1.1. The premises of corporate social responsibility

The concept of corporate social responsibility (CSR) has been steadily gaining in importance, with roots traceable back to the 1950s–70s (Bowen, 1953; Davis, 1960; Johnson, 1971). Most often it is understood as denoting a strategic management strategy (Rudnicka, 2012; Gazzola & Colombo, 2014; Dąbrowski, 2016; Pluta-Olearnik & Buda, 2023) or as a legal obligation/ recommendation, stemming, for example, from environmental or human rights legislation (McGuire, 1963; United Nations Millennium Declaration, 2000; Szymonek, 2011; UN Resolution, 2015) or reporting requirements (Śnieżek, 2011). The integration of social responsibility into management science has been closely related to the evolvement of the field, which has involved “setting new standards, including in the methodology of management science” (Lisiński, 2013).

Carroll’s widely referenced model of CSR, which has undergone various modifications over time, lays the foundation for understanding corporate social responsibility as consisting of three partially overlapping domains: economic, legal and ethical responsibilities (Caroll, 1979; Schwartz and Carroll, 2003). The existing research streams on CSR (Dąbrowski, 2016) have focused on the scope of responsibility, the circle of those to whom responsibility applies (stakeholders), and the sources of responsibility (external expectations vs. internal awareness). As a result, CSR research typically addresses three main aspects: 1) the social obligations of organizations (including towards stakeholders) (Carroll, 1999; Clarkson, 1995); 2) the ethical motivations underlying CSR practices; and 3) the management processes involved in implementing CSR. This perspective is echoed by the European Commission, which defines CSR as “the responsibility of companies for their impact on society” (EC, 2011). In this sense, corporate social responsibility (CSR) is understood to apply to all organizations, regardless of their type, nature or kind – in other words, it is also meant to apply, for example, to universities (Chen et al., 2015; Cabedo et al., 2018; Bugaj & Szarucki, 2019) and research institutes (Szulc, 2023).

In reference to scientific institutes, the concept of scientific social responsibility (SSR) operates, particularly in the Polish literature, as “a concept of governance in the sphere of conducting scientific research, the functioning of scientific institutions and managing the social impact of research.” Morawska-Jancelewicz (2019) and Żemigała (2020, 2022) define SSR as “the responsibility of scientific institutions for their impact on society,” effectively adapting the CSR framework outlined by the European Commission to the specific context of scientific institutions. This definition stresses the importance of SSR in ensuring that scientific research and institutions contribute positively to society – largely paralleling the broader CSR mandate across various types of organizations.

CSR is founded on the premise that an organization should consider, in its operations, the interests of various stakeholders from both its immediate and broader environment. This approach is intended to enhance and safeguard stakeholders’ welfare (Jorge and Pena, 2017). In terms of wealth generation, organizational managers are encouraged to focus on the creative role of the organization’s activities. This can also be extended to scientific social responsibility (SSR) (Żemigała, 2020). On the other hand, protecting well-being requires organizations to refrain from any actions that could be detrimental to society at large (European Commission, 2011). As a result, CSR encompasses both external and internal organizational activities.

The ISO 26000 standard distinguishes seven key areas of CSR: 1) organizational governance, 2) human rights, 3) labor pratices, 4) the environment, 5) fair operating practices, 6) consumer issues, 7) community involvement and development. These have been narrowed to three main areas of activity in the context of each organization’s CSR: 1) caring for customers / markets / external stakeholders; 2) caring for society / community and the environment; 3) Aacting on the basis of values, including those set forth in the Sustainable Development Goals (United Nations General Assembly, 2015). The universal nature of these areas of activity makes them applicable in analyzing the content of research institutes’ mission and vision statements in order to determine their declarative stance regarding being socially responsible.

This article first reviews the existing literature on the premises of corporate social responsibility as well as how mission and vision statements reflect CSR them. The methods section then presents the criteria of social responsibility used in the subsequent analysis of the mission and vision statements of Polish research institutes. Next, the empirical section describes the findings, including the results of the content analysis of research institutes’ missions and vision statements.

1.2. Polish research institutes

The Polish Act of 30 April 2010 on Research Institutes defines such entities as state organizational units, established to conduct scientific research and implementation-oriented development work. Such institutes engage in business activities, collaborate with entrepreneurs, establish scientific and industrial centers to conduct research and analysis, and disseminate their results. Research institutes may have different profiles of activity, for example, technical, natural and agricultural sciences, medical research, or the humanities.

While research institutes remain outside the public finance sector (as specified by the Polish Act of 27 August 2009 on Public Finance), their commercial activities are limited due to their statutory obligation to conduct scientific research. Sources of revenue for these institutes can include the sale of scientific research, development work, patents, implementation work, the production of apparatus or provision of services, etc. State research institutes, however, form a distinct category; they receive earmarked subsidies from the state budget in amounts determined by the Budget Act. Cilak (2015) posits that the nature of the institutes’ activities is non-commercial, whereas the Marek Dietrich Institute of Contemporary Civilization Problems (2022) stresses that the expenditures for research are insufficient.

The representative body of research institutes in Poland, the Main Council of Research Institutes (RGIB), has defined the overarching mission for such institutions, in RGIB Bulletin No. 01/2023, as “building trust in science and disseminating information about inventions and ongoing projects, especially those that, when implemented, can change the world around us for the better and improve the quality of life.” This entails a certain expectation that research institutes are will adhere to the basic tenets of CSR, that is, to act for the benefit of both the economy and society.

During the Congress “Science for Society” (June 3–5, 2023), the RGIB presented a study entitled “Decalogue – the future of research institutes in Poland,” which includes four guidelines for research institutes in the context of scientific social responsibility. These address the expectations and needs of Polish society as a stakeholder, focusing on breakthrough innovations, the modernization and the rational use of research potential, as well as the dissemination and popularization of ongoing research findings. The principles laid out in the “Decalogue” are intended to be reflected in the missions and vision statements of research institutes.

2. Research methods and tools

Based on the literature review, CSR elements were identified and adopted as criteria for analyzing the content of the mission and vision statements across various organizations, including research institutes, as follows:

1. Demonstration of features indicating:

a.care for customers/markets/external stakeholders,
b.care for society/community and environmental factors,
c.acting on the basis of values, including those set forth in the UN Sustainable Development Goals.

2. The occurrence of keywords relevant to CSR.

In order to determine which keywords should be prioritized (and adopt criteria for further analysis of the content of the mission and vision statements), the earlier critical and systematic analysis of the specialized literature was further supplemented with bibliometric techniques. These included keyword co-occurrence (Przytuła, 2023) and a relational technique for examining relationships within the data included in the publications (Lenart-Gansiniec, 2021).

On 5 November 2023, the specialized literature was searched again using the same keywords as above. The results of the search (66 items) were exported to the software package R. The dataset comprised items published between 2006 and 2023, including 44 articles, 10 chapters in monographs, 10 conference publications, and 2 books prepared by a total of 168 authors. These publications were categorized by discipline: 42 under Business, Management and Accounting, 24 under Social Sciences and 20 under Economics, Econometrics and Finance (with the assumption that the authors decided in which category their article would be placed, with option to select multiple categories). This was followed by an analysis of the keywords indicated by the authors and the content of the abstracts. Figure 1 shows the 10 leading words/phrases listed by the authors of the analyzed publications. They highlight the relationship of CSR to such concepts as ethics, community engagement, and competitive advantage.

Content analysis of the abstracts, at the level of single phrases, did not identify new, relevant keywords recommended for analyzing the content of the mission and vision statements, nor did it identify specific components of social responsibility or the context of the research being conducted. In contrast, an analysis at the level of phrases consisting of two (Figure 2) or three words showed that despite narrowing the search, the abstracts studied were mostly about the mission and vision statements and/or social responsibility of financial institutions.

In conclusion, the criteria derived from the literature review were retained for analyzing the content of the mission and vision statements of research institutes. The method applied involved critical analysis of the content of research institutes’ mission and vision statements, guided by the conclusions of the systematic literature review. Using WordArt, the occurrence of relevant words in communication about social responsibility was also verified.

