Search results

This research provides accounting-ethics authors and administrators with a benchmark for accounting-ethics research. While Bernardi and Bean (2010) considered publications in business-ethics and accounting’s top-40 journals this study considers research in eight accounting-ethics and public-interest journals, as well as, 34 business-ethics journals. We analyzed the contents of our 42 journals for the 25-year period between 1991 through 2015. This research documents the continued growth (Bernardi & Bean, 2007) of accounting-ethics research in both accounting-ethics and business-ethics journals. We provide data on the top-10 ethics authors in each doctoral year group, the top-50 ethics authors over the most recent 10, 20, and 25 years, and a distribution among ethics scholars for these periods. For the 25-year timeframe, our data indicate that only 665 (274) of the 5,125 accounting PhDs/DBAs (13.0% and 5.4% respectively) in Canada and the United States had authored or co-authored one (more than one) ethics article.

In this essay, the author reflects on the legitimacy theory in corporate social responsibility (CSR) disclosure research.

This is a reflection/review essay based on a review of relevant literature.

Although almost constantly under attack from a variety of scholars, legitimacy theory seems to hold on in the social and environmental disclosure arena. However, the failure of the recent wave of CSR-themed work published in The Accounting Review to even acknowledge, let alone engage with, the theory is problematic.

We, in the CSR disclosure arena, need to do all we can to help emerging scholars (particularly in the USA) find the rich body of research the mainstream journals fail to discuss.

Legitimacy-based research can help move CSR disclosure at least closer to being a tool of accountability, as opposed to a tool for legitimation.

Perhaps the critique of the mainstream North American literature’s failure to consider legitimacy theory can lead to the recognition of the need to focus on the harm to sustainability that a narrow, shareholder-centric focus leads to.

This reflection takes a unique look at the contributions of legitimacy theory to CSR disclosure research.

This paper aims to examine whether the amount of costs disclosed as relating to environmental controls is associated with environmental performance in terms of carbon-based eco-efficiency, and whether any relation supports voluntary disclosure theory or legitimacy theory arguments. Further, this paper attempts to determine whether the relations differ across the initial Kyoto Protocol period.

In this study, the focus was on Japanese firms over the period from 2002 to 2012. Disclosed environmental control costs (capital expenditures and operating costs) were identified and eco-efficiency measures based on carbon emissions were calculated. Relations were tested for using regression models controlling for other potential impact factors.

This study’s results indicate a negative relation between disclosed levels of environmental control costs and eco-efficiency performance measures, and, for two of our three eco-efficiency metrics, this is more pronounced over the Kyoto Protocol period.

These results support a legitimacy theory (as opposed to voluntary disclosure theory) explanation for the relation between the levels of disclosed environmental control costs and carbon-based eco-efficiency.

This study is the first to explore how flexibility in cost classification may be used by companies to foster a disclosure strategy.

The purpose of this paper is to investigate whether differences in media exposure regarding corporate corruption appear to influence companies’ anti-corruption disclosures. The authors also examine whether the level of press freedom in firms’ home countries affects disclosure and the impact of media exposure in different ways.

The authors use Transparency International’s 2012 ratings of anti-corruption disclosure by the 105 largest multinational firms in the world, press freedom assessments from the non-governmental organization Reporters Without Borders, and media exposure measures based on a search using the Dow Jones Factiva database. The authors assess relations using regression analysis controlling for other firm-specific factors potentially impacting disclosure choices. Finally, the authors consider the potential effect of other country-level factors.

The results indicate that media exposure, using either an existence or an extensiveness measure, is positively related to differences in sample companies’ anti-corruption disclosures. The authors also find that disclosure is more (less) extensive where home country press freedom is less (more) restricted and that reduced press freedom appears to reduce the impact of media exposure on the disclosure. The authors further document that press freedom levels explain more difference in anti-corruption disclosures than other country-level factors potentially influencing the practice.

Because the investigation is limited to very large international firms for a single year, the degree to which the findings apply to other companies and time periods cannot be assessed. Further, the authors cannot determine how the findings would hold using an alternative disclosure rating scheme. Finally, the authors do not assess whether differences in the source of media exposure impact the findings.

The findings suggest that, to the extent that improved anti-corruption disclosure reflects greater corporate attention to corruption issues, the media may be a powerful player in addressing this social ill. Unfortunately, the results also indicate that media efforts may not be sufficient to bring about change in locations where the freedom of the press is limited. Further, the results suggest that disclosure appears to be a function of exposure to social and political exposures, and the authors therefore question whether it will actually lead to improved corruption performance.

The study is the first to consider the impacts of media exposure and press freedom on corporate social disclosures.

This paper investigates the market response to the poor quality of reporting on the first mandated set of conflict minerals disclosures in the US setting. The authors examine the reaction for both filing firms at their filing date and non-filing companies at the filing deadline.

The authors use standard market model methods to capture investor response and test for differences across reactions using comparisons of means and regression models. The authors also code reports for a sub-sample of firms and test for the relation between disclosure and market reactions.

The authors document a significant negative reaction for both filing and non-filing firms, with the latter group suffering a more negative reaction than the filers. The authors also find more extensive disclosure is associated with less negative market reactions. Finally, the authors provide evidence supporting the argument that the more pronounced reaction for the non-filers is due to concerns with incremental implementation costs for these firms.

The results extend prior research into investor perceptions of exposures to social and political costs. The findings suggest that investors view both poor quality disclosure and lack of response to mandated requirements as increasing such exposures.

