You are on page 1of 21

CORPORATE SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY (CSR) INFORMATION DISCLOSURE AND FIRM SUSTAINABILITY: AN EMPIRICAL RESEARCH OF THAI-LISTED FIRMS

Suttinee Prachsriphum, Mahasarakham University, Thailand Phapruke Ussahawanitchakit, Mahasarakham University, Thailand ABSTRACT This study attempts to integrate the key components of corporate social responsibility information disclosure in the new model. The primary objective of this study is to test a theoretical framework relating antecedents and consequences of corporate social responsibility information disclosure provided by listed firms in Thailand. Questionnaire is used as a tool. Regression analysis is used to analyze the relationship between these variables. Data are collected from a sample of 98 Thailand Companies. Overall the results indicate that there are both direct and indirect effects among variables. Contributions and suggestions are also provided for future research. Keywords: Organizational Citizenship Orientation, Corporate Governance Awareness, Perceived Public Requirement, Corporate Social Responsibility Information Disclosure, Accounting Information Advantage, Stakeholder Creditability, Corporate Reputation, Firm Sustainability. 1. INTRODUCTION Over the last several years, The USA introduced the Sarbanes-Oxley Act in 2002 and had influenced changes to the New York Stock Exchange Listing Rules. Later, some of the initiatives in the USA were stimulated for by the respective regulators and motivation of initiatives in the Asian region by the World Bank and the Organization for Economic Corporation and Development (OECD). The OECD Principles identified many elements while disclosure and transparency are the one important factor of this opinion. In the context of Thailand, financial information reporting has lacked of sufficient disclosure (Williams, 1999; Haniffa and cooke, 2002). The Thai Government has since introduced a reform strategy which focuses on improvement institutional arrangements, enhancing reliability of financial information and disclosure. For example, The Stock Exchange of Thailand (SET) has required all listed firms emphasize not only to shareholders but also to stakeholder groups and needed firms to provide greater disclosure and more transparent explanations for usefulness decision making. Thus, the concept of corporate social responsibility (henceforth CSR) information disclosure is involved. The notion of CSR is related to ethical and moral issues concerning corporate decisionmaking and behavior (Branco and Rodrigues, 2006). It encompasses environmental protection, human resources management, health and safety at work, relations with local communities and relations with suppliers and consumer. Likewise, reporting on environmental and social matters has been prevalent for several decades with further growth over the past decade (Deegan, 2002). CSR information disclosure is a key tool for communication with stakeholders about an organizations activities (Bolob and Barlett, 2007). The basic of public-information model (Grunig and Hunt, 1984) suggests that the firms should communicate to the public what the organization has done to be responsible and should explain lapse into irresponsibility. Therefore, information in the corporate reports could be separated into two groups including to mandatory and voluntary (Van der Laan, 2004). Mandatory information disclosures believe that reporting should be regulating by the state in order to protect the citizens and also to ensure provide the appropriate information (Boane, 2002). Voluntary disclosure is the demand for information issued by a particular stakeholder group (Van der Laan, 2004). Notwithstanding, the CSR information disclosure is the one kind of voluntary which varies among firms. It depends on cost and benefit and inducement (Wong, 2001). The incentive of firm to voluntary disclosure information has been of interest to both analytical and empirical researcher in accounting. Analytical research has examined issues such as how competition affects disclosure (Stoughton, 2000) and the use of disclosure as a signal of firm value. Empirical research on voluntary disclosure has a much longer history, with a stream of subsequent studies documenting the impact of firm characteristics such as size, listing, leverage and managerial ownership on disclosure.

JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS AND ECONOMICS, Volume 9, Number 4, 2009

40

Nevertheless, most of voluntary CSR information disclosures are a recognized form of corporate reporting which has important impact on proprietary costs (Verrecchia, 1983). Competition (e.g. image, competitiveness, reputation, and trustworthiness etc.) is one factor affecting proprietary cost. Moreover, proprietary costs could still be incurred in nondisclosure circumstance because an opponent may take an adverse action based on the information conveyed by non-disclosure (Wagenhofer, 1990). Thus, competition through threat of entry encourages voluntary disclosure (Darrough and Stoughton, 1990). On the other hand, the probabilities of disclosure have tended to decreasing (Clinch and Verrecchia, 1997). In contrast, disclosure of formation on a companys behaviors and outcomes regarding social responsibility helps to build a positive image with stakeholder (Branco and Rodrigues, 2006, 2008). It might be considered a signal of improved social and environment conduct and hence reputation in those fields because disclosure influences the external perception of reputation. It will be difficult for companies to invest in social responsibility activities, likely to create positive reputation, to realize the value of such reputation without making associated disclosure (Hasselding et al., 2005). This is the reason leading to the motivation of this research which probably the most important weakness of the study about the factor which conveys to report especially about CSR practice. And also, this is why this study focuses on consequences (corporate reputation, stakeholder creditability, accounting information advantage and firm sustainability) and driven-factors of CSR information disclosure (organizational citizenship orientation, corporate governance awareness and perceived public requirement). The main purpose of this article is to examine the relationship between antecedents and consequences of CSR information disclosure. The aim is to enhance understanding of influence that helps explain CSR information disclosure in development country as Thailand while controlling for firm-specific factors. Underlying both the legitimacy theory and resource-based views (RBV) are fundamental when examining the extent and nature of the CSR information disclosure. The legitimacy theory is one influential theories in CSR information disclosure (Deegan, 2002; Pattern and Crampton, 2004). This theory mentions the companys acceptance form social environment and external constituents. Most of the firms engage CSR activities in reporting

because of external pressures. Despite, social responsibility activities and disclosure constitute mainly a legitimacy instrument used by a company to explain what companies make voluntary CSR information disclosure and how companies work with the fulfilling of these social norms and acceptable behavior. Resource-Based view (RBV) addresses firms that will achieve a competitive advantage form specific resource and capability including to four characteristics as valuable, rare, inimitable and non-substitutable (Barney; 1991).A good social responsibility reputation is able to improve relations with external actors such as shareholders, consumers, investors , suppliers and competitors. And it also stimulates employees by enhance about moral as well as their commitment and loyalty to the company which is important to financial outcomes. It could be sources of competitive advantage because such assets could differentiate a company from their competitors (Branco and Rodrigues, 2008). The main point of this theory is to discuss about how the firms could use CSR information disclosure to achieve a sustainable competitive advantage. The remains of the paper are organized as follows. Section 2 reviews existing relevant literature. Section 3 presents the data set used in this research and research methodology. Section 4 presents a discussion of the empirical results. Section 5 proposes theoretical contributions, managerial implications for future research. And section 6 provides conclusions. Research questions The primary research question of this work is to investigate the effect of the antecedents and consequences of variables on CSR information disclosure via accounting information advantage, stakeholder creditability and corporate reputation as mediators. The antecedent variables are identified: organizational citizenship orientation, corporate governance awareness, perceived public requirement while firm sustainability is the consequence of conceptual model as a whole. Specifically, research questions are as follows: Does CSR information disclosure affect the firm sustainability? How does CSR information disclosure affect accounting information advantage, stakeholder creditability and corporate reputation? How do accounting information advantage, stakeholder creditability

JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS AND ECONOMICS, Volume 9, Number 4, 2009

41

and corporate reputation affect firm sustainability? Does stakeholder creditability affect accounting information advantage and corporate reputation? How do antecedents (Organizational citizenship orientation, corporate governance awareness, perceived public requirement) affect CSR information disclosure?

