Advertisement

Social responsibility indicators: perspective of stakeholders in Brazil and in the UK

  • Rosane Maria SeibertEmail author
  • Clea Beatriz Macagnan
  • Robert Dixon
  • Davi Souza Simon
Original Article
  • 43 Downloads

Abstract

This article aimed at the construction of representative indicators of social responsibility information, from the perspective of stakeholders in Brazil and the UK, for the disclosure of Philanthropic Higher Education Organizations (PHEOs) in its Internet websites. Using the grounded theory techniques, we raised evidence that enabled us to identify social responsibility information valued by PHEOs stakeholders in Brazil and the UK. We developed the research in four phases: systematization, evaluation, valuation and econometric validation of the indicators. As a result, we have built a relationship that includes 186 indicators of stakeholder interests. Of these, we identified 84 indicators, subdivided into ten categories of social responsibility, which include the indicators considered most relevant by the experts and stakeholders for the PHEOs disclosure. The article contributes to the formulation of the PHEOs disclosure policies and to the recommendations and regulations of the institutional bodies at the moment in which it demonstrates the information of interest of the stakeholders, as well as those that should be highlighted in the first place because they are considered more relevant. Therefore, from the results of this research, the PHEOs disclosure has the possibility to reflect the interests of external stakeholders, adding value to the transparency and accountability of organizations.

Keywords

Social responsibility Disclosure indicators Stakeholders Legitimacy theory Electronic web pages Philanthropic Higher Education Organizations 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We especially thank CAPES, the funding body of this research. We also thank the higher education institutions UNISINOS, DUBS and URI that contributed to this research.

