Gray1995, Corporate Social and Environmental Reporting

Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal
Corporate social and environmental reporting: a review of the literature and a longitudinal study of UK
disclosure
Rob Gray, Reza Kouhy, Simon Lavers,
Article information:
To cite this document:
Rob Gray, Reza Kouhy, Simon Lavers, (1995) "Corporate social and environmental reporting: a review of the literature
and a longitudinal study of UK disclosure", Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Vol. 8 Issue: 2, pp.47-77, https://
doi.org/10.1108/09513579510146996
Permanent link to this document:
https://doi.org/10.1108/09513579510146996
Downloaded on: 22 January 2019, At: 23:57 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 145 other documents.
To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 42044 times since 2006*
Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:
Downloaded by Tulane University At 23:57 22 January 2019 (PT)
(2007),"Making a difference: Sustainability reporting, accountability and organisational change", Accounting, Auditing
& Accountability Journal, Vol. 20 Iss 3 pp. 382-402 <a href="https://doi.org/10.1108/09513570710748553">https://
doi.org/10.1108/09513570710748553</a>
(2006),"Strategic posture, financial performance and environmental disclosure: An empirical test of legitimacy
theory", Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Vol. 19 Iss 4 pp. 540-563 <a href="https://
doi.org/10.1108/09513570610679128">https://doi.org/10.1108/09513570610679128</a>
Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-srm:402646 []
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for Authors service
information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all. Please
visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company manages a portfolio of
more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as providing an extensive range of online
products and additional customer resources and services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee on Publication
Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive preservation.
*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

CSR: a review of
Corporate social and the literature
environmental reporting
A review of the literature and a
longitudinal study of UK disclosure 47
Rob Gray, Reza Kouhy and Simon Lavers

Department of Accounting and Business Finance, University of Dundee,
Dundee, Scotland
Articulating corporate social reporting

Although corporate social reporting (CSR)[1] has been the subject of sub-
stantial academic accounting research for over two decades, the literature does
not possess an overall coherence (see, for example, Ullmann, 1985). There are
many reasons for this – at least some of which arise as a result of CSR not
sharing many of the core “certainties” of traditional accounting. So, for
example, CSR is not enshrined in legislation equivalent to Companies Acts; as a
result it is neither practised systematically by organizations nor able to claim
either universal recognition or universal definition. Indeed, there is little about
CSR which is not contestable – and contested. CSR, at its broadest may
embrace: both self-reporting by organizations and reporting about
organizations by third parties; information in the annual report and any other
form of communication; both public domain and private information;
information in any medium (financial, non-financial, quantitative non-
quantitative). It is not restricted necessarily by reference to selected information
recipients; and the information deemed to be CSR may, ultimately, embrace any
subject.
As if this were not enough, interest in CSR has waxed and waned as
researchers have entered and left the field (Parker, 1986); there has been a lack
of any agreed theoretical perspective to drive systematic research (Preston,
1983; Ullmann, 1985); the absence of systematic reporting by organizations has
made traditional “positive” research more difficult[2] and CSR continually has
Comments received from colleagues at the Universities of Dundee, East Anglia, Sheffield,
Southampton, Canterbury and Otago, at the BAA 1990 National Conference, the EAA 1990
Congress and the BAA 1992 Research Summer School are gratefully acknowledged. The authors
are grateful for the help and suggestions from Carol Adams, Jan Bebbington, David Collison, Sid
Gray, Roland Kaye, Richard Laughlin, Markus Milne, Ailsa Nicholson, David Owen, David Power
and Clare Roberts. Especial thanks goes to Sue Gray who undertook much of the replication
analysis reported in the article and to Lee Parker and James Guthrie whose thoughtful comments
on the structure of the article were particularly helpful. Accounting, Auditing &
Accountability Journal, Vol. 8
The financial assistance and advice of the Research Board of the Institute of Charted No. 2, 1995, pp. 47-77. © MCB
Accountants in England and Wales on this project are very gratefully acknowledged. University Press, 0951-3574
AAAJ attracted doubts about its legitimacy as an area of accounting research enquiry
8,2 (Gray et al., 1987, 1988, 1991; Parker, 1986, 1991). Finally, this very uncertainty
and the breadth of possibilities which may constitute CSR have been
instrumental in making the subject more explicitly political than either is
traditionally the case in accounting research (but see Cooper and Sherer, 1984;
Tinker et al., 1982) or accounting researchers are historically equipped to
48 handle (see, for example, Puxty, 1986, 1991; Tinker et al., 1991).
Seen in this light, two significantly different approaches to researching CSR
have emerged in the literature. First, CSR may be treated as an addendum to
conventional accounting activity and researched with the same assumptions
and preconceptions which inform much of mainstream accounting research.
Such an approach will usually take the financial community as the principal
“users” of any CSR and will tend to limit the perception of “social” accounting
CSR to that which can be articulated within the confines of conventional

accounting. This approach, with its severe limitations of scope and efficacy, are
discussed in (for example) Gray et al. (1987) and Mathews (1984, 1993). The
second alternative approach to CSR places social and environmental reporting
at the heart of an examination of the role of information in organization-society
dialogue (see for example, Preston, 1975, 1981, 1983). While this latter approach
would appear to be generally considered within the conventional accounting
literature as being too ambitious, this wider view has been both the source of
the major advances in our understanding of CSR and a source of major criticism
of the CSR literature. That is, CSR’s failure to theorize explicitly the
organization-society relationship leaves it both flaccid and immanent (Puxty,
1986, 1991; Tinker et al., 1991; and see also Benston, 1982a, 1982b; Gray et al.,
1988, 1991). These charges are difficult to rebut (Parker, 1991).
It is not the purpose of this article to attempt to solve these major problems.
Our dominant intention is to provide – and interpret – data about some of the
UK’s CSR, but we intend to try to achieve this within an explicit recognition of
some of the major problems of CSR. To do this, we follow the arguments of Gray,
et al. (1987, 1988) that there is a core or mainstream of CSR research which can
be (and is being) theorized and does not require the exclusion of any other
possible forms of CSR (see also Mathews, 1984, 1993). This core, which
generally coalesces around an (under-specified) form of accountability and
stakeholder theory (see below), concerns itself, primarily, with self-reporting by
organizations (but see Geddes, 1992; Gray et al., 1991; Harte and Owen, 1987).
This self-reporting is of information which enters the public domain (but see,
for example, Blake et al., 1976; Foley and Maunders, 1977)[3], tends to be
reported via the annual report in one form or another (but see Abbott and
Monsen, 1979; Gray, V., 1978; Gray, R.H., 1983; Gray et al., 1987; Zeghal and
Ahmed, 1990)[4] and predominantly is concerned with organization-society
interactions relating to the natural environment, employees, communities and
customers[5]. The CSR literature also tends to recognize that such self-reporting
may be undertaken voluntarily, as a result of legislation or as part of a code of
practice[6].
Although this core CSR literature has been concerned with a wide range of CSR: a review of
purposes[7], this article is concerned predominantly with an attempt to describe the literature
CSR practice in a particular national context (see, for example, Gray et al., 1987;
Guthrie and Mathews, 1985; Guthrie and Parker, 1990; Owen, 1992; Roberts,
C.B., 1990, 1991). However, no description is value- or theory-free (Tinker et al.,
1982). The description undertaken in this article attempts explicitly to reflect
the “mainstream” of the CSR literature (for semiotic reasons, see Gray et al., 49
1995) but is theorized (and analysed subsequently) in a (broadly) neo-pluralist
framework within which the “newer” (to accounting and CSR) theories of
stakeholder theory, legitimacy theory and political economy theory are
articulated.
With the above delineation of CSR we can enter the body of the article which
is structured as follows. The following section provides an overview of the
empirical literature on social disclosure and then attempts to theorize

mainstream CSR. Then a very brief introduction is provided to the data
collection (this is explained in detail in the accompanying article – Gray et al.,
1995) and then provides an overview of social and environmental disclosure by
UK companies over a 13-year period. The penultimate section then provides
some interpretation of these patterns in the context of stakeholder, legitimacy
and political economy theories. The last section provides some conclusions and
some suggestions on ways forward for CSR research.
Empirical findings and theorizing in the CSR literature

The 20 years or more of empirical investigation of CSR practice have produced
a very wide literature which engages many different theoretical perspectives
(explicitly or implicitly (see, for example, Arnold, 1990; Tinker et al., 1991));
employs many different research methods; is motivated by a wide range of
research questions; and covers many different countries and time-periods[8].
Despite both the diversity of concerns and approaches in the literature, and
the diversity of countries, time-periods and samples selected for investigation, it
does seem possible to draw carefully some tentative conclusions about CSR
practice. First, CSR would not appear to be a systematic activity. To the extent
that it is not covered by regulations, social disclosure seems to wax and wane in
popularity, in the subjects to which it gives attention and in terms of the
organizations which provide such disclosure. Second, CSR does not appear to
be related to profitability in the same period (Abbott and Monsen, 1979;
Belkaoui and Karpik, 1989; Cowen et al., 1987; Freedman and Jaggi, 1988;
Freedman and Ullmann, 1986; Ingram, 1978; Singh and Ahuja, 1983), although
there is some evidence to suggest that it might be related to lagged profits
(Roberts, R.W., 1992). Third, CSR does appear to be related to company size.
However, this is not the most reliable of results, when no allowance is taken of
other factors (see, for example, Andrews et al., 1989; Belkaoui and Karpik, 1989;
Cowen et al., 1987; Singh and Ahuja, 1983; Tonkin and Skerratt, 1991; Trotman
and Bradley, 1981). Fourth, there is some evidence of industry effects but the
studies are not clear or consistent enough to assess exactly what, if any, these
AAAJ effects might be (see, for example, Aupperle, 1984; Beresford and Cowen, 1979;
8,2 Cowen et al., 1987; Freedman and Jaggi, 1988; Roberts, 1990; Singh and Ahuja,
1983; Zeghal and Ahmed, 1990). Fifth, the country in which the organization is
reporting and the country of ultimate ownership seem to have a significant
effect, (see, for example, Andrews et al., 1989; Guthrie and Parker, 1990; Roberts,
C.B., 1990; Teoh and Thong, 1984). If this result proved reliable, it would go
50 some way to explaining inconsistent results between studies in different
countries at least (but see Ullmann, 1985). It certainly seems to be the case that
the subject of disclosure is both time and country-variant (see, for example,
Gray et al., 1987; Guthrie and Parker, 1989, 1990). Finally, there would appear to
be a number of characteristics which may be related to predisposition to make
social disclosures. These include capital intensity (Belkaoui and Karpik, 1989);
age of the corporation (Roberts, R.W., 1992); and such matters as strategic
posture, senior executive attitudes and the existence of a social responsibility

committee (Cowen et al., 1987; Roberts, R.W., 1992; Trotman and Bradley, 1981).
These are tentative conclusions and these arise in part from the lack of
explanation as to why these relationships might hold. Indeed, Ullmann (1985)
cites the absence of systematic theorizing of CSR as one of the principal reasons
for the lack of substantive, systematic conclusions about CSR (see also
Mathews, 1987, 1993 and Mintzberg, 1983).
This challenge has been taken up in several ways by authors who have
attempted to place empirical investigation of CSR in some sort of theoretical
context. These attempts may be related to three broad groups of theories
concerning organization-society information flows:
(1) decision-usefulness studies, (which then overlap with);
(2) economic theory studies;
(3) social and political theory studies.
Decision-usefulness studies
CSR has featured as an element in a number of enquiries into the “decision
usefulness” of accounting information. These enquiries are of two types: the
“ranking” studies (which have been so popular from time to time); and the
investigation of information effects on share price behaviour. In the ranking
studies, analysts, bankers and others are asked to rank various accounting data
in order of perceived importance. These data might comprise either those which
are received currently or a “users’ wish list”. Studies from, inter alia, Belkaoui
(1984); Benjamin and Stanga (1977); Chenall and Juchau (1977) and Firth (1978,
1979, 1984) have all suggested that the financial community find CSR better
than useless and, indeed, have ranked it in categories “moderately important”
and certainly more important than some issues to which the accounting
profession has given considerable attention in the past (but see also McNally et
al., 1982, for a contrary view). Other studies have attempted to investigate
whether social disclosure is treated as information by stock market partici-
pants (see, for example, Aupperle, 1984; Belkaoui, 1980; Bowman, 1973; Buzby
and Falk, 1978, 1979; Holman et al., 1985; Ingram, 1978; Shane and Spicer, 1983; CSR: a review of
Spicer, 1978). The results of these studies tend to be inconsistent and/or the literature
inconclusive, although Mintzberg (1983) in his review of this evidence suggests
that it is possible to conclude tentatively that “it pays to be good, but not too
good”.
However, the decision-usefulness approach to investigating CSR has, despite
the attempts of Dierkes and Antal (1985), been a largely unsatisfactory one. In 51
part this results from the theoretical problems with “decision-usefulness” itself
(see, for example, Laughlin and Puxty, 1981; Pallot, 1991; Williams, 1987). But
the main problem has been that interest in CSR[9] is not motivated
predominantly by a concern with the needs, wants and whims of financial
participants (see, for example, Booth et al., 1987; Mathews, 1987; Owen et al.,
1987). Although there appear to be instances when social and environmental
information does influence financial behaviour (see, for example, Epstein, 1991,
1992; and the ethical investment literature – see, for example, Harte et al., 1991;
Perks et al., 1992), the whole process of information and response is under-
theorized and begs too many important questions (see, for example, Cooper,
1988; Owen, 1992).
It would be wrong to dismiss this literature as unimportant and inconclusive.
However mis-specified and under-theorized it may be, the decision-usefulness
literature has had the potentially important effect of raising the visibility of
non-financial, non-economic factors in organizational reporting and
accountability. It has thereby given a potential to other voices and other
discourses which typically are not privileged in accounting research (see, for
example, Arrington, 1990; Cooper and Sherer, 1984).
Economic theory studies

One response to this “unsatisfactory” CSR literature has been a peripheral
emergence of “economic agency theory” and “positive accounting theory”
studies of CSR (see, for example, Belkaoui and Karpik, 1989; Mak, 1991; Ness
and Mirza, 1991; Shane and Spicer, 1983)[10]. In addition to there having been
relatively little development of this “economic” perspective on CSR, the “agency
theory” and “positive accounting theory” perspectives are highly contestable
(see, for example, Arrington and Francis, 1989; Christenson, 1983; Puxty, 1986;
Tinker and Okcabel, 1991). While the accounting community clearly has
benefited from the methodological pluralism of recent decades, “economic
theory” in the pristine sense in which it normally is applied in accounting
research has little or nothing to offer as a basis for the development of CSR.
Apart from the intellectual doubts that one must have concerning the approach,
its principal tenets of, first, (allegedly) avoiding any concern with what “should
be” and, second, deferring all wisdom to (allegedly free) “markets” runs entirely
counter to principal concerns of CSR which is motivated primarily by the
market failures (especially injustices, anti-democratic tendencies, information
assymetrics and “externalities”) and desire to change current practice. In
addition, its central assumption that all actions are motivated by a morally
AAAJ degenerate form of short-term self-interest (see, for example, Gray et. al., 1994)
8,2 seems not only empirically implausible but also highly offensive. These issues
have been rehearsed widely in the literature reviewed above and need no
additional repetition. No further attention is given to these approaches here[11].
Social and political theory studies

52 To our mind, by far the more interesting and insightful theoretical perspectives
are those drawn from social and political theory – most particularly:
stakeholder theory; the legitimacy theory perspectives; and the perspectives
that emerge from political economy[12]. It is these approaches which have been
informing much of the more penetrating analyses of CSR in recent years (see,
for example, Arnold, 1990; Gray et al., 1987, 1988, 1991; Guthrie and Parker,
1989, 1990; Patten, 1992; Roberts, R.W., 1992; Ullmann, 1985).
However, the literature has not always developed the distinctions between
these theoretical positions as far as it might. It seems appropriate, therefore, to
attempt to clarify what is meant by “stakeholder”, “legitimacy” and “political
economy” theories when applied to social disclosure.
It seems to us that the essential problem in the literature arises from treating
each as competing theories of reporting behaviour (see, for example, Arnold,
1990; Guthrie and Parker, 1990), when “stakeholder theory” and “legitimacy
theory” are better seen as two (overlapping) perspectives on the issue which are
set within a framework of assumptions about “political economy”. Therefore
the differences which (for example) Guthrie and Parker (1990) and Arnold
(1990) discuss so usefully are differences in levels of resolution of perception
rather than arguments for and against competing theories as such.
Political economy, in its broadest sense, has a very long historical tradition
and is defined variously. The definition from Jackson (1982) seems helpful:
Political economy is the study of the interplay of power, the goals of power wielders and the
productive exchange system (Zald, 1970, p. 233). As a framework, political economy does not
concentrate exclusively on market exchanges. Rather it first of all analyses exchanges in
whatever institutional framework they occur and, second, analyses the relationships between
social institutions such as government, law and property rights, each fortified by power and
the economy, i.e. the system of producing and exchanging goods and services (p. 74).
The essential point, it seems, is that the economic domain cannot be studied in
isolation from the political, social and institutional framework within which the
economic takes place. As such, it seems unquestionably (but see Benston,
1982a) an apposite way of thinking about social disclosure by corporations.
CSR is generally predicated on a recognition that the economic (as represented
by the financial) is only one element of organizational life and this needs to be
(at a minimum) supplemented by or (preferably) interwoven with recognition of
the social and political.
To this extent there is little in the way of a problem. However, following Marx,
it becomes necessary to distinguish between “bourgeois” (or “vulgar”) political
economy (which is most usefully associated with J.S. Mill and those who
followed him) and “classical” political economy (see, for example, Abercrombie
et al., 1984; Held, 1980; Macpherson, 1973, 1977; and, obviously, the writings of CSR: a review of
Marx – see, for example, Bottomore and Rubel, 1961). Indeed, some of the the literature
confusion in the accounting literature may well stem from this distinction
because, as Abercrombie et al. (1984) remark, “political economy” has become
code for Marxism, whereas, in its accounting applications, it is often used in its
bourgeois formulation (Arnold, 1990).
The distinction is crucial because Marxian political economy places sectional 53
(class) interests, structural inequity, conflict and the role of the State at the heart
of its analysis. Bourgeois political economy largely ignores these elements and,
as a result, is content to perceive the world as essentially pluralistic. This, it
seems to us, is the essence of the conflict between the Tinker et al. (1991) Marxian
critique of the bourgeois pluralism of Gray et al. (1987, 1988) and the Arnold
(1990) Marxian critique of the Guthrie and Parker (1990) (predominantly)
bourgeois interpretation of political economy. These two points of view are

essentially different ways of looking at the issues (Held, 1980) and are,
fundamentally, irreconcilable in that the bourgeois perception treats as
important issues which the Marxian analysis will see as relatively trivial. The
bourgeois perception is exercised by relationships between the interest groups of
pluralism without explicit recognition of the way in which the forces of the
system (capitalism) construct the self-interests as group interests (Tinker, 1984).
As Tinker notes (1984, p. 70), “structural conflict may be mediated, modified and
transformed” within the system but the bourgeois perception, in its higher level
of resolution, treats these mediations as the whole of the story while ignoring
the processes that created this mediation and whether, indeed, the mediation
and transformation are actually significant in developing the relationships
between the structural (class) interests.
It is in this context that stakeholder and legitimacy theory can, perhaps, be
seen more clearly as they are both concerned with this “mediation, modification
and transformation” but from different points of view.
Stakeholder theory is (typically) explicitly bourgeois in that the world is seen
from the perspective of the management of the organization who are concerned
strategically with the continued success of the company. This is perhaps best
expressed in Ullmann (1985) and Roberts, R.W. (1992). From this perspective, the
corporation’s continued existence requires the support of the stakeholders and
their approval must be sought and the activities of the corporation adjusted to
gain that approval. The more powerful the stakeholders, the more the company
must adapt. Social disclosure is thus seen as part of the dialogue between the
company and its stakeholders and, as Roberts, R.W. (1992) observes, CSR has
been a relatively successful medium for negotiating these relationships. Indeed,
from the perspective of the organization, there is much to recommend this
approach to theorizing the organization-society relationship. While it may be a
simpler choice to assume that all such “stakeholder” approaches are driven by a
manipulative cynicism on the part of the corporation, this need not be so[13].
However, from the Marxian perspective such analysis still fails to address the
AAAJ central systemic issues that initially construct the relationships or, indeed, to
8,2 recognize the structural inequities in the “relationships”[14].
Much of legitimacy theory can be seen in the same light. The clearest
exposition is probably that of Lindblom (1994) who argues that we must first
distinguish between legitimacy – which is a status or condition – and
legitimation – which is the process underlying that state. She defines legitimacy
54 as:
…a condition or status which exists when an entity’s value system is congruent with the value
system of the larger social system of which the entity is a part. When a disparity, actual or
potential, exists between the two value systems, there is a threat to the entity’s legitimacy (p. 2).
Lindblom then proceeds, in a carefully argued analysis, to identify four
strategies which a corporation seeking legitimation may adopt. First, the
organization may seek to educate and inform its “relevant publics” about
(actual) changes in the organization’s performance and activities. (This strategy

is chosen in response to a recognition that the “legitimacy gap” arose from an
actual failure of performance of the organization.) Second, the organization may
seek to change the perceptions of the relevant publics – but not change its
actual behaviour. (This strategy is chosen as a response when the organization
sees that the legitimacy gap has arisen through misperceptions on the part of
the relevant publics.) Third, the organization may seek to manipulate
perception by deflecting attention from the issue of concern to other related
issues through an appeal to, for example, emotive symbols. (This strategy is
chosen on the grounds of manipulation. One illustration is when a company
with a legitimacy gap regarding its pollution performance chooses to ignore the
pollution and talk instead of its involvement with environmental charities, etc.)
Fourth, the company may seek to change external expectations of its
performance. (This strategy is chosen when the organization considers that the
relevant publics have unrealistic or “incorrect” expectations of its
responsibilities.) As Lindblom demonstrates, social disclosure can be employed
in each of these strategies.
Legitimacy theory, in many of its applications in the CSR literature, does
reflect a bourgeois political economy (see, for example, Preston and Post, 1975).
That is, it concerns itself with organization-society negotiation in a pluralistic
world. However, its application by (for example) Patten (1992), to a greater
extent by Guthrie and Parker (1989), and, most especially, by Hogner (1982) is
concerned with systemic responses as well as intra-system mediations and,
thus, takes us beyond a simple bourgeois political economy. That is, within a
classical political economy perspective we might find interest in attempts to
maintain legitimation of the system as a whole, attempts to intervene in the
State’s role in mediation (Arnold, 1990) and, especially, in attempts to redefine
and/or “renegotiate” elements of the hegemony (or at least the language and
symbols thereof). Indeed, Lindblom’s (1994) careful use of the term “relevant
publics” rather than any more widely-employed term (such as users or
stakeholders) suggests a recognition of the classical political economy
possibilities of her analysis.
The apparently clear distinction between classical and bourgeois political CSR: a review of
economy – with its implications for legitimacy and stakeholder theory – while the literature
a useful dialectic is not necessarily helpful in reading a story from data. We are
much persuaded by Held’s (1987) construction of neo-pluralism as a partial
meeting place for Marxism and liberalism (see also Macpherson, 1977). The
neo-pluralist conception recognizes that power will be distributed unevenly,
that there will be conflict of interests (possibly structural) and that the focus of 55
observation (e.g. observable corporation-society interactions like CSR) may,
indeed, take place within a captured or controlled system – even if the capture
or control is perhaps not identifiable with any sectional or class interest or,
indeed, any interests at all (see, for example, Marcuse, 1955, 1964). The
conception is thus a dynamic one but – and it is an important but – it is a
conception which does not prescribe where the power lies, nor does it prescribe
that there are any predetermined battle-lines along (for example) class
boundaries. It thus permits the possibility that power and structure in society
are, ultimately, not empirical issues but matters of faith and belief – albeit faith
and belief which are informed by argument and other forms of evidence.
Thus, it seems to us, it is possible to make compatible interpretations of
evidence from these different theoretical perspectives. That is, if our interpreta-
tions from stakeholder and legitimacy theory are made in a neo-pluralist vein,
with explicit recognition of the (potentially) relatively narrow explanation that
these can offer, and these interpretations are augmented by wider perceptions
from classical political economy, one should end up with a set of observations
which are persuasive at different levels of resolution. We can illustrate this by
bringing the discussion back to empirical domain.
It should be apparent that we, in common with much of the CSR literature,
have little difficulty in defining CSR in the same way as Neimark (1992, p. 100)
defines accounting. That is, we see CSR as:
…forming part of the symbolic universe of language, signs, meanings, norms, beliefs,
perceptions and values, through which individuals and institutions define themselves and are
defined by others … Companies use their accounting [CSR?] to construct themselves and their
relationships with others as they strive to create and maintain the conditions for their
continued profitability and growth.
Further, we can concur with Lehman’s (1992, p. 19) reconstruction of Hurst’s
(1970) argument that:
accounting [CSR?] serve[s] to rationalise and justify the corporate entity … by not merely
describing effective management, but legitimizing corporate power and maintaining
confidence.
These are precisely the concerns of the bulk of the literature reviewed above.
Furthermore, we find Arnold’s (1990) argument that regulated social disclosure
might be interpreted as evidence of “counter-hegemony” and as potentially
serving “the interests of subordinate classes and social movements” (p. 180) as
especially helpful. Finally, the “periodization” analysis offered by Lehman
(1992) and Tinker et al. (1991) offers much for the interpretation of CSR practice.
The period covered by this article (1979-1991) includes the end of the decade of
AAAJ the 1970s when the UK labour movement had seemed at its strongest, followed
8,2 by the Thatcher decade in which (inter alia) there seemed to be an attempt to
instigate a renegotiation of company-labour relations (“the capital-owning
democracy”) and a redefinition of the roles of the corporation and the “market”
in community functions undertaken traditionally by the State. Finally, the
period concludes with late 1980s and early 1990s when environmental issues
56 offered the promise of a new hegemony. These, and other, interpretations are
possible within a classical political economy perspective on CSR practice.
However, as Puxty (1986, 1991) has argued, CSR may be little more than the
crumbs of legitimation dropped from the table of powerful corporations.
Indeed, much CSR may have little to offer – except by default – in developing
our understanding of political economy. In such a context, we do not find the
possibilities offered by legitimacy theory and stakeholder theory to be entirely
trivial. The development of employee and employment reporting in the UK in

the 1970s had important consequences (see, for example, Maunders, 1981, 1982,
1984), the worldwide response by the oil and chemical industry(ies) to disasters
such as Exxon Valdez and Bhopal was something more than trivial (see, for
example, Patten, 1992) and the extensive environmental debate of the 1990s –
especially throughout Europe – represented, at a minimum, a new discourse
and a new balance to accepted organizational reality (see, for example, Smith,
1993). However, whether we could interpret such events as mediating the
systemic structures of the organization-society relationship (political economy),
as readjustments by elements of the capitalist machinery (legitimacy theory) or
as attempts by corporations to control their environment (stakeholder theory) is
a moot question[15].
We return to these possibilities after examining the data derived from the 13
years of UK corporate social disclosure.
UK social and environmental disclosure

The data reported here were collected using content analysis of UK company
annual reports over a period of 13 years stretching from the beginning of the
Thatcher regime in Britain (1979). The details of the data collection and further
information about the data availability are given in the accompanying article
(Gray et al., 1995). The format of the data is summarized in the Appendix. The
data reported here is a summary of the data collected and provides an overview
of UK company reporting practices over the period[16].
Throughout the period, all companies had some CSR which consisted of, at
least, some employee-related disclosure comprising, at a minimum, data
relating to employment figures and/or pensions. Figures 1, 2 and 3 provide
some information on the percentage of the companies throughout the period
which disclosed in different areas of CSR.
Figure 1 shows the general rise in the proportions of companies disclosing.
By the end of the period all of the UK’s largest companies disclosed some
mandated information (in addition to the employment data and pensions data)
and some voluntary information. (The effect of a change in the sample is
100 CSR: a review of
90 the literature
80
Percentage of sample
70
60
50
57
40
30
20
10
0
1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991
Years
Key : Figure 1.
Voluntary Mandatory (ex) Environmental Social disclosure by
Customer Community UK companies
striking in Figure 1 – shown by the vertical line in this and all following graphs
– and suggests strongly the presence of size-effect in CSR practice. See [16] and
Gray et al., 1995; for more detail.) Employee-related disclosure was clearly the
most popular subject on which to report but disclosure relating to the
community (typically charitable donations) was also widely practised. In
addition, environmental disclosure rose significantly throughout the period and
was no longer a marginal activity after the mid-1980s.
Figure 2 shows the pattern of compliance with areas of mandated CSR. The
general pattern of compliance (some companies anticipating the regulation,
some delaying compliance) is similar to that reported in other studies of
compliance with accounting regulations (see, for example, Perks and Butler,
1977; Weetman, 1977). Only on pensions data (and employment data, which are
not shown in Figure 2) does disclosure reach 100 per cent. No size effect is
apparent for disclosure of consultation with employees. A potentially perverse
size effect is suggested for disclosure relating to charitable donations, ESOPs
(employee share ownership schemes) and information relating to the
employment of the disabled. A small but steady proportion of companies
provide disclosure of involvement in South Africa.
Figure 3 shows the equivalent percentage disclosure rate for voluntary
subject areas. (Two areas of voluntary disclosure are not shown in Figure 2.
Disclosure relating to customers is shown in Figure 1. Disclosure of value added
statements follows the pattern demonstrated by Burchell et al., 1985; in that it
declines steadily from a level of 40 per cent of companies in 1980 to around 6 per
cent of companies in 1991.) The overall pattern of increasing disclosure
suggested by the mandate disclosure is repeated for voluntary disclosure. This
pattern is most notable for disclosure relating to community, environmental
AAAJ 100
8,2 90
80
Percentage of sample
70
60
58 50
40
30
20
10
0
1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991
Years
Figure 2.
Social disclosure Key :
in mandatory Pensions Consultation Disabled employees
subject areas ESOPs Charity South Africa
100
90
Proportion of sample disclosing
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991
Years
Figure 3. Key :
Social disclosure in Environmental Energy Community
voluntary subject areas General other Health and safety Employee other
issues and health and safety. The pattern for “employee other” is not especially
clear (particularly if adjustment is made for the size effect) and seems to be
composed of several factors. The growth from the mid-1980s is due largely to a
rise in disclosure of data on equal opportunities. There is also a suggestion that
levels of redundancy in the earlier years of the sample hold a direct relationship
with levels of “employee other” disclosure. The nature of the disclosure in this
category also changed over the period. While statistics on employment and
expressions of thanks to staff remained popular, the incidence of redundancy CSR: a review of
declined as the 1980s progressed and was replaced by an increasing emphasis the literature
on training and equal opportunity-related material. Finally, taken as a whole,
the data in Figure 3 offer a strong suggestion for a size effect in all areas except
health and safety.
While the broad patterns of trends in disclosure remain, a somewhat different
story is told by the volumes of disclosure shown in Figures 4 to 7. 59
Figure 4 describes the trends in social disclosures in the four broad categories
of employees, environment, community and customers. The dominance of, and
steady rise in, employee-related disclosure is striking. The rises in community
and environmental disclosure are notable, although in both cases the related
disclosure is less than a page of the annual report. Customer-related disclosure
remains very low. The data on all areas are also supportive of a size effect.
Figure 5 reflects the steady growth in the volume of total CSR throughout the
period. There has been a steady, but not dramatic, increase in mandatory dis-
closures largely reflecting changes in disclosure regulations (for employment
data and pensions and for other areas of disclosure). There has also been a
fourfold increase in voluntary disclosure over the period but some of this, as
with the mandated disclosure, is probably due to the size effect in the sample.
The rise in average volumes of disclosure of mandatory subjects is, during
the early years, attributable to the rise in the proportion of companies disclosing
(see Figure 2). With that in mind, the volume of disclosure of consultation with
employees, charitable donations and the employment of the disabled is virtually
stable throughout the period. However, the volume of disclosure from those
companies which do disclose has risen for employment data, ESOPs and
pensions (see Figure 6). Some of this disclosure may thus be interpreted as
voluntary in that it is above the minimum required. The later fall in employment
3.5
3.0
Average pages disclosed
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0
1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991
Years
Figure 4.
Key : Volume of disclosure
Environmental Customer Community Employees by subject area
AAAJ 4.5
8,2 4.0
3.5
3.0
2.5
60 2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0
1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991
Years
Figure 5.
Volume of social Key :
disclosure by UK Voluntary Mandatory (ex) Mandatory (+)
companies Total corporate social report
1.4
1.2
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991
Years
Figure 6. Key :
Volume of disclosure in Employment data Pensions Consultation
mandatory subject areas Disabled employees ESOPs Charity
data may possibly be interpreted as a “compensation” for the rise in pensions

and ESOPs disclosure. (This issue of “compensation” is returned to below.)
With the exception of “employee other” (which we have discussed above) the
voluntary areas of disclosure were largely unremarkable until the mid-1980s
(see Figure 7). The exception to this is the community-related disclosure which
started a slow rise from 1980 and, even allowing for a size effect, showed a
0.9 CSR: a review of
0.8 the literature
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
61
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991
Years
Key :
Figure 7.
Environmental Energy Community
Volume of disclosure in
General other Health and safety Employee other voluntary subject areas
remarkable growth in the late 1980s and early 1990s. In part this is explained by
the increased percentage of companies giving attention to the issue (see Figure
3) but the volume of disclosure by those companies which disclosed also
showed a steady rise from a few lines in 1980 to around three-quarters of a page
in the early 1990s. Health and safety data also showed a small but steady
upward trend during the later part of the period – once again this trend remains,
even when adjustment is made for a size effect and the dilution caused by less
than 100 per cent of companies disclosing in this area. The most striking rise is
obviously environmental disclosure which has grown inexorably from the late
1980s[17]. Energy and “general other” (which includes missions statements and
statements of social responsibility, for example) have remained marginal areas
of disclosure.
Taken across the whole of the sample period it seems that we can divide the
period somewhere around 1985/86. Up until this time, the volume of voluntary
disclosure remained virtually constant. As a new issue arose it appeared to
replace an older issue. After 1986 this remained true for only some areas. So
while a decline in value added statements may be compensated by a rise in
health and safety disclosure, a concern for redundancy replaced by a concern
with training and equal opportunities, and (possibly) a rise in ESOP disclosure
replacing a disclosure in “employee other”, the rise in community and
environmental disclosure is quite unprecedented.
The next section attempts to provide some interpretation of these trends and
observations.
Interpreting the trends in UK social disclosure

