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.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
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.
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.
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.
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.
Andrews, A. 2014. Downward accountability in unequal aliances: Explaining NGO responses to Zapatista demands. World Development 54: 99–113.
Attig, N., and S. Cleary. 2015. Managerial Practices and Corporate Social Responsibility. Journal of Business Ethics 131: 121–136.
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.
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.
Bowman, E.H., and M. Haire. 1976. Social impact disclosure and corporate annual reports. Accounting, Organizations and Society 1(1): 11–21.
BRASIL. 1968. Lei 5.540. Brasília (DF): DOU - Diário Oficial da União.
BRASIL. 1979. Lei 6.680/79. Brasília (DF): DOU- Diário Oficial da União.
BRASIL. 1996. Lei 9.394/96. Brasília (DF): DOU - Diário Oficial da União.
BRASIL. 2002. Parecer do Ministério da Educação - MEC. Brasília (DF): DOU - Diário Oficial da União.
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.
Bushman, R.M., and A.J. Smith. 2003. Transparency, financial accounting information, and corporate governance. FRBNY Economic Policy Review 9(1): 65–87.
Carroll, A.B. 1979. A three-dimensional conceptual model of corporate social performance. Academy of Management Review 4(4): 497–505.
CFC - Conselho Federal de Contabilidade. 2004. Resolução CFC no 1.003/04. Brasília: Conselho Federal de Contabilidade.
Contrafatto, M. 2014. The institutionalization of social and environmental reporting: An Italian narrative. Accounting, Organizations and Society 39: 1–19.
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.
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.
Core, J.E. 2001. A review of the empirical disclosure literature: discussion. Journal of Accounting and Economics 31: 441–456.
Cortina, J.M. 1993. What is coefficient Alpha? An examination of theory and applications. Journal of Applied Psychology 78(1): 98–104.
Cronbach, L.J. 1951. Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika 16(3): 297–334.
Dahlsrud, A. 2008. How corporate social responsibility is defined: an analysis of 37 definitions. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management 15: 1–13.
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.
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.
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.
Garcia-Meca, E., and I.M. Conesa. 2004. Divulgación voluntária de información empresarial: Índices de Revelación. Partida Doble 157: 66–77.
Giannetti, E., and C. Almeida. 2006. Ecologia Industrial - Conceitos, ferramentas e aplicações. São Paulo: Ed. Edgard Blücher.
Gisbert, A., B. Navallas, and D. Romero. 2014. Proprietary costs, governance and the segment disclosure decision. Journal of Management and Governance 18: 733–763.
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.
Gonzalez-Perez, M.A. 2013. Corporate social responsibility and international business: A conceptual overview. Advances in Sustainability and Environmental Justice 11: 1–35.
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.
GRI – Global Reporting Iniciative. 2013. G4 – NGO – sector disclosure. https://globalreporting.org/resourcelibrary/GRI-G4-NGO-Sector-Disclosures.pdf.
Guthrie, J., and L.D. Parker. 1989. Corporate social reporting: A rebutal of legitimacy theory. Accounting and Business Research 19(76): 343–352.
Hair, J., et al. 2006. Multivariate data analysis. 6th ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.
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.
Hay, R., and E. Gray. 1974. Social responsibilities of business managers. The Academy of Management Journal 17(1): 135–143.
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.
HEFCE, s.d. Highter Education Funding Council for England. [Online] http://www.hefce.ac.uk/.
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.
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.
Jones, T.M. 1980. Corporate social responsibility revisited, redefined. California Management Review 22(2): 59–67.
Joseph, C., and R. Taplin. 2011. The measurement of sustainability disclosure: Abundance versus occurrence. Accounting Forum 35: 19–31.
Kaiser, H.F. 1968. A measure of the average intercorrelation. Educational and Psychological Measurement 28: 245–247.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Minayo, M.C.S. 2009. Construção de indicadores qualitativos para avaliação de mudanças. Revista Brasileira de Educação Médica 33(1): 83–91.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Rametsteiner, E., H. Pulzl, J. Alkan-Olsson, and P. Frederiksen. 2011. Sustainability indicator development - Science or political negotiation. Ecological Indicators 11: 61–70.
