The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:
https://www.emerald.com/insight/1463-5771.htm
Stakeholder perceptions of Websites oftechnical
sustainability reporting on the universities in
Ghana
websites of technical universities
in Ghana
Kwame Oduro Amoako Received 11 February 2022
Department of Accountancy, Sunyani Technical University, Sunyani, Ghana Revised 8 August 20227 November 2022
Emmanuel Opoku Marfo Accepted 23 November 2022
Department of Entrepreneurship and Business Sciences,
University of Energy and Natural Resources, Sunyani, Ghana
Ellis Kofi Akwaa-Sekyi
Department of Accounting and Finance,
Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology, Kumasi, Ghana
Newman Amaning
Department of Accountancy, Sunyani Technical University, Sunyani, Ghana, and
Nicholas Yankey
Department of Accounting, University of Ghana, Accra, Ghana
Abstract
Purpose –This paper explores stakeholder perceptions on the nature and extent of sustainability reporting on
the websites of technical universities (TUs) in Ghana.
Design/methodology/approach –The authors collected data from the websites of the 10 TUs in Ghana and
interviewed the stakeholders of the TUs. In analyzing the data, the authors used thematic analysis for the
interview responses. The authors also adopted the global reporting initiative (GRI) guidelines and campus
sustainability assessment tools for the presentation and analysis of the sustainability disclosures on the
websites of the TUs.
Findings – The authors found that due to weak institutional coercions, there were limited disclosures on the
websites of the TUs, which aimed at gaining stakeholders’ legitimacy; the disclosures were more focused on
organizational profile, governance and educational aspects of sustainability. To a large extent, while some
external stakeholders such as parents, regulators and alumni appear to be less interested in the disclosures on
the TU’swebsites, internal stakeholders such as employees (teaching and non-teaching staff) and studentswho
frequently visited the TU’s websites perceived limited reporting and were not impressed with the extent of
sustainability disclosures on these websites.
Practical implications – The findings of this study are intended to assist policy-makers in the educational
sector to appreciate the importance of sustainability reporting on their websites. The results of this study will
assist higher educational institutions (HEIs) in increasing the success rate of sustainability implementation by
overcoming the lack of sustainability disclosures on their websites. Thus, the results of this study have
implications for sustainability implementations, particularly those in emerging economies and policy-makers
of universities worldwide.
Originality/value – This study could provide two significant values. First, to the best of the authors’
knowledge, no other study has explored stakeholder perceptions of sustainability reporting in implementing
sustainability within the education sector. Second, the results were arrived at by combining stakeholder
The authors thank the management, staff and students of all the technical universities that provided
information during data collection for this research paper. The authors also acknowledge the immense
Benchmarking: An International
contributions of Associate Professor Isaac Oduro Amoako of Coventry University, UK and Associate Journal
Professor Frank Nyame-Asiamah of Anglia Ruskin University, UK for the constructive suggestions in © Emerald Publishing Limited
1463-5771
shaping this paper. DOI 10.1108/BIJ-02-2022-0104
BIJ consultations with content analyses, which could be a good guideline for sustainability implementation in the
educational sector of developing countries.
Keywords Institutional theory, Ghana, Websites, Sustainability reporting, Global reporting initiative,
Technical universities
Paper type Research paper
1. Introduction
Technical universities (TUs) are higher educational institutions (HEIs) responsible for the
delivery of technical and vocational education and training (TVET), including the study of
technical and related vocational curriculum that are aimed at the development of practical skills,
behaviors, comprehension and knowledge of professions in different sectors and social life
(KruglikovVictor, 2019;Melki et al., 2020). Therefore, unlike traditional university education, TU
education aims at providing hands-on skills and knowledge and its applications (Kruglikov
Victor, 2019) to productive jobs (Attanasio et al., 2017) to ensure a sustainable world.
The role of universities in sustainable development is twofold: they must facilitate
education for sustainable development and adopt successful policies to achieve this objective
(Asif, 2015; Lozano et al., 2015; Uyar et al., 2021). Nonetheless, the prominence of TUs keep
rising as existing studies demand the revolution and reformation of higher education, while
claiming that traditional universities’ ability to propose solutions to societal problems is far
under-explored (Vienni Baptista and Rojas-Castro, 2020; Sulkowski et al., 2020).
Consequently, stakeholders such as students, workers, parents, alumni, employers,
lenders, vendors, non-governmental organizations, regulatory bodies and local
communities are pressuring TUs to respond to these calls (Alonso-Almeida et al., 2015).
Thus, increasingly, TUs are encouraged to becomemore open about and accountable for their
operations and compelled in some respects by societal pressure or ramped-up regulation
(Alexa et al., 2020). Just like any other organization, oneway that TUs are adopting to respond
to pressure from stakeholders is sustainability reporting on their websites (Uyar et al., 2021).
Sustainability reporting is an important engagement tool used to convey the sustainable
practices implemented for stakeholders by TUs (Berzosa et al., 2017; Boiral and Heras-
Saizarbitoria, 2020). Sustainability reporting can also be used to manage performance in TUs
(Domingues et al., 2017; Talapatra and Uddin, 2019). It is referred to as a voluntary activity that is
aimed at communicating an organization’s initiatives and sustainability efforts to its stakeholders
(Amoako et al., 2022; Higgins et al., 2018; Nicol
o et al., 2021; Stough et al., 2018; Majumdar and
Sinha, 2021), as well as assessing the status quo of an organization’s environmental, social and
economic dimensions. Even though several universities are now embracing sustainability
reporting practices (Asif, 2015; An et al., 2019; Brusca et al., 2018; Gamage and Sciulli, 2017),
research on sustainability reporting ofHEIs are fragmented. Compared to sustainability reporting
in corporations, it is in its infancy in terms of the number of universities reporting and the
magnitude of reporting. However, it can be argued that sustainability reporting could render a
basis for TUs to evaluate and report their sustainability initiative (Alexa et al., 2020; Holmberg
et al., 2008). Hence this study aims to explore the nature and extent of sustainability reporting on
the websites of TUs in Ghana and how stakeholders perceive such disclosures.
Sustainability seeks to promote a better world with practical education, innovation and
infrastructure development, as a dynamic tool for competitive economic forces that generate
employment and income (Montecalvo et al., 2018; Nicol
o et al., 2021). In fulfilling better growth in
these areas, TUs play key roles in human resources training and development by ensuring the
effective delivery of TVET (Kruglikov Victor, 2019).While studies on sustainability reporting of
universities andHEI, in general, remain fragmented, such studies onTUs in emerging economies
are non-existing. However, the need for studies on sustainability reporting on TUs is essential
because several studies have argued for the evolution and restructuring of TU by insisting that
they are capable of resolving societal challenges that are complex to handle (Kouatli, 2019; Singh Websites of
and Joshi, 2015). Therefore, our study examines stakeholder perception on the nature and extent technical
of sustainability reporting in the websites of TUs. This is relevant because, despite the universities in
increasing interest in the crucial role of TVET education in sustainable development,
sustainability reporting studies in the educational institutions have only received attention Ghana
recently, but particularly, in traditional universities in advanced economies.
Again, these recent studies involvingHEIs sustainability reporting have failed to account for
stakeholders’ opinions in investigating the extent of sustainability reporting, thereby ignoring
recent calls from researchers (such as Ansu-Mensah et al., 2021; Amoako et al., 2022; Diouf and
Boiral, 2017) on engaging and dialogging with stakeholders about sustainability. Meanwhile,
stakeholders have consistently been identified as critical motivators whose concerns should be
factored into sustainability practices, including reporting (Amoako et al., 2021). Furthermore,
empirical studies and models for evaluating sustainability reporting remain fragmented in
emerging economies (Amoako et al., 2022; Hinson et al., 2015). Meanwhile, these economies have
been identified as flashpoints of sustainable development challenges where globalization has
been slow in driving economic prosperity and poverty elevation (Amoako et al., 2021; Kodila-
Tedika et al., 2016; Majumdar and Sinha, 2021), with a low level of sustainability education (Wu
et al., 2015). We have selected TUs in Ghana for this study because, given their mandate to
provide practical solutions to societal problems, it can be argued that TUs could play important
role in promoting sustainability reporting in theHEI sector. Yet, there is a paucity of studies that
investigate sustainability reporting among TUs in emerging economies, including Ghana.
Ultimately, this study is motivated by the need for more research to be conducted within the
context of HEI’s in developing countries, as a way to bridge the research gap that exists.
Therefore, this paper seeks to answer three questions in the context of Ghana’s 10 TUs: (1)What
dimensions of sustainability are reported on the websites of the TUs? (2) What is the extent of
sustainability reporting on the websites of the TUs? (3) What are stakeholders’ impressions on
the sustainability reporting contents on the TUs’ websites? In promoting more frequent and
meaningful sustainability disclosures, particularly among HEIs in emerging economies, the
answers to these questions will provide basis for discussion about sustainability issues.
The paper has practical implications because it presents how TUs have been reporting
their contributions toward achieving sustainable development goals (SDGs) in pursuing
TVET within the context of Ghana, an emerging economy. Thus, findings from this study
intend to draw the attention of TUs management to the need for comprehensive
sustainability reporting as a medium of improving their positions in the university
rankings. According to Galleli et al. (2022), the level of sustainability disclosures is a critical
indicator in ranking the performance of universities. This is crucial to the sustainability of
TUs as highly ranked universities are most likely to attract more students and funding
(Galleli et al., 2022). We also extend the limited studies on sustainability reporting of HEIs by
adding stakeholders’ voices which have been ignored by most of these studies. Again,
stakeholder perceptions need to be given attention since stakeholders’ role in the
globalization of higher education is key, sophisticated and increasingly powerful (Alexa
et al., 2020; De La Torre et al., 2017). Using all the 10 TUs in Ghana, this study examines TUs’
websites sustainability reporting and explores stakeholder perceptions on the contents of
sustainability disclosures on these websites.
The present study differs from the previous literature in the sense that, previous studies in
sustainability reporting among HEIs (such as Domingues et al., 2017; Guthrie and Farneti,
2008; Montecalvo et al., 2018; Nicol
o et al., 2021; Sulkowski et al., 2020; Uyar et al., 2021) have
tried to identify the significant trends in sustainability reporting toward the achievement of
various dimensions of sustainability. These to a large extent ignore stakeholder perceptions
and have been on traditional universities. Therefore, we explore stakeholder perceptions on
the nature and extent of sustainability reporting on the websites of TUs in Ghana. This is
BIJ important as universities generally have been given less attention by researchers on
sustainability reporting. Yet compared to traditional universities, studies on reporting in TUs
still appear non-existing, particularly in emerging economies. To the best of our knowledge,
this study is the first to concentrate solely on TUs in emerging economies.
The rest of the paper is structured as follows: Section 2 presents the literature review with
much focus on the theoretical underpinnings and empirical reviews of extant literature,
Section 3 is on the research context, Section 4 presents the methods, Section 5 presents the
research findings and discussions and finally, Section 5 draws conclusions to the study.
2. Literature
This section elaborates on institutional theory and sustainability in TUs as a way of gaining
stakeholder legitimacy.
2.1 Institutional and legitimacy theories
Institutions are defined as the composition of beliefs, norms, rules and organizations that
enforce limitations on human nature by expressing what is unacceptable and acceptable.
Institutions consist of laws, normative and cultural-cognitive factors (Scott, 2005;Webb et al.,
2020) in both formal and informal codes of conduct (Webb et al., 2020) which are supported by
rewards and sanctions (Harring, 2016). In existing studies, the perceptions on the role of
institutions have advanced from absolute institutional biases to institutional determinism
(Derkacz, 2020). The neo-institutional theory has been adopted to extensively examine the
trends of an organizational approach to institutional dynamism (DiMaggio and Powell, 1983;
Meyer and Rowan, 1977). Neo-institutional theory elaborates how constituents of
organizations, such as the practices, structures and professions, emerge and grow in
society (Rahman et al., 2020; Suddaby, 2010).
According to proponents of the theory, the institutional environment can affect the
establishment of those elements more than pressure emanating from the market (Meyer and
Rowan, 1977). This is because organizations are trying to attain andmaintain legitimacywith
their stakeholders, which is critical for their survival since they control and provide firms
with access to environmental resources (Suddaby et al., 2017). Hence, institutional theory in
the sustainability reporting of TUs aims to ensure that TUs survive and operate in an
environment that consistently encounters institutional changes because of the emergence of
new regulatory frameworks and the advancement of innovative practices and designs.
