Amsterdam Business School
Master thesis
Conceptions of social responsibility, motives for sustainability
reporting, and organizational change in a Dutch Higher
Education Institution
‘Noblesse oblige’
Name: Marianne Speckmann Student number: 10468064 Supervisor: Ron van Loon Date: 21th of May 2015 Word count: 42.745
MSc Accountancy & Control, specialization Control
Free from Theo Maassen, a Dutch Stand Up Comedian:
‘Global warming is not a problem. Just like when a person gets a fever is a way for the body to get rid of the decease, the earth is having a fever in order to get rid of us. And this might actually work, because it is human activity that is the problem. Global warming could well be the solution’.
Sustainable development therefore is not necessary to save the planet, but to save human societies, human institutions and humanity itself. Our planet is probably better off without us.
Statement of Originality
This document is written by student Marianne Speckmann, who declares to take full responsibility for the contents of this document.
I declare that the text and the work presented in this document is original and that no sources other than those mentioned in the text and its references have been used in creating it.
The Faculty of Economics and Business is responsible solely for the supervision of completion of the work, not for the contents.
Summary
Purpose: This study describes and explains how and why a public funded Higher Education Institution (HEI) moves in the direction of accountability on sustainability. Since there are no laws or regulations that require HEIs to report on sustainability, the question arises why they do and how they changes as a result. Do the mechanisms described in the system-oriented theories also apply to HEIs or can we identify differences with for profit organizations (FPOs)?
Setting: This paper focuses on a Dutch HEI; more specifically, a Dutch university, that has made sustainability one of its strategic themes. It recently opened a Green Office and has started using STARS as a reporting tool. On the public website the university claims:
The university makes an active contribution to a sustainable society by sharing academic knowledge and by providing an inspirational example for others. (W4)
Why has this university chosen to report on sustainability and how does it interpret accountability and sustainability? And in addition, how does organizational change takes place? Can we observe differences with FPOs?
Design: The research design is an exploratory case study. A review has been done of the documentation that is publicly available through the A website. This is followed up with a review of relevant documentation provided by the university and with semi-structured in depth interviews with key actors. This research uses the stakeholder theory and the concepts external- and internal accountability. It also uses the concepts of felt and imposed accountability used by Fry (1995). Laughlin’s (1991) model of organizational change and the Mintzberg (1978) framework are used to assess the degree of organizational change.
Originality/value: A lot of research exists that examines the motives for sustainability accounting, reporting and accountability in FPOs. There are considerable fewer examples of research done in the public sector, in HEIs specifically. Because universities have a different governance structure from FPOs, they do not seem to be forced by customers or investors to account for sustainability. The question is, then, if they decide to report, what drives them to do it? Godemann et al. (2014, p. 227) claims that we need to better understand the context of HEIs and a more profound understanding of how ideas on accountability and stakeholder involvement evolve and consequently change HEIs. This research will address these issues.
Contents
1 Introduction... 6
2 Literature Review and theoretical framework ... 9
2.1 Sustainability and HEIs... 9
2.2 Accountability... 11
2.3 Stakeholder theory ... 13
2.4 Laughlin’s framework of organizational change and Mintzberg... 16
2.5 Existing literature on HEI accountability and sustainability ... 18
3 Method and approach ... 26
3.1 Research objectives and questions... 26
3.1.1 Defining sustainability ... 26
3.1.2 Internal and external drivers for sutainability ... 27
3.1.3 Organizational Change ... 27 3.2 Research Method... 28 3.2.1 Data Collection ... 28 3.2.2 Process ... 29 3.2.3 The interviews... 30 3.2.4 Data analysis... 31 4 Context ... 32
4.1 The Dutch Society ... 32
4.2 University History ... 33
4.3 University Governance Today ... 36
4.4 University Funding... 40
4.4.1 Key research areas and Societal Challenges... 42
4.5 The Dutch government... 46
4.5.1 Meer Jaren Agreement (MJA)... 46
4.5.2 Framework Agreement... 47
4.5.3 Energieconvenant City council... 48
5 Case findings... 49
5.1 Document analysis ... 49
5.1.1 Sustainability information on the website of A ... 49
5.1.2 Brainstorm session January 2010 and Report Structural Approach... 55
5.1.3 Strategic Plan 2012-2016 ... 56
5.1.4 The Sustainability Committee and the Notitie Duurzaamheid (June 2012)... 58
5.1.5 Annual Reports 2009-2013 ... 63
5.1.6 Documents from the University Council and other internal documents... 70
5.1.7 STARS... 76
5.2 Data analysis interviews... 77
5.2.1 The notions of sustainability and accountability ... 77
5.2.2 Internal and External drivers for reporting and communicating on Sustainability... 82
5.2.3 Organizational Change ... 88
6 Conclusion ... 96
Literature... 103
Documentation and information from University and University WebsiteFout!Bladwijzer niet gedefinieerd. List of abbreviations used ... 110
1 Introduction
Can HEIs provide the values, morals and new technologies necessary for a sustainable future and ensure that future alumni make sustainable choices? Lozano et al. (2013, p. 11) seem to think so and claim that: ‘changing the way we educate and teach may change peoples perspectives and consequently our societies’. Godemann too argues:
By incorporating sustainability in education and research, HEIs have the potential to advance the sustainability agenda and to help find the answers for the problems we face and by disseminating this knowledge to society. (Godemann et al., 2014, p. 220)
Since 1972 a lot of initiatives have taken place in higher education to promote sustainable development. Based on the research done by Lozano et al. (2013, p.14), fourteen initiatives in higher education are identified. All these initiatives stress the societal obligation of universities to incorporate sustainable development in their institutions, research and teaching. Lozano’s research shows that the focus has been on education and research in these initiatives and not on reporting and accounting.
In 2015 more HEIs report on sustainability, although their numbers are still a fraction compared to the amount of FPOs that report on sustainability as shown in the KPMG Survey of Corporate Responsibility Reporting (2013)1 and Lozano et al. (2013 p. 11). Note, however, that there is a lack of studies that examine accountability mechanisms and practices in HEIs. Godemann et al. call for papers on understanding how ideas about social accountability and stakeholder engagement evolve and shape organizational change in HEIs (2014, p. 227). This paper answers to that call.
The purpose of this paper is to investigate what drives a HEI to voluntary report and, hence, account for their actions on sustainability. More specifically, it investigates a Dutch university that began to report on sustainability in 2012 when it dedicated a chapter in its annual report and, later, started reporting in the Sustainability Tracking and Rating System (STARS) in 2013 (AASHE, 2014). STARS is an online, transparent and self-reporting framework for colleges and universities to report and measure their sustainability performance.