2. LITERATURE REVIEW The theoretical framework (see Fig 1.) explained by both theories encompassing the legitimacy theories and Resource-Based View (RBV) are fundamental with the purpose to accomplish an understanding what CSR is and why companies chooses to make voluntary CSR information disclosure. First, the Legitimacy theory is defined as a generalized perception or assumption that the actions of any entity are desirable, proper, or appropriate within some socially constructed system of norms, values, beliefs and definitions (Suchman, 1995. p.574). Moreover, the legitimacy is a social judgment of appropriateness, acceptance and desirability (Zimmerman and Zeitz, 2002). In other words, the aim of organization is to attempt to establish congruence between the social values associated with or implied by their operations and the social norms or acceptable behavior in the larger social system they are part of (Deegan, 2002). In the areas where the companies actions do not conform to the social norms, those actions represent a legitimacy gap. The companies seek to constantly minimize or reduce that gap, and to maximize the legitimate area (ODonovan, 2002). In this case, is applied the theory inside the context of corporate social responsibility (CSR) information disclosure. Mostly, the legitimacy theory will explain why companies make voluntary CSR information disclosure or how companies work with the fulfilling of these social norms and acceptable behavior (Walden and Schwartz, 1997).A potential issue with applying legitimacy theory to CSR activity is social norms and values are largely a function of temporal matters. As issues are brought to the attention of society, they seem to replace others of prior focus (Gray et al., 1995; Cambell et al., 2003; Bird et al., 2007) Finally, Resource-based View is relevant in explaining how the firms can use CSR information disclosure to achieve a sustainable competitive advantage. Barney (1991)

explained RBV of the firm that competitive advantage is obtained from resources and capability that is controlled to be valuable, rare, inimitable, and non-substitutable. The specific firms resource is a key word of this theory which is important characteristics leading to their performance. Resources are the means through which firms accomplish their activities. They are seen as the basic constitutive elements out of which firms transform inputs into outputs, or generate services (Mathew, 2002). Galbreaths (2005) can be classified into two groups. The first group is tangible resource which includes financial assets and physical assets. The second is intangible resource and capabilities which include intellectual property assets, organizational assets and reputational assets. Branco et al. (2008) mentioned that firms having good relations with their stakeholders will lead to increased financial returns by assisting in developing valuable intangible assets (resource and capabilities) which can be sources of competitive advantage. This study applies RBV into corporate social responsibility (CSR) information disclosure. Disclosure of information on a companys behaviors and outcomes regarding social responsibility helps to build a positive image with stakeholders. Corporate social responsibility disclosure (SRD) is particularly important in enhancing the effects of corporate social responsibility (CSR) on corporate reputation (Branco et al., 2008). 2.1. Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) Information Disclosure In recent year, global the concept of CSR has become an interesting research issue and researchers have developed and examined about it. Some studies discuss CSR as a universal ethical norm (Esrock et al., 1998).Some researchers define to conduct the business in accordance with shareholders desires, which generally will make as much money as possible while conforming to the basic rules of society, both those embodied in law and those embodied in ethical custom (Friedman; 1970). Moreover, CSR is defined as the economic, legal, moral and philanthropic actions of firms that influence the quality of life of relevant stakeholders (Barnea et al., 2005; Hill et al., 2007) CSR reporting is a way for organizations to provide information for different stakeholder regarding social and environmental issue (Golob and Bartkett, 2007).

JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS AND ECONOMICS, Volume 9, Number 4, 2009

42

FIGURE 1 Corporate social responsibility (CSR) information disclosure and firm sustainability: An empirical research of Thai-Listed firms
Control Variables: Firm Size Industry Type Profitability Leverage

Antecedents
H1a-f (+)

Consequence
Accounting Information Advantage

Organizational Citizenship Orientation Corporate Governance Awareness Perceived Public Requirement

H11 (+)

H8a (+)

H12 (+)

H13 (+)

CSR Information Disclosure: Human Development Environment Consideration Community Involvement Product &Service Innovation Consumer Attention Competition Tendency

H8b (+) Stakeholder Creditability H9 (+) Firm Sustainability

H10b (+) H10a (+) Corporate Reputation

H2 a-c (+) H3 a-c (+) H4 a-c (+) H5 a-c (+) H6 a-c (+) H7 a-c (+)

In a social responsibility boundary, a publicinformation model should communicate to the public what the organization has done to be responsible and should explain lapses into irresponsibility (Grunig and Hunt, 1984). Some firms use CSR information disclosure as a strategy to legitimize their activities and also to be the communication media. Reports can be mandatory or voluntary (Van der Laan, 2004). The mandatory information reporting believes that reporting should be regulating by the state in order to protect the citizens and ensuring to provide the appropriate information while voluntary reporting is the demand for information issued by a particular stakeholder group (Van der Lann, 2004). Branco and Rodrigues (2008) suggest that some companies will engage CSR information disclosure which be some kinds of voluntary reporting because they believe that being seen as socially responsible will bring them a competitive advantage and allowing them to achieve better economic result. 2.2. CSR Information Disclosure and Firm Sustainability The definition of corporate social responsibility information disclosure differs depending on ones view of the world. From abroad

perspective, Gray et al. (1996) define corporate social responsibility information disclosure as the process of communicating the social and environmental effect of organizations economic actions to particular interest groups within society and to society at large. The societal or stakeholder expectations are the rationale for assessing the interactions of different publics and engaging in the reporting practice (Whetten et al., 2001).Some companies expect that having good relations with their stakeholders will lead to increased financial returns by assisting in developing valuable intangible assets such as resources and capability (Branco and Rodrigues, 2008) which these assets could be competitive advantage because they could differentiate among firms in the economic. Therefore, in this dissertation assumes that the higher corporate social responsibility information disclosure encompasses human development, environment consideration, community involvement, product and service innovation, consumer attention and competition tendency will have greater firm sustainability. Hence, this leads to the hypotheses as follows:

JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS AND ECONOMICS, Volume 9, Number 4, 2009

43

H1a: A firm with greater level of human development information disclosure will achieve better firm sustainability. H1b: A firm with greater level of environment consideration information disclosure will achieve better firm sustainability. H1c: A firm with greater level of community involvement information disclosure will achieve better firm sustainability. H1d: A firm with greater level of product and service innovation information disclosure will achieve better firm sustainability. H1e: A firm with greater level of consumer attention information disclosure will achieve better firm sustainability. H1f: A firm with greater level of competition tendency information disclosure will achieve better firm sustainability. 2.2.1 Human Development Information Disclosure Human development is defined as the important activity for increase the new knowledge, skills and ability of the employees which vary form firm to firm though it is an important factor leading to firm success and sustains competitive advantage. According to investments in human resources, information technology, research and development, and advertising have become essential in order to maintain the firms competitive position to ensure its future (Canibano et al., 2000). Several firms have set upon human development policy to be as the core framework which includes employees training budgetary, training project for development skill of employee. However, the human development is presently under unregulated and allowing firms to choose what, when and where to disclosure this information. The whole firms attempt to win the support of the social constituents (Abeysekera, 2008) to facilitate their capital accumulation and to enhance firm value by use information disclosure. Thus, this study assumes that the information disclosures are impulse to the level of simultaneous tensions between firms and constituents, as perceived by the firms. Hence, this leads to the hypotheses as follows: H2a: A firm with greater level of human development information disclosure will achieve better accounting information advantage.

H2b: A firm with greater level of human development information disclosure will achieve better stakeholder creditability. H2c: A firm with greater level of human development information discloses re will achieve better corporate reputation. 2.2.2 Environment Consideration Information disclosure Environment consideration is defined as the voluntary compliance practice depending on circumstances of each firm such as inspections, provisions for reuse and refurbishment. The environment management practice is the techniques, policies and procedures a firm uses that are specifically aimed at monitoring and controlling the impact of its operations on the natural environment (Montabon et al., 2007). However, firm will be adopting environment consideration practice which depends on legislation, risk, activities of pressure groups, ethical investors, specific events, awards, economic activities, media interest, societal awareness and politics (Haniffa et a., 2005). Moreover, some firms attempt to perceive the benefits from environment policy until they become environmental proactive for expectation of resources efficient utilization and to improve corporate image, accountability and transparency to stakeholder groups (Belal, 2002; Gray and Milne, 2002; Owen et al., 2000). Therefore, this study assumes the positive relationship between level of environment consideration information disclosure and outcome as accounting information advantage, stakeholder creditability, and corporate reputation. Hence, this leads to the hypotheses as follows: H3a: A firm with greater level of environment consideration information disclosure will achieve better accounting information advantage. H3b: A firm with greater level of environment consideration information disclosure will achieve better stakeholder creditability. H3c: A firm with greater level of environment consideration information disclosure will achieve better corporate reputation. 2.2.3. Community Involvement Information Disclosure Community involvement refers to the effect of firms activity with stockholders, employees, customers, supplier, community and society

JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS AND ECONOMICS, Volume 9, Number 4, 2009

