Talking the talk whilst walking the walk:
The influence of corporate reputation and industry reputation
on CSR disclosure of global listed firms
Date June 23, 2017
Author Lizel Goedhart (10588132)
Supervisor Dr. H. Fasaei
Study MSc Business Administration: Strategy Faculty Faculty of Economics and Business (FEB)
STATEMENT OF ORIGINALITY
This document is written by Lizel Goedhart, who declares to take full responsibility for the contents of this document.
I declare that the text and the work presented in this document are original and that no sources other than those mentioned in the text and its references have been used in creating it.
The Faculty of Economics and Business is responsible solely for the supervision of completion of the work, not for the contents.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Abstract ... 3
Introduction ... 4
Literature review ... 6
From CSR to CSR disclosure ... 6
Theories about what drives CSR disclosure ... 8
Legitimacy theory ... 8
Stakeholder theory ... 10
Greenwashing ... 11
The influence of corporate reputation ... 12
The role of industry reputation ... 15
Methodology ... 19
Data collection and sampling strategy ... 19
Variables and measures ... 21
Dependent variables ... 21 Independent variable ... 22 Moderating variable ... 22 Control variables ... 23 Statistical procedure ... 24 Results ... 25
Descriptive results and correlation analysis ... 25
Regression results ... 27
Discussion ... 31
Limitations and suggestions for future research ... 33
References ... 35
ABSTRACT
This study is an empirical examination of the effects of corporate reputation on two aspects of Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) disclosure: the volume and content. Distinctively, industry reputation serves as a moderator. In order to examine these effects, research data was collected by analyzing the annual and standalone sustainability reports of 70 global listed companies via a quantitative content analysis. The results suggest that the content of CSR disclosure is significantly higher for firms with a high reputation. Moreover, firms in controversial industries have significantly higher levels of content of CSR disclosure, and a bigger volume of CSR disclosure. This study is the first to examine corporate reputation as a predictor of CSR disclosure, with industry reputation as a moderator. Moreover, this study links CSR disclosures to corporate strategy by researching the effects of corporate reputation. This makes this study about CSR disclosure relevant to strategy departments as well, instead of only accountancy departments, as in previous CSR disclosure studies.
Key words: Corporate reputation; Industry reputation; CSR disclosure; Self-fulfilling
INTRODUCTION
“Corporate social responsibility is a hard-edged business decision. Not because it is nice to do or because people are forcing us to do it […] but because it is good for our business.” These are the words of former CEO of Unilever, Niall Fitzgerald (Elliott, 2003). His statement suggests that companies do not invest in corporate social responsibility (CSR) only because their CSR activities are of value for society, but also because CSR is of value for the company itself. CSR has become increasingly essential for organizations over the years. In fact, only investing in CSR seems no longer adequate; from customers to investors, stakeholders in organizations expect information about how companies are addressing sustainability risks and opportunities (Aguilera, Rupp, Williams, & Ganapathi, 2007). Consequently, CSR disclosure has become increasingly important (Cho, Michelon, Patten, & Roberts, 2015; Gamerschlag, Möller, & Verbeeten, 2011). That is why companies invest a great deal of their time and money in disclosing information about their social and environmental performance (Gamerschlag et al., 2011; PWC, 2016).
Given the growing importance of CSR disclosure, it has become extremely relevant to look into the subject. Thus, besides the recognition in strategy literature that a firm’s CSR performance is important (e.g. Barnett & Hoffman, 2008; Tang, Hull, & Rothenberg, 2012; Wang, Chen, Yu, & Hsiao, 2015), the amount of research into CSR disclosure is increasing as well (e.g. Bagnoli & Watts, 2016; Brown-Liburd, Cohen, & Zamora, 2016; Cho et al., 2015; Font, Walmsley, Cogotti, McCombes, & Häusler, 2012). Notably, researchers have found that the amount of disclosure of all CSR activities depends on a company’s visibility (Gamerschlag et al., 2011). This implies that the more visible a company is in the media, the more information about CSR activities that company is likely to disclose. Additionally, it is suggested that the higher the profitability and the bigger the company, the more the company discloses about its CSR activities (Gamerschlag et al., 2011). Another research focus has
been on the kind of industry a company is in. For example, for companies that operate within controversial industries such as the alcohol, tobacco, and gambling sectors, CSR disclosure is an integral part of their strategic goals to distract attention from the industry they are in (Grougiou, Dedoulis, & Leventis, 2016). These firms use CSR disclosure as a tool to cover up their controversial activities, and to lessen the negative consequences of stigmatization.