This paper investigates the underlying motives for doing so. What motivates the university who
1 KPMG uses the term Corporate Responsibility Reporting. This paper uses the term Sustainability Reporting (SR).
is not required by law to report on sustainability? There has been extensive research on motives and mechanisms for reporting on sustainability, but mostly in FPOs. Universities lag behind in sustainability reporting (Lozano et al., 2013, p.11). The aim of this study is to deepen our understanding of HEI accountability processes concerning sustainability by addressing the following questions:
• What motivates the university in this research to report on sustainability and how does she interpret accountability and sustainability?
• How does organizational change take place? Can we observe differences with FPOs?
In order to fully understand the motivations for sustainability reporting this paper provides a detailed description of the concept of sustainability and the reasons for reporting on sustainability. Through analysis of documentation on sustainability provided by the university, and semi structured interviews with employees of the university this study examines the motives for sustainable accountability and the forces that could play a role in the sustainable accountability process. As Godemann et al. (2014) formulate it:
HEIs find themselves in a unique position where they can promote real change in society. Therefore we need to understand how universities function and change. (2014, p.227)
Bebbington et al. (2012) find it curious that HEIs have lagged behind other private and public organizations in being accountable for their social impacts and social responsibility in education research and their organizations. Moon et al. also assert that we need to learn more about how the processes of social accountability are linked to the level of organizational change within HEIs. Understanding how HEIs position themselves in bringing about change and how they define sustainability and accountability is important. This research will examine these issues. To explain the findings, stakeholder theory will be used, and the notions of external and internal accountability. Also the concepts used by Fry (1995) of felt and imposed accountability may also prove helpful. To ascertain the degree of organizational change Laughlin’s (1991) characterization of organizational change and the framework of Mintzberg (1978) on strategic change will be used.
This study examines the motives of a Dutch university. In this paper the term HEI will be used, when addressing all institutions of higher education, however when the university under study is addressed, it will be referred to as ‘A’. A is selected because A chose sustainability as a strategic theme in its Strategic Plan in 2012. It also has dedicated a chapter on sustainability in its annual
report since 2012 and has started to report on sustainability using the AASHE STARS tool in 2013. A has indicated it wants to remain anonymous in this research.
The remainder of this research proposal is structured as follows. In the chapter 2, the relevant literature on sustainability reporting and accountability will be discussed in order to provide a theoretical framework for the research questions. Chapter 3 develops the research questions and explains the research method used. Chapter 4 sets the context for this case study. Chapter 5 discusses the case findings and Chapter 6 will make the final conclusions.
2 Literature Review and theoretical framework
This chapter gives a literature review on HEIs, sustainability, accountability, stakeholders and organizational change. First the concepts of sustainability and accountability will be reviewed followed by a discussion on stakeholder theory and on Laughlins framework on organizational change. Mintzbergs framework of strategic and emergent change will also be discussed. This will provide a loose framework to interpret the findings. This chapter concludes with a review of existing research on sustainability and accountability in public organizations and HEIs.
2.1 Sustainability and HEIs
There is little research on sustainability that does not refer to the Brundlandt Definition of sustainability. In 1987 the Brundlandt Report defined sustainable development as: ‘Meeting the needs or the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs’ (United Nations World Commission on Environment and Development, 1987, p. 8). This definition is the beginning of intergenerational responsibility. Although every discussion on the definition of sustainability starts with the Brundtland definition, there is less agreement about what sustainability exactly means. In 1995 the United Nations World Summit on Social Development used the term sustainable development in the Copenhagen Declaration on Social Development and stated:
We are deeply convinced that economic development, social development and environmental protection are interdependent and mutually reinforcing components of sustainable development, which is the framework for our efforts to achieve a higher quality of life for all people. 2
Here sustainable development includes human rights, economic and social development as well as environmental protection. Elkington calls this the ‘Triple Bottom Line’ and ‘Triple P’, meaning People, Planet, Profit (Elkington, 1997), a well known and much used term. Buhr (2007) states in Unerman et al. (2007, p. 61), however, that Triple Bottom Line reporting is not considered to be Sustainability Reporting (SR). SR, according to Buhr also involves aspects like justice and inter-generational equity and by doing so Buhr returns to the Brundtland definition. Nora Burh also believes that citizens, shareholders, governments and NGOs do not agree on the
2 Copenhagen Declaration on Social Development, March 12, 1995, paragraph 6, UN World Summit for Social Devolopment, Annex 1, at 5, UN Doc. A/CONF.166/9.
corporation’s role in society and she argues that as long as we do not agree, SR remains an unattainable ideal (Buhr, N. ,2007. In: Unerman et al., pp. 64-65).
By interviewing 45 environmental managers and accountants, Bebbington and Thomson (1996) demonstrated in their research that the meaning of sustainability is diffuse. They asked the managers that they interviewed to detail the implications of sustainability and found that there is no agreement on what a sustainable society or a sustainable business would look like (Bebbington & Thomson, 1996). Godemann et al. (2014, p. 219) state that all three elements: environmental, social and economic, must be present in any discussion on the role of HEIs in the pursuit of sustainable development (p. 219). The confusion on the meaning of sustainability can also be demonstrated by the many names SR can manifest itself with: Sustainability Reporting (SR), Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR), Corporate Responsibility Reporting (CRR) and Social and Environmental Reporting (SER). In this research the departure point is that sustainable development at least encompasses social, economic and ecological integrity. In her article, Buhr gives a comprehensive overview of possible reasons for adopting SR. Among these are moral and ethical reasons, duty, competitive advantage, peer and industry pressure, regulations, financial benefits, image management and social pressures (Buhr, N. (2007) In: Unerman et al., pp. 64-65). Unerman distinguishes between SER and SR, where, according to Unerman SER is strategically driven by profit-oriented, economic motives and SR is motivated from a holistic, moral perspective (Unerman J. (2007) In: Unerman et al., p. 99). Gray and Milne (2004, In: Henriques, H. and Richarson J. (eds)) argue that sustainable economic growth cannot exist. They state that the fundamental nature of capitalism will not allow a win-win situation between moral criteria and financial criteria. Gray and Milne (2004) question whether corporations can even be in the sustainability business because, they argue, notions of social responsibility run counter to the fundamental self-interest of business. They indicate that the fundamental nature of capitalism is such that there is a conflict between moral and financial criteria and the best that can be done is to get companies to comply with the law. To support their argument they mention that Marx and Friedman agreed on at least one thing: that in a capitalist society, organizations cannot serve the public interest (Gray and Milne, 2004).
