The role of external pressure for ensuring quality of CR disclosure.
This is a first draft of my doctoral study. Focus is on issue and design.1
Background
Referring to Littleton’s 1933 description of the evolution of accounting, Steward (1992) explains
that accounting developed and adapted to companies’ needs in the age of industrialization and
with the rise of financial markets. During the 13th and 14th centuries, northern Italy bankers,
including the Medici in Florence, at the centre of Europe’s banking, used double‐entry
bookkeeping. Double‐entry bookkeeping was an ideal system for tracking bank transactions.
Subsequently, financial accounting developed to satisfy other needs. Today accounting is used
for both tracking business transaction, for assisting internal and external stakeholders in their
decision‐making (Carruthers and Espeland, 1991) and control (Demski et al., 2002). (S(Steward,
1992)tew, 1992)
To assist stakeholders’ decision- making and control companies provide them with both
mandatory and voluntary information. While accounting standards and capital market rules
regulate mandatory financial disclosure, companies make their own decisions as far as voluntary
disclosures (Hassan and Marston, 2010, Meek et al., 1995, Cooke, 1989). Voluntary information
is advantageous for companies to provide (Bebbington et al., 2007, Owen, 2005, Laufer, 2003,
O'Dwyer, 2002, Coombs, 1995). For instance voluntary information can contribute to reduce
stakeholders’ uncertainty (Meek et al., 1995). One area where companies provide voluntary
information in order to assist several stakeholders’ need for information is Corporate
Responsibility (CR) Disclosure.
The CSR concept, defined by commission of the European communities (2006) as “a concept
whereby companies integrate social and environmental concerns in their business operations and
in their interaction with their stakeholders on voluntary basis” has grown in use and popularity
(Carroll, 2008). A reason behind this increase is that it was acknowledged that companies’
operations and policies have a social and environmental impact on their surroundings. Hence,
companies stakeholders request and expect that companies should take responsibility for their
social and environmental performance. To show that companies take responsibility companies
started to disclose information about their social and environmental impact (Carroll, 2008). For
instance, in the 1960-1970 as it became recognized that human and corporate activities have an
impact on the environment (Brown et al., 2009) companies’ informed internal and external
stakeholders about activities, products and services and related positive and negative social
impacts.
-
-
Vad tycker ni om undersökningssyftet och frågan?
o Finns det saker ni funderar over i texten som ni vill veta mera om?
Förstår ni motiveringen, känns det relevant
Har börjat göra en design – fundera på hur jag skulle kunna genomföra studien.
o Vad tycker ni om designen? (Så här långt)
o Ser ni svårigheter med designen
En annan fundering jag har är om man skall göra en monografi eller göra
sammanläggning?
1
1
Regulations and values pressure companies to conform in different institutional contexts
(Goodstein, 1994). External stakeholders such as governments, nongovernmental organizations
(NGOs) and the media, shareholders, ranking organization, community citizens hold companies
responsible for the effect their operations have on society (Egels- Zandén, 2010, Aaltonen and
Sivonen, 2009, Porter and Kramer, 2006, Neu et al., 1998, Tilt, 1994, Greening and Gray, 1994).
Stakeholders judge companies based on how well these comply with external expectations
(Lindblom, 1994, Carroll, 1979). For example, if stakeholders are concerned with pollution, they
will favour companies that show that they make significant improvements to reduce emissions
over companies who only meet the pollution standards set by law (Lindblom, 1994, Patten,
1992). As a response, CR reports have continued to develop to include and provide more
information (Schaltegger et al., 2006).
Research issue and question
When social and environmental issues become public concerns, companies are expected to
respond to such concerns (Carroll, 2008, Cornelissen, 2008, Schaltegger et al., 2006). For
instance, in the Swedish context the government requested that state owned companies provide
CR disclosure in accordance to GRI, in order to enable for the government to control that these
companies follows the governments social and environmental policies (Borglund et al., 2010).
