Universities and CSR teaching: New challenges and trends

Schimperna, Federico; Nappo, Fabio; Collaretti, Federica Article Universities and CSR teaching: New challenges and trends Administrative Sciences Provided in Cooperation with: MDPI – Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute, Basel Suggested Citation: Schimperna, Federico; Nappo, Fabio; Collaretti, Federica (2022) : Universities and CSR teaching: New challenges and trends, Administrative Sciences, ISSN 2076-3387, MDPI, Basel, Vol. 12, Iss. 2, pp. 1-12, https://doi.org/10.3390/admsci12020055 This Version is available at: https://hdl.handle.net/10419/275326 Standard-Nutzungsbedingungen: Die Dokumente auf EconStor dürfen zu eigenen wissenschaftlichen Zwecken und zum Privatgebrauch gespeichert und kopiert werden. Sie dürfen die Dokumente nicht für öffentliche oder kommerzielle Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, öffentlich zugänglich machen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen. Sofern die Verfasser die Dokumente unter Open-Content-Lizenzen (insbesondere CC-Lizenzen) zur Verfügung gestellt haben sollten, gelten abweichend von diesen Nutzungsbedingungen die in der dort genannten Lizenz gewährten Nutzungsrechte. Terms of use: Documents in EconStor may be saved and copied for your personal and scholarly purposes. You are not to copy documents for public or commercial purposes, to exhibit the documents publicly, to make them publicly available on the internet, or to distribute or otherwise use the documents in public. If the documents have been made available under an Open Content Licence (especially Creative Commons Licences), you may exercise further usage rights as specified in the indicated licence. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ Citation: Schimperna, Federico, Fabio Nappo, and Federica Collaretti. 2022. Universities and CSR Teaching: New Challenges and Trends. Administrative Sciences 12: 55. https://doi.org/10.3390/ admsci12020055 Received: 31 December 2021 Accepted: 26 April 2022 Published: 28 April 2022 Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. Copyright: © 2022 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ 4.0/). administrative sciences Article Universities and CSR Teaching: New Challenges and Trends Federico Schimperna * , Fabio Nappo and Federica Collaretti Department of Economics and Law, University of Cassino and Southern Lazio, 03043 Cassino, Italy; [email protected] (F.N.); federicacollar[email protected] (F.C.) *Correspondence: [email protected] Abstract: This paper aims to analyse how universities are currently improving CSR teaching, pointing out some new challenges and trends emerging from a context in which CSR issues have become increasingly important. The research provides a longitudinal study of the literature for a period of 20 years. After screening the retrieved documents, we based our analysis on 31 main scientific documents. Our findings highlight how universities are improving CSR teaching by utilising the development of new curricula and new teaching methods, such as case methods, service learning, problem-based learning, and action and experiential learning. The paper is novel because it explores how the request for human resources with CSR skills forced universities to widen their teaching programs. Our findings suggest valuable and useful insights for the academic and professional community. Keywords: CSR; university; teaching; education; responsibility; sustainability 1. Introduction During the last two decades, many environmental, social, and ethical concerns emerged, among which include climate change, the depletion of natural resources, corporate scandals, and bad working conditions (Lombardi et al. 2021a;Russo et al. 2021). Many stakeholders, such as public powers, investors, consumers, employees, suppliers, and nongovernmental organisations, are increasingly requiring the development and strengthening of CSR practices (Kolk and Tulder 2010;Duque-Grisales and Aguilera-Caracuel 2019). Additionally, universities are expected to be essential for the achievement of the 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) of the 2030 UN Agenda (Caputo et al. 2021;Venturelli et al. 2021; De Iorio et al. 2022). This led universities to develop education with respect to CSR and sustainability (Boyle 1999;Gorski et al. 2017), becoming pivotal in educating responsible leaders and managers (Raivio 2011;Osiemo 2012;Boulocher-Passet et al. 2019). Since the late 1990s, universities have started to introduce CSR and sustainability issues into their curricula (Schroeder-Saulnier 2007;Wright and Bennett 2011; Brammer et al. 2012), and by teaching CSR, incorporating day-to-day activities, and providing practical support, they have deeply enriched students from both a practical and theoretical point of view (Tokarˇcíkováet al. 2015;Smith et al. 2018). In addition to other subjects such as entrepreneurship, the method of teaching promoted by universities is constantly being updated (Schimperna et al. 2021). Indeed, universities developed many methods and techniques to teach CSR and sustainable development, among which include the following (Figueiróand Raufflet 2015;Gatti et al. 