Search results

Prior research has investigated legitimation strategies in corporate annual reports in the for-profit sector. The purpose of this paper is to investigate this phenomenon in an NGO environment. It investigates Australian overseas aid agencies’ responses to criticism of the relief effort following the Indian Ocean tsunami in 2004. It aims to determine whether voluntary annual report disclosures were reflective of impression management and/or of the discharge of functional accountability.

The paper applies content analysis to compare the structure and content of the annual reports of 19 Australian overseas aid agencies before and after the Indian Ocean tsunami.

Results suggest voluntary disclosure in annual reports significantly increased post-tsunami and was more consistent with impression management activity rather than functional accountability suggesting a response to the legitimacy challenge. The use of impression management tactics differed with agency size, with larger agencies using ingratiation in order to appear more attractive while smaller ones promoted their particular achievements.

This paper makes a contribution by extending prior impression management and legitimacy literature to an NGO environment. It has implications for the development of these theories as it looks at organisations where the stakeholders are different from the for-profit sector and profits are not the main concern. It raises issues about the concept of accountability in the NGO sector, and how the nature of organisation reporting is changing to address the challenges of a sector where access to funds is highly competitive.

In September 2014 Leyth Jamal, a transgender woman, filed suit against her employer, luxury retailer Saks Fifth Avenue. Jamal alleged that she experienced harassment from managers and other employees because of her gender identity while employed by Saks, including verbal abuse and threats of violence. At the time she filed suit, no federal, state, or local laws protected transgender employees from discrimination. However, some federal district courts had recently begun to allow such suits on the premise that discrimination based on gender identity was a form of sex discrimination. Other suits and amicus briefs brought by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) furthered this trend. The EEOC is the federal agency charged with investigating and supporting claims of discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, so district and appellate courts watched the EEOC's position on the application of Title VII. Socio-culturally, many Americans supported transgender rights, even as they voiced anxiety about transgender men in women's bathrooms.

This case has students assume the role of a trusted member of the executive team of Hudson's Bay Company, which owns Saks Fifth Avenue. One Friday afternoon in late December 2014, the Hudson's Bay CEO sends an email to his executive team notifying them that he has approved corporate counsel's motion to dismiss Jamal's case based on the argument that transgender people are not a protected class according to Title VII. The motion will be filed in federal court on Monday. The CEO shares that he personally believes it is preposterous for anyone to think that Saks Fifth Avenue is anything but a strong advocate for LGBT rights, but he invites executive team members to call him if they have any concerns. Members of the executive team have a responsibility to consider the broader strategic implications for the company, so students must decide if and how to respond to the CEO.