پایداری کسبوکار: دیدگاهی تئوریکی و یکپارچه
محورهای موضوعی : اخلاق و حسابداری
1 - استاد، گروه حسابداری، دانشکده علوم مالی، دانشگاه خوارزمی، تهران، ایران.
کلید واژه: پایداری کسبوکار, عملکرد پایداری, تئوری‌های پایداری, شاخص‌های عملکرد.,
چکیده مقاله :
هدف: هدف پژوهش حاضر مروری بر دیدگاه‌های تئوریک و یکپارچه پیرامون پایداری کسبوکار است. روش: این پژوهش از نوع پژوهش‌های نظری- تحلیلی بوده و به روش توصیفی-تحلیلی انجام شده است. یافته‌ها: ابعاد عملکرد پایداری و ریسک مربوطه، چارچوب نظری پایداری، و استانداردهای پایداری عملیاتی، عملکرد و گزارش‌دهی ارائه شده در این پژوهش می‌تواند برای شرکت‌های جهانی و مدیریت آنها، سیاست‌گذاران و تنظیم‌کنندگان، سرمایه‌گذاران، مربیان و پژوهشگران مفید باشد. همه نظریه‌ها (ازجمله کارگزار/سهام‌دار، ذینفع، علامت‌دهی، نهادی، مشروعیت و نظارت) روی اقدامات کلیدی عملکرد پایداری مانند بهره‌وری عملیاتی، رضایت مشتری، مدیریت استعداد و نوآوری تمرکز می‌کنند و باید از عوامل داخلی استراتژی، مشخصات ریسک، نقاط قوت و ضعف، و فرهنگ سازمانی و نیز عوامل خارجی ازجمله شهرت، فناوری، جهانی شدن و بهره‌برداری از منابع طبیعی نیز استفاده نمایند. این نظریه‌ها و استانداردها به توضیح راهبردها و شیوه‌های مدیریت در ایجاد کارایی پایداری مالی برای ایجاد ارزش سهام و دستیابی به عملکرد پایداری اقتصادی غیر‌انتفاعی در حفاظت از منافع همه سهام‌داران کمک می‌کند. نتیجه‌گیری: این پژوهش تئوری‌ها، استانداردها، ارزیابی ریسک، گزارش‌دهی و بهترین شیوه‌های پایداری کسبوکار را شامل اقدامات حاکمیت شرکتی و اصلاحات برای کاهش تقارن اطلاعات بین مدیریت و تمام سهام‌داران و ایجاد ارزش ذینفعان مورد بررسی قرار داد. هدف ایجاد ارزش ذینفعان در پایداری کسبوکار ایجاد فرصت‌های تحقیقاتی برای بررسی عدم تقارن اطلاعات بین مدیریت و ذینفعان و حتی بین سهام‌داران می‌باشد.
Purpose: The purpose of this research is to review theoretical and integrated perspectives on business sustainability. Method: This research is a theoretical-analytical study conducted using the descriptive-analytical method. Findings: The dimensions of sustainability performance and related risks, the theoretical framework of sustainability, and operational sustainability standards, performance, and reporting presented in this research can be useful for global companies and their management, policymakers and regulators, investors, educators, and researchers. All theories (including agent/stakeholder, stakeholder, signaling, institutional, legitimacy, and monitoring) focus on key sustainability performance measures such as operational efficiency, customer satisfaction, talent management, and innovation. They should consider internal factors such as strategy, risk profile, strengths, weaknesses, and organizational culture, as well as external factors such as reputation, technology, globalization, and the exploitation of natural resources. These theories and standards help explain management strategies and practices in creating financial sustainability efficiency to create equity value and achieve non-profit economic sustainability performance in protecting the interests of all stakeholders. Conclusion: This research examined theories, standards, risk assessment, reporting, and best practices of business sustainability, including corporate governance measures and reforms to reduce information asymmetry between management and all stakeholders and create stakeholder value. The purpose of creating stakeholder value in business sustainability is to provide research opportunities to investigate information asymmetry between management and stakeholders, and even among shareholders.