Proponents of institutional theory have identified three types of isomorphism: coercive,
mimetic and normative (DiMaggio and Powell, 1983; Greenwood andMeyer, 2008). Isomorphism
is claimed to be coercive if there are formal and informal pressures from other institutions that the
firm depends on and cultural expectations from the society. Mimetic isomorphism stems from an
unpredictable environment that motivates organizations to utter their operations intentionally or
unintentionally by adopting the operations of peers perceived as superior, recommendations from
consultants and employees recruited from other companieswith higher standards (DiMaggio and
Powell, 1983; Greenwood and Meyer, 2008). Lastly, normative isomorphism comes from the
professionalization of operations which are motivated by acquiring academic and professional
education. This is further reinforced by organizations relationship within rising professional
associations, through which new ideas emerge rapidly. DiMaggio and Powell (1983) explain that
the three isomorphic pressure types mostly interplay. Thus, they may lead to different outcomes,
including what could be reported on the websites of TUs in Ghana.
The institutional approach to sustainability is similar to the legitimacy theory (Agyekum
and Singh, 2018; Jeong and Kim, 2019), which proposes that there exists a “social contract”
between organizations and society. In explaining sustainability reporting, existing studies
claim that the organizations’ pursuit of legitimacy is the key motivation to adopt socially Websites of
acceptable practices and structures (O’Dwyer et al., 2011; Talapatra et al., 2020). Therefore, in technical
gaining legitimacy, organizations strategize to meet institutional pressures and emulate their universities in
peers’ best practices, which culminates in institutional isomorphism (Amoako et al., 2018).
Thus, organizations have similarities, particularly in the same industry, as they follow the Ghana
same managerial practice (Amoako et al., 2018).
In the educational sector, coercion and mimicry can lead to normative isomorphism.
Therefore, it could be argued that TUs may be coerced to disclose some information which
could lead to imitating the sector’s leaders in sustainability reporting. In this case, the
observance of professional disclosure frameworks such as global reporting initiative (GRI)
and campus sustainability assessment tools become the norm that all HEIs perceive as the
newly accepted professional standard (Hinson et al., 2015)
By examining the normative dimension of both theories, this study contributes to the
existing literature on stakeholder engagement in HEIs. Since TUs play a public role in
education, research and service to communities in which the TUs are located, these
dimensions become particularly relevant (Ferrero-Ferrero et al., 2018). In tandem with the
above, TUs should engage their stakeholders to align their functions with stakeholders’
expectations, allowing them to adopt various principles, strategies and actions, which all lead
to sustainable development. Additionally, stakeholder engagement promotes the
construction of social norms and values which TUs can use to legitimize their operations.
Therefore, in response to normative pressure and imitation effects (O’Dwyer et al., 2011), TUs
are encouraged to engage stakeholders and apply regulatory frameworks in sustainability
reporting. Nonetheless, considering the relevance of stakeholder engagement in
sustainability reporting, to a large extent, sustainability research in HEIs (such as
Ceulemans et al., 2020; Moura et al., 2019) has ignored stakeholders voices with little or no
study on stakeholder engagement among TUs in emerging economies. Drawing from the
previous argument, further work on stakeholder perceptions of sustainability reporting is
necessary to address their needs and arguments in a custom-made way (Larran Jorge et al.,
2019; Hinson et al., 2015; Lopatta and Jaeschke, 2014).
2.2 Sustainability in technical and vocational education and training (TVET)
Universities are indispensable in molding communities (Singh and Joshi, 2015). This has
placed education as an important venture in promoting sustainability, thus attracting
pressure toward the sector. Universities are perceived to have the fiduciary duty to equip
professionals with the skills, exposure, knowledge and competency required to meet the
evolving pressure that individuals, intuitions and society need (Mititelu et al., 2017; Talapatra
and Gaine, 2019).
TUs provide TVET also known as career and productive education, technical education,
technology education, or competency-based training (CBT) (McGrath et al., 2020). This form
of training and development focuses on specific competencies or skills which make such an
approach inseparable from the world of work. This is because it provides relevant knowledge
and skills to prepare students and trainees to be economically productive members of society
(Orbeta, 2022). The cardinal principle of TVET emphasizes on increasing personal and social
benefits through the transformation of rawmaterials which culminates into the consumption
of large quantities of electricity, the employment of cheap labor and the generation of tons of
waste at the end of production (Chijioke, 2013; McGrath et al., 2020). Nonetheless,
sustainability issues relating to power differences around demographical categories such
as class, ethnicity, gender, physical ability, or sexual orientation are neglected in TVET
programs. Even though the aforementioned programs are core visions of TUs, not much
BIJ attention is given to the production of goods and services with social or environmental
repercussions (Singh and Singh, 2017).
2.3 Empirical studies on sustainability reporting by HEI and stakeholder expectations
For the past two decades, sustainability reporting has been carried out through mediums
such as integrated annual reports, sustainability reports and corporate websites by both
profit and nonprofit making organizations to disseminate sustainability information
(Amoako et al., 2018; Nicol
o et al., 2021; Gamage and Sciulli, 2017). Organizations have,
therefore, continuously published sustainability reports alongside financial reports. For
example, in 2013, 64% of 4,900 companies sampled produced sustainability reports. This
number increased to 75% in 2017 (KPMG International, 2017). Adams (2013b) claims that the
International Integrated Reporting Committee on sustainability reporting is one of the most
innovative bodies over the last two decades. Nevertheless, research indicates that there is a
lag in HEI’s sustainability report, despite its potential to strengthen the SDGs (Fonseca et al.,
2011; Gamage and Sciulli, 2017; Larran Jorge et al., 2019; Lozano, 2011). For instance, from the
GRI database (2020), as of 2017, only 33 out of the 7,330 reports were from the HEI by the end
of 2017 across the globe. Thus, out of the 30,586 universities worldwide, the number that has
produced a GRI report is quite insignificant. Even the limited sustainability reporting
practices available from the universities are revealed by literature as fragmented and at their
infant stage (Gamage and Sciulli, 2017). However, in recent times, there seems to be an
increased focus on sustainability reporting among HEIs.
Exiting studies provide the motivations for some universities which appear to be
committed to sustainability reporting. For instance, Lozano et al. (2013) realized that although
some HEI reports on sustainability, sustainability reporting is at its early stage as
universities linger to be very traditional and reserved in their disclosure mandates. In
Australia, Lee et al. (2013) found that many universities across the country lacked a vision or
mission statement embedded in sustainability. However, this appears to have improved
recently, Gamage and Sciulli (2017), in a content analysis of stand-alone reports realized that
as most universities in Australia have sustainability as part of their mission and vision
statements. Nonetheless, the contents and extent of the reportage among the universities
varied.
Other researchers (such as Zorio-Grima et al., 2018; Klußmann et al., 2019) have also
investigated the motivations for sustainability reporting. Zorio-Grima et al. (2018) explored
the factors that lead to experience in sustainability reporting by public universities in Spain.
The authors found that there is the integration of different factors based on innovation
profile, political and internal factors. Similarly, Klußmann et al. (2019) use interviews to
identify sustainability reporting factors among German universities. The authors posit that
internal and external factors challenge German universities in initiating sustainability
reporting.
To improve sustainability reporting among universities in Hong Kong, An et al. (2019)
discovered that universities have set up web pages for sustainability disclosures on their
websites. Theseweb pages contain sustainability information on general dimensions, specific
dimensions and stakeholder participation. Similarly, other studies (such as Gregson, 2010;
Huber and Bassen, 2018; Adams et al., 2018) have also focused on developing sustainability
frameworks for better sustainability practices among HEIs. Gregson developed a conceptual
framework for green education among TUs and argued that including stakeholder
engagement in the decision-making of TUs is paramount for better sustainability
education. Adams et al. (2018) propose a framework for designing and implementing
sustainability and assert that the support and inspiration of the university president/vice-
chancellor committed to senior leadership, as well as institutional culture are keymotivations
for some HEI to be strongly committed to sustainability reporting while others do not have Websites of
such motivations. technical
Unlike advanced economies, there are very limited studies on sustainability reporting among universities in
HEIs in emerging economies. The limited literature in these economies (such as Yasbie and
Barokah, 2018; Hinson et al., 2015) confirms low sustainability reporting among HEIs. For Ghana
instance, Yasbie and Barokah (2018) explored the sustainability reporting channels of
universities in Indonesia. They discovered that sustainability reporting among Indonesian
universities was far below those in advanced economies as none of the universities produced an
integrated report. Similarly, Hinson et al. (2015) conducted a content analysis and concluded that
even though none of the traditional universities in Ghana produced stand-alone sustainability
reports, throughuniversitywebsites, sustainability performancewas reported.Thus,while there
are limited studies on sustainability reporting amongHEIs in emerging economies, such a study
on TUs is non-existing. In addition, research on sustainability reporting in both advanced and
emerging economies has mainly focused on the contents of reporting. This study seeks to
contribute to the limited sustainability reporting literature on HEIs in emerging economies and
sustainability reporting research by adding stakeholders’ voices to the sustainability reporting
contents. We, therefore, explored the contents, extent and stakeholder perceptions on the
sustainability reporting on the websites of all the 10 TUs in Ghana.
3. Research context
According to Ghana Tertiary Education Commission (GTEC), which is the regulatory body
for tertiary education in Ghana, the tertiary education in Ghana consists of 291 accredited
institutions (GTEC, 2021). The GTEC has grouped these 291 tertiary institutions into 15
categories: Chartered Private Tertiary Institution, Colleges of Agriculture, Distance Learning
Institution, Private College of Education, Private Nurses Training Colleges, Private
Polytechnic, Private Tertiary Institutions Offering Higher National Diploma (HND)/Degree
Programs, Public Colleges of Education, Public Degree Awarding and Professional
Institution, Public Nurses Training Colleges, Public Technical Universities, Public
Universities, Regionally-Owned (West Africa) Tertiary Institution, Registered Foreign
Institution and Tutorial College (see Table 1).
S/N Category Number of institutions
1 Chartered private tertiary institution 7
2 College of agriculture 4
3 Distance learning institution 2
4 Private college of education 4
5 Private nurses training college 22
6 Private polytechnic 1
7 Private tertiary institutions offering HND/degree programs 105
8 Public college of education 46
9 Public degree awarding and professional institution 7
10 Public nurses training college 55
11 Public technical university 10
12 Public university 14
13 Regionally-owned (West Africa) tertiary institution 1
Table 1.
14 Registered foreign institution 4 Categories of
15 Tutorial college 9 accredited tertiary
Total 291 educational
Source(s): GTEC (2021) institutions in Ghana
BIJ These tertiary educational institutions offer various degrees and diploma programs which
are aimed at training and churning out manpower to contribute toward developing SDGs.
However, these tertiary educational institutions which are progressing in their contributions
toward the achievement of SDGs are not well reported to stakeholders. As a follow-up to the
millennium development goals (MDGs), the SDGs have created a forum for countries and
higher education institutions to collaborate. In the sense of the SDGs, HEI in low- and middle-
income countries like Ghana should be able to place themselves to contribute to a knowledge-
intensive economy (Chijioke, 2013; McGrath et al., 2020). This can be accomplished by
establishing niche areas of science, teaching and community involvement, as well as
investigating the variety of technical devices available to help their institutions of higher
learning become more innovative (McGrath et al., 2020).
Globally, TUs have seen significant shifts from societal expectations of TVET graduates;
a growing expectation exists for TUs to help provide practical solutions to immediate and
long-term sustainability challenges (Alexa et al., 2020; Gregson, 2010). Sustainable research at
TUs has evolved gradually in response to the call for sustainability made by various
international conventions and stakeholders, yet, these fragmented studies are not enough as
more evidence is needed on stakeholder perceptions on sustainability practices of TUs. Thus,
even though few studies have examined universities’ roles in enhancing sustainability-
oriented competencies (Sady et al., 2019), not many examine the approach TUs take to
integrating sustainability into sustainable development (Alexa et al., 2020). Similarly to other
organizations, one way TUs could adopt in responding to pressure from stakeholders is how
sustainability is reported on universities’ websites (Amoako et al., 2018, 2022).
Unlike Hinson et al. (2015) who focused on sustainability reporting of traditional
universities in Ghana, the present study is on sustainability reporting of TUs in Ghana. This
is relevant because as at the time of Hinson et al.’s study, all the TUs in Ghana were
polytechnics until 2013, when the then Government of Ghana deemed it relevant to upgrade
the polytechnics into TUs. The legislation was enacted to that effect during the 2016/17
academic year. The conversion of polytechnics to universities was aimed at pursuing better
training in TVET. Another aim of the conversion was to avail several progression
opportunities for technical and vocational post-secondary education. Second, Hinson et al.’s
study ignores stakeholders’ perception on the websites’ disclosures of the sampled HEIs in
Ghana. To fill this gap, we focused on TUs, rather than traditional universities. Also, we have
extended Hinson et al.’s study by engaging stakeholders to appreciate their perceptions on
the extent of websites disclosures of the TUs in Ghana. This is important due to the unique
role that stakeholders of TUs play in sustainable development (i.e. poverty reduction)
through the provision of relevant hands-on knowledge and skills to prepare students and
trainees to be economically productive members of society (Orbeta, 2022).
