Integration of Sustainability Reporting at an Academic Institution

Section 1: Foundation of the Study

Communities, businesses, governments, and investors throughout the world

understand the need for conservation of resources and social equity in a constantly

changing global environment (Mori, Best, & Cotter, 2013). Leaders need to be

responsible not just for the financial aspects of the organization, but also responsible for

the organization’s effect on the environment and society, according to the theory of

corporate social responsibility (CSR; Christofi, Christofi, & Sisaye, 2012). Although the

concept of CSR refers to corporations, the concept of social responsibility and

sustainability is applicable for all organizations, including nonprofit organizations and

academic institutions (Othman & Othman, 2014). The purpose of this qualitative single

case study was to explore the steps necessary for leaders and managers to integrate

sustainability reporting into the reporting cycle for a nonprofit higher education

institution.

Background of the Problem

CSR is a concept embraced by organizations throughout the global environment

(Christofi et al., 2012). Leaders need to be responsible for the impact their organizations

make on the environmental, economic, and social aspects in the community (Hack,

Kenyon, & Wood, 2014). To assess progress and communicate with stakeholders,

organizational leaders use sustainability reporting for CSR initiatives (Luke, Barraket, &

Eversole, 2013). However, leaders of higher education institutions do not use

sustainability reporting at the same rate as corporations (Lange & Kerr, 2013).

Higher education institutions are complex organizations with ties to communities

through multiple stakeholders and partnerships (Krizek, Newport, White, & Townsend,

2012). Students, faculty, staff, administrators, and community partners of higher

education institutions view sustainability as a significant goal; approximately two-thirds

of prospective college freshman have claimed that the green initiatives of a university are

a factor in college choice (Krizek et al., 2012). Accounting professionals have discussed

the need for an accountability reporting system for nonprofit organizations, but have not

addressed the steps needed to integrate sustainability reporting into the reporting cycle

(Zainon et al., 2014). It is essential for academic leaders to understand the process of

integrating sustainability reporting into the reporting cycle at nonprofit academic

institutions and to encourage its use for greater transparency and benefit to students,

faculty, staff, administration, and community partners.

Problem Statement

Leaders at nonprofit academic institutions have followed the global business trend

of embracing sustainability initiatives for positive social change; however, there has been

slow growth in sustainability reporting among academic institutions (Lange & Kerr,

2013). Even though sustainability reporting increased for private-sector organizations,

academic institutions compose only 0.75% of reporting organizations globally (Lange &

Kerr, 2013). The general business problem is that the lack of sustainability reporting for

some nonprofit academic institutions may have led to inaccurate or incomplete

information for stakeholders. The specific business problem is that some leaders and

managers of nonprofit educational institutions may lack the tacit knowledge regarding the

strategies and processes necessary to integrate sustainability reporting into the reporting

cycle of the organization.

Purpose Statement

The purpose of this qualitative single case study was to explore the strategies and

processes necessary for leaders and managers to integrate sustainability reporting into the

reporting cycle for a nonprofit higher education institution. Sustainability reporting is the

implementation of accounting methods that record and report the triple bottom line (TBL)

of environmental, economic, and social impacts (Milne & Gray, 2013). The target

population consisted of leaders and managers at a nonprofit academic institution located

in the state of Michigan that published sustainability reports. I conducted a case study of

one nonprofit academic institution that utilized sustainability reporting. This population

was appropriate for the study because the Sustainability, Tracking, Assessment and

Rating System (STARS) reporting framework was used by higher education institutions

located in the United States (Krizek et al., 2012). The implications for positive social

change included the potential for greater transparency for stakeholders and greater

effectiveness of the implementation of environmental, economic, and social initiatives for

higher education institutions.

Nature of the Study

I used a qualitative method for the study to explore the process of integrating

sustainability reporting into the reporting cycle of a nonprofit academic institution.

Researchers use a qualitative method when the focus is upon the subjective meaning,

experiences, and motivating actions of a real-world situation (Delattre, Ocler, Moulette,

& Rymeyko, 2009). A quantitative method is appropriate when the focus is upon

observable and objective data and facts that can be quantified in order to demonstrate

causality (Wahyuni, 2012). A quantitative method was not appropriate for this study

because an exploration of a business process required qualitative information such as

experiences and decision-making processes.

I used a single case study design for the study. A case study design was suitable

because the focus was on a process within an organization with an in-depth and holistic

approach (Zivkovic, 2012). I conducted interviews with leaders and managers involved

in the sustainability reporting process of a nonprofit academic institution. In addition to

the interview data, I collected data from document reviews of sustainability reports as

well as financial reports and annual reports. I did not use a phenomenological design

because a phenomenological study is a description of common experiences about a

phenomenon (Petty, Thomson, & Stew, 2012). I explored a business process or system;

therefore, a single case study design was appropriate.

Research Question

Through the study, I addressed one central research question:

RQ 1. What strategies and processes do academic leaders and managers use to

develop, deploy, and integrate sustainability reporting into the reporting cycle of a

nonprofit academic organization?

Interview Questions

The purpose of this qualitative single case study was to explore the strategies and

processes necessary for leaders and managers to integrate sustainability reporting into the

reporting cycle for a nonprofit higher education institution. The objectives for the

interviews were to (a) understand the process of integration of sustainability reporting

into the reporting cycle, (b) understand the overall strategy of the implementation of

sustainability reporting, and (c) understand the decision-making process of leaders and

managers regarding sustainability reporting. The interview questions for the study were

1. Why is your institution committed to sustainability reporting?

2. What types of reports are used by your institution for sustainability reporting

and why?

3. What type of framework is used for sustainability reporting and why?

4. What is the process of planning and developing the sustainability reporting

system?

5. What is the process of implementing and managing the sustainability

reporting system?

6. What are the improvements needed, if any, for the sustainability reporting

system at your organization and why?

7. Is there anything that you would like to add that is relevant to defining the

strategies and processes needed to implement sustainability reporting at your

institution?

Conceptual Framework

The conceptual framework I used for the study was CSR. H. Bowen defined the

concept of CSR in 1953. H. Bowen (1953) stated CSR is the responsibility that

businesses should have to society. The current CSR paradigm incorporates three

concepts of responsibility for corporations: (a) economic, (b) social, and (c)

environmental (Christofi et al., 2012).

The goal for CSR is to ensure that corporate actions and decision making are

beneficial for society and all stakeholders (Hack et al., 2014). The key components

underlying the concept of CSR are (a) economic indicators such as revenues, operating

costs, and community investments; (b) environmental indicators such as impact on

living/non-living natural systems, waste, and environmental compliance; (c) social

indicators such as impact on human rights and labor practices, benefits, and diversity; and

(d) transparency (Christofi et al., 2012).

Montiel and Delgado-Ceballos (2014) explored corporate sustainability, which is

considered an extension of the concept of CSR. The concept of corporate sustainability

incorporates a guide for action that transforms the entire organizational structure (Montiel

& Delgado-Ceballos, 2014). Montiel and Delgado-Ceballos concluded that leaders using

corporate sustainability need to follow a systems approach and integrate sustainability

into the processes and strategies of the organization.

Another conceptual framework element relevant to the study was the TBL

framework developed by Elkington (1997). Elkington defined sustainability using three

measurements: social, environmental, and economic performance. The TBL framework

reflects the three CSR concepts and provides a set of indicators for sustainability

reporting (Lin, Chang, & Chang, 2014). Christofi et al. (2012) defined sustainability

reporting as the implementation of accounting methods that record and report TBL

results.

Operational Definitions

Corporate social responsibility (CSR): Corporate social responsibility (CSR) is a

concept that represents the responsibility of an organization to the environment,

economy, and the community (Hack et al., 2014). The concept of CSR reflects the

relationship of the organization with stakeholders and society (Christofi et al., 2012).

Integrated reporting: Integrated reporting is the combination of sustainability

reporting with other traditional accounting reports (Rogers & Herz, 2013). Ioana and

Adriana (2013) considered integrated reporting as an evolutionary development of

standalone sustainability reporting and the future of reporting in the accounting field.

Sustainability: Sustainability is a concept that encompasses the ability of leaders

of organizations to meet the needs of the firm and stakeholders while maintaining

environmental, financial, and social performance (Searcy & Buslovich, 2014). The

concept of sustainability includes the organization leaders’ concerns with social and

environmental issues in business activities and interactions with stakeholders (Van Der

Ploeg & Vanclay, 2013).

Sustainability reporting: Sustainability reporting is a tool for managers to assess

and communicate their CSR initiatives (Christofi et al., 2012). Sustainability reporting is

a reporting system for communicating the TBL of organizational CSR practices to

internal and external stakeholders (Ekwueme, Egbunike, & Onyali, 2013). Sustainability

reporting is also known as TBL reporting; environmental, social and governance

reporting; corporate responsibility reporting; and CSR reporting (Lusher, Way, & Rock,

2012).

Sustainability reporting framework: A sustainability reporting framework is a tool

to use as a guide in reporting both financial and nonfinancial activity (Waite, 2013).

Managers can use a sustainability reporting framework to plan and develop sustainability

reports (Yarime & Tanaka, 2012).

Triple bottom line (TBL): The concept of the TBL is the core concept that forms

the foundation of sustainability reporting (Milne & Gray, 2013). The TBL model

includes the triple measures of financial, social, and environmental performance for

organizations (Ekwueme et al., 2013).

Assumptions, Limitations, and Delimitations

An assumption is a fact that is not verified within the study (Zivkovic, 2012). A

limitation is a potential weakness that may affect the external validity of a study

(Ruzzene, 2012). A delimitation is a boundary that outlines the scope of the study

(Ruzzene, 2012).

Assumptions

An underlying assumption was that leaders at some academic institutions

recognized the benefits of sustainability reporting and strove to incorporate sustainability

reporting into the reporting cycle. Another assumption was that leaders at those

academic institutions embraced the concept of social responsibility and recognized the

significance of the impact of an organization on the community and environment. I

focused on an organization that practiced CSR to provide an in-depth study of an

academic institution whose leaders recognized the benefits of sustainability programs and

reporting. I assumed that the leaders who participated were knowledgeable about

sustainability reporting and they were honest in answering research questions and

thorough in providing required documentation to complete the study.

Limitations

A single case study is a limitation because it may hinder transferability to other

organizations (Zivkovic, 2012). I mitigated the limitation by selecting an exemplary case

of an academic institution that had fully integrated sustainability reporting into the

reporting cycle. An exemplary case is typically used as a model of an under-researched

phenomenon in a case study (Zivkovic, 2012).

Another potential limitation of the case study was the willingness of participation

by leaders and the honesty in the responses of the leaders. I mitigated the limitation by

thoroughly explaining the data collection process to leaders in order to have clear

communication about the level of participation needed for the study (Wahyuni, 2012).

The results of the study are limited by the honesty and thoroughness of the participants’

responses.

Delimitations

The study was delimited to one nonprofit academic institution in the United

States. I included sustainability managers, contributors of the sustainability reports, and

the highest ranking responsible officer, confirming accuracy of the sustainability reports

as leaders of the organization. I collected and analyzed document data from the

sustainability reports and financial statements of the organization, as well as budget

reports, and auditor’s reports. The scope of the study did not extend outside of the United

States and did not include for-profit organizations. I conducted the interviews and

document reviews of the study over the course of 2 months, so the scope of the study did

not extend past a 2-month period.

Significance of the Study

Contribution to Business Practice

CSR is a concept embraced by leaders of organizations throughout the global

environment (Christofi et al., 2012). Leaders of organizations need to be responsible not

just for financial aspects of business, but also responsible for their effect on the

environment and society (Hack et al., 2014). In order to assess progress and

communicate with stakeholders, leaders at organizations have been using sustainability

reporting for CSR initiatives (Luke et al., 2013).

Nonprofit academic institutions have been part of the trend of sustainability;

however, higher education institutions have not kept up with sustainability reporting, as

compared to corporate organizations (Lange & Kerr, 2013). Through the study, I

explored the strategies and processes academic leaders and managers employed for

integrating sustainability reporting into the reporting cycle at a nonprofit academic

institution. Leaders and managers at nonprofit academic institutions may use the findings

of the study to incorporate sustainability reporting for their CSR initiatives.

Leaders and managers of nonprofit academic institutions who are considering

using sustainability reporting for the CSR initiatives of their organization are one

potential audience of the study. Another target audience is students, faculty, staff,

administration, and community partners who are interested in understanding the

sustainability reporting process. Accounting professionals may be interested in the study

because sustainability reporting has links with financial reporting (Ngwakwe, 2012).

Accounting professionals work with sustainability managers. Therefore, the findings,

conclusions, and recommendations from the study may contribute to these individuals’

knowledge of the internal organizational processes in sustainability reporting.

Implications for Social Change

People, communities, and societies throughout the world have realized that

conservation of resources, social equity, and fiscal responsibility are necessary for

positive growth of the global environment (Hack et al., 2014). Leaders at organizations

are developing and implementing CSR initiatives in response to stakeholders’ needs and

concerns (Lin et al., 2014). Sustainability reporting is an essential part of the process of

CSR initiatives (Mori et al., 2013).

Through sustainability reporting, leaders of organizations become accountable to

stakeholders (Lin et al., 2014). Organizational leaders will be able to (a) understand the

needs of their communities, (b) demonstrate effectiveness of sustainability projects, and

sustainability initiatives, organizational leaders at academic institutions can bring about

positive social change, not only for students, faculty, staff, administration, and

community partners, but also to the environment and society.

A Review of the Professional and Academic Literature

A review of the research provided background and assisted in framing the

problem for a qualitative study. Sustainability reporting is defined as a means for

managers to assess and communicate their CSR initiatives (Christofi et al., 2012).

Sustainability reporting is also known as TBL reporting, environmental, social and

governance reporting, corporate responsibility reporting, and CSR reporting (Lusher et

al., 2012).

I used a variety of keywords for searching business research databases such as

Business Source Complete and Sage Premier. Some of the keywords used were TBL,

CSR, sustainability reporting, green accounting, nonprofit, and university. I searched for

full-text, peer-reviewed articles starting from the year 2012 to 2015. The summary of the

frequencies of peer-reviewed articles published from 2012 to 2015 is shown in Table 1.

After searching two business databases, there were a total of 3,735 potential articles using

the keyword searches, as shown in Table 1.

The purpose of the qualitative case study was to explore how sustainability

reporting is managed at a nonprofit higher education institution. Sustainability reporting

is used to document, assess, and communicate the progress of CSR initiatives to

stakeholders. A literature review of sustainability reporting included a historical review

of the conceptual framework of CSR and TBL. The review of the literature included

different aspects of sustainability reporting: (a) conceptual framework, (b) current

sustainability reporting practices, (c) benefits and risks of sustainability reporting, (d)

professional accountancy involvement, (e) stakeholders’ roles in sustainability reporting

integrated reporting, (f) managerial use of sustainability reporting, (g) sustainability

reporting frameworks, and (h) integrated reporting and the future of sustainability

reporting.

Table 1

Summary of Frequency of Peer Reviewed Articles Published from 2012 to 2015

Keyword

Business Source Complete

Sage Premier

Sustainability reporting

157

TBL

138

196

CSR

1596

1255

CSR, nonprofit

224

Green accounting

CSR, academic institution

Total

1967

1768

Conceptual Framework

Historical review of CSR. The purpose of the study was to explore how

sustainability reporting is managed at a nonprofit higher education institution. Managers

use sustainability reporting to document, assess, and communicate the progress of CSR

initiatives to stakeholders. H. Bowen initially defined the concept of CSR in 1953.

Carroll expanded the CSR model in 1999.

The concept of CSR was used to explain the responsibility that organizations have

to benefit society and the community (Hack et al., 2014). Corporate sustainability, an

expansion of the concept of CSR, emphasizes the need for organizations to integrate

economic, social, and environmental systems into the organizational process. As of

2014, the definition of CSR appeared to reflect the relationship of the organization with

stakeholders and society (Hack et al., 2014).

Leaders who are committed to CSR develop and implement practices that

promote corporate sustainability. Montiel and Delgado-Ceballos (2014) considered

corporate sustainability an extension of the concept of CSR. Montiel and Delgado-

Ceballos concluded that there was no singular definition of corporate sustainability, but it

typically emphasizes the need for organizations to find ways to interconnect social,

economic, and ecological systems.

Although the concept of CSR refers to social responsibility, the research indicated

that there is a link between CSR and competitiveness at the business and national levels

(Boulouta & Pitelis, 2014). Boulouta and Pitelis (2014) suggested that CSR can make a

positive contribution to national competitiveness, as measured by national living

standards. Leaders of companies redefined the rules of CSR through managing of their

roles within the business environment (Albareda, 2013). Business environments created

a culture of cooperation and competition, which led to standards, practices, and processes

in CSR reporting (Albareda, 2013).

T. Hahn, Figge, Aragon-Correa, and Sharma (2015) argued that the concept of

corporate sustainability includes the contribution of an organization to goals regarding

environmental issues, social equity issues, and economic development. T. Hahn et al.

defined the concept of corporate sustainability as a demonstration of social and

environmental issues in business operations of an organization. The concept of corporate

sustainability also included interactions with stakeholders. The concept of corporate

sustainability emphasized a long-term objective of how an organization can benefit

society (T. Hahn et al., 2015).

T. Hahn et al. (2015) argued that many studies regarding corporate sustainability

were based on an institutional theory or resource-based perspective. Institutional theory

is the notion that leaders of organizations respond to sustainability issues due to demands

of the organizational environment. Using institutional theory, T. Hahn et al. argued that a

favorable organizational setting was a prerequisite for organization leaders to respond to

sustainability issues. Another viewpoint is the resource-based perspective. Using a

resource-based perspective, competitiveness becomes a driver for leaders of an

organization to respond to sustainability issues (T. Hahn et al., 2015). T. Hahn et al.

pointed out that addressing sustainability concerns can result in a competitive advantage.

Historical review of TBL. Elkington first promoted TBL in 1997. TBL is a

concept that identifies the social, environmental, and economic impacts of an

organization (Milne & Gray, 2013). Sustainability reporting is defined as a means for

managers to assess and communicate their CSR initiatives (Christofi et al., 2012).

Sustainability reporting incorporates the economic, environmental, and social

performance indicators of an organization into the reporting process (Christofi et al.,

2012). The TBL model is used to promote the idea that leaders of an organization should

measure not just the financial bottom line, but also the social and environmental

performance (Ekwueme et al., 2013).

Transparency and accountability are essential components of a CSR strategy;

organization leaders use sustainability reporting as a tool to provide transparency and

accountability to stakeholders (Ekwueme et al., 2013). Stakeholders can assess the

progress of CSR initiatives by viewing the TBL indicators of economic, environmental,

and social performance in sustainability reporting. Sustainability reporting is necessary

for assessment of CSR initiatives. Leaders need to focus on the actual progress of

sustainability initiatives and use the TBL framework as a tool for measurement and

assessment (Milne & Gray, 2013).

Leaders at organizations need to be aware of the benefits of integrating TBL into

the business process. Benefits of integrating TBL include enhanced image and

differentiation for the organization in the marketplace (Alhaddi, 2014). The economic,

social, and environmental concepts of TBL are demonstrated in the global growth of the

organization, employee engagement, and strategic sustainability priorities. There is a

business advantage of having an enhanced image for the organization by promoting a

TBL image (Alhaddi, 2014).

Current Sustainability Reporting Practices

Leaders of organizations throughout the world use sustainability reporting on their

official websites (Mori et al., 2013). The percentage of organization leaders issuing a

sustainability report increased from 2012 to 2013. However, the percentage of leaders of

organizations assuring their sustainability reports was stagnant (Mori et al., 2013).

Faisal, Tower, and Rusmin (2012) researched corporate sustainability disclosure practices

in a global context. Their findings indicated that the average level of sustainability

disclosure was 61.9% for public companies (Faisal et al., 2012). According to a KPMG

International survey conducted in 2011, leaders of 62% of companies had a strategy for

corporate sustainability, more than 33% of leaders issued at least one public report on

sustainability, and another 19% planned to issue a sustainability report by 2013 (Faisal et

al., 2012).