This in turn raises questions such as whether this could be the same on a more micro or organizational level. For example, could firms with bad corporate reputations try to turn the tide by bragging or exaggerating about CSR activities? In previous literature, CSR disclosure is occasionally linked to corporate reputation, but this was mainly in a reverse relationship: CSR disclosure as a determinant of corporate reputation (e.g. Cho, Guidry, Hageman, & Patten, 2012; Clarke & Gibson-Sweet, 1999). Several studies support the claim that CSR disclosure can enhance corporate reputation (Cho et al., 2012). However, although the importance of the relationship between corporate reputation and CSR disclosure is indicated, it is not been adequately researched. Furthermore, as earlier research has shown, industry reputation plays a part in the extent of CSR disclosure as well (Grougiou et al., 2016). However, the extent to which the industry reputation enhances or weakens the relationship between corporate reputation and CSR disclosure has never been researched before. Thus, to extend the literature in the field of CSR disclosure and reputation, in this study the following research question is examined: To what extent does corporate reputation
influence the content and volume of CSR disclosure by global listed firms, and how is this relationship affected by the industry’s reputation?
By attempting to answer this question, this study contributes to the field of business ethics by going into more depth than previous research by elaborating on previous work on CSR. That is, analysing the effects of corporate reputation on the way organizations report their CSR activities offers greater insight into what drives CSR disclosure. Enhancing
understanding of CSR disclosure is essential, because executives need to know whether they have to keep increasing their CSR investment levels, and continuously put effort into providing positive CSR disclosures (Hannan, Rankin, & Towry, 2006; Holder-Webb, Cohen, Nath, & Wood, 2009). Besides executives, other stakeholders such as investors and customers can use these new insights too. The results of this study could nuance the CSR performance of certain organizations, which will in turn help stakeholders with investment decisions and purchases. After all, CSR disclosure plays a role in investment decisions (Brown-Liburd et al., 2016). Furthermore, this study contributes to a deeper understanding of the effects of corporate reputation. Given that the corporate reputation–CSR disclosure relationship is reversed for the first time, and by adding industry reputation as a moderator, new insights contribute to the foundations of the literature regarding management and organizations.
LITERATURE REVIEW
In this section, a number of underlying theories about CSR disclosure will be discussed. Additionally, the literature about the relationship between a firm’s reputation and its CSR disclosure will be reviewed, after which the manner in which industry reputation influences this relationship will be touched upon. However, first it is essential to know how CSR is defined in order to comprehend what drives CSR disclosure, especially since there are several dimensions of CSR.
From CSR to CSR disclosure
& Matten, 2007; De Bakker, Groenewegen, & Den Hond, 2005). However, the reasons for which companies voluntarily contribute to society differ. In order to describe these motivations, Garriga & Melé (2004) proposed a framework of four dimensions into which CSR theories can be subdivided: the political, integrative, ethical and economic dimensions (Garriga & Melé, 2004; in Rodríguez & LeMaster, 2007). Within the political dimension, CSR includes all actions that enable companies to use their power and influence in society. In terms of this perspective, a company that deals inappropriately with its power and influence will damage society, and will subsequently lose its power (Rodríguez & LeMaster, 2007). Therefore, companies have to behave properly by investing in CSR activities.