4. Methodology
4.1 Research approach and design
Figure 1 presents the methodology that underpins this study. The aim of this paper is to
explore stakeholder perceptions on the nature and extent of sustainability reporting on the
websites of TUs in Ghana. Therefore, as it could be seen from Figure 1, we used content
analysis in exploring what is reported on the websites of all the 10 TUs in Ghana. This was
followed by interviews to obtain stakeholder perceptions on the extent of sustainability
reporting on the TUs’ websites.
From Figure 1, the merger of the two qualitative instruments is intended to provide
detailed insights on the extent of sustainability reporting and the perception of stakeholders
on these website disclosures. Several studies (Amoako et al., 2018; Higgins et al., 2018;Mendes
et al., 2019) have revealed that there is no ideal approach to analyzing the contents of
Literature review on Sustainability Websites of
repor ng by HEI and stakeholder 
expecta ons technical
universities in
Development of GRI Scoring Table and Ghana
data collec on from TUs’ websites
Analysis of data collected from TUs’
websites using the GRI Table Interviews with TUs’ stakeholders
Presenta on of results and discussions Transcrip on and analysis of interview 
data
Conclusions Figure 1.
Research methodology
of the study
Source(s): Authors’ construct (2022)
sustainability reports. Rather, content analyses need to consider the uniqueness of the
research’s context and objectives. According to Krippendorff (2004), content analysis is
“a research technique for the objective, systematic and quantitative description of the
manifest content of communication” p. 19. Content analysis is a widely used method to
analyze the sustainability reporting contents of organizations (Landrum and Ohsowski,
2018). It has been adopted previously to examine brochures, magazines, advertisements,
websites as well as mission and vision statements.
Content analysis could be carried out quantitatively or qualitatively. Be it qualitative or
quantitative, content analysis has also been viewed as “the most commonly used to assess
organizations’ social and environmental disclosures” (Milne and Adler, 1999, p. 237). In this
paper, we adopted a qualitative approach to content analysis of sustainability disclosures on
the websites of TUs in Ghana. Even though qualitative content analysis is noted for the
involvement of huge data (Mostafaei and Hosseini, 2021; Landrum and Ohsowski, 2018), it
was chosen for this study because the number of TUs in Ghana is small (i.e. 10), and the
application of a qualitative approach for this research was deemed feasible and more
appropriate as the study explores the extent of the websites disclosures and the details of
what is reported.
4.2 Data collection
The data for this study were collected from the TUs’ websites between August 5, 2020 and
December 12, 2020, and updated on January 15 to February 10, 2022. As part of the data
collection process, a feasibility study was conducted by the authors on the disclosures on
TUs’ websites. It was discovered that there were no standalone sustainability reports
uploaded on theTUs’websites. Consequently, the search focused onwebmenus related to the
TUs’ administration, governance, accountability, ethics policies, finance and sustainability
projects. This was due to the lack of stand-alone sustainability reports on the websites of the
TUs. To ensure validity and consistency of data collection process, each author analyzed one
to three of the content analysis frameworks (See Table 2) across thewebsites of all the 10TUs.
We consider whether a cross-sectional sample of disclosures on the 10 TUs in Ghana
related to those 56 indicators from Fonseca’s sustainability framework (see Table 2). Since
BIJ
Serial number Categories Indicators
1 Organization profile and governance 5
2 Reporting approach 4
3 Economic performance 3
4 Environmental performance 8
5 Social performance 5
6 Human rights issues 6
7 Society issues 5
8 Research 7
9 Curriculum and teaching 7
Table 2. 10 Green buildings and procurement 6
Content analysis Total 56
framework Source(s): Adopted from Fonseca (2010, p. 26)
this is an exploratory study, we adopted a simple tick-box approach, rather than using amore
complex rating framework. Thus, like any other exploratory study, our aim was to depict the
nature of current sustainability reporting practices of the TUs as a bedrock for further studies
thatmay refine and expand on the findings (Albertini, 2019). Tick-boxes also allow for greater
objectivity (Hinson et al., 2015). In total, about 550 web pages and 56 documents were
examined.
For triangulating the data collected from the websites of the TUs, 18 face-to-face
interviews were conducted in two TUs; one of the two TUs with the highest score and the
other with the least score (See Table 3 for interviewees’ details). We adopted this sampling
technique to get a balanced opinion from the stakeholders. The interviews were conducted
from January 4 to March 7, 2022 and participants of the interviews comprised internal and
external stakeholders of the TUs. The internal stakeholders comprised management,
teaching staff, non-teaching staff and students, whereas the external stakeholders were
parents, alumni, regulators, affiliate companies and bankers. Again, since all the TUs had
similar reporting trends (See Tables 4 and 5) and scored far below 50%, there was a high
tendency to get similar results, hence choosing two out of the 10 TUs.
For a balanced opinion, we categorized the participants into external and internal
stakeholders. Within the TUs, senior management (i.e. top decision-makers), students and
staff (teaching and non-teaching) were involved because of their positions as key
stakeholders. External stakeholders chosen for this study were parents, alumni,
Stakeholder No. of Average interview
category participants Positions and codes duration
Internal 2 Top level management, (Senior 34 min
stakeholders Administrator 1 and 2)
2 Teaching staff (Teaching staff 1 and 2) 41 min
1 Non-teaching staff 34 min
3 Students (Student 1,2 and 3)
External 3 Parents (Parent 1,2 and 3) 35 min
stakeholders 3 Alumni (Alumni 1,2 and 3) 32 min
Table 3. 1 Regulator 47 min
Research participants’ 2 Affiliate companies 33 min
affiliations, positions 2 Bankers 45 min
and interview duration Source(s): Authors’ construct (2022)
Websites of
Mode of reporting on websites
Technical university Standalone sustainability/annual report Drop down menus technical
universities in
Sunyani Technical University (STU) – U
Tamale Technical University (TATU) – U Ghana
Kumasi Technical University (KSTU) – U
Accra Technical University (ATU) – U
Cape Coast Technical University (CCTU) – U
Koforidua Technical University (KTU) – U
Ho Technical University (HTU) – U
Takoradi Technical University (TTU) – U
Bolgatanga Technical University (BTU) – U Table 4.
Wa Technical University (WTU) – U Technical universities
Note(s): – Not available; U-Available mode of sustainability
Source(s): Authors’ construct (2022) reporting
regulators, lenders (bankers) and industry affiliates. The choice of these stakeholders were
based on their identification as key stakeholders in previous studies (such as Ceulemans et al.,
2020; Moura et al., 2019). In selecting internal stakeholders, management and students were
purposively sampled; participants were selected based on their position within the sampled
TUs and their knowledge of the contents on the TUs’websites. Nonetheless, themanagement
and staff members who were first interviewed suggested other experts to strengthen the
inclusion of key informants in the study (snowball sampling) from those directly involved in
sustainability policy-making. The president and the vice president of students’
representative councils (SRC) of two sampled TUs were selected based on their availability
to participate in this study. Even though we should have interviewed four students (two SRC
presidents and two SRC vice-presidents), one of them was not available due to ill health.
For external stakeholders, we conducted telephone interviews with the parents of the
three students who participated in the study. This was to provide a common ground for
analysis. We selected the alumni based on the convenience of the lead author’s acquaintance
with the participants. We chose the bankers and affiliate companies based on snowballing,
where an interviewee recommends another participant based on the information needed. In
our case, management of the two sampled TUs recommended seven bankers and ten affiliate
institutions. We then sampled these institutions conveniently. Nonetheless, two bankers and
two affiliate institutions were willing to participate in the study.
Even though there were cases where some participants turned down our request for
interviews, most of the interviewees were relatively easy to reach and willing to participate
whichwas a positive aspect of the process. To beginwith each interview, the researcher (lead)
took about five minutes to explain the purpose of the interview (i.e. stakeholder perceptions
on the website disclosures of TUs) to the interviewees in order to ensure that the researcher
was at the same level with the interviewee. We recorded and transcribed verbatim, the in-
depth interviews.
4.3 Data analysis
To analyze the research datawith the tick-box approach, we proceededwith direct quotations
from thewebsites of the TUs (See Section 5). In this study, we adopted the GRI for the analysis
of HEI reporting to reveal critical gaps in website disclosures of TUs in Ghana. Second, the
GRI has been observed to be a potential framework that synchronizes the various approaches
to sustainability reporting of HEI (Berzosa et al., 2017; Fonseca et al., 2011; Hinson et al., 2015;
Lozano, 2006). Following other studies (such as Hinson et al., 2015) on universities’
BIJ
Table 5.
Titles of drop-down
menus on technical
universities’ websites
Percentage
Sunyani Cape coast Koforidua Ho Takoradi Bolgatanga Wa Tamale Kumasi Accra (%) of
Name of Technical Technical Technical Technical Technical Technical Technical Technical Technical Technical universities
technical University University University University University University University University University University with
university (STU) (CCTU) (KTU) (HTU) (TTU) (BTU) (WTU) (TTU) (KSTU) (ATU) heading
Headings Home Home Home Home Home Home Home Home Home Home 100%
of drop- About us About us The About Our The About About About us About ATU 100%
down university University University
menus Academics Academics Academics Academics Academics Academics Academics Academics Academics Academics 100%
Admissions Admissions Admissions Admissions Admissions Admissions Admissions Admissions Admissions Admissions 100%
Students Students Students Students Students Student Students Students Students – 90%
Affairs Affairs Affairs
– – Our library Library – – Library Library Library Library 60%
Staff – – – Staff – – – Staff – 30%
Alumni Alumni – Alumni – – – – – – 30%
Directory – Contact – Contact 30%
News and News and – News and – – – – – 30%
Events Media Events
Research – – – Research and – – – – – 20%
collaboration
– Liaison unit – Liaison – – – – – 20%
– – Programs – – – – Programs – – 20%
– offices – – – – – – – – 10%
– – Journals – – – – – – – 10%
Total 9 8 10 7 9 5 7 7 7 6
number of
headings
Note(s): – Not available
Source(s): Authors’ construct (2022)
sustainability reporting analysis, we adopted a tick-box framework of Fonseca et al. (2011, p. Websites of
26), which was inspired by the GRI guidelines and campus sustainability assessment tools. technical
As indicated in Table 1, Fonseca et al. (2011) framework has ten categories with 56 indicators universities in
Fonseca et al. (2011, p. 26).
Specifically, this study adopts the GRI guidelines and campus sustainability assessment Ghana
tools in evaluating the sustainability reporting on the websites of TUs in Ghana which in
turn will contribute to providing insights on the feasibility of applying those guidelines to
TVET within the emerging economy context. The key motivation for studies on
universities’ sustainability reporting (such as Caputo et al., 2021; Fonseca et al., 2011;
Hinson et al., 2015) which used the GRI guidelines is two-fold (1) the GRI is more
comprehensive and has been globally experimented compared to other sustainability
disclosure metrics; (2) it is frequently updated to include the crucial matters perceived as
important in sustainability reporting. The GRI framework is now the most widely used
sustainability guidelines in numerous sectors.
In analyzing the data gathered from the interviews and the websites disclosures, separate
categories describing how often the stakeholders visited and perceived the websites
disclosures of the TUs in Ghana were revealed. Seven steps were undertaken in the analysis
of the data, namely, (1) analyzing the transcripts for content familiarity; (2) assembling the
participant responses for each question; (3) compressing the responses to develop emerging
themes; (4) using the emerging themes to categorize similar answers; (5) the comparison of the
several categories; (6) providing labels for each category; and (7) comparing and contrasting
the various categories (Ornek, 2008). By adopting this approach, we made sense of how
stakeholders perceived the sustainability disclosures on the websites of the sampled HEIs
(See Appendix for coding).
5. Results and discussions
The aim of this paper is to explore stakeholder perceptions on the nature and extent of
sustainability reporting on the websites of TUs in Ghana. The findings in this section are
presented in three tables, namely, Table 4 – the mode of sustainability reporting of TUs in
Ghana, Table 5 – lists of drop-down menus on Ghana’s TU’s websites, and Table 6-
Framework’s categories and indicators addressed by TUs. These tables allow easy
comparison and benchmarking of the GRI indicators (Fonseca et al., 2011).