James (2013) noted that company leaders formally reported their sustainability

efforts to stakeholders; however, reporting was voluntary, and the level and quality of the

disclosures varied among companies. Sustainability reporting evolved in terms of

standards, guidelines, and processes (Searcy & Buslovich, 2014). There are standards

used for sustainability reporting; however, there is no singular universal standard (Faisal

et al., 2012).

The global business environment consists of a culture of cooperation and

competition; leaders of organizations need to adapt to the changes occurring in the areas

of sustainability and CSR (Albareda, 2013). An analytical framework to analyze CSR

accountability standards should include the scope of the reports, the stakeholders

involved, performance evaluations, and types of monitoring strategies (Albareda, 2013).

Searcy and Buslovich (2014) identified key challenges in developing sustainability

reports including timelines, data collection, selecting content, and balance in reporting.

Sustainability practices and reporting influenced performance measurement in

terms of purpose, measurements, and ownership (Klovienė & Speziale, 2015).

Performance measurement and sustainability reporting became more important within

organizations, expanding influence into decision making for leadership (Klovienė &

Speziale, 2015). Klovienė and Speziale (2015) concluded that managers should expand

the content of performance measurement systems in response to sustainability issues and

to provide this information for sustainability reporting.

Managers at large companies tend to use sustainability and integrated reporting

more than managers at small and midsized companies (James, 2013). James (2013)

concluded that integrated reporting might provide benefits for small and midsized

companies, enhancing the legitimacy of the company and its economic success.

Integrated reporting may enable leaders of small and midsized companies to obtain

funding for expansion projects, gain new investors, or allow for opportunities for

acquisition by another company (James, 2013).

Although some leaders of organizations used sustainability reporting, some did

not engage in sustainability reporting (Stubbs, Higgins, & Milne, 2013). Stubbs et al.

(2013) found five reasons that explain why a firm did not produce a comprehensive and

publicly available report of its sustainability performance: (a) lack of external stakeholder

pressure; (b) no perceived benefits and little motivation; (c) sustainability reporting is

optional and not mandatory; (d) a compliance approach toward sustainability; and (e) the

culture of the organization does not promote reporting. Stubbs et al. concluded that

stakeholders, including government, industry partners, and investors needed to exert

pressure for better and more detailed disclosure from leaders of organizations to

encourage sustainability reporting.

Shabana, Buchholtz, and Carroll (2014) argued that CSR reporting was prevalent

to the extent that it was recognized as an expectation for stakeholders. Shabana et al.

presented a three-stage process of sustainability reporting. The three stages were

defensive reporting, proactive reporting, and imitative diffusion.

Leaders of organizations performed defensive reporting when they did not meet

stakeholder expectations. The reporting was used by the organization to explain the gap

between expectations and performance (Shabana et al., 2014). Shabana et al. (2014)

called the second stage proactive reporting and presented the third stage of imitative

diffusion as the point at which leaders of an organization perceived that the net benefits

of sustainability reporting exceeded the net costs. In the third stage, managers perceived

CSR reporting was necessary to be consistent with other organizations.

Sustainability reporting at nonprofit organizations and academic

institutions. There has not been as much research conducted regarding sustainability

reporting at nonprofit organizations and academic institutions in comparison to

corporations (Krizek et al., 2012). Sustainability indicators in a higher education

institution included the TBL of economic, environmental, and social performance. For

an academic institution, social performance included the promotion of well-being, know-

how, and ownership of students and staff as well as community involvement (Othman &

Othman, 2014). The academic institution has unique challenges due to the complexity of

the organizational structure and the pressures from numerous stakeholders (Krizek et al.,

2012). The accounting and financial reporting requirements of nonprofit organizations

were identified as different from the private sector because of different needs of the

stakeholders of nonprofit organizations (Zainon et al., 2014).

Higher education institutions are oriented with goals of education, research, and

service; these goals may compete with each other, making prioritizing a challenge.

Krizek et al. (2012) described four phases of campus sustainability; the fourth phase was

a fully self-actualized and integrated sustainability approach. An integrated sustainability

approach included sustainability reporting that was available to all stakeholders and fully

integrated into the reporting cycle (Krizek et al., 2012).

Although sustainability reporting was a necessary component of CSR,

sustainability reporting by academic institutions only constituted 0.75% of all global

reporting output (Lange & Kerr, 2013). Lange and Kerr (2013) suggested that the budget

of a university was one of the obstacles to implementing sustainability initiatives. Lange

and Kerr concluded that leaders at academic institutions needed to rethink the budgeting

and accounting procedures to accommodate reporting of economic, social, and

environmental impacts.

Sustainability indicators in a higher education institution included the TBL of

economic, environmental, and social performance. The academic institution was

uniquely challenged due to the complexity of the organizational structure, numerous

stakeholders, and community involvement (Godemann, Bebbington, Herzig, & Moon,

2014). Godemann et al. (2014) considered that one role served by academic institutions

was as contributors to the values of society. Qian (2013) discussed that leaders of

academic institutions were encouraged to prepare students to be socially responsible

professionals, but university leaders were slow to incorporate sustainability into curricula

and organizational processes.

Another role for the academic institution was to represent an organization that

made impacts on the community. Godemann et al. (2014) observed that a relatively

small number of academic institutions integrated sustainable development into teaching,

research, knowledge exchange, and operations. Administrators should link the entire

sustainability approach to the strategy and the academic culture of the university (Qian,

2013). Godemann et al. concluded that the study of academic institutions whose leaders

integrated sustainability into their processes would be a useful focus for further research.

Trencher, Yarime, McCormick, Doll, and Kraines (2014) explored sustainability

as a new mission for academic institutions. There was a global trend of academic

institutions forming collaborative partnerships with government, industry, and

community groups to develop sustainable initiatives (Trencher et al., 2014). There were

three themes within sustainability at academic institutions: sustainability in the

curriculum, sustainability in operations, and sustainability reporting (Vaughter, Wright,

McKenzie, & Lidstone, 2013). Nonprofit organizations need to have better sustainability

reporting for performance measurement because the needs of the stakeholders emphasize

accountability and transparency (Zainon et al., 2014).

Vaughter et al. (2013) concluded that, in terms of sustainability reporting, the

majority of studies examined operational outcomes but did not focus on the evaluation of

other factors of sustainability, including education, research, governance, or community

engagement. Leaders at academic institutions had the opportunity to encourage mutual

learning and collaboration in education, research, and outreach activities in sustainability

science (Yarime et al., 2012). Interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary multistakeholder

collaborations between the academic institution and the community were necessary to

develop innovation for sustainability (Yarime et al., 2012).

Sustainability reporting best practices. Sustainability reporting is typically

voluntary, so guidelines and best practices for sustainability reporting and assurance are

necessary for organizations and stakeholders (Van Der Ploeg & Vanclay, 2013).

Sustainability reports should provide a complete and balanced picture of corporate

sustainability performance, including negative aspects (R. Hahn & Lülfs, 2014). Van Der

Ploeg and Vanclay (2013) argued the need for an assessment tool to guide a stakeholder

on the important focus areas for an evaluation of sustainability reporting.

Luke et al. (2013) examined the factors in sustainability reporting that social

enterprises value. Social enterprises are organizations that focus on social purpose and

financial objectives. Luke et al. concluded that the best practice for sustainability

reporting was to document the actual outcomes and impacts along with qualitative terms

rather than taking a strictly financial approach. Luke et al. suggested that a better

allocation of the limited resources of social enterprises would be toward documenting the

actual outcomes and impacts as a first step in sustainability reporting.

Leaders can use a sustainability reporting assessment tool to assess the reports of

their organizations. The focus areas covered in a reporting assessment checklist were

accessibility, readability, the use of an established framework, sustainability in a long-

term strategy, sustainability in operations, evidence to support information, stakeholder

engagement, supply chain responsibility, impacts on stakeholders, and assurance

assessment (Van Der Ploeg & Vanclay, 2013). Stakeholders may use a sustainability

reporting assessment checklist to determine whether a sustainability report was credible

(Van Der Ploeg & Vanclay, 2013).

It is vital for transparency that sustainability reporting reveals both positive and

negative assessments of CSR initiatives. R. Hahn and Lülfs (2014) developed a

framework for reporting negative aspects to improve the overall balance of sustainability

reporting. The framework was based on the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) guidelines

that challenged companies to report both positive and negative features of sustainability

initiatives (R. Hahn & Lülfs, 2014).

Benefits and Risks of Sustainability Reporting

The use of sustainability reporting brings both benefits and risks to the

organization (Eberle, Berens, & Li, 2013). If managers understood the impact of

sustainability reporting to an organization, managers were able to make effective

decisions regarding sustainability reporting in the context of the business environment

(Glavas & Mish, 2014). Companies that used TBL were transparent in their business

processes and tended to collaborate with others in the value chain (Glavas & Mish, 2014).

Glavas and Mish (2014) concluded that due to collaboration, TBL companies created

new markets that benefited other companies. Leaders in TBL companies focused on

collaborative advantage rather than competitive advantage.

The benefits of sustainability reporting included greater financial performance,

especially if the sustainability initiatives addressed new product or service development

(Kurapatskie & Darnall, 2013). Kurapatskie and Darnall (2013) identified the two types

of sustainability activities as higher order and lower order sustainability activities. The

higher level sustainability activities were associated with the development of new

products and processes. The lower level sustainability activities were associated with the

modification of existing products and processes.

Kurapatskie and Darnall (2013) found that both types of sustainability activities

were correlated with financial performance in terms of direction and trends. Kurapatskie

and Darnall noted that the average level of financial benefits related to higher order

sustainability activities was greater than the average level of financial benefits related to

lower order sustainability activities. Kurapatskie and Darnall concluded that the

development of higher order sustainability activities might yield greater financial benefits

for organizations.

The strategy of using green marketing by the promotion of sustainability

initiatives was positively correlated with the return on assets of the organization

(Leonidou, Katsikeas, & Morgan, 2013). Sustainability reporting was part of green

marketing because managers used sustainability reports to communicate initiatives with

stakeholders. Leonidou et al. (2013) concluded that green product and distribution

programs positively affected product-market performance of organizations.

If stakeholders supported sustainability initiatives, then managers viewed

sustainability programs as being less risky than failing to respond to stakeholder pressure

(Leonidou et al., 2013). Leonidou et al. (2013) found that managers could promote

sustainability initiatives to leaders by emphasizing stakeholder pressures if there were no

slack resources. Conversely, Leonidou et al. concluded that managers could promote

sustainability programs by presenting the programs as a long-term investment if there

were slack resources.

Successful companies with strong economic growth were likely to use

sustainability reporting (Peršič & Markič, 2013). Peršič and Markič (2013) found that

leaders of companies with high revenues, profits, and strong operational growth tended to

use sustainability reporting to report on CSR activities. Because successful companies

tended to use sustainability reporting, customers perceived companies that used

sustainability reporting as more successful.

Another benefit of incorporating social responsibility into the value system of the

company was that socially responsible companies were less likely to engage in tax

avoidance (Lanis & Richardson, 2014). Lanis and Richardson (2014) found that the

higher the level of CSR performance of a company, the lower the likelihood of tax

avoidance. Lanis and Richardson concluded that CSR was a legitimate business activity

and not just for enhancement of a business image.

The main reasons for sustainability initiatives, as cited by management, were

reduced energy costs, stakeholder expectations and demands, risk to the brand, and

increased competition (Cavazos-Garza & Krueger, 2014). Cavazos-Garza and Krueger

(2014) listed five benefits of sustainability reporting: (a) improved reputation through

transparency, (b) improved relationships with employees, (c) increased access to capital,

(d) greater efficiency, and (e) waste reduction. Cavazos-Garza and Krueger analyzed

financial performance of 13 public companies that hired a sustainability officer to

examine any financial benefits of hiring a sustainability officer. Cavazos-Garza and

Krueger argued that the companies had significant financial improvement in the 2- and 4-

year periods after hiring a sustainability officer. Cavazos-Garza and Krueger indicated

that the financial improvement may demonstrate that investors were more interested in

corporations that included sustainability initiatives in their strategic plan.

One risk of sustainability reporting is that increased interaction with stakeholders

may result in negative assessments (Eberle et al., 2013). Negative assessments may have

a detrimental impact on the credibility of a company. Eberle et al. (2013) found that an

increase in perceived interactivity with stakeholders led to higher message credibility and

stronger feelings of identification with the company. However, Eberle et al. concluded

that the detrimental impact of negative evaluations was much higher than the favorable

impact of positive evaluations. R. Hahn and Lülfs (2014) identified six strategies

companies used to legitimize negative aspects in sustainability reporting: (a)

marginalization, (b) abstraction, (c) indicating facts, (d) rationalization, (e) authorization,

and (f) corrective action. To mitigate the damage, managers need to monitor online

communications with stakeholders carefully (Eberle et al., 2013).

Managers are unlikely to disclose negative events such as pending litigation

involving environmental or social issues in sustainability reports (Moore & Poznanski,

2015). Moore and Poznanski (2015) argued that current sustainability reporting practice

focuses on past and current results, but has little value in predicting future periods.

Moore and Poznanski argued that to create useful sustainability reports, money spent on

sustainability goals should have the same disclosure criteria as any other information.

Professional Accountancy Involvement in Sustainability Reporting

Professional accountancy bodies increased their involvement in sustainability

reporting, but there was still a lack of standards (Lusher et al., 2012). Ballou, Casey,

Grenier, and Heitger (2012) conducted a survey of 178 corporate responsibility officers

to explore how accountants can add value to sustainability initiatives. Ballou et al.

concluded that accounting professionals were rarely involved in sustainability initiatives,

but they were highly involved with strategic integration.

Reporting of accounting information evolved from a strictly financial statement

model to a model that addressed issues of governance, social issues, environmental

issues, and sustainability in CSR reports (Lusher et al., 2012). In the 1980s, professionals

in the accounting field recognized the need to account for social and environmental

matters when companies started including environmental issues in their annual reports

(Lusher et al., 2012). As of 2012, a future integrated reporting model was under

development by the International Integrated Reporting Committee. The integrated

reporting model combined the various components of financial reporting with the

reporting of social and environmental costs into one report (Lusher et al., 2012).

Ngwakwe (2012) reviewed the accounting stance on sustainability developments

from global and national accounting bodies, including the International Federation of

Accountants, the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants, the Association of

Chartered Certified Accountants, plus the Big Four audit companies. There were high

levels of sustainability initiatives; however, there was also a lack of standards and

uniform accounting guidelines (Ngwakwe, 2012). Ngwakwe concluded that, to support

sustainable development, the accounting profession should create carbon accounting

standards, regulate sustainability accounting, and develop engineering accounting to

address challenges such as climate change and carbon trading.

Tschopp and Nastanski (2014) defined the concept of accounting harmonization

as the process of increasing the comparability of reporting practices by reducing the

degree of variation between users. Harmonization of sustainability reporting standards

was vital to enhancing transparency and comparability (Tschopp & Nastanski, 2014).

Tschopp and Nastanski recommended that accounting professionals adopt universal

standard guidelines for sustainability reporting to increase harmonization.

Corporate sustainability focused on the accountability of the financial, economic,

and social impact regarding organizational practices (Seay, 2015). Seay (2015) argued

that accountants could function as gatekeepers for ethical standards because accounting

standards were used for accountability. Because the concept of sustainability required

managers to be held accountable to stakeholders, accountants were in the position to

develop sustainability reports that had transparency and accountability (Seay, 2015).

Stakeholders’ Roles in Sustainability Reporting

A vital component in sustainability reporting and CSR practices was the

relationship between the organization and stakeholders (Gawel, 2014). Stakeholders are

groups of people who have interrelationships with an organization (Fernandez-Feijoo,

Romero, & Ruiz, 2014). The academic institution is a complex organization with

competing priorities from numerous stakeholders (Krizek et al., 2012).

There are numerous stakeholders at academic institutions, including students,

faculty, alumni, staff, administrators, local businesses, governmental agencies, and other

colleges (Fernandez-Feijoo et al., 2014). One of the functions of sustainability reporting

is the communication of sustainability practices to internal and external stakeholders

(Brown-Liburd & Zamora, 2015). Transparency is the quality of communication

between stakeholders and the organization (Fernandez-Feijoo et al., 2014).

Brown-Liburd and Zamora (2015) argued that CSR reports tended to be positive

when the information was voluntarily disclosed. Stakeholders were skeptical of the

veracity of the reports, especially when managers’ bonuses were tied to the success of

sustainability initiatives (Brown-Liburd & Zamora, 2015). Because the stakeholders

were skeptical of the CSR reports, they wanted third-party assurance for the reports.

Brown-Liburd and Zamora concluded that managers needed to examine CSR disclosure

factors and encouraged the expansion of assurance and integrated reporting.

The relationship between stakeholders and organizations influences the quality of

sustainability reporting (Fernandez-Feijoo et al., 2014). Fernandez-Feijoo et al. (2014)

defined transparency as the availability of company-specific information to internal and

external stakeholders. Fernandez-Feijoo et al. concluded that investors and employees

had the highest level of influence in CSR reporting transparency as stakeholders, while

environment stakeholders had the lowest level of influence.

Greenwood and Kamoche (2013) developed a knowledge appropriation model

consisting of three stages: (a) knowledge creation, (b) knowledge generation, and (c)

outcome distribution. Social auditing was a process of auditing the CSR reports using an

auditing framework that integrated stakeholder involvement. Greenwood and Kamoche

argued that deficient stakeholder involvement in the creation and distribution stages of

the model lessened the effectiveness of auditing of the strategic management system.

The integration of stakeholders into the reporting and auditing process was necessary for

effective social auditing (Greenwood & Kamoche, 2013).

Stakeholders had a role in integrated reporting (Van Zyl, 2013). Van Zyl (2013)

defined integrated reporting as reporting that highlighted the relationship between

financial and nonfinancial performance. Stakeholders needed to be part of the reporting

process for integrated reporting to be successful (Van Zyl, 2013). The communication

between the company and stakeholders should be interactive, honest, and continuous for

maximum transparency (Van Zyl, 2013).

Gawel (2014) argued that developing relationships with stakeholders was not

easy. The key factor in forming relationships between businesses and community

stakeholders was mutual trust, and developing trust was a lengthy process (Gawel, 2014).

Stakeholders drove the development of CSR philosophy and strategy for an organization

(C. Mason & Simmons, 2014). Assessment and feedback from stakeholders led to

changes in the CSR strategy of the organization (C. Mason & Simmons, 2014). The CSR

framework required reporting to stakeholders about sustainability outcomes with a

system for dialog between the organization and stakeholders to develop relationships,

trust, and feedback (C. Mason & Simmons, 2014).

Because there is a wide range of stakeholders at academic institutions, leaders of

academic institutions had the opportunity to encourage mutual sustainability learning and

collaboration in education, research, and community outreach activities (Yarime et al.,

2012). Yarime et al. (2012) concluded that multistakeholder collaborations with the

public sector were necessary to develop innovation for sustainability. Stakeholder

collaboration strategies for academic institutions included student exchanges among

different universities, coordination of academic programs with external organizations,

and outreach programs for stakeholders (Yarime et al., 2012).

Stakeholders valued usefulness in sustainability reporting, including

comprehensive reports, the inclusion of costs and benefits, and plans of future projects

(Leszczynska, 2012). Leszczynska (2012) argued that sustainability reports needed to be

neutral and objective; the reports should include failed projects along with the successful

projects. Stakeholders at academic institutions valued assessments that demonstrated

multiple dimensions of sustainability including education, research, governance, and

community engagement (Vaughter et al., 2013).

Among users and preparers of sustainability reporting, both stakeholder groups

valued the economic, environmental, and social indicators as necessary for sustainability

reporting (Lin et al., 2014). Lin et al. (2014) concluded that the perceptions between the

user and preparer groups were not statistically significantly different. Both groups valued

the three main GRI indicators as necessary for sustainability reporting. Lin et al.

concluded that the similarities in the viewpoints of the two groups indicated that the

characteristics can be used to create uniform standards for reporting and disclosure.

Although there were similarities between groups of stakeholders, it was vital to

consider potential differences. For example, students composed one of the most

influential groups of stakeholders at academic institutions (González-Rodríguez, Díaz-

Fernández, Pawlak, & Simonetti, 2013). Cultural differences may have existed among

university students that could affect the students’ perceptions of sustainability (González-

Rodríguez et al., 2013). Leaders at academic institutions needed to accommodate the

differences among stakeholders to engage the widest range of stakeholders effectively.

