CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 413Corporate Social Responsibility ReportingAuditing, Earnings Management, GovernanceCorporate Governance and Financial Management

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

CSR disclosure: the more things change…?

Open access
Cho, Charles H., Michelon, Giovanna, Patten, Dennis M., Roberts, Robin W.·2015·Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal
DOI 10.1108/aaaj-12-2013-1549
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Purpose: – Corporate social responsibility (CSR) disclosure is receiving increased attention from the mainstream accounting research community. In general, this recently published research has failed to engage significantly with prior CSR-themed studies. The purpose of this paper is threefold. First, it examines whether more recent CSR reporting differs from that of the 1970s. Second, it investigates whether one of the major findings of prior CSR research – that disclosure appears to be largely a function of exposure to legitimacy factors – continues to hold in more recent reporting. Third, it examines whether, as argued within the more recent CSR-themed studies, disclosure is valued by market participants. Design/methodology/approach: – Using Fortune 500 data from the late 1970s (from Ernst & Ernst, 1978) and a more recent sample (2010), the authors identify differences in CSR disclosure by computing adequate measures in terms of disclosure breadth and comparing them for any potential changes in the influence of legitimacy factors between 1977 and 2010. In the second stage of the analysis, the authors use a standard valuation model to compare the association between CSR and firm value between the two time periods. Findings: – The authors first find that the breadth of CSR disclosure increased significantly, with respect to both environmental and social information provision. Second, the authors find that the relationship among legitimacy factors and CSR disclosure does not differ across the two time periods. However, the analysis focusing on environmental disclosure provides evidence that industry membership is less powerfully related to differences in reporting, but only for the weighted disclosure score. Finally, the results indicate that CSR disclosure, in apparent contrast to the arguments of the more recent mainstream investigations, is not positively valued by investors. Research limitations/implications: – The authors explore changes in CSR disclosure only for industrial firms and as such the authors cannot generalize findings to companies in other industries. Similarly, the authors focus only on companies in the USA while different relationships may hold in other countries. Further, the disclosure metrics are limited by the availability of firm-specific information provided by Ernst & Ernst. Limitations aside, however, the findings appear to suggest that the failure of the new wave of CSR research in the mainstream accounting community to acknowledge and consider prior research into social and environmental accounting is potentially troublesome. Specifically, recent CSR disclosure research published in mainstream journals often lends credence to voluntary disclosure arguments that ignore previous contradictory findings and well-established alternative explanations for observed empirical relationships. Practical implications: – This paper provides supporting evidence that the unquestioned acceptance by the new wave of CSR researchers that the disclosure is about informing investors as opposed to being a tool of legitimation and image enhancement makes it less likely that such disclosure will ever move meaningfully toward transparent accountability. Originality/value: – The study suggests that CSR disclosure, while used more extensively today than three decades ago, may still largely be driven by concerns with corporate legitimacy, and still fails to provide information that is relevant for assessing firm value. As such, the failure of the mainstream accounting community to acknowledge this possibility can only hinder the ultimate development of better accountability for all of the impacts of business.

