Good government. Governing well consists of fulfilling the organization’s corporate mission in a coherent and con-sistent way, implementing an ethical code and being able to count on an independent committee responsible for promoting and overseeing its implementation. Not only is it about maintaining the legal national regulations, but also the most demanding international labour, social and environmental guidelines. It is about promoting and achieving a good working environment, fighting against injustice, inequality and discrimination. It is about safeguarding human rights for all people and providing honest and transparent information about the results of the organization’s manage-ment. A good government promotes an organization’s CSR freeing it from any shadow of corruption.

Dialogue and discussion among the different public sectors of an organization, to whom it can be held accountable. Vallaeys, De la Cruz and Sasia refer to the model of stakeholders of Freeman and Reed, where the organization is de-scribed as an open structure in which the risks and interests of the various internal and external actors of the organi-zation, be they associated to it or otherwise, and who may be affected by its activities, be they able to affect it or oth-erwise. The organization should satisfactorily respond to the needs of the different interest groups, establish balanced and transparent connections and relationships with them and report on the results of the agreements adopted. Dia-logue with the public sectors constitutes a socially regulated process and avoids the risk of egotism in the organization.

The management of social and environmental impact. Managerial philosophy of social responsibility implies making the organization aware of the consequences and effects that its decisions, its strategic plans and its behaviour can have on people and social groups, and on the environment. The organization should be aware of its impact on both its internal and external setting and promote sustainable development. Thus the social responsibility becomes the organization’s managerial policy which makes it more approachable and caring.

These authors add that, in order to practice socially responsible management geared towards achieving sustaina-ble social and environmental development, the way forward is to go from reactive logic towards proactive logic and involvement in finding answers to the organization’s social problems. This change should be based, in any case, on fulfilling the corporate mission, principles and values, on the management of the impact and on the communication and effective participation of the different interest groups. Proactivity of socially responsible management favours the creation of a “social capital” of the organization, and the possibility of agreeing on treating social problems together. And this socially responsible proactive attitude based on the organization’s social empathy, on altruistic philanthropy, allows it to anticipate the risks which affect the organization. In this sense, social responsibility becomes a vaccination against corporative egotism.

Following the authors cited earlier, Vallaeys, De la Cruz y Sasia (2009), social responsibility in universities, however, must be differentiated from corporative or business social responsibility in as much as the university social responsi-bility should be defined basically by the management of its impact on its immediate environment, which, according to their criteria, can be grouped under four criteria.

The working impact derived from the actual activity of the organization on the public which whom the university is directly involved with, such as the teaching staff and the administration and service staff, the students or the commu-nity setting. Also included here is the impact produced as a consequence of its practices, such as pollution. The social and ecological footprint of the university organization.