At a general level, the most striking factor to emerge from the trends considered
above is the rise in both the proportions of companies disclosing and the range
AAAJ of that disclosure. At the end of the 1970s, UK CSR was typified by
8,2 approximately a page of employee-related disclosure plus disclosure of
charitable donations. The employee-related disclosure was dominated by
employment data plus “employee other” disclosures (predominantly thanks to
staff, discussion of redundancy and, less frequently, longitudinal statistics on
employment rates and employee turnover). To this was added a somewhat
62 patchy disclosure of employment in South Africa and information about
pensions. By the early 1990s, while employee-related disclosure still dominated
UK CSR, that disclosure covered a wider range of employee-related matters. In
addition, community and environmental disclosure had grown significantly.
Put in broad terms, between 1979 and 1991, total UK CSR rose by over four
times, employee-related disclosure fell from approximately 90 per cent of total
to about 78 per cent, and community and environmental reporting rose from
approximately 10 per cent to 32 per cent of total disclosure. Customer-related

disclosure remained at a very low level. The only area of CSR which fell
systematically was the disclosure of the value added statement.
Such an overview lends support to two of the tentative conclusions suggested
by the CSR literature discussed above. That is, the subjects of CSR change over
time and the size of companies, in the UK at least, appears to be an important
factor for most areas of voluntary CSR (we return to this latter point below).
There is, however, more to be gleaned from these data by an examination
through the lens(es) of political economy, legitimacy and stakeholder theories.
From the point of view of classical political economy, the period considered
here was one in which the Conservative party formed the government
throughout. During this period, the Conservatives sought explicitly to “roll
back the state” and develop a “capital-owning democracy” under the banner of
“liberalization” and “privatization”. This was a political agenda which sought
explicitly to redefine the employee-employer relationship (reducing the
influence of trade unions and encouraging workforce participation in the
running and ownership of the business) and to pass the traditional (British)
welfare functions of the State back to the “market”. There was thus a major
attempt to renegotiate the organization-state-society-employee relationship.
Business was asked by government (and seemed enthusiastic in its response) to
take on (as custodians of “wealth creation” and the “marketplace”) additional
responsibilities previously undertaken by state agencies. The State passed laws
to encourage disclosure of the employment of the disabled, to encourage
consultation with employees and wider share ownership. The companies
responded with a greater involvement with “the community” – in schools, in
business-in the-community schemes and so on. Despite the increase in laws
designed ostensibly to improve the conditions and dignity of employment, this
was a massive attempt to redress the “counter-hegemony” (Arnold, 1990) which
had built up during the 1970s (see Gray et al., 1987, 1988; Harte and Owen,
1987). Business, and what business thought, were the determinants of
orthodoxy. The State was explicitly active in supporting this re-empowerment
of capital.
This is the story told by the patterns of social disclosure by UK companies. CSR: a review of
A new panoply of issues is now essential to business and its new, more liberal the literature
role in post-industrial Britain. The annual reports reflect this in wider
disclosure of share-ownership schemes, consultation with employees, training,
equal opportunities and higher community involvement, while the “old”
confrontational disclosure areas – the value added statement and trade union
disclosure – quietly fade away. UK CSR does appear to offer a plausible 63
reflection of changes in the political economy of Britain.
But the CSR data can tell us rather more than this. Note that the legislative
areas of disclosure divide neatly into those which encouraged minimum
disclosure (employment of the disabled, consultation with employees and, to a
lesser extent, employment in South Africa) and those which led to voluntary
disclosure beyond minimum compliance (ESOPs, employment data and, later,
pensions). This suggests to us that we can read these disclosure developments

very much in line with Arnold (1990) and Tinker et al. (1991). That is, while
widening the (workplace) franchise to include the disabled (it is worth noting
that equal opportunities is not a legally required area of disclosure) and
ostensibly encouraging greater involvement of the workforce in the running of
the business, these issues, as indicated by CSR, were not important matters to
business[18]. ESOPs were important matters to business. Disclosure here rose
above the minimum, as did disclosure on pensions and employment data. Why
disclosure of these latter issues rose we find difficult to assess within this
context (but see below) but the point to be made is that companies are capable
of extending their social disclosure when it matters to them. They did not do so
on consultation with employees.
Furthermore, the rise in the emphasis on ESOPs has two potential elements as
far as we can assess. First, the new language of Mrs Thatcher’s “capital-owning
democracy” required evidence of a widening of the capitalist franchise. It was
essential that a wide proportion of employees (and potential Conservative
voters?) were encouraged to switch allegiance from unions to management, from
labour to capital. Second, it was also essential that the State could point to
evidence concerning this in support of their radical, liberal programme.
Business responded by creating employee share ownership schemes and
publicizing them in the annual report. This is, however, only one part of the
possible explanation. We will return to this below.
Finally, it seems pertinent to observe that, despite the rhetoric concerning the
need to reorientate business towards the customer and customer needs which
was so prevalent in the 1980s, this does not appear to have been a factor by
which UK business was much exercised. CSR on this subject stayed low
throughout the period.
The foregoing paragraphs are derived from our understanding of classical
(or Marxian) political economy in which we have attempted to take the
criticisms of the bourgeois political economy to heart. It is our judgement (in
retrospect) that those criticisms were well-founded in that we find the above
analysis both plausible and offering important insights into the hegemony of
AAAJ Britain, its business community and the State. To derive such an analysis from
8,2 political economy argues (to us) that Marxian perspectives do indeed have
important interpretations to offer of CSR practice.
However, there are other, apparently significant trends in the data we have
reported here which, while they do not conflict with a classical political
economy perspective, are not easily explained by it. In line with our earlier
64 contention, we believe that it is necessary to sharpen the level of resolution,
within a political economy perspective. That is, many of the trends are better
understood from a (principally, more bourgeois analysis of) legitimacy theory
and stakeholder theory perspective.
Looking first at the mandatory areas of disclosure for which we were unable
to offer satisfactory political economy explanations, Lindblom’s (1994) four
strategies of legitimation offer interesting insights. While part of the trends we
observed in ESOPs disclosure could be understood as a reflection of political

economy, there is another potential side to this story. In collecting the CSR data
for this project we explicitly excluded all share ownership schemes or share
options schemes which were defined as only for “directors” or “senior
management’’[19]. It is perfectly plausible, given the way in which ESOPs are
reported that the bulk of the “employees” who own the shares and options in the
ESOPs are, despite the title of the scheme, directors and senior management.
Therefore, the reporting of ESOPs may not be entirely about the widening of the
capitalist franchise but, rather, about an attempt to justify a redistribution of
income from other stakeholders to the directors and senior management. This
would fit into Lindblom’s third strategy of “distracting attention” from the two
principal matters of, on the one hand, encouraging wider employee involvement
and, on the other, of increasing director remuneration through a legitimate (but
implicit) process of share options and share ownership.
More speculatively this “distracting of attention” strategy may help explain
the increased emphasis on the disclosure of employee data and “employee
other”. That is, as the levels of unemployment and redundancy grew in the UK
during the early 1980s, casual observation would have suggested that the bulk
of the polity was unconcerned – in general unemployment and redundancy
were a working class (traditional Labour voter) phenomenon. As the incidence
of unemployment spread to white-collar workers more concern was voiced over
company behaviour in this field. Attention could be distracted by an emphasis
on the quality of the employment offered to those with employment. Such a
strategy could then be developed by companies to merge into Lindblom’s fourth
legitimation strategy of “changing expectations”. In this sense, companies were
now “disowning” their responsibility for unemployment and emphasizing their
responsibility for those in employment.
The issue of pensions disclosure (again, somewhat speculatively) was
probably a different matter consisting of two separate elements. The late 1980s
in the UK saw two separate phenomena developing around company pension
funds. The first related to pension fund adequacy, the quality of the manage-
ment of the funds and, by contrast, an increased awareness of companies taking
“pension holidays” for reasons of either over-provision of funds or income
smoothing in the company itself. The second phenomenon related to an CSR: a review of
increased concern over pension fund impropriety – of which the most notorious the literature
case is that relating to Robert Maxwell. Within the financial community,
companies would, therefore, find themselves needing to justify and legitimate
their competence, activities and authority over these funds. Such a situation
might best be thought of as relating to Lindblom’s second legitimation strategy
of “changing perceptions” to encourage financial participants that companies 65
were indeed competent to manage pension fund issues.
Legitimacy theory also has some insights to offer concerning the trends in
environmental, health and safety, energy and customer disclosure. The
international rise in environmental disclosure has widely been commented on
(see, for example, Gray, 1993; Gray et al., 1993) and Patten (1992) has linked this
– in the petroleum industry – with a concern with legitimation. The rise in the
environmental agenda could be seen as the development of a new element of

business-society hegemony. The British government’s preference to leave the
matter to the “market” and business could be interpreted as a continuation of
the changes in political economy that we have observed above. There is some,
circumstantial support for this view at a global level (see, for example, Gray et
al., 1993) in that elements of capital have, indeed, attempted to capture the
environmental (and, especially, the sustainability) debate. This is less apparent
in the environmental disclosures we have examined. The tone, orientation and
focus of the environmental disclosure accord much more closely with
Lindblom’s first, second and third legitimation strategies. A significant
minority of companies found it necessary to “change their actual performance”
with respect to environmental interactions (Lindblom’s first strategy) and use
CSR to inform their “relevant publics” about this. Similarly, companies’
environmental disclosure has also been an attempt, first, to change perceptions
of environmental performance – to alter perceptions of whether certain indus-
tries were “dirty” and “irresponsible” (Lindblom’s second strategy) and, second,
as Lindblom notes, to distract attention from the central environmental issues
(the third legitimation strategy). Increasingly, companies are being required to
demonstrate a satisfactory performance within the environmental domain. CSR
would appear to be one of the mechanisms by which the organizations satisfy
(and manipulate) that requirement.
The growth in health and safety disclosures over the period had not been
identified previously in the CSR literature (but see Chan, 1979). It seems to have
been associated with, first, the general rise in environmental concern and,
second, more pertinently, a rise in the number of major, widely publicized
accidents involving loss of life (see, for example, Smith, 1993). As with the rise
in environmental disclosure, there is an element of this increased disclosure
which could be interpreted as additional support for the political economy
perspective considered above. That is, we could interpret the disclosure as
evidence of the State pulling back from the regulation of the workplace and
leaving the matter to companies. While we are convinced that there may be an
element of this, we are more persuaded that companies were increasingly under
pressure from various “relevant publics” to improve their performance in the
AAAJ area of health and safety and employed CSR to manage this “legitimacy gap”.
8,2 That is, while the disclosure did not, as such, demonstrate improved health and
safety records (lack of previous information makes such assessment
impossible), it did paint a picture of increasing concern being given by
companies to the matter of protecting and training their workforce. This
disclosure then helped add to the image of a competent and concerned
66 organization which took its responsibilities in this field seriously. As such,
health and safety disclosure appears to be a strong illustration of Lindblom’s
second legitimation strategy – “changing perceptions”.
The very low incidence of both energy and customer disclosures throughout
the period can also be seen in a legitimacy framework. That is, despite the
rhetoric throughout the mid-1980s (relating to the supremacy of the customer in
a “quality-seeking” organization) and during the late 1980s and early 1990s
(concerning the need for and economic advisability of energy efficiency), neither
of these issues, apparently, became a matter over which the companies’
competence or behaviour was actually called into question. Whether this was
because the relevant publics saw that companies had maintained their
legitimacy here or, more likely, the relevant publics were not exercised by the
issues is a matter for speculation. On our evidence, energy and customers were
not legitimacy issues during this period.
So, finally, increasing the level of resolution still further, can stakeholder
theory offer any insights which can enrich what has already been gleaned by
interpretations above? Stakeholder theory is a strictly organization-centred
perception and, as such, one is forced to attempt an inference of company
motive from trends in social and environmental disclosure. Furthermore, as we
have already discussed above, it is often unclear – in the empirical domain –
where stakeholder theory ends and legitimacy theory begins (see Guthrie and
Parker, 1989, 1990; Patten, 1992; Roberts, R.W., 1992). However, there is some
evidence (see Gray et al., forthcoming) that environmental disclosures were
being used by companies as an attempt to negotiate the concept of “environ-
ment”, and to determine the companies’ relationships with society in general
and the environmental pressure groups in particular. This is consistent with an
organization seeking strategically to manage a new and emerging issue with its
stakeholders while attempting to assess the extent of the power of those
stakeholders (see, for example, Roberts, R.W., 1992).
Stakeholder analysis also, it seems to us, offers a plausible explanation of the
tendency, in certain areas of disclosure, for the company to operate a system of
“compensation” in which, as a new issue rises, the disclosure on an older (and
negotiated issue) declines. The two examples which seem more obvious are the
decline in disclosures concerning redundancy and industrial relations while
data on training and equal opportunities rose; and the decline in disclosure on
value added while those on health and safety rose. Other, more limited,
“compensations” are hinted at in the data. From a stakeholder point of view, this
behaviour would be consistent with a company managing its environment
across a relatively narrow front of dominant issues. Such an interpretation is,
also, commensurate with the arguments of Roberts, R.W. (1992).
It is apparent to us that CSR practice is a complex activity that cannot fully CSR: a review of
be explained by a single theoretical perspective or from a single level of the literature
resolution. The 13 years covered by this article have seen major changes in the
disclosure practices of UK companies which, individually and collectively, offer
insights into corporate behaviour and the role(s) that social disclosure plays in
that behaviour. There is little doubt in our minds that other theoretical analyses
from different levels of resolution could offer other observations about the 67
development of UK social reporting practice. To our way of thinking, if such
observations augment the attention given to an increasingly widespread and
complex activity and thereby recognize the legitimacy of a wider range of
voices in corporate activity, then positive and worthy steps have been taken to
attempt to challenge the current corporate hegemony and to expand the
perspective of conventional accounting.
Conclusions, summaries and future work

From a theoretical point of view, this article has been something of a recanting
of bourgeois political economy. We are persuaded that Arnold (1990) and Tinker
et al. (1991) have made telling criticisms of the prior interpretations of CSR
practice. In particular, there are aspects of developments in UK disclosure
practices which are interpreted more intelligently in the wider framework of
classical political economy. In this sense, we now accept Arnold’s point that
Guthrie and Parker’s (1990) attempt to classify CSR as simply reactive or
proactive is too simple. But, equally, we are convinced that some elements of
CSR are bourgeois and must be interpreted as such – even if such “mediations”
within the elements of capitalism might be thought to be relatively trivial from
some points of view. As such, if the lower level of resolution of political economy
is accepted then the different theoretical perspectives need not be seen as
competitors for explanation but as sources of interpretation of different factors
at different levels of resolution. In this sense, legitimacy theory and stakeholder
theory (for example) enrich, rather than compete for, our understandings of
corporate social disclosure practices. This, we believe, goes some way towards
helping resolve the difficulties that Guthrie and Parker (1989, 1990) experienced
in interpreting their very rich data sets of CSR.
On an empirical level, the data reported here clearly have demonstrated a
significant change in social disclosure behaviour throughout the period. The
interpretations we have offered for these trends are, inevitably, speculative and
further research needs to be undertaken on this longitudinal basis. Indeed, the
data set underlying the evidence reported here contains far more detail than we
have been able to report in one article (see Gray et al., 1995, for more detail).
Further, more focused examination of these data is likely to prove illuminating,
while additional years (beyond 1991) should help resolve the extent to which
certain of the patterns we have identified here are, indeed, trends.
Finally, given the attention we have paid to the Marxian project and, in
particular, to the Marxian challenges to the (typically) bourgeois analysis of
social accounting researchers, it seems appropriate to offer a final piece of
evidence which lends dramatic support to a Marxian perspective. Figure 8
AAAJ 60
8,2 Average pages

50
40
68 30
20
10
0
1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991
Figure 8. Years
UK company social
Key :
disclosure in context:
Total annual report Statutory accounts
contents of the annual
Total corporate social report Mandatory disclosure
report – relative
amounts of information Voluntary disclosure
reports the average number of pages given in annual reports to various broad
categories of information.
Puxty (1986, 1991), inter alia, has argued that CSR is, at best, a marginal
activity in company practice. Figure 8 supports his contention. Statutory
accounting has risen from about 18 pages to a little over 20 pages during the
review period. Other areas of discretionary disclosure employed by
companies (especially large companies) has risen from over ten pages to
nearly 30 pages in this time period. The rise of social disclosure from a little
over one page to nearly four-and-a-half pages, it could be argued, may not be
something we should get too excited about. Regardless of one’s point of view,
the data in Figure 8 demonstrate adequately that social and environmental
performance is still a relatively low priority for companies. This is not really
a contentious issue. The questions for researchers are, first, whether, through
increasing the attention given to this marginal activity, the importance of CSR
can be raised and, second, whether this will offer any opportunities for the
development of “counter-hegemony”. This is a political judgement. An active
involvement with CSR suggests one conclusion to that political judgement;
the activities of the classical political economists suggests another. Vive la
différence.
Notes
1. Corporate social and environmental reporting has many virtual synonyms including
corporate social (and environmental) disclosure, social responsibility disclosure and
reporting and, even, social audit. The principal terms used here are corporate social
reporting (CSR) and corporate social disclosure. We do not (consciously) consider any
differences in nomenclature to be important in this article and generally consider
“environmental reporting and disclosure” to be one facet of social reporting and disclosure.
However, see, Parker (1986) and Mathews (1984, 1993) for discussion of other CSR: a review of
interpretations of the terminology.
2. The alleged shortage of observable practice has been compounded by the paucity of easily
the literature
accessible/computer readable data on CSR. Only in the USA has such general CSR data
been available (through the Ernst and Ernst studies – 1976 et seq.) and this source ceased
in 1978. It has been argued that easily available data are a major influence on the likelihood
of a subject becoming a major area of empirical research (see, for example, Cargile and
Bublitz, 1986). 69
3. It is common to distinguish various stakeholders in the public domain – typically, financial
stakeholders (investors and the financial community), customers, employees and local
communities. There are serious dangers in such a limited conception of “public” (Gray,
1992; Tinker et al., 1991). We deal with the simple-minded pluralism of this below.
4. Strictly speaking, any disclosure located in the annual report might be considered to be
addressed to investors and, thus, not strictly a public document. The annual report is
considered widely to be a major formal document which acts as a significant presentation
by an organization and has a major influence on perceptions of it. It also has the major
advantage of permitting recognition of the potential for conflict between the organization
as a financial entity and the organization as a social or environmental entity. Such conflicts
are central to CSR (Mathews, 1987; Owen et al., 1987). While not ignoring other forms of
communication from the company, this study follows the lead of most CSR literature and
concentrates on the annual report.
5. The very emergence of such categories reflects inevitably implicit assumptions and
conceptions of the world and society/business interactions. The absence of specific
reference to company political action and/or lobbying, to LDC involvement, social
responsibility and advertising, is an indicator of implicit omissions which, inevitably,
suggest the implicit nature of the theory which determines the inclusions. Nevertheless,
most of what passes for “mainstream” CSR can be captured in some way in these
categories and their related subcategories (see Gray et al., 1995).
6. There are obvious differences between these motivations that will affect how the resultant
CSR is interpreted. The other reasons for recognizing the differences include enabling more
pertinent international comparisons (Guthrie and Parker, 1990) and to interact with other
studies which explicitly are concerned with either response to mandated disclosure (e.g.
Perks and Butler, 1977) or an examination of voluntary disclosure (e.g. Meek and Gray,
1989).
7. These include: definition of CSR (see, for example, Mathews, 1993; Parker, 1986); the pur-
pose(s) of CSR, its legitimacy and its effects, (see, for example, Benston, 1982a, 1982b;
Parker, 1986, 1991; Puxty, 1986, 1991); exploration of why CSR does (and does not) come
about, the motivations and expectations of the reporting entities, (see, for example, Filios,
1985; Jones, 1990; Mintzberg, 1983); statistical analyses of CSR and its relationships (if any)
with corporate financial performance, other corporate factors and/or share price
performance (see, especially, Belkaoui and Karpik, 1989; Cowen et al., 1987; Ullman, 1985);
and radical critiques from both Marxist/Critical Theory and pristine Liberal Economic
Democracy perspectives (see, for example, Benston, 1982a, 1982b; Puxty, 1991; Tinker,
1985; Tinker et al., 1991).
8. The CSR research literature generally is dominated by USA investigations (see, for
example, Ullmann, 1985) but there is also extensive literature on the UK (see, for example,
Gray et al., 1987), Australia (see, for example, Guthrie and Mathews, 1985; Guthrie and
Parker, 1989; Kelly, 1981; Trotman and Bradley, 1981) and New Zealand (see, for example
Guthrie and Mathews, 1985; Robertson, 1978). Evidence is also available from, inter alia,
Canada (Brooks, 1986; Maxwell and Mason, 1976; Zeghal and Ahmed, 1990), Malaysia and
Singapore (Andrews et al., 1989; Teoh and Thong, 1984), Germany (Brockoff, 1979;
Dierkes, 1979; Dierkes and Coppock, 1978), Sweden (Ljung and Oftedal, 1977), Mexico
(Chow and Wong-Boren, 1987), Japan (Yamagami and Kokubu, 1991) and India
(Maheshwari, 1992; Singh and Ahuja, 1983). And see also Lessem (1977), Preston et al.
AAAJ (1978), Schreuder (1979), Guthrie and Parker (1990), Roberts, C.B. (1990, 1991, 1992) and
UNCTC (1992) for some comparative studies. In addition to country differences, Parker
8,2 (1986) and Guthrie and Parker (1989) have identified that attention also needs to be given
to the time dimension and that both disclosure practice and researchers’ interest and focus
are not time-invariant.
9. This refers to interest among academics, although there is a high probability that this
might also be true of the motivations of corporate management with respect to CSR.
70 10. The reasoning offered by such authors for the value of such studies mirrors those alleged
arguments offered in the mainstream accounting literature. That is the authors offer
“economic agency theory” and “positive accounting theory” as a “scientific” locus of
“truth” – a status which other (softer and underspecified) approaches (allegedly) cannot (or
do not wish to) claim.
11. In one sense it is difficult to address seriously this literature because we are wholly
convinced by the criticisms of it. So much so that we are unable to see what possible claims
to truth it can hold legitimately. It is therefore difficult to address sensibly something
which one believes to be virtual rubbish. Indeed the Messianic glint with which economic
agency theory and positive accounting theory are proselytized is seriously reminiscent of
the Inquisition. We much prefer our position as “heretics”.
12. Despite our attachment elsewhere to accountability theory (see, for example, Gray et al.,
1987, 1988, 1991), it is essentially a rights-driven conception of organizational reporting
with a high normative (or moral) dimension. While it is helpful in assessing the extent to
which empirical and moral accountability differ from each other (and, thus, providing
some guidance on some of the current failures of liberal democracy), it is not an especially
helpful perspective for the interpretation of CSR practice.
13. Indeed, organizations may approach a stakeholder analysis in a benign frame of mind.
Current work in the UK on the development of the (so-called) social audit by value-based
organizations such as Traidcraft plc is an apparently genuine and honest attempt to
understand the organization in its social context (see, for example, Zadek, 1993; Zadek and
Evans, 1992).
14. There is no necessity that stakeholder analysis should be exclusively bourgeois. It is
possible to imagine an analysis of the interplay of the various elements of capitalism
within a classical political economy perspective. It is not usual, though, to call this “stake-
holder theory”. Recent work from Lehman (1992) and Neimark (1992) might be illustrations
of this point.
15. In this context, country-specific reporting and industry-specific reporting look more
interesting for some sources of influence because influences and pressures may catch an
industry with a worldwide image (as with oil and chemicals) or a set of influences may only
lead to reaction in a specific setting. Certainly, one might reasonably expect the legislative
environment in the USA to produce different responses from that in the UK, for example
(see Arnold, 1990 and Guthrie and Parker, 1990 in this regard) and one may reasonably
expect “first nation” issues to be of greater moment in, for example, Australia and New
Zealand than in, for example, France or Germany. (By “first nations” we refer to the
aboriginal peoples – for example, Australian Aborigines, North American Indians, the
Sami – or, at least, the pre-European peoples – for example, the New Zealand Maori –
whose claims to recognition and self-realization have been heard more widely in recent
years.) Similarly, one might be able to speculate about the inconsistent size effects. Size is
probably not a continuous function with respect to CSR in that: first, small, localized
organizations may experience other channels of communications and transparency (see,
for example, Gray, 1992); and, second, financial size is likely to be less important than
political presence and public visibility. Certainly, as an illustration, size and industry
factors would not be enough to distinguish those organizations producing high-profile
environmental reports in the UK in the early 1990s from those which did not. Whereas
other factors, such as public profile and commitment of CEOs, would provide a crude basis
for differentiation (see, for example, Bebbington et al., 1994; Gray et al., 1993; Gray and CSR: a review of
Owen, 1993).
16. There is just one caveat we would make at this stage. The data are drawn from two the literature
samples. The first sample (relating to 1979-1987) is a haphazard sample and includes a
wide range of companies by size. The second sample (1988-1991) concentrates exclusively
on the UK’s largest 100 companies. This matter is examined in some detail in Gray et al.
(forthcoming) and it is apparent that there will be a notable “size effect” in the data between
1987 and 1988. This will be recognized in the interpretation and each of the graphs shows 71
a line at the intersection of the two samples.
17. Detailed environmental disclosure was only collected from 1988 onwards. Over the 1988-
1991 period environmental disclosure was dominated by disclosure on products and
processes, “environmental other” and, to a lesser extent, environmental policy. The really
significant issues of environmental audit and the financial effects of the environment were
reported by very few companies. Sustainability was mentioned by no companies in 1988
and by only five in 1991.
18. This attitude is closely in line with the UK government’s consistent and adamant refusal to
embrace the EU proposals for either worker representation on the company board of
directors or the Social Chapter.
19. This is one of the issues on which much discussion took place as to whether this should be
considered CSR. See Gray et al. (forthcoming).
References and further reading

Abbott W.F. and Monsen, R.J. (1979), “On the measurement of corporate social responsibility: self-
reported disclosures as a method of measuring corporate social involvement”, Academy of
Management Journal, Vol. 22 No. 3, pp. 501-15.
Abercrombie N., Hill, S. and Turner, B.S. (1984), Dictionary of Sociology, Penguin,
Harmondsworth, Middlesex.
Andrews, B.H., Gul, F.A., Guthrie, J.E. and Teoh, H.Y. (1989), “A note on corporate social
disclosure practices in developing countries: the case of Malaysia and Singapore”, British
Accounting Review, Vol. 21 No. 4, December, pp. 371-6.
Arnold, P.J. (1990), “The state and political theory in corporate social disclosure research: a
response to Guthrie and Parker”, Advances in Public Interest Accounting, Vol. 3, pp. 177-81.
Arrington, E. (1990), “Intellectual tyranny and the public interest: the quest for the holy grail and
the quality of life”, Advances in Public Interest Accounting, Vol. 3, p. 16.
Arrington, E. and Francis, J. (1989), “Letting the chat out of the bag: deconstruction, privilege and
accounting research”, Accounting, Organizations and Society, Vol. 14 No. 1/2, pp. 1-28.
Aupperle, K.E. (1984), “An empirical measure of corporate social orientation”, Research in
Corporate Social Performance and Policy, Vol. 6, pp. 27-54.
Bebbington, K.J., Gray, R.H., Thomson, I. and Walters, D. (1994), “Accountants’ attitudes and
environmentally sensitive accounting”, Accounting and Business Research, No. 94, Spring,
pp. 51-75.
Belkaoui, A. (1980), “The impact of socio-economic accounting statements on the investment deci-
sion: an empirical study”, Accounting Organizations and Society, Vol. 5 No. 3, pp. 263-83.
Belkaoui, A. (1984), Socio-economic Accounting, Quorum Books, Connecticut.
Belkaoui, A. and Karpik, P.G. (1989), “Determinants of the corporate decision to disclose social
information”, Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Vol. 2 No. 1, pp. 36-51.
Benjamin, J.J. and Stanga, K.G. (1977), “Difference in disclosure needs of major users of financial
statements”, Accounting and Business Research, Summer, pp. 187-92.
Benston, G.J. (1982a), “Accounting and corporate accountability”, Accounting, Organizations and
Society, Vol. 7 No. 2, pp. 87-105.
Benston, G.J. (1982b), “An analysis of the role of accounting standards for enhancing corporate gover-
nance and social responsibility”, Journal of Accounting and Public Policy, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 5-18.
AAAJ Beresford, D.R. and Cowen, S.S. (1979), “Surveying social responsibility disclosure in annual
reports”, Business, Vol. 29 No. 2, pp. 15-20.
8,2 Blake, D.H., Frederick, W.C. and Myers, M.S. (1976), Social Auditing: Evaluating the Impact of
Corporate Programs, Praeger, New York, NY.
Booth, P., Moores, K.J. and McNamara, R. (1987), “Researching the information content of social
responsibility disclosures”, British Accounting Review, Vol. 19 No. 1, pp. 31-51.
Bottomore, T.B. and Rubel, M. (Eds) (1961), Karl Marx, Penguin, Harmondsworth, Middlesex.
72 Bowman, E.H. (1973), “Corporate social responsibility and the investor”, Journal of Contemporary
Business, Winter, pp. 21-43.
Bowman, E.H. and Haire, M. (1975), “A strategic posture towards corporate social responsibility”,
California Management Review, Winter, pp. 49-58.
Brockoff, K. (1979), “A note on external social reporting by German companies: a survey of 1973
company reports”, Accounting, Organizations and Society, Vol. 4 No. 1/2, pp. 77-85.
Brooks, L.J. Jr (1986), Canadian Corporate Social Performance, The Society of Management
Accountants of Canada, Hamilton.
Burchell, S., Clubb, C. and Hopwood, A. (1985), “Accounting in its social context: towards a
history of value added in the United Kingdom”, Accounting, Organizations and Society, Vol. 10
No. 4, pp. 381-413.
Burrell, G. and Morgan, G. (1979), Sociological Paradigms and Organizational Analysis,
Heinemann, London.
Buzby, S.L. and Falk, H. (1978), “A survey of the interest in social responsibility information by
mutual funds”, Accounting, Organizations and Society, Vol. 3 No. 3/4, pp. 191-201.
Buzby, S.L. and Falk, H. (1979), “Demand for social responsibility information by university
investors”, The Accounting Review, Vol. LIV No. 1, January, pp. 23-37.
Cargile, B.R. and Bublitz, B. (1986), “Factors contributing to published research by accounting
faculties”, Accounting Review, Vol. LXI No. 1, January, pp. 158-78.
Chan, J.L. (1979), “Corporate disclosure in occupational safety and health: some empirical
evidence”, Accounting Organizations and Society, Vol. 4 No. 4, pp. 273-81.
Chenall, R.H. and Juchau, R. (1977), “Investor information needs: an Australian study”,
Accounting and Business Research, Vol. 26, Spring, pp. 111-19.
Chow, C.W. and Wong-Boren, A. (1987), “Voluntary financial disclosure by Mexican
corporations”, The Accounting Review, Vol. LXII No. 3, July, pp. 533-41.
Christenson, C. (1983), “The methodology of positive accounting”, The Accounting Review,
January, pp. 1-22.
Cooper, D.J. (1988), “A social analysis of of corporate pollution disclosures: a comment”, Advances
in Public Interest Accounting, Vol. 2, pp. 179-86.
Cooper, D.J. and Sherer, M.J. (1984), “The value of corporate accounting reports: arguments for a
political economy of accounting”, Accounting, Organizations and Society, Vol. 9 No. 3/4,
pp. 207-32.
Cowen, S.S., Ferreri, L.B. and Parker, L.D. (1987), “The impact of corporate characteristics on
social responsibility disclosure: a typology and frequency-based analysis”, Accounting,
Organizations and Society, Vol. 12 No. 2, pp. 111-22.
Dierkes, M. (1979), “Corporate social reporting in Germany: conceptual developments and
practical experience”, Accounting, Organizations and Society, Vol. 4 No. 1/2, pp. 87-107.
Dierkes, M. and Antal, A.B. (1985), “The usefulness and use of social reporting information”,
Accounting, Organizations and Society, Vol. 10 No. 1, pp. 29-34.
Dierkes, M. and Coppock, R. (1978), “Europe tries the corporate social report”, Business and
Society Review, Spring, pp. 21-4.
Epstein, M.J. (1991), “What shareholders really want”, The New York Times, 28 April.
Epstein, M.J. (1992), “The annual report report card”, Business and Society Review, Spring, pp. 81-3.
Ernst and Ernst (1976 et seq.), Social Responsibility Disclosure, Ernst and Ernst, Cleveland, OH.
Filios, V.P. (1985), “Assessment of attitudes toward corporate social accountability in Britain”, CSR: a review of
Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 4 No. 2, pp. 155-73.
Firth, M. (1978), “A study of the consensus of the perceived importance of disclosure of individual
the literature
items in corporate annual reports”, The International Journal of Accounting Education and
Research, Vol. 14 No. 1, Fall, pp. 57-70.
Firth, M. (1979), “The impact of size, stockmarket listing and auditors on voluntary disclosure in
corporate annual reports”, Accounting and Business Research, Autumn, pp. 273-80.
Firth, M. (1984), “The extent of voluntary disclosure in corporate annual reports and its 73
association with security risk measures”, Applied Economics, Vol. 16, pp. 269-77.
Foley, B.J. and Maunders, K.T. (1977), Accounting Information Disclosure and Collective
Bargaining, Macmillan, London.
Freedman, M. and Jaggi. M. (1988), “An analysis of the association between pollution disclosure and
economic performance”, Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Vol. 1 No. 2, pp. 43-58.
Freedman, M. and Ullman, A.E. (1986), “Social disclosure and economic performance: a case for
revisionism”, paper presented at The British Accounting Association Conference, Aberystwyth.
Geddes, M. (1992), “The social audit movement”, in Owen, D.L. (Ed.), Green Reporting, Chapman
& Hall, London, pp. 215-41.
Gray, R.H. (1983), “Accountability, financial reporting and the not-for-profit sector”, British
Accounting Review, Vol. 15 No. 1, Spring, pp. 3-23.
Gray, R.H. (1992), “Accounting and environmentalism: an exploration of the challenge of gently
accounting for accountability, transparency and sustainability”, Accounting Organizations
and Society, Vol. 17 No. 5, July, pp. 399-426.
Gray, R.H. (1993), “Current practice in environmental reporting”, Social and Environmental
Accounting, Vol. 13 No. 1, pp. 6-9.
Gray, R.H. and Owen, D.L. (1993) “The rocky road to reporting”, Certified Accountant, March,
pp. 36-8.
Gray, R.H., Bebbington, K.J. and McPhail, K. (1994), “Teaching ethics and the ethics of accounting
teaching: educating for immorality and a case for social and environmental accounting
education”, Accounting Education, Vol. 3 No. 1, Spring, pp. 51-75.
Gray, R.H., Bebbington, K.J. and Walters, D. (1993), Accounting for the Environment: The
Greening of Accountancy Part II, Paul Chapman, London.
Gray, R.H., Bebbington, K.J., Walters, D. and Thomson, I. (forthcoming), “The greening of
enterprise: an exploration of the (non-) role of environmental accounting and environmental
accountants in organizational change”, Critical Perspectives on Accounting.
Gray, R.H., Kouhy, R. and Lavers, S. (1995), “Constructing a research database of social and
environmental reporting by UK companies: a methodological note”, Accounting, Auditing &
Accountability Journal, Vol. 8 No. 2, pp. 78-101.
Gray, R.H., Owen, D.L. and Maunders, K.T. (1987), Corporate Social Reporting: Accounting &
Accountability, Prentice-Hall, Hemel Hempstead.
Gray, R.H., Owen, D.L and Maunders, K.T. (1988), “Corporate social reporting: emerging trends in
accountability and the social contract”, Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Vol. 1
No. 1, pp. 6-20.
Gray, R.H., Owen, D.L. and Maunders, K.T. (1991), “Accountability, corporate social reporting and
the external social audits”, Advances in Public Interest Accounting, Vol. 4, pp. 1-21.
Gray, V. (1978), “Accountability in policy process: an alternative perspective”, in Greer S.,
Hedlund, R.D. and Gibson, J.L. (Eds), Accountability in Urban Society, Sage, London.
Guthrie, J.E. and Mathews, M.R. (1985), “Corporate social accounting in Australasia”, Research in
Corporate Social Performance and Policy, Vol. 7, pp. 251-77.
Guthrie, J.E. and Parker, L.D. (1989), “Corporate social reporting: a rebuttal of legitimacy theory”,
Accounting and Business Research, Vol. 9 No. 76, pp. 343-52.
AAAJ Guthrie, J.E. and Parker, L.D. (1990), “Corporate social disclosure practice: a comparative
international analysis”, Advances in Public Interest Accounting, Vol. 3, pp. 159-76.
8,2 Harte, G. and Owen, D.L. (1987), “Fighting de-industrialisation: the role of local government social
audits”, Accounting, Organizations and Society, Vol. 12 No. 2, pp. 123-42.
Harte, G., Lewis, L. and Owen, D.L. (1991), “Ethical investment and the corporate reporting
function”, Critical Perspectives on Accounting, Vol. 2 No. 3, pp. 227-54.
Held, D. (1980), An Introduction to Critical Theory: Horkheimer to Habermas, Hutchinson,
74 London.
Held, D. (1987), Models of Democracy, Polity Press, Oxford, 1987.
Hogner, R.H. (1982), “Corporate social reporting: eight decades of development at US steel”,
Research in Corporate Performance and Policy, Vol. 4, pp. 243-50.
Holman, W.R., New, J.R. and Singer, D. (1985), “The impact of corporate social responsiveness on
shareholder wealth”, Research in Corporate Social Performance and Policy, Vol. 7, pp. 137-52.
Holsti, O.R. (1969), Content Analysis for the Social Sciences and Humanities, Addison-Wesley,
London.
Hurst, J.W. (1970), The Legitimacy of the Business Corporation in the Law of the United States
1780-1970, The University Press of Virginia, Charlottesville.
Ingram, R.W. (1978), “An investigation of the information content of (certain) social responsibility
disclosure”, Journal of Accounting Research, Vol. 16 No. 2, pp. 270-85.
Jackson, P.M. (1982), The Political Economy of Bureaucracy, Philip Allan, Oxford.
Jones, C. (1990), “Corporate social accounting and the capitalist enterprise”, in Cooper D.J. and
Hopper, T.M. (Eds), Critical Accounts, Macmillan, Basingstoke, pp. 272-93.
Kelly, G.J. (1981), “Australian social responsibility disclosure: some insights into contemporary
measurement”, Accounting and Finance, Vol. 20 No. 3, February, pp. 97-107.
Laughlin, R.C. and Puxty, A.G. (1981), “The decision-usefulness criterion: wrong cart, wrong
horse”, British Accounting Review, Vol. 13 No. 1, pp. 43-87.
Lehman, C. (1992), Accounting’s Changing Roles in Social Conflict, Paul Chapman, London.
Lessem, R. (1977), “Corporate social reporting in action: an evaluation of British, European and
American practice”, Accounting, Organizations and Society, Vol. 2 No. 4, pp. 279-94.
Lindblom, C.K. (1994), “The implications of organizational legitimacy for corporate social
performance and disclosure”, paper presented at the Critical Perspectives on Accounting
Conference, New York, NY.
Ljung, A. and Oftedal, O. (1977), Social Planning and Reporting, Stockholm School of Economics,
April.
Lynn, M. (1992), “A note on corporate social disclosure in Hong Kong”, British Accounting Review,
Vol. 24 No. 2, June, pp. 105-10.
McNally, G.M., Eng, L.H. and Hasseldine, C.R. (1982), “Corporate financial reporting in New
Zealand: an analysis of user preferences, corporate characteristics and disclosure practices for
discretionary information”, Accounting and Business Research, Winter, pp. 11-20.
Macpherson, C.B. (1973), Democratic Theory: Essays in Retrieval, OUP, Oxford.
Macpherson, C.B. (1977), The Life and Times of Liberal Democracy, OUP, Oxford.
Maheshwari, G.C. (1992), “Corporate characteristics and social responsibility reporting”, Asian
Review of Accounting, Vol. 1 No. 1, March, pp. 31-42.
Mak, Y.T. (1991), “Corporate characteristics and the voluntary disclosure of forecast information:
a study of New Zealand prospectuses”, British Accounting Review, Vol. 23 No. 4, December,
pp. 305-28.
Marcuse, H. (1955), Reason and Revolution, Routledge & Kegan Paul, London.
Marcuse, H. (1964), One-dimensional Man, Beacon, Boston, MA.
Mathews, M.R. (1984), “A suggested classification for social accounting research”, Journal of
Accounting and Public Policy, Vol. 3, Fall, pp. 199-221.
Mathews, M.R. (1987), “Social responsibility accounting disclosure and information content for CSR: a review of
shareholders”, British Accounting Review, Vol. 19 No. 2, pp. 161-8.
Mathews, M.R. (1993), Socially Responsible Accounting, Chapman & Hall, London.
the literature
Maunders, K.T. (1981), “Social reporting and the employment report”, in Tonkin D.J. and Skerratt,
L.C.L. (Eds), Financial Reporting 1981-1982, ICAEW, London, pp. 217-27.
Maunders, K.T. (1982), “Social reporting and the employment report”, in Tonkin D.J. and Skerratt,
L.C.L. (Eds), Financial Reporting 1982-1983, ICAEW, London, pp. 178-87.
Maunders, K.T. (1984), Employment Reporting – An Investigation of User Needs, Measurement
75
and Reporting Issues and Practice, ICAEW, London.
Maxwell, S.R. and Mason, A.K. (1976), Social Responsibility and Canada’s Largest Corporations,
ICRA Occasional Article No. 9, ICRA, University of Lancaster.
Meek, G.K. and Gray, S.J. (1989), “Globalization of stock markets and foreign listing requirements:
voluntary disclosure by continental European companies on the London Stock Exchange”,
Journal of International Business Studies, Summer, pp. 315-36.
Mintzberg, H. (1983), “The case for corporate social responsibility”, The Journal of Business
Strategy, Vol. 4 No. 2, pp. 3-15.
Morgan, G. (1983), “Social science and accounting research: a commentary on Tomkins and
Groves”, Accounting, Organizations and Society, Vol. 8 No. 4, pp. 385-8.
Morgan, G. (1986), Images of Organization, Sage, London.
Morgan, G. (1988), “Accounting as reality construction: toward a new epistemology for
accounting practice”, Accounting, Organizations and Society, Vol. 13 No. 5, pp. 477-85.
Neimark, M.K. (1992), The Hidden Dimensions of Annual Reports, Markus Wiener, New York, NY.
Ness, K.E. and Mirza, A.M. (1991), “Corporate social disclosure: a note on a test of agency theory”,
British Accounting Review, Vol. 23 No. 3, September, pp. 211-18.
Owen, D.L. (1992), Green Reporting: The Challenge of the Nineties, Chapman & Hall, London.
Owen, D., Gray, R. and Maunders, K. (1987), “Researching the information content of social
responsibility disclosure: a comment”, British Accounting Review, Vol. 19 No. 2, pp. 169-76.
Pallot, J. (1991), “The legitimate concern with fairness: a comment”, Accounting Organizations
and Society, Vol. 16 No. 2, pp. 201-8.
Parker, L.D. (1986), “Polemical themes in social accounting: a scenario for standard setting”,
Advances in Public Interest Accounting, Vol. 1, pp. 67-93.
Parker, L.D. (1991), “External social accountability: adventures in a maleficent world”, Advances
in Public Interest Accounting, Vol. 4, pp. 23-34.
Patten, D.M. (1992), “Intra-industry environmental disclosures in response to the Alaskan oil spill:
a note on legitimacy theory”, Accounting, Organizations and Society, Vol. 17 No. 5, pp. 471-5.
Perks, R.W. and Butler, L. (1977), “Accounting standards in practice: the experience of SSAP2”,
Accounting and Business Research, No. 29, pp. 25-33.
Perks, R.W., Rawlinson, D. and Ingram, L. (1992), “An exploration of ethical investment in the
UK”, British Accounting Review, Vol. 24 No. 1, pp. 43-66.
Preston, L.E. (1975), “Corporation and society: the search for a paradigm”, Journal of Economic
Literature, July, pp. 434-53.
Preston, L.E. (1981),”Research on corporate social reporting: directions for development”,
Accounting Organizations and Society, Vol. 6 No. 3, pp. 255-62.
Preston, L.E. (1983), “Book review: teaching materials in business and society”, California
Management Review, Vol. 25, Spring, pp. 158-73.
Preston, L.E. and Post, J.E. (1975), Private Management and Public Policy, Prentice-Hall,
Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Preston, L.E., Rey, F. and Dierkes, M. (1978), “Comparing corporate social performance: Germany,
France, Canada and the USA”, California Management Review, Summer, pp. 40-9.
AAAJ Puxty, A.G. (1986), “Social accounting as immanent legitimation: a critique of a technist
ideology”, Advances in Public Interest Accounting, Vol. 1, pp. 95-112.
8,2 Puxty, A.G. (1991), “Social accountability and universal pragmatics”, Advances in Public Interest
Accounting, Vol. 4, pp. 35-46.
Roberts, C.B. (1990), International Trends in Social and Employee Reporting, Occasional Research
Paper No. 6, ACCA, London.
Roberts, C.B. (1991), “Environmental disclosures: a note on reporting practices in Europe”,
76 Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Vol. 4 No. 3, pp. 62-71.
Roberts, C.B. (1992), “Environmental disclosures in corporate annual reports in Western Europe”,
in Owen, D.L. (Ed.), Green Reporting: The Challenge of the Nineties, Chapman & Hall, London,
pp. 139-65.
Roberts, R.W. (1992), “Determinants of corporate social responsibility disclosure”, Accounting,
Organizations and Society, Vol. 17 No. 6, pp. 595-612.
Robertson, J. (1978), “Corporate social reporting by New Zealand companies”, Journal of
Contemporary Business, Winter, pp. 113-33.
Schreuder, H. (1979), “Corporate social reporting in the Federal Republic of Germany: an