References

  1. Ackers, B., and N.S. Eccles. 2015. Mandatory corporate social responsibility assurance practices: The case of King III in South Africa. Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal 28(4): 515–550.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Adelopo, I., R.C. Moure, L.V. Preciado, and M. Obalola. 2012. Determinants of web-accessibility of corporate social responsibility communications. Journal of Global Responsibility 3(2): 235–247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Ahmed, S. 2015. Determinants of the quality of disclosed earnings and value relevance across transitional Europe. Journal of Accounting in Emerging Economies 5(3): 325–349.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Aldaz, M., I. Alvarez, and J.A. Calvo. 2015. Informes no financieros, desempeño anticorrupción y reputación corporativa. Revista Brasileira de Gestão de Negócios 17(58): 1321–1340.Google Scholar
  5. Andrews, A. 2014. Downward accountability in unequal aliances: Explaining NGO responses to Zapatista demands. World Development 54: 99–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Attig, N., and S. Cleary. 2015. Managerial Practices and Corporate Social Responsibility. Journal of Business Ethics 131: 121–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. AUSJAL - Associación de Universidades Confiadas a la Compañia de Jesús en América Latina. 2014. Políticas Y Sistema de Autoevaluación Y Gestión de la Responsabilidad Social Universitaria en AUSJAL. Córdoba: Alejandría Editorial. https://ausjal.org/wp-content/uploads/Pol%C3%ADticas-y-Sistemas-de-Autoevaluaci%C3%B3n-y-Gesti%C3%B3n-de-la-RSU-en-AUSJAL-2014.pdf.
  8. Bachmann, R.K.B., L.M. Carneiro, and M.M.S.B. Espejo. 2013. Evidenciação de informações ambientais: proposta de um indicador a partir da percepção de especialistas. Revista de Contabilidade e Organizações 17: 36–47.Google Scholar
  9. Bowman, E.H., and M. Haire. 1976. Social impact disclosure and corporate annual reports. Accounting, Organizations and Society 1(1): 11–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. BRASIL. 1968. Lei 5.540. Brasília (DF): DOU - Diário Oficial da União.Google Scholar
  11. BRASIL. 1979. Lei 6.680/79. Brasília (DF): DOU- Diário Oficial da União.Google Scholar
  12. BRASIL. 1996. Lei 9.394/96. Brasília (DF): DOU - Diário Oficial da União.Google Scholar
  13. BRASIL. 2002. Parecer do Ministério da Educação - MEC. Brasília (DF): DOU - Diário Oficial da União.Google Scholar
  14. Burgwal, D.V.D., and R.J.O. Vieira. 2014. Determinantes da Divulgação Ambiental em Companhias Abertas Holandesas. Revista de Contabilidade and Finanças 25(64): 60–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Bushman, R.M., and A.J. Smith. 2003. Transparency, financial accounting information, and corporate governance. FRBNY Economic Policy Review 9(1): 65–87.Google Scholar
  16. Carroll, A.B. 1979. A three-dimensional conceptual model of corporate social performance. Academy of Management Review 4(4): 497–505.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. CFC - Conselho Federal de Contabilidade. 2004. Resolução CFC no 1.003/04. Brasília: Conselho Federal de Contabilidade.Google Scholar
  18. Contrafatto, M. 2014. The institutionalization of social and environmental reporting: An Italian narrative. Accounting, Organizations and Society 39: 1–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Conway, S.L., P.A. O’Keefe, and S.L. Hrasky. 2015. Legitimacy, accountability and impression management in NGOs: the Indian Ocean tsunami. Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal 28(7): 1075–1098.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Cooper, S., and R. Slack. 2015. Reporting practice, impression management and company performance: A longitudinal and comparative analysis of water leakage disclosure. Accounting and Business Research 45(6/7): 801–840.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Core, J.E. 2001. A review of the empirical disclosure literature: discussion. Journal of Accounting and Economics 31: 441–456.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Cortina, J.M. 1993. What is coefficient Alpha? An examination of theory and applications. Journal of Applied Psychology 78(1): 98–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Cronbach, L.J. 1951. Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika 16(3): 297–334.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Dahlsrud, A. 2008. How corporate social responsibility is defined: an analysis of 37 definitions. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management 15: 1–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Ethos - Instituto Ethos de Empresas e Responsabilidade Social. 2013. Indicadores Ethos de Responsabilidade Social empresarial. São Paulo: Instituto Ethos. https://www3.ethos.org.br/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/IndicadoresEthos_2013_PORT.pdf.
  26. Freeman, R.E., J.S. Harrison, A.C. Wicks, B.L. Parmar, and S. Colle. 2010. Stakeholder theory: The state of the art. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Fu, H., B.H. Ye, and R. Law. 2014. You do well and I do well? The behavioral consequences of corporatesocial responsibility. International Journal of Hospitality Management 40: 62–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Garcia-Meca, E., and I.M. Conesa. 2004. Divulgación voluntária de información empresarial: Índices de Revelación. Partida Doble 157: 66–77.Google Scholar
  29. Giannetti, E., and C. Almeida. 2006. Ecologia Industrial - Conceitos, ferramentas e aplicações. São Paulo: Ed. Edgard Blücher.Google Scholar
  30. Gisbert, A., B. Navallas, and D. Romero. 2014. Proprietary costs, governance and the segment disclosure decision. Journal of Management and Governance 18: 733–763.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Gnanaweera, K.A.K., and N. Kunori. 2018. Corporate sustainability reporting: Linkage of corporate disclosure information and performance indicators. Cogent Business and Management 5: 1–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Gonzalez-Perez, M.A. 2013. Corporate social responsibility and international business: A conceptual overview. Advances in Sustainability and Environmental Justice 11: 1–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Good, K.J., J.A. Borba, and L.M.D. Maragno. 2015. Supporting stakeholder relationship management via disclosure on resource origins: Evidence from the world’s top NGOs. Sociedade, Contabilidade e Gestão 10(2): 139–156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. GRI – Global Reporting Iniciative. 2013. G4NGOsector disclosure. https://globalreporting.org/resourcelibrary/GRI-G4-NGO-Sector-Disclosures.pdf.
  35. Guthrie, J., and L.D. Parker. 1989. Corporate social reporting: A rebutal of legitimacy theory. Accounting and Business Research 19(76): 343–352.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Hair, J., et al. 2006. Multivariate data analysis. 6th ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  37. Harrison, J.A., P. Rouse, and C.J.D. Villiers. 2012. Accountability and performance measurement: A Stakeholder perspective. The Business and Economics Research Journal 5(2): 243–258.Google Scholar
  38. Hay, R., and E. Gray. 1974. Social responsibilities of business managers. The Academy of Management Journal 17(1): 135–143.Google Scholar
  39. Healy, P.M., and K.G. Papelu. 2001. Information asymmetry, corporate disclosure, and the capital markets: A review of the empirical disclosure literature. Journal of Accounting and Economics 31: 405–440.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. HEFCE, s.d. Highter Education Funding Council for England. [Online] http://www.hefce.ac.uk/.