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.
SEC, S. E. C., s.d. Form 20-F. [online]. http://www.sec.gov/about/forms.
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.
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.
Stiglitz, J.E. 2000. The contributions of the eocnomics of information to twentieth century economics. The Quarterly Journal of Economics 115(4): 1441–1478.
Suchman, M.C. 1995. Managing legitimacy: Strategic and institutional approaches. Academy of Management Review 20(3): 571–610.
Tarozzi, M. 2011. O que é Grounded Theory? Metodologia de pesquisa e de teoria fundamentada nos dados. Petrópolis – RJ: Vozes.
UNITED KINGDOM. 2017. Higher education and research act 2017. London: TSO (The Stationery Office). http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2017/29/contents/enacted.
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.
Verrecchia, R.E. 2001. Essays on disclosure. Journal of Accounting and Economics 32: 97–180.
Vieira, V.A. 2011. Escalas em Marketing: Métricas de resposta do consumidor e de desempenho empresarial. São Paulo: Atlas.
Waddock, S. 2008. Building a new institutional infrastructure for corporate responsibility. Academy of Management Perspectives 22: 87–108.
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.
Wiggill, M. 2014. Donor relationship management practices in the South African non-profit sector. Public Relations Review 40: 278–285.
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.
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.
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.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Appendices
Appendix A: building of the indicator set
Based on the literature review, suggestions from stakeholders in Brazil and in the UK are submitted for validation by Scholars.
No. | Social responsibility indicators | Literature review | Stakeholders Brazil | Stakeholders Reino Unido | Triangulation |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | Access to legislation of interest to society | 1 | 1 | ||
2 | Access to public portals of interest to stakeholders | 1 | |||
3 | Work accidents | 1 | 1 | ||
4 | Actions to reduce environmental impact | 1 | 1 | ||
5 | Accommodations (costs and locations) | 1 | |||
6 | Research promotion agencies | 1 | |||
7 | Support for government campaigns and projects | 1 | 1 | ||
8 | Psychopedagogical support for students | 1 | 1 | ||
9 | Articulation with the various social segments | 1 | |||
10 | Assistance and employee benefits | 1 | 1 | 1 | |
11 | External and internal audits | 1 | |||
12 | Extra online courses | 1 | |||
13 | Social balance sheet | 1 | 1 | ||
14 | Benefits to students | 1 | 1 | ||
15 | Benefits to employees | 1 | 1 | ||
16 | Calendário acadêmico | 1 | |||
17 | Campanha motivacional (estudar na IES) | 1 | |||
18 | Capacidade × Ociosidade | 1 | |||
19 | Clima organizacional | 1 | |||
20 | Código de Conduta | 1 | |||
21 | Academic calendar | 1 | 1 | ||
22 | Motivational campaign (study at the PHEO) | 1 | 1 | ||
23 | Capacity × Idleness | 1 | 1 | 1 | |
24 | Organizational climate | 1 | 1 | ||
25 | Code of conduct | 1 | |||
26 | Strategic alliances and alliances | 1 | 1 | ||
27 | Growth in student numbers | 1 | 1 | ||
28 | Courses related to environmental issues | 1 | |||
29 | Courses related to social issues | 1 | |||
30 | Cost of living | 1 | |||
31 | Cost of courses in general and per student | 1 | 1 | ||
32 | Consumer rights statements | 1 | |||
33 | Demonstration that the PHEO adds value to stakeholders | 1 | |||
34 | Financial statements | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
35 | Discounts for students | 1 | |||
36 | Tips for landscaping and gardening with recyclables | 1 | |||
37 | health tips | 1 | |||
38 | Availability of academic output | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
39 | Disclosure of events | 1 | |||
40 | Donations received | 1 | 1 | 1 | |