44

such as sponsoring education, political, culture etc Underlying community-based concept is important to firms to sustain corporate success because it relates to social capital encompasses structural social capital and cognitive social capital (Hawe et al., 2000; Szreter et al., 2003). Structural social capital described through social networks, is intrinsic to the social organization of communities. Cognitive social capital consists of the norms, values, attitudes, and beliefs. Therefore, several firms have participated with their community because would be as a good resident for increasing confident as well as enhancing to social capital. Many researchers agree upon the social capital that may include the reputation, trust, creditability which important intangible assets have led to firm sustainability (Shen et al., 2006; Cooper and Owen, 2007; Owyer and Owen, 2005; Thomson and Bebbington, 2005). Hence, this leads to the hypotheses as follows: H4a: A firm with greater level of community involvement disclosure will achieve better accounting information advantage. H4b: A firm with greater level of community involvement information disclosure will achieve better stakeholder creditability. H4c: A firm with greater level of community involvement information disclosure will achieve better corporate reputation. 2.2.4. Product and Service Innovation Information Disclosure Product and service innovation is defined as the incremental, radical and revolutionary changes in though as products, processes, or organizations. Recently, the term innovation has been important leading to sustain firm success because it is increasing productivity and quality of the product. Several firms need to have full innovation and quality on new product and service access to sufficient benefit from the markets. The innovation is the key point to received advantage because most of customers will be satisfied with it which is the factor leading to reliability and reputation after using. Therefore, firms attempt to have research development to achieve standard of product or service quality by setting up management policy through communication information to their customers. Hence, this leads to the hypotheses as follows:

H5a: A firm with greater level of product and service innovation disclosure will achieve better accounting information advantage. H5b: A firm with greater level of product and service innovation information disclosure will achieve better stakeholder creditability. H5c: A firm with greater level of product and service innovation information disclosure will achieve better corporate reputation. 2.2.5. Consumer Attention Information Disclosure Consumer attention refers to firms behavior after sale or service (customer satisfaction and concentrating the same equal right of client after purchase) to achieve a long term connection with their customers. Nowadays, the preferences of customer have influenced on firm survival. Therefore, all of the firms have awareness to make a good relationship by emphasizing on responsibility activity more than maximizing profit such as customer satisfaction which could lead to repeat purchase while the profit become less important. Moreover, the consumer satisfaction-overall quality of the outputs as perceived by consumer- is well believed to be linked to behavioral and economic consequences are beneficial to firms in the long-run (Johnson and Gustafsson, 2000; Rust et al., 2002). High consumer satisfaction benefits the pursuing firms a lot such as increased consumer loyalty, better reputation, reduced price elasticity, lower future transaction cost (Anderson et al, 1994). Several prior researches suggested that the higher superior quality or higher consumer satisfactions are more likely to make economic return (Berhardt et al., 2000; Caru and Cugini, 1999; Rust and Oliver, 2000; He et al., 2007) Therefore, this study assumes if firms focus on consumer attention, they will be greater on outcomes as information accounting advantage, stakeholder credibility and corporate reputation of the firms. Hence, this leads to the hypotheses as follows: H6a: A firm with greater level of consumer attention disclosure will achieve better accounting information advantage. H6b: A firm with greater level of consumer attention information disclosure will achieve better stakeholder creditability. H6c: A firm with greater level of consumer attention information disclosure will achieve better corporate reputation.

JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS AND ECONOMICS, Volume 9, Number 4, 2009

45

2.2.6. Competition Tendency Information Disclosure Competition tendency is one of the most important elements necessary for understanding a firms performance and future prospects which excessively require mandate information form general (e.g. trend of share price information, trend of volume of shares traded, stock exchanges where shares are traded, trend of economic, trend of firms competitive and forecast date) while also vary among firms. Nevertheless, the reason to disclosing this information is general. Most of the financial reporting requirements mandate full disclosure of real which could support useful decision making for their stakeholder. Disclosing in Thailand has been neglected to competition tendency information or appears only in chairmans report a few. Therefore, if firms focus on report about future industry trend, they will assist their stakeholder usefulness from this information which is one important factor leading to increasing accounting information advantage, credibility of stakeholder and also reputation of firms. Hence, this leads to the hypotheses as follows: H7a: A firm with greater level of competition tendency information disclosure will achieve better accounting information advantage. H7b: A firm with greater level of competition tendency information disclosure will achieve better stakeholder creditability. H7c: A firm with greater level of competition tendency information disclosure will achieve better corporate reputation. 2.2.7. Accounting Information Advantage Accounting Information advantage is defined as the financial and non-financial information in annual report which reflects to real economic of the firms and correctly used to predict the future cash flow. Underlying the purpose of accounting has evolved to provide information relevant to entitys financial performance which could measure by accounting profit and cash flow, and also the entitys financial position has been measured by the balance sheet (Lamberton, 2005). The financial reporting should provide information useful to present potential investors, creditors and other users in making rational investment, credit, and similar decision. According to The American Institute of Certified Public Accountants Special Committee on Financial Reporting (AICPA, 1994) which suggested that corporate annual reports should include more forward-looking information and discussions of

the non-financial performance factors that create longer-term value. However, the objective on accounting statement does not only provide the usefulness to decision making but also provides the resource and operational of entrepreneurs because several users have been interesting to the financial report including shareholder, creditor, employee, consumer and social. Therefore, the information disclosure should be sufficient about the operations of the company, its future prospects, financial growth, and responsibility to stakeholder for the determination of their decisions making. However, reporting of the firms could be a good communication to create reliability and creditability of their stakeholder which are instrumental to ensuring the survival of the firm. This study assumes that the higher accounting information advantages, the more likely that the stakeholder creditability will achieve firm sustainability. Hence, this leads to the hypothesis as follows: H8a: A firm with greater level of accounting information advantage will achieve better firm sustainability. H8b: A firm with greater level of accounting information advantage will achieve better stakeholder creditability. 2.2.8. Stakeholder Creditability Stakeholder creditability is defined as the reliability and acceptability from the public such as shareholders, employees, customers etc which without error and bias to companies. The evidence is clear as in the case of large companies ( e.g. Enron Corporation, Lucent, WorldCom) where ethic was neglected causing the financial crisis to all around the world. Lacking of transparency, integrity and reliability of the financial reporting process are the result of a loss in investor confidence. Thus, the whole companies have attention to moral practice on operation. Moreover, firms needs improve not only in the reliable financial reporting process but also in conducting their business in an ethical and legal politeness. Accordingly, the East Asian Economics (including Thailand) have been actively reviewing and improving their regulatory frameworks in particular, transparency, honesty and information disclosure (Ho and Wong, 2001).To reform code of conduct to increasing trust, stakeholder acceptant will influence profession accounting behavior because it will be important thing to have concern in business and also bring about firms sustainability. Hence, this leads to the hypotheses as follows:

JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS AND ECONOMICS, Volume 9, Number 4, 2009

46

H9: A firm with greater level of stakeholder creditability will achieve better firm sustainability. 2.2.9. Corporate Reputation This study defined corporate reputation as the one kind of complexity resource that is some part of capability such as image and identity of the firms which these assets could be the sources of competitive advantage because it varies among firms. On the other hand, the reputation is one of intangible assets which quite hard to imitate by competitors, allowing firm to maintain its superior position. And also the reputation could be more efficient due to reduced contracting costs and increased opportunity sets (Stevens et al., 2002). Therefore, several firms attempt to increase the reputation which enhances the stakeholder trustworthiness though sustained financial outcomes (Roberts and Dowling, 2002).Therefore, this study assumes that firms with higher reputation affects not only firm sustainability but also creditability of its stakeholder. Hence, this leads to the hypothesis as follows: H10a: A firm with greater level of corporate reputation will achieve better firm sustainability. H10b: A firm with greater level of corporate reputation will achieve better stakeholder creditability. 2.3. Antecedent of Corporate Social Responsibility Information Disclosure 2.3.1. Organizational Citizenship Orientation Corporate citizenship orientation is defined as a good behavior of firms which it emphases not only on participation but also on responsibility to social such as focusing on attention to their community and also being aware of social requirements which the firms have to conform with. Corporate citizenship is the extent of the economic, legal, ethical and discretionary responsibilities imposed on them by their stakeholders (Maignan et al., 2001) to involve in the strategies and operating practices a company develops in operationalizing its relationships with and impact on stakeholder and natural environment (Waddock, 2004). Mostly, the activities are different among firms which depend on policy, vision, and mission. Therefore, firms realize on good citizenship which will have responsibility for their operational practice. This focuses on information disclosure especially on CSR

