Accounting, Auditing & Accountability JournalCorporate environmental reporting: A test of legitimacy theoryTrevor D. Wilmshurst, Geoffrey R. Frost,

Article information:To cite this document:Trevor D. Wilmshurst, Geoffrey R. Frost, (2000) "Corporate environmental reporting: A test oflegitimacy theory", Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Vol. 13 Issue: 1, pp.10-26, https://doi.org/10.1108/09513570010316126Permanent link to this document:https://doi.org/10.1108/09513570010316126

Downloaded on: 18 August 2017, At: 20:50 (PT)References: this document contains references to 40 other documents.To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.comThe fulltext of this document has been downloaded 14596 times since 2006*

Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:(2004),"Environment disclosure in Malaysia annual reports: A legitimacy theory perspective",International Journal of Commerce and Management, Vol. 14 Iss 1 pp. 44-58 <a href="https://doi.org/10.1108/10569210480000173">https://doi.org/10.1108/10569210480000173</a>(2009),"Social disclosure, legitimacy theory and the role of the state", Accounting,Auditing &amp; Accountability Journal, Vol. 22 Iss 8 pp. 1284-1307 <a href="https://doi.org/10.1108/09513570910999319">https://doi.org/10.1108/09513570910999319</a>

Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-srm:327772 []

For AuthorsIf you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald forAuthors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelinesare available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.

About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.comEmerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The companymanages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well asproviding 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 Committeeon Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archivepreservation.

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

NIV

ER

SIT

Y O

F G

LA

SGO

W A

t 20:

50 1

8 A

ugus

t 201

7 (P

T)

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

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

NIV

ER

SIT

Y O

F G

LA

SGO

W A

t 20:

50 1

8 A

ugus

t 201

7 (P

T)

AAAJ13,1

10

Accounting Auditing &Accountability Journal,Vol. 13 No. 1, 2000, pp. 10-26.# MCB University Press, 0951-3574

Submitted September1997Revised August, 1998;February 1999Accepted June 1999

Corporate environmentalreporting

A test of legitimacy theoryTrevor D. Wilmshurst

Victoria University of Technology, Melbourne, Australia

Geoffrey R. FrostUniversity of Newcastle, Newcastle, Australia

Keywords Environmental audit, Annual reports, Disclosure, Environmental impact

Abstract This paper analyses the link between the importance, as stated by reporters, of specificfactors in the decision to disclose environmental information and actual reporting practices.Through a mail survey, chief finance officers (CFOs) of selected Australian companies rated theperceived importance of specific factors in the decision to disclose environmental information.Environmental disclosure within respondents' annual reports were reviewed and an analysis wasundertaken to determine if relationships existed between actual reporting practices and ratings ofimportance assigned to various factors. The results indicate some significant correlations betweenthe perceived importance of a number of factors and environmental reporting practices. Theresults of the analysis provide limited support for legitimacy theory as an explanatory link betweenidentified influential factors in management's decision process and actual environmentaldisclosure.

IntroductionIn recent years there has been increased community attention toward theidentification of approaches to deal more effectively with environmentalconcerns. This discussion has resulted in calls for industry to become moreresponsive and to manage its impact on the environment better (Schmidheiny,1992). Many corporate managements have developed environmentalmanagement systems and increasingly adopted environmental reportingwithin the annual report (Deegan and Gordon, 1996; Gray et al., 1995; Guthrieand Parker, 1990). Environmental reporting has remained predominantly avoluntary practice, with many of the current Australian accounting `̀ rules''predisposed to the concealment of environmental information (see Frost andWilmshurst, 1996b)[1].

Prior research on environmental reporting has selectively examined externalfactors and subsequent disclosures (Deegan and Gordon, 1996; Deegan andRankin, 1996; Patten, 1992) failing to account for an interceding variable, thatof management's perceived importance of these factors. Evidence suggests that

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available athttp://www.emerald-library.com

An earlier version of this paper was presented at The Eighth Annual Conference of AccountingAcademics ± Hong Kong 1996, and to an Internal Seminar of the Accounting and FinanceDepartment at Victoria University of Technology. Special thanks to Craig Deegan, PatriciaStanton, John Staunton and the two anonymous referees for their insightful and helpfulcomments. Financial assistance for data collection was provided by the Australian Society ofCPAs.

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

NIV

ER

SIT

Y O

F G

LA

SGO

W A

t 20:

50 1

8 A

ugus

t 201

7 (P

T)

Corporateenvironmental

reporting

11

environmental information within the annual report is subject to seniormanagement intervention (O'Donovan, 1996). However, research on the factorsthat influence or motivate management subsequently to discloseenvironmental information has been limited (see, for example, Tilt, 1994).

This paper is motivated by this lack of research, and considers whetherlegitimacy theory provides an explanation of management's motivation todisclose environmental information within the annual report. Two specificissues are analysed in this paper. First, the paper examines the importanceplaced by management on factors that focus attention on the decision todisclose environmental information. Second, the paper analyses whether theattitudes of management are consistent with actual reporting practices. Thisprovides some support for the rationale that environmental reporting is a toolutilised by management to legitimise their activities where managementattitudes are also consistent with that position. This study therefore extendsprior research by directly examining management attitudes and subsequentdisclosure practices.

Legitimacy theory as an explanatory theory of environmentaldisclosureHogner (1982) suggested corporate social disclosures were motivated by thecorporate need to legitimise activities. Legitimacy theory has come to stresshow corporate management will react to community expectations (e.g. Tilt,1994; Patten, 1992; Guthrie and Parker, 1989). Underlying this notion is a viewthat stakeholders within the community deliberate on those activities which areacceptable, and companies, as members of that community, are expected tocarry out their activities within the boundaries of what is deemed acceptable bythat community[2]. When activities have an adverse impact upon theenvironment, management therefore will seek to re-establish its credentialsthrough the disclosure of additional information[3].

Legitimacy theory implies, given a growth in community awareness andconcern, that firms will take measures to ensure their activities andperformance are acceptable to the community[4]. The annual report maytherefore be used to reinforce the community's perception of management'sresponsiveness to specific environmental issues, or alternatively to divertattention from adverse environmental situations(e.g. Patten, 1992; Deegan andRankin, 1996).

Prior research has not provided consistent support for legitimacy theory. Astudy by Hogner (1982) of US Steel's corporate social reporting providedanecdotal evidence supporting legitimacy theory for social responsibilityreporting. However, Guthrie and Parker (1989, p. 350) in a longitudinal study ofBHP's (an Australian mining/manufacturing company) social disclosures`̀ failed to confirm legitimacy theory as an explanation''[5]. Patten (1992) testedlegitimacy theory arguments in a study examining the effect of the ExxonValdez oil spill on the disclosures within the annual reports of petroleum firmsother than Exxon, concluding that `̀ it appears that at least for environmental

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

NIV

ER

SIT

Y O

F G

LA

SGO

W A

t 20:

50 1

8 A

ugus

t 201

7 (P

T)

AAAJ13,1

12

disclosures, threats to a firm's legitimacy do entice the firms to include moresocial responsibility information in its annual reports'' (Patten, 1992, p. 475). Astudy by Deegan and Rankin (1996) found a positive correlation between thosefirms prosecuted by Australian state EPAs and an increase in the level ofenvironmental disclosures (especially positive disclosures) within the annualreport. The studies by Patten (1992) and Deegan and Rankin (1996) provideinitial empirical evidence supporting legitimacy theory in terms of a corporatereaction to an event influencing the firm's perceived social acceptability.

What influences the disclosure of environmental information?Accepting the primary argument of legitimacy theory, that external factorsinfluence corporate management to seek to legitimise activities, a number offactors may be identified to have an influence on the decision by managementto disclose information about the physical environment within the corporateannual report. One of the primary factors suggested to influence a corporateresponse on environmental issues is the growth in awareness and concern inthe general community. As argued by Hines:

. . .[t]here appears to be a strong demand for companies to be made accountable for theenvironmental impact of their actions. . . that firms have an implicit contract with, and shouldtherefore be accessible to, the wider community in which they operate (Hines, 1991, p. 41).

If the members of the community are becoming more interested in theenvironmental impact of companies, it is likely that the senior management willbe called on to explain the company's activities affecting the environment. Suchaccessibility may be promoted through disclosure within the annual report.

Prominent amongst the general community are the environmental lobby orpressure groups[6]; community pressure, for example, on corporate entities totake a more proactive position on environmental issues (Bates, 1995;Bebbington et al., 1994; Elkington, 1994; Hines, 1991; Tilt, 1994). Deegan andGordon (1996) found evidence of a correlation between corporate environmentalreporting and membership of environmental lobby organisations.

Concern for environmental issues and corporate environmental performanceis, however, not limited to environmental lobby organisations. Corporatemanagement may need to be responsive to the information demands of otherstakeholders. As suggested by Gilkinson (1994, p. 57) `̀ [e]nvironmentalmanagement programs can enhance relations with a variety of stakeholders,including shareholders, lenders, insurers, underwriters, suppliers, customers,environmental activists and employees''. This `̀ new'' environment was summedup by Elkington (1994, p. 99): `̀ the challenge facing individual companies willbe to work out new ways of co-operating with their suppliers, customers, andother stakeholders ± including competitors ± in this key area of businessactivity, while ensuring that they will benefit not only in corporate citizenshipterms, but also in terms of competitive advantage''. In other words, not onlymay management be called on to explain their actions, but also environmentaldisclosures may pave the way for a better relationship with their stakeholders.

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

NIV

ER

SIT

Y O

F G

LA

SGO

W A

t 20:

50 1

8 A

ugus

t 201

7 (P

T)

Corporateenvironmental

reporting

13

A consequence of failure by management to legitimise current activities isthe possible intervention of government. The government, as an elected body,could be expected to be attentive to community concerns, and responsive tocommunity pressure groups. It would be expected that the government wouldbe receptive to concern generated by the community about environmentalissues, as evidenced by the significant growth in legal requirements andregulations, including taxation, licensing requirements, and zoning restrictions,imposed on business activities. These requirements and regulations affect thefirm's interaction with the physical environment[7]. Many of these restrict thenature of, or manner in which operations can be undertaken, and therebyimpact financially upon the firm, resulting in corporate management factoringthe environment into their decision process (Epstein, 1996). Collateral liabilityof directors has also been introduced into the legislative framework, and thishas seen the transfer of responsibility for environmental performance toindividual managers (Frost and Wilmshurst, 1996a). Under these conditions,corporate management may utilise the annual report to seek to satisfy `̀ duediligence'' concerns.

The management of the financial impact of a company is a double-edgedsword in the sense that concern for the environment can both cost and save acompany money. Zuber and Berry (1992, p. 46) suggest that a company'simpact on the environment is likely to `̀ significantly affect a company'sfinancial position and its long term financial health''. These may include thepotential or probable liabilities for rehabilitation or clean-up of sites that havebeen contaminated and the possibility of a changed regulatory environment.

In trying to define precise factors motivating corporate management todisclose social (and environmental) information, Freedman and Staglianosuggest that:

It is probable that there is no single motivation for making social disclosure. Social disclosure,for the most part, is a function of the attitude of top management toward its stakeholders.Whether there is an economic motivation for the disclosure . . . a reaction to user needs . . . ora political motivation . . . is probably a consequence of each management's particularperception of the world it faces (Freedman and Stagliano, 1992, p. 113).

Arguably a number of potential factors may, at a given point of time, beinfluential in management's decision to disclose environmental information.The perceptions by management of the information needs of report users,tempered by the ability of factors to influence the wellbeing of the company,therefore could be expected to play a role in the level of environmentaldisclosure observed within the corporate annual report. This paper provides ananalysis of those issues identified as influential to corporate management andthe observed levels of environmental disclosure within the annual report.

Study designThis paper utilises data from two sources. The first source of information is amail survey of chief financial officers (CFOs) to ascertain their opinions on theimportance of specific issues motivating the decision to disclose environmental

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

NIV

ER

SIT

Y O

F G

LA

SGO

W A

t 20:

50 1

8 A

ugus

t 201

7 (P

T)

AAAJ13,1

14

information within the annual report. The second source is an analysis of thelevel of environmental disclosures within the annual reports of thosecompanies that responded to the survey. The two data gathering processes aredescribed below.

