The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Internal organisational factors influencing corporate social and ethical reporting: Beyond current theorising
Open accessAbstract
Prior empirical research into factors which are influential in determining the extent and nature of corporate social reporting has primarily been concerned with the impact of corporate characteristics (such as size and industry grouping) or general contextual factors (such as the social, political and economic context). Relatively little prior work has examined the internal contextual factors and their impact on reporting despite increasing emphasis in the field of practice on reporting processes and governance structures. In this study interviews were conducted with seven large multinational companies in the chemical and pharmaceutical sectors of the UK and Germany in order to identify any internal contextual factors influencing the nature and extent of reporting. The work highlights the lack of explanatory power of the existing social reporting theories. A more inclusive model of corporate social reporting is presented.
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
Christensen, L. T., Morsing, M., & Thyssen, O. (2013) · Organization · doi:10.1177/1350508413478310 · Cited by 591
Analysing the determinants of narrative risk information in UK FTSE 100 annual reports
Abraham, S., & Cox, P. (2007) · The British Accounting Review · doi:10.1016/j.bar.2007.06.002 · Cited by 507
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
Rahman Belal, A., & Owen, D. L. (2007) · Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal · doi:10.1108/09513570710748599 · Cited by 320
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
Amran, A., & Susela Devi, S. (2008) · Managerial Auditing Journal · doi:10.1108/02686900810864327 · Cited by 288
Corporate disclosure of environmental capital expenditures: A test of alternative theories
Cho, C. H., Freedman, M., & Patten, D. M. (2012) · Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal · doi:10.1108/09513571211209617 · Cited by 251
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
Corporate perspectives on the development and use of sustainability reports
Searcy, C., & Buslovich, R. (2014) · Journal of Business Ethics · doi:10.1007/s10551-013-1701-7 · Cited by 180
Stakeholders’ Perceptions of Corporate Social Reporting in Bangladesh
Belal, A. R., & Roberts, R. W. (2010) · Journal of Business Ethics · doi:10.1007/s10551-010-0511-4 · Cited by 115
Managing sustainability reporting: Many ways to publish exemplary reports
Thijssens, T., Bollen, L., & Hassink, H. (2016) · Journal of Cleaner Production · doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.01.098 · Cited by 94
Value Co-creation in the Health Service Ecosystems: The Enabling Role of Institutional Arrangements
Ciasullo, M. V., Cosimato, S., Palumbo, R., & Storlazzi, A. (2017) · International Business Research · doi:10.5539/ibr.v10n12p222 · Cited by 24
A Review of Corporate Reporting Transparency Quality: Current Status and Future Directions
Hewage, Y. M., Cooray, A., & Ahmed, R. (2026) · Australian Accounting Review · doi:10.1111/auar.70019 · Cited by 3
Metadata
- Authors
- Adams, C. A.
- Venue
- Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal
- Publisher
- Emerald
- Published
- 2002-05-01
- Volume
- 15
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 223-250
- ISSN
- 0951-3574 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W1993006443
- Cited by
- 1,096
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 46.04
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
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
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.
