The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Private social, ethical and environmental disclosure
Abstract
Purpose: The purpose of this paper is to determine the extent to which social, ethical and environmental (SEE) disclosure is being integrated into institutional investment. The aim is also to investigate the interplay between private and public SEE disclosure. Design/methodology/approach: The paper uses a grounded theory methodology involving interviews with 21 members of the UK institutional adjustment community. Findings: The paper found that institutional investors did not consider that public SEE disclosure was adequate for their portfolio investment decisions, suggesting that SEE disclosure was decision‐useful. Consequently, this perceived market failure in public SEE disclosure has been supplemented by the development of sophisticated private SEE disclosure channels. Further, the interviews indicated that this private SEE disclosure process was becoming dialogic in nature, since not only were institutional investors initiating the engagement process with companies but also companies were starting to request information on the SEE disclosure required by institutional investors. This finding contrasts with previous work which found that the private disclosure process in financial reporting was essentially user‐oriented and uni‐directional. Originality/value: This paper highlights the importance of SEE disclosure to a crucial user group, institutional investors. The research contributes to the SEE disclosure literature by revealing details of the evolving private SEE disclosure process for the first time.
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
The Market for "Lemons": Quality Uncertainty and the Market Mechanism
Akerlof, G. A. (1970) · The Quarterly Journal of Economics · doi:10.2307/1879431 · Cited by 23,016
Healy, P. M., & Palepu, K. G. (2001) · Journal of Accounting and Economics · doi:10.1016/s0165-4101(01)00018-0 · Cited by 8,097
Cited by
Corporate governance, accountability and mechanisms of accountability: an overview
Brennan, N. M., & Solomon, J. (2008) · Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal · doi:10.1108/09513570810907401 · Cited by 538
Self-citationThe quality of sustainability reports and impression management: A stakeholder perspective
Diouf, D., & Boiral, O. (2017) · Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal · doi:10.1108/aaaj-04-2015-2044 · Cited by 429
O'Sullivan, N., & O'Dwyer, B. (2009) · Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal · doi:10.1108/09513570910955443 · Cited by 154
Metadata
- Authors
- Solomon, J. F., & Solomon, A.
- Venue
- Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal
- Publisher
- Emerald
- Published
- 2006-07-01
- Volume
- 19
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 564-591
- ISSN
- 0951-3574 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W1992498289
- Cited by
- 218
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 27.89
- 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: Private social, ethical and environmental disclosure. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1108/09513570610679137
- The paper
- Solomon, J. F., & Solomon, A. (2006). Private social, ethical and environmental disclosure. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal. https://doi.org/10.1108/09513570610679137
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.