Moreover, on GRI homepage it is stated that more stakeholders request non- financial data (GRI
webpage). In accordance KPMG’s international survey’s (2008/ 2011) show an increasing trend
among companies to include CR information in their reporting. In 2011, 95 percent of the 250
largest global companies reported about their CSR activities; an increase from 2008 when 80 per
cent of the companies included CR information in their reporting. This is a notable increase from
2005 when the figure was 50 per cent (KPMG, 2008; KPMG, 2011). In 2011, 50 per cent of 56
companies listed on the Stockholm large cap including CR information. An increased from 34 per
cent in 2010 (Lundberg and Bönnelyche, 2011). In November 2007, the Swedish government
requested that state owned companies should report in accordance to Global Reporting
Initiative (GRI). In 2009, 94 per cent (45 of 48) of the state owned companies reported in
accordance to GRI. This is an increase from 2007 when only 14 per cent of the state owne
companies reported in accordance to GRI and 2008 when 25 per cent reported in accordance to
GRI (www.regeringen.se).
As voluntary accounting, CR disclosure usually is not regulated, companies have the possibility
to set the stage and only present certain aspects of their operations (Gray et al., 1996). Hence,
companies can use voluntary CR disclosure to create and establish a favourable picture of their
operations (Morgan, 1988, Hines, 1988). Typically companies engaged in CR disclosures because
such reporting could increase their competitive advantages or decrease their competitive
disadvantages (Bebbington et al., 2007, Owen, 2005, Laufer, 2003, O'Dwyer, 2002, Schilizzi,
2002, Coombs, 1995). It can be tempting to establish a favourable company picture, as how a
company communicates its assigned role in society can affect its reputation (Capirotti, 2004).
For instance, Coomb’s (1995) research showed that one positive effect of using CR disclosure is
that companies recover faster from a crisis, since customers tend to hold companies with a good
CSR reputation less liable. Previous researchers (c.f. Laufer, 2003, Schilizzi, 2002,) also found
that companies engage in voluntary CR disclosure to manage their reputations. (Bebbington et al.,
2007, Laufer, 2003, Schilizzi, 2002)
2
The discretion involved in voluntary disclosure allows companies to decide whether to provide
information, which information to include, and how this information is presented (Aerts, 1994).
Thus, a discussion has arisen about whether voluntary disclosure is beneficial for society.
Opponents argue that regulated disclosure contributes to the “public good” (Verrecchia, 2001).
However, if information is unregulated, companies tend to hold back unfavourable information
(Verrecchia, 2001). The fact that companies’ have the possibility to choose what sort of
information to include in their CR reports has lead to researchers questioning the usefulness of
CSR disclosure. Brown, et al. (2009) interviews showed that primary stakeholders showed small
interest for sustainability reports, even those provided in accordance to the Global Reporting
Initiative. An explanation for the lack of interest in CR reports was they do not contain an
accurate picture of companies’ impacts on society and environment. Webb and Mohr (1998)
mean that some customers fell that CSR only is a way of manipulating. Further, researchers such
as Adams (2006) pointed out the lack of transparency in CR report. Moreover, Brown et al.
(2009) found that companies normally do not compete in sustainability performance, as the
reports are not easily compared, even within the same industry. (Brown et al., 2009, Ashforth and Gibbs,
1990, Webb and Mohr, 1998, Adams and McNicholas, 2006)
The problem of quality of CR disclosure was brought to attention in a Swedish business journal,
Veckans Affärer, examination of company’s CR reporting. Its examination showed that there is a
lack of transparency in CR disclosure. For instance the energy use of a large Swedish
manufacturing company Atlas Copco was half the energy use of H&M. The cause behind this
unexpected result was that Atlas Copco only account for its own production and not from a lifecycle perspective. Hence, the activity Atlas Copco outsourced is not included in the CR disclosure
provided by the company (CSR I praktiken, 2012-02-06 Niklas Ihrén).
However, the supporters of voluntary information argue that instruments exist that ensure that
companies disclose voluntary information properly (Dye, 1990). Moreover, it is feared that
making CR disclosure mandatory will make it an “check- list activity” (Brown et al., 2009).