Managerial Use in Sustainability Reporting

Managerial accounting. Sustainability reports provided information not only to

external stakeholders, but also to internal stakeholders such as managers and staff as well

(Raghunandan, Ramgulam, Buckmire, & Raghunandan-Mohammed, 2012). Managers

used sustainability reports in decision making regarding development and improvement

of CSR initiatives (Smith, 2014). Smith (2014) argued that sustainability issues led to

new opportunities for organizations to succeed in the long term. Managers required

timely and relevant information to develop sustainability initiatives effectively. Smith

(2014) concluded that managerial accounting functions, which already provided

production information, can be expanded to include information about sustainability

initiatives. To integrate sustainability information into managerial accounting reports,

accountants needed to develop standards, metrics, and assurance standards for an

integrated reporting model (Smith, 2014).

Managers used managerial accounting systems to identify, measure, assess, and

communicate information to managers (Nwagbara & Reid, 2013). Nwagbara and Reid

(2013) concluded that commitment to CSR was needed for competitive positioning in the

global business environment. Leaders of companies needed to demonstrate commitment

by integrating sustainability into strategic planning and addressing criticism through

sustainability reporting and stakeholder communication (Nwagbara & Reid, 2013).

As the global business environment changed, managers included sustainability

reports as an additional source of information along with traditional managerial

accounting reports (Raghunandan et al., 2012). Raghunandan et al. (2012) discussed that

the fundamental purpose of accounting was to provide information that was useful for

good business decisions. Sustainability reporting can assist in effective decision making

regarding CSR initiatives.

Managers were reluctant to adapt best practices in sustainability reporting due to

multiple concerns including public scrutiny, potential of criticism of reputation, and costs

(Darus, Sawani, Zain, & Janggu, 2014). Darus et al. (2014) argued that these factors

overrode the benefit of providing credible information to stakeholders. Pressure from

stakeholders or regulatory bodies may be needed to convince company leaders to use

third-party assurance for sustainability reporting (Darus et al., 2014). Darus et al.

concluded that independent assurance was necessary to ensure the credibility of

sustainability reports.

Sustainability and governance. The concept of sustainability influenced

corporate governance as business leaders realized the positions of their firms are part of a

wider environment (Lawrence, Collins, & Roper, 2013). Business leaders increasingly

accepted that the well-being of the organization was linked to the well-being of the

environment (Lawrence et al., 2013). In a traditional business model, leaders’

responsibility was to shareholders of the company (Lawrence et al., 2013). There was a

changing perspective that the leaders’ responsibilities were to a wider group of

stakeholders (Klettner, Clarke, & Boersma, 2014).

In a sustainability model, senior management and the board were involved in

sustainability strategy development (Klettner et al., 2014). The corporate governance

structure monitors and ensured implementation of the sustainability strategy through

financial rewards. Leaders of companies that integrated sustainability fully were willing

to engage with stakeholders and communicate with detailed sustainability reports

(Klettner et al., 2014).

The role of sustainability in governance has increased among organizations

(Klettner et al., 2014). Lawrence et al. (2013) presented a timeline of business

management from the 19th century to the 21st century. Lawrence et al. discussed that the

19th century was the century of the entrepreneur; that period was the start of the modern

corporate structure. Lawrence et al. argued that the 20th century was the century of

management, demonstrated in the growth of management theories and management

consulting. Lawrence et al. concluded that the 21st century will be the century of

governance because the focus will be on the responsibility and effectiveness of the

organization in the global community. Leaders in the 21st century will align

organizations to a stakeholder approach, incorporating CSR into the corporate structure

through governance that engages stakeholders (Klettner et al., 2014).

Decision making in sustainability reporting. Managers can use sustainability

reporting for decision making on an organizational level (Palthe, 2013). Kiron,

Kruschwitz, Reeves, and Goh (2013) concluded that integration of a sustainability agenda

required organizational change. For an organization to fully utilize sustainability in

decision making, leaders need to be fully committed to the sustainability agenda (Kiron et

al., 2013).

Kiron et al. (2013) stated that there were four keys to the sustainability agenda of

a company. One key was the commitment to sustainability by members at the highest

executive level. For example, the chief sustainability officer should report directly to the

chief executive officer and be considered a member of the executive strategy team (Kiron

et al., 2013). Another key was the use of collaboration. Leaders of a company should

collaborate with customers and other organizations regarding sustainability initiatives.

The third key was business model innovation. Business model innovation occurred when

leaders of an organization were willing to develop new business opportunities. The

fourth key was new internal organization structures. Leaders of a company should be

willing to change internal organizational structures to accommodate the sustainability

initiatives (Kiron et al., 2013).

Palthe (2013) argued that academic institutions should foster business leaders who

incorporate sustainability into their decision making. Leaders of the future need to know

how to integrate sustainability into business strategy, operations, and governance (Palthe,

2013). Future leaders also need to know how to make connections between sustainability

issues and practices, as well as understand the importance of partnerships with

stakeholders (Palthe, 2013).

Sustainability issues are complex and deal with demands from numerous

stakeholders (T. Hahn, Pinkse, Preuss, & Figge, 2014). To understand managerial

decision making regarding sustainability, T. Hahn et al. (2014) proposed two cognitive

frames used by managers in decision making. In a sustainability approach, leaders of

organizations needed to consider environmental and social impacts and not just financial

outcomes. Because there were multiple outcomes that are interdependent, there may

have been risks of consequences that were difficult to predict (T. Hahn et al., 2014). For

example, a solution for a financial issue may have been detrimental to the environment.

The two cognitive frames represented two approaches to decision making

regarding sustainability: a business case frame and a paradoxical frame (T. Hahn et al.,

2014). Managers may have used either frame when dealing with sustainability issues and

reconciling conflicting factors. A cognitive frame was a mental method that people used

to understand situations. T. Hahn et al. (2014) proposed that the business case frame be

used when managers dealt with ambiguities by seeking alignment between factors and

eliminating inconsistencies. The paradox frame was used when managers accepted the

inconsistencies and attempted to accommodate conflicts between economic,

environmental, and social issues. T. Hahn et al. concluded that managers rarely decided

on radical change when faced with sustainability issues because both cognitive frames

had limitations.

Kantabutra and Saratun (2013) proposed that leaders of academic institutions

should adopt long-term principles of sustainable leadership to encourage success in

sustainability initiatives. Kantabutra and Saratun found that to ensure sustainability,

university administrators should perceive employees as stakeholders and prime assets.

Leaders should nurture an organizational culture that allowed for self-governance and

encourageed innovation among employees (Kantabutra & Saratun, 2013). Leaders at

academic institutions should be willing to invest in sustainability initiatives, even if these

initiatives had a negative impact on the budget in the short term. University

administrators should reward employees through a performance evaluation system that

encouraged CSR behaviors (Kantabutra & Saratun, 2013). Another long-term strategy

was to integrate CSR into the curriculum to further integration of sustainability into the

structure of the institution (Kantabutra & Saratun, 2013).

Sustainability Reporting Frameworks

Sustainability reporting frameworks were developed in recent years that

addressed the challenges of reporting both financial and nonfinancial activity (Waite,

2013). GRI was a comprehensive sustainability reporting framework that was used by

organizations throughout the world for reporting on their economic, environmental, and

social performance (Lusher et al., 2012). The majority of organizations that used the GRI

reporting framework were publicly traded corporations (Mori et al., 2013). Leaders at the

Big Four accounting firms developed CSR reporting frameworks that encompassed the

TBL objectives of community, environment, and economic impacts to provide more

comprehensive reports to stakeholders (Lusher et al., 2012).

Waite (2013) developed a practical framework called the supply chain, user,

relations, and future (SURF) framework for approaching sustainable development. Waite

concluded after analyzing the data that there was a lack of systems-level and future-

oriented thinking for individual companies regarding sustainability development. Waite

argued that the SURF framework differed from current frameworks because it had a

systems approach addressing (a) sustainability throughout the supply chain, (b) what

happens after the user consumes the product or service, (c) maintaining positive relations

with stakeholders, and (d) the impact of current decisions on the future.

Sustainability reporting frameworks for academic institutions. Leaders of

academic institutions needed a sustainability reporting framework to provide a guide for

planning and developing sustainability reports (Yarime & Tanaka, 2012). These leaders

that used sustainability reporting frameworks tended to develop sustainability plans. The

sustainability plans provided a basis for implementing the sustainability vision (Lidstone,

Wright, & Sherren, 2015). Lidstone et al. (2015) defined sustainability plans as detailed

documents that provided a basis for implementing the sustainability vision.

Sustainability plans included operations, academics, and administration aspects in an

integrated approach. The sustainability plan should include the environmental, social,

and economic aspects of sustainability (Lidstone et al., 2015).

Yarime and Tanaka (2012) argued that integrating sustainability into all of the

major activities of higher education institutions presented an opportunity to prepare

students and the community to become more adept decision makers in a complex

business environment. Yarime and Tanaka discussed that the slow pace of sustainability

development in academic institutions was influenced by the conventional university

evaluation systems that did not consider sustainability perspectives in their assessment

frameworks. There were multiple sustainability reporting frameworks available for

academic institutions, so leaders needed to review and find the framework that was best

suited for the organization (Yarime & Tanaka, 2012).

Representatives of the Association for the Advancement of Sustainability in

Higher Education (AASHE) developed the Sustainability Tracking, Assessment, and

Rating System (STARS) as a sustainability reporting framework for higher education

institutions (Krizek et al., 2012). The STARS framework was a self-reporting framework

that allowed for access by the public and stakeholders (AASHE, 2015). As of 2015, 692

academic institutions had registered for the STARS reporting tool (AASHE, 2015). The

STARS framework had a systems approach to sustainability and included sections for

education and research, operations, planning, administration, engagement, and innovation

(Lidstone et al., 2015).

Integrated Balanced Scorecard. Balanced scorecard was a tool used by

management containing accounting information. The balanced scorecard model

incorporated governance and performance evaluations in a systematic and comprehensive

framework (Kasperskaya & Tayles, 2013). Sustainability reporting can be incorporated

into an existing balanced scorecard model (Zavodna, 2013). Leaders of universities

increasingly used the balanced scorecard model for strategic planning (Pineno, 2013).

The balanced scorecard was a causal performance measurement method (PMM;

Kasperskaya & Tayles, 2013). The causal PMM became a trend in managerial

accounting (Kasperskaya & Tayles, 2013). In the balanced scorecard, some indicators

were lead indicators that drove a certain activity. Some indicators were lag indicators

that were associated with the outcome of the activity. The theoretical framework of

balanced scorecard relied on causal logic (Kasperskaya & Tayles, 2013). Causal logic

indicated that there were causal relationships between certain activities and outcomes.

These activities formed a strategic plan for the organization. The balanced scorecard can

be used to manage and assess causal factors from four managerial perspectives: financial,

learning and growth, internal business processes, and customers (Kasperskaya & Tayles,

2013).

Huang, Pepper, and Bowrey (2014) illustrated the use of a sustainability balanced

scorecard as a contributing factor in reporting and assurance. Leaders of organizations

may use the sustainability balanced scorecard to provide an overview of the focal areas of

reporting practice. Huang et al. identified that the main organizational strategy to

manage legitimacy-related sensitive issues was the stakeholder dialog mechanism.

Huang et al. also discussed that a system for stakeholder dialog was a vital strategy in

sustainability reporting.

The balanced scorecard model was increasingly adopted by academic institutions

because the balanced scorecard emphasized management of performance (Schobel,

2012). Leaders of academic institutions also followed the trend of sustainability

reporting (Pineno, 2013). Schobel (2012) noted that two universities, Leeds University

and the University of California, were in the balanced scorecard Hall of Fame.

Zavodna (2013) proposed that environmental and social indicators can be added

to the balanced scorecard model. The addition of sustainability indicators may be the

most direct approach for companies that already used the balanced scorecard. Managers

can provide an integrated approach to sustainability reporting if the sustainability

indicators were added to an existing balanced scorecard framework.

Schobel (2012) argued that as the use of balanced scorecard grew, organizations

needed to link nonfinancial indicators of performance with cash flow consequences. The

integrated balanced scorecard model can be used for academic institutions to assist in

decision making and strategic planning because it is an evaluation of multiple

perspectives, including sustainability (Schobel, 2012). The effective use of sustainability

reporting can improve employee satisfaction, productivity, image, and stakeholder

relationships (Zavodna, 2013).

Integrated Reporting and Future of Sustainability Reporting

Churet and Eccles (2014) defined integrated reporting as the merging of the

sustainability report and the financial report into a single report. The integrated report

was intended for stakeholders to communicate the progress of sustainability initiatives,

and how the initiatives contributed to the long-term strategy of the organization (Churet

& Eccles, 2014). Ioana and Adriana (2013) considered integrated reporting as an

evolutionary development of standalone sustainability reporting. Furthermore, Ioana and

Adriana indicated that integrated reporting was the future for annual reports and

suggested further research.

Accounting professionals developed standards that integrated sustainability

reports with financial reporting (Ioana & Adriana, 2013). The combination of

sustainability reporting with other accounting reports was known as integrated reporting

(Rogers & Herz, 2013). Churet and Eccles (2014) argued that the integrated reporting

process was important because stakeholders needed a comprehensive understanding of

the relationships between the business and the business environment.

The Sustainability Accounting Standards Board (SASB) was created to provide

standards for sustainability reporting and integrated reporting (Rogers & Herz, 2013).

The SASB standards were a cost-effective guideline for companies to (a) communicate

with investors and other stakeholders, (b) ensure completeness of information, and (c)

provide assessments for investors and other stakeholders (Rogers & Herz, 2013). Frias-

Aceituno, Rodríguez-Ariza, and Garcia-Sánchez (2014) recommended that the integrated

international standards report should be based on GRI guidelines because this simplified

the development of reporting guidelines.

Certain factors such as company size and profitability may increase the likelihood

of the use of integrated reporting by an organization (Frias-Aceituno et al., 2014).

Country-level factors such as economic status, investor, and employment protection laws

may also increase the likelihood of integrated reporting (Jensen & Berg, 2012).

Countries that had higher investor protection laws, higher expenditures for college

education, more trade unions, and higher economic development status tended to use

integrated reporting (Jensen & Berg, 2012). Frias-Aceituno et al. (2014) concluded that

companies in monopolistic situations were less likely to publish integrated reports.

Company size and profitability had a positive impact on the likelihood of integrated

reports because companies that had higher profits and greater size were more likely to use

integrated reports (Frias-Aceituno et al., 2014).

Conclusion

The findings of the literature review indicated that sustainability reporting was

growing but still lagging for higher education institutions (Lange & Kerr, 2013). Another

trend occurring was the accounting profession becoming increasingly involved in the

development and standardization of sustainability reporting (Lusher et al., 2012).

Sustainability reporting was still evolving as more organizations engage in CSR

initiatives, and as demand for sustainability reporting increased from stakeholders

(Searcy & Buslovich, 2014).

The concept of sustainability was an extension of the concept of CSR (Montiel &

Delgado-Ceballos, 2014). The concept of TBL was the foundation of sustainability

reporting that incorporated environmental, economic, and social factors in sustainability

reports. Transparency and accountability to stakeholders were essential in CSR and in

sustainability reporting (Ekwueme et al., 2013).

Academic institutions are complex organizations with a wide variety of

stakeholders. The nonprofit academic institution may have a greater need for

transparency than corporations due to the close ties with stakeholders and the community

(Krizek et al., 2012). Stakeholders wanted more transparency and information from

organizations, and they were one of the driving forces behind sustainability reporting

(Lin et al., 2014). Academic institutions were in a position to promote sustainability

through education, research, operational processes, and community activities (Othman &

Othman, 2014).

The use of sustainability reporting can provide multiple benefits for organizations

(Eberle et al., 2013). Some of the benefits included increased collaboration with business

partners (Glavas & Mish, 2014), long-term financial benefits (Kurapatskie & Darnall,

2013), and opportunities for green marketing (Leonidou et al., 2013). Academic

institutions would benefit from the use of sustainability reporting by providing greater

transparency to stakeholders and mutual collaboration with multiple stakeholders

(Yarime et al., 2012).

Sustainability reporting frameworks were used to meet the challenges of reporting

both financial and nonfinancial activity in a comprehensive report (Waite, 2013). The

most widely used sustainability reporting framework was the GRI (Lusher et al., 2012).

There were sustainability reporting frameworks available for organizations including

reporting frameworks that were specifically designed for academic institutions (Krizek et

al., 2012). An alternative for universities was to use an existing framework such as

balanced scorecard and integrate sustainability indicators into the balanced scorecard

(Zavodna, 2013).

The future of sustainability reporting was trending toward integrated reporting

that incorporated sustainability measures into the traditional financial reports (Churet &

Eccles, 2014). Stakeholders can use integrated reports for comprehensive information

about the TBL of environmental, economic, and social factors for an organization.

Professional accounting groups such as SASB were developing guidelines and standards

for integrated reporting (Rogers & Herz, 2013).

Transition

Leaders at academic institutions understood the importance of sustainability;

however, there was slow growth in sustainability reporting at academic institutions

(Lange & Kerr, 2013). Leaders and managers used sustainability reporting to assess and

communicate sustainability initiatives to stakeholders (Christofi et al., 2012). The

specific business problem was that some leaders and managers of nonprofit educational

institutions may have lacked the tacit knowledge regarding the strategies and processes

necessary to integrate sustainability reporting into the reporting cycle of the organization.

The purpose of this qualitative single case study was to explore the strategies and

processes necessary for leaders and managers to integrate sustainability reporting into the

reporting cycle for a nonprofit higher education institution.

The second section of the study outlines the doctoral study project. I describe the

research method and design for the doctoral study. I describe the population and

sampling, ethical research guidelines, and the role of the researcher in a qualitative study.

I outline the data collection instruments, data collection technique, data organization, and

data analysis. I also address reliability and validity issues in a qualitative research study.

Section 2: The Project

I present the structure of the doctoral study in this section of the study. The

structure of the doctoral study includes the methodology and design as well as ethical

research considerations. Section 2 includes detailed outlines of (a) the data collection

instruments, (b) the data collection techniques, and (c) the data organization techniques. I

describe the data analysis of the generated data from the data collection instruments. The

data collection and analysis process were supported by techniques that ensured reliability

and validity. In this section, I address reliability and validity of qualitative research that

includes credibility, transferability, dependability, and confirmability concerns.

Purpose Statement

The purpose of this qualitative single case study was to explore the strategies and

processes necessary for leaders and managers to integrate sustainability reporting into the

reporting cycle for a nonprofit higher education institution. Sustainability reporting is the

implementation of accounting methods that record and report the TBL of environmental,

economic, and social impacts (Milne & Gray, 2013). The target population of this study

consisted of leaders and managers at a nonprofit academic institution located in the state

of Michigan that published sustainability reports. I conducted a case study of one

nonprofit academic institution that utilized sustainability reporting. This population was

appropriate for the study because the STARS sustainability reporting framework was

used by higher education institutions located in the United States (Krizek et al., 2012).

The implications for positive social change included the potential for greater transparency

for stakeholders and greater effectiveness of the implementation of environmental,

economic, and social initiatives for higher education institutions.

Role of the Researcher

In qualitative research, the researcher is the instrument of data collection (Koch,

Niesz, & McCarthy, 2013). Qualitative researchers collect, analyze, and interpret the

data themselves. Quantitative researchers use instruments for data collection such as

surveys, tests, or scales. Qualitative researchers need to be aware of their influence on all

aspects of the research because of the amount of interaction with research participants.

The influence of the researcher includes relationships with participants, life experiences,

and attitudes that may have influenced the view and interpretation of the qualitative data

(Koch et al., 2013).

Prior to the start of the academic research process, I had an active interest in the

concepts of corporate sustainability responsibility, sustainability, and accounting for

sustainability. My professional perspective was supportive of the concept of CSR for

organizations and the importance of sustainability for organizations and communities.

My profession was in the accounting field, and I held the designation of certified public

accountant in the state of Ohio. I was an active participant in the accounting field and

supported the involvement of the accounting profession in the sustainability process. I

was not professionally involved in the sustainability reporting process prior to the study.

While I was a faculty member at a nonprofit university in the state of Michigan, I

was not a faculty member of the nonprofit academic institution in the study. I did not

have any relationship with the participants of the single case study prior to the study.

