This paper explores the convergence of University Social Responsibility (USR) and academic bullying prevention, emphasizing the need for ethical, stakeholder-driven governance in higher education. Drawing on Rodríguez’s five-pillar USR model and the Weighted USR Index (2025), this study examines how academic institutions can address online academic bullying (OAB), abusive supervision, and systemic mistreatment through a socially responsible framework. Integrating foundational concepts from Freeman’s stakeholder theory and Carroll’s CSR pyramid, alongside recent empirical findings on academic bullying and cyberharassment, this paper proposes a restructured institutional ethic. Using an exploratory and archival methodology, it draws on seminal and emerging literature to recommend a unified response to internal harm that threatens academic freedom, equity, and institutional legitimacy.
Abstract
This paper explores the convergence of University Social Responsibility (USR) and academic bullying prevention, emphasizing the need for ethical, stakeholder-driven governance in higher education. Drawing on Rodriguez’s five-pillar USR model and the Weighted USR Index (2025), this study examines how academic institutions can address online academic bullying (OAB), abusive supervision, and systemic mistreatment through a socially responsible framework. Integrating foundational concepts from Freeman’s stakeholder theory and Carroll’s CSR pyramid, alongside recent empirical findings on academic bullying and cyberharassment, this paper proposes a restructured institutional ethic. Using an exploratory and archival methodology, it draws on seminal and emerging literature to recommend a unified response to internal harm that threatens academic freedom, equity, and institutional legitimacy.
Introduction
Higher education institutions bear a critical responsibility to uphold ethical, inclusive, and socially responsive environments. The growing body of research on Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) has provided a foundation for universities to adopt socially responsible practices. Rodríguez (2025) extended this concept through the development of a five-pillar University Social Responsibility (USR) model tailored to higher education. These pillars: Stakeholder-Centered Access and Equity, Ethical Research and Open-Access Knowledge, Stakeholder-Driven Partnerships, Sustainable Governance, and Workforce and Leadership Development, offer a framework for addressing internal dysfunctions such as academic bullying and digital harassment.
Academic bullying, defined as a sustained and progressive display of hostility and mistreatment by one’s academic superior (Keashly & Neuman, 2010; National Institutes of Health, 2025), erodes institutional ethics, undermines individual dignity, and diminishes collective trust. Documented cases illustrate the scope of this problem. Noakes and Noakes (2021) detail a case of online academic bullying (OAB) in which an emeritus professor was subjected to sustained digital harassment after expressing dissenting scholarly views, prompting the creation of the Online Academic Bullying Reporting and Assessment Tool (OABRAT). Moss and Mahmoudi (2021) empirically investigated abusive supervision in STEM, finding that bullying disproportionately impacts women and minorities, leading to attrition and compromised research integrity. Sholzberg et al. (2023) reviewed prevalence data from medicine and science, identifying common behaviors such as authorship denial, funding threats, and public shaming, and argued for systemic reform. In a high-profile enforcement case, the Wellcome Trust withdrew major research funding from a leading laboratory after multiple complaints of bullying, signaling that funders may intervene when universities fail to act (Mahmoudi, 2021). While some scholars caution that overly broad definitions risk conflating legitimate critique with harassment, the literature stress that bullying is distinguished by repetition, harm, and power imbalance (Khalil et al., 2023). When universities that claim social responsibility ignore such behavior, whether offline or online, the failure is not merely an administrative lapse but a moral breach that contradicts their stated ethical commitments.
Research Method
This study employs an exploratory and archival approach, integrating theoretical constructs from CSR, stakeholder theory, and USR with empirical findings on academic bullying. Seminal resources include Bowen’s (1953) foundational definition of social responsibility, Carroll’s (1979, 1991) CSR pyramid, Freeman’s (1984) stakeholder theory, and Rodriguez’s USR framework (2023/2025). Archival data sources include peer-reviewed studies on OAB (Noakes et al., 2021), academic mistreatment (Moss & Mahmoudi, 2021), cyberbullying (Cowie & Myers, n.d.), and ethical lapses in research integrity and institutional climate (Delborne, 2016). Through synthesis of these sources, this paper builds a conceptual model that bridges ethical university governance with active protection of academic stakeholders.
Stakeholder-Cemtered Access and Equity
When professors or adjunct professors bully students by humiliation tactics, exclusions from opportunities, and unfair grading, which includes the cycle of inconsistencies among dissertation teams and writing centers, and mismanagement of time; it undermines equitable access to education. Student Stakeholders from marginalized backgrounds are often disproportionately targeted, limiting their ability to fully participate as stakeholders in education.
