| |
| |
Stakeholder practice
Stakeholder |
Practice |
Yes |
No |
In Process |
Internal |
|
Students |
71.2 |
26.9 |
1.9 |
- steps to include weaker sections of society, e.g., quota, scholarships, any affirmative action |
63.5 |
35.6 |
1.0 |
School management |
61.5 |
34.6 |
3.8 |
- governance and transparency |
70.2 |
27.9 |
1.9 |
- employment practice |
68.3 |
28.8 |
2.9 |
- staff ethics |
76.0 |
21.2 |
2.9 |
- supplier code |
40.4 |
55.8 |
3.8 |
External |
|
Environment |
51.0 |
46.2 |
2.9 |
- recycling |
39.4 |
57.7 |
2.9 |
- energy saving |
51.9 |
44.2 |
3.8 |
- efficient environmental construction |
53.8 |
43.3 |
2.9 |
External stakeholder relations |
47.1 |
50.0 |
2.9 |
- complaints mechanisms |
57.7 |
37.5 |
4.8 |
- pro bono work by staff, students |
36.5 |
59.6 |
3.8 |
Support to NGOs |
59.6 |
38.5 |
1.9 |
Practice for internal stakeholders
The majority of Management Institutions (71.2 percent) report having existent practices for students in the internal stakeholder group. Of the institutions, 63.5 percent claim to be actually carrying out the implementation of policy for affirmative action through quotas and scholarships for students. Of the 61.5 percent respondents found to be engaged in action for the benefit of the school management, for 76 percent, staff ethics dominates as the area of positive engagement followed by governance and transparency at 70.2 percent. Most practices seem to be in the planning process with 3.8 percent of all Management Institutions stating as much. The preferred areas for action are staff ethics and employment practice at 2.9 percent each.
|
| |
|
| |
Practice for external stakeholders
Of the Management Institutions that report having practices in place for external stakeholders, 51 percent favour environment as an area for engagement. Within this, energy-saving commands the most importance, with 51.9 percent of those who reported the presence of practice for environment stating a preference for it.
In external stakeholder relations (47.1 percent), support to NGOs was clearly the priority area (59.6 percent). Trailing closely behind was the presence of grievance redressal mechanisms at 57.7 percent.
6.3a Person Responsible for Guiding the SR Policy and Reviewing Practice
For a holistic understanding of SR policy and policy implementation, the study also tried to identify the people who are entrusted with the responsibility of looking after CR practice.
Functionary responsible for stakeholder policy and practice
|
All |
Base: All Respondents |
104 |
Head of the institution |
49.8 |
Academic head |
23.7 |
Others |
6.0 |
Vice chancellor |
1.9 |
At a majority of the institutions surveyed (49.8 percent), the Head of the Institution is the person to whom responsibilities for stakeholder policy and practice are designated. The second largest proportion of Management Institutions (23.7 percent) reported the Academic Head to be the person handling stakeholder policy and implementation.
|
|
| |
|