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/aaaj-12-2013-1549

Cites

0 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

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

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

Research works printed but not linked: 56

  1. Aboody, D. , Barth, M.E. and Kasznik, R. (2004), “SFAS No. 123 stock compensation expense and equity market values”, The Accounting Review , Vol. 79 No. 2, pp. 251-275. · DOI
  2. Aerts, W. and Cormier, D. (2009), “Media legitimacy and corporate environmental communication”, Accounting, Organizations and Society , Vol. 34 No. 1, pp. 1-27. · DOI
  3. Anderson, J.C. and Frankle, A.W. (1980), “Voluntary social reporting: an iso-beta portfolio analysis”, The Accounting Review , Vol. 55 No. 3, pp. 467-479.
  4. Ballou, B. , Heitger, H.L. and Landes, C.E. (2006), “The future of corporate sustainability reporting”, Journal of Accountancy , Vol. 200 No. 6, pp. 65-74.
  5. Barth, M. , McNichols, M.F. and Wilson, P. (1997), “Factors influencing firms’ disclosures about environmental liabilities”, Review of Accounting Studies , Vol. 2 No. 1, pp. 35-64. · DOI
  6. Barth, M.E. and McNichols, M.F. (1994), “Estimation and market valuation of environmental liabilities relating to superfund sites”, Journal of Accounting Research , Vol. 32 No. 3, pp. 177-209. · DOI
  7. Beatty, A. and Liao, S. (2013), “Why do US multinational’s voluntary geographical employment disclosures tell us?”, paper presented at the Harvard/JAE Corporate Accountability Reporting Conference, Boston, MA, January.
  8. Belkaoui, A. (1976), “The impact of the disclosure of the environmental effects of organizational behavior on the market”, Financial Management , Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. 26-31. · DOI
  9. Brammer, S. and Millington, A. (2005), “Corporate reputation and philanthropy: an empirical analysis”, Journal of Business Ethics , Vol. 61 No. 1, pp. 29-44. · DOI · Paper page
  10. Brown, D.L. , Guidry, R.P. and Patten, D.M. (2009), “Sustainability reporting and perceptions of corporate reputation: an analysis using Fortune most admired scores”, Advances in Environmental Accounting and Management , Vol. 4, pp. 83-104. · DOI
  11. Buhr, N. (2007), “Histories and rationales for sustainability reporting”, in Unerman, J. , Bebbington, J. and O’Dwyer, B. (Eds), Sustainability Accounting and Accountability , Routledge, London, pp. 57-69. · DOI
  12. Buzby, S.L. and Falk, H. (1979), “Demand for social responsibility information by university investors”, The Accounting Review , Vol. 54 No. 1, pp. 23-37.
  13. Cahan, S.F. , Chavis, B.M. and Elmendorf, R.G. (1997), “Earnings management of chemical firms in response to political costs from environmental legislation”, Journal of Accounting Auditing & Finance , Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 37-65. · DOI
  14. Chatterji, A. , Levine, D. and Toffel, M.W. (2009), “How well do social ratings actually measure corporate social responsibility?”, Journal of Economics and Management Strategy , Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 125-169. · DOI
  15. Cho, C.H. and Patten, D.M. (2007), “The role of environmental disclosures as tools of legitimacy: a research note”, Accounting, Organizations and Society , Vol. 32 Nos 7/8, pp. 639-647. · DOI · Paper page
  16. Cho, C.H. and Patten, D.M. (2008), “Did the GAO get it right? Another look at corporate environmental disclosure”, Social and Environmental Accountability Journal , Vol. 28 No. 1, pp. 21-32. · DOI
  17. Cho, C.H. , Freedman, M. and Patten, D.M. (2012b), “Corporate disclosure of environmental capital expenditures: a test of alternative theories”, Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal , Vol. 25 No. 3, pp. 486-507. · DOI · Paper page
  18. Cho, C.H. , Michelon, G. and Patten, D.M. (2012c), “Impression management in sustainability reports: an empirical investigation of the use of graphs”, Accounting and the Public Interest , Vol. 12, pp. 16-37. · DOI
  19. Cho, C.H. , Guidy, R.P. , Hageman, A.M. and Patten, D.M. (2012a), “Do actions speak louder than words? An empirical investigation of corporate environmental reputation”, Accounting Organizations and Society , Vol. 37 No. 1, pp. 14-25. · DOI · Paper page
  20. Clarkson, P.M. , Li, Y. and Richardson, G.D. (2004), “The market valuation of environmental capital expenditures by pulp and paper companies”, The Accounting Review , Vol. 79 No. 2, pp. 329-353. · DOI
  21. Cooper, S.M. and Owen, D.L. (2007), “Corporate social reporting and stakeholder accountability: the missing link”, Accounting, Organizations and Society , Vol. 32 Nos 7/8, pp. 649-667. · DOI · Paper page
  22. Cowen, S.S. , Ferreri, L.B. and Parker, L.D. (1987), “The impact of corporate characteristics on social responsibility disclosure: a typology and frequency-based analysis”, Accounting, Organizations and Society , Vol. 12 No. 2, pp. 111-122. · DOI
  23. Deegan, C. (2002), “The legitimising effect of social and environmental disclosures: a theoretical foundation”, Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal , Vol. 15 No. 2, pp. 282-311. · DOI · Paper page
  24. Deegan, C. (2007), “Organizational legitimacy as a motive for sustainability reporting”, in Unerman, J. , Bebbington, J. and O’Dwyer, B. (Eds), Sustainability Accounting and Accountability , Routledge, London, pp. 127-149. · DOI
  25. Dhaliwal, D.S. , Li, O.Z. , Tsang, A. and Yang, G.Y. (2011), “Voluntary nonfinancial disclosure and the cost of equity capital: the initiation of corporate social responsibility reporting”, The Accounting Review , Vol. 86 No. 1, pp. 59-100. · DOI · Paper page
  26. Evans, J.H. III (2012), “Introduction”, The Accounting Review , Vol. 87 No. 2, pp. 721-722. · DOI
  27. Gamble, G.O. , Hsu, K. , Kite, D. and Radtke, R.R. (1995), “Environmental disclosures in annual reports and 10Ks: an examination”, Accounting Horizons , Vol. 9 No. 3, pp. 34-54.