چناری، حسن؛ بنی‌مهد، بهمن (1398). پایداری شرکتی: راهبردی تئوریکی و یکپارچه با رویکردی دستوری و عملگرا. حسابداری مدیریت، 12(42)، ص125-103.
علیخانی، راضیه؛ مران جوری، مهدی (1393). کاربرد تئوری‌های افشای اطلاعات زیست محیطی و اجتماعی. مطالعات حسابداری و حسابرسی، 3(9)، ص53-36.
Al-Tuwaijri, S.A., Christensen, T.E. & Hughes, K. (2004). The relations among environmental disclosure, environmental performance, and economic performance: a simultaneous equations approach. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 29(5-6), p. 447–471.
Azizul Islam, M. & Deegan, C. (2008). Motivations for an organisation within a developing country to report social responsibility information: Evidence from Bangladesh. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 21(6), p. 850-874.
Brockett, A. & Rezaee, Z. (2012). Corporate sustainability: integrating performance and reporting. NJ, USA: John Wiley and SonsHoboken.
CFA Institute. (2015). Environmental, social and governance (ESG) survey.
Cheng, B., Ioannou, I. & Serafeim, G. (2013). Corporate social responsibility and access to finance. Strategic Management Journal, No. 35, p. 1–23.
Clarkson, P.M., Li, Y., Richardson, G.D. & Vasari, F.P. (2011). Does it really pay to be green? Determinants and consequences of proactive environmental strategies. Journal of Accounting and Public Policy, No. 30, p. 122–144.
Dainelli, F.B. (2013). Signaling strategies in annual reports: evidence from the disclosure of performance indicators. Advances in Accounting, Incorporating Advances in International Accounting, No. 29, p. 267–277.
Deegan, C., Cooper, B. & Shelly, M. (2006). An investigation of TBL report assurance statements: Australian evidence. Australian Accounting Review, 16(39), p. 2–18.
Dhaliwal, D., Li, O., Tsang, A. & Yang, Y. (2011). Voluntary nonfinancial disclosure and cost of equity capital: the initiation of corporate social responsibility reporting. The Accounting Review, No. 86, p. 59–100.
Eccles, R.G., Ioannou, I. & Serafeim, G. (2014). The impact of corporate sustainability on organizational processes and performance. Management Science Journal, 60(11), p. 2835–2857.
Edelman, L. (1992). Legal ambiguity and symbolic structures: organizational mediation of civil rights law. American Journal of Sociology, No. 97, p.1531–1576.
Elijido‐Ten, E., Kloot, L. & Clarkson, P. (2010). Extending the application of stakeholder influence strategies to environmental disclosures: An exploratory study from a developing country. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 23(8), p. 1032-1059.
Fama, E.F. & Jensen, M.C. (1983). Separation of Ownership and Control. Journal of Law and Economics, 26(2), p. 301–325.
Fligstein, N. (1985). The spread of the multidivisional form among large firms 1919–1979. American Sociological Review, No. 50, p. 377–391.
Freeman, R.E. (1984). Strategic management: a stakeholder perspective. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.
Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) (2013). G4 Sustainability Reporting Guidelines. Available at:
https://www.globalreporting.org/resourcelibrary/GRIG4- Part1-Reporting-Principles-and-Standard-Disclosures.pdf
Grinblatt, M. & Hwang, C. (1989). Signaling and the pricing of new issues. Journal of Finance, 44(2), p. 393–420.
Guthrie, J. & Parker, L.D. (1989). Corporate social reporting: a rebuttal of legitimacy theory. Accounting and Business Research, 19(76), p. 343–352.
Healy, P.M. & Palepu, K.G. (2001). Information asymmetry, corporate disclosure, and the capital markets: a review of the empirical disclosure literature. Journal of Accounting and Economics, No. 31, p. 405–440.