4. Results – analysis of the content of the missions and vision statements of research institutes

An analysis of the websites of 88 research institutes was conducted from July to October 2023. Of these, 86 were presented on the RGIB website (https://www.rgib.org.pl/index.php/baza-ib/baza-instytutow). An additional two (the Łukasiewicz Research Network – Łódz Institute of Technology and the Łukasiewicz Research Network – Polish Center for Technology Development) were listed in the index of institutes forming the Łukasiewicz Research Network (https://lukasiewicz.gov.pl/instytuty-lista/). The website of the Institute of Agricultural and Food Economics was found to be not operational at the time of the study and was therefore not included in the analysis. The institutes’ websites were analyzed for formal mission and vision statements and documents relating to development strategies. In cases where this information was not found, the institutes’ Public Information Bulletin (BIP) pages were additionally reviewed, and then documents relating to development strategies were searched for by typing the institute’s name and the phrase “development strategy” (in Polish) into Google. In the case of the Educational Research Institute, the resources of its intranet were used.

Of 88 research institutes, 44 had mission statements. Only 16 had vision statements (in addition to mission statements). In the absence of a mission and/or vision statement, the content of website tabs presenting the institute or its quality policies were analyzed (23 institutes). In summary: 67 research institutes had statements of some kind (hereinafter referred to as “declarations”) that indicated, either directly or indirectly, they indeed had an adopted mission. A total of 11 research institutes did not indicate that they had either a mission or vision statement. The results of the analysis of the content of research institutes’ “declarations” in the context of the specified criteria are presented in Table 1.

A total of 38 research institutes met the adopted criteria indicating socially responsible activities in their “declarations” (i.e., 58% of the institutes that published either director indirect “declarations” in this regard, and 43% of all those surveyed). However, indirect “declarations” (implicit rather than explicit statements of mission or vision), which the content analysis was extended to include, were found to indicate the social responsibility of research institutes only to a small degree, whereas this aspect was more clearly evident in content explicitly referred to as a mission or a vision statement.

The most frequently occurring Polish words in the content of all the analyzed “declarations” of research institutes are shown in Figure 3. All single words that are not relevant to the analysis (such as nie “not”, też “also”, i “and”, etc.) have been removed.

The word that stands out most in Figure 3 is rozwój “development” (appearing the case-form rozwoju “of development”) which appears in the examined “declarations” in the context of “research development” and “scientific development,” making it a CSR-specific word when referring to scientific social responsibility. In second place is the word ochrona “protection” (appearing the case-form ochrony “of protection”), which closely relates to the name and profile of the activities of many institutes and should not be equated with a declaration of social responsibility (e.g., the Institute for Plant Protection – PIB, the Central Laboratory for Radiation Protection, the Central Institute for Labor Protection – PIB, the Institute for Environmental Protection – PIB, etc.). This also largely applies to the word środowisko “environment.” The word nauka “science” appears in the cloud in a few variants (naukowy “scientific,” nauki “of science,” nauk “of sciences”) and, overall, it is the most common word (79%). This is understandable, given the scientific profile of research institutes (Table 2).

An important take-away for research institutes in the context of social responsibility is the need to emphasize their importance to society and the development of science. A clearly defined mission and vision statement for each institute should reflect this purpose, highlighting their contributions to societal well-being and scientific progress. Due to the specific nature of their activities, institutes specializing in research on the environment should also refer in their mission and vision statements to the goals of sustainable development.

5. Conclusion and discussion of the research results

This study focused on a specific group (88) of research institutions in Poland, whose primary objective is to conduct specialized research and analyses (the Polish Act of 30 April 2010 on Research Institutes), but also to build societal trust in science and to disseminate research results (RGIB). Therefore, it is reasonable to assume that these research institutes should apply the principles of scientific social responsibility (SSR) in their activities. The formal expression of the idea of SSR should be reflected in the content of the mission and vision statements depicting their market aspirations, values, and commitments to stakeholders (Obłój, 2007; Witek-Crabb, 2008; Kotler & Keller, 2012; Panasiewicz, 2015). However, the review of such mission and vision statements reported herein (in addition to less direct website “declarations” to the same effect) evidenced a lack of readiness on the part of research institutes to formally declare their commitment to CSR principles. While it cannot be ruled out that CSR/SSR activities are implemented in an informal way, determined to a certain degree by the purpose of establishing a research institute, this study has shed light in how these commitments are expressed in formal mission and vision statements.

Our systematic literature review and critical analysis evidenced a research gap concerning social responsibility in Polish research institutes. This was based on searches in a broader context (using searches for the terms “mission,” “vision,” “corporate social responsibility” in Polish); hence it applied to various companies and organizations, not just research institutes. The analysis did not clearly identify how research institutes express their social responsibility – most likely due to the specific nature of research institutes and the fact that when talking about the social responsibility of such institutes, the emphasis should be on responsibility in the context of the research conducted and the impact of science on society (SSR).

Our critical content analysis of research institutes’ missions and vision statements turned out to be – in a sense – incomplete by design, as only 16 of the institutes examined (18%) had posted both a mission and a vision statement. In this situation, mission statements alone (28 institutes) were also accepted for analysis, as well as statements to a similar effect (“declarations”), presented in such website tabs as: “about us,” “activities,” etc. (23 institutes). The criteria for analyzing the content of the mission and vision statements, adopted based on the critical and analytical analysis of specialized literature, provided an opportunity to look at these institutes’ “declarations” from multiple perspectives. It was identified that 58% of these “declarations” met the criteria relating to the purpose and nature of the “declaration.” Most institutes expressed concern for social and/or environmental factors, but only 8 referred to sustainability goals. Thirteen of the institutes presented target beneficiaries, indicating the following: society, future generations, businesses and patients (by institutes with a medical profile). Criteria based on the occurrence of keywords in the “declarations” confirmed that the research institutes referred to CSR rather casually. The only word actually occurring frequently was nauka “science” (79%, including various grammatical forms). Further research on declarations and activities relating to CSR at research institutes should include an analysis of all strategy documents.

Our findings could be seen as aligning somewhat with the study by Mansi et al. (2017), who found that companies with low turnover do not focus on CSR in their mission and vision statements – a relationship that may perhaps also apply to research institutes with limited revenue opportunities. On the other hand, the relationship described by Joshi et al. (2023), that is, an increase in the use CSR keywords related to a business profile associated with the mining industry, was not found to be evident in our study. The Polish research institutes examined, including those relating to the mining industry, paid little attention to expressing their social responsibility through the content of their mission and vision statements.

A key recommendation for directors of research institutes is to present stakeholders with a formulated mission and vision statement that demonstrates their institute’s philosophy relating to scientific social responsibility. Taking into account the modern view of corporate reporting (Śnieżek, 2016) and legal recommendations (ISO 26000 Standard; UN Millennium Declaration), it is also necessary to include the sustainable development goals that the institute’s activities aim to achieve in the mission and/or vision statement. A clear statement incorporating CSR would be an unequivocally positive message to the public, attesting to the institute’s commitment. For employees, in turn, it would serve as a clear indication the direction of the organization’s activities.

6. Summary

The concept of SSR and its functioning in research institutes is a topic worthy of further research, especially given the role of research institutes in the context of the development of science and its impact on society. Future research should also explore the informal activities of research institute employees that qualify as socially responsible practices. Additionally, investigating existing international practices in this area could provide insights and lead to the formulation of more recommendations for research institute directors, in Poland and elsewhere.

Our analysis of the content of mission and vision statements, based on the adopted criteria, revealed that only a small percentage (18%) of Polish research institutes have made clear declarations with a strong emphasis on social responsibility. This is evident, among other things, in the absence of the phrase “social responsibility” in mission and vision statements. The occasional use of words suggesting concern for stakeholders (society) or the environment indicates potential for stronger future declarations.