overview”, Accounting, Organizations and Society, Vol. 4 Nos. 1/2, pp. 109-22.
Shane, P. and Spicer, B. (1983), “Market response to environmental information produced outside
the firm”, The Accounting Review, July, pp. 521-38.
Silverman, D. (1993), Interpreting Qualitative Data: Methods for Analysing Talk, Text and
Interaction, Sage, London.
Singh, D.R. and Ahuja, J.M. (1983), “Corporate social reporting in India”, International Journal of
Accounting, Vol. 18 No. 2, pp. 151-70.
Smith, D. (1993), Business and the Environment, Paul Chapman, London.
Spicer, B.H. (1978), “Accounting for corporate social performance: some problems and issues”,
Journal of Contemporary Business, Winter, pp. 151-67.
Teoh, H.Y. and Thong, G. (1984), “Another look at corporate social responsibility and reporting:
an empirical study in a developing country”, Accounting, Organizations and Society, Vol. 9 No.
2, pp. 189-206.
Tinker, A.M. (1984), “Theories of the state and the state of accounting: economic reductionism and
political voluntarism in accounting regulation theory”, Journal of Accounting and Public
Policy, Vol. 3, Autumn, pp. 55-74.
Tinker, A.M. (1985), Paper Prophets: A Social Critique of Accounting, Holt Saunders, Eastbourne.
Tinker, A.M. and Okcabel, F. (1991), “Fatal attractions in the agency relationship”, British
Accounting Review, Vol. 23 No. 4, December, pp. 329-54.
Tinker, A.M., Lehman, C. and Neimark, M. (1991), “Corporate social reporting: falling down the
hole in the middle of the road”, Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Vol. 4 No. 1, pp.
28-54.
Tinker, A.M., Merino, B.D. and Neimark, M.D. (1982), “The normative origins of positive theories:
ideology and accounting thought”, Accounting, Organizations and Society, Vol. 7 No. 2,
pp. 167-200.
Tonkin, D.J. and Skerratt, L.C.L. (1991), Financial Reporting 1990-91: A Survey of UK Reporting
Practice, ICAEW, London.
Trotman, K.T. and Bradley, G.W. (1981), “Associations between social responsibility disclosure and
characteristics of companies”, Accounting, Organizations and Society, Vol. 6 No. 4, pp. 355-62.
Ullmann, A.E. (1985), “Data in search of a theory: a critical examination of the relationships
among social performance, social disclosure and economic performance of US firms”,
Academy of Management Review, Vol. 10 No. 3, pp. 540-57.
UNCTC (1992), International Accounting, United Nations Centre for Transnational Corporations,
New York, NY.
Weetman, P. (1977), “Accounting standards: a pause for reflection”, Accounting and Business CSR: a review of
Research, No. 27, Summer.
Williams, P.F. (1987), “The legitimate concern with fairness”, Accounting Organizations and
the literature
Society, Vol. 12 No. 2, pp. 169-89.
Yamagami, T. and Kokubu, K. (1991), “A note on corporate social disclosure in Japan”,
Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Vol. 4 No. 4, pp. 32-9.
Zadek, S. (1993), “The social audit of Traidcraft plc”, Social and Environmental Accounting,
Vol. 13 No. 2, pp. 5-6. 77
Zadek, S. and Evans, R. (1992), Auditing the Market: A Practical Approach to Social Accounting,
New Economics Foundation, London.
Zald, M.N. (1970), Power in Organizations, Vanderbilt University Press.
Zeghal, D. and Ahmed, S.A. (1990), “Comparison of social responsibility information disclosure
media used by Canadian firms”, Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Vol. 3 No. 1,
pp. 38-53.
Appendix: Descriptions of categories of disclosure

Total disclosure: all defined CSR.
Mandatory disclosure:
● charity donations;
● consultation with employees;
● South Africa;
● employee share ownership (ESOPs);
● employment of disabled.
Mandatory plus:
● mandatory disclosure; plus
● employment data;
● pension commitment.
Voluntary disclosure: all other disclosure
Human resource disclosure:
● consultation with employees;
● South Africa;
● employee share ownership;
● employment of disabled;
● employment data;
● pension commitments;
● value added statements;
● health and safety;
● employee other.
Environmental disclosure:
● environment;
● energy;
● health and safety; (note: health and safety features twice in the subtotals but only once in
the summary totals).
Community disclosure:
● community;
● charity;
● general other.
Customer disclosure:
● consumer.
This article has been cited by:
1. Kishore Kumar, Ajai Prakash. 2019. Examination of sustainability reporting practices in Indian banking sector. Asian Journal
of Sustainability and Social Responsibility 4:1. . [Crossref]
2. Wim Lambrechts, Semen Son-Turan, Lucinda Reis, Janjaap Semeijn. 2019. Lean, Green and Clean? Sustainability Reporting
in the Logistics Sector. Logistics 3:1, 3. [Crossref]
3. CostaEricka, Ericka Costa, PesciCaterina, Caterina Pesci, AndreausMichele, Michele Andreaus, TauferEmanuele, Emanuele
Taufer. 2019. Empathy, closeness, and distance in non-profit accountability. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal
32:1, 224-254. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
4. PhiriObby, Obby Phiri, MantzariElisavet, Elisavet Mantzari, GleadlePauline, Pauline Gleadle. 2019. Stakeholder interactions
and corporate social responsibility (CSR) practices. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal 32:1, 26-54. [Abstract] [Full
Text] [PDF]
5. FuscoFloriana, Floriana Fusco, RicciPaolo, Paolo Ricci. 2019. What is the stock of the situation? A bibliometric analysis on
social and environmental accounting research in public sector. International Journal of Public Sector Management 32:1, 21-41.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
6. TraxlerAlbert Anton, Albert Anton Traxler, GreilingDorothea, Dorothea Greiling. 2019. Sustainable public value reporting
of electric utilities. Baltic Journal of Management 14:1, 103-121. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
7. Benjamin M. Cole, David Chandler. 2019. A Model of Competitive Impression Management: Edison versus Westinghouse
in the War of the Currents. Administrative Science Quarterly 5, 000183921882143. [Crossref]
8. Daniela Coluccia, Stefano Fontana, Silvia Solimene. The Presence of Female Directors on Boards. An Empirical Investigation
About Its Effects on CSR 151-165. [Crossref]

