Does the implementation of SDGs improve the performance of universities?

This study used a closed questionnaire to gather information on the implementation of the SDGs in private universities in Indonesia. Quantitative data were processed using SmartPLS SEM from the results of 138 questionnaires filled out by management leaders of 138 private tertiary institutions in Indonesia. SDGs implementation is tested from the social and environmental aspects of SDGs as the first and second hypotheses. Research provides support for the hypothesis of the significant effect of implementing social SDGs on university performance (β=0.391) and the opposite result on implementing environmental SDGs (β=0.028). The research results mutually support the finding that the implementation of the SDGs in private universities in Indonesia still needs to be improved. This finding reinforces the suggestion that a sustainability report is needed as part of the accreditation assessment of private tertiary institutions. © 2023 by the authors. Licensee SSBFNET, Istanbul, Turkey. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license


Introduction
The program targeted by UNESCO in 2030 is the implementation of sustainable development goals with inclusive and fair quality education programs (UNESCO, 2015). The concept of sustainability is part of the Sustainability Development Goals (SDGs) with 17 sustainable development (SD) agendas set by the United Nations (UN) in 2007 (United Nations, 2007) and has been widely implemented in various sectors and has received great attention from policy makers, decision makers decisions, academics and experts (Halkos & Gkampoura, 2021). Sustainability development is the concept of present development without neglecting the needs of future generations, which requires simultaneous adoption of the environment, fulfilling the principles of economy and equity (WCED, 1987;Bansal, 2005). Silva & Almeida (2017) proposed indicators of sustainability performance assessment of 3 (three) indicators of sustainability development (social, environmental, economic).
Indicator implementation of SD in college tall specifically field social referring to UNESCO (2015) is the provision of inclusive and fair education that includes all groups. In Indonesia, this program has been regulated by the Directorate General of Education, inclusive education guidelines, 2004 where universities are required to provide the widest possible opportunities to all members of society who have physical, emotional, mental and social disabilities, or have the potential for intelligence and/or special talents to obtain quality education in accordance with their needs and abilities; as well as to realize the implementation of education that respects diversity, and is not discriminatory. The social aspects of SD as Aleixo et al., (2018); (Aleixo et al., 2020); translated into SDGs indicators which also include the implementation of activities and the role of universities in social responsibility such as poverty, health, gender and community empowerment. Other researchers capture this role as part of corporate social responsibility (Gulavani, et al., 2016) by suggesting an educational design that pays attention to human rights and inclusion rights. The next indicator related to the environment is explained as environmental CSR as the responsibility of universities related to the environment

IJRBS VOL 12 NO 4 (2023) ISSN: 2147-4478
and nature conservation (Gulavani, et al., 2016). Environmental responsibility indicators are familiar activities in the management of higher education institutions in Indonesia. The call for a green campus which includes activities: 1) evaluation and revitalization of the green campus-based campus master plan, 2) socio engineering, 3) safe, comfortable and healthy circulation, 4) efficient use of energy and water, 5) integrated waste management, 6) manufacturing Environmentally friendly internal campus transportation vehicles have been widely echoed in state campus programs in Indonesia and several private campuses. Even so, this element has not become an important assessment element in evaluating higher education performance.

Universities and Sustainability Development Goals
Sustainability Development goals (WCED, 1987) is an integrated concept between economic, social and environmental aspects for future generations. Education for Sustainable Development (ESD) focuses on implementation issues and the role of education in the SDGs program, including universities. Apart from the university's responsibility in terms of economic sustainability, studies on social aspects and environmental aspects have developed rapidly in recent years (Lozano, 2018); (Azzali & Sabour, 2018). The role of universities in achieving the SDGs goals became the focus of study, especially after the United Nations set the 2030 agenda in 2015 for sustainable development (Filho, 2017), with three focuses, namely quality education (SDGS4), decent work and economic growth (SDGS 8) and equity (SDGS10) (Segura & Zamar, 2021). Apart from having an impact on society, tertiary institutions are required to implement SDGs principles through higher education governance and management (Rosen, 2019). This focus is also related to the implementation of SDGs in the use of university resources by harmonizing nature protection, efficient and effective use of resources (SDGs 6 and SDGs 7) (Aleixo et al., 2018) . Universities must make a real contribution according to the demands of the UN 2030 agenda and evaluate their real impact on society. Many studies on economic aspects have been carried out along with the economic sustainability of universities (Handayani et al. , 2023) internally and the role of universities in improving the community's economy such as (Segura & Zamar, 2021) which explores related research sustainability economic development in universities. Apart from that, social aspects and environmental aspects are interesting to study in relation to measuring higher education performance. When we talk about sustainability, the use of appropriate facilities and infrastructure will be important for sustainability and have a broad impact on society considering the role of higher education as a barometer of community behavior. SDGs 6 and 7 (Aleixo, et al., 2018) , for example, can be implemented in universities internally in the provision of clean water by ensuring continuous availability for future needs. Universities are required to play a role in this aspect of society through tri dharma activities that support this goal. Likewise with SDGs 7 related to clean, affordable and sustainable energy.