  28. Gray, R. (2006), “Social, environmental and sustainability reporting and organizational value creation? Whose value? Whose creation?”, Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal , Vol. 19 No. 6, pp. 793-819. · DOI
  29. Gray, R.H. , Kouhy, R. and Lavers, S. (1995), “Corporate social and environmental reporting: a review of the literature and a longitudinal study of UK disclosure”, Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal , Vol. 8 No. 2, pp. 47-77. · DOI · Paper page
  30. Guidry, R.P. and Patten, D.M. (2010), “Market reactions to the first-time issuance of corporate sustainability reports: evidence that quality matters”, Sustainability Accounting, Management and Policy Journal , Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 33-50. · DOI
  31. Hackston, D. and Milne, M.J. (1996), “Some determinants of social and environmental disclosures in New Zealand companies”, Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal , Vol. 9 No. 1, pp. 77-108. · DOI
  32. Haigh, M. and Hazelton, J. (2004), “Financial markets: a tool for social responsibility?”, Journal of Business Ethics , Vol. 52 No. 1, pp. 59-71. · DOI
  33. Healy, P. and Serafeim, G. (2013), “Causes and consequences of firms’ self-reported anticorruption efforts”, paper presented at the Harvard/JAE Corporate Accountability Reporting Conference, Boston, MA, January. · DOI
  34. Holder-Webb, L. , Cohen, J.R. , Nath, L. and Wood, D. (2009), “The supply of corporate social responsibility disclosures among US firms”, Journal of Business Ethics , Vol. 84, pp. 497-527. · DOI
  35. Hughes, K.E. II (2000), “The value relevance of nonfinancial measures of air pollution in the electric utility industry”, The Accounting Review , Vol. 75 No. 2, pp. 209-228. · DOI
  36. Ingram, R.W. (1978), “An investigation of the information content of (certain) social responsibility disclosures”, Journal of Accounting Research , Vol. 16 No. 2, pp. 270-285. · DOI
  37. Ingram, R.W. and Frazier, K. (1980), “Environmental performance and corporate disclosure”, Journal of Accounting Research , Vol. 18 No. 2, pp. 614-622. · DOI
  38. Jones, S. , Frost, G. , Loftus, J. and Van Der Laan, S. (2007), “An empirical investigation of the market returns and financial performance of entities engaged in sustainability reporting”, Australian Accounting Review , Vol. 17 No. 1, pp. 78-87. · DOI
  39. Lindblom, C. (1994), “The implication of organizational legitimacy for corporate social performance and disclosure”, paper presented at the Critical Perspective on Accounting Conference, New York, NY, April 1993.
  40. Milne, M.J. and Patten, D.M. (2002), “Securing organizational legitimacy: an experimental decision case examining the impact of environmental disclosures”, Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal , Vol. 15 No. 3, pp. 372-405. · DOI
  41. Moser, D.V. and Martin, P.R. (2012), “A broader perspective on corporate social responsibility research in accounting”, The Accounting Review , Vol. 87 No. 2, pp. 797-806. · DOI
  42. Murray, A. , Sinclair, D. , Power, D. and Gray, R. (2006), “Do financial markets care about social and environmental disclosure? Further evidence and exploration from the UK”, Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal , Vol. 19 No. 2, pp. 228-255. · DOI
  43. Patten, D.M. (1991), “Exposure, legitimacy, and social disclosure”, Journal of Accounting and Public Policy , Vol. 10 No. 4, pp. 297-308. · DOI
  44. Patten, D.M. (1992), “Intra-industry environmental disclosures in response to the Alaskan oil spill: a note on legitimacy theory”, Accounting, Organizations and Society , Vol. 17 No. 5, pp. 471-475. · DOI · Paper page
  45. Patten, D.M. (2000), “Changing superfund disclosure and its relation to the provision of other environmental information”, Advances in Environmental Accounting and Management , Vol. 1, pp. 101-121. · DOI
  46. Patten, D.M. (2002), “The relation between environmental performance and environmental disclosure: a research note”, Accounting, Organizations and Society , Vol. 27 No. 8, pp. 763-773. · DOI
  47. Patten, D.M. (2012), “White tigers, zoos, and sustainability reporting: a cynical reflection”, Social and Environmental Accountability Journal , Vol. 32 No. 1, pp. 17-25. · DOI
  48. Patten, D.M. (2013), “Lessons from the third wave: a reflection on the rediscovery of corporate social responsibility by the mainstream accounting research community”, Financial Reporting , Vol. 2 No. 2, pp. 9-26. · DOI
  49. Patten, D.M. and Zhao, N. (2014), “Standalone CSR reporting by US retail companies”, Accounting Forum , Vol. 38 No. 2, pp. 132-144. · DOI
  50. Ramanathan, K. (1976), “Toward a theory of corporate social accounting”, The Accounting Review , Vol. 51 No. 3, pp. 516-528.
  51. Roberts, R.W. (1992), “Determinants of corporate social responsibility disclosure: an application of stakeholder theory”, Accounting, Organizations and Society , Vol. 17 No. 6, pp. 595-612. · DOI
  52. Simnett, R. , Vanstraelen, A. and Chua, W.F. (2009), “Assurance on sustainability reports: an international comparison”, The Accounting Review , Vol. 84 No. 3, pp. 937-967. · DOI · Paper page
  53. Spicer, B.H. (1978), “Investors, corporate social performance and information disclosure: an empirical study”, The Accounting Review , Vol. 53 No. 1, pp. 94-111.
  54. Wiseman, J. (1982), “An evaluation of environmental disclosures made in corporate annual reports”, Accounting, Organizations and Society , Vol. 7 No. 1, pp. 53-63. · DOI
  55. Wolf, S.M. (1996), “Fear and loathing about the public right to know: the surprising success of the emergency planning and community right-to-know act”, Journal of Land Use & Environmental Law , Vol. 11 No. 2, pp. 217-324.
  56. Deegan, C. and Soltys, S. (2007), “Social accounting research: an Australian perspective”, Accounting Forum , Vol. 31 No. 1, pp. 73-89. · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 101–200 of 328

