The DOI matches its Crossref record; 60 of the 60 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Corporate social responsibility and tax aggressiveness: a test of legitimacy theory
Abstract
PURPOSE: The purpose of this paper is to empirically test legitimacy theory by comparing the corporate social responsibility (CSR) disclosures of tax aggressive corporations with those of non-tax aggressive corporations in Australia. DESIGN/METHODOLOGY/APPROACH: A unique sample of 20 Australian corporations accused by the Australian Taxation Office of engaging in tax aggressive activities during the 2001-2006 period was hand-collected. These 20 tax aggressive corporations were then matched with 20 non-tax aggressive corporations (based on industry classification, corporation size and time period). This process generated a choice-based sample of 40 corporations for empirical analysis. Using content analysis techniques, financial accounting data were gathered from the Aspect-Huntley database and CSR disclosures were individually measured for each corporation in the sample. Various statistical techniques were then used (e.g. paired sample statistics, Pearson correlation analysis and ordinary least squares regression analysis) to test legitimacy theory. FINDINGS: Overall, the empirical results consistently show a positive and statistically significant association between corporate tax aggressiveness and CSR disclosure, thereby confirming legitimacy theory in the context of corporate tax aggressiveness. ORIGINALITY/VALUE: The paper provides empirical evidence in support of legitimacy theory as an explanation for why specific corporations disclose more CSR-related information than others. Additionally, to the best of the authors' knowledge, the paper is one of the first to document an empirical association between corporate tax aggressiveness and CSR in the literature.
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
Theory of the firm: Managerial behavior, agency costs and ownership structure
Jensen, M. C., & Meckling, W. H. (1976) · Journal of Financial Economics · doi:10.1016/0304-405x(76)90026-x · Cited by 71,491
A heteroskedasticity-consistent covariance matrix estimator and a direct test for heteroskedasticity
White, H. (1980) · Econometrica · doi:10.2307/1912934 · Cited by 25,861
Content Analysis: An Introduction to its Methodology.
Shelley, M., & Krippendorff, K. (1984) · Journal of the American Statistical Association · doi:10.2307/2288384 · Cited by 24,312
Healy, P. M., & Palepu, K. G. (2001) · Journal of Accounting and Economics · doi:10.1016/s0165-4101(01)00018-0 · Cited by 8,097
Weber, R. (1990) · doi:10.4135/9781412983488 · Cited by 7,750
Applied Linear Regression Models
(1997) · Technometrics · doi:10.1080/00401706.1997.10485142 · Cited by 4,615
Organizational Legitimacy: Social Values and Organizational Behavior
Dowling, J., & Pfeffer, J. (1975) · The Pacific Sociological Review · doi:10.2307/1388226 · Cited by 3,876
Deegan, C. (2002) · Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal · doi:10.1108/09513570210435852 · Cited by 3,829
The investment opportunity set and corporate financing, dividend, and compensation policies
Smith, C. W., & Watts, R. L. (1992) · Journal of Financial Economics · doi:10.1016/0304-405x(92)90029-w · Cited by 3,589
Clarkson, P. M., Li, Y., Richardson, G. D., & Vasvari, F. P. (2008) · Accounting, Organizations and Society · doi:10.1016/j.aos.2007.05.003 · Cited by 3,570
Self-citation
Cited by
Does CSR matter in times of crisis? Evidence from the COVID-19 pandemic
Bae, K.-H., El Ghoul, S., Gong, Z. (., & Guedhami, O. (2021) · Journal of Corporate Finance · doi:10.1016/j.jcorpfin.2020.101876 · Cited by 581
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
- Lanis, R., & Richardson, G.
- Venue
- Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal
- Publisher
- Emerald
- Published
- 2012-12-28
- Volume
- 26
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 75-100
- ISSN
- 0951-3574 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W1984070048
- Cited by
- 465
- References
- 60
- FWCI
- 18.18
- 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 social responsibility and tax aggressiveness: a test of legitimacy theory. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1108/09513571311285621
- The paper
- Lanis, R., & Richardson, G. (2012). Corporate social responsibility and tax aggressiveness: a test of legitimacy theory. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal. https://doi.org/10.1108/09513571311285621
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.