information disclosure because most of stakeholders used this information to decision making such as investment or consider credit. This study assumes firm emphasis on good citizenship which is more likely to the whole activities includes in information disclosure that corporate social responsibility. Hence, this leads to the hypothesis as follows: H11: A firm with greater level of organizational citizenship orientation will achieve better corporate social responsibility information disclosure. 2.3.2. Corporate Governance Awareness Corporate governance is the firms system to direct and control business practice which emphases on rights and responsibility of their stakeholder including securing reliable of information disclosure that will fully have transparency, integrity and accountability. Consequently, protecting the benefits and enhancing participation of their stakeholder underlie the purpose of good moral practice which is the main point of corporate governance; the financial information will have completely, accurately, timely and openly. Moreover, corporate governance practice secures that all major stakeholders receive reliable information about the value of the firm and it motivates managers to maximize firm value instead of pursuing personal objectives (Lue, 2005). Accordingly, several prior researches illustrate the positive relationship between corporate governance and information disclosure (Haniffa and Cooke, 2002, 2005; Ho and Worng, 2001; Eng and Mak, 2003; Nazli et al., 2006).Therefore, based on the review of part studied as above, the study assumes that firms awareness to corporate governance is more likely to gain high level of CSR information disclosure. Hence, this leads to the hypothesis as follows: H12: A firm with greater level of corporate governance awareness will achieve better corporate social responsibility information disclosure. 2.3.3. Perceived Public Requirement This study has defined perceived public requirement that the level perceive force form public as institute, culture, legal, law and social to operate some activity while it has a direct or indirect effect on firms practices in the future which some force is likely to be influenced to firms movement action. For example, the prior events from US such as the case of Enron, Worldcom, Adelphia, Ahold and HealthSouth Imply that their operations were neglected

JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS AND ECONOMICS, Volume 9, Number 4, 2009

47

firms disclosure quality. Therefore, the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 is aware of improving in accounting framework and improve ethic inside the firms practice as well as introspection in information disclosure and increased transparency through enhanced integrity and accountability. Thus, to legitimize their actions, firms should react to increase pressure to firms on changing the organization practice such as information disclosure. Hence, this leads to the hypotheses as follows: H13: A firm with greater level of perceived public requirement will achieve better corporate social responsibility information disclosure. 3. METHODS 3.1 Data collection The samples were randomly drawn from 547 companies of all listed firms in Thailand. The purpose of this survey was to determine users perceptions of the operational for empirical studies. It is pre-tested with managers to overview the validity and reliability, particularly construct validity which is commented by accounting manager, and accordingly it is adjusted in its contents, wording, and item ordering. Reliability was tested by Cronbachs alpha reliability coefficients of all constructs to make sure that the items of the questionnaire are consist with each concept. Subsequently, 547 questionnaires were sent to accounting managers to provide data for this study via mail. After two weeks 82 questionnaires were received. 15 questionnaires were undeliverable, so they were returned. This resulted in 98 responses or a response rate of 18.42%.

In addition, the responses to all Likert-scale questions from the last 20 questionnaires returned were compared to the results of the first 20 questionnaires returned in order to check for any non-response bias. This technique, introduced by Oppenheim (1966), indicated no significant difference (alpha=0.05) between those companies who responded earlier and those who responded later. Thus, assuming that the later respondents were similar to the non-respondents, there was no indication of a visible non-response bias in the data. To further confirm any non-response bias, additional t-test showed that there was an insignificant difference in all continuousscale independent variables and the dependent variable between early and late respondents. 3.2 Reliability and Validity Constructs, multi-item scale, were tested by Cronbarch Alpha to measure reliability of data. Table 1 shows an alpha coefficient higher than .60 (Nunally, 1978) Alpha coefficients of constructs have values ranging from 0.8220.972, the lowest coefficient for environment complexity and the highest coefficient for corporate governance. That is, internal consistency of the measures used in this study can be considered good for all constructs. actor analysis is employed to test the validity of data in the questionnaire. Items are used to measure each construct that is extracted to be one only principal component. Table1 shows factor loading of each construct that presents a value higher than .5. Thus, construct validity of this study is tapped by items in the measure, as theorized. That is, factor loading of each construct should not be less than .4. (Hair et al., 2006)

TABLE 1 FACTOR LOADIGN AND ALPHA COEFFICIENTS OF CONSTRUCTS Constructs Organizational citizenship orientation Corporate governance awareness Perceived public requirement Human development information disclosure Environment consideration information disclosure Community involvement information disclosure Product and service innovation information disclosure Consumer attention information disclosure Competition tendency information disclosure Accounting information advantage Stakeholder creditability Corporate reputation Firm sustainability Factor Loading 0.933-0.964 0.824-0.970 0.806-0.943 0.821-0.892 0-722-0.889 0.751-0.956 0.821-0.914 0.772-0.924 0.793-0.933 0.880-0.944 0.912-0.936 0.820-0.947 0.663-0.900 Alpha Coefficient 0.938 0.972 0.918 0.872 0.822 0.925 0.887 0.885 0.907 0.919 0.917 0.860 0.865

JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS AND ECONOMICS, Volume 9, Number 4, 2009

48

3.3 Statistic Technique OLS regression analysis is employed to estimate parameters in hypothesis testing. From the relation model and the hypotheses the following three equation models are formulated. Equation1: FS1 = 01+ 2HD+ 3EC+ 4CI+ 5IN+ 6CA+ 7CT+ 8ASS+ 9TYP+ 10PRO+ 11LEV + Equation2: SC1 = 02+ 12HD+ 13EC+ 14CI+ 15IN+ 16CA+ 17CT+ 18ASS+ 19TYP+ 20PRO+ 21LEV + Equation3: AI = 03+ 22HD+ 23EC+ 24CI+ 25IN+ 26CA+ 27CT+ 28ASS+ 29TYP+ 30PRO+ 31LEV + Equation4: CR = 04+ 32HD+ 33EC+ 34CI+ 35IN+ 36CA+ 37CT+ 38ASS+ 39TYP+ 40PRO+ 41LEV + Equation5: FS2 = 05+ 42AI+ 43SC+ 44CR+ 45ASS+ 46TYP+ 47PRO+ 48LEV + Equation6: SC2 = 06+ 49AI+ 50CR+ 51ASS+ 52TYP+ 53PRO+ 54LEV + Equation7: CSRD = 07+ 55OC+ 56CG+ 57PP+ 58ASS+ 59TYP+ 60PRO+ 61LEV + Equation8: HD = 08+ 62OC+ 63CG+ 64PR+ 65ASS+ 66TYP+ 67PRO+ 68LEV + Equation9: EC = 09+ 69OC+ 70CG+ 71PR+ 72ASS+ 73TYP+ 74PRO+ 75LEV + Equation10: CI = 10+ 76OC+ 77CG+ 78PR+ 79ASS+ 80TYP+ 81PRO+ 82LEV + Equation11: IN = 11+ 83OC+ 84CG+ 85PR+ 86ASS+ 87TYP+ 88PRO+ 89LEV + Equation12: CA = 12+ 90OC+ 91CG+ 92PR+ 93ASS+ 94TYP+ 95PRO+ 96LEV +

Equation13: CT = 13+ 97OC+ 98CG+ 99PR+ 100ASS+ 101TYP+ 102PRO+ 103LEV + Where: OC is organizational citizenship orientation, CG is corporate governance awareness, PP is perceived public requirement, HD is human development, EC is environment consideration, CI is community involvement, PQ is product and service quality, CA is consumer attention, CT is competition tendency, AR is accounting resource advantage, SC is stakeholder creditability, CR is corporate reputation, FS is firm sustainability. ASS is firm size. TYP is industry type, Profitability is profitability, LEV is Leverage, is error term. These regression equations are employed to estimate inferred parameters whether the hypotheses are substantiated and fit overall model (F value) or not. Then the model variables and parameters are presented in various tables. 3.4 Measurements All variables in Table 1 use the 5-point Likert scale excluding control variables and show numbers of items in order to tap each variable. 3.4.1. Corporate social responsibility (CSR) information disclosure. Variables were measured using the six-part newly developed from the definition which each part encompasses four items of Likert scale ranging form 1=strongly disagree to 5= strongly agree. The first part of measure, human development was developed with four items. The respondents were asked to indicate the extent to which their perceived practice. These items were training, welfare, the relation with union. The second part of the measure, environment consideration requires respondents to assess their perceived practice about environment policy, environment management concern, reward and rating. The third part of the measure, community involvement insists on perceived operate disclosure of respondent related to patronize as education, government. The fourth part of the measure is about product and service quality. The respondents were obliged about theirs perceived firms product and service information, R&D, third-party recognition for the quality. The fifth part of the measure; consumer attention was the process following production such as customer complaints and satisfaction. The respondents were asked about their perceived practice. The last part of

JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS AND ECONOMICS, Volume 9, Number 4, 2009

49

the measure, competition tendency requires measure respondents perceived investment, economy, forecasting of data in the web site and in annual report. 3.4.2 Antecedents of CSR Information Disclosure Organizational citizenship orientation. The measurement unducted in accordance with Flamholtz et.al (2005). Items included the local community about firms operation, firms respect in the community for maintaining plant appearance and complying with environment standard. Respondents were asked to indicate the extent to their perception in the practice on a scale ranging from 1=strongly disagree to 5= strongly agree. Corporate governance awareness requires respondents to indicate the extent to which they perceived and emphasized on practice. These items showed transparency, integrity and honesty which are the main point of corporate government concept. The items were derived form the measure developed by Ussahawanitchakit and Prachsriphum (2008). Using five-point Likert scale ranged from 1=strongly disagree to 5= strongly agree. Perceived Public Requirement focused on the extent to which each firm perceived practice. The four items measured aspect of respect and consciousness to law, regulation, and community. These items developed from the definition which it was a newly scale. Each element was rated on an five- point Likert scale ranging from1=strongly disagree to 5= strongly agree. 3.4.3. Consequence of CSR Information Disclosure Accounting information advantage includes a list of four items based on new from several literatures. Respondents were asked to indicate the extent to which they perceived on the items of information for decision making, complexly and timely. The questionnaires use five-point Likert scale ranging from 1=strongly disagree to 5= strongly agree. Stakeholder creditability requires respondents to indicate the extent to which they perceived practice of a newly question. The area of the questionnaires consists of moral, ethic, justice and respect. Therefore, four new items are developed to measure the stakeholder creditability. The questionnaires use five-point Likert scale ranging from 1=strongly disagree to 5= strongly agree. Corporate reputation was based on the new instrument. As with other questions in this survey, accounting managers perceptions were relied to measure corporate reputation.

Items included acceptance, identity and image. The questionnaires use five-point Likert scale ranging from 1=strongly disagree to 5= strongly agree. Firm Sustainability used five items that developed form the definitions. The area of the questionnaires consists of information from growth of market share, growth of sale or revenue and growth of competitive position. Respondents were asked to indicate the extent to which they perceived practice. The fivepoint Likert scale ranged from 1=strongly disagree to 5= strongly agree. 3.4.4. Control Variables Firm size is a control variable which was also probable to influence the hypothesized relationship because of the following: the need to raise capital at the lowest cost, pressure from shareholders themselves and investment analysts for greater disclosure, closer monitoring by regulatory authorities, the complexity of the business structure, and greater demands to provide information to various user groups for entities of economic significance. We use total assets as a measure of firm size which has been adopted in several studies. Size has been found to be a significant variable in previous research studies (Courtis 1998). Leverage has been suggested as significant in explaining variability in the extent of voluntary disclosure. Courtis (1997) suggests that structural complexity requires a firm to have an effective management information system for monitoring purposes and the availability of such a system helps to reduce the cost of information production per unit and thus, higher disclosure. Profitability; previous research has tended to find a positive association between profitability and voluntary disclosure. Managers are motivated to disclose more detailed information to support the continuance of their positions and remuneration and to signal institutional confidence. Industry Type: Levels of disclosure may vary according to industry type. Higher disclosure may be expected by companies in politically sensitive industries such as oil and gas (Whittred and Zimmer, 1999), manufacturing and those that are highly regulated. 4. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Table 2 shows the descriptive statistics and correlation matrix for all variables. Variance inflation factors (VIF) were used to check multi-collinearity problems among independent variables that VIFs range from 1.00-2.17, well

JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS AND ECONOMICS, Volume 9, Number 4, 2009

50

below that cut-off value of 10 recommended by Hair et al. , (2006), indicating that the independent variables are not correlated with each other. Thus, there are no significant multi-collinerairy problems confronted in this study. Table 3 summarizes the result analysis of the relationship between CSR information

disclosures encompasses six dimension; human development, environment consideration, community involvement, product and service innovation, consumer attention , competition tendency and four consequences (firm sustainability, accounting information advantage, stakeholder creditability, corporate reputation) which are following by hypotheses 1-10.

TABLE 2 CORRELATION MATRIX FOR ALL CONSTRUCTS


Constructs

CSRD

HD

EC

CI

IN

CA

CT

AI

CR

SC

FS

OC

CG

PP

CSRD HD EC CI IN CA CT AI CR SC FS OC CG PP

.898** .756** .717** .881** .770** .707** .927** .741** .676** .813** .643** .491** .805** .707** .357** .623** .440** .346** .580** .469** .241** .621** .486** .335** .540** .391** .352** .748** .595** .324** .726** .518** .302** .754** .535** .383** *P < .10 , **P < .05 , ***P <

.833** .564** .615** .476** .425** .464** .425** .579** .628** .595** .01

.751** .703** .711** .586** .638** .641** .576** .587** .631** .818** .623** .631** .634** .802** .900** .567** .498** .491** .699** .749** .784** .744** .688** .769** .698** .727** .683** .624** .742** .714** .676** .660** .591** .548** .562** .748** .731** .752** .676** .652** .634** .598** a. Beta coefficients with standard errors in parenthesis.

.823** .811**

.900**

TABLE 3 EFFECT OF CONSEQUENCE ON CSR INFORMATIN DISCLSOURE


Independent Variables

1:FS1
-281* (.145) .256** (.125) -.033 (.147) 458*** (.169) .010 (.119) .208 (.142)

2:SC
-.140 (-.127) .052 (.109) -.073 (.128) .397*** (.148) .182* (.104) .268** (.124)

Models 3:AI 4:CR


-.391 (.132) .220* (.114) .166 (.134) -.026 (.155) .274** (.108) .620*** (.130) -.005 (.121) -.077 (.105) -.018 (.123) .342** (.142) .115 (.099) .290** (.119)

5:FS

6:SC

CSR Information Disclosure (CSRD): Human Development (HD) Environment Consideration (EC) Community Involvements (CI) Product and Service Innovation (IN) Consumer Attention (CA) Competition Tendency (CT) Accounting Information Advantage(AI) Corporate Reputation (CR) Stakeholder Creditability (SC) Control Variable: Firm Size (ASS) Industry Type (TYP) Profitability (PRO) Leverage (LEV) Adjusted R
2

.186 (.107) .056 (.156) .561*** (.138) .051 (.076) -.011 (.037) .115 (.065) -.412*** (.128) .456 .162** (.067) .100 (.032) .155** (.057) -.340*** .112 .582 -.620 (.070) .190*** (.064) .032 (.059) -175*** (.117) .545 .086 (.064) .134** (.031) .198*** (.055) -.407 (.107) .617 -.045 (.059) -.064 (.028) -.009 (.055) -.099 (.120) .626

.203*** (.710) .725*** (.082)

.094** (.040) -.015 (.019) .002 (.037) .001 (.082) .824

*P < .10 , **P < .05 , ***P < .01

a. Beta coefficients with standard errors in parenthesis.

JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS AND ECONOMICS, Volume 9, Number 4, 2009

51

The model1 shows that a moderate percentage of the variation in firm sustainability could be explained by variation in the whole set of CSR information disclosure 45.6% (Adjusted R2 = 0.456). The two dimensions (environment consideration and product & service innovation) entered the equation with a regression coefficient that were different significant at the 0.05 and 0.01 level in the regression model. In addition, most of the direction of the signs in the regression model agree with the hypotheses (3 = 0.256, 5 =0.458 respectively). Thus, H1 (b), H1 (d) are supported. Similarly, the companies will engage in CSR information disclosure because they believe that being seen as socially responsible will lead them to a competitive advantage and allowing them to achieve better economic result though accrue to sustain business (Branco and Rodrigues, 2006, 2008). Thus, the information of CSR especially about environment consideration and product & service innovation appear as mechanisms the companies use to practice and be acting to achieve firm survival (sustainability).Surprisingly, the result of the association between human developments and firm sustainability on H1 (a) appears negatively significant relationship among variables. Possibly, the information about human resource and development has influence to firms competition which is an important kind of proprietary cost. Therefore, firms with more human development information disclosure will have less competitiveness and might be nonsustainability. Similarly, information disclosure especially on voluntary practice has effect on proprietary cost which is the reason to avoid in the annual report (Verrecchia, 1983). The models 2, 3 and 4 explains about the relationship between six dimensions of CSR information disclosure and consequence variables which encompasses accounting information advantage, stakeholder creditability and corporate reputation. The result found that three dimensions includes; environment consideration, consumer attention and competition tendency have positive influence on accounting information advantage (23 = 0.220, p<0.10; 26 = 0.274, p<0.05; 27 = 0.620, p<0.01 respectively). That is, H3 (a), H6 (a) and H7 (a) are supported. Firms attempt to enhance transparency, integrity and accountability in the report because most of the business is accused of lack of responsibility to their stakeholders and also neglecting aspect of good moral attention to