9. Susanne Arvidsson. An Exposé of the Challenging Practice Development of Sustainability Reporting: From the First Wave
to the EU Directive (2014/95/EU) 3-24. [Crossref]
10. John Holland. Changing Financial Firms Relative to ESG Issues 111-133. [Crossref]
11. Yanan Jin, Shuangyi Zheng, Dunzhe Tang, Qiong Feng. Environmental Performance Evaluation of New Fixed Assets
Investment Projects—Taking Wuhan East Lake High-Tech Development Zone as an Example 1327-1340. [Crossref]
12. Annette Cerne. The Moralisation of Global Markets as Business Knowledge 19-56. [Crossref]
13. Annette Cerne. The Creativity of International Business Discourse 57-102. [Crossref]
14. Annette Cerne. Moralising Global Markets through Corporate Public Reports 103-140. [Crossref]
15. Rosella Carè, Antonio Fabio Forgione. Assessing the Relationship Between Environmental Performance and Banks’
Performance: Preliminary Evidence 61-85. [Crossref]
16. Kun Li, Nasrin Khalili, Weiquan Cheng. 2019. Corporate Social Responsibility Practices in China: Trends, Context, and
Impact on Company Performance. Sustainability 11:2, 354. [Crossref]
17. Deniz Özbay, Hümeyra Adıgüzel. Corporate Social Responsibility and Classification Shifting Between Operating and Non-
operating Expenses: Evidence from Turkey 111-131. [Crossref]
18. Maria da Conceição C. Tavares, Lúcia Lima Rodrigues. The Determinants of Sustainability Reporting of the Portuguese
Public Sector Entities 653-678. [Crossref]
19. Juana Alonso-Cañadas, María del Mar Gálvez-Rodríguez, María del Carmen Caba-Pérez, Laura Saraite. Online Disclosure
of Social Responsibility Strategies 1066-1085. [Crossref]
20. Silvia Romero, Silvia Ruiz, Belen Fernandez-Feijoo. 2019. Sustainability reporting and stakeholder engagement in Spain:
Different instruments, different quality. Business Strategy and the Environment 28:1, 221-232. [Crossref]
21. Tesfaye T. Lemma, Martin Feedman, Mthokozisi Mlilo, Jin Dong Park. 2019. Corporate carbon risk, voluntary disclosure,
and cost of capital: South African evidence. Business Strategy and the Environment 28:1, 111-126. [Crossref]
22. Md. Rabiul Islam, Syed Zabid Hossain. 2019. Conceptual mapping of shared value creation by the private commercial banks
in Bangladesh. Asian Journal of Sustainability and Social Responsibility 4:1. . [Crossref]
23. Wei Yu, Ying Zheng. 2018. The disclosure of corporate social responsibility reports and sales performance in China. Accounting
& Finance 15. . [Crossref]
24. Andy Moniz. A Social Media Analysis of Corporate Culture 149-167. [Crossref]
25. Francisco Bravo, Nuria Reguera‐Alvarado. 2018. Sustainable development disclosure: Environmental, social, and governance
reporting and gender diversity in the audit committee. Business Strategy and the Environment 2. . [Crossref]
26. María Consuelo Pucheta‐Martínez, Isabel Gallego‐Álvarez. 2018. An international approach of the relationship between
board attributes and the disclosure of corporate social responsibility issues. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental
Management 5. . [Crossref]
27. AliyuUsman Shehu, Usman Shehu Aliyu. Board characteristic and corporate environmental reporting in Nigeria. Asian Journal
of Accounting Research, ahead of print. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
28. KumarPraveen, Praveen Kumar, FirozMohammad, Mohammad Firoz. 2018. Impact of carbon emissions on cost of debt-
evidence from India. Managerial Finance 44:12, 1401-1417. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
29. DagilienėLina, Lina Dagilienė, NedzinskienėRūta, Rūta Nedzinskienė. 2018. An institutional theory perspective on non-
financial reporting. Journal of Financial Reporting and Accounting 16:4, 490-521. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
30. WeberJessica Lee, Jessica Lee Weber. 2018. Corporate social responsibility disclosure level, external assurance and cost of
equity capital. Journal of Financial Reporting and Accounting 16:4, 694-724. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
31. Majid Khan, James C. Lockhart, Ralph J. Bathurst. 2018. Institutional impacts on corporate social responsibility: a
comparative analysis of New Zealand and Pakistan. International Journal of Corporate Social Responsibility 3:1. . [Crossref]
32. Teddy Ossei Kwakye, Emerald Edem Welbeck, Godfred Matthew Yaw Owusu, Fred Kwasi Anokye. 2018. Determinants of
intention to engage in Sustainability Accounting & Reporting (SAR): the perspective of professional accountants. International
Journal of Corporate Social Responsibility 3:1. . [Crossref]
33. Ourvashi Bissoon. 2018. Corporate social responsibility in Mauritius: an analysis of annual reports of multinational hotel
groups. Asian Journal of Sustainability and Social Responsibility 3:1. . [Crossref]
34. Chuanmin Mi, FangKai Chang, ChingTorng Lin, YuHsuan Chang. 2018. The Theory of Reasoned Action to CSR Behavioral
Intentions: The Role of CSR Expected Benefit, CSR Expected Effort and Stakeholders. Sustainability 10:12, 4462. [Crossref]
35. Giorgia Nigri, Mara Del Baldo. 2018. Sustainability Reporting and Performance Measurement Systems: How do Small- and
Medium-Sized Benefit Corporations Manage Integration?. Sustainability 10:12, 4499. [Crossref]
36. Obafemi R. Oyewumi, Oluwabunmi A. Ogunmeru, Collins S. Oboh. 2018. Investment in corporate social responsibility,
disclosure practices, and financial performance of banks in Nigeria. Future Business Journal 4:2, 195-205. [Crossref]
37. Soo-Hyun Lee, Su-Yol Lee. 2018. An Analysis of the Effects of Climate Change Policy, Stakeholder Pressure, and Corporate
Carbon Management on Carbon Efficiency on the Korean Petrochemical Industry. Sustainability 10:12, 4420. [Crossref]
38. FatmaMobin, Mobin Fatma, KhanImran, Imran Khan, RahmanZillur, Zillur Rahman. Striving for legitimacy through CSR:
an exploration of employees responses in controversial industry sector. Social Responsibility Journal, ahead of print. [Abstract]
[Full Text] [PDF]
39. KumarKishore, Kishore Kumar, PrakashAjai, Ajai Prakash. Developing a framework for assessing sustainable banking
performance of the Indian banking sector. Social Responsibility Journal, ahead of print. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
40. Manpreet Hora, Ravi Subramanian. 2018. Relationship between Positive Environmental Disclosures and Environmental
Performance: An Empirical Investigation of the Greenwashing Sin of the Hidden Trade-off. Journal of Industrial Ecology
22. . [Crossref]
41. SahaAnup Kumar, Anup Kumar Saha. Relationship between corporate social responsibility performance and disclosures:
commercial banks of Bangladesh. Social Responsibility Journal, ahead of print. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
42. IsmailAbdullah Hamoud, Abdullah Hamoud Ismail, Abdul RahmanAzhar, Azhar Abdul Rahman, HezabrAbdulqawi Ahmed,
Abdulqawi Ahmed Hezabr. 2018. Determinants of corporate environmental disclosure quality of oil and gas industry in
developing countries. International Journal of Ethics and Systems 34:4, 527-563. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
43. PhamHanh Thi Song, Hanh Thi Song Pham, TranHien Thi, Hien Thi Tran. Board and corporate social responsibility
disclosure of multinational corporations. Multinational Business Review, ahead of print. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
44. DiasAntónio, António Dias, RodriguesLúcia Lima, Lúcia Lima Rodrigues, CraigRussell, Russell Craig, NevesMaria Elisabete,
Maria Elisabete Neves. Corporate social responsibility disclosure in small and medium-sized entities and large companies.
Social Responsibility Journal, ahead of print. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
45. Muhamad Fairuz Ahmad Jasmi, Yudi Fernando. 2018. Drivers of maritime green supply chain management. Sustainable Cities
and Society 43, 366-383. [Crossref]
46. Xinghe Liu, Enxian Wang, Danting Cai. 2018. Environmental Regulation and Corporate Financing—Quasi-Natural
Experiment Evidence from China. Sustainability 10:11, 4028. [Crossref]
47. Aruoriwo Marian Chijoke-Mgbame, Chijoke Oscar Mgbame. 2018. Discretionary environmental disclosures of corporations
in Nigeria. International Journal of Disclosure and Governance 15:4, 252-261. [Crossref]
48. Faisal Faisal, Erika Dwi Andiningtyas, Tarmizi Achmad, Haryanto Haryanto, Wahyu Meiranto. 2018. The content and
determinants of greenhouse gas emission disclosure: Evidence from Indonesian companies. Corporate Social Responsibility and
Environmental Management 25:6, 1397-1406. [Crossref]
49. María Consuelo Pucheta-Martínez, Blanca López-Zamora. 2018. Engagement of directors representing institutional investors
on environmental disclosure. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management 25:6, 1108-1120. [Crossref]
50. Omaima A.G. Hassan, Peter Romilly. 2018. Relations between corporate economic performance, environmental disclosure
and greenhouse gas emissions: New insights. Business Strategy and the Environment 27:7, 893-909. [Crossref]
51. Ali Fatemi, Martin Glaum, Stefanie Kaiser. 2018. ESG performance and firm value: The moderating role of disclosure. Global
Finance Journal 38, 45-64. [Crossref]
52. AdharianiDesi, Desi Adhariani, de VilliersCharl, Charl de Villiers. Integrated reporting: perspectives of corporate report
preparers and other stakeholders. Sustainability Accounting, Management and Policy Journal, ahead of print. [Abstract] [Full
Text] [PDF]
53. Çiğdem Sofyalıoğlu, Ebru Sürücü. 2018. KURUMSAL SÜRDÜRÜLEBİLİRLİK PERFORMANS ÖLÇÜMÜ: BEYAZ
EŞYA FİRMASI ÜZERİNE BİR UYGULAMA. Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi . [Crossref]
54. Ataur Rahman Belal, Mohammed Mehadi Masud Mazumder, Mohobbot Ali. 2018. Intellectual capital reporting practices
in an Islamic bank: A case study. Business Ethics: A European Review 9. . [Crossref]
55. Maria da Conceição da Costa Tavares, Alcina Portugal Dias. Theoretical Perspectives on Sustainability Reporting: A
Literature Review . [Crossref]
56. E-VahdatiSahar, Sahar E-Vahdati, ZulkifliNorhayah, Norhayah Zulkifli, ZakariaZarina, Zarina Zakaria. Corporate governance
integration with sustainability: a systematic literature review. Corporate Governance: The international journal of business in
society, ahead of print. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
57. AshfaqKhurram, Khurram Ashfaq, RuiZhang, Zhang Rui. Revisiting the relationship between corporate governance and
corporate social and environmental disclosure practices in Pakistan. Social Responsibility Journal, ahead of print. [Abstract]
[Full Text] [PDF]
58. AlazzaniAbdulsamad, Abdulsamad Alazzani, AljanadiYaseen, Yaseen Aljanadi, ShreimObeid, Obeid Shreim. The impact
of existence of royal family directors on corporate social responsibility reporting: a servant leadership perspective. Social
Responsibility Journal, ahead of print. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
59. Bart Manning, Geert Braam, Daniel Reimsbach. 2018. Corporate governance and sustainable business conduct-Effects of
board monitoring effectiveness and stakeholder engagement on corporate sustainability performance and disclosure choices.
Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management 29. . [Crossref]
60. Alexandros Garefalakis, Nikolaos Sariannidis, Christos Lemonakis. 2018. Operational elements of Narrative Disclosure
Information (NDI) in a geographical context. Annals of Operations Research 6. . [Crossref]
61. RudkinBradley, Bradley Rudkin, KimaniDanson, Danson Kimani, UllahSubhan, Subhan Ullah, AhmedRizwan, Rizwan
Ahmed, FarooqSyed Umar, Syed Umar Farooq. Hide-and-seek in corporate disclosure: evidence from negative corporate
incidents. Corporate Governance: The international journal of business in society, ahead of print. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
62. Shayuti Mohamed Adnan, David Hay, Chris J. van Staden. 2018. The influence of culture and corporate governance on
corporate social responsibility disclosure: A cross country analysis. Journal of Cleaner Production 198, 820-832. [Crossref]
63. Mohammed Benlemlih, Amama Shaukat, Yan Qiu, Grzegorz Trojanowski. 2018. Environmental and Social Disclosures and
Firm Risk. Journal of Business Ethics 152:3, 613-626. [Crossref]
64. Isabel-María García-Sánchez, Oscar Suárez-Fernández, Jennifer Martínez-Ferrero. 2018. Female directors and impression
management in sustainability reporting. International Business Review . [Crossref]
65. Menicucci Elisa, Paolucci Guido. 2018. Forward-looking information in integrated reporting: A theoretical framework. African
Journal of Business Management 12:18, 555-567. [Crossref]
66. Carlos Larrinaga, Adriana Rossi, Mercedes Luque-Vilchez, Manuel Núñez-Nickel. 2018. Institutionalization of the Contents
of Sustainability Assurance Services: A Comparison Between Italy and United States. Journal of Business Ethics 14. . [Crossref]
67. Thinh Hoang. The Role of the Integrated Reporting in Raising Awareness of Environmental, Social and Corporate
Governance (ESG) Performance 47-69. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] [PDF]
68. ElsayihJibriel, Jibriel Elsayih, TangQingliang, Qingliang Tang, LanYi-Chen, Yi-Chen Lan. 2018. Corporate governance and
carbon transparency: Australian experience. Accounting Research Journal 31:3, 405-422. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
69. LongoniAnnachiara, Annachiara Longoni, CaglianoRaffaella, Raffaella Cagliano. 2018. Inclusive environmental disclosure
practices and firm performance. International Journal of Operations & Production Management 38:9, 1815-1835. [Abstract]
[Full Text] [PDF]
70. ArenaClaudia, Claudia Arena, LiongRonald, Ronald Liong, VourvachisPetros, Petros Vourvachis. 2018. Carrot or stick: CSR
disclosures by Southeast Asian companies. Sustainability Accounting, Management and Policy Journal 9:4, 422-454. [Abstract]
[Full Text] [PDF]
71. Shaofang Li, Chao Liu. 2018. Quality of Corporate Social Responsibility Disclosure and Cost of Equity Capital: Lessons
from China. Emerging Markets Finance and Trade 54:11, 2472-2494. [Crossref]
72. Manuel Suárez-Cebador, Juan Carlos Rubio-Romero, Joaquim Pinto-Contreiras, German Gemar. 2018. A model to measure
sustainable development in the hotel industry: A comparative study. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental
Management 25:5, 722-732. [Crossref]
73. Miguel Marco-Fondevila, José M. Moneva Abadía, Sabina Scarpellini. 2018. CSR and green economy: Determinants and
correlation of firms’ sustainable development. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management 25:5, 756-771.
[Crossref]
74. Amal Aouadi, Sylvain Marsat. 2018. Do ESG Controversies Matter for Firm Value? Evidence from International Data. Journal
of Business Ethics 151:4, 1027-1047. [Crossref]
75. Irene Eleonora Lisi. 2018. Determinants and Performance Effects of Social Performance Measurement Systems. Journal of
Business Ethics 152:1, 225-251. [Crossref]
76. Maria Giovanna Confetto, Maddalena Della Volpe, Claudia Covucci. 2018. Dual marketers and sustainability communication.
Empirical evidence from corporate websites. MERCATI & COMPETITIVITÀ :3, 41-68. [Crossref]
77. Elies Seguí-Mas, Helena-María Bollas-Araya, Fernando Polo-Garrido. 2018. Assurance on Corporate Governance Reports in
Spain: Towards an Enhanced Accountability or a New Form of Public Relations?. Administrative Sciences 8:3, 32. [Crossref]
78. Ignacio Duran, Pablo Rodrigo. 2018. Why Do Firms in Emerging Markets Report? A Stakeholder Theory Approach to
Study the Determinants of Non-Financial Disclosure in Latin America. Sustainability 10:9, 3111. [Crossref]
79. JollandsStephen, Stephen Jollands, AkroydChris, Chris Akroyd, SawabeNorio, Norio Sawabe. 2018. Management controls
and pressure groups: the mediation of overflows. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal 31:6, 1644-1667. [Abstract]
[Full Text] [PDF]
80. M. L. Borges, R. Anholon, R. E. Cooper Ordoñez, O. L. G. Quelhas, L.A Santa-Eulalia, W. Leal Filho. 2018. Corporate
Social Responsibility (CSR) practices developed by Brazilian companies: an exploratory study. International Journal of
Sustainable Development & World Ecology 25:6, 509-517. [Crossref]
81. MahraniMayang, Mayang Mahrani, SoewarnoNoorlailie, Noorlailie Soewarno. 2018. The effect of good corporate governance
mechanism and corporate social responsibility on financial performance with earnings management as mediating variable.
Asian Journal of Accounting Research 3:1, 41-60. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
82. Giacomo Manetti, Marco Bellucci, Elena Como, Luca Bagnoli. 2018. Motivations for Issuing Social Reports in Italian
Voluntary Organizations. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly 15, 089976401878437. [Crossref]
83. RadhouaneIkram, Ikram Radhouane, NekhiliMehdi, Mehdi Nekhili, NagatiHaithem, Haithem Nagati, PachéGilles, Gilles
Paché. 2018. The impact of corporate environmental reporting on customer-related performance and market value.
Management Decision 56:7, 1630-1659. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
84. Al-DahBilal, Bilal Al-Dah, DahMustafa, Mustafa Dah, JiziMohammad, Mohammad Jizi. 2018. Is CSR reporting always
favorable?. Management Decision 56:7, 1506-1525. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
85. Md Moazzem Hossain. 2018. Sustainability reporting by Australian local government authorities. Local Government Studies
44:4, 577-600. [Crossref]
86. Mireia Guix, Maria Jesús Bonilla-Priego, Xavier Font. 2018. The process of sustainability reporting in international
hotel groups: an analysis of stakeholder inclusiveness, materiality and responsiveness. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 26:7,
1063-1084. [Crossref]
87. ZinsouKuassi M. Charles, Kuassi M. Charles Zinsou. 2018. Integrated or non-integrated reports: French listed companies at
a crossroads?. Sustainability Accounting, Management and Policy Journal 9:3, 253-288. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
88. Waris Ali, Jedrzej George Frynas. 2018. The Role of Normative CSR-Promoting Institutions in Stimulating CSR Disclosures
in Developing Countries. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management 25:4, 373-390. [Crossref]
89. Isabel-María García-Sánchez, Jennifer Martínez-Ferrero. 2018. How do Independent Directors Behave with Respect to
Sustainability Disclosure?. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management 25:4, 609-627. [Crossref]
90. Akrum Helfaya, Amr Kotb, Rasha Hanafi. 2018. Qur’anic Ethics for Environmental Responsibility: Implications for Business
Practice. Journal of Business Ethics 150:4, 1105-1128. [Crossref]
91. Rui Colaço, João Simão. 2018. Disclosure of corporate social responsibility in the forestry sector of the Congo Basin. Forest
Policy and Economics 92, 136-147. [Crossref]
92. Wu Han, Yu Zhuangxiong, Li Jie. 2018. Corporate social responsibility, product market competition, and product market
performance. International Review of Economics & Finance 56, 75-91. [Crossref]
93. Linus Axén. 2018. Exploring the association between the content of internal audit disclosures and external audit fees: Evidence
from Sweden. International Journal of Auditing 22:2, 285-297. [Crossref]
94. Mustafa A. Dah, Mohammad I. Jizi. 2018. Board Independence and the Efficacy of Social Reporting. Journal of International
Accounting Research 17:1, 25-45. [Crossref]
95. Ikram Radhouane, Mehdi Nekhili, Haithem Nagati, Gilles Paché. 2018. Customer-related performance and the relevance of
environmental reporting. Journal of Cleaner Production 190, 315-329. [Crossref]
96. Warren Maroun. 2018. A Conceptual Model for Understanding Corporate Social Responsibility Assurance Practice. Journal
of Business Ethics 17. . [Crossref]
97. DumayJohn, John Dumay, de VilliersCharl, Charl de Villiers, GuthrieJames, James Guthrie, HsiaoPei-Chi, Pei-Chi Hsiao.
2018. Thirty years of Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal 31:5,
1510-1541. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
98. Ben AmarAnis, Anis Ben Amar, ChakrounSalma, Salma Chakroun. 2018. Do dimensions of corporate social responsibility
affect earnings management?. Journal of Financial Reporting and Accounting 16:2, 348-370. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
99. Maria Baldini, Lorenzo Dal Maso, Giovanni Liberatore, Francesco Mazzi, Simone Terzani. 2018. Role of Country- and Firm-
Level Determinants in Environmental, Social, and Governance Disclosure. Journal of Business Ethics 150:1, 79-98. [Crossref]
100. Jieun Chung, Charles H. Cho. 2018. Current Trends within Social and Environmental Accounting Research: A Literature
Review. Accounting Perspectives 17:2, 207-239. [Crossref]
101. Peng Wang, Fangjun Wang, Nan Hu. 2018. The Effect of Ultimate Ownership on the Disclosure of Environmental
Information. Australian Accounting Review 28:2, 186-198. [Crossref]
102. Bikki Jaggi, Alessandra Allini, Riccardo Macchioni, Claudia Zagaria. 2018. The Factors Motivating Voluntary Disclosure of
Carbon Information: Evidence Based on Italian Listed Companies. Organization & Environment 31:2, 178-202. [Crossref]
103. Manuel Larrán Jorge, Francisco Javier Andrades Peña, Jesús Herrera Madueño. 2018. An analysis of university sustainability
reports from the GRI database: an examination of influential variables. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management
4, 1-26. [Crossref]
104. ManitaRiadh, Riadh Manita, BrunaMaria Giuseppina, Maria Giuseppina Bruna, DangRey, Rey Dang, HouantiL’Hocine,
L’Hocine Houanti. 2018. Board gender diversity and ESG disclosure: evidence from the USA. Journal of Applied Accounting
Research 19:2, 206-224. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
105. MathuvaDavid Mutua, David Mutua Mathuva, ChongH. Gin, H. Gin Chong. 2018. Impact of regulatory reforms on
compliance with mandatory disclosures by savings and credit co-operatives in Kenya. Journal of Financial Regulation and
Compliance 26:2, 246-270. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
106. LiZhongtian, Zhongtian Li, HaqueShamima, Shamima Haque, ChappleEllie (Larelle), Ellie (Larelle) Chapple. 2018.
Legitimising corporate reputation in times of employee distress through disclosure. Accounting Research Journal 31:1, 22-45.
107. MardiniGhassan H., Ghassan H. Mardini, TahatYasean A., Yasean A. Tahat, PowerDavid M., David M. Power. 2018. The
extent of segmental reporting and its value relevance: cross-country evidence. Journal of Accounting in Emerging Economies
108. BradleyOliver James, Oliver James Bradley, BotchwayGloria Oforiwaa, Gloria Oforiwaa Botchway. 2018. Communicating
corporate social responsibility (CSR) in the coffee industry. Sustainability Accounting, Management and Policy Journal 9:2,
109. NoronhaCarlos, Carlos Noronha, GuanJieqi, Jieqi Guan, FanJing, Jing Fan. 2018. Firm value and social contribution with
the interaction of corporate governance. Sustainability Accounting, Management and Policy Journal 9:2, 165-200. [Abstract]
[Full Text] [PDF]
110. Aljaohra Altuwaijri. 2018. Community Disclosures in a Developing Country: Insights from a Neo-Pluralist Perspective.
Social and Environmental Accountability Journal 38:2, 160-162. [Crossref]
111. Nicola Cucari, Salvatore Esposito De Falco, Beatrice Orlando. 2018. Diversity of Board of Directors and Environmental Social
Governance: Evidence from Italian Listed Companies. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management 25:3,
250-266. [Crossref]
112. Mohan Fonseka, Theja Rajapakse, Grant Richardson. 2018. The effect of environmental information disclosure and energy
product type on the cost of debt: Evidence from energy firms in China. Pacific-Basin Finance Journal . [Crossref]
113. Giovanna Gavana, Pietro Gottardo, Anna Moisello. 2018. Do Customers Value CSR Disclosure? Evidence from Italian Family
and Non-Family Firms. Sustainability 10:5, 1642. [Crossref]
114. Rébecca Stekelorum, Issam Laguir, Jamal Elbaz. 2018. CSR disclosure and sustainable supplier management: a small to
medium-sized enterprises perspective. Applied Economics 48, 1-14. [Crossref]
115. Mohammed Hossain, Md. Tarikul Islam, Mahmood Ahmed Momin, Shamsun Nahar, Md. Samsul Alam. 2018.
Understanding Communication of Sustainability Reporting: Application of Symbolic Convergence Theory (SCT). Journal
of Business Ethics 56. . [Crossref]
116. Patrick Velte. 2018. Is audit committee expertise connected with increased readability of integrated reports: Evidence from
EU companies. Problems and Perspectives in Management 16:2, 23-41. [Crossref]
117. Yousuf Kamal. Stakeholders’ Perceptions of Social Audit in Bangladesh 5-29. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] [PDF]
118. Juliette Senn. ‘Comply or Explain’ If You Do Not Disclose Environmental Accounting Information: Does New French
Regulation Work? 113-133. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] [PDF]
119. AlexanderDavid, David Alexander, Tiron-TudorAdriana, Adriana Tiron-Tudor, DraguIoana, Ioana Dragu. 2018.
Implications of corporate accountability on civil society. Meditari Accountancy Research 26:1, 145-169. [Abstract] [Full Text]
[PDF]
120. LiuYang Stephanie, Yang Stephanie Liu, YangJessica Hong, Jessica Hong Yang. 2018. A longitudinal analysis of corporate
greenhouse gas disclosure strategy. Corporate Governance: The international journal of business in society 18:2, 317-330.
121. Roman Lanis, Grant Richardson. 2018. Outside Directors, Corporate Social Responsibility Performance, and Corporate Tax
Aggressiveness: An Empirical Analysis. Journal of Accounting, Auditing & Finance 33:2, 228-251. [Crossref]
122. Francesca Manes-Rossi, Adriana Tiron-Tudor, Giuseppe Nicolò, Gianluca Zanellato. 2018. Ensuring More Sustainable
Reporting in Europe Using Non-Financial Disclosure—De Facto and De Jure Evidence. Sustainability 10:4, 1162. [Crossref]
123. Barbara Iannone. 2018. Sustainability, Corporate Social Responsibility, and Corporate Reputation in the Wine Sector.
International Journal of Applied Behavioral Economics 7:2, 47-68. [Crossref]
124. Al-ShaerHabiba, Habiba Al-Shaer. 2018. Do environmental-related disclosures help enhance investment recommendations?.
Journal of Financial Reporting and Accounting 16:1, 217-244. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
125. RashidAfzalur, Afzalur Rashid. 2018. Does corporate social responsibility reporting enhance shareholders’ value?. Journal of
Financial Reporting and Accounting 16:1, 158-178. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
126. StevensonMark, Mark Stevenson, ColeRosanna, Rosanna Cole. 2018. Modern slavery in supply chains: a secondary data
analysis of detection, remediation and disclosure. Supply Chain Management: An International Journal 23:2, 81-99. [Abstract]
[Full Text] [PDF]
127. DeswantoRefandi Budi, Refandi Budi Deswanto, SiregarSylvia Veronica, Sylvia Veronica Siregar. 2018. The associations
between environmental disclosures with financial performance, environmental performance, and firm value. Social
Responsibility Journal 14:1, 180-193. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
128. Albert Anton Traxler, Dorothea Greiling, Hannah Hebesberger. 2018. GRI Sustainability Reporting by INGOs: A Way
Forward for Improving Accountability?. VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations 23. .
[Crossref]
129. Geert Braam, Roy Peeters. 2018. Corporate Sustainability Performance and Assurance on Sustainability Reports: Diffusion
of Accounting Practices in the Realm of Sustainable Development. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental
130. Robin W. Roberts. 2018. We can do so much better: Reflections on reading “Signaling Effects of Scholarly Profiles—The
Editorial Teams of North American Accounting Association Journals”. Critical Perspectives on Accounting 51, 70-77. [Crossref]
131. Anna-Lena Kühn, Markus Stiglbauer, Matthias S. Fifka. 2018. Contents and Determinants of Corporate Social Responsibility
Website Reporting in Sub-Saharan Africa: A Seven-Country Study. Business & Society 57:3, 437-480. [Crossref]
132. Waris Ali, Maha Faisal Alsayegh, Zubair Ahmad, Zeeshan Mahmood, Javed Iqbal. 2018. The Relationship between Social
Visibility and CSR Disclosure. Sustainability 10:3, 866. [Crossref]
133. MuttakinMohammad Badrul, Mohammad Badrul Muttakin, MihretDessalegn Getie, Dessalegn Getie Mihret, KhanArifur,
Arifur Khan. 2018. Corporate political connection and corporate social responsibility disclosures. Accounting, Auditing &
Accountability Journal 31:2, 725-744. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
134. Stefano Fontana, Daniela Coluccia, Silvia Solimene. 2018. VAIC as a Tool for Measuring Intangibles Value in Voluntary
Multi-Stakeholder Disclosure. Journal of the Knowledge Economy 30. . [Crossref]
135. LuLucy Wenxiang, Lucy Wenxiang Lu, TaylorMartin Edward, Martin Edward Taylor. 2018. A study of the relationships
among environmental performance, environmental disclosure, and financial performance. Asian Review of Accounting 26:1,
136. ScholtzBrenda, Brenda Scholtz, CalitzAndre, Andre Calitz, HauptRoss, Ross Haupt. 2018. A business intelligence framework
for sustainability information management in higher education. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education
137. CoffieWilliam, William Coffie, Aboagye-OtchereFrancis, Francis Aboagye-Otchere, MusahAlhassan, Alhassan Musah. 2018.
Corporate social responsibility disclosures (CSRD), corporate governance and the degree of multinational activities. Journal
of Accounting in Emerging Economies 8:1, 106-123. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
138. Dyna Seng, Sriyalatha Kumarasinghe, Rakesh Pandey. 2018. Intellectual capital disclosure in private sector listed companies
in India. Knowledge and Process Management 8. . [Crossref]
139. Bryan W. Husted, José Milton de Sousa-Filho. 2018. Board structure and environmental, social, and governance disclosure
in Latin America. Journal of Business Research . [Crossref]
140. Isabel Gallego-Álvarez, María Belén Lozano, Miguel Rodríguez-Rosa. 2018. An analysis of the environmental information
in international companies according to the new GRI standards. Journal of Cleaner Production . [Crossref]
141. Cristian Carini, Laura Rocca, Monica Veneziani, Claudio Teodori. 2018. Ex-Ante Impact Assessment of Sustainability
Information–The Directive 2014/95. Sustainability 10:2, 560. [Crossref]
142. KumarRanjan, Ranjan Kumar, PandeNeerja, Neerja Pande, AfreenShamama, Shamama Afreen. 2018. Developing a GRI-
G4-based persuasive communication framework for sustainability reporting (SR). International Journal of Emerging Markets
143. Amina Mohammed Buallay, Esra Saleh AlDhaen. The Relationship Between Audit Committee Characteristics and the Level
of Sustainability Report Disclosure 492-503. [Crossref]
144. Rosella Carè. 65. [Crossref]
145. Tiziana Russo Spena, Alessandra De Chiara. Cultural Issues and Supply Chain Sustainability of Multinational Companies
3-29. [Crossref]
146. Panagiotis Reklitis, Panagiotis Trivellas, Ioannis Mantzaris, Elisavet Mantzari, Dimitrios Reklitis. Employee Perceptions
of Corporate Social Responsibility Activities and Work-Related Attitudes: The Case of a Greek Management Services
Organization 225-240. [Crossref]
147. Ismail Adelopo, Musa Obalola, Ramiro Cea Moure. Corporate Social Disclosures by Banks: Between Legal Institution and
Cultural Dimensions 307-331. [Crossref]
148. Daniela M. Salvioni, Simona Franzoni, Francesca Gennari. Social Responsibility as a Factor of Convergence in Corporate
Governance 29-53. [Crossref]
149. Obby Phiri, Elisavet Mantzari. CSR Disclosure Practices in the Zambia Mining Industry 471-504. [Crossref]
150. Chris Brooks, Ioannis Oikonomou. 2018. The effects of environmental, social and governance disclosures and performance
on firm value: A review of the literature in accounting and finance. The British Accounting Review 50:1, 1-15. [Crossref]
151. Devika Kannan. 2018. Role of multiple stakeholders and the critical success factor theory for the sustainable supplier selection
process. International Journal of Production Economics 195, 391-418. [Crossref]
152. Jianhua Yin, Sen Wang. 2018. The effects of corporate environmental disclosure on environmental innovation from
stakeholder perspectives. Applied Economics 50:8, 905. [Crossref]
153. Silvia Cantele, Thomas Tsalis, Ioannis Nikolaou. 2018. A New Framework for Assessing the Sustainability Reporting
Disclosure of Water Utilities. Sustainability 10:2, 433. [Crossref]
154. Massoud Alam Dad Mohammadi, Abbas Mardani, Mohd Noor Azli Ali Khan, Dalia Streimikiene. 2018. Corporate
sustainability disclosure and market valuation in a Middle Eastern Nation: evidence from listed firms on the Tehran Stock
Exchange: sensitive industries versus non-sensitive industries. Economic Research-Ekonomska Istraživanja 31:1, 1488-1511.
[Crossref]
155. N Grace Ofoegbu, Ndubuisi Odoemelam. 2018. International financial reporting standards (IFRS) disclosure and performance
of Nigeria listed companies. Cogent Business & Management 5:1, 1-18. [Crossref]
156. Grace N. Ofoegbu, Ndubuisi Odoemelam, Regina G. Okafor, Collins G. Ntim. 2018. Corporate board characteristics and
environmental disclosure quantity: Evidence from South Africa (integrated reporting) and Nigeria (traditional reporting).
Cogent Business & Management 5:1, 1. [Crossref]
157. Chirața Caraiani, Camelia I. Lungu, Cornelia Dascălu, Florian Colceag. The Triple Bottom Line (TBL) Approach From
the Accounting and Performance Measurement Perspective 785-808. [Crossref]
158. Chirața Caraiani, Camelia I. Lungu, Cornelia Dascălu, Florian Colceag. Models for Measuring and Reporting of Green
Performance 204-229. [Crossref]
159. Ahsan Habib, Mostafa Monzur Hasan. 2017. Corporate Social Responsibility and Cost Stickiness. Business & Society 121,
000765031667793. [Crossref]
160. Mohsin Abdur Rehman, Muhammad Kashif, Michela Mingione. 2017. Corporate Social Responsibility and Sustainability
(CSRS) Initiatives among European and Asian Business Schools: A Web-based Content Analysis. Global Business Review 83,
097215091773743. [Crossref]
161. Akrum Helfaya, Tantawy Moussa. 2017. Do Board's Corporate Social Responsibility Strategy and Orientation Influence
Environmental Sustainability Disclosure? UK Evidence. Business Strategy and the Environment 26:8, 1061-1077. [Crossref]
162. Rakhi Das, Krishnendu Shaw. 2017. Uncertain supply chain network design considering carbon footprint and social factors
using two-stage approach. Clean Technologies and Environmental Policy 19:10, 2491-2519. [Crossref]
163. Kenny Z. Lin, Suwina Cheng, Fang Zhang. 2017. Corporate Social Responsibility, Institutional Environments, and Tax
Avoidance: Evidence from a Subnational Comparison in China. The International Journal of Accounting 52:4, 303-318.
[Crossref]
164. Emerald Edem Welbeck, Godfred Matthew Yaw Owusu, Rita Amoah Bekoe, John Amoah Kusi. 2017. Determinants of
environmental disclosures of listed firms in Ghana. International Journal of Corporate Social Responsibility 2:1. . [Crossref]
165. Charlotte Lecuyer, Sonia Capelli, William Sabadie. 2017. Corporate Social Responsibility Communication Effects. Journal
of Advertising Research 57:4, 436-446. [Crossref]
166. Lisa Koep. 2017. Tensions in Aspirational CSR Communication—A Longitudinal Investigation of CSR Reporting.
Sustainability 9:12, 2202. [Crossref]
167. , . 2017. CSR Disclosure in Polish-Listed Companies in the Light of Directive 2014/95/EU Requirements: Empirical
Evidence. Sustainability 9:12, 2304. [Crossref]
168. Garde SánchezRaquel, Raquel Garde Sánchez, Rodríguez BolívarManuel Pedro, Manuel Pedro Rodríguez Bolívar, López
HernándezAntonio M., Antonio M. López Hernández. 2017. Perceptions of stakeholder pressure for supply-chain social
responsibility and information disclosure by state-owned enterprises. The International Journal of Logistics Management 28:4,
169. GiannarakisGrigoris, Grigoris Giannarakis, KonteosGeorge, George Konteos, SariannidisNikolaos, Nikolaos Sariannidis,
ChaitidisGeorge, George Chaitidis. 2017. The relation between voluntary carbon disclosure and environmental performance.
International Journal of Law and Management 59:6, 784-803. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
170. HassanAbeer, Abeer Hassan, GuoXin, Xin Guo. 2017. The relationships between reporting format, environmental disclosure
and environmental performance. Journal of Applied Accounting Research 18:4, 425-444. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
171. Camélia Radu, Claude Francoeur. 2017. Does Innovation Drive Environmental Disclosure? A New Insight into Sustainable
Development. Business Strategy and the Environment 26:7, 893-911. [Crossref]
172. She-Chih Chiu, Hsuan-Chu Lin, Chuan-San Wang. 2017. The Impact of Investments in Pollution Reduction on Shareholder
Wealth: Evidence from Taiwanese Manufacturing Companies. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management
24:6, 676-691. [Crossref]
173. Marc Goergen, Salim Chahine, Geoffrey Wood, Chris Brewster. 2017. The relationship between public listing, context,
multi-nationality and internal CSR. Journal of Corporate Finance . [Crossref]
174. Kareem M. Shabana, Ann K. Buchholtz, Archie B. Carroll. 2017. The Institutionalization of Corporate Social Responsibility
Reporting. Business & Society 56:8, 1107-1135. [Crossref]
175. Jian Ming Luo, Chi Fung Lam, Ka Yin Chau, Hua Wen Shen, Xin Wang. 2017. Measuring Corporate Social Responsibility
in Gambling Industry: Multi-Items Stakeholder Based Scales. Sustainability 9:11, 2012. [Crossref]
176. Lawrence Loh, Thomas Thomas, Yu Wang. 2017. Sustainability Reporting and Firm Value: Evidence from Singapore-Listed
Companies. Sustainability 9:11, 2112. [Crossref]
177. Nejla Ould Daoud Ellili, Haitham Nobanee. 2017. Corporate risk disclosure of Islamic and сonventional banks. Banks and
Bank Systems 12:3, 247-256. [Crossref]
178. Philipp Borgstedt, Ann-Marie Nienaber, Bernd Liesenkötter, Gerhard Schewe. 2017. Legitimacy Strategies in Corporate
Environmental Reporting: A Longitudinal Analysis of German DAX Companies’ Disclosed Objectives. Journal of Business
Ethics 30. . [Crossref]
179. BlancRenata, Renata Blanc, IslamMuhammad Azizul, Muhammad Azizul Islam, PattenDennis M., Dennis M. Patten,
BrancoManuel Castelo, Manuel Castelo Branco. 2017. Corporate anti-corruption disclosure. Accounting, Auditing &
180. CarnegieGarry D., Garry D. Carnegie, NapierChristopher J., Christopher J. Napier. 2017. The Accounting, Auditing &
Accountability Journal Community in its 30th year. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal 30:8, 1642-1676. [Abstract]
[Full Text] [PDF]
181. KamathBharathi, Bharathi Kamath. 2017. Determinants of intellectual capital disclosure: evidence from India. Journal of
Financial Reporting and Accounting 15:3, 367-391. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
182. PeteraPetr, Petr Petera, WagnerJaroslav, Jaroslav Wagner. 2017. Human resources disclosure among companies in Czechia.
Social Responsibility Journal 13:4, 743-761. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
183. SyedMuhammad Ahsan, Muhammad Ahsan Syed, ButtSafdar Ali, Safdar Ali Butt. 2017. Financial and non-financial
determinants of corporate social responsibility: empirical evidence from Pakistan. Social Responsibility Journal 13:4, 780-797.
184. Patrick Velte, Martin Stawinoga. 2017. Integrated reporting: The current state of empirical research, limitations and future
research implications. Journal of Management Control 28:3, 275-320. [Crossref]
185. Mousami Prasad, Trupti Mishra, Arti D. Kalro. 2017. Environmental disclosure by Indian companies: an empirical study.
Environment, Development and Sustainability 19:5, 1999-2022. [Crossref]
186. Md. Masud, Seong Bae, Jong Kim. 2017. Analysis of Environmental Accounting and Reporting Practices of Listed Banking
Companies in Bangladesh. Sustainability 9:10, 1717. [Crossref]
187. GaiaSilvia, Silvia Gaia, John JonesMichael, Michael John Jones. 2017. UK local councils reporting of biodiversity values: a
stakeholder perspective. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal 30:7, 1614-1638. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
188. TamimiNabil, Nabil Tamimi, SebastianelliRose, Rose Sebastianelli. 2017. Transparency among S&P 500 companies: an
analysis of ESG disclosure scores. Management Decision 55:8, 1660-1680. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
189. KhanTehmina, Tehmina Khan. 2017. The initiation of environmental auditing in the United States. Managerial Auditing
Journal 32:8, 810-826. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
190. Isabel Gallego-Alvarez, Eduardo Ortas, José Luis Vicente-Villardón, Igor Álvarez Etxeberria. 2017. Institutional Constraints,
Stakeholder Pressure and Corporate Environmental Reporting Policies. Business Strategy and the Environment 26:6, 807-825.
[Crossref]
191. Muhammad Azizul Islam. 2017. Disclosures of Social Value Creation and Managing Legitimacy: A Case Study of Three
Global Social Enterprises. Australian Accounting Review 27:3, 297-314. [Crossref]
192. Radiah Othman, Nirmala Nath, Fawzi Laswad. 2017. Sustainability Reporting by New Zealand's Local Governments.
Australian Accounting Review 27:3, 315-328. [Crossref]
193. Maria José da Silva Faria. 2017. Tipos de divulgação da informação financeira e não financeira de responsabilidade social
empresarial. Cadernos EBAPE.BR 15:spe, 534-558. [Crossref]
194. Yi An, Howard Davey, Harun Harun. 2017. Sustainability Reporting at a New Zealand Public University: A Longitudinal
Analysis. Sustainability 9:9, 1529. [Crossref]
195. , . 2017. Identification of Stakeholders of Public Interest Organisations. Sustainability 9:9, 1609. [Crossref]
196. Matthias S. Fifka, Anna-Lena Kühn, Markus Stiglbauer. 2017. “One size fits all”? Convergence in international corporate
social responsibility communication-A comparative study of CSR mission statements in the United States and India. Journal
of Public Affairs 15, e1670. [Crossref]
197. KhalilSandra, Sandra Khalil, O’sullivanPatrick, Patrick O’sullivan. 2017. Corporate social responsibility: Internet social and
environmental reporting by banks. Meditari Accountancy Research 25:3, 414-446. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
198. ChithamboLyton, Lyton Chithambo, TauringanaVenancio, Venancio Tauringana. 2017. Corporate governance and
greenhouse gas disclosure: a mixed-methods approach. Corporate Governance: The international journal of business in society
199. ChakrounRaida, Raida Chakroun, MatoussiHamadi, Hamadi Matoussi, MbirkiSarra, Sarra Mbirki. 2017. Determinants of
CSR disclosure of Tunisian listed banks: a multi-support analysis. Social Responsibility Journal 13:3, 552-584. [Abstract]
[Full Text] [PDF]
200. GrauelJonas, Jonas Grauel, GotthardtDaniel, Daniel Gotthardt. 2017. Carbon disclosure, freedom and democracy. Social
201. Yingjun Lu, Indra Abeysekera. 2017. What Do Stakeholders Care About? Investigating Corporate Social and Environmental
Disclosure in China. Journal of Business Ethics 144:1, 169-184. [Crossref]
202. Mehdi Nekhili, Haithem Nagati, Tawhid Chtioui, Claudia Rebolledo. 2017. Corporate social responsibility disclosure and
market value: Family versus nonfamily firms. Journal of Business Research 77, 41-52. [Crossref]
203. Rémi Bazillier, Sophie Hatte, Julien Vauday. 2017. Are environmentally responsible firms less vulnerable when investing
abroad? The role of reputation. Journal of Comparative Economics 45:3, 520-543. [Crossref]
204. ShimeldSonia, Sonia Shimeld, WilliamsBelinda, Belinda Williams, ShimeldJustin, Justin Shimeld. 2017. Diversity ASX
corporate governance recommendations: a step towards change?. Sustainability Accounting, Management and Policy Journal
205. Tony Garry, Tracy Harwood. 2017. Exploring Consumer Associations Between Corporate Reputation, Corporate
Sustainability, and Product Attributes Within Utilitarian Market Contexts. International Studies of Management &
Organization 47:3, 258-275. [Crossref]
206. Mohammad Jizi. 2017. The Influence of Board Composition on Sustainable Development Disclosure. Business Strategy and
the Environment 26:5, 640-655. [Crossref]
207. Lars Moratis, Satu Brandt. 2017. Corporate stakeholder responsiveness? Exploring the state and quality of GRI-based
stakeholder engagement disclosures of European firms. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management 24:4,
312-325. [Crossref]
208. Waris Ali, Jedrzej George Frynas, Zeeshan Mahmood. 2017. Determinants of Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR)
Disclosure in Developed and Developing Countries: A Literature Review. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental
209. Raquel Garde Sánchez, Manuel Pedro Rodríguez Bolívar, Antonio M. López Hernández. 2017. Corporate and managerial
characteristics as drivers of social responsibility disclosure by state-owned enterprises. Review of Managerial Science 11:3,
633-659. [Crossref]
210. Evangeline O. Elijido-Ten, Peter Clarkson. 2017. Going Beyond Climate Change Risk Management: Insights from the
World’s Largest Most Sustainable Corporations. Journal of Business Ethics 130. . [Crossref]
211. Renata Blanc, Charles H. Cho, Joanne Sopt, Manuel Castelo Branco. 2017. Disclosure Responses to a Corruption Scandal:
The Case of Siemens AG. Journal of Business Ethics 39. . [Crossref]
212. AhmadiAli, Ali Ahmadi, BouriAbdelfettah, Abdelfettah Bouri. 2017. The relationship between financial attributes,
environmental performance and environmental disclosure. Management of Environmental Quality: An International Journal
213. WelbeckEdem Emerald, Edem Emerald Welbeck. 2017. The influence of institutional environment on corporate
responsibility disclosures in Ghana. Meditari Accountancy Research 25:2, 216-240. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
214. Casimiro AlmeidaMaria Graça, Maria Graça Casimiro Almeida, CoelhoArnaldo, Arnaldo Coelho. 2017. A causal relationship
model linking corporate reputation and customer-based brand equity. Academia Revista Latinoamericana de Administración
215. Xingqiang Du, Jianying Weng, Quan Zeng, Yingying Chang, Hongmei Pei. 2017. Do Lenders Applaud Corporate
Environmental Performance? Evidence from Chinese Private-Owned Firms. Journal of Business Ethics 143:1, 179-207.
[Crossref]
216. Linda Thorne, Lois S. Mahoney, Kristen Gregory, Susan Convery. 2017. A Comparison of Canadian and U.S. CSR Strategic
Alliances, CSR Reporting, and CSR Performance: Insights into Implicit–Explicit CSR. Journal of Business Ethics 143:1, 85-98.
[Crossref]
217. Panayiotis Georgallis. 2017. The Link Between Social Movements and Corporate Social Initiatives: Toward a Multi-level
Theory. Journal of Business Ethics 142:4, 735-751. [Crossref]
218. Laura Cabeza-García, María Sacristán-Navarro, Silvia Gómez-Ansón. 2017. Family involvement and corporate social
responsibility disclosure. Journal of Family Business Strategy 8:2, 109-122. [Crossref]
219. Ezhilarasi G., K. C. Kabra. 2017. The Impact of Corporate Governance Attributes on Environmental Disclosures: Evidence
from India. Indian Journal of Corporate Governance 10:1, 24-43. [Crossref]
220. BellucciMarco, Marco Bellucci, ManettiGiacomo, Giacomo Manetti. 2017. Facebook as a tool for supporting dialogic
accounting? Evidence from large philanthropic foundations in the United States. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal
221. Al FarooqueOmar, Omar Al Farooque, AhuluHelena, Helena Ahulu. 2017. Determinants of social and economic reportings.
International Journal of Accounting & Information Management 25:2, 177-200. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
222. HossainMd Moazzem, Md Moazzem Hossain, MominMahmood Ahmed, Mahmood Ahmed Momin, RoweAnna Lee,
Anna Lee Rowe, QuaddusMohammed, Mohammed Quaddus. 2017. Corporate social and environmental reporting practices.
Sustainability Accounting, Management and Policy Journal 8:2, 138-165. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
223. Chitra Sriyani De Silva Lokuwaduge, Kumudini Heenetigala. 2017. Integrating Environmental, Social and Governance (ESG)
Disclosure for a Sustainable Development: An Australian Study. Business Strategy and the Environment 26:4, 438-450.
[Crossref]
224. Charl de Villiers, Umesh Sharma. 2017. A critical reflection on the future of financial, intellectual capital, sustainability and
integrated reporting. Critical Perspectives on Accounting . [Crossref]
225. Yufang Jin, Haina Shi, Xin Zhang. 2017. Religious social norms and CSR deficiency disclosure. Asia-Pacific Journal of
Accounting & Economics 65, 1-25. [Crossref]
226. AmranAzlan, Azlan Amran, FauziHasan, Hasan Fauzi, PurwantoYadi, Yadi Purwanto, DarusFaizah, Faizah Darus,
YusoffHaslinda, Haslinda Yusoff, ZainMustaffa Mohamed, Mustaffa Mohamed Zain, NaimDayang Milianna Abang, Dayang
Milianna Abang Naim, NejatiMehran, Mehran Nejati. 2017. Social responsibility disclosure in Islamic banks: a comparative
study of Indonesia and Malaysia. Journal of Financial Reporting and Accounting 15:1, 99-115. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
227. Ahmed HajiAbdifatah, Abdifatah Ahmed Haji, AnifowoseMutalib, Mutalib Anifowose. 2017. Initial trends in corporate
disclosures following the introduction of integrated reporting practice in South Africa. Journal of Intellectual Capital 18:2,
228. ChandokRavi Inder Singh, Ravi Inder Singh Chandok, SinghSukhdev, Sukhdev Singh. 2017. Empirical study on determinants
of environmental disclosure. Managerial Auditing Journal 32:4/5, 332-355. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
229. Nguyen Ngoc Thang, Yves Fassin. 2017. The Impact of Internal Corporate Social Responsibility on Organizational
Commitment: Evidence from Vietnamese Service Firms. Journal of Asia-Pacific Business 18:2, 100-116. [Crossref]
230. Prof. Isabel Gallego-Álvarez, Prof. Eduardo Ortas. 2017. Corporate environmental sustainability reporting in the context of
national cultures: A quantile regression approach. International Business Review 26:2, 337-353. [Crossref]
231. Emmanuelle Nègre, Marie-Anne Verdier, Charles H. Cho, Dennis M. Patten. 2017. Disclosure strategies and investor
reactions to downsizing announcements: A legitimacy perspective. Journal of Accounting and Public Policy . [Crossref]
232. Hong Yuh Ching, F?bio Gerab, Thiago Henrique Toste. 2017. The Quality of Sustainability Reports and Corporate Financial
Performance: Evidence From Brazilian Listed Companies. SAGE Open 7:2, 215824401771202. [Crossref]
233. Dina M. Abdelzaher, Amr Kotb, Akrum Helfaya. 2017. Eco-Islam: Beyond the Principles of Why and What, and Into the
Principles of How. Journal of Business Ethics 4. . [Crossref]
234. PérezAndrea, Andrea Pérez, LópezCarlos, Carlos López, García-De los SalmonesMaría del Mar, María del Mar García-De
los Salmones. 2017. An empirical exploration of the link between reporting to stakeholders and corporate social responsibility
reputation in the Spanish context. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal 30:3, 668-698. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
235. Taras Gagalyuk. 2017. Strategic role of corporate transparency: the case of Ukrainian agroholdings. International Food and
Agribusiness Management Review 20:2, 257-278. [Crossref]
236. Rivera-ArrublaYaismir Adriana, Yaismir Adriana Rivera-Arrubla, Zorio-GrimaAna, Ana Zorio-Grima, García-BenauMaría
A., María A. García-Benau. 2017. Integrated reports: disclosure level and explanatory factors. Social Responsibility Journal
237. SadouAbdelkader, Abdelkader Sadou, AlomFardous, Fardous Alom, LaluddinHayatullah, Hayatullah Laluddin. 2017.
Corporate social responsibility disclosures in Malaysia: evidence from large companies. Social Responsibility Journal 13:1,
238. Elie Menassa, Martina Brodhäcker. 2017. The type and quantity of corporate social disclosures of German ‘Universal’ banks.
Journal of Management & Governance 21:1, 119-143. [Crossref]
239. P. Klumpes, C. Ledlie, F. Fahey, G. Kakar, S. Styles. 2017. Incentives facing UK-listed companies to comply with the risk
reporting provisions of the UK Corporate Governance Code. British Actuarial Journal 22:01, 127-152. [Crossref]
240. Le Luo. 2017. The influence of institutional contexts on the relationship between voluntary carbon disclosure and carbon
emission performance. Accounting & Finance 64. . [Crossref]
241. Muhammad Azizul Islam, Shamima Haque, Robin Roberts. 2017. Human Rights Performance Disclosure by Companies
with Operations in High Risk Countries: Evidence from the Australian Minerals Sector. Australian Accounting Review 27:1,
34-51. [Crossref]
242. Kerstin Lopatta, Reemda Jaeschke, Magdalena Tchikov, Sumit Lodhia. 2017. Corruption, Corporate Social Responsibility
and Financial Constraints: International Firm-level Evidence. European Management Review 14:1, 47-65. [Crossref]
243. Merkl-DaviesDoris M., Doris M. Merkl-Davies, BrennanNiamh M., Niamh M. Brennan. 2017. A theoretical framework
of external accounting communication. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal 30:2, 433-469. [Abstract] [Full Text]
[PDF]
244. HossainMd Moazzem, Md Moazzem Hossain. 2017. Accounting for biodiversity in Australia. Pacific Accounting Review 29:1,
245. Ki-Hoon Lee. 2017. Does Size Matter? Evaluating Corporate Environmental Disclosure in the Australian Mining and Metal
Industry: A Combined Approach of Quantity and Quality Measurement. Business Strategy and the Environment 26:2, 209-223.
[Crossref]
246. Peter Seele, Lucia Gatti. 2017. Greenwashing Revisited: In Search of a Typology and Accusation-Based Definition
Incorporating Legitimacy Strategies. Business Strategy and the Environment 26:2, 239-252. [Crossref]
247. Alan Murray, Keith Skene, Kathryn Haynes. 2017. The Circular Economy: An Interdisciplinary Exploration of the Concept
and Application in a Global Context. Journal of Business Ethics 140:3, 369-380. [Crossref]
248. Mehdi Nekhili, Haithem Nagati, Tawhid Chtioui, Ali Nekhili. 2017. Gender-diverse board and the relevance of voluntary
CSR reporting. International Review of Financial Analysis . [Crossref]
249. NtimCollins G., Collins G. Ntim, SoobaroyenTeerooven, Teerooven Soobaroyen, BroadMartin J., Martin J. Broad. 2017.
Governance structures, voluntary disclosures and public accountability. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal 30:1,
250. Patrick Velte, Martin Stawinoga. 2017. Empirical research on corporate social responsibility assurance (CSRA): A literature
review. Journal of Business Economics 8. . [Crossref]
251. I. M. García-Sánchez, J. Martínez-Ferrero. 2017. Independent Directors and CSR Disclosures: The moderating effects of
proprietary costs. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management 24:1, 28-43. [Crossref]
252. María D. Odriozola, Elisa Baraibar-Diez. 2017. Is Corporate Reputation Associated with Quality of CSR Reporting? Evidence
from Spain. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management 24:2, 121. [Crossref]
253. Yuyu Zhang. Corporate Social Responsibility Assurance 1-5. [Crossref]
254. Muhammad Azizul Islam. CSR Reporting and Legitimacy Theory: Some Thoughts on Future Research Agenda 323-339.
[Crossref]
255. Tiziana De Cristofaro, Carmela Gulluscio. To What Extent Are Young Italian Scholars of Economia Aziendale Interested in
CSR? An Overview of 2012 13/B1 Associate Professorship Candidates’ Publications 91-113. [Crossref]
256. Sumona Ghosh. Reporting of CSR Activities in India: Are We Still at a Nascent Stage Even After the Legal Mandate?
133-147. [Crossref]
257. Linda O’Riordan. Welcome to Corporate Responsibility 3-28. [Crossref]
258. Linda O’Riordan. A Multifarious Mix of Concepts 29-106. [Crossref]
259. Linda O’Riordan. Case Study on Stakeholder Relationships 107-139. [Crossref]
260. Linda O’Riordan. In Search of Relevant Management Frameworks and Tools 177-217. [Crossref]
261. Linda O’Riordan. Research Findings on Conceptualising Corporate Approaches to Stakeholder Management 273-324.
[Crossref]
262. Mara Del Baldo, Ninel Nesheva-Kiosseva. Toward the Future Perspectives of Business Integrated Measurement and
Communication 91-159. [Crossref]
263. Kevin C. H. Chiang, Gregory J. Wachtel, Xiyu Zhou. 2017. Corporate Social Responsibility and Growth Opportunity: The
Case of Real Estate Investment Trusts. Journal of Business Ethics . [Crossref]
264. Inten Meutia, Devi Febrianti. 2017. Islamic Social Reporting in Islamic Banking: Stakeholders Theory Perspective. SHS Web
of Conferences 34, 12001. [Crossref]
265. Rahma Frida Ratri, Murdiyati Dewi. 2017. The Effect of Financial Performance and Environmental Performance on Firm
Value with Islamic Social Reporting (ISR) Disclosure as Intervening Variable in Companies Listed at Jakarta Islamic Index
(JII). SHS Web of Conferences 34, 12003. [Crossref]
266. Sugianto, Nurlaila Harapan. 2017. The Integration of Disclosure of Islamic Social Reporting (ISR) in Islamic Bank Financial
Statements. SHS Web of Conferences 36, 00011. [Crossref]
267. Ainsley Elbra. 139. [Crossref]
268. Kerstin Lopatta, Reemda Jaeschke, Felix Canitz, Thomas Kaspereit. 2017. International Evidence on the Relationship between
Insider and Bank Ownership and CSR Performance. Corporate Governance: An International Review 25:1, 41-57. [Crossref]
269. Giovanna Gavana, Pietro Gottardo, Anna Moisello. 2017. Sustainability Reporting in Family Firms: A Panel Data Analysis.
Sustainability 9:1, 38. [Crossref]
270. Lisa S. McBride, R. Adam McBride. A Repeatable Strategic Planning Model for Quasi-Governmental Port Entities
1245-1264. [Crossref]
271. Tom Farnhill. 2016. A small-N cross-sectional study of British unions’ environmental attitudes and activism – and the
prospect of a green-led renewal. Cogent Social Sciences 2:1. . [Crossref]
272. TahatYasean, Yasean Tahat, DunneT., T. Dunne, FifieldS., S. Fifield, PowerD., D. Power. 2016. The value relevance of
financial instruments disclosure: evidence from Jordan. Asian Review of Accounting 24:4, 445-473. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
273. Sung-Bum Kim, Dae-Young Kim. 2016. The influence of corporate social responsibility, ability, reputation, and transparency
on hotel customer loyalty in the U.S.: a gender-based approach. SpringerPlus 5:1. . [Crossref]
274. Norsyahida Mokhtar, Ruzita Jusoh, Norhayah Zulkifli. 2016. Corporate characteristics and environmental management
accounting (EMA) implementation: evidence from Malaysian public listed companies (PLCs). Journal of Cleaner Production
136, 111-122. [Crossref]
275. Roshni A. George, A.K. Siti-Nabiha, Dayana Jalaludin, Yousif A. Abdalla. 2016. Barriers to and enablers of sustainability
integration in the performance management systems of an oil and gas company. Journal of Cleaner Production 136, 197-212.
[Crossref]
276. Thomas Thijssens, Laury Bollen, Harold Hassink. 2016. Managing sustainability reporting: many ways to publish exemplary
reports. Journal of Cleaner Production 136, 86-101. [Crossref]
277. Alessia Montecchia, Filippo Giordano, Cecilia Grieco. 2016. Communicating CSR: integrated approach or Selfie? Evidence
from the Milan Stock Exchange. Journal of Cleaner Production 136, 42-52. [Crossref]
278. Colin Higgins, Brian Coffey. 2016. Improving how sustainability reports drive change: a critical discourse analysis. Journal
of Cleaner Production 136, 18-29. [Crossref]
279. Joseph Ufere Kalu, Alias Buang, Godwin Uche Aliagha. 2016. Determinants of voluntary carbon disclosure in the corporate
real estate sector of Malaysia. Journal of Environmental Management 182, 519-524. [Crossref]
280. İrge Şener, Abdülkadir Varoğlu, Ahmet Anıl Karapolatgil. 2016. Sustainability Reports Disclosures: Who are the Most Salient
Stakeholders?. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 235, 84-92. [Crossref]
281. Christopher Wickert, Andreas Georg Scherer, Laura J. Spence. 2016. Walking and Talking Corporate Social Responsibility:
Implications of Firm Size and Organizational Cost. Journal of Management Studies 53:7, 1169-1196. [Crossref]
282. HuangYi-Chun, Yi-Chun Huang, YangMin-Li, Min-Li Yang, WongYing-Jiuan, Ying-Jiuan Wong. 2016. The effect of
internal factors and family influence on firms’ adoption of green product innovation. Management Research Review 39:10,
283. DiasAntónio, António Dias, RodriguesLúcia Lima, Lúcia Lima Rodrigues, CraigRussell, Russell Craig. 2016. Global financial
crisis and corporate social responsibility disclosure. Social Responsibility Journal 12:4, 654-671. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
284. Katja Lähtinen, Yucong Guan, Ning Li, Anne Toppinen. 2016. Biodiversity and ecosystem services in supply chain
management in the global forest industry. Ecosystem Services 21, 130-140. [Crossref]
285. Inga Hardeck, Tanja Kirn. 2016. Taboo or technical issue? An empirical assessment of taxation in sustainability reports.
Journal of Cleaner Production 133, 1337-1351. [Crossref]
286. Yu He, Qingliang Tang, Kaitian Wang. 2016. Carbon performance versus financial performance. China Journal of Accounting
Studies 4:4, 357-378. [Crossref]
287. Natalia Vaz, Belen Fernandez-Feijoo, Silvia Ruiz. 2016. Integrated reporting: an international overview. Business Ethics: A
European Review 25:4, 577-591. [Crossref]
288. Shamima Haque, Craig Deegan, Robert Inglis. 2016. Demand for, and impediments to, the disclosure of information about
climate change-related corporate governance practices. Accounting and Business Research 46:6, 620-664. [Crossref]
289. Upali Arijita Biswas, Suresh Garg, Archana Singh. 2016. Examining the possibility of achieving inclusive growth in India
through corporate social responsibility. Asian Journal of Business Ethics 5:1-2, 61-80. [Crossref]
290. J.A. Fuente, I.M. García-Sánchez, M.B. Lozano. 2016. The role of the board of directors in the adoption of GRI guidelines
for the disclosure of CSR information. Journal of Cleaner Production . [Crossref]
291. Giacomo Manetti, Marco Bellucci. 2016. The use of social media for engaging stakeholders in sustainability reporting.
Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal 29:6, 985-1011. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
292. Panagiotis Dimitropoulos, Stergios Leventis, Emmanouil Dedoulis. 2016. Managing the European football industry: UEFA’s
regulatory intervention and the impact on accounting quality. European Sport Management Quarterly 16:4, 459-486. [Crossref]
293. Verónica Paula Ribeiro, Cristina Aibar-Guzmán, Beatriz Aibar-Guzman, Sónia Maria da Silva Monteiro. 2016. Determinants
of environmental accounting and reporting practices in Portuguese local entities. Corporate Communications: An International