5.1 Mode of sustainability reporting
From Table 4, none of the 10 TUs produce a standalone annual report on sustainability.
Rather, it is mandatory for vice-chancellors in Ghana to report to convocation at least once
a year on the sustainability performance of universities (Hinson et al., 2015). Thus, unlike
some of traditional universities in Ghana, these standalone reports were not available to
the public on the websites of the TUs. Nonetheless, as asserted by Fonseca et al. (2011) on
traditional universities, the disclosures on the websites of the TUs were consistent with
the crucial aspects of sustainability. Therefore, in the absence of the standalone annual
reports, sustainability disclosures found on all the TUs’ websites were extracted from
drop-down menus and the few automatic scrolling notices on the various websites (See
Table 5).
We realized some level of convergence on the website’s disclosure patterns. Thus, several
similarities were found regarding the headings of the drop-downmenus. FromTable 5, all the
TUs had the following headings; Home, About (us), Academics, Admissions, with nine out of
ten reporting having a heading “students”. The analysis shows no momentous variations in
sustainability disclosures of TUs on environmental, social and economic dimensions.
BIJ
Table 6.
Framework of
sustainability
dimension and
indicators addressed
by technical
universities
Technical universities
Sunyani Cape Coast Koforidua Ho Takoradi Bolgatanga Wa Tamale Kumasi Accra Proportion
Technical Technical Technical Technical Technical Technical Technical Technical Technical Technical of Technical
Categories and University University University University University University University University University University universities
indicators (STU) (CCTU) (KTU) (HTU) (TTU) (BTU) (WTU) (TTU) (KSTU) (ATU) reporting
1. Organizational profile and governance
Organizational U U U U U U U U U U 100%
profile and
governance
Statement from – – – – – – – – – U 10%
the president
Description of U U U U U U U U U U 100%
the organization
Governance U U U U U U U U U U 100%
structure or
processes
Commitment to – – – – – – – – – – 0%
external
sustainability
initiatives
Stakeholder U U U U U U U U U U 100%
engagement
2. Reporting approach
Reporting – – – – – – – – – – 0%
period
Report scope – – – – – – – – – – 0%
and boundary
Reporting – – – – – – – – – – 0%
standard
guidelines
(continued )
Websites of
technical
universities in
Ghana
Table 6.
Technical universities
Sunyani Cape Coast Koforidua Ho Takoradi Bolgatanga Wa Tamale Kumasi Accra Proportion
Technical Technical Technical Technical Technical Technical Technical Technical Technical Technical of Technical
Categories and University University University University University University University University University University universities
indicators (STU) (CCTU) (KTU) (HTU) (TTU) (BTU) (WTU) (TTU) (KSTU) (ATU) reporting
Third-party – – – – – – – – – – 0%
statement
(external
assurance)
3. Economic performance
Economic – – – – – – – – – – 0%
performance
Contribution to U U U U U U U U U U 100%
local
community
Indirect U U U U U U U U U U 100%
economic
impact
4. Environmental performance
Material – – – – – – – – – – 0%
Energy – – – – – – – – – – 0%
Water – – – – – – – – – – 0%
Biodiversity – – – – – – – – – – 0%
Emissions, – – – – – – – – – – 0%
effluents and
waste
Compliance – – – – – – – – – – 0%
with
environmental
legislation
Transportation U U – – – – – – – – 20%
(continued )
BIJ
Table 6.
Technical universities
Sunyani Cape Coast Koforidua Ho Takoradi Bolgatanga Wa Tamale Kumasi Accra Proportion
Technical Technical Technical Technical Technical Technical Technical Technical Technical Technical of Technical
Categories and University University University University University University University University University University universities
indicators (STU) (CCTU) (KTU) (HTU) (TTU) (BTU) (WTU) (TTU) (KSTU) (ATU) reporting
Environmental – – – – – – – – – – 0%
expenditure
5. Social performance
Employment – – U – – – – – – U 20%
Labor/ – – U – – – – – – U 20%
management
relations
Occupational U U U – – – – – U U 50%
health and
safety
Training and – – – – – – – – – – 0%
education
Diversity and U U – – – – – – – U 30%
opportunity
6. Human rights issues
Investment and – – – – – – – – – – 0%
procurement
policy
Non- U U U U U – U U U U 100%
discrimination
Freedom of U U – – – – – – – – 20%
association and
collective
bargaining
Child labor and – – – – – – – – – – 0%
forced labor
(continued )
Websites of
technical
universities in
Ghana
Table 6.
Technical universities
Sunyani Cape Coast Koforidua Ho Takoradi Bolgatanga Wa Tamale Kumasi Accra Proportion
Technical Technical Technical Technical Technical Technical Technical Technical Technical Technical of Technical
Categories and University University University University University University University University University University universities
indicators (STU) (CCTU) (KTU) (HTU) (TTU) (BTU) (WTU) (TTU) (KSTU) (ATU) reporting
Security – – – U – – – – – – 10%
practices
Indigenous – – – – – – – – – – 0%
rights
7. Society issues
Impacts on U U U U U U U U U U 100%
community
Corruption – – – – – – – – – – 0%
Public policy – – – – – – – – – – 0%
Anti- – – – – – – – – – – 0%
competitive
behavior
Compliance U U U U U U U U U U 100%
with general
legislation
8. Research
Policies related U U U U U U U U U U 100%
to sustainability
in research
Research U U U U U U U U U U 100%
centres/labs
related to
sustainability
Sustainability – – – – – – – – – – 0%
related research
programs
(continued )
BIJ
Table 6.
Technical universities
Sunyani Cape Coast Koforidua Ho Takoradi Bolgatanga Wa Tamale Kumasi Accra Proportion
Technical Technical Technical Technical Technical Technical Technical Technical Technical Technical of Technical
Categories and University University University University University University University University University University universities
indicators (STU) (CCTU) (KTU) (HTU) (TTU) (BTU) (WTU) (TTU) (KSTU) (ATU) reporting
Incentives to U U U U U U U U U U 100%
sustainability
research
Funds and – – – – – – – – – – 0%
grants for
sustainability
research
Academic – – – – – – – – – – 0%
production
related to
sustainability
Sustainability U U U U U – U U U U 100%
related research
projects
9. Curriculum and teaching
Policies related – – – – – – – – – – 0%
to sustainability
in curriculum
Courses related U U U U U U U U U U 100%
to sustainability
Students taking U U U U U U U U U U 100%
sustainability
related courses
Sustainability U U U U U U U U U U 100%
literacy
assessment
(continued )
Websites of
technical
universities in
Ghana
Table 6.
Technical universities
Sunyani Cape Coast Koforidua Ho Takoradi Bolgatanga Wa Tamale Kumasi Accra Proportion
Technical Technical Technical Technical Technical Technical Technical Technical Technical Technical of Technical
Categories and University University University University University University University University University University universities
indicators (STU) (CCTU) (KTU) (HTU) (TTU) (BTU) (WTU) (TTU) (KSTU) (ATU) reporting
Degree U U U U U U U U U U 100%
programs
related to
sustainability
Non-curricular – – – – – – – – – – 0%
teaching
initiatives
related to
sustainability
Scholarships – – – – – – – – – – 0%
offered to
sustainability
related
education
10. Green buildings and procurement
Green buildings – – – – – – – – – – 0%
and renovations
Green spaces – – – – – – – – – – 0%
Food services – – – – – – – – – – 0%
Recycled paper – – – – – – – – – – 0%
Green – – – – – – – – – – 0%
electronics
Green furniture – – – – – – – – – – 0%
Total score 21/56 22/56 21/56 19/56 18/56 16/56 18/56 18/56 19/56 22/56
Total 37.5% 39.3% 37.5% 33.9% 32.1% 28.6% 32.1% 32.1% 33.9% 39.3%
percentage
reported
Note(s): – Not reported; U-reported
Source(s): Authors’ construct (2022)
BIJ 5.2 Sustainability reporting contents of TUs
This section presents the findings and discussions on the contents of TUs sustainability
reporting. The findings and discussions are based on the content of the GRI guidelines and
campus sustainability assessment tools for sustainability reporting of higher education (see
Table 6). However, the dimensions are arranged in order of scoring; the dimension with the
highest reporting being first and the dimension with the lowest reporting being last.
5.2.1 Organizational profile and governance. The first category of sustainability on
Fonseca’s framework is organizational enquiry profile and governance. Coincidentally, it is
the category with the highest disclosures on the websites of TUs in Ghana. Thus, out of the
six indicators, all the 10 TUs at the time of data collection made available information on four
of these indicators: their organizational profile, description of the organization, governance
structure or processes and stakeholder engagement. However, only one TU reported on
commitment to external sustainability initiatives in their vision statement:
To become a top-notch technical university for the provision of career-focused, practically-oriented
and entrepreneurially-inclined higher and middle level manpower training for the socio-economic
development of Ghana and to contribute to the global sustainable development (STU).
The reporting rate on organizational profile and governance among TUs in Ghana appear
better compared to Hinson et al. (2015) who reported that traditional universities in Ghana
report fully on three out of the six indicators on their websites and in their annual reports.
This could imply an improvement in the sustainability reporting among HEIs in Ghana, as it
has been seven years since Hinson’s study. Nonetheless, compared to studies on traditional
universities, such as Fonseca et al. (2011) in Canada, Hinson et al. (2015) in Ghana andGamage
and Sciulli (2017) in Australia, who discovered that most universities have a statement from
the president, only Accra Technical University (10%) had a statement from the vice-
chancellor on their website. This was confirmed by an interviewee that TUs in Ghana may
not be under pressure tomake such disclosures or perhaps, they do not see the need to publish
statements from the vice-chancellors on their websites.
5.2.2 Economic performance. The second dimension with the highest coverage is the
economic dimension; all theTUs reported on three of the four indicators under this dimension.
There were disclosures on the impact of the TUs on the contributions to the community and
indirect economic impacts. Most of these impacts are said to be attained through the
application of TVET education, which is aimed at equipping students with entrepreneurship
skills. Websites disclosures on economic contributions of some of the TUs are,
The center, through its network of partnerswithin the university community and external analogous
institutions, serves as a catalyst in improving service delivery to existing and future businesses. It
specifically helps students, community based organizations, young entrepreneurs and nascent
entrepreneurs to start-up businesses. (TATU).
The polytechnic [currently technical university] developed a strategic plan to guide its operation
with the vision to become “a world-class center for applied technology and providing career-focused
education for rural poverty reduction and national development” (WTU).
Therewere no evidence of economic performance onTUs’websites as usually, information on
economic performance is traced to the financial reports of the organization (Bradbury et al.,
2020; Uyar, 2019; Majumdar and Sinha, 2021). Since none of the TUs upload an annual report
(including financials) on their websites, no information on economic performance was found.
A senior administrator in one of the TUs explained,
We are notmandated to publish our financial reports on the university’swebsite. However, we report
to the University Governing Council and submit copies of the annual report to the Ministry of
Education through GTEC (Administrator 2).
The opinion of the administrative staff indicates the crucial role that regulations could play in Websites of
ensuring quality sustainability disclosures of the TUs in Ghana. Similar to findings of other technical
studies (such as Amoako et al., 2022), the TUs may not voluntarily disclose to the public what universities in
they deem as sensitive information if not mandated to do so.
5.2.3 Curriculum and teaching. The third highest category with disclosures on its Ghana
indicators is that of curriculum and teaching. All the TUs whose websites were available
disclosed information on courses related to sustainability, Students taking sustainability-
related courses, sustainability literacy assessment and degree programs related to
sustainability. However, no information was disclosed on initiatives related to
sustainability and Scholarships offered to sustainability-related education. A senior
administrator indicated,
We all know that teaching and research are our mission as a university. We need to attract new
students by informing them through various media such as radio and television adverts as well on
our website that we have cutting-edge programs which provide the needed skills for the industry
(Senior Administrator 1).
Analyzing the narratives from the above interviewee, the high disclosures under this
dimension are not surprising as teaching and research are the core mandate of HEIs. Some
TUs explained,
Our creed of integrity, creativity and excellence will continue to guide our governance in providing
hands-on and competency-based research training that helps in solving industrial challenges thatwe
face as a country (ATU).
The institution values creativity, determination, teamwork, commitment, integrity, honesty,
innovation and fairness and strives to integrate these values into its teaching, research and
business practices (KTU).
Another interesting trend on the disclosures on TUs’websites is on the collaboration with the
industry. These collaborations are very important to TUs as they aim at rendering CBT
which is based on practical training through usually industrial attachments and
laboratory works.
