The DOI matches its Crossref record; 46 of the 46 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Do different industries report Corporate Social Responsibility differently? An investigation through the lens of stakeholder theory
Abstract
The social responsibility of business has become a major issue in recent years and the reporting of such activity is becoming more prevalent. Companies are attuning to the benefits of being seen as socially responsibly and many industries are jumping on the bandwagon of reporting CSR and using different media to communicate their activities in this arena to their stakeholders. This paper considers the content of one type of such communications, the annual report, and looks at how organisations are taking a focused stakeholder view of CSR rather than a wider view as would be expected from the ambiguity of definitions of the concept. Differences in reporting practices were found by an analysis of the annual and CSR reports of 28 FTSE4Good firms focusing on a variety of industries. Findings show that there is a significant difference between how organisations in different industries report on CSR consistent with a stakeholder view of CSR, and that this reporting follows for the most part the expectations of the CSR communications literature. It is suggested that firms report on CSR in line with what their key stakeholders expect, thus giving evidence for CSR reporting as another tool in the marketing communicators toolbox.
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
(2010) · Cited by 24,023
A Stakeholder Framework for Analyzing and Evaluating Corporate Social Performance
Clarkson, M. B. E. (1995) · The Academy of Management Review · doi:10.2307/258888 · Cited by 7,838
Corporate Social Responsibility: a Theory of the Firm Perspective
McWilliams, A., & Siegel, D. (2001) · The Academy of Management Review · doi:10.5465/amr.2001.4011987 · Cited by 7,567
Mitchell, R. K., Agle, B. R., & Wood, D. J. (1997) · The Academy of Management Review · doi:10.2307/259247 · Cited by 5,039
Gray, R., Kouhy, R., & Lavers, S. (1995) · Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal · doi:10.1108/09513579510146996 · Cited by 3,321
CORPORATE SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY AND FIRM FINANCIAL PERFORMANCE.
McGuire, J. B., Sundgren, A., & Schneeweis, T. (1988) · Academy of Management Journal · doi:10.2307/256342 · Cited by 3,146
Stakeholder Influence Strategies
Frooman, J. (1999) · The Academy of Management Review · doi:10.2307/259074 · Cited by 2,480
Griffin, J. J., & Mahon, J. F. (1997) · Business & Society · doi:10.1177/000765039703600102 · Cited by 2,282
Sen, S. (2006) · Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science · doi:10.1177/0092070305284978 · Cited by 1,651
Exploring the reliability of social and environmental disclosures content analysis
Milne, M. J., & Adler, R. W. (1999) · Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal · doi:10.1108/09513579910270138 · Cited by 1,425
Cited by
Kang, K. H., Lee, S., & Huh, C. (2010) · International Journal of Hospitality Management · doi:10.1016/j.ijhm.2009.05.006 · Cited by 640
The Impact of Voluntary Sustainability Reporting on Firm Value: Insights from Signaling Theory
Friske, W., Hoelscher, S. A., & Nikolov, A. N. (2023) · Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science · doi:10.1007/s11747-022-00879-2 · Cited by 249
Amatulli, C., De Angelis, M., Korschun, D., & Romani, S. (2018) · Journal of Cleaner Production · doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.05.111 · Cited by 174
Metadata
- Authors
- Sweeney, L., & Coughlan, J.
- Venue
- Journal of Marketing Communications
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 2008-04
- Volume
- 14
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 113-124
- ISSN
- 1352-7266 (ISSN-L)
- 1466-4445
- OpenAlex
- W4241810404
- Cited by
- 322
- References
- 46
- FWCI
- 24.44
- 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: Do different industries report Corporate Social Responsibility differently? An investigation through the lens of stakeholder theory. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1080/13527260701856657
- The paper
- Sweeney, L., & Coughlan, J. (2008). Do different industries report Corporate Social Responsibility differently? An investigation through the lens of stakeholder theory. Journal of Marketing Communications. https://doi.org/10.1080/13527260701856657
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.