2019): case method, service learning (SL), problem-based learning (PBL), and action and experiential learning. We aim to point out a literature review on how universities have improved CSR teaching since 2001 in an attempt to fill the current gap in the literature. Our paper aims to answer the following three research questions: (I) How is CSR practices in the university literature developed in the field of business, management, and accounting? (II) What is the literature’s focus on CSR teaching at universities? (III) What are the implications that arise for universities? We developed a Structured Literature Review (SLR) (Tranfield et al. 2003; Kraus et al. 2020; Adm. Sci. 2022,12, 55. https://doi.org/10.3390/admsci12020055 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/admsci Adm. Sci. 2022,12, 55 2 of 13 Secundo et al. 2020), and after entering our search query into the Scopus database, we finally collected 31 documents published from 2001. Lastly, we provide valuable findings in the following three research areas that emerged from a cluster analysis: (I) CSR issues in the current corporate and economic world; (II) university social responsibility (USR) and the role of the university in disseminating knowledge about CSR; (III) new methods of teaching CSR and sustainability. Our findings aim at defining the state-of-the-art of CSR teaching at university, proposing issues for academics and practitioners. 2. Research Method We developed the following SLR by analysing how universities are improving CSR teaching through the development of new curricula and new teaching methods. This section defines the research protocol and selected criteria for SLR (Tranfield et al. 2003; Kraus et al. 2020). To develop our analysis, we based our research on the following items: (a) time of publications; (b) geographical distribution of articles; (c) authors’ citations; (d) articles citations and connected journals; (e) emerging keywords and topics; (f) cluster analysis (Secundo et al. 2020;Schimperna et al. 2020;Lombardi et al. 2021b). Based on Scopus as the leading resource to find documents, our search relied on “Article title, Abstract, Keywords”, while the selected query relied on the following group of keywords: (“universit*” OR “higher education” OR “business school” OR “education”) AND (“CSR” OR “corporate social responsibility” OR “university social responsibility”) and “teaching”). After the selection of this group of keywords, we limited the search field only to documents published from 2001 to 2021. Thus, our first result relied on 241 documents. Then, we limited the search field to business, management, and accounting areas and English research documents; after conducting discussions in the research group, we selected 31 documents, avoiding the highest number of false positives and negatives (Petticrew and Roberts 2008). We decided to exclude documents that did not contain useful information or findings on CSR teaching at universities or its inclusion in curricula. Our research is updated up to 19 February 2022, and Table 1summarizes our documents selection process, while Appendix Aprovides the full list of these documents. Table 1. Documents selection process. Selection Criteria Results Stage 1: Search for TITLE-ABS-KEY ((“universit*” OR “higher education” OR “business school” OR “education”) AND (“CSR” OR “corporate social responsibility” OR “university social responsibility”) AND “teaching”) PUBYEAR > 2000 AND (LIMIT-TO (PUBSTAGE, “final”)) 241 documents Stage 2: Limiting the search field to business, management and accounting only Stage 3: Limiting the search field to English-language research documents only Stage 4: Selection of the collected research documents mainly related to our research aim 126 documents 125 documents 31 documents Source: our elaboration. Using VOSviewer software (Van Eck and Waltman 2017), our analyses relied on countries per document, citations of sources, citations of documents, co-occurrence of keywords, and bibliographic coupling to obtain clusters. The following section provides our main findings. Adm. Sci. 2022,12, 55 3 of 13 3. Results Our analysis relies on 31 documents mainly connected to the aim of the review. The following subsections aim to answer the three following research questions: - RQ1: How is CSR practices in the university literature developed in the field of business, management, and accounting? - RQ2: What is the literature’s focus on CSR teaching at universities? - RQ3: What are the implications that arise for universities? 