Next Article in Journal
A Street Graph-Based Morphometric Characterization of Two Large Urban Areas
Next Article in Special Issue
The Common Good Balance Sheet and Employees’ Perceptions, Attitudes and Behaviors
Previous Article in Journal
An Online-Based Edu-Escape Room: A Comparison Study of a Multidimensional Domain of PSTs with Flipped Sustainability-STEM Contents
Previous Article in Special Issue
High-Commitment Work Practices and the Social Responsibility Issue: Interaction and Benefits

Priority Stakeholders’ Perception: Social Responsibility Indicators

Applied Social Sciences Department, Campus of Santo Ângelo, University Regional Integrada do Alto Uruguai e das Missões (URI), Santo Ângelo RS 98.802-470, Brazil
Business School Department, Campus of Porto Alegre/RS, University of Vale do Rio dos Sinos (UNISINOS), Porto Alegre RS 91.330-002, Brazil
Business School, Campus of Durham, Durham University (DUBS), Durham DH1 3LB, UK
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Academic Editor: Vanessa Campos-Climent
Sustainability 2021, 13(3), 1034;
Received: 24 December 2020 / Revised: 15 January 2021 / Accepted: 18 January 2021 / Published: 20 January 2021
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Sustainable Economy for the Common Good)
This study aims to build a list of composite indicators by information that enable the assessment of philanthropic higher education organizations’ (PHEOs) social responsibility based on the interests of their stakeholders. A list of 88 social responsibility indicators was built based on a literature review and stakeholder interest to serve as a basis for the composite indicators. In order to identify and validate the indicators, field research was carried out. Stakeholders from Brazil and the United Kingdom scored them from one (not important) to five (very important) for each indicator identified in the literature review. With 540 valid answers, they suggested inclusions and exclusions according to their interests. Next, a correlation analysis was performed to identify and eliminate redundant indicators. The principal component analysis extracted the composite indicators. The results point to 11 principal components that are configured as composite indicators to evaluate the performance of PHEOs social responsibility considering the stakeholder’s interests, a factor that differentiates this research from the literature revision done. Some of the composite indicators are close to the social responsibility categories reviewed in the literature. However, others show more specific and in-depth interests, especially regarding the stakeholders themselves. These composite indicators help managers establish disclosure policies whenever they are focused on seeking legitimacy in the social context of PHEOs. It also contributes to the advancement of theoretical knowledge, presenting composite indicators, from the stakeholder’s perspective, for the disclosure of social responsibility of PHEOs. View Full-Text
Keywords: social responsibility; composite indicators; philanthropic higher education organizations; legitimacy; priority stakeholders social responsibility; composite indicators; philanthropic higher education organizations; legitimacy; priority stakeholders
Show Figures

Figure 1

MDPI and ACS Style

Seibert, R.M.; Macagnan, C.B.; Dixon, R. Priority Stakeholders’ Perception: Social Responsibility Indicators. Sustainability 2021, 13, 1034.

AMA Style

Seibert RM, Macagnan CB, Dixon R. Priority Stakeholders’ Perception: Social Responsibility Indicators. Sustainability. 2021; 13(3):1034.

Chicago/Turabian Style

Seibert, Rosane M., Clea B. Macagnan, and Robert Dixon. 2021. "Priority Stakeholders’ Perception: Social Responsibility Indicators" Sustainability 13, no. 3: 1034.

Find Other Styles
Note that from the first issue of 2016, MDPI journals use article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Access Map by Country/Region

Back to TopTop