Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 506

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

The Influence of External Pressure Groups on Corporate Social Disclosure: Some Empirical Evidence

Tilt, Carol Ann·1994·Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal

Abstract

Many social accounting researchers refer to environmental pressure groups as being a major influence on companies′ decisions to disclose social information. Such a claim is, however, to date unsubstantiated. Virtually no empirical evidence has been produced which confirms or refutes this proposition. Similarly there is no literature on pressure groups′ interest in, or reaction to, corporate social disclosure (CSD). Provides the first, albeit exploratory, investigation of such pressure groups and their potential influence on the production of CSD. Results show that pressure groups are users of CSD and do attempt to influence companies′ disclosure practices. The environmental movement considers current CSD to be insufficient and low in credibility. The preferred corporate social report (for pressure groups) would include narratives and quantified terms, would be in the annual report and would be prepared by, certified by, and/or held by a body external to the company.

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 · 10.1108/09513579410069849

Cites

1 of 1 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 1 references

Cited by

Metadata

Authors
Tilt, C. A.
Venue
Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal
Publisher
Emerald
Published
1994-12-01
Volume
7
Issue
4
Pages
47-72
ISSN
0951-3574 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1600945138
Cited by
506
References
1
FWCI
9.50
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

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.