Given that mission and vision statements are fundamental tools of strategic management, the low number of such declarations suggests a lack of awareness among research institutes regarding the importance of these statements. This likely reflects a broader lack of recognition of the need to formally express a commitment to social responsibility.

For research institutes, it is crucial to highlight the societal significance of their activities in the context of SSR. Moreover, there is a need to clearly define the direction of their future development, which should be articulated through well-crafted mission and vision statements for each institute.

References

Ann, H. J. (2023). Reasons for CSR engagement in SMES and MNCS: a qualitative perspective. In E3S Web of Conferences, 389, 09026. EDP Sciences. https://doi.org/10.1051/e3sconf/202338909026

Antoszkiewicz, J., & Pawlak, Z. (2014). Techniki menedżerskie: skuteczne zarządzanie firmą [Managerial techniques: effective company management]. Wydawnictwo Poltext.

Bartkus, B., Glassman, M., & McAfee, B. (2006). Mission statement quality and financial performance. European Management Journal, 24(1), 86–94. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.emj.2005.12.010

Bowen, H.R. (1953). Social Responsibilities of the Businessman. University of Iowa Press.

Bugaj, J., & Szarucki, M. (2019). Doskonałość naukowa oraz doskonałość dydaktyczna jako kluczowe kompetencje uczelni publicznych w Polsce [Academic excellence and teaching excellence as key competencies of public universities in Poland]. Przegląd Organizacji, 2(949), 7–14. https://doi.org/10.33141/po.2019.02.01

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), 1823. https://doi.org/10.3390/su 10061823

Carroll, A. B. (1979). Corporate performance. Academy of Management Review, 4, 497–505. https://doi.org/10.2307/41166246

Carroll, A.B. (1999). Corporate Social Responsibility – Evolution of a Definitional Construct. Business & Society, 38(3). https://doi.org/10.1177/000765039903800303

Chang, W. F., Amran, A., Iranmanesh, M., & Foroughi, B. (2019). Drivers of sustainability reporting quality: financial institution perspective. International Journal of Ethics and Systems, 35(4), 632-650. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJOES-01-2019-0006

Chen, S.-H.A., Nasongkhla, J., & Donaldson, J.A. (2015). University social responsibility (USR): Identifying an ethical foundation within higher education institutions. Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 14(4), 165–172. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.01.1103

Cilak, M. (2015). Instytuty badawcze jako forma działalności naukowej i gospodarczej państwa – problematyka pozycji i formy prawnej [Research institutes as a form of scientific and economic activity of the state – issues of status and legal form]. Prawo Budżetowe Państwa i Samorządu Terytorialnego, 4(3), 63–76. https://doi.org/10.12775/PBPS.2015.028

Clarkson, M. E. (1995). A stakeholder framework for analyzing and evaluating corporate social performance. Academy of Management Review, 20(1), 92–117. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1995.9503271994

Davis, K. (1960). Can businesses afford to ignore social responsibilities? California Management Review, 2(3). https://doi.org/10.2307/41166246

Dąbrowski, T. (2016). Zarządzanie strategiczne i społeczna odpowiedzialność biznesu – od separacji do konwergencji [Strategic management and corporate social responsibility – from separation to convergence]. Kwartalnik Nauk o Przedsiębiorstwie, 39(2), 47–59. http://bazekon.icm.edu.pl/bazekon/element/ bwmeta1.element.ekon-element-00017143343

United Nations Millennium Declaration. (2000). https://www.ohchr.org/en/ instruments-mechanisms/instruments/united-nations-millennium-declaration

Drucker, P. (2012). The practice of management. Routledge.

Gazzola, P., & Colombo, G. (2014). CSR integration into the corporate strategy. Cross-Cultural Management Journal, 16(2). https://seaopenresearch.eu/Journals/articles/ CMJ2014_I2_12.pdf ISO 26000: Guidance in Social Responsibility (SR).

Ingham, M., & Havard, C. (2017). CSR as Strategic and Organizational Change at “Groupe La Poste”. Journal of Business Ethics, 146(3), 563–589. https://doi.org/ 10.1007/s10551-015-2941-5

Instytut Problemów Współczesnej Cywilizacji im. Marka Dietricha. (2022). Działalność naukowa – niedoceniany czynnik rozwoju cywilizacyjnego Polski [Scientific activity – an underestimated factor in the civilizational development of Poland]. Instytut Problemów Współczesnej Cywilizacji im. Marka Dietricha. https://www.ipwc.pw.edu.pl/wp-content/uploads/2022/11/Dzialalnosc-naukowa-niedoceniany-czynnik-rozwoju-cywilizacyjnego-Polski.pdf

Johnson, H. (1971). Business in contemporary society: framework and issues. Wadsworth Pub Co.

Jorge, M.L., & Pena, F.J.A. (2017). Analysing the literature on university social responsibility: A review of selected higher education journals. Higher Education Quarterly, 71(4), 302–319. https://doi.org/10.1111/hequ.12122

Joshi, G., Sharma, D., Kunte. M., & Shikalgar. S. (2023). Was CSR in our minds? The relevance of CSR in the vision and mission of Indian companies through the lens of ownership. Social Responsibility Journal, 19(9), 1787–1807. https://doi.org/10.1108/ SRJ-04-2021-0154

Juščius, V., & Snieška, V. (2008). Influence of corporate social responsibility on competitive abilities of corporations. Engineering economics, 58(3). https://inzeko.ktu.lt/index.php/EE/article/view/11541

Kaplan, R.S., & Norton, D.P. (2004). The Strategy Map: Guide to Aligning Intangible Assets. Strategy & Leadership, 32, 10–17. https://doi.org/10.1108/ 10878570410699825

European Commission (2011). Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, The Council, The European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions: A renewed EU strategy 2011–14 for Corporate Social Responsibility (COM/2011/0681). https://eur-lex.europa. eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex%3A52011DC0681

Kotler, P., & Keller, K. L. (2012). Marketing management (14th ed.). Pearson Education.

Lenart-Gansiniec, R. (2021). Systematyczny przegląd literatury w naukach społecznych. Przewodnik dla studentów, doktorantów i nie tylko. Wydawnictwo Naukowe Scholar Sp. z o.o.

Lin, Q., Huang, Y., Zhu, R., & Zhang, Y. (2019). Comparative analysis of mission statements of Chinese and American Fortune 500 companies: A study from the perspective of linguistics. Sustainability, 11(18), 4905. https://doi.org/10.3390/ su11184905

Lisiński, M. (2013). Współczesne problemy rozwoju metodologii nauk o zarządzaniu. Zarządzanie i Finanse, 4(1), 163–172.

Mamet, P. (2005). Język w służbie menedżerów: deklaracja misji przedsiębiorstwa. Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Śląskiego.

Mansi, M., Pandey, R., & Ghauri, E. (2017). CSR focus in the mission and vision statements of public sector enterprises: Evidence from India. Managerial Auditing Journal, 32(4/5), 356–377. https://doi.org/10.1108/MAJ-01-2016-1307

McGuire, J.W. (1963). Business and Society. New York, McGraw-Hill.

Meredith, J. R., & Shafer, S. M. (2019). Operations and supply chain management for MBAs. John Wiley & Sons.

Moneva, J. M., Rivera-Lirio, J. M., & Muñoz-Torres, M. J. (2007). The corporate stakeholder commitment and social and financial performance. Industrial management & data systems, 107(1), 84–102. https://doi.org/10.1108/ 02635570710719070

Morawska-Jancelewicz, J. (2019). SOU i koncepcje pokrewne – społeczna odpowiedzialność nauki, trzecia misja i zaangażowanie społeczne. In E. Jastrzębska, M. Przybysz, & M. Wróbel (Eds.), Społeczna odpowiedzialność, znaczenie dla uczelni i sposoby wdrażania (pp. 14–17). Ministerstwo Nauki i Szkolnictwa Wyższego, Ministerstwo Inwestycji i Rozwoju.

Obłój, K. (2007). Strategia organizacji – w poszukiwaniu trwałej przewagi konkurencyjnej. Polskie Wydawnictwo Ekonomiczne.

