The Question of Transparency in Civil Society Organizations
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.5902/2359043227136Keywords:
Transparency, entities of social interest, stakeholders, accountability, organizational responsibility.Abstract
The aim of this research was to analyze the disclosure level of the representative organizational responsibility information - economic and financial, social and environmental - Entities of Social Interest, As civil society organizations based on Federal Law 13,019 / 14. The research was done through the creation of representative indicators of information of each of the categories. Then, the non-participant observation, content analysis was carried out to identify the presence or absence of indicators on electronic pages Internet of two Entities of Social Interest: the LBV and the AACD. Further, attributed to weight one to the highlighted window and zero for the non-disclosure, which resulted in disclosure indices by category and general organizational responsibility for each NGO. The results demonstrate that the LBV shows more than AACD in all categories, featuring efficient accountability to their stakeholders. A factor that may represent return in the form of greater organizational legitimacy.Downloads
References
AACD. Associação de Assistência à Criança Deficiente. Disponível em: < http://aacd.org.br/>. Acesso em: 05 mar. 2015.
Accountability. (2008). AA1000 Accountability Principles Standard. Acesso em 23 de 09 de 2015, disponível em www.accountability.org/standards/aa1000aps.html
Adams, C. (2004). The ethical, social and environmental reporting performance portrayal gap. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 731-757.
Aerts, W.; Cormier, D. (2009). Media legitimacy and corporate environmental communication. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 1-27.
Archel, P., Fernández, M.; Larrinaga, C. (2008). The organizational and operational boundaries or Triple Bottom Line Reporting: A survey. Environmental Management, 106-117.
Bardin, L. (1977). Análise de conteúdo. Lisboa: Edições 70.
Brown H. (1916). Human Nature and the State. International Journal of Ethics, 26(2), 177-192.
Bushman, R. M.; Smith, A. J. (2003). Transparency, financial accounting information, and corporate governance. FRBNY Economic Policy Review, 9(1), 65-87.
Carroll, A. (1991). The Pyramid of Corporate Social Responsibility – Toward the Moral Management of Organizational Stakeholders. Business Horizons, 39-48.
Carroll, A. B. (1979). A three-dimensional conceptual model of corporate social performance. Academy of Management Review, 497-505.
Carroll, P.; Steane, P. (2000). Public private partnerships: sectoral perspectives. In S. Osborne, Public-Private partnerships for public services: An international perspective (pp. 36-56). London: Routledge.
CFC - Conselho Federal de Contabilidade. (2004). Resolução CFC nº 1.003/04. Norma Brasileira de Contabilidade Técnica 15 - NBC T 15. Brasília: Conselho Federal de Contabilidade.
Dahlsrud, A. (2008). How Corporate Social Responsibility is Defined: an Analysis of 37 Definitions. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 1-13.
Deegan, C.; Rankin, M. (1997). The materiality of environmental information to users of annual reports. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 562-583.
Deegan, C.; Rankin, M.; Tobin, J. (2002). An examination of the corporate social and environmental disclosures of BHP from 1983-1997. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 312-343.
Donaldson, T.; Preston, L. (1995). The stakeholder theory of the corporation: Concepts, evidence, and implications. Academy of Management Review, 20(1), 65-91.
Dowling, J.; Pfeffer, J. (1975). Organizational legitimacy: Social values and organizational behavior. Pacific Sociological Review, 122-136.
Dusuki, A. W.; Yusof, T. F. (2008). The pyramid of corporate social responsibility model: Empirical evidence from Malaysian stakeholder perspective. Malaysian Accounting Review, 29-54.
Dye, R. A. (2001). An evaluation of ‘‘essays on disclosure’’ and the disclosure literature in accounting. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 181–235.
Ferreira, A. (1986). Dicionário da Língua Portuguesa (2ª ed.). Rio de Janeiro: Nova Fronteira.
Fletcher, A.; Guthrie, J.; Steane, P., Roos, G.; Pike, S. (2003). Mapping stakeholder perceptions for a third sector organization. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 505-527.
Freeman, R. E. (1984). Strategic management: A stakeholder approach. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Freeman, R.; Reed, D. (1983). Stockholders and stakeholders: A new perspective on corporate governance. California Management Review, 25(3), 88-106.
Freeman, R.; Harrison, J., Wicks, A., Parmar, B.; Colle, S. (2010). Stakeholder Theory: The state of the art. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Garcia-Meca, E.; Conesa, I. (2004). Divulgación voluntária de información empresarial: Índices de Revelación. Partida Doble, 66-77.
Gray, R.; Bebbington, J.; Collison, D. (2006). NGOs, civil society and accountability: making the people accountable to capital. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 319-348.