Keashly (2021), found that faculty-student bullying threatens equitable learning environments and disproportionately impacts vulnerable student groups,
Ethical Research and Open Access Knowledge
Bullying in research contexts (i.e. professors denying students authorship, taking credit on work, or sabotaging progress) diminishes ethical standards and blocks knowledge sharing. Student stakeholders may be silenced from reporting misconduct, limiting the flow of academic knowledge. Charles et al. (2022) describes how academic bullying compromises ethical research practices and distorts the production of knowledge.
Stakeholder-Driven Partnerships
True partnerships between professors and students require mutual respect. Bullying reduces student stakeholders to subordinates rather than cocreators of learning, violating the principle of stakeholder-driven relationships. Instead of empowerment, students experience exploitation or coercion. Lester (2013) documented how faculty bullying undermines collaborative academic partnerships and reinforces hierarchies of power.
Under this pillar, we can consider how accredited groups add insult to injury, Accrediting and oversight bodies are put in place to protect every student stakeholder, but if they dismiss or minimize reports of bullying they deepen the mistrust. This undermines authentic stakeholder driven partnerships by demonstrating that external allies are complicit in institutional abuse and neglect. Clark et al, (2022) describe how systemic failures, including by oversight structures, reinforce destructive leadership patterns that perpetuate bullying in higher education.
Sustainable Governance
Bjorklund and Jenson (2025) show that structural power imbalances and lack of accountability are root causes of bullying in academia. Bullying thrives in institutions with weak governance; grievance systems that fail students, unclear reporting channels, or retaliation against whistleblowers. Sustainable governance requires transparent systems to protect student stakeholders from professor misconduct. Under the USR pillar sustainable governance we can evaluate how the grievance systems worsen the harm. When grievance systems retraumatize the student stakeholder through long delays, retaliation, or dismissive responses, they become part of the bullying ecosystem rather than a remedy. This shows a governance failure, since accountability mechanisms should protect all student stakeholders. Hierarchical power imbalances and ineffective institutional responses allow bullying to persist in academia (Bjorklund and Jensen, 2025).
Examples of lack of sustainable governance in academic bullying include;
A Harvard University graduate student in 2021, there was a reported case where a student felt driven from her apartment by a bullying and discriminatory roommate. The student reported feeling unsafe, experiencing distress, and lacked confidence that the administration would intervene meaningfully. On the contrary, when the issue was brought to the administrators, the response was slow and insufficient. The grievance process did not seem designed to promptly protect the student or address safety and well-being (Harvard Crimson, 2021).
NSF/ UW-Madison, a professor was found to have created a toxic bullying environment that included racial epithets and intimidation. Although the issue was investigated at UW-Madison, after the findings the individual was hired by NSF. This incident illustrates that governance (both departmental and higher institutional and national levels and prevented the bully from being reemployed in other influential academic positions. The student stakeholders were affected since the graduate students in the lab reported severe emotional distress; some feeling there was no effective recourse. Trust in reporting and safety was compromised. The university passed the harassment issue since the harassment by the professor was not properly dealt with in a manner that would protect other students.
Workforce and Leadership Development
Student stakeholders are the future workforce of academia and beyond. When professors bully them, it damages confidence, professional identity, and leadership potential. Instead of developing resilient leaders, institutions risk producing disillusioned graduates or diving talent away from academia. Al-Ghabeesh and Qattom (2021) found that bullying damages student stakeholders' well-being and academic achievement, with long-term impacts on professional growth. It is under this pillar we address the failure in mentoring first-generation or marginalized student stakeholders. Professors who fail to mentor, or worse, bully students from marginalized backgrounds or are first generation, obstruct their academic and professional growth. Instead of building leaders, the institution reproduces inequality and pushes out the underrepresented voices. Keashly (2021) highlights that marginalized groups experience heightened vulnerability to faculty bullying, which restricts their development and advancement. An example would be UC San Diego/ UCSD graduate researcher game forth with their story describing bullying and abusive supervisory practices that harmed the academic morale and student mental health. The governance failed when the student reported that internal channels were not handling the issue sufficiently which prompted public disclosure because governance direction failed to produce timely and protective actions (Guardian, 2022).
Rodriguez Five-Pillar USR Model (R-USR Model)
Rodríguez’s USR model calls for transparency, stakeholder engagement, and ethical accountability across all institutional levels. When applied to the problem of academic bullying, these pillars serve as both diagnostic tools and intervention strategies.