The integrative theories, which concern processes rather than principles, relate to procedures to monitor and evaluate social demand in order to coordinate a socially responsible response (Rodríguez & LeMaster, 2007). In other words, this dimension is reactive rather than proactive. For example, within this dimension a firm’s CSR activities are used as a form of issue management. Issue management has been defined as the processes by which a firm identifies, evaluates and responds to social and political issues in the firm’s environment (Garriga & Melé, 2004). By participating in CSR activities, firms try to minimize potential environmental threats.
The ethical dimension relates to Freeman’s (1984) stakeholder theory, namely that a company has responsibilities to all its stakeholders rather than the shareholders only. Stakeholders are understood as “…any group or individual who can affect or is affected by the achievement of the organization’s objectives…” (Freeman, 1984; in Thijssens, Bollen, & Hassink, 2015). Within the ethical dimension, CSR is often linked to universal rights theories such as human rights, labour issues, and global environmental issues (Garriga & Melé, 2004).
However, the above cited quotation of former CEO Fitzgerald relates to the economic perspective: CSR is good for the business itself (Elliott, 2003). Undertaking CSR activities
adds value to the shareholders’ revenues (Garriga & Melé, 2004). In fact, nowadays, intangible assets such as corporate image, corporate status, and corporate reputation comprise 84% of the total market value of the 500 largest companies in the US (PWC, 2016). This is a big increase compared to 1985. Back then, only 34% of the total market value had intangible asset value (PWC, 2016). This highlights another reason for which companies have to advertise their CSR activities. Companies want to enhance and increase their intangible assets. Communicating information about CSR activities resembles CSR disclosure – the information about CSR activities that companies disclose in annual or other voluntary reports (Branco & Rodrigues, 2006; Gamerschlag et al., 2011).
Theories about what drives CSR disclosure
Since there are differing perspectives on CSR, there are differing theories about the drivers of CSR disclosure as well. As explained above, the ethical dimension is linked to the stakeholder theory. However, according to the literature, the stakeholder theory is not the only theory that leads to CSR disclosure. The legitimacy theory, which is aligned with the stakeholder theory, is said to be a driver of CSR disclosure as well. Lastly, the greenwashing phenomenon is considered an important factor in CSR disclosures. These three theories are discussed below, starting with the legitimacy theory.
Legitimacy theory
The legitimacy theory is based on the idea of a social contract between the organization and society (Gray, Kouhy, & Lavers, 1995). This requires companies to align corporate activities with the values and norms that exist in the society in which they operate, because the underlying assumption is that an organization has no inherent right to exist. The
social contract means that organizations are accorded this right by the society in which they operate only if their value system matches that of the society (Magness, 2006). Whether a company survives or grows depends on its ability to “deliver desirable ends” (Shocker & Sethi, 1973). In order to deliver these desirable ends, an organisation has to distribute economic, social, and/or political benefits to the groups from which it derives its power. A way to distribute these economic, social, and/or political benefits is by participating in CSR activities. However, because legitimacy theory is based on perception, simply participating in CSR activities is not enough. After all, actions that are not communicated to the public will not be effective in changing the stakeholders’ perception of the organization (Magness, 2006). That is where CSR disclosures come in.
For instance, CSR disclosures could be a tool in the process of attaining legitimacy when (1) there is a public misconception about the legitimacy of the organization, in which case CSR disclosures could correct this public misunderstanding of its performance, for instance by showing that its social performance has improved; (2) the management thinks the public has unrealistic expectations of its responsibilities, in which case CSR disclosures could adjust these public expectations of performance downwards; and (3) the organization has strengths that it wishes to emphasize in order to direct the public’s attention away from other aspects of its performance – such as a pollution problem, in which case CSR disclosures could deflect attention away from this issue (Lindblom, 1994; Magness, 2006). The latter is confirmed by Patten (1992). He found that threats to a firm’s legitimacy do entice firms to include more social responsibility information in its annual report. These functions of CSR disclosures suggest that such disclosures are integrated into companies’ public relations strategies, and are designed to offer reassurance and help to build a good image (Elkington, 1997; Pérez, 2015).