Gray, R., Kouhy, R.; Lavers, S. (1995). Methodological themes: Constructing a research database of social and environmental reporting by UK companies. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 78-101.
GRI - Global Reporting Iniciative. (2013). Sustainability Disclosure Database. Acesso em 25 de julho de 2013, disponível em GRI - Global Reporting Iniciative: https://www.globalreporting.org
Guareschi, P. (2003). Sociologia crítica: Alternativas de mudança (54ª ed.). Porto Alegre, RS, Brasil: EDIPUCRS.
Guthrie, J.; Parker, L. D. (1989). Corporate social reporting: A rebutal of legitimacy theory. Accounting and Business Research, 343-352.
Hackston, D.; Milne, M. J. (1996). Some determinants of social and environmental disclosures in New Zealand companies. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 77-108.
Hansmann, H. (2003). The role of trust in nonprofit enterprise. In H. K. Anheier; A. Ben-Ner, The study of nonprofit enterprise: Theories and approaches (pp. 115-122). New York: Plenum Publishers.
Hansmann, H. B. (1980). The role of Nonprofit Enterprise. The Yale Law Journal, 835-902.
Harrison, J. A., Rouse, P.; Villiers, C. J. (2012). Accountability and performance measurement: A Stakeholder perspective. The Business and Economics Research Journal, 243-258.
Harrison, T. D.; Laincz, C. A. (2008). Entry and Exit in the Nonprofit Sector. The B.E. Journal of Economic Analysis & Policy, (online) DOI:10.2202/1935-1682.1987.
Hasnas, J. (2013). Whither stakeholder theory? A guide for the perplexed revisited. Journal Business Ethics, 47-57.
Hofmann, M. A.; McSwain, D. (2013). Financial disclosure management in the nonprofit sector: A framework for past and future research. Journal of Accounting Literature, 61-87.
IBGC (2009). Código das Melhores Práticas de governança corporativa. Fonte: IBGC- Instituto Brasileiro de Governança Corporativa: http://www.ibgc.org.br
Instituto Ethos de Empresas e Responsabilidade Social. (2013). Indicadores Ethos de Responsabilidade Social empresarial. São Paulo: Instituto Ethos.
Jones, T. M. (1980). Corporate Social Responsibility Revisited, Redefined. California Management Review, 59-67.
LBV. Legião da Boa Vontade. Disponível em: http://www.lbv.org/>. Acesso em: 07 mar. 2014.
Lindblom, C. K. (1994). The implications of organizational legitimacy for corporate social performance and disclosure. Paper Apresentado na Critical Perspectives on Accounting Conference. New York, NY, United States.
Machado, D.; Ott, E. (2015). Estratégias de legitimação social empregadas na evidenciação ambiental: Um estudo à luz da teoria da Legitimidade. Revista Universo Contábil, 11(1), 136-156.
Marquezan, L.; Seibert, R.; Bartz, D.; Barbosa, M.; Alves, T. (2015). Análise dos Determinantes do Disclosure Verde em Relatórios Anuais de Empresas Listadas na BM&FBOVESPA. Contabilidade, Gestão e Governança, 127-150.
Michelon, G. (2011). Sustainability disclosure and reputation: A comparative study. Corporate Reputation Review, 79-96.
Mitchell, R.; Agle, B.; Wood, D. (1997). Toward a theory of stakeholder identification and salience: Defining the principle of who and what really counts. Academy of management review, 853-886.
Moneva, J. M.; Archel, P.; Correa, C. (2006). GRI and the camouflaging of corporate unsustainability. Accounting Forum, 121-137.
Murcia, F. D.-R.; Fávero, L. P.; Rover, S.; Lima, G. A.; Lima, I. (2008). Disclosure 'Verde' nas Demonstrações Contábeis: Características da informação ambiental e possíveis explicações para a divulgação voluntária. Revista UnB Contábil, 260-278.
Myers, J.; Sacks, R. (2001). Harnessing the talents of a loose and baggy monster. Journal of European Industrial Training, 454-464.
Neu, D.; Warsame, H.; Pedwell, K. (1998). Managing public impressions: Environmental disclosures in Annual Reports. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 265-282.
Nolan, P.; Lenski, G. (2014). Human Societies: An introduction to macrosociology (20ª ed). New York, United States of America: Oxford Univiersity Press.
O'Donovan, G. (2002). Environmental disclosure in the annual report: Extending the applicability and predictive power of legitimacy theory. Accounting, Auditing, Accountability Journal, 344-371.
O'Sullivan, N.; O’Dwyer, B. (2009). Stakeholder perspectives on a financial sector legitimation process: The case of NGOs and the Equator Principles. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 553-587.
