The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
An examination of the corporate social and environmental disclosures of BHP from 1983‐1997: A test of legitimacy theory
Abstract
This study examines the social and environmental disclosures of BHP Ltd (one of the largest Australian companies) from 1983 to 1997 to ascertain the extent and type of annual report social and environmental disclosures over the period, and whether such disclosures can be explained by the concepts of a social contract and legitimacy theory. This research is also motivated by the opportunity to compare and contrast results with those of Guthrie and Parker, in whose study the social and environmental disclosures made by BHP Ltd were also the focus of analysis. In testing the relationship between community concern for particular social and environmental issues (as measured by the extent of media attention), and BHP’s annual report disclosures on the same issues, significant positive correlations were obtained for the general themes of environment and human resources as well as for various sub‐issues within these, and other, themes. Additional testing also supported the view that management release positive social and environmental information in response to unfavourable media attention. Such results lend support to legitimation motives for a company’s social and environmental disclosures. A trend in providing greater social and environmental information in the annual report of BHP in recent years, and its variable pattern, was also evidenced.
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
Weber, R. (1990) · doi:10.4135/9781412983488 · Cited by 7,750
The Double-Edge of Organizational Legitimation
Ashforth, B. E., & Gibbs, B. W. (1990) · Organization Science · doi:10.1287/orsc.1.2.177 · Cited by 2,228
Cited by
Deegan, C. (2002) · Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal · doi:10.1108/09513570210435852 · Cited by 3,829
Self-citationCormier, D., Magnan, M., & Van Velthoven, B. (2005) · European Accounting Review · doi:10.1080/0963818042000339617 · Cited by 1,011
Casey, R. J., & Grenier, J. H. (2015) · AUDITING: A Journal of Practice & Theory · doi:10.2308/ajpt-50736 · Cited by 421
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
Where firms choose to disclose voluntary environmental information
Villiers, C. D., & van Staden, C. J. (2011) · Journal of Accounting and Public Policy · doi:10.1016/j.jaccpubpol.2011.03.005 · Cited by 406
Metadata
- Authors
- Deegan, C., Rankin, M., & Tobin, J.
- Venue
- Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal
- Publisher
- Emerald
- Published
- 2002-08-01
- Volume
- 15
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 312-343
- ISSN
- 0951-3574 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W1556481782
- Cited by
- 1,332
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 40.63
- 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: An examination of the corporate social and environmental disclosures of BHP from 1983‐1997: A test of legitimacy theory. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1108/09513570210435861
- The paper
- Deegan, C., Rankin, M., & Tobin, J. (2002). An examination of the corporate social and environmental disclosures of BHP from 1983‐1997: A test of legitimacy theory. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal. https://doi.org/10.1108/09513570210435861
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.