294. Geert J.M. Braam, Lisanne Uit de Weerd, Mara Hauck, Mark A.J. Huijbregts. 2016. Determinants of corporate environmental
reporting: the importance of environmental performance and assurance. Journal of Cleaner Production 129, 724-734. [Crossref]
295. Ana Rita Sequeira, Mark P. McHenry, Angus Morrison-Saunders, Hudson Mtegha, David Doepel. 2016. Is the Extractive
Industry Transparency Initiative (EITI) sufficient to generate transparency in environmental impact and legacy risks? The
Zambian minerals sector. Journal of Cleaner Production 129, 427-436. [Crossref]
296. Frank H.M. Verbeeten, Ramin Gamerschlag, Klaus Möller. 2016. Are CSR disclosures relevant for investors? Empirical
evidence from Germany. Management Decision 54:6, 1359-1382. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
297. Thando Loliwe. 2016. Voluntary employee reporting by the wholesale and retail companies listed on the Johannesburg Stock
Exchange. South African Journal of Accounting Research 30:2, 139-171. [Crossref]
298. Mercedes Ruiz-Lozano, Pilar Tirado-Valencia. 2016. Do industrial companies respond to the guiding principles of the
Integrated Reporting framework? A preliminary study on the first companies joined to the initiative. Revista de Contabilidad
19:2, 252-260. [Crossref]
299. Jędrzej George Frynas, Camila Yamahaki. 2016. Corporate social responsibility: review and roadmap of theoretical perspectives.
Business Ethics: A European Review 25:3, 258-285. [Crossref]
300. Priyanka Verma, Anupam Singh. 2016. Fostering Stakeholders Trust through CSR Reporting: An Analytical Focus. IIM
Kozhikode Society & Management Review 5:2, 186-199. [Crossref]
301. RaoKathyayini, Kathyayini Rao, TiltCarol, Carol Tilt. 2016. Board diversity and CSR reporting: an Australian study. Meditari
Accountancy Research 24:2, 182-210. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
302. Natalia Andreassen. 2016. Arctic energy development in Russia—How “sustainability” can fit?. Energy Research & Social
Science 16, 78-88. [Crossref]
303. Collins G. Ntim. 2016. Corporate governance, corporate health accounting, and firm value: The case of HIV/AIDS disclosures
in Sub-Saharan Africa. The International Journal of Accounting 51:2, 155-216. [Crossref]
304. Cristina Gianfelici, Andrea Casadei, Federica Cembali. 2016. The Relevance of Nationality and Industry for Stakeholder
Salience: An Investigation Through Integrated Reports. Journal of Business Ethics 30. . [Crossref]
305. PrasadAcklesh, Acklesh Prasad, GreenPeter, Peter Green, HealesJon, Jon Heales. 2016. Do organisations in developing
economies legitimise their level of profit? Evidence from Fiji. Accounting Research Journal 29:1, 59-80. [Abstract] [Full Text]
[PDF]
306. Venancio Tauringana, Lyton Chithambo. 2016. Determinants of risk disclosure compliance in Malawi: a mixed-method
approach. Journal of Accounting in Emerging Economies 6:2, 111-137. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
307. FazziniMarco, Marco Fazzini, Dal MasoLorenzo, Lorenzo Dal Maso. 2016. The value relevance of “assured” environmental
disclosure. Sustainability Accounting, Management and Policy Journal 7:2, 225-245. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
308. Ahmed HajiAbdifatah, Abdifatah Ahmed Haji, AnifowoseMutalib, Mutalib Anifowose. 2016. The trend of integrated
reporting practice in South Africa: ceremonial or substantive?. Sustainability Accounting, Management and Policy Journal 7:2,
309. Belinda Luke. 2016. Measuring and Reporting on Social Performance: From Numbers and Narratives to a Useful Reporting
Framework for Social Enterprises. Social and Environmental Accountability Journal 36:2, 103-123. [Crossref]
310. Jyoti Devi Mahadeo, Teerooven Soobaroyen. 2016. A Longitudinal Study of the Implementation of the Corporate Governance
Code in a Developing Country. Business & Society 55:5, 738-777. [Crossref]
311. Wenxiang (Lucy) Lu, Martin E. Taylor. 2016. Which Factors Moderate the Relationship between Sustainability Performance
and Financial Performance? A Meta-Analysis Study. Journal of International Accounting Research 15:1, 1-15. [Crossref]
312. LeungTiffany Cheng Han, Tiffany Cheng Han Leung, GrayRob, Rob Gray. 2016. Social responsibility disclosure in the
international gambling industry: a research note. Meditari Accountancy Research 24:1, 73-90. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
313. Marina Bondi. 2016. The future in reports. Pragmatics and Society 7:1, 57-81. [Crossref]
314. AbedSuzan, Suzan Abed, Al-NajjarBasil, Basil Al-Najjar, RobertsClare, Clare Roberts. 2016. Measuring annual report
narratives disclosure. Managerial Auditing Journal 31:4/5, 338-361. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
315. Nagore Aranguren Gómez. 2016. Divulgación de información social y medioambiental: un análisis de los patrones de
comportamiento de empresas europeas cotizadas desde la teoría neo-institucional. Spanish Journal of Finance and Accounting /
Revista Española de Financiación y Contabilidad 45:2, 199-230. [Crossref]
316. Constancio Zamora-Ramírez, Jose María González-González, Ana María Sabater-Marcos. 2016. Carbon Reporting : análisis
de la respuesta del mercado español. Spanish Journal of Finance and Accounting / Revista Española de Financiación y Contabilidad
45:2, 231-265. [Crossref]
317. Grainne Oates, Amir Moradi-Motlagh. 2016. Is voluntary disclosure of environmental performance associated with actual
environmental performance? Evidence from Victorian local governments, Australia. Australasian Journal of Environmental
318. Teerooven Soobaroyen, Jyoti Devi Mahadeo. 2016. Community disclosures in a developing country: insights from a neo-
pluralist perspective. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal 29:3, 452-482. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
319. Vincent Dutot, Eva Lacalle Galvez, David W. Versailles. 2016. CSR communications strategies through social media and
influence on e-reputation. Management Decision 54:2, 363-389. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
320. Olivia Ann Giles, Daniel Murphy. 2016. SLAPPed: the relationship between SLAPP suits and changed ESG reporting by
firms. Sustainability Accounting, Management and Policy Journal 7:1, 44-79. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
321. Giovanna Michelon, Silvia Pilonato, Federica Ricceri, Robin W Roberts. 2016. Behind camouflaging: traditional and
innovative theoretical perspectives in social and environmental accounting research. Sustainability Accounting, Management
and Policy Journal 7:1, 2-25. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
322. Ratna Nurhayati, Grantley Taylor, Rusmin Rusmin, Greg Tower, Bikram Chatterjee. 2016. Factors determining social and
environmental reporting by Indian textile and apparel firms: a test of legitimacy theory. Social Responsibility Journal 12:1,
323. Philip Cheng-Fei Tsai, C. Rosa Yeh, Shu-Ling Wu. 2016. The conditioning effect of institutional legitimacy on stakeholder
influence strategy: evidence from labour unions' reaction to corporate downsizing in Taiwan. Total Quality Management &
Business Excellence 27:3-4, 279-291. [Crossref]
324. Amelia Setiawan. 2016. Integrated Reporting: Are Indonesian Companies Ready to Do It?. Asian Journal of Accounting Research
1:2, 62-70. [Abstract] [PDF]
325. Mara Ridhuan Che Abdul Rahman. 2016. Practical Challenge of Content Analysis: An Illustrative Example from Recoding
IC Information in the UK's Companies Annual Reports. Asian Journal of Accounting Research 1:2, 71-82. [Abstract] [PDF]
326. Eugenio D'Amico, Daniela Coluccia, Stefano Fontana, Silvia Solimene. 2016. Factors Influencing Corporate Environmental
Disclosure. Business Strategy and the Environment 25:3, 178-192. [Crossref]
327. Carmelo Reverte. 2016. Corporate social responsibility disclosure and market valuation: evidence from Spanish listed firms.
Review of Managerial Science 10:2, 411-435. [Crossref]
328. Yan Qiu, Amama Shaukat, Rajesh Tharyan. 2016. Environmental and social disclosures: Link with corporate financial
performance. The British Accounting Review 48:1, 102-116. [Crossref]
329. Angus Duff. 2016. Corporate social responsibility reporting in professional accounting firms. The British Accounting Review
48:1, 74-86. [Crossref]
330. Haitham Nobanee, Nejla Ellili. 2016. Corporate sustainability disclosure in annual reports: Evidence from UAE banks: Islamic
versus conventional. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 55, 1336-1341. [Crossref]
331. Sharron O’Neill, Jack Flanagan, Kevin Clarke. 2016. Safewash! Risk attenuation and the (Mis)reporting of corporate safety
performance to investors. Safety Science 83, 114-130. [Crossref]
332. Md Moazzem Hossain, Mohammed Alamgir, Manzurul Alam. 2016. The Mediating Role of Corporate Governance and
Corporate Image on the CSR-FP Link. Journal of General Management 41:3, 33-51. [Crossref]
333. Ганбаатар, Tseren Ganbaatar. 2016. Corporate Social Responsibility Practices in Terms of Environmental Activities in
Mongolia. Management of the Personnel and Intellectual Resources in Russia 5:1, 19-27. [Crossref]
334. SundarasenSheela Devi D., Sheela Devi D. Sundarasen, Je-YenTan, Tan Je-Yen, RajangamNakiran, Nakiran Rajangam. 2016.
Board composition and corporate social responsibility in an emerging market. Corporate Governance: The international journal
of business in society 16:1, 35-53. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
335. Meropy Barut, Jean Raar, Mohammad I Azim. 2016. Biodiversity and local government: a reporting and accountability
perspective. Managerial Auditing Journal 31:2, 197-227. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
336. Somaiya Yunus, Evangeline Elijido-Ten, Subhash Abhayawansa. 2016. Determinants of carbon management strategy
adoption. Managerial Auditing Journal 31:2, 156-179. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
337. Vassiliki Grougiou, Emmanouil Dedoulis, Stergios Leventis. 2016. Corporate Social Responsibility Reporting and
Organizational Stigma: The Case of “Sin” Industries. Journal of Business Research 69:2, 905-914. [Crossref]
338. James Guthrie, Lee D. Parker. 2016. Whither the accounting profession, accountants and accounting researchers? Commentary
and projections. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal 29:1, 2-10. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
339. Jose Maria Gonzalez-Gonzalez, Constancio Zamora Ramírez. 2016. Voluntary carbon disclosure by Spanish companies: an
empirical analysis. International Journal of Climate Change Strategies and Management 8:1, 57-79. [Abstract] [Full Text]
[PDF]
340. Erik G. Hansen, Stefan Schaltegger. 2016. The Sustainability Balanced Scorecard: A Systematic Review of Architectures.
Journal of Business Ethics 133:2, 193-221. [Crossref]
341. Patrycja Hąbek, Radosław Wolniak. 2016. Assessing the quality of corporate social responsibility reports: the case of reporting
practices in selected European Union member states. Quality & Quantity 50:1, 399-420. [Crossref]
342. Elinda Esa, Abdul Rahman Zahari. 2016. Corporate Social Responsibility: Ownership Structures, Board Characteristics &
the Mediating Role of Board Compensation. Procedia Economics and Finance 35, 35-43. [Crossref]
343. Carmelo Reverte, Eduardo Gómez-Melero, Juan Gabriel Cegarra-Navarro. 2016. The influence of corporate social
responsibility practices on organizational performance: evidence from Eco-Responsible Spanish firms. Journal of Cleaner
Production 112, 2870-2884. [Crossref]
344. Cory Searcy, Shane M. Dixon, W. Patrick Neumann. 2016. The use of work environment performance indicators in corporate
social responsibility reporting. Journal of Cleaner Production 112, 2907-2921. [Crossref]
345. Thomas Kaspereit, Kerstin Lopatta. 2016. The value relevance of SAM's corporate sustainability ranking and GRI
sustainability reporting in the European stock markets. Business Ethics: A European Review 25:1, 1-24. [Crossref]
346. Ionel Jianu, Carmen Ţurlea, Ionela Guşatu. 2016. The Reporting and Sustainable Business Marketing. Sustainability 8:1,
23. [Crossref]
347. Francesco Gangi, Eugenio D’Angelo. 2016. The Virtuous Circle of Corporate Social Performance and Corporate Social
Disclosure. Modern Economy 07:12, 1396-1418. [Crossref]
348. Caserio Carlo, Napoli Francesco. 2016. Corporate social responsibility and family business: An overview. African Journal of
Business Management 10:24, 594. [Crossref]
349. Ameeta Jain, Muhammad Azizul Islam. A Preliminary Analysis of the Impact of UN MDGs and RIO + 20 on Corporate
Social Accountability Practices 81-102. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] [PDF]
350. Sana-ur-Rehman Sheikh, Rian Beise-Zee. 2015. Perception of corporate social responsibility among devout and nondevout
customers in an Islamic society. Asian Journal of Business Ethics 4:2, 131-146. [Crossref]
351. Venancio Tauringana, Lyton Chithambo. 2015. The effect of DEFRA guidance on greenhouse gas disclosure. The British
Accounting Review 47:4, 425-444. [Crossref]
352. Lies Bouten, Patricia Everaert. 2015. Social and environmental reporting in Belgium: ‘Pour vivre heureux, vivons cachés’.
Critical Perspectives on Accounting 33, 24-43. [Crossref]
353. Giovanna Michelon, Silvia Pilonato, Federica Ricceri. 2015. CSR reporting practices and the quality of disclosure: An empirical
analysis. Critical Perspectives on Accounting 33, 59-78. [Crossref]
354. Eduardo Ortas, Igor Álvarez, Jacques Jaussaud, Ainhoa Garayar. 2015. The impact of institutional and social context
on corporate environmental, social and governance performance of companies committed to voluntary corporate social
responsibility initiatives. Journal of Cleaner Production 108, 673-684. [Crossref]
355. Moazzem Hossain, Angela Hecimovic, Aklema Choudhury Lema. 2015. Corporate Social and Environmental Responsibility
Reporting Practices from an Emerging Mobile Telecommunications Market. Australian Accounting Review 25:4, 389-404.
[Crossref]
356. Manuel Larrán Jorge, Jesús Herrera Madueño, Francisco Javier Andrades Peña. 2015. Factors influencing the presence of
sustainability initiatives in the strategic planning of Spanish universities. Environmental Education Research 21:8, 1155-1187.
[Crossref]
357. Michel Coulmont, Stacey Loomis, Sylvie Berthelot, Francesco Gangi. Determinants and Impacts of Sustainability Disclosure
25-79. [Citation] [Full Text] [PDF] [PDF]
358. Fitra Roman Cahaya, Stacey Porter, Greg Tower, Alistair Brown. 2015. The Indonesian Government’s coercive pressure on
labour disclosures. Sustainability Accounting, Management and Policy Journal 6:4, 475-497. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
359. Carlos Noronha, Tiffany Cheng Han Leung, On Ieng Lei. 2015. Corporate social responsibility disclosure in Chinese railway
companies. Sustainability Accounting, Management and Policy Journal 6:4, 446-474. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
360. Eduardo Ortas, Isabel Gallego-Alvarez, Igor Álvarez Etxeberria. 2015. Financial Factors Influencing the Quality of Corporate
Social Responsibility and Environmental Management Disclosure: A Quantile Regression Approach. Corporate Social
Responsibility and Environmental Management 22:6, 362-380. [Crossref]
361. Robin W. Roberts, Dana M. Wallace. 2015. Sustaining diversity in social and environmental accounting research. Critical
Perspectives on Accounting 32, 78-87. [Crossref]
362. Issam Laguir, Raffaele Staglianò, Jamal Elbaz. 2015. Does corporate social responsibility affect corporate tax aggressiveness?.
Journal of Cleaner Production 107, 662-675. [Crossref]
363. Jeffrey S. Harrison, Joyce van der Laan Smith. 2015. Responsible Accounting for Stakeholders. Journal of Management Studies
52:7, 935-960. [Crossref]
364. Matthew Hall, Yuval Millo, Emily Barman. 2015. Who and What Really Counts? Stakeholder Prioritization and Accounting
for Social Value. Journal of Management Studies 52:7, 907-934. [Crossref]
365. William LaGore, Lois Mahoney, Linda Thorne. Standalone Corporate Social Responsibility Reports and Stock Market
Returns 1-26. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] [PDF]
366. Nihel Chabrak. 2015. Promoting corporate social responsibility and sustainability: a model of integrity. Society and Business
Review 10:3, 280-305. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
367. Md. Hafij Ullah, Mohammad Afjalur Rahman. 2015. Corporate social responsibility reporting practices in banking companies
in Bangladesh. Journal of Financial Reporting and Accounting 13:2, 200-225. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
368. Warren Maroun. 2015. Culture, profitability, non-financial reporting and a meta-analysis. Meditari Accountancy Research 23:3,
369. Abdirahman Anas, Hafiz Majdi Abdul Rashid, Hairul Azlan Annuar. 2015. The effect of award on CSR disclosures in annual
reports of Malaysian PLCs. Social Responsibility Journal 11:4, 831-852. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
370. A.H. Fatima, Norhayati Abdullah, Maliah Sulaiman. 2015. Environmental disclosure quality: examining the impact of the
stock exchange of Malaysia’s listing requirements. Social Responsibility Journal 11:4, 904-922. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
371. Bongsuk Sung, KiKwan Yoon. 2015. Causes and Effects of Industrial Use of GMOs in the Chemicals Industry of Korea. The
Journal of International Trade & Commerce 11:5, 559-582. [Crossref]
372. Andrea Liesen, Andreas G. Hoepner, Dennis M. Patten, Frank Figge. 2015. Does stakeholder pressure influence corporate
GHG emissions reporting? Empirical evidence from Europe. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal 28:7, 1047-1074.
373. Petros Vourvachis, Thérèse Woodward. 2015. Content analysis in social and environmental reporting research: trends and
challenges. Journal of Applied Accounting Research 16:2, 166-195. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
374. Michael Dobler, Kaouthar Lajili, Daniel Zéghal. 2015. Corporate environmental sustainability disclosures and environmental
risk. Journal of Accounting & Organizational Change 11:3, 301-332. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
375. Neelam Setia, Subhash Abhayawansa, Mahesh Joshi, Anh Vu Huynh. 2015. Integrated reporting in South Africa: some initial
evidence. Sustainability Accounting, Management and Policy Journal 6:3, 397-424. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
376. Even Fallan. 2015. Corporate Social Responsibility and Tax Aggressiveness: A Test of Legitimacy Theory. Social and
Environmental Accountability Journal 35:3, 198-200. [Crossref]
377. Daniel Kipkirong Tarus. 2015. Corporate Social Responsibility Engagement in Kenya: Bottom Line or Rhetoric?. Journal
of African Business 16:3, 289-304. [Crossref]
378. Denis Cormier, Michel Magnan. 2015. The Economic Relevance of Environmental Disclosure and its Impact on Corporate
Legitimacy: An Empirical Investigation. Business Strategy and the Environment 24:6, 431-450. [Crossref]
379. Suliani Rover, Fernando Dal-Ri Murcia, Flávia Cruz de Souza Murcia. 2015. The Determinants of Social and Environmental
Disclosure Practices: The Brazilian Case. Environmental Quality Management 25:1, 5-24. [Crossref]
380. Jean-Noël Chauvey, Sophie Giordano-Spring, Charles H. Cho, Dennis M. Patten. 2015. The Normativity and Legitimacy
of CSR Disclosure: Evidence from France. Journal of Business Ethics 130:4, 789-803. [Crossref]
381. Chin Moi Loh, Craig Deegan, Robert Inglis. 2015. The changing trends of corporate social and environmental disclosure
within the Australian gambling industry. Accounting & Finance 55:3, 783-823. [Crossref]
382. Enrique Bonsón, Michaela Bednárová. 2015. YouTube Sustainability Reporting: Empirical Evidence from Eurozone-Listed
Companies. Journal of Information Systems 29:3, 35-50. [Crossref]
383. Stefano Fontana, Eugenio D'Amico, Daniela Coluccia, Silvia Solimene. 2015. Does environmental performance affect
companies’ environmental disclosure?. Measuring Business Excellence 19:3, 42-57. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
384. Md Moazzem Hossain, Manzurul Alam, Muhammad Azizul Islam, Angela Hecimovic. 2015. Do stakeholders or social
obligations drive corporate social and environmental responsibility reporting? Managerial views from a developing country.
Qualitative Research in Accounting & Management 12:3, 287-314. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
385. Tay Chia Ling, Nigar Sultana. 2015. Corporate social responsibility: what motivates management to disclose?. Social
386. Shamima Haque, Muhammad Azizul Islam. 2015. Stakeholder pressures on corporate climate change-related accountability
and disclosures: Australian evidence. Business and Politics 17:02, 355-390. [Crossref]
387. Ahmad Ibrahim Karajeh, Mohd. Yussoff B. Ibrahim, Nor Asma Bt Lode. Impact of voluntary disclosure on earnings
management in Malaysian companies: A proposed analysis 437-441. [Crossref]
388. Zakaria Ali Aribi, Thankom Arun. 2015. Corporate Social Responsibility and Islamic Financial Institutions (IFIs):
Management Perceptions from IFIs in Bahrain. Journal of Business Ethics 129:4, 785-794. [Crossref]
389. Giovanna Campopiano, Alfredo De Massis. 2015. Corporate Social Responsibility Reporting: A Content Analysis in Family
and Non-family Firms. Journal of Business Ethics 129:3, 511-534. [Crossref]
390. Enrique Bonsón, Michaela Bednárová. 2015. CSR reporting practices of Eurozone companies. Revista de Contabilidad 18:2,
182-193. [Crossref]
391. Aminu Hassan, Reza Kouhy. 2015. From environmentalism to corporate environmental accountability in the Nigerian
petroleum industry. International Journal of Energy Sector Management 9:2, 204-226. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
392. Maja Izabela Piecyk, Maria Björklund. 2015. Logistics service providers and corporate social responsibility: sustainability
reporting in the logistics industry. International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management 45:5, 459-485.
393. Afzalur Rashid. 2015. The influence of stakeholder power on corporate social responsibility: evidence from a relationship-
based economy. Social Responsibility Journal 11:2, 270-289. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
394. Tzu-Kuan Chiu, Yi-Hsin Wang. 2015. Determinants of Social Disclosure Quality in Taiwan: An Application of Stakeholder
Theory. Journal of Business Ethics 129:2, 379-398. [Crossref]
395. Xingqiang Du. 2015. Is Corporate Philanthropy Used as Environmental Misconduct Dressing? Evidence from Chinese Family-
Owned Firms. Journal of Business Ethics 129:2, 341-361. [Crossref]
396. Colin Higgins, Markus J. Milne, Bernadine van Gramberg. 2015. The Uptake of Sustainability Reporting in Australia. Journal
397. Karen Bradshaw Schulz. 2015. Information Flooding. Indiana Law Review 48:3, 755. [Crossref]
398. Lopin Kuo, Hui-Cheng Yu, Bao-Guang Chang. 2015. The signals of green governance on mitigation of climate change –
evidence from Chinese firms. International Journal of Climate Change Strategies and Management 7:2, 154-171. [Abstract]
[Full Text] [PDF]
399. Dorothea Greiling, Albert Anton Traxler, Sandra Stötzer. 2015. Sustainability reporting in the Austrian, German and Swiss
public sector. International Journal of Public Sector Management 28:4/5, 404-428. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
400. Belinda Rachael Williams, Simone Bingham, Sonia Shimeld. 2015. Corporate governance, the GFC and independent directors.
Managerial Auditing Journal 30:4/5, 324-346. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
401. Xingqiang Du. 2015. How the Market Values Greenwashing? Evidence from China. Journal of Business Ethics 128:3, 547-574.
[Crossref]
402. Helen Hong Yang, Russell Craig, Alan Farley. 2015. A review of Chinese and English language studies on corporate
environmental reporting in China. Critical Perspectives on Accounting 28, 30-48. [Crossref]
403. Neveen Abdelrehim, Josephine Maltby, Steven Toms. 2015. Narrative reporting and crises: British Petroleum and Shell,
1950?1958. Accounting History 20:2, 138-157. [Crossref]
404. Giulio Greco, Nick Sciulli, Giuseppe D’Onza. 2015. The Influence of Stakeholder Engagement on Sustainability Reporting:
Evidence from Italian local councils. Public Management Review 17:4, 465-488. [Crossref]
405. Joannie Tremblay-Boire, Aseem Prakash. 2015. Accountability.org: Online Disclosures by U.S. Nonprofits. VOLUNTAS:
International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations 26:2, 693-719. [Crossref]
406. Ralf Barkemeyer, Lindsay C. Stringer, James A. Hollins, Ferdinand Josephi. 2015. Corporate reporting on solutions to wicked
problems: Sustainable land management in the mining sector. Environmental Science & Policy 48, 196-209. [Crossref]
407. Ralf Barkemeyer, Lutz Preuss, Lindsay Lee. 2015. On the effectiveness of private transnational governance regimes—
Evaluating corporate sustainability reporting according to the Global Reporting Initiative. Journal of World Business 50:2,
312-325. [Crossref]
408. Diego Ravenda, Josep M. Argilés-Bosch, Maika M. Valencia-Silva. 2015. Detection Model of Legally Registered Mafia Firms
in Italy. European Management Review 12:1, 23-39. [Crossref]
409. Rozenn Perrigot, Bruno Oxibar, Frédérique Déjean. 2015. Corporate Social Disclosure in the Franchising Sector: Insights
from French Franchisors’ Websites. Journal of Small Business Management 53:2, 321-339. [Crossref]
410. Breeda Comyns, Frank Figge. 2015. Greenhouse gas reporting quality in the oil and gas industry. Accounting, Auditing &
411. Vítor Hugo Vilar, João Simão. 2015. CSR disclosure on the web: major themes in the banking sector. International Journal
of Social Economics 42:3, 296-318. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
412. George Ted Khiong Thien. 2015. CSR for Clients’ Social/Environmental Impacts?. Corporate Social Responsibility and
413. Irina Lock, Peter Seele. 2015. Analyzing Sector-Specific CSR Reporting: Social and Environmental Disclosure to Investors
in the Chemicals and Banking and Insurance Industry. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management 22:2,
113-128. [Crossref]
414. Roman Lanis, Grant Richardson. 2015. Is Corporate Social Responsibility Performance Associated with Tax Avoidance?.
415. R?diger Hahn, Daniel Reimsbach, Frank Schiemann. 2015. Organizations, Climate Change, and Transparency. Organization
& Environment 28:1, 80-102. [Crossref]
416. Sharron O'Neill, Geoff McDonald, Craig Michael Deegan. 2015. Lost in translation. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability
417. Oana Mihaela Apostol. 2015. A project for Romania? The role of the civil society’s counter-accounts in facilitating democratic
change in society. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal 28:2, 210-241. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
418. Max Baker, Stefan Schaltegger. 2015. Pragmatism and new directions in social and environmental accountability research.
419. Hichem Khlif, Achraf Guidara, Mohsen Souissi. 2015. Corporate social and environmental disclosure and corporate
performance. Journal of Accounting in Emerging Economies 5:1, 51-69. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
420. Yingjun Lu, Indra Abeysekera, Corinne Cortese. 2015. Corporate social responsibility reporting quality, board characteristics
and corporate social reputation. Pacific Accounting Review 27:1, 95-118. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
421. Giovanni Maria Garegnani, Emilia Piera Merlotti, Angeloantonio Russo. 2015. Scoring Firms’ Codes of Ethics: An
Explorative Study of Quality Drivers. Journal of Business Ethics 126:4, 541-557. [Crossref]
422. Xiaobei “Beryl” Huang, Luke Watson. 2015. Corporate social responsibility research in accounting. Journal of Accounting
Literature 34, 1-16. [Crossref]
423. Karen Benson, Peter M Clarkson, Tom Smith, Irene Tutticci. 2015. A review of accounting research in the Asia Pacific
region. Australian Journal of Management 40:1, 36-88. [Crossref]
424. Ryan J. Casey, Jonathan H. Grenier. 2015. Understanding and Contributing to the Enigma of Corporate Social Responsibility
(CSR) Assurance in the United States. AUDITING: A Journal of Practice & Theory 34:1, 97-130. [Crossref]
425. Ans Kolk, Paolo Perego. Social and Environmental Accounting 1-6. [Crossref]
426. Sonja Gallhofer, Jim Haslam. Social Accounting, Historical Perspective 1-6. [Crossref]
427. Charles H. Cho, Giovanna Michelon, Dennis M. Patten, Robin W. Roberts. 2015. CSR disclosure: the more things change…?.
428. Dale Tweedie, Nonna Martinov-Bennie. 2015. Entitlements and Time: Integrated Reporting's Double-edged Agenda. Social
and Environmental Accountability Journal 35:1, 49-61. [Crossref]
429. Su-Yol Lee, Yun-Seon Park, Robert D. Klassen. 2015. Market Responses to Firms' Voluntary Climate Change Information
Disclosure and Carbon Communication. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management 22:1, 1-12. [Crossref]
430. Kristiina Joensuu, Marileena Koskela, Tiina Onkila. 2015. Social Proximity and Environmental NGO Relationships in
Corporate Sustainability Reports. Sustainable Development 23:1, 26-40. [Crossref]
431. Mara Del Baldo. Is It Time for Integrated Reporting in Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises? Reflections on an Italian
Experience 183-209. [Crossref]
432. Helena Alves, Natália Canadas, Ana Maria Rodrigues. 2015. Determinants of Share Price and Share Liquidity: An Analysis
Using a SEM Model. Procedia Economics and Finance 25, 318-331. [Crossref]
433. Charles H. Cho, Matias Laine, Robin W. Roberts, Michelle Rodrigue. 2015. Organized hypocrisy, organizational façades,
and sustainability reporting. Accounting, Organizations and Society 40, 78-94. [Crossref]
434. Igor Alvarez Etxeberria, Ainhoa Garayar, José Antonio Calvo Sánchez. 2015. Development of sustainability reports for farming
operations in the Basque Country using the Delphi method. Revista de Contabilidad 18:1, 44-54. [Crossref]
435. H.S. Alves, N. Canadas, A.M. Rodrigues. 2015. Voluntary disclosure, information asymmetry and the perception of
governance quality: An analysis using a structural equation model. Tékhne 13:1, 66-79. [Crossref]
436. Carlos Noronha. Corporate Social Disclosure in China and Japan: An Introduction 1-15. [Crossref]
437. Cynthia M. I. Si Tou, Carlos Noronha. The Trend of Corporate Social Disclosure in Mainland Chinese Listed Companies:
A Longitudinal Observation 19-58. [Crossref]
438. Carlos Noronha, Stefanie X. Wang. Corporate Social Disclosure and Performance Gap: Greenwashing Foxconn’s Shenzhen
Factories 59-86. [Crossref]
439. Carlos Noronha, Katy W. P. Kong. Corporate Social Disclosure: The Case of China’s Milk Product Industry 87-123.
[Crossref]
440. Tiffany C. H. Leung. An Initial Exploration of Corporate Social Disclosure and Responsible a Gambling Disclosure in
Macau’s Gambling Industry 153-197. [Crossref]
441. Soyoung Yoo, Ingoo Han. The Role of Environmental Information Disclosure Systems and Their Impact on Firm
Performance 4884-4893. [Crossref]
442. Aysu Göçer, Tuğba Örten Tuğrul. How Brands Communicate Sustainability Messages in Emerging Markets 47-62. [Crossref]
443. Gary F. Peters, Andrea M. Romi. 2014. Does the Voluntary Adoption of Corporate Governance Mechanisms Improve
Environmental Risk Disclosures? Evidence from Greenhouse Gas Emission Accounting. Journal of Business Ethics 125:4,
637-666. [Crossref]
444. Mohammad Issam Jizi, Aly Salama, Robert Dixon, Rebecca Stratling. 2014. Corporate Governance and Corporate Social
Responsibility Disclosure: Evidence from the US Banking Sector. Journal of Business Ethics 125:4, 601-615. [Crossref]
445. Jennifer C. Chen, Charles H. Cho, Dennis M. Patten. 2014. Initiating Disclosure of Environmental Liability Information:
An Empirical Analysis of Firm Choice. Journal of Business Ethics 125:4, 681-692. [Crossref]
446. Ralf Barkemeyer, Breeda Comyns, Frank Figge, Giulio Napolitano. 2014. CEO statements in sustainability reports:
Substantive information or background noise?. Accounting Forum 38:4, 241-257. [Crossref]
447. Thereza Raquel Sales de Aguiar, Jan Bebbington. 2014. Disclosure on climate change: Analysing the UK ETS effects.
Accounting Forum 38:4, 227-240. [Crossref]
448. Joyce van der Laan Smith, Andrea L. Gouldman, Rasoul H. Tondkar. 2014. Does the adoption of IFRS affect corporate
social disclosure in annual reports?. Advances in Accounting 30:2, 402-412. [Crossref]
449. Hing Kai Chan, Xiaojun Wang, Anna Raffoni. 2014. An integrated approach for green design: Life-cycle, fuzzy AHP and
environmental management accounting. The British Accounting Review 46:4, 344-360. [Crossref]
450. Le Luo, Qingliang Tang. 2014. Does voluntary carbon disclosure reflect underlying carbon performance?. Journal of
Contemporary Accounting & Economics 10:3, 191-205. [Crossref]
451. Luca Gherardi, James Guthrie, Federica Farneti. 2014. Stand-alone Sustainability Reporting and the Use of GRI in Italian
Vodafone: A Longitudinal Analysis. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 164, 11-25. [Crossref]
452. Jason C. Chen, Jennifer C. Chen, Dennis M. Patten. 2014. Manipulative Environmental Disclosure: Further Analysis of
Corporate Projections of Environmental Capital Spending. Accounting and the Public Interest 14:1, 87-109. [Crossref]
453. Laurie Mook. An Integrated Social Accounting Model for Nonprofit Organizations 197-221. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
[PDF]
454. Ericka Costa. Voluntary Disclosure in a Regulated Context: The Case of Italian Social Enterprises 223-249. [Abstract] [Full
Text] [PDF] [PDF]
455. Anne R. Canny. 2014. The SE-Asian Tsunami Appeal: disclosure of contributions by corporate Australia. Pacific Accounting
456. Lyton Chithambo, Venancio Tauringana. 2014. Company specific determinants of greenhouse gases disclosures. Journal of
Applied Accounting Research 15:3, 323-338. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
457. Enrique Bonsón, Francisco Flores-Muñoz. 2014. A microsimulation approach to corporate disclosure policies. Online
Information Review 38:7, 861-880. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
458. MuiChing Carina Chan, John Watson, David Woodliff. 2014. Corporate Governance Quality and CSR Disclosures. Journal
459. Linda O’Riordan, Jenny Fairbrass. 2014. Managing CSR Stakeholder Engagement: A New Conceptual Framework. Journal
460. Maria-Teresa Speziale, Lina Klovienė. 2014. The Relationship between Performance Measurement and Sustainability
Reporting: A Literature Review. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 156, 633-638. [Crossref]
461. Annika Schneider, Grant Samkin, Howard Davey. 2014. Biodiversity reporting by New Zealand local authorities: the current
state of play. Sustainability Accounting, Management and Policy Journal 5:4, 425-456. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
462. Angelo Ditillo, Irene Eleonora Lisi. Towards a More Comprehensive Framework for Sustainability Control Systems Research
23-47. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] [PDF]
463. Martin Stuebs, Jr., Li Sun. Corporate Governance and Environmental Activity 81-113. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] [PDF]
464. Joan DiSalvio, Nina T. Dorata. SEC Guidance on Climate Change Risk Disclosures: An Assessment of Firm and Market
Responses 115-130. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] [PDF]
465. Esther Pittroff. 2014. Whistle-Blowing Systems and Legitimacy Theory: A Study of the Motivation to Implement Whistle-
Blowing Systems in German Organizations. Journal of Business Ethics 124:3, 399-412. [Crossref]
466. Xingqiang Du, Wei Jian, Quan Zeng, Yingjie Du. 2014. Corporate Environmental Responsibility in Polluting Industries:
Does Religion Matter?. Journal of Business Ethics 124:3, 485-507. [Crossref]
467. Marileena Koskela. 2014. Occupational health and safety in corporate social responsibility reports. Safety Science 68, 294-308.
[Crossref]
468. Patricia Martínez, Ignacio Rodríguez del Bosque. 2014. Sustainability Dimensions: A Source to Enhance Corporate
Reputation. Corporate Reputation Review 17:4, 239-253. [Crossref]
469. Edeltraud M. Guenther, Holger Hoppe. 2014. Merging Limited Perspectives. Journal of Industrial Ecology 18:5, 689-707.
[Crossref]
470. Asit Bhattacharyya. 2014. Managerial attitude and support for social responsibility through the lens of legitimacy theory –
a cross country comparison. Social Responsibility Journal 10:4, 716-736. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
471. Kimberly Kopka, Lois S. Mahoney, Susan P. Convery, William LaGore. An Examination of Alliances and Corporate Social
Responsibility 109-130. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] [PDF]