The Belmont Report is a statement of basic ethical standards and guidelines

addressing the conduct of research with human participants. The Belmont Report

initiated the institutional review board (IRB) system. The role of the IRB is to protect the

rights and welfare of research participants. The IRB reviews research studies to ensure

that the ethical requirements were met before approval of the study (Aggarwal &

Gurnani, 2014).

The Belmont Report outlined three ethical principles to protect the rights and

welfare of research participants. The first ethical principle was that participants are

autonomous agents. Participants must have had sufficient information to decide whether

to participate in the study. The second principle was that researchers should maximize

benefit and minimize harm to research participants. The third principle was the fairness

principle. Researchers should equitably have distributed the risks and benefits associated

with the research across society according to the fairness principle (Mikesell, Bromley, &

Khodyakov, 2013).

I practiced reflexivity to mitigate bias and increase the awareness of my influence

on the data and the data collection. Koch et al. (2013) defined reflexivity as a self-

reflection of a person’s biases, theoretical predispositions, and orientations to the research

subject. Koch et al. explained that researchers must consider possible biases at every

stage of the research.

Roulston and Shelton (2015) recommended including written information of

actions and rationales for decision making throughout a study. Roulston and Shelton also

discussed the need for the researcher to reflect deeply on any assumptions, actions, and

interactions. The researcher needs to be aware of the implications of interactions with

those involved in the study (Roulston & Shelton, 2015).

I practiced reflexivity throughout the entire research process, including in the

development of the interview questions, before analysis of interview transcripts, and

throughout the data analysis process. I reported biases and assumptions regarding the

topic of sustainability reporting. The practice of reflexivity ensured that the resulting

themes emerged from the responses and not from the researcher’s biases (Koch et al.,

2013).

Participants

The purpose of this qualitative single case study was to explore the strategies and

processes necessary for leaders to integrate sustainability reporting into the reporting

cycle for a nonprofit higher education institution. The eligibility criteria included leaders

from a nonprofit academic institution that integrated sustainability reporting into the

reporting cycle of the organization. For the purpose of the single case study, leaders were

internal stakeholders of the sustainability process, including the sustainability manager,

administrators who contributed to the reporting cycle, members of the sustainability

committee, and administrators who oversaw the sustainability reporting.

Gaining access to participants may be a challenging task for the doctoral study, so

strategies were required (Wahyuni, 2012). Hysong et al. (2013) developed a framework

for the recruitment process: (a) gaining entry into the organizations, (b) obtaining

accurate eligibility and contact information, (c) reaching busy professionals, (d) assessing

willingness to participate, and (e) scheduling participants for data collection. I followed

this framework to gain access to participants. I contacted the sustainability manager and

the sustainability director via e-mail and then followed up through both e-mails and

phone conversations. I contacted other administrators as per the conversations with the

sustainability manager and the director. After gaining entry into the organization, I

obtained accurate eligibility and contact information from each potential participant.

Obtaining accurate information was a time-consuming step in the recruitment process, so

I allowed for time and ensured that there was careful recording of the information

(Hysong et al., 2013).

Curry (2012) defined reciprocity in qualitative research as interaction between

researchers and participants. It was crucial to have reciprocity with participants so that

the research project was mutually beneficial (Curry, 2012). The working relationship

with participants needed to be transparent and respectful with clear communication. I

informed the participants of the purpose of the study and outlined the data collection

methods. I discussed the interview data with the participants after data collection and

allowed for the participants to clarify any information. I shared with the participants the

findings of the study and discussed how I reached the conclusions. I kept the participants

informed through e-mail, phone conversations, and face-to-face conversations.

Through the study, I addressed one central research question:

RQ 1. What strategies and processes do academic leaders and managers use to

develop, deploy, and integrate sustainability reporting into the reporting cycle of a

nonprofit academic organization?

The participants included the sustainability manager, administrators who oversaw

the sustainability reporting process, and managers who contributed to sustainability

reporting. The participants included staff and members of the sustainability committee.

The participants aligned with the overarching research question because the participants

were leaders and managers who actively participated in the sustainability reporting

process.

Research Method and Design

Leaders at academic institutions have followed the global business trend of

embracing sustainability initiatives for positive social change; however, there has been

slow growth in sustainability reporting among academic institutions (Lange & Kerr,

2013). The specific business problem addressed in the study was that some leaders and

managers of nonprofit educational institutions may lack the tacit knowledge regarding the

strategies and processes necessary to integrate sustainability reporting into the reporting

cycle of the organization. The purpose of this qualitative single case study was to explore

the strategies and processes necessary for some leaders and managers of nonprofit

educational institutions to integrate sustainability reporting into the reporting cycle of the

organization.

Research Method

I used a qualitative methodology for the study. Researchers use a qualitative

method when the focus is upon the subjective meaning, experiences, and motivating

actions of a real-world situation (Delattre et al., 2009). For this qualitative research, there

were two core principles of quality: transparency and systematic structure (Meyrick,

2006). High quality qualitative research should include details about every step in the

methodology to establish a transparent process (Meyrick, 2006). Transparency allows

the reader to decide if the methods used and decisions made during data collection were

reasonable (Moravcsik, 2013).

A quantitative methodology would be appropriate if the focus was upon

observable and objective data and facts that could be quantified to demonstrate

relationships and differences (Wahyuni, 2012). A traditional quantitative approach

demonstrates a significant relationship between two variables so that a change in the

independent variable results in a change in the dependent variable (Maxwell, 2012). A

quantitative methodology would not have been appropriate for the study because an

exploration of a business process required qualitative information such as experiences

and understanding of the decision-making processes (Delattre et al., 2009). Delattre et al.

(2009) argued that one of the main characteristics of qualitative research was the ability

to understand and explain the complexity of the organization and the business processes.

A mixed method approach combines elements of both quantitative methodology

and qualitative methodology (Venkatesh, Brown, & Bala, 2013). Venkatesh et al. (2013)

discussed that a researcher selects a mixed methods approach based on the research

questions and objectives. Venkatesh et al. argued that a mixed methods approach was

appropriate when one research method would yield incomplete information and not

answer the research questions. Because the focus of the study was on the business

process of sustainability reporting, a qualitative method was more appropriate than a

quantitative method or mixed method approach.

Research Design

I used a single case study design for the study. A typical case study research is a

qualitative approach in which the researcher examines a bounded system or case over

time through detailed data collection involving multiple sources of information (Yin,

2013). In a case study, the context of the setting of the case is significant and should be

described sufficiently in the study (Yin, 2013).

Case study research is an exploration of a case with the intention to study the

complexity of the object or process (Hyett, Kenny, & Dickson-Swift, 2014). Zivkovic

(2012) argued that single case studies were strongest for exemplary situations where the

object has been under-researched. A business process or implementation of a business

model was appropriate for this case study (Zivkovic, 2012).

Qualitative approaches that differ from case study include narrative study,

grounded theory, and phenomenological study. Each approach differs in purpose and in

the final product. A narrative study is a collection of individuals’ stories. A

phenomenological study is a description of experiences surrounding a phenomenon.

Grounded theory study typically focuses on a theory and uses a visual model (Petty et al.,

2012). The purpose of the study was to explore the strategies and processes necessary for

leaders to integrate sustainability reporting into the reporting cycle for a nonprofit higher

education institution. The purpose was appropriate for a case study design, but did not fit

with the other qualitative approaches.

Wahyuni (2012) presented three ideal conditions for conducting a case study.

The research question should be focused on a process rather than a singular incidence for

the first condition. The second condition was that there was no control required over the

events being studied (Wahyuni, 2012). The third condition was that the focus of the

study should be on a contemporary event rather than a historical event (Wahyuni, 2012).

The study fulfilled all three conditions for conducting a case study.

O’Reilly and Parker (2012) defined data saturation as the concept of collecting

data until nothing new was generated. Data saturation was the point where there were no

more emergent patterns in the data (O’Reilly & Parker, 2012). G. Bowen (2008) argued

that the focus was more on sample adequacy to demonstrate that saturation was reached

rather than on sample size. The depth of data rather than frequencies ensured data

saturation (O’Reilly & Parker, 2012).

I ensured data saturation by interviewing participants who best represented the

topic of integration of sustainability reporting. M. Mason (2010) argued that the sample

size should be large enough to represent a range of experiences. The adequacy of

sampling indicated that both depth and breadth of information was achieved (G. Bowen,

2008). I ensured data saturation by interviewing at least four participants who were

knowledgeable about the sustainability reporting process at their nonprofit academic

institution. If there were no new or conflicting information in the fourth interview, I

concluded that data saturation had been reached (O’Reilly & Parker, 2012). If there was

new or conflicting information in the fourth interview, I would have added interviews

until there was no new or conflicting data collected. The participants included leaders

and managers who were involved in different aspects of sustainability reporting to

represent a range of experiences. The interviewees had depth of knowledge about the

integration of sustainability reporting in the reporting cycle of a nonprofit academic

institution because they actively participated in the sustainability reporting process. I

conducted member checking with participants to ensure that the information was in

depth.

G. Bowen (2008) concluded that using data collection methods such as in-depth

interviews and document reviews produced enough data to achieve data saturation on the

research topic. The objective of data saturation was on quality rather than quantity to

become saturated with information (G. Bowen, 2008). In addition to in-depth interviews,

I reviewed documents from multiple sources including sustainability reports, annual

reports, and financial reports to ensure data saturation. The sustainability report was

available on the STARS website. The financial reports and annual reports were available

on the website of the academic institution.

Population and Sampling

The researcher should use the research question to drive the selection process for

the participants (Wahyuni, 2012). The research question provided the characteristics of

the unit to be studied. The method of choosing a unit according to predetermined criteria

was known as purposive sampling (Wahyuni, 2012). A purposive sampling was used to

select units based on their matched criteria to criteria required to answer the research

question (Wahyuni, 2012).

I selected a small number of participants because the interview process was in-

depth and time-consuming. An adequate sample size was one that would sufficiently

answer the research question (G. Bowen, 2008). The focus was on sample adequacy

rather than on sample size (G. Bowen, 2008). The number of participants depended on

the number of people who were involved in the sustainability reporting process at the

academic institution. There should be at least three to five interviewees per case study

(Marshall, Cardon, Poddar, & Fontenot, 2013). I interviewed four participants in the

single case study.

M. Mason (2010) argued that the sample size should be large enough to represent

a range of experiences with data saturation in mind. If the sample size was too large, it

risked being repetitious (M. Mason, 2010). The adequacy of sampling indicated that both

depth and breadth of information was achieved (G. Bowen, 2008). In addition to in-

depth interviews, I conducted document reviews of sustainability reports, annual reports,

and financial reports to produce enough data to achieve data saturation on the research

topic (G. Bowen, 2008).

The target population consisted of leaders at a nonprofit academic institution that

used and integrated sustainability reporting into the reporting cycle of the organization.

To select an academic institution that effectively used sustainability reporting, I used the

criteria of a widely used sustainability framework for academic institutions.

Representatives of AASHE developed the STARS reporting framework specifically for

the needs of academic institutions (Krizek et al., 2012). The STARS framework had a

systems approach of sustainability and included sections for education and research,

operations, planning, administration, engagement, and innovation, which were criteria

unique for higher education institutions (Lidstone et al., 2015).

Leaders and managers at a nonprofit academic institution that had at a high level

of the STARS reporting framework composed the target population. The STARS

framework had four categories: academics, engagement, operations, and planning and

administration (AASHE, 2015). The high level of sustainability reporting was the gold

level of the STARS reporting framework, which was a minimum score of 65 across the

four categories (AASHE, 2015). The final selection of the participants was from an

organization that demonstrated the gold level of integration of sustainability reporting in

the STARS reporting framework. I interviewed the participants at their academic

institution. The setting was at the participants’ organization for the convenience of the

participants and allowed the participants to be in a familiar setting. It was appropriate to

interview the participants in a natural, real-life setting because a case study had a focus

on a real-life, contemporary bounded system (Hyett et al., 2014).

The criteria for selecting participants were based on the research question

(Wahyuni, 2012). Through the study, I addressed one central research question:

RQ 1. What strategies and processes do academic leaders and managers use to

develop, deploy, and integrate sustainability reporting into the reporting cycle of a

nonprofit academic organization?

The participants were academic leaders and managers who were involved in the

development and implementation of sustainability reporting into the reporting cycle of

the organization. The participants included the sustainability executive director,

members of the sustainability committee, and other administrators involved in

sustainability reporting. The criteria for selection of participants matched the criteria

required to answer the research question that was appropriate for a qualitative case study

(Wahyuni, 2012).

Ethical Research

I followed the guidelines set by Walden University IRB for ethical research

(Walden University, 2015). The Belmont Report initiated the IRB system (Aggarwal &

Gurnani, 2014). The role of the IRB is to protect the rights and welfare of research

participants. The IRB reviewed the research study to ensure that the ethical requirements

were met before approval of the study (Aggarwal & Gurnani, 2014).

The IRB required an informed consent form for the participants (Walden

University, 2015). The informed consent form disclosed the nature and purpose of the

study and details regarding participation (Qu & Dumay, 2011). The IRB approval

number for the study was 03-03-16-0438608.

Participants were informed about the interview process, the role of the researcher,

and how the interview data would be used (Qu & Dumay, 2011). The participants were

informed that they could discontinue participation in the study at their own discretion and

at any time without negative impact. I informed the participants of the details of

participation, including an estimate of time commitment, data collection procedures, and

possible risks and benefits (Qu & Dumay, 2011).

All the participants in the study were low-risk adults over the age of 18. None of

the participants were in a subordinate position to me. I did not engage in any form of

coercion to secure participants. None of the participants received compensation, gifts, or

reimbursement for participation. All participants were informed about the lack of

compensation (Qu & Dumay, 2011).

I omitted any identifying information for both the participants and the case

organization, according to confidentiality standards (Wahyuni, 2012). I protected the

names of individuals and organization by coding identification data and keeping all

records anonymous (Qu & Dumay, 2011). All data from the study, including consent

forms, will be maintained in a locked container for 5 years after the completion of the

research, in accord with ethical standards (Wahyuni, 2012).

Data Collection Instruments

Because I conducted a qualitative single case study, I functioned as the primary

data collection instrument (Qu & Dumay, 2011). The data collection process was face-

to-face semistructured interviews with leaders and managers in charge of sustainability

reporting. The use of a semistructured qualitative interview technique was considered an

appropriate format for case study research because open-ended questions were a flexible

approach that accommodated a wide range of experiences (Qu & Dumay, 2011). Open-

ended questions accommodated the need for the researcher to ask for more explanation

on the answer to gain a deeper understanding of the issues (Wahyuni, 2012).

All participants received a list of broad questions in advance of the interview to

give them time to reflect on their views on sustainability reporting within their

organizations. I focused the interviews on the process and strategy of integration of

sustainability reporting in an academic institution. I used interviews with open-ended

questions to collect in-depth responses about people’s experiences, perceptions, and

knowledge regarding sustainability reporting in an academic institution (Dabić &

Stojanov, 2014). There was an interview guide for the interviews to ensure that the

interview data were consistent for all participants (Wahyuni, 2012). The interviews were

recorded, and written transcriptions of the interviews were made (Wahyuni, 2012). The

participants had a follow-up meeting for member checking after I completed analysis of

the interview data. The participants received an outline of the findings of the interview.

The participants had the opportunity to check the findings, ask questions, and give

feedback (Shenton, 2004).

I reviewed organizational documents to establish information about the

organization such as size, financial budgets, sustainability initiatives, and profitability. I

used the concept of TBL to assess the environmental, economic, and social condition of

the academic institution (Christofi et al., 2012). The documents used were public

documents from multiple sources, including published annual reports and sustainability

reports. The documents were available on the websites of the organizations and the

sustainability reporting website (AASHE, 2015).

A mock interview with colleagues was held prior to conducting the formal

interview to test and refine the interview instrument (Wahyuni, 2012). A colleague mock

interview did not result in a change of questions or interview structure to clarify the

objectives of the interview. The structure of the interview did not change to improve the

flow of the discussion during the interviews (Wahyuni, 2012). The use of the colleague

mock interview enhanced the reliability and validity of the data collection technique of

semistructured interviews (Shenton, 2004).

I enhanced the reliability and validity of the data collection instrument by using

member checking (Shenton, 2004). Member checks are when participants check the

research findings to make sure that they are true to and represent their experiences (Elo et

al., 2014). The participants had a follow-up meeting after I completed review of the

interview data. The participants received an outline of the findings of the interview.

Participants had the opportunity to give feedback about the findings and clarify their

inputs (Shenton, 2004).

The interview guide with the interview questions is located in Appendix A of the

study. The interview protocol is located in Appendix B of the study. The document

review protocol is located in Appendix C of the study. The Table of Contents of the

study lists the appendices.

Data Collection Technique

In qualitative research, there are three main types of data collection methods: in-

depth interviews, direct observations, and written document review (Dabić & Stojanov,

2014). The data collection method of interviews is widely used in qualitative case studies

(Dabić & Stojanov, 2014). Direct observation is a technique used to collect data in the

natural environment. Written documents included organizational records,

correspondence, and reports such as financial reports and sustainability reports (Dabić &

Stojanov, 2014). I used interviews and written document reviews as the data collection

techniques for the single case study.

I chose the face-to-face semistructured interview technique because it produced

the most detailed information about what strategies and processes leaders used in

sustainability reporting. Semistructured interviews were effective and convenient in

gathering information (Qu & Dumay, 2011). The interview method also allowed for

member checking the data with the participants.

The interview questions were structured to include open-ended main questions,

follow-up questions, probing questions, and specifying and direct questions (Qu &

Dumay, 2011). I developed the questions based on the research problem. Follow-up and

probing questions helped extend the participants’ answers after the structured interview

question. Specifying and direct questions were used to develop precise descriptions (Qu

& Dumay, 2011).

With the participants’ permission, each interview was recorded to ensure accuracy

(Wahyuni, 2012). I took notes during each interview to record additional information.

Wahyuni (2012) outlined three types of notes that can be recorded for an interview:

observational, methodological, and theoretical. Observational memos are also known as

field notes. Observational memos were used to describe the situation during the

interview. Methodological memos were the records of any issues regarding the methods

used. Theoretical memos focused on themes that emerged from the interview process

(Wahyuni, 2012).

Wahyuni (2012) suggested that each interview should last no more than 1 1/2

hours. After each interview, I conducted a debriefing so participants could ask questions,

make comments, or add additional information (Wahyuni, 2012). I also conducted

follow-up interviews so participants could review the interview information and

preliminary findings.

I chose data collection from documentation in addition to interviews to provide

background information about the organizations and its sustainability reporting. The data

from the documentation also provided a way to corroborate the information from the

participants (Dabić & Stojanov, 2014). The documentation review came from two

different sources: sustainability reports and annual reports (Wahyuni, 2012). The

sustainability reports were available on the sustainability reporting website. The annual

report was available on the website of the academic institution.

The semistructured interview was ﬂexible, accessible, and capable of disclosing

participants’ experiences and perspectives (Qu & Dumay, 2011). Qu and Dumay (2011)

argued that semistructured interviews were often the most effective and convenient

means of gathering information. A semistructured interview technique was based on

human conversation, so the interviewer could modify the pace and ordering of the open-

ended questions to engage the participant (Qu & Dumay, 2011). Another advantage of a

semistructured interview technique was that it could be used to help understand the

perceptions of the participants and their social environment (Qu & Dumay, 2011).

The advantage of using documentation review was the ability to triangulate the

data with the interview data (Dabić & Stojanov, 2014). Data triangulation required

multiple sources of data, such as interviews and documentation. The role of triangulation

in a case study was to analyze all the interrelated parts of an organization (Zivkovic,

2012). I used the data from the interviews and document reviews of sustainability

reports, financial reports, and annual reports to compare and corroborate to ensure

reliability (Dabić & Stojanov, 2014).

One of the disadvantages of the semistructured interview technique was the

assumption that the participants understood the open-ended questions. Another

assumption was that the interviewer was aware of the differences in the way the

participants experienced the business process such as sustainability reporting (Qu &

Dumay, 2011). The interview process was not a neutral and completely objective tool

because it was affected by the perspectives of both the interviewer and the participants.