3.1. Descriptive Analysis Firstly, by focusing on the trend of publications between 2004 and 2016, we found an irregular trend of publications because there are years in which one, two, and four documents were published or none were published all. It is only from 2017 onwards that the trend of publications became regular, as there were three or four documents for each year considered. Secondly, by focusing on the perspective of countries, we identified the main countries contributing to our SLR (Table 2). The most influential countries are the UK and the USA (seven documents), followed by Spain (four documents). Moving to the analysis of related citations, we found that the UK is the leading country (555 citations), followed by Germany (455 citations) and the USA (387 citations). Table 2. Top eight countries per documents. Country N◦of Documents N◦of Citations United Kingdom 7 555 United States 7 387 Spain 4 72 Germany 3 455 Finland 2 17 Canada 2 15 Colombia 2 11 Romania 2 1 Source: our elaboration. Thus, the USA, the UK, Spain, and Germany can be regarded as leading countries for the aims of this SLR. Focusing on the number of citations per source, the Journal of Business Ethics is the first in ranking (705 citations; 6 documents), followed by the Journal of Cleaner Production (220 citations; 3 documents) and the Journal of Management and Organization (80 citations; 2 documents). Table 3shows our findings. Table 3. Top four citations per source. Source N◦of Documents N◦of Citations Journal of Business Ethics 6 705 Journal of Cleaner Production 3 220 Journal of Management and Organization 2 80 Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management 1 46 Source: our elaboration. The next step of our bibliometric analysis was the identification of the most frequently cited documents (Table 4). Our analysis pointed out that Matten and Moon is the most cited document (299 citations), followed by Christensen et al. (274 citations) and Hesselbarth and Schaltegger (156 citations). Adm. Sci. 2022,12, 55 4 of 13 Table 4. Citations per authors/documents. Document N◦of Citations Matten and Moon (2004) 299 Christensen et al. (2007) 274 Hesselbarth and Schaltegger (2014) 156 Cornelius et al. (2007) 109 Gatti et al. (2019) 55 Setó-Pamies et al. (2011) 49 Doh and Tashman (2014) 46 Wright and Bennett (2011) 31 Source: our elaboration. We also adopted another specific measure: the citations per year (CPY). Table 5pro- vides our findings, highlighting how Hesselbarth and Schaltegger is the document with the highest CPY value (17,3). The second place is taken by Matten and Moon (15,7), while the third belongs to Gatti et al. (13,7). Moreover, in addition to business, management, and accounting, we tried to identify the other thematic areas of the selected documents. Our analysis pointed out the following thematic areas: (i) engineering; (ii) economics, econometrics and finance; (iii) social sciences; (iv) decision sciences; (v) energy; (vi) environmental science; (vii) arts and humanities; (viii) medicine. Table 5. Top five cited articles. Authors Title Citations CPY Source Country Hesselbarth and Schaltegger (2014) Educating change agents for sustainability—Learnings from the first sustainability management master of business administration 156 17.3 Journal of Cleaner Production, 62, pp. 24–36 Germany Matten and Moon Corporate social responsibility education in Europe 299 15.7 Journal of Business Ethics, 54: pp. 323–37 UK Gatti et al. (2019) Education for sustainable development through business simulation games: An exploratory study of sustainability gamification and its effects on students’ learning outcomes 55 13.7 Journal of Cleaner Production 207, pp. 667–78 Switzerland Cornelius et al. (2007) An analysis of corporate social responsibility, corporate identity and ethics teaching in business schools 109 6.8 Journal of Business Ethics, 76: pp. 117–35 UK Doh and Tashman (2014) Half a world away: The integration and assimilation of corporate social responsibility, sustainability, and sustainable development in business school curricula 46 5.1 Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 21: pp. 131–42. USA Source: our elaboration. By conducting occurrence analysis, we found the most relevant keywords in 31 analyzed documents. We selected two as the minimum number of occurrences of a keyword and deleted useless words, discovering that corporate social responsibility, sustainability, university social responsibility, teaching, social responsibilities, higher education, and sustainable development are the most relevant keywords. Table 6shows our findings. Lastly, we also investigated all keywords clusters by conducting co-occurrence analysis, choosing the full counting method and selecting two as the minimum number of occurrences for a keyword. Our cluster analysis highlighted three main clusters. Cluster 1 (red colour) comprised corporate social responsibility, higher education, experiential learning, problem-based learning, sustainability, management education, business schools, and curriculum; cluster 2 (blue colour) comprised university social responsibility, university, economic and social effects, social responsibilities, and social aspects; cluster 3 (green Adm. Sci. 2022,12, 55 5 of 13 colour) comprised students, teaching, business education, corporate-sustainability, and sustainable development (Figure 1). Table 6. All keywords occurrence. Keywords Occurrence Corporate social responsibility 11 Sustainability 7 University social responsibility 4 Teaching 3 Social responsibilities 3 Higher education 3 Sustainable development 3 Students 2 Business education 2 Corporate-sustainability 2 Economic and social effects 2 Social aspects 2 University 2 Experiential learning 2 Management education 2 Business schools 2 Curriculum 2 Problem-based learning 2 Source: our elaboration. Adm. Sci. 2022, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 6 of 13 Figure 1. All Keywords’ occurrence. Source: VOSviewer. 