Others do see progress and observe that organizations do change towards greater sustainability. Deegan and Blomquist (2006) showed that the Australian mining industry was willing to cooperate with World Wildlife Fund in order to improve their sustainability performance. It is also interesting that the more carbon intensive organizations show the most promising results. Less carbon intensive organizations, however, do not show reveal true organizational change as
confirmed by the research of Hrasky (2010). Burrit and Schaltegger (2010) argue that sustainability is still insufficiently understood, but that does not mean the sustainability project should be abandoned just because it cannot be defined. Some companies are serious to adopt sustainability accounting processes and more and more new companies start with a sustainable business case. Research by Henri and Journeault (2010, p. 73) supports the idea that the integration of environmental data and measuring systems within management control systems increases environmental performance; this indicates that measurement is a starting point for improvement.
It is also difficult to classify HEIs since a wide range of institutions is called a HEI. When the attention is shifted to universities only, the context in this research, the traditional characteristics of a university as an organization have been many in literature. The De Boer et al. (2007, p. 30) article gives a lot of these characterizations: ‘the professional bureaucracy’ by Mintzberg, ‘the organizational anarchy’ by Cohen and ‘the loosely coupled organization’ by Weick. Since the 1980’s, however, changes have been taking place in the governance of academia, which make place for new names such as ‘the corporate model’ by Bleiklie, ‘the service model’ by Tjeldvoll and ‘the stakeholder model’ by Jongbloed and Goedegebuure (In: De Boer et al., 2007, p. 30). Universities are non-profit, self-governing organizations with teaching and learning activities, research activities and knowledge exchange activities. The goal of a Dutch university is: teaching, research and community services (De Boer et al., 2007). Godemann et al. (2014, p. 220) asserts that HEIs also have a role in providing opportunities for reflection on society. She believes that this responsibility emanates from their reputation for independent thought.
2.2 Accountability
Reporting on sustainability (SR) can be seen as a way to communicate that the reporting organization is acting in the public interest. The organization feels she has a responsibility to society and holds herself accountable to the public (Dillard, F. (2007) In: Unerman et al., 2007, p. 43). As mentioned earlier, Karl Marx and Milton Friedman at least agree on one thing: Under capitalism it is impossible for organizations to serve the public interest. Is this also true for public organizations, who’s mission it is to serve the public interest? Marx and Friedman’s agreement may lead to the conclusion that engaging in SR could create some tension.
Ebrahim (2003, p. 194) defines accountability as:
(…) the means through which individuals and organizations are held externally to account for their actions and the means by which they take internal responsibility
for continuously shaping and scrutinizing organizational mission, goals and performance. (Ebrahim, 2003, p. 194)
The conclusion is that accountability means to feel responsible and hold oneself accountable and to be held accountable by others. Cooper and Owen (2007, p. 651) make use of the Gray et al. (1996, p. 38) definition: ‘the duty to provide an (by no means only a financial) account or reckoning of those actions for which one is held responsible’ Cooper and Owen (2007, p. 651) suggest that the account is made to shareholders, stakeholders and society in general. They use Stewart’s (1984) accountability framework, which requires that the accountee has ‘the power to hold to account the person who gives the account’.
For accountability this paper will use the definition of One World Trust, used by Lloyd et al. ((2008) In: Boomsma, 2009, p. 9): ‘the process through which an organization makes a commitment to respond to and balance the needs of its diverse stakeholders in its decision making processes and activities, and delivers against this commitment’. One World Trust uses four practical terms of accountability, which we will also use in this research. The four terms are:
• being open and transparent about activities and decisions involving internal and external stakeholders in the activities and decisions that affect them,
• evaluating performance on an ongoing basis, • learning from mistakes and
• being responsive to complaints from internal and external stakeholders (Lloyd et al., 2008, p. 10)
Cooper and Owen (2007) demonstrate in their research that the rise in SR, the administrative reform, is merely cosmetic and does not necessarily lead to greater accountability to other stakeholders and therefore by no means indicates a higher or felt accountability of these organizations to society. Cooper and Owen observe that the link between SR and stakeholder accountability, they deem necessary in order for real change to occur, is missing (Cooper and Owen, 2007).
Since HEIs are non-profit organizations the work of Fry (1995) on accountability is relevant. Internal motivation for accountability such as felt responsibility is also used in the Boomsma (2009) research. Felt responsibility or moral obligation could also play a role in HEIs. Fry distinguishes felt responsibility, assigned responsibility and accountability and he observes that actions are triggered by a felt responsibility. This feeling of responsibility is the heart of the nonprofit sector.
Research by Brown and Deegan (1998) suggests that an intrinsic motivation to report contrasts with the motivation of the majority of FPOs, where reporting increases, when negative media attention has called for action on the part of the FPO. This study will explore internal and external as well as felt and imposed accountabilities within the context of sustainability.
Research shows that FPOs often only hold themselves accountable to powerful stakeholders (usually shareholders). Owen et al. (2005) did a survey on managerial attitudes and found that managers consider shareholders to be the most important stakeholder group, followed by employees, environmental pressure groups and government. Since Dutch HEIs do not have shareholders, the question is how stakeholder theory plays a role in the SR of a HEI.
2.3 Stakeholder theory
Stakeholder theory is linked to legitimacy theory. Both theories see organizations as part of society and as such are influenced by and have influence on society. Where Legitimacy theory looks at the expectations of society in general, stakeholder theory recognizes that society is made up of different groups with different expectations. The idea of Legitimacy theory is that organizations can only continue to operate with the consent of the community. This consent is given based on a social contract where the organization behaves and acts according to society’s norms and expectations. Stakeholder theory suggests that more than one social contract exists, where Legitimacy Theory only has one contract. Stakeholder theory also refers to stakeholder power and suggests that the power of a stakeholder determines how well stakeholder expectations are taken into account by the organization. A legitimacy gap may arise when a stakeholder believes the company does not act according to the social contract. Mac Donald’s for instance is experiencing a legitimacy gap and is now trying to transform their image to healthy and green in order to gain back legitimacy from customers. SR can thus be seen as a way for organizations to communicate to their stakeholders how they are upholding their end of the contract.
Motives for organizations to report on sustainability are divided in academic literature in two opposite ends of a continuum (Unerman In: Unerman et al. 2007, p. 89). One view identifies SR as a process aimed to transform business. This is the holistic perspective, where the goal is to become socially and environmentally sustainable. In the holistic perspective, SR is used as a process in holding the organization responsible and accountable for all their impacts to all stakeholders. The other perspective, the managerial perspective sees SR as a tool used by managers to guarantee support from their influential stakeholders.