Panasiewicz, L. (2015). Sekret wizji współczesnych organizacji. Zeszyty Naukowe Politechniki Częstochowskiej. Zarządzanie, 19, 203–215.

Pluta-Olearnik, M., & Buda, A. (2023). Corporate Social Responsibility Practices in the Energy Industry – Trends of Change. Marketing of Scientific and Research Organizations, 47(1), 31–48. https://doi.org/10.2478/minib-2023-0003

Polish Act of 30 April 2010 on Research Institutes. (2010). Journal of Laws of 2010, No. 96, item 618.

Polish Act of 27 August 2009 on Public Finance. (2023). Journal of Laws of 2023, item 1270.

Przytula, S. (2023). Expatriate academics: what have we known for four decades? A systematic literature review. Journal of Global Mobility: The Home of Expatriate Management Research. https://doi.org/10.1108/JGM-03-2023-0024

Rada Główna Instytutów Badawczych. Baza instytutów badawczych. https://www.rgib.org.pl/index.php/baza-ib/baza-instytutow

Rada Główna Instytutów Badawczych. (2023). Jak upowszechniamy wiedzę. Biuletyn RGIB, 01/2023, 79–82. https://www.rgib.org.pl/images/dokumenty/ 2023/06/RGIB_Biuletyn_01_2023.pdf

Rada Główna Instytutów Badawczych. (2023). Dekalog – przyszłość instytutów badawczych w Polsce. https://www.rgib.org.pl/index.php/start/aktualnosci/476 -dekalog-przyszlosc-instytutow-badawczych-w-polsce

United Nations General Assembly. (2015). Transforming our world: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. A/70/L.1. https://odpowiedzialnybiznes.pl/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/Agenda-na-rzecz-zr%C3%B3wnowa%C5%BConego-rozwoju-2030.pdf

Rudnicka, A. (2012). CSR-doskonalenie relacji społecznych w firmie. Wolters Kluwer.

Said, L., Swandari, F., & Said, M. (2021). CSR programs of municipal water utility companies for wetland communities of South Kalimantan. Studies of Applied Economics, 39(4). https://doi.org/10.25115/eea.v39i4.4480

Schwartz, M.S., & Carroll, A.B. (2003). Corporate Social Responsibility: A Three-Domain Approach. Business Ethics Quarterly, 13(4), 503–530. https://doi.org/ 10.5840/beq200313435

Sieć Badawcza Łukasiewicz. https://lukasiewicz.gov.pl/instytuty-lista/

Szulc, U. (2023). Wolontariat pracowniczy w instytucie badawczym – analiza case study. In Z. Dacko-Pikiewicz & K. Szczepańska-Woszczyna (Eds.), Interdyscyplinarne prace naukowe studentów i doktorantów Akademii WSB, 2023/4 (pp. 322–337). Akademia WSB.

Szymonek, J. (2011). Prawa człowieka w miejscu pracy. Międzynarodowa perspektywa. Biuro Komisji Krajowej NSZZ “Solidarność”. https://www.csrinfo.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/prawa-czlowieka-w-miejscu-pracy-2011.pdf

Śnieżek, E. (2016). Raportowanie informacji o społecznej odpowiedzialności biznesu. Studium przypadku Lasów Państwowych. Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Łódzkiego. https://doi.org/10.18778/8088-561-5

Witek-Crabb, A. (2008). Misja w firmie społecznie odpowiedzialnej. Prace Naukowe Uniwersytetu Ekonomicznego we Wrocławiu, 20, 415–424.

Yozgat, U. & KarataȘ N. (2011). Going green of mission and vision statements: Ethical, social, and environmental concerns across organizations. Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, 24, 1359-1366. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro. 2011.09.110

Żemigała, M. (2020). Społeczna odpowiedzialność biznesu i społeczna odpowiedzialność nauki – w poszukiwaniu analogii. Studia i Materiały, 32(1), 108–120. https://doi.org/10.7172/1733-9758.2020.32.9

Żemigała, M. (2022). Społeczna odpowiedzialność nauki. Wydawnictwa Uniwersytetu Warszawskiego.

Community academic culture, which is a derivative of centuries-old university tradition, clashed with corporate culture, which was considered to be inconsistent with the mission of the university in the early stages of the evolution of the higher education market. L. Giuffre and S.E. Ratto claim that the modern university is characterized by contradiction, and its essence is based on pairs of acronyms such as tradition-innovation, stagnation-renewal, and statism-dynamism (Giuffre, Ratto, 2014).

Evolution in the higher education sector in Poland in the 1990s was particularly visible due to the growing number of higher education institutions and also qualitative changes in the university management sphere. However, as it turned out, enthusiasts of implementing business solutions for HEI management made every effort to ensure that the peculiar revolution experienced by higher education was not a process of the degradation of the ethos of the academic environment, but translated into the increased quality of education, matching the skills, knowledge and competences of graduates to the needs of the labor market, as well as rationalizing science, understood as its pragmatic use.

„Educational institutions have a special place in society and provide services related to the transfer of knowledge to their customers — individuals, public and private organizations and society in general. Their development is influenced by various factors linked to political, technological, economic, environmental, and social trends and changes” (Gourova, Todorova, Gourov, 2009).

The changeability of the environment, including the slowing trend of the mass desire to educate as reported by potential students and the accompanying continuous increase in the number of HEIs (mainly nonpublic ones), intensified by competitive mechanisms on the European market, are an excellent confirmation of the thesis that managing HEI resources in the conditions of the turbulent environment is a necessary process, not so much to gain a competitive advantage as to survive. HEIs have turned resource administration and complying with top-down directives into conscious management, which required undertaking activities in the field of the diversification of sources of financing statutory activities and stimulation in the area of promotion of educational and research services, as well as the active recruitment of students. The future of HEIs depends to a large extent on the precise development of the strategy. It is therefore necessary to define the actions that will allow for adaptation to external conditions. Strategic planning enabling the HEI to be viewed from a broad perspective was a natural consequence of this. It meant the need to develop strategic solutions, taking into account the goals of the HEI and its resources, and then implementing the strategy.

The purpose of the research referred to in the article was to identify the determinants of the implementation of a concept of social responsibility by HEIs in two aspects. The first aspect is the optics of the HEI’s market operation (not strictly related to the didactic process), while the second one is related to the HEI’s obligation to shape the knowledge society, acting with a level of awareness in the area of consumption and sustainable development. The study was conducted among students at HEIs located in the south of Poland (Silesia and the surrounding area). The reason for the research was, among others, the fact that HEIs signed the Declaration of University Social Responsibility on 16 November 2017 and 17 September 2019 (KRASP, 2019).

Literature Review

The literature is rich in various definitions of social responsibility. An overview of the definitions in chronological order is given in Table 1.

The origins of many definitions of corporate social responsibility can be also found in the European Commission’s definition formula (A renewed EU strategy 2011–14 for corporate social responsibility), which states that the keys to CSR policy are many documents that regulate the standard of SR**. The mentioned documents discuss the essence of CSR, which not only applies to business, e.g. The Green Paper (2001) and WHITE PAPER ON THE FUTURE OF EUROPE (2017) that are the basis for determining a strategic role for higher education.

The criticized market orientation of the HEI, has now become fact. In light of research conducted by A.M. Pabian in 2014, Polish HEIs professionalize management which is evidenced by the results obtained according to the level of market orientation (Pabian, 2016). The source material obtained indicates that academic and market cultures do not have to be in opposition to each other, which is especially visible in the process of implementing the concept of social responsibility of the HEI, i.e. University Social Responsibility (USR). The latter is understood as: „the ability of the University to disseminate and implement a set of general principles and specific values, using four key processes: Management, Teaching, Research and Extension, through the provision of educational services and transfer knowledge following ethical principles, good governance, respect for the environment, social engagement and the promotion of values” (Giuffre, Ratto, 2014).