To mitigate the disadvantages, I used a reflexive process before, during, and after the

interviews regarding how the questions were asked and interpreted (Koch et al., 2013).

Member checks were a process when participants checked the research findings to

ensure that the findings were true to their experiences (Elo et al., 2014). I conducted a

follow-up meeting with the participants after the interview data had been analyzed. I

revealed the findings of the research to the participants at the meeting. The participants

gave feedback about the findings, asked questions, and clarified their input (Shenton,

2004).

Data Organization Technique

I transcribed the interview data from the audio recording into text. I checked the

transcription against the voice recording to ensure accuracy (Wahyuni, 2012). The

transcription was maintained in electronic format and hard copy text. I stored the

observational, methodological, and theoretical notes in both electronic and hard copy

text. Roulston and Shelton (2015) recommended maintaining a reflective journal that

indicated the researcher’s perspective and rationales for decision making throughout the

study. I maintained the reflective journal in electronic format. The document reviews of

the annual report, financial reports, and sustainability reports of the academic institution

were maintained in electronic format and hard copy text.

I used a coding process for data analysis and organized the results into the form of

a codebook. Codes were defined as labels for assigning meaning to textual data such as

interview data (DeCuir-Gunby, Marshall, & McCulloch, 2011). I assigned codes to

chunks of textual data that were connected to a specific context. For example, when a

participant mentioned how students were interested in sustainability reporting I assigned

the code of internal stakeholder to the chunk of the interview data. I organized the

coding into a codebook. The codebook was a set of codes with definitions that were used

as a guide to help analyze interview data (DeCuir-Gunby et al., 2011). I organized the

data to be consistent and detailed. DeCuir-Gunby et al. (2011) recommended that the

data organization for the codebook have three components: code label, definition, and an

example. The codebook was maintained in both hard copy and electronic format.

The right to privacy and conﬁdentiality was vital for participants (Qu & Dumay,

2011). I concealed identities of people and places in data and results. For example, one

of the participants was the executive director of sustainability and I identified the

participant as EDOS in all data and results. The raw data will be maintained in a locked

container for 5 years (Qu & Dumay, 2011). After 5 years, the raw data will be destroyed.

Data Analysis

I utilized qualitative content analysis for the data analysis of the case study.

Qualitative content analysis was a thematic analysis used to identify patterns and themes

within the data (Wahyuni, 2012). I utilized a coding method for the qualitative content

analysis. Coding is defined as labeling of the data into meaningful groups (DeCuir-

Gunby et al., 2011). Coding was a method used to assign a code representing a topic or

category for data (DeCuir-Gunby et al., 2011).

I also used data source triangulation for the data analysis process. The

triangulation approach included data triangulation, method triangulation, and evaluator

triangulation to enhance the credibility of research findings (Wahyuni, 2012). Zivkovic

(2012) described the role of triangulation in a case study as analysis of all the interrelated

parts of an organization. I used the data triangulation approach to explore the

organization vertically from multiple levels and perspectives (Zivkovic, 2012).

Zivkovic (2012) argued that the use of multiple sources of evidence, including

interviews and external reports, was a way of creating construct validity. Triangulation

was one method of addressing validity issues in case study methodology (Zivkovic,

2012). Yin (2013) indicated that data source triangulation was likely to strengthen the

validity of a case study evaluation. Triangulation of data could be used from multiple

sources of data, including interviews and documentation (Dabić & Stojanov, 2014). I

used the data from the interviews and document reviews of sustainability reports,

financial reports, and annual reports for the data source triangulation process.

Data triangulation did not indicate causal meanings between data (Kaczynski,

Salmona, & Smith, 2014). I used data triangulation to explore deeper understanding by

providing different ways of viewing the business process. I compared the different

multiple sources of data to corroborate the participants’ statements in the interviews with

the information from the sustainability, financial, and annual reports. I used the data

from the documents to further understand the integration of sustainability reporting into

the reporting cycle by comparing the data between the multiple reports.

Analysis of interview data began with data preparation (Wahyuni, 2012). Data

preparation in qualitative research included data storage, transcribing audio interviews,

and cleaning data (Wahyuni, 2012). The raw interview data were in the form of audio

recordings of the interviews. I transcribed the audio recordings into text transcripts.

After transcription, I checked the transcript with the audio recording for accuracy.

Transcript cleaning consisted of removing all identifying information of the

participants and the organization. The identifying information was replaced with unique

codes to ensure confidentiality (Wahyuni, 2012). When the identifying information was

replaced, then a peer could read the transcripts or coding while maintaining

confidentiality (Wahyuni, 2012).

The interviews were transcribed and organized through coding. After reading and

reviewing all transcripts, I divided the information into topics. The topics were given

codes, and the transcripts were coded (DeCuir-Gunby et al., 2011).

There were four key steps in data analysis of qualitative data: (a) immersion in the

data, (b) coding, (c) creating categories, and (d) identification of themes (Green et al.,

2007). The first step was immersion in the data, which meant that the researcher

reviewed the transcripts repeatedly as well as listened to the recordings (Green et al.,

2007). I became immersed in the data by manually transcribing the interviews and

reviewing both the recordings and transcripts.

The second step was coding the data; this was a process of examining and sorting

the information into codes (Green et al., 2007). I used a data-driven coding approach for

the project. Data-driven codes were codes derived from the raw data (DeCuir-Gunby et

al., 2011). There were three levels of coding: open coding, axial coding, and selective

coding (Wahyuni, 2012). Open coding was conducted by analyzing transcripts and

distinguishing different themes and concepts found in the data (Wahyuni, 2012). Axial

coding was used when grouping the data into relevant categories (Wahyuni, 2012). Some

of the codes were directly from the data, such as the exact words used by an interviewee.

Some of the codes were drawn from the topic of the study (Hsieh & Shannon, 2005).

The third step of data analysis was creating categories (Green et al., 2007). The

codes were linked to create categories and form relationships (Green et al., 2007). I used

selective coding to make logical connections between the core categories and themes to

explore what was happening within the business processes (Wahyuni, 2012).

The fourth step of data analysis was the identification of themes (Green et al.,

2007). The theme was more than a category; it shifted the analysis from description to

explanation (Green et al., 2007). As the researcher, I developed themes by linking the

categories with why the information was important (Green et al., 2007). After reviewing

the data from the interview, I looked for meaning related to the topic of sustainability

reporting. I coded each transcript using color coding of the categories with notes in the

margin.

I developed a codebook to organize the codes and help analyze interview data.

The process of creating and organizing the codes was an iterative process that might have

been revised during the process of data analysis (DeCuir-Gunby et al., 2011). After the

transcripts were coded, then the topics were grouped into categories. Throughout the

coding process, different codes and categories were added or modified. A summary

matrix was prepared for each transcript that highlighted the categories and their location

within the transcript (DeCuir-Gunby et al., 2011). There was a comparison of categories

using the summary matrices across participants.

I conducted document reviews of the sustainability reports, financial reports, and

annual reports. The sustainability reports were available on the STARS sustainability

framework website (AASHE, 2015). The financial reports and the annual reports were

available on the website of the nonprofit academic institution.

I reviewed the sustainability reports using guidelines set by STARS for

sustainability reporting. The STARS sustainability reporting guidelines were adapted to

assess the quality of the sustainability reporting of the organization (AASHE, 2015). Van

Der Ploeg and Vanclay (2013) developed a sustainability reporting assessment.

According to Van Der Ploeg and Vanclay, researchers used a checklist of 10 questions to

evaluate the quality of sustainability reporting. I used a checklist incorporating both the

STARS guidelines and the sustainability reporting assessment tool to assess the content

and quality of the sustainability reporting of the organization.

I reviewed the financial reports and annual reports of the nonprofit academic

institution using a checklist of financial and nonfinancial indicators. The financial

reports included the income statement, balance sheet, and statement of cash flows. The

annual reports typically included financial reports, budgets, and nonfinancial information

such as reports on projects. The financial and annual reports also provided demographic

information such as organizational size, enrollment, faculty and staff, and governance.

For the coding, I used MAXQDA software for coding and identifying themes. I

transcribed the interviews into MAXQDA. The transcripts were coded in MAXQDA

using color coding that corresponded to the topics. I used MAXQDA to create the

summary matrix for each transcript.

Thematic analysis was part of qualitative content analysis (Wahyuni, 2012).

Researchers used thematic analysis to identify patterns and themes within data (Wahyuni,

2012). After the coding process was completed, the researcher looked for themes formed

by the categories of information (Hsieh & Shannon, 2005). The researcher developed the

categories from the data in the conventional content analysis technique rather than having

preconceived categories (Hsieh & Shannon, 2005). The codes came directly from the

data and then were sorted into categories. The categories were organized into meaningful

clusters (Hsieh & Shannon, 2005). The themes were developed from the clusters of

categories (Green et al., 2007).

The theme was more than a category; it shifted the analysis from description to

explanation (Green et al., 2007). The researcher developed themes by linking the

categories with why the information was important (Green et al., 2007). I used the

process of examining the transcript, drawing on knowledge of sustainability reporting,

and referring to the research question to create categories and develop themes. I thought

in terms of (a) the conceptual framework of CSR, (b) TBL reporting, and (c) corporate

sustainability to correlate key themes.

Reliability and Validity

In a qualitative case study, reliability and validity issues corresponded to

credibility, transferability, dependability, and confirmability (Wahyuni, 2012). To ensure

validity and reliability of the data, I had a detail-oriented approach (Shenton, 2004). The

transcripts were checked to ensure that there are no mistakes. The coding was checked

for consistency and modified if necessary. The interviews from the participants were

reviewed to see if there were any inconsistencies in the findings. To verify the

information, I used member checks as part of the interview process (Shenton, 2004).

Each participant was given a summary of the findings of the interview at a follow-up

meeting to ensure that what was said was what the participant intended (Shenton, 2004).

The participants were presented with the findings and asked if they thought that the

findings were accurate.

I used data triangulation from multiple sources of data to address validity

(Wahyuni, 2012). The multiple sources of data included interviews and document

reviews of sustainability reports, financial reports, and annual reports. When writing the

research findings, I described my background and experience to clarify bias. The

background description provided context for the research (Shenton, 2004). I presented

negative information in addition to the findings that might have contradicted the themes.

I used rich, thick description for the narrative of the study to ensure that information was

clarified and detailed (Shenton, 2004).

Reliability

Wahyuni (2012) defined dependability as corresponding to the reliability of the

information. Dependability required taking into account all the changes that occurred in

a research process and how these processes affected the way research was being

conducted (Wahyuni, 2012). If there was a detailed description of the research design

and process, then dependability is enhanced when future researchers follow a similar

research framework (Shenton, 2004). I presented a detailed explanation of the research

methodology so the study might be repeated (Shenton, 2004). The detailed explanation

included the data collection technique, data organization, and data analysis. Each step of

the research process described the methods and how the methods relate to each other

(Shenton, 2004).

I enhanced the reliability and validity of the data collection instrument by using

member checking (Shenton, 2004). Member checks were when participants checked the

research findings to make sure that they were true to their experiences (Elo et al., 2014).

The participants had a follow-up meeting after the interview data had been analyzed. The

participants were given an outline of the findings of the interview. Participants had the

opportunity to give feedback about the findings and clarify their input (Shenton, 2004).

Validity

Credibility was correlated with the accuracy of data to reflect the intended process

or focus (Wahyuni, 2012). To ensure credibility, the research methods were appropriate

for the research question (Shenton, 2004). I carefully selected the organization for the

case study and ensured that the organization fulfilled the criteria. Triangulation, member

checking, thorough literature reviews, and detailed description of the role of the

researcher were some of the methods used to ensure credibility (Shenton, 2004).

I used data source triangulation to ensure credibility. The triangulation approach

includes data triangulation, method triangulation, and evaluator triangulation to enhance

the credibility of research findings (Wahyuni, 2012). I used data triangulation to

corroborate the information by comparing the data from multiple sources (Zivkovic,

2012). Triangulation of data can be used from multiple sources of data, including

interviews and documentation (Dabić & Stojanov, 2014). The multiple sources of data

came from the interviews and the reviews of the annual reports, financial reports, and the

sustainability reports of the case institution.

I used member checking to ensure credibility (Shenton, 2004). Member checking

was defined as a process when participants checked the research findings to ensure that

the information was accurate to their experiences (Elo et al., 2014). I conducted a follow-

up meeting with participants and presented the findings of the interviews to the

participants. Participants were able to address any concerns about the findings and point

out any inaccuracies (Shenton, 2004).

Transferability was defined as the level the research could be applied to other

situations or settings (Wahyuni, 2012). To enhance transferability, the research study

included a detailed description of the background of the case study to provide context

(Shenton, 2004). The research findings might be applied to other situations if the context

was fully understood (Wahyuni, 2012). I provided rich descriptions of the settings and

current state of the sustainability processes in the case study to enhance the possibility of

the findings being applied to a different case within the nonprofit higher education

industry.

Confirmability was defined as whether the findings reflected the understandings

and experiences of the participant and not the researcher’s bias (Wahyuni, 2012). To

ensure confirmability, I used triangulation, an audit trail, and transparency methods in the

case study (Shenton, 2004). An audit trail was developed by careful documentation of

data collection and data analysis processes, including research memos (Wahyuni, 2012).

The audit trail could be used to provide a step-by-step explanation of the research process

to allow scrutiny of the findings (Shenton, 2004). I used transparency methods including

the disclosure of researcher’s beliefs, assumptions, and limitations of the research to

enhance confirmability (Shenton, 2004).

O’Reilly and Parker (2012) defined data saturation as the concept of collecting

data until no more new information was generated. Data saturation was the point where

there were no new or emerging patterns in the data (O’Reilly & Parker, 2012). The depth

of data rather than frequencies ensured data saturation (O’Reilly & Parker, 2012).

I ensured data saturation by interviewing a range of participants to cover the

experiences regarding the integration of sustainability reporting (M. Mason, 2010). I

conducted member checking with participants to ensure that the information will be in-

depth. I continued to collect information from the participants through additional

interviews until there was no new data collected.

I reviewed documents from multiple sources including sustainability reports,

annual reports, and financial reports to ensure data saturation. The objective of data

saturation was on the quality of information (G. Bowen, 2008). Using diverse data

collection instruments such as interviews and documents reviews produced enough data

to achieve data saturation (G. Bowen, 2008).

Transition and Summary

I presented the structure of the doctoral study in this section of the study. The

purpose of this qualitative single case study was to explore the strategies and processes

necessary for leaders and managers to integrate sustainability reporting into the reporting

cycle for a nonprofit higher education institution. For the purpose of the study, leaders

were internal stakeholders of the sustainability process including the sustainability

manager, administrators who contribute to the reporting cycle, members of the

sustainability committee, and administrators that oversee the sustainability reporting. I

followed the guidelines set by the Walden University IRB for ethical research (Walden

University, 2015).

Because I conducted a qualitative single case study, I functioned as the primary

data collection instrument (Qu & Dumay, 2011). The data collection process was a face-

to-face semistructured interview technique with leaders and managers in charge of

sustainability reporting. I also reviewed organizational documents as an additional

source of data. The documents used were public documents from multiple sources,

including published annual reports, financial reports, and sustainability reports.

I utilized qualitative content analysis for the data analysis of the case study.

Qualitative content analysis was a thematic analysis used to identify patterns and themes

within the data (Wahyuni, 2012). I used a coding method for the qualitative content

analysis.

I also used data source triangulation for the data analysis process. The

triangulation approach included data triangulation, method triangulation, and evaluator

triangulation to enhance the credibility of research findings (Wahyuni, 2012). I used the

data triangulation approach to explore the organization vertically from multiple levels

and perspectives (Zivkovic, 2012).

In a qualitative case study, reliability and validity issues corresponded to

credibility, transferability, dependability and confirmability (Wahyuni, 2012). I used

member checks as part of the interview process to ensure reliability and validity

(Shenton, 2004). I used data triangulation from multiple sources of data to address

validity (Wahyuni, 2012). The multiple sources of data included interviews and

document reviews of sustainability reports, financial reports, and annual reports.

I present the findings of the doctoral study in the next section of the study. The

presentation of the findings includes identification of each theme and discussion of the

relationship of the findings to the themes. I relate the findings to the conceptual

framework. I describe the ways that the findings may confirm, disconfirm, or extend

knowledge in the field of sustainability reporting.

Section 3 of the study includes detailed descriptions of (a) the applications to

professional practices, (b) implications for social change, (c) recommendations for action,

and (d) recommendations for further research. I reflect on my experience within the

DBA doctoral study process. I discuss possible biases, preconceived ideas, and their

possible influence on the participants or the process.

Section 3: Application to Professional Practice and Implications for Change

Introduction

The purpose of this qualitative single case study was to explore the strategies and

processes necessary for leaders and managers to integrate sustainability reporting into the

reporting cycle for a nonprofit higher education institution. I present the findings of the

doctoral study in this section of the study. Section 3 of the study also includes detailed

descriptions of (a) the applications to professional practices, (b) implications for social

change, (c) recommendations for action, (d) recommendations for further research, (e)

reflections, and (f) summary.

The case organization was a large nonprofit university located in the state of

Michigan with a total student enrollment of over 15,000 students. The case nonprofit

university was financially stable and its annual reports indicated healthy financial growth.

The leaders of the case nonprofit university published their sustainability reports on the

AASHE STARS website (AASHE, 2015).

Presentation of the Findings

Throughout the study, I addressed one central research question:

RQ 1. What strategies and processes do academic leaders and managers use to

develop, deploy, and integrate sustainability reporting into the reporting cycle of a

nonprofit academic organization?

The participants of the interviews were leaders, managers, and employees of the

case nonprofit academic institution in the state of Michigan. The participants were the

campus sustainability coordinator (CSC), the executive director of the office of

sustainability (EDOS), an associate professor at the university (PROF), and an assistant

vice president (AVP). All participants were actively involved with the sustainability

reporting process at the case nonprofit academic institution. The participants represented

different levels within the organization including administration, faculty, managers, and

top leadership.

The main responsibility of the EDOS was to integrate sustainability and its best

practices across the campus and community. The main responsibility of the CSC was to

focus on student, faculty, and staff sustainability activities as well as to oversee the

sustainability reporting process. The main responsibility of the PROF was to serve as the

chair of the working group on educational sustainable development. The PROF was in

charge of tracking courses throughout the university, including sustainability concepts.

The AVP was responsible for overseeing assessment and accreditation for the nonprofit

university. In terms of sustainability reporting, the AVP was a cochair of the campus

sustainability advisory committee (CSAC) overseeing strategic planning, assessment, and

accreditation.

I utilized qualitative content analysis for the data analysis of the case study. The

interviews were transcribed and organized through coding. I used MAXQDA software

for coding and organizing the qualitative data. After reading and reviewing all

transcripts, I divided the information into topics. The topics were given codes, and the

transcripts were coded (DeCuir-Gunby et al., 2011).

The codes were linked to create categories and form relationships (Green et al.,

2007). I used the core categories and themes to explore the research question of the study

(Wahyuni, 2012). Themes were developed by analyzing how the information was

important in the sustainability reporting process (Green et al., 2007).

Document reviews were conducted for the published annual reports and

sustainability reports of the case nonprofit university. I used the different sources of data

to explore the sustainability reporting process through multiple views (Zivkovic, 2012). I

compared the different multiple sources of data to synthesize information from the

interviews with the information from the sustainability and annual reports.

Summary of Themes

The results revealed five themes regarding the sustainability reporting process

developed from the analysis of the data. The themes were: (a) sustainability reporting

framework reflecting TBL; (b) sustainability reporting process as a long-term process; (c)

stakeholder engagement with leadership support; (d) collaborative process in

sustainability reporting; and (e) sustainability as an organizational value. I developed the

themes from coding the interview data, document reviews, and support from the literature

review.

The keywords count (see Table 2) revealed that the keyword of sustainability was

by far the most frequently used term (f = 148). This result supported the conclusion that

sustainability was a significant concept that was used throughout the interview data.

Other keywords included impact (f = 26), people (f = 24), system (f = 22), students (f =

20), business (f = 17), and community (f = 21). These keywords indicated an emphasis on

stakeholders such as students and the community. The keywords of process (f = 32),

strategic (f = 23), system (f = 22), and information (f = 21) revealed that there was a

process or system involving people and information. The keywords of years (f = 26),

progress (f = 18), assessment (f = 18), and journey (f = 16) indicated a long-term process

involving years of assessment and progress similar to a journey.