472. Rodrigo de Souza Gonçalves, Otávio Ribeiro de Medeiros, Elionor Farah Jreige Weffort, Jorge Katsumi Niyama. A Social
Disclosure Index for Assessing Social Programs in Brazilian Listed Firms 75-103. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] [PDF]
473. Tiina Onkila, Kristiina Joensuu, Marileena Koskela. 2014. Implications of Managerial Framing of Stakeholders in
Environmental Reports. Social and Environmental Accountability Journal 34:3, 134-156. [Crossref]
474. Rüdiger Hahn, Regina Lülfs. 2014. Legitimizing Negative Aspects in GRI-Oriented Sustainability Reporting: A Qualitative
Analysis of Corporate Disclosure Strategies. Journal of Business Ethics 123:3, 401-420. [Crossref]
475. Mehmoona Sharif, Kashif Rashid. 2014. Corporate governance and corporate social responsibility (CSR) reporting: an
empirical evidence from commercial banks (CB) of Pakistan. Quality & Quantity 48:5, 2501-2521. [Crossref]
476. Vassiliki Grougiou, Stergios Leventis, Emmanouil Dedoulis, Stephen Owusu-Ansah. 2014. Corporate social responsibility
and earnings management in U.S. banks. Accounting Forum 38:3, 155-169. [Crossref]
477. Colin Higgins, Wendy Stubbs, Tyron Love. 2014. Walking the talk(s): Organisational narratives of integrated reporting.
478. Mohamed A. Omran, Ahmed M. El-Galfy. 2014. Theoretical perspectives on corporate disclosure: a critical evaluation and
literature survey. Asian Review of Accounting 22:3, 257-286. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
479. Mattias Haraldsson, Torbjörn Tagesson. 2014. Compromise and avoidance: the response to new legislation. Journal of
Accounting & Organizational Change 10:3, 288-313. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
480. Laura J. Spence, Leonardo Rinaldi. 2014. Governmentality in accounting and accountability: A case study of embedding
sustainability in a supply chain. Accounting, Organizations and Society 39:6, 433-452. [Crossref]
481. Massimo Contrafatto. 2014. The institutionalization of social and environmental reporting: An Italian narrative. Accounting,
Organizations and Society 39:6, 414-432. [Crossref]
482. Noorbijan Abu Bakar, Roshayani Arshad, Normah Omar, Wan Ainul Asyiqin Wan Mohd Razali. 2014. Governance and
Financial Reporting Practices: Assessment of FATF and APG Guidelines on Malaysian Companies Limited by Guarantee.
Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 145, 254-265. [Crossref]
483. Zi-hang Xia, Yue-yu Wang, Zhi-wei Zhao. Risk of shareholder litigation, product market competition and the quality of
corporate social responsibility disclosure 523-534. [Crossref]
484. Deviraj Gill and, Anne Broderick. Brand Heritage and CSR Credentials: A Discourse Analysis of M&S Reports 179-199.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] [PDF]
485. Isabel-Maria Garcia-Sanchez, Beatriz Cuadrado-Ballesteros, Cindy Sepulveda. 2014. Does media pressure moderate CSR
disclosures by external directors?. Management Decision 52:6, 1014-1045. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
486. Mohamed M. Shamil, Junaid M. Shaikh, Poh-Ling Ho, Anbalagan Krishnan. 2014. The influence of board characteristics
on sustainability reporting. Asian Review of Accounting 22:2, 78-97. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
487. Subhash Abhayawansa, Mohammad Azim. 2014. Corporate reporting of intellectual capital: evidence from the Bangladeshi
pharmaceutical sector. Asian Review of Accounting 22:2, 98-127. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
488. Nik Nazli Nik Ahmad, Noor Afzalina Mohamad. 2014. Environmental Disclosures by the Malaysian Construction Sector:
Exploring Extent and Quality. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management 21:4, 240-252. [Crossref]
489. Manveer Mann, Sang-Eun Byun, Hyejeong Kim, Kelli Hoggle. 2014. Assessment of Leading Apparel Specialty Retailers’ CSR
Practices as Communicated on Corporate Websites: Problems and Opportunities. Journal of Business Ethics 122:4, 599-622.
[Crossref]
490. Dennis M. Patten, Na Zhao. 2014. Standalone CSR reporting by U.S. retail companies. Accounting Forum 38:2, 132-144.
[Crossref]
491. Mohammad Badrul Muttakin, Arifur Khan. 2014. Determinants of corporate social disclosure: Empirical evidence from
Bangladesh. Advances in Accounting 30:1, 168-175. [Crossref]
492. Monika Kansal, Mahesh Joshi, Gurdip Singh Batra. 2014. Determinants of corporate social responsibility disclosures: Evidence
from India. Advances in Accounting 30:1, 217-229. [Crossref]
493. Tatiana Botelho, Alessandra Magrini, Roberto Schaeffer. 2014. Plumbing the depths: Utilizing O&G reserve profiles to
develop forward-looking risk assessments for exploration and production activities. Energy Policy 69, 489-500. [Crossref]
494. Mobin Fatma, Zillur Rahman, Imran Khan. 2014. Multi-Item Stakeholder Based Scale to Measure CSR in the Banking
Industry. International Strategic Management Review 2:1, 9-20. [Crossref]
495. James Van Alstine, Ralf Barkemeyer. 2014. Business and development: Changing discourses in the extractive industries.
Resources Policy 40, 4-16. [Crossref]
496. Eduardo Ortas, José M. Moneva, Igor Álvarez. 2014. Sustainable supply chain and company performance. Supply Chain
Management: An International Journal 19:3, 332-350. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
497. Elisabeth Albertini. 2014. A Descriptive Analysis of Environmental Disclosure: A Longitudinal Study of French Companies.

498. Leonidas C. Leonidou, Constantinos N. Leonidou, John S. Hadjimarcou, Irina Lytovchenko. 2014. Assessing the greenness
of environmental advertising claims made by multinational industrial firms. Industrial Marketing Management 43:4, 671-684.
[Crossref]
499. Linda Thorne, Lois S. Mahoney, Giacomo Manetti. 2014. Motivations for issuing standalone CSR reports: a survey of
Canadian firms. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal 27:4, 686-714. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
500. Christina He, Janice Loftus. 2014. Does environmental reporting reflect environmental performance?. Pacific Accounting
Review 26:1/2, 134-154. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
501. Antonis Skouloudis, Nikoleta Jones, Chrisovaladis Malesios, Konstantinos Evangelinos. 2014. Trends and determinants of
corporate non-financial disclosure in Greece. Journal of Cleaner Production 68, 174-188. [Crossref]
502. Dion van de Burgwal, Rui José Oliveira Vieira. 2014. Determinantes da divulgação ambiental em companhias abertas
holandesas. Revista Contabilidade & Finanças 25:64, 60-78. [Crossref]
503. Yi-Chun Huang, Ying-Jiuan Wong, Min-Li Yang. 2014. Proactive environmental management and performance by a
controlling family. Management Research Review 37:3, 210-240. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
504. Bethel Uzoma Ihugba. 2014. The governance of corporate social responsibility. International Journal of Law and Management
505. Alberto Romolini, Silvia Fissi, Elena Gori. 2014. Scoring CSR Reporting in Listed Companies - Evidence from Italian Best
Practices. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management 21:2, 65-81. [Crossref]
506. Bruce A Huhmann, Suzanne L Conner. 2014. Promoting business ethics through annual reports. Journal of Financial Services
Marketing 19:1, 17-28. [Crossref]
507. Chelli Mohamed, Durocher Sylvain, Richard Jacques. 2014. France's new economic regulations: insights from institutional
legitimacy theory. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal 27:2, 283-316. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
508. Oana Apostol, Salme Näsi. 2014. Firm–Employee Relationships from a Social Responsibility Perspective: Developments
from Communist Thinking to Market Ideology in Romania. A Mass Media Story. Journal of Business Ethics 119:3, 301-315.
[Crossref]
509. Yingjun Lu, Indra Abeysekera. 2014. Stakeholders' power, corporate characteristics, and social and environmental disclosure:
evidence from China. Journal of Cleaner Production 64, 426-436. [Crossref]
510. Konstantinos I Evangelinos, Antonis Skouloudis. 2014. European perspectives on corporate non-financial disclosure: Evidence
from the Southeast. International Journal of Disclosure and Governance 11:1, 33-53. [Crossref]
511. Mandy Cheng, Wendy Green, Pieter Conradie, Noriyuki Konishi, Andrea Romi. 2014. The International Integrated Reporting
Framework: Key Issues and Future Research Opportunities. Journal of International Financial Management & Accounting 25:1,
90-119. [Crossref]
512. Aparna Bhatia, Subhash Chander. 2014. Corporate Social Responsibility Disclosure by SENSEX Companies in India.
Management and Labour Studies 39:1, 1-17. [Crossref]
513. Thomas Kilian, Nadine Hennigs. 2014. Corporate social responsibility and environmental reporting in controversial
industries. European Business Review 26:1, 79-101. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
514. Constantin Blome, Daniel Hollos, Antony Paulraj. 2014. Green procurement and green supplier development: antecedents
and effects on supplier performance. International Journal of Production Research 52:1, 32-49. [Crossref]
515. Lucia Gatti, Peter Seele. 2014. Evidence for the prevalence of the sustainability concept in European corporate responsibility
reporting. Sustainability Science 9:1, 89-102. [Crossref]
516. Concetta Carnevale, Maria Mazzuca. 2014. Sustainability report and bank valuation: evidence from European stock markets.
517. Aurora Voiculescu. “Etiquette and magic”: Between embedding and embedded corporate social responsibility 189-216.
518. Laivi Laidroo, Urmas Ööbik. 2013. Banks' CSR disclosures – headquarters versus subsidiaries. Baltic Journal of Management
519. Anna Pistoni, Lucrezia Songini. Corporate social responsibility determinants: The relation with CSR disclosure 3-32.
520. Francesco Gangi, Carmen Trotta. Determinants of corporate social disclosure through a multi-perspective approach: Evidences
from the target companies of socially responsible funds 33-75. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] [PDF]
521. Ionel-Alin Ienciu. Environmental disclosure of romanian listed entities 235-254. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] [PDF]
522. Collins G. Ntim, Sarah Lindop, Dennis A. Thomas. 2013. Corporate governance and risk reporting in South Africa: A study
of corporate risk disclosures in the pre- and post-2007/2008 global financial crisis periods. International Review of Financial
Analysis 30, 363-383. [Crossref]
523. Michelle Rodrigue, Michel Magnan, Emilio Boulianne. 2013. Stakeholders’ influence on environmental strategy and
performance indicators: A managerial perspective. Management Accounting Research 24:4, 301-316. [Crossref]
524. Amine Koubaa, Khamoussi Halioui. 2013. Importance relative des mesures de performance non financières dans les contrats
de rémunération des dirigeants, un moyen de réduction de l’ampleur de la gestion de résultat. La Revue Gestion et Organisation
5:2, 103-112. [Crossref]
525. Yu He, Qingliang Tang, Kaitian Wang. 2013. Carbon disclosure, carbon performance, and cost of capital. China Journal of
Accounting Studies 1:3-4, 190-220. [Crossref]
526. Li Li, Yang Yuanhua. 2013. Empirical Analysis on Disclosure Willingness of Carbon Information in Chinese Enterprises.
Journal of Applied Sciences 13:20, 4261-4269. [Crossref]
527. Enrique Bonsón, Michaela Bednárová. 2013. Corporate LinkedIn practices of Eurozone companies. Online Information Review
528. Ciaran Connolly, Noel Hyndman. 2013. Charity accountability in the UK: through the eyes of the donor. Qualitative Research
in Accounting & Management 10:3/4, 259-278. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
529. Wendy Stubbs, Colin Higgins, Markus Milne. 2013. Why Do Companies Not Produce Sustainability Reports?. Business
Strategy and the Environment 22:7, 456-470. [Crossref]
530. Markus J. Milne, Rob Gray. 2013. W(h)ither Ecology? The Triple Bottom Line, the Global Reporting Initiative, and
Corporate Sustainability Reporting. Journal of Business Ethics 118:1, 13-29. [Crossref]
531. Oguz Morali, Cory Searcy. 2013. A Review of Sustainable Supply Chain Management Practices in Canada. Journal of Business
Ethics 117:3, 635-658. [Crossref]
532. Philip Cooper. 2013. Socio-ecological accounting: DPSWR, a modified DPSIR framework, and its application to marine
ecosystems. Ecological Economics 94, 106-115. [Crossref]
533. Keith J. Perks, Francisca Farache, Paurav Shukla, Aidan Berry. 2013. Communicating responsibility-practicing irresponsibility
in CSR advertisements. Journal of Business Research 66:10, 1881-1888. [Crossref]
534. Marjo E. Siltaoja, Tiina J. Onkila. 2013. Business in society or business and society: the construction of business-society
relations in responsibility reports from a critical discursive perspective. Business Ethics: A European Review 22:4, 357-373.
[Crossref]
535. Louis Ndjetcheu. 2013. Social Responsibility and Legal Financial Communication in African Companies in the South of the
Sahara. International Journal of Innovation in the Digital Economy 4:4, 1-17. [Crossref]
536. Roshima Said, Noorain Omar, Wan Nailah Abdullah. 2013. Empirical investigations on boards, business characteristics,
human capital and environmental reporting. Social Responsibility Journal 9:4, 534-553. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
537. Wan Amalina Wan Abdullah, Majella Percy, Jenny Stewart. 2013. Shari'ah disclosures in Malaysian and Indonesian Islamic
banks. Journal of Islamic Accounting and Business Research 4:2, 100-131. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
538. Gloria Agyemang, Bill Ryan. Accountability and Performance Management Systems within Private and Public Sector
Organisational Change Processes 1-38. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] [PDF]
539. Ciaran Connolly, Alpa Dhanani. 2013. Exploring the discharge of e-countability by charities. Journal of Applied Accounting
540. Breeda Comyns, Frank Figge, Tobias Hahn, Ralf Barkemeyer. 2013. Sustainability reporting: The role of “Search”,
“Experience” and “Credence” information. Accounting Forum 37:3, 231-243. [Crossref]
541. Mahmood Ahmed Momin, Lee D. Parker. 2013. Motivations for corporate social responsibility reporting by MNC
subsidiaries in an emerging country: The case of Bangladesh. The British Accounting Review 45:3, 215-228. [Crossref]
542. Collins G. Ntim, Teerooven Soobaroyen. 2013. Corporate Governance and Performance in Socially Responsible Corporations:
New Empirical Insights from a Neo-Institutional Framework. Corporate Governance: An International Review 21:5, 468-494.
[Crossref]
543. LYTON CHITHAMBO. 2013. FIRM CHARACTERISTICS AND THE VOLUNTARY DISCLOSURE OF CLIMATE
CHANGE AND GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSION INFORMATION. International Journal of Energy and Statistics 01:03,
155-169. [Crossref]
544. Mary-Hunter McDonnell, Brayden King. 2013. Keeping up Appearances. Administrative Science Quarterly 58:3, 387-419.
[Crossref]
545. Lopin Kuo, Vivian Yi-Ju Chen. 2013. Is environmental disclosure an effective strategy on establishment of environmental
legitimacy for organization?. Management Decision 51:7, 1462-1487. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
546. Daniel Murphy, Dianne McGrath. 2013. ESG reporting – class actions, deterrence, and avoidance. Sustainability Accounting,
Management and Policy Journal 4:2, 216-235. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
547. Venkataraman Iyer, Ayalew Lulseged. 2013. Does family status impact US firms' sustainability reporting?. Sustainability
Accounting, Management and Policy Journal 4:2, 163-189. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
548. Collins G. Ntim, Teerooven Soobaroyen. 2013. Black Economic Empowerment Disclosures by South African Listed
Corporations: The Influence of Ownership and Board Characteristics. Journal of Business Ethics 116:1, 121-138. [Crossref]
549. Ridzwana Mohd Said, Maliah Sulaiman, Nik Nazli Nik Ahmad. 2013. Do fund managers perceive environmental information
useful? An empirical study from Malaysia. Journal of Cleaner Production 52, 281-288. [Crossref]
550. Barbara de Lima Voss, Elisete Dahmer Pfitscher, Fabricia Silva da Rosa, Maisa de Souza Ribeiro. 2013. Evidenciação ambiental
dos resíduos sólidos de companhias abertas no Brasil potencialmente poluidoras. Revista Contabilidade & Finanças 24:62,
125-141. [Crossref]
551. Abdifatah Ahmed Haji. 2013. Corporate social responsibility disclosures over time: evidence from Malaysia. Managerial
Auditing Journal 28:7, 647-676. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
552. Gordon Liu, Teck-Yong Eng, Wai-Wai Ko. 2013. Strategic Direction of Corporate Community Involvement. Journal of
553. Denis Gendron, Gaétan Breton. 2013. Telling the privatization story: a study of the president's letter. Society and Business
554. Ramendra Singh, Sharad Agarwal. 2013. Does CSR orientation reflect stakeholder relationship marketing orientation? An
empirical examination of Indian banks. Marketing Intelligence & Planning 31:4, 405-420. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
555. Gunnar Rimmel, Kristina Jonäll. 2013. Biodiversity reporting in Sweden: corporate disclosure and preparers' views. Accounting,
Auditing & Accountability Journal 26:5, 746-778. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
556. Javed Siddiqui. 2013. Mainstreaming biodiversity accounting: potential implications for a developing economy. Accounting,
557. Dennis van Liempd, Jacob Busch. 2013. Biodiversity reporting in Denmark. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal
558. Fortune Ganda, Collins C. Ngwakwe. 2013. The contribution of environmental, social, and governance disclosure to a
sustainable economy. Korean Social Science Journal 40:1, 21-37. [Crossref]
559. Teerooven Soobaroyen, Collins G. Ntim. 2013. Social and environmental accounting as symbolic and substantive means of
legitimation: The case of HIV/AIDS reporting in South Africa. Accounting Forum 37:2, 92-109. [Crossref]
560. Stacie Buccina, Douglas Chene, Jeffrey Gramlich. 2013. Accounting for the environmental impacts of Texaco's operations in
Ecuador: Chevron's contingent environmental liability disclosures. Accounting Forum 37:2, 110-123. [Crossref]
561. Aminu Hassan, Reza Kouhy. 2013. Gas flaring in Nigeria: Analysis of changes in its consequent carbon emission and reporting.
562. Lois S. Mahoney, Linda Thorne, Lianna Cecil, William LaGore. 2013. A research note on standalone corporate social
responsibility reports: Signaling or greenwashing?. Critical Perspectives on Accounting 24:4-5, 350-359. [Crossref]
563. Hannele Mäkelä. 2013. On the ideological role of employee reporting. Critical Perspectives on Accounting 24:4-5, 360-378.
[Crossref]
564. Yousuf Kamal, Craig Deegan. 2013. Corporate Social and Environment-related Governance Disclosure Practices in the Textile
and Garment Industry: Evidence from a Developing Country. Australian Accounting Review 23:2, 117-134. [Crossref]
565. Evangeline O. Elijido-Ten. 2013. Determinants of Strategic Performance Measurement System Disclosures in Australia's Top
100 Publicly Listed Firms. Journal of General Management 38:4, 57-73. [Crossref]
566. María Luisa Pajuelo Moreno. 2013. Assessment of the Impact of Business Activity in Sustainability Terms. Empirical
Confirmation of Its Determination in Spanish Companies. Sustainability 5:6, 2389-2420. [Crossref]
567. Marta de la Cuesta, Carmen Valor. 2013. Evaluation of the environmental, social and governance information disclosed by
Spanish listed companies. Social Responsibility Journal 9:2, 220-240. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
568. Nik Nazli Nik Ahmad, Ahmed Salat Ahmed Haraf. 2013. Environmental disclosures of Malaysian property development
companies: towards legitimacy or accountability?. Social Responsibility Journal 9:2, 241-258. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
569. Dzingai Kennedy Nyahunzvi. 2013. CSR reporting among Zimbabwe's hotel groups: a content analysis. International Journal
of Contemporary Hospitality Management 25:4, 595-613. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
570. Sumit Lodhia, Kerry Jacobs. 2013. The practice turn in environmental reporting. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal
571. Stéphane Legendre, François Coderre. 2013. Determinants of GRI G3 Application Levels: The Case of the Fortune Global
500. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management 20:3, 182-192. [Crossref]
572. Roberta Bampton, Christopher J. Cowton. 2013. Taking Stock of Accounting Ethics Scholarship: A Review of the Journal
Literature. Journal of Business Ethics 114:3, 549-563. [Crossref]
573. Torbjörn Tagesson, Michelle Klugman, Maria Lindvall Ekström. 2013. What explains the extent and content of social
disclosures in Swedish municipalities’ annual reports. Journal of Management & Governance 17:2, 217-235. [Crossref]
574. Patricia Martínez, Andrea Pérez, Ignacio Rodríguez del Bosque. 2013. Measuring Corporate Social Responsibility in tourism:
Development and validation of an efficient measurement scale in the hospitality industry. Journal of Travel & Tourism
Marketing 30:4, 365-385. [Crossref]
575. Raffaele Fiorentino, Stefano Garzella. 2013. How to control environmental strategy?. MANAGEMENT CONTROL :1,
45-76. [Crossref]
576. Poh‐Ling Ho, Grantley Taylor. 2013. Corporate governance and different types of voluntary disclosure. Pacific Accounting
577. Bo Bae Choi, Doowon Lee, Jim Psaros. 2013. An analysis of Australian company carbon emission disclosures. Pacific
Accounting Review 25:1, 58-79. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
578. Murtala Oladimeji Abioye Mustafa, Muslim Har Sani Mohamad, Muhammad Akhyar Adnan. 2013. Antecedents of zakat
payers' trust in an emerging zakat sector: an exploratory study. Journal of Islamic Accounting and Business Research 4:1, 4-25.
579. Christine Mallin, Giovanna Michelon, Davide Raggi. 2013. Monitoring Intensity and Stakeholders’ Orientation: How Does
Governance Affect Social and Environmental Disclosure?. Journal of Business Ethics 114:1, 29-43. [Crossref]
580. Suzanne Young, Magalie Marais. 2013. Gaining legitimacy in large Australian listed companies: exploring the role of corporate
reporting regarding employees. Labour & Industry: a journal of the social and economic relations of work 23:1, 13-33. [Crossref]
581. Qi Li, Wei Luo, Yaping Wang, Liansheng Wu. 2013. Firm performance, corporate ownership, and corporate social
responsibility disclosure in China. Business Ethics: A European Review 22:2, 159-173. [Crossref]
582. Christoph Beckers, Oliver Marz, Lutz M. Kolbe. 2013. Investing in Sustainability. International Journal of Social Ecology and
Sustainable Development 4:2, 99-120. [Crossref]
583. Siyuan Seth Li, Marie-Claude Boudreau, Mark Huber, Richard T. Watson. 2013. Sustainability Performance and CSR
Disclosure. International Journal of Social Ecology and Sustainable Development 4:2, 34-47. [Crossref]
584. Sarah J. Williams, Carol A. Adams. 2013. Moral accounting? Employee disclosures from a stakeholder accountability
perspective. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal 26:3, 449-495. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
585. Sudhir C. Das. 2013. Corporate social reporting and human resource disclosures: experiences from insurance companies in
India. Social Responsibility Journal 9:1, 19-32. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
586. Jenny Guan, Carlos Noronha. 2013. Corporate social responsibility reporting research in the Chinese academia: a critical
review. Social Responsibility Journal 9:1, 33-55. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
587. Gordon Liu. 2013. Impacts of Instrumental Versus Relational Centered Logic on Cause-Related Marketing Decision Making.
588. Patrizio Monfardini, Antonio D. Barretta, Pasquale Ruggiero. 2013. Seeking legitimacy: Social reporting in the healthcare
sector. Accounting Forum 37:1, 54-66. [Crossref]
589. Paul A. Griffin, Yuan Sun. 2013. Going green: Market reaction to CSRwire news releases. Journal of Accounting and Public
Policy 32:2, 93-113. [Crossref]
590. Kaveen Bachoo, Rebecca Tan, Mark Wilson. 2013. Firm Value and the Quality of Sustainability Reporting in Australia.
Australian Accounting Review 23:1, 67-87. [Crossref]
591. Duffy Morf, Dale L. Flesher, Mario Hayek, Stephanie Pane, Caroline Hayek. 2013. Shifts in corporate accountability reflected
in socially responsible reporting: a historical review. Journal of Management History 19:1, 87-113. [Abstract] [Full Text]
[PDF]
592. David Crowther, Shahla Seifi. Walking the Talk: Teaching Corporate Social Responsibility in UK Higher Education
Institutions 17-34. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] [PDF]
593. A.N. Sarkar. Review of Strategic Policy Framework for Re-Evaluating ‘CSR’ Programme Impacts on the Mining-Affected
Areas in India 217-261. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
594. Matthias S. Fifka. 2013. Corporate Responsibility Reporting and its Determinants in Comparative Perspective - a Review of
the Empirical Literature and a Meta-analysis. Business Strategy and the Environment 22:1, 1-35. [Crossref]
595. Athanasios Vazakidis, Antonios Stavropoulos, Despina Galani. 2013. Company Characteristics and Human Resource
Disclosure in Greece. Procedia Technology 8, 112-121. [Crossref]
596. Fabrizio Panozzo. Standards, Triple Bottom Lines and Balanced Scorecards: Shaping the Metaphor of Corporate Citizenship
with Calculative Infrastructures 84-109. [Crossref]
597. Silvia Romero, Belen Fernandez-Feijoo. 2013. Effect of Hofstede’s Cultural Differences in Corporate Social Responsibility
Disclosure. International Journal of Information Systems and Social Change 4:1, 68-84. [Crossref]
598. Choi Ieng Chu, Bikram Chatterjee, Alistair Brown. 2012. The current status of greenhouse gas reporting by Chinese
companies. Managerial Auditing Journal 28:2, 114-139. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
599. Roman Lanis, Grant Richardson. 2012. Corporate social responsibility and tax aggressiveness: a test of legitimacy theory.
600. Marileena Koskela, Jarmo Vehmas. 2012. Defining Eco-efficiency: A Case Study on the Finnish Forest Industry. Business
601. Torbjörn Tagesson, Bojan Gujic, Klaudija Petrovic. 2012. Secrecy versus Transparency—A Comparative Study of Social
and Environmental Disclosure Practice in Croatian and Swedish Corporations. Journal of East-West Business 18:4, 321-336.
[Crossref]
602. James Weber, Kathryn A. Marley. 2012. In Search of Stakeholder Salience. Business & Society 51:4, 626-649. [Crossref]
603. Matthias S. Fifka, Maria Drabble. 2012. Focus and Standardization of Sustainability Reporting - A Comparative Study of
the United Kingdom and Finland. Business Strategy and the Environment 21:7, 455-474. [Crossref]
604. Janet Haddock-Fraser. 2012. The Role of the News Media in Influencing Corporate Environmental Sustainable Development:
An Alternative Methodology to Assess Stakeholder Engagement. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental
605. Shuili Du, Edward T. Vieira. 2012. Striving for Legitimacy Through Corporate Social Responsibility: Insights from Oil
Companies. Journal of Business Ethics 110:4, 413-427. [Crossref]
606. Kathleen Hertz Rupley, Darrell Brown, R. Scott Marshall. 2012. Governance, media and the quality of environmental
disclosure. Journal of Accounting and Public Policy 31:6, 610-640. [Crossref]
607. Faisal Faisal, Greg Tower, Rusmin Rusmin. 2012. Communicating key labor issues in a global context. Journal of Human
Resource Costing & Accounting 16:4, 320-340. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
608. Grant Samkin. 2012. Changes in sustainability reporting by an African defence contractor: a longitudinal analysis. Meditari
Accountancy Research 20:2, 134-166. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
609. Taiyuan Wang, Pratima Bansal. 2012. Social responsibility in new ventures: profiting from a long-term orientation. Strategic
Management Journal 33:10, 1135-1153. [Crossref]
610. Giulio Greco, Nick Sciulli, Giuseppe D'onza. 2012. From Tuscany to Victoria: Some Determinants of Sustainability Reporting
by Local Councils. Local Government Studies 38:5, 681-705. [Crossref]
611. Indra Abeysekera. 2012. Role of remuneration committee in narrative human capital disclosure. Accounting & Finance 52,
1-23. [Crossref]
612. Ruchi Tewari, Darshana Dave. 2012. Corporate Social Responsibility: Communication through Sustainability Reports by
Indian and Multinational Companies. Global Business Review 13:3, 393-405. [Crossref]
613. Hend Abdulla AlNaimi, Mohammed Hossain, Mahmood Ahmed Momin. 2012. Corporate social responsibility reporting in
Qatar: a descriptive analysis. Social Responsibility Journal 8:4, 511-526. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
614. Monika Kansal, Sukhdev Singh. 2012. Measurement of corporate social performance: an Indian perspective. Social
615. Ismail Adelopo, Ramiro Cea Moure, Lucely Vargas Preciado, Musa Obalola. 2012. Determinants of web‐accessibility of
corporate social responsibility communications. Journal of Global Responsibility 3:2, 235-247. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
616. Alpa Dhanani, Ciaran Connolly. 2012. Discharging not‐for‐profit accountability: UK charities and public discourse.
617. Charl de Villiers, Chris van Staden. 2012. New Zealand shareholder attitudes towards corporate environmental disclosure.
Pacific Accounting Review 24:2, 186-210. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
618. Carmelo Reverte. 2012. The Impact of Better Corporate Social Responsibility Disclosure on the Cost of Equity Capital.
Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management 19:5, 253-272. [Crossref]
619. Lopin Kuo, Chin-Chen Yeh, Hui-Cheng Yu. 2012. Disclosure of Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental
Management: Evidence from China. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management 19:5, 273-287. [Crossref]
620. S. X. Zeng, X. D. Xu, H. T. Yin, C. M. Tam. 2012. Factors that Drive Chinese Listed Companies in Voluntary Disclosure
of Environmental Information. Journal of Business Ethics 109:3, 309-321. [Crossref]
621. Helen Tregidga, Markus Milne, Glen Lehman. 2012. Analyzing the quality, meaning and accountability of organizational
reporting and communication: Directions for future research. Accounting Forum 36:3, 223-230. [Crossref]
622. Danuta de Grosbois. 2012. Corporate social responsibility reporting by the global hotel industry: Commitment, initiatives
and performance. International Journal of Hospitality Management 31:3, 896-905. [Crossref]
623. Mohd Faidzal Abu, Asmah Abdul Aziz, Syed Noh Syed Ahmad. Annual report mandatory disclosures in Malaysian Federal
Statutory Bodies 415-419. [Crossref]
624. David S. Waller. 2012. A Longitudinal Study of Pro Bono Activities Reported by WPP Group. Social Marketing Quarterly
18:3, 234-246. [Crossref]
625. Linzi J. Kemp, Jeannette Vinke. 2012. CSR reporting: a review of the Pakistani aviation industry. South Asian Journal of
Global Business Research 1:2, 276-292. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
626. Luis Perera Aldama, Adrián Zicari. 2012. Value‐added reporting as a tool for sustainability: a Latin American experience.
Corporate Governance: The international journal of business in society 12:4, 485-498. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
627. Giovanna Michelon, Antonio Parbonetti. 2012. The effect of corporate governance on sustainability disclosure. Journal of
Management & Governance 16:3, 477-509. [Crossref]
628. Denise Luethge, Helen Guohong Han. 2012. Assessing corporate social and financial performance in China. Social
629. Abdifatah Ahmed Haji, Nazli A. Mohd Ghazali. 2012. Intellectual capital disclosure trends: some Malaysian evidence. Journal
of Intellectual Capital 13:3, 377-397. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
630. Lucia Silva-Gao. 2012. The Disclosure of Environmental Capital Expenditures: Evidence from the Electric Utility Sector in
the USA. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management 19:4, 240-252. [Crossref]
631. Isabel Gallego-Álvarez. 2012. Indicators for sustainable development: Relationship between indicators related to climate
change and explanatory factors. Sustainable Development 20:4, 276-292. [Crossref]
632. David Collison, Stuart Cross, John Ferguson, David Power, Lorna Stevenson. 2012. Legal Determinants of External Finance
Revisited: The Inverse Relationship Between Investor Protection and Societal Well-Being. Journal of Business Ethics 108:3,
393-410. [Crossref]
633. Minga Negash. 2012. IFRS and environmental accounting. Management Research Review 35:7, 577-601. [Abstract] [Full
Text] [PDF]
634. Elinda Esa, Nazli Anum Mohd Ghazali. 2012. Corporate social responsibility and corporate governance in Malaysian
government‐linked companies. Corporate Governance: The international journal of business in society 12:3, 292-305. [Abstract]
[Full Text] [PDF]
635. Md. Humayun Kabir, David M. Akinnusi. 2012. Corporate social and environmental accounting information reporting
practices in Swaziland. Social Responsibility Journal 8:2, 156-173. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
636. Lori Holder-Webb, Jeffrey Cohen. 2012. The Cut and Paste Society: Isomorphism in Codes of Ethics. Journal of Business
637. Ronald P. Guidry, Dennis M. Patten. 2012. Voluntary disclosure theory and financial control variables: An assessment of
recent environmental disclosure research. Accounting Forum 36:2, 81-90. [Crossref]
638. Sumit Lodhia, Kerry Jacobs, Yoon Jin Park. 2012. Driving Public Sector Environmental Reporting. Public Management
Review 14:5, 631-647. [Crossref]
639. Lies Bouten, Patricia Everaert, Robin W. Roberts. 2012. How a Two-Step Approach Discloses Different Determinants of
Voluntary Social and Environmental Reporting. Journal of Business Finance & Accounting 39:5-6, 567-605. [Crossref]
640. Hadrian Gery Djajadikerta, Terri Trireksani. 2012. Corporate social and environmental disclosure by Indonesian listed
companies on their corporate web sites. Journal of Applied Accounting Research 13:1, 21-36. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
641. Kemi Yekini, Kumba Jallow. 2012. Corporate community involvement disclosures in annual report. Sustainability Accounting,
Management and Policy Journal 3:1, 7-32. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
642. Despina Galani, Efthymios Gravas, Antonios Stavropoulos. 2012. Company Characteristics and Environmental Policy. Business
643. Abdifatah Ahmed Haji, Nazli Anum Mohd Ghazali. 2012. The influence of the financial crisis on corporate voluntary
disclosure: Some Malaysian evidence. International Journal of Disclosure and Governance 9:2, 101-125. [Crossref]
644. Sonia Jindal, Manoj Kumar. 2012. The determinants of HC disclosures of Indian firms. Journal of Intellectual Capital 13:2,
645. Matthias Fifka. 2012. The development and state of research on social and environmental reporting in global comparison.
Journal für Betriebswirtschaft 62:1, 45-84. [Crossref]
646. Antonis Skouloudis, Konstantinos Evangelinos. 2012. A research design for mapping national CSR terrains. International
Journal of Sustainable Development & World Ecology 19:2, 130-143. [Crossref]
647. Charles H. Cho, Martin Freedman, Dennis M. Patten. 2012. Corporate disclosure of environmental capital expenditures.
648. Michael Fraser. 2012. “Fleshing out” an engagement with a social accounting technology. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability
649. Jaime Rivera-Camino. 2012. Corporate environmental market responsiveness: A model of individual and organizational
drivers. Journal of Business Research 65:3, 402-411. [Crossref]
650. Farid Ahammad Sobhani, Azlan Amran, Yuserrie Zainuddin. 2012. Sustainability disclosure in annual reports and websites:
a study of the banking industry in Bangladesh. Journal of Cleaner Production 23:1, 75-85. [Crossref]
651. A.W. Sutantoputra, M. Lindorff, E. Prior Johnson. 2012. The relationship between environmental performance and
environmental disclosure. Australasian Journal of Environmental Management 19:1, 51-65. [Crossref]
652. Cynthia E. Clark, Elise Perrault Crawford. 2012. Influencing Climate Change Policy. Business & Society 51:1, 148-175.
[Crossref]
653. Roger L. Burritt. 2012. Environmental performance accountability: planet, people, profits. Accounting, Auditing &
654. Jan Bebbington, Elizabeth A. Kirk, Carlos Larrinaga. 2012. The production of normativity: A comparison of reporting
regimes in Spain and the UK. Accounting, Organizations and Society 37:2, 78-94. [Crossref]
655. Venkatesan Baskaran, Subramanian Nachiappan, Shams Rahman. 2012. Indian textile suppliers' sustainability evaluation
using the grey approach. International Journal of Production Economics 135:2, 647-658. [Crossref]
656. Matteo Fuoli. 2012. Assessing social responsibility: A quantitative analysis of Appraisal in BP?s and IKEA?s social reports.
Discourse & Communication 6:1, 55-81. [Crossref]
657. Jody Emel, Madoshi H. Makene, Esther Wangari. 2012. Problems with Reporting and Evaluating Mining Industry
Community Development Projects: A Case Study from Tanzania. Sustainability 4:2, 257-277. [Crossref]
658. David S. Waller. 2012. “Truth in Advertising”: The Beginning of Advertising Ethics in Australia. Journal of Mass Media
659. Abeer Hassan, Essam Ibrahim. 2012. Corporate Environmental Information Disclosure: Factors Influencing Companies'
Success in Attaining Environmental Awards. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management 19:1, 32-46.
[Crossref]
660. Collins C. Ngwakwe. 2012. Rethinking the accounting stance on sustainable development. Sustainable Development 20:1,
28-41. [Crossref]
661. Maider Aldaz Odriozola, José Antonio Calvo Sánchez, Igor Álvarez Etxeberria. 2012. Divulgación de información sobre
corrupción: empresas del IBEX 35. Revista de Contabilidad 15:1, 59-90. [Crossref]
662. H. Alves, A.M. Rodrigues, N. Canadas. 2012. Factors influencing the different categories of voluntary disclosure in annual
reports: An analysis for Iberian Peninsula listed companies. Tékhne 10:1, 15-26. [Crossref]
663. Roman Lanis, Grant Richardson. 2012. Corporate social responsibility and tax aggressiveness: An empirical analysis. Journal
of Accounting and Public Policy 31:1, 86-108. [Crossref]
664. Bengi Ertuna, Ali Tükel. The Diffusion of Corporate Governance Standards in an Emerging Market: Evidence from Istanbul
Stock Exchange 215-232. [Crossref]
665. Eric Persais. 2012. Entreprises sociale et sociétalement responsable : le fossé est-il si grand ?. Management international 16:4,
41. [Crossref]
666. Zakaria Ali Aribi, Simon S. Gao. 2011. Narrative disclosure of corporate social responsibility in Islamic financial institutions.
Managerial Auditing Journal 27:2, 199-222. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
667. Thomas Kilian, Nadine Hennigs. 2011. Unternehmerische Verantwortung zwischen Anspruch und Wirklichkeit: Eine
empirische Analyse der Kommunikation CSR-relevanter Aspekte in Geschäftsberichten der DAX-30-Unternehmen von
1998–2009. uwf UmweltWirtschaftsForum 19:3-4, 249-255. [Crossref]
668. J. D. Mahadeo, V. Oogarah-Hanuman, T. Soobaroyen. 2011. A Longitudinal Study of Corporate Social Disclosures in a
Developing Economy. Journal of Business Ethics 104:4, 545-558. [Crossref]
669. Charles H. Cho, Martin L. Martens, Hakkyun Kim, Michelle Rodrigue. 2011. Astroturfing Global Warming: It Isn’t Always
Greener on the Other Side of the Fence. Journal of Business Ethics 104:4, 571-587. [Crossref]
670. Charmaine M. Coetzee, Chris J. van Staden. 2011. Disclosure responses to mining accidents: South African evidence.
671. Yu Cong, Martin Freedman. 2011. Corporate governance and environmental performance and disclosures. Advances in
Accounting 27:2, 223-232. [Crossref]
672. Indra Abeysekera. 2011. Civil war, stock return, and intellectual capital disclosure in Sri Lanka. Advances in Accounting 27:2,
331-337. [Crossref]
673. Helen H. Kang, Sidney J. Gray. 2011. Reporting intangible assets: Voluntary disclosure practices of top emerging market
companies. The International Journal of Accounting 46:4, 402-423. [Crossref]
674. Venkatesan Baskaran, Subramanian Nachiappan, Shams Rahman. 2011. Supplier assessment based on corporate social
responsibility criteria in Indian automotive and textile industry sectors. International Journal of Sustainable Engineering 4:4,
359-369. [Crossref]
675. Klaus Möller, Ramin Gamerschlag, Finn Guenther. 2011. Determinants and effects of human capital reporting and
controlling. Journal of Management Control 22:3, 311-333. [Crossref]
676. Christine Cooper, Andrea Coulson, Phil Taylor. 2011. Accounting for human rights: Doxic health and safety practices – The
accounting lesson from ICL. Critical Perspectives on Accounting 22:8, 738-758. [Crossref]
677. Jill F. Solomon, Aris Solomon, Simon D. Norton, Nathan L. Joseph. 2011. Private climate change reporting: an emerging
discourse of risk and opportunity?. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal 24:8, 1119-1148. [Abstract] [Full Text]
[PDF]
678. Shaun Watson. 2011. Conflict diamonds, legitimacy and media agenda: an examination of annual report disclosures. Meditari
Accountancy Research 19:1/2, 94-111. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
679. Fabienne Fortanier, Ans Kolk, Jonatan Pinkse. 2011. Harmonization in CSR Reporting. Management International Review
51:5, 665-696. [Crossref]
680. Marita Naudé, Mohammed A. Quaddus, Anna Rowe, Margaret Nowak. 2011. Adoption of environmental standards in
Australia: focus on ISO 14001. International Journal of Sustainable Development & World Ecology 18:5, 461-468. [Crossref]
681. Elise Perrault Crawford, Cynthia Clark Williams. Communicating Corporate Social Responsibility through Nonfinancial
Reports 338-357. [Crossref]
682. Sayd Farook, M. Kabir Hassan, Roman Lanis. 2011. Determinants of corporate social responsibility disclosure: the case of
Islamic banks. Journal of Islamic Accounting and Business Research 2:2, 114-141. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
683. Evangeline Elijido-Ten. 2011. Media coverage and voluntary environmental disclosures: A developing country exploratory
experiment. Accounting Forum 35:3, 139-157. [Crossref]
684. Jyoti Devi Mahadeo, Vanisha Oogarah-Hanuman, Teerooven Soobaroyen. 2011. Changes in social and environmental
reporting practices in an emerging economy (2004–2007): Exploring the relevance of stakeholder and legitimacy theories.
685. Machteld Van den Bogaerd, Walter Aerts. 2011. Applying machine learning in accounting research. Expert Systems with
Applications 38:10, 13414-13424. [Crossref]
686. Nousheen Tariq Bhutta, Muhammed Mohtsham Saeed. 2011. Accounting scandals in the context of corporate social reporting.
Journal of Database Marketing & Customer Strategy Management 18:3, 171-184. [Crossref]
687. Melanie L. Sartore-Baldwin, Matthew Walker. 2011. The Process of Organizational Identity: What Are the Roles of Social
Responsiveness, Organizational Image, and Identification?. Journal of Sport Management 25:5, 489-505. [Crossref]
688. Federica Farneti, Benedetta Siboni. 2011. An analysis of the Italian governmental guidelines and of the local governments'
practices for social reports. Sustainability Accounting, Management and Policy Journal 2:1, 101-125. [Abstract] [Full Text]
[PDF]
689. Amber Bellringer, Amanda Ball, Russell Craig. 2011. Reasons for sustainability reporting by New Zealand local governments.
Sustainability Accounting, Management and Policy Journal 2:1, 126-138. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
690. Lutz Preuss, Ralf Barkemeyer. 2011. CSR priorities of emerging economy firms: is Russia a different shape of BRIC?.
691. Clodia Vurro, Francesco Perrini. 2011. Making the most of corporate social responsibility reporting: disclosure structure and
its impact on performance. Corporate Governance: The international journal of business in society 11:4, 459-474. [Abstract]
[Full Text] [PDF]
692. Md. Habib‐Uz‐Zaman Khan, Muhammad Azizul Islam, Johra Kayeser Fatima, Khadem Ahmed. 2011. Corporate
sustainability reporting of major commercial banks in line with GRI: Bangladesh evidence. Social Responsibility Journal 7:3,
693. Tomi Amberla, Lei Wang, Heikki Juslin, Rajat Panwar, Eric Hansen, Roy Anderson. 2011. Corporate responsibility
performance in the forest industries. Social Responsibility Journal 7:3, 472-489. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
694. Ramin Gamerschlag, Klaus Möller, Frank Verbeeten. 2011. Determinants of voluntary CSR disclosure: empirical evidence
from Germany. Review of Managerial Science 5:2-3, 233-262. [Crossref]
695. Pala Molisa. 2011. A spiritual reflection on emancipation and accounting. Critical Perspectives on Accounting 22:5, 453-484.
[Crossref]
696. Y. Nam. 2011. The changing landscape of Corporate Social Responsibility in Korea. Revista de Educação do Cogeime 20:38,
145-158. [Crossref]
697. Y. Nam. 2011. A Mudança de Cenário da Responsabilidade Social Corporativa na Coreia. Revista de Educação do Cogeime
20:38, 67-81. [Crossref]
698. Nick Sciulli. 2011. The views of managers from a local coastal council on sustainability reporting issues. Qualitative Research
in Accounting & Management 8:2, 139-160. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
699. Ilse Maria Beuren, Marines Lucia Boff. 2011. Predominant strategies of legitimacy in environmental and social disclosures.
Management Research: Journal of the Iberoamerican Academy of Management 9:1, 56-72. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
700. Nor Hawani Wan Abd Rahman, Mustaffa Mohamed Zain, Norashfah Hanim Yaakop Yahaya Al‐Haj. 2011. CSR disclosures
and its determinants: evidence from Malaysian government link companies. Social Responsibility Journal 7:2, 181-201.
701. Isabel Gallego-Álvarez, Luis Rodríguez-Domínguez, Isabel-María García-Sánchez. 2011. Study of some explanatory factors
in the opportunities arising from climate change. Journal of Cleaner Production 19:9-10, 912-926. [Crossref]
702. Giovanna Michelon. 2011. Sustainability Disclosure and Reputation: A Comparative Study. Corporate Reputation Review
14:2, 79-96. [Crossref]
703. Stacey Cowan, Craig Deegan. 2011. Corporate disclosure reactions to Australia’s first national emission reporting scheme.
Accounting & Finance 51:2, 409-436. [Crossref]
704. Dara K. Dimitrov, Howard Davey. 2011. Sustainable development: what it means to CFOs of New Zealand. Asian Review of
Accounting 19:1, 86-108. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
705. Yongqiang Gao. 2011. CSR in an emerging country: a content analysis of CSR reports of listed companies. Baltic Journal of
Management 6:2, 263-291. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
706. Juanita Oeyono, Martin Samy, Roberta Bampton. 2011. An examination of corporate social responsibility and financial
performance. Journal of Global Responsibility 2:1, 100-112. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
707. Huang Jun, Xin Yu, Liu Haohong. Public pressure, stakeholder management and environment disclosure 2585-2589.
[Crossref]
708. Samuel O. Idowu. 2011. An exploratory study of the historical landscape of corporate social responsibility in the UK. Corporate
Governance: The international journal of business in society 11:2, 149-160. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
709. Nassr Saleh Mohamad Ahmad, Fathi Ramadan Mousa. 2011. Corporate environmental disclosure in Libya: A little
improvement. World Journal of Entrepreneurship, Management and Sustainable Development 6:1/2, 149-159. [Abstract] [PDF]
710. John Smith, Ros Haniffa, Jenny Fairbrass. 2011. A Conceptual Framework for Investigating ‘Capture’ in Corporate
Sustainability Reporting Assurance. Journal of Business Ethics 99:3, 425-439. [Crossref]
711. PETER M. CLARKSON, MICHAEL B. OVERELL, LARELLE CHAPPLE. 2011. Environmental Reporting and its
Relation to Corporate Environmental Performance. Abacus 47:1, 27-60. [Crossref]
712. Peter A.C. Smith, Carol Sharicz. 2011. The shift needed for sustainability. The Learning Organization 18:1, 73-86. [Abstract]
[Full Text] [PDF]
713. Roshima Said, Hilwani Hariri, Hasnah Haron, Yuserrie Hj. Zainuddin. Chapter 9 The Extent of Disclosure of Corporate
Social Responsibility in Malaysia 177-194. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] [PDF]
714. David Campbell, David Edgar, George Stonehouse. Social responsibility and business ethics 318-336. [Crossref]
715. Roman Lanis, Grant Richardson. 2011. The effect of board of director composition on corporate tax aggressiveness. Journal
of Accounting and Public Policy 30:1, 50-70. [Crossref]
716. Javier Husillos, Carlos Larrinaga González, María José Álvarez Gil. 2011. The emergence of triple bottom line reporting in
Spain. Spanish Journal of Finance and Accounting / Revista Española de Financiación y Contabilidad 40:150, 195-219. [Crossref]
717. Magali A. Delmas, Maria J. Montes-Sancho. 2011. An Institutional Perspective on the Diffusion of International Management
System Standards: The Case of the Environmental Management Standard ISO 14001. Business Ethics Quarterly 21:01,
103-132. [Crossref]
718. Jennifer C. Chen, Robin W. Roberts. 2010. Toward a More Coherent Understanding of the Organization–Society
Relationship: A Theoretical Consideration for Social and Environmental Accounting Research. Journal of Business Ethics 97:4,
651-665. [Crossref]
719. Charl de Villiers, Chris J. van Staden. 2010. Shareholders’ requirements for corporate environmental disclosures: A cross
country comparison. The British Accounting Review 42:4, 227-240. [Crossref]
720. Carsten Albers, Thomas Günther. 2010. Disclose or not disclose: determinants of social reporting for STOXX Europe 600
firms. Zeitschrift für Planung & Unternehmenssteuerung 21:3, 323-347. [Crossref]
721. Pernilla Broberg, Torbjörn Tagesson, Sven-Olof Collin. 2010. What explains variation in voluntary disclosure? A study of
the annual reports of corporations listed on the Stockholm Stock Exchange. Journal of Management & Governance 14:4,
351-377. [Crossref]
722. Glen Lehman. 2010. Perspectives on accounting, commonalities & the public sphere. Critical Perspectives on Accounting 21:8,
724-738. [Crossref]
723. Chi-Jui Huang. 2010. Corporate governance, corporate social responsibility and corporate performance. Journal of
Management & Organization 16:05, 641-655. [Crossref]
724. Chi-Jui Huang. 2010. Corporate governance, corporate social responsibility and corporate performance. Journal of
Management & Organization 16:5, 641-655. [Crossref]
725. Evangeline Elijido‐Ten, Louise Kloot, Peter Clarkson. 2010. Extending the application of stakeholder influence strategies to
environmental disclosures. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal 23:8, 1032-1059. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
726. Zakaria Ali Aribi, Simon Gao. 2010. Corporate social responsibility disclosure. Journal of Financial Reporting and Accounting
727. Lídia Oliveira, Lúcia Lima Rodrigues, Russell Craig. 2010. Intellectual capital reporting in sustainability reports. Journal of
Intellectual Capital 11:4, 575-594. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
728. Ioannis E. Nikolaou, Konstantinos I. Evangelinos. 2010. Classifying current social responsibility accounting methods for
assisting a dialogue between business and society. Social Responsibility Journal 6:4, 562-580. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
729. Yussri Sawani, Mustaffa Mohamed Zain, Faizah Darus. 2010. Preliminary insights on sustainability reporting and assurance
practices in Malaysia. Social Responsibility Journal 6:4, 627-645. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
730. Josef Oehmen, Mikko De Nardo, Paul Schönsleben, Roman Boutellier. 2010. Supplier code of conduct–state-of-the-art and
customisation in the electronics industry. Production Planning & Control 21:7, 664-679. [Crossref]
731. Dror Etzion, Fabrizio Ferraro. 2010. The Role of Analogy in the Institutionalization of Sustainability Reporting. Organization
Science 21:5, 1092-1107. [Crossref]
732. René Orij. 2010. Corporate social disclosures in the context of national cultures and stakeholder theory. Accounting, Auditing
& Accountability Journal 23:7, 868-889. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
733. Matthew Bamber, Kevin McMeeking. 2010. An examination of voluntary financial instruments disclosures in excess of
mandatory requirements by UK FTSE 100 non‐financial firms. Journal of Applied Accounting Research 11:2, 133-153.
734. Ladislao Luna Sotorrío, José Luis Fernández Sánchez. 2010. Corporate social reporting for different audiences: the case of
multinational corporations in Spain. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management 17:5, 272-283. [Crossref]
735. A. Cornelia Beck, David Campbell, Philip J. Shrives. 2010. Content analysis in environmental reporting research: Enrichment
and rehearsal of the method in a British–German context. The British Accounting Review 42:3, 207-222. [Crossref]
736. Orthodoxia Kyriacou, Jatin Pancholi, Angathevar Baskaran. 2010. (Re)presentation of women in Indian accountancy bodies'
web sites. Qualitative Research in Accounting & Management 7:3, 329-352. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
737. Abul Hassan, Sofyan Syafri Harahap. 2010. Exploring corporate social responsibility disclosure: the case of Islamic banks.
International Journal of Islamic and Middle Eastern Finance and Management 3:3, 203-227. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
738. Francisca Farache, Keith J. Perks. 2010. CSR advertisements: a legitimacy tool?. Corporate Communications: An International
739. Veronica P. Lima Ribeiro, Cristina Aibar‐Guzman. 2010. Determinants of environmental accounting practices in local entities:
evidence from Portugal. Social Responsibility Journal 6:3, 404-419. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
740. Nina Evans, Janet Sawyer. 2010. CSR and stakeholders of small businesses in regional South Australia. Social Responsibility
741. S.X. Zeng, X.D. Xu, Z.Y. Dong, Vivian W.Y. Tam. 2010. Towards corporate environmental information disclosure: an
empirical study in China. Journal of Cleaner Production 18:12, 1142-1148. [Crossref]
742. Nan Sun, Aly Salama, Khaled Hussainey, Murya Habbash. 2010. Corporate environmental disclosure, corporate governance
and earnings management. Managerial Auditing Journal 25:7, 679-700. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
743. Sónia Maria da Silva Monteiro, Beatriz Aibar-Guzmán. 2010. Determinants of environmental disclosure in the annual reports
of large companies operating in Portugal. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management 17:4, 185-204.
[Crossref]
744. Mustaruddin Saleh, Norhayah Zulkifli, Rusnah Muhamad. 2010. Corporate social responsibility disclosure and its relation
on institutional ownership. Managerial Auditing Journal 25:6, 591-613. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
745. Sónia Maria da Silva Monteiro, Beatriz Aibar Guzmán. 2010. The influence of the Portuguese environmental accounting
standard on the environmental disclosures in the annual reports of large companies operating in Portugal. Management of
Environmental Quality: An International Journal 21:4, 414-435. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
746. Teresa Eugénio, Isabel Costa Lourenço, Ana Isabel Morais. 2010. Recent developments in social and environmental accounting
research. Social Responsibility Journal 6:2, 286-305. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
747. Elie Menassa. 2010. Corporate social responsibility. Journal of Applied Accounting Research 11:1, 4-23. [Abstract] [Full Text]
[PDF]
748. Michael John Jones. 2010. Accounting for the environment: Towards a theoretical perspective for environmental accounting
and reporting. Accounting Forum 34:2, 123-138. [Crossref]
749. Shveta Kapoor, H.S. Sandhu. 2010. Does it Pay to be Socially Responsible? An Empirical Examination of Impact of Corporate
Social Responsibility on Financial Performance. Global Business Review 11:2, 185-208. [Crossref]
750. Rania Kamla, Clare Roberts. 2010. The global and the local: Arabian Gulf States and imagery in annual reports. Accounting,
751. Hasan Fauzi, Goran Svensson, Azhar Abdul Rahman. 2010. “Triple Bottom Line” as “Sustainable Corporate Performance”:
A Proposition for the Future. Sustainability 2:5, 1345-1360. [Crossref]
752. Sumit K. Lodhia. 2010. Research methods for analysing World Wide Web sustainability communication. Social and
753. Md. Habib‐Uz‐Zaman Khan. 2010. The effect of corporate governance elements on corporate social responsibility (CSR)
reporting. International Journal of Law and Management 52:2, 82-109. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
754. Güler Aras, Aslı Aybars, Ozlem Kutlu. 2010. Managing corporate performance. International Journal of Productivity and
Performance Management 59:3, 229-254. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
755. Barbara Lynch. 2010. An examination of environmental reporting by Australian state government departments. Accounting
Forum 34:1, 32-45. [Crossref]
756. Sanjaya Kuruppu, Markus J. Milne. 2010. Dolphin deaths, organizational legitimacy and potential employees’ reactions to
assured environmental disclosures. Accounting Forum 34:1, 1-19. [Crossref]
757. Charles H. Cho, Robin W. Roberts. 2010. Environmental reporting on the internet by America's Toxic 100: Legitimacy and
self-presentation. International Journal of Accounting Information Systems 11:1, 1-16. [Crossref]
758. Antonis Skouloudis, Konstantinos Evangelinos, Fotis Kourmousis. 2010. Assessing non-financial reports according to the
Global Reporting Initiative guidelines: evidence from Greece. Journal of Cleaner Production 18:5, 426-438. [Crossref]
759. Hannele Mäkelä, Salme Näsi. 2010. Social responsibilities of MNCs in downsizing operations. Accounting, Auditing &
760. Grant Samkin, Annika Schneider. 2010. Accountability, narrative reporting and legitimation. Accounting, Auditing &
761. Derek W. Thompson, Rajat Panwar, Eric N. Hansen. 2010. Examining social responsibility orientation gaps between society
and industry executives. Management Decision 48:1, 156-171. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
762. Andrew Crane, Bahar Ali Kazmi. 2010. Business and Children: Mapping Impacts, Managing Responsibilities. Journal of
763. Jane Cote, Claire Kamm Latham. Examining both sides of stakeholder engagement: behavioral implications in
interorganizational alliances 175-201. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] [PDF]
764. Indra Abeysekera. Chapter 3 Theoretical framework 25-37. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] [PDF]
765. . References 91-100. [Citation] [Enhanced Abstract] [PDF] [PDF]
766. Linda Thorne, Lois S. Mahoney, Donna Bobek. A comparison of the association between corporate social responsibility and
executive compensation: United States versus Canada 37-56. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] [PDF]
767. Mohamed Ali Omri, Zouhaira Khelil-Rhouma. 2010. Effets de l'obligation légale de reporting sur les pratiques de divulgation
d'informations environnementales des sociétés françaises. Revue Libanaise de Gestion et d'Économie 3:5, 115-142. [Crossref]
768. Mohamed Ali Omri, Zouhaira Khelil-Rhouma. 2010. Effets de l'obligation légale de reporting sur les pratiques de divulgation
d'informations environnementales des sociétés françaises. La Revue Gestion et Organisation 3:5, 1-28. [Crossref]
769. Jean-François Henri, Marc Journeault. 2010. Eco-control: The influence of management control systems on environmental
and economic performance. Accounting, Organizations and Society 35:1, 63-80. [Crossref]
770. Crawford Spence, Javier Husillos, Carmen Correa-Ruiz. 2010. Cargo cult science and the death of politics: A critical review
of social and environmental accounting research. Critical Perspectives on Accounting 21:1, 76-89. [Crossref]
771. Gerald Chau, Sidney J. Gray. 2010. Family ownership, board independence and voluntary disclosure: Evidence from Hong
Kong. Journal of International Accounting, Auditing and Taxation 19:2, 93-109. [Crossref]
772. Bidhan L. Parmar, R. Edward Freeman, Jeffrey S. Harrison, Andrew C. Wicks, Lauren Purnell, Simone de Colle. 2010.
Stakeholder Theory: The State of the Art. The Academy of Management Annals 4:1, 403-445. [Crossref]
773. Kumba Jallow. 2010. Education for environmentally responsible behaviour in business. International Journal of Environment
and Sustainable Development 9:1/2/3, 213. [Crossref]
774. Bidhan L. Parmar, R. Edward Freeman, Jeffrey S. Harrison, Andrew C. Wicks, Lauren Purnell, Simone de Colle. 2010.
Stakeholder Theory: The State of the Art. Academy of Management Annals 4:1, 403-445. [Crossref]
775. Jay J. Janney, Greg Dess, Victor Forlani. 2009. Glass Houses? Market Reactions to Firms Joining the UN Global Compact.
776. Robert Day, Thérèse Woodward. 2009. CSR reporting and the UK financial services sector. Journal of Applied Accounting
777. Ulla Kotonen. 2009. Formal corporate social responsibility reporting in Finnish listed companies. Journal of Applied Accounting
778. TorbjÃ¶rn Tagesson, Veronica Blank, Pernilla Broberg, Sven-Olof Collin. 2009. What explains the extent and content of
social and environmental disclosures on corporate websites: a study of social and environmental reporting in Swedish listed
corporations. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management 16:6, 352-364. [Crossref]
779. José M. Moneva, Beatriz Cuellar. 2009. The Value Relevance of Financial and Non-Financial Environmental Reporting.
Environmental and Resource Economics 44:3, 441-456. [Crossref]

