The DOI matches its Crossref record; 4 of the 4 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Corporate Responsibility Reporting and its Determinants in Comparative Perspective – a Review of the Empirical Literature and a Meta‐analysis
Abstract
For four decades, reporting on corporate responsibility by businesses has been the subject of empirical research. In the 1970s and 1980s, studies mostly originated from Anglo‐Saxon and Western European countries. During the last two decades research on responsibility reporting was increasingly undertaken in emerging and developing countries as well – always following the reporting practices of the respective businesses. Consequentially, a very large number of studies exist today. Many of these have empirically investigated the determinants of responsibility reporting and examined whether internal factors like size and industry or external factors like stakeholder pressures have an impact on disclosure. Thus, the purpose of the following paper is twofold. First, it seeks to provide an overview of the existing literature in order to facilitate further research. Overall, 186 studies have been examined for the determinants which they considered and have been grouped according to their geographical origin. This provides for an analysis of whether academics from different regions have taken different approaches to the empirical examination of responsibility reporting and if their results differed. The findings show that scholars across regions have taken different paths in empirical research, but indications for a variation in the impact of specific determinants on reporting are weak. Copyright © 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd and ERP Environment.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Clarkson, P. M., Li, Y., Richardson, G. D., & Vasvari, F. P. (2008) · Accounting, Organizations and Society · doi:10.1016/j.aos.2007.05.003 · Cited by 3,570
Corporate Environmental Disclosure Strategies: Determinants, Costs and Benefits
Cormier, D., & Magnan, M. (1999) · Journal of Accounting, Auditing & Finance · doi:10.1177/0148558x9901400403 · Cited by 533
Corporate environmental disclosures about the effects of climate change
Stanny, E., & Ely, K. (2008) · Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management · doi:10.1002/csr.175 · Cited by 512
Evidence in development of sustainability reporting: a case of a developing country
Amran, A., & Haniffa, R. (2011) · Business Strategy and the Environment · doi:10.1002/bse.672 · Cited by 301
Cited by
Hahn, R., & Kühnen, M. (2013) · Journal of Cleaner Production · doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.07.005 · Cited by 1,775
Hąbek, P., & Wolniak, R. (2016) · Quality & Quantity · doi:10.1007/s11135-014-0155-z · Cited by 353
ElAlfy, A., Palaschuk, N., El-Bassiouny, D., Wilson, J., & Weber, O. (2020) · Sustainability · doi:10.3390/su12145544 · Cited by 281
Instrumental and/or deliberative? A typology of CSR communication tools
Seele, P., & Lock, I. (2015) · Journal of Business Ethics · doi:10.1007/s10551-014-2282-9 · Cited by 202
Mion, G., & Loza Adaui, C. R. (2019) · Sustainability · doi:10.3390/su11174612 · Cited by 180
Metadata
- Authors
- Fifka, M. S.
- Venue
- Business Strategy and the Environment
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2011-10-02
- Volume
- 22
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 1-35
- ISSN
- 0964-4733 (ISSN-L)
- 1099-0836
- OpenAlex
- W1515624008
- Cited by
- 590
- References
- 4
- FWCI
- 63.63
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Corporate Responsibility Reporting and its Determinants in Comparative Perspective – a Review of the Empirical Literature and a Meta‐analysis. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1002/bse.729
- The paper
- Fifka, M. S. (2013). Corporate Responsibility Reporting and its Determinants in Comparative Perspective – a Review of the Empirical Literature and a Meta‐analysis. Business Strategy and the Environment. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.729
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.