Sample selectionThe survey involved a selected sample from the top 500 listed Australiancompanies for 1994-1995, as identified by Riddells Information Services (whichis based on the total revenue of trading companies). An initial sample of 105companies was selected as a stratified random sample of companies fromenvironmentally sensitive industries[8]. The industry groups selected werechemical, mining and resources, oil gas and petroleum, transport/tourism,manufacturing, construction, and food and household. Given the exploratorynature of the study, this bias was introduced to limit the study sample to thosefirms more likely to have developed a systematic response on environmentalissues[9], as the study's objective was to identify what influences managementconsidered in the decision to disclose environmental information.Environmental sensitivity of the industry has been argued to be influential onthe level of environmental reporting (Deegan and Gordon, 1996), and thedevelopment of environmental management procedures (Frost and Toh, 1998).It is these firms that are more likely than firms in less environmentallysensitive industries to have considered, for example, stakeholders who utiliseenvironmental information, in the environmental reporting decision.

The industry groups chosen were based upon the groupings used by theAustralian Stock Exchange `̀ main listings''. The groupings identified were thencompared to the listing of `̀ main activities'' adopted by Deegan and Gordon(1996), with the final selection of industry groups based on the environmentalsensitivity indices developed by Deegan and Gordon (1996). Deegan andGordon (1996) ranked industries from 0 to 5 (5 being most sensitive), this studyincluded firms that had a main activity with an adjusted mean of 3.4 or greater.While this cut-off point is arbitrary, it is felt that the selection should reflect themore environmentally sensitive groups.

The survey processThe questionnaire drew on sources such as work undertaken by Bebbington etal. (1994), KPMG (1993), and Coopers & Lybrand (1993) in its development. Thesurvey instrument was developed to permit an analysis of the level ofimportance of specific factors on management's decision to discloseenvironmental information. The factors identified from prior research[10] are:

. to provide a `̀ true and fair'' view of operations;

. to pre-empt legally imposed requirements;

. to satisfy `̀ due diligence'' requirements;

. community concern with operations;

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

NIV

ER

SIT

Y O

F G

LA

SGO

W A

t 20:

50 1

8 A

ugus

t 201

7 (P

T)

Corporateenvironmental

reporting

15

. financial institution concerns;

. to meet legal obligations;

. supplier concerns;

. customer concerns;

. environmental lobby group concerns;

. competitor response to environmental issues;

. shareholder/investor rights to information.

Respondents were asked to scale the relative importance of each of these 11possible influential factors using a rank-order Likert scale. The scale usedconsisted of five points ranging from unimportant to highly important[11]. TheLikert scale was appropriate as the researchers wished to ascertain a level ofimportance attached to different influences on the decision to discloseenvironmental information[12].

The survey was addressed to the CFO to reflect our desire to contact amember of the management team that would typically be associated with thedevelopment of the corporate annual report and be in a position to comment onwhat influenced the corporate decision to disclose. While any individual withinan organisation cannot speak exclusively for the entire organisation, it was felt,that the CFO was in a sufficiently senior position to provide details on theinformation sought.

Use of a survey instrument in gathering data is limited by the constrainedscope of the questions (that is, what you ask constrains what you collect). Thisstudy aimed to explore a set of selected stated influences on the decision todisclose environmental information. Respondents were asked to indicate thetitle of the position they held within the company, so as to monitor who wasactually completing the survey. The majority of respondents identifiedthemselves as having a senior position in accounting or a position withcomparable responsibility such as executive director ± finance, companysecretary, or administration manager. A limited number of respondentsidentified their position as relating to environmental management (for example,environmental manager, environmental/external relations). Such respondentswere appropriate replacements for CFOs because they would be expected to beaware of the influences impacting on the corporate response to environmentalissues.

Following the initial mail out, a reminder letter and second copy of thequestionnaire were sent out four weeks after the initial request. This letter wassent to all sample companies that had not responded, or had replied but had notidentified their company. There were 62 useable responses received (a responserate of 58.5 per cent). While the actual response was slightly higher, at 69responses, there were a number of responses which were not useable, due to:return of incomplete questionnaire(s); companies indicated they were notprepared to participate; or it was not possible to identify the company.

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

NIV

ER

SIT

Y O

F G

LA

SGO

W A

t 20:

50 1

8 A

ugus

t 201

7 (P

T)

AAAJ13,1

16

Since the total population identified did not respond there is, as with allsurvey questionnaires, an issue relating to the representativeness of thesample. The issue is related to the extent of bias reflected in the respondentsample rather than the actual response rate (Babbie, 1989). A test for non-response bias was undertaken, by applying the early-late hypothesis techniquewhich suggests that late returns are often similar to non-responses. A Mann-Whitney U test was used to assess whether bias might exist for the Likert scalequestions. All factors were tested in this way. In all cases, the null hypothesisthat the sample came from the same population distribution could not berejected at the 0.05 per cent level of significance.

Content analysis of the annual reportThe second phase of the study was an analysis of the level of environmentaldisclosures within the 1995 annual reports of the 62 sample companies.Environmental disclosures are defined as those disclosures that relate to theimpact company activities have on the physical or natural environment inwhich they operate. This approach is consistent with the legislative framing ofwhat is understood by the `̀ environment''. For example, the VictorianEnvironment Protection Act (1970) Section 41 defines `̀ environment'' as:

. . . physical factors of the surroundings of human beings including the land, waters,atmosphere, climate, sound, odours, tastes, the biological factors of animals and plants andthe social factor of aesthetics.

While care should be taken when relying on the annual report as the onlysource of disclosure, since companies do use a number of other reportingmediums (such as media releases, stand-alone environmental reports, Internethome pages), the annual report was the sole source adopted in this study for anumber of reasons. First, it is a statutory report incorporating both statutoryand voluntary disclosures, which is produced regularly, and one over whichmanagement exercises editorial control. Second, it can be easily accessed. Andfinally, as suggested by Wiseman (1982, p. 55) it `̀ is widely recognised as theprincipal means for corporate communications of activities and intentionshasbeen the source for virtually all previous corporate research''.

To measure the level of environmental information within the annual reporta content analysis approach was adopted. This study is influenced byBowman's (1978, p.65) understanding of content analysis as an `̀ inquiryprocess [which does] not [rely] on casual reading but on rather explicit countingand coding of particular lines of prose, of word usage and of disclosure''. Themeasurement of disclosure was an unweighted count of the number of wordson environmental issues in the annual report[13]. Use of word counts assists inguarding against inconsistencies in calculating the quantity of disclosure(Zeghal and Ahmed, 1990). Zeghal and Ahmed (1990) indicate that words arethe smallest unit of measurement for analysis and can be expected to providethe maximum robustness to the study in assessing the quantity of disclosure.Supporting this, Krippendorf (1980) noted that words are a preferred measure

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

NIV

ER

SIT

Y O

F G

LA

SGO

W A

t 20:

50 1

8 A

ugus

t 201

7 (P

T)

Corporateenvironmental

reporting

17

when it is intended to measure the amount of total space devoted to a topic andto ascertain the importance of that topic. Environmental information in theannual reports was computer scanned, and a number word count undertaken toensure consistency in measurement between companies.

There are a number of limitations in undertaking content analysis. There isa risk of inconsistent interpretation of what it is that is being measured. In thisstudy the risk of arbitrariness in selection of what is environmental contentwas minimised by having the reports analysed independently by the tworesearchers for environmental content[14]. Only negligible differences in theassessment of environmental disclosures were identified, which were thensubject to re-examination.

The number of words disclosed is not assumed to be representative of thequality of disclosure, although it is assumed to be representative of the overallresponsiveness by corporate management in regard to legitimisingenvironmental performance. This assumption is based on the belief thatmanagement has editorial control of content when a large number of demandsfor inclusion of information are likely to exist (O'Donovan, 1996). Annualreports are time consuming and costly to produce, and management mustrationalise the competing demands for space. As a result space must beallocated on the basis of some perception of the importance of information toreport users.

Pictures reflecting environmental activities were excluded due tomeasurement difficulties. Arguably pictures may be `̀ worth a thousand words'',however, to include them in a measure based upon an unweighted word countis highly subjective. Such an exclusion is a limitation as management may seethis as a means to impress on users their responsible approach to themanagement of environmental issues. Panchapakesan and McKinnon (1992), inan analysis of social responsibility disclosures, reported a correlation betweennumber of words and area of words and photographs at the 0.977 level,suggesting only a minor variation between the two measures.

No attempt was made to assess the quality of disclosure. Wiseman (1982)examined the quality and accuracy of environmental disclosures made incorporate annual reports, suggesting that corporate environmental disclosureswere incomplete when compared to a firm's actual environmental performance.Corporate environmental disclosures have been suggested to be insufficientand low in credibility (Tilt, 1994), and often self-laudatory in nature (Deeganand Gordon, 1996; Deegan and Rankin, 1996). Other than the work completedby Wiseman (1982) there appears to be little work which has addressed theissue of quality of disclosure or the development of benchmarks from which tomeasure quality. It is important therefore to exercise caution when discussingthe issue of disclosure based on quantity measures.

This study is limited in that legitimisation is interpreted from the quantity ofenvironmental information disclosed rather than from an assessment of the`̀ quality'' of what is actually being disclosed, or more importantly, notdisclosed. For example, management may deliberately not disclose information

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

NIV

ER

SIT

Y O

F G

LA

SGO

W A

t 20:

50 1

8 A

ugus

t 201

7 (P

T)

AAAJ13,1

18

on a specific adverse situation, while increasing the level of positive disclosureson related issues. This may suggest further legitimisation of the firm, asmeasured by quantity of information, yet without a real increase in the qualityof information being provided. Such was observed by Deegan and Rankin(1996) who reported an increase in the level of positive information disclosed byfirms after being prosecuted by the EPA, without reporting on the actualprosecutions. The implication is that care must be taken in any interpretationof what is disclosed. There is likely to be a difference between the concern to begenuinely legitimate and a concern to appear to be legitimate.

ResultsThe stated importance of factors in the environmental disclosure decisionThe first objective of this study was to examine the stated importance placedby management on the factors identified in the decision to discloseenvironmental information. While there are a number of factors that may affectthe decision to disclose environmental information, each factor is notnecessarily perceived or stated to be of the same level of importance, norultimately influential on the level of environmental information disclosed.Table I provides a summary of the average score given to each factor.

The results reported in Table I show a narrow spread of the average level ofimportance placed upon the 11 factors examined. From the analysis,shareholder or investor rights to information was considered in aggregate asthe most significant influence on the decision to disclose environmentalinformation. Supportive of the primacy of the shareholders in the decision todisclose was the rating of `̀ providing a `true and fair' view'' which, on average,was considered as important. This result is supportive of prior research thathas focused on the shareholder as the primary user of the corporate annualreport as a means of reducing informational uncertainty (Ullmann, 1985),

Table I.Influences on thedecision to discloseenvironmentalinformation

Influences/motivating factors Mean Standard deviation

To provide a `̀ true and fair'' view of operations 3.00 1.261To pre-empt legally imposed requirements 2.54 1.032To satisfy `̀ due diligence'' requirements 3.25 1.203Community concern with operations 3.33 1.230Financial institution concerns 2.55 1.150To meet legal obligations 3.43 1.265Supplier concerns 2.14 1.002Customer concerns 2.64 1.313Environmental lobby group concerns 2.57 1.336Competitor response to environmental issues 2.16 1.022Shareholder/investor rights to information 3.52 1.406

Notes: Levels of influence: 1 = unimportant; 2 = slighly important; 3 = important; 4 = quiteimportant; 5 = highly important

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

NIV

ER

SIT

Y O

F G

LA

SGO

W A

t 20:

50 1

8 A

ugus

t 201

7 (P

T)

Corporateenvironmental

reporting

19

evidence that shareholders react to the disclosure of social information (Patten,1990), and the growth of ethical investments (Hamilton et al., 1993; Harte et al.,1991).

