PROVIDING A SOCIAL VALUE CREATION MODEL BASED ON UNIVERSITY SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY (USR)
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.55197/qjssh.v4i1.155Keywords:
culture, university social responsibility, balanced scorecard, strategyAbstract
The purpose of this study was to provide a social value creation model based on the dimensions of university social responsibility. In this model, the supporting literature of the balanced scorecard field is used. In this model, the development of creating value for the beneficiaries follows the triad of: (1) internal processes, (2) academic audiences, and (3) learning and growth. Also, innovation development, organizational development and social learning play key roles in this model. This model is elaborated to developing a road map for science and technology policy makers in the development of university social responsibilities. This research also describes the experience of how to use balanced scorecard method, shows how this method can be used to formulate strategies in the field of social responsibility of universities and what advantages this method has in comparison with other methods of developing cultural and social strategies. The manuscript identifies the strategies of university social responsibility in the dimensions of the balanced scorecard, which is to identify these factors using qualitative method (using snowball method) and quantitative (using appropriate statistical tests). It is used as a mixed method and in the classification of researches based on how to collect data, this research is located in the descriptive research group of the survey and due to the experimental and non-experimental characteristics of the research, the present research method is considered as a non-experimental method.
References
Ali, M., Mustapha, I., Osman, S., Hassan, U. (2021): University social responsibility: A review of conceptual evolution and its thematic analysis. – Journal of Cleaner Production 286: 19p.
Asiaei, K., Bontis, N. (2019): Using a balanced scorecard to manage corporate social responsibility. – Knowledge and Process Management 26(4): 371-379.
Babaei, S., Tavakoli, G. (2017): Deriving basic rationalities in public policy making process. – Iranian Journal of Public Policy 3(1): 63-82.
Belyaeva, Z., Scagnelli, S.D., Thomas, M., Cisi, M. (2018): Student perceptions of university social responsibility: implications from an empirical study in France, Italy and Russia. – World Review of Entrepreneurship, Management and Sustainable Development 14(1-2): 23-42.
Bento, R.F., Mertins, L., White, L.F. (2017): Ideology and the balanced scorecard: An empirical exploration of the tension between shareholder value maximization and corporate social responsibility. – Journal of Business Ethics 142(4): 769-789.
Bernardo, M.A.C., Butcher, J., Howard, P. (2012): An international comparison of community engagement in higher education. – International Journal of Educational Development 32(1): 187-192.
Boni, A., Gasper, D. (2012): Rethinking the quality of universities: How can human development thinking contribute? – Journal of Human Development and Capabilities 13(3): 451-470.
Cabedo, L., Royo, M., Moliner, L., Guraya, T. (2018): University social responsibility towards engineering undergraduates: The effect of methodology on a service-learning experience. – Sustainability 10(6): 17p.
Chile, L.M., Black, X.M. (2015): University–community engagement: Case study of university social responsibility. – Education, Citizenship and Social Justice 10(3): 234-253.
Davies, S.W., Glaister, K.W. (1996): Spurs to higher things? Mission statements of UK universities. – Higher Education Quarterly 50(4): 261-294.
Domanski, D., Howaldt, J., Schröder, A. (2017): Social Innovation in Latin America. – Journal of Human Development and Capabilities 18(2): 307-312.
Esfijani, A., Chang, E. (2012): Metrics development for measuring virtual university social responsibility. – In 2012 IEEE 12th International Conference on Advanced Learning Technologies, IEEE 2p.
Hong, W. (2017): The Balanced Scorecard Study on the Corporate Social Responsibility of Electronic Commerce. – In Modern Organisational Governance, Emerald Publishing Limited 12: 161-185.
Hopson, R., Miller, P., Lovelace, T.S. (2016): University–school–community partnership as vehicle for leadership, service, and change: A critical brokerage perspective. – Leadership and Policy in Schools 15(1): 26-44.
