A thought-provoking question arises when considering the evolving role of higher education institutions: What if university social responsibility (USR) were not merely a measure of what universities provide but a dynamic system of reciprocal exchange that redefines how stakeholders and institutions sustain one another? This perspective invites an expansion of current USR frameworks toward models that emphasize reciprocity, accountability, and sustainable stakeholder engagement.
Traditional approaches to USR often focus on the outward obligations of universities, such as community partnerships, sustainability projects, and the advancement of equity among marginalized student populations (Vasilescu et al., 2010). While these initiatives are valuable, they frequently position universities as unilateral benefactors. However, recent scholarship in stakeholder theory and responsibility suggests that organizational responsibility is most effective when framed as a relational, interactive process (Carroll, 2015; Freeman et al., 2018). From this standpoint, universities must be seen not only as providers of social good but as co-participants in reciprocal relationships with their stakeholders.
Dynamic Reciprocity in University Social Responsibility
A thought-provoking question arises when considering the evolving role of higher education institutions: What if university social responsibility (USR) were not merely a measure of what universities provide but a dynamic system of reciprocal exchange that redefines how stakeholders and institutions sustain one another? This perspective invites an expansion of current USR frameworks toward models that emphasize reciprocity, accountability, and sustainable stakeholder engagement.
Traditional approaches to USR often focus on the outward obligations of universities, such as community partnerships, sustainability projects, and the advancement of equity among marginalized student populations (Vasilescu et al., 2010). While these initiatives are valuable, they frequently position universities as unilateral benefactors. However, recent scholarship in stakeholder theory and responsibility suggests that organizational responsibility is most effective when framed as a relational, interactive process (Carroll, 2015; Freeman et al., 2018). From this standpoint, universities must be seen not only as providers of social good but as co-participants in reciprocal relationships with their stakeholders.
Rodríguez’s body of work provides the foundation for this evolution. In The Role of Private Institutions in Achieving Social Responsibility (Rodríguez, 2025), institutional accountability was emphasized as a necessary first step, particularly in the context of private universities where profit and reputation often shape stakeholder outcomes. The later development of the Weighted USR Index (Rodríguez, 2025) provided an operational tool for assessing responsibility across multiple dimensions. By weighting key areas such as equity, accessibility, and sustainability, the model highlighted that certain responsibilities must carry greater institutional priority than others. This framework was pivotal in moving USR discourse from abstract principle to measurable accountability.
The next step, dynamic reciprocity, expands this trajectory by reinterpreting USR not only as responsibility and measurement but also as exchange. This functional model, referred to as the Reciprocal USR Cycle (R-USR), integrates accountability, assessment, and reciprocity into a continuous process of institutional learning. The model begins with responsibility, where universities define ethical and social obligations across the USR pillars. Measurement follows, employing the Weighted USR Index to evaluate institutional performance. The third stage is reciprocity, where stakeholders contribute back to the institution through co-creation, such as students with disabilities designing accessibility workshops or community partners providing applied learning opportunities. These exchanges are then made transparent through dashboards or reports, which illustrate the flow of responsibility and reciprocity. Finally, the institution uses this feedback to adapt, creating a cycle of sustainable learning (Larrán Jorge & Andrades Peña, 2017).
The implications of this synthesis are significant. By embedding reciprocity into Rodríguez’s earlier frameworks, the R-USR cycle prevents responsibility from becoming static or symbolic. Instead, accountability is transformed into co-creation, shifting universities from compliance-driven models to sustainable ecosystems of shared responsibility. This aligns with broader literature on relational ethics in higher education, which emphasizes that institutions thrive when stakeholders are not passive recipients but active participants in shaping outcomes (Jongbloed et al., 2008; Dima et al., 2013). In this way, Rodríguez’s contributions move from accountability (dissertation), to evaluation (Weighted Index), and now to sustainability through reciprocity, offering a comprehensive and evolving framework for USR scholarship and practice.
References
Carroll, A. B. (2015). Corporate social responsibility: The centerpiece of competing and complementary frameworks. Organizational Dynamics, 44(2), 87–96. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.orgdyn.2015.02.002
Dima, A. M., Vasilache, S., Ghinea, V., & Agoston, S. (2013). A model of academic social responsibility. Transylvanian Review of Administrative Sciences, 9(38), 23–43.
Freeman, R. E., Dmytriyev, S. D., & Phillips, R. A. (2018). Stakeholder theory and the resource-based view of the firm. Journal of Management, 44(8), 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206318779367
Jongbloed, B., Enders, J., & Salerno, C. (2008). Higher education and its communities: Interconnections, interdependencies and a research agenda. Higher Education, 56(3), 303–324. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-008-9128-2
Larrán Jorge, M., & Andrades Peña, F. J. (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
Rodríguez, A. H. (2023a). The role of private institutions in achieving social responsibility. ProQuest Dissertations Publishing.
Rodríguez, A. H. (2023b). The weighted university social responsibility index: A multidimensional approach to higher education accountability. GRIN Publishing.
Rodríguez, A. H. (2025). Dynamic reciprocity in university social responsibility: Expanding ethical ecosystems in higher education. ResearchGate.
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
[...]
Buy now
- Quote paper
- Anonym (Author), 2025, Dynamic Reciprocity in University Social Responsibility, Munich, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/1618951