Hernandez, M. (2008). Prom1oting stewardship behavior in organizations: a leadership model. Journal of Business Ethics, No. 80, p.121–128.
Hernandez, M. (2012). Toward an understanding of the psychology of stewardship. Academy of Management Review, 37(2), p. 172–193.
Huang, C.L. & Kung, F.H. (2010). Drivers of environmental disclosure and stakeholder expectation: Evidence from Taiwan. Journal of business ethics, No. 96, p. 435-451.
Huang, X.B. & Watson, L. (2015). Corporate social responsibility research in accounting. Journal of Accounting Literature, No. 34, p. 1–16.
International Integrated Reporting Council (IIRC) (2013). The International (IR) framework.
Jennings, D. & Zandbergen, P.A. (1995). Ecologically sustainable organizations: an institutional approach. The Academy of Management Review, 20(4), p. 1015-1052.
Kaler, J. (2003). Differentiating stakeholder theories. Journal of Business Ethics, No. 46, p.71-83.
Kiron, D., Kruschwitz, N., Haanaes, K., Reeves, M., Fuisz-Kehrbach, S. & Kell, G. (2015). Joining Forces: Collaboration and Leadership for Sustainability. MIT Sloan Management Review, the Boston Consulting Group, and the United Nations Global Compact (UNGC). Available at:
http:// marketing.mitsmr.com/PDF/56380-MITSMR-BGC-UNGC-Sustainability2015.pdf?cid=1.
Mackey, A., Mackey, T. & Barney, J. (2007). Corporate social responsibility and firm performance: investor preferences and corporate strategies. Academy of Management Review, No. 32, p. 817-835.
Meyer, J. & Rowan, B. (1977). Institutionalized organizations: formal structure as myth and ceremony. American Journal of Sociology, No. 83, p. 340–363.
O’Dwyer, B. & Owen, D.L. (2005). Assurance statement practice in environmental, social and sustainability reporting: a critical evaluation. The British Accounting Review, 37(2), p. 205–229.
O’Dwyer, B. & Owen, D.L. (2007). Seeking stakeholder-centric sustainability assurance: an examination of recent sustainability assurance practice. The Journal of Corporate Citizenship,
No. 25, p. 77–94.
Porter, M.E. & Kramer, M.R. (2011). Creating shared value. Harvard Business Review (January–February), p. 62–77.
Rezaee, Z. (2015). Business sustainability: performance, compliance, accountability and integrated reporting. Greenleaf Publishing Limited October.
Richardson, A. & Welker, M. (2001). Social disclosure, financial disclosure and the cost of equity capital. Accounting, Organizations and Society, No. 26, p. 597–616.
Roberts, J. (2004). The modern firm. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Rogers, J. (2015). Why investors should look beyond a company’s financials. Fortunes. Available at: http://fortune.com/2015/08/11/why- investors-should-look-beyond-a-companys-financials
Sarbanes-Oxley Act (SOX) of 2002.
Simnett, R., Vanstraelen, A. & Chua, W.F. (2009). Assurance on general purpose non-financial reports: an international comparison. The Accounting Review, 84(3), p. 937–967.
Strang, D. (1990). From dependency to sovereignty: an event history analysis of decolonization 1870–1987. American Sociological Review, No. 55, p. 846–860.
Suchman, M.C. (1995). Managing legitimacy: strategic and institutional approaches. Academy of Management Journal, 20(3), p. 571–610.
Sustainability Accounting Standards Board (SASB) (2013). Conceptual Framework of Sustainability Accounting Standard Board.
Tilling, M.V. (2004). Refinements to legitimacy theory in social and environmental accounting. Commerce Research Paper Series.
Tolbert, P.S. & Zucker, L.G. (1983). Institutional sources of change in the formal structure of organizations: the diffusion of civil service reform, 1880–1935. Administrative Science Quarterly, No. 28, p. 22–39.