Mirva Juntti & Vappu Kunnaala-Hyrkki
The growing interest in sustainability and responsibility reporting within higher education institutions reflects the global demand for transparency, accountability and ethical collaboration. Whilst sustainability reporting is shaped by the interconnectedness of environmental, social and economic factors, it is inherently interdisciplinary.
This study shows how the productized collaboration model improved cooperation, commitment and problem-solving in UASs’ voluntary reporting process. It also underlines the future role of digitalization in higher education institutions. The automatization and the usage of PowerBI, CRM systems and emerging AI solutions shall ease time-related challenges, enhance efficiency and participation, and strengthen the connection of responsibility reporting to the “double transition” in higher education.
Research Context
Sustainability and responsible and ethical conduct are becoming increasingly important values to organizations across all sectors (Camilleri, 2017; Ntim et al., 2017). There are many internationally agreed sustainability frameworks that guide organizations’ sustainability work. One of them, the United Nations (UN) Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) were developed as a part of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development (UN, 2022). Agenda 2030 defines 17 SDGs that address the global sustainable development challenges, and they shape the sustainability activities and processes in interdisciplinary manner (Dincer B & Dincer C, 2024; Schneider et al., 2019).
In the corporate social responsibility context, companies take into consideration also the environmental and social aspects, not just the economic aspects of their operations, and try to find balance between them (Elkington, 1994; Carroll & Shabana, 2010). It is a form of self-regulation that is based on the companies’ initiative to work on a voluntary basis to improve their sustainability, going beyond compliance with regulation (e.g., Albareda, 2008).
There are many benefits that can be gained from engaging in corporate social responsibility (see e.g. Deigh et al., 2016). A responsible organization can attract more customers and quality employees. Responsible reputation can give competitive advantage within the field and helps the organizations reputation management. Nevertheless, without quality stakeholder communications, it is difficult to achieve the full benefits of social responsibility. Responsibility work must be communicated in an honest, open and accessible way on a regular basis. One common way to communicate on organization’s sustainability work is by drafting annual sustainability reports. (e.g. Du et al., 2010; O’Riordan & Fairbrass, 2014).
Industry level sustainability communications in the form of e.g. joint sustainability reporting frameworks can have a wider impact on stakeholders (Brown et al., 2009). Proactively communicated sustainability achievements and practices may impact policymakers when forming the future legislation and other frameworks. Furthermore, being a forerunner in corporate sustainability can give advantage, when new regulation and guidelines are set (e.g. Blowfield & Murray, 2008; Fiorino, 2006).
Universities of Applied Sciences (UASs) in Finland were exempted from EU’s Corporate Sustainability Reporting. Nevertheless, the UASs jointly decided to draft an industry specific sustainability reporting standard. The goal was to provide the UASs’ stakeholders information on the organizations’ sustainability work in an open and comparable way and to establish the sustainability impact of UASs within their operating environments. As higher education institutions, the UASs also felt the need to work as forerunners in the field, thus acting voluntarily when it came to sustainability reporting.
Based on the UASs initiative to draft a joint sustainability reporting framework, this study situates its findings within the context of the UAS’s preliminary reporting process. The research, conducted in spring 2025, applied a mixed-methods approach combining archival data analysis and semi-structured interviews with key stakeholders, and developed a case study on a productized collaborative reporting initiative within UASs. Comprehensive data collection strengthened the credibility of the sustainability reports, while jointly established internal tracking systems—such as the Arene carbon footprint assessment—helped quantify impacts and monitor progress towards the set goals.
Through this approach, the research generated evidence on the benefits and challenges of productized collaboration in responsibility reporting, which are presented in the following section as key findings.
Key Findings
1. Framework development and stakeholder engagement
The co-creation process resulted in a joint decision by the UASs to continue responsibility reporting as a collaborative effort. The institutions agreed to build on the established procedure by adding new reporting elements, systematically reviewing the reporting manual, as well as maintaining dialogue with the stakeholders (such as Ministry of Education and the Finnish Education Evaluation Centre). This collective commitment demonstrates that the model produced is not only a shared report, but also a replicable process for long-term cooperation and continuous learning.