Metadata

Authors
Cho, C. H., Michelon, G., Patten, D. M., & Roberts, R. W.
Affiliations
  • École Supérieure des Sciences Économiques et Commerciales (FR)
  • University of Exeter (GB)
  • Illinois State University (US)
  • University of Central Florida (US)
ORCID
Venue
Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal
Publisher
Emerald
Published
2015-01-19
Volume
28
Issue
1
Pages
14-35
ISSN
0951-3574 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1108/aaaj-12-2013-1549
OpenAlex
W2021573376
Cited by
413
References
64
Citations by year
2026: 50 · 2025: 39 · 2024: 39 · 2023: 57 · 2022: 47 · 2021: 38 · 2020: 42 · 2019: 28 · 2018: 33 · 2017: 17 · 2016: 19 · 2015: 3
FWCI
67.05
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
www.emerald.com/insight/site-policies (tdm)
Locations
  • Accounting Auditing & Accountability Journal (publishedVersion)
  • Journal of International Crisis and Risk Communication Research (submittedVersion)
  • Figshare (submittedVersion)
  • Open Research Exeter (University of Exeter) (submittedVersion)
  • Bristol Research (University of Bristol) (submittedVersion)
  • Padua Research Archive (University of Padova) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Strategy and Management › Corporate Social Responsibility Reporting
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Accounting › Auditing, Earnings Management, Governance
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Strategy and Management › Corporate Governance and Financial Management
Keywords
corporate social responsibility disclosure, environmental disclosure, social disclosure, firm value, voluntary disclosure, disclosure breadth, Fortune 500 companies, industry membership

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