aí embaixo o que foi acatado. E então morreu a "chapeusinho vermelho" isso!
vai lá e lê a Bíblia. Alguns espiritualistas informam que muitos dos Passados presidentes já estão devidamente excluídos da terra. Parabéns.
Será que vão entender de como funciona esta máquina, e que em nome dela, usam a máxima
"não importam os meios para se chegar aos fins?". MAQUIAVÉL.
socorro.
Por isso que eu mesma não entendia.
olha a compreensão da pessoa:
- Os Fins justificam os meios.
ISSO segundo espiritualistas este também pagará caro ter escrito isto. Eu estudei ele na época.
Assim, Os fins "NAO JUSTIFICAM OS MEIOS" .
não vou continuar porque já tive um treco aqui lendo o que escrevem na internete. Como justifica não é.
A tua safadeza, malandragem, sem vergonhice. Em que momento, virtude, caráter, justiça, deve ser trocado por conveniência pessoal?
Na cabeça desta pessoa ele venderia tranquilamente a mãe ou os rins da mãe pra enriquecer.
Parabéns. E o pior que eu vi gente fazer isso. E a lei maior já o colheu. Infelizmente colheu ele e a família pois está na Biblita 7 gerações de uma família penam. Eu queria entender melhor isto.
Tem outro lá que está dando aulas mas eu nem consigo ver porque me dá vontade de puxar uma toalha, porque não consigo parar de chorar.
Pois é optaram agora deu nisto. E pelo que outros já avisaram. Não volta mais. A decisão chegou ao fim.
E que não existe TERRA suficiente? para tanta ganância?
https://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1969-76ve11p2/d99?platform=hootsuite
99. Memorandum From Director of Central Intelligence Colby to Secretary of State Kissinger1
SUBJECT
- Decision by Brazilian President Ernesto Geisel To Continue the Summary Execution of Dangerous Subversives Under Certain Conditions
1. [1 paragraph (7 lines) not declassified]
2. On 30 March 1974, Brazilian President Ernesto Geisel met with General Milton Tavares de Souza (called General Milton) and General Confucio Danton de Paula Avelino, respectively the outgoing and incoming chiefs of the Army Intelligence Center (CIE). Also present was General Joao Baptista Figueiredo, Chief of the Brazilian National Intelligence Service (SNI).
3. General Milton, who did most of the talking, outlined the work of the CIE against the internal subversive target during the administration of former President Emilio Garrastazu Médici. He emphasized that Brazil cannot ignore the subversive and terrorist threat, and he said that extra-legal methods should continue to be employed against dangerous subversives. In this regard, General Milton said that about 104 persons in this category had been summarily executed by the CIE during the past year or so. Figueiredo supported this policy and urged its continuance.
4. The President, who commented on the seriousness and potentially prejudicial aspects of this policy, said that he wanted to ponder the matter during the weekend before arriving at any decision on [Page 279] whether it should continue. On 1 April, President Geisel told General Figueiredo that the policy should continue, but that great care should be taken to make certain that only dangerous subversives were executed. The President and General Figueiredo agreed that when the CIE apprehends a person who might fall into this category, the CIE chief will consult with General Figueiredo, whose approval must be given before the person is executed. The President and General Figueiredo also agreed that the CIE is to devote almost its entire effort to internal subversion, and that the overall CIE effort is to be coordinated by General Figueiredo.
5. [1 paragraph (12½ lines) not declassified]
6. A copy of this memorandum is being made available to the Assistant Secretary of State for Inter-American Affairs. [1½ lines not declassified] No further distribution is being made.
-
Summary: Colby reported that President Geisel planned to continue Médici’s policy of using extra legal means against subversives but would limit executions to the most dangerous subversives and terrorists.
