Search results

Why do some healthcare professionals report incidents while others fail to do so? In a previous paper, the authors explored the culture of hospitals in Ireland and the response to those who reported poor care. In this paper the authors aim to advance understanding of reporting behaviour by exploring differences between those who report incidents and those who choose not to report.

An exploratory quantitative research design was utilised for this study. Data from eight acute hospitals in the Health Services Executive (HSE) regions in Ireland – two hospitals from each of the four regions and nursing staff on three wards within each hospital – provided the sample. A total of 575 anonymous questionnaires were distributed.

Eighty‐eight per cent of nurses working in acute hospitals have observed an incident of poor care in the past six months, but only 70 per cent of those reported it. Non‐reporters are significantly more likely than those who have reported incidents to cite “not wanting to cause trouble” and “not being sure if it is the right thing to do” as reasons for their reluctance to report. “Fear of retribution” was the most common reason given by non‐reporters for their reluctance to report.

The findings show that reluctance to report is mainly influenced by fears of retribution, not wanting to cause trouble and not being sure if reporting an incident is the right thing to do. Managers and policy makers within healthcare environments need to provide more reassurance for staff and put in place better measures to protect staff from negative repercussions that might arise from whistleblowing.

The purpose of this paper is to explore Australian police officers’ perceptions of unethical conduct scenarios with the aim of understanding unwillingness to report infractions.

The responses of 845 officers were compared across 11 scenarios to explore variation in the extent to which they understood the behaviour to violate policy and their hypothetical willingness, or unwillingness, to report the behaviour. Particularly, it was hypothesised that non-reporters may justify their inaction based on the misperception that other officers hold even less ethical beliefs.

Five scenarios emerged as least likely to be reported, with a substantial minority of officers stating their decision was despite their understanding that the behaviour constituted a policy violation. Contrary to predictions, these “non-reporters” were aware they were less likely to report than their colleagues, but believed they held the same views as their colleagues in terms of the seriousness of scenarios. Comparisons between non-reporters and other survey participants, however, found this belief to be false, with non-reporters viewing the scenarios as significantly less serious. A perceived self-other difference, along with a belief that others will report were shown to reduce the likelihood of not reporting.

The results are discussed in terms of increasing willingness to report misconduct through organisational efforts to communicate values and support officers to make ethical decisions.

The paper contributes to understanding the “code of silence” in perpetuating police misconduct and how it may be reduced.

This paper aims to investigate corporate motivations for voluntarily reporting social and environmental information in New Zealand. The approach used in this study also gives the opportunity to gain insights into the internal systems and views of companies and allows the authors to make better judgements of the intentions of companies in undertaking corporate social responsibility (CSR) reporting.

A survey is used and then extended to match corporate survey responses with content analysis results of actual company reporting. The results of the survey and the content analysis are examined both individually and collectively to gather more context for corporate motivations.

The authors find that community concerns and shareholder rights were the most important factors that influenced the companies’ decision to report. The driving force for a sustainability agenda within these companies is usually a member of senior management. The authors also find that reporting frameworks and highly formalised internal systems were not frequently used, external assurance of CSR reporting was lacking and there were low levels of stakeholder engagement. A commitment to reporting comprehensive CSR disclosures and accepting responsibility towards a range of stakeholders were, therefore, not in evidence.

For researchers, the value is in further revising analysis techniques and expanding existing research methods used in this area. The study brings together important CSR topics from across the literature, including reporting levels and characteristics, internal CSR systems, CSR assurance and stakeholder engagement, to investigate the motivation for CSR reporting.

The results suggest that New Zealand companies are not currently fully committed to social and environmental reporting and that CSR reporting is most likely used to create the impression of being concerned about sustainability to increase legitimacy with stakeholders and society. The results highlight the importance of having formalised systems to ensure that disclosures are accurate and comprehensive.

The results contribute to the literature by providing a current view of the motivations for reporting companies to report or not report. The approach used gives the opportunity to gain insights into the internal systems and views of companies and allows the authors to make better judgements of the intentions of companies in undertaking CSR reporting.

This research investigates whether firms that voluntarily publish environmental reports to supplement their annual financial statements disclose significantly more sustainability data than others. A matched-pair sample of companies, drawn from the EPA’s list of the 500 largest (volumetric basis) U.S. polluters, that published such environmental reports during 2001 or 2002 is used to assess the type and level of non-environmental social accounting disclosures in five different areas: employee safety/health, workforce and supplier diversity, product safety, community involvement, and energy usage. Fifty-two environmental report producers were matched with non-reporters based on total asset size and SIC. Content analysis was used to assess the substance of sample firm reporting. The results show highly significant differences in social accounting reporting, with the environmental report publishers disclosing more sustainability data in a wider range than their matched counterparts.

The purpose of this paper is to introduce a long‐time report evaluation project of the Institute for Ecological Economy Research (IÖW) and the business network “future – verantwortung unternehmen”.

On a regular basis, the IÖW/future‐Ranking evaluates the content and communicative quality of sustainability and CR reports of Germany's 150 largest companies. The project provides a platform where stakeholder expectations concerning corporate responsibility and transparency are synthesised into a comprehensive catalogue of reporting requirements. These criteria have to be met by the companies to reliably show sustainability commitment.

The evaluation of the reports not only makes the sustainability reporting practice of companies comparable and transparent to the public. The set of criteria itself also serves as a reporting framework for companies and thus enhances directional certainty about corporate contributions to sustainable development. It is itself subject to a periodic evaluation and adaptation by means of dialogue and feedback processes with representatives from industry, politics and NGOs.

