Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 465

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

Lanis, Roman, Richardson, Grant·2012·Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1108/09513571311285621

Cites

60 of 60 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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

Show all 60 references

Cited by

See all 465

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.