**4. Methodological procedures**

For the research, two primary stakeholder groups from Brazilian organizations participate in the economy and contribute to economic development for their accessibility. The sample was selected in two moments. Firstly, from the cooperatives registered with the Organization of Brazilian Cooperatives (OCB) [87]. Through representatives of cooperatives that participated in a specific event, we sent an email requesting interest in participating in the research. Then, for those who showed interest, we offered training (online asynchronous) on the subject and forwarded the survey form (Appendix A) to be answered by employees and cooperative members (cooperatives have a dual role, associates and customers, in this research we call customers). From this stage, 110 answered forms were returned, 58 from customers and 52 from employees. In a second moment, we sent an email requesting interest in participating in the research to companies and universities chosen for accessibility, contacted through the contact channels available on their websites. For those that showed interest, we repeated the procedures performed with the cooperatives. At this stage, 100 responses were returned, 57 from customers and 53 from employees. The sample comprised a total of 220 responses, with 115 customers and 105 employees.

The sustainability training, covering the four pillars, was recorded and made available to these audiences through an online platform and can be watched at any time, lasting 3 hours. Considering our interest in cultural sustainability, the form we created contained only this pillar. We forwarded this form to stakeholders who indicated what information they consider relevant in cultural sustainability terms and which organizations should disclose in their communication channels with their stakeholders.

In the fourth stage, we transcribed the indicators, creating two lists, one from the customers' perspective, which contained 34 indicators, and another from the organizations' employees' perspective, which included 30 indicators. Next, we performed the content analysis [88] to eliminate the same or similar indicators among the responses of each group member. Then, in the fifth research stage, the responses obtained were triangulated, transforming the two lists into one. Again, the content analysis found that some indicators were shared between the two groups, resulting in 57 indicators integrating the cultural pillar of organizational sustainability.

Then, for refinement, as a sixth research stage, two experts analyzed the indicators to similar group indicators and made them clear and easy to interpret. The objective was also to evaluate the indicator's consistency. We divide this stage into two analysis rounds with the Delphi technique application [89]. In the first one, the specialists analyzed the indicators list separately, which resulted in a 30 indicators list. Then, experts analyzed and discussed the indicators in the second round to establish consensus. The results of this stage led to 18 information indicators on the cultural sustainability of organizations. These results showed that the indicators represent the organization's reality and the primary information about cultural sustainability, allow measurement and monitoring, and therefore, are suitable to be considered as a final list [9, 14–18, 84].

**Figure 1** summarizes the methodological stages developed during the research.

Below we present the survey results.

**Figure 1.** *Methodological stages.*

### **5. Creation of the list of cultural sustainability indicators**

After we collected the evidence from two groups of selected primary stakeholders, clients, collaborators, and the training on the organization's sustainability, the form created containing the sustainability cultural pillar was submitted to the primary stakeholders and answered to 220 primary stakeholders; 115 identified themselves as clients and 105 as collaborators of different organizations in Brazil.

In the third stage of the research, we transcribed the indicators considered necessary by stakeholders, creating two lists, one from the clients' responses and the other from the employees' reactions to the organizations. The content analysis aimed to eliminate the same or similar indicators among the responses of the same group members. This stage resulted in 34 and 30 cultural sustainability indicators considered necessary by customers and employees.

For the fourth stage, we carried out the content analysis, triangulating the indicators obtained in the two initial lists and transforming them into only one. Thus, we analyzed the common or similar information and eliminated duplicities. This step reduced the list to 57 cultural sustainability indicators of organizations. **Table 1** contains a summary of these results.

In the fifth stage, we submitted the indicators list to an analysis by two experts on organizations' evidence. These experts, in a first round, were consulted on whether the indicators are cultural sustainability representative and adhere to the principles of exact definition; straightforward interpretation; applicability; feasibility, comparability, relevance, clarity, reality representation, and reflection of the abstract concept to be analyzed [14–18]. We also analyzed whether the information was helpful and whether it served as indicators to measure and monitor this reality [9, 20, 84]. The experts interpreted that some indicators were similar, and others expressed too specific content: many related to investment types and others referring to the resource's availability for cultural activities. These we transformed into global indicators, such as investments (sponsorships) in local and regional cultures. These analyses reduced the list to 30 indicators.


