Received: 21 March 2020 Revised: 29 June 2020 Accepted: 17 July 2020

DOI: 10.1002/csr.2021

RESEARCH ARTICLE

Corporate social reporting—Shareholder perception and its

determinants

Mohammad Talha1 | Samuel Benjamin Christopher2 | Karthikeyani Jaganathan3

1
Department of Accounting and Finance,
College of Business Administration, Prince Abstract
Mohammad Bin Fahd University, Al-Khobar, Corporate Social Report brings out how ethically the surplus fund is utilized for the
Saudi Arabia
2 betterment of the society. Perception on the importance of this report may not be
Department of Commerce, Nallamuthu
Gounder Mahalingam College, Coimbatore, homogenous among shareholders. A study has been taken up to examine the percep-
Tamil Nadu, India
tion of shareholders on corporate social reporting, under Indian context. Using a
3
Department of Commerce (Cost and
Management Accounting), PSG College of Arts structured questionnaire, data have been collected from 300 shareholders, adopting
and Science, Coimbatore, Tamil Nadu, India convenience sampling method. Friedman's Rank Test, used to examine the impor-
Correspondence tance attached to items disclosed in Corporate Social Reports, shows that share-
Mohammad Talha, Department of Accounting holders give greater importance to employee health and safety-related information.
and Finance, College of Business
Administration, Prince Mohammad Bin Fahd They are equally concerned about details on product quality control. Therefore, com-
University, Al-Khobar, Saudi Arabia. panies, while drafting the reports, should focus more on these elements. Determi-
Email: mtalha@pmu.edu.sa
nants of shareholder perception, examined through regression analysis, shows that
perception is highly influenced by the importance shareholders attach to Corporate
Social Report.

KEYWORDS

corporate social reporting, determinants of shareholder perception, importance to social

reporting, shareholder perception

1 | I N T RO DU CT I O N the shareholders about the types of activities organized to promote

The primary goal of any business enterprise is to earn profit and maxi-
mizing shareholder wealth, by employing the resources drawn from
the environment in which the business is being operated. However,
with the passage of time, it has been highly felt that the corporate
business organizations should return to the society a significant por-
tion of the profit to the society by carrying out activities that highly
benefit the stakeholders. Called “Corporate Social Responsibility
(CSR),” every business organization has started to embrace it and
accordingly plan and execute society-centric programmes. Not stop-
ping with execution, the corporations have begun to disseminate
information on CSR, fulfilled by them with an emphasis on the impact
the programmes have had on the beneficiaries. Termed as “Corporate
Social Reporting,” this kind of report assumes greater importance
these days and a separate space is allotted in the annual reports of
the companies to accommodate such information. Gray et al. (1996)
consider “Corporate Social Reports” as one used to communicate to
social welfare and the benefits derived out of such activities. Leonski
and Beyer (2016) observe that being one of the instruments of CSR, a
corporate social report documents the activities carried out by an
organization which is socially, ecologically, and environmentally
responsible.
2 | RE V I E W O F L I T E R A T U R E
Corporate Social Reporting as a theme of study has gained popularity
among researchers and as such many have studied the concept from
different angles. Schreuder (1981) has examined the reactions of
employees toward the Corporate Social Reports published. From a list
of corporations which were known to have published a social report,
five were selected. Two hundred and forty employees of such corpo-
rations were interviewed. The findings suggested that social report
was accepted by employees as a corporate means of communication.

