Strategic Focus or Accountability Evasion? Reinterpreting SDGs Selectivity in University Sustainability Reporting
戦略的焦点か説明責任回避か？大学のサステナビリティ報告におけるSDGs選択性の再解釈 (AI 翻訳)
Khaled Hamden Alshammari, Ibrahim Abdulrahman Alhanaya
🤖 gxceed AI 要約
日本語
大学のSDGs報告における選択的開示を再解釈。非選択性そのものが問題ではなく、無説明の選択性が問題と指摘。107の大学報告書分析に基づき、適度な選択性が最高の開示品質スコアを示すことを実証。説明責任を保持する選択性と損なう選択性を区別する新しい枠組みを提供。
English
This paper reinterprets selective SDG disclosure in university sustainability reporting, arguing that selectivity is not inherently problematic but becomes so when unexplained. Analyzing 107 university reports globally, it shows moderately selective reports achieve the highest disclosure quality scores, introducing a framework distinguishing accountability-preserving vs. eroding selectivity.
Unofficial AI-generated summary based on the public title and abstract. Not an official translation.
📝 gxceed 編集解説 — Why this matters
日本のGX文脈において
日本の大学の統合報告やSSBJへの対応において、SDGs選択性の開示品質評価に示唆。無説明の選択性が批判され得る点は、実務上の注意点。
In the global GX context
Contributes to global debates on sustainability reporting quality, challenging the assumption that broad SDG coverage equates to better accountability. Relevant for reporting frameworks like GRI and integrated reporting.
👥 読者別の含意
🔬研究者:Provides a refined conceptual and empirical framework for evaluating SDG disclosure quality in multi-mission institutions.
🏢実務担当者:Offers guidance on how to justify selectivity in sustainability reports to maintain accountability and credibility.
🏛政策担当者:Suggests that reporting standards should focus on explanation rather than breadth, potentially influencing future SDG reporting guidelines.
📄 Abstract（原文）
Selective Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) disclosure is frequently interpreted as evidence of weak university accountability. This research advances a different position. It argues that the problem is not selectivity itself, but unexplained selectivity. In plural-mission institutions, no university can give equal depth to every SDG without risking superficiality. Selectivity preserves accountability when priorities are publicly justified, mission-linked, evidence-supported, and explicit about what remains underdeveloped. It erodes accountability when curated visibility replaces public account-giving. Drawing on structured document analysis of 107 university SDG and sustainability disclosures from Europe, Asia–Pacific, North America, Latin America, Africa and the Middle East, published between 2019 and 2024, independently coded by two researchers (Cohen’s kappa = 0.81) and scored through the SDG Disclosure Review-Readiness Index (SDG-DRRI), the research shows that moderately selective documents (n = 18) achieved the highest mean score, outperforming both broad reporting (n = 34) and highly selective reporting (n = 55). This research contributes a new distinction between accountability-preserving and accountability-eroding selectivity, showing why disclosure breadth alone is an inadequate proxy for accountability quality. It advances sustainability accounting and higher education reporting debates by reframing SDG selectivity as a conditional accountability phenomenon: legitimate when publicly justified, problematic when it narrows responsibility without explanation.
🔗 Provenance — このレコードを発見したソース
- openalex https://doi.org/10.3390/su18136621first seen 2026-07-18 06:16:55
🔔 こうした論文の新着を逃したくない方は キーワードアラート に登録（無料・3キーワードまで）。
gxceed は公開メタデータに基づく研究支援データセットです。要約・翻訳・解説は AI 支援で生成されています。 最終的な解釈・検証は利用者が原典資料に基づいて行うことを前提とします。