A Globala Mckinsey survey made by Bielak et al found that companies are pressured to take
social and environmental responsibility (Bird and Smucker, 2007). In 1992, Patten found that
external pressure affect disclosure, He examined the change of environmental disclosure in the
petroleum firms after Exxon Valdes oil spill in 1989. By studying 21 oil companies and their
environmental disclosure, he found that the hole industry increase their disclosure after the
disaster. Hence, in this thesis the interest lies in examining how pressure from the State, society,
other stakeholders and culture, which is understood to have an effect on companies’ behaviour
(Oliver, 1991), affect CSR disclosure quality. (Patten, 1992)
Hence, the research question of this study is:
How does external pressure influence on CSR disclosure improve/control quality of voluntary CSR
disclosure?
As stated above there is a need and demand for companies to take social and environmental
responsibility, but stakeholders are not satisfied with reports provided by companies’ to account
for their sustainability performance. This study argues that to make CR reports more attractive
for user a deeper understanding of how accounting qualities are influenced by a company’s
surrounding is needed. Hence, the purpose of this study is to contribute to this deeper
3
understanding by examine how external pressure affects the quality (See further Research
design) of voluntary CSR disclosure.
The aim is to contribute to the field of CR disclosure by studying how statements, arguments and
measures are used when a company is exposed to pressure and how this affects qualities of
accounting.
Information about how external pressures affect accounting qualities is useful for guideline
developers as they obtain knowledge about how external factors affect how companies shape
their CR disclosure and the effect this has on accounting qualities considered being important
for users according to UN and GRI. As Brown et al (2009) interviewing developers and users of
GRI guidelines, the interesting question is not if CSR reporting guidelines are here to stay, but
rather how they will look in the future.(Brown et al., 2009)
Research design
Approach
How companies react to external pressures have been examined (Aerts et al., 2008, Neu et al.,
1998, Tilt, 1994). It has been found that companies use their disclosure to respond to external
pressure strategically (Cho, 2009, O'Donovan, 2002, Lindblom, 1994)). This study takes another
approach by examining what influence external pressure has on the quality of voluntary
disclosure. 2- 3
Selection companies
In order to examine external pressures impact on disclosure quality this study makes
comparison between companies. Connections have been identified between how companies use
CSR disclosure and their characteristics. Researchers have found that a relationship exists
between company size and company disclosure (Aerts and Cormier, 2009, O'Dwyer, 2002,
Cormier and Gordon, 2000, Deegan and Gordon, 1996, Patten, 1992, Roberts, 1992, Trotman and
Bradley, 1981). Larger companies tend to disclose more information for various reasons. Larger
companies may receive greater economic benefits (Brammer and Pavelin, 2008) and may
benefit more from reduced political costs (Gamerschlag et al., 2011). Larger companies are also
more eager to show that they act in a legitimate way as good social citizens (Brammer and
Pavelin, 2008). Furthermore, it is more likely that companies in environmentally or socially
sensitive industries disclose more information about their environmental and social operations
and performance (Aerts and Cormier, 2009, O'Dwyer, 2002). Depending on what sort of industry
a company operates they meet different challenges and trust issues. The variation depends on
Some versions of sustainability disclosure guidelines uses monetary units to measure economic, social
and environmental performance while others such as the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) sustainability
guidelines uses indicators to measure performance toward the goal of sustainability accounting guideline
(Lamberton 2005).
