Search results

This article answers the following research question: How do institutional pressures influence the re(actions) of organizations in relation to the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) in the context of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic?

The present research was conducted through the search and review of online secondary sources based on a critical and exploratory analysis. The data were obtained from the Global Compact Brazilian Committee (Rede Brasil do Pacto Global, in Portuguese) and analyzed by means of qualitative content analysis with the support of the ATLAS.ti software.

The results have showed the role of organizations in dealing with the impacts provoked by the current COVID-19 scenario. However, the association of actions implemented by organizations is evident in some SDGs, but not in all and not with the same intensity. There is a higher incidence of SDG 3 (Good health and well-being), which is linked to 278 actions. Regarding institutional pressures, we noticed a higher incidence of normative pressures, which may indicate a sense of responsibility towards employees and other stakeholders related to the prevention of the impacts caused by the pandemic.

The findings presented here can encourage companies to better direct their efforts to fight the virus without neglecting the 2030 Agenda.

The authors intend to encourage institutions that may exert coercive, normative, and mimetic pressures to recognize the impacts of their influence and better direct it to the interests of society during and after the pandemic.

This research investigates organizational actions in the context of COVID-19 from an institutional theory perspective.

This study aims to answer the research question: How to evaluate the structure of global university sustainability rankings according to the Berlin Principles (BP) framework.

The authors investigated two global sustainability rankings in universities, The UI green metric World University Ranking (WUR) and the Times Higher Education World University Rankings (THE-WUR). The authors performed content analysis regarding their evaluation criteria and assessed both rankings using the BP framework.

Results show that there is still a gap to be filled regarding the specificity of global university sustainability rankings. Although the THE-WUR had a better performance in this research, there are several items for improvement, especially regarding the methodological procedures. There are structural differences, limitations and points for improvement in both rankings. Besides, it may not be possible to have a unique and more appropriate ranking, but one that can be more suitable for a contextual reality.

This study can be helpful for university managers when deliberating on the most appropriate ranking for their institutions and better preparing their higher education institutions for participating in sustainability-related rankings. Besides, it suggests possible improvements on the rankings’ criteria.

The authors shed light on challenges for improving the existing university sustainability rankings, besides generating insights for developing new ones. In a provocative but constructive perspective, the authors question their bases and understandings of being “the best university” regarding sustainability.

This is the first study that provides an in-depth analysis and comparison between two of the most important global university sustainability rankings.