The second significant factor identified was the desire `̀ to meet legalobligations'', with the `̀ satisfaction of due diligence concerns'' also ranked asone of the more important influential factors. These results were not surprisinggiven the significant increase in environmental related legislation (Bates, 1995),and prior research indicating a relationship between prosecution and disclosure(Deegan and Rankin, 1996). It is of interest to note that a move to pre-emptlegally imposed requirements, although falling between `̀ slightly important'' to`̀ important'', was rated as ninth of the 11 factors in influencing the decision todisclose environmental information. This result, to the extent that it reflectsactual as well as stated perceptions of management, may question theargument that voluntary reporting is primarily a means of defending against amore interventionist regulative approach (Gallhofer and Haslam, 1997).

Respondents also identified community concerns as important in thedecision to disclose. It was, however, somewhat surprising that there were nocorresponding ratings of importance associated with environmental lobbyorganisations. This result is of interest given that prior research has shownthat these organisations do utilise the annual report (Tilt, 1994), and that acorrelation existed between corporate environmental reporting and Australianmembership of environmental lobby organisations (Deegan and Gordon,1996)[15]. These results support the findings of Bebbington et al. (1994), whoobserved that accountants employed within organisations which disclosedenvironmental information were more likely to have positive attitudes toward acategory referred to as `̀ public watchdogs'', which included the general publicand shareholders.

Factors such as supplier concerns and competitor response ranked as beingof least importance by the respondents. Of most interest from the responseswas the low ranking of importance attached to financial institutions in thedecision to disclose. While it has been argued that environmental risks are ofincreased importance in financial evaluations (Barrett, 1994), the ranking ofimportance of this group suggests that meeting their information needs maynot be the primary objective of annual report preparers.

The descriptive data provides some evidence toward the role of legitimacytheory in providing an explanation of management's decision to discloseenvironmental information. The results suggest management weighsinfluences differently when considering the decision to disclose environmentalinformation. Respondents identified community concern, shareholder/investorrights to information, due diligence and legal obligations as most important,with the least important influences being competitor response to environmentalissues and suppliers' concerns. The identified importance of a factor does notnecessarily equate to actual disclosure within the annual report. Actualresponses by management to these factors may be driven by the ability of thefactor to influence the wellbeing of the company, or what management

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

NIV

ER

SIT

Y O

F G

LA

SGO

W A

t 20:

50 1

8 A

ugus

t 201

7 (P

T)

AAAJ13,1

20

perceives to be important, or management's desire to be `̀ economical with thetruth''. However, it is possible to suggest from the results that these factors mayplay a differential role in the decision to disclose based on the attachedimportance as indicated by the survey respondents.

Issues of stated importance versus disclosure of environmental informationOnce respondents rated the factors in terms of relative importance in theenvironmental reporting decision, the next step was to assess whether thesefactors were then associated with the level of disclosure (number of words) onenvironmental issues observed within the annual report. Correlations were runbetween the ostensible influences on the disclosure decision and actualdisclosure in the annual reports to assess whether different influencesidentified as significant are related to actual disclosure. Table II reports theresults of the correlation analysis.

Table II identifies significant associations between influences on thedecision to disclose environmental information and actual disclosure in annualreports for shareholders' right to information ( p = 0.031 <0.05), customerconcerns ( p = 0.005, <0.01), community concern with operations ( p = 0.009,<0.01), supplier concerns ( p = 0.005, <0.01), and financial institution concerns(p = 0.021, <0.05). These significant correlations indicate a varied group ofinfluences perceived to have been important in the decision to discloseenvironmental information and resultant levels of environmental disclosures.

Table II indicates no significant correlation between actual disclosures andassociated importance of the environmental lobby on the decision to disclose.This result is of interest considering prior research which has found acorrelation between environmental reporting practices and the membershipnumbers of environmental lobby organisations (Deegan and Gordon, 1996).

Of note is the lack of a significant correlation between the importanceattached to legal requirements and the level of disclosures observed. Theresults may suggest that although legal issues are considered important in the

Table II.Association betweenactual disclosure in theannual reports andinfluence on thedecision to disclose

Influence variables Pearson p Spearman Significance

Shareholders' right to information 0.3706 0.031 0.4704 0.008Response to competitiors 0.0982 0.320 0.0656 0.378Environmental lobby group ±0.0103 0.480 0.0359 0.432Customer concerns 0.5042 0.005 0.4021 0.023Supplier concerns 0.4392 0.014 0.3859 0.028To meet legal obligations 0.0889 0.336 ±0.0412 0.422Financial institution concerns 0.4083 0.021 0.3009 0.072Community concerns with operations 0.4580 0.009 0.4795 0.007To meet `̀ due diligence'' requirements 0.2303 0.134 0.2389 0.125To pre-empt legal imposition ±0.0109 0.479 ±0.1017 0.314To provide a `̀ true and fair'' view 0.2862 0.078 0.3388 0.045

Note: One-tailed probabilities

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

NIV

ER

SIT

Y O

F G

LA

SGO

W A

t 20:

50 1

8 A

ugus

t 201

7 (P

T)

Corporateenvironmental

reporting

21

decision process, management may not be prepared to respond to this factoruntil the firm is directly affected. For example, prior research has shownmanagement responding through environmental reporting to specific eventsthat directly influence the firm, or the industry in which the firm operates, thatresult in an increased focus of community or regulatory attention uponenvironmental performance (Deegan and Rankin, 1996; Patten, 1992). On theother hand, such a result may suggest that the level of disclosure does notcapture the response by management on legal obligations. It may therefore bemore appropriate to analyse the issues being discussed within the annualreport. Further, the level of disclosure may be seen as a direct response tospecific stakeholders rather than a means of meeting specific disclosurerequirements.

Issues as explanatory variablesRegression analysis is used to assess whether the influence factors identifiedby the CFOs have explanatory power in determining the actual level ofdisclosure in annual reports. A significant model resulted from stepwiseregression (F significance 0.0029, <0.01). The model, summarised in Table III,indicates that two independent variables in the equation (influence ofcompetitor response to the environment and customer concerns) are significant,with an adjusted R2 of 0.37. This model is a significant explanation of the actualdisclosure of environmental information found in annual reports with apositive contribution by customer concerns (Beta 96 per cent), and a negativecontribution by the influence of competitors' response to environmental issues(Beta ±61.5 per cent).

The results suggests that actual environmental reporting is in partexplained as a reaction by management to the perceived importance of externalfactors considered in the decision to disclose environmental information. Such aresult provides some support to the argument that environmental reporting is

Table III.Least squares

regression: stepwiseregression influence

variables as anexplanation for actual

disclosure

Multiple R R square Adjusted R square Standard error0.65263 0.42592 0.37125 388.81694

Analysis of variance DF Sum of squares Mean squareRegression 2 2355413.70632 1177706.85316Residual 21 3174750.91868 151178.61518

F = 7.79017 Significant F = 0.0029

Variable B SE B Beta T Sig Ta

Competitors' responsesto environmentalissues

±316.059606 126.804053 ±0.615288 ±2.493 0.0105

Customer concerns 358.044538 91.787071 0.962937 3.901 0.0004(Constant) 205.713716 189.721140 1.084 0.1452

Note: a One-tailed significance

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

NIV

ER

SIT

Y O

F G

LA

SGO

W A

t 20:

50 1

8 A

ugus

t 201

7 (P

T)

AAAJ13,1

22

used as a means of legitimising corporate activities by indicating a linkbetween the importance of certain factors in the decision process and observedreporting practices.

ConclusionPrior research has tested legitimacy theory by observing disclosure as areaction to external issues (Deegan and Gordon, 1996; Deegan and Rankin,1996; Guthrie and Parker, 1989). This study sought to examine for arelationship between factors perceived as important by CFOs in the decision todisclose and the observed disclosure of environmental information within theannual report.

The results of the survey indicated that the factors identified were givendiffering levels of consideration in the decision to disclose environmentalinformation. Factors considered of most importance were shareholders' orinvestors' right to information (also ostensibly to provide a `̀ true and fair'' viewof operations), legal obligations and `̀ due diligence'' requirements, andcommunity concerns. Results suggest that in the decision process, managementgives most consideration to shareholders' information needs and legal issues.

The study then sought to test if the level of importance given to these factorscorrelated with environmental reporting practices. Testing of CFO responsesagainst the environmental disclosures within their company's annual reportidentified positive associations with shareholders' right to information,customer concerns, supplier concerns, financial institution concerns,community concerns and the provision of a `̀ true and fair'' view of theoperations of the firm. Of note was the observation that although legal relatedfactors were rated important as a consideration in the decision to disclose, thisconsideration did not appear to translate in actual disclosure quantity.

The regression analysis of influences on the decision to discloseenvironmental information to actual disclosures of environmental informationidentified the influences of the competitor response to environmental issues andcustomer concerns to have predictive power. The stepwise regressionsuggested that 37 per cent of actual disclosure could be attributed to these twoinfluences.

To conclude, this study provides limited support for the applicability oflegitimacy theory as an explanation for the decision to disclose environmentalinformation. Results offer some support for the contention that management isresponding to the perceived importance of stakeholders, for example, thegreater the perceived importance of shareholders' information needs andcommunity concerns, the higher the level of environmental disclosures thatwere observed within the annual report. However, the analysis failed to findassociations between those factors more generally associated with therestriction of activities with respect to the environment, such as theenvironmental lobby or legal related issues, and the level of environmentaldisclosures observed.

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

NIV

ER

SIT

Y O

F G

LA

SGO

W A

t 20:

50 1

8 A

ugus

t 201

7 (P

T)

Corporateenvironmental

reporting

23

Arguably, management may legitimise its environmental performance inresponse to general changes in the perceived importance of environmentalissues; hence it may be seeking to meet the information needs of the generalcommunity and stakeholders financially reliant on the firm. The failure toprovide evidence of a link between the perceived importance of specificenvironment related stakeholders or legal issues might be explained in theresults of prior research. For example, Deegan and Rankin (1996) found aprosecution relating to an environmental issue significantly influenced the levelof disclosure observed. In this case the importance of legal issues in general hadnot changed, but a specific event resulted in a change in reporting practices.Patten (1992) also observed significant increases in environmental reportingsubsequent to the Exxon Valdez oil spill which resulted in an increase in socialexposure of the oil industry. Therefore further research on event-drivenchanges in the social environment may prove useful in providing additionalexplanatory power on what influences management in the decision to discloseenvironmental information.

A further avenue of inquiry would be case study based research to gain anunderstanding of the trade-off that occurs between the competing requirementsfor information to be included in the annual report. Such observations ofinteraction cannot be observed through passive survey research. Additionally,the analysis of responsiveness did not encompass issues of information qualityand alternate means of information dissemination. Further research in theseareas would provide additional insight into the motivations for management'sresponse to the environmental reporting process in terms of the type, andquantity of environmental information to disclose, and in what format todisclose this information.

Notes

1. Prescriptive guidelines on environmental reporting have been limited to Urgent IssuesGroup Abstract 4: Disclosure of Accounting Policies for Restoration Obligations in theExtractive Industries which requires extractive industry companies to disclose informationon the amount of restoration liability (see also Australian Accounting Standards Board1022 Accounting for the Extractive Industries) and the accounting method adopted indetermining the liability.

2. The argument underlying legitimacy theory is the idea that management is able toinfluence the perceptions of the public toward it. It is argued that a firm will seek tosomehow satisfy the social values of the community in which it operates and to, at leastostensibly, meet the norms of acceptable behaviour. Lindblom (1994) has describedlegitimacy as `̀ a condition or status which exists when an entity's value system iscongruent with the value system of the larger social system of which the entity is a part''(p. 2).

3. An example of such an action occurred in 1995 when the Iron Barron ran aground inNorthern Tasmania. Within 12 hours of the incident, BHP issued its first press releaseassuming all responsibility for the incident, and thereby averted much public criticism forthe accident (Salmons, 1995).

