Pressões internas e externas na utilização de padrões de divulgação de informações socioambientais amplamente aceitos: uma análise sobre estrutura de governança corporativa, ambiente institucional e a perspectiva de legitimação

Autores

  • Luciana Siqueira Ambrozini Faculdade de Economia, Administração e Contabilidade de Ribeirão Preto - Universidade de São Paulo (USP)

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.5007/2175-8069.2017v14n31p3

Resumo

O objetivo deste estudo é verificar se pressões internas, representadas pela estrutura de governança corporativa das organizações, e pressões externas, representadas pelo ambiente institucional legal e pressões exercidas por acionistas e credores, influenciam a utilização de padrões de divulgação de informações socioambientais voluntárias (i.e.GRI) amplamente aceitos. A amostra é composta pelas 96 empresas e foi utilizada a técnica estatística da Regressão Logística. Os resultados demonstraram que a estrutura de governança corporativa apresenta-se como fator relevante para utilização desses padrões de divulgação. A presença de um mecanismo de governança associado à responsabilidade socioambiental exerce influência na utilização dos padrões isoladamente do conjunto de mecanismos que compõem a estrutura de governança. O ambiente institucional legal não se apresentou significativo, enquanto as pressões exercidas por credores e acionistas apresentaram-se relevantes na decisão de utilizar o padrão de divulgação em análise. Os resultados corroboram para a perspectiva da legitimação da Teoria Institucional.

Biografia do Autor

Luciana Siqueira Ambrozini, Faculdade de Economia, Administração e Contabilidade de Ribeirão Preto - Universidade de São Paulo (USP)

Mestra em Controladoria e Contabilidade.

Doutoranda em Administração das Organizações

Referências

AGRAWAL, A; CHADHA, S. Corporate governance and accounting scandals. Journal of Law and Economics, v. 48, p. 371–406, 2005. DOI: 10.1086/430808

AGUILERA, R. V; JACKSON, G. The cross-national diversity of corporate governance: Dimensions and determinants. Academy of management review, v. 28, n. 3, p. 447-465, 2003. doi: 10.5465/AMR.2003.10196772.

AGUILERA, R. V. et al. Putting the S back in corporate social responsibility: A multilevel theory of social change in organizations. Academy of management review, vol. 32, n. 3, p. 836-863, 2007. doi: 10.5465/AMR.2007.25275678

AGUILERA, R. V. et al. An organizational approach to comparative corporate governance: Costs, contingencies, and complementarities. Organization Science, v. 19, n. 3, p. 475-492, 2008. doi: 10.1287/orsc.1070.0322.

AHRENS, T.; FILATOTCHEV, I.; THOMSEN, S. The research frontier in corporate governance. Journal of Management & Governance, v. 15, n. 3, p. 311-325, 2011. doi:10.1007/s10997-009-9115-8.

BARAKAT, F.S.Q.; PÉREZ, M.V.L.; ARIZA, L.R. Corporate social responsibility disclosure (CSRD) determinants of listed companies in Palestine (PXE) and Jordan (ASE). Review of Managerial Science, v. 9, n. 4, p. 681-702. doi: 10.1007/s11846-014-0133-9

BARAKO, D.G.; HANCOCK, P.; IZAN, H.Y. Factors influencing voluntary corporate disclosure by Kenyan companies. Journal of Corporate Governance, v.14, n. 2, p.107-125, 2006. doi: 10.1080/10291954.2015.999471.

BAYSINGER, B. D.; HOSKISSON, R. E. The composition of boards of directors and strategic control: Effects on corporate strategy. Academy of Management Review, v.15, n. 1, p. 72–87, 1990. doi: 10.5465/AMR.1990.4308231.

BRAMMER, S.; JACKSON, G.; MATTEN, D. Corporate social responsibility and institutional theory: New perspectives on private governance. Socio-Economic Review, v. 10, n. 1, p. 3-28, 2012. doi: 10.1093/ser/mwr030.

BROWN, H.S.; DE JONG, M.; LESSINDRENSKA, T. The rise of the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) as a case of institutional entrepreneurship. Environmental Politics, v. 18, n. 2, p. 182-200, 2009. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09644010802682551

______; DE JONG, M.; LEVY, D. L. Building institutions based on information disclosure: Lessons from GRI's sustainability reporting. Journal of Cleaner Production, v.17, n. 6, p. 571-580, 2009. doi: 10.1080/09644010802682551.

CHO, C. H.; PATTEN, D. M. The role of environmental disclosures as tools of legitimacy: A research note. Accounting, Organizations and Society, v. 32, n. 7, p. 639-647, 2007. doi: 10.1016/j.aos.2006.09.009.

CHOUDHARY, P.; SCHLOETZER, J. D; STURGESS, J. D. Boards, auditors, attorneys, and compliance with mandatory SEC disclosure rules. Managerial and Decision Economics, v. 34, n. 7-8, p. 471–487, 2013. doi: 10.1002/mde.2623.

