The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Corporate environmental reporting: A test of legitimacy theory
Abstract
This paper analyses the link between the importance, as stated by reporters, of specific factors in the decision to disclose environmental information and actual reporting practices. Through a mail survey, chief finance officers (CFOs) of selected Australian companies rated the perceived importance of specific factors in the decision to disclose environmental information. Environmental disclosure within respondents’ annual reports were reviewed and an analysis was undertaken to determine if relationships existed between actual reporting practices and ratings of importance assigned to various factors. The results indicate some significant correlations between the perceived importance of a number of factors and environmental reporting practices. The results of the analysis provide limited support for legitimacy theory as an explanatory link between identified influential factors in management’s decision process and actual environmental disclosure.
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
Cited by
Menguc, B., & Ozanne, L. K. (2005) · Journal of Business Research · doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2003.09.002 · Cited by 632
Researching corporate social responsibility communication: Themes, opportunities and challenges
Crane, A., & Glozer, S. (2016) · Journal of Management Studies · doi:10.1111/joms.12196 · Cited by 418
Metadata
- Authors
- Wilmshurst, T. D., & Frost, G. R.
- Venue
- Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal
- Publisher
- Emerald
- Published
- 2000-03-01
- Volume
- 13
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 10-26
- ISSN
- 0951-3574 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W1559042489
- Cited by
- 717
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 19.82
- 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 environmental reporting: A test of legitimacy theory. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1108/09513570010316126
- The paper
- Wilmshurst, T. D., & Frost, G. R. (2000). Corporate environmental reporting: A test of legitimacy theory. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal. https://doi.org/10.1108/09513570010316126
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.