780. Radiah Othman, Rashid Ameer. 2009. Corporate social and environmental reporting: Where are we heading? A survey of
the literature. International Journal of Disclosure and Governance 6:4, 298-320. [Crossref]
781. Marko Järvenpää. 2009. The institutional pillars of management accounting function. Journal of Accounting & Organizational
Change 5:4, 444-471. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
782. Markus J. Milne, Helen Tregidga, Sara Walton. 2009. Words not actions! The ideological role of sustainable development
reporting. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal 22:8, 1211-1257. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
783. Pablo Archel, Javier Husillos, Carlos Larrinaga, Crawford Spence. 2009. Social disclosure, legitimacy theory and the role of
the state. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal 22:8, 1284-1307. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
784. Hua Chen, Haibin Zhang. 2009. Two‐way communication strategy on CSR information in China. Social Responsibility Journal
785. Matias Laine. 2009. Ensuring legitimacy through rhetorical changes?. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal 22:7,
786. Manuel Castelo Branco, Lúcia Lima Rodrigues. 2009. Exploring the importance of social responsibility disclosure for human
resources. Journal of Human Resource Costing & Accounting 13:3, 186-205. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
787. Lu Tang, Hongmei Li. 2009. Corporate social responsibility communication of Chinese and global corporations in China.
Public Relations Review 35:3, 199-212. [Crossref]
788. Carmelo Reverte. 2009. Determinants of Corporate Social Responsibility Disclosure Ratings by Spanish Listed Firms. Journal
789. José‐Manuel Prado‐Lorenzo, Luis Rodríguez‐Domínguez, Isabel Gallego‐Álvarez, Isabel‐María García‐Sánchez. 2009.
Factors influencing the disclosure of greenhouse gas emissions in companies world‐wide. Management Decision 47:7,
790. Md Habib‐Uz‐Zaman Khan, Abdel K. Halabi, Martin Samy. 2009. Corporate social responsibility (CSR) reporting: a study
of selected banking companies in Bangladesh. Social Responsibility Journal 5:3, 344-357. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
791. J. Emil Morhardt. 2009. General Disregard for Details of GRI Human Rights Reporting by Large Corporations. Global
Business Review 10:2, 141-158. [Crossref]
792. Bino Catasús, Maria Mårtensson, Matti Skoog. 2009. The communication of human accounts: examining models of
sensegiving. Journal of Human Resource Costing & Accounting 13:2, 163-179. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
793. Shuchi Pahuja. 2009. Relationship between environmental disclosures and corporate characteristics: a study of large
manufacturing companies in India. Social Responsibility Journal 5:2, 227-244. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
794. Fabiana Perez, Luis E. Sanchez. 2009. Assessing the Evolution of Sustainability Reporting in the Mining Sector.
795. N. Rowbottom, A. Lymer. 2009. Exploring the use of online corporate sustainability information. Accounting Forum 33:2,
176-186. [Crossref]
796. Federica Farneti, James Guthrie. 2009. Sustainability reporting by Australian public sector organisations: Why they report.
797. Mohammad I. Azim, Shaila Ahmed, Md. Shahidul Islam. 2009. Corporate Social Reporting Practice: Evidence from Listed
Companies in Bangladesh. Journal of Asia-Pacific Business 10:2, 130-145. [Crossref]
798. Niamh O'Sullivan, Brendan O'Dwyer. 2009. Stakeholder perspectives on a financial sector legitimation process. Accounting,
799. Jan Bebbington, Colin Higgins, Bob Frame. 2009. Initiating sustainable development reporting: evidence from New Zealand.
800. Crawford Spence. 2009. Social and environmental reporting and the corporate ego. Business Strategy and the Environment
18:4, 254-265. [Crossref]
801. Farid Ahammad Sobhani, Azlan Amran, Yuserrie Zainuddin. 2009. Revisiting the practices of corporate social and
environmental disclosure in Bangladesh. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management 16:3, 167-183.
[Crossref]
802. Charles H. Cho. 2009. Legitimation Strategies Used in Response to Environmental Disaster: A French Case Study of Total
SA's Erika and AZF Incidents. European Accounting Review 18:1, 33-62. [Crossref]
803. Duygu Turker. 2009. Measuring Corporate Social Responsibility: A Scale Development Study. Journal of Business Ethics 85:4,
411-427. [Crossref]
804. Matthew Haigh, James Guthrie. 2009. A political economy approach to regulated Australian information disclosures. Business
Ethics: A European Review 18:2, 192-208. [Crossref]
805. Dammak Saida. 2009. Contribution on the analysis of the environmental disclosure: a comparative study of American and
European multinationals. Social Responsibility Journal 5:1, 83-93. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
806. Jill Frances Solomon, Ian Thomson. 2009. Satanic Mills?. Accounting Forum 33:1, 74-87. [Crossref]
807. Crawford Spence. 2009. Social accounting's emancipatory potential: A Gramscian critique. Critical Perspectives on Accounting
20:2, 205-227. [Crossref]
808. Sven-Olof Yrjö Collin, Torbjörn Tagesson, Anette Andersson, Joosefin Cato, Karin Hansson. 2009. Explaining the choice
of accounting standards in municipal corporations: Positive accounting theory and institutional theory as competitive or
concurrent theories. Critical Perspectives on Accounting 20:2, 141-174. [Crossref]
809. Lori Holder-Webb, Jeffrey R. Cohen, Leda Nath, David Wood. 2009. The Supply of Corporate Social Responsibility
Disclosures Among U.S. Firms. Journal of Business Ethics 84:4, 497-527. [Crossref]
810. Marie‐Andrée Caron, Marie‐France B. Turcotte. 2009. Path dependence and path creation. Accounting, Auditing &
811. Carol A. Adams, Glen Whelan. 2009. Conceptualising future change in corporate sustainability reporting. Accounting, Auditing
812. Lorne Cummings, Chris Patel. Chapter 2 Stakeholder literature review 17-51. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] [PDF]
813. . References 209-219. [Citation] [Enhanced Abstract] [PDF] [PDF]
814. Ataur Rahman Belal, Mahmood Momin. Corporate social reporting (CSR) in emerging economies: A review and future
direction 119-143. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] [PDF]
815. Bikram Chatterjee, Monir Zaman Mir, Omar Al Farooque. The current status of related party disclosure in India: A
longitudinal analysis 287-319. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] [PDF]
816. Rob Gray, Dave Owen, Carol Adams. Some theories for social accounting?: A review essay and a tentative pedagogic
categorisation of theorisations around social accounting 1-54. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] [PDF]
817. J. Emil Morhardt. 2009. Corporate social responsibility and sustainability reporting on the Internet. Business Strategy and
the Environment n/a-n/a. [Crossref]
818. Radiah Othman, Rashid Ameer. 2009. Environmental disclosures of palm oil plantation companies in Malaysia: a tool for
stakeholder engagement. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management n/a-n/a. [Crossref]
819. Carol A. Tilt. Corporate Responsibility, Accounting and Accountants 11-32. [Crossref]
820. Stephanie Stray. 2009. Lies, damned lies and statistics: the accuracy of survey responses. Quality & Quantity 43:1, 161-171.
[Crossref]
821. Lori Holder-Webb, Jeffrey Cohen, Leda Nath, David Wood. 2008. A Survey of Governance Disclosures Among U.S. Firms.
822. Manuel Castelo Branco, Lúcia Lima Rodrigues. 2008. Factors Influencing Social Responsibility Disclosure by Portuguese
Companies. Journal of Business Ethics 83:4, 685-701. [Crossref]
823. Francisca Castilla Polo, Dolores Gallardo Vázquez. 2008. Social information within the intellectual capital report. Journal of
International Management 14:4, 353-363. [Crossref]
824. James Guthrie, Federica Farneti. 2008. GRI Sustainability Reporting by Australian Public Sector Organizations. Public Money
& Management 28:6, 361-366. [Crossref]
825. Vanessa Magness. 2008. Who are the Stakeholders Now? An Empirical Examination of the Mitchell, Agle, and Wood Theory
of Stakeholder Salience. Journal of Business Ethics 83:2, 177-192. [Crossref]
826. Azlan Amran, Abdul Manaf Rosli Bin, Bin Che Haat Mohd Hassan. 2008. Risk reporting. Managerial Auditing Journal 24:1,
827. Bino Catasús. 2008. In search of accounting absence. Critical Perspectives on Accounting 19:7, 1004-1019. [Crossref]
828. Indra Abeysekera. 2008. Intellectual capital disclosure trends: Singapore and Sri Lanka. Journal of Intellectual Capital 9:4,
829. Niladri Das, Mitali Sen, J.K. Pattanayak. 2008. Assessment of students' perception towards developing a course in
environmental accounting. International Journal of Accounting & Information Management 16:2, 122-139. [Abstract] [Full
Text] [PDF]
830. Pasi Tuominen, Terhi Uski, Iiro Jussila, Ulla Kotonen. 2008. Organization types and corporate social responsibility reporting
in Finnish forest industry. Social Responsibility Journal 4:4, 474-490. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
831. Rusmin Rusmin, Alistair M. Brown. 2008. Indonesian stakeholder viewpoints of Indonesia's anti‐money laundering legislation.
Journal of Money Laundering Control 11:3, 261-268. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
832. Muhammad Azizul Islam, Craig Deegan. 2008. Motivations for an organisation within a developing country to report social
responsibility information. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal 21:6, 850-874. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
833. Riham Rizk, Robert Dixon, Anne Woodhead. 2008. Corporate social and environmental reporting: a survey of disclosure
practices in Egypt. Social Responsibility Journal 4:3, 306-323. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
834. Edwin Mirfazli. 2008. Evaluate corporate social responsibility disclosure at Annual Report Companies in multifarious group
of industry members of Jakarta Stock Exchange (JSX), Indonesia. Social Responsibility Journal 4:3, 388-406. [Abstract] [Full
Text] [PDF]
835. Royce D. Burnett, Don R. Hansen. 2008. Ecoefficiency: Defining a role for environmental cost management. Accounting,
836. Vijaya Murthy. 2008. Corporate Social Disclosure Practices of Top Software Firms in India. Global Business Review 9:2,
173-188. [Crossref]
837. Christian Ax, Jan Marton. 2008. Human capital disclosures and management practices. Journal of Intellectual Capital 9:3,
838. Jaywant Singh, Maria del Mar Garcia de los Salmones Sanchez, Igancio Rodriguez del Bosque. 2008. Understanding Corporate
Social Responsibility and Product Perceptions in Consumer Markets: A Cross-cultural Evaluation. Journal of Business Ethics
80:3, 597-611. [Crossref]
839. Stephanie Stray. 2008. Environmental Reporting: The U.K. Water and Energy Industries: A Research Note. Journal of Business
840. Isabel Ma García-Sánchez. 2008. Corporate social reporting: segmentation and characterization of Spanish companies.
841. Suresh Cuganesan, Haider Khan. 2008. Assessing the reporting of stakeholder reciprocity in the Australian banking industry.
Journal of Human Resource Costing & Accounting 12:2, 85-101. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
842. Chris Durden. 2008. Towards a socially responsible management control system. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal
843. Manuel Castelo Branco, Lúcia Lima Rodrigues. 2008. Social responsibility disclosure: A study of proxies for the public
visibility of Portuguese banks. The British Accounting Review 40:2, 161-181. [Crossref]
844. Isabel Gallego‐Alvarez. 2008. Analysis of social information as a measure of the ethical behavior of Spanish firms. Management
Decision 46:4, 580-599. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
845. Peter M. Clarkson, Yue Li, Gordon D. Richardson, Florin P. Vasvari. 2008. Revisiting the relation between environmental
performance and environmental disclosure: An empirical analysis. Accounting, Organizations and Society 33:4-5, 303-327.
[Crossref]
846. Azlan Amran, S. Susela Devi. 2008. The impact of government and foreign affiliate influence on corporate social reporting.
847. David Williamson, Gary Lynch‐Wood. 2008. Social and environmental reporting in UK company law and the issue of
legitimacy. Corporate Governance: The international journal of business in society 8:2, 128-140. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
848. James Guthrie, Suresh Cuganesan, Leanne Ward. 2008. Disclosure media for social and environmental matters within the
Australian food and beverage industry. Social and Environmental Accountability Journal 28:1, 33-44. [Crossref]
849. Lorraine Sweeney, Joseph Coughlan. 2008. Do different industries report Corporate Social Responsibility differently? An
investigation through the lens of stakeholder theory. Journal of Marketing Communications 14:2, 113-124. [Crossref]
850. Indra Abeysekera. 2008. Motivations behind human capital disclosure in annual reports. Accounting Forum 32:1, 16-29.
[Crossref]
851. James Guthrie, Suresh Cuganesan, Leanne Ward. 2008. Industry specific social and environmental reporting: The Australian
Food and Beverage Industry. Accounting Forum 32:1, 1-15. [Crossref]
852. Reg Mathews. 2008. The British Accounting Review 40:1, 92-93. [Crossref]
853. MaryAnn Reynolds, Kristi Yuthas. 2008. Moral Discourse and Corporate Social Responsibility Reporting. Journal of Business
Ethics 78:1-2, 47-64. [Crossref]
854. David Owen. 2008. Chronicles of wasted time?. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal 21:2, 240-267. [Abstract] [Full
Text] [PDF]
855. Stephen Brammer, Stephen Pavelin. 2008. Factors influencing the quality of corporate environmental disclosure. Business
856. Esther Ortiz Martinez, David Crowther. 2008. Is disclosure the right way to comply with stakeholders? The Shell case.
857. Fabienne Fortanier, Ans Kolk. 2007. On the Economic Dimensions of Corporate Social Responsibility. Business & Society
46:4, 457-478. [Crossref]
858. Arline Savage, Joseph H. Callaghan. 2007. Animal Testing and Legitimization: Evidence of Social Investment and Corporate
Disclosure. Accounting and the Public Interest 7:1, 93-123. [Crossref]