3.2. Emerging Topics by Clusters From the cluster analysis, the following three main topics emerged: (I) CSR issues in the current corporate and economic world; (II) USR and the role of the university in disseminating knowledge about CSR; (III) new methods of teaching CSR and sustainability. In this subsection, we try to point out the main insights coming from the literature, providing a joint analysis of the previous topics. The last few decades have been disrupted by many events that led to the demand for ethical standards and the sustainable development of public and private organizations (Cornelius et al. 2007; Burga et al. 2017). Multinational companies, financial service providers, consultancies, non-profit organizations, and so on started to search for sustainability management experts (Deitche 2010; Kiron et al. 2012; Hesselbarth and Schaltegger 2014). In the light of these previous considerations, the need for the development of education about sustainability and CSR emerged (Boyle 1999; Gorski et al. 2017; Doh and Tashman 2014) and universities became essential for educating responsible leaders and managers (Raivio 2011; Osiemo 2012; Boulocher-Passet et al. 2019) and for the transition to a sustainable society (Corcoran and Wals 2004; Ferrer-Balas et al. 2010; Palma et al. 2011). The introduction of CSR teaching and learning led to many benefits. Introducing CSR issues into the curricula fosters a more positive attitude toward social responsibility, improving ethical decisions for society (Tormo-Carbó et al. 2019) and positively affecting business performance (Claver-Cortés et al. 2020). Universities’ legitimacy, granted by many stakeholders, relies on their ethical, moral, and functional impact on society (Golant and Sillince 2007): “The unique CSR engagement roles of universities include (1) elevating the functional and moral standards which guide them, (2) improving internally and externally the public arenas so that engagement defines and fosters positive social impact, and (3) fostering research, teaching, and community service as engagement that produces social impact by raising standards of moral and functional expectations that improve community” (Heath and Waymer 2021). The social role of the university goes beyond knowledge production and dissemination (Sitnikov et al. 2018; Ali et al. 2021), contributing to a deeper economic, social, sustainable, technological, legal, and cultural development and simultaneously promoting social justice (De la Cruz Ayuso and Sasia Santos 2008; Domanski et al. 2017; Mancha et al. 2017). In this sce- Figure 1. All Keywords’ occurrence. Source: VOSviewer. 3.2. Emerging Topics by Clusters From the cluster analysis, the following three main topics emerged: (I) CSR issues in the current corporate and economic world; (II) USR and the role of the university in disseminating knowledge about CSR; (III) new methods of teaching CSR and sustainability. In this subsection, we try to point out the main insights coming from the literature, providing a joint analysis of the previous topics. The last few decades have been disrupted by many events that led to the demand for ethical standards and the sustainable development of public and private organizations (Cornelius et al. 2007;Burga et al. 2017). Multinational companies, financial service providers, Adm. Sci. 2022,12, 55 6 of 13 consultancies, non-profit organizations, and so on started to search for sustainability management experts (Deitche 2010;Kiron et al. 2012;Hesselbarth and Schaltegger 2014). In the light of these previous considerations, the need for the development of education about sustainability and CSR emerged (Boyle 1999;Gorski et al. 2017; Doh and Tashman 2014) and universities became essential for educating responsible leaders and managers (Raivio 2011; Osiemo 2012;Boulocher-Passet et al. 2019) and for the transition to a sustainable society (Corcoran and Wals 2004;Ferrer-Balas et al. 2010;Palma et al. 2011). The introduction of CSR teaching and learning led to many benefits. Introducing CSR issues into the curricula fosters a more positive attitude toward social responsibility, improving ethical decisions for society (Tormo-Carbóet al. 2019) and positively affecting business performance (Claver-Cortés et al. 2020). Universities’ legitimacy, granted by many stakeholders, relies on their ethical, moral, and functional impact on society (Golant and Sillince 2007): “The unique CSR engagement roles of universities include (1) elevating the functional and moral standards which guide them, (2) improving internally and externally the public arenas so that engagement defines and fosters positive social impact, and (3) fostering research, teaching, and community service as engagement that produces social impact by raising standards of moral and functional expectations that improve community” (Heath and Waymer 2021). The social role of the university goes beyond knowledge production and dissemination (Sitnikov et al. 2018; Ali et al. 2021), contributing to a deeper economic, social, sustainable, technological, legal, and cultural development and