3
The landscape of sustainability reporting is evolving; this should influence the development of GRI’s
guidance. More stakeholders than ever – including regulators, investors, rating agencies and NGOs – are
asking for non-financial data. (www.globalreporting.org accessed 2012-02-07 2) KPMG undersökning
visar att fler företag inkluderar information om deras hållbarhetsredovisning. tillförlitligt, vara ett verktyg
2
4
what sort of risks and challenges the industry is associated with (www.regeringen.se). O’Dwyer
(2002) also found that the size of large companies in sensitive industries affects how visible they
are in society. Aerts and Cormier’s (2009) study supported the conclusion that companies in
environmentally sensitive industries are more visible (in the media). (O'Dwyer, 2002, Aerts and Cormier,
2009)
In order to examine how external pressure can influence disclosure practice, companies CR
disclosure on different sides of a continuum is compared. As mentioned above, company size has
an effect on pressure a company is exposed to. Another company characteristic that have an
effect on the pressure a company is exposed to is sensitivity of industry. A Swedish large
institutional owner, Folksam4, categorized industries environmental and social risk. For
instance, companies operating within the energy and utility industry as exposed to both high
environmental and social risk, while companies operating within finance and IT (soft) is exposed
to low risks. To get companies on each side of a continuum this study will concentrate on large
versus small companies5; high sensitive industries versus low sensitive industries. Moreover,
studying companies operating in Sweden gives an opportunity to compare state owned
companies that are required to provide a CR report in accordance to GRI with listed companies,
without such requirement. Moreover, since state own companies has only been acquired to
provide CR disclosure according to GRI from 2007, a comparison before and after 2007 would
provide evidence for how pressure affects disclosure quality in CR reports.
Continuum: company characteristics
Large
Size
Sensitivity
Ownership
Small
High
Low
State
Listed
Lower probability to
experience pressure
Higher probability to
experience pressure
Figur 1 Selection companies
Folksam conducts a survey of how responsible the Swedish listed companies are. Annually the result is
presented in the report”Index för ansvarstfullt företagande XXXX”.
5
A requirement for this study is that the company examines provides a CR report. Hence, how small
companies are included depends on what companies provides CR disclosure.
4
5
I just started to think about what sources I can use to collect evidence about how qualities in CSR
disclosure are affected by external pressure. Hence, information below is very limited. I am grateful
for any thoughts you have about the design so far.
Data collection
Source of CSR disclosure data:
There are different views on what source of evidence should be used when examining
environmental disclosure. For instance, O’Donovan (2002) states that it is more useful to collect
data from an ex ante perspectives, than from the management directly, in order to evaluate
reasons for certain environmental disclosure.
As CR guidelines are applied in CR report these will the main source of information. In my
previous research I used CR report as a proxy for looking at how companies shape their
disclosure after being exposed to external pressure. However, only using yearly information did
not provide a complete picture of how external pressure influence disclosure. Data produced
more frequently is also publically available. Hence, the current study will complement the
annual information from CR reports with other tools used by companies to communicate on a
more frequent basis, such as press releases and interim reports. (O'Donovan, 2002, Blumberg et al., 2005)
Source of pressure data:
Swedish press: Islam and Deegan (2010) used media data in their attempt to examine the
correlation between negative media attention and positive CSR disclosure.
Rankin lists:
Government policies:
6
Analysis disclosure quality
According to UN guidance on corporate responsibility indicators in Annual Reports quality
characteristics of disclosure that are useful for a range of users is composed by comparability
(over time & between enterprises), relevance and materiality (useful & enabling opinion or
decision- making, evaluate past, present and future events); understandability (good design,
systematic classification, concise use of language, explanation of unknown terms, include
glossary); and reliability and verifiability (free form material error and bias, true, complete and
balanced view) (2008). According to GRI principles fundamental to follow to ensure effective
transparency that enables stakeholders to make reasonable assessments are Balance (positive
and negative information), Comparability (over time and between companies), Accuracy
(sufficiently accurate and detailed for stakeholders to assess performance), Timeliness, Clarity
(understandable and accessible to stakeholders using report), reliable (information can be
subject to examination that establishes quality and materiality). Hence, based on this knowledge
this study examines the above mention qualities in CR disclosure. (2008) (2000-2011)
Comparability6:
Compare coherency in arguments, statements and measurements over time in one company,
between companies. Check for how variations are identified and explained.