Stakeholder theory
According to multiple scholars (e.g. Lindblom, 1994; Magness, 2006; Scherer & Palazzo, 2011), a CSR disclosure could influence society’s perception of a company. Since CSR disclosures are often included in annual reports, the people to whom these reports are communicated have to be sought out carefully. In former times, annual reports were directed to the financial stakeholders of organizations: their creditors and shareholders (Magness, 2006). The driver of annual reports was to discharge stewardship obligations so as to ensure ongoing access to financial markets. Over the years, the group of stakeholders increased. Besides creditors and shareholders, suppliers, consumer associations, regulators, environmental groups, and the media were added to the list of stakeholders of organizations (Magness, 2006). After all, these groups of people all belong to the society of an organization and with whom the organization subsequently has a social contract. Freeman’s (1984) stakeholder theory came into life as a result of these increasing groups of stakeholders.
In light of the aforementioned assertion that the stakeholder theory emerged because of the idea that companies have responsibilities to all stakeholders instead of solely the creditors and shareholders, it is not for nothing that the stakeholder theory is part of Garriga and Melé's (2004) ethical dimension of CSR, since this theory is seen by many as normative (e.g. Clarkson, Li, Richardson, & Vasvari, 2008; Freeman, 1984; Thijssens et al., 2015). Concerning CSR disclosures, this normative stakeholder point of view implies that “many companies inform their stakeholders about the extent to which their respective interest have been addressed, because they feel such is the right thing to do” (Thijssens et al., 2015: 874). To illustrate this, research has shown that companies from stakeholder-oriented countries, such as Norway and Denmark, have more advanced CSR disclosures than companies from shareholder-oriented countries, such as the USA (Thijssens et al., 2015).
However, there are difficulties with the stakeholder perspective of CSR disclosure. Since there are no universal criteria of ethical behaviour, ethics scholars struggle to normatively assess the legitimacy of corporate activities (Scherer & Palazzo, 2011). The differing values, norms, and lifestyles of the global world we currently live in make it even more difficult to convincingly formulate and justify a set of universal criteria that can be applied across cultures. Thus, what is the right thing to do for global listed firms? Moreover, as Fitzgerald suggests (Elliott, 2003), just doing the right thing is not the (only) driver of CSR disclosures at all firms. Another factor that could drive CSR disclosures is the belief that it is instrumental in generating profit (Garriga & Melé, 2004).
Greenwashing
It is becoming increasingly clear that companies use CSR disclosures for various reasons. These reasons and perspectives have something in common: whether companies disclose their CSR activities for ethical, integrative, political or economic reasons, each perspective suggests that CSR disclosure is a result of political and social pressures (Walker & Wan, 2012). Some organizations can live up to what is expected from them. Often, these organizations take an active role in CSR. On the other hand, organizations that cannot cope with the pressure tend to take a symbolic active role in CSR. A symbolic strategy whereby “firms seek to gain or maintain legitimacy by disproportionately revealing beneficial performance indicators to obscure their less impressive overall performance” is called selective disclosure (Marquis & Toffel, 2012: 2). These firms conceal potentially negative information about their activities to appear more legitimate.
In this study, the focus is on greenwashing. This is a form of selective disclosure and refers to a firm’s environmental disclosure. It implies that companies engage in being symbolically vocal about environmental issues in their CSR reports without substantially
addressing them in action (Mahoney, Thorne, Cecil, & LaGore, 2013). Firms mislead their stakeholders about their actual environmental performance by revealing positive environmental attributes while concealing the negative ones. By doing this, firms try to manage their stakeholders’ perceptions and subsequently, increase their profit (Ramus & Montiel, 2005). Basically, greenwashing indicates that companies are not always honest and transparent about their CSR activities (Pope & Wæraas, 2016; Ramus & Montiel, 2005; Walker & Wan, 2012).
Recent research suggests that greenwashing is much rarer than is commonly perceived by stakeholders of firms and some scholars, for example Ramus and Montiel (2005; Pope & Wæraas, 2016). Yet, the question remains as to whether CSR disclosures provide a full and accurate picture of a firm’s CSR performance, or if companies selectively conceal and exaggerate information to cope with political and social pressures. In other words: do firms simultaneously talk the talk and walk the walk?