simultaneously promoting social justice (De la Cruz Ayuso and Santos 2008;Domanski et al. 2017;Mancha et al. 2017). In this scenario, it is possible to define USR “as the ability to develop and promote a group of principles and values through the development of four processes: management, teaching, research, and community outreach (Hernández and Saldarriaga 2009)” (Gomez 2014). USR practices foster interdisciplinary work between professors, researchers, deans, scientists, politicians, students, and external stakeholders characterised by ethical teaching, learning, training, and management (Bacigalupo 2008;Domanski et al. 2017). Thus, universities are responsible for many stakeholders, among which include students, alumni, staff, and the local community (Ali et al. 2021), and they have to ensure fairness in accessing higher education and in order to improve teaching, research, and training (Phan et al. 2021). The role of universities is an exclusive one because building a sustainable tomorrow starts with the production and dissemination of knowledge. In the current scenario, there is a strong need for disseminating knowledge about CSR values, particularly, sustainability, ethical and moral values, human rights, and transparency (Esfijani and Chang 2012). Universities should not only provide students with opportunities to build business skills but also foster the understanding of business decisions and actions’ consequences on society and the potential damage they could cause (Kolodinsky et al. 2010; Setó-Pamies et al. 2011). The main changes universities made to improve CSR knowledge and dissemination refer to the “expansion of tuition, diversification of funding sources, organizational restructuring, planning, controls and accountability, linking and responsibility with the social environment; updating of knowledge and renewal of skills, as well as the definitive establishment of the action shared between university, the productive apparatus at local, regional and national levels, with the centers of public and private decision” (Hernández García de Velazco et al. 2020). Additionally, since the late 1990s, many universities have introduced sustainability topics into core and elective modules, especially at the MBA level (Christensen et al. 2007;Schroeder-Saulnier 2007;Wright and Bennett 2011; Brammer et al. 2012). According to Matten and Moon (2004), there are many differences in contextualisation, understanding, and the packaging of CSR teaching. The concept of sustainability can decline in several perspectives, especially in terms of the following: (i) green business promotion; (ii) ethics or legal compliance; (iii) entrepreneurship; (iv) opportunity for business continuity, security, and regional economic development (De Loura 2014). Focusing on the incorporation of CSR issues into the curricula, the literature highlighted Adm. Sci. 2022,12, 55 7 of 13 the following three different broad pedagogical approaches: (i) coverage of some CSR issues in an existing course; (ii) introduction of one or more separate courses that deal specifically with CSR issues; (iii) integration of CSR into disciplines, programs, and course material (Thomas 2004;Rusinko 2010;Pizzutilo and Venezia 2021). The interconnection between teaching CSR, conducting day-to-day activities, and providing practical support allows students to easily apply their new knowledge and skills (Tokarˇcíkováet al. 2015;Smith et al. 2018). CSR and sustainable development can be taught by using many methods and techniques, among which include the following four examples (Figueiróand Raufflet 2015;Gatti et al. 2019): case method, SL, PBL, and action and experiential learning. Case methods rely on the presentation of concrete management situations, in which students must actively engage in discussions to find valuable solutions (Mesny 2013;Reficco et al. 2019). SL implies students’ participation in service-learning projects, interacting with many different stakeholders to understand the complexity and relevance of CSR and sustainability (Brundiers et al. 2010). PBL relies on the creation of a real problem and the involvement of students to find a valuable solution, exchanging information with their colleagues to acquire knowledge and critically reflect on the underlying issue (García-Rosell 2013;Gatti et al. 2019). Lastly, action and experiential learning allows cognitive engagement (MacVaugh and Norton 2012), and it relies on learning by acting (Shrivastava 2010) and involving students in critical and deep reflections by the adoption of discussions, projects, teamwork, and games (Gatti et al. 2019). Among these different techniques, simulation games seem particularly suited for providing a structured environment to understand and learn complex problems (Doyle and Brown 2000). Additionally, CSR learning can be supported by a more effective use of mobile apps, Web 2.0 tools, and new technologies in general. The use of these tools is justified by three factors: (i) the new millennials and generation Z students are digital natives; (ii) new technologies allow students to be reached globally; (iii) new technologies can make learning easier (Montiel et al. 2020). 