Parmar, B. L.; Freeman, R. E.; Harrison, J. S.; Wicks, A. C.; Purnell, L.; Colle, S. d. (2010). Stakeholder theory: The state of the art. The academy of management annals, 403-445.
Patten, D. M. (1991). Exposure, legitimacy and social disclosure. Journal of Accounting and Public Policy, 297-308.
Patten, D. M. (1992). Intra-industry environmental disclosure in response to the Alaskan oil spill: A note on Legitimacy Theory. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 471-475.
Phillips, R. (2003). Stakeholder Legitimacy. Business Ethics Quarterly, 25-41.
Prencipe, A. (2004). Proprietary costs and determinants of voluntary segment disclosure: evidence from Italian Listed Companies. European Accounting Review, 319–340.
Roberts, P. W.; Dowling, G. R. (2002). Corporate reputation and sustained superior financial performance. Strategic Management Journal, 1077-1093.
Rodríguez, M.; Fernández, M.; Simonetti, B. (2015). The social, economic and environmental dimensions of corporate social responsibility: The role played by consumers and potential entrepreneurs. International Business Review, 24(5), 836-848.
SEC, S. (s.d.). Form 20-F. Acesso em 02 de agosto de 2013, disponível em http://www.sec.gov/about/forms
Seibert, R.; Macagnan, C. (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.
Serviçes, IRF - Internal Revenue. (s.d.). Form 990. Acesso em 05 de 11 de 2014, disponível em http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/f990.pdf
Shocker, A. D.; Sethi, S. P. (1973). An approach to incorporating societal preferences in developing corporate action strategies. California Management Review, 97-105.
Silva, V. d.; Macagnan, C. B. (2012). Categorias de informações evidenciadas nos Relatórios Anuais. REDES - Revista de Desenvolvimento regional, 154-174.
Slomski, V.; Mello, G. R.; Tavares Filho, F.; Macêdo, F. Q. Governança Corporativa e Governança na Gestão Pública. São Paulo: Atlas, 2008.
Spear, R.; Cornforth, C.; Aiken, M. (2009). The governance challenges of social enterprises: Evidence from a UK empirical study. Annals of Public and Cooperative Economics, 247-273.
Stiglitz, J. (2000). The contributions of the economics 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, 571-610.
Tenório, Fernando G. Gestão de ONGS: Principais Funções Gerenciais. 9. ed. Rio de Janeiro: Fundação Getúlio Vargas, 2005.
Thompson, J.; Wartick, S.; Smith, H. (1991). Integrating corporate social performance and stakeholder management: Implications for a research agenda in small business. Research in Corporate Social Performance and Policy, 12, 207-230.
Tullberg, J. (2013). Stakeholder theory: Some revisionist suggestions. The Journal of Socio-Economics, 127-135.
Vamosi, T. (2005). Management accounting and accountability in a new reality of everyday life. The British Accounting Review, 37, 443–470.
Vergara, S. (2011). Projetos e relatórios em administração. São Paulo: atlas.
Waddock, S. (August de 2008). Building a New Institutional Infrastructure for Corporate Responsibility. Academy of Management Perspectives, 87-108.
Watts, R. L.; Zimmerman, J. L. (1978). Towards a Positive Theory of the Determination of Accounting Standards. The Accounting Review, 112-134.
Wiggill, M. (2014). Donor relationship management practices in the South African non-profit sector. Public Relations Review, 278–285.
Wood, D. J. (1991). Corporate social performance revisited. Academy of management review, 691-718.
Yin, R. (2011). Estudo de caso. São Paulo: Atlas.
Yusoff, H.; Lehman, G.; Nasir, N. M. (2006). Environmental engagements through the lens of disclosure practices: A Malaysian story. Asian Review of Accounting, 122-148.
Zainon, S.; Atan, R.; Wah, Y. B. (2014). An empirical study on the determinants of information disclosure of Malaysian non-profit organizations. Asian Review of Accounting, 35-55.
Downloads
Published
Versions
- 2022-05-30 (2)
- 2017-08-03 (1)
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2017 Revista de Gestão e Organizações Cooperativas
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
Authors who publish in this journal agree to the following terms:
- Authors retain copyright and grant the journal the right of first publication, with work simultaneously licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution License that allows the sharing of work with acknowledgment of authorship and initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are authorized to enter additional contracts separately for non-exclusive distribution of the version of the work published in this journal (eg, publishing in institutional repository or as a book chapter), with acknowledgment of authorship and initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are allowed and encouraged to post and distribute their work online (eg, in institutional repositories or on their personal page) at any point before or during the editorial process, as this can bring about productive change as well as increase impact and impact. citation of published work (See The Effect of Free Access).