Corp Soc Responsib Environ Manag. 2020;e2021. wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/csr © 2020 ERP Environment and John Wiley & Sons Ltd 1 of 13
https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.2021
2 of 13
Epstein and Freedman (1994) have carried out a study on “social
disclosure and individual investors.” They have found that share-
holders expect a lot from the social disclosures in annual report espe-
cially, pieces of information on product, its safety as well as quality,
environmental activities of the company, corporate ethics, employee
relations, and community involvement. A significant number of share-
holders expect the companies to go for an audit of the social
disclosure.
Naser and Baker (1999) have explored the perception of user
groups such as public accountants, academics, and government offi-
cials in addition to finance managers, on corporate social disclosure.
The study used questionnaire method with a total sample size of
206 from all the four groups of users. Financial managers and public
accountants believe that companies should accept wider social
responsibilities to the extent it was necessary for the viability of the
business. Academics and government officials think that a business
enterprise should be responsible to a wider audience.
O'Donovan (2002) has studied the choice of disclosure methods
employed by organizations to justify their existence. Reporting,
according to him, is event-specific. Only those activities that have a
considered impact on the society are reported while those of a little
significance are omitted from the corporate social reports.
Al-Khater and Naser (2003) have examined the users' perception
of CSR and accountability in Qatar with an emphasis to examine the
opinion on CSR disclosure. Data have been collected from four differ-
ent types of users, namely accountants, external auditors, academi-
cians, and bank officers. The findings reveal that the respondents
expect the social responsibility disclosure to be accommodated in a
separate section in the annual report or shown in the Directors'
Report. Disclosure is to be regulated by law and be expressed in mon-
etary and nonmonetary terms. It may be noted that this study has not
considered individual shareholders though they have enough power
to influence a company to go for corporate social disclosure.
There has been growing demand among the investors for infor-
mation pertaining to social responsibility activities of a company.
Hockeryts and Moir (2004) observe that investors have tended to pay
more attention to non-financial information, especially that of
CSR ones.
Belal (2006) has taken up a study to explore the shareholders'
perception on Corporate Social Reporting, in Bangladesh. Data
have been collected from 10 different stakeholders namely
Employees, Consumers, Pressure Groups, Environmental Target
Group, Environmental Journalists Group, NGOs, promoting trans-
parency in Bangladesh, Civil activists/academics, Regulatory Body,
Accountants, and Accounting Practitioners. Telephonic interview
method has been followed to collect data. The results have rev-
ealed that majority of the respondents are in favor of corporate
social reporting. Furthermore, the respondents are of the view that
reporting should be made mandatory and be verified. They expect
the corporates to go for extensive coverage of social
responsibility.
Rahin (2009) has made an attempt to highlight the perception of
accountants toward social reporting by the Islamic Financial
TALHA ET AL.
Institutions (IFI). Questionnaires have been distributed to 1,500 regis-
tered members of Malaysian Institute of Accountants (MIA) by two
methods, that is, normal mail and email. The response rate is 7%. All
the 105 responses are usable for the study. Annual reports of selected
IFIs for the year 2006 and 2007 have been used. According to the
results of the perceived social items, the accountants in Malaysia
expect more social reporting.
de Villiers and van Staden (2010) have examined why the share-
holders expect corporates to disclose information relating to environ-
mental activities. Their main aim is to find out why the shareholders
need such information and how the corporates should report such
information which can be reliable and authentic. Sixty-nine share-
holders who are active members in South African Shareholders' Asso-
ciation form the sample. They have found that shareholders want
their companies to report on environmental related information. A
separate section may be allotted for such disclosure, in the annual
report. Details may also be hosted in the company's website. Many
preferred the report to be audited to ensure reliability. It is found that
shareholders make use of the information for various purposes includ-
ing investment decision.
Gunawan (2010) has examined the perception of stakeholders on
the Corporate Social Disclosures in Indonesia. Data have been collected
from 306 stakeholders, who broadly included suppliers, shareholders,
investors, customers, employees, and the communities. It has been found
that demand for a particular piece of corporate disclosure is not homoge-
nous among the different types of stakeholders. Details relating to awards
received, mentioning of corporate missions and disseminating responsibil-
ities of companies to the consumers seemed to be very important to the
suppliers; sustainability information is most wanted by the shareholders,
while other stakeholders considered product related information as more
pertinent. They conclude that the information as needed by the stake-
holders is not revealed by the companies.
de Villiers and van Staden (2012) have carried out a study to
examine the shareholder attitudes toward corporate environmental
disclosure in New Zealand. A sample of 360 active shareholders par-
ticipated in the survey. They have found that shareholders do want
the companies to disclose information specifically relating to environ-
mental risk, environmental policy, environmental targets, and perfor-
mance against targets. As for the disclosure of information, many
have demanded the information to be published in a separate
section within the annual report. The disclosures should be regulated
by law and preferably audited.
Review of research studies clearly indicates that the corporate
social reporting practices of firms in developed nations have been
extensively analyzed and among the developing nations, the focus has
remained on the newly industrialized countries. Relatively less number
of studies has been carried out in India. Apart from this, a significant
vacuum exists as to the studies on shareholder perception on corpo-
rate social reporting practices. Studies conducted so far have concen-
trated on the opinion of stakeholders like accountants, employees,
bankers, and the like. The present study has been specifically under-
taken to fill the existing gap in the research on the perception of
shareholders on corporate social reporting.
TALHA ET AL.
The aim of corporate social reporting should be to disclose
information that benefits the shareholders and the society at large.
Companies must, therefore, decide about the shareholders they are
targeting, ascertain what they think, and what do they desire to
have. The usefulness of information for making decisions should be
the key in deciding what is to be reported and how that reporting
should be done. Shareholders may demand more information on
CSR as executed by companies so that they can take effective
portfolio decisions. In this backdrop, it is necessary to know, what
is the level of importance attached by shareholders to the various
items found in Corporate Social Report? What are the variables
that influence the perception of shareholders on corporate social
reporting?
3 | OBJECTIVES
Accordingly, the following objectives have been framed:
1. To examine the level of importance assigned by the shareholders
to the items found in Corporate Social Report.
2. To find out the determinants of shareholder perception on Corpo-
rate Social Reporting.
4 | M E TH O DO LO GY
The study has made use of primary data relating to shareholder per-
ception on Corporate Social Reporting which have been obtained by
administering a structured questionnaire. Following convenience sam-
pling procedure, 500 investors have been issued with the question-
naire. Help of stock broking firms was obtained in locating the
investors. Of the 500 questionnaires, 130 were not returned. It was
found that 70 questionnaires were partially filled. Thus, only
300 investors formed the final sample. The response rate comes to
60%, sufficient for the study and it is fairly above the rate obtained by
de Villiers and van Staden (2012). They were able to get a response
rate of 44% while others like Epstein and Freedman (1994) could
obtain 8.5% response rate. The sample shareholders are mostly urban-
ites (193; 64.33%), belonging to the age group ranging up to 40 (178;
59.33%), predominantly male (252; 84%) possessing undergraduate
qualification (147; 49.00%) and are employed (134; 44.67%). The
order of importance attached to the various components of Corporate
Social Report has been found out using Friedman's Rank Test. The
determinants of perception on Corporate Social Reporting are found
out using Regression and Step-wise regression.
5 | IMPORTANCE ATTACHED TO CSR
The users of social report include the present and potential share-
holders, employees, trade creditors, Government and their agencies,
and the public. They require a lot of information with regard to social
3 of 13
responsibilities. Woodward, Edwards, and Birkin (2001) have found
that executives consider the engagement in CSR activities as a
proactive goal of their company, which is related to image building.
Shareholders would like to know how ethical their companies are and
hence an attempt has been made to examine the level of importance
they attach to various pieces of information provided in the Corporate
Social Report of the companies. Twenty-six items have been grouped
under four headings namely, Environment, Community Involvement,
Products, and Employee Details. Shareholders have been asked to
express their level of importance to those activities carried out by a
company and revealed through Corporate Social Reports. Importance
to the 26 items is rated on a 3-point Likert Scale. Table 1 consolidates
the opinions expressed by the shareholders.
5.1 | Environment
The environmental movement is placing a pressure on companies to
disclose their activities. Heard and Bolce (1981) claim activist organi-
zations have been instrumental in calling attention to issues such as
product quality and safety, environmental protection and have had a
substantial impact on the development of social measurement and
social reporting.
Pollution control
The companies have to necessarily implement pollution control to ful-
fill the societal demands. Shareholders, therefore, can be expected to
pin high importance to pollution control measures taken by a com-
pany. It is seen that out of 300 shareholders, 78 (26.00%) attach low
importance to pollution control; 134 (44.67%) attach moderate impor-
tance and 88 (29.33%) attach high importance to the item pollution
control.
Prevention of environmental damage
It is an equal responsibility of the shareholders to influence their com-
panies to involve in environment protection measures. Environment-
conscious shareholders, hence, may attach more importance to
reporting on environment protection measures taken up by a com-
pany. It can be seen from the Table 1 that of the 300 shareholders,
46(15.33%) attach low importance to the item “prevention of environ-
mental damage”; 182(60.67%) attach moderate importance and
72(24.00%) attach high importance. A majority of them attach moder-
ate importance.
Conservation of natural resources
Preserving the natural resources has to be one of the prime activities
in the list of social-responsibility events, a company may carry out.
4 of 13 TALHA ET AL.