TUs are to be more focused in the delivery of CBT. One way to achieve this is to liaise with industry
for students training and attachment placements. Therefore, even though we are not under any
obligation to publish on industry collaborations, we need to demonstrate to regulators and public
that we are actually doing the right thing (Senior Administrator 1).
It was therefore not surprising that eight of the ten TUs reported on collaborations with
industry as follows:
Bolgatanga Technical University is engaged in a number of collaborations. The university has
collaborations with the University of Ouagadougou, Burkina Faso on English language immersion
training and industrial attachment including research for their students . . . (BTU)
5.2.4 Research. The dimension with the fourth wider coverage is on the indicators under
research. All the TUs had information regarding four of the seven indicators, namely, policies
related to sustainability in research, research centers and laboratories related to
sustainability, incentives to sustainability research and sustainability related research
projects. Indicators on research, other than these, had no information on the websites of the
TUs. Similar to the comments on curriculum and teaching, a head of research in one of the
sampled TUs explained,
You know very well that research is a core mandate of every tertiary institution. As such the
university needs to demonstrate her efforts toward this direction aswell as the results of these efforts
(Teaching staff 2).
BIJ 5.2.5 Society issues. All the TUs disclosed on the social impact on community and
compliance with general legislation with most presenting on the TUs’ Act and regulatory
bodies such as CTVET and the national council for tertiary education (GTEC). Thus, various
TUs are subject to a level of central control.
The Technical University Act 2016, (Act 922) converted Kumasi Polytechnic to the present Kumasi
Technical University with the aim of providing higher education in engineering, applied arts, science
technology-based disciplines, technical and vocational training. (KSTU)
According to previous studies (such as An et al., 2020; Balluchi et al., 2020), there could be
specific disclosures with mandatory requirements for stakeholders such as those on the TUs
having regulatory backing above. As indicated in the above quotation, all the TUs disclosed
that they were regulated by the TU Act, 2016 (Act 922), with monitoring from regulatory
bodies (such as GTEC, CTVET and TUs governing councils). However, interviews with
senior administrators in the sampled TUs indicated that the information on the government
approval and legal backing of TUs were not mandatory but voluntary. This is because the
TUs see the need to do so as a way of gaining stakeholder legitimacy:
We are not under any obligation to post on our website that we have the legal backing to operate as a
university. However, stakeholders such as prospective students and donor agencies may be
interested in knowing if the institution is accredited by the government (Senior Administrator 1).
The university needs the public to have confidence in us. One way of pursuing that agenda is by
informing them that we are operating under the TUs Act with all our programs accredited by GTEC
(Senior Administrator 2).
5.2.6 Human rights issues.The sixth indicator on the proposed framework of Fonseca et al.
(2011) is on human rights issues. TheTUs inGhana do not disclose information on Child labor
and forced labor, as well as indigenous rights. However, there was evidence that all TUs
disclosed information related to non-discrimination with most of them stated this in the
course of describing their core mandates as TUs.
Ho Technical University is a secular and non-partisan public institution. Admissions and academic
awards are based on merit and not ethnicity, race or nationality, religious affiliation or beliefs,
physical disabilities, or gender. (HTU)
5.2.7 Social performance. Disclosures on social performance were ranked as seventh in
terms of the disclosure on websites of the TUs. Five TUs disclosed their occupational health
and safety which was mainly on measures put in place against the spread of the COVID-19
pandemic. Another indicator of the social performance of the GRI is that of diversity and
opportunity. Out of the ten TUs in Ghana, three had information on diversity and
opportunity, namely, STU, CCTU and ATU. However, only STU and CCTU mentioned
something on freedom of association and collective bargaining which was uploaded in their
human resources policies.
We provide equal opportunities to foster access to quality higher education to all qualified persons
irrespective of religious and political persuasion, ethnicity, gender, social status and physical
ability. (KSTU)
Besides reporting on the activities of the security unit under the student affairs menu, only
HTU and TATU describe various security activities that take place on campus concerning
parking, fire alarms and patrol guards:
The Ho Polytechnic campus is among the safest tertiary campuses in the country. Parking facilities
are monitored 24 hours a daywith the aid of security personnel. Fire alarm and fire extinguishers are
located around campus. Guards are always alert to protect life and property. Safety is everyone’s
responsibility. (HTU)
During his investiture on October 18, 2019, the VC of Takoradi Technical University in his Websites of
speech indicated that, technical
Our highly successful alumni and industry partners are working hand-in-hand with our faculties, universities in
staff and students in order to create a network of engagement that would impact our surroundings Ghana
nationally and internationally. We will also deepen our focus on the diversification of faculty and
staff, for we know that excellence requires inclusiveness and diversity. (TATU)
5.2.8 Environmental performance. Environmental performance has the highest number of
indicators which included material, energy, water, biodiversity, emission, effluents and
water, compliance with environmental legislation, transportation and environmental
expenditure (See Table 3). Even though, environmental sustainability is listed as a part of
HTU andWTU’s core values, none of the indicators of GRIwas disclosed, making it one of the
categories with the least disclosures. Thus, all the TUs in Ghana scored zero in all the eight
indicators of environmental performance except Sunyani and Kumasi which uploaded their
transportation policies.
Academic and social interactions within the polytechnic [now technical university] are governed by
the principles of fair play, justice, honesty, moral rectitude and respect for authority, human rights
and the environment. (HTU)
Our findings on environmental performance disclosures of TUs in Ghana contradicts the
findings of Fonseca et al. (2011) that “Among the most commonly disclosed indicators are
those in connectionwith emissions, effluents, wastes, energy, recycled paper, green buildings,
green spaces, transportation, and water” p. 30.
Upon enquiry on the lack of environmental disclosures, an administrator explained that,
Unlike mining companies that is known for destroying water bodies and polluting the environment,
we are just and educational institution . . . we teach, research and offer community service. I am
therefore not surprised that we do not upload much information on environment (Senior
Administrator 2).
5.2.9 Reporting approach and green buildings and procurement. Similar to the zero
disclosures on environmental sustainability, Reporting approach and green building and
procurement had no disclosure on the websites of TUs in Ghana. On reporting approach,
which covers the reporting period, report scope and boundary, reporting standards and
guidelines and third party-related statements, there was no information on the TUs’websites
on any of these indicators. This could be that, unlike non-TUs who upload annual reports on
their websites (Caputo et al., 2021; Hinson et al., 2015; Fonseca et al., 2011; Gamage and Sciulli,
2017), websites of TUs in Ghana did not have annual reports. Meanwhile, according to
International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS), the globally accepted financial reporting
standard, annual reports are required to contain all four indicators under the reporting
approach (Hinson et al., 2015). In the case of TUs in Ghana, information was disclosed on
institutional websites via drop-down menus and automatic scroll menus (See Table 2).
Therefore, the absence of annual standalone reports on TUs’websites implies the absence of
reporting approach indicators.
5.2.10 Stakeholder perceptions onTUs sustainability reporting.We solicited the opinions of
both external and internal stakeholders on their impressions from the university websites
and if they get the information (sustainability), they want from the TUs’ websites.
Consequently, stakeholders were picked from two TUs and the results are presented in this
section.
5.2.10.1 External stakeholders’ perceptions on website disclosures. In seeking the
perceptions of stakeholders on the sustainability disclosures on TUs’ websites, it was
BIJ discovered that eight out of the 11 external stakeholders were not interested in the
sustainability disclosures on the websites of the TUs. An alumni narrated,
My brother, to be honest with you, the last time I visited the university’s website was three years ago
when I wanted to apply for admission for my kid sister and wanted to find out the new programs the
university had introduced (Alumnus 1).
Even though one out of the three alumni, a lecturer, showed interest in the disclosures on his
former TU’s websites and pointed out that he is not impressed with the extent of reporting
compared to his current place of work:
I visited my alma mater’s website and was not impressed at all with the scanty information there.
Compared with the website of the university where I teach in the UK, my alma mater’s website was
nothing to write home about. [Alumnus 3]
Another group of external stakeholders who were interviewed on their expectations from the
TUs’ websites were parents. Even though, some parents visit the website of TUs when
seeking for admission, to a large extent, they had little interest in the disclosures on the
university’s website. Thus, out of the three parents interviewed, a parent was illiterate, whilst
the remaining two, who were literate were just not interested or lack the skills to surf on the
Internet.
Unfortunately, I do not remember ever searching for information from the website of my ward’s
university because I am not sure if I need anything there (Parent 2).
In fact, as for the university’s [one of the TUs] website, I have never visited there. My son did the
application for admission by himself. (Parent 1)
A mother who is a petty trader also expressed her opinion:
I have no idea of what is on the website of this university. Even though I am literate, I belong to the
born before computer class [computer illiterate] and can barely access the internet. [Parent 3]
It was mentioned earlier that TUs usually have industry affiliates for the purpose of
collaborations. Therefore, these corporate bodies have a critical role to play in TU education.
The researchers therefore sought their views on the disclosure on the TUs’ websites. Even
though both of them showed interest in thewebsite disclosures, theywere not impressedwith
the level of disclosures. This is what one of them said,
I once visited the university’s website to see the activities of a department and the profile of lecturers
when we wanted to sign a memorandum of understanding with the university for the admission of
interns, unfortunately, there were not much information available (Affiliate Company 2).
On the issue of how regular stakeholders visit the websites of TUs in Ghana, regulators
position was indifferent from the other external stakeholders, as they could not give an
impression on the TUs’website disclosure. Nonetheless, regulators might visit these websites
if they have a reason to do so:
Besides the 10 TUs, we regulate about 16 traditional universities, over 40 private tertiary educational
institutions and more than 50 colleges of education, health and nursing. Therefore, we cannot visit
the websites of all these institutions unless we have reason to do so. For instance, if it comes to our
notice that a university is advertising an unaccredited program,wemay have to confirm that from its
websites for appropriate sanctions to be imposed (Regulator).
We also solicited the opinion of financial institutions that deal with the TUs. Management of
the two banks who were interviewed claimed not to have much interest on the disclosures on
the TUs’ websites as they are aware that the TUs do not publish annual financial reports on
their websites. One of them explained as follows:
Our interest lies in the financial disclosures and project proposals which are not available on the Websites of
websites of the TUs. For instance, recently, we had to make a decision on a proposal to construct a
student’s hostel on BOT [build-operate and transfer].We needed information on students’ population technical
and current hostel fees which is not available on the websites of the TUs in question. We had to universities in
request for it directly from the university’s management. (Banker 2) Ghana
5.2.10.2 Internal stakeholders’ perceptions on website disclosures. In contrast to external
stakeholders, to a large extent, the eight internal stakeholders who were interviewed
demonstrated interest in the disclosure on the TUs’ websites. Nonetheless, all of them were
not impressed with the extent of disclosures. Some students whowere interviewed explained,
Sir, please as for the university’s website, I go there to register courses for the semester and also to
check my results. There is not much information there. Most information that is needed are sent
through the departmental and class WhatsApp pages through the various class representatives.
(Student 1)
Once a while, I visit there for update on fees and other information. However, not all the information
is available on the website. For instance, a friend who recently got admission called for me to check
on the current BTech [bachelor of technology] fees but I could not get the update from the
university’s website. (Student 2)
I thinkmanagement should domore to improve upon the school websites because most often, you do
not get other information that you want. I remember last year my former roommate wanted to see if
his name was part of the graduation list, he had to send me to his former department for me to check
for him. (Student 3)
It could be inferred from the above that besides the checking of examinations results and
registration, students perceive the extent of the TUs website disclosures as limited and not
updated to reflect their information needs. Both teaching and non-teaching staff were not
impressed with the extent of disclosures on their research and teaching:
The information on the university’s websites is woefully inadequate and updates are sometime very
slow. Imagine there was a time an HOD [ head of department] resigned but his profile remained same
on the website for almost a year (Teaching staff 1).
The website is under developed as we do not even have our staff profiles, research outputs and areas
of teaching interests on the websites. We have complained to management on several occasions but
little is done about it (Teaching staff 3).
I have been expecting to see the profile of all staff, both administration and teaching, but hardly do
you get for any of the administrative staff with the exception of three or four who are key. Even with
the lecturers, I can say that you cannot get up to 25% having their profiles on the university’s
website. (Non-teaching staff 1)
In conclusion, most external stakeholders could not express their impressions on the TUs
website due to lack of skills and interest in accessing the websites disclosures. The few that
visited the websites were not impressed with the extent of disclosures. On the contrary,
internal stakeholders demonstrated interest in the TUs’ Website but perceived a huge
disclosure gap in terms of the extent of reporting and untimely update of the websites’
disclosures.