41 | Donors (list of the main) | 1 | 1 | ||
42 | Education and environmental awareness | 1 | 1 | ||
43 | Involvement with social actions/community | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
44 | Physical space for students’ coexistence | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
45 | Space for event suggestions | 1 | |||
46 | Organizational governance structure | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
47 | Student financing | 1 | |||
48 | Trophy gallery | 1 | |||
49 | Organizational risk management | 1 | |||
50 | Teachers’ timetable | 1 | |||
51 | History of the organization | 1 | 1 | 1 | |
52 | Laboratory hours | 1 | |||
53 | Teachers’ hours | 1 | |||
54 | Environmental impact of activities | 1 | 1 | 1 | |
55 | Social impact in the community | 1 | 1 | 1 | |
56 | Impacts on local economy | 1 | |||
57 | Incentives for academics | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
58 | Efficiency indicators | 1 | |||
59 | Economic indicators | 1 | 1 | 1 | |
60 | Financial indicators | 1 | 1 | 1 | |
61 | Approval rate | 1 | 1 | ||
62 | Information to employees on the intranet | 1 | |||
63 | Philanthropy information | 1 | 1 | 1 | |
64 | Student information | 1 | 1 | ||
65 | Information on scholarships | 1 | 1 | 1 | |
66 | Information on internships | 1 | 1 | ||
67 | Event information | 1 | 1 | ||
68 | Information on exchange programs | 1 | |||
69 | Course information | 1 | 1 | ||
70 | Supplier information | 1 | 1 | ||
71 | Information about teachers and employees | 1 | 1 | ||
72 | Information on race, gender and minorities at work | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
73 | Information on outsourced services | 1 | 1 | ||
74 | Interaction with the community/allumni (to undertake or to employ) | 1 | 1 | 1 | |
75 | Investment in improvement in employees | 1 | |||
76 | Investment in research and development | 1 | 1 | ||
77 | Environmental investments | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
78 | Investments in infrastructure | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
79 | Investments in courses | 1 | |||
80 | Social investments | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
81 | Gap of pay between genders | 1 | 1 | ||
82 | Environmental legislation | 1 | 1 | 1 | |
83 | Labor and social security legislation | 1 | 1 | ||
84 | Environmental litigation/fines or liabilities | 1 | 1 | ||
85 | Maps of campuses | 1 | 1 | ||
86 | Mechanisms of communication with stakeholders | 1 | 1 | 1 | |
87 | Organizational goals and objectives | 1 | 1 | ||
88 | Document models | 1 | |||
89 | Institutional rules (statute, rules, codes) | 1 | 1 | ||
90 | Notes from ENADE/ENEM | 1 | |||
91 | News and environmental information | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
92 | News and information on economy | 1 | |||
93 | Number of social services provided/made available | 1 | |||
94 | Job opportunities inside and outside the PHEO | 1 | 1 | 1 | |
95 | Vocational orientation | 1 | |||
96 | Student orientations | 1 | |||
97 | Business partners | 1 | |||
98 | Search partners | 1 | |||
99 | Social partners | 1 | |||
100 | Board of directors’ opinions | 1 | |||
101 | PHEO’s market share | 1 | 1 | 1 | |
102 | External participation in councils | 1 | |||
103 | Sponsorships (art, culture, sports and others) | 1 | |||
104 | Percent increase in tuition | 1 | |||
105 | Profile of the former student | 1 | 1 | 1 | |
106 | Student profile | 1 | 1 | 1 | |
107 | Profile of advisers | 1 | 1 | ||
108 | Leaders profile | 1 | 1 | ||
109 | Employee profile | 1 | 1 | 1 | |
110 | Market research for future courses | 1 | |||
111 | Student opinion and satisfaction survey | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
112 | Research and development | 1 | |||
113 | Strategic planning | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
114 | Career path | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