The paper discusses the process of ranking and the possibilities for future developments in this.

The process described has had little academic exposure and so the paper provides an original insight into a practical subject which has academic interest.

Whistle-blowing has the important role of reducing the prevalence and impact of wrongdoing in organisations. The purpose of this paper is to utilise a very large survey of Australian Public Service (APS) workers to replicate the findings of previous studies in relation to whistle-blowing likelihood and to extend the quantitative findings in relation to whistle-blowing antecedents to include ethnicity or cultural marginalisation and occupational and professional role and affiliation.

The authors utilise the 2014 APS Census, a large data set containing 100,000 observations relating to employee engagement, leadership, health, satisfaction and general impressions of the public service. Logistic regression is employed to obtain estimates and marginal effects in respect to predictors for whistle-blowing. The authors determine the Bayesian information criterion to assess the impact of ethnicity on the probability of whistle-blowing.

The findings support the notion that organisational “outsiders” tend to report perceived wrongdoing less than those who feel assured of their cultural or organisational status. The authors further find support for the notion that membership of small organisational groupings, primarily measured by organisational size, also tends to reduce the whistle-blowing likelihood. Opportunities for further research and potential policy and practical issues are discussed briefly in conclusion.

While confirming the predictors seen in many previous studies, the authors identify groups who report more or less than expected that have not been reported in previous research. These include employees from a non-English speaking background and various occupational and professional groups “at risk” of low reporting.

Relying on institutional theory and Oliver’s (1991) strategic responses framework, the purpose of this paper is to investigate the different strategies adopted by Spanish public universities to respond to institutional pressures for sustainability reporting.

Data were collected from a variety of sources, such as a series of email-structured interviews with key personnel from universities, a qualitative analysis of sustainability reports and a consultation of the website of each Spanish public university.

The findings reveal that Spanish public universities have responded to institutional pressures for sustainability reporting by adopting acquiescence, compromise, avoidance and defiance strategies. The variety of strategic responses adopted by Spanish public universities suggests that these organizations have not fully adhered to institutional pressures.

The results of this paper would be useful for practitioners since it tries to demonstrate whether universities, which are facing increasing institutional pressures and demands from stakeholders, have been developing sustainability reporting practices.

Universities have a remarkable social impact that could be used to promote sustainability practices. This paper investigates how these organizations can contribute to sustainability reporting as they should reproduce social norms.

The sustainability reporting context is in a phase of change. This paper tries to contribute to the accounting research by analyzing the extent to which universities are engaged in sustainability reporting. Relying on these premises, Oliver’s (1991) framework might be an insightful theoretical perspective to examine the responses provided by universities to institutional pressures.

This paper aims to deepen the understanding of logics and practice variation in sustainability reporting in an emerging field.

This paper adopts the institutional logics perspective and its conceptualization of society as an inter-institutional system as a theoretical lens to understand reasons for the presence of and variation in sustainability reporting. The empirical findings are based on analysis of 28 semi-structured interviews with significant social actors, and extensive documentary evidence focusing on eight companies pioneering sustainability reporting in Pakistan.

This paper confirms the presence of multiple co-existing logics in sustainability practices and lack of a dominant logic. Sustainability reporting practices are underpinned by a combination of market and corporate (business logics), state (regulatory logics), professional (transparency logics) and community (responsibility logics) institutional orders. It is argued that institutional heterogeneity (variations in logics) drives the diversity of motivations for and variations in sustainability reporting practices.

The paper offers a deeper theoretical explanation of how various logics dominate sustainability reporting in a field where the institutionalization of practice is in its infancy.

Understanding the conditions that influence the logics of corporate decision-makers will provide new insights into what motivates firms to engage in sustainability reporting. A broader understanding of sustainability reporting in emerging fields will foster its intended use to increase transparency, accountability and sustainability performance.

This paper contributes to relatively scarce but growing empirical research on emerging fields. Its major contribution lies in its focus on how multiple and conflicting institutional logics are instantiated at the organizational level, leading to wide practice variations, especially in an emerging field. In doing so, it advances the institutional logics debate on practice variations within the accounting literature.

Performance measures have long been a topic of interest in higher education although no consensus on the best way to measure performance has been achieved. This paper examines the extent and effectiveness of service efforts and accomplishment reporting by public and not-for-profit U.S. colleges and universities using survey data provided by the National Association of College and University Business Officers. Effectiveness is evaluated using the Government Accounting Standards Board (GASB) suggested criteria. Regression analysis suggests an association between the extent of disclosure and size, leverage, level of education provided, and regional accreditation agency. Private institutions rate themselves as more effective communicators. Effectiveness of communication is also associated with the extent of disclosure, level of education provided and accreditation region.

Surveys in the UK and USA show that error in health care is unacceptably high. It is also known, however, that considerable under‐reporting of error takes place and we need therefore to begin to understand why people fail to report so that we can introduce systems and develop cultures and systems which make this easier. Although this has been considered hypothetically, what happens in real situations and what the outcomes are for those individuals actually reporting has not been studied. This study is built on an earlier pilot of 228 doctors that considered the experiences and attitudes of a range of nurses and doctors to reporting their concerns. It includes those who went ahead and those who did not, as well as the attitudes of other staff with no experiences of wanting to report, and the types of event that were more likely to lead to reporting.