TABLE 1 Importance to items in corporate social reports

Level of importance

Disclosure items Low Moderate High Total Mean rank

A. Environment
Pollution control 78 (26.00%) 134 (44.67%) 88 (29.33%) 300 (100.00%) 13.31
Prevention of environmental damage 46 (15.33%) 182 (60.67%) 72 (24.00%) 300 (100.00%) 13.89
Conservation of natural resources 51 (17.00%) 175 (58.33%) 74 (24.67%) 300 (100.00%) 13.88
Raw material conservation 56 (18.67%) 173 (57.67%) 71 (23.67%) 300 (100.00%) 13.62
Environmental hazard production research 58 (19.33%) 184 (61.33%) 58 (19.33%) 300 (100.00%) 13.10
Environmental action support 49 (16.33%) 173 (57.67%) 78 (26.00%) 300 (100.00%) 14.03
B. Community involvement
Community activities 84 (28.00%) 180 (60.00%) 36 (12.00%) 300 (100.00%) 11.43
Health-related activities 64 (21.33%) 199 (66.33%) 37 (12.33%) 300 (100.00%) 12.04
Education and arts 47 (15.67%) 191 (63.67%) 62 (20.67%) 300 (100.00%) 13.53
Charitable donation 79 (26.33%) 179 (59.67%) 42 (14.00%) 300 (100.00%) 11.86
Support to community activity of employees 61 (20.33%) 184 (61.33%) 55 (18.33%) 300 (100.00%) 12.93
Participation in governmental committees 77 (25.67%) 163 (54.33%) 60 (20.00%) 300 (100.00%) 12.58
C. Products
Safety 64 (21.33%) 123 (41.00%) 113 (37.67%) 300 (100.00%) 14.80
Reducing pollution from product use 47 (15.67%) 174 (58.00%) 79 (26.33%) 300 (100.00%) 14.19
Improvement of public interest toward eco-friendly 56 (18.67%) 178 (59.33%) 66 (22.00%) 300 (100.00%) 13.38
products
Consumer affairs expenditure 63 (21.00%) 187 (62.33%) 50 (16.67%) 300 (100.00%) 12.76
Quality control 41 (13.67%) 160 (53.33%) 99 (33.00%) 300 (100.00% 15.26
D. Employee details
Employee health and safety 61 (20.33%) 126 (42.00%) 113 (37.67%) 300 (100.00%) 15.24
Employee training 41 (13.67%) 169 (56.33%) 90 (30.00%) 300 (100.00%) 15.00
Education facilities 49 (16.33%) 162 (54.00%) 89 (29.67%) 300 (100.00%) 14.59
Retirement benefits 67 (22.33%) 171 (57.00%) 62 (20.67%) 300 (100.00%) 13.03
Leave facility 69 (23.00%) 170 (56.67%) 61 (20.33%) 300 (100.00%) 12.86
Industrial accidents 63 (21.00%) 157 (52.33%) 80 (26.67%) 300 (100.00%) 13.64
Employment of women 61 (20.33%) 182 (60.67%) 57 (19.00%) 300 (100.00%) 12.98
Trade union/worker consultation 72 (24.00%) 161 (53.67%) 67 (22.33%) 300 (100.00%) 13.05
Profit sharing scheme 57 (19.00%) 158 (52.67%) 85 (28.33%) 300 (100.00%) 14.04

Note: df: 25, Calculated χ2 value: 203.631; Table value: 1% level: 44.314; 5% level: 37.652; 10% level: 34.382.

Depleting natural resources is sure to adversely impact the prospects
of the growth of any economy. Shareholders, in all probability, would
view positively the measures taken by a company to conserve the nat-
ural resources which are fixed in nature. Out of 300 shareholders,
51 (17.00%) attach low importance to the item “conservation of natu-
ral resources”; 175 (58.33%) attach moderate importance and
74 (24.67%) attach high importance.
resources. Furthermore, the environmental movement may be active
in applying pressure on companies to economize the use of resources.
Of the 300 shareholders, 56 (18.67%) assign low importance to “Raw
material conservation”; 173(57.67%) assign moderate importance and
71 (23.67%) assign high importance.
Environmental hazard production research

