Responsibility and Accountability of University Social and Environmental Performances: A Sustainability Balanced Scorecard Model

Imanda Firmantyas Putri Pertiwi* -  Faculty of Islamic Economics and Business, IAIN Salatiga, Indonesia
Rosana Eri Puspita -  Faculty of Islamic Economics and Business, IAIN Salatiga, Indonesia
Saifudin Saifudin -  Faculty of Islamic Economics and Business, IAIN Salatiga, Indonesia

Since research on the use of sustainability balanced scorecard to assess university social and environmental performances still remains unexplored, this study aims to fill the gap by examining the acceptance of the idea of the State Islamic Religious Colleges (PTKIN) performances in terms of responsibility for social and environmental aspects based on the sustainability balanced scorecard model. Drawing on a qualitative research, eight respondents from the Board of National Accreditation for Higher Education (BAN-PT) and PTKIN policymakers were interviewed. The results indicated that PTKIN must pay more attention to social and environmental perspectives. It was further revealed that although BAN-PT regulation has explicitly included these two perspectives, there were several indicators that still need to be added according to the sustainability balanced scorecard model. Moreover, the results depicted several challenges such as budgeting, regulations, and paradigms that required some adjustment from the policymakers. These results contribute as fruitful insights for university policymakers in developing strategies to enhance university performances, particularly in social and environmental aspects.

Keywords : Responsibility and Accountability; Social and Environmental Performances; Sustainability Balanced Scorecard