Source: Central Intelligence Agency, Office of the Director of Central Intelligence, Job 80M01048A: Subject Files, Box 1, Folder 29: B–10: Brazil. Secret; [handling restriction not declassified]. According to a stamped notation, David H. Blee signed for Colby. Drafted by Phillips, [names not declassified] on April 9. The line for the concurrence of the Deputy Director for Operations is blank.
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/10323732241257954?icid=int.sj-abstract.citing-articles.1
PDF/EPUB
Cite
Share options
Information, rights and permissions
Metrics and citations
Figures and tables
Abstract
This research investigates the historical role of the president's letter, and in particular how impression management was used by the Brazilian company Petrobras, during the military dictatorship (1964–1985), to build up and legitimise the company and the regime. Following an interpretative approach, and through a framework that includes both impression management tactics and presentational methods, the study analyses both narrative and visual images of the letters. The adoption of assertive impression management tactics helped to propagate Petrobras in the ascendancy and with it the Brazilian nation. Reinforcement, rhetorical manipulation and visual emphasis were adopted to convey a message of ascendancy and optimism, even in periods of crisis and shocks to legitimacy. Simultaneously, the omission tactic allowed it to keep invisible damaging events. As a recurrent, voluntary accounting narrative, the president's letters provided valuable storytelling and impression management opportunities which were used to promote Petrobras and as a legitimate façade for the government.
Introduction
The chief executive officer's (CEO) or president's annual report letter to shareholders (henceforth simply ‘president's letter’1) has been described as a discretionary narrative (Aerts and Yan, 2017; Davison, 2008; Merkl-Davies et al., 2011), that has relevance (Abrahamson and Park, 1994), broader cultural and political significance (Amernic and Craig, 2006; Mäkelä and Laine, 2011), and often considered the most widely read section of the annual report (Breton, 2009). As a voluntary corporate disclosure, it is subject to and used for impression management (IM) purposes (e.g., Hooghiemstra, 2010; Mäkelä and Laine, 2011; Martins et al., 2019).
This study offers an historical analysis of the role of IM through the president's letter in a non-Anglo-Saxon company – Petróleo Brasileiro S.A. – Petrobras (hereafter Petrobras) – and immersed in the context of the Brazilian military dictatorship. Petrobras was established in 1953 in Brazil and for nearly 40 years held the state monopoly of oil and natural gas exploration and production and oil refining. Since its founding and through different political regimes, Petrobras has always been linked to the government as an instrument to further government policies (see Petrobras, 2013; Voss et al., 2023; Whitehead and Belghitar, 2022). It also holds a place in the national psyche as the pillar of Brazilian development and economic independence (see Fico, 1997; Maia, 2005). From 1964 to 1985 Brazil was under a military dictatorship regime, marked by authoritarianism, repression and lack of freedom of speech (Comissão Nacional da Verdade2 – CNV, 2014a). Under this regime, state-owned companies, such as Petrobras, were used to disseminate ideological and political discourses (see Fico, 1997), paving the way for the IM of the Brazilian society itself, which longed to cease the nation's international indebtedness and dependence on foreign investors and funders and to promote economic growth (Markoff and Baretta, 1990; Smith, 1978). The military not only occupied the presidency and the board of directors of Petrobras but also headed its communication area (see CNV, 2014b; Petrobras, 2013). Accordingly, Petrobras was strategic to the national development and the security aimed at by the military (CNV, 2014b; Praun and Costa, 2016).