Raw material conservation
While preserving natural resources is very much needed, equally
required is the economical use of such reservoir of resources. Econo-
mizing the use automatically will result in preserving the natural
Companies are accountable to stakeholders including researchers who
look for information relating to environmental hazard production
research. It is seen 58 (19.33%) shareholders attach low importance
to “Environmental hazard production research”; 184 (61.33%) attach
moderate importance and 58 (19.33%) attach high importance.
TALHA ET AL.
Environmental action support
Society expects the companies to support environmental activities.
It is the responsibility of a company to extend helping hand to
those who involve in such activities. Out of 300 shareholders,
49 (16.33%) give low importance, 173(57.67%) give moderate
importance and 78 (26.00%) give high importance to “Environmen-
tal action support.”
5.2 | Community involvement
The section “Community Involvement” includes reporting on commu-
nity activities, health-related activities, education and arts, charitable
donation, support to community activity of employees, and participa-
tion in governmental committees. The level of importance attached by
the shareholders to these items is explained in the following
paragraphs.
Community activities
Any organization has to positively respond to the demands of the
society in which it has its operations and devising and implementing
community-centric activities would much be appreciated. It can be
seen from Table 1 that 84 (28.00%) attach low importance to “com-
munity activities”, 180(60.00%) attach moderate importance, and
36(12.00%) attach high importance.
Health-related activities
Companies are coming forward to contribute to health-related activi-
ties. Out of 300 shareholders, 64 (21.33%) attach low importance to
“health-related activities,” 199 (66.33%) attach moderate importance,
and 37 (12.33%) attach high importance.
Education and arts
Honing the skill set of employees through various educational
programmes including training will make the employees feel satisfied
with their jobs. Therefore, every company devises programmes to
upgrade the skill of the employees through well-thought out educa-
tional programmes. It is seen that 47 (15.67%) shareholders attach
low importance to “education and arts,” 19(63.67%) attach moderate
importance, and 62 (20.67%) attach high importance.
Charitable donation
Companies do contribute significant amount as donations for various
welfare activities. The Company Law in India also mandates that a
5 of 13
certain percentage of profit of the companies be spent on activities
that largely benefit the society. It has been found that 79 (26.33%)
shareholders attach low importance to details on “charitable
donation,” 179 (59.67%) attach moderate importance, and
42 (14.00%) attach high importance.
Support to community activity of employees
Employees also play a vital role in providing benefits to the society
through their efforts. Companies do volunteer to support employees
in their community activities. It is found that 61 (20.33%) shareholders
attach low importance to “support to community activity of
employees,” 184 (61.33%) attach moderate importance, and
51 (18.33%) attach high importance.
Participation in governmental committees
Company's control of funds and revenues helps in undertaking a social
role along with Governmental Committees. Of 300 shareholders,
77 (25.67%) attach low importance to “participation in governmental
committees,” 163 (54.33%) attach moderate importance, and
60 (20.00%) attach high importance.
5.3 | Products
Only through products do the companies meet their customers. It is
the fundamental duty of any company to deliver quality products to
the consumers. While making out products and delivering them for
ultimate consumption, the companies are supposed to ensure they
strictly adhere to the safety standards. This apart, products man-
ufactured should be eco-friendly. Shareholder perception on the
details about the products disclosed in the annual report is explained
in the following paragraphs.
Safety
Product safety is of paramount importance and it is the duty of a
corporate that it reports as to how it ensures this in the products it
manufactures. Dissemination of such information, therefore, is essen-
tial. Of the 300 shareholders, 64 (21.33%) give low importance to
information on safety of the product, 123 (41.00%) attach moderate
importance, and 113 (37.67%) attach high importance.
Reducing pollution from product use
Reducing pollution from product use has become a part of the
so-called corporate sustainability. It has been found that of the
300 shareholders, 47(15.67%) attach low importance to the item
6 of 13
“reducing pollution from product use”, 174 (58.00%) attach moderate
importance, and 79 (26.33%) attach high importance.
Improvement of public interest toward eco-friendly
products
One of the prime responsibilities of a corporate is to arouse interest
among the consumers to go for eco-friendly products. To such a piece
of information included in the corporate social report, 56 (18.67%)
shareholders attach low importance; 178 (59.33%) attach moderate
importance, and 66 (22.00%) attach high importance.
Consumer affairs expenditure
CSR places a much greater emphasis on consumer affairs expendi-
ture. It can be seen from the table that of 300 shareholders,
63 (21.00%) give low importance to consumer affairs expenditure,
187 (62.33%) attach moderate importance, and 50 (16.67%) attach
high importance.
Quality control
Organizations pay special attention to sustain quality of products.
Corporate accountability provides the rationale as to why companies
should report to society on their performance in quality control. Of
300 shareholders, 41(13.67%) attach low importance to “quality
control,” 160 (53.33%) attach moderate importance, and 99 (33.00%)
attach high importance.
5.4 | Employee details
An explanation for human resources information being more common
than environment could be that there are other influences on compa-
nies to disclose information on human resources, such as government,
unions, and employees. Employee details include employee health and
safety, employee training, education facilities, pension, leave facility,
industrial accidents, and the like. Shareholder perception on details
relating to employees, as reported in the CSR, is as below.
Employee health and safety
The employer remains the custodian for the safety of the employees
in the work place. In this direction, a corporate has to spend desig-
nated amount and ko the same to the stakeholders. Out of 300 share-
holders, 61 (20.33%) attach low importance to employee health and
safety, 126 (42.00%) attach moderate importance, and 113 (37.67%)
attach high importance
TALHA ET AL.
Employee training
Employees are the greatest assets of the business and as such their
knowledge should be refurbished at periodical intervals. It is seen that
41 (13.67%) attach low importance to reporting on employee training,
169 (56.33%) attach moderate importance, and 90 (30.00%) attach
high importance.
Education facilities
Facilitating the employees to keep abreast of the latest develop-
ment in their chosen field leads to a “win-win” proposition. While
employees derive pleasure in the job, the employers stand to har-
vest the fruits of increased productivity. It can be seen from
Table 1 that of 300 shareholders, 49 (16.33%) give low impor-
tance to information on education facilities offered to the
employees, 102 (54.00%) give moderate importance, and
89 (29.67%) give high importance on employees' education
facilities.
Retirement benefits
An employee welfare-centric organization would naturally chalk out a
plan that financially rewards the employees when they hang their
boots. It has been found that 67 (23.33%) shareholders attach low
importance to details relating to retirement benefits given to
employees, 171 (57.00%) attach moderate importance, and 62 (20.67%)
attach high importance.
Leave facility
Information regarding wages and nature of work (such as working
hours per day, annual holidays and leave facility, health and wel-
fare, and the like. of which religious provisions deserve greater
attention) should all be disclosed. Out of 300 shareholders,
69 (23.00%) attach low importance to leave facility, 170 (56.67%)
attach moderate importance, and 61 (20.33%) attach high impor-
tance to such information.
Industrial accidents
Safety of employees has to be assigned first order importance.
Various legislations in India regulate the companies regarding the
steps to be taken to assure safety of working environment. It can
be seen from Table 1 that 63 (21.00%) attach low importance to
the details on information on industrial accidents, 157 (52.33%)
attach moderate importance, and 80 (26.67%) attach high
importance.
TALHA ET AL.
Employment of women
Participation of women in the workforce has been on the constant
increase and in some specified fields, they even outnumber the
strength of their counterpart. Training and development opportuni-
ties offered to them are important and shareholders seek such
information to be disclosed in CSR. It is found that 61 (20.33%)
attach low importance to details on employment of women,
182 (60.67%) attach moderate importance, and 57 (19.00%) attach
high importance.
Trade union/worker consultation
Participative leadership always bears fruits. Employees, when consul-
ted, feel a sense of belongingness to the organization and try to con-
tribute their efforts to take it to its next level. Of the
300 shareholders, 72 (24.00%) attach low importance to trade union/
worker consultation, 161 (53.67%) attach moderate importance, and
67 (22.33%) attach high importance.
Profit sharing scheme
A company being owned by the shareholders has to have a definite
policy of profit sharing. Information on this would highly help the
investors in choosing a company in which investment can be made.
As against postponed income in the form of capital gains, many
shareholders are likely to prefer current income in the form of dis-
tributed profits. Dividend policy disclosure, therefore, matters for
the shareholders. It can be seen that 57 (19.00%) attach low impor-
tance to information on “profit sharing scheme,” 158 (52.67%)
attach moderate importance, and 85 (28.33%) attach high
importance.
Table 1 shows that almost all the shareholders attach moderate
to high importance to the various social responsibility activities as
reported in the Corporate Social Reports. Therefore, it can be said
that shareholders are for such types of activities and indicate that
companies should focus more upon such programmes. While all items
seem to be important, it would be worthwhile to examine to which
items greater importance is assigned, based on the highest rank as per
Friedman's Rank Test. Under “Environment-Centric Activities,” share-
holders seem to attach more importance to “Environmental Action
Support.” “Education and Arts” is given predominant importance
among activities grouped under “Community Involvement.” Share-
holders have emphasized the need for quality control, as this activity
under “Products” ranks the highest. More concerned about human
resources, it seems shareholders hold high “Employee Health and
Safety,” as against other activities listed under “Employee Details.”
Epstein and Freedman (1994) have also come out with similar find-
ings. They do have come out with the finding that shareholders
expect, among other things, details relating to product quality form
the social report. Vuontisjarvi (2006) reports that majority of the
7 of 13
Finnish companies disclosed items relating to “training and staff
development,” “participation and staff involvement,” and “employee
health and well-being.” AlNaimi, Hossain, and Momin (2012) have
found that all the companies they have studied reported information
on Human Resources which included among other things, employee
development, and training programmes.
As per Friedman's Rank Test, the highest mean rank (15.26)
shows that high level of importance is attached to the item “quality
control.” The least mean rank (11.43) reveals that low importance is