Relevance, Materiality, Accuracy7 and Timeliness8:
Compare focus/content in CR disclosure with :
- Focus in industry (is focus coherent)
- Focus in other industries
- Focus in external pressure (is focus coherent with aspects brought up by stakeholders)
Understandability/ Clarity9:
Consistency in measures, language and classifications.
Possible measure: Flesch index = 0.39(total word/sentence)+ 11.8 (total syllables/totalwords)
or Gunning fog index=0.4 ((word/sentence) +100(complex words/ words)10
Reliability11 and verifiability:
Audit: Independent =2, Dependent=1, No audit=0Balance12: Examine variation between
positive and negative information provided.
GRI test: information can be compared on year-to-year basis; appropriate benchmarks, variation can be
identified and explained.
7 GRI test: indication that data has been tested; measurement techniques adequately described and can be
replicated, indication of estimates and underlying assumptions.
8 GRI test: report disclosed to reporting period, Collection and publication of KPI aligned to reporting
schedule, information clearly indicates to which time period it relates.
9 GRI test: avoid unnecessary detail, find information without unreasonable effort, avoid unfamiliar jargon,
information available stakeholder (Ex) language)
10 Study how Jones and Shoemaker (1994) conducted their study.
11 GRI test: external assurance identified, original source of information, reliable evidence to support
assumption or complex calculations can be identified by organization, representation from original data is
available.
12
GRI test: report disclose both favourable and unfavourable results and topics, presented so users can
spot both positive and negative trends on year- to- year basis, Various topics in report is proportionate to
their materiality.
6
7
Development of Coding spreadsheet in BA studies categorized by Vourachis used in this study
Focuses
Year
Comp
1-X
Comp
1- X
Qual
or
Quan
pos
neg
neut
tot
al
Argu State
ment ment
Me
asu
re
13
High
risk
companies
(large
–
small)
Low
risk
compan
ies
(large small)
Tone in disclosure
Coherent over time
Past, present, future
A. Health and
Safety
1.H&S at
workplace
2.H&S at
marketplace
3. H&S of
community
4. H&S - Other
B. Marketplace
5. consumer
6. Creditors
13
14
No disclosure= 0; Qualitative=1; Quantitative= 2; Both= 3
Independent audit=2, audit (but not verified that it is independent =1), no audit= 0
8
Audit
14
Mand
atory
Volen
tary
C. Workplace
7.Employee/
pension data
8. Equal
opportunities
9. Human rights
10. Consultation
with Emp.
11. Share
ownership
D. Community
12. Com.
Involvement
13. Charities
E. Environment
14.
environmental
pollution
15.Energy
16. Aesthetics
17. Env. Other
F. OTHER
18. value add.
statement
19. Other CSR
20. Glossary
TOTAL
9
References
Global reporting initiative [Online]. Available: www.globalreporting.org [Accessed February 27 2012].
KPMG international survey of corporate responsiblity reporting 2008 [Online]. KPMG International.
Available: http://www.kpmg.eu/docs/Corp_responsibility_Survey_2008.pdf [Accessed 24
october 2010].
KPMG International Survey of Corporate Responsiblity Reporting 2011 [Online]. KPMG. Available:
www.kpmg.com [Accessed 1 December 2011].
2000-2011. RG Sustainability Reporting Guidelines. version 3.1 [Online]. Available:
www.globalreporting.org [Accessed February 27 2012].
2008. United nation conference on trade and development. Guidance on corporate responsiblity
indicators in annual reports, [Online]. Available: www.unctad.org [Accessed February 27
2012].
AALTONEN, K. & SIVONEN, R. 2009. Response strategies to stakeholder pressures in global projects.
International Journal of Project Management, 131- 141.
ADAMS, C. A. & MCNICHOLAS, P. 2006. Making a difference. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability
Journal, 20, 382-402.
AERTS, W. 1994. On the use of accounting logic as an explanatory category in narrative accounting
disclosures. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 19, 337-353.
AERTS, W. & CORMIER, D. 2009. Media legitimacy and corporate environmental communication.
Accounting, Organizations & Society, 34, 1-27.