115 | Institutional development plan | 1 | |||
116 | Management plan | 1 | |||
117 | Course evaluation policy | 1 | 1 | 1 | |
118 | Internship policy | 1 | 1 | ||
119 | Social inclusion policy | 1 | |||
120 | Intellectual capital investment policy | 1 | 1 | 1 | |
121 | Surplus reinvestment policy. | 1 | 1 | ||
122 | Health and safety policy of the PHEO | 1 | |||
123 | Supplier selection policy | 1 | 1 | ||
124 | Training and development policy | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
125 | Environmental policies | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
126 | Policies to support social projects | 1 | 1 | 1 | |
127 | Employability policies | 1 | 1 | ||
128 | Equal rights policies | 1 | |||
129 | Investment policies | 1 | 1 | ||
130 | Recruitment and selection policies | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
131 | Social responsibility policies | 1 | 1 | 1 | |
132 | Sustainability policies | 1 | 1 | 1 | |
133 | Strategic positioning | 1 | |||
134 | Sustainability practices | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
135 | Price of courses and events/tuition fees | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
136 | Weather forecast | 1 | |||
137 | Selective process of students | 1 | |||
138 | Selective process of directors and managers | 1 | 1 | ||
139 | Selective process of teachers and staff | 1 | 1 | ||
140 | PHEO branded products | 1 | |||
141 | Student union products and services | 1 | |||
142 | Student loyalty program | 1 | 1 | ||
143 | Research incentive programs | 1 | |||
144 | Volunteer programs | 1 | 1 | ||
145 | Financial projections | 1 | |||
146 | Courses pedagogical project | 1 | |||
147 | Environmental projects | 1 | 1 | 1 | |
148 | Expansion/investment projects | 1 | 1 | ||
149 | Extension and research projects in progress | 1 | 1 | ||
150 | New courses projects | 1 | 1 | 1 | |
151 | Projects for the generation of jobs | 1 | |||
152 | Social projects | 1 | 1 | ||
153 | Course target audience | 1 | |||
154 | Quality of products and services offered | 1 | 1 | ||
155 | List of teachers and staff with e-mail | 1 | |||
156 | List of products and services offered | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
157 | Relationship with customers | 1 | 1 | ||
158 | Community relations | 1 | |||
159 | Relations with unions and class organs | 1 | |||
160 | Environmental report | 1 | |||
161 | Annual report | 1 | 1 | 1 | |
162 | Auditors/councils report | 1 | 1 | ||
163 | Management report | 1 | |||
164 | Social responsibility report | 1 | 1 | 1 | |
165 | Remuneration of board members | 1 | 1 | ||
166 | Remuneration of directors | 1 | 1 | ||
167 | Remuneration of employees | 1 | 1 | ||
168 | Repair of environmental damages | 1 | |||
169 | Resolutions of the councils | 1 | 1 | 1 | |
170 | Respect for human rights | 1 | |||
171 | Supplier social responsibility | 1 | |||
172 | Social responsibility in strategic planning | 1 | |||
173 | Profit for the year (statement) | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
174 | Strategic risk | 1 | 1 | ||
175 | Environmental risks | 1 | 1 | ||
176 | Employees’ satisfaction and motivation | 1 | |||
177 | Health and safety at the PHEO | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
178 | Course segment | 1 | 1 | ||
179 | Community services | 1 | 1 | ||
180 | Library services | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
181 | Internet services | 1 | |||
182 | Site in other languages | 1 | |||
183 | Government grants | 1 | 1 | ||
184 | Grants and donations received | 1 | |||
185 | Turnover | 1 | 1 | 1 | |
186 | Vision, mission, principles and organizational values | 1 | 1 | 1 | |
Totals | 112 | 116 | 56 | 87 |
Appendix B: final set of indicators
Evaluation by experts and stakeholders in Brazil and the UK, average score of stakeholder assessment and final indicator set according to stakeholders perspective.