An attempt to define the concept of USR was made by J. Reiser. In his opinion, USR is „a policy of ethical quality of the performance of the university community (students, faculty and administrative employees) via the responsible management of the educational, cognitive, labor and environmental impacts produced by the university, in an interactive dialogue with society to promote a sustainable human development” (Vasilescu, Barna, Epure, Baicu, 2010). In addition to this oft-quoted definition, it is also worth mentioning one more, formulated at the University-Community Engagement Conference in 2009: „an ethical approach to develop a sense of civic citizenship and socially responsible students, academic staffs and faculty members in other to promote social, ecological, environmental, technical and economical engagement for a long lasting and sustainable local and global community” (Sawasdikosol, 2009). The definitions provided above seem to correspond perfectly with HEI activities as a result of the mission assigned to the academic units of the higher education sector.

HEIs are considered the centers of intelligence, knowledge and creative activity, and they also play an important role in scientific, cultural, social and economic development, as reflected in the USR levels promoted by L. Tetřevová and V. Sabolová. ( Tetřevová, Sabolová, 2010). The great capacity of the CSR conceptual construct is highlighted by S.A. Alzyoud and K. Bani-Ani. In their opinion, USR consists of many areas, including „the need to strengthen civil commitment and active citizenship; to provide services to the community through community engagement and outreach; to promote economic and national development; to promote ethical approaches to issues; to develop a sense of civil citizenship by encouraging the students and the academic and administrative staff to provide social services to their local community; to promote ecological or environmental commitment for local and global sustainable development; to develop local and global human resources; to expand human knowledge through quality research and education for the nation and for humanity” (Alzyoud, Bani-Hani, 2015).

The main goal of the implementation of USR by HEIs is to have a positive impact on society in the areas of education, ethics, ecology, in the economic and legal or philanthropic spheres affecting both local and global sustainable development. It is worth emphasizing the fact that the responsibility for improving the concept of SR lies with both HEIs and stakeholders, with whom it has various systems of connections. The issue of shared responsibility is emphasized by F. Vallaeys, who sees the opportunity „to find mutually beneficial solutions to build value for all social actors […], rather than creating value for some at the expense of others” (Vallaeys, 2018).

Document that confirms the growing interest of the academic community in social responsibility is the „Universities for Enlightenment” Declaration” (online 2019). On 13 December 2018, a meeting of the Presidents of the Conference of Rectors of 10 Central European countries (the representatives of the Conference of Rectors of Austria, Croatia, the Czech Republic, Germany, Italy, Poland, Slovakia, Slovenia, and Switzerland) took place in Vienna, where the role of modern universities in society was discussed. The signed declaration indicates the threats to elementary values underlying democratic society, and it determines the responsibility of HEIs in the area of shaping these values in both the student environment and in society (Buchat, Jakubiak, Skiert, Wilczeewski, 2018).

Furthermore, HEI documents include those that confirm the acceptance of social responsibility. These include HEI strategies, as well as documents describing HEI quality assurance systems or, finally, codes of ethics of students and research and teaching staff. These documents are tools that allow for the practical implementation of the concept of USR. A set of ethical responsibilities arising from the rights and duties of students and lecturers translates into the quality of the educational process, which HEIs additionally specify in documents. Due to challenges faced by HEIs related to the growing social requirements for a deep dialogue between HEIs and stakeholders (Deklaracja społecznej odpowiedzialności uczelni), they also had an impact on the above-mentioned quality assurance system. Curricula, including student apprenticeship systems and the ways of evaluating the obtained learning outcomes, are increasingly the result of cooperation between the representatives of the academic community and labor market representatives. The latter, as HEI beneficiaries, constitute an advisory body which helps HEIs offer a product fully adapted to the requirements of the market economy and the knowledge-based economy. The Code of Good Practices in Higher Education Institutions (2007), which was drawn up by the Foundation of Polish Rectors, is an expression of the understanding of the academic community regarding the issue of social responsibility (KRASP, 2019).

Another national document regarding USR is the Declaration of University Social Responsibility with 12 principles. In 2017, 23 public and non-public HEIs decided to sign the declaration. The document is „the voluntary commitment of HEIs to promoting the idea of sustainable development and social responsibility in curricula, scientific research as well as management and organizational solutions” (Universities for Enlightenment). The signatories of the document are guaranteed the following benefits: cooperation with government administration, the development of the network of partnerships and cooperation of the academic community, shaping new ideas and ethical values, building the position of the leader of changes in the academic environment, and spreading good HEI practices. On 17 September 2019 during a ceremony at which the list of Declaration members was expanded, 60 more HEIs signed the document.

Despite the growing number of documents created in order to properly implement the concept of social responsibility, it is difficult to clearly determine what stage of development USR is at. Within the group of 397 HEIs in Poland, their various levels of advancement are identified within various trends (directions) of social responsibility. After a stage characterized by the complete lack of interest of the academic community in management concepts (including USR) or even the reluctance to draw on the experience of the business sphere, it can be stated that some HEIs have changed their position. 83 HEIs decided to sign the Declaration of University Social Responsibility, which may be evidence of an attitude of social obligation, a sense of responsibility or an attitude of social reaction.

Different countries represent different levels of social and economic development, including in the higher education sector. The degree of state interference in higher education and the level of market orientation of HEIs are an important reason to choose a sub-area of interest within the framework of USR. This is perfectly illustrated by the results of research projects conducted by scientists around the world from different perspectives***.

Materials and Methods

The research project entitled The market functioning of the HEI in the context of implementing the concept of USR is a continuation of the author’s scientific interests in HEI management and was financed from the author’s own funds. The main research was conducted from March 2019 to May 2019.

The purpose of the planned and conducted research was to identify the determinants of the implementation of the concept of social responsibility by HEIs both in the context of the market functioning of HEIs (not strictly pertaining to the educational process), and in the context of the obligation voluntarily accepted by HEIs to shape the knowledge society, being aware in the area of consumption and sustainable development. The research objectives corresponded to couple modules of the research process respectively.

The selection of respondents was done using judgmental sampling (socalled arbitrary sampling) belonging to the group of non-probability sampling methods. It is based on the researcher’s intuition, experience and knowledge. In this form, a researcher chooses a sample according to predetermined criteria that, in his or her opinion, may determine the expected quantity and reliability of information (Ibom, Akpan, 2014). Considering all limitations of the procedure used (i.e. sample representativeness is difficult to determine and lower than in the case of random samples), the lack of the sampling frame of the study population determined the choice of the sample selection method.

The sampling was based on the assumption that the structure of the group of respondents in terms of the features analyzed (such as gender and field of study) will correspond to the structure of the general population. It is worth adding that in the process of sample selection, care was taken to maintain typological representativeness regarding the declared field of education, which in practice consisted of a selection of population representatives such that all values of the variable identified in the general population would be reflected in the research.

The intention to conduct research was determined by the current situation in the higher education sector, the significant level of market orientation of Polish HEIs and the activity of the academic community in the area of social responsibility. Research was embedded in a cognitive perspective, which resulted in recognizing the image of modern HEIs in the eyes of students and identifying the degree of advancement of education in the field of social responsibility. The research results will contribute to further explorations related to factors which determine the identified reality of HEI functioning and the level of knowledge of students. The author’s scientific intentions focused on filling the cognitive gap in the field of USR, which has not yet been sufficiently identified in Poland, as evidenced by the limited number of research projects on this subject and reports on the implementation of the concept of USR. E. Pędziwiatr, A. Czaplicka-Kotas and J. Kulczycka (2018) pointed out that no Polish technical universities prepared a report on social responsibility (data for 2018); however, the authors see the possibility of change in this area due to the Declaration of University Social Responsibility reporting on USR. As a result, in the reported research, the focus was on finding the answer to the question: how is it?, and thus the project had the features of exploratory research. The nature of the research was an important factor which determined the power (significance) of hypotheses that concerned the existence of phenomena and states of affairs and their level — the so-called weak level of significance of hypotheses.