2. Process standardization and efficiency
The structured framework clarified the roles of administrative bodies, including vice-rectors, teams, and consultants, supporting accountability and efficiency in sustainability communication. The collaborative work demonstrated that productizing the reporting process increased efficiency and comparability across institutions. Standardized templates, shared indicators and agreed procedures reduced duplication of work and enabled more consistent data collection. This made responsibility reporting more transparent and reliable, while also freeing up resources for developing new sustainability actions.
3. Alignment and institutional impact
Pre-set governance structures played a critical role in overseeing the sustainability reporting process. The working group and its sub-groups ensured alignment with institutional strategies and adherence to sustainability reporting frameworks. The initiative strengthened sustainability competence within UASs by engaging staff, students and stakeholders in the reporting cycle. Heavy participation enhanced understanding of sustainability priorities built trust between partners and created stronger ownership of the results. Consequently, responsibility reporting became a catalyst for institutional development, linking sustainability to strategy, governance and quality assurance. These results highlighted the importance of structured governance in maintaining consistency and strategic integration in sustainability reporting.
Opportunities and challenges
The joint sustainability reporting process created opportunities to strengthen collaboration between UASs, enhance transparency, and build a shared culture of responsibility. It enabled institutions to benchmark practices, learn from each other’s experiences, and develop common tools that improve the quality and credibility of reporting. The process also opened space for integrating digital solutions and expanding stakeholder engagement in future reporting cycles.
Challenges of the joint sustainability reporting process included finding time for reporting alongside other tasks, scheduling collaborative sessions, and understanding the purpose and significance of the reporting framework. To address these, UASs leveraged participatory workshops and peer support, with many respondents highlighting the value of knowledge exchange and the usefulness of drafted example texts.
Digitalization shall tackle most of the time-related problems of responsibility reporting in the forthcoming years. Tools such as PowerBI dashboards, CRM systems and digital platforms are already there to improve efficiency, transparency and participation in CRM and sales related activities (de Castro, 2022). Digital tools might also allow staff and students to contribute to sustainability data, whilst AI would assist in streamlining materiality assessments and carbon accounting. It is evident that responsibility reporting will – along the time- be linked to the “double transition,” where digital innovations strengthen sustainability practices.
Conclusion
The collaborative co-creation of a responsibility report in the voluntary framework of UASs exemplifies a holistic and interdisciplinary approach to productization. The study finds that the productized collaboration model enhances cooperation by standardizing processes, strengthens commitment through shared goals, and improves problem-solving and stakeholder engagement. At the same time, it highlights the growing importance of digital tools—such as dashboards, CRM systems and future AI solutions—for making reporting more efficient, transparent and participatory.
This study adds to institutional sustainability literature, providing a replicable model for higher education and other industries. Co-created reporting not only clarified sustainability priorities and engaged stakeholders, but also proved a practical tool for strategy, dialogue and quality enhancement in UAS contexts.
Authors
Mirva Juntti, PhD, Sustainability Manager, Lapland UAS
Vappu Kunnaala-Hyrkki, MSc (Admin.), Sustainability Coordinator, South-Eastern Finland UAS
References
Albareda, L. (2008). Corporate responsibility, governance and accountability: From self-regulation to co-regulation. Corporate Governance, 8(4), 430–439. https://doi.org/10.1108/14720700810899176/FULL/XML
Blowfield, M. and Murray, A. (2008). Corporate Responsibility. A Critical Introduction. Oxford University Press, New York.
Brown, H. S., de Jong, M. & Levy, D. L. (2009). Building institutions based on information disclosure: lessons from GRI’s sustainability reporting. Journal of Cleaner Production, 17(6), 571–580. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JCLEPRO.2008.12.009
Camilleri, M. A. (2017). Corporate sustainability and responsibility: creating value for business, society and the environment. Asian Journal of Sustainability and Social Responsibility 2017, 2(1), 59–74. https://doi.org/10.1186/S41180-017-0016-5
Carroll, A. B. & Shabana, K. M. (2010). The Business Case for Corporate Social Responsibility: A Review of Concepts, Research and Practice. International Journal of Management Reviews, 12(1), 85–105. https://doi.org/10.1111/J.1468-2370.2009.00275.X
de Castro, J. P. A. (2022). Digital Transformation: Bi Tools Integration with CRM and Sales Data (Master’s thesis, Universidade de Aveiro, Portugal).