  41. Heink, U., and I. Kowarik. 2010. What are indicators? On the definition of indicators in ecology and environmental planning. Ecological Indicators 10(3): 584–593.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Hofmann, M.A., and D. McSwain. 2013. Financial disclosure management in the nonprofit sector: A framework for past and future research. Journal of Accounting Literature 32: 61–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Jones, T.M. 1980. Corporate social responsibility revisited, redefined. California Management Review 22(2): 59–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Joseph, C., and R. Taplin. 2011. The measurement of sustainability disclosure: Abundance versus occurrence. Accounting Forum 35: 19–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Kaiser, H.F. 1968. A measure of the average intercorrelation. Educational and Psychological Measurement 28: 245–247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Khlif, H., A. Guidara, and M. Souissi. 2015. Corporate social and environmental disclosure and corporate performance: Evidence from South Africa and Morocco. Journal of Accounting in Emerging Economies 5(1): 51–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Lambell, R., G. Ramia, C. Nyland, and M. Michelotti. 2008. NGOs and international business research: Progress, prospects and problems. International Journal of Management Reviews 10(1): 75–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Lapina, I., I. Kairisa, and D. Aramina. 2015. Role or organizational culture in the quality management of University. Social and Behavioral Sciences 213: 770–774.Google Scholar
  49. Liesen, A., A.G. Hoepner, D.M. Patten, and F. Figge. 2015. Does stakeholder pressure influence corporate GHG emissions reporting? Empirical evidence from Europe. Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal 28(7): 1047–1074.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Liu, D., et al. 2018. Construction and application of a refined index for measuring the regional matching characteristics between water and land resources. Ecological Indicators 91: 203–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Marquezan, L.H.F., R.M. Seibert, D. Bartz, M.A.G. Barbosa, and T.W. Alves. 2015. Análise dos Determinantes do Disclosure Verde em Relatórios Anuais de Empresas Listadas na BM&FBOVESPA. Contabilidade, Gestão e Governança 18(1): 127–150.Google Scholar
  52. Minayo, M.C.S. 2009. Construção de indicadores qualitativos para avaliação de mudanças. Revista Brasileira de Educação Médica 33(1): 83–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. OECD - Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development. 2008. Using the OECD principles of corporate governance A BOARDROOM PERSPECTIVE, Paris: OECD Publications. https://www.oecd.org/corporate/ca/corporategovernanceprinciples/40823806.pdf.
  54. O’Donovan, G. 2002. Environmental disclosure in the annual report: Extending the applicability and predictive power of legitimacy theory. Accounting, Auditing, Accountability Journal 15(3): 344–371.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Parmar, B.L., R.E. Freeman, J.S. Harrison, A.C. Wicks, L. Purnell, and S. Colle. 2010. Stakeholder theory: The state of the art. The Academy of Management Annals 4(1): 403–445.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Pesci, C., E. Costa, and T. Soobaroyen. 2015. The forms of repetition in social and environmental reports: insights from Hume’s notion of ‘impressions’. Accounting and Business Research 45(6 and 7): 765–800.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Pivac, S., T. Vuko, and M. Cular. 2017. Analysis of annual report disclosure quality for listed companies in transition countries. Economic Research-Ekonomska Istraživanja 30(1): 721–731.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Rametsteiner, E., H. Pulzl, J. Alkan-Olsson, and P. Frederiksen. 2011. Sustainability indicator development - Science or political negotiation. Ecological Indicators 11: 61–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Sao Jose, A.S.D., and M.A.G. Figueiredo. 2011. Modelo de proposição de indicadores globais para organização das informações de responsabilidade social. VII Congresso Nacional de Excelência em Gestão, 12 and 13 08: 01–19.Google Scholar
  60. SEC, S. E. C., s.d. Form 20-F. [online]. http://www.sec.gov/about/forms.
  61. Seibert, R.M., and C.B. Macagnan. 2015. Evidenciação das Instituições Comunitárias de Ensino Superior: Um estudo sob a perspectiva dos públicos de interesse. CONTEXTUS Revista Contemporânea de Economia e Gestão 13(2): 176–209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Shevlin, M., J.N.V. Miles, M.N.O. Davies, and S. Walker. 2000. Coefficient alpha: A useful indicator of reliability? Personality and Individual Differences 28: 229–237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Stiglitz, J.E. 2000. The contributions of the eocnomics of information to twentieth century economics. The Quarterly Journal of Economics 115(4): 1441–1478.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Suchman, M.C. 1995. Managing legitimacy: Strategic and institutional approaches. Academy of Management Review 20(3): 571–610.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Tarozzi, M. 2011. O que é Grounded Theory? Metodologia de pesquisa e de teoria fundamentada nos dados. Petrópolis – RJ: Vozes.Google Scholar
  66. UNITED KINGDOM. 2017. Higher education and research act 2017. London: TSO (The Stationery Office). http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2017/29/contents/enacted.
  67. UNITED NATIONS. 2008. Guidance on corporate responsibility indicators in annual reports. New York and Geneva: United Nations. https://unctad.org/en/docs/iteteb20076_en.pdf?user=46.
  68. Verrecchia, R.E. 2001. Essays on disclosure. Journal of Accounting and Economics 32: 97–180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Vieira, V.A. 2011. Escalas em Marketing: Métricas de resposta do consumidor e de desempenho empresarial. São Paulo: Atlas.Google Scholar
  70. Waddock, S. 2008. Building a new institutional infrastructure for corporate responsibility. Academy of Management Perspectives 22: 87–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Welbeck, E.E., G.M.Y. Owusu, R.A. Bekoe, and J.A. Kusi. 2017. Determinants of environmental disclosures of listed firms in Ghana. International Journal of Corporate Social Responsibility 2(11): 01–12.Google Scholar
  72. Wiggill, M. 2014. Donor relationship management practices in the South African non-profit sector. Public Relations Review 40: 278–285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Yan, Y.-H., C.-M. Kung, S.C. Fang, and Y. Chen. 2017. Transparency of mandatory information disclosure and concerns of health services providers and consumers. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 14(53): 01–12.Google Scholar
  74. Zainon, S., R. Atan, and Y.B. Wah. 2014. An empirical study on the determinants of information disclosure of Malaysian non-profit organizations. Asian Review of Accounting 22(1): 35–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Limited 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Rosane Maria Seibert
    • 1
    Email author
  • Clea Beatriz Macagnan
    • 2
  • Robert Dixon
    • 3
  • Davi Souza Simon
    • 2
  1. 1.Rua Universidade das MissõesSanto ÂngeloBrazil
  2. 2.Porto AlegreBrazil
  3. 3.Durham University Business School – DUBSDurhamUK

Personalised recommendations