6. Study implications
Sustainability reporting provides for universities, ameans of evaluating their current state on
economic, environmental, social and educational dimensions (Fonseca et al., 2011; Gamage
and Sciulli, 2017). It further serves as a means of communicating to their stakeholders
including current students, new students, academics, government departments, parents,
BIJ funding bodies, alumni and staff (Alonso-Almeida et al., 2015; Caputo et al., 2021; Hinson et al.,
2015). Similar to existing studies such as Hinson et al. (2015), we adopted Fonseca et al. (2011)
conceptual framework for presenting and analysis of the sustainability disclosure on the
websites of TUs in Ghana. However, we extended these studies by engaging with key
stakeholders on their impression on the contents of the website disclosures of the sampled
HEIs (See Table 5 for Empirical framework).
6.1 Implication for practice
As indicted in the empirical framework in Figure 2, we found that whilst to a large extent,
external stakeholders were less interested on the TUs’ websites disclosures, internal
stakeholders who visit the TUs’websites were not impressedwith the extent of sustainability
reporting due to its fragmented nature. For instance, none of the TUs publishes annual and
stand-alone sustainability reports as at the time of this study. We further observed that only
one of the TUs in Ghana indicated “sustainable development” in their vision statement and
another mentions “environment” as part of their core values on their website. Thus,
information on sustainability vision,mission and governance are very limited on thewebsites
of TUs in Ghana. Wijethilake and Lama (2019) claim this is not a good sign, as experts claim
that the sustainability motivations and message must emanate from top-level management.
This finding contradicts previous studies from advanced economies, which found that the
management of universities sees the need for a strong commitment by university leadership
to create sustainability awareness and commitment through their visions and mission
statements (Fonseca et al., 2011; Gamage and Sciulli, 2017).
As noted by existing studies such as (Amoako et al., 2018; Caputo et al., 2021; Guthrie and
Farneti, 2008; Gamage and Sciulli, 2017), we found that the application of GRI guidelines in
the sustainability disclosure on websites of TUs in Ghana was fragmented, however, there
were some convergences in the dimensions reported on; while all of them reported on policies
related to sustainability in research, research centers, lab related to sustainability, incentives
to sustainability research and sustainability related research projects, none of them reported
on their reporting approach, and green building and procurement. Adams (2013a) argues that
universities encounter peculiar sustainability challenges including low proportion of
Gaining legi macy
Improved sustainability 
repor ng among TUs
External stakeholders Internal Stakeholders
• Affiliate industries • Teaching staff
More disclosures in lecturers’ research & teaching interests More disclosures on lecturers’ research & teaching interests
• Parents • Non-teaching staff
More disclosures on academic programmes’ contents Detailed report on staff profile
More disclosures on job prospects of academic programmes More disclosures on staff ranks and posi ons
• Banks • Students
Upload financial reports to show economic performance More disclosures on admissions and gradua on
• Regulators Mores disclosures on course contents
Figure 2. Intensify coercion on environment and social disclosures • Management
Empirical framework • Alumni More coercion to disclose on environment and social ac vi esImprove upon research disclosure and infrastructural 
on practical developments
contributions
Source(s): Authors’ construct (2022)
students from poor socioeconomic backgrounds, and the limited practices, programs, course Websites of
contents and research on sustainability that should appear in sustainability reports. technical
Nonetheless, as it could be seen from Figure 2, the current study reveals a low coverage of universities in
these dimensions on the websites of TUs in Ghana as prescribed by global sustainability
standards such as the GRI. Our findings conform to Hinson’s et al.’s (2015) findings that HEI’s Ghana
disclosure of sustainability-related information in developing countries is rarely guided by
international guidelines (Mitchell and Hill, 2009). However, as indicted on the empirical
framework (see Figure 3), we claim that the limited sustainability disclosures on the part of
TUs in developing economies could be largely attributed to stakeholder low interest in the
website disclosures of the sampled TUs as well as lack of adequate regulatory enforcement.
We therefore recommend that regulatory and policy officials should work in partnership
to hasten the development and implementation of such guidelines and regulations (Amoako
et al., 2022; An et al., 2019). The development of the suggested guidelines may emanate from
well-established and accepted standards such as the GRI, as well as combining other
influential reporting models particularly for universities, such as the sustainability tracking,
assessment and rating system and the graphical assessment of sustainability in universities
(Lozano, 2006) and the Hong Kong Sustainable Campus Consortium (An et al., 2019). In
addition, this study’s findings could have some implications for universities’ education,
particularly in emerging economies where challenges related to sustainability are more
prevalent (Wu et al., 2015). Based on the recommendations from this study, sustainability
education can be improved in these countries, thereby eradicating the sustainability
challenges. The governments in developing countries and donor agencies would also be
informed on the initiatives to take in providing HEIs with resources and community support
to attract more talented academics and students locally and internationally (Yalin et al., 2019;
An et al., 2019).
Limited sustainability repor ng 
among TUs in Ghana
Limited environmental Moderate Social More sustainability repor ng 
sustainability repor ng sustainability repor ng on economic & educa onal 
among TUs among TUs dimensions among TUs
Weak Norma ve No meme c Isomorphism Weak Coercive Isomorphism
Isomorphism
Figure 3.
Ins tu onal Theory Empirical framework
APPENDIX on theoretical
contributions
Source(s): Authors’ construct (2022)
BIJ An interesting finding in this study is the low impressions of all the stakeholder groups on the
extent of sustainability reporting on the TUs’websites. These findings could be explained by
the interrelationships between the internal and external stakeholder groups, notwithstanding
the different positions that they occupy within the TUs. First, the internal stakeholders
(management, staff and students) and the external stakeholder have a contractual
relationship with the institutions, usually of long duration. This common characteristic
could contribute to align the expectations of these groups as their expectations converge
toward the TUs delivering quality education. Second, even though the internal and external
stakeholders may play opposite roles in the teaching-learning process and have different
interests to connect with the expectations of external stakeholders, the professional success
of students may depend, during a brief period, on the relationship between HEIs, the job
market or other external stakeholders including industry affiliates. Finally, non-teaching
staff seem to play amediating role because they offer support services to both academics and
students in addition to the management system in general. Consequently, these similarities
could affect the expectations of TUs stakeholders and their interrelationship with
sustainability reporting and could in the long run affect the visibility and rankings of the
TUs. This is crucial to the sustainability of TUs as highly ranked universities are most likely
to attract more students and funding.
6.2 Implication for theory
Normative isomorphism comes from the professionalization of operations which is motivated
by the process of acquiring education, both academic and professional. In this study, there is a
very weak presence of normative isomorphism as only two of the 10 TUs in Ghana included
SDGs in their visions and missions. Again, limited normative pressure is identified in this
study because all the TUs reported on few of the elements in the GRI, with most of them
focusing on the educational dimensions. This could be that the TUs, as part of HEIs,
subscribe to international standard-setting bodies; all the TUs in Ghana are members of the
Association of Principals of Technical Institutes, the Commonwealth Association of TUs and
Polytechnics in Africa and Conference of Vice-Chancellors of TUs, Ghana. These professional
associations usually expect members to abide by certain standards (DiMaggio and Powell,
1983; Greenwood and Meyer, 2008), which could include what they should report on their
websites. Nonetheless, the influence of these professional bodies in the TUs’ sustainability
reporting appears to be mainly on economic and educational dimensions of sustainability at
the expense of social and environmental dimensions.
Another evidence of limited normative isomorphism was identified from both the content
analysis and the interviews, as all the TUs voluntarily report mainly on academic programs
on their websites, with no or less focus on environmental and social disclosures. As indicated
by an interviewee, this is not surprising, given the fact that themain purpose of universities is
education and research. Thus, the key focus of TUs sustainability disclosures on their
websites is a reflection of nothing, but business as usual (Bennett et al., 2008; Scheyvens et al.,
2016). This contradicts the results of studies conducted in advanced economies (such as
Caputo et al., 2021; De la Poza et al., 2021) which concludes that the social and environmental
dimensions are crucial to sustainability reporting among HEIs.
Our findings from stakeholders who were interviewed confirmed that the weak focus on
environmental disclosures is partly because there are no coercive forces to disclose on
environmental sustainability as discovered in recent studies (such as Gamage and Sciulli,
2017; Zorio-Grima et al., 2018; Amoako et al., 2018, 2021). Again, as mentioned in Section 4, all
the TUs disclosed that they were regulated by the TUs Act, 2016 (Act 922) and subject to a
level of central control by more than three regulatory bodies. Nonetheless, the focus of these
regulatory bodies may not be on the disclosure contents on the TUs website as indicated by a
regulator in an interview. Consequently, the coercive pressures from the aforementioned Websites of
regulatory bodies and other global associations may influence the convergence on the technical
website’s disclosure patterns (de Villiers and Alexander, 2014) among TUs in Ghana, which universities in
were more toward economic sustainability with little focus on social and environmental
sustainability respectively. It is therefore not surprising that all the TUs in Ghana had similar Ghana
headings for their drop-down menus, but the similarities pointed toward economic
sustainability.
7. Conclusions, limitations and further research
This paper explores stakeholder perceptions on the nature and extent of sustainability
reporting on the websites of TUs in Ghana. We used content analysis to explore the
information on the websites of all 10 TUs in Ghana. Also, we interviewed the stakeholders to
understand their perceptions of the extent of disclosures. The study again adopted
institutional isomorphism and legitimacy theories as well as the GRI guidelines and campus
sustainability assessment tools for the presentation and analysis of the sustainability
disclosures on the websites of TUs in Ghana. The findings show that, compared to traditional
universities in Ghana (Hinson et al., 2015), the Ghanaian TUs are inadequately reporting on
sustainability.
Nonetheless, there are similarities in the contents and trends of the limited sustainability
reporting of TUs in Ghana, which signify the presence of institutional isomorphism on the
extent of sustainability reporting. Again, to a large extent, external stakeholders showed less
interest in the website disclosures, and the few that visited the TUs’ websites were not
impressed with the extent of disclosures. Even though internal stakeholders such as students
and TUs staff (teaching and non-teaching) were interested in the website’s disclosures,
similar to the few external stakeholders who were interested in the disclosures of the TUs,
they were not impressedwith the extent of disclosures; as ameans of gaining legitimacy from
stakeholders, the dimensions reported are limited, showing a more focus on organizational
profile, governance and educational aspects of sustainability. As indicated in the Empirical
framework II, we found that social dimensions were moderately reported due to weak
regulatory enforcement. In contrast, environmental dimensions had weak coverage,
reflecting business as usual. Therefore, developing further extensive sustainability
disclosures by TUs in Ghana is imperative for improvement in stakeholder accountability
and legitimacy. Again, TUs could emulate best practices from the business sector to improve
their sustainability reporting initiatives (Gamage and Sciulli, 2017).
Researchers, TUs administrators and policy-makers can benefit from this research. This
study suggests that, per the propositions of institutional isomorphism and legitimacy theory,
HEIs that lobby for instilling sustainability values in the next generation and the society at
large are motivated to operate sustainably and to communicate sustainability-related
activities in responding to institutional isomorphism in gaining legitimacy from the
communities they operate from (Deegan, 2019). A highly ranked university is more likely to
attract more students and funding, which is crucial for the sustainability of TUs.
Even though this study’s findings have practical implications for sustainability reporting
among TUs’, they have some limitations. First, this study confined its analysis to only the
website’s disclosures without engaging stakeholders in posting information on the TUs’
websites. Several limitations affected the consistency of the research findings. The case study
approach allowed us to collect in-depth evidence about the investigated topic; however, it
prevented the results’ generalizability. We only focused on a section of stakeholders of HEIs:
further developments should aim at collecting evidence about the value expectations of other
stakeholders interested in the activities performed by educational institutions, such as the
media and prospective students. Considering the current low level of sustainability reporting
BIJ by TUs in Ghana, it is worthwhile to extend research on why TUs in Ghana have limited
disclosures. Another area of further study could be a comparative study between TUs and
traditional universities within a particular country or region.
List of abbreviations
SD Sustainable development
HEI Higher educational institution
TVET Technical and vocational education and training
TUs Technical universities
GRI Global reporting initiative. Available at https://www.globalreporting.org/
GTEC Ghana Tertiary Education Council. Available at https://gtec.edu.gh/
CTVET The commission for technical and vocational education and training.
