282
also that, very often, businesses embrace the notion of accountability to rebuild their
reputation and brand image. Accountability is therefore perceived as value-enhancer,
rather than a genuine practice to truly account for sustainability performance.
Data analysis also indicates that most of the selected companies do not have
accountability mechanisms in place. Yet, in those cases in which corporations do
display accountability mechanisms, those do not comply effectively against the network’s principles. Instead, companies report on a plethora of scattered activities that
in most cases take the form of corporate philanthropy.
18.4.2 Myanmar Case Study
Research findings show that businesses operating in Myanmar experience major
difficulties to remain accountable for their sustainability performance. Societal and
organizational factors are two of the greatest challenges that need to be overcome to
enable a more ethical business culture. These challenges emerge due to weak legal
enforcement systems that are binding and high rates of the violation of codes of
conduct by organizations and individuals. Despite the strong regulatory framework,
however, enforcement lacks, resulting in poor sustainability knowledge and practice. A case in point is the Central Bank Law that mandates board directors to release
reports on monetary and financial stability (State Law and Order Restoration
Council 2013).
Surprisingly, however, a review of 35 companies shows limited capacity to
account externally for sustainability performance. Findings also show there are two
issues, businesses need to pay more attention to stakeholder engagement and transparency on revenue management and reporting. Figure 18.2 illustrates the status of
accountability of selected corporations in RoK. The analysis showed that 46 percent
of businesses are not accountable externally. Accountability within this group of
companies is mainly internal. Further, 29% of the companies only display their
sustainability policy but fail in duly accounting externally for sustainability performance. Information is reported mainly on social media channels (e.g., Facebook)
and concerns to the business itself rather than to corporate sustainability performance. Evidence also indicates that 14% of corporations provide a list of philanthropic actions to account externally for their sustainability performance. However,
businesses in this range do not show a comprehensive sustainability strategy that
backs up their performance. The analysis also revealed that only 11 percent of businesses issue sustainability reports containing both sustainability policy and performance. Some of the areas in which companies claim to be accountable for include
but are not limited to reliefs to refugees and natural disaster victims, tree planting,
community healthcare, and education. Yet, compliance with the network’s principles remains to be an issue.
I. B. Franco and M. Abe
also that, very often, businesses embrace the notion of accountability to rebuild their
reputation and brand image. Accountability is therefore perceived as value-enhancer,
rather than a genuine practice to truly account for sustainability performance.
Data analysis also indicates that most of the selected companies do not have
accountability mechanisms in place. Yet, in those cases in which corporations do
display accountability mechanisms, those do not comply effectively against the network’s principles. Instead, companies report on a plethora of scattered activities that
in most cases take the form of corporate philanthropy.
18.4.2 Myanmar Case Study
Research findings show that businesses operating in Myanmar experience major
difficulties to remain accountable for their sustainability performance. Societal and
organizational factors are two of the greatest challenges that need to be overcome to
enable a more ethical business culture. These challenges emerge due to weak legal
enforcement systems that are binding and high rates of the violation of codes of
conduct by organizations and individuals. Despite the strong regulatory framework,
however, enforcement lacks, resulting in poor sustainability knowledge and practice. A case in point is the Central Bank Law that mandates board directors to release
reports on monetary and financial stability (State Law and Order Restoration
Council 2013).
Surprisingly, however, a review of 35 companies shows limited capacity to
account externally for sustainability performance. Findings also show there are two
issues, businesses need to pay more attention to stakeholder engagement and transparency on revenue management and reporting. Figure 18.2 illustrates the status of
accountability of selected corporations in RoK. The analysis showed that 46 percent
of businesses are not accountable externally. Accountability within this group of
companies is mainly internal. Further, 29% of the companies only display their
sustainability policy but fail in duly accounting externally for sustainability performance. Information is reported mainly on social media channels (e.g., Facebook)
and concerns to the business itself rather than to corporate sustainability performance. Evidence also indicates that 14% of corporations provide a list of philanthropic actions to account externally for their sustainability performance. However,
businesses in this range do not show a comprehensive sustainability strategy that
backs up their performance. The analysis also revealed that only 11 percent of businesses issue sustainability reports containing both sustainability policy and performance. Some of the areas in which companies claim to be accountable for include
but are not limited to reliefs to refugees and natural disaster victims, tree planting,
community healthcare, and education. Yet, compliance with the network’s principles remains to be an issue.
I. B. Franco and M. Abe