attached to “community activities.” As the calculated χ 2 value is
greater than the table value at 1% level, there exists a significant rela-
tionship between level of importance attached to CSR and the items
disclosed in corporate social reporting.
6 | SHAREHOLDER PERCEPTION ON
CORPORATE SOCIAL REPORTING (CSR)
In order to examine the variables that are associated with share-
holders' perception on Corporate Social Reporting, a “Perception
Index” has been developed. Answers to questions relating to the opin-
ion of shareholders on CSR have been assigned scores for developing
the perception index. In all, there are 27 questions that fall under the
heading of “Shareholders” Opinion on CSR. The answers to the ques-
tions are rated on a 5-point Likert's scale. The scores are 5,4,3,2, and
1. As there are 27 questions, the maximum possible score is
135 (27*5). The “Perception Index” for each shareholder has been
computed by adding the scores obtained and dividing the same by the
maximum score and multiplying by 100. The average perception index
of the 300 shareholders is 64.88.
Variables such as area of residence, age, gender, educational
qualification, occupation, monthly income, investment experience,
motive of investment, social commitment while making invest-
ment, portfolio size, importance attached to CSR before buying
products, opinion on the role of NGOs in reporting social activities,
opinion on international standards and level of importance
attached to CSR are considered for finding out their association
with Perception of Shareholders on Corporate Social Reporting. A
brief explanation of these variables is given in the following
paragraphs:
Residence
Investor population in India has been on the constant increase. As for
area, the shareholders reside both in rural and urban area. The share-
holder perception on Corporate Social Reporting may differ based on
their area of residence. In order to identify whether area of residence
is associated with perception on corporate social reporting, the fol-
lowing null hypothesis has been framed:
HO Area of residence does not influence shareholder perception on
Corporate Social Reporting.
8 of 13
Age
Shareholders' perception on corporate social reporting may differ
based on age. The young may not attach more value to the society-
linked programmes while the elderly may feel it necessary for a com-
pany to spend more on such projects. In order to identify whether the
age is positively associated with perception on corporate social
reporting, the following null hypothesis has been framed:
HO Age does not influence shareholder perception on Corporate Social
Reporting.
Gender
The habit of investment of shareholders will differ from one person to
another. It also differs from male to female. Generally, male share-
holders may have an opportunity to get knowledge on Corporate
Social Reporting rather than the females. Therefore, the perception on
CSR may differ on the basis of gender. Hatch and Stephen (2015) have
stated that gender plays an important role in perception on social
responsibility, such that the effect of an individual's social responsibil-
ity on the perception of a company's social responsibility is moderated
by the gender of the respondent. Specifically, they found that women
have higher levels of Internalized Moral Identity than men. Moreover,
they found that women believe that organizations should be more ben-
eficial to society than men, which translates into a higher quality of
CSR. Therefore, the following null hypothesis has been framed:
HO Gender does not influence shareholder perception on Corporate
Social Reporting.
Education
Before making investments, shareholders need to collect investment-
related information. Generally, the educated may become aware of
the activities of a company. They may have knowledge on environ-
ment and society and hence, they may have high level of perception
on corporate social reporting which consolidates the society-focused
activities of the corporate. In order to ascertain whether educational
qualification is associated with the perception on Corporate Social
Reporting, the following null hypothesis has been framed:
HO Educational level does not influence shareholder perception on Cor-
porate Social Reporting.
Occupation
Perception on corporate social reporting may depend on occupa-
tion. Those who are agriculturists, retired, and housewives may
not have an opportunity to read about corporate social reporting.
TALHA ET AL.
Hence, they may not have adequate knowledge on corporate social
reporting. Based on the above argument, the following null hypothesis
is developed:
HO Occupation does not influence shareholder perception on Corporate
Social Reporting.
Monthly income
Amount of investment may differ according to the monthly income of
shareholders. Those who are earning more may invest in different
companies. As such, they can easily compare the performance of the
companies. The social contribution of a company has a permanent
effect upon the stock price. Therefore, the following null hypothesis
has been framed:
HO Monthly Income does not influence shareholder perception on Corpo-
rate Social Reporting.
Investment experience
Shareholders, who have more number of years of investment experi-
ence, may have knowledge about the company. They may compare the
social performance of the company in which they have shares with
other companies. Therefore, the level of perception may vary in accor-
dance with the investment experience. As shareholder interest in sus-
tainability is growing, sustainability indices have been developed that
track the financial performance of the leading sustainability-driven com-
panies. Among these are the Dow Jones Sustainability Index, the
FTSE4Good as well as the Domini Social Index. These indices have
given credibility to the notion of investment in sustainable companies
(Lopez, Garcia, & Rodriguez, 2007). In order to identify whether the
investment experience is associated with perception on corporate social
reporting, the following null hypothesis has been framed:
HO Investment Experience does not influence shareholder perception on
Corporate Social Reporting.
Motive of investment
The investment may be made for earning current income, capital gains,
or both. Social reporting may be considered to make investment deci-
sions. People are becoming increasingly aware of negative impact on
the environment and are trying to make sustainable decisions. This has
influenced both their consumption and investment decisions. Society is
also pressurizing companies to have sustainable business operations.
Otherwise companies might experience a decrease in their profits and
risk losing opportunities to get finance due to loss of shareholders. Con-
sequently, companies are now forced to focus on CSR. Based on the
above argument, the following null hypothesis is developed:
TALHA ET AL.
HO Motive of Investment does not influence shareholder perception on
Corporate Social Reporting.
Social commitment
Socially responsible activities carried out by companies benefit both
the organizations and the society. Investors, if consider social commit-
ment of the company before investment, it implies that they may have
high perception level on corporate social reporting. Society should
define social responsibilities and then the management teams should
respond to those societal demands or expectations on how companies
should act in order to be regarded as socially responsible. In this
regard, the following null hypothesis is framed:
HO Social Commitment does not influence shareholder perception on
Corporate Social Reporting.
Portfolio size
If the investors have shares in different companies, they can compare
the social performance of such companies. The perception level will
change on the basis of number of companies in which they have
invested. Shareholders also called the “real owners” of the enterprise
in which they have parked their funds, have the right to determine the
style of functioning of their company by electing the Directors who
can efficiently steer the company towards better progress. They may
judge the very meaning of the organization based on the type of CSRs
fulfilled from time to time through various programmes. Rita, Bam-
bang, and Eko (2008) are of the opinion that the stakeholders would
usually question the company if it has not done anything to the soci-
ety by way of organizing programmes that directly benefit the society.
Megawati and Christiawan (2011) opine that investors base their
judgment on the continuity of a business organization based on the
programmes it organizes to bring about benefit to the society. They
proceed to say that companies which are not society-oriented and do
not engage in CSR activities would make the shareholders to with-
draw their contributions from the companies in which they have
invested thus decreasing the wealth of the shareholders. In addition,
they view investors as ethical investors who lodge their funds in orga-
nizations which are more concerned about the society. Therefore, the
following hypothesis has been framed in order to identify the associa-
tion between Portfolio Size and Corporate Social Reporting:
HO Portfolio Size does not influence shareholder perception on Corporate
Social Reporting.
Social responsibility in products
Shareholders, by their concern for the society, may give impor-
tance to CSR of a company before buying products or services.
9 of 13
In their paper, Rhee and Valdez (2009) have argued that social
selection processes favor older organization due to them being
“reliable” and “accountable.” Moreover, with respect to con-
sumers, it has been stressed in the past that they, as one of the
main stakeholder groups, often perceive companies as being
active regarding CSR if they are familiar with them or if they like
the products that the companies sell, or the services they pro-
vide. It is assumed that this is transferrable to CSR perception by
all stakeholders. In this case, the level of perception may vary
from one shareholder to another. Therefore, the following
hypothesis has been framed:
HO Social Responsibility in Products does not influence shareholder
perception on Corporate Social Reporting.
Role of NGOs
India has a distinct cultural base, different social and environmental
laws, and different degrees of pressure on government by green
and social NGOs, different level of government responsiveness and
different level of public support for NGOs from that of developed
countries. Reporting on social actions is voluntary, but stakeholder
groups are applying pressure to get social report from corporations.
O'Dwyer, Unerman, and Hession (2005) argue that there is a need
for desired administrative reforms in the Irish context. But more
importantly, according to them, these administrative reforms
should be accompanied by institutional reforms to include NGO
voices in the CSR processes and to encourage improved CSR aimed
at promoting transparency and accountability. In order to identify
whether the role of NGOs is associated with perception on corpo-
rate social reporting, the following null hypothesis has been
framed:
HO Role of NGOs does not influence shareholder perception on Corpo-
rate Social Reporting.
One of the important ways to write an efficient report is by
adopting International Reporting Standards. Belal and Owen (2007)
state that pressures to adopt Western codes and standards in order
to attract foreign capital and secure access to international markets
may offer different reporting incentives. While such a process is well
documented as far as financial reporting standards are concerned, a
number of prominent International Social Accounting Standards, most
notably the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI), AA1000, SA8000, and
ISO14001 are being increasingly marketed in terms of their interna-
tionality of application and therefore, be particularly influential in driv-
ing future reporting practice. There are no mandatory standards
followed in India. Based on the above argument, the following null
hypothesis is developed:
HO Adoption of International Standards does not influence shareholder
perception on Corporate Social Reporting.
10 of 13 TALHA ET AL.

