Perception of corporate sustainability based on practices disclosed by the governance of state-owned companies
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.5965/2764747112222023066Keywords:
corporate sustainability, governance, state-owned companiesAbstract
Objective: To investigate the perception of corporate sustainability based on practices disclosed by the governance of federal state-owned companies directly controlled by the Federal Government. Methods: This is an exploratory research, with a qualitative approach and analysis of corporate reports. The content analysis was carried out by surveying the compliance between the management reports of the state-owned companies and the Global
Reporting Initiative framework, by compliance with the economic, environmental, and social guidelines recommended by the regulatory body. Results: Corporate sustainability is perceived as the enforcement of cost reduction standards and practices by the governance. The governance of public companies and mixed-capital companies did not present an adequate perception of corporate sustainability as voluntary practices, as they only complied with the requirements resulting from possible inspections. For the governance of state-owned companies, presenting that the guidelines of the economic, environmental, and social pillars
have been complied with was a way of presenting themselves as more efficient. Environmental guidelines were the least complied with, despite the fact that many of the state-owned companies carried out the rational use of water, efficient energy consumption, waste management, and solidary selective waste collection. Contributions: The governances of state-owned companies were not socially responsible as well, despite the fact that their
social indices had better performance than their environmental ones. State-owned companies
summarized the social pillar as for providing training for their employees, and disclosed the compliance with recommended guidelines in the economic, environmental, and social pillars as responses to isomorphism and as a tool of legitimacy.
Downloads
References
Bassen, A.,& Kovacs, A. M. (2008). Environmental, socialand governance key performance indicatorsfrom a capital market perspective.Zeitschrift für Wirt-schafts-und Unternehmensethik, 9(2), 182-192.
Björkman, I., Smale, A., Sumelius, J., Suutari, V., & Lu, Y. (2008). Changes in institutional context and MNC operations in China: subsidiaryHRM practices in 1996 versus 2006. International Business Review, 17(2), 146-158.
Cai, Y., Jo, H., & Pan, C. (2011). Vice or virtue? theimpact of corporate social responsibility on executive compensation. Journal of Business Ethics, 104(2), 159-173.
Carrol, J. M. (1999). Five reasons for scenario-based design. In: Proceedings of the 32nd Annual Hawaii International Conference on Systems Sciences. Abstracts and CD-ROM of Full Papers. IEEE, 11.
Campos, L. M. S., Sehnem, S., Oliveira, M. A. S., Rossetto, A. M., Coelho, A. L. A. L. & Dalfovo, M. S. (2013). Relatório de sustentabilidade: perfil das organizações brasileiras e estrangeiras segundo o padrão da Global Reporting Initiative. Gestão & Produção, 20(4), 913-926.
Correio, M. N. O. P.,& Correio, O. V. O. (2019). Práticas de governança pública adotadaspela Administração Pública Federal Brasileira. Administração Pública e Gestão Social, 11(2).
Dam, L.,& Scholtens, B. (2013). Ownership concentration and CSR policy of European multinational enterprises. Journal of Business Ethics, 118(1), 117-126.
De Beer, P.,& Friend, F. (2006). Environmental accounting: amanagement tool for enhancing corporate environmental and economic performance. Ecological Economics, 58(3), 548-560.Diretiva 2003/51 Europe Union.
Directive 2003/51/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 June 2003. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2003:178:0016:0022:en:PDF.
Dixon-Fowler, H.R.,Ellstrand, A. E., &Johnson, J. L.(2017). The role of board environmental committees in corporate environmental performance. Journal of Business Ethics, 140(3), 423-438.
Elmaci, O., Altunal, I., Tutkavul, K., & Karaş, G. (2016). Analysisof environmental costsin the contextof achieving sustainable advantageand resource based costing model proposalof reporting environmental costs: Balanced Scorecard (BSC). International Journal of Organizational Leadership, 5, 254-269.
Folan, P., & Browne, J. (2005). A review of performance measurement: towardsperformance management. Computers in Industry, 56(7), 663-680.
German Society of Investment Professionals.(2020). DVFA Commission Sustainable Investing. https://www.dvfa.de/der-berufsverband/kommissionen/sustainable-investing.html.
International Organization for Standardization.(2020). About us. https://www.iso.org/about-us.html.
Global Reporting Initiative.(2016). Amsterdam: Global Reporting Initiative. https://www.globalreporting.org/standards/media/1036/gri-101-foundation-2016.pdf.
Global Reporting Initiative.(2020). Central de Download de Padrões da GRI:Universal Standards. https://www.globalreporting.org/standards/gri-standards-download-center/.
Global Reporting Initiative.(2016). GRI 103: Management Approach. https://www.globalreporting.org/standards/media/1038/gri-103-management-approach-2016.pdf.
Global Reporting Initiative.(2016).GRI 101: Foundation 2016. Amsterdam: Global Reporting Initiative. https://www.globalreporting.org/standards/media/1036/gri-101-foundation-2016.pdf.