COLLIER, P. Factors affecting the formation of audit committees in major UK listed companies. Accounting and Business Research, v. 23, n. 91, p. 421–430, 1993. doi: 10.1080/00014788.1993.9729909.

CORRAR, L.J.; PAULO, E.; DIAS FILHO, J.M. (Coord.). Análise multivariada: para cursos de administração, ciências contábeis, atuariais e financeiras. São Paulo: Atlas, 2007.

DACIN, M.T.; GOODSTEIN, J.; SCOTT, W.R. Institutional theory and institutional change: Introduction to the special research forum. Academy of Management Journal, v. 45, n. 1, p. 45-57, 2002.

DE GRAAF, F. J; STOELHORST, J. W. The role of governance in corporate social responsibility: Lessons from Dutch finance. Business Society, v. 52, n. 2, p. 282-317, 2013.

DEEGAN, C. Introduction: the legitimising effect of social and environmental disclosures – a theoretical foundation. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, v. 15, n. 3, p. 282-311, 2002. doi: 10.1108/09513570210435852.

DI MAGGIO, P. J.; POWELL, W. W. The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American sociological review, v. 48, n. 2, p. 147-160, 1983.

ENG, L.L.; MAK, Y.T. Corporate governance and voluntary disclosure. Journal of Accounting and Public Policy, v. 22, n. 4, p. 325-345, 2003. doi: 10.1016/S0278-4254(03)00037-1.

FAMA, E.; JENSEN, M. Separation of ownership and control. Journal of Law and Economics, v. 26, n. 2, p. 301–326, 1983.

FILATOTCHEV, I.; BOYD, B.K. Taking stock of corporate governance research while looking to the future. Corporate Governance: An International Review, v. 17, n. 3, p. 257-265, 2009. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8683.2009.00748.

______; NAKAJIMA, C. Corporate governance, responsible managerial behavior, and corporate social responsibility: Organizational efficiency versus organizational legitimacy? The Academy of Management Perspectives, v. 28, n. 3, p. 289-306, 2014. doi: 10.5465/amp.2014.0014.

FRANSEN, L. Multi-stakeholder governance and voluntary program interactions: Legitimation politics in the institutional design of corporate social responsibility. Socio-Economic Review, vol. 10, n.1, p. 163–191, 2012. doi: 10.1093/ser/mwr029.

FREEMAN, R.E.; REED, D. L. Stockholders and stakeholders: A new perspective in corporate governance. California Management Review, v. 25, n.3, p. 88-103, 1983.

GIRERD-POTIN, I.; JIMENEZ-GARCÈS, S.; LOUVET, P. Which dimensions of social responsibility concern financial investors? Journal of Business Ethics, v. 121, n. 4, p. 559-576, 2014. doi:10.1007/s10551-013-1731-1.

GLOBAL REPORTING INITIATIVE. Disponível em: <https://www.globalreporting.org/information/about-gri/alliances-and-synergies/Pages/IFC.aspx>. Acesso em: 28 nov. 2014.

______. G4 sustainability reporting guidelines. Disponível em: <https://www.globalreporting.org/resourcelibrary/GRIG4-Part2-Implementation-Manual.pdf > Acesso em: 28 nov. 2014.

GRAAF, F.J; STOELHORST, J.W. The Role of Governance in Corporate Social Responsibility. Business & Society, v. 52, n. 2, p. 282 –317, 2013.

GRAY, R.; KOUHY, R.; LAVERS, S. Corporate social and environmental reporting: A review of the literature and a longitudinal study of UK disclosure. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, v. 8, n. 2, p. 47-77, 1995. doi: 10.1108/09513579510146996.

GUL, F. A.; LEUNG, S. Board leadership, outside directors’ expertise and voluntary corporate disclosures. Journal of Accounting and Public Policy, v. 23, n.5, p. 351–379, 2004. doi: 10.1016/j.jaccpubpol.2004.07.001.

HALL, P.A.; GINGERICH, D.W. Varieties of capitalism and institutional complementarities in the political economy. British Journal of Political Science, v. 39, n. 3, p. 449-482, 2009. doi: 10.1017/S0007123409000672.

HANIFFA, R.M; COOKE, T.E. The impact of culture and governance on corporate social reporting. Journal of Accounting and Public Policy, v. 24, n. 5, p. 391-430, 2005. doi: 10.1016/j.jaccpubpol.2005.06.001.

HO, S.S.M.; WONG, K.S. A study of the relationship between corporate governance structures and the extent of voluntary disclosure. Journal of International Accounting, Auditing & Taxation, v. 10, n. 2, p. 139-156, 2001. doi: 10.1016/S1061-9518(01)00041-6.

