Resumo

This paper is part of a Project which aims to develop the Sustainability Reporting (SR) of the Federal University of Rio de Janeiro (UFRJ). Our objective is to provide two papers in addition to providing a draft of the report. The main objective of the first paper is to discuss which Sustainability Reporting Framework (SRF) is more suitable to apply to a university, and this present paper is the first paper of the project. We aim not only to provide a SR of the UFRJ, but also, use the SR as a tool for decision-making, particularly regarding the management of sustainable practices.

The objective of this paper is to discuss which SFR is more suitable to a university. To achieve the objective, we provide two analyses: i. we discuss the key points of each currently acceptable SRF according to the literature; ii. we discuss the same relevant key points (reached out on the literature) according to their own Framework.

Different entities can develop and present sustainability reports, whether public or private, increasing the relationship between entities and their stakeholders, including universities (Amoako, 2023; Son-Turan & Lambrechts, 2019). Moreover, SR enables universities to enhance transparency and accountability (Bosi et al., 2022) and internal governance through the process of data collection and disclosure — institutions develop systematic mechanisms to monitor their resource consumption, waste generation, and social engagement, thereby identifying opportunities for efficiency and innovation.

We provide two analyses: In the 1st analysis — we discuss the key points of each currently acceptable SRF according to the literature (i. materiality, ii. comparability, iii. regulatory reach, and iv. complexity). In the 2nd analysis — we discuss the same relevant key points (reached out on the literature) according to their own Framework, such as i. materiality, ii. if there is an applicability in specific sectors (which facilitates comparability), iii. users (regulatory reach), but for iv. complexity, we created a scale to analyze it (implementation burden).

The academic debate on sustainability reporting frameworks reveals both areas of convergence and divergence, particularly regarding their objectives, usability, and adequacy. The Global Reporting Initiative (GRI), the International Sustainability Standards Board (ISSB, incorporating SASB), and the European Sustainability Reporting Standards (ESRS) under EFRAG stand out as the most influential in shaping sustainability disclosure practices. These frameworks differ substantially in their conceptualizations of materiality, their primary audiences, and their reporting objectives.

The results show evidence that initially, the SDG guidelines are more appropriate due to materiality that encompasses multiple stakeholders beyond their greater ease of data collection, less complex analyses, and focus on sustainable development. The GRI and ESRS appear particularly suitable, as both emphasize double materiality, stakeholder engagement, and due to the specificity of the education sector while ISSB standards may complement them by enhancing comparability and financial rigor.

Amoako, K. O. (2023). Sustainability reporting on the websites of public and private universities in Ghana. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 24(6), 1220–1246. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJSHE-12-2021-0509 Lozano, R. (2011). The state of sustainability reporting in universities. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 12(1), 67–78. https://doi.org/10.1108/14676371111098309. Millar, R., & Slack, R. (2024). Investor responses to ISSB sustainability reporting drafts. Accounting Forum, 48(1), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1080/01559982.2023.2265209.