4. Where firms are not able to show they have remained within acceptable boundaries, themembers of a community may express dissatisfaction in a number of ways, as either

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

NIV

ER

SIT

Y O

F G

LA

SGO

W A

t 20:

50 1

8 A

ugus

t 201

7 (P

T)

AAAJ13,1

24

individuals, or as groups of individuals, or through the elected representatives of thecommunity. For example, political and lobby groups may direct their activities specificallyagainst an industry or a firm, or customers may boycott the products or services of firmsthat are felt to be acting against the best interests of the community.

5. A major limitation of both Hogner's (1982) and Guthrie and Parker's (1989) work was thatonly one company was analysed.

6. Beaucamp and Girgensohn (1992) suggest that the public have become more sensitive, andare now better informed on environmental issues. This has enhanced the development ofprofessional environmental pressure groups.

7. Within Australia there exists a large number of environment related pieces of legislation,for example Barbera (1994) cites almost 500 pieces of legislation that existed as at 30September 1992. Much of the environmental legislation has been developed within the last25 years (Bates, 1995).

8. A random sample of public companies was selected from within the selected industrygroups. As such the sample is not random from the top 500 companies, but is random fromwithin the selected industry groups. Since the number of firms in each industry group wasnot the same, the sample size randomly selected from each was based on the relativeimportance of each group to the total firms number in the sample included in the study.This approach was felt to be necessary to ensure representativeness from each group.

9. It may also be argued that such a sample selection would result in an increased responserate. Bebbington et al. (1994) found that a bias towards environmentally sensitiveindustries was more likely to increase the response to a survey on environmental issues.

10. The initial draft of the questionnaire was presented to a seminar at The University of NewEngland. At various stages the structure of the questionnaire and the questions wererefined after discussions with colleagues at the University of New England and VictoriaUniversity of Technology.

11. The Likert scale used was composed of the following categories: 1 = unimportant; 2 =slightly important; 3 = important; 4 = quite important; 5 = highly important.

12. The Likert scale is not an interval scale and no conclusions can be drawn about theinterval between each scale position (Moser and Kalton, 1975).

13. Other studies using word counts in content analysis include Deegan and Gordon (1996)and Deegan and Ranking (1996).

14. A process adopted by Wiseman (1982) and Zeghal and Ahmed (1990) to minimiseinconsistencies.

15. It may, however, be suggested that membership of environmental lobby organizations is areflection of community concerns, and that the company responds to community concernsrather than directly to the environmental lobby. This result may suggest that while themembership of environmental lobby organizations may be an appropriate proxy forcommunity concerns, corporate management does not react to the lobby organizations ongeneral issues. Comments from respondents also included the suggestion that they believethe environmental lobby to be `̀ over emotional''. This type of position could explain theapparent discrepancy.

References

Babbie, E. (1989), The Practice of Social Research, 5th edition, Wadsworth Publishing Company.Belmont, CA.

Barbera, M. (1994), Environmental Issues: A Challenge for Management Accountants, AustralianSociety of Certified Practising Accountants, Management Accounting Centre ofExcellence, Melbourne.

Barrett, J. (1994), `̀ Weighing up the risks'', Certified Accountant, Vol. 86 No. 10, October, pp. 42-4.

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

NIV

ER

SIT

Y O

F G

LA

SGO

W A

t 20:

50 1

8 A

ugus

t 201

7 (P

T)

Corporateenvironmental

reporting

25

Bates, G.M. (1995), Environmental Law in Australia, 4th edition, Butterworths, Sydney.

Beaucamp, A. and Girgensohn, T. (1992), `̀ Environmental based competition: lessons fromoverseas'', Business Council Bulletin, January/February, No. 83, pp. 22-7.

Bebbington, J., Gray, R., Thompson, I. and Walters, D. (1994), `̀ Accountants' attitudes andenvironmentally-sensitive accounting'', Accounting and Business Research, Vol. 24 No. 94,pp. 109-20.

Bowman, E.H. (1978), `̀ Strategy, annual reports and alchemy'', California Management Review,Vol. 20 No. 3, pp. 64-71.

Coopers & Lybrand (1993), Environmental Management Practices: A Survey of Major AustralianOrganisations, Coopers & Lybrand Consultants, Sydney.

Deegan, C. and Gordon, B. (1996), `̀ A study of the environmental disclosure practices ofAustralian corporations'', Accounting and Business Research, Vol. 26 No. 3, pp. 187-99.

Deegan, C. and Rankin, M. (1996), `̀ Do Australian companies report environmental newsobjectively? An analysis of environmental disclosures by firms prosecuted successfully bythe Environmental Protection Authority'', Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal,Vol. 9 No. 2, pp. 50-67.

Elkington, J. (1994), `̀ Towards the sustainable corporation: win-win-win business strategies forsustainable development'', California Management Review, Vol. 36 No. 2, pp. 90-100.

Epstein, M.J. (1996), Measuring Corporate Environmental Performance, Irwin, Chicago, IL.

Freedman, M. and Stagliano, A.J. (1992), `̀ European unification, accounting harmonisation, andsocial disclosure'', The International Journal of Accounting, Vol. 27 No. 2, pp. 112-22.

Frost, G.R. and Toh, D. (1998), `̀ A study of environmental accounting within the New SouthWales Public Sector'', Accounting Research Journal, Vol. 11 No. 2, pp. 400-10.

Frost, G.R. and Wilmshurst, T.D. (1996a), `̀ Australian directors and the environment: theirresponse and attitudes'', Accountability & Performance, Vol. 2 No. 2, pp. 37-50.

Frost, G.R. and Wilmshurst, T.D. (1996b), `̀ Going green. . . but not yet'', Australian Accountant,Vol. 66 No. 8, 1996, pp. 36-7.

Gallhofer, S. and Haslam J. (1997), `̀ The direction of green accounting policy: critical reflections'',Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Vol. 10 No. 2, pp. 148-74.

Gilkinson, B. (1994), `̀ Accounting for degradation: the Mapua problem revisited'', CharteredAccountants Journal, September, pp. 54-9.

Gray, R., Kouhy, R. and Lavers, S. (1995), `̀ Corporate social and environmental reporting'',Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Vol. 8 No. 2, pp. 47-77.

Guthrie, J. and Parker, L.D. (1989), `̀ Corporate social reporting: a rebuttal of legitimacy theory'',Accounting and Business Research, Vol. 19 No. 76, pp. 343-52.

Guthrie J. and Parker, L.D. (1990), `̀ Corporate social disclosure practice: a comparativeinternational analysis'', Advances in Public Interest Accounting, Vol. 3, pp. 159-75.

Hamilton, S., Jo, H. and Statman, M. (1993), `̀ Doing well while doing good? The investmentperformance of socially responsible mutual funds'', Financial Analysts Journal, November-December, Vol. 49 No. 6, pp. 62-6.

Harte, G., Lewis, L. and Owen, D.L. (1991), `̀ Ethical investment and the corporate reportingfunction'', Critical Perspectives on Accounting, Vol. 2 No. 3, pp. 227-54.

Hines, T. (1991), `̀ The wider issues'', Certified Accountant, April, pp. 38-41.

Hogner, R.H. (1982), `̀ Corporate social reporting: eight decades of development at US steel'',Research in Corporate Social Performance and Policy, Vol. 4, pp. 243-50.

KPMG (1993), International Survey of Environmental Reporting, KPMG

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

NIV

ER

SIT

Y O

F G

LA

SGO

W A

t 20:

50 1

8 A

ugus

t 201

7 (P

T)

AAAJ13,1

26

Krippendorf, K. (1980), Content Analysis: An Introduction to its Methodology, Sage, New York,NY.

Lindblom, C.K. (1994), `̀ The implications of organisational legitimacy for corporate socialperformance and disclosure'', paper presented at the Critical Perspectives on AccountingConference, New York, NY.

Moser, C.A. and Kalton, G. (1975), Survey Methods in Social Investigations, 2nd edition,Heinemann Educational Books, London.

O'Donovan, G. (1996), `̀ The inclusion of environmental information in the corporate annualreport: who decides?'', paper presented at the Environmental Accountability Symposium,Canberra.

Panchapakesan, S. and McKinnon, J.L. (1992), `̀ Proxies for political visibility: a preliminaryexamination of the relation among some potential proxies'', Accounting Research Journal,Spring, pp. 71-80.

Patten, D.M. (1990), `̀ The market reaction to social responsibility disclosures: the case of theSullivan principles signings'', Accounting, Organizations and Society, Vol. 15 No. 6,pp. 575-87.

Patten, D.M. (1992), `̀ Intra-industry environmental disclosures in response to the Alaskan oilspill: a note on legitimacy theory'', Accounting, Organizations and Society, Vol. 17 No. 5,pp. 471-5.

Salmons, R. (1995), `̀ Inside the war room: how BHP copes with crisis'', Australian FinancialReview, 13 July, pp. 1, 14.

Schmidheiny, S. (1992), Changing Course: A Global Business Perspective on Development and theEnvironment, The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.

Tilt, C.A. (1994), `̀ The influence of external pressure groups on corporate social disclosure: someempirical evidence'', Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Vol. 7 No. 4, pp. 47-72.

Ullmann, A.A. (1985), `̀ Data in search of a theory: a critical examination of the relationshipsamong social performance, social disclosure, and economic performance of US firms'',Academy of Management Review, Vol. 10 No. 3, pp. 540-57.

Wiseman, J. (1982), `̀ An evaluation of environmental disclosures made in corporate annualreports'', Accounting, Organizations and Society, Vol. 7 No. 1, pp. 53-63.

Zeghal, D. and Ahmed, S.A. (1990), `̀ Comparison of social responsibility information disclosuremedia used by Canadian firms'', Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Vol. 3No. 1, pp. 38-53.

Zuber, G.R. and Berry, C.G. (1992), `̀ Assessing environmental risk'', Journal of Accountancy,March, pp. 43-8.D

ownl

oade

d by

UN

IVE

RSI

TY

OF

GL

ASG

OW

At 2

0:50

18

Aug

ust 2

017

(PT

)

This article has been cited by:

1. Elda du Toit. THE READABILITY OF INTEGRATED REPORTS. Meditari Accountancy Research0:ja, 00-00. [Abstract] [PDF]

2. ChakrounRaida, Raida Chakroun, MatoussiHamadi, Hamadi Matoussi, MbirkiSarra, Sarra Mbirki. 2017.Determinants of CSR disclosure of Tunisian listed banks: a multi-support analysis. Social ResponsibilityJournal 13:3, 552-584. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

3. Zihan Liu, Subhash Abhayawansa, Christine Jubb, Luckmika Perera. 2017. Regulatory impact onvoluntary climate change-related reporting by Australian government-owned corporations. FinancialAccountability & Management 33:3, 264-283. [Crossref]

4. Frances M Miley, Andrew F Read. 2017. Financial control, blame avoidance and Radio Caroline: Talkin’‘bout my generation. Accounting History 22:3, 301-319. [Crossref]

5. Sarishma Sharma, Khushdeep Dharni. Intellectual capital disclosures in an emerging economy: status andtrends. Journal of Intellectual Capital 0:ja, 00-00. [Abstract] [PDF]

6. YuShengli, Shengli Yu, RoweAnna Lee, Anna Lee Rowe. 2017. Emerging phenomenon of corporatesocial and environmental reporting in China. Sustainability Accounting, Management and Policy Journal8:3, 386-415. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

7. 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 8:3, 335-357. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

8. Raquel Garde Sánchez, Manuel Pedro Rodríguez Bolívar, Antonio M. López Hernández. 2017. Corporateand managerial characteristics as drivers of social responsibility disclosure by state-owned enterprises.Review of Managerial Science 11:3, 633-659. [Crossref]

9. Waris Ali, Jedrzej George Frynas, Zeeshan Mahmood. 2017. Determinants of Corporate SocialResponsibility (CSR) Disclosure in Developed and Developing Countries: A Literature Review. CorporateSocial Responsibility and Environmental Management 24:4, 273-294. [Crossref]

10. Richard S. Simmons, Robin S. Snell. 2017. Machiavellianism, support for CESR, and attitudes towardsenvironmental responsibility amongst undergraduate students. International Journal of Ethics Education54. . [Crossref]