The influence of corporate reputation
Based on the theories discussed above, scholars have argued that CSR disclosure is part of the dialogue between an ethical company and its stakeholders that helps legitimise corporate behaviour (Pérez, 2015). As a result, CSR disclosures are often associated with a positive corporate reputation. However, these scholars have particularly focused on the CSR disclosure-reputation relationship, instead of the other way around.
For example, Birkey, Michelon, Patten, and Sankara (2016) suggest that CSR disclosures enhances a firm’s reputation, both internally and externally. Internally, the reputation is enhanced because of a positive impact on employee pride and motivation, and therefore the retention of talented employees. With regard to the firm’s external reputation,
CSR disclosures are said to strengthen relationships with external stakeholders, such as building credibility among customers. Several scholars confirm this. For example, Cho et al. (2012) suggest that because of its positive effect, CSR disclosure appears to be a tool for reputation risk management. This does not appear to be something positive. Referring back to greenwashing, many companies, particularly larger ones, tend to see CSR disclosures more as a part of a strategy rather than a way of providing meaningful information about their CSR performance (Cho et al., 2012; Pérez, 2015). Yet, credibility is found to be an important factor within CSR disclosures: a credible and qualitatively good CSR disclosure leads to a better reputation (Birkey et al., 2016).
On the other hand, Pérez (2015) argues that the findings of previous studies on the CSR disclosure-reputation relationship are unpersuasive. He suggests that this is because the literature is mostly theoretical; scholars have done too little empirical research to demonstrate the validity of their theoretical reasoning. Since the validity is generally not always adequately demonstrated, the findings of Birkey et al. (2016) could be turned around as well: good reputations might result in qualitatively good CSR disclosures.
The latter matches with a relatively old phenomenon found in social literature: the phenomenon of the self-fulfilling prophecy. The latter is “a false definition of the situation evoking a new behavior, which makes the originally false conception come true” (Merton, 1948: 195). So, basically, the self-fulfilling prophecy is a forecast, which results either directly or indirectly in the forecast coming true. With regard to human relations management, this could be illustrated by an example in which an employee is mistrusted by his employer and the employee subsequently adjusts his behavior to these expectations by cheating or stealing.
disclosure, it could be suggested that companies with a good reputation are expected to perform well in CSR. Because it is expected, according to the self-fulfilling prophecy, the company will perform well in CSR. This results in the company having more information about its CSR activities to disclose. Therefore, the content of the CSR disclosure of organizations could be assumed to increase when the reputation is good. Since several scholars positively link CSR disclosure to corporate reputation (e.g. Birkey et al., 2016; Cho et al., 2012; Pérez, 2015), the following hypothesis was formulated:
H1: Firm reputation has a positive effect on the content of the CSR disclosure.
On the one hand, there is the content of CSR disclosure. The volume of CSR disclosure is a different story. Aforementioned, the link between CSR performance and corporate reputation is made exhaustively in the current literature (e.g. Garriga & Melé, 2004; Ozdora Aksak, Ferguson, & Atakan Duman, 2016; Tang et al., 2012). The findings of these studies suggest that the better the CSR performance, the better the corporate reputation. To let people know that their corporate behavior is legitimized, scholars stress that CSR disclosure is part of the dialogue for a firm to let their stakeholders know how they are performing CSR-wise (Pérez, 2015).
In line with several prior studies, Cho et al. (2012) found that CSR performance was negatively related to the level of environmental disclosure. This means that worse-performing companies make more extensive disclosures, and use CSR disclosure as a strategic tool to attain legitimacy and to acquire a better image (Lindblom, 1994; Magness, 2006; Patten,
1992; Pérez, 2015). After all, when a firm’s legitimacy is threatened, firms do entice to include more CSR information in their annual report (Patten, 1992). Since CSR performance is negatively related to the level of environmental disclosure, and as a firm’s CSR performance is positively linked to its corporate reputation (Garriga & Melé, 2004; Ozdora Aksak et al., 2016; Tang et al., 2012), it can be assumed that firm reputation has a negative effect on the volume of CSR as well. Thus, firm reputation affects the volume of CSR disclosure differently than the content of CSR disclosure, as the following hypothesis suggests:
H2: Firm reputation has a negative effect on the volume of CSR disclosure.