operational practice which is the main point led to crisis. Consequence, any firms have more concern in these events while also improve about transparency by increasing voluntary information in annual report. Accordingly, The KPMG 2005 international survey shows that voluntary CSR reporting has risen significantly since 2002 (Kolk, van der Veen, Pinkse, and Fortanier, 2005). In addition, three dimensions of CSR information disclosure which include product & service innovation (15 = 0.397, p<0.01), consumer attention (16 = 0.182, p<0.10) and competition tendency (17 = 0.268, p<0.05) are significantly and positively associated with stakeholder creditability. Hence, H5 (b), H6 (b), H7 (b) are supported. Creditability of stakeholder (investors, shareholders, creditors, employees, government and social) is the important resource which could be as a capability that brings them to firm success. Any firms would like to receive reliability form their stakeholder by communication what the firms has practice about responsibility though the reason of irresponsibility (Hunt, 1984). Financial reporting is the way to communicate. Recently, CSR practice have integrated into information disclosure to enhance the usefulness of decision making especially about social and environment (Branco and Rodrigues, 2006) Accordingly, financial reporting should provide information useful to present and potential investors and creditors and other users in making rational investment, credit, and similar decision (FASB , 1987) Moreover, the regression model shows the positive effect of product & service innovation and competition tendency (35 = 0.342, 37 =0.290 respectively; p<0.05) on corporate reputation. Therefore, H5(c), H7 (c) are supported. Corporate social responsibility disclosure is particularly important in enhancing the effects of CSR on corporate reputation. It might be considered a signal of improved social and environmental conduct and reputation in those fields because disclosure influences the external perception of reputation (Branco and Rodrigues, 2008). It wil be difficult for companies to invest in social responsibility activities and likely to create positive reputation fore realize the value of reputation without making associated discourse (Hasseldine et al., 2005; Toms, 2002). Moreover, developing and maintaining a reputation should say for honesty and fairness which could allow the agent to earn an above average rate of return (Roberts and

JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS AND ECONOMICS, Volume 9, Number 4, 2009

52

Dowling; 2002). CSR is related to ethical and moral issues concerning corporate decision making and behavior (Branco and Rodrigues, 2006). Hence, most of companies use CSR information to portray their reputation or image (Stittle, 2002). The model 5 tests the influence of thee factors surrounding to accounting information advantage, corporate reputation and stakeholder creditability on firm sustainability. The result reveals that only one factor (stakeholder creditability) is positive and significant on firms sustainability (43 = 0.561, p<0.01). Stakeholder confidence is important to going-concern as well as the firm preferential. For example, firms could make the customers satisfaction until become to loyalty which is the core to sustain corporate success. In this time, the stakeholder reliability is very important after the crisis events because any firms have lost confidence. Any firms attempt to pay more attention to their stakeholder, the key point leading to sustainability of the firms. Accordingly, sustainable competitive advantage obtained form resource and capability controlled to be valuable, rare, inimitable, and nonsubstitutable (Barney; 1991). In this case, stakeholder creditability is one kind of specific resources which convey to firm survival. The model 6 investigates the influence of accounting information advantage and corporate reputation on stakeholder creditability. Result shows that both accounting information advantage and corporate

50 =0.725 reputation (49 = 0.203, respectively; p<0.01) are significant and positive with stakeholder creditability are following the H8 (b) and H10 (b). Hence, both hypotheses are supported. Accounting information advantage relates to accounting policy choice and the quality of accounting disclosure which have communication between firms and users of accounting information (Gray, Radebaugh and Roberts, 1990). Therefore, having the quality of information and reflecting to real economic will bring to reliability of users. Moreover, reputations are important factors that bring about acceptant as well as ability of the firms. Accordingly, corporate reputation could be more efficient due to reduce contracting costs and increased opportunity sets (stevens et al., 2002). Table 4 presents the results of OLS regression analysis to inference H11, H12, H13 that these are proposed about effect of organization citizenship orientation, corporate governance awareness and perceived public requirement as antecedent variables on CSR information disclosure. Model 7 presents overall perspectives while the models 8-13 separately explain the relationship of each dimension. The results indicate that both organization citizenship orientation and perceived public 58 =0.605 requirement (56 = 0.312, respectively; p<0.01) are positively and significantly associated with CSR information disclosure. Thus, H11 and H13 are supported.

TABLE 4 EFFECT OF ANTECEDENCE ON CSR INFORMATION DISCLSOURE


Independent Variables

Organizational Citizenship Orientation (OC) Corporate Governance Awareness (CG) Perceived Public Requirement (PP) Control Variable: Firm Size (ASS) Industry Type (TYP) Profitability (PRO) Leverage (LEV)
Adjusted R
2

7:CSRD .312*** (.103) -.046 (.145) .605*** (.142) .188*** (.054) .068 (..028) -.222*** (.054) .078 (.095) .680

8:HD .418*** (.137) -.127 (.193) .324* (.190) .278*** (.072) -.010 (.037) -.216** (.072) -.010 (.127) .428

9:EC -.022 (.151) -.415* (.213) .914*** (.209) .220** (.080) .195** (.041) -.300** (.079) .236*** (.140) .307

Models 10:CI 11:IN .044 .313*** (.130) (.108) .383** .061 (.183) (.152) .270 .528*** (.180) (.149) .260*** (.068) .094 (.035) -.172** (.068) .131* (.121) .488 .050 (.057) .090 (.029) -1.83** (.056) .131** (.100) .646

12:CA .211* (.120) .086 (.169) .524*** (.166) .072 (.063) .060 (.033) -.151** (.063) -.013 (.111) .562

13:CT .528*** (.099) -.292** (.140) .489*** (.137) .155*** (.052) -.195*** (.027) -.053 (.052) -.049 (.092) .700

*P < .10 , **P < .05 , ***P < .01

a. Beta coefficients with standard errors in parenthesis.

JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS AND ECONOMICS, Volume 9, Number 4, 2009

53

In the H11, the result shows relationship between organization citizenship orientation and CSR information disclosure. Some researchers consider the organization citizenship orientation as one dimension of culture (Flamholts et al., 2004) which is related to the learned, socially acquired traditions and life styles of the member of a society including their patterned, repetitious way thinking, felling and acting (Harries; 1997).That is, relatively slow to change and the strongest influence for an increase in information disclosure will be the demand for information which should arise from a growing stock market. In the H13, the result inference is positive and significant between perceived public requirement and CSR information disclosure. That is, firms have high perceived public force to operate some activities which have influence factors lead to firms movement practice. Accordingly, external regulatory regimes have an effect on internal practice (Devis and McConnell, 2002).Moreover, the public pressure could develop CSR policies arising form the failure of voluntary reporting (Ariel Aaronson &Reeves, 2002). These are drivers for some governments as well as other institutions to introduce different accreditation mechanisms, guideline and reporting but to find a middle way to hold companies accountable for their action (Hopins, 2003; Stittle, 2002). Likewise, astonishingly in the result of the relationship between corporate governance awareness and CSR information disclosure is insignificant (56 = -0.046, p<0.10) resulting, H12 is not supported. After Thai crisis, The Thai Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and the SET promote good corporate governance practice by emphasis fairness, transparency, accountability, and responsibility. These four factors have been incorporated in most of the legal instruments by the government, the SEC and the SET. However, these concepts are emphasized to protect and enhance the interests of only shareholder (Baker and Owen; 2002) but neglected other persons who have the relationship with the firms such as government, consumer and communities. In other words, CSR notions are wider than corporate governance concept which covers all of stakeholders. The expectations are the rationale for assessing the interaction of different publics and engaging in the reporting practice (Whetten et al., 2001). Thus, this reason makes the variables mighty noneffect of corporate governance awareness on CSR information disclosure.