11. Lyton Chithambo, Venancio Tauringana. Corporate governance and greenhouse gas disclosure: A mixed-methods approach. Corporate Governance: The international journal of business in society 0:ja, 00-00.[Abstract] [PDF]

12. WelbeckEdem Emerald, Edem Emerald Welbeck. 2017. The influence of institutional environment oncorporate responsibility disclosures in Ghana. Meditari Accountancy Research 25:2, 216-240. [Abstract][Full Text] [PDF]

13. Thomas Clarke, Martijn Boersma. 2017. The Governance of Global Value Chains: Unresolved HumanRights, Environmental and Ethical Dilemmas in the Apple Supply Chain. Journal of Business Ethics 143:1,111-131. [Crossref]

14. Ezhilarasi G., K. C. Kabra. 2017. The Impact of Corporate Governance Attributes on EnvironmentalDisclosures: Evidence from India. Indian Journal of Corporate Governance 10:1, 24-43. [Crossref]

15. Ester Chen, Ilanit Gavious, Baruch Lev. 2017. The positive externalities of IFRS R&D capitalization:enhanced voluntary disclosure. Review of Accounting Studies 22:2, 677-714. [Crossref]

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

NIV

ER

SIT

Y O

F G

LA

SGO

W A

t 20:

50 1

8 A

ugus

t 201

7 (P

T)

16. HossainMd Moazzem, Md Moazzem Hossain, MominMahmood Ahmed, Mahmood Ahmed Momin,RoweAnna Lee, Anna Lee Rowe, QuaddusMohammed, Mohammed Quaddus. 2017. Corporate social andenvironmental reporting practices. Sustainability Accounting, Management and Policy Journal 8:2, 138-165.[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

17. MansiMansi, Mansi Mansi, PandeyRakesh, Rakesh Pandey, GhauriEhtasham, Ehtasham Ghauri. 2017.CSR focus in the mission and vision statements of public sector enterprises: evidence from India.Managerial Auditing Journal 32:4/5, 356-377. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

18. PérezAndrea, Andrea Pérez, LópezCarlos, Carlos López, García-De los SalmonesMaría del Mar, María delMar García-De los Salmones. 2017. An empirical exploration of the link between reporting to stakeholdersand corporate social responsibility reputation in the Spanish context. Accounting, Auditing & AccountabilityJournal 30:3, 668-698. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

19. Muhammad Azizul Islam, Shamima Haque, Robin Roberts. 2017. Human Rights Performance Disclosureby Companies with Operations in High Risk Countries: Evidence from the Australian Minerals Sector.Australian Accounting Review 27:1, 34-51. [Crossref]

20. Cornelia Beck, John Dumay, Geoffrey Frost. 2017. In Pursuit of a ‘Single Source of Truth’: fromThreatened Legitimacy to Integrated Reporting. Journal of Business Ethics 141:1, 191-205. [Crossref]

21. Mehdi Nekhili, Haithem Nagati, Tawhid Chtioui, Ali Nekhili. 2017. Gender-diverse board and therelevance of voluntary CSR reporting. International Review of Financial Analysis 50, 81-100. [Crossref]

22. Al-ShaerHabiba, Habiba Al-Shaer, SalamaAly, Aly Salama, TomsSteven, Steven Toms. 2017. Auditcommittees and financial reporting quality. Journal of Applied Accounting Research 18:1, 2-21. [Abstract][Full Text] [PDF]

23. Jing Xu, Liming Zhang. Institutional Investors, Managers’ Power and Environmental PerformanceInformation Disclosure: Evidence from Listed Firms of Heavy Polluting Industries in Shanghai StockExchange of China 1527-1539. [Crossref]

24. Isabel Gallego-Alvarez, Eduardo Ortas, José Luis Vicente-Villardón, Igor Álvarez Etxeberria. 2017.Institutional Constraints, Stakeholder Pressure and Corporate Environmental Reporting Policies. BusinessStrategy and the Environment . [Crossref]

25. Mara Vogt, Nelson Hein, Fabricia Silva da Rosa, Larissa Degenhart. 2017. Relationship betweendeterminant factors of disclosure of information on environmental impacts of Brazilian companies. EstudiosGerenciales 33:142, 24-38. [Crossref]

26. Ahsan Habib, Md Borhan Uddin Bhuiyan. 2017. Determinants of monetary penalties for environmentalviolations. Business Strategy and the Environment . [Crossref]

27. Po-Han Chen, Chuan-Fang Ong, Shu-Chien Hsu. 2016. Understanding the relationships betweenenvironmental management practices and financial performances of multinational construction firms.Journal of Cleaner Production 139, 750-760. [Crossref]

28. Merle Ojasoo. 2016. CSR reporting, stakeholder engagement and preventing hypocrisy through ethicsaudit. Journal of Global Entrepreneurship Research 6:1. . [Crossref]

29. Joseph Ufere Kalu, Alias Buang, Godwin Uche Aliagha. 2016. Determinants of voluntary carbon disclosurein the corporate real estate sector of Malaysia. Journal of Environmental Management 182, 519-524.[Crossref]

30. Andrew Crane, Sarah Glozer. 2016. Researching Corporate Social Responsibility Communication:Themes, Opportunities and Challenges. Journal of Management Studies 53:7, 1223-1252. [Crossref]

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

NIV

ER

SIT

Y O

F G

LA

SGO

W A

t 20:

50 1

8 A

ugus

t 201

7 (P

T)

31. Natalia Vaz, Belen Fernandez-Feijoo, Silvia Ruiz. 2016. Integrated reporting: an international overview.Business Ethics: A European Review 25:4, 577-591. [Crossref]

32. Larissa Degenhart, Mara Vogt, Nelson Hein, Fabrícia Silva da Rosa. 2016. Ranking setorial do grau deevidenciação ambiental das empresas brasileiras listadas no IBrX‐100. REGE - Revista de Gestão 23:4,326-337. [Crossref]

33. Bakhtiar Alrazi, Charl de Villiers, Chris J. Van Staden. 2016. The environmental disclosures of theelectricity generation industry: a global perspective. Accounting and Business Research 46:6, 665-701.[Crossref]

34. DobbsStevie, Stevie Dobbs, van StadenChris, Chris van Staden. 2016. Motivations for corporate social andenvironmental reporting: New Zealand evidence. Sustainability Accounting, Management and Policy Journal7:3, 449-472. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

35. J.A. Fuente, I.M. García-Sánchez, M.B. Lozano. 2016. The role of the board of directors in the adoptionof GRI guidelines for the disclosure of CSR information. Journal of Cleaner Production . [Crossref]

36. OderaOdhiambo, Odhiambo Odera, ScottAlbert, Albert Scott, GowJeff, Jeff Gow. 2016. Differentialreporting of social and environmental disclosures between local and foreign oil companies in Nigeria. SocialResponsibility Journal 12:3, 415-438. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

37. Uajará Pessoa Araújo, Mozar José de Brito, Lívia Maria de Pádua Ribeiro, Fernanda Tarabal Lopes. 2016.Meta-Interpretation: Fifteen Years of Research with the Management Report. Revista Contabilidade &Finanças 27:71, 217-231. [Crossref]

38. OngTricia, Tricia Ong, TrireksaniTerri, Terri Trireksani, DjajadikertaHadrian Geri, Hadrian GeriDjajadikerta. 2016. Hard and soft sustainability disclosures: Australia’s resources industry. AccountingResearch Journal 29:2, 198-217. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

39. Thando Loliwe. 2016. Voluntary employee reporting by the wholesale and retail companies listed on theJohannesburg Stock Exchange. South African Journal of Accounting Research 30:2, 139-171. [Crossref]

40. PrasadAcklesh, Acklesh Prasad, GreenPeter, Peter Green, HealesJon, Jon Heales. 2016. Do organisationsin developing economies legitimise their level of profit? Evidence from Fiji. Accounting Research Journal29:1, 59-80. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

41. Alonso Moreno, Macario Cámara. 2016. Stakeholders in annual reports under ownership concentration: ahistorical case of a Spanish brewery company. Accounting History Review 26:2, 57-81. [Crossref]

42. Nazliatul Aniza Abdul Aziz, Norlida Abdul Manab, Siti Norezam Othman. 2016. Critical Success Factorsof Sustainability Risk Management (SRM) Practices in Malaysian Environmentally Sensitive Industries.Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 219, 4-11. [Crossref]

43. 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]

44. Olivia Ann Giles, Daniel Murphy. 2016. SLAPPed: the relationship between SLAPP suits and changedESG reporting by firms. Sustainability Accounting, Management and Policy Journal 7:1, 44-79. [Abstract][Full Text] [PDF]

45. Edeltraud Guenther, Thomas Guenther, Frank Schiemann, Gabriel Weber. 2016. Stakeholder Relevancefor Reporting. Business & Society 55:3, 361-397. [Crossref]

46. Abdel K. Halabi, Margaret Lightbody, Lionel Frost, Amanda J. Carter. 2016. Legitimizing amateurstatus using financial reports: Victorian Football League clubs, 1909–1912. Accounting History 21:1, 25-47.[Crossref]

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

NIV

ER

SIT

Y O

F G

LA

SGO

W A

t 20:

50 1

8 A

ugus

t 201

7 (P

T)

47. Even Fallan. 2016. Environmental Reporting Regulations and Reporting Practices. Social andEnvironmental Accountability Journal 36:1, 34-55. [Crossref]

48. Weisheng Lu, Meng Ye, Roger Flanagan, Kunhui Ye. 2016. Corporate Social Responsibility Disclosuresin International Construction Business: Trends and Prospects. Journal of Construction Engineering andManagement 142:1, 04015053. [Crossref]

49. Belen Fernandez-Feijoo, Silvia Romero, Silvia Ruiz. 2015. Multilevel Approach to Sustainability ReportAssurance Decisions. Australian Accounting Review 25:4, 346-358. [Crossref]

50. Kemi C. Yekini, Ismail Adelopo, Panagiotis Andrikopoulos, Sina Yekini. 2015. Impact of boardindependence on the quality of community disclosures in annual reports. Accounting Forum 39:4, 249-267.[Crossref]

51. Jakob Utgård. 2015. Retail Chains’ Corporate Social Responsibility Communication. Journal of BusinessEthics . [Crossref]

52. Issam Laguir, Raffaele Staglianò, Jamal Elbaz. 2015. Does corporate social responsibility affect corporatetax aggressiveness?. Journal of Cleaner Production 107, 662-675. [Crossref]

53. Eduardo Ortas, Isabel Gallego-Alvarez, Igor Álvarez Etxeberria. 2015. Financial Factors Influencing theQuality of Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management Disclosure: A QuantileRegression Approach. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management 22:6, 362-380.[Crossref]

54. A.H. Fatima, Norhayati Abdullah, Maliah Sulaiman. 2015. Environmental disclosure quality: examiningthe impact of the stock exchange of Malaysia’s listing requirements. Social Responsibility Journal 11:4,904-922. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

55. Prabanga Thoradeniya, Janet Lee, Rebecca Tan, Aldónio Ferreira. 2015. Sustainability reporting and thetheory of planned behaviour. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal 28:7, 1099-1137. [Abstract][Full Text] [PDF]

56. Petros Vourvachis, Thérèse Woodward. 2015. Content analysis in social and environmental reportingresearch: trends and challenges. Journal of Applied Accounting Research 16:2, 166-195. [Abstract] [FullText] [PDF]

57. Denis Cormier, Michel Magnan. 2015. The Economic Relevance of Environmental Disclosure and itsImpact on Corporate Legitimacy: An Empirical Investigation. Business Strategy and the Environment 24:6,431-450. [Crossref]

58. Bakhtiar Alrazi, Charl de Villiers, Chris J. van Staden. 2015. A comprehensive literature review on, andthe construction of a framework for, environmental legitimacy, accountability and proactivity. Journal ofCleaner Production 102, 44-57. [Crossref]

59. Juniati Gunawan. 2015. Corporate social disclosures in Indonesia: stakeholders’ influence and motivation.Social Responsibility Journal 11:3, 535-552. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

60. Md Moazzem Hossain, Manzurul Alam, Muhammad Azizul Islam, Angela Hecimovic. 2015. Dostakeholders 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]