The role of industry reputation
Reputation is a construct with multiple dimensions. Among others, the corporate reputation and industry reputation can be distinguished. Corporate reputation is often defined as the overall evaluation of a firm, relative to its competitors, by its stakeholders over time (Winn, MacDonald, & Zietsma, 2008). This dimension is the most researched of the two. On the other hand, industry reputation is the collective evaluation of an industry by its stakeholders and the general public (Winn et al., 2008). The evaluation is based on the judgments of the economic, social, and environmental impacts attributed to that industry over time. Given the intense public debates about the activities of certain industries due to environmental damage, billing policies, and controversial outsourcing policies, it is important to take the industry reputation of firms into account as well. In fact, the industry itself is said
to have an influence on CSR disclosure, and is often used as a control variable by examining the relationship between CSR disclosure and corporate reputation (Cho et al., 2012).
In terms of legitimacy theory, industries influence the corporate reputation in that some industries are socially more visible and more exposed to scrutiny (Branco & Rodrigues, 2006). Industries as a whole are also subjected to the same political and social pressure that was touched upon above with respect to individual firms. Some industries are considered to feel greater social and political pressure to participate more in CSR activities, especially industries with a larger potential environmental or social impact, such as the gas and alcohol industry. As a result, they are more likely to disclose these activities (Branco & Rodrigues, 2006). This corresponds to what was mentioned in the section on the legitimacy theory: CSR disclosures are used when organizations want to emphasize their strengths, and to direct the public’s attention away from negative aspects of their performance (Lindblom, 1994; Magness, 2006). In fact, several studies about CSR communication found strong evidence that industrial sector membership is related to an intensity of CSR communication (Adams, Hill, & Roberts, 1998; Kilian & Hennigs, 2014; Patten, 1992).
Previous research into “sin” industries, such as the tobacco and gambling businesses, has shown that for firms within those controversial industries CSR disclosures are a prominent part of their strategy to distract attention from their stigmatized activities, and to diminish the consequences of their controversial industry (Grougiou et al., 2016). This suggests that the reputation of these industries might have an influence on the relationship between corporate reputation and CSR disclosures.
Various scholars have touched upon managing reputational interdependence (Barnett & Hoffman, 2008; Winn et al., 2008). Findings suggest that in order to effectively manage corporate reputation, firms have to look beyond their individual reputations. They need to
performance of the industry (Barnett & Hoffman, 2008). Based on this inter-organizational interdependence, firms can figure out how they can manage it. This is important, because a threat to the legitimacy of an entire industry might result into a crisis (Winn et al. 2008). The industry as a whole might consequently lose access to the resources that members need for survival. In order to counter that threat, firms have to work together and put their competitive rivalry aside. Yet, the industry needs to be divided into subgroups (Winn et al., 2008). For example, firms within a controversial industry still differ in corporate reputation. There are always firms that do better than others in the perception of the public, whether the industry is controversial or not.
Because of the findings that industry reputation affects corporate reputation (Barnett & Hoffman, 2008; Winn et al., 2008) and CSR disclosure (Cho et al., 2012; Grougiou et al., 2016), in this study, industry reputation will act as a moderator. Reasoning from Merton's (1948) notion of the self-fulfilling prophecy, the assumption is made that industry reputation is likely to enhance the relationship between corporate reputation and the content of CSR disclosure. This implies that companies operating in a low controversial industry with a good reputation will be more likely to have CSR disclosures with more actual content than companies operating in more controversial industries with a good reputation. After all, generally, most of these companies are expected to behave even more according to their good reputation and low controversial industry. Their industry reputation might act as another factor to increase the willingness to live up to their stakeholders’ expectations. Subsequently, their CSR performance will be even better, whereafter they have more actual content to disclose. Thus, the following hypothesis will be tested:
H3: The positive effect of firm’s reputation on the content of CSR disclosure increases when firms are participating in a low
controversial industry compared to firms participating in a controversial industry.