T A B L E 2 Determinants of
Variables Regression coefficient SE t (df = 273)
shareholder perception on corporate
Residence 0.009 0.755 0.141 social reporting multiple regression
Age 0.068 0.360 0.905 analysis
Gender −0.048 0.964 −0.734
Education—HSC −0.114c 1.442 −1.926
Education—Diploma −0.146b 1.168 −2.420
Education—Postgraduate −0.016 0.756 −0.249
Education—Professional 0.059 1.600 0.848
Occupation—Agriculture 0.002 1.394 0.039
Occupation—Business 0.049 0.811 0.703
Occupation—Emp_Govt. 0.010 1.408 0.161
Occupation—Professional −0.056 2.368 −0.854
Occupation—Retired −0.141c 1.315 −1.843
Occupation—Housewife −0.016 1.678 −0.269
Monthly income 0.042 0.089 0.694
Investment experience −0.045 0.440 −0.636
Motive—Current −0.102 0.795 −1.398
Motive—Capital gain −0.191 a
0.900 −2.774
Social commitment −0.009 0.674 −0.150
Number of companies −0.083 0.436 −1.265
Social responsibility before buying product 0.032 0.752 0.471
Opinion on role of NGOs −0.115c 0.734 −1.721
Opinion on international standards 0.097 0.836 1.377
Importance attached to CSR 0.279a 0.026 4.854
2 2
Note: Constant: 58.875; SE of estimate: 2.482; Adjusted R : 0.099; R : 0.168; Calculated F value: 2.207.
Abbreviation: CSR, corporate social reporting.
a
Significant at 1% level.
b
Significant at 5% level.
c
Significant at 10% level.