Available at https://ctvet.gov.gh/
TATU Tamale Technical University. Available at https://tatu.edu.gh/
KSTU Kumasi Technical University. Available at https://kstu.edu.gh/
ATU Accra Technical University. Available at https://atu.edu.gh/
CCTU Cape Coast Technical University. Available at https://cctu.edu.gh/site/index
KTU Koforidua Technical University. Available at https://www.ktu.edu.gh/
HTU Ho Technical University. Available at https://htu.edu.gh/
TTU Takoradi Technical University. Available at https://ttu.edu.gh/
STU Sunyani Technical University. Available at https://stu.edu.gh/
BTU Bolgatanga Technical University. Available at https://www.bolgatu.edu.gh/
WTU Wa Technical University. Available at https://dhltu.edu.gh/
References
Adams, C.A. (2013a), “Sustainability reporting and performance management in universities: challenges
and benefits”, Sustainability Accounting, Management and Policy Journal, Vol. 4 No. 3, pp. 384-392.
Adams, C.A. (2013b), “The role of leadership and governance in transformational change towards
sustainability”, Global Responsibility, Vol. 9, pp. 9-12.
Adams, R., Martin, S. and Boom, K. (2018), “University culture and sustainability: designing and
implementing an enabling framework”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 171, pp. 434-445.
Agyekum, A.A. and Singh, R.P. (2018), “How technology is changing accounting processes:
institutional theory and legitimacy theory perspective”, Journal of Accounting and Finance,
Vol. 18 No. 7, pp. 2158-3625.
Albertini, E. (2019), “Integrated reporting: an exploratory study of French companies”, Journal of
Management and Governance, Vol. 23 No. 2, pp. 513-535.
Alexa, L., Maier, V., Șerban, A. and Craciunescu, R. (2020), “Engineers changing the world: education
for sustainability in Romanian technical universities—an empirical web-based content
analysis”, Sustainability, Vol. 12 No. 5, p. 983.
Alonso-Almeida, M.d. M., Fernandez de Navarrete, F.C. and Rodriguez-Pomeda, J. (2015), “Corporate
social responsibility perception in business students as future managers: a multifactorial
analysis”, Business Ethics: A European Review, Vol. 24 No. 1, pp. 1-17.
Amoako, K.O., Amoako, I.O. and Marfo, E.O. (2018), “Comparing sustainability disclosures on
corporate websites: a case study of Newmont Mining Corporation’s plant sites in Ghana”,
International Journal of Multinational Corporation Strategy, Vol. 2 Nos 3-4, pp. 241-275.
Amoako, K.O., Amoako, I.O., Tuffour, J. and Marfo, E.O. (2022), “Formal and informal sustainability
reporting: an insight from a mining company’s subsidiary in Ghana”, Journal of Financial
Reporting and Accounting, Vol. 20 No. 5, pp. 897-925.
Amoako, K.O., Beverley, R.L. and Dixon, K. (2021), “Narrative accounting for mining in Ghana: an old Websites of
defence against a new threat?”, Resources Policy, Vol. 74, 102439. technical
An, Y., Davey, H., Harun, H., Jin, Z., Qiao, X. and Yu, Q. (2019), “Online sustainability reporting at universities in
universities: the case of Hong Kong”, Sustainability Accounting, Management and Policy
Journal, Vol. 11 No. 15, pp. 887-901. Ghana
An, Y., Davey, H., Harun, H., Jin, Z., Qiao, X. and Yu, Q. (2020), “Online sustainability reporting at
universities: the case of Hong Kong”, Sustainability Accounting, Management and Policy
Journal, Vol. 11 No. 5, pp. 887-901.
Ansu-Mensah, P., Marfo, E.O., Awuah, L.S. and Amoako, K.O. (2021), “Corporate social responsibility
and stakeholder engagement in Ghana’s mining sector: a case study of Newmont Ahafo mines”,
International Journal of Corporate Social Responsibility, Vol. 6 No. 1, pp. 1-22.
Asif, M. (2015), “Determining improvement needs in higher education”, Benchmarking:
An International Journal, Vol. 22 No. 1, pp. 56-74.
Attanasio, O., Guarın, A., Medina, C. and Meghir, C. (2017), “Vocational training for disadvantaged
youth in Colombia: a long-term follow-up”, American Economic Journal: Applied Economics,
Vol. 9 No. 2, pp. 131-143.
Balluchi, F., Furlotti, K. and Torelli, R. (2020), “Italy towards mandatory sustainability reporting.
Voluntary corporate social responsibility disclosure of Italian companies and legislative decree
254/2016 statements. A quantitative analysis of the last 10 years”, Sustainability and Law,
Springer, pp. 257-274.
Bennett, R., Wallace, J. and Williamson, I. (2008), “Organising land information for sustainable land
administration”, Land Use Policy, Vol. 25 No. 1, pp. 126-138.
Berzosa, A., Bernaldo, M. and Fernandez-Sanchez, G. (2017), “Sustainability assessment tools for
higher education: an empirical comparative analysis”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 161,
pp. 812-820.
Boiral, O. and Heras-Saizarbitoria, I. (2020), “Sustainability reporting assurance: creating stakeholder
accountability through hyperreality?”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 243, 118595.
Bradbury, M.E., Hsiao, P.C.K. and Scott, T. (2020), “Summary annual reports: length, readability and
content”, Accounting and Finance, Vol. 60 No. 3, pp. 2145-2165.
Brusca, I., Labrador, M. and Larran, M. (2018), “The challenge of sustainability and integrated
reporting at universities: a case study”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 188, pp. 347-354.
Caputo, F., Ligorio, L. and Pizzi, S. (2021), “The contribution of higher education institutions to the
SDGs. An evaluation of sustainability reporting practices”, Administrative Sciences, Vol. 11
No. 3, p. 97.
Ceulemans, K., Scarff Seatter, C., Molderez, I., Van Liedekerke, L. and Lozano, R. (2020), “Unfolding the
complexities of the sustainability reporting process in higher education: a case study in the
university of British columbia”, in Leal Filho, W., Borges de Brito, P. and Frankenberger, F.
(Eds), International Business, Trade and Institutional Sustainability, World Sustainability Series,
Springer, Cham.
Chijioke, O.P. (2013), “Appraisal of theoretical models of psychomotor skills and applications to
technical vocational education and training (TVET) system in Nigeria”, Journal of Research and
Development, Vol. 1 No. 6, pp. 25-35.
De la Poza, E., Merello, P., Barbera, A. and Celani, A. (2021), “Universities’ reporting on SDGs: using
the impact rankings to model and measure their contribution to sustainability”, Sustainability,
Vol. 13 No. 4, pp. 1-28.
De La Torre, E.M., Agasisti, T. and Perez-Esparrells, C. (2017), “The relevance of knowledge transfer
for universities’ efficiency scores: an empirical approximation on the Spanish public higher
education system”, Research Evaluation, Vol. 26 No. 3, pp. 211-229.
de Villiers, C. and Alexander, D. (2014), “The institutionalization of corporate social responsibility
reporting”, The British Accounting Review, Vol. 46 No. 2, pp. 198-212.
BIJ Deegan, C.M. (2019), “Legitimacy theory: despite its enduring popularity and contribution, time is
right for a necessary makeover”, Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal, Vol. 32 No. 8,
pp. 2307-2329.
Derkacz, A.J. (2020), “Institutional determinism of the execution of transactions within the company”,
Journal of Management and Financial Sciences, Vol. 40, pp. 21-41.
DiMaggio, P.J. and Powell, W.W. (1983), “The iron cage revisited: institutional isomorphism
and collective rationality in organizational fields”, American Sociological Review, Vol. 48,
pp. 143-166.
Diouf, D. and Boiral, O. (2017), “The quality of sustainability reports and impression management:
a stakeholder perspective”, Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal, Vol. 30 No. 3,
pp. 643-667.
Domingues, A.R., Lozano, R., Ceulemans, K. and Ramos, T.B. (2017), “Sustainability reporting in
public sector organisations: exploring the relation between the reporting process and
organisational change management for sustainability”, Journal of Environmental
Management, Vol. 192, pp. 292-301.
Ferrero-Ferrero, I., Fernandez-Izquierdo, M.A ., Mun~oz-Torres, M.J. and Belles-Colomer, L. (2018),
“Stakeholder engagement in sustainability reporting in higher education: an analysis of key
internal stakeholders’ expectations”, International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education,
Vol. 19 No. 2, pp. 313-336.
Fonseca, A. (2010), “How credible are mining corporations’ sustainability reports? A critical analysis
of external assurance under the requirements of the international council on mining and
metals”, Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, Vol. 17 No. 6,
pp. 355-370.
Fonseca, A., Macdonald, A., Dandy, E. and Valenti, P. (2011), “The state of sustainability reporting at
Canadian universities”, International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, Vol. 12 No. 1,
pp. 22-40.
Galleli, B., Teles, N.E.B., Santos, J.A.R.d., Freitas-Martins, M.S. and Hourneaux Junior, F. (2022),
“Sustainability university rankings: a comparative analysis of UI green metric and the times
higher education world university rankings”, International Journal of Sustainability in Higher
Education, Vol. 23 No. 2, pp. 404-425.
Gamage, P. and Sciulli, N. (2017), “Sustainability reporting by Australian universities”, Australian
Journal of Public Administration, Vol. 76 No. 2, pp. 187-203.
Ghana Tertiary Education Commission (2021), “Accredited institutions”, available at: https://gtec.edu.
gh/accredited-institutions
Greenwood, R. and Meyer, R.E. (2008), “Influencing ideas: a celebration of DiMaggio and Powell
(1983)”, Journal of Management Inquiry, Vol. 17 No. 4, pp. 258-264.
Gregson, J.A. (2010), “A conceptual framework for green career and technical education: sustainability
and the development of a green-collar workforce”, Journal of Technical Education and Training,
Vol. 2 No. 1, pp. 112-126.
Guthrie, J. and Farneti, F. (2008), “GRI sustainability reporting by Australian public sector
organizations”, Public Money and Management, Vol. 28 No. 6, pp. 361-366.
Harring, N. (2016), “Reward or punish? Understanding preferences toward economic or regulatory
instruments in a cross-national perspective”, Political Studies, Vol. 64 No. 3, pp. 573-592.
Higgins, C., Stubbs, W. and Milne, M. (2018), “Is sustainability reporting becoming institutionalised?
The role of an issues-based field”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 147 No. 2, pp. 309-325.
Hinson, R., Gyabea, A. and Ibrahim, M. (2015), “Sustainability reporting among Ghanaian
universities”, Communicatio, Vol. 41 No. 1, pp. 22-42.
Holmberg, J., Svanstr€om, M., Peet, D.J., Mulder, K., Ferrer-Balas, D. and Segal
as, J. (2008), “Embedding
sustainability in higher education through interaction with lecturers: case studies from three
European technical universities”, European Journal of Engineering Education, Vol. 33 No. 3, Websites of
pp. 271-282. technical
Huber, S. and Bassen, A. (2018), “Towards a sustainability reporting guideline in higher education”, universities in
International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, Vol. 19 No. 2, pp. 218-232.
Ghana
Jeong, Y.-C. and Kim, T.-Y. (2019), “Between legitimacy and efficiency: an institutional theory of
corporate giving”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 62 No. 5, pp. 1583-1608.
Klußmann, C., Sassen, R. and Gansel, E. (2019), “Structural key factors of participatory sustainability
reporting for universities”, International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, Vol. 20
No. 6, pp. 1080-1098.
Kodila-Tedika, O., Asongu, S.A. and Kayembe, J.M. (2016), “Middle class in Africa: determinants and
consequences”, International Economic Journal, Vol. 30 No. 4, pp. 527-549.
KPMG (2017), “The KPMG survey of corporate responsibility reporting 2017”, available at: https://
assets.kpmg/content/dam/kpmg/be/pdf/2017/kpmg-survey-of-corporate-responsibility-
reporting-2017.pdf
Kouatli, I. (2019), “The contemporary definition of university social responsibility with quantifiable
sustainability”, Social Responsibility Journal, Vol. 15 No. 7, pp. 888-909.
Krippendorff, K. (2004), “Reliability in content analysis: some common misconceptions and
recommendations”, Human Communication Research, Vol. 30 No. 3, pp. 411-433.
Kruglikov Victor, N. (2019), “Priorities of role positions of specialists of technical university”, Society.
Communication. Education, Vol. 36 No. 2, pp. 87-97.
Landrum, N.E. and Ohsowski, B. (2018), “Identifying worldviews on corporate sustainability:
a content analysis of corporate sustainability reports”, Business Strategy and the Environment,
Vol. 27 No. 1, pp. 128-151.
Larran Jorge, M., Andrades Pen~a, F.J. and Herrera Maduen~o, J. (2019), “An analysis of university
sustainability reports from the GRI database: an examination of influential variables”, Journal
of Environmental Planning and Management, Vol. 62 No. 6, pp. 1019-1044.
