Journal of Business Ethics

, Volume 113, Issue 2, pp 363–375 | Cite as

Enterprise Web Accessibility Levels Amongst the Forbes 250: Where Art Thou O Virtuous Leader?

  • Ramiro Gonçalves
  • José Martins
  • Jorge Pereira
  • Manuel Au-Yong Oliveira
  • João José P. Ferreira


The research team measured the enterprise web accessibility levels of the Forbes 250 largest enterprises using the fully automatic accessibility evaluation tool Sortsite, and presented the compliance of the evaluated websites to WCAG 1.0, WCAG 2.0 and Section 508 accessibility levels. Given the recent attention to organizational leaders having ethical duties towards their dedicated employees, we propose that ‘societal citizenship behaviour’ concerns ethical duties of organizational leaders towards society in general and in particular to those who have less means to assert their needs. In effect, we found enterprise website accessibility levels to be in need of significant improvement. An interpretation of a positive path forward to better enterprise website accessibility levels is put forth based on a focus-group interaction and using BNML—a novel Business Narrative Modelling Language.


WCAG Section 508 Website evaluation Website accessibility levels BNML 



The authors would like to gratefully acknowledge the contribution of the anonymous reviewers of the Journal of Business Ethics whose help and motivating comments guided us to shape the final manuscript as presented above: a guiding hand which will also, we are sure, lead us to the definition of new research objectives in the quest for website accessibility for all.


