The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Ownership types, corporate governance and corporate social responsibility disclosures: Empirical evidence from a developing country
Open accessAbstract
Purpose: This study aims to examine the extent to which corporate governance structures and ownership types are associated with the level of corporate social responsibility disclosures (CSRD) in a developing country. Design/methodology/approach: Multiple regression techniques are used to estimate the effect of corporate governance structures and ownership types on CSRD using a sample of Libyan oil and gas companies between 2009 and 2013. Findings: First, the study results suggest that although the level of CSRD in Libya is low in comparison to its western counterparts, ownership factors have a significant positive influence on CSRD. Second, the authors find board meetings to have a positive impact on CSRD. However, the authors fail to find any significant effect of board size and presence of corporate social responsibility (CSR) committees on CSRD. Overall, the results support prior theoretical evidence that pressures exerted by the government and external stakeholders have a considerable influence in promoting firm-level CSRD activities, specifically as a legitimising mechanism in fragile states. Research limitations/implications: First, this study is based on the annual reports, and it did not examine any other reports or other mass communication mechanism that companies’ management may use to disclose CSR information. Future studies might consider disclosures in other channels, if any, such as the internet, CSR reports, etc. Additionally, this study adopts the neo-institutional theory perspective. Future studies might integrate multi-theoretical lenses to offer a richer basis for understanding and explaining CSRD determinants. Originality/value: This study contributes to the literature by first providing additional evidence for existing studies, which suggest that on average, better-governed companies are more liable to follow a more socially responsible agenda than poorly governed companies as a legitimising mechanism in fragile states. Also, this study overcomes a major weakness in existing Libyan studies, which have mainly used descriptive data.
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
Evidence in development of sustainability reporting: a case of a developing country
Amran, A., & Haniffa, R. (2011) · Business Strategy and the Environment · doi:10.1002/bse.672 · Cited by 301
Cited by
Alkaraan, F., Albitar, K., Hussainey, K., & Venkatesh, V. (2022) · Technological Forecasting and Social Change · doi:10.1016/j.techfore.2021.121423 · Cited by 422
Khatib, S. F. A., Abdullah, D. F., Elamer, A. A., & Abueid, R. (2021) · Business Strategy and the Environment · doi:10.1002/bse.2665 · Cited by 322
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Alshbili, I., Elamer, A. A., & Beddewela, E.
- Venue
- Accounting Research Journal
- Publisher
- Emerald
- Published
- 2019-12-16
- Volume
- 33
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 148-166
- ISSN
- 1030-9616 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2918405311
- Cited by
- 165
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 22.79
- 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: Ownership types, corporate governance and corporate social responsibility disclosures: Empirical evidence from a developing country. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1108/arj-03-2018-0060
- The paper
- Alshbili, I., Elamer, A. A., & Beddewela, E. (2019). Ownership types, corporate governance and corporate social responsibility disclosures: Empirical evidence from a developing country. Accounting Research Journal. https://doi.org/10.1108/arj-03-2018-0060
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.