal of
Business Ethics, Vol. 135, pp. 233-252. DOI https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-014-2469-
0
Rahman, A.A., Castka, P. and Love, T. (2019), “Corporate social responsibility in higher
education. A study of the institutionalisation of CSR in Malaysian public universities”,
Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, Vol. 26, pp. 916-928.
DOI https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.1731
Ribeiro, R.C. and Magalhães, A.M. (2014), “Política de responsabilidade social na
Universidade: Conceitos e desafios”, Educação, Sociedade & Culturas, Vol. 42, pp. 133-
156.
UNESCO (2009), Comunicado - Conferência Mundial sobre Ensino Superior 2009: As Novas
Dinâmicas do Ensino Superior e Pesquisas para a Mudança e o Desenvolvimento Social,
UNESCO, Paris.
Unger, M. and Polt, W. (2017), “The knowledge triangle between research, education and
innovation - a conceptual discussion”, Foresight and STI Governance, Vol. 11 No. 2, pp.
10-26. DOI http://dx.doi.org/10.17323/2500-2597.2017.2.10.26
United Nations (1992), “Conference on Environment and Development - Agenda 21”,
available at:
 https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/documents/Agenda21.pdf (accessed
6 February 2021)
Vallaeys F. (2006), “Que significa responsabilidade social universitária?”, Estudos: RABMES,
Vol. 36, pp. 35-55.
Vallaeys, F., de la Cruz, C. and Sasia, P. (2009), Responsabilidad Social Universitaria: Manual
de primeiros passos, McGraw-Hill Interamericana, Mexico.
Wallace, M. and Resch, K. (2017), “Guidelines for universities engaging in social responsibility”,
University Meets Social Responsibility (UNIBILITY) – 2015-2017, UNIBILITY project,
Grant Agreement No. 2015-1-AT01_K203-005033, available at: https://www.iau-
hesd.net/sites/default/files/documents/io8_guidelines_final_version_2017-09-
12_print.pdf (accessed 13 September 2019)
Wigmore-Álvarez, A. and Ruiz-Lozano, M. (2012), “University Social Responsibility (USR) in the
global Context: An overview of literature”, Business & Professional Ethics Journal, Vol.
31 No. 3–4, pp. 475–498. DOI https://doi.org/10.5840/bpej2012313/424
Zeisel, S. (2020), “Is sustainability a moving target? A methodology for measuring CSR
dynamics”, Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, Vol. 27,
pp. 283-296. DOI https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.1805
 Designated Application Purpose and No. of Type of Type of Scale Type of Results Support**
abbreviation context stage indicators indicators response evaluation
and
percentage

ISRHEI Regional* Strategic 34 Qualitative Binary 4 levels: Self- HEI report; IT platform;
orientation; (17.7% (yes/no). Policies assessment Comparative Registration
for progress include Non- Procedure report with of
in the HEI quantitative applicable s overall information;
commitment measures) option Practices results Automatic
to SR over requests Monitorin (other HEIs) proof of
time; justification g reporting.
adapted to . Evidence
HEIs in an required.
initial phase
of
commitment
Table I.: Characteristics of the ISRHEI self-assessment tool (based on Du et al., 2020)
* In the Du et al. (2020) proposal, the options are global or regional context. For ISRHEI, based on ORSIES (2018) recommendations, the option
is “Regional”.
** The final point does not feature in the proposal by Du et al. (2020).
Dimension Theme Indicators

Socially responsible campus Democratic and transparent 2

[Organisational impacts] governance

Ethical orientation of the 3

management processes and
organisational activities

Human rights and social inclusion 1

policies

Socially responsible management 4

of persons and relationships

Justice, transparency and equity in 1

higher education access policies

Environmentally sustainable, safe 4

and healthy campus

Socially responsible 1
communications and marketing

Personal and professional training of Preparation of socially responsible 3

students and relationships with alumni citizens
[Educational impacts]
Promotion of educational success 2
and combatting dropouts

Promotion of lifelong employability 2

and learning

Promotion of mobility and 1

collaboration nationally and
internationally
 Strategies for fostering 1
relationships with alumni

Socially responsible management of 6

the production and dissemination of
knowledge
[Cognitive impacts]

Social Participation 3
[Social impacts]

Table II. Dimensions, themes and indicators of the final ISRHEI tool
 Level Statements

1 HEI has adopted a code of ethics /conduct, covering the entire academic
[Attention] community.

2 1. The code of ethics /conduct was subject to public discussion at the HEI
[Formalize] and was approved by the competent bodies, including members of
various academic community representatives.

2. HEI communicates the code of ethics /conduct to the academic

community and stakeholders.

3 1. HEI runs an ethics commission.

[Implement]

2. HEI maintains channels for reporting situations of non-compliance with

the code of ethics /conduct.

4 The HEI periodically reviews the code of ethics /conduct.

[Monitor and
innovate]

Table III. ISRHEI Indicator “Producing and periodic review of a Code of Ethics/ Conduct” with
the four sequential SR levels.