Categories | Indicators | Scholars | Stakeholders Brazil | Stakeholders RU | Total average | Final set |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Environmental | Information on reduction in noise and air pollution | 4.75 | 3.81 | 3.87 | 4.14 | x |
Information on reducing water and energy consumption | 4.75 | 4.20 | 4.12 | 4.36 | x | |
Environmental investments | 4.75 | 4.37 | 4.25 | 4.46 | x | |
Environmental litigation/fines or liabilities | 4.63 | 3.80 | 3.88 | 4.10 | x | |
Environmental policies | 4.75 | 4.16 | 4.63 | 4.51 | x | |
Environmental projects | 4.50 | 4.16 | 4.38 | 4.35 | x | |
Environmental risks | 4.63 | 4.13 | 4.12 | 4.29 | x | |
Waste treatment | 4.75 | 4.34 | 4 | 4.36 | x | |
Social | Support for government campaigns | 3.13 | 3.31 | 2.63 | 3.02 | |
Support for government projects | 3.63 | 3.59 | 3.13 | 3.45 | ||
Engagement of employees in social responsibility projects | x | |||||
History of the Organization | 3.00 | 3.81 | 3.75 | 3.52 | x | |
Interaction with the community/allumni (to undertake or to employ) | 4.50 | 4.13 | 4 | 4.21 | x | |
Investment in Philanthropy | 3.38 | 3.85 | 4.25 | 3.83 | x | |
Social investments | 4.75 | 4.29 | 4.37 | 4.47 | x | |
Places to accommodate students | x | |||||
Social responsibility policies | 4.75 | 4.31 | 4.13 | 4.40 | x | |
Policies to support social projects | 4.75 | 4.20 | 4.13 | 4.36 | x | |
Extension projects and community support | 4.63 | 4.18 | 4.12 | 4.31 | x | |
Social responsibility report | 4.50 | 4.05 | 4.25 | 4.27 | x | |
Economic and Financial | Cost of living | x | ||||
Cost of courses in general and per student | 3.50 | 4.12 | 4.5 | 4.04 | x | |
Donations received | 3.75 | 3.89 | 4.25 | 3.96 | x | |
Degree of indebtedness | 3.75 | 3.97 | 4.12 | 3.95 | x | |
Investments in infrastructure | 2.88 | 4.26 | 4 | 3.71 | x | |
Liquidity | 3.38 | 3.98 | 3.75 | 3.70 | x | |
Result for the year | 4.00 | 4.17 | 4.25 | 4.14 | x | |
Government grants | 3.63 | 4.21 | 3.88 | 3.91 | x | |
Surplus over revenue | 3.25 | 4.10 | 4 | 3.78 | x | |
Surplus over Shareholders’ equity | 3.13 | 4.13 | 3.75 | 3.67 | x | |
Products and services | Course information | x | ||||
Percentage of student Approval | 3.00 | 3.96 | 3.5 | 3.49 | x | |
Percentage of students dropping out | x | |||||
Publication of research/communication of results | 3.75 | 4.13 | 4.75 | 4.21 | x | |
Course segment | 2.88 | 3.99 | 4.12 | 3.66 | x | |
Library services | 3.50 | 4.15 | 4.5 | 4.05 | x | |
Strategic | Strategic alliances | 3.25 | 3.96 | 3.63 | 3.61 | |
Investment in research and development | 4.63 | 4.41 | 4.63 | 4.55 | x | |
Organizational goals and objectives | 4.50 | 4.13 | 4.63 | 4.42 | x | |
Vision, mission, principles and organizational values | 4.13 | 4.26 | 4.63 | 4.34 | x | |
Social, business and research partners | x | |||||
PHEO’s market share | 3.25 | 4.03 | 3.75 | 3.68 | x | |
Course evaluation policy (government) | 4.00 | 4.24 | 4.25 | 4.16 | x | |
Course evaluation policy (students) | 3.88 | 4.21 | 4.38 | 4.15 | x | |
Surplus reinvestment policy | 3.88 | 4.07 | 4 | 3.98 | x | |
Health and safety policy of the PHEO | x | |||||
New Courses Projects | 3.25 | 4.14 | 4.13 | 3.84 | x | |
Strategic risk | 3.88 | 3.97 | 3.87 | 3.90 | x | |
Governance | Composition of councils (community) | 4.13 | 3.94 | 4 | 4.02 | x |