College Performance
Higher education is included in the category of quasi-public enterprises. Quasi-public enterprises are businesses owned by the private sector but managed by the government. Employees of quasi-public organizations are not compensated by the government (Francis, 2001). Examples of this sector are the financial sector, the health sector and the education sector. Education is the responsibility of the state as mandated by the constitution, but due to limitations, the government is assisted by the private sector in providing education for the community. The private sector manages its business processes following all provisions regulated by the state. There are private education sectors that are profit-oriented or make a profit, but some are not. Even though the private education sector is managed independently, it still has to comply with government regulations in its management. This explains why the education sector entered the realm of quasi-public organizations. Although in general it is not profit-oriented, the private education sector, in this case private universities need funding for the operational and development purposes of their institutions. Therefore, higher education business management still has to use a 'business lens'. If the general business aims to make a profit, in general private universities aim to be able to continue operating and can continue to develop to achieve the vision and mission of the university. (Karanja & Karuti, 2014) or in other words remain sustainable (Hayati et al. , 2018) As organizations with quasi-entity characteristics, private higher education institutions should strive to ensure their commitment to sustainability, be aware of their economic, social and environmental impacts, and readjust their behavior to act more sustainably and responsibly (Sepasi et al., 2018 ). The performance of higher education institutions in Indonesia is measured by the National Accreditation Board for Higher Education (BAN-PT) with a rating of "Excellent", "Excellent" and "Good". Assessment of the performance of tertiary institutions in Indonesia through the assessment of accreditation instruments with dimensions: organizational vision and mission, organizational management systems, students and graduates, human resources, learning and academic atmosphere, facilities and infrastructure, and cooperation (BAN PT, 2008). This performance assessment standard involves a small assessment of several activities that intersect with education sustainability development programs, for example a green campus, a disabled-friendly campus. Even so, aspects of the implementation of the SDGs have not received a large portion in evaluating the performance of higher education institutions in Indonesia. Based on this, this study analyzes the implementation of SDGs, especially social aspects (SDGs 4) and environmental aspects (SDGs 6 and 7) with the following hypotheses: H1: Implementation of the environmental aspects of SDGs has a positive effect on the performance of private tertiary institutions in Indonesia.
H2: The social aspect of SDGs implementation has a positive effect on the performance of private tertiary institutions in Indonesia.

Research and Methodology
This study uses a positivistic approach with research data measured through research instruments. The research instrument is closed with a Linkert scale of 5 which is then analyzed using Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) using the SmartPLS tool which consists of two parts (Haryono, 2017a) : 1) The measurement model ( measurement model ), namely connecting the observed variable to the latent / un-observed variables whose significance is usually tested with the Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) test. The validity testing procedure is convergent validity by correlating the item score (component core) with the construct score which then produces a loading factor value. The loading factor value is said to be high if the component or indicator correlates more than 0.70 with the construct you want to measure. However, this study uses a reference loading factor of 0.5 (Ghozali, 2008). Reliability states the extent to which results or measurements can be trusted or relied upon and provide relatively consistent measurement results after several measurements are taken (Haryono, 2017a). To measure the level of reliability of research surveys, the coefficient alpha or cronbach's alpha and composite reliability are used. Measurement items are said to be reliable if they have an alpha coefficient value greater than 0.7 (Haryono, 2020). 2). The structural model (structural model), that is connecting between latent variables through a system of simulataneous equations (Haryono, 2017b). Testing the significance of this structural model uses the Goodness of Fit Index criteria. The purpose of the structural model test is to see the correlation between the measured constructs which is the t test of the partial least squares itself. Structural models or inner models can be measured by looking at the value of R 2 which shows how much influence the variables have in the model. Criterion R 2 consists of 3 (three) criteria, namely 0.67 (substantial), 0.33 (moderate) and 0.19 (weak). Hypothesis testing is carried out after testing the inner model (structural model) which includes the R-Square output, parameter coefficients and t-statistics. Furthermore, hypothesis testing is carried out to see whether the hypothesis can be accepted or rejected by taking into account the significance values between constructs, t-statistics, and p-values. Testing the hypothesis of this study was carried out with the help of SmartPLS 7.0 software. These values can be seen from the results of the bootstrapping procedure with a value that is considered significant if the t statistical value is greater than 1.96 (significance level 5%) or greater than 1.65 (significance level of 10%) for each path relationship (Sholihin & Dwi Ratmono, 2021).

Findings and Discussions
The study results were obtained from a 5-point scale questionnaire as a first stage analysis as follows :

Descriptive Statistics
Based on the data that has been selected based on the research sample criteria, 138 questionnaire data were collected which were filled in by policy makers of private tertiary institutions in Indonesia in the field of finance and infrastructure. The following is a statistical description of data as shown in the following table.