HOSKISSON, R.; YIU, D.; KIM, H. Corporate governance systems: Effects of capital and labor market congruency on corporate innovation and global competitiveness. Journal of High Technology Management, v. 15, n. 2, p. 293-307, 2004. doi: 10.1016/j.hitech.2004.03.008.

JAMALI, D.; SAFIEDDINE, A. M.; RABBATH, M. Corporate Governance and Corporate Social Responsibility Synergies and Interrelationships. Corporate Governance, v. 16, n. 5, p. 443-459, 2008. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8683.2008.00702.x

JUDGE, W. Q. Editorial–toward a global theory of corporate governance. Corporate Governance: An International Review, v. 17, n. 2, p. iii-iv, 2009. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8683.2009.00736.x

______; DOUGLAS, T. J.; KUTAN, A. M. Institutional antecedents of corporate governance legitimacy. Journal of Management, v. 34, n. 4, p.765-785, 2008. doi: 10.1108/JAOC-02-2012-0014.

______; LI, S.; PINSKER, R. National adoption of international accounting standards: an institutional perspective. Corporate Governance: An International Review, v. 18, n. 3, p. 161-174, 2010. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8683.2010.00798.x

KUASIRKUN, N.; SHERER, M. Corporate social accounting disclosure in Thailand. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, vol. 17, n. 4, p. 629-660, 2004. doi: 10.1108/09513570410554588.

LEVY, D. L.; BROWN, H. S.; DE JONG, M. The contested politics of corporate governance: the case of the global reporting initiative. Business & Society, v. 49, n. 1, p. 88-115, 2010.

LIAO, L.; LUO, L.; TANG, Q. Gender diversity, board independence, environmental committee and greenhouse gas disclosure. The British Accounting Review, v. 47, n. 4, p. 409-424, 2015. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.bar.2014.01.002.

LUO L.; LAN, Y.C.; TANG Q. Corporate incentives to disclose carbon information: evidence from the CDP Global 500 report. Journal of International Financial Management and Accounting, v. 23, n. 2, p. 93–120, 2012. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-646X.2012.01055.x

______.; TANG, Q.; LAN, Y. Comparison of propensity for carbon disclosure between developing and developed countries. Accounting Research Journal, v. 26, n. 1, p. 6-34, 2013. doi: 10.1108/ARJ-04-2012-0024.

MEYER, J.W.; ROWAN, B. Institutionalized organizations: formal structure as myth and ceremony. American Journal of Sociology, v. 83, n. 2, p. 340-363, 1977.

MICHELON, G.; PARBONETTI, A. The effect of corporate governance on sustainability disclosure. Journal of Management & Governance, v. 16, n. 3, p. 477-509, 2012. doi:10.1007/s10997-010-9160-3.

NORTH, D. C. Institutions, institutional change and economic performance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990.

NTIM, C.G.; SOOBAROYEN, T. Corporate governance performance in socially responsible corporations: new empirical insights from neo-institutional framework. Corporate Governance: An International Review, v. 21, n. 5, p. 468-494, 2013. doi: 10.1111/corg.12026.

ORGANIZATION FOR ECONOMIC CO-OPERATION AND DEVELOPMENT (OECD) 2004. OECD principles of corporate governance, 2004. Disponível em: <http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/32/18/31557724.pdf>. Acesso: 28 nov. 2014.

ROSENSTEIN, S.; WYATT, J. G. Outside directors, board independence and shareholder wealth. Journal of Financial Economics, v. 26, n. 2, p. 175–192, 1990. doi: 10.1016/0304-405X(90)90002-H.

SUCHMAN, M.C. Managing legitimacy: strategic and institutional approaches. Academy of Management Review, v. 20, n. 3, p. 517-610, 1995. doi: 10.5465/AMR.1995.9508080331.

WITT, M.A; REDDING, G. The Spirits of Corporate Social Responsibility: Senior Executive Perceptions of the Role of the Firm in Society in Germany, Hong Kong, Japan, South Korea, and the United States. Socio-Economic Review, v. 10, n.1, 109-134, 2012

WRIGHT, M.; FILATOTCHEV, I.; HOSKISSON, R. E.; PENG, M. W. Strategy research in emerging economies: Challenging the conventional wisdom. Journal of Management Studies, v. 42, n. 1, p.1-33, 2005. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-6486.2005.00487.x

YU, X. Securities fraud and corporate finance: Recent developments. Managerial and Decision Economics, v. 34, n. 7-8, p. 439–450, 2013. doi: 10.1002/mde.262.

Downloads

Publicado

2017-04-03

Como Citar

Ambrozini, L. S. (2017). Pressões internas e externas na utilização de padrões de divulgação de informações socioambientais amplamente aceitos: uma análise sobre estrutura de governança corporativa, ambiente institucional e a perspectiva de legitimação. Revista Contemporânea De Contabilidade, 14(31), 03–25. https://doi.org/10.5007/2175-8069.2017v14n31p3

Edição

Seção

Artigos