Table 2

Keyword Frequency: Top 20 Keywords

Keyword

Frequency

Percentage (%)

sustainability

148

4.79

reporting

2.72

STARS

1.78

university

1.65

process

1.04

impact

0.84

years

0.84

people

0.78

strategic

0.74

system

0.71

community

0.68

information

0.68

students

0.65

AASHE

0.58

assessment

0.58

progress

0.58

business

0.55

committee

0.55

economic

0.52

journey

0.52

The codes (see Table 3) were (a) STARS, (b) collaboration, (c) journey, (d)

external stakeholders, (e) value, (f) development, (g) TBL, (h) leadership, (i) CSAC, (j)

internal stakeholders, (k) framework, (l) implementation, (m) awareness, and (n)

baseline. I grouped the codes into categories and then into the five themes (see Table 4).

The code frequency was the number of segments of interview data that had the

designated code. The percentage of the summary of themes was the percentage of the

coded segments of interview data within each theme.

Table 3

Code Frequency

Code

Frequency

Percentage (%)

STARS

18%

Collaboration

12%

Journey

External stakeholders

Value

Development

TBL

Leadership

CSAC

Internal stakeholders

Framework

Implementation

Awareness

Baseline

Table 4

Summary of Themes for the Sustainability Reporting Process

Theme

Percentage (%)

Theme 1: Sustainability reporting framework reflecting TBL

29%

Theme 2: Sustainability reporting as a long-term process

28%

Theme 3: Stakeholder engagement with leadership support

19%

Theme 4: Collaborative process in sustainability reporting

18%

Theme 5: Sustainability as an organizational value

I grouped the codes of STARS, TBL, and framework into the category of

sustainability reporting framework because the codes were related by referring to the

sustainability reporting framework used at the case nonprofit university. The first theme

of sustainability reporting framework reflecting TBL emerged when the relationship

between the framework used and the reasons why it was used in the context of TBL was

studied. The sustainability reporting framework had TBL as a foundation for the

categories and subcategories of the framework.

The codes of journey, awareness, and baseline were grouped together under the

category of preliminary stage because the codes referred to steps taken before

sustainability reporting begins. The preliminary stage was the first step in the

sustainability reporting process. I grouped the codes of implementation and development

into the category of sustainability reporting cycle because the codes referred to the

planning and implementation of the sustainability reporting process. The second theme

of sustainability reporting as a long-term process emerged when the categories of the

preliminary stage and the sustainability reporting cycle were brought together. The

sustainability reporting process had a long-term journey approach because there was a

preliminary stage before sustainability reporting was undertaken and then a sustainability

reporting cycle process that occurred after the preliminary stage.

I grouped the codes of internal stakeholders, external stakeholders, and leadership

into the category of engagement and support because the codes were related to the

support of the sustainability reporting process. The third theme of stakeholder

engagement with leadership support emerged when the relationship between the

stakeholders and leaders in the context of the sustainability reporting process was

explored. The sustainability reporting process was supported by both stakeholders and

top leaders, which ensured the success of the process.

I grouped the codes of collaboration, framework, and CSAC into the category of

the collaborative process because the codes were related to their interactions among

groups of people and departments. The fourth theme of the collaborative process in

sustainability reporting emerged when I explored the relationship between the coded

segments with the sustainability reporting process. Collaboration between people and

departments throughout the university was required in the sustainability reporting

process.

I coded interview segments with the code of value every time that a participant

said the word value. I noted that participants mentioned sustainability as the value in

every interview segment regarding the code of value. The category of sustainability as

value resulted from the code of value and the frequency of the word sustainability. The

fifth theme of sustainability as an organizational value emerged when the concept of

sustainability and its value to the organization was explored. The case nonprofit

university had sustainability as one of its key values, which meant that the leaders and

managers fully integrated the concept of sustainability throughout the university.

Theme 1: Sustainability Reporting Framework Reflecting TBL

TBL is a concept that identifies and measures the social, environmental, and

economic impacts of an organization (Milne & Gray, 2013). I identified TBL as part of

the conceptual framework for the study. The leaders and managers of the case nonprofit

academic institution indicated that they selected a specific sustainability reporting

framework that incorporated TBL to produce a comprehensive and high-quality report.

The participants thought it was necessary that the sustainability reporting framework

accurately reflected the concept of the TBL and its environmental, economic, and social

characteristics.

The participants selected the AASHE STARS sustainability reporting framework

as the framework for the sustainability report because the STARS report incorporated the

TBL concept. The EDOS emphasized the need to be dedicated to the TBL and show all

three aspects. The EDOS stated,

And we focused on the triple bottom line. So we used a full triple bottom

line. So we defined sustainability and we understood what it meant, we

did not choose green, we did not choose environmental only—we went for

economic, social, and environmental impact. It was a great thing to do

because we knew all three legs were important. (EDOS)

Stakeholders indicated that they were interested in the TBL as well. The PROF stated,

“Internally, there is a large interest among students, faculty, and staff that want to see the

economic, social, and environmental dimensions of education be valued.”

Even though the STARS framework was challenging to complete because of its

multitude of categories and subcategories, the participants thought the framework was

worth the work because it was comprehensive and demonstrated TBL. The EDOS

thought that not all academic institutions could use STARS because STARS was complex

and likely too complex for a smaller school. The EDOS stated regarding the STARS

reporting framework,

It is a 250-page report—250. Who is going to take the time to go through

the data? That is a huge internal discussion. I get colleges in here all the

time. Some of them I would recommend that they should seriously look at

it, others I don't. And the reason being is that they are just not ready for it.

So we could go through assessment first, then progress, and then decide as

a college are you ready to look at STARS? (EDOS)

The PROF agreed with the EDOS and stated regarding the STARS reporting

framework, “I guess that—that system is really complicated. It has a large number of

reporting metrics. Hundreds, or maybe over a thousand. So it is a lot of work to track

down all the information.”

However, the EDOS thought that whatever sustainability reporting framework

that an academic institution used, it was necessary that the framework incorporated the

TBL. The EDOS emphasized the importance of using TBL in the sustainability reporting

framework by stating, “So now we can express social, environmental, and economic

capital in the same context.” The EDOS stated, “But I appreciate that there is at least a

standard with STARS. Just start a journey, take a look at STARS. That is what I told a

community college. Always go to the best practice of what works.” The AVP stated that

the information used in the STARS report was used in other reports as well:

We are reporting through the sustainability office, but that also gets folded

into other aspects on campus because we have what we call an

accountability report. We have an accountability report that the

president's office puts out annually. And there are definitely aspects of the

sustainability report in the accountability report. (AVP)

The STARS 2.0 framework had a TBL approach of sustainability and had main

sections that reflected the environmental, economic, and social aspects of the

organization. The main sections were academics, engagement, operations, planning and

administration, and innovation (AASHE, 2015). Each section of the STARS 2.0

framework had subcategories (see Table 5). The academics sections had curriculum and

research subcategories. Engagement had campus and public engagements. Operations

had air and climate, buildings, dining services, energy, grounds, purchasing,

transportation, waste, and water subcategories. Planning and administrative section had

coordination, planning, and governance; diversity and affordability; health, wellbeing,

and work; and investment subcategories. Innovation section had specific innovation

projects as a subcategory.

The numerous categories and subcategories covered the environmental, economic,

and social components of TBL. For example, the operations category contained many

environmental components. The planning and administrative section contained many

social aspects such as diversity and health. The investment subcategory was an economic

component. The numerous categories and subcategories corroborated with the

assessment by the participants that the STARS framework might be too much for a

smaller academic institution to handle.

For each subcategory, points were awarded on the STARS framework, depending

on whether the organization addressed the subcategory topic in the sustainability report.

The total points of the sustainability report determined the level of sustainability

reporting quality. The sustainability report of the case organization had a gold level

rating on the STARS guidelines. A gold level rating was considered a high-quality rating

(AASHE, 2015).

Table 5

The Categories and Subcategories of the STARS Report

Category

Subcategories

Academics

Engagement

Curriculum, Research

Campus Engagement, Public Engagement

Operations

Air and Climate, Buildings, Dining Services,

Energy, Grounds, Purchasing, Transportation,

Waste, Water

Planning and Administration

Governance, Diversity, Health and Wellbeing,

Investment

Innovation

Innovation projects

Theme 2: Sustainability Reporting as a Long-Term Process

The sustainability reporting process at the case nonprofit academic institution

followed a series of steps that ensured an accurate, comprehensive, and ongoing

sustainability report. The specific business problem addressed in the study was that some

leaders and managers of nonprofit educational institutions may lack the tacit knowledge

regarding the strategies and processes necessary to integrate sustainability reporting into

the organization’s reporting cycle. The findings revealed a sustainability reporting

process at a nonprofit academic institution that was successful in preparing, developing,

and maintaining a quality sustainability reporting cycle.

The participants described the sustainability reporting process as a journey. The

use of journey as a metaphor for the sustainability reporting process indicated that there

were certain steps that were essential for successful implementation. The concept of a

journey indicated that the process was lengthy with a long-term timeframe. The

sustainability reporting process cannot be implemented without a preliminary stage. The

EDOS stated,

And then you have to go through an understanding of what sustainability

means and where do you apply it. I don't know if anyone gave you this

information but just to get to the report is the last thing, it’s the journey to

how you got there. So there are ten major areas that we focused on from

the outset. So we went from how to create awareness, then what does it

mean for a faculty member or a student or someone in administration, is it

a fad, is it going away or is it a best practice? Where do we apply it?

How much progress? Now you are getting into the reporting part.

(EDOS)

There were steps in the process that needed to be taken before the sustainability

reporting cycle could begin. The essential steps before sustainability reporting could

begin were awareness, assessment, and progress. This preliminary stage (see Figure 1)

established a baseline, which became the foundation for the sustainability reporting.

Figure 1. Preliminary stage establishing a baseline.

Awareness. Awareness was the step where leaders and stakeholders became

aware of what sustainability was and its importance in the community and the university.

The EDOS said,

So back at that juncture, the first step was creating awareness. Back then

the president of the university, he helped form in 2005 the city's

sustainability partnership. He signed on, and so did the mayor. There

were five original founding members. They were our university, city,

public schools, another local college, and a local community college.

Today there are 270 organizations across all sectors. So just look at the

capacity that created awareness. (EDOS)

The EDOS added that awareness might be repeated, “So reporting has been a big

journey in itself but we never got to the reporting until we had awareness and then it

cycles back. So we still with new freshmen have to create awareness and understanding.”

Assessment. After awareness, the leaders and managers of the case nonprofit

university conducted an assessment report of the current state of sustainability initiatives.

The president of the university hired a sustainability consultant, who identified different

areas of sustainability at the university. The sustainability consultant interviewed

employees to assess the state of sustainability issues, including environmental areas such

as waste and energy management and social areas such as health and wellness and

stakeholder engagement. The sustainability consultant then developed an assessment

report that was reviewed by the leaders and managers of the nonprofit university. The

EDOS said, “So, for our first effort, we issued our first report. But it was what I would

call is an assessment report. So you have to have a baseline.” The EDOS described the

assessment report process:

The university looked at this committee and it was very high level,

finance, and administration level with a number of stakeholders. And they

gave me ten different colleges that they wanted me to benchmark. And go

out and benchmark what indicators they were using. Then they selected

the indicators. So I compared say nine out of 10 were tracking this and

eight out of 10 are tracking this. So that very first report was all

assessment to get our baseline. So you can, we probably called it an

indicator report. But it was really an assessment. And that was the first

one done. (EDOS)

Progress. After a year, the sustainability consultant tracked the progress of the

sustainability issues identified in the assessment report. The progress report was a

baseline for the sustainability reports to follow. Only after a baseline was established

could managers start developing sustainability reports. The EDOS stated, “So the next

step is progress, and nobody wants progress—they want impact, long-term change and

everybody thinks that you can leap over those steps. You can't, you cannot do that. You

have to go through that journey.” The EDOS further explained, “But you don't get to this

high-end reporting until you do some sort of assessment, then some sort of progress

reporting, and then maybe look at STARS.”

Sustainability reporting cycle. After the preliminary stage, then the

sustainability reporting cycle can be established (see Figure 2). The sustainability

reporting cycle started with preparing to gather data using the sustainability reporting

framework as a guideline. The managers determined who had the data that were used in

the sustainability report. The managers then collaborated with other departments and

gather data. The PROF stated, “We need a core group of people who understand the

process, and they are proactive and keeping track and when the time comes, at the end of

the year they have the information to report.”

Figure 2. Sustainability reporting cycle.

After gathering the data, they entered the data into the framework. The EDOS

stated when describing the importance of a framework,

But in preparation, we have 15 different report areas. But how do they all

integrate? So you have assessment reports, financial reports, progress

reports, compliance reports- how does all that flow into the sustainability

reports? So is there an integrating architecture for all the reporting and

planning we do? (EDOS)

The participants used the STARS reporting framework as the framework for the

sustainability information. The EDOS stated, regarding the reporting process,

To us, the process of the reporting is embedded. So all these workgroups

know that we track data inside STARS, they all know that. And so we

will go out and request that data. Some of them know it so well since they

are department heads they go into the database themselves and fill it in.

(EDOS)

The participants identified gaps in the sustainability reporting framework

information. The participants fixed the gaps by going to the appropriate workgroup,

collaborating, and gathering more data. The CSC addressed the issue of gap analysis:

But when we first started out they did a study to see where they were at

with everything, so it was a really comprehensive review of what we are

doing for sustainability. So the first step was what are we doing for

sustainability? And that was how we were able to say well, these are what

we are strong but here are some areas that we are very weak so we could

put more effort in those areas. So the process has really been gap analysis.

(CSC)

The PROF gave an example of identifying gaps as part of the sustainability

reporting process: “So we maintain a database of courses that focus on sustainability. . . .

So we track them two different ways: a set of courses that are entirely focused on

sustainability and ones that include some aspect of sustainability.” Then the PROF

elaborated regarding identification of gaps in the information:

Then we identify gaps. So we noticed that one of the health majors—from

the outside we feel that healthcare is a really important aspect of

sustainability. But at least superficially we don't have any nursing courses

in our sustainability database. So this is an opportunity to reach out to the

nursing staff and what we are trying to do and how we envision

sustainability and how what they are doing is probably already

incorporating many aspects of sustainability at various level. Primary care

or organizational management within a hospital. So how can we frame

what you are already doing in the context of sustainability? (PROF)

The PROF concluded, “We have members of those departments on our working

group, so they are actively working with the faculty just to frame . . . what they are

already doing in the context of sustainability.”

After the sustainability report information was complete, then the report was

shared and communicated with stakeholders. The AVP emphasized that the systematic

approach to sustainability reporting was important for planning and communication:

That sustainability reporting not only brings everybody together under a common

focus is going to be helpful under its own right, but it’s the ability then to report it

on a systematic way that will allow others including administration to be able to

see that plan and systematic review approach that will bring more attention to it.

(AVP)

The STARS sustainability report of the case organization was available online to

the public on the AASHE STARS website (AASHE, 2015). An integrated sustainability

approach included sustainability reporting that was available to all stakeholders and fully

integrated into the reporting cycle (Krizek et al., 2012). After receiving feedback from

stakeholders, managers reflected on the reporting information to improve sustainability

performance.

Theme 3: Stakeholder Engagement with Leadership Support

The leaders and managers of the case nonprofit academic institution emphasized

the need for stakeholder engagement with strong leadership support of the sustainability

reporting process. The EDOS stated regarding two presidents of the nonprofit university

who started the sustainability movement:

He wanted to have a discussion about what sustainability means and how

it could be an important activity on campus. That was in 2004, then when

the next president came, he had a background. So his question was- how

are we applying it? How many grants do we have? So he went

immediately to the apply side. So the first one created the awareness and

the conversation and then the second one went to the apply side. So then

the second president signed a number of sustainability commitments on

behalf of the university and so our journey is one of leadership and

excellence in our case. And how do you report it? (EDOS)

100

The CSC stated, “We are very fortunate that we have administrative support.”

The CSC continued, “For example, one of these opportunities to do reporting is called the

President's climate commitment and our president signed on right away and we were one

of the first schools to sign off on this.” The AVP agreed, “It is important for us to know

from top administration down in terms of us being sustainable- it is part of who we are as

part of the culture of the institution.”

The EDOS, CSC, and AVP described the visionary campus leader that Krizek et

al. (2012) argued was necessary for a full sustainability implementation at a university.

A visionary campus leader was a high-level executive who encouraged a vision of

sustainability. Krizek et al. claimed that a visionary campus leader supported stakeholder

engagement, transparency in the sustainability process, and a comprehensive

sustainability reporting process. The AVP described the earlier leaders of the nonprofit

university, “They brought in a person to head up the sustainability initiative. It was a

leading, bleeding edge of when this sort of work was starting on campuses.” The STARS

reporting framework indicated the importance of top leadership in sustainability reporting

(AASHE, 2015). The STARS reporting framework required that each submitted report

must be accompanied by a letter from the president, chancellor, or highest ranking

executive of the institution who confirmed that the report had been checked for accuracy

(AASHE, 2015).

The participants thought that both stakeholders and top leaders needed to support

sustainability reporting for the process to be successful. Both internal and external

101

stakeholders wanted sustainability initiatives and reporting while the leaders supported

the process. The PROF described it as “a top-down, bottom-up approach.” The CSC

stated the benefits of the stakeholders and leaders supporting sustainability:

But also if you just walk through our campus you can tell that

sustainability is important. In terms of allocating resources we are able to

have these beautiful new buildings and do some other great things

renewable energy wise and stuff like that because we do have that extra

support. We are fortunate not to have to fight sustainability battles.

(CSC)

The PROF talked about the external stakeholders, including the local businesses:

“The external factors there is a whole group of businesses and foundations that are really

interested in sustainability. Our university's value of sustainability fits into that

ecosystem around us and that extends to the mayor's office and the county.” The PROF

further stated, “So it is a really good fit and I think that we are a good model for other

institutions and regions in the country.” The PROF also discussed other universities and

local government support of sustainability:

And in terms of sustainability there is a lot of spillover between not only

with industry but with a lot of nonprofits and the university and

government. And I think it is working as kind of a holistic ecosystem of

ideas. I think that our university is doing a really good job, but we are

102

doing a good job because there is so much other stuff going on in the

community related to sustainability. (PROF)

The PROF concluded that the nonprofit university had a lot of support regarding

sustainability reporting, “Yes, a lot of support. We are all reinforcing one another.” The

support of the environment was corroborated by T. Hahn et al. (2015). T. Hahn et al.

noted that a favorable organizational setting was a prerequisite for organizations to

respond to sustainability issues. Fernandez-Feijoo et al. (2014) described the numerous

stakeholders at academic institutions, including students, faculty, alumni, staff,

administrators, local businesses, governmental agencies, and other colleges in the same

way as the PROF of the case nonprofit university. Multistakeholder collaboration

encouraged mutual learning of sustainability (Yarime et al., 2012).

In the STARS reporting framework, there was a category for engagement

(AASHE, 2015). This category consisted of two subcategories: campus engagement and

public engagement. The case nonprofit academic institution had a high percentage of

over 85% for engagement activity, indicating a high degree of stakeholder engagement.

Theme 4: Collaborative Process in Sustainability Reporting

The participants emphasized the collaborative process of the sustainability

reporting cycle at their nonprofit university. The sustainability practices of the nonprofit

academic institution affected multiple levels and departments, requiring a collaborative

effort throughout the organization. The case university handled the collaborative process

by creating CSAC, which was the campus sustainability action committee. Avota,

103

Mcfadzean, and Peiseniece (2015) noted that teamwork was a common method of

collaboration in a sustainable organization.

The participants stated that the sustainability report was an external report that

used internal data. The internal data were gathered from a wide range of different

departments throughout the university through internal reports. The CSC stated, “We do

some internal reports such as our strategic plan, different committee work. There is a

campus sustainability advisory committee; this is our big one, so we do reports for that

committee.” The CSC further stated,

There is a lot of internal reporting that happens through committee. But

separately there is a lot of external reporting that we do, and those sort of

reports that other institutions do so there can be comparisons between

other institutions. (CSC)

To complete the sustainability report, it was necessary to collaborate with

numerous people, which was a time-consuming process. It was also difficult to know

who had the data or where and when the data were available. The CSC stated, regarding

CSAC, “It brings everyone to the table, so that has been really helpful.” The CSC

continued, “Before we did that I had to reach out to all the different groups individually

and kind of get everyone up to speed individually, so it was not efficient basically.”