**Table 1.**

*Indicators by stakeholders.*


#### **Table 2.**

*Indicators list construction fifth stage summary.*


#### **Table 3.**

*Final list of cultural sustainability indicators.*

In the second round, the experts worked together, analyzing each indicator, seeking consensus, and meeting the proposed requirements [9, 14–18, 20, 84]. Thus, the indicators became more comprehensive by interpreting that they would adequately express reality and facilitate measurement and monitoring. Thus, the experts' analysis stage resulted in a list of 18 indicators of an organization's cultural sustainability representatives to mitigate the asymmetry of the information existing between organizations and their primary stakeholders, as shown in **Table 2**.

**Table 3** presents the list containing the 18 indicators defined by the experts as a subsidy for the evidence and the disclosure analysis of the organizations' cultural sustainability.

This stage demonstrated that the list contains the stakeholders' expectations, covered all the relevant information about the sustainability cultural pillar, and represented the organization's reality, conferring reliability to the indicators list. The social pillar considers many of them [8, 10, 12, 63–65, 69, 84]. Still, others are deemed necessary in the revised literature on the organization's culture [26, 37, 38]. However, the organization's sustainability cultural pillar is not explicitly. It is noteworthy that culture is fundamental for disseminating its founding principles and values, ensuring continuity in future generations [26, 36, 37, 50, 51].

Finally, organizations need to highlight the information, of interest to their primary stakeholders, on their electronic pages published on the Internet. The evidence is considered an organization's legitimization strategy with its primary stakeholders [6, 9, 12, 20, 61–63, 70]. Notably, the higher the disclosure rate, the greater the probability of legitimizing organizations in the communities where they operate [9, 11, 20, 54, 57, 62, 63].

## **6. Final considerations**

The chapter objective was to build an indicators list of representative cultural sustainability information from the primary organizations' stakeholders' perspectives. Based on the disclosure analysis of the 18 indicators constructed, the organization's disclosure policies can focus on mitigating the cultural information asymmetry and meeting the interests of their stakeholders.

When the customer stops negotiating with a particular organization, he does not identify the possibility of having his interest served. That can happen because the client does not have enough information to make this contractual choice. If customers do not know enough and continue to transact with a particular organization, they may make an adverse choice for their interests. The information asymmetry does not allow the client to identify the value in the organization's cultural sustainability terms and, therefore, does not legitimize it in the environment in which it operates.

Also, the information asymmetry can affect the client's confidence in the respective organization managers because it does not have enough information to identify whether those managers act according to their interests. That is, if primary stakeholders do not have enough information about the organization's performance, managers can exploit this information asymmetry to benefit, which gives rise to the moral hazard problem. In this sense, by being more transparent, organizations reduce the information asymmetry and, consequently, the possibility of adverse selection and moral risk, increasing the confidence of both customers and collaborators, primary stakeholders, and legitimizing organizations.

The information disclosure policy on an organization's cultural sustainability presents weaknesses, which allows us to understand the need for managers' qualifications who aim to legitimize themselves with primary stakeholders and improve the reputation of these organizations. However, it is essential to highlight the research carried out has limitations in sample terms. Therefore, the evidence obtained does not represent the reality of all organizations or the expectations about cultural sustainability disclosure of all stakeholders, which incites future research.

However, it is noteworthy that the research contributes to the organizations by presenting them with a cultural sustainability indicators list to mitigate the information asymmetry with their primary stakeholders. That establishes strategic disclosure policies. This study also helps regulatory and supervisory bodies to use the indicators to develop disclosure standards and monitor sustainability. It is worth noting that these indicators are of interest to stakeholders and will be considered for the legitimacy of organizations in the communities where they operate.

*Culture: A Pillar of Organizational Sustainability DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.106523*

On the other hand, we should consider that the fragility in the manager's communication with primary stakeholders may be related to other problems, such as the lack of training and the existence of an essential guide to better disclosure policy so they can meet the demand for information. That is an aspect to study in new research incursions. Their results and the study presented here contribute to a deepening of the information asymmetry understanding and the business organizations sustainability.
