The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Impression Management in Sustainability Reports: An Empirical Investigation of the Use of Graphs
Abstract
The purpose of this paper is to investigate whether firms use graphs in their sustainability reports in order to present a more favorable view of their social and environmental performance. Further, because prior research indicates that companies use social and environmental disclosure as a tool to reduce their exposure to social and political pressures (the legitimacy argument), we also examine whether differences in the extent of impression management are associated with differences in social and environmental performance. Based on an analysis of graphs in sustainability reports for a sample of 77 U.S. companies for 2006, we find considerable evidence of favorable selectivity bias in the choice of items graphed, and moderate evidence that where distortion in graphing occurs, it also has a favorable bias. Our results regarding the relation between impression management and performance are mixed. Whereas we find that graphs of social items in sustainability reports for companies with worse social performance exhibit more impression management, no significant relation between environmental performance and impression management in the use of environmental graphs is found. Overall, our results provide additional evidence that corporate sustainability reporting, as it currently exists, appears to be more about fostering positive public relations than providing a meaningful accounting of the social and environmental impacts of the firm.
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
Partnerships from cannibals with forks: The triple bottom line of 21st‐century business
Elkington, J. (1998) · Environmental Quality Management · doi:10.1002/tqem.3310080106 · Cited by 5,341
The role of environmental disclosures as tools of legitimacy: A research note
Cho, C. H., & Patten, D. M. (2007) · Accounting, Organizations and Society · doi:10.1016/j.aos.2006.09.009 · Cited by 2,069
Self-citation
Cited by
Organized hypocrisy, organizational façades, and sustainability reporting
Cho, C. H., Laine, M., Roberts, R. W., & Rodrigue, M. (2015) · Accounting, Organizations and Society · doi:10.1016/j.aos.2014.12.003 · Cited by 1,066
Self-citationThe quality of sustainability reports and impression management: A stakeholder perspective
Diouf, D., & Boiral, O. (2017) · Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal · doi:10.1108/aaaj-04-2015-2044 · Cited by 429
CSR disclosure: the more things change…?
Cho, C. H., Michelon, G., Patten, D. M., & Roberts, R. W. (2015) · Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal · doi:10.1108/aaaj-12-2013-1549 · Cited by 413
Self-citationAccounting for the Unaccountable: Biodiversity Reporting and Impression Management
Boiral, O. (2016) · Journal of Business Ethics · doi:10.1007/s10551-014-2497-9 · Cited by 384
Arena, C., Bozzolan, S., & Michelon, G. (2015) · Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management · doi:10.1002/csr.1350 · Cited by 273
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Cho, C. H., Michelon, G., & Patten, D. M.
- Venue
- Accounting and the Public Interest
- Publisher
- American Accounting Association
- Published
- 2012-12-01
- Volume
- 12
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 16-37
- ISSN
- 1530-9320 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2086742892
- Cited by
- 288
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 16.26
- 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: Impression Management in Sustainability Reports: An Empirical Investigation of the Use of Graphs. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.2308/apin-10249
- The paper
- Cho, C. H., Michelon, G., & Patten, D. M. (2012). Impression Management in Sustainability Reports: An Empirical Investigation of the Use of Graphs. Accounting and the Public Interest. https://doi.org/10.2308/apin-10249
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.