Convergent Validity dan Discriminant Validity
This study met the Convergent Validity standard with a PLS algorithm loading factor value of more than 0.60 (Chin et al., 2003); (Hair et al., 2011). A loading factor value of more than 0.60 indicates that each indicator meets the measuring standard of each variable. Although not all indicators meet the requirements, in general the loading factor values show that all the variables in this study correlate more than 0.6 with the constructs being measured, so they are adequate as shown in the table below. Validity and reliability are confirmed by looking at the average variance extracted (AVE) value above 0.50 (Chin et al., 2003); (Hair, et al., 2011) for research variables. This ensures that one latent variable in this study is able to explain more than half of the variance of the indicators in the average. Discriminant validity was tested by following Henseler et al., (2015) by looking at the values heterotrait-monotrait ratio of correlations (HTMT) below 0.90 for all variables. Although the heterotrait-monotrait ratio of correlations (HTMT) values are considered to better represent validity (Henseler, et al., 2015) , this study still confirms the Fornell-Larcker assessment and crossloading. Reability was also tested with average variance extracted (AVE) values, composite reliability, and Cronbach alpha values with standards > 0.5 for AVE, > 0.7 for Cronbach's alpha values, and composite reliability values (Haryono, 2017) ; (Hair et al., 2011). From the test results, the reliability results are obtained according to table 3 below:

Goodness of fit
This study resulted in a Q 2 predictive relevance (smartplus blindfolding procedure) of 0.420 (> 0) and an R 2 of 0.326. From the Q 2 and R 2 values it can be concluded that the model is accepted with a moderate value (Hair, et al., 2014); (Haryono, 2017b).

Results and discussions
The structural model test was carried out to test the significance of the research results based on the research model. Significant provisions using P-value <0.05 and T-value> 1.96 follow the provisions of Hair et al. (2011) andHaryono (2017), seen from the output of smartpls bootstrap. The bootstrap procedure produces significant value for the research model, as shown in table 6 below: From the results of testing the hypothesis, it was found that there were differences in the effect of the implementation of sustainability development goals in the social and environmental aspects. The implementation of SDGs from the social aspect is proven to have a significant influence on the performance of private tertiary institutions in Indonesia. The social SDGs aspect in this study translates the implementation of SDGs 4 as an aspect of the role of universities with " Ensure inclusive and equitable quality education and promote lifelong learning opportunities for all". This role is manifested in the following forms: the provision of inclusive educational opportunities by providing open educational services, by accommodating learning opportunities for people with disabilities with services prepared to create an atmosphere conducive to learning in the same environment without discrimination. This activity is supported by infrastructure, curriculum, lecturers and a disabled-friendly academic atmosphere. Universities are also encouraged to play an active role in equal distribution of education for economically weak and geographically remote areas. Education as education sustainability development programs aims to provide quality education services that can be accessed by all people at various levels and limitations. The implementation of the role of the social SDGs is proven to have an effect on university performance by measuring university accreditation. Aspects of the role of disabled-friendly tertiary institutions are indicators of quality tertiary institutions which are assessed from the performance aspect as hypothesis 1 of this study is accepted.
In contrast to the social SDGs, environmental SDGs are proven to have no significant effect on university performance (hypothesis 2). The environmental aspects of the SDGs in this study are reflected in SDGs 6 and 7, namely: ''Ensure availability and sustainable management of water and sanitation for all'' and ''Ensure access to affordable, reliable, sustainable and modern energy for all''. The implementation of this aspect can be reflected in the management of tertiary institutions' infrastructure, for example the management of water resources in tertiary institutions, greening programs, environmental sanitation, emission reduction, as well as the role of tertiary institutions in research and community service which focuses on campaigns for sustainable water resources and energy. This aspect has been examined to a small extent in the accreditation assessment of tertiary institutions in Indonesia, especially the aspect of infrastructure, but has not yet focused on its relation to the SDGs. The results of this study are in line (Aleixo et al., 2018) with the findings of higher education. Higher education and society have recognized the importance of sustainable development, but have not been fully integrated into systems and activities in higher education. There have been many implementations in the social SDGs aspect, but in the environmental aspect it has not progressed.

Conclusions
This research provides a still limited picture of the implementation of the SDGs in private universities in Indonesia. The government needs to formulate more fully the implementation of the SDGs which should be prioritized by universities in Indonesia. Monitoring of implementation can be carried out by enforcing the obligation of sustainability reports to universities by synchronizing the evaluation of university performance.

459
This research has limited aspects of the SDGs (SDGs 4, 6 and 7). Another limitation is the private college population in the study. These limitations become recommendations for further research. Subsequent empirical studies can look at the implementation of SDGs from all aspects 1-17 in tertiary institutions and see their implementation in the sustainability report and can be recommended further.