5. CONTRIBUTIONS AND FUTURE DIRECTIONS FOR RESEARCH 5.1 Theoretical Contribution Several studies have examined the relationship between firm characteristics and voluntary CSR disclosure perspectives but no research has attempted to link relationship between antecedents and consequences. For preceding the field theoretically, this research is one of the first known studies to link among antecedents and consequences of CSR information disclosure in Thai-Listed Companys perspective. Moreover, this work attempts to integrate the key dimensions of CSR information disclosure in the new model. The future search should provide on insight effect of firm-specific. 5.2 Managerial Contribution Corporate social responsibility will increase on corporate reputation and creditability from their stakeholder because it is an operational practice that shows to transparency, integrity and honestly which is the main point of ethic concept. In general, the main CSR issues can be categorized into four main areas. First; human resource development covers such issues as employee numbers and remuneration, employee share ownership, employee consultation, training and education, employment of minorities or woman and trade union information. Second; environment Initiatives relate to environmental policies, environmental management system and environmental awards, the environmental impacts of products and processes, environment-related expenditures, the environment benefits of products, conservation of natural resources and recycling activities, and disclosures concerning energy efficiency. Third; community involvements include sponsorship as well as charitable donations and activities. Finally, work outputs focus on the effect and the impact of their work in the marketplace and that they undertake ethical work practices. However, not only all of the firms concern about it but mandatory information disclosure should be regulatorily imposed also. 6. CONCLUSTION Corporate responsibility information disclosure has received increasing emphasis both on practice and academic research. Some firms use the corporate responsibility information disclosure as a strategy to achieve competitive advantage. However, several factors make the

JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS AND ECONOMICS, Volume 9, Number 4, 2009

54

information vary from firm to firm depending on vision of each individual organization. Therefore, this papers investigates five questions namely. 1. Does CSR information disclosure affect the firm sustainability? 2. How does CSR information disclosure affect accounting information advantage, stakeholder creditability and corporate reputation? 3. How do accounting information advantage, stakeholder creditability and corporate reputation affect firms sustainability? 4. Does stakeholder creditability affect accounting information advantage and corporate reputation? 5.How do factors. (Organizational citizenship orientation, corporate governance awareness, perceived public requirement) affect CSR information disclosure?. The results show that most of variables have significant effect on each variable. The recognition that companies interact with stakeholders and not just shareholder has brought to the widening of the concept of corporate performance and the relevance of the accountability problem. The concept of CSR information disclosure becomes of central important when dealing with the interactions and relationships between company and stakeholder. This relationship are analyzed and reviewed according to two of the most widely spread theories in the analysis of voluntary disclosure: legitimacy theory and resource-based view. The result following the theoretical framework that firms make voluntary CSR information disclosure for achieve the legitimacy gap and also increase the competitive advantage which is the core factors lead to the sustainability. REFERENCES: Anderson J., W. (1989). Corporate Social Responsibility, Greenwood Press, Connecticut. Anderson, E.W., Fornell, C., Lehmann, d.R., (1994). Customer satisfaction, market share, and profitability: Findings from Sweden. Journal of Marketing 58 (3), 53-66. Baker and Owsen (2002). Increasing the role of auditing in corporate governance. Critical Perspectives on Accounting. 534-566. Barnea, A. and A. Rubin (2005). Corporate Social Responsibility as a Conflict Between Shareholders Working paper, University of Texas at Austin.

Barney, J. B. (1986). Strategic factor markets: Expectations, luck, and business strategy. Management Science, 10: 1231-1241. Barney, J. B. (1991). Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of Management.17; 99-120. Beasley, M., (1996). An empirical analysis of the relation between the board of directors composition and financial statement fraud. The Accounting Review 71(4),443-465. Belal, A.R., (2002). Stakeholder accountability or stakeholder management?: a review of UK firms social and ethical accounting. Auditing and reporting (SEAAR) practices. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management 9(1), 8-25. Bernhardt, K.L., Donthu, N., Kennett, P.A., (2000). A longitudinal analysis of satisfaction and profitability. Journal of Business Research 47 (2), 161- 171. Bhimani and Soonawalla, (2005). From conformance to performance: The corporate responsibilities continuum. Journal of Accounting and Public Policy; 165-174. Branco and Rodrigues (2008). Factors Influencing Social Responsibility Disclosure by Portuguese Companies. Journal of Business Ethics 83;685-701. Brendan ODwyer and David L. Owen (2005). Assurance statement practice in environmental, social and sustainability reporting: a critical evaluation. The British Accounting Review 37, 205-229. Carol A. Adams, Wan-Ying Hill and Clare B. Roberts, (1998). Corporate Social Reporting Practices in Western Europe: Legitimating Corporate Behaviur? . British Accounting Review 30,1-21. Caru, A.,Cugini, A., (1999). Profitability and customer satisfaction in services: An integrated perspective between marketing and cost management analysis. International Journal of Service Industry Management 10(2), 132-156.

JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS AND ECONOMICS, Volume 9, Number 4, 2009

55

Charles J.P.Chen, Bikki Jaggi (2000). Association between independent nonexecutive director, family control and financial disclosures in Hong Kong. Journal Accounting and Public Policy ; 285-310. Claire Marston and Annika Polei (2004). Corporate reporting on the Internet by German companies. International Journal of Accounting Information Systems, 285-311. Deegan, C. (2002). Introduction: The legitimizing effect of social and environmental disclosure-A theoretical foundation. Accounting Auditing and Accountability Journal, 282-311. Demei Shen, James Laffey, Yimei Lin, and Xinxin Huang (2006). Social Influence for perceived Usefulness and Ease-of Use of Course Delivery System. Journal of Interactive Online Learning 5, 270282. Denis Cormier, Marie-Josee Ledoux and Michel Magnan (2008). The use of Web sites as a disclosure platform for corporate performance. International Journal of Accounting Information Systems.1-24. Diamond,D.W. (1985). Release of information by firms. Journal of Finance, 40, 10711094. Eng, L., Mak, Y.,(2003). Corporate governance and voluntary disclosure. Journal of Accounting and Public Policy 22,325345. Eugence C.M. Cheng, Stephen M. Courtenay (2006). Board composition, regulatory regime and voluntary disclosure. The International Journal of Accounting; 262-289. Ferdinand A. Gul , Sidney Leung (2004). Board leadership, outside directorsexpertise and voluntary corporate disclosures. Journal of Accounting and Public Policy ; 351-379. Fitz-enz, j., (2000). The ROI of Human Capital, Measuring the Economic Value of Employee Performance, Amacom, New York.

Frank Montabon, Robert Sroufe and Ram Narasimhan (2007). An examination of corporate reporting, environmental management practices and firm performance. Journal of Operations Management 25, 998-1014. Friedman, M.: (1970). Money and Income: Comment on Tobin. Quarterly journal of Economic 84(2), 318-327. Galbreath. J (2005). Which Resource Matter the Most to Firm Success? An Exploratory Study of Resource Based Theory, Technovation 25, 797-987. Gerald K. Chau, Sidney J. Gray (2002). Ownership structure and corporate voluntary disclosure in Hong Kong and Singapore. Journal of Accounting and Public Policy ; 247-265. Gray, R., Kouhy, R., Lavers,S., (1995). Corporate social and environmental reporting: A review of the literature and a longitudinal study of UK disclosure. Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal, 47-77. Gray, R.H., Milne, M., (2002). Sustainability reporting: Whos kidding whom? Chartered Accountants Journal of New Zealand 81(6), 66-70. Gray, R.H., Owen, D. & Adams, C.A. (1996). Accounting and Accountability: Change and Challenges in Corporate Social and Environmental Reporting, Hemel Hempstead, Prentice Hall. Gray, S.J. G. K. Meek and C.B. Roberts. (1995). International Capital Market Pressures and Voluntary Annual Report Disclosure by US and UK multinational companies. Journal of International Financial Management and Accounting, Vol 6, No.1. Gray, S.J., Radebaugh.L. H., & Roberts, C.B. (1990).International perceptions of cost constraints on voluntary information disclosure: a comparative study of UK & US multinationals. Journal of International Business Studies. Fourth Quarter, 597-622. Gregorio Martin de Castro, Jose Emilio Navas Lopez and Pedro Lopez Saez (2006). Business and Social Reputation: Exploring the Concept and Main

JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS AND ECONOMICS, Volume 9, Number 4, 2009