Hosny, S., Ghaly, M., Boelen, C. (2015): Is our medical school socially accountable? The case of Faculty of Medicine, Suez Canal University. – Medical Teacher 37: S47-S55.
Kaplan, R.S. (2009): Conceptual foundations of the balanced scorecard. – Handbooks of Management Accounting Research 3: 1253-1269.
Kuenssberg, S. (2011): The discourse of self-presentation in Scottish university mission statements. – Quality in Higher Education 17(3): 279-298.
Lawson, R., Stratton, W., Hatch, T. (2006): Scorecarding Goes Global-The use of scorecards has spread to companies all over the world, according to this continuing online survey, with companies in South America reporting the most use and. – Strategic Finance 87(9): 34-41.
López, S.G., Benítez, J.L.S., Sánchez, J.M.A. (2015): Social knowledge management from the social responsibility of the university for the promotion of sustainable development. – Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences 191: 2112-2116.
Mohammadi, A., Babaei, S. (2022): Responsible Research and Responsible Innovation: Have new concepts emerged? – In 2022 IEEE 28th International Conference on Engineering, Technology and Innovation (ICE/ITMC) & 31st International Association For Management of Technology (IAMOT) Joint Conference, IEEE 7p.
Mohammadi, A. (2021): Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI): Scientometric Analysis. – European Public & Social Innovation Review 6(2): 64-77.
Mohammadi, A., Mohammadi, S. (2021): A Conceptual Model for the Innovation Strategy in Terms of Uncertainty by a Scenario-Based Technology Roadmap. – Economy, Right, Society 6(1): 80-87.
Nikolaou, I.E., Tsalis, T.A. (2013): Development of a sustainable balanced scorecard framework. – Ecological Indicators 34: 76-86.
Pylypiv, N., Piatnychuk, I., Halachenko, O., Maksymiv, Y., Popadynets, N. (2020): Balanced scorecard for implementing united territorial communities’ social responsibility. – Problems and Perspectives in Management 18(2): 128-139.
Quezada, R.G. (2012): Pluralist university government. An analysis proposal based on stakeholder theory. – International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education 9(2): 296-310.
Rioux, L., Scrima, F., Bouzid, D., Moffat, É., Mokounkolo, R. (2017): The effects of university socialisation on students’ consumer behaviour. – Social Psychology of Education 20(3): 693-705.
Sarmiento, J.P. (2017): Healthy universities: mapping health-promotion interventions. – Health Education 117(2): 162-175.
Sheau Ting, L., Hakim Bin Mohammed, A., Wai Choong, W. (2012): Proposed implementation strategies for energy sustainability on a Malaysian university campus. – Business Strategy Series 13(5): 208-214.
Söderbaum, P. (2009): Making actors, paradigms and ideologies visible in governance for sustainability. – Sustainable Development 17(2): 70-81.
Teixeira, A., Ferreira, M.R., Correia, A., Lima, V. (2018): Students’ perceptions of corporate social responsibility: Evidences from a Portuguese higher education institution. – International Review on Public and Nonprofit Marketing 15(2): 235-252.
Tsai, W.H., Chou, W.C., Hsu, W. (2009): The sustainability balanced scorecard as a framework for selecting socially responsible investment: an effective MCDM model. – Journal of the Operational Research Society 60(10): 1396-1410.
Vázquez, J.L., Lanero, A., Licandro, O. (2013): The added value of corporate social responsibility. Some insights from a research in Uruguay. – International Review on Public and Nonprofit Marketing 10(3): 187-200.
Wiltshier, P., Edwards, M. (2014): Managing knowledge transfer partnership for a rural community: The outcomes at Wirksworth, UK. – Kybernetes: The International Journal of Systems & Cybernetics 43(3-4): 629-651.
Wu, H.Y., Lin, Y.K., Chang, C.H. (2011): Performance evaluation of extension education centers in universities based on the balanced scorecard. – Evaluation and Program Planning 34(1): 37-50.