  1. Abdullah, M. (2019). UIN Raden Intan Lampung dan Gerakan Konservasi Lingkungan di PTKIN - Green Campus UIN Lampung. Accessed in August 2020 from
  2. Ahmad, K., Othman, K., Zabri, S. M., & Yaakub, A. A. (2018). Factors Associated with the SMEs Preferences Towards Islamic Banking Products and Services. Advanced Science Letters, 24(6), 4726–4730.
  3. Al-Ashaab, A., Flores, M., Doultsinou, A., & Magyar, A. (2011). A balanced scorecard for measuring the impact of industry-university collaboration. Production Planning and Control, 22(6), 554–570.
  4. Alewine, H. C., & Stone, D. N. (2013). How does environmental accounting information influence attention and investment? International Journal of Accounting and Information Management, 21(1), 22–52.
  5. Andraeny, D., & Putri, D. D. (2017). Islamicity Financial Performance Index in Indonesian Islamic Banks. Shirkah: Journal of Economics and Business, 2(3), 317-253.
  6. Antariksa, W. F., & Setiawan, M. (2014). Pengaruh penerapan sistem manajemen mutu ISO 9001: 2008 di perguruan tinggi terhadap kinerja balanced scorecard (Studi Kasus pada Universitas Brawijaya). Jurnal Aplikasi Manajemen, 12(3), 399-406.
  7. Asy’ari, H. (2015). Perbandingan Sistem Manajemen Mutu ISO 9001:2008, Standard BANPT dan Total Quality Management di UIN Maulana Malik Ibrahim Malang. Jurnal Pendidikan Islam, 4(1), 141-157.
  8. Atiqah, A. (2019). Tanggung Jawab Sosial Universitas dan Tata Kelola Universitas Terhadap Citra UIN Syarif Hidayatullah Jakarta. Akuntabilitas, 12(2), 169–178.
  9. Beschorner, T. (2013). Creating Shared Value: The One-Trick Pony Approach. Business Ethics Journal Review, 1(17), 106–112.
  10. Betianu, L., & Briciu, S. (2011). Balanced scorecard – sustainable development tool. Analele Ştiinţifice Ale Universităţii »Alexandru Ioan Cuza« Din Iaşi. Ştiinţe Economice, 58(Spec), 19–27.
  11. Bowen, H. R. (1953). Social Responsibilities of the Businessman. Iowa: University of Iowa Press.
  12. Brammer, S., Jackson, G., & Matten, D. (2012). Corporate social responsibility and institutional theory: New perspectives on private governance. Socio-Economic Review, 10(1), 3–28.
  13. Branco, M. C., & Rodrigues, L. L. (2006). Corporate social responsibility and resource-based perspectives. Journal of Business Ethics, 69(2), 111–132.
  14. Du, S., Yu, K., Bhattacharya, C. B., & Sen, S. (2017). The Business Case for Sustainability Reporting: Evidence from Stock Market Reactions. Journal of Public Policy and Marketing, 36(2), 312–330.
  15. Elkington, J. (1998). Partnerships from cannibals with forks: The triple bottom line of 21st‐century business. Environmental quality management, 8(1), 37-51.
  16. Figge, F., Hahn, T., Schaltegger, S., & Wagner, M. (2002). The sustainability balanced scorecard - Linking sustainability management to business strategy. Business Strategy and the Environment, 11(5), 269–284.
  17. Global Reporting Initiatives. (2006). Global Reporting Initiative Global Reporting Initiative ( GRI ) Uptake.
  18. Harjanto, N. (2019). Implementation Strategy of Higher Education Social Responsibility to Acquire New and Qualified In-Line Students : A Case Study. Indonesian Journal of Sustainability Accounting and Management, 3(2), 162-173.
  19. Jassem, S., Zakaria, Z., & Azmi, A. C. (2021). Sustainability balanced scorecard architecture and environmental performance outcomes: a systematic review. Productivity and Performance Management.
  20. Kalender, Z. T., & Vayvay, Ö. (2016). The Fifth Pillar of the Balanced Scorecard: Sustainability. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 235(October), 76–83.
  21. Kaplan, R. S., & Norton, D. P. (1992). The Balanced Scorecard—Measures that Drive Performance. Harvard Business Review, 83(7), 172
  22. Kotler, P., & Lee, N. (2005). Best of breed: When it comes to gaining a market edge while supporting a social cause, “corporate social marketing” leads the pack. Social Marketing Quarterly, 11(4), 91–103.
  23. Lestari, A. S. (2013). Analisis Penilaian Kinerja Lembaga Pendidikan Tinggi Dengan Metode Balanced Scorecard : Penerapannya Dalam Sistem Manajemen Strategis (Studi Kasus Pada Universitas Brawijaya Malang). 2nd International Seminar on Quality and Afforable Education, 52(April), 441–450.
  24. Mahmudi, A. A., Surarso, B., & Subagio, A. (2014). Kombinasi Balanced Scorecard dan Objective Matrix Untuk Penilaian Kinerja Perguruan Tinggi. Jurnal Sistem Informasi Bisnis, 4(1), 1-10.
  25. Marín, L., & de Maya, S. R. (2013). The role of affiliation, attractiveness and personal connection in consumer-company identification. European Journal of Marketing, 47(3), 655–673.
  26. McWilliams, A., & Siegel, D. S. (2011). Creating and capturing value: Strategic corporate social responsibility, resource-based theory, and sustainable competitive advantage. Journal of Management, 37(5), 1480–1495.
  27. Neely, A. D., Adams, C., & Kennerley, M. (2002). The performance prism: The scorecard for measuring and managing business success. London: Prentice Hall Financial Times.
  28. Rabionet, S. E. (2011). How I Learned to Design and Conduct Semi-structured Interviews : An Ongoing and Continuous Journey. The Qualitative Report, 16(2), 563–566.
  29. Sen, S., & Cowley, J. (2013). The Relevance of Stakeholder Theory and Social Capital Theory in the Context of CSR in SMEs: An Australian Perspective. Journal of Business Ethics, 118(2), 413–427.
  30. Sidik, I., & Reskino, R. (2016). Zakat and Islamic Corporate Social Responsibility: Does It Take Effect to the Performance of Shari’a Banking?. Shirkah: Journal of Economics and Business, 1(2), 161-184. doi:
  31. Soegoto, E. S. (2011). Penerapan Manajemen Kinerja dengan Pendekatan Balanced Scorecard dalam Meningkatkan Akuntabilitas Pengelolaan Perguruan Tinggi. Majalah Ilmiah Unikom, 6(2), 131–142.
  32. Sudaryo, Y. (2015). Kinerja Perguruan Tinggi dengan Pendekatan Strategic Map Balanced Scorecard. Sosiohumaniora, 17(1), 1–12.
  33. Suhardiyah, M., & Nurdina. (2019). Implementation of environmental accounting in higher education solutions to improve the college’s role in the implementation of corporate social responsibility. IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science, 245(1).
  34. Symaco, L. P., & Tee, M. Y. (2019). Social responsibility and engagement in higher education: Case of the ASEAN. International Journal of Educational Development, 66(August), 184–192.
  35. UI. (2020). UI GreenMetric Work University Rangkings 2020. In Universitas Indonesia.
  36. Universitas Muhammadiyah Surabaya. (2014). Standar Mutu Program Studi (berdasarkan indikator ban-pt). Accessed in August 2020 from
  37. Vaughn, P., & Turner, C. (2016). Decoding via Coding : Analyzing Qualitative Text Data Through Thematic Coding and Survey Methodologies Decoding via Coding : Analyzing Qualitative. Journal of Library Administration, 56(1), 41–51.
  38. Wijaya, L. S., & Krismiyati, K. (2016). Penyusunan Model Program Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) di Perguruan Tinggi Kota Salatiga Dalam Upaya Meningkatkan Intake Perguruan Tinggi. Jurnal Ekonomi Dan Bisnis, 17(3), 141-154.
  39. Yulianita, N. (2008). Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) sebagai Aktivitas Social Marketing Public Relations. Mediator: Jurnal Komunikasi, 9(1), 123–134.
  40. Zangoueinezhad, A., & Moshabaki, A. (2011). Measuring university performance using a knowledge-based balanced scorecard. International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, 60(8), 824–843.

Shirkah: Journal of Economics and Business
Published by Faculty of Islamic Economics and Business (FEBI)
Institut Agama Islam Negeri Surakarta, Indonesia
Jln. Pandawa No. 1, Pucangan, Kartasura, Central Java, Indonesia, 57168
Phone: +62271-781516

P-ISSN :2503-4235 | E-ISSN : 2503-4243

This ejournal system and it's contents licensed under
a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License