AERTS, W., CORMIER, D. & MAGNAN, M. 2008. Corporate environmental disclosure, financial
markets and the media: An international perspective. Ecological Economics, 64, 643-659.
ASHFORTH, B. E. & GIBBS, B. W. 1990. The double-edge of organizational legitimation Organization
Science, 1, 177-194.
BEBBINGTON, J., LARRINAGA, C. & MONEVA, J. M. 2007. Corporate social reporting and reputation
risk management. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 21, 337-361.
BIRD, F. & SMUCKER, J. 2007. The Social Responsibilities of International Business Firms in Developing
Areas. Journal of Business Ethics, 73, 1-9.
BLUMBERG, B., COOPER, D. R. & SCHINDLER, P. S. 2005. Business research methods. Second european
edition, Berkshire, McGraw- Hill Higher Education.
BORGLUND, T., FROSTENSON, M. & WINDELL, K. 2010. Increasing responsiblity through
transparency? A study of the consequences of new guidelines for sustainability reporting by
Swedish state- owned companies. Regeringskanliet.
BRAMMER, S. & PAVELIN, S. 2008. Factors influencing the quality of corporate environmental
disclosure. Business Strategy and the Environment, 17, 120-136.
BROWN, H. S., DE JONG, M. & LEVY, D. L. 2009. Building institutions based on information disclosure:
lessons from GRI's sustainability reporting. Journal of Cleaner Production, 17, 571-580.
CARROLL, A. B. 1979. A three-dimensional conceptual model of corporate performance. Academy of
Management Review, 4, 497-505.
CARROLL, A. B. 2008. A history of corporate social responsiblity. In: SIEGEL, D. S., MOON, J., MATTEN,
D., MCWILLIAMS, A. & CRANE, A. (eds.) The Oxford Handbook of Corporate Social
Responsiblity. Oxford: Oxford University press.
CARRUTHERS, B. G. & ESPELAND, W. N. 1991. Accounting for rationality: Double- entry bookkeeping
and the rhetoric of economic rationality. 97, 31-69.
CHO, C. H. 2009. Legitimation strategies used in response to environmental disaster: A French case
study of Total SA's Erika and AZF incidents. European Accounting Review, 1, 33-62.
COOKE, T. E. 1989. Voluntary Corporate Disclosure by Swedish Companies. Journal of International
Financial Management & Accounting, 1, 171-195.
COOMBS, T. W. 1995. Choosing the right words. The development of Guidelines for the selection of
the appropriate crisis- response strategy. Mangement Communication Quarterly, 8, 447- 476.
10
CORMIER, D. & GORDON, I. M. 2000. An examination of social and environmental reporting
strategies. Social and environmental reporting, 14, 587- 616.
CORNELISSEN, J. 2008. Corporate communication: A guide to theory and practice., London, Sage.
DEEGAN, C. & GORDON, B. 1996. A study of the environmental disclosure practices of Australian
corporations. Accounting & Business Research, 26, 187-199.
DEMSKI, J. S., FELLINGHAM, J. C., JIRI, Y., SUNDER, S., GLOVER, J. C. & JINGHONG, P. 2002. Some
Thoughts on the Intellectual Foundations of Accounting. Accounting Horizons, 16, 157- 168.
DYE, R. A. 1990. Mandatory versus voluntary disclosures: The cases of financial and real externalities.
The Accounting Review, 65, 1-24.
EGELS- ZANDÉN, N. 2010. Managing responsibilities. Doctoral, University of Gothenburg, School of
business, economics and law.
GAMERSCHLAG, R., MÖLLER, K. & VERBEETEN, F. 2011. Determinants of voluntary CSR disclosure:
empirical evidence from Germany. Review of Managerial Science, 5, 233-262.
GOODSTEIN, J. D. 1994. Institutional pressures and strategic responsiveness: Employer involvement
in work-family Issues. The Academy of Management Journal, 37, 350-382.
GRAY, R., OWEN, D. & ADAMS, C. 1996. Accounting & accountability. Changes and challenges in
corporate social and environmental reporting, Hertfordshire, Prentice Hall Europe.
