The DOI matches its Crossref record; 4 of the 4 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Corporate social disclosures in the context of national cultures and stakeholder theory
Open accessAbstract
Purpose - The purpose of this study is to investigate whether corporate social disclosure levels relate to national cultures. Design/methodology/approach - The sample consisted of 600 large companies from 22 countries. Cultural measures were applied: a measure for secrecy, as proposed by Hopeet al.and a newly constructed measure for generic types of cultures (Gannon), both derived from Hofstede's national culture dimensions. Two other dimensions, masculinity and long‐term orientation, not part of secrecy and generic types of culture measures, were also tested separately. Findings - A number of significant statistical relationships between corporate social disclosures and cultural measures are identified. The results are consistent with the associations suggested by stakeholder theory and a country‐specific stakeholder orientation. It is concluded that corporate social disclosure levels are likely to be influenced by national cultures. Research limitations/implications - The results of Van der Laan Smithet al.are largely supported. Culture is clearly related to corporate social disclosure levels, although cultural data may need refinement. Further, the potential limitations of the application of stakeholder theory for this type of study need to be taken into account. Practical implications - The outcomes can be useful to the managers of multinational corporations, when preparing corporate social disclosures. Originality/value - Instead of a comparison between two nations, as is undertaken by Van der Laan Smithet al.a scaled relationship between generic types of cultures and CSD levels is found.
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 Social Responsibility of Business Is to Increase Its Profits
Friedman, M. (2007) · Corporate Ethics and Corporate Governance · doi:10.1007/978-3-540-70818-6_14 · Cited by 11,529
Corporate Social and Financial Performance: A Meta-Analysis
Orlitzky, M., Schmidt, F. L., & Rynes, S. L. (2003) · Organization Studies · doi:10.1177/0170840603024003910 · Cited by 7,641
The Stakeholder Theory of the Corporation: Concepts, Evidence, and Implications
Donaldson, T., & Preston, L. E. (1995) · The Academy of Management Review · doi:10.2307/258887 · Cited by 5,846
Assurance on sustainability reports: An international comparison
Simnett, R., Vanstraelen, A., & Chua, W. F. (2009) · The Accounting Review · doi:10.2308/accr.2009.84.3.937 · Cited by 184
Cited by
Sustainability accounting and reporting: fad or trend?
Burritt, R. L., & Schaltegger, S. (2010) · Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal · doi:10.1108/09513571011080144 · Cited by 773
Board structure and environmental, social, and governance disclosure in Latin America
Husted, B. W., & Sousa-Filho, J. M. D. (2019) · Journal of Business Research · doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2018.01.017 · Cited by 687
Ntim, C. G., & Soobaroyen, T. (2013) · Journal of Business Ethics · doi:10.1007/s10551-012-1446-8 · Cited by 255
Galeazzo, A., Ortiz-de-Mandojana, N., & Delgado-Ceballos, J. (2021) · Current Issues in Tourism · doi:10.1080/13683500.2020.1734546 · Cited by 67
Sustainability reporting and greenwashing: A bibliometrics assessment in G7 and non-G7 nations
Sundarasen, S., Zyznarska-Dworczak, B., & Goel, S. (2024) · Cogent Business & Management · doi:10.1080/23311975.2024.2320812 · Cited by 39
Metadata
- Authors
- Orij, R.
- Venue
- Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal
- Publisher
- Emerald
- Published
- 2010-09-21
- Volume
- 23
- Issue
- 7
- Pages
- 868-889
- ISSN
- 0951-3574 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2102530423
- Cited by
- 311
- References
- 4
- FWCI
- 30.90
- 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
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 social disclosures in the context of national cultures and stakeholder theory. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1108/09513571011080162
- The paper
- Orij, R. (2010). Corporate social disclosures in the context of national cultures and stakeholder theory. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal. https://doi.org/10.1108/09513571011080162
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.