A lot of research exists that indicates that SR is often used as a marketing tool and is not driving real change in organizations (Deegan, 2002; O’Dwyer 2002, 2003). The critical theory perspective in research argues that not enough efforts are made by businesses to ensure a sustainable future. Gray and Milne (2004, In: Henriques, H. and Richarson J. (eds)) believe that sustainable development under capitalism is not possible.
Burrit and Schaltegger (2010) take a different approach and argue that in order to make progress a pragmatic attitude is necessary. Managers need to consider sustainability and SR because they experience pressures from internal and external parties. Burrit and Schaltegger, therefore, suggest looking at how managers achieve progress. In their article they distinguish three approaches: the inside out approach, the outside in approach and the twin-track approach.
The inside-out approach suggests that managers need relevant and reliable information in order to make well-informed decisions. They need to know how things are, based on reliable information and improve performance, eco-efficiency or reputation. This means they need tools and systems to account for sustainability. Burrit and Schaltegger (2010, p. 833) argue that research shows that first corporate and business strategies are transformed into key performance indicators (PI) and that in order to make sustainability accounting possible costs and benefits need to be identified and measured. This means that in the case of sustainability, managers are in need of standards. The outside-in approach is an approach based on the stakeholder-oriented view. A lot of FPOs realize that sustainability makes business sense and that stakeholders can help to improve their performance by learning what stakeholders expect (Burrit and Schaltegger 2010, p. 836), but standardization of the information is needed. They also call attention to the fact that when sustainability accounting is used for internal purposes less misleading incentives exist (p. 837). External reporting could be used as window-dressing. The twin track approach is a combination of the former two approaches and here Burrit and Schaltegger point to the research of Henri and Journeault (2010) who provide a holistic view, in bringing together internal and external values and the business oriented- and stakeholder perspective, of four aspects of sustainable performance:
• monitoring compliance with policies and regulation • motivating continuous improvement
• providing data for internal decision making
• providing data for external reporting. (Henri and Journeault, 2010 In: Burrit and Schaltegger, 2010, p. 842)
systems:
• developing specific PIs (inputs of energy, outputs of waste, financial impact)
• frequently using those indicators to monitor compliance, to support decision making, to motivate continuous improvement and for external reporting
• fixing specific goals in the budget for the environmental expenses, incomes and investment
• linking environmental goals and indicators to rewards. (Henri and Journeault, 2010 In: Burrit and Schaltegger, 2010, p. 842)
The Deegan and Unerman (2006) model explains the role of stakeholders in the SR process. The model also demonstrates the differences between the holistic and the managerial (or strategic) approach. Deegan and Unerman (2006) identify four stages in the SR process. These are ‘the why - who -for what - how’ stages (Unerman J. In: Unerman et al. 2007, p. 89) (see Figure 1).
Figure 1 A staged hierarchical model of the social and environmental reporting (SER) process.
Deegan and Unerman (2006, pp. 311-313) In: Unerman et al. (eds)(2007).
Decisions taken in stage 1 and 2 will influence the actions in stage 3, as well as form and shape the SR. Only when an organization has identified its stakeholders and knows for what it is held responsible and accountable, can it begin to produce a report. Without identifying stakeholder needs and expectations an SR cannot be effectively addressing information needs (Unerman J.
In: Unerman et al. 2007, p. 91) and this would also contribute to recognizing emerging legitimacy gaps before it is too late.
HEIs have a wide range of stakeholders: government, research funding organizations, students, employees, business, society at large. To what extent are these stakeholders in a position to influence a HEI in the same way that shareholders can influence a corporation? Also HEIs are not perceived as having a large carbon footprint and they do not experience strong pressure from NGOs to improve their performance on sustainability. This does not mean however that there is an absence of stakeholder influence. On the contrary, expectations and pressure from different stakeholders are inevitable because HEIs are part of society and fulfill an important societal role.
In identifying stakeholders and stakeholder demands motives for SR could be identified. It is interesting to investigate where A finds herself on the continuum between the holistic perspective and the managerial approach. Another question is if reporting leads to organizational change or does organizational change leads to reporting.
2.4 Laughlin’s framework of organizational change and Mintzberg
Does SR lead to change within organizations? Adams (2004) found that there is ample reporting on negative events and stakeholder engagement is insufficient. The research of Cooper and Owen (2007, p. 665) mentioned earlier critically examines the sustainability reports short-listed for the Social and Sustainability categories of the 2003 ACCA UK Sustainability Reporting Awards Scheme. It concludes that stakeholder involvement in the reports is rhetorical and found little evidence of real external stakeholder presence within internal corporate governance mechanisms. The administrative reform does not mean that meaningful institutional reform is taking place. Therefore they argue that reporting reform alone will not establish accountability to stakeholders or drive organizational change (Cooper and Owen, 2007).
Contrary evidence is from Hrasky (2010), who concluded on the basis of document analysis of the top 50 annual reports and sustainability reports in Australia, that companies react to external pressure and increase substantive reporting when the industry is more carbon intensive. Deegan and Blomquist (2006) also came to the conclusion that change is happening. They researched the process of change in the Australian mining industry. Change is also apparent in daily life. More and more supermarkets carry biological and fair trade products in their product mix. Solar panels on domestic houses and businesses are increasingly common and more and more wind turbines
can be seen in the landscape as well as electric cars and electric docking stations for cars in the streets of villages and cities.
Laughlin (1991) suggest that organizations are inertial or change resistant and in order for them to change there needs to be a disturbance. These changes could be legal changes, a legitimacy gap like changes in relationships with stakeholders or customers, changes in capital markets or technology. These are all external, but change can also start from within the organization. The degree the organization changes will differ depending on the organization, time or culture. Laughlin identifies first order change and second order change as he draws on the ideas of Smith (1986) and Robb (1988). First order change is morphostatic change: change that looks like change but is not. Second order change is morphogenetic change: change that changes the genetic code and therefore constitutes real change. In morphogenetic change all future generations will follow the new code. The idea is that first and second order changes follow different pathways and outcomes. In order to demonstrate these pathways Laughlin (1991) uses a model of organizations (see Figure 2).
Figure 2 suggests that the interpretive schemes, design archetypes and sub systems are in some form of balance. Inertia sets in once the balance is achieved. If the balance is disturbed, the intention will always be to return to the balanced state and a new period of inertia can begin (Laughlin, 1991, p. 213). The idea is that first order changes will not affect the interpretive schemes. Second order change will change the interpretive schemes and will affect all elements in Figure 2. This means that the interpretive schemes can be seen as the DNA of an organization. Laughlin also suggests that in order for change to take place a disturbance or as he calls it ‘jolt’ is necessary.