61. Colin Higgins, Markus J. Milne, Bernadine van Gramberg. 2015. The Uptake of Sustainability Reportingin Australia. Journal of Business Ethics 129:2, 445-468. [Crossref]

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

NIV

ER

SIT

Y O

F G

LA

SGO

W A

t 20:

50 1

8 A

ugus

t 201

7 (P

T)

62. Tina Jochim, Michael C. Ottenbacher, Robert J. Harrington. 2015. What and How Are Firms in theQuick-Service Restaurant Industry Reporting on Corporate Social Responsibility?. Journal of FoodserviceBusiness Research 18:3, 258-286. [Crossref]

63. Monir Zaman Mir, Bikram Chatterjee, Ross Taplin. 2015. Political competition and environmentalreporting. Asian Review of Accounting 23:1, 17-38. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

64. Andrea Melis, Silvia Gaia, Silvia Carta. 2015. Directors' remuneration: A comparison of Italian and UKnon-financial listed firms' disclosure. The British Accounting Review 47:1, 66-84. [Crossref]

65. George Ted Khiong Thien. 2015. CSR for Clients’ Social/Environmental Impacts?. Corporate SocialResponsibility and Environmental Management 22:2, 83-94. [Crossref]

66. Indra Abeysekera. 2014. Why do firms disclose and not disclose structural intangibles?. Advances inAccounting 30:2, 381-393. [Crossref]

67. Ralf Barkemeyer, Breeda Comyns, Frank Figge, Giulio Napolitano. 2014. CEO statements in sustainabilityreports: Substantive information or background noise?. Accounting Forum 38:4, 241-257. [Crossref]

68. Lyton Chithambo, Venancio Tauringana. 2014. Company specific determinants of greenhouse gasesdisclosures. Journal of Applied Accounting Research 15:3, 323-338. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

69. MuiChing Carina Chan, John Watson, David Woodliff. 2014. Corporate Governance Quality and CSRDisclosures. Journal of Business Ethics 125:1, 59-73. [Crossref]

70. Belen Fernandez-Feijoo, Silvia Romero, Silvia Ruiz-Blanco. 2014. Women on Boards: Do They AffectSustainability Reporting?. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management 21:6, 351-364.[Crossref]

71. Ioannis Papadopoulos, Glykeria Karagouni, Marios Trigkas, Zoi Beltsiou. 2014. Mainstreaming greenproduct strategies. EuroMed Journal of Business 9:3, 293-317. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

72. Mohamed A. Omran, Ahmed M. El-Galfy. 2014. Theoretical perspectives on corporate disclosure: acritical evaluation and literature survey. Asian Review of Accounting 22:3, 257-286. [Abstract] [Full Text][PDF]

73. Faizah Darus, Salina Mad, Haslinda Yusoff. 2014. The Importance of Ownership Monitoring and FirmResources on Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) of Financial Institutions. Procedia - Social andBehavioral Sciences 145, 173-180. [Crossref]

74. Dorothea Greiling, Birgit Grüb. 2014. Sustainability reporting in Austrian and German local publicenterprises. Journal of Economic Policy Reform 17:3, 209-223. [Crossref]

75. Mohamed M. Shamil, Junaid M. Shaikh, Poh-Ling Ho, Anbalagan Krishnan. 2014. The influence ofboard characteristics on sustainability reporting. Asian Review of Accounting 22:2, 78-97. [Abstract] [FullText] [PDF]

76. Nkoko Blessy Sekome, Tesfaye Taddesse Lemma. 2014. Determinants of voluntary formation of riskmanagement committees. Managerial Auditing Journal 29:7, 649-671. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

77. Nik Nazli Nik Ahmad, Noor Afzalina Mohamad. 2014. Environmental Disclosures by the MalaysianConstruction Sector: Exploring Extent and Quality. Corporate Social Responsibility and EnvironmentalManagement 21:4, 240-252. [Crossref]

78. R.J. Hall, G.D. Moura, F.F.R.R. Macêdo, P.R. Cunha. 2014. Compras Públicas Sustentáveis: Um Estudonas Universidades Federais Brasileiras. Amazônia, Organizações e Sustentabilidade 3:1, 27-44. [Crossref]

79. Belen Fernandez-Feijoo, Silvia Romero, Silvia Ruiz. 2014. Effect of Stakeholders’ Pressure on Transparencyof Sustainability Reports within the GRI Framework. Journal of Business Ethics 122:1, 53-63. [Crossref]

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

NIV

ER

SIT

Y O

F G

LA

SGO

W A

t 20:

50 1

8 A

ugus

t 201

7 (P

T)

80. Vinal Mistry, Umesh Sharma, Mary Low. 2014. Management accountants' perception of their role inaccounting for sustainable development. Pacific Accounting Review 26:1/2, 112-133. [Abstract] [Full Text][PDF]

81. Steffen Maas, Tassilo Schuster, Evi Hartmann. 2014. Pollution Prevention and Service StewardshipStrategies in the Third-Party Logistics Industry: Effects on Firm Differentiation and the Moderating Roleof Environmental Communication. Business Strategy and the Environment 23:1, 38-55. [Crossref]

82. Ainhoa Saitua-Iribar, Lorea Andicoechea-Arondo, Eneka Albizu-Gallastegi. 2014. Human ResourcesInformation in the Management Report of the Top Spanish Companies. Procedia - Social and BehavioralSciences 109, 171-177. [Crossref]

83. Ionel-Alin Ienciu. Environmental disclosure of romanian listed entities 235-254. [Abstract] [Full Text][PDF] [PDF]

84. Raquel Garde Sánchez, Manuel Pedro Rodríguez Bolívar, Antonio M. López-Hernández. 2013. Onlinedisclosure of university social responsibility: a comparative study of public and private US universities.Environmental Education Research 19:6, 709-746. [Crossref]

85. Elisabeth Albertini. 2013. Does Environmental Management Improve Financial Performance? A Meta-Analytical Review. Organization & Environment 26:4, 431-457. [Crossref]

86. Yuanhui Li, Jie Zhang, Check-Teck Foo. 2013. Towards a theory of social responsibility reporting. ChineseManagement Studies 7:4, 519-534. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

87. Pamela Kent, Tamara Zunker. 2013. Attaining legitimacy by employee information in annual reports.Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal 26:7, 1072-1106. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

88. 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]

89. LYTON CHITHAMBO. 2013. FIRM CHARACTERISTICS AND THE VOLUNTARYDISCLOSURE OF CLIMATE CHANGE AND GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSION INFORMATION.International Journal of Energy and Statistics 01:03, 155-169. [Crossref]

90. 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]

91. Teresa Pereira Eugénio, Isabel Costa Lourenço, Ana Isabel Morais. 2013. Sustainability strategies of thecompany TimorL: extending the applicability of legitimacy theory. Management of Environmental Quality:An International Journal 24:5, 570-582. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

92. Ridzwana Mohd Said, Maliah Sulaiman, Nik Nazli Nik Ahmad. 2013. Do fund managers perceiveenvironmental information useful? An empirical study from Malaysia. Journal of Cleaner Production 52,281-288. [Crossref]

93. X. H. Meng, S. X. Zeng, C. M. Tam. 2013. From Voluntarism to Regulation: A Study on Ownership,Economic Performance and Corporate Environmental Information Disclosure in China. Journal of BusinessEthics 116:1, 217-232. [Crossref]

94. Calin Gurau. 2013. Developing an environmental corporate reputation on the internet. MarketingIntelligence & Planning 31:5, 522-537. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

95. Aminu Hassan, Reza Kouhy. 2013. Gas flaring in Nigeria: Analysis of changes in its consequent carbonemission and reporting. Accounting Forum 37:2, 124-134. [Crossref]

96. Muhammad Azizul Islam, Ameeta Jain. 2013. Workplace Human Rights Reporting: A Study of AustralianGarment and Retail Companies. Australian Accounting Review 23:2, 102-116. [Crossref]

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

NIV

ER

SIT

Y O

F G

LA

SGO

W A

t 20:

50 1

8 A

ugus

t 201

7 (P

T)

97. Marta de la Cuesta, Carmen Valor. 2013. Evaluation of the environmental, social and governanceinformation disclosed by Spanish listed companies. Social Responsibility Journal 9:2, 220-240. [Abstract][Full Text] [PDF]

98. Sumit Lodhia, Kerry Jacobs. 2013. The practice turn in environmental reporting. Accounting, Auditing &Accountability Journal 26:4, 595-615. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

99. Stéphane Legendre, François Coderre. 2013. Determinants of GRI G3 Application Levels: The Case ofthe Fortune Global 500. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management 20:3, 182-192.[Crossref]

100. Raffaele Fiorentino, Stefano Garzella. 2013. How to control environmental strategy?. MANAGEMENTCONTROL :1, 45-76. [Crossref]

101. Poh‐Ling Ho, Grantley Taylor. 2013. Corporate governance and different types of voluntary disclosure.Pacific Accounting Review 25:1, 4-29. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

102. Bo Bae Choi, Doowon Lee, Jim Psaros. 2013. An analysis of Australian company carbon emissiondisclosures. Pacific Accounting Review 25:1, 58-79. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

103. Voicu D. Dragomir. 2013. Who are the Participative Stakeholders? Insights from Corporate Social andEnvironmental Programmes. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 75, 553-562. [Crossref]

104. Patrizio Monfardini, Antonio D. Barretta, Pasquale Ruggiero. 2013. Seeking legitimacy: Social reportingin the healthcare sector. Accounting Forum 37:1, 54-66. [Crossref]

105. Katherine L. Christ, Roger L. Burritt. 2013. Environmental management accounting: the significance ofcontingent variables for adoption. Journal of Cleaner Production 41, 163-173. [Crossref]

106. Matthias S. Fifka. 2013. Corporate Responsibility Reporting and its Determinants in ComparativePerspective - a Review of the Empirical Literature and a Meta-analysis. Business Strategy and theEnvironment 22:1, 1-35. [Crossref]

107. Choi Ieng Chu, Bikram Chatterjee, Alistair Brown. 2012. The current status of greenhouse gas reportingby Chinese companies. Managerial Auditing Journal 28:2, 114-139. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

108. Roman Lanis, Grant Richardson. 2012. Corporate social responsibility and tax aggressiveness: a test oflegitimacy theory. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal 26:1, 75-100. [Abstract] [Full Text][PDF]

109. Isabel Gallego-Álvarez, José Luis Vicente-Villardón. 2012. Analysis of environmental indicators ininternational companies by applying the logistic biplot. Ecological Indicators 23, 250-261. [Crossref]

110. 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]

111. Mohd Noor Azli Ali Khan, Noor Azizi Ismail. 2012. Bank Officers’ Views of Internet Financial Reportingin Malaysia. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 57, 75-84. [Crossref]

112. 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]

113. Scott Victor Valentine. 2012. Policies for Enhancing Corporate Environmental Management: a Frameworkand an Applied Example. Business Strategy and the Environment 21:5, 338-350. [Crossref]

114. Md. Humayun Kabir, David M. Akinnusi. 2012. Corporate social and environmental accountinginformation reporting practices in Swaziland. Social Responsibility Journal 8:2, 156-173. [Abstract] [FullText] [PDF]

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

NIV

ER

SIT

Y O

F G

LA

SGO

W A

t 20:

50 1

8 A

ugus

t 201

7 (P

T)

115. Ronald P. Guidry, Dennis M. Patten. 2012. Voluntary disclosure theory and financial control variables: Anassessment of recent environmental disclosure research. Accounting Forum 36:2, 81-90. [Crossref]

116. Hadrian Gery Djajadikerta, Terri Trireksani. 2012. Corporate social and environmental disclosure byIndonesian listed companies on their corporate web sites. Journal of Applied Accounting Research 13:1, 21-36.[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

117. Roshayani Arshad, Siti Aishah Md Sallah, Rina Fadhilah Ismail. Ownership structure, managementculture and risk reporting practices in Malaysia 619-623. [Crossref]