  1. Allee, V. (2008). Value network analysis and value conversion of tangible and intangible assets. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 9(1), 5–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Becker, S. A. (2008). Accessibility of Federal Electronic Government. In H. Chen, L. Brandt, V. Gregg, R. Traunmller, S. Dawes, E. Hovy, A. Macintosh, & C. A. Larson (Eds.), Digital government: Advanced research and case studies (pp. 141–155). New York, NY: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Beets, S. (2011). Critical events in the ethics of U.S. corporation history. Journal of Business Ethics, 102(2), 193–219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bjork, S., & Holopainen, J. (2005). Patterns in game design. Hingham, MA: Charles River Media.Google Scholar
  5. Bradbard, D. A., & Peters, C. (2010). Web accessibility theory and practice: An introduction for university faculty. The Journal of Educators Online, 7(1), 1–46.Google Scholar
  6. Brewer, J. (2006). Why standards harmonization is essential to web accessibility. Retrieved May 20, 2009 from
  7. Caldwell, C. (2011). Duties owed to organizational citizens—ethical insights for today’s leader. Journal of Business Ethics, 102(3), 343–356.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Chisholm, W. A., & Henry, S. L. (2005). Interdependent components of web accessibility. In Proceedings of the 2005 international cross-disciplinary workshop on web accessibility—W4A, Chiba, Japan, pp. 31–37.Google Scholar
  9. Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (2008). Basics of qualitative research (3rd ed.). California, USA: Sage Publications, Inc.Google Scholar
  10. Cullen, K., Kubitschke, L., Boussios, T., Dolphin, C., & Meyer, I. (2009, October). Web accessibility in European countries: Level of compliance with latest international accessibility specifications, notably WCAG 2.0, and approaches or plans to implement those specifications. European Commission.Google Scholar
  11. Dierendonck, D., & Patterson, K. (2010). Servant leadership: An introduction. In D. Dierendonck & K. Patterson (Eds.), Servant leadership—developments in theory and research (pp. 3–10). Great Britain: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Drews, W. (2008). A Web 2.0 tourism information system for accessible tourism. In P. O’Conner, W. Hopken, & U. Gretzel (Eds.), Information and communication technologies in tourism, proceedings of the international conference in Innsbruck, Austria (pp. 164–174). Wien: Springer.Google Scholar
  13. Easton, C. (2011). The Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 2.0: An analysis of industry self-regulation. International Journal of Law and Information Technology, 19(1), 74–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. EU. (2005). Oslo manual: Guidelines for collecting and interpreting innovation data (3rd ed.). European Commission, OECD Publishing.Google Scholar
  15. EU. (2006). i2010 eGovernment Action Plan: Accelerating eGovernment in Europe for the benefit of all. Retrieved August 15, 2011 from
  16. EU. (2010). Council conclusions on Digital Agenda for Europe. In 3017th transport, telecommunications and energy council meeting, Brussels, 31 May, pp. 1–4.Google Scholar
  17. Figueira, M. M. (2010). Outliers identification. Polytechnic Institute of Viseu. Retrieved August 17, 2010 from
  18. (2011). The world’s leading companies. Retrieved March 15, 2011 from
  19. Gonçalves, R., Martins, J., Pereira, J., Oliveira, M. A., & Ferreira, J. J. P. (2011). Accessibility levels of Portuguese enterprise websites: Equal opportunities for all? Behaviour & Information Technology. doi: 10.1080/0144929X.2011.563802.
  20. Gonçalves, R., & Oliveira, M. A. (2010). Interacting with technology in an ever more complex world. In C. Wagner (Ed.), Strategies and technologies for a sustainable future (pp. 257–268). Bethesda, MD: World Future Society.Google Scholar
  21. Greenleaf, R. K. (1970). The servant as leader. New York, USA: Paulist Press.Google Scholar
  22. Grubbs, F. E. (1969). Procedures for detecting outlying observations in samples. Technometrics, American Statistical Association and American Society for Quality, 11(1), 1–21.Google Scholar
  23. Hayibor, S., Agle, B. R., Sears, G. J., Sonnenfeld, J. A., & Ward, A. (2011). Value congruence and charismatic leadership in CEO–top manager relationships: An empirical investigation. Journal of Business Ethics, 102(2), 237–254.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Hull, L. (2004). Accessibility: It’s not just for disabilities any more. Interactions, 11(2), 36–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. ISO. (1997). ISO 9241: Ergonomics requirements for office work with visual display terminal (VDT), parts 1–17.Google Scholar
  26. ISO. (2002). ISO TS 16071—ergonomics of human system interaction—Guidance on accessibility for human-computer interfaces.Google Scholar
  27. ISO. (2006). ISO 9241-110—ergonomics of human system interaction—part 110—dialogue principles. Berlin: Beuth.Google Scholar
  28. ISO. (2008). ISO 9241-171—ergonomics of human-system interaction—guidance on software accessibility.Google Scholar
  29. ITAW. (2010). Section 508 laws. Retrieved December 20, 2010 from
  30. Kurniawan, S. H., Ellis, R. D., & Zaphiris, P. (2001). Usability and accessibility comparison of governmental, organizational, educational and commercial aging/health-related websites. WebNet Journal: Internet Technologies, Applications & Issues, 3(3), 45–52.Google Scholar