Hammad, S. A., Jusoh, R., & Ghozali, I. (2013). Decentralization, perceived environmental uncertainty, managerial performance and management accounting system information in Egyptian hospitals. International Journal of Accounting and Information Management.
Hřebíček, J., Soukopová, J., Štencl, M., & Trenz, O. (2011). Integration of economic, environmental, social and corporate governance performance and reporting in enterprises. Acta Universitatis Agriculturae et Silviculturae Mendelianae Brunensis, 59(7), 157-177.
Hussain, N., Rigoni, U., & Orij, R. P. (2018). Corporate governance and sustainability performance: analysisof triple bottom line performance. Journal of Business Ethics, 149(2), 411-432.
Jo, H., & Harjoto, M. A. (2011). Corporate governance and firm value: theimpact of corporate social responsibility. Journal of Business Ethics, 103(3), 351-383.
Kaplan, R. S.,& Norton, D. P. (1997). A estratégia em ação: Balanced Scorecard. Gulf Professional.
Kim, C. H., Amaeshi, K., Harris, S., & Suh, C. J. (2013). CSR and the national institutional context: thecase of South Korea. Journal of Business Research, 66(12), 2581-2591.
Liao, L., Luo, L., & Tang, Q. (2015). Gender diversity, board independence, environmental committee and greenhouse gas disclosure. The British Accounting Review, 47(4), 409-424.
Melnyk, S. A., Stewart, D. M., & Swink, M. (2004). Metrics and performance measurement in operations management: dealing with the metrics maze. Journal of Operations Management, 22(3), 209-218.
Miroshnychenko, I., Barontini, R.,& Testa, F. (2018). Corporate governance and environmental performance: asystematic overview. Ethics, ESG, and Sustainable Prosperity; World Scientific Publishing: Singapore.
Oh, W. Y., Chang, Y. K., & Martynov, A. (2011). The effect of ownership structure on corporate social responsibility: empiricalevidence from Korea. Journal of Business Ethics, 104(2), 283-297.
Ortas, E., Álvarez, I., Jaussaud, J., & Garayar, A. (2015). The impact of institutional and social context on corporate environmental, social and governance performance of companies committed to voluntary corporate social responsibility initiatives. Journal of Cleaner Production, 108, 673-684.
Pfitscher, E. D. (2004). Gestão e sustentabilidade por meioda contabilidade e controladoria ambiental: estudo de caso na cadeia produtiva de arroz ecológico.
Santana, E. A. D. (2006). Economia dos custos de transação, direito de propriedade e a conduta das empresas no setor elétrico brasileiro. Encontro Nacional de Economia, 34.
Secretaria de Coordenação e Governança das Empresas Estatais.(2020). Panorama das Estatais (2020). http://www.panoramadasestatais.planejamento.gov.br.
Teixeira, M. G., De Déa Roglio, K., & Marcon, R. (2017). Institutional logics and the decision-making process of adopting corporate governance at a cooperative organization. Journal of Management & Governance, 21(1), 181-209.
The EU Eco-management and Audit Scheme.(2020). Environment:welcome.https://ec.europa.eu/environment/basics/home_en.htm.
Tribunal de Contas da União. (2019).Decisão NormativaTCU nº178, de23 de outubrode 2019. Dispõe acerca das prestações de contas anuais da Administração Pública Federal referentes ao exercício de 2019, que devem ser apresentadas em 2020, especificando a forma, os elementos de conteúdo, as unidades que devem prestar contas e os prazos de apresentação, nos termos do art. 3º da Instrução Normativa-TCU 63, de 1º de setembro de 2010.
Tribunal de Contas da União. (2010).Instrução NormativaTCU nº63, de 1º de setembro de 2010. Estabelece normas de organização e de apresentação dos relatórios de gestão e das peças complementares que constituirão os processos de contas da administração pública federal, para julgamento do Tribunal de Contas da União, nos termos do art. 7º da Lei nº 8.443, de 1992.
United Nations Principles for Responsible Investment.(2020). Principles for Responsible Investment (PRI). About the PRI. https://www.unpri.org/about-the-pri/.
Wang, P., Che, F., Fan, S., & Gu, C. (2014). Ownership governance, institutional pressures and circular economy accounting information disclosure: aninstitutional theory and corporate governance theory perspective. Chinese Management Studies.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2023 Davi Jônatas Cunha Araújo, Renata Paes de Barros Câmara, Sheila Alice Gajadhar Araújo
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Brazilian Journal of Accounting and Management offers free and immediate access to its content, following the principle that providing scientifical knowledge in a free manner promotes a better world democratization of knowledge. Authors maintain copyright of articles and grant to the journal the rights of the first publication, according to the Creative Commons Attribution licensing criteria, which allows the work to be shared with initial publication and authorship recognition. These licenses allow others to distribute, remix, adapt, or create derived work, even if it is for commercial purposes, provided that the credit is given to the original creation.