118. Nassr Saleh Mohamad Ahmad, Kamal Abd Al‐Salam Mohmes. 2012. The response of statutory financialauditors in Libya to environmental issues. World Journal of Entrepreneurship, Management and SustainableDevelopment 8:4, 260-272. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

119. Matthias Fifka. 2012. The development and state of research on social and environmental reporting inglobal comparison. Journal für Betriebswirtschaft 62:1, 45-84. [Crossref]

120. A.W. Sutantoputra, M. Lindorff, E. Prior Johnson. 2012. The relationship between environmentalperformance and environmental disclosure. Australasian Journal of Environmental Management 19:1, 51-65.[Crossref]

121. Belen Fernandez-Feijoo, Silvia Romero, Silvia Ruiz. 2012. Transparent Information System forSustainability. A Sectoral Analysis. Procedia Technology 5, 31-39. [Crossref]

122. Jonathan Casper, Michael Pfahl, Mark McSherry. 2012. Athletics Department Awareness and ActionRegarding the Environment: A Study of NCAA Athletics Department Sustainability Practices. Journal ofSport Management 26:1, 11-29. [Crossref]

123. Christian Hofer, David E. Cantor, Jing Dai. 2012. The competitive determinants of a firm's environmentalmanagement activities: Evidence from US manufacturing industries. Journal of Operations Management30:1-2, 69-84. [Crossref]

124. Sayd Farook, M. Kabir Hassan, Roman Lanis. 2011. Determinants of corporate social responsibilitydisclosure: the case of Islamic banks. Journal of Islamic Accounting and Business Research 2:2, 114-141.[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

125. Roshayani Arshad, Siti Noor Azmawaty Abdul Razak. Corporate social responsibility disclosure andinteraction effects of ownership structure on firm performance 111-116. [Crossref]

126. Déborah Philippe, Rodolphe Durand. 2011. The impact of norm-conforming behaviors on firmreputation. Strategic Management Journal 32:9, 969-993. [Crossref]

127. Jyoti Devi Mahadeo, Vanisha Oogarah-Hanuman, Teerooven Soobaroyen. 2011. Changes in social andenvironmental reporting practices in an emerging economy (2004–2007): Exploring the relevance ofstakeholder and legitimacy theories. Accounting Forum 35:3, 158-175. [Crossref]

128. Wee Shu Hui, Radiah Othman, Normah Hj Omar, Rashidah Abdul Rahman, Nurul Husna Haron.2011. Procurement issues in Malaysia. International Journal of Public Sector Management 24:6, 567-593.[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

129. 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, 347-362. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

130. Stacey Cowan, Craig Deegan. 2011. Corporate disclosure reactions to Australia’s first national emissionreporting scheme. Accounting & Finance 51:2, 409-436. [Crossref]

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

NIV

ER

SIT

Y O

F G

LA

SGO

W A

t 20:

50 1

8 A

ugus

t 201

7 (P

T)

131. Isabel Gallego-Álvarez, Luis Rodríguez-Domínguez, Isabel-María García-Sánchez. 2011. Study of someexplanatory factors in the opportunities arising from climate change. Journal of Cleaner Production 19:9-10,912-926. [Crossref]

132. Huang Jun, Xin Yu, Liu Haohong. Public pressure, stakeholder management and environment disclosure2585-2589. [Crossref]

133. Tracy‐Anne De Silva. 2011. Mixed methods: a reflection of its adoption in environmental reporting.Qualitative Research in Accounting & Management 8:1, 91-104. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

134. Corina Joseph, Ross Taplin. 2011. The measurement of sustainability disclosure: Abundance versusoccurrence. Accounting Forum 35:1, 19-31. [Crossref]

135. Javier Husillos, Carlos Larrinaga González, María José Álvarez Gil. 2011. The emergence of triple bottomline reporting in Spain. Spanish Journal of Finance and Accounting / Revista Española de Financiación yContabilidad 40:150, 195-219. [Crossref]

136. Md. Humayun Kabir. 2011. Corporate social responsibility by Swaziland hotel industry. Procedia - Socialand Behavioral Sciences 25, 73-79. [Crossref]

137. Charl de Villiers, Chris J. van Staden. 2010. Shareholders’ requirements for corporate environmentaldisclosures: A cross country comparison. The British Accounting Review 42:4, 227-240. [Crossref]

138. Md Habib‐Uz‐Zaman Khan, Md Rashidozzaman Khan. 2010. Human capital disclosure practices of topBangladeshi companies. Journal of Human Resource Costing & Accounting 14:4, 329-349. [Abstract] [FullText] [PDF]

139. Voicu D. Dragomir. 2010. Environmentally sensitive disclosures and financial performance in a Europeansetting. Journal of Accounting & Organizational Change 6:3, 359-388. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

140. Watchaneeporn Setthasakko. 2010. Barriers to the development of environmental management accounting.EuroMed Journal of Business 5:3, 315-331. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

141. Scott Victor Valentine. 2010. The Green Onion: a corporate environmental strategy framework. CorporateSocial Responsibility and Environmental Management 17:5, 284-298. [Crossref]

142. A. Cornelia Beck, David Campbell, Philip J. Shrives. 2010. Content analysis in environmental reportingresearch: Enrichment and rehearsal of the method in a British–German context. The British AccountingReview 42:3, 207-222. [Crossref]

143. Sónia Maria da Silva Monteiro, Beatriz Aibar-Guzmán. 2010. Determinants of environmental disclosurein the annual reports of large companies operating in Portugal. Corporate Social Responsibility andEnvironmental Management 17:4, 185-204. [Crossref]

144. Sónia Maria da Silva Monteiro, Beatriz Aibar Guzmán. 2010. The influence of the Portugueseenvironmental accounting standard on the environmental disclosures in the annual reports of largecompanies operating in Portugal. Management of Environmental Quality: An International Journal 21:4,414-435. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

145. Teresa Eugénio, Isabel Costa Lourenço, Ana Isabel Morais. 2010. Recent developments in social andenvironmental accounting research. Social Responsibility Journal 6:2, 286-305. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

146. Bulent Menguc, Seigyoung Auh, Lucie Ozanne. 2010. The Interactive Effect of Internal and ExternalFactors on a Proactive Environmental Strategy and its Influence on a Firm's Performance. Journal of BusinessEthics 94:2, 279-298. [Crossref]

147. Md Habib‐Uz‐Zaman Khan, Md Mohobbot Ali. 2010. An empirical investigation and users' perceptionson intellectual capital reporting in banks. Journal of Human Resource Costing & Accounting 14:1, 48-69.[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

NIV

ER

SIT

Y O

F G

LA

SGO

W A

t 20:

50 1

8 A

ugus

t 201

7 (P

T)

148. Amanda Ball, Russell Craig. 2010. Using neo-institutionalism to advance social and environmentalaccounting. Critical Perspectives on Accounting 21:4, 283-293. [Crossref]

149. Md. Habib‐Uz‐Zaman Khan. 2010. The effect of corporate governance elements on corporate socialresponsibility (CSR) reporting. International Journal of Law and Management 52:2, 82-109. [Abstract][Full Text] [PDF]

150. David Campbell, Mara Ridhuan Abdul Rahman. 2010. A longitudinal examination of intellectual capitalreporting in Marks & Spencer annual reports, 1978–2008. The British Accounting Review 42:1, 56-70.[Crossref]

151. Shidi Dong, Roger Burritt. 2010. Cross-sectional benchmarking of social and environmental reportingpractice in the australian oil and gas industry. Sustainable Development 18:2, 108-118. [Crossref]

152. WENDY L. TATE, LISA M. ELLRAM, JON F. KIRCHOFF. 2010. CORPORATE SOCIALRESPONSIBILITY REPORTS: A THEMATIC ANALYSIS RELATED TO SUPPLY CHAINMANAGEMENT. Journal of Supply Chain Management 46:1, 19-44. [Crossref]

153. Kumba Jallow. 2010. Education for environmentally responsible behaviour in business. InternationalJournal of Environment and Sustainable Development 9:1/2/3, 213. [Crossref]

154. 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]

155. Radiah Othman, Rashid Ameer. 2009. Corporate social and environmental reporting: Where are weheading? A survey of the literature. International Journal of Disclosure and Governance 6:4, 298-320.[Crossref]

156. Even Fallan, Lars Fallan. 2009. Voluntarism versus regulation. Journal of Accounting & OrganizationalChange 5:4, 472-489. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

157. Pablo Archel, Javier Husillos, Carlos Larrinaga, Crawford Spence. 2009. Social disclosure, legitimacytheory and the role of the state. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal 22:8, 1284-1307. [Abstract][Full Text] [PDF]

158. Azlan Amran, A.K. Siti‐Nabiha. 2009. Corporate social reporting in Malaysia: a case of mimicking theWest or succumbing to local pressure. Social Responsibility Journal 5:3, 358-375. [Abstract] [Full Text][PDF]

159. Jan Bebbington, Colin Higgins, Bob Frame. 2009. Initiating sustainable development reporting: evidencefrom New Zealand. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal 22:4, 588-625. [Abstract] [Full Text][PDF]

160. Xianbing Liu, V. Anbumozhi. 2009. Determinant factors of corporate environmental informationdisclosure: an empirical study of Chinese listed companies. Journal of Cleaner Production 17:6, 593-600.[Crossref]

161. Nicole Darnall, Inshik Seol, Joseph Sarkis. 2009. Perceived stakeholder influences and organizations’ useof environmental audits. Accounting, Organizations and Society 34:2, 170-187. [Crossref]

162. José Manuel Prado Lorenzo, Isabel María García Sánchez, Isabel Gallego-Álvarez. 2009. Características delconsejo de administración e información en materia de Responsabilidad Social Corporativa. Spanish Journalof Finance and Accounting / Revista Española de Financiación y Contabilidad 38:141, 107-135. [Crossref]

163. Radiah Othman, Rashid Ameer. 2009. Environmental disclosures of palm oil plantation companiesin Malaysia: a tool for stakeholder engagement. Corporate Social Responsibility and EnvironmentalManagement n/a-n/a. [Crossref]

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

NIV

ER

SIT

Y O

F G

LA

SGO

W A

t 20:

50 1

8 A

ugus

t 201

7 (P

T)

164. Gary Lynch-Wood, David Williamson, Wyn Jenkins. 2009. The over-reliance on self-regulation in CSRpolicy. Business Ethics: A European Review 18:1, 52-65. [Crossref]

165. Walter Aerts, Denis Cormier. 2009. Media legitimacy and corporate environmental communication.Accounting, Organizations and Society 34:1, 1-27. [Crossref]

166. J.A. Borba, S. Rover, F. Dal-Ri Murcia. 2008. Do Brazilian Corporations Disclose EnvironmentalInformation? Evidences from Financial Statements Published in the New York Securities Exchange (NYSE)and in the Bolsa de Valores de São Paulo (BOVESPA). Revista Catarinense da Ciência Contábil 7:21, 9-22.[Crossref]

167. Bino Catasús. 2008. In search of accounting absence. Critical Perspectives on Accounting 19:7, 1004-1019.[Crossref]

168. Claus Holm, Pall Rikhardsson. 2008. Experienced and Novice Investors: Does Environmental InformationInfluence Investment Allocation Decisions?. European Accounting Review 17:3, 537-557. [Crossref]

169. Pall Rikhardsson, Claus Holm. 2008. The effect of environmental information on investment allocationdecisions - an experimental study. Business Strategy and the Environment 17:6, 382-397. [Crossref]

170. Christian Ax, Jan Marton. 2008. Human capital disclosures and management practices. Journal ofIntellectual Capital 9:3, 433-455. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

171. Bikram Chatterjee, Monir Zaman Mir. 2008. The current status of environmental reporting by Indiancompanies. Managerial Auditing Journal 23:6, 609-629. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

172. Begoña Gutiérrez‐Nieto, Yolanda Fuertes‐Callén, Carlos Serrano‐Cinca. 2008. Internet reporting inmicrofinance institutions. Online Information Review 32:3, 415-436. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

173. David Campbell, Richard Slack. 2008. Corporate “Philanthropy Strategy” and “Strategic Philanthropy”.Business & Society 47:2, 187-212. [Crossref]