56

Dimensions of Corporate Reputation. Journal of Business Ethics; 361-370. Hart S (1997). Beyond greening: strategic for a sustainable world. Harvard Business Review (1); 66-76. Hasseldine, J., A. I. Salama and J.S. Toms: 2005. Quantity Versus Quality: The Impact of Environmental Disclosure on the Reputation of UK PLCS. The British Accounting Review 37 (2) 231-248. Healy, P. M.& Palepu, K. G. (1995). The challenges of investor communication: the case of CUC International. Inc. Journal of Financial Economic. Vol. 38, No.2, 111-140. Hill, R,.P., T. Ainscough, T. Shank and D. Manullang (2007). Corporate Social Responsibility and Socially Responsible Investing: A Global Perspective. Journal of Business Ethics 70, 165-174. Hair J. R., Anderson R.E., and Tatham R.L., Multivariate Data Analysis with Readings, New York, NY: McGraw-Hill, 1992. Hofstede, Geert H. (2001). Cultures cosequences: Comparing values, behaviors, institutions, and organizations across nations, 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Hossain, M. Prevost. A.K,&Rao ,R.R (2001) Corporate governance in New Zealand: The effect information content of voluntary corporate disclosure. Abacus, 138-162. Ian Thomson and Jan Bebbington (2005). Social and environmental reporting in the UK: a pedagogic evaluation. Critical Perspectives on Accounting,16, 507533. Isabelle Maignan and O.C. Ferrell (2001). Antecedents and benefits of corporate citizenship: an investigation of French business. Journal of Business Research; 37-51. Jean Raar (2008). The new global accounting community: Rationale for dialogue to establish its accountability? Critical Perspectives on Accounting; 1-19.

Johnson, M.D., Gustafsson, A., (2000). Improving Customer Satisfaction, Loyalty, and Profit: An Integrated Measurement and Management system. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco. Johnson, M.D., Herrmann, A., Gustafsson, A., (2002). Comparing customer satisfaction across industries and countries. Journal of Economic Psychology 23(6), 749-769. Kathryn Bewley and Yue Li (2000). Disclosure of environmental information by Canadian manufacturing companies: A voluntary disclosure perspective. Journal of Advances in Environmental Accounting and Management ; 201-226. Kennedy, J., Kleinmuntz, D.N.,&Peecher, M. (1997). Determinants of the justifiability of performance in ill-structured audit tasks. Journal of Accounting Research,35; 105-123. Kun Wang, Swon O, M. Cathy Claiborne (2008). Determinants and consequences of voluntary disclosure in an emerging market: Evidence form China. Journal of International Accounting Auditing & Taxation (17) 14-30. L.L.Eng, Y.T.Mak (2003). Corporate governance and voluntary disclosure. Journal of Accounting and Public Policy ; 325-345. M. Rosario Babio Arcay and M. Flora Muino Vazquez (2005). Corporate Characteristics, Governance Rules and the Extent of Voluntary Disclosure in Spain. Journal of Advances in Accounting ; 299-331. Manuel Castelo Branco and Lucia Lima Rodrigues (2006). Corporate Social Responsibility and Resource-Based Perspectives. Journal of Business Ethics; 111-132. Marston and Polei, (2004). Corporate reporting on the internet by German companies. International journal of accounting information systems. 285-311. Mathews, J. A.(2002). A resource-based view of Schumpeterian Economic Dynamics. Journal of Evolutionary Economics 12.29-54.

JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS AND ECONOMICS, Volume 9, Number 4, 2009

57

Mathews, J.A (2003). Competitive Dynamics and Economic Learning: An Extended Resource-Based View, Industrial and Corporate Change; 115-145. McWilliams, A and D. Siegel (2001). Corporate Social Responsibility and Firm Financial Performance: Correlation or Misspecification. Strategic Management Journal 21, 603-609. Nazli A. Mohd Ghazali, Pauline Weetman (2006). Perpetuating traditional influences: Voluntary disclosure in Malaysia following the economic crisis. Journal of International Accounting Auditing & Taxation . 1-36. Neal and Cochran, (2008). Corporate social responsibility, corporate governance and financial performance: Lessons form finance. Business Horizons; 535-540. Neu, D., H. Warsame, and K. Pedwell (1998). Managing Public Impressions: Environment Disclosure in Annual Reports. Accounting Organizations and Society, 23(3), 265-82. Neu, D., Warsame, H., Pedwell, K., (1998). Managing Public impressions: environmental disclosure in annual reports. Accounting Organizations and Society 23(3),265-282. Nually, J., 1978. Psychometric Theory, McGraw-Hill, New York Oppenheim,A.N. 1996. Questionnaire Design and Attitude Measurement, New York: Basic Books. Owen, D.L., Swift,T.A., Humphrey, C., Bowerman, M., (2000). The new social audits: accountability managerial capture of the agenda of social champions?. European Accounting Review 9(1), 81-98. Pesqueux (2005). Corporate governance and accounting systems: critical perspective, Critical Perspective on Accounting; 797823. Phillips, F. (1999). Auditor attention to and judgments of aggressive financial reporting. Journal of accounting research, 37;167.

Purushothaman, M., Tower, B., Hancock, R., Taplin,R., (2000). Determinants of corporate social reporting practices of listed Singapore companies. Pacific Accounting Review 12(2), 101-133. R.M. Haniffa and T.E. Cooke (2002). Culture, Corporate Governance and Disclosure in Malaysian Corporations . Abacus; 317-349. R.M.Haniffa , T.E. Cooke (2005). The impact of culture and governance on corporate social reporting. Journal of Accounting and Public Policy ; 391-430. Rajesh Kumar Singh, H.R. Murty, S.K. Gupta and A.K. Dikshit (2009). An overview of sustainability assessment methodologies. Ecological Indicators; 189-212. Roberts, P. and G. Dowling (2002). Corporate Reputation and Sustained Superior Financial Performance, Strategic Management Journal; 1077-1093. Rust, R.T. Moorman, C., Dickson, P.R., (2002). Getting return on quality: Revenue expansion, cost reduction, or both?. Journal of Marketing 696(4), 724. Shah, A.K. (1998). Exploring the influences and constraints on creative accounting in the United Kingdom. The European Accounting Review, 7; 83-104. Shrivastava P. (1995). The role of corporations in achieving ecological sustainability. Academy of Management Review; 93660. Simon S.M. Ho, Kar Shun Wong (2001). A study of the relationship between corporate governance structures and the extent of voluntary disclosure. Journal of International Accounting Auditing & Taxation ; 139-156. Stanton, P. and J. Stanton (2002). Corporate Annual Reports: Research Perspectives Used. Accounting Auditing & Accountability Journal, 15 (4), 478-500. Stuart m. Cooper and David L. Owen (2007). Corporate social reporting and stakeholder accountability: The missing link. Accounting Organizations and Society 32, 649-667.

JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS AND ECONOMICS, Volume 9, Number 4, 2009

58

Sturart L. Esrock and Greg B. Leichty; (1998). Social Responsibility and Corporate Web Pages: Self-Presentation of Agenda-Setting. Public Relations Review 24(3); 305-319. Suchman. M.C.,(1995). Managing legitimacy: Strategic and institutional approaches. Academy of Management Review 20 (3), 571-610. Tom, J. S. (2002). Company Resources, Quality Signals and the Determinants of Corporate Environmental Reputation: Some UK Evidence, The British Accounting Review 34(3), 257-282. Walden, W.D., & Schwartz, B.N. (1997). Environmental disclosure and public policy pressure. Journal of Accounting and Public Policy. 125-154. Whetten, D.A. Rands, G., &Godfrey, P. (2001). What are the responsibilities of business to society? In A. Pettigrew, et.al (Eds.), Handbook of strategy and management (pp.373-408.).London: Sage.

Williams, S. M. (1999). Voluntary Environment and Social Accounting Disclosure Practices in the Asia Pacific Region: An International Empirical Test of Political Economy Theory. The International Journal of Accounting. Vol 34, No.2. Yan-Qun He, Lai-Kow Chan, Ming-Lu We (2007). Balancing productivity and consumer satisfaction for profitability: Statistical and fuzzy regression analysis. European Journal of Operational Research (176), 252-263. AUTHOR PROFILES: Ms. Suttinee Prachsriphum earned her M.Acc. at Mahasarakhm University University, Thailand in 2005. Currently she is a Ph.D. student in Accounting at Faculty of Accountancy and Management, Mahasarakham University, Thailand. Dr. Phapruke Ussahawanitchakit earned his Ph.D. at Washington State University in 2002. Currently he is an associate professor of accounting and Dean at Faculty of Accountancy and Management, Mahasarakham University, Thailand.

JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS AND ECONOMICS, Volume 9, Number 4, 2009

59

Copyright of Journal of International Business & Economics is the property of International Academy of Business & Economics (IABE) and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.