Mintzberg (1978) agrees with Laughlin that pressure to change originates from changes in the environment, whereas pressure to stay inert originates from within the organization, which he calls the bureaucracy. Mintzberg identifies two main patterns in strategic change: intended and unintended strategies, which he calls emergent strategies. Mintzberg found that strategies can change form, where intended strategies can become emergent and vice versa. Not all intended strategies are realized. He observed that organizations experience periodic waves of change followed by a period of continuity.
According to Albrecht et al. (2007, p. 412), the notion of transparency, broad participation and accountability were seen as main drivers for change as they transform organizational culture, called interpretive schemes by Laughlin (1991). Laughlin found that the language of accounting was the primary reason for morphogenetic change in a European Railway case.
2.5 Existing literature on HEI accountability and sustainability
This section will review earlier studies on Universities and other non-profit public organizations, sustainability and accountability in academic literature in order to provide an overview of the existing body of work and to demonstrate how the research in this paper will contribute to the discussion.
The first paper to be discussed is ‘Making a Difference’ by Adams and McNicholas (2007). Adams and McNicholas identify the barriers for developing a sustainability report and investigate the integration of sustainability reporting into planning and decision-making using an action research approach. The organization under study is a government owned statutory authority that provides water to households and businesses in Victoria Australia. Adams and McNicholas use Kurt Lewin’s (1947) integrated model of planned change as a framework to examine the potential of sustainability reporting and the reporting process to bring about change towards greater
accountability and improved sustainability performance. The difference they observed between the motivations of the state-owned organization and shareholder owned companies was that their organization demonstrated a strong commitment to sustainability performance. Wealth maximization was not a driver for change. Adams and McNicholas (2007) use Lewins Field Theory and suggest that applying this theory to SR, change occurs, when the balance between the general contextual factors of ‘media pressure, stakeholders, social, political and economic context’ changes. They identify the following barriers for change:
• lack of knowledge of best practices
• lack of knowledge on integrating sustainability goals in the organization
• lack of experience in engaging stakeholders and lack of time and resources. (Adams and McNicholas, 2007, p. 397)
Adams and McNicholas identify as drivers for change: the commitment of the organization to sustainability, the commitment of the owner (State) and the commitment of management (Adams and McNicholas, 2007, p. 397). The commitment of this organization to sustainability could be explained by the fact that the primary goal of this organization, providing clean water, was largely dependent on a sustainable environment. An argument not mentioned by Adams and McNicholas. The findings of this research are contrary to the Larrinaga-Gonzales case. Larrinaga-Gonzales et al. (2001) did research in Spanish organizations using Laughlin’s framework of organizational change to investigate if environmental accounting was a driver for morphogenetic change. They found that environmental accounting was in almost all cases not coupled with organizational transparency and conclude that in that case, it is not likely that environmental accounting will generate organizational change. These organizations were mostly profit-driven. Another difference between the two cases is that Adams and McNicholas assisted the organization in bringing about change and so influenced the changing process. It could be argued that without the researchers playing an active role change would not have taken place in the same way. This seems even more plausible since Adams and McNicholas identify the actual lack of knowledge as a barrier for change (Adams and McNicholas, 2007).
The second paper discussed is a case study in an Australian university by Egan (2014). Egan uses the actor network theory in order to describe and explain how advocates for change tried to link water efficiency practices to established accountability mechanisms and promote their importance. He explains accountability change with the aid of the actor network theory and examines the response from a Sydney university to water scarcity across large parts of Australia
from 1999 to 2010. He conducted semi-structured interviews with 12 employees, including those that were responsible for compiling, reporting and using water related data. He explores how advocates for change tried to link developing water efficiency practices to established accountability mechanisms. Egan (2014) describes how a passionate engineer, focusing on rectifying leaks and water inefficiencies, develops a software package that enables regular recording of water usage. The engineer enrolls a number of technical staff including plumbers and gardeners in a water efficiency network. This network is not connected to core financial accountability mechanisms. Attempts to broaden this network to a powerful new network of sustainability actors, is successful at first, but then the environment changes: there is a global financial crisis in 2008 and the water shortage in Australia ends. In addition, the engineer retires in 2008 and, since he was the developer and maintainer of the software program, the software program looses ground. The finance team focused on improving budgets and administrative processes, rather than attaching water efficiency to finance. This research is interesting because it shows that change is emergent (Mintzberg, 1978) and starts with a dedicated individual, with a moral belief and felt responsibility (Fry, 1995). The story is therefore one of personal accountability felt by a number of technically focused employees. This research is an example of a non-profit organization, where real lasting institutional change is not realized, despite the existence of real felt responsibility by a number of actors.
This research also links to the framework of Fry (1995) and Boomsma (2009), who claim that actions are triggered by felt responsibility as in the case of the engineer. The engineer sought to transform his personal felt responsibility into assigned responsibility and accountability. Where Fry (1995) argues that the challenge of management is to transform responsibility into felt responsibility and to align felt responsibility with accountability, the challenge of this engineer was to persuade management to incorporate his felt responsibility in organizational accountability, which failed.
The sustainability manager of Sydney University in the Egan (2014) research remarked that no link was made to community groups and other stakeholders. This means that allies in the form of stakeholders were not involved and no attempts were made to involve them. According to stakeholder theory, stakeholder pressure and involvement in organizations can be an important driver for change (Unerman J. In: Unerman et al. 2007, pp. 91-91).
Egan (2014, p. 277) concludes the research with three key insights: • accountability mechanisms cannot function without measurement • measurement alone is not enough to generate change
• the finance staff and accounting systems exercise a conservative influence on integrating innovation, which made lasting change impossible
The water accounting mechanism of the engineer made initial change possible and could be described as emerging, but since the accounting mechanism and change was not adopted by the central accounting department it did not become a deliberate strategy (Mintzberg 1978). It shows, as also observed by Mintszberg, that many patterns in organizational decisions form without conscious or deliberate thought. This research also demonstrates the important impact that external factors can have, in this case the financial crisis of 2008 and the changing water situation, which made water efficiency less urgent (Egan, 2014).