The negative market response could be expected to exert additional pressures on companies to better assess and report on conflict mineral exposures in their supply chains.

The findings suggest investors pay attention to the corporate response to mandated social disclosure requirements, an important finding as mandates for similar types of disclosure appear to be in the offing.

This study is the first to extend the social and political cost exposure literature to analysis of mandated social disclosures.

The purpose of this paper is to review and assess Sustainability Accounting, Management and Policy Journal (SAMPJ)’s contributions to the body of sustainability disclosure research.

The authors review the 31 sustainability disclosure-themed articles published in SAMPJ up through Volume 8 (2017) and assess the strengths and weaknesses of the body of research, as well as its contributions to the understanding of the reporting phenomenon.

The assessment by the authors suggests SAMPJ has been very inclusive with respect to methods and topics, although we note certain areas where future research could be expanded.

The authors limit the review to articles in SAMPJ, so they cannot assess the degree to which the general findings as to trends might reflect the overall body of sustainability disclosure research.

The review provides suggestions for where researchers looking to publish in SAMPJ might focus so as to enhance the overall body of knowledge.

The primary social implication is that the preponderance of the evidence in the articles the authors review suggests that sustainability disclosure remains incomplete, biased and driven by concerns with legitimation. As such, it provides more evidence in support of the need for better regulation and enforcement.

While prior studies have summarized aspects of social and environmental accounting in general or with regard to specific journals, none has assessed the contributions specifically to sustainability disclosure research through this journal.

The purpose of this paper is to examine three potential explanations for the corporate choice to disclose environmental capital spending amounts.

Using archival data from a sample of Fortune 500 US firms operating in industries subject to both the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) TRI program and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration's Hazard Communication Standards, the authors conduct quantitative threshold tests to first investigate whether disclosure appears to be a function of the materiality of the spending. Using statistical tests, including multiple regression analyses, the authors next attempt to differentiate the choice to disclose across voluntary disclosure theory and legitimacy theory arguments.

First, the authors find that, for the overwhelming majority of observations, the disclosed amounts are not quantitatively material. This suggests that non‐disclosure is likely due to immateriality. Next, their findings show that disclosing firms do not exhibit improved subsequent environmental performance relative to non‐disclosing companies. Further, controlling for firm size and industry class, they find the choice to disclose is associated with worse environmental performance.

The sample includes only relatively larger firms from certain industries and this limits the generalizability of the findings. Smaller firms and those from excluded industries may have other reasons to choose to disclose environmental information. Further, the authors rely on TRI data to assess pollution performance, but TRI is self‐reported and its reliability is only as good as the inputs. Finally, although environmental capital spending is potentially relevant information, this investigation does not examine other types of environmental information disclosure.

This paper provides corroborating evidence that companies use the disclosure of environmental capital spending as a strategic tool to address their exposures to political and regulatory concerns. Hence, interpreting disclosed environmental information would appear to require careful understanding of the underlying motivations.

This paper extends the environmental accounting and reporting literature by contributing to the unresolved question of what drives differences in the corporate disclosure of environmental information. The authors add to this body of research by investigating the disclosure of one specific piece of environmental information, the amount of capital expenditures incurred for pollution abatement and control.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

The study aims to identify and discuss influential aspects of corporate environmental disclosure (CED) literature, including key streams, themes, authors, keywords, journals, affiliations and countries. This review also constructs agendas for future CED research.

Using a bibliometric review approach, the authors reviewed 560 articles on CED from 215 journals published between 1982 and 2020.

The authors' insights are three-fold. First, the authors identified three core streams of CED research: “legitimization of environmental hazards via environmental disclosures,” “the role of environmental accounting in achieving corporate environmental sustainability” and “integrating environmental social and governance (ESG) reporting into the global reporting initiatives (GRI) guidelines”. Second, the authors also deployed a thematic map that classifies CED research into four themes: niche themes (e.g. institutional theory and environmental management system), motor themes (e.g. stakeholder engagement), emerging/declining themes (e.g. legitimacy theory) and basic/transversal themes (e.g. voluntary CED, environmental reporting and corporate social responsibility). Third, the authors highlighted important CED authors, keywords, journals, articles, affiliations and countries.

This study assists researchers, journal editors and consultants in the corporate sector to comprehensively understand various dimensions of CED research and practices and suggests potential emerging research areas. Although this paper appears to have been thoroughly conducted, using authors' keywords to identify themes was a key limitation. Thus, the authors call upon using a more comprehensive data mining technique that uses keywords in abstracts, titles and the whole body of papers and then identifies inclusive trends in CED literature.

The authors contribute to the extant accounting literature by investigating the organizational-level CED, both mandatory and voluntary, using a systematic and bibliometric literature review model to summarize the key research streams, themes, authors, journals, affiliations and countries. By doing so, the authors construct a future research agenda for CED literature.

Internet usage has exploded over the past decade and the medium is now being suggested as a potentially powerful tool for disclosing environmental information and increasing corporate accountability. This study, grounded in legitimacy theory, argues that such a view may be overly optimistic. Results of an analysis of both annual report and corporate web page environmental disclosures for a sample of 62 U.S. firms do indicate that corporate web pages appear to be adding at least some additional, non-redundant environmental information beyond what is provided in the annual reports. However, the relative lack of negative environmental disclosure on the web pages, in conjunction with the finding that differences in the level of positive/neutral environmental disclosure are associated with legitimacy variables suggests that the focus of Internet disclosure may be more on corporate attempts at legitimation than on moving toward greater corporate accountability.