Importance attached to CSR
Annual report consists of various reports. Financial reports indicate the
financial health of the company. Director's report should be appended
to the balance sheet and submitted before the Annual General Meeting
of a company. Auditor's report exhibits the true and fair view of the
state of affairs of the company. CSR report includes the details about
environment, community activities, products, and employees. If the
shareholders give more importance to the items disclosed in corporate
social reporting, then they might become more knowledged on the
reports. Therefore, the following hypothesis has been framed:
HO Importance attached to CSR does not influence shareholder percep-
tion on Corporate Social Reporting.
6.1 | DETERMINANTS OF SHAREHOLDER
PERCEPTION ON CSR
In order to ascertain the variables that determine the level of share-
holder perception on CSR, selected 26 variables have been regressed
on Perception Index. The following regression equation has been
framed to examine the impact of the variables on perception on CSR.
PI = a + b1 RES + b2 AG + b3 GEN + b4 HSC + b5 DIP + b6 DEG
+ b7 PG + b8 PRO + b9 OA + b10 OB + b11 OG + b12 OP
+ b13 OPR + b14 OR + b15 OH + b16 MI + b17 IE + b18 MCI
+ b19 MCG + b20 MBO + b21 SOC + b22 NOC + b23 SR
+ b24 OPNG + b25 OINT + b26 IMP + e
where a = Constant, b1..b26 = Regression Coefficients, PI = Perception
Index, RES = Residence, AG = Age, GEN = Gender, HSC = Education—
HSC, DIP = Education—Diploma, DEG = Education—Degree, PG = Edu-
cation—Postgraduate, PRO = Education—Professional, OA = Occupa-
tion—Agriculture, OB = Occupation—Business, OG = Occupation—
Government Sector, OP = Occupation—Private Sector, OPR = Occupa-
tion—Professional, OR = Occupation—Retired, OH = Occupation—
Housewife, MI = Monthly Income, IE = Investment Experience,
MCI = Motive—Current Income, MCG = Motive—Capital Gain,
MBO = Motive—Both, SOC = Social Commitment, NOC = Number of
Companies in which invested, SR = Social Responsibility before buying
product, OPNG = Opinion on Role of NGO, OINT = Opinion on
TALHA ET AL.
TABLE 3 Variables prominently associated with perception on corporate social reporting step-wise regression analysis
Step Constant Level of importance to CSR
1 55.765 0.293
2 55.527 0.289
3 55.766 0.288
Abbreviation: CSR, corporate social reporting.
International Standards, IMP = Importance Attached to Items of CSR,
and e = Error Term.
The results of the regression analysis are shown in Table 2.
Of the variables taken for consideration, the variables namely
Education—HSC, Education—Diploma, Occupation—Retired,
Motive of investment—Capital Gain, Role of NGOs, and impor-
tance attached to items of CSR are found to be significant. Three
variables, such as Education—Degree, Occupation—Private Sector,
and Motive—Both, were excluded due to multicollinearity. The
other variables do not influence the level of perception on CSR.
The variables that influence the level of perception are discussed
in the following paragraphs.
Education—HSC
Education of shareholders may influence the level of perception on cor-
porate social reporting. The regression coefficient indicates that educa-
tion at Higher Secondary School Leaving Certificate level highly
influences perception level on CSR. The regression coefficient indicates
that those with HSC qualification perceive less on CSR.
Education—Diploma
Table 2 shows that education at diploma level influences the
level of perception on corporate social reporting. The regression
coefficient indicates that diploma holders have low perception
on CSR.
Occupation—Retired
Perception level on corporate social reporting may be less in case of
retired persons. The regression coefficient indicates that the vari-
able “occupation-retired” influences perception level. The regres-
sion coefficient indicates that retired persons have low perception
level.
Motive of Investment—Capital Gain
The perception level varies according to the motive of investment.
The regression coefficient indicates that motive of investment highly
11 of 13
Motive—Capital Gains Occupation—Retired R2
— — 0.086
0.115 — 0.099
0.125 −0.118 0.113
influences perception on CSR. The value of regression coefficient indi-
cates that those shareholders with capital gains as their motive of
investment have a low perception on CSR.
Opinion on role of NGOs
When the shareholders think that the NGOs should insist the compa-
nies to report their social activities, then they might have knowledge
on corporate social reporting. The regression coefficient indicates that
opinion on the Role of NGOs influences the perception on CSR. The
value of regression coefficient indicates that shareholders who do not
think that NGOs have to play a role in making companies to comply
with CSR have a low attitude towards CSR.
Importance attached to items of CSR
If the shareholders have knowledge on corporate social reporting,
they will give importance to the items disclosed in corporate social
reports. The regression coefficient shows that importance attached to
CSR highly influences the perception on CSR. The sign of regression
coefficient indicates that as the level of importance attached to CSR
increases, the perception on CSR also increases. Arora and
Jaideep (2017) are of the opinion that corporate social reporting
enables shareholders to understand the impact their organizations
have created on the society, through various programmes.
6.2 | VARIABLES PROMINENTLY ASSOCIATED
WITH SHAREHOLDER PERCEPTION ON CSR
To find out the prominent variables that account for the variation in
the perception on CSR, step-wise regression has been carried out.
Table 3 shows the result.
In the first step, the variable “Level of Importance to CSR” has
been introduced. The variable contributes 8.60% to the variation in
perception. “Motive of investment—Capital Gains” is the second vari-
able that is introduced in step two. This variable, along with the vari-
able, “importance attached to CSR” accounts for 9.90% of variation in
perception. “Occupation—retired,” a third variable, has increased the
contribution from 9.90% to 11.30%. The total contribution of the
three variables namely, (a) importance attached to CSR, (b) motive of
investment-capital gains, and (c) occupation—retired, amounts to
12 of 13
11.30%. The R2 value of the multiple regression amounts to 16.8%.
The difference 5.50% is due to the contribution of other variables.
7 | IMPLICATIONS OF FINDINGS
Shareholders seem to attach more importance to all the 26 items
listed in Table 1 which consolidates the contents in a Corporate Social
Report. This only indicates that Indian Companies should deal about
these activities, in their report. It may also be noted here that by assig-
ning greater importance to the activities listed, the shareholders
expect their companies to continue the existing programmes and add
more society-benefitting schemes. Specifically, it is seen that greater
importance, against any other activity under the four broad classifica-
tion, is given to “Environmental Action Support,” “Education and Arts,”
“Quality Control in Products,” and “Employee Health and Safety.”
Therefore, companies are to give more importance to these activities.
Focusing on how best the activities can be designed under such heads
will receive greater appreciation from shareholders. The corporate
social report has to graduate slowly from “qualitative terms” to “quan-
titative terms,” so that the stakeholders in general, and
shareholders, in specific will be able to understand the extent of com-
mitment of organizations. Apart from monitoring whether the compa-
nies abide by the law in executing the provisions of Companies Act,
2013, it would better for the Government of India to go beyond that
and make companies to necessarily document such activities, annu-
ally, in the format that the Government may develop and implement.
Furthermore, in order to ensure reliability and have a check on the
activities, it would be better that the social report is subjected to an