I conducted a document review of the AASHE STARS sustainability reporting

framework that the case nonprofit university used for its sustainability report. The

STARS 2.0 framework had a systems approach to sustainability, and the main sections

104

were academics, engagement, operations, planning and administration, and innovation

(AASHE, 2015). Each section of the STARS 2.0 framework had subcategories. The

STARS reporting framework indicated that the participants were accurate that the

sustainability report required a wide range of information from departments across the

entire university.

To resolve the challenges of gathering, tracking, and sharing information

necessary in sustainability reporting, the leaders at the nonprofit university established

the CSAC. CSAC was organized into 11 workgroups. Each workgroup represented an

area of sustainability such as waste management, transportation, curriculum, and

operations. Each workgroup had a leader with people from different departments within

the workgroup. The CSC stated, “There are 11 workgroups in different areas. And they

work with other workgroups. Even if we have 20 people at a meeting, there are really

like 60 people working with the reporting since they are working with different

networks.” The AVP agreed,

From that standpoint, what we are doing now is that we have groups and

subgroups that work on various aspects of our sustainability practices on

campus. Like our food services, our academic programs, our student

engagement, our facilities, energy usage, and so on. (AVP)

People worked together within the workgroup, and the workgroups collaborated

with other workgroups to share and communicate information about sustainability

practices. The PROF stated when referring to the workgroups,

105

And then internally we developed the campus sustainability advisory

committee that helps with the data collection that goes into the collection.

But also within the working groups, we can identify specific sustainability

targets and goals that we want to implement those through a process of

continuous improvements. Include more sustainability into our

educational curricula, or in our operations, in our investments and then

that circles back and we are able to report on that. (PROF)

The CSC stated, “One thing that has been great is that we can have constant

feedback in conversations so they can see areas that could be improved and have better

results. That has been a really good thing to keep things going.” The collaborative

process was described by T. Hahn et al. (2014) to allow for information exchange and

open dialogue across different levels of the organization, which encouraged

organizational learning and creative problem solving. The collaborative process was

essential to contribute internal information of 11 workgroups to the external sustainability

report (see Figure 3).

106

Figure 3. Collaborative process from internal information contributing to external

sustainability report.

The participants indicated that CSAC had improved the efficiency of the

collaborative process. CSAC also addressed the university-wide strategic plan and not

just the sustainability report. The EDOS stated, regarding CSAC,

So today, our campus sustainability advisory committee is developing a

sustainability plan that fits into the strategic plan. We never had one

across the university. We always had one in our office, but our office is of

service to everyone. So this was a major step forward last year in setting

107

up a sustainability advisory council that would actually integrate the goals

in 11 different areas. (EDOS)

The participants believed that CSAC was essential to the success of the

sustainability initiatives and different reporting cycles throughout the nonprofit

university. The CSC stated,

So we are having them looking at our university's strategic planning like

the big overarching document and see how they fit into that. So we are

right in the middle of that process. That has been a neat process for us.

We can see how sustainability specifically ties into the mission and goals

and outcomes for the university. (CSC)

The CSC concluded regarding the collaborative effort of CSAC, “It has been a

huge improvement though to have everyone together.” The AVP added that the members

of the sustainability committee are developing an online information distribution system:

We might do them on a spreadsheet in my office or somewhere else in their area

has their own tracking, but we are putting together now an internal web-based

systems where you can get on and it makes the information much more disbursed

and available to those around campus. (AVP)

Theme 5: Sustainability as an Organizational Value

The leaders and managers of the case nonprofit academic institution indicated that

sustainability had to be a key value of the organization to support sustainability reporting.

Sustainability was a concept that encompassed the ability of organizations to meet the

108

needs of stakeholders while maintaining high environmental, financial, and social

performance (Searcy & Buslovich, 2014). I identified sustainability as a part of the

conceptual framework of the study. The CSC stated, regarding sustainability as an

organizational value,

We are very lucky at our university that sustainability is one of our formal

values. The institution has seven formal values in effective teaching and

inclusion. So we are very fortunate that sustainability was named one of

them. I think that this is kind of unique, we are fortunate to have

administrative support. So sustainability is very important to our

university as a whole. (CSC)

The EDOS defined sustainability in this way: “And use a marketplace term—a set

of tools and best practices that allow you to make a better decision both for today and

tomorrow, but gives you positive social, economic, and environmental impact. That is

the best definition.” The AVP stated the long-term commitment to sustainability started

years ago and grew:

It seems as though sustainability has always been at least an interest all the

way back when early on we were doing LEED [Leadership in Energy and

Environmental Design] certified buildings on campus. Kind of well in

advance of other public buildings. From that perspective, it kind of grew

from where I saw it. (AVP)

109

The viewpoints of the participants aligned with T. Hahn et al. (2015) who argued

that a favorable organizational setting was a prerequisite for organizations to respond to

sustainability issues.

Because sustainability reporting was voluntary, the participants thought that the

nonprofit university had to value sustainability to invest in the lengthy journey of

sustainability reporting. The EDOS stated, regarding the voluntary aspect of

sustainability reporting,

The best way to look at it is—it's required. None of this was really

required. That's different, right? There are assessment reports for

accreditation, but sustainability is not the same way. There is no

requirement to do it but, we self-imposed, there is your difference. So we

self-imposed, we did not have to do an assessment. But the university

wanted to find out where we are. But they picked the indicators, and that

started the journey. (EDOS)

At the case nonprofit academic institution, sustainability was now considered a

key value that was to be integrated across the entire organization. Although most

universities do not have the same level of commitment to sustainability as the case

university, the participants thought it was important for a university to value

sustainability and be dedicated to the concept of sustainability for continued success. The

EDOS stated about the importance of sustainability as an organizational value:

110

In 2010 the difference was that it is no longer an activity it is now one of

the university's seven values. That is a huge difference because once it is

a value you have to integrate sustainability across all departments and all

our colleges and it has to do with leadership and excellence, it is not an

activity. It’s not about just saving energy. So today it’s about how to live

a sustainable lifestyle. (EDOS)

The PROF stated, “Sustainability is valued and implemented and acted upon in

the curriculum and in the way we do work.” The PROF continued, “We are also doing it

internally for the university because sustainability is a university value now. So we have

to have metrics and show how we are integrating that value into everything we do in our

operations.”

The EDOS stated the benefits of having sustainability as an organizational value

in the context of commitment:

Plus you have to get to the point where the university has a commitment to

it. And there are still are many universities that are doing great work ten

years ago that have still not been able to get to the total commitment. So

we are very fortunate. And more or less, I don't know any that has it as a

university value. We only have seven values at our university, and that is

a major difference. To be a good global citizen which is what we are

trying to do here. They believe that sustainability helps prepare a student

to become one of those - a good global citizen. (EDOS)

111

The use of sustainability as an organizational value corroborated with the

conclusion by Krizek et al. (2012) that the principles of sustainability needed to become

part of the mission, vision, and values of the academic institution to be fully integrated

into the organization.

Applications to Professional Practice

The findings, conclusions, and recommendations from the study contributed to the

field of knowledge of the internal organizational processes in sustainability reporting.

The findings of the study fulfilled the need for an exploration of a sustainability reporting

cycle for a nonprofit academic institution. The five themes of the study that emerged

from the findings were: (a) sustainability reporting framework reflecting TBL; (b)

sustainability reporting as a long-term process; (c) stakeholder engagement with

leadership support; (d) collaborative process in sustainability reporting; and (e)

sustainability as an organizational value.

Leaders and managers at nonprofit academic institutions could select a

sustainability reporting framework that reflected the TBL concept to ensure that the

sustainability report was high quality and measured important sustainability

characteristics. TBL was a concept that assessed sustainability practices through

environmental, economic, and social factors (Milne & Gray, 2013). The findings of the

study indicated that it was essential that the sustainability reporting framework

incorporated TBL to provide a comprehensive assessment.

112

Leaders and managers at nonprofit academic institutions might be hesitant to

implement sustainability reporting because they did not know how to start. Managers

identified lack of knowledge in developing sustainability reports as the main reason for

not using sustainability reports (Habek & Wolniak, 2015). The findings of the study

indicated the steps of establishing a sustainability reporting process consisted of

completing a preliminary stage before the reporting cycle, and then the reporting cycle

could be established. The preliminary stage of awareness, assessment, and progress

established a baseline before starting the sustainability reporting cycle. The sustainability

reporting cycle of preparation, collaboration, input and gap analysis, communication with

stakeholders, and reflection was perpetuated on an annual basis. Managers at nonprofit

academic institutions could use the sustainability reporting process described in the study

as a model to assist them in developing their own sustainability reports.

Leaders and stakeholders of a nonprofit academic institution could consider if

there was stakeholder engagement with leadership support for sustainability reporting.

At the case nonprofit university, both internal and external stakeholders supported

sustainability initiatives and sustainability reporting. Stakeholders wanted to see progress

and assessment of sustainability initiatives and were engaged in the sustainability

reporting process. Along with the stakeholders, the top leaders at the university strongly

supported sustainability practices and sustainability reporting.

A comprehensive sustainability reporting framework required a diverse range of

information from multiple sources. In the case study, the sources of information came

113

from internal reports of different departments throughout the university. The case

nonprofit university formed a collaborative committee that united all the departments

throughout the university with sustainability as the goal. Leaders and managers could use

the same strategy to support collaboration in the sustainability reporting process.

Leaders and managers can assess their organizations and determine if their

organizational environment had the values for sustainability reporting support.

Sustainability as an organizational value may be necessary to support the lengthy process

of sustainability reporting. Sustainability reporting could provide leaders and managers

an assessment tool for improvement of sustainability initiatives. The nonprofit academic

institution can also benefit from the recognition of commitment to the community

through transparency of the sustainability reporting process.

Implications for Social Change

If leaders and managers had the knowledge of preparing, developing, and

maintaining a sustainability reporting cycle, then the leaders and managers were more

likely to consider using sustainability reporting (Habek & Wolniak, 2015). If nonprofit

academic institutions had sustainability reports, then stakeholders would be able to assess

the progress of sustainability practices that will increase the transparency of the

sustainability process. Leaders and managers at nonprofit academic institutions could use

the findings from the study to implement the process of sustainability reporting.

Community engagement was a characteristic of an organization that incorporated

sustainability as a value. One way to connect and communicate with community

114

stakeholders and partners was through sustainability reporting. A network of community

partners could use the sustainability reports to understand the impact of sustainable

practices as well as compare progress. The engagement with other nonprofit academic

institutions could be enhanced if the institutions used the same sustainability reporting

framework such as STARS to assess the sustainability initiatives across organizations.

Being a good global citizen means understanding that the conservation of

environmental resources, economic responsibility, and social awareness are important for

the positive growth of the global environment (Hack et al., 2014). As leaders in

businesses and organizations embrace sustainability practices, sustainability reporting

becomes part of the sustainability movement (Mori et al., 2013). Leaders and managers

of nonprofit academic institutions can use the findings of the study to start the

sustainability reporting process by completing the preliminary stage of awareness,

assessment, and progress. The findings indicated the necessary conditions for starting

and implementing the sustainability reporting process.

Stakeholder engagement with leadership support was a vital factor in supporting

the sustainability reporting process. At a nonprofit academic institution, engaging

students, faculty, staff, administration, and community partners such as local businesses

brought positive social change to the community and environment. Stakeholder

engagement and collaboration established an environment of participation and

information exchange that encouraged organizational learning and innovation benefiting

the entire community.

115

Recommendations for Action

The data analysis revealed five themes: (a) sustainability reporting framework

reflecting TBL; (b) sustainability reporting as a long-term process; (c) stakeholder

engagement with leadership support; (d) collaborative process in sustainability reporting;

and (e) sustainability as an organizational value. Leaders and managers at nonprofit

academic institutions can use the themes as steps and strategies for implementing a

sustainability reporting process. The strategy of completing the preliminary stage of

awareness, assessment, and progress before starting sustainability reporting can function

as a guideline for starting a sustainability reporting process. The sustainability reporting

cycle of preparation, collaboration, identification of gaps, stakeholder communication,

and reflection is a strategy for implementation of a sustainability reporting process.

The use of a sustainability reporting framework that was based on TBL can be a

standard for managers who are considering different sustainability reporting frameworks.

The collaborative effort was an essential factor in the sustainability reporting process that

leaders and managers can encourage through teamwork and committee formation.

Stakeholder engagement with leadership support can indicate if a nonprofit academic

institution had the support needed to implement a sustainability reporting process.

Finally, sustainability as an organizational value was a vital factor for a nonprofit

academic institution to have to integrate sustainability reporting throughout the

organization.

116

Leaders and managers of nonprofit academic institutions who were considering

using sustainability reporting for sustainability initiatives at their organizations is a target

audience of the study. Another target audience is internal and external stakeholders

including students, faculty, staff, administration, and community partners who are

interested in understanding the sustainability reporting process. Leaders at nonprofit

academic institutions have the responsibility of encouraging sustainability reporting and

understanding the benefits to the community and stakeholders.

Accounting professionals can be attentive to the findings since sustainability

reporting incorporates aspects of financial reporting. Accounting professionals may work

with sustainability managers to provide the economic component of the TBL. Because

the concept of sustainability requires managers to be held accountable to stakeholders,

then accountants are in the position of applying the ethical standards of transparency to

sustainability reports (Seay, 2015).

The results of the study can add to the information sharing at conferences with

accounting professionals. Because the study focused on a nonprofit academic institution,

I can present my findings at academic conferences. The findings of the study can

contribute to training for managers who are interested in sustainability reporting or

starting the sustainability reporting process at their nonprofit academic institutions. I can

disseminate the findings of the study by publishing in academic journals targeted for

leaders at academic institutions. I can also share the results of the study through online

journals and professional online blogs.

117

Recommendations for Further Research

The purpose of this qualitative single case study was to explore the strategies and

processes necessary for leaders and managers to integrate sustainability reporting into the

reporting cycle for a nonprofit higher education institution. I identified in Section 1 that a

single case study was a limitation because it might hinder transferability to other

organizations (Zivkovic, 2012). I mitigated the limitation by selecting an exemplary case

of an academic institution that had fully integrated sustainability reporting into the

reporting cycle. In future research, multiple case studies of academic institutions can

extend the research.

Another limitation of the case study was the willingness of participation by

leaders and the honesty in the responses of the leaders. I was able to mitigate the

limitation by thoroughly explaining the data collection process to the participants. I

addressed the honesty and thoroughness of the participants’ responses by asking follow-

up questions if the answers were not clear. Additional questions to the list of interview

questions can extend future research.

The scope of the study did not extend outside of the state of Michigan and outside

of the United States. The scope of the study did not include for-profit academic

institutions. For further research, the inclusion of for-profit academic institutions could

extend the body of knowledge. For-profit academic institutions share many of the same

challenges of nonprofit academic institutions, such as a complicated network of

118

stakeholders and community involvement. Research can also include academic

institutions in different states or regions of the United States.

I conducted the interviews and document reviews of the study over the course of 2

months, so the scope of the study did not extend past a 2-month period. For future

research, the scope of the study could be more long-term. Researchers can interview

participants at one stage of the sustainability reporting process and then interview again

at a different stage to explore what participants think about the sustainability reporting

process over an extended period.

Cavazos-Garza and Krueger (2014) suggested that future research could focus on

the inclusion of sustainability in an organization’s strategy. I focused on the process of

developing and implementing sustainability reporting in the single case study. Future

research can focus on how to include sustainability into an organization’s strategic

planning.

Moore and Poznanski (2015) pointed out that many sustainability reports lacked

information that would be valuable to stakeholders. I did not include external

stakeholders in the interview process for the single case study. Future research could

include surveying external stakeholders to examine what stakeholders were looking for in

sustainability reports.

Reflections

In qualitative research, the researcher was the instrument of data collection (Koch

et al., 2013). I collected, analyzed, and interpreted the data in the qualitative single case

119

study. I was aware of possible influence on all aspects of the research because of the

amount of interaction with research participants. The influence of the researcher

included relationships with participants, personal biases, and attitudes that might have

influenced the view and interpretation of the qualitative data (Koch et al., 2013).

Prior to the start of the academic research process, I had an active interest in the

concepts of CSR, sustainability, and accounting for sustainability. My professional

perspective was supportive of the concept of CSR for organizations and the importance

of sustainability for organizations and communities. I was an active participant in the

accounting field and supported the involvement of the accounting profession in the

sustainability reporting process. I taught accounting at the college level and I supported

teaching sustainability concepts in the context of accounting education.

I was not a faculty member of the nonprofit academic institution in the study, so I

did not have any relationship with the participants of the single case study prior to the

study. The only contact I had with the participants of the case academic institution was

through the interview process. I practiced reflexivity to mitigate bias and increase the

awareness of my influence on the data and the data collection.

I practiced reflexivity throughout the entire research process, including

development of interview questions, analysis of interview transcripts, and the

development of themes. The practice of reflexivity ensured that the resulting themes

emerged from the responses and not from the researcher’s biases (Koch et al., 2013). I

reflected on my support of the concept of sustainability and ensured that all information

120

from the participants’ responses were directly from the participants and did not reflect my

biases.

After completing the study, I understood the importance of leaders, managers, and

employees in embracing the concept of sustainability when developing sustainability

reporting. If the leaders, managers, and employees are committed to sustainability and

the benefits to the community, then they will take the time and effort in developing

sustainability reports for their stakeholders. I have a better understanding of the need for

a collaborative effort in developing sustainability reports. Communication needs to be

open across different levels and areas in the organization for the sustainability reporting

process to succeed. I have a greater understanding of the unique position that nonprofit

academic institutions have in the community and their potential for the promotion of

sustainability and responsible sustainability reporting.

Summary and Study Conclusions

The findings from the study contributed to the body of knowledge regarding the

planning, development, and monitoring of sustainability reports. The five themes from

the study were: (a) sustainability reporting framework reflecting TBL; (b) sustainability

reporting as a long-term process; (c) stakeholder engagement with leadership support; (d)

collaborative process in sustainability reporting; and (e) sustainability as an

organizational value. The sustainability reporting process was a lengthy and complicated

process that could span years and involved stakeholders throughout the nonprofit

academic institution and community. Leaders and managers of nonprofit academic

121

institutions can use the results of the study as guidance for the development and

implementation of their sustainability reporting process.

The nonprofit academic institution is a learning organization, and the leaders have

the ability to educate the community through traditional means and through example. If a

nonprofit academic institution published sustainability reports, then all stakeholders

would be able to assess the commitment to sustainability of the organization. The

nonprofit academic institution can serve the community on multiple levels, including

education, community networking, and as a role model for best practices in sustainability.

The nonprofit academic institution can fulfill a leadership role in an increasingly global

and community-oriented world perspective in the academic field through information and

knowledge sharing of the sustainability reporting process.

122

References

Aggarwal, B., & Gurnani, M. (2014). Development of ethical guidelines for clinical

research: Serendipity or eulogy. Ethics & Medicine: An International Journal of

Bioethics, 30, 97-108. Retrieved from http://www.ethicsandmedicine.com/

Albareda, L. (2013). CSR governance innovation: Standard competition-collaboration

dynamic. Corporate Governance, 13, 551-568. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/CG-06-

2013-0076

Alhaddi, H. (2014). The influence of triple bottom line on strategic positioning: An

exploratory case study on differentiation through image. Journal of Management

and Strategy, 5(1), 55-73. http://dx.doi.org/10.5430/jms.v5n1p55

Association for the Advancement of Sustainability in Higher Education. (2015). STARS

participants and reports. Philadelphia, PA. Retrieved from

https://stars.aashe.org/institutions/participants-and-reports/

Avota, S., Mcfadzean, E., & Peiseniece, L. (2015). Linking personal and organisational

values and behaviour to corporate sustainability: A conceptual model. Journal of

Business Management, (10), 124-139. Retrieved from http://www.riseba.lv/

en/publications/journal.html

Ballou, B., Casey, R. J., Grenier, J. H., & Heitger, D. L. (2012). Exploring the strategic

integration of sustainability initiatives: Opportunities for accounting research.