Lee, K.H., Barker, M. and Mouasher, A. (2013), “Is it even espoused? ‘An exploratory study of
commitment to sustainability as evidenced in vision, mission, and graduate attribute
statements in Australian universities’”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 48, pp. 20-28.
Lopatta, K. and Jaeschke, R. (2014), “Sustainability reporting at German and Austrian universities”,
International Journal of Education Economics and Development, Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. 66-90.
Lozano, R. (2006), “A tool for a graphical assessment of sustainability in universities (GASU)”, Journal
of Cleaner Production, Vol. 14 Nos 9-11, pp. 963-972.
Lozano, R. (2011), “The state of sustainability reporting in universities”, International Journal of
Sustainability in Higher Education, Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 67-78.
Lozano, R., Lukman, R., Lozano, F.J., Huisingh, D. and Lambrechts, W. (2013), “Declarations for
sustainability in higher education: becoming better leaders, through addressing the university
system”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 48, pp. 10-19.
Lozano, R., Ceulemans, K. and Seatter, C.S. (2015), “Teaching organisational change management
for sustainability: designing and delivering a course at the University of Leeds to better
prepare future sustainability change agents”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 106,
pp. 205-215.
Majumdar, A. and Sinha, S.K. (2021), “Economic sustainability benchmarking of environmental
initiatives: a case of wastewater treatment plant”, Benchmarking: An International Journal,
Vol. 28 No. 6, pp. 2008-2022.
McGrath, S., Ramsarup, P., Zeelen, J., Wedekind, V., Allais, S., Lotz-Sisitka, H., Monk, D.,
Openjuru, G. and Russon, J.A. (2020), “Vocational education and training for African
development: a literature review”, Journal of Vocational Education and Training, Vol. 72
No. 4, pp. 465-487.
BIJ Melki, H., Bouzid, M.S. and Mrayeh, M. (2020), “University supervisors’ expectations for cooperating
teachers during a TVET practical traineeship in the field of physical education”, Journal of
Technical Education and Training, Vol. 12 No. 2, pp. 77-85.
Mendes, J., Oliveira, G. and De Souza Campos, L. (2019), “The G-Index: a sustainability reporting
assessment tool”, International Journal of Sustainable Development and World Ecology, Vol. 26
No. 5, pp. 428-438.
Meyer, J.W. and Rowan, B. (1977), “Institutionalized organizations: formal structure as myth and
ceremony”, American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 83 No. 2, pp. 340-363.
Milne, M.J. and Adler, R.W. (1999), “Exploring the reliability of social and environmental
disclosures content analysis”, Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal, Vol. 12
No. 2, pp. 237-256.
Mitchell, C.G. and Hill, T. (2009), “Corporate social and environmental reporting and the impact of
internal environmental policy in South Africa”, Corporate Social Responsibility and
Environmental Management, Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 48-60.
Mititelu, C., Fiorani, G. and Litardi, I. (2017), “Fostering sustainable development and
entrepreneurship: the new role of university”, Management Dynamics in the Knowledge
Economy, Vol. 5 No. 3, pp. 395-415.
Montecalvo, M., Farneti, F. and De Villiers, C. (2018), “The potential of integrated reporting to enhance
sustainability reporting in the public sector”, Public Money and Management, Vol. 38 No. 5,
pp. 365-374.
Mostafaei, P. and Hosseini, S.A. (2021), “Qualitative content analysis of corporate social responsibility
reports with emphasis on social stakeholders”, Empirical Research in Accounting, Vol. 11 No. 3,
pp. 79-112.
Moura, M.M.C., Frankenberger, F. and Tortato, U. (2019), “Sustainability in Brazilian HEI: practices
overview”, International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, Vol. 20 No. 5, pp. 832-841.
Nicol
o, G., Aversano, N., Sannino, G. and Tartaglia Polcini, P. (2021), “Investigating web-based
sustainability reporting in Italian public universities in the era of Covid-19”, Sustainability,
Vol. 13 No. 6, pp. 34-68.
Orbeta, A.C. (2022), “Vocational education and training in the Philippines”, International Handbook on
Education in South East Asia, Springer, Singapore, pp. 1-30.
Ornek, F. (2008), “An overview of a theoretical framework of phenomenography in qualitative
education research: an example from physics education research”, Asia-pacific Forum on
Science Learning and Teaching, Vol. 9 No. 2, pp. 1-14.
O’Dwyer, B., Owen, D. and Unerman, J. (2011), “Seeking legitimacy for new assurance forms: the case
of assurance on sustainability reporting”, Accounting, Organizations and Society, Vol. 36 No. 1,
pp. 31-52.
Rahman, M.H., Rahman, M.A. and Talapatra, S. (2020), “The bullwhip effect: causes, intensity, and
mitigation”, Production and Manufacturing Research, Vol. 8 No. 1, pp. 406-426.
Sady, M., Z_ ak, A. and Rzepka, K. (2019), “The role of universities in sustainability-oriented
competencies development: insights from an empirical study on Polish universities”,
Administrative Sciences, Vol. 9 No. 3, p. 62.
Scheyvens, R., Banks, G. and Hughes, E. (2016), “The private sector and the SDGs: the need to move
beyond ‘business as usual’”, Sustainable Development, Vol. 24 No. 6, pp. 371-382.
Scott, W.R. (2005), “Institutional theory: contributing to a theoretical research program. Great minds in
management”, The Process of Theory Development, Vol. 37 No. 2, pp. 460-484.
Singh, B.J. and Joshi, R. (2015), “Benchmarking academics through sustainable assessment criteria: an
Indian case study”, Benchmarking: An International Journal, Vol. 22 No. 3, pp. 505-535.
Singh, R.L. and Singh, P.K. (2017), “Global environmental problems”, Principles and Applications of
Environmental Biotechnology for a Sustainable Future, Springer, pp. 13-41.
Stough, T., Ceulemans, K., Lambrechts, W. and Cappuyns, V. (2018), “Assessing sustainability in Websites of
higher education curricula: a critical reflection on validity issues”, Journal of Cleaner
Production, Vol. 172, pp. 4456-4465. technical
universities in
Suddaby, R. (2010), “Challenges for institutional theory”, Journal of Management Inquiry, Vol. 19
No. 1, pp. 14-20. Ghana
Suddaby, R., Bitektine, A. and Haack, P. (2017), “Legitimacy”, Academy of Management Annals,
Vol. 11 No. 1, pp. 451-478.
Sulkowski, A.J., Kowalczyk, W., Ahrendsen, B.L., Kowalski, R. and Majewski, E. (2020), “Enhancing
sustainability education through experiential learning of sustainability reporting”, International
Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, Vol. 21 No. 6, pp. 1233-1247.
Talapatra, S. and Gaine, A. (2019), “Putting green lean six sigma framework into practice in a jute
industry of Bangladesh: a case study”, American Journal of Industrial and Business
Management, Vol. 9 No. 12, pp. 2168-2189.
Talapatra, S. and Uddin, M.K. (2019), “Prioritizing the barriers of TQM implementation from the
perspective of garment sector in developing countries”, Benchmarking: An International
Journal, Vol. 26 No. 7, pp. 2205-2224.
Talapatra, S., Uddin, M.K., Antony, J., Gupta, S. and Cudney, E.A. (2020), “An empirical study to
investigate the effects of critical factors on TQM implementation in the garment industry in
Bangladesh”, International Journal of Quality and Reliability Management, Vol. 37 Nos 9/10,
pp. 1209-1232.
Uyar, A. (2019), “Evolution of annual report: a longitudinal investigation between 1973 and 2015”,
Strategic Change, Vol. 28 No. 6, pp. 517-521.
Uyar, A., Koseoglu, M.A., Kılıç, M. and Mehraliyev, F. (2021), “Thematic structure of sustainability
reports of the hospitality and tourism sector: a periodical, regional, and format-based analysis”,
Current Issues in Tourism, Vol. 24 No. 18, pp. 2602-2627.
Vienni Baptista, B. and Rojas-Castro, S. (2020), “Transdisciplinary institutionalization in higher
education: a two-level analysis”, Studies in Higher Education, Vol. 45 No. 6, pp. 1075-1092.
Webb, J.W., Khoury, T.A. and Hitt, M.A. (2020), “The influence of formal and informal institutional
voids on entrepreneurship”, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, Vol. 44 No. 3, pp. 504-525.
Wijethilake, C. and Lama, T. (2019), “Sustainability core values and sustainability risk management:
moderating effects of top management commitment and stakeholder pressure”, Business
Strategy and the Environment, Vol. 28 No. 1, pp. 143-154.
Wu, H., Zhang, J., Ngo, H.H., Guo, W., Hu, Z., Liang, S., . . . and Liu, H. (2015), “A review on the
sustainability of constructed wetlands for wastewater treatment: design and operation”,
Bioresource Technology, Vol. 175, pp. 594-601.
Yalin, L., Erli, D., Yiwei, G., Xiaohua, S. and Xiaoyan, L. (2019), “Government-led sustainability
reporting by China’s HEIs”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 230, pp. 445-459.
Yasbie, B. and Barokah, Z. (2018), “Sustainability reporting by universities in Indonesia abstract”, The
Indonesian Journal of Accounting Research, Vol. 21 No. 3, pp. 363-394.
Zorio-Grima, A., Sierra-Garcıa, L. and Garcia-Benau, M.A. (2018), “Sustainability reporting experience
by universities: a causal configuration approach”, International Journal of Sustainability in
Higher Education, Vol. 19 No. 2, pp. 337-352.
(The Appendix follows overleaf)
BIJ Appendix 1
Table A1.
Coding of interviews
results
First-order codes Second-order categories Aggregated theme
You know verywell that research is a coremandate of every tertiary institution. As TUs disclosure on their websites aremotivated by business Stakeholder perceptions on
such the university need to demonstrates the efforts that we are making towards as usual sustainability reporting
this direction as well as the results of these efforts (Academic staff 2)
TUs are to be more focused in the delivery of CBT. One way to achieve this is to
liaise with industry for students training and attachment placements. Therefore,
even though we are not under any obligation to publish on industry collaborations,
we need to demonstrate to regulators and public that we are actually doing the
right thing (Administrator 1)
We are not mandated to publish our financial reports on the university’s website.
However, we report to the University Governing Council and submit copies of the
annual report to the Ministry of Education through GTEC (Administrator 2)
I visited my alma mater’s website and was not impressed at all with the scanty External stakeholders are less interested in the disclosures
information there. Compared with the website of the university where I teach in the on the TUs website
UK, my alma mater’s website was nothing to write home about. [Alumnus 3]
Unfortunately, I do not remember ever searching for information from the website
of my ward’s university because I’m not sure if I need anything there (Parent 2)
Besides the 10 TUs, we regulate about 16 traditional universities, over 40 private
tertiary educational institutions andmore than 50 colleges of education, health and
nursing. Therefore, we cannot visit the websites of all these institutions unless we
have reason to do so. For instance, if it comes to our notice that a university is
advertising an unaccredited program, we may have to confirm that from your
websites for appropriate sanctions to be imposed (Regulator)
I have been expecting to see the profile of all staff, both administration and Internal stakeholders are not impressed with the extent of
teaching, but hardly do you get for any of the administrative staff with the disclosures on the TUs website
exception of three or four who are key. Even with the lecturers, I can say that you
cannot get up to 25%having their profile on the university website. (Non-Teaching
staff 1)
Sir, please as for the university’s website, I go there to register courses for the
semester and also to check my results. There is not much information there. Most
information that is needed are sent through the departmental and classWhatsApp
pages. (Student 1)
The information on the university’s websites is woefully inadequate and updates
are sometime very slow. Imagine there was a time an HOD [ head of department]
resigned but his profile remained same on the website for almost a year (Teaching
staff 1)
Source(s): – Authors’ construct (2022)
Appendix 2 Websites of
Interview guide technical
universities in
Interview guide for external stakeholders Ghana
(1) How often do you visit the university’s website?
(2) What do you search for at the university’s websites?
(3) How satisfied are you with the information you look out for from the university’s website?
(4) How could the disclosures on the university’s website be improved?
Interview guide for internal stakeholders
(1) How often do you visit the university’s website?
(2) What do you search for at the university’s websites?
(3) What are the motivations for the disclosures on the university’s website?
(4) How satisfied are you with the information you look out for from the university’s website?
(5) How could the disclosures on the university’s website be improved?
Corresponding author
Kwame Oduro Amoako can be contacted at: kwame.amoako@stu.edu.gh
For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com