In the study, the survey method was used, taking into account circumstances that indicate that it is currently most popular among researchers and respondents. In turn, the lack of access to a list of students including e.g. e-mail addresses influenced the choice of the traditional (paper) form of the survey. The study consisted of handing out the survey form to the respondent, who completed and returned it to the interviewer. Its undoubted advantage is the possibility of sample control and high return rate. The primary limitation is the resistance of respondents to all kinds of surveys, which are perceived as time-consuming. The study costs are relatively high, which is associated with the complexity of the study process and the need to have a team of interviewers who must be properly trained (Babbie, 1990). The data was obtained on the basis of the author’s original survey questionnaire, which corresponds to the research assumptions, so the form was divided into several parts corresponding to the research modules.

Results

The survey involved 162 respondents studying around Silesia — regardless of nationality (Table 2) who were asked to complete survey questionnaires. Research took place on academic campuses due to the fact that it was the easiest way to collect samples. It is necessary to emphasize that the study, due to the size of the sample, was only illustrative and was intended as an introduction to further, more structured studies, carried out on a larger sample.

Assuming that, in the case of a group of students, it will be easier to choose the activities conducted by their HEI, it will be more difficult to determine the level of HEI involvement in SR issues. This state of affairs determined the order in which questions were asked. The most common choice of respondents was low and medium degrees of involvement in the implementation of the concept of SR (Table 3). In total, nearly 58% of the respondents made such judgments (details on the degree of implementation of the USR concept perceived by students are presented in the study by A.M. Pabian, 2019). Summing up, it should be emphasized that the degree of implementation of the USR concept is, in the opinion of the respondents, unsatisfactory according to the adopted scale.

The degree of insufficient awareness of students in the area of social responsibility of both business entities and non-profit organizations anticipated before the study was a factor in determining the research effort, consisting of identifying the level of students’ knowledge of the leading subject of the research. In this part of the survey, several tasks were assigned to the respondents. The first consisted of assessing their level of development in several areas regarding knowledge, the degree of sensitivity and tolerance (Table 4). The second part focused directly on CSR issues. The respondents were asked to indicate their individual (here: subjective) understanding of the concept of CSR (Corporate Social Responsibility). Students had a choice of four different definitions, but it was also possible to formulate their own definition which, in their opinion, reflects the knowledge of the respondents as far as possible. An option was also introduced which enabled the indication of a lack of knowledge in the field of CSR.

The HEI’s obligation to transfer knowledge, as well as to shape civic attitudes and participate in social development, were the factors which determined the introduction of the student self-assessment module in the research concerning the implementation of learning outcomes in the field of responsibility of a contemporary HEI. On a 5-point scale (where 1 was the lowest rating, and 5 the highest), the respondents commented on the issue of their own development during the study. The respondents noted the greatest progress in their area of knowledge (where less than 44% of the respondents chose 4) and tolerance (where nearly 30% of students chose 4, and a group smaller by 3% selected the highest rating — 5). The respondents indicated an average level of development (3) for general knowledge (nearly 40% of responses), while also rating the level of empathy and sensitivity to social problems (nearly 31% of responses) and the level of knowledge of responsible consumption (about 30% of responses) not as highly as it could be. When taking into account the highest percentage of responses in the rating, it turns out that sensitivity to social problems and market responsibility were rated poorly (1); the second of these categories was rated slightly better (2); most indications for the satisfactory rating (3) were for general knowledge; knowledge related to the respondents’ field of study was positively rated (4) and tolerance was rated the highest. Averaging the ratings indicated by students in the five categories analyzed, it should be emphasized that the overall rating expressed by the weighted average rating indicator does not exceed the average level.

When analyzing the average ratings, a trend is visible in which student ratings are in a range between 36% and 58.6% of the maximum. A low level of knowledge and/or development is observed in the last two categories, namely sensitivity to social problems and knowledge of responsible consumption. The level of general knowledge, which may be classified as unsatisfactory, is slightly better in the average rating. The highest level observed was in the case of tolerance and field-related knowledge.

From the point of view of the adopted research goal and verification of the hypothesis, it is important to check whether the result obtained in the category „Students’ knowledge of responsible consumption” differed depending on the group of students surveyed. To this end, two hypotheses were formulated: H0 saying that the result does not depend on the group, i.e. the results come from a distribution with the same average, and an alternate hypothesis (which will be proven) saying that the results depend on the students’ field of study, and therefore the results obtained among students in various fields come from distributions with different averages. To verify the hypotheses, a one-way ANOVA analysis of variance was used; this was preceded by checking the assumptions regarding the distribution of results in each group and assumptions about homogeneity of intra-group variance. The first assumption was verified by performing the KolmogorovSmirnov test for one sample (Table 5).

The average self-assessment of students in terms of their knowledge of responsible consumption was 2.71, and the so-called average dispersion of assessments of the degree of HEI involvement indicates that the ratings are separated on average by about 1.15 from the arithmetic mean. The result of asymptotic significance obtained in the test is less than 0.05, which gives grounds for rejecting the null hypothesis and the statement that the tested distribution is not normal. Due to the fact that analysis of variance is relatively robust to departures from normality of distribution, the obtained result is not an obstacle in terms of the ANOVA analysis. The analysis procedure began with checking the assumption of homogeneity of intra-group variance (Table 6) and performing the Levene test (Table 7). The highest average degree of the assessment of students’ knowledge of responsible consumption was recorded in the case of respondents representing medical faculties (3.20); in this group, differences in results were also the smallest, compared to the average rating (0.45 — standard deviation). The respondents from this group gave only ratings of 3 and 4. The lowest average rating of the level of knowledge was observed among students in language studies (2.29). The ratings given by these respondents were the lowest (1) and the highest (5).

In the Levene’s test for the homogeneity of variances (Table 5d), the following pair of hypotheses was used: H₀ — the difference between variances in the groups studied is homogeneous (or similar), H₁ — the variances in the groups studied are different. The Levene F value (6.155) is 1.27. In turn, the significance calculated for Levene’s test is higher than 0.05, and therefore there is no reason to reject H0, so the variance is assumed to be homogeneous. Therefore, the alternate hypothesis was rejected and the null hypothesis saying that the difference in variance in the groups studied was statistically insignificant was adopted.

After verifying all assumptions, the ANOVA analysis of variance was performed (Table 8). Significance for the F-statistic (6,155) = 0.716, while the indicated number of degrees of freedom (df) is 0.637, which gives the basis for adopting the null hypothesis, and thus for concluding that the differences in the results obtained in different groups of students are not statistically significant, and that the field of study is not a factor which affects the assessment of students’ knowledge. It is worth emphasizing that two fields of study, namely medical and pedagogical, are underrepresented in the sample, which should be considered at the hypothesis testing stage.

The subsequent stage of research focused on gaining knowledge of the actual understanding of the conceptual construct of CSR. Nobody decided to give their own definition, and 22 people admitted their ignorance in this respect. The definitions given in the set of questions include those that have some connection with the above-mentioned concept (an incomplete definition), discuss the essence of the concept or represent its complete negation. Over half the respondents defined CSR correctly. A significant group of people selected options that relate to the implementation of this concept.

Considering the fact that selecting the correct definition could have been the result of logical thinking, by accident or the use of an elimination strategy, at the next stage of the research the respondents were asked to share information on the source of their knowledge of CSR. It turns out that universities implement CSR in the educational process. Over 38% of students admitted that they acquired knowledge of social responsibility during classes and lectures. Less than 5% of students stood in opposition, believing that the obligation to acquire knowledge „of global problems” lies with the student himself or herself, not the HEI, and the former should actively seek information about CSR. These students attributed a large role in the consumer education process to the media.

The obtained data is rich material that has contributed to increasing the level of knowledge of the use of the concept of SR by Polish HEIs, and additionally contributes to further, more detailed exploration in this field.

