Integrated Social Value at Universities: A Guarantee for Public Subsidies
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The authors have well addressed the previous suggestions made by the referees.
Author Response
We are grateful to Reviewer 1 for considering we have well addressed the previous suggestions made by referees and this article could be publish in this review. We thank you.
Reviewer 2 Report
As I have mentioned, it is not clear how they derive the value under each indicators, at leas one example needed to be there so that anyone can verify it.
For example, how do we derive the figure "students and families (€45,711,167).
Author Response
Regarding the observations of Reviewer 2, which indicates that it is not clear how each indicator is monetized. An example of the monetization of “students and families” of € 45,711,167 is detailed. as suggested by the reviewer, so that everyone can verify the calculation of € 45,711,167.
Included on line 300 the next paragraph
The main stakeholders of UVic-UCC identify different perspectives of creating social value, which is achieved through interviews with representatives of stakeholders to perceive in which aspects the institution adds value to the activities that perform. Interviews follow the phenomenological method to identify value variables and are subsequently monetized with indicators and proxies. The interest matrix reflects the interests identified by each stakeholder (society, public administration, students and families, alumni, university staff, institutions and companies, and the social environment). In the case of UVic-UCC the interest group with the highest amount is that of students and their families, the students are those of Undergraduate, Postgraduate (Master) and Doctorate of UVic-UCC and, the families are those who bear the costs of university studies.
Students and their families as stakeholders with similar interests have a value of € 45,711,167. To obtain this value and make monetization visible with an example, the calculations are as follows: the monetized value variables of the different categories (which in this case are category 1,2,3 and 5) are identified by the students. Specifically, for the category 1 of training of qualified professionals the value variables are the academic training of students; support for students with specific needs; employability and, job search support and amount to € 35,120,240. Category 2 training of committed citizens the value variables are the interconnection of talents; support for international student training; and cultural activities of general interest to the university community totaling € 37,971. In category 3 of research the value variables are the teaching and research support services amounting to € 3,198,006 and in category 5 of benefits for the university community the value variables are the discounts on services and products and aid for the practice of sport amounting to € 167,706. The overall total is € 38,523,923. This amount is then added to 20% of the value variables of the students' family to weight the duplications and reaches € 45,711,167.
Included on line 365 the next paragraph
To understand the indicators and proxies of the value variables, the example of the value variable of academic training of students is given. The two indicators for this variable are the number of credits passed per degree and master's degree and the other indicator is the number of doctoral students enrolled. The two respective proxies have been, the Cost of the UVic-UCC credit for degrees and master's degrees of € 90.66 (average price between the different degrees and masters, source UVic-UCC) and the price of doctoral tutoring at a private university of € 968 (average annual tutoring prices at private universities, source Ayuso et al. 2017).
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
The sample is still temporally limited and very difficult to generalize.
The topic is very peculiar and, again, uneasy to apply in different environments.
The link to sustainability issues remains weak.
Author Response
Regarding Reviewer 3, we thank him for his timely contributions in improving the paper and, we attend to the different changes that he proposes:
1)Regarding the sample is temporarily limited and is very difficult to generalize, we would say: a) This study was commissioned by the general management of the University of Vic in order to renegotiate the new Program Contract. The Program Contract determines the part of the subsidy that the Catalan government grants based on good management of the money received. In this sense, this report provided them with evidence of proper management. b) These contracts are also valid for 4 years and would therefore be considered valid for this temporary period. In this sense, the general management has not asked us to re-prepare a new report. c) The data given to us by the university to carry out this report was confidential and we were asked to make a timely treatment in accordance with data protection regulations. d) Previous studies support that analyzing a single academic year does not suppose a restricted sample since the validity of the study is about three, four years, as evidenced by the previous academic literature in the case of the Pompeu Fabra Public University (which has a Vice-Rector's Office for Social Responsibility since 2013), and carried out the study of the integrated social value in 2015 and in 2018, together with other Catalan public universities, it has recalculated the integrated social value [11].
In conclusion this generated model could be used again in the 2022-2023 academic year although we can incorporate some improvements. Similarly some of the indicators, value variables and proxies can be used for other universities or third sector entities.
Included on line 41 the next paragraph
Likewise, in the case of the University of Vic-Central University of Catalonia, it respons to renew Contract Programme with the Generalitat of Catalonia and the University for making the evidence that the funds received are used properly.
Included on line 442 the next paragraph
At the same time, it also gave evidences that allows the University to receive public funds from the government.