GREENING, D., W. & GRAY, B. 1994. Testing a model of organizational response to social and political
issues. The Academy of Management Review, 37, 467- 498.
HASSAN, O. & MARSTON, C. 2010. Disclosure measurement in the empirical accounting literature - A
review article. SSRN eLibrary.
HINES, R. D. 1988. Financial accounting: In commuicating reality, we construct reality. . Accounting,
Organizations & Society, 13, 251-261.
LAUFER, W. S. 2003. Social Accountability and Corporate Greenwashing. Journal of Business Ethics,
43, 253-261.
LINDBLOM, C. K. 1994. The implications of organizational legitimacy for corporate social performance
and disclosure. Critical perspectives on accounting conference. New York, NY.
LUNDBERG, C. M.-. & BÖNNELYCHE, N. 2011. Index för ansvarsfullt företagande 2011. ansvar, miljö,
mänskliga rättigheter, arbetsvillkor, utsläpp, energieffektivisering, förnyelsebar energi,csr,
transparens, riskbrancher, korruption. [Online]. Folksam. Available: www.folksam.se
[Accessed February 27 2012].
MEEK, G. K., ROBERTS, C. B. & GRAY, S. J. 1995. Factors influencing voluntary annual report
disclosures by U.S., U.K. and Continental European multinational corporations. Journal of
International Business Studies, 26, 555-572.
MORGAN, G. 1988. Accounting as reality construction: Towards a new epistemology for accounting
practice. Accounting, Organizations & Society, 13, 477-485.
NEU, D., WARSAME, H. & PEDWELL, K. 1998. Managing public impressions: environmental
disclosures in annual reports Accounting, Organizations & Society, 23, 265-282.
O'DONOVAN, G. 2002. Environmental disclosures in the annual report. Extending the applicability
and predictive power of legitimacy theory. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 15,
344- 371.
O'DWYER, B. 2002. Managerial perceptions of corporate social disclosure. An Irish story. Accounting,
Auditing & Accountability Journal, 15, 406- 436.
OLIVER, C. 1991. Strategic responses to institutional processes. Academy of Management Review, 16,
145-179.
OWEN, D. 2005. CSR after Enron: A Role for the academic accounting profession? European
Accounting Review, 14, 395-404.
PATTEN, D. M. 1992. Intra- industry environmental disclosures in response to the Alaskan oil spill: A
note on legitimacy theory. Accounting, Organizations & Society, 17, 471-475.
PORTER, M. E. & KRAMER, M. R. 2006. Strategy and Society: The Link Between Competitive
Advantage and Corporate Social Responsibility. Harvard Business Review. Harvard Business
School Publication Corp.
11
ROBERTS, R. W. 1992. Determinants of corporate social responsibility disclosure: An application of
stakeholder theory. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 17, 595-612.
SCHALTEGGER, S., BENNETT, M. & BURRITT, R. 2006. Sustainability accounting and reporting,
Dordrecht ; [London], Springer.
SCHILIZZI, S. 2002. Triple Bottom Line Accounting: How serious is it? Connetions. A joint publication of
the agribusiness association of Austraila and the Australian agriculturaland resource
economics society. Australia.
STEWARD, R. E. 1992. Pluralizing our past: Foucault in accounting history. Accounting, Auditing &
Accountability Journal, 5, 57- 73.
TILT, C. A. 1994. The influence of external pressure groups on corporate social disclosure. Accounting,
Auditing & Accountability Journal, 7, 47- 72.
TROTMAN, K. T. & BRADLEY, G. W. 1981. Associations between social responsibility disclosure and
characteristics of companies. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 6, 355-362.
WEBB, D. J. & MOHR, L. A. 1998. A Typology of Consumer Responses to Cause-Related Marketing:
From Skeptics to Socially Concerned. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 17, 226-238.
VERRECCHIA, R. E. 2001. Essays on disclosure. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 32, 97-180.
12