4. Conclusions and Future Research Agenda During the last decades, the need for ethical standards, for the sustainable development of public and private organizations, and for sustainability management experts has emerged (Hesselbarth and Schaltegger 2014;Burga et al. 2017). This led universities to develop education about CSR and sustainability (Boyle 1999;Gorski et al. 2017), becoming pivotal in educating responsible leaders and managers (Raivio 2011;Osiemo 2012; Boulocher-Passet et al. 2019). Additionally, whether the introduction of CSR issues into the curricula allows a more positive attitude toward social responsibility has been studied, improving ethical decisions for societies (Tormo-Carbóet al. 2019) and positively affecting business performance (Claver-Cortés et al. 2020). This paper provides an SLR study focused on how universities have improved CSR teaching. We aimed to answer the following three research questions: (I) How has CSR practices in the university literature developed in the field of business, management, and accounting? (II) What is the literature’s focus on CSR teaching at universities? (III) What are the implications that arise for universities? Our bibliometric analysis answered the first research question, while cluster analysis and a literature review was conducted for the other two. This SLR relies only on 31 documents, suggesting that innovations in CSR teaching seem to be an immature field from a business, management, and accounting point of view. By conducting the cluster analysis, we found the following three main topics: (I) CSR issues in the current corporate and economic world; (II) USR and the role of the university in disseminating knowledge about CSR; (III) new methods of teaching CSR and sustainability. Universities contribute to economic, social, sustainable, technological, legal, cultural development, and social justice (De la Cruz Ayuso and Santos 2008;Domanski et al. 2017;Mancha et al. 2017). USR practices foster interdisciplinary work characterised by ethical teaching, learning, training, and management (Bacigalupo 2008;Domanski Adm. Sci. 2022,12, 55 8 of 13 et al. 2017), and since the late 1990s, many universities have introduced CSR and sustainability topics into their curricula (Schroeder-Saulnier 2007;Wright and Bennett 2011; Brammer et al. 2012). By teaching CSR, conducting day-to-day activities, and providing practical support, universities facilitate students’ application of their new knowledge and skills (Tokarˇcíkováet al. 2015;Smith et al. 2018). Additionally, universities developed many methods and techniques to teach CSR and sustainable development, such as case method, SL, PBL, and action and experiential learning (Figueiróand Raufflet 2015;Gatti et al. 2019). Even with these considerations, the method of teaching promoted by universities is constantly updated, and there is still the need to identify new methods, techniques, and tools for teaching CSR and to disseminate it more widely. This research has several limitations, among which include the analysis of a single specific field over the last two decades, the use of only one research database (Scopus), and the selection of a limited number of keywords to find and select documents. Thus, our future research techniques will be based on additional databases, such as Google Scholar, and keywords to increase the number of available documents. Additionally, we could decide to focus on other perspectives that are different from CSR teaching and adopt a comparison between different countries. Author Contributions: Writing—original draft, F.S.; Writing—review & editing, F.N. and F.C. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript. Funding: This research received no external funding. Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable. Informed Consent Statement: Not applicable. Data Availability Statement: Not applicable. Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest. Appendix A. Documents’ Full List NR. Authors Title Year Journal/Source 1 Pizzutilo, F., Venezia, E. On the maturity of social responsibility and sustainability integration in higher education institutions: Descriptive criteria and conceptual framework 2021 International Journal of Management Education 2Ali, M., Mustapha, I., Osman, S., Hassan, U. University social responsibility: A review of conceptual evolution and its thematic analysis 2021 Journal of Cleaner Production 3 Heath, R.L., Waymer, D. University Engagement for Enlightening CSR: Serving Hegemony or Seeking Constructive Change 2021 Public Relations Review 4Phan, C.X., Van Le, L., Duong, D., Phan, T.C. The Impact of Corporate Social Responsibility on Brand Image: A Case Study in Vietnam 2021 Journal of Asian Finance, Economics and Business 5 Claver-Cortés, E., Marco-Lajara, B., Úbeda-García, M., (...), Sánchez-García, E., Poveda-Pareja, E. Students’ perception of CSR and its influence on business performance. A multiple mediation analysis 2020 Business Ethics 6 Hernández García de Velazco, J.J., Ravina Ripoll, R., Chumaceiro Hernandez, A.C. Relevance and social responsibility of sustainable university organizations: Analysis from the perspective of endogenous capacities 2020 Entrepreneurship and Sustainability Issues