The next paper to discuss is the research by Boomsma (2009). This case study focuses on accountability in a broader sense. It is a case study at the Dutch non-governmental organization (NGO), Oxfam Novib. Boomsma examines how accountability is perceived within Oxfam Novib and he identifies the forces and pressures underlying the process. He uses the concepts of enforced and felt accountability and concludes that accountability is perceived as a balancing process between internal and external pressures. This research is interesting because NGOs like HEIs are organizations that use public funding. In the Boomsma case, managers show a sense of moral obligation and responsibility to be accountable and to show the public what the organization is doing with donor money. Some even feel personally responsible for the money they are spending (Boomsma 2009, p. 49). The motivation of people working for Oxfam Novib is important because of Oxfam Novib’s idealistic objectives. Success is dependent on personal commitment to these goals (Boomsma 2009, p. 50). Since HEIs also are mostly funded by public money their employees could feel the same kind of responsibility.
In 2000 Walton et al. did a survey on HEIs that had signed the The Talloires Declarations. A culture of apathy, cynicism and skepticism was found to exist in many of the survey institutions. A lack of resources, time, knowledge, budgets and policies were also reported. The research showed that 75% of the institutions in a sustainability network had at least strategy and activities in progress with management support and 25% of the institutions had no plans or were without management support. The drawback of this research is that it was executed with a very small sample and taken in a pro-sustainable development setting and therefore cannot be called random (Walton et al., 2000).
Fourteen years later the study of Alonso-Almeida et al. (2014), shows that although more than 50 countries have signed the Declaration of the ‘Higher Education Sustainability Initiative for Rio+20’, only a few report on their sustainability efforts using the GRI framework. The use of a
large number of different reporting frameworks is also observed. Lozano et al. (2013) argues that this is a characteristic of the fact that SR in HEIs is an emerging paradigm. One of the shortcomings of GRI is that no supplemental guidelines exist for HEIs that focus on their education and research activities. White and Koester (2013) report on a HEI that uses both STARS (AASHE) and GRI. STARS is a reporting framework especially developed for HEIs and offers the possibility to report on sustainable curricula development and sustainable research. The GRI puts more emphasis on stakeholder empowerment, strategy and analysis, organizational profile, governance and PIs. White and Koester argue that STARS could well be used as a supplemental guideline of GRI, since STARS covers the research and education activities more extensively. (White and Koester, 2013).
Dade and Hassenzahl (2013) conclude based on a content analysis of HEI websites on sustainability in the United States that it seemed that the operations of universities were not sustainable. They remark that this is inconsistent with over 650 institutions having signed the American College and University President’s Climate Commitment and 70 institutions participating in AASHE STARS rating system in 2011. They suggest that HEIs evaluate their websites and investigate if the content reflects their activities. They suggest that a possible explanation could be that HEIs are underreporting, unlike FPOs (Dade and Hazenzahl, 2013). Lozano (2011) reviewed and assessed university sustainability reporting in 2010. He found only 12 universities worldwide publishing a separate sustainability report, using the GRI guidelines. He scored the reports in four dimensions, using 126 indicators. The four dimensions were: Economic, Environmental, Social and Educational/Research. Lozano found that the main focus in these reports was on the environmental dimension. The economic dimension came in second. Based on his findings Lozano concluded that SR is still in its infancy in universities, both in the amount of universities found to report and the content of their reports. Lozano gives the following possible reasons for the focus on environmental dimensions (Lozano, 2011):
• Sustainability has mostly environmental connotations • There is a focus on the environment in developed countries
• The notion that environmental indicators are easier to measure (Lozano, 2011, pp. 73-74) In 2014, Alonso-Almeida et al. did a similar research and found 43 universities in Europe reporting on sustainability using the GRI guidelines and 78 universities worldwide. Therefore the number of universities reporting on SR seems to be growing. The researchers adjusted the historic GRI data for universities to logistic curves in order to investigate the diffusion of innovation. Diffusion explains how innovation is spread over time and makes a distinction
between innovators, early adopters, late majority and laggards. An S-shaped curve describes this phenomenon. Based on the research of Alonso-Almeida et al. (2014), it can be concluded that the university sector is slow to adopt GRI reporting standards. Non-Public Service Organizations entered the early adopter stage in 2007 and Healthcare Services entered the early adopter stage in 2010. Universities just passed the innovator threshold and entered the early adopter stage in 2012 (Alonso-Almeida, 2014, p. 8).
A paper written by Disterheft et al. (2012) combined qualitative and quantative research methods to investigate:
• what is the current state of Environmental Management Systems (EMS) implementation processes practices at European Universities?
• which are the main drivers to implement an EMS?
• How have the EMS been implemented and how have students and staff been involved in the process?
• which measurement and reporting tools have been used?
• how can these processes and practices can be developed further and which implications exist for the professional practice? (Disterheft et al., 2012, p. 81)
A total of forty-seven universities were identified that use EMS on campus. Dutch and Belgian Universities were not part of the sample. Thirty-five universities responded to the survey. Disterheft et al. found that the EU Eco-Management and Audit Scheme (EMAS) and ISO 14001 were the systems most used. The main reason that was given to implement a system was social and environmental awareness and responsibility. However, universities in the southern and eastern regions of Europe considered the economic driver for implementation to be important or very important (Disterheft et al., 2012, p.83). The northern and western universities rated this driver as unimportant, so different geographical regions give different reasons for implementing the system. This means that culture may play a role. Other possible drivers for implementing a system in the questionnaire were:
• research interest
• reduction of institutional consumption patterns • greening of the institution’s image
Most of the ISO 14001 universities used a top down approach and most of the EMAS universities used a participatory approach. This difference could well be explained by the characteristics of the method. The measurement and reporting tools that were most often used were audits and sustainability reports. Twenty percent of the universities reported that they use
the GRI Guidelines. Disterheft et al. (2012) conclude by remarking that some progress has been made, but that ‘a broad focus on sustainable development is still missing in most HEIs’ (Disterheft et al., 2012, p. 88).
The last paper to discuss is by Albrecht et al. (2007). The paper explores how Lüneburg University changes, when implementing an energy saving campaign and sustainability reporting. Albrecht et al. use an integrative perspective of organizational learning (OL). They define OL using the Probst and Buchel (1997) definition: ‘the ability of an institution as a whole to discover errors and correct them and to change the organizations knowledge base and values so as to generate new problem solving skills’ (Probst and Buchel 1997. In: Albrecht et al., 2007, p. 404). The framework from Klimecki et al. (1999) is used (In: Albrecht et al. 2007, p. 405). Klimecki et al. distinguish five dimensions in the process of OL:
• Triggers -how is information generated and how does it trigger organizational learning?
• Actors - who is in which way part of the communicative formation of OL? • Media - which forms of communication are used to is transmit information? • Results - how do learning processes transform the organizational knowledge base?
• Factors - by which factors is organizational learning influenced?