Conclusions and further context

In the course of the questionnaire research, students’ information on the concept of the USR, including the degree of its implementation, was obtained. The results gave grounds for confirming the statement that the degree of involvement of respondents’ HEIs in the implementation of tasks in the area of social responsibility is unsatisfactory. A group of over 84 % gave responses which, according to the assumptions of the research, meant that the level of activities undertaken by HEIs was unsatisfactory. For example a group of 30% who marked at a maximum of 2 in the scale (what meant — medium involvement) and a group of over 27% marked of 3 in the scale (what meant medium involvement). The obtained results were further tested, in which it turned out that the opinion on the degree of implementation of the concept of social responsibility by universities is not determined by the respondent’s field of study. The study assumed that the opinion may also result from the students’ knowledge (or lack of knowledge) in the field of social responsibility or responsible consumption. Students made self-assessment in the indicated areas. The analysis of the results showed that the degree to which students are familiar with the issue of social responsibility is negligible and thus another of the verified hypotheses was confirmed. Nearly 47% of the respondents admitted that their understanding of the concept of CSR is intuitive in their case, although a conceptual construct was defined correctly in most cases. In addition, when self-assessing their knowledge of responsible consumption, among others, the respondents were critical of themselves. Three-quarters of respondents rated their level of awareness as no higher than satisfactory (3 on a 5-point scale). The statement about the existence of relationships between the self-assessments of the respondents and their field of study was also verified. As in the previous case, analyses showed that the differences in the results obtained for different groups are statistically insignificant. Students’ knowledge of social responsibility can be considered insufficient, which can be proved by the low percentage of indications for good and very good ratings during student self-assessment, among others. Despite the fact that most of the concepts related to the research subject were defined correctly, a large proportion of respondents admitted to their intuitive understanding. Only a group constituting 38.1% of all respondents who gained knowledge during didactic classes, which is a significant symptom of the HEI fulfilling its voluntarily accepted obligation to educate aware citizens.

The growing interest of HEIs in the concept of social responsibility has not yet translated into its widespread and full implementation; nevertheless, the very positioning of HEIs as socially responsible was an incentive to undertake research that focused on finding an answer to the question: does the creation of an image of HEIs which adapts the academic version of the concept of CSR, known as USR, translate into its implementation in the form of specific actions assigned to the concept. And as a result, it is possible to identify the determinants of the implementation of the concept of USR in the context of its market functioning and voluntarily accepted obligation to educate in the field of conscious consumption and sustainable development, among others.

The research results constitute the first stage of data acquisition in the area of corporate social responsibility of HEIs in Poland. The research was exploratory, which made it possible to obtain basic information on the involvement of Polish HEIs in the implementation of the concept of USR and identify the level of students’ knowledge of social issues. In the context of the results obtained, as well as the insufficient operability of HEIs and the low level of students’ knowledge, it is necessary to identify factors determining the current state. It is also important to extend the scope of the research, i.e. to obtain data not only from students (as was the case in the scope of this research), but also from other groups of stakeholders and people responsible for HEI management. The main problem to be faced when conducting research in the higher education sector is the complexity of the research process, which consists of several factors. First of all, there is no sampling frame of the population studied, which applies in particular to students and partly to research and teaching staff. HEIs rarely want to participate in the process of distributing invitations to take part in the study (as was the case with the research into market orientation conducted by the author). In addition, companies that are HEI stakeholders rarely participate in the study, justifying it by citing a lack of resources and time. The analyzed problem and subject scope determine the use of various test methods and sample selection methods, which can facilitate data collection. The referred study has some limitations, one of which is limiting the analysis only to a small group of Silesian students and obtaining opinions from only one group of university stakeholders. This, however, did not hinder the achievement of the research goal and allowed for a preliminary diagnosis of the higher education sector in the context of USR; thus, the study is an introduction to further exploration in this area. Another limitation is the use of mainly qualitative data obtained on the basis of student feedback. A limitation may also be the sample itself, in which two fields of study were not adequately represented in sufficiently large numbers.

The presented research results are important because they indicate deficits in the field of USR in Poland. The completed research project is one of the few studies of this type on this market and the thing worth emphasizing is that presented study is only illustrative material and it is an introduction to the implementation of a wider research, carried out on a larger research sample. Nevertheless, the information obtained may also be taken into account by HEIs operating in other markets and attempting to orientate themselves socially and intensify their actions in the field of ethical and environmental problems, etc. The results achieved may be a reliable indicator of which areas should be modified and which areas should be studied in more detail, regardless of university location.

Endnotes

* In the article there are used abbreviations for the following conceptual constructs: Higher Education Institutions (HEIs); Social Responsibility (SR) University Social Responsibility (USR). In the remainder of the text, the abbreviations HEIs, SR and USR will be used instead of their full-text equivalents.
** Sample documents regulated the standard of SR:

1. A renewed EU strategy 2011–14 for corporate social responsibility. Available online: https://eurlex.
   europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:52011DC0681 (accessed on 12th August 2019).
2. DIRECTIVE 2014/95/EU OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL of 22 October 2014
   amending Directive 2013/34/EU as regards disclosure of non-financial and diversity information by certain large undertakings and groups. Available online: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A32014L0095 (accessed on 12th August 2019).
3. United Nations global compact. Available online: https://www.unglobalcompact.org/ (accessed on 12th August 2019).
4. OECD DUE DILIGENCE GUIDANCE FOR RESPONSIBLE BUSINESS CONDUCT. Available online:
   http://mneguidelines.oecd.org/OECD-Due-Diligence-Guidance-for-Responsible-Business-Conduct.pdf (accessed on 12th August 2019).
5. Action Plan on Human Rights and Democracy (2015–2019). Available online: https://ec.europa.eu/antitrafficking/ eu-policy/action-plan-human-rights-and-democracy-2015-2019_en (accessed on 12th August 2019).
6. COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL,
   THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS.
   Available online: https://ec.europa.eu/europeaid/sites/devco/files/communication-next-steps-sustainable-europe20161122_en.pdf (accessed on 12th August 2019).
7. A Sustainable Europe by 2030. Available online: https://ec.europa.eu/commission/publications/reflectionpapertowards-sustainable-europe-2030_en (accessed on 12th August 2019).
8. Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights. Implementing the United Nations „Protect, Respect and Remedy” Framework. Available online: https://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Publications/GuidingPrinciples BusinessHR_EN.pdf (accessed on 12th August 2019).
9. Guidelines for multinational enterprises. Available online: http://www.oecd.org/corporate/mne/ (accessed on 12th August 2019).
10. ISO 26000 SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY. Available online: https://www.iso.org/iso-26000-social-responsibility.html (accessed on 12th August 2019).
11. The Sustainable Development Agenda. Available online: https://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/development-agenda/ (accessed on 12th August 2019).

*** More about researches on USR:

1. Ahmad, J. (2012). Can university act as a corporate social responsibility (CSR) driver? An analysis. Social Responsibility Journal, 8, 77–86. https://doi.org/10.1108/17471111211196584.
2. Alcota, M., Ruiz de Gauna, P., & González, F.E. (2013). Development of ethical practices and social responsibility in dental education at the university of Chile: Student and faculty perceptions. European Journal of Dental Education, 17, 70–76. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0579.2012.00767.x.
3. Dima, A. M., Vasilache, S., Ghinea, V., & Agoston, S. (2013). A model of academic social responsibility. Transylvanian Review of Administrative Sciences, 9, 23–43. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/281320388_A_model_of_academic_social_responsibility.
4. Tauginiene, L., & Maèiukaite-Žviniene, S. (2013). Managing University Social Responsibility. IOSR Journal of Humanities and Social Science, 13(4), 84–91. http://www.iosrjournals.org/iosr-jhss/papers/Vol13issue4/O01348491.pdf?id=3407.
5. Karimi, M.R. (2013). Designing the conceptual model of social responsibility of the Azad University by public relation role. African Journal of Business Management, Vol. 7(1), 8–21.
6. Gomez, L. (2014). The importance of university social responsibility in Hispanic America: A responsible trend in developing countries. Critical Studies on Corporate Responsibility, Governance and Sustainability, 8, 241–268.
   https://doi.org/10.1108/S2043-905920140000008013.
7. Nejati, M., Shafaei, A., Salamzadeh, Y., & Daraei, M. (2011). Corporate social responsibility and universities: A study of top 10 world universities’ websites. African Journal of Business Management, 5(2), 440–447.
   https://www.academia.edu/954861/Corporate_social_responsibility_and_universities_A_study_of_top_10_world_
   universities_websites.