174. A. D. Martin, D. J. Hadley. 2008. Corporate environmental non-reporting – a UK FTSE 350 perspective.Business Strategy and the Environment 17:4, 245-259. [Crossref]

175. David Williamson, Gary Lynch‐Wood. 2008. Social and environmental reporting in UK company law andthe issue of legitimacy. Corporate Governance: The international journal of business in society 8:2, 128-140.[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

176. James Guthrie, Suresh Cuganesan, Leanne Ward. 2008. Industry specific social and environmentalreporting: The Australian Food and Beverage Industry. Accounting Forum 32:1, 1-15. [Crossref]

177. Jinghui Liu, Dennis Taylor. 2008. Legitimacy and corporate governance determinants of executives'remuneration disclosures. Corporate Governance: The international journal of business in society 8:1, 59-72.[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

178. David Owen. 2008. Chronicles of wasted time?. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal 21:2,240-267. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

179. Walter Aerts, Denis Cormier, Michel Magnan. 2008. Corporate environmental disclosure, financialmarkets and the media: An international perspective. Ecological Economics 64:3, 643-659. [Crossref]

180. Qinghua Zhu, Joseph Sarkis, Kee-hung Lai. 2007. Initiatives and outcomes of green supply chainmanagement implementation by Chinese manufacturers. Journal of Environmental Management 85:1,179-189. [Crossref]

181. Gary Lynch-Wood, David Williamson. 2007. The Social Licence as a Form of Regulation for Small andMedium Enterprises. Journal of Law and Society 34:3, 321-341. [Crossref]

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

NIV

ER

SIT

Y O

F G

LA

SGO

W A

t 20:

50 1

8 A

ugus

t 201

7 (P

T)

182. Kathy Gibson, Gary O'Donovan. 2007. Corporate Governance and Environmental Reporting: an Australianstudy. Corporate Governance: An International Review 15:5, 944-956. [Crossref]

183. Juniati Gunawan. 2007. Corporate Social Disclosures by Indonesian Listed Companies: A Pilot Study.Social Responsibility Journal 3:3, 26-34. [Abstract] [PDF]

184. AHMAD SUJAN, INDRA ABEYSEKERA. 2007. Intellectual Capital Reporting Practices of the TopAustralian Firms. Australian Accounting Review 17:42, 71-83. [Crossref]

185. Merry Herawaty, Zahirul Hoque. 2007. Disclosure in the annual reports of Australian governmentdepartments. Journal of Accounting & Organizational Change 3:2, 147-168. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

186. Laura Calixto, Ricardo Rodrigues Barbosa, Marilene Barbosa Lima. 2007. Disseminação de informaçõesambientais voluntárias: relatórios contábeis versus internet. Revista Contabilidade & Finanças 18:spe, 84-95.[Crossref]

187. Geoffrey R. Frost. 2007. The Introduction of Mandatory Environmental Reporting Guidelines: AustralianEvidence. Abacus 43:2, 190-216. [Crossref]

188. Malcolm Smith, Khadijah Yahya, Ahmad Marzuki Amiruddin. 2007. Environmental disclosure andperformance reporting in Malaysia. Asian Review of Accounting 15:2, 185-199. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

189. Craig Deegan, Sharon Soltys. 2007. Social accounting research: An Australasian perspective. AccountingForum 31:1, 73-89. [Crossref]

190. Trevor Hunter, Pratima Bansal. 2007. How Standard is Standardized MNC Global EnvironmentalCommunication?. Journal of Business Ethics 71:2, 135-147. [Crossref]

191. Andrew Gouldson, Rolf Lidskog, e Wester-Herber. 2007. The Battle for Hearts and Minds? Evolutions inCorporate Approaches to Environmental Risk Communication. Environment and Planning C: Governmentand Policy 25:1, 56-72. [Crossref]

192. Jan Bebbington, Ian Thomson. 2007. Social and Environmental Accounting, Auditing, and Reporting:A Potential Source of Organisational Risk Governance?. Environment and Planning C: Government andPolicy 25:1, 38-55. [Crossref]

193. Francisco Javier Husillos Carqués. 2007. Una aproximación desde la teoría de la legitimidad a la informaciónmedioambiental revelada por las empresas españolas cotizadas. Spanish Journal of Finance and Accounting /Revista Española de Financiación y Contabilidad 36:133, 97-121. [Crossref]

194. Nathalie Garric, Isabelle Léglise, Sébastien Point. 2007. Le rapport RSE, outil de légitimation ? Le casTOTAL à la lumière d'une analyse de discours. Revue de l’organisation responsable 2:1, 5. [Crossref]

195. Y. Sumiani, Y. Haslinda, G. Lehman. 2007. Environmental reporting in a developing country: a case studyon status and implementation in Malaysia. Journal of Cleaner Production 15:10, 895-901. [Crossref]

196. Rania Kamla. 2007. Critically Appreciating Social Accounting and Reporting in the Arab MiddleEast: APostcolonial Perspective. Advances in International Accounting 20, 105-177. [Crossref]

197. 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]

198. Pratima Bansal, Geoffrey Kistruck. 2006. Seeing Is (Not) Believing: Managing the Impressions of theFirm’s Commitment to the Natural Environment. Journal of Business Ethics 67:2, 165-180. [Crossref]

199. Carol A. Adams, Geoffrey R. Frost. 2006. Accessibility and functionality of the corporate web site:implications for sustainability reporting. Business Strategy and the Environment 15:4, 275-287. [Crossref]

200. Haslinda Yusoff, Glen Lehman, Noraini Mohd Nasir. 2006. Environmental engagements through the lensof disclosure practices. Asian Review of Accounting 14:1/2, 122-148. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

NIV

ER

SIT

Y O

F G

LA

SGO

W A

t 20:

50 1

8 A

ugus

t 201

7 (P

T)

201. A. Salama, A. Cathcart, M. Andrews, R. Hall. 2006. Disclosure Regulation and Accounting Educationin the UK: Moving Towards Corporate Accountability 252 and Transparency. Social Responsibility Journal2:3/4, 251-260. [Abstract] [PDF]

202. LAUREN DANASTAS, DAVID GADENNE. 2006. SOCIAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL NGOs ASUSERS OF CORPORATE SOCIAL DISCLOSURE. Journal of Environmental Assessment Policy andManagement 08:01, 85-102. [Crossref]

203. David Campbell, Geoff Moore, Philip Shrives. 2006. Cross‐sectional effects in community disclosure.Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal 19:1, 96-114. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

204. 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]

205. Carol Ann Tilt. 2006. Linking environmental activity and environmental disclosure in an organisationalchange framework. Journal of Accounting & Organizational Change 2:1, 4-24. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

206. David Campbell, Richard Slack. 2006. Public visibility as a determinant of the rate of corporate charitabledonations. Business Ethics: A European Review 15:1, 19-28. [Crossref]

207. Manuel Fernández Chulián, Carlos Larrinaga González. 2006. Percepciones Sobre Contabilidad de CostesEcológicos Completos: Análisis Empírico en el Sector Energético Español. Spanish Journal of Finance andAccounting / Revista Española de Financiación y Contabilidad 35:131, 225-254. [Crossref]

208. Therese Woodward, Robert Day. 2006. Disability disclosure: a case of understatement?. Business Ethics:A European Review 15:1, 86-94. [Crossref]

209. Lee D. Parker. 2005. Social and environmental accountability research. Accounting, Auditing &Accountability Journal 18:6, 842-860. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

210. C.G. Mitchell, N.W. Quinn. 2005. Environmental reporting disclosure in South Africa: A comparativestudy of the expectations of selected groups of preparers and users. Meditari Accountancy Research 13:2,17-33. [Abstract] [PDF]

211. Stacey Cowan, David Gadenne*. 2005. Australian corporate environmental reporting: a comparativeanalysis of disclosure practices across voluntary and mandatory disclosure systems. Journal of Accounting &Organizational Change 1:2, 165-179. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

212. Bulent Menguc, Lucie K. Ozanne. 2005. Challenges of the “green imperative”: a natural resource-basedapproach to the environmental orientation–business performance relationship. Journal of Business Research58:4, 430-438. [Crossref]

213. Geoff Frost, Stewart Jones, Janice Loftus, Sandra Laan. 2005. A Survey of Sustainability ReportingPractices of Australian Reporting Entities. Australian Accounting Review 15:35, 89-96. [Crossref]

214. Kittiya Yongvanich, James Guthrie. 2005. Extended performance reporting: an examination of theAustralian mining industry. Accounting Forum 29:1, 103-119. [Crossref]

215. Tanya M. Lee, Paul D. Hutchison. 2005. The Decision to Disclose Environmental Information: AResearch Review and Agenda. Advances in Accounting 21, 83-111. [Crossref]

216. David Campbell, A. Cornelia Beck. 2004. Answering allegations: the use of the corporate website forrestorative ethical and social disclosure. Business Ethics: A European Review 13:2-3, 100-116. [Crossref]

217. David Campbell. 2004. A longitudinal and cross-sectional analysis of environmental disclosure in UKcompanies—a research note. The British Accounting Review 36:1, 107-117. [Crossref]

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

NIV

ER

SIT

Y O

F G

LA

SGO

W A

t 20:

50 1

8 A

ugus

t 201

7 (P

T)

218. Nik Nazli Nik Ahmad, Maliah Sulaiman. 2004. Environment disclosure in Malaysia annual reports: Alegitimacy theory perspective. International Journal of Commerce and Management 14:1, 44-58. [Abstract][PDF]

219. Stergios Leventis, Pauline Weetman. 2004. VOLUNTARY DISCLOSURES IN AN EMERGINGCAPITAL MARKET: SOME EVIDENCE FROM THE ATHENS STOCK EXCHANGE. Advancesin International Accounting 17, 227-250. [Crossref]

220. David Campbell. 2003. Intra- and intersectoral effects in environmental disclosures: evidence for legitimacytheory?. Business Strategy and the Environment 12:6, 357-371. [Crossref]

221. Dallas Hanson, Robert White. 2003. Rhetorics of environmental routinisation in one Australian company'sannual reports. Australian Journal of Social Issues 38:4, 477-494. [Crossref]

222. 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]

223. R. Scott Marshall, Darrell Brown. 2003. Corporate environmental reporting: what's in a metric?. BusinessStrategy and the Environment 12:2, 87-106. [Crossref]

224. Leigh Holland, Yee Boon Foo. 2003. Differences in environmental reporting practices in the UK and theUS: the legal and regulatory context. The British Accounting Review 35:1, 1-18. [Crossref]

225. Siv Nyquist. 2003. The legislation of environmental disclosures in three Nordic countries?a comparison.Business Strategy and the Environment 12:1, 12-25. [Crossref]

226. N. ROWBOTTOM. 2002. THE APPLICATION OF INTANGIBLE ASSET ACCOUNTINGAND DISCRETIONARY POLICY CHOICES IN THE UK FOOTBALL INDUSTRY. The BritishAccounting Review 34:4, 335-355. [Crossref]

227. Robert White, Dallas Hanson. 2002. Economic man and disciplinary boundaries. Accounting, Auditing &Accountability Journal 15:4, 450-477. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

228. Brendan O’Dwyer. 2002. Managerial perceptions of corporate social disclosure. Accounting, Auditing &Accountability Journal 15:3, 406-436. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

229. DAVID GADENNE, MONIR ZAMAN. 2002. STRATEGIC ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENTACCOUNTING: AN EXPLORATORY STUDY OF CURRENT CORPORATE PRACTICE ANDSTRATEGIC INTENT. Journal of Environmental Assessment Policy and Management 04:02, 123-150.[Crossref]

230. Denis Cormier, Irene M. Gordon. 2001. An examination of social and environmental reporting strategies.Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal 14:5, 587-617. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

231. Massimo Costa, Giuseppe Valenza. Integrated Sustainability Reports: 63-99. [Crossref]232. Marwa Hassaan. Sustainability Reporting in Transitional Economies 184-204. [Crossref]

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

NIV

ER

SIT

Y O

F G

LA

SGO

W A

t 20:

50 1

8 A

ugus

t 201

7 (P

T)