audit. Belal (2006) and de Villiers and van Staden (2010, 2012) also
suggest that the disclosure statement be audited for authenticity.
One of the most prominent factors that positively influence share-
holders' perception on corporate social reporting is “Level of Importance
Attached” to the report. It is seen from Table 1 that shareholders have
assigned significant importance to all activities listed in Corporate Social
Reporting. Thus, it can be said that almost all shareholders view the
report positively. Perception on corporate social report is high if the
shareholders assign high level of importance to various activities under
CSR. Therefore, it implies that the companies should strengthen their
programmes under “Corporate Social Responsibility.”
8 | C O N CL U S I O N
CSR is an indicator of the commitment a company has toward the
society. Reporting of what has been done assumes greater importance
since many stakeholders view such reporting very vital for their deci-
sion making. Nevertheless, the perception on the report will not be
homogenous across different stakeholders. Investors, who have a
financial stake with their companies, may have their own perception
on such sustainability reports. Exclusively carried out to examine the
shareholder's perception on Corporate Social Reporting, this study
has brought out some interesting findings. In general, the shareholders
TALHA ET AL.
are for the activities that are broadly included under the concept of
CSR of companies. As for the determinants of perception, it has been
found that importance attached to corporate social reporting has
emerged as the most prominent variable. Study, carried out based on
opinion on shareholders, is bound to suffer from limitations applicable
to a questionnaire-based study. Therefore, care has to be exercised in
generalizing the results.
Nevertheless, the present study opens up many research avenues
for researchers serious about doing studies on Corporate Social
Reporting. A study may be carried out to assess the differences in per-
ception on corporate social reporting, among different groups of
stakeholders. This will help understand if a particular society-linked
activity is appreciated by all and if not what other activities may be
taken up. Stakeholder expectation in the report is another possible
area of research. Studies may also be carried out to find out the differ-
ences in the perception of selected cross section of shareholders.
State intervention in regulating spending on CSR and its impact on
the reporting is another promising field of research.
OR CID
Mohammad Talha https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5942-2684
Samuel Benjamin Christopher https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3083-
1441
Karthikeyani Jaganathan https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3127-7040
RE FE RE NCE S
Al-Khater, K., & Naser, K. (2003). Users' perception of corporate social
responsibility and accountability: Evidence from emerging economy.
Managerial Auditing Journal, 18(6/7), 538–548.
AlNaimi, H. A., Hossain, M., & Momin, M. A. (2012). Corporate social
responsibility reporting in Qatar: A descriptive analysis. Social Respon-
sibility Journal, 8(4), 511–526.
Arora, S., & Jaideep . (2017). Corporate social reporting in India: A study of
some selected companies. Pacific Business Review International, 10(1),
97–105.
Belal, A. R. (2006). Stakeholders' perceptions of corporate social reporting
(CSR) in Bangladesh. Retrieved from http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/
viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.634.8399&rep=rep1&type=pdf.
Belal, A. R., & Owen, D. L. (2007). The views of corporate managers on the
current state of, and future prospects for, social reporting in
Bangladesh: An engagement-based study. Accounting, Auditing and
Accountability Journal, 20(3), 472–493.
de Villiers, C., & van Staden, C. (2010). Why do shareholders require cor-
porate environmental disclosure? South African Journal of Economic
and Management Sciences, 13(4), 145–167.
de Villiers, C., & van Staden, C. (2012). New Zealand shareholder attitudes
towards corporate environmental disclosure. Pacific Accounting Review,
24(2), 186–210.
Epstein, M., & Freedman, M. (1994). Social disclosure and the individual
investor. Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal, 7(4), 94–109.
Gray, R., Owen, D., & Adams, C. (1996). Accounting and accountability:
Changes and challenges in corporate social and environmental reporting,
London: Prentice-Hall.
Gunawan, J. (2010). Perception of important information in corporate
social disclosures. Evidence from Indonesia. Social Responsibility Jour-
nal, 6(1), 62–71.
Hatch, C. D., & Stephen, S.-A. K. (2015). Gender effects on perceptions of
individual and corporate social responsibility. Journal of Applied Busi-
ness and Economics, 17(3), 63–71.
TALHA ET AL.
Heard, J. E., & Bolce, W. J. (1981). The political significance of corporate
social reporting in the United States of America. Accounting, Organiza-
tions and Society, 6(3), 247–254.
Hockeryts, K., & Moir, L. (2004). Communicating corporate social responsi-
bility to investors: The changing role of the investor relations function.
Journal of Business Ethics, 52, 85–98.
Leonski, W., & Beyer, K. (2016). Reporting as an important instrument of
corporate social responsibility. Journal of Corporate Responsibility and
Leadership, 3(2), 67–77.
Lopez, V. M., Garcia, A., & Rodriguez, L. (2007). Sustainable development
and corporate performance: A study based on the Dow Jones sustain-
ability index. Journal of Business Ethics, 75, 285–300.
Megawati, C., & Christiawan, Y. G. (2011). Influence of corporate social
responsibility disclosure on abnormal return. Journal of Accounting and
Finance, 13(1), 24–36.
Naser, K., & Baker, N. (1999). Empirical evidence on corporate social
responsibility reporting and accountability in developing countries:
The case of Jordan. Advances in International Accounting, 12,
193–226.
O'Donovan, G. (2002). Environmental disclosures in the annual report
extending the applicability and predictive power of legitimacy theory.
Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal, 15(3), 344–371.
O'Dwyer, B., Unerman, J., & Hession, E. (2005). User needs in sustainabil-
ity reporting: Perspective of stakeholders in Ireland. European Account-
ing Review, 14(4), 759–787.
Rahin, N. M. (2009). Survey on social reporting practices by Islamic finan-
cial institutions (IFIs) in Malaysia: Perceptions on accountants.
Unpublished MBA Project, Submitted to University of Malaya.
13 of 13
Aston Business School, Aston University, Birmingham ISBN No: 1
85449 608 5.
Rhee, M., & Valdez, M. (2009). Contextual factors surrounding reputation
damage with potential implications for reputation repair. The Academy
of Management Review, 34(1), 146–168.
Rita, Y., Bambang, P., & Eko, G. S. (2008). The effect of company charac-
teristics on the CSR disclosure and its impact on investor reaction.
Journal of Accounting and Finance Indonesia, 5(2). Cited by Andreas
Tan, Desmiyawati Benni & Warda Liani. (2016). Determinants of cor-
porate social responsibility disclosure and investor reaction. Interna-
tional Journal of Economics and Financial Issues, 6 (S4), 11–17.
Schreuder, H. (1981). Employees and the corporate social report: The
Dutch case. The Accounting Review, 6(2), 294–308.
Vuontisjarvi, T. (2006). Corporate social reporting in the European context
and human resource disclosures: An analysis of Finnish companies.
Journal of Business Ethics, 69(4), 331–354.
Woodward, D., Edwards, P., & Birkin, F. (2001). Some evidence on execu-
tives' views of corporate social responsibility. British Accounting
Review, 33(3), 357–397.
How to cite this article: Talha M, Christopher SB,
Jaganathan K. Corporate social reporting—Shareholder
perception and its determinants. Corp Soc Responsib Environ
Manag. 2020;e2021. https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.2021