Composition of the councils (students) | 4.13 | 3.99 | 3.88 | 4.00 | x | |
Composition of councils (officials) | 4.00 | 4.03 | 3.88 | 3.97 | x | |
Organizational governance structure | 2.50 | 4.27 | 3.7 | 3.49 | ||
Profile of advisers | 2.90 | 3.86 | 3.75 | 3.50 | x | |
Leaders profile | 3.50 | 3.91 | 3.38 | 3.60 | x | |
Selective process of counselors | 3.13 | 3.84 | 3.75 | 3.57 | x | |
Selective process of the leaders | 3.25 | 3.95 | 3.75 | 3.65 | x | |
Report of the auditors and advisors | 4.38 | 3.97 | 4.25 | 4.20 | x | |
Resolutions of the councils | 3.38 | 3.78 | 4.1 | 3.75 | x | |
Ethics | Contact channel/ombudsman/contact us | 4.13 | 4.14 | 4.12 | 4.13 | x |
Conduct code | 4.00 | 4.18 | 3.9 | 4.03 | ||
Ethics committee | 4.63 | 4.10 | 4.35 | 4.36 | x | |
Ethical commitments | 4.50 | 4.34 | 4.75 | 4.53 | x | |
Legal | Consumer code | 2.88 | 4.02 | 4.25 | 3.72 | x |
Environmental legislation | 4.50 | 4.04 | 3.87 | 4.14 | x | |
Labor and social security legislation | 4.25 | 4.13 | 4 | 4.13 | x | |
Internal stakeholders | Work accidents | 4.00 | 4.24 | 3.5 | 3.91 | x |
Benefits to employees | 4.75 | 4.30 | 4.13 | 4.39 | x | |
Gender information at work | 3.75 | 3.55 | 3.85 | 3.72 | x | |
Information on minorities at work | 4.50 | 3.44 | 3.75 | 3.90 | ||
Information on race at work | 4.00 | 3.10 | 3.9 | 3.67 | ||
Labor litigation/fines or liabilities | x | |||||
Employee profile | 2.88 | 3.85 | 3.75 | 3.49 | x | |
Training and development policy | 3.88 | 4.27 | 4.13 | 4.09 | x | |
Selective process of teachers and staff | 3.50 | 4.09 | 3.75 | 3.78 | ||
Employability policies | 3.25 | 4.00 | 3.75 | 3.67 | x | |
Recruitment and selection policies | 3.50 | 4.15 | 3.75 | 3.80 | x | |
Intellectual capital investment policy | 4.13 | 4.08 | 4.13 | 4.11 | x | |
Remuneration of Board members | 3.00 | 3.63 | 4.0 | 3.54 | x | |
Remuneration of directors | 3.13 | 3.68 | 3.95 | 3.58 | x | |
Remuneration of employees | 3.50 | 3.86 | 4 | 3.79 | x | |
Health and safety at the PHEO | 4.25 | 4.34 | 4 | 4.20 | ||
Turnover | 3.50 | 3.96 | 3 | 3.49 | ||
External stakeholders | Psychopedagogical support for students | 4.38 | 4.22 | 3.75 | 4.11 | x |
Scholarship | 4.25 | 4.51 | 3.88 | 4.21 | x | |
Growth in student numbers | 3.38 | 4.04 | 3.25 | 3.56 | x | |
Donors (list of the main) | 2.75 | 3.58 | 3.65 | 3.33 | ||
Employment for students | 3.63 | 4.36 | 4 | 4.00 | x | |
Physical space for students’ coexistence | 2.75 | 4.09 | 3.38 | 3.41 | ||
Internships for students | x | |||||
Expenses with local suppliers | 3.25 | 3.80 | 3.75 | 3.60 | x | |
Information on outsourced services | 3.25 | 3.66 | 4 | 3.64 | x | |
Profile of the former student | 3.50 | 3.85 | 3.75 | 3.70 | x | |
Student profile | 3.13 | 3.90 | 3.88 | 3.64 | x | |
Student opinion and satisfaction survey | 4.00 | 4.23 | 4.25 | 4.16 | x | |
Internship policy | 3.38 | 4.13 | 4.13 | 3.88 | x | |
Supplier selection policy | 3.25 | 3.97 | 4 | 3.74 | x | |
Student loyalty program | 2.88 | 3.80 | 3.75 | 3.48 |
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Seibert, R.M., Macagnan, C.B., Dixon, R. et al. Social responsibility indicators: perspective of stakeholders in Brazil and in the UK. Int J Discl Gov 16, 128–144 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1057/s41310-019-00062-0
Received:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/s41310-019-00062-0