University Social Responsibility, emphasizes the critical role of cultivating ethical supervision and mentorship practices to combat supervisory abuse and foster inclusive academic environments. Moss and Mahmoudi (2021) highlight how abusive supervision in academic science disproportionately affects vulnerable groups, such as women and minorities, resulting in increased attrition, reduced research productivity, and damaged institutional trust. Their findings underscore the necessity of comprehensive leadership training programs that promote empathy, accountability, and transparency among principal investigators and academic leaders.
Supporting this view, Einarsen et al. (2020) argue that leadership development must integrate anti-bullying strategies and ethical decision-making as core competencies to prevent workplace harassment and promote psychological safety in academia. Similarly, Keashly and Neuman (2010) demonstrate that proactive training in conflict resolution and communication skills equips faculty to recognize and halt bullying behaviors before they escalate, fostering healthier mentoring relationships. Furthermore, Rodríguez (2024) illustrates successful case studies where universities implementing targeted leadership workshops and bystander intervention training observed measurable reductions in bullying incidents and improvements in faculty retention rates.
Practical applications of this pillar include mentorship certification programs, peer coaching networks, and institutional policies that hold leaders accountable for their supervisory conduct. For instance, the University of Cambridge’s Respectful Leadership Initiative, which mandates leadership training for all department heads, reported a significant decrease in reported grievances related to supervisory abuse over three years (Cambridge University, 2023). These efforts not only align with the ethical commitments central to University Social Responsibility but also reinforce a culture of mutual respect essential for sustainable academic excellence.
In sum, Workforce and Leadership Development is pivotal for transforming university cultures by equipping leaders with the skills and ethical frameworks necessary to safeguard the dignity of all scholars. This pillar addresses documented patterns of academic bullying by fostering environments where mentorship is grounded in respect, fairness, and accountability.
Carroll’s CSR pyramid reinforces this ethical imperative by outlining a tiered framework of legal, ethical, and philanthropic duties (1991). Freeman’s stakeholder theory similarly obligates institutions to serve the interests of faculty, students, and staff, not merely trustees or donors (Freeman, 1984). When institutions tolerate bullying or fail to define and recognize OAB, they violate stakeholder trust and damage their ethical credibility.
The difficulty in identifying and reporting OAB is compounded by the absence of a unified institutional definition (Noakes et al., 2021). Without a definitional framework, both perpetrators and victims lack reference points for understanding or correcting behavior. Tay (2023) emphasizes the importance of clear feedback systems, noting that institutional responsiveness is crucial for prevention and justice. Integrating such definitions into governance processes aligns directly with Rodriguez’s second and fourth pillars: Ethical Research and Sustainable Governance.
Further, archival evidence from Keashly and Neuman (2010) and NIH (2025) highlights the systemic nature of bullying within academic hierarchies, linking it to broader cultural and institutional dysfunction. These behaviors persist because they are often dismissed as professional rivalry, critique, or miscommunication when, in fact, they constitute targeted harm.
Conclusion and Future Research
Integrating USR into institutional policy offers a path forward for universities seeking to root out academic bullying and reaffirm their social contracts. By aligning internal governance with Rodriguez’s model, institutions can better fulfill their ethical obligations and reinforce academic freedom, integrity, and equity.
Future research should apply the Weighted USR Index to measure how institutions respond to internal crises like OAB and supervisory bullying. Empirical work might also compare USR implementation across institutions with varying records on academic bullying, enabling a clearer picture of best practices. If universities claim social responsibility, they must apply those principles internally by protecting not just society, but the scholars and students within.
References
Al-Ghabeesh, S. H., & Qattom, H. (2021). The impact of bullying on the mental health and academic achievement of nursing students. Journal of Professional Nursing, 37(2), 316-323. https://doi.org/10.1016Zj.profnurs.2020.08.00
Bjorklund, S., & Jensen, P. (2025). A dark side of academia: A study of bullying and its prevalence, causes and perpetrators in an academic setting. Frontiers in Education, 10, 1528899. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2025.1528899
Bowen, H. R. (1953). Social Responsibilities of the Businessman. Harper & Row.
Cambridge University. (2023). Respectful Leadership Initiative annual report. Cambridge University Press.
Carroll, A. B. (1979). A three-dimensional conceptual model of corporate performance.
Academy of Management Review, 4(4), 497-505.