Deigh, L., Farquhar, J., Palazzo, M. & Siano, A. (2016). Corporate social responsibility: engaging the community. Qualitative Market Research, 19(2), 225–240. https://doi.org/10.1108/QMR-02-2016-0010/FULL/XML
Dincer, B. & Dincer, C. (2024). Insights into Sustainability Reporting: Trends, Aspects, and Theoretical Perspectives from a Qualitative Lens. Journal of Risk and Financial Management 2024, Vol. 17, Page 68. https://doi.org/10.3390/JRFM17020068
Du, S., Bhattacharya, C.B. & Sen, S. (2010). Maximizing Business Returns to Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR): The Role of CSR Communication. International Journal of Management Reviews, 12(1). 8–19. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2370.2009.00276.x
Elkington, J. (1994). Towards the Sustainable Corporation: Win-Win-Win Business Strategies for Sustainable Development. California Management Review 36(2). 90–100. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/41165746
Fiorino, D. J. (2006). The new environmental regulation. 290. https://books.google.com/books/about/The_New_Environmental_Regulation.html?hl=fi&id=CzM8fpAZwDYC
Ntim, C. G., Soobaroyen, T. & Broad, M. J. (2017). Governance structures, voluntary disclosures and public accountability: The case of UK higher education institutions. Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal, 30(1), 65–118. https://doi.org/10.1108/AAAJ-10-2014-1842/FULL/PDF
O’Riordan, L. & Fairbrass, J. (2014). Managing CSR Stakeholder Engagement: A New Conceptual Framework. Journal of Business Ethics, 125. 121–145. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-013-1913-x
Schneider, F., Kläy, A., Zimmermann, A. B., Buser, T., Ingalls, M., & Messerli, P. (2019). How can science support the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development? Four tasks to tackle the normative dimension of sustainability. Sustainability Science, 14(6), 1593–1604. https://doi.org/10.1007/S11625-019-00675-Y/TABLES/1
UN – United Nations. (2022). Transforming Our World: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. Official Website. https://sdgs.un.org/2030agenda
Tiivistelmä
Sidosryhmien kasvavat vaatimukset avoimelle ja eettisesti kestävälle liiketoiminnalle heijastuvat tänä päivänä korkeakoulujenkin toimintaan. Usea korkeakoulu onkin lähtenyt kehittämään kestävyys- ja vastuullisuusraportointiaan, vaikka juridista velvoitetta tähän ei vielä ole. Tämä artikkeli kuvaa, miten ammattikorkeakoulujen verkosto tuotti yhteistyössä CSRD-periaatteita mukailevan, vapaaehtoisen raportointimallin pilotin keväällä 2025. Työ tehtiin oppivan organisaation opein. Yhteistyötä johdettiin tuotteistetulla mallilla, jonka nähtiin vahvistavan yhteistä tekemistä, sitoutumista ja ongelmanratkaisua. Koeraporttikierros paljasti myös seuraavat, vaadittavat kehittämistoimet, jotka liittyivät lähinnä tiedonkeruun automatisointiin ja tietopyyntöprosessin sujuvoittamiseen.
Artikkeli avaa lopuksi digitalisaation roolia raportoinnin kehittämistyössä. Automaattinen laskenta sekä Power BI:n, CRM-järjestelmien ja uusien tekoälypohjaisten ratkaisujen hyödyntäminen tehostaa jatkossa varmasti raportointiin liittyviä työnkulkuja. Kestävyysraportointi tukee osaltaan korkeakoulujen kaksoissiirtymää ja on jatkossa entistä kiinteämpi osa korkeakoulujen strategista johtamista, laadunhallintaa ja jatkuvaa oppimista.
Vastaa