859. Jaime Rivera‐Camino. 2007. Re‐evaluating green marketing strategy: a stakeholder perspective. European Journal of Marketing
41:11/12, 1328-1358. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
860. Crawford Spence. 2007. Social and environmental reporting and hegemonic discourse. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability
861. Kittiya Yongvanich, James Guthrie. 2007. Legitimation strategies in Australian mining extended performance reporting.
Journal of Human Resource Costing & Accounting 11:3, 156-177. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
862. Charles H. Cho, Dennis M. Patten. 2007. The role of environmental disclosures as tools of legitimacy: A research note.
Accounting, Organizations and Society 32:7-8, 639-647. [Crossref]
863. Roszaini Haniffa, Mohammad Hudaib. 2007. Exploring the Ethical Identity of Islamic Banks via Communication in Annual
Reports. Journal of Business Ethics 76:1, 97-116. [Crossref]
864. Glen Lehman. 2007. The accountability of NGOs in civil society and its public spheres. Critical Perspectives on Accounting
18:6, 645-669. [Crossref]
865. Rob Gray, Markus Milne. Future prospects for corporate sustainability reporting 184-207. [Crossref]
866. Jan Bebbington. Changing organizational attitudes and culture through sustainability accounting 226-242. [Crossref]
867. Craig Deegan. Organizational legitimacy as a motive for sustainability reporting 127-149. [Crossref]
868. Xiao Huafang, Yuan Jianguo. 2007. Ownership structure, board composition and corporate voluntary disclosure. Managerial
Auditing Journal 22:6, 604-619. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
869. Nazli A. Mohd Ghazali. 2007. Ownership structure and corporate social responsibility disclosure: some Malaysian evidence.
870. Carol A. Adams, Carlos Larrinaga‐González. 2007. Engaging with organisations in pursuit of improved sustainability
accounting and performance. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal 20:3, 333-355. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
871. Devinder Grewal, Nicholas James Darlow. 2007. The Business Paradigm for Corporate Social Reporting in the Context of
Australian Seaports. Maritime Economics & Logistics 9:2, 172-192. [Crossref]
872. Terese Fiedler, Craig Deegan. 2007. Motivations for environmental collaboration within the building and construction
industry. Managerial Auditing Journal 22:4, 410-441. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
873. Mark Shenkin, Andrea B. Coulson. 2007. Accountability through activism: learning from Bourdieu. Accounting, Auditing &
874. Samuel O. Idowu, Ioanna Papasolomou. 2007. Are the corporate social responsibility matters based on good intentions or false
pretences? An empirical study of the motivations behind the issuing of CSR reports by UK companies. Corporate Governance:
The international journal of business in society 7:2, 136-147. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
875. Neil Rotheroe, Adam Richards. 2007. Social return on investment and social enterprise: transparent accountability for
sustainable development. Social Enterprise Journal 3:1, 31-48. [Abstract] [PDF]
876. Anita Jose, Shang-Mei Lee. 2007. Environmental Reporting of Global Corporations: A Content Analysis based on Website
Disclosures. Journal of Business Ethics 72:4, 307-321. [Crossref]
877. Urša Golob, Jennifer L. Bartlett. 2007. Communicating about corporate social responsibility: A comparative study of CSR
reporting in Australia and Slovenia. Public Relations Review 33:1, 1-9. [Crossref]
878. Jan Bebbington, Ian Thomson. 2007. Social and Environmental Accounting, Auditing, and Reporting: A Potential Source of
Organisational Risk Governance?. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy 25:1, 38-55. [Crossref]
879. Shuangyu Xie, Kohji Hayase. 2007. Corporate environmental performance evaluation: a measurement model and a new
concept. Business Strategy and the Environment 16:2, 148-168. [Crossref]
880. Rania Kamla. 2007. Critically Appreciating Social Accounting and Reporting in the Arab MiddleEast: A Postcolonial
Perspective. Advances in International Accounting 20, 105-177. [Crossref]
881. Francisco Javier Husillos Carqués. 2007. Una aproximación desde la teoría de la legitimidad a la información medioambiental
revelada por las empresas españolas cotizadas. Spanish Journal of Finance and Accounting / Revista Española de Financiación
y Contabilidad 36:133, 97-121. [Crossref]
882. Dr. Geoffrey Turner, Petros Vourvachis, Dr. Thérèse Woodward. 2006. Heading towards sustainability reporting: A pilot
study into the progress of embracing the global reporting initiative in the United Kingdom. Journal of Applied Accounting
Research 8:2, 41-70. [Abstract] [PDF]
883. Rob Gray. 2006. Does sustainability reporting improve corporate behaviour?: Wrong question? Right time?. Accounting and
Business Research 36:sup1, 65-88. [Crossref]
884. Charl de Villiers, Chris J. van Staden. 2006. Can less environmental disclosure have a legitimising effect? Evidence from
Africa. Accounting, Organizations and Society 31:8, 763-781. [Crossref]
885. Kittiya Yongvanich, James Guthrie. 2006. An extended performance reporting framework for social and environmental
accounting. Business Strategy and the Environment 15:5, 309-321. [Crossref]
886. Stephen Brammer, Stephen Pavelin. 2006. Voluntary Environmental Disclosures by Large UK Companies. Journal of Business
Finance <html_ent glyph="@amp;" ascii="&"/> Accounting 33:7-8, 1168-1188. [Crossref]
887. S. Raghu Raman. 2006. Corporate Social Reporting in India—A View from the Top. Global Business Review 7:2, 313-324.
[Crossref]
888. Vanessa Magness. 2006. Strategic posture, financial performance and environmental disclosure. Accounting, Auditing &
889. Jill Frances Solomon, Aris Solomon. 2006. Private social, ethical and environmental disclosure. Accounting, Auditing &
890. Manuel Castelo Branco, Lúcia Lima Rodrigues. 2006. Communication of corporate social responsibility by Portuguese banks.
Corporate Communications: An International Journal 11:3, 232-248. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
891. Craig Deegan, Christopher Blomquist. 2006. Stakeholder influence on corporate reporting: An exploration of the interaction
between WWF-Australia and the Australian minerals industry. Accounting, Organizations and Society 31:4-5, 343-372.
[Crossref]
892. Michael Rowlinson, Steve Toms, John Wilson. 2006. Legitimacy and the capitalist corporation: Cross-cutting perspectives
on ownership and control. Critical Perspectives on Accounting 17:5, 681-702. [Crossref]
893. Jean-Pascal Gond, Olivier Herrbach. 2006. Social Reporting as an Organisational Learning Tool? A Theoretical Framework.
894. Isabel Gallego. 2006. The use of economic, social and environmental indicators as a measure of sustainable development in
Spain. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management 13:2, 78-97. [Crossref]
895. Alan Murray, Donald Sinclair, David Power, Rob Gray. 2006. Do financial markets care about social and environmental
disclosure?. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal 19:2, 228-255. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
896. Haslinda Yusoff, Glen Lehman, Noraini Mohd Nasir. 2006. Environmental engagements through the lens of disclosure
practices. Asian Review of Accounting 14:1/2, 122-148. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
897. A. Salama, A. Cathcart, M. Andrews, R. Hall. 2006. Disclosure Regulation and Accounting Education in the UK: Moving
Towards Corporate Accountability 252 and Transparency. Social Responsibility Journal 2:3/4, 251-260. [Abstract] [PDF]
898. Khondkar E. Karim, Michael J. Lacina, Robert W. Rutledge. The Association between Firm Characteristics and the Level
of Environmental Disclosure in Financial Statement Footnotes 77-109. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] [PDF]
899. David Campbell, Geoff Moore, Philip Shrives. 2006. Cross‐sectional effects in community disclosure. Accounting, Auditing
900. Sunee Ratanajongkol, Howard Davey, Mary Low. 2006. Corporate social reporting in Thailand. Qualitative Research in
Accounting & Management 3:1, 67-83. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
901. Carol Ann Tilt. 2006. Linking environmental activity and environmental disclosure in an organisational change framework.
Journal of Accounting & Organizational Change 2:1, 4-24. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
902. Kamal Naser, Ahmad Al-Hussaini, Duha Al-Kwari, Rana Nuseibeh. 2006. Determinants of Corporate Social Disclosure in
Developing Countries: The Case of Qatar. Advances in International Accounting 19, 1-23. [Crossref]
903. Heledd Jenkins, Natalia Yakovleva. 2006. Corporate social responsibility in the mining industry: Exploring trends in social
and environmental disclosure. Journal of Cleaner Production 14:3-4, 271-284. [Crossref]
904. Esther Ortiz, José G. Clavel. 2006. Índices de revelación de información: Una propuesta de mejora de la metodología.
Aplicación a la información sobre recursos humanos incluida en los Informes 20F. Spanish Journal of Finance and Accounting /
Revista Española de Financiación y Contabilidad 35:128, 87-113. [Crossref]
905. Manuel Fernández Chulián, Carlos Larrinaga González. 2006. Percepciones Sobre Contabilidad de Costes Ecológicos
Completos: Análisis Empírico en el Sector Energético Español. Spanish Journal of Finance and Accounting / Revista Española
de Financiación y Contabilidad 35:131, 225-254. [Crossref]
906. Lee D. Parker. 2005. Social and environmental accountability research. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal 18:6,
907. Matias Laine. 2005. Meanings of the term ‘sustainable development’ in Finnish corporate disclosures. Accounting Forum 29:4,
395-413. [Crossref]
908. Rania Kamla. 2005. The British Accounting Review 37:4, 484-487. [Crossref]
909. Robert Dixon, Gehan A. Mousa, Anne Woodhead. 2005. The Role of Environmental Initiatives in Encouraging Companies
to Engage in Environmental Reporting. European Management Journal 23:6, 702-716. [Crossref]
910. Nongnooch Kuasirikun. 2005. Attitudes to the development and implementation of social and environmental accounting in
Thailand. Critical Perspectives on Accounting 16:8, 1035-1057. [Crossref]

911. Hasnah Haron, Muhamad Jantan, Eow Gaik Pheng. 2005. Audit Committee Compliance with Kuala Lumpur Stock Exchange
Listing Requirements. International Journal of Auditing 9:3, 187-200. [Crossref]
912. Faudziah Hanim Fadzil, Hasnah Haron, Muhamad Jantan. 2005. Internal auditing practices and internal control system.
913. Michela Cordazzo. 2005. IC statement vs environmental and social reports. Journal of Intellectual Capital 6:3, 441-464.
914. Tony McMurtrie. 2005. Factors influencing the publication of social performance information: an Australian case study.
915. R.M. Haniffa, T.E. Cooke. 2005. The impact of culture and governance on corporate social reporting. Journal of Accounting
and Public Policy 24:5, 391-430. [Crossref]
916. Janet Luft Mobus. 2005. Mandatory environmental disclosures in a legitimacy theory context. Accounting, Auditing &
917. Kathleen Herbohn. 2005. A full cost environmental accounting experiment. Accounting, Organizations and Society 30:6,
519-536. [Crossref]
918. Ian Thomson, Jan Bebbington. 2005. Social and environmental reporting in the UK: a pedagogic evaluation. Critical
Perspectives on Accounting 16:5, 507-533. [Crossref]
919. RICHARD PETTY, SURESH CUGANESAN. 2005. Voluntary Disclosure of Intellectual Capital by Hong Kong
Companies: Examining Size, Industry and Growth Effects Over Time. Australian Accounting Review 15:36, 40-50. [Crossref]
920. Prem W. S. Yapa, Dianne Harvey, Greg Ellis. 2005. Disclosure of Corporate Environmental Policies in Annual Reports:
Further Evidence Incorporating a National Ideology–An Australian Study. Journal of Asia-Pacific Business 6:1, 75-90. [Crossref]
921. Stuart Ogden, Julia Clarke. 2005. Customer disclosures, impression management and the construction of legitimacy.
922. Lee Moerman, Sandra Van Der Laan. 2005. Social reporting in the tobacco industry: all smoke and mirrors?. Accounting,
923. Fareeha Shareef, Howard Davey. 2005. Accounting for intellectual capital: Evidence from listed English football clubs. Journal
of Applied Accounting Research 7:3, 78-116. [Abstract] [PDF]
924. George Kuk, Smeeta Fokeer, Woan Ting Hung. 2005. Strategic Formulation and Communication of Corporate Environmental
Policy Statements: UK Firms’ Perspective. Journal of Business Ethics 58:4, 375-385. [Crossref]
925. J. Hasseldine, A.I. Salama, J.S. Toms. 2005. Quantity versus quality: the impact of environmental disclosures on the
reputations of UK Plcs. The British Accounting Review 37:2, 231-248. [Crossref]
926. Manila Marcuccio, Ileana Steccolini. 2005. Social and environmental reporting in local authorities. Public Management Review
7:2, 155-176. [Crossref]
927. Vivien Beattie. 2005. Moving the financial accounting research front forward: the UK contribution. The British Accounting
928. Joyce van der Laan Smith, Ajay Adhikari, Rasoul H. Tondkar. 2005. Exploring differences in social disclosures internationally:
A stakeholder perspective. Journal of Accounting and Public Policy 24:2, 123-151. [Crossref]
929. Isabel Gallego. 2005. Situation of Corporate Social Responsibility in Spain: An Empirical Analysis. Social Responsibility Journal
1:1/2, 24-37. [Abstract] [PDF]
930. Manuel Castelo Branco, Lucia Lima Rodrigues. 2005. An Exploratory Study of Social Responsibility Disclosure on the
Internet by Portuguese Listed Companies. Social Responsibility Journal 1:1/2, 81-90. [Abstract] [PDF]
931. Jacques Igalens, Jean-Pascal Gond. 2005. Measuring Corporate Social Performance in France: A Critical and Empirical Analysis
of ARESE Data. Journal of Business Ethics 56:2, 131-148. [Crossref]
932. Jason Zezheng Xiao, Simon S. Gao, Saeed Heravi, Yuk C.Q. Cheung. 2005. The Impact of Social and Economic Development
on Corporate Social and Environmental Disclosure in Hong Kong and the U.K. Advances in International Accounting 18,
219-243. [Crossref]
933. Martin Freedman, Bikki Jaggi. 2005. Global warming, commitment to the Kyoto protocol, and accounting disclosures by the
largest global public firms from polluting industries. The International Journal of Accounting 40:3, 215-232. [Crossref]
934. IRENE M. GORDON, ALEXANDER M. GELARDI. 2005. Factors That Affect Understanding of Social Responsibility
Accounting. Canadian Accounting Perspectives 4:1, 31-59. [Crossref]
935. Alex Douglas, John Doris, Brian Johnson. 2004. Corporate social reporting in Irish financial institutions. The TQM
Magazine 16:6, 387-395. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
936. Josephine Maltby. 2004. Hadfields Ltd: its annual general meetings 1903–1939 and their relevance for contemporary corporate
social reporting. The British Accounting Review 36:4, 415-439. [Crossref]

937. Amanda Ball. 2004. A sustainability accounting project for the UK local government sector?. Critical Perspectives on Accounting
15:8, 1009-1035. [Crossref]
938. Lance Moir, Richard Taffler. 2004. Does corporate philanthropy exist?: business giving to the arts in the U.K. Journal of
939. Nongnooch Kuasirikun, Michael Sherer. 2004. Corporate social accounting disclosure in Thailand. Accounting, Auditing &
940. Anthony Emery, Michael Watson. 2004. Organizations and environmental crime. Managerial Auditing Journal 19:6, 741-759.
941. Samuel O. Idowu, Brian A. Towler. 2004. A comparative study of the contents of corporate social responsibility reports of
UK companies. Management of Environmental Quality: An International Journal 15:4, 420-437. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
942. Sulaiman A Al-Tuwaijri, Theodore E Christensen, K.E Hughes. 2004. The relations among environmental disclosure,
environmental performance, and economic performance: a simultaneous equations approach. Accounting, Organizations and
Society 29:5-6, 447-471. [Crossref]
943. Robin W. Roberts, Lois Mahoney. 2004. Stakeholder Conceptions of the Corporation: Their Meaning and Influence in
Accounting Research. Business Ethics Quarterly 14:03, 399-431. [Crossref]
944. J. Guthrie, R. Petty, K. Yongvanich, F. Ricceri. 2004. Using content analysis as a research method to inquire into intellectual
capital reporting. Journal of Intellectual Capital 5:2, 282-293. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
945. Paul Thompson, Christopher J Cowton. 2004. Bringing the environment into bank lending: implications for environmental
reporting. The British Accounting Review 36:2, 197-218. [Crossref]
946. R Day, T Woodward. 2004. Disclosure of information about employees in the Directors’ report of UK published financial
statements: substantive or symbolic?. Accounting Forum 28:1, 43-59. [Crossref]
947. Glen Lehman. 2004. Social and environmental accounting: trends and thoughts for the future. Accounting Forum 28:1, 1-5.
[Crossref]
948. Kim Hammond, Samantha Miles. 2004. Assessing quality assessment of corporate social reporting: UK perspectives.
949. Nik Nazli Nik Ahmad, Maliah Sulaiman. 2004. Environment disclosure in Malaysia annual reports: A legitimacy theory
perspective. International Journal of Commerce and Management 14:1, 44-58. [Abstract] [PDF]
950. Martin Freedman, A.J. Stagliano. ENVIRONMENTAL REPORTING AND THE RESURRECTION OF SOCIAL
ACCOUNTING 131-144. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] [PDF]
951. Lois S. Mahoney, Robin W. Roberts. CORPORATE SOCIAL PERFORMANCE 73-99. [Citation] [PDF] [PDF]
952. David Owen. Adventures in Social and Environmental Acccounting and Auditing Research: A Personal Reflection 23-36.
[Crossref]
953. S.Mitchell Williams. 2004. An international investigation of associations between societal variables and the amount of
disclosure on information technology and communication problems: The case of Y2K. The International Journal of Accounting
39:1, 71-92. [Crossref]
954. David J. Collison. 2003. Corporate propaganda: its implications for accounting and accountability. Accounting, Auditing &
955. Saverio Bozzolan, Francesco Favotto, Federica Ricceri. 2003. Italian annual intellectual capital disclosure. Journal of Intellectual
Capital 4:4, 543-558. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
956. STACEY CUNNINGHAM, DAVID GADENNE. 2003. DO CORPORATIONS PERCEIVE MANDATORY
PUBLICATION OF POLLUTION INFORMATION FOR KEY STAKEHOLDERS AS A LEGITIMACY THREAT?.
Journal of Environmental Assessment Policy and Management 05:04, 523-549. [Crossref]
957. David Collison, Nathan Lorraine, David Power. 2003. An exploration of corporate attitudes to the significance of
environmental information for stakeholders. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management 10:4, 199-211.
[Crossref]
958. Anthony R.T. Emery, Michael Watson. 2003. Eco‐auditing and environmental liability: an international perspective.
959. Michael Watson, Anthony R.T. Emery. 2003. The emerging UK law on the environment and the environmental auditing
response. Managerial Auditing Journal 18:8, 666-672. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
960. David Campbell. 2003. Intra- and intersectoral effects in environmental disclosures: evidence for legitimacy theory?. Business
961. David Campbell, Barrie Craven, Philip Shrives. 2003. Voluntary social reporting in three FTSE sectors: a comment on
perception and legitimacy. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal 16:4, 558-581. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
962. Carl-Johan Hedberg, Fredrik von Malmborg. 2003. The Global Reporting Initiative and corporate sustainability reporting
in Swedish companies. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management 10:3, 153-164. [Crossref]
963. Penny Sinclair, Julia Walton. 2003. Environmental reporting within the forest and paper industry. Business Strategy and the
Environment 12:5, 326-337. [Crossref]
964. Brendan O'Dwyer. 2003. The ponderous evolution of corporate environmental reporting in Ireland. Recent evidence from
publicly listed companies. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management 10:2, 91-100. [Crossref]
965. C.J. de Villiers. 2003. Why do South African companies not report more environmental information when managers are so
positive about this kind of reporting?. Meditari Accountancy Research 11:1, 11-23. [Abstract] [PDF]
966. Leigh Holland, Yee Boon Foo. 2003. Differences in environmental reporting practices in the UK and the US: the legal and
regulatory context. The British Accounting Review 35:1, 1-18. [Crossref]
967. Dennis M. Patten, William Crampton. LEGITIMACY AND THE INTERNET: AN EXAMINATION OF CORPORATE
WEB PAGE ENVIRONMENTAL DISCLOSURES 31-57. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] [PDF]
968. Endang Soewarso, Greg Tower, Phil Hancock, Ross Taplin. 2003. A comparative study of de jure and de facto disclosure
between Australia and Singapore. Asian Review of Accounting 11:1, 18-47. [Abstract] [PDF]
969. Manuel García-Ayuso, Carlos Larrinaga. 2003. Environmental Disclosure in Spain: Corporate Characteristics and Media
Exposure. Spanish Journal of Finance and Accounting / Revista Española de Financiación y Contabilidad 32:115, 184-214.
[Crossref]
970. Pablo Archel Domench. 2003. La Divulgación de la Información Social y Medioambiental de la Gran Empresa Española
en el Período 1994–1998: Situación Actual y Perspectivas. Spanish Journal of Finance and Accounting / Revista Española de
Financiación y Contabilidad 32:117, 571-601. [Crossref]
971. Carol Tilt. 2003. Review article: Accounting, auditing and accountability journal: Special issue on legitimacy theory. Social
and Environmental Accountability Journal 23:2, 18-20. [Crossref]
972. Dennis M. Patten. 2002. The relation between environmental performance and environmental disclosure: a research note.
Accounting, Organizations and Society 27:8, 763-773. [Crossref]
973. Robert White, Dallas Hanson. 2002. Economic man and disciplinary boundaries. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal
974. Patricia Stanton, John Stanton. 2002. Corporate annual reports: research perspectives used. Accounting, Auditing &
975. Rob Gray. 2002. The social accounting project and Accounting Organizations and Society Privileging engagement, imaginings,
new accountings and pragmatism over critique?. Accounting, Organizations and Society 27:7, 687-708. [Crossref]
976. Jean Raar. 2002. Environmental initiatives: towards triple‐bottom line reporting. Corporate Communications: An International
977. J.S. TOMS. 2002. FIRM RESOURCES, QUALITY SIGNALS AND THE DETERMINANTS OF CORPORATE
ENVIRONMENTAL REPUTATION: SOME UK EVIDENCE. The British Accounting Review 34:3, 257-282. [Crossref]
978. Sharon M. Livesey, Kate Kearins. 2002. Transparent and Caring Corporations?. Organization & Environment 15:3, 233-258.
[Crossref]
979. Craig Deegan. 2002. Introduction. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal 15:3, 282-311. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
980. Craig Deegan, Michaela Rankin, John Tobin. 2002. An examination of the corporate social and environmental disclosures
of BHP from 1983‐1997. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal 15:3, 312-343. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
981. Gary O’Donovan. 2002. Environmental disclosures in the annual report. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal 15:3,
982. Brendan O’Dwyer. 2002. Managerial perceptions of corporate social disclosure. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal
983. Markus J. Milne. 2002. Positive accounting theory, political costs And social disclosure analyses: a critical look. Critical
Perspectives on Accounting 13:3, 369-395. [Crossref]
984. Carol A. Adams. 2002. Internal organisational factors influencing corporate social and ethical reporting. Accounting, Auditing
985. 2002. A structuration view on the initiation of environmental reports. Critical Perspectives on Accounting 13:1, 17-38. [Crossref]
986. Philip R. Beaulieu, S. Mitchell Williams, Michael E. Wright. Intellectual Capital Disclosures in Swedish Annual Reports
135-156. [Crossref]
987. Marc Newson, Craig Deegan. 2002. Global expectations and their association with corporate social disclosure practices in
Australia, Singapore, and South Korea. The International Journal of Accounting 37:2, 183-213. [Crossref]
988. Gerald K Chau, Sidney J Gray. 2002. Ownership structure and corporate voluntary disclosure in Hong Kong and Singapore.
The International Journal of Accounting 37:2, 247-265. [Crossref]
989. Denis Cormier, Irene M. Gordon. 2001. An examination of social and environmental reporting strategies. Accounting, Auditing
990. Andrew L. Friedman, Samantha Miles. 2001. Socially Responsible Investment and Corporate Social and Environmental
Reporting in the UK: An Exploratory Study. The British Accounting Review 33:4, 523-548. [Crossref]
991. Glen Lehman. 2001. Reclaiming the public sphere: problems and prospects for corporate social and environmental accounting.
Critical Perspectives on Accounting 12:6, 713-733. [Crossref]
992. Dennis W. Taylor, Maliah Sulaiman, Michael Sheahan. 2001. Auditing of environmental management systems: alegitimacy
theory perspective. Managerial Auditing Journal 16:7, 411-422. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
993. James Guthrie, Richard Petty, Ulf Johanson. 2001. Sunrise in the knowledge economy. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability
994. S. Mitchell Williams. 2001. Is intellectual capital performance and disclosure practices related?. Journal of Intellectual Capital
995. David Woodward, Pam Edwards, Frank Birkin. 2001. Some Evidence on Executives’ views of Corporate Social Responsibility.
The British Accounting Review 33:3, 357-397. [Crossref]
996. Susan B Hughes, Allison Anderson, Sarah Golden. 2001. Corporate environmental disclosures: are they useful in determining
environmental performance?. Journal of Accounting and Public Policy 20:3, 217-240. [Crossref]
997. Gerald Chau, Terence Chan. 2001. Challenges faced by accountancy education during and beyond the years of transition—
some Hong Kong evidence. Journal of Accounting Education 19:3, 145-162. [Crossref]
998. Ataur Rahman Belal. 2001. A study of corporate social disclosures in Bangladesh. Managerial Auditing Journal 16:5, 274-289.
999. Carol Ann Tilt. 2001. The content and disclosure of Australian corporate environmental policies. Accounting, Auditing &
1000. C.J. de Villiers, D.S. Lubbe. 2001. Industry differences in respect of corporate environmental reporting in South Africa: A
research note. Meditari Accountancy Research 9:1, 81-91. [Abstract] [PDF]
1001. A Savage, E Gilbert, J Rowlands, AJ Cataldo. 2001. Environmental disclosure in annual reports: A legitimacy theory
perspective. South African Journal of Accounting Research 15:2, 19-48. [Crossref]
1002. Jeffrey Unerman. 2000. Methodological issues ‐ Reflections on quantification in corporate social reporting content analysis.
1003. Stephanie Stray, Joan Ballantine. 2000. A sectoral comparison of corporate environmental reporting and disclosure. Eco-
Management and Auditing 7:4, 165-177. [Crossref]
1004. James Guthrie, Richard Petty. 2000. Intellectual capital: Australian annual reporting practices. Journal of Intellectual Capital
1005. Ataur Rahman Belal. 2000. Environmental reporting in developing countries: empirical evidence from Bangladesh. Eco-
Management and Auditing 7:3, 114-121. [Crossref]
1006. David Bailey, George Harte, Roger Sugden. 2000. Corporate disclosure and the deregulation of international investment.
1007. Maths Lundgren, Bino Catas�s. 2000. The banks' impact on the natural environment - on the space between ?what is?
and ?what if?. Business Strategy and the Environment 9:3, 186-195. [Crossref]
1008. Jose M. Moneva, Fernando Llena. 2000. Environmental disclosures in the annual reports of large companies in Spain. European
Accounting Review 9:1, 7-29. [Crossref]
1009. Carol A. Adams, Nongnooch Kuasirikun. 2000. A comparative analysis of corporate reporting on ethical issues by UK and
German chemical and pharmaceutical companies. European Accounting Review 9:1, 53-79. [Crossref]
1010. Michel Capron, Rob Gray. 2000. Experimenting with assessing corporate social responsibility in France: an exploratory note
on an initiative by social economy firms. European Accounting Review 9:1, 99-109. [Crossref]
1011. Maths Lundgren, Bino Catas�s. 2000. The banks' impact on the natural environment - on the space between ?what is?
and ?what if?. Business Strategy and the Environment 9:3, 186-195. [Crossref]
1012. C.J. de Villiers, P. Barnard. 2000. Environmental reporting in South Africa from 1994 to 1999: A research note. Meditari
Accountancy Research 8:1, 15-23. [Abstract] [PDF]
1013. Trevor D. Wilmshurst, Geoffrey R. Frost. 2000. Corporate environmental reporting. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability
1014. Nafez Abu‐Baker, Kanial Naser. 2000. EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE ON CORPORATE SOCIAL DISCLOSURE (CSD)
PRACTICES IN JORDAN. International Journal of Commerce and Management 10:3/4, 18-34. [Abstract] [PDF]
1015. Rob Gray, Jan Bebbington. Environmental accounting, managerialism and sustainability: Is the planet safe in the hands of
business and accounting? 1-44. [Abstract] [Enhanced Abstract] [PDF] [PDF]
1016. Arline Savage, a.J. Cataldo, Jeff Rowlands. A multi-case investigation of environmental legitimation in annual reports 45-81.
[Abstract] [Enhanced Abstract] [PDF] [PDF]
1017. Mary Ann Reynolds, M.R. Mathews. The environment and the accountant as ethical actor 83-100. [Abstract] [Enhanced
Abstract] [PDF] [PDF]
1018. Dennis M. Patten. Changing superfund disclosure and its relation to the provision of other environmental information
101-121. [Abstract] [Enhanced Abstract] [PDF] [PDF]
1019. Susan B. Hughes, James F. Sander, Joanna C. Reier. Do environmental disclosures in U.S. annual reports differ by
environmental performance? 141-161. [Abstract] [Enhanced Abstract] [PDF] [PDF]
1020. Fouad K. Alnajjar. Determinants of social responsibility disclosures of U.S. Fortune 500 firms: An application of content
analysis 163-200. [Abstract] [Enhanced Abstract] [PDF] [PDF]
1021. Sumit K. Lodhia. 2000. Social and environmental reporting in Fiji: A review of recent corporate annual reports. Social and
1022. MARKUS J. MILNE, CHRISTIAN C.C. CHAN. 1999. NARRATIVE CORPORATE SOCIAL DISCLOSURES: HOW
MUCH OF A DIFFERENCE DO THEY MAKE TO INVESTMENT DECISION-MAKING?. The British Accounting
1023. Tony Tinker. 1999. MICKEY MARXISM RIDES AGAIN!. Critical Perspectives on Accounting 10:5, 643-670. [Crossref]
1024. Christian C. C. Chan, Markus J. Milne. 1999. Investor reactions to corporate environmental saints and sinners: an experimental
analysis. Accounting and Business Research 29:4, 265-279. [Crossref]
1025. Linda Lewis, Jeffrey Unerman. 1999. ETHICAL RELATIVISM: A REASON FOR DIFFERENCES IN CORPORATE
SOCIAL REPORTING?. Critical Perspectives on Accounting 10:4, 521-547. [Crossref]
1026. S.Mitchell Williams, Carol-Anne Ho Wern Pei. 1999. Corporate social disclosures by listed companies on their web sites: an
international comparison. The International Journal of Accounting 34:3, 389-419. [Crossref]
1027. S.Mitchell Williams. 1999. Voluntary environmental and social accounting disclosure practices in the Asia-Pacific region: an
international empirical test of political economy theory. The International Journal of Accounting 34:2, 209-238. [Crossref]
1028. Markus J. Milne, Ralph W. Adler. 1999. Exploring the reliability of social and environmental disclosures content analysis.
1029. Jane Gibbon, Dr. Prem Lal Joshi. 1999. A survey of environmental accounting and reporting in Bahrain. Journal of Applied
Accounting Research 5:1, 4-36. [Abstract] [PDF]
1030. Glen Lehman. 1999. Disclosing new worlds: a role for social and environmental accounting and auditing. Accounting,
1031. Eric W. K. Tsang. 1998. A longitudinal study of corporate social reporting in Singapore. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability
1032. D Neu, H Warsame, K Pedwell. 1998. Managing Public Impressions: Environmental Disclosures in Annual Reports.
Accounting, Organizations and Society 23:3, 265-282. [Crossref]
1033. ULF JOHANSON, HUNTER MABON. 1998. The Personnel Economics Institute After Ten Years: What Has Been
Achieved and Where Are We Going?. Journal of Human Resource Costing & Accounting 3:2, 65-76. [Abstract] [PDF]
1034. Craig Deegan, Michaela Rankin. 1997. The materiality of environmental information to users of annual reports. Accounting,
1035. Roger L Burritt, Stephen Welch. 1997. Accountability for environmental performance of the Australian Commonwealth
public sector. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal 10:4, 532-561. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
1036. M.R. Mathews. 1997. Twenty‐five years of social and environmental accounting research. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability
1037. Rob Gray, Colin Dey, Dave Owen, Richard Evans, Simon Zadek. 1997. Struggling with the praxis of social accounting.
1038. Jan Bebbington. 1997. Engagement, education and sustainability. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal 10:3, 365-381.
1039. Sonja Gallhofer, Jim Haslam. 1997. The direction of green accounting policy: critical reflections. Accounting, Auditing &
1040. Susan Bartlett, Michael John Jones. 1997. Annual reporting disclosures 1970-90: an exemplification. Accounting, Business &
Financial History 7:1, 61-80. [Crossref]
1041. Andrew J Lemon, Steven F Cahan. 1997. Environmental Legislation and Environmental Disclosures: Some Evidence From
New Zealand. Asian Review of Accounting 5:1, 78-105. [Abstract] [PDF]
1042. Giovanni Azzone, Giuliano Noci, Raffaella Manzini, Richard Welford, C. William Young. 1996. DEFINING
ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE INDICATORS: AN INTEGRATED FRAMEWORK. Business Strategy and the
Environment 5:2, 69-80. [Crossref]
1043. Craig Deegan, Ben Gordon. 1996. A Study of the Environmental Disclosure Practices of Australian Corporations. Accounting
and Business Research 26:3, 187-199. [Crossref]
1044. Craig Deegan, Michaela Rankin. 1996. Do Australian companies report environmental news objectively?. Accounting, Auditing
1045. David Hackston, Markus J. Milne. 1996. Some determinants of social and environmental disclosures in New Zealand
companies. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal 9:1, 77-108. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
1046. Lee D. Parker. 1996. Broad Scope Accountability the Reporting Priority. Australian Accounting Review 6:11, 3-15. [Crossref]
1047. Rob Gray, Reza Kouhy, Simon Lavers. 1995. Constructing a research database of social and environmental reporting by UK
companies. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal 8:2, 78-101. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
1048. Ataur Rahman Belal, Vasily Lubinin. Russia: Corporate Social Disclosures 165-179. [Crossref]
1049. Marwa Hassaan. Sustainability Reporting in Transitional Economies 673-693. [Crossref]
1050. Juana Alonso-Cañadas, María del Mar Gálvez-Rodríguez, María del Carmen Caba-Pérez, Laura Saraite. Online Disclosure
of Social Responsibility Strategies 222-241. [Crossref]
1051. . Literature Review 1-4. [Crossref]
1052. . Innovation 200-229. [Crossref]
1053. . Sustainability 118-141. [Crossref]
1054. Charles H. Cho, Den M. Patten, Robin W. Roberts. Environmental Disclosures and Impression Management 217-231.
[Crossref]
1055. Marwa Hassaan. Sustainability Reporting in Transitional Economies 184-204. [Crossref]
1056. Maria da Conceição C. Tavares, Lúcia Lima Rodrigues. The Determinants of Sustainability Reporting of the Portuguese
Public Sector Entities 226-251. [Crossref]
1057. . The Triple Bottom Line (TBL) Approach from the Accounting and Performance Measurement Perspective 1-24. [Crossref]
1058. . New Dimension of Accounting Information 25-49. [Crossref]
1059. . European and International Standards for Social and Environmental Reporting 50-87. [Crossref]
1060. . Models for Measuring and Reporting of Green Performance 114-139. [Crossref]
1061. . Quality of Corporate Communication in a Sustainable Environment 211-237. [Crossref]
1062. Elisa Baraibar-Diez, María D. Odriozola, José Luis Fernández Sánchez. Storytelling about CSR 209-230. [Crossref]
1063. . Theories on Integrated Reporting 23-28. [Crossref]
1064. Ahmet Özcan. The Role of Human Resource Accounting in the Business Environment 99-120. [Crossref]

Gray1995, Corporate Social and Environmental Reporting

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Gray1995, Corporate Social and Environmental Reporting

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal

*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

Rob Gray, Reza Kouhy and Simon Lavers

Articulating corporate social reporting

CSR to that which can be articulated within the confines of conventional

empirical literature on social disclosure and then attempts to theorize

Empirical findings and theorizing in the CSR literature

posture, senior executive attitudes and the existence of a social responsibility

Economic theory studies

Social and political theory studies

bourgeois interpretation of political economy. These two points of view are

(actual) changes in the organization’s performance and activities. (This strategy

trivial. The development of employee and employment reporting in the UK in

UK social and environmental disclosure

data may possibly be interpreted as a “compensation” for the rise in pensions

Interpreting the trends in UK social disclosure

approximately 10 per cent to 32 per cent of total disclosure. Customer-related

pensions). This suggests to us that we can read these disclosure developments

observed in ESOPs disclosure could be understood as a reflection of political

environmental agenda could be seen as the development of a new element of

Conclusions, summaries and future work

8,2 Average pages

References and further reading

Schreuder, H. (1979), “Corporate social reporting in the Federal Republic of Germany: an

Appendix: Descriptions of categories of disclosure

About Its Effects on CSR 151-165. [Crossref]

Journal 21:3, 352-370. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Responsibility 109-130. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] [PDF]

Journal of Business Ethics 121:2, 233-254. [Crossref]

Environmental and Resource Economics 44:3, 441-456. [Crossref]

Disclosure. Accounting and the Public Interest 7:1, 93-123. [Crossref]

Thailand. Critical Perspectives on Accounting 16:8, 1035-1057. [Crossref]

social reporting. The British Accounting Review 36:4, 415-439. [Crossref]

You might also like