Search results

In 1972 Ursula Le Guin published her award winning novella, The Word for World is Forest. This describes the world of the Athsheans, a small, green, furry, and peaceful people. Their planet consists of basically two things: water, and forest. Here they live, hunt, love and dream. They slip gently from dreamtime to realtime; their reality is not always as ours. Then the Terrans arrive. They don't particularly care about the natives, but they want the forest. With huge machines, they level the forest for mile wide strips, using the natives as slave labour. But then one of the Athsheans learn something from the conquerors: how to hate — and how to use this hate to fight for freedom. This is a story of how the search for profit, coupled with narrow — mindedness, blend into a mix with horrible consequences. Like all science fiction Le Guin provides not so much a vision of the future but rather a lens with which to view and make sense of the present. And the human exploitation of the world of the Athsheans is very similar to the current corporate exploitation of large parts of the world and its human inhabitants — anything is permissible (including enslavement) if there is a profit to be made. For Le Guin corporate exploitation is not sustainable but in Newtonian fashion will result violent retribution from the oppressed. Many would support this prognosis of the consequences of corporate misbehaviour and would, like Le Guin, be firmly on the side of the oppressed. It is the purpose of this paper however to use the metaphor provided by the work of Le Guin, together with a consideration of current corporate activity, to show that a sustainable future is neither exploitative (and so the corporate leaders have got it wrong) nor confrontational (and so the anti‐globalisation movement is equally wrong). A sustainable future actually requires what could have been described as a third way if the Blairite masters of spin had not arrived previously and made such a term ridiculed into oblivion.

This research discusses the financial perspective of Non-governmental Organizations (NGOs), in general, and identifies the level of dependency and diversification of revenues, in particular. The Herfindahl–Hirschman Index (HHI) was used as an indicator for calculating the concentration of the income for each NGO. The main sources of income reported were donations, government grants, financial income, service provision, sales and other incomes. The sample of case studies analyzed are Centre for Advanced Studies of Social and Environmental Promotion (CASSEP), Federation of Bodies for Social and Educational Assistance (FBSEA), Ecological Research Institute (ERI) and Amazon Environmental Research Institute (AERI). These organizations have been used as case studies (Yin, 2019) because they received resources from the Amazon Fund in Brazil for at least one year during the research period of 2014–2018. The composition of the revenue for this period was analyzed according to the Procedures Manual for the Third Sector published by the Federal Accounting Council of the Brazilian Accounting Foundation (FAC-BAF) and by the Association of Attorneys and Promoters of Justice of Foundations and Organizations of Social Interest from Brazil. These NGOs had low revenue diversification in the research period, so there was a high dependence on resources from international organizations, predominantly from countries in Europe. The joint analysis of the two main revenue sources – government grants and grants – substantially raises the level of dependency. As results of the empirical analysis, it can be seen that CASSEP had the highest revenue collection in the research period. This NGO maintained a high dependence and concentration of resources in all years analyzed, which points to the need of revenue diversification. This research concludes with comments on instances of competition to receive resources between NGO, which lead to an inefficient allocation of resources to all NGO. Also, it discusses the effects of COVID-19 on revenues of the NGO analyzed, as well as the recent corruption scandals in Brazil, but it is only one research that demands more study to be generalized.

Socially responsible behaviour is increasingly demanded of both individuals and organisations as ever more information on the negative side‐effects of economic activity emerges. The two main areas of concern are sustainability (environment) and social justice (accountability). Monitoring and influencing the behaviour or organisations and their managers requires access to sufficient, high‐quality information. Quality of information can be summed up in the degree of transparency it has, from clear to opaque. Accountancy is the profession most involved in the production of financial information. Information technology has had a profound effect on the accountancy profession and on the rules which determine how financial information is produced. The rules are already highly complex but they would need to be changed further to address the concerns of sustainability and social justice. Unless these concerns are addressed Socially Responsible Capitalism will elude us, with potentially disastrous consequences for us all. Even if the accountancy rules are expanded successfully, it will still be essential that individuals educate themselves so that they can successfully challenge organisations about their behaviour, and influence them to behave responsibly.

