Skip to main content
Log in

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

  • Original Article
  • Published:
International Journal of Disclosure and Governance Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Andrews, A. 2014. Downward accountability in unequal aliances: Explaining NGO responses to Zapatista demands. World Development 54: 99–113.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Attig, N., and S. Cleary. 2015. Managerial Practices and Corporate Social Responsibility. Journal of Business Ethics 131: 121–136.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bowman, E.H., and M. Haire. 1976. Social impact disclosure and corporate annual reports. Accounting, Organizations and Society 1(1): 11–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Carroll, A.B. 1979. A three-dimensional conceptual model of corporate social performance. Academy of Management Review 4(4): 497–505.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Core, J.E. 2001. A review of the empirical disclosure literature: discussion. Journal of Accounting and Economics 31: 441–456.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cortina, J.M. 1993. What is coefficient Alpha? An examination of theory and applications. Journal of Applied Psychology 78(1): 98–104.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cronbach, L.J. 1951. Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika 16(3): 297–334.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dahlsrud, A. 2008. How corporate social responsibility is defined: an analysis of 37 definitions. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management 15: 1–13.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Garcia-Meca, E., and I.M. Conesa. 2004. Divulgación voluntária de información empresarial: Índices de Revelación. Partida Doble 157: 66–77.

    Google Scholar 

  • Giannetti, E., and C. Almeida. 2006. Ecologia Industrial - Conceitos, ferramentas e aplicações. São Paulo: Ed. Edgard Blücher.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gisbert, A., B. Navallas, and D. Romero. 2014. Proprietary costs, governance and the segment disclosure decision. Journal of Management and Governance 18: 733–763.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gonzalez-Perez, M.A. 2013. Corporate social responsibility and international business: A conceptual overview. Advances in Sustainability and Environmental Justice 11: 1–35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • GRI – Global Reporting Iniciative. 2013. G4NGOsector 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hair, J., et al. 2006. Multivariate data analysis. 6th ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Hay, R., and E. Gray. 1974. Social responsibilities of business managers. The Academy of Management Journal 17(1): 135–143.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jones, T.M. 1980. Corporate social responsibility revisited, redefined. California Management Review 22(2): 59–67.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Joseph, C., and R. Taplin. 2011. The measurement of sustainability disclosure: Abundance versus occurrence. Accounting Forum 35: 19–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kaiser, H.F. 1968. A measure of the average intercorrelation. Educational and Psychological Measurement 28: 245–247.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Minayo, M.C.S. 2009. Construção de indicadores qualitativos para avaliação de mudanças. Revista Brasileira de Educação Médica 33(1): 83–91.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rametsteiner, E., H. Pulzl, J. Alkan-Olsson, and P. Frederiksen. 2011. Sustainability indicator development - Science or political negotiation. Ecological Indicators 11: 61–70.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stiglitz, J.E. 2000. The contributions of the eocnomics of information to twentieth century economics. The Quarterly Journal of Economics 115(4): 1441–1478.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Suchman, M.C. 1995. Managing legitimacy: Strategic and institutional approaches. Academy of Management Review 20(3): 571–610.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tarozzi, M. 2011. O que é Grounded Theory? Metodologia de pesquisa e de teoria fundamentada nos dados. Petrópolis – RJ: Vozes.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vieira, V.A. 2011. Escalas em Marketing: Métricas de resposta do consumidor e de desempenho empresarial. São Paulo: Atlas.

    Google Scholar 

  • Waddock, S. 2008. Building a new institutional infrastructure for corporate responsibility. Academy of Management Perspectives 22: 87–108.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Wiggill, M. 2014. Donor relationship management practices in the South African non-profit sector. Public Relations Review 40: 278–285.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

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

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Rosane Maria Seibert.

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

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

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

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/s41310-019-00062-0

Keywords

Navigation