Considering the multiple dimensions of accounting, particularly its conception as a social and moral practice (Carnegie et al., 2021, 2023), this study explores how IM through the Petrobras president's letter was used to build up and legitimise both the company and the regime. Through a comprehensive analysis of the president's letter, this article evidences the influential, enabling and pervasive role of accounting (Carnegie et al., 2021; Hopwood and Miller, 1994) and contributes to accounting history research on corporate communication (see Merkl-Davies and Brennan, 2017), highlighting how the discretional nature of the president's letter disseminated the story of Petrobras’ ascension (and of the political regime in force), creating visibilities and invisibilities and influencing the readers’ perceptions. The study also addresses the scant research on IM with a holistic (narrative and visual) and longitudinal approach (Brennan et al., 2009; Cooper and Slack, 2015), enabling the comprehensive analysis of the letters and the opportunity to study its consistency and change from 1964 to 1985. The research also contributes to the literature on IM, evidencing how the political, social and economic context (particularly the military dictatorship context) affects storytelling, corporate reporting and communication practices (see Hooghiemstra, 2010, Martins et al., 2019; Merkl-Davies and Brennan, 2007). Recognising the call to study accounting under different political contexts (Antonelli et al., 2020; Cinquini et al., 2016) and the relevance of accounting to conducting social history (Antonelli et al., 2022; McWatters and Lemarchand, 2010; Pinto and West, 2017), this study also adds to the accounting literature by considering the under-researched context of the Brazilian military dictatorship.
The rest of the article is structured as follows. Impression management and the annual report letter to shareholders section provides the theoretical underpinning of the article and highlights IM and the president's letter. The research method is then explained. The Brazilian context and the company section describes the Brazilian context and Petrobras. The president’s letter: Nurturing the dream during the military dictatorship section proceeds with the analysis of how Petrobras president's letters shaped the social consciousness during the military dictatorship. Finally, the main conclusions are presented.
Impression management and the annual report letter to shareholders
Within the scope of sociological theories (e.g., legitimacy theory, stakeholder theory and institutional theory), discretionary narrative disclosures in corporate narratives, such as the president's letter, are a means to address both stakeholder's concerns and to demonstrate organisational legitimacy (Merkl-Davies and Brennan, 2011). In situations where an organisation's norms and values are inconsistent with those of society, the organisation engages in symbolic management (Ashforth and Gibbs, 1990) in order to (re)establish social legitimacy. In this process, organisations use the media to propagate values perceived as conforming to those of society, creating an idealised impression of their performance (Goffman, 1985), which leads stakeholders to mistakenly believe in the company's commitment to society's wishes (Michelon et al., 2015).
As a social actor, organisations have reasons and underlying intentions for IM. IM practices are intrinsically related to the legitimacy process and aim to influence the public perceptions of the organisation, either by proactively shaping stakeholders’ impressions or by responding reactively to their concerns (Merkl-Davies and Brennan, 2011), thus representing and creating reality (Hines, 1988). To gain and maintain organisational legitimacy, organisations make use of assertive strategies and, to repair it, they use defensive ones (Samkin and Schneider, 2010).
Assertive strategies highlight positive results (Yang and Liu, 2017), such as building an identity that is valued by information users (Cooper and Slack, 2015) and raising the profile of corporate social responsibility (Tata and Prasad, 2015). Assertive strategies include the following tactics: self-promotion, entitlement, exemplification, enhancement and ingratiation (Brennan et al., 2009; Cooper and Slack, 2015; Kacmar and Tucker, 2016; Ogden and Clarke, 2005; Talbot and Boiral, 2015; Tedeschi and Melburg, 1984). Defensive strategies are used in difficult or threatening circumstances, seeking to prevent the attribution of negative characteristics to the affected organisation (Merkl-Davies and Brennan, 2007). These strategies are a reaction to particular circumstance(s) (Cooper and Slack, 2015), and aim to improve corporate image (Tata and Prasad, 2015; Yang and Liu, 2017). The defensive tactics include: dissociation, apology, excuse, justification, restitution, concealment and omission (see Brennan and Merkl-Davies, 2014; Cooper and Slack, 2015; Hrasky and Jones, 2016; Merkl-Davies and Brennan, 2011; Ogden and Clarke, 2005; Tedeschi and Melburg, 1984). Cooper and Slack (2015) also point to selectivity and performance comparison as both assertive and defensive tactics. Table 1 summarises IM strategies and tactics.https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/10323732241257954?icid=int.sj-abstract.citing-articles.1