Accounting Horizons, 26, 265-288. http://dx.doi.org/10.2308/acch-50088

123

Boulouta, I., & Pitelis, C. N. (2014). Who needs CSR? The impact of corporate social

responsibility on national competitiveness. Journal of Business Ethics, 119, 349-

364. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10551-013-1633-2

Bowen, G. (2008). Naturalistic inquiry and the saturation concept: A research note.

Qualitative Research, 8, 137-152. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1468794107085301

Bowen, H. (1953). Social responsibilities of the businessman. New York, NY: Harper &

Row.

Brown-Liburd, H., & Zamora, V. L. (2015). The role of corporate social responsibility

(CSR) assurance in investors’ judgments when managerial pay is explicitly tied to

CSR performance. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory, 34(1), 75-96.

http://dx.doi.org/10.2308/ajpt-50813

Carroll, A. (1999). Corporate social responsibility. Business and Society, 38, 268-295.

Retrieved from http://bas.sagepub.com/

Cavazos-Garza, A. A., & Krueger, T. (2014). Wealth impacts arising from hiring a

sustainability officer. Journal of Strategic Innovation and Sustainability, 10(1),

24-34. Retrieved from http://www.na-businesspress.com/jsisopen.html

Christofi, A., Christofi, P., & Sisaye, S. (2012). Corporate sustainability: Historical

development and reporting practices. Management Research Review, 35, 157-172.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/01409171211195170

124

Churet, C., & Eccles, R. G. (2014). Integrated reporting, quality of management, and

financial performance. Journal of Applied Corporate Finance, 26(1), 7-18.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/jacf.12054

Curry, M. W. (2012). In pursuit of reciprocity: Researchers, teachers, and school

reformers engaged in collaborative analysis of video records. Theory Into

Practice, 51, 91-98. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00405841.2012.662858

Dabić, T., & Stojanov, Ž. (2014). Techniques for collecting qualitative field data in

education research: Example of two studies in information technology field.

Proceedings of the 1st International Scientific Conference - Sinteza 2014, 362-

367. http://dx.doi.org/10.15308/sinteza-2014-362-367

Darus, F., Sawani, Y., Zain, M. M., & Janggu, T. (2014). Impediments to CSR assurance

in an emerging economy. Managerial Auditing Journal, 29, 253-267.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/MAJ-04-2013-0846

DeCuir-Gunby, J. T., Marshall, P. L., & McCulloch, A W. (2011). Developing and using

a codebook for the analysis of interview data: An example from a professional

development research project. Field Methods, 23, 136-155. http://dx.doi.org/

10.1177/1525822X10388468

Delattre, M., Ocler, R., Moulette, P., & Rymeyko, K. (2009). Singularity of qualitative

research : From collecting information to producing results. Tamara Journal for

Critical Organization Inquiry, 7(3), 33-51. Retrieved from

http://tamarajournal.com/

125

Eberle, D., Berens, G., & Li, T. (2013). The impact of interactive corporate social

responsibility communication on corporate reputation. Journal of Business Ethics,

118, 731-746. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10551-013-1957-y

Ekwueme, C. M., Egbunike, C. F., & Onyali, C. I. (2013). Benefits of triple bottom line

disclosures on corporate performance: An exploratory study of corporate

stakeholders. Journal of Management and Sustainability, 3(2), 79-91.

http://dx.doi.org/10.5539/jms.v3n2p79

Elkington, J. (1997). Cannibals with forks: The triple bottom line of 21st century

business. London, England: Capstone.

Elo, S., Kaariainen, M., Kanste, O., Polkki, T., Utriainen, K., & Kyngas, H. (2014).

Qualitative content analysis: A focus on trustworthiness. SAGE Open, 4, 1-10.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/2158244014522633

Faisal, F., Tower, G., & Rusmin, R. (2012). Legitimising corporate sustainability

reporting throughout the world. Australasian Accounting Business and Finance

Journal, 6(2), 19-35. Retrieved from http://ro.uow.edu.au/aabfj/

Fernandez-Feijoo, B., Romero, S., & Ruiz, S. (2014). Effect of stakeholders’ pressure on

transparency of sustainability reports within the GRI framework. Journal of

Business Ethics, 122, 53-63. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10551-013-1748-5

Frias-Aceituno, J. V., Rodríguez-Ariza, L., & Garcia-Sánchez, I. M. (2014). Explanatory

factors of integrated sustainability and financial reporting. Business Strategy and

the Environment, 23, 56-72. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/bse.1765

126

Gawel, A. (2014). Business collaboration with universities as an example of corporate

social responsibility - A review of case study. Poznan University of Economics

Review, 14(1), 20-31. Retrieved from http://www.puereview.ue.poznan.pl/

index.php/en/

Glavas, A., & Mish, J. (2014). Resources and capabilities of triple bottom line firms:

Going over old or breaking new ground? Journal of Business Ethics, 127, 623-

642. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10551-014-2067-1

Godemann, J., Bebbington, J., Herzig, C., & Moon, J. (2014). Higher education and

sustainable development. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 27,

218-233. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/AAAJ-12-2013-1553

González-Rodríguez, M. R., Díaz-Fernández, M. C., Pawlak, M., & Simonetti, B. (2013).

Perceptions of students university of corporate social responsibility. Quality and

Quantity, 47, 2361-2377. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11135-012-9781-5

Green, J., Willis, K., Hughes, E., Small, R., Welch, N., Gibbs, L., & Daly, J. (2007).

Generating best evidence from qualitative research: The role of data analysis.

Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health, 31, 545-550.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1753-6405.2007.00141.x

Greenwood, M., & Kamoche, K. (2013). Social accounting as stakeholder knowledge

appropriation. Journal of Management and Governance, 17, 723-743.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10997-011-9208-z

127

Habek, P., & Wolniak, R. (2015). Factors influencing the development of CSR reporting

practices: Experts’ versus preparers’ points of view. Engineering Economics, 26,

560-570. http://doi.org/10.5755/j01.ee.26.5.7690

Hack, L., Kenyon, A. J., & Wood, E. H. (2014). A critical corporate social responsibility

(CSR) timeline : How should it be understood now ? International Journal of

Management Cases, 16(4), 46-56. Retrieved from http://www.ijmc.org/

ijmc/Home.html

Hahn, R., & Lülfs, R. (2014). Legitimizing negative aspects in GRI-oriented

sustainability reporting: A qualitative analysis of corporate disclosure strategies.

Journal of Business Ethics, 123, 401-420. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10551-013-

1801-4

Hahn, T., Figge, F., Aragon-Correa, J., & Sharma, S. (2015). Advancing research on

corporate sustainability: Off to pastures new or back to the roots? Business &

Society, 1-31. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0007650315576152

Hahn, T., Pinkse, J., Preuss, L., & Figge, F. (2014). Cognitive frames in corporate

sustainability: Managerial sensemaking with paradoxical and business case

frames. Academy of Management Review, 4015(1), 18-42.

http://dx.doi.org/10.5465/amr.2012.0341

Hsieh, H. F., & Shannon, S. E. (2005). Three approaches to qualitative content analysis.

Qualitative Health Research, 15, 1277-1288. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/

1049732305276687

128

Huang, T., Pepper, M., & Bowrey, G. (2014). Implementing a sustainability balanced

scorecard to contribute to the process of organisational legitimacy assessment.

Australasian Accounting, Business and Finance Journal, 8(2), 15-34.

http://dx.doi.org/10.14453/aabfj.v8i2.3

Hyett, N., Kenny, A., & Dickson-Swift, V. (2014). Methodology or method ? A critical

review of qualitative case study reports. International Journal of Qualitative

Studies on Health and Well-Being, 1, 1-12.

http://dx.doi.org/10.3402/qhw.v9.23606

Hysong, S. J., Smitham, K. B., Knox, M., Johnson, K.-E., SoRelle, R., & Haidet, P.

(2013). Recruiting clinical personnel as research participants: A framework for

assessing feasibility. Implementation Science : IS, 8(1), 125-132. http://dx.doi.org/

10.1186/1748-5908-8-125

Ioana, D., & Adriana, T. (2013). New corporate reporting trends. Analysis on the

evolution of integrated reporting. Annals of the University of Oradea, Economic

Science Series, 22, 1221-1229. Retrieved from http://anale.steconomiceuoradea.

ro/en/

James, M. L. (2013). Sustainability and integrated reporting: Opportunities and strategies

for small and midsize companies. Entrepreneurial Executive, 18, 17-28. Retrieved

from http://www.alliedacademies.org/entrepreneurial-executive/

129

Jensen, J. C., & Berg, N. (2012). Determinants of traditional sustainability reporting

versus integrated reporting. An institutionalist approach. Business Strategy and

the Environment, 21, 299-316. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/bse.740

Kaczynski, D., Salmona, M., & Smith, T. (2014). Qualitative research in finance.

Australian Journal of Management, 39, 127-135. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/

0312896212469611

Kantabutra, S., & Saratun, M. (2013). Sustainable leadership: Honeybee practices at

Thailand’s oldest university. International Journal of Educational Management,

27, 356-376. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/09513541311316304

Kasperskaya, Y., & Tayles, M. (2013). The role of causal links in performance

measurement models. Managerial Auditing Journal, 28, 426-443.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/02686901311327209

Kiron, D., Kruschwitz, N., Reeves, M., & Goh, E. (2013). The benefits of sustainability-

driven innovation. MIT Sloan Management Review, 54(2), 69-73. Retrieved from

http://sloanreview.mit.edu/

Klettner, A., Clarke, T., & Boersma, M. (2014). The governance of corporate

sustainability: Empirical insights into the development, leadership and

implementation of responsible business strategy. Journal of Business Ethics, 122,

145-165. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10551-013-1750-y

130

Klovienė, L., & Speziale, M. T. (2015). Sustainability reporting as a challenge for

performance measurement: Literature review. Economics and Business, 26, 44-

53. http://dx.doi.org/10.7250/eb.2014.019

Koch, L. C., Niesz, T., & McCarthy, H. (2013). Understanding and reporting qualitative

research: An analytical review and recommendations for submitting authors.

Rehabilitation Counseling Bulletin, 57, 131-143. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/

0034355213502549

Krizek, K. J., Newport, D., White, J., & Townsend, A. R. (2012). Higher education’s

sustainability imperative: How to practically respond? International Journal of

Sustainability in Higher Education, 13, 19-33. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/

14676371211190281

Kurapatskie, B., & Darnall, N. (2013). Which corporate sustainability activities are

associated with greater financial payoffs? Business Strategy and the Environment,

22, 49-61. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/bse.1735

Lange, E., & Kerr, S. (2013). Accounting and incentives for sustainability in higher

education: An interdisciplinary analysis of a needed revolution. Social

Responsibility Journal, 9, 210-219. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/SRJ-08-2011-0058

Lanis, R., & Richardson, G. (2014). Is corporate social responsibility performance

associated with tax avoidance? Journal of Business Ethics, 1-19. http://dx.doi.org/

10.1007/s10551-014-2052-8

131

Lawrence, S., Collins, E., & Roper, J. (2013). Expanding responsibilities of corporate

governance : The incorporation of CSR and sustainability. Indian Journal of

Corporate Governance, 6(1), 49-63. Retrieved from

http://www.ipeindia.org/main/index.php?page=journal-of-corporate-governance

Leonidou, C. N., Katsikeas, C. S., & Morgan, N. A. (2013). “Greening” the marketing

mix: Do firms do it and does it pay off? Journal of the Academy of Marketing

Science, 41, 151-170. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11747-012-0317-2

Leszczynska, A. (2012). Towards shareholders’ value: An analysis of sustainability

reports. Industrial Management & Data Systems, 112, 911-928. http://dx.doi.org/

10.1108/02635571211238518

Lidstone, L., Wright, T., & Sherren, K. (2015). Canadian STARS-rated campus

sustainability plans: Priorities, plan creation and design. Sustainability, 7, 725-

746. http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su7010725

Lin, I.-H., Chang, O. H., & Chang, C. (2014). Importance of sustainability performance

indicators as perceived by the users and preparers. Journal of Management and

Sustainability, 4(1), 29-42. http://dx.doi.org/10.5539/jms.v4n1p29

Luke, B., Barraket, J., & Eversole, R. (2013). Measurement as legitimacy versus

legitimacy of measures. Qualitative Research in Accounting & Management, 10,

234-258. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/QRAM-08-2012-0034

132

Lusher, A. L., Way, M., & Rock, S. (2012). What is the accounting profession’s role in

accountability of economic, social, and environmental issues ? International

Journal of Business & Social Science, 3(15), 13-20. Retrieved from http://www.

ijbssnet.com/

Marshall, B., Cardon, P., Poddar, A., & Fontenot, R. (2013). Does sample size matter in

qualitative research?: A review of qualitative interviews in is research. Journal of

Computer Information Systems, 54(1), 11-22. Retrieved from

http://www.iacis.org/jcis/jcis.php

Mason, C., & Simmons, J. (2014). Embedding corporate social responsibility in corporate

governance: A stakeholder systems approach. Journal of Business Ethics, 119,

77-86. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10551-012-1615-9

Mason, M. (2010). Sample size and saturation in PhD studies using qualitative

interviews. Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 11(3), 1-18. Retrieved from

http://www.qualitative-research.net/index.php/fqs

Maxwell, J. (2012). The importance of qualitative research for causal explanation in

education. Qualitative Inquiry, 18, 655-661. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/

1077800412452856

Meyrick, J. (2006). What is good qualitative research? A first step towards a

comprehensive approach to judging rigour/quality. Journal of Health Psychology,

11, 799-808. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1359105306066643

133

Mikesell, L., Bromley, E., & Khodyakov, D. (2013). Ethical community-engaged

research: A literature review. American Journal of Public Health, 103(12), 7-15.

http://dx.doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2013.301605

Milne, M. J., & Gray, R. (2013). W(h)ither ecology? The triple bottom line, the Global

Reporting Initiative, and corporate sustainability reporting. Journal of Business

Ethics, 118, 13-29. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10551-012-1543-8

Montiel, I., & Delgado-Ceballos, J. (2014). Defining and measuring corporate

sustainability: Are we there yet? Organization & Environment, 27, 113-139.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1086026614526413

Moore, W. B., & Poznanski, P. J. (2015). Sustainability reporting: An accountant’s

perspective. Journal of Management and Sustainability, 5(2), 92-97.

http://dx.doi.org/10.5539/jms.v5n2p92

Moravcsik, A. (2013). Transparency: The revolution in qualitative research. PS: Political

Science & Politics, 47, 48-53. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S1049096513001789

Mori, R., Best, P. J., & Cotter, J. (2013). Sustainability reporting and assurance: A

historical analysis on a world-wide phenomenon. Journal of Business Ethics, 120,

1-11. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10551-013-1637-y

Ngwakwe, C. (2012). Rethinking the accounting stance on sustainable development.

Sustainable Development, 20, 28-41. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/sd.462

134

Nwagbara, U., & Reid, P. (2013). Corporate social responsibility (CSR) and management

trends : Changing times and changing strategies. Economic Insights - Trends and

Challenges, 2(2), 12-19. Retrieved from http://www.upg-bulletin-

se.ro/archive_en.html

O’Reilly, M., & Parker, N. (2012). “Unsatisfactory saturation”: A critical exploration of

the notion of saturated sample sizes in qualitative research. Qualitative Research,

13, 190-197. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1468794112446106

Othman, R., & Othman, R. (2014). Higher education institutions and social performance:

Evidence from public and private universities. International Journal of Business

& Society, 15, 1-18. Retrieved from http://www.ijbs.unimas.my

Palthe, J. (2013). Integrating human rights in business education: Embracing the social

dimension of sustainability. Journal of Education for Business, 88, 117-124.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08832323.2011.648969

Peršič, A., & Markič, M. (2013). The impact of social responsibility vision and strategy

on successful corporate operations. Managing Global Transitions: International

Research Journal, 11, 27-40. http://dx.doi.org/10.2478/orga-2013-0007

Petty, N. J., Thomson, O. P., & Stew, G. (2012). Ready for a paradigm shift? Part 2:

Introducing qualitative research methodologies and methods. Manual Therapy,

17, 378-384. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.math.2012.03.004

135

Pineno, C. J. (2013). Sustainability reporting by organizations: An integrated approach or

a separate category within the balanced scorecard. Journal of Business and

Accounting, 20, 619-633. Retrieved from http://asbbs.org/files/2015/

JBA_V8_2015.pdf

Qian, W. (2013). Embracing the paradox in educational change for sustainable

development: A case of accounting. Journal of Education for Sustainable

Development, 7, 75-93. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0973408213495609

Qu, S. Q., & Dumay, J. (2011). The qualitative research interview. Qualitative Research

in Accounting & Management, 8, 238-264. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/

11766091111162070

Raghunandan, M., Ramgulam, N., Buckmire, C., & Raghunandan-Mohammed, K.

(2012). The need to build sustainable value-added reports: Seeking out ways to

enhance the report ’s managerial accounting information. International Journal of

Business and Social Science, 3(10), 114-126. Retrieved from http://www.

ijbssnet.com

Rogers, J., & Herz, R. (2013). Corporate disclosure of material information: The

evolution - and the need to evolve again. Journal of Applied Corporate Finance,

25(3), 50-55. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/jacf.12028

Roulston, K., & Shelton, S. (2015). Reconceptualizing bias in teaching qualitative

research methods. Qualitative Inquiry, 21, 332-342. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/

1077800414563803

136

Ruzzene, A. (2012). Drawing lessons from case studies by enhancing comparability.

Philosophy of the Social Sciences, 42, 99-120. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/

0048393111426683

Schobel, K. (2012). Balanced Scorecards in education: Focusing on financial strategies.

Measuring Business Excellence, 16(3), 17-28. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/

13683041211257385

Searcy, C., & Buslovich, R. (2014). Corporate perspectives on the development and use

of sustainability reports. Journal of Business Ethics, 121, 149-169.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10551-013-1701-7

Seay, S. S. (2015). Sustainability is applied ethics. Journal of Legal, Ethical and

Regulatory Issues, 18(2), 63. Retrieved from http://www.alliedacademies.org/

legal-ethical-and-regulatory-issues/

Shabana, K. M., Buchholtz, A. K., & Carroll, A. B. (2014). The institutionalisation of

corporate social responsibility reporting. Business & Society, 46, 1-29.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0007650316628177

Shenton, A. (2004). Strategies for ensuring trustworthiness in qualitative research

projects. Education for Information, 22, 63-75. Retrieved from

http://www.iospress.nl/journal/education-for-information/

Smith, S. S. (2014). Strategy, sustainability, and innovative financial reporting. Journal

of Strategic Innovation and Sustainability, 10(1), 19-24. Retrieved from

http://www.na-businesspress.com/jsisopen.html

137

Stubbs, W., Higgins, C., & Milne, M. (2013). Why do companies not produce

sustainability reports? Business Strategy and the Environment, 22, 456-470.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/bse.1756

Trencher, G., Yarime, M., McCormick, K. B., Doll, C. N. H., & Kraines, S. B. (2014).

Beyond the third mission: Exploring the emerging university function of co-

creation for sustainability. Science and Public Policy, 41, 151-179.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/scipol/sct044

Tschopp, D., & Nastanski, M. (2014). The harmonization and convergence of Corporate

Social Responsibility reporting standards. Journal of Business Ethics, 125, 147-

162. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10551-013-1906-9

Van Der Ploeg, L., & Vanclay, F. (2013). Credible claim or corporate spin?: A checklist

To evaluate corporate sustainability reports. Journal of Environmental Assessment

Policy and Management, 15, 1350012. http://dx.doi.org/10.1142/

S1464333213500129

Van Zyl, A. S. (2013). The importance of stakeholder engagement in managing corporate

reputations. International Journal of Innovation and Sustainable Development, 7,

46-60. http://dx.doi.org/10.1504/IJISD.2013.052120

Vaughter, P., Wright, T., McKenzie, M., & Lidstone, L. (2013). Greening the ivory

tower: A review of educational research on sustainability in post-secondary

education. Sustainability, 5, 2252-2271. http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su5052252

Students also viewed