The researchers observe a problem of creating shared meaning and a problem on storing and retrieving information (Albrecht et al., 2007, p. 411). They conclude by stating that the observed sustainability project initiates OL by mobilizing actors. The researchers recognize the notions of transparency and accountability to the public as drivers for transformation. However the researchers also remark that the culture of transparency and accountability might be new for universities that are not used to publishing financial statements. Publishing an SR can be therefore seen as ‘groundbreaking for improving the culture of transparency’ (Albrecht et al., 2007, p. 412).
This chapter discussed existing literature on sustainability, accountability and HEIs and set the theoretical background for this research. First existing literature on the definition of sustainability was reviewed followed by some research on accountability and SR. In order to answer our research question stakeholder theory and the different branches in this theory were explained. The reason for this is that stakeholders play an important role in motivations for SR. Also Laughlin’s framework for organizational change was discussed as well as the Mintzberg’s framework in order to examine how and what kind of change is taking place. This was followed
by a discussion of existing literature on SR and accountability in HEIs and similar organizations. The next chapter turns to the research method and approach.
3 Method and approach
In this Chapter the research method will be explained. Te first section will discuss the objectives of the research and the research-questions. The second paragraph explains the research method used and the third section will go into the collection and analysis of interviews and documents. The purpose of this paper is to examine what motivates a university to start to report on sustainability. Also it wants to explore if and how organizational change is taking place. This research will explore these questions in the context of a Dutch university that reports on sustainability performance in a separate chapter in its annual report since 2012 and started to report on sustainability performance in STARS (AASHE, 2014) for the year 2013.
Since there are no laws or regulations that require HEIs to report on sustainability and since HEIs have no powerful shareholders to demand change this research investigates if intrinsic moral or second order change is taking place in HEIs (Laughlin 1991). The absence of powerful shareholders could also explain the reason that reporting is taking place so late. As Bebbington et al. (2012) formulate it in the call for papers for the AAAJ Special issue:
It is a somewhat curious omission that HEIs have lagged behind other private and public organizations in being accountable for their social impacts for issues of social responsibility in education research and their organizations. How the processes of social accountability are linked to the level of organizational change within higher education is also unknown. (Bebbington et al., 2012, eds.)
The main research question is therefore:
Why did this university start to report on sustainability?
The research areas addressed in the interviews are: motives and drivers for sustainability reporting, the meaning of sustainability, organizational constituencies involved, organizational change, identification of stakeholders and involvement and the perceived costs and benefits of sustainability reporting,
3.1 Research objectives and questions
3.1.1 Defining sustainability
In order to answer the research questions it is also important to investigate how the university views its responsibility to society related to the issue of sustainability. Given the complexity of HEI organizations it is not unthinkable that within the organization no consensus exists and multiple views on sustainability are used. This research would like to understand how HEI
managers and scientists define the term sustainability. Since HEIs are social organizations with a public role, accountability and responsibility to society could well be shared among all employees and be part of the culture. This would point to a felt responsibility as discussed earlier (Boomsma 2009).
Sustainability and SR is defined and understood in many different ways. Previous research showed that there is no consensus on what it means to be sustainable (Bebbington & Thomson, 1996). We therefore need to clarify how sustainability and accountability are perceived in our context, therefore our first research questions investigates this.
Q1: How are the notions of sustainability, accountability and responsibility perceived and defined by the different employees?
3.1.2 Internal and external drivers for sutainability
A HEI has no shareholders. There is also no apparent media pressure or NGOs demanding the HEI to report on sustainability. The stakeholder with most of the financial power is the Dutch government and the Dutch government does not demand HEIs report on sustainability. Research funding organizations like the Nederlandse Organisatie voor Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek, the Dutch Organization for Scientific Research (NWO) and the European Union (EU) could also play a role. More and more research they fund is selected on its societal relevance, but they do not ask HEIs to report on sustainability. HEIs are not seen as heavy polluters. Consequently there seems to be no strong pressures to drive the Dutch HEI to report on sustainability. Does this mean the HEI, who voluntary starts to report has an intrinsic motivation and a real felt need to be accountable to stakeholders? Therefore our second research question is:
Q2: Why did A start with SR and what internal and external pressures play a role in motivating the organization to report on sustainability?
3.1.3 Organizational Change
Previous research indicated that engaging in SR does not guarantee that the organization is changing to more responsible behavior. The motive for starting SR was predominantly to improve the organizations image. Earlier the research by Cooper and Owen (2007) was discussed, which demonstrated that the rise in sustainability reporting is merely cosmetic and the research done by Hrasky (2010) that showed that organizational change mostly happens in carbon intensive organizations. Since a university is not perceived as carbon intensive this research is therefore interested to learn if, how and when the organizations changed. Therefore the third research question is:
Q3: Did the organization change in this process and if so, how and when did change take place?
3.2 Research Method
This section discusses the research method used in this research. Since the objective of this research is to understand and explain the motivation of a university to engage in SR, a qualitative research set up is fitting. Yin (2014) explains in her book on Case studies that the goal of an explanatory case study is to explain why or how some condition emerged or why or how some sequence of events occurred or did not occur (Yin, 2014). This research method is widely used in social science research when the goal is to understand complex social phenomena. Research questions in explanatory case studies therefore often begin with ‘Why’ and ‘How’ (Yinn, 2014, p. 2). Therefore this method is suited for the research questions in this research.
Case study research enables a researcher to focus on a case and keep a holistic and real world perspective in studying for example managerial and organizational processes (Yin, 2014, p. 4). Silverman (2000, In: Boomsma 2009) is of the opinion that pure quantitative research neglects social and cultural construction of the variables under study. Gerring (2004) claims, that case studies often tackle subjects about which little is previously known or about which existing knowledge is fundamentally flawed. Case studies give a researcher the opportunity to look at a single unit in great depth. This is the contribution the case study method makes. Research designs can choose between knowing more about less and knowing less about more. The case study method can be defended, as well as criticized, along these lines (Ragin 2000, 22 In: Gerring 2004, p. 348).
The in-depth case study analysis is useful in that it may clarify causal mechanisms. It gathers evidence over-time and within a unit and could provide insights into what connects in this case sustainability reporting to stakeholder pressures (Gerring, 2004). A qualitative method also allows for examination of selected issues in depth with attention to detail, context and nuance. The challenge for the researcher is to invest time and effort to increase understanding (Boomsma, 2009).