References

1. Alzyoud, S.A., & Bani-Hani, K. (2015). Social responsibility in higher education institutions: Application case from the Middle East. European Scientific Journal, 11(8), 122–129. https://eujournal.org/index.php/esj/article/view/5259.
2. Babbie, E.R. (1990). Survey research methods. Wadsworth Publishing Company: Belmonton.
3. Buchat, K., Jakubiak, M., Skiert, M., & Wilczewski, A. (2018). University’s social responsibility — labour market perspective. Folia Oeconomica Stetinensia, 18(2), 46–48. https://doi.org/10.2478/foli-2018-0018.
4. Carroll, A. B. (1976). A three-dimensional conceptual model of corporate performance.
   The Academy of Management Review, 4(4), 497–505. https://doi.org/10.2307/257850.
5. Commission of the European Communities. (2001, July 19). Green Paper: Promoting a European framework for Corporate Social Responsibility, p. 19. https://ec.europa.eu/ commission/presscorner/detail/en/DOC_01_9 (accessed on 16th August 2019).
6. Cornelius, N., Wallace, J., & Tassabehji, R. (2007). An analysis of corporate social responsibility, corporate identity and ethics teaching in business schools. Journal of Business Ethics, 76, 117–135. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-006-9271-6.
7. Crowther, D., & Aras, G. (2008). Corporate social responsibility. Ventus Publishing ApS: Denmark. https://archive.org/details/CorporateSocialResponsibility/page/n1. (accessed 5th September 2019).
8. CSR — Finance Institute. (n.d.). H-CSR-M: Hopkins CSR/Sustainability Model: Rapid CSR/Sustainability reporting with H-CSR-M. https://www.csrfi.com/hopkinscsrmodel. (accessed on 5th September 2019).
9. Cygler, J., Sroka, W., Solesvik, M., & Dębkowska, K. (2018). Benefits and drawbacks of coopetition: The role of scope and durability in coopetitive relationships. Sustainability, 10(8), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10082688.
10. Dahlsrud, A. (2008). How corporate social responsibility is defined: An analysis of 37 definitions. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management 15, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.132.
11. Fundacja Rektorów Polskich. (2007). Kodeks „Dobre praktyki w szkołach wyższych.”.
    Konferencja Rektorów Akademickich Szkół Polskich & Fundacja Rektorów Polskich: Kraków, Poland, 1–16. https://arch.krasp.org.pl/pl/kdp/kodeks_dobre_praktyki. (accessed on 16th August 2019).
12. Giuffre, L., & Ratto, S.E. (2014, March). A new paradigm in higher education: University social responsibility (USR). Journal of Education & Human Development 3(1), 231–238. http://jehdnet.com/vol-3-no-1-march-2014-abstract-15-jehd.
13. Gourova, E., Todorova, Y., & Gourov, N. (2009). Skills for future engineers: Challenges for universities in Bulgaria. WSEAS Transactions on Business and Economics, 6, 385–399. https://www.academia.edu/25220889/Skills_for_future_engineers_challenges _for_universities_in_Bulgaria.
14. Hamidu, A.A., Haron, H.M., & Amran, A. (2015). Corporate social responsibility: A review on definitions, core characteristics and theoretical perspectives. Mediterranean Journal of Social Science, 6, 83–95. http://dx.doi.org/10.5901/mjss.2015.v6n4p83.
15. Ibom, A., & Akpan, U. (2014). The survey communication research. International
    Journal of Education and Research 2(10), 461–478. https://www.ijern.com/journal/2014/October-2014/36.pdf.
16. KRASP. (2019). Deklaracja Społecznej Odpowiedzialności Uczelni. https://www.krasp.org.pl/resources/upload/dokumenty/prezentacje/UWMOlsztyn/P7-11dok15_Spoleczna_Odpowiedzialnosc_Uczelni.pdf (accessed on 11th August 2019).
17. Konferencja Rektorów Akademickich Szkół Polskich /KRASP/ (2019). https://www.krasp.org.pl/pl/Aktualnosci/?id=20530/KRASP_wsrod_sygnatariuszy_deklaracji_ (accessed on 16th August 2019).
18. Pabian, A. (2016). Od konwergencji sektorów poprzez konkurencję wśród polskich uczelni publicznych i niepublicznych po rozwiązania hybrydowe. Marketing i Rynek, 4, 2–10.
19. Pabian A. (2016). Rynkowa orientacja szkół wyższych w Polsce — uwarunkowania, wyznaczniki, prawidłowości. Wydawnictwo Wyższej Szkoły Biznesu w Dąbrowie Górniczej: Dąbrowa Górnicza, Poland; 93–163.
20. Pabian, A.M. (2019). University social responsibility in the opinion of students. Forum Scientiae Oeconomia, 7(4), 101–117. DOI: 10.23762/FSO_VOL7_NO4_7.
21. Pędziwiatr, E., Czaplicka-Kotas, A., & Kulczycka, J. (2018). Działania realizowane przez szkoły wyższe w ramach społecznej odpowiedzialności — dobre praktyki. Ekonomika Społeczna, 1, 45–56. https://www.researchgate.net/deref/http%3A%2F%2Fdx.doi.org% 2F10.15678%2FES.2018.1.04.
22. Sawasdikosol, S. /P. Moral/ (2009). Driving universities’ collaboration toward the new era of sustainable social responsibility. Presented at the University-Community Engagement Conference, 23–26 November 2009, Penang, Malaysia. http://www.globalusrnetwork.org/ resources/Driving_Universities.pdf (accessed on 3rd September 2019).
23. Statistics Poland, Statistical O?ce in Gdańsk. (2018). Higher education institutions and their finances in 2017; Statistics Poland, Statistical O?ce in Gdańsk: Warszawa, Gdańsk, Poland, 299–320.
24. Tetřevová, L., & Sabolová, V. (2010). University Stakeholder Management and University Social Responsibility. WSEAS transactions on advances in engineering education, 7(7), 224–233. http://www.wseas.us/e-library/transactions/education/2010/88-330.pdf.
25. European University Association. (2007, April 13). The Lisbon Declaration. Europe’s Universities beyond 2010: Diversity with a Common Purpose. https://bmbwf.gv.at/fileadmin/ user_upload/Bologna_Grundsatzdok/Von_Bergen_bis_London/EUA_Lisbon_declaration _Mai_07.pdf (accessed on 15th August 2019).
26. Tien, H.T. (2014). What is the difference between CSR1, CSR2, CSR3 and CSR4?
    https://www.researchgate.net/publication/261133486_What_is_the_difference_between_ CSR1_CSR2_CSR3_and_CSR4 (accessed on 5th September 2019).
27. Universities for Enlightenment. (2018, December 13). http://www.rkrs.si/gradiva/ Dokumenti_RKRS/Priloga_k_sklepu_S22_joint_statement_ORIGINAL.PDF (accessed
    on 16th August 2019).
28. Vallaeys, F. (2018). Defining social responsibility: A matter of philosophical urgency for universities. The Global University Network for Innovation. http://www.guninetwork.org/ articles/defining-social-responsibility-matter-philosophical-urgency-universities (accessed on 14th August 2019).
29. Vasilescu, R., Barna, C., Epure, M., & Baicu, C. (2010). Developing university social responsibility: A model for the challenges of the new civil society. Procedia — Social and Behavioral Sciences, 2(2), 4177–4182. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2010.03.660.
30. European Commission. (2017, March 1). White paper on the future of Europe: Reflections and scenarios for the EU27 by 2025, p. 10. https://ec.europa.eu/commission/sites/beta-political/files/white_paper_on_the_future_of_europe_en.pdf (accessed on 16th August 2019).