  31. Kurt, S. (2011). The accessibility of university web sites: The case of Turkish universities. Universal Access in the Information Society, 10(1), 101–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Lazar, J., Beavan, P., Brown, J., Coffey, D., Nolf, B., Poole, R., et al. (2010). Investigating the accessibility of state government web sites in Maryland. In P. Langdon, J. Clarkson, & P. Robinson (Eds.), Designing inclusive interactions, proceedings of the 2010 Cambridge workshop on universal access and assistive technology (pp. 69–78). London: Springer.Google Scholar
  33. Lee, H.-W. (2010). Maximizing knowledge preservation and transformation in organization. African Journal of Business Management, 4(17), 3769–3774.Google Scholar
  34. Lew, P., Olsina, L., & Becker, P. (2011). An integrated strategy to systematically understand and manage quality in use for web applications. Requirements Engineering, 1–32. doi: 10.1007/s00766-011-0128-x.
  35. Mason, J. (2002). Qualitative researching (2nd ed.). London, UK: SAGE Publications Ltd.Google Scholar
  36. Matera, M., Rizzo, F., & Carughi, G. T. (2006). Web usability: Principles and evaluation methods. In E. Mendes & N. Mosley (Eds.), Web engineering (pp. 143–180). Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. McGee-Cooper, A., & Trammell, D. (2010). Servant leadership learning communities®: Incubators for great places to work. In D. van Dierendonck & K. Patterson (Eds.), Servant leadership—developments in theory and research (pp. 130–144). Great Britain: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  38. Mendenhall, W., & Sincich, T. L. (2007). Statistics for engineering and the sciences (5th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ, USA: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  39. Mertins, K., Ruggaber, R., Popplewell, K., & Xu, X. (2008). Preface to enterprise interoperability III—new challenges and industrial approaches (pp. 5–6). London: Springer.Google Scholar
  40. Muñoz-Garcia, J., Moreno-Rebollo, J. L., & Pascual-Acosta, A. (1990). Outliers: A formal approach. International Statistical Review, 58, 215–226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Nielsen, J. (1992). The usability engineering lifecycle. Computer, 25(3), 12–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Nielsen, J. (1993). Usability engineering. Cambridge, MA: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  43. Oliveira, M. A., & Ferreira, J. J. P. (2011). Facilitating qualitative research in business studies—using the business narrative to model value creation. African Journal of Business Management, 5(1), 68–75.Google Scholar
  44. Pernice, K., & Nielsen, J. (2001). Beyond ALT text: Making the web easy to use for users with disabilities. California, USA: Nielsen Norman Group.Google Scholar
  45. Preece, J., Rogers, Y., & Sharp, H. (2002). Interaction design: Beyond human-computer interaction. New York, NY, USA: Wiley.Google Scholar
  46. Shneiderman, B., & Hochheiser, H. (2001). Universal usability as a stimulus to advanced interface design. Behaviour & Information Technology, 20(5), 367–376.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Sortsite. (2010). Web site testing tool. Retrieved February 8, 2010 from
  48. Spears, L. C. (2010). Servant leadership and Robert K. Greenleaf’s legacy. In D. van Dierendonck & K. Patterson (Eds.), Servant leadership—developments in theory and research (pp. 11–24). Great Britain: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  49. Thatcher, J., Kirkpatrick, A., Urban, M., Lawson, B., Henry, S., Burks, M., et al. (2006). Web accessibility: Web standards and regulatory compliance. New York: Friends of ED.Google Scholar
  50. Theofanos, M. F., & Redish, J. (2003). Bridging the gap between accessibility and usability. Interactions, 10(6), 36–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Trewin, S., Cragun, B., Swart, C., Brezin, J., & Richards, J. (2010). Accessibility challenges and tool features: An IBM web developer perspective. In Proceedings of the 2010 international cross disciplinary conference on web accessibility (W4A) (pp. 1–10). Raleigh, NC: ACM.Google Scholar
  52. Trompenaars, F., & Voerman, E. (2009). Servant-leadership across cultures—harnessing the strength of the world’s most powerful leadership philosophy. Oxford, UK: Infinite Ideas Limited.Google Scholar
  53. UN. (2006). Global audit of web accessibility. Retrieved March 14, 2012 from
  54. USAB. (2010). United States Access Board—update of the 508 standards and the telecommunications act guidelines. Retrieved April 28, 2011 from
  55. Uschold, M., King, M., Moralee, S., & Zorgios, Y. (1998). The enterprise ontology. The Knowledge Engineering Review, 13(1), 31–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. W3C. (2005). Social factors in developing a web accessibility business case for your organization. Retrieved April 3, 2011 from
  57. W3C. (2006). Conformance evaluation of web sites for accessibility. Retrieved March 25, 2011 from
  58. W3C. (2008a). Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 2.0. Retrieved March 14, 2011 from
  59. W3C. (2008b). WAI mission and organization. Retrieved January 18, 2011 from
  60. WHO. (2006). Disability and Rehabilitation: WHO action-plan 20062011.Google Scholar
  61. Woodside, A. G. (2010). Case study research—theory, methods, practice. Bingley, UK: Emerald Group Publishing Limited.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ramiro Gonçalves
    • 1
    • 2
  • José Martins
    • 1
  • Jorge Pereira
    • 1
  • Manuel Au-Yong Oliveira
    • 2
    • 3
  • João José P. Ferreira
    • 2
  1. 1.Universidade de Trás-os-Montes e Alto Douro, GECAD/UTADVila RealPortugal
  2. 2.INESC TEC (Formerly INESC Porto), Faculdade de EngenhariaUniversidade do PortoPortoPortugal
  3. 3.Department of Economics, Management and Industrial EngineeringUniversity of AveiroAveiroPortugal

Personalised recommendations