Carroll, A. B. (1991). The pyramid of corporate social responsibility: Toward the moral management of organizational stakeholders. Business Horizons, 34(4), 39-4
Cho, I. B. (2021, November). “It’s a Limbo”: Grad Students, Frustrated by Harvard’s Response to Bullying Complaint, Petition for Reform. The Harvard Crimson.
Clarke, C., Kenny, A., & Chan, A. (2022). Academic bullying: Destructive leadership in higher education. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 19(3), 1245. https://doi.org/10.3390/iierph19031245
Cowie, H., & Myers, C. A. (n.d.). Bullying among university students: Cross-national perspectives. Routledge.
Delborne, J. (2016). Suppression and dissent in science. In T. Bretag (Ed.), Handbook of Academic Integrity (pp. 163-177). Springer.
Einarsen, S., Hoel, H., Zapf, D., & Cooper, C. L. (2020). Bullying and harassment in the workplace: Developments in theory, research, and practice (3rd ed.). CRC Press.
Freeman, R. E. (1984). Strategic Management: A Stakeholder Approach. Pitman.
Freeman, R. E., & Dmytriyev, S. (2017). Corporate social responsibility and stakeholder theory: Learning from each other. Symphony. Emerging Issues in Management, 2, 7-15.
Garde Sánchez, R., Rodríguez Bolívar, M. P., & López Hernández, A. M. (2021). Which are the main factors influencing corporate social responsibility information disclosures on universities’ websites? International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 18(2), 524. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18020524
Keashly, L. (2021). Workplace bullying, mobbing and harassment in higher education: Faculty experiences. Workplace Health & Safety, 69(5), 224-234. https://doi.org/10.1177/2165079920981622
Keashly, L., & Neuman, J. H. (2010). Faculty experiences with bullying in higher education:
Causes, consequences, and management. Administrative Theory & Praxis, 32(1), 48-70 https://doi.org/10.2753/ATP1084-1806320103
Khalil, M., Smith, L., & Tan, R. (2023). Revisiting the definition of bullying in the context of higher education. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 45(2), 145-160. https://doi.org/10.1080/1360080X.2022.2095678
Lee, M.-D. P. (2008). A review of the theories of corporate social responsibility: Its evolutionary path and the road ahead. International Journal of Management Reviews, 10(1), 53-73.
Lester, J. (2013). Workplace bullying in higher education. Routledge.
Mahmoudi, M. (2021). Academic bullying, how to be an ally. Science, 374(6564), 782-783. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.abm2451
Mervis, J. (2019, November). NSF unwittingly hired a professor guilty of bullying, highlighting the ‘pass the harasser’ problem. Science. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aay3196 (case of UW-Madison / NSF)
Moss, S. E., & Mahmoudi, M. (2021). STEM the bullying: An empirical investigation of abusive supervision in academic science. EClinicalMedicine, 40, 101121. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eclinm.2021.101121
National Institutes of Health (NIH). (2025). Definition of academic bullying and harassment. https://www.nih.gov
National Institutes of Health. (2025). Definition of workplace bullying. Office of Intramural
Training and Education. https://www.training.nih.gov/workplace_bullying
Noakes, T., Walters, C., & Makwambeni, B. (2021). Distinguishing online academic bullying: Identifying new forms of harassment in a dissenting Emeritus Professor's case. Heliyon, 7(2), e06326. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2021.e06326
Rodríguez, A. H. (2023). The Rodríguez University Social Responsibility Model: Integrity, Equity, and Accountability in Higher Education. ResearchGate.
Rodríguez, A. H. (2025). Role of Private Institutions in Achieving Social Responsibility: A Qualitative Single-Case Study (Doctoral dissertation). National University.
Rodríguez, A. H. (2025). Manifesto for University Social Responsibility (USR) Leadership. ResearchGate.
Sholzberg, M., Bandyopadhyay, A., Mahmoudi, M., & McIntyre, R. S. (2023). Academic bullying in science and medicine, the need for reform. Frontiers in Research Metrics and Analytics, 8, 1138913. https://doi.org/10.3389/frma.2023.1138913
Tay, E. M. K. (2023). University students’ feedback regarding effective measures to prevent bullying. British Journal of Guidance & Counselling, 1-21. https://doi.org/10.1080/03069885.2023.2223753
Tetfevová, L., & Sabolová, V (2017). University stakeholder management and university social responsibility. Journal of International Studies, 10(4), 121-133.
[...]
Buy now
- Quote paper
- Anonym (Author), 2025, University Social Responsibility, Munich, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/1618949