3.2.1 Data Collection
The techniques used in this research are document analysis and semi structured interviews. Using interviews will allow capturing the motivation for and ideas about sustainable development and accountability. Within this technique several approaches are identified in the literature: structured interviews, semi-structured interviews and unstructured or open-ended interviews (Liedka, 1992
in Boomsma, 2009). This research wil use semi-structured interviews. The reason for this is that structured interviews do not allow for touching other topics the interviewee might considers relevant, but that the researcher overlooked. These topics can then be incorporated in other interviews. By using semi-structured interviews the information is not limited to the bias of the researcher and the perspective of the interviewee is given room to expose itself. Open-ended interviews are not chosen for this research, since open-ended interviews hold the risk of not focusing enough to the research questions.
Next to the interviews other types of data can be collected. This research also collected data from internal documents and information from the university website. The analysis of these documents will give insight in the accountability processes and examine the different kinds of communications about sustainability. Documents about sustainability were analyzed, by reading the documents and by searching for the use of the word sustainability. Also Annual Reports were analyzed and the website was examined. All these data were entered into NVIVO software for coding. NVIVO software is software that helps researchers to organize qualitative data during the analyzing process.
3.2.2 Process
An email was sent to the managing director of A. The goal of this email was to ask for the collaboration of the institution and to explain the aim of the research. Collaboration of the institution was granted on the condition that the university remains anonymous. The researcher committed to this condition before starting the research. In order to secure anonymity the interviewees were numbered. Other universities and institutes that are mentioned in the interviews were given letters. The same was done for scientist or employees that were referred to during the interviews. For the sake of anonymity all internal documents are numbered from ID 1 to ID 18 and the website pages of the institution were numbered W1 to W22. Only the University of Amsterdam is mentioned by name, when referring to the occupation by students that took place during the research, since this event was covered by the media. A key was constructed, where all numbers are related to the real names, documents and the url of the websites.
After obtaining consent from the managing director of A, all the information on the website, documents from the University Council (UC) and the annual reports (AR) were studied. Later a first face-to-face meeting with the managing director took place. This meeting was recorded and transcribed. On the basis of this preliminary interview the managing director suggested a number of interviewees. Five people from different departments were selected who had experience with
sustainability in their work for the university. The researcher also wanted to interview an employee from the internal audit department or finance and control department and so the manager of the internal audit department was added. This brought the total number of interviews to seven, including the preliminary open interview with the managing director himself. The interviewees are: Interviewee 1, Manager Research and Education; Interviewee 2, Managing Director; Interviewee 3, Manager Internal Audit; Interviewee 4, Program manager Energy, but promoted during the research to Manager Sustainability; Interviewee 5, Managing Director of Institute A, dedicated to research in the field sustainability and knowledge transfer; Interviewee 6, Procurement Manager and Interviewee 7, Cluster Manager Institute A.
During the interviews references were made to internal documentation that was not known to the researcher. In the subsequent email contact between the managing director and the researcher the managing director gave his consent to using these documents and introduced the researcher to an employee of the archive department. This employee provided the researcher with internal documents that were selected on the basis of the occurrence of the word sustainable or sustainability. Also these documents were studied for relevance and some of these documents were used in this research.
3.2.3 The interviews
Before each interview, interviewees were sent an outline of the study together with an introduction on the interview focus areas. Interviews were digitally recorded and transcribed by the researcher. Transcribing the interviews is a good way to get acquainted with the interview data. Each interview took between one hour and one hour and thirty minutes. All interviews were held in the office of the interviewees, except two, that was held in a conference room. Nobody else was present in these rooms except the interviewee and the researcher. First all interviews were transcribed. The transcriptions were mailed to the interviewee and the interviewee was asked to review the transcription and freely add or edit the result. They could also provide additional information. All the transcriptions were returned without major changes. Two of the interview recordings failed. One recording stopped recording after 5 minutes. This remained unnoticed by the researcher until after the interview. Another recording recorded more than one hour and thirty minutes and 1,83 gigabyte of mostly white noise. In both instances the researcher wrote down what she recalled from the interview directly after the interview took place. This record was then sent to the interviewee for review and the interviewee was asked to add and change this record. It was made clear to the interviewee that the intention was that the record was a representation of his or her views and ideas on the subject. The interviewees
returned the records with minor adaptations. All interviews and records were made anonymous using the key.
When looking for information about A, a useful presentation was found on Slideshare.com. This presentation dated from 2010 and was posted by employee A of A. Through email contact was made and permission was asked and granted to use the information in the presentation for this research. Also employee A offered his services to the research. He is employed by A since 1985 and could clarify events in the past. All conversations with him were conducted through email. These emails are also part of the research data.
3.2.4 Data analysis
NVIVO software was used for the analysis of the interviews and document. The interview text was anonymized using the key and imported in NVIVO software, after the interviews were returned with consent. Consequently the data was coded by using a coding system. Between 5 and 9 codes were used for each interview question. Fifty-seven different codes were used, which were condensed into 8 major themes. These were grouped around the three research questions. The interviews were conducted in Dutch. The quotes, used in this paper, were translated.
4 Context
The chapter describes the context in which A is active. It consists of five sections, each of which focuses on a different aspect of A’s context. Section one will focus on the Dutch society, section two will look at Dutch university history and section three will discuss Dutch university governance today. The final two sections will go into university funding and the role of the Dutch government.
HEIs are traditional organizations where the notion of academic freedom is held high and economic pressures and organizational logic introduced with New Public Management (NPM) are believed to create tension. HEIs:
• teach Bachelor, Master and PhD students • conduct research activities
• are funded in various ways • disseminate knowledge • perform exchange activities
• participate in societal discourses. (Godemann et al.,2014, p. 220) 4.1 The Dutch Society
The Netherlands is a small country. This means the Dutch look beyond their borders for markets. They started out as worldwide maritime traders in the 16th century; today they remain significant players in the global economy. In the 16th century the Dutch freed themselves from Catholic Spanish reign and in 1588 seven provinces of the Netherlands declared themselves a republic, where freedom of religion was established. Today, with almost 17 million inhabitants, the Netherlands is one of the most densely populated countries in Europe. The Netherlands is a democracy with a tolerant, open society. Although up to 40 percent of the Dutch say they have no religion, Calvinism still influences the value and belief system. Values that originate from Calvinism are honesty and soberness. The Dutch are considered to be excellent at speaking foreign languages. Dutch education starts early and language proficiency is deemed important for the international position of the country. Students begin to learn English during the last two years of primary school, and it is an obligatory part of the national exam in all high schools. The Netherlands is an egalitarian society. Every person is considered equal and expects to be treated accordingly. This is grounded in the first article of the Dutch Constitution ‘All persons, located in the Netherlands, shall be treated equally in equal circumstances. Discrimination on the grounds of religion, belief, political opinion, race, sex or any other grounds whatsoever shall not
