Strategic Focus or Accountability Evasion? Reinterpreting SDGs Selectivity in University Sustainability Reporting

Selective Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) disclosure is frequently interpreted as evidence of weak university accountability. This research advances a different position. It argues that the problem is not selectivity itself, but unexplained selectivity. In plural-mission institutions, no university can give equal depth to every SDG without risking superficiality. Selectivity preserves accountability when priorities are publicly justified, mission-linked, evidence-supported, and explicit about what remains underdeveloped. It erodes accountability when curated visibility replaces public account-giving. Drawing on structured document analysis of 107 university SDG and sustainability disclosures from Europe, Asia–Pacific, North America, Latin America, Africa and the Middle East, published between 2019 and 2024, independently coded by two researchers (Cohen’s kappa = 0.81) and scored through the SDG Disclosure Review-Readiness Index (SDG-DRRI), the research shows that moderately selective documents (n = 18) achieved the highest mean score, outperforming both broad reporting (n = 34) and highly selective reporting (n = 55). This research contributes a new distinction between accountability-preserving and accountability-eroding selectivity, showing why disclosure breadth alone is an inadequate proxy for accountability quality. It advances sustainability accounting and higher education reporting debates by reframing SDG selectivity as a conditional accountability phenomenon: legitimate when publicly justified, problematic when it narrows responsibility without explanation.