- The study can be replicated at other universities and also at foreign universities. Although replicating the same study at another university implies being able to access very detailed information as the chosen indicators are characteristic of a privately run university that receives a percentage of public funding (20% in the case of UVic). This same type of study, but in a more simplified way, has been carried out integrating the social value of eight Catalan public universities in one academic year.
https://indicadorsuniversitats.cat/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/EL-VALOR-SOCIAL-UNIVERSITATS-ACUP_INFORME-COMPLET-2.pdf
In conclusion, this study using the polyhedral method can be replicated in other organizations such as hospitals, public entities and companies, but it is always necessary to adapt the indicators and proxies to the reality of each organization. In our case, this study (commissioned by the general management) lasted 12 months.
Rewrite on line 479 the paragraph
This study could be done to others local and foreign universities, although doing the same study to another university involves access to very detailed data about the organization and requires adapting value variables, indicators and proxies to the university’s casuistry. In our case, the private university that receives a low percentage of public funds. A similar study of integrated social value it has been developed in eight Catalan public universities using the polyhedral methodology (December 2020).
- We fully agree with the reviewer as we do not incorporate indicators in this area in this study. The reason is because when we wanted to monetize this indicator we were advised by research experts such as Dra. Ayuso. Dra. Ayuso who appears in our references, has recently developed the report of the social value in the Catalan public universities commissioned by the ACUP -Catalan Association of Public Universities-, and does not include this indicator. You can view it on page 47 of this report (this report is in Catalan).
“22. Promotion of social and environmental improvements. Currently is not quantificable”
The reason that justifies the non-monetization of this indicator is because we do not have the valid proxies and comparable to the reality of each university to apply them with sufficient rigor. In conclusion, the social value reports made by the universities in the following years should include these indicators that would complete the information to an area as important as sustainability.
Included on line 484 the next paragraph
Finally, as an improvement aspect of this study, we have not monetized sustainability variables (as water, energy and waste) and it is necessary that this value variables can be incorporated in the future in these studies.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 3 Report
the topic is very peculiar and concentrates on a very narrow question, hard to be replicated.
You should extend the sample to a longer period and more universities
This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
This is an interesting contribution to an area very relevant (the social value of an university). The methodology is appropiate and the results very interesting.
Author Response
We are grateful to Reviewer 1 for considering the study interesting in a very relevant area, such as the social value of a university, in addition to considering the methodology used to arrive at the results that it appreciates are important to be adequate. We thank you.
Reviewer 2 Report
I am confused around the calculation of the value. It is not clear to me how do they use proxies and algorithms to their monetization. I would like to see more explanation around each value - how to get those value rather than just saying we followed this or that model. There was no breakdown (at least there should be one breakdown if not for all) . For example, public authorities (€17,146,747, R-VES) were calculated, directly with returns made by the company to public authorities (€13,835,134, 259 R-VES) and indirectly with returns to public authorities of operating suppliers (€2,859,232, 260 R-VES-IP) and investment suppliers (€452,381, R-VES-IP Inv). There is no reference where does this Public Authories figure €13,835,134, 259 cam from and how do they come up with this value is not properly explained. And also I find that there was limited discussion around theory.Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
line 100 polyhedral model: back with references
The topic of university sustainability (line 109) should be developed.
line 116 SDG... add Goals and explain which is the goal and how it relates to the paper.
End of literature review lines 121 ... you do not explain why your study is original and which is the gap it fills in the literature
line 155 which are the stakeholders
You analyze only 2017-2018: is the model still valid? Can You add some data to confirm it? One single year represents a restricted sample ...
line 194-195 references 6, 9, and 10 are just to spending or also to knowledge?
Table 3, 4 and 5 should be placed in the results, not discussion. Follow well the IMRAD template
which are the tips for further research?
what is really innovative in the paper?
Do you think that your findings can be replicated for other universities? Even abroad?
Which are the real sustainability issues and findings? Is there any link with the ESG literature?
You should consider methodological papers, e.g.,
Barney, J. (2018). Editor’s comments: Positioning a theory paper for publication. Academy of Management Review, 43(3), 345-348.
Grant, A. M., & Pollock, T. G. (2011). Publishing in AMJ—part 3: Setting the hook. Academy of Management Journal, 54(5), 873-879.
Shepherd, D. A., & Wiklund, J. (2020). Simple rules, templates, and heuristics! An attempt to deconstruct the craft of writing an entrepreneurship paper. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 44(3), 371-390.
which are the practical implications for practitioners? why and how are your findings useful?
references should be improved, looking at Google Scholar, ResearchGate, Scopus, Mendeley, IsiWoS, etc.
see for instance:
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/01900692.2020.1715425
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 3 Report
authors did not reply to all the observations. The study still needs further analysis. The weakest point is still represented by the empirical analysis (punctual; not extended to a longer period; hard to be applied to other cases, etc.)
Practical implications are not well illustrated.
Reference to SDG is generic