Corporate entities of whatever shape or form (profit motive or not-for-profit) aspire to be successful in whatever they do. Success can come about through many means. In recent times, corporate entities around the world have come to realise that success can be achieved when they are perceived by their stakeholders as being socially responsible; these stakeholders tend to warm to what the entities do or stand for, which consequently makes a big difference in terms of achieving or not achieving their strategic objectives (Aras & Crowther, 2009). This has become even more apparent during the recent economic and financial crisis where the socially responsible organisation has prospered while others faltered and CSR has been adopted as a survival strategy (Crowther & Seifi, 2011). A socially responsible corporate entity takes cognisance of the impact of its actions on its communities, its stakeholders and the environment when formulating its corporate objectives and in its decision making process. It strives at all times to either minimise or totally remove the adverse effects of its activities on the environment, employees, business contacts group, suppliers of funds and credits, governments and other affected members of society. Corporate entities around the world now consider that being socially responsible is not just very ‘trendy’ but also good for business and so an essential part of their strategy, quite a dramatic change over the last decade.

Technologists typically give little thought to the negative impacts of technology upon society at large, preferring instead to argue that there is no alternative, and to label those raising social concerns as ‘Luddites’. In any responsible society however it is essential that thought is given to how technological innovation can be managed, and this calls for some government planning – a bete noir of contemporary political thought. It seems that so far all governments have largely failed both to appreciate the significance and pace of developments and have failed to develop a stance in respect to it. They have significantly failed to develop a policy which ensures that society as a whole, and individual members of that society benefit from the future developments in this area. This can be contrasted with many individuals who have readily grasped the power of information technology and have combined into groups who have been able to exert significant influence on those governments. Indeed it can be considered that the entire anti-globalisation movement could not exist without the availability of that information technology. As Barnett and Crowther (1998) point out, the internet removes the need for geographical proximity in order for people to combine in achieving a purpose.

The concept of corporate social responsibility (CSR) seems to have become ubiquitous and to be understood all around the world. Not only has it become ubiquitous, but also it has become seen as a positive aspect of corporate behaviour. It seems therefore to have become generally accepted by businesses and their managers, by governments and their agencies, and by the general public that there is considerable benefit in engaging in CSR (Crowther & Seifi, 2010). Consequently every organisation is increasingly going to have its CSR policy that will have been translated into activity. Although many people remain cynical about the genuineness of such corporate activity, the evidence continues to mount that corporations are actually engaging in such socially responsible activity, not least because they recognise the benefits which accrue. It seems therefore that the battle is won and everyone accepts the need for CSR activity – all that remains for discussion is how exactly to engage in such activity and how to report upon that activity. Even this has been largely addressed through such vehicles as GRI and the forthcoming ISO 26000.

This article answers the following research question: How do institutional pressures influence the re(actions) of organizations in relation to the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) in the context of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic?

The present research was conducted through the search and review of online secondary sources based on a critical and exploratory analysis. The data were obtained from the Global Compact Brazilian Committee (Rede Brasil do Pacto Global, in Portuguese) and analyzed by means of qualitative content analysis with the support of the ATLAS.ti software.

The results have showed the role of organizations in dealing with the impacts provoked by the current COVID-19 scenario. However, the association of actions implemented by organizations is evident in some SDGs, but not in all and not with the same intensity. There is a higher incidence of SDG 3 (Good health and well-being), which is linked to 278 actions. Regarding institutional pressures, we noticed a higher incidence of normative pressures, which may indicate a sense of responsibility towards employees and other stakeholders related to the prevention of the impacts caused by the pandemic.

The findings presented here can encourage companies to better direct their efforts to fight the virus without neglecting the 2030 Agenda.

The authors intend to encourage institutions that may exert coercive, normative, and mimetic pressures to recognize the impacts of their influence and better direct it to the interests of society during and after the pandemic.

This research investigates organizational actions in the context of COVID-19 from an institutional theory perspective.

In the West, just as much as in Eastern civilisations, a concern for respect and civility, and therefore mutual and complementary development of all the parts involved in an action, has been a philosophical driver for more than two millennia. In a practical way this implies, for the ‘human individual’, that the consideration of others’ realisation and accomplishments are as equal and important as her/his own. As an example of this mutual co-development, European humanistic thinkers have written and reflected about the need of having a humanistic orientation on any social action; in this respect the work of Rousseau (1712–1778) and Montaigne (1533–1592) are especially notable. This line has also been explored more recently by the American philosopher Dewey (1909). Moreover, within this humanistic concern, other philosophers such as Socrates (in Plato's works – 399–384 B.C.) and later Kierkegaard (1851) reflected on the responsibility of action regarding the whole, for which it is necessary to consider the meaning of existence as the representation of the soul – in a spiritual context – that affects this ‘whole’ inter-related development. We talk then about the need to explore the sense of actions, the results pursued and their consequences.