Conversely, the industry’s reputation is likely to influence the relationship between corporate reputation and the volume of CSR disclosure as well. As noted above, the greenwashing theory and the legitimacy theory confirm this, (Lindblom, 1994; Magness, 2006; Ramus & Montiel, 2005), while several studies about CSR communication have found strong evidence that industrial sector membership is related to the intensity of CSR communication (Adams et al., 1998; Gamerschlag et al., 2011; Kilian & Hennigs, 2014; Patten, 1992). More specifically, research into industry reputation has found that firms within a controversial industry disclose more information (Grougiou et al., 2016).
Since the focus of this research is not only on “sin” or highly controversial industries, but also on low controversial industries, the findings will indicate whether industry reputation also affects firms with good reputations in low controversial industries. However, based on the literature including the greenwashing theory and the legitimacy theory, one can assume that it is also the other way around. After all, research suggests that issues scandals within an industry, affecting the industries’ reputation, also affects the individual firms within that particular industry (Winn et al., 2008). For example, the Volkswagen emission scandal has created uncertainty for the entire diesel car industry (Hotten, 2015). The social and political pressures on firms in the car industry, whether they have had a good reputation or not, have increased. In order to maintain their legitimacy, firms with good reputations, participating in a controversial industry are expected to disclose more information about their CSR activities compared to firms with a good reputation, participating in a low controversial industry. Hence, the following hypothesis will be examined:
H4: The negative effect of firm reputation on the volume of CSR disclosure is enhanced when the firm participating in a controversial industry compared to firms participating in a low controversial industry.
METHODOLOGY
In this section the research design of this study is explained. First, the data collection and sampling strategy will be described. Thereafter, the operationalization of the dependent, independent, moderating and control variables will be outlined. Lastly, the statistical model used to analyse the data is presented.
Data collection and sampling strategy
In order to examine the extent to which the corporate reputation of a firm affects the amount of information about CSR that firm discloses, a quantitative content analysis was conducted. In terms of this method textual material is classified, reducing it to more relevant, manageable chunks of data (Weber, 1990; in Russo-Spena, Tregua, & Chiara, 2016). Specifically, a thematic content analysis was conducted to categorize the content of CSR reports. This is a technique whereby different categories for analysis are identified in a predetermined coding scheme (e.g. Campopiano & Massis, 2015; Short & Palmer, 2003). Since the amount of CSR disclosure has to be compared among organizations, and as the amount of CSR disclosure is found in annual reports of organizations in 2016, this method fitted best. Moreover, content analysis was preferred over secondary data analysis because of the lack of information available in databases about CSR disclosure. Furthermore, content
analysis is used by many other CSR studies to measure the extent of CSR disclosure (e.g. Campbell, 2004; Campopiano & Massis, 2015; Gray, Javad, Power, & Sinclair, 2001; Russo-Spena et al., 2016).
To measure the amount of CSR disclosure and how this variable is affected by corporate and industry reputation, the annual and voluntary reports of 60 global firms were analysed. The analysed firms were selected from the Fortune list of the World’s Most Admired Companies (FMAC) in 2015 (Fortune, 2015), since the Fortune listing was used to determine the corporate reputation, which will be explained below. The companies available in the database were among the largest U.S. companies ranked by revenue, along with non-U.S. companies in Fortune’s Global 500 database that had revenues of $10 billion or more in 2015 (Fortune, 2015). By using the reputation ratings of 2015, a one-year lag was created. As a result, the true effect of the corporate reputation on CSR disclosure could be measured.
A random sampling strategy was applied to select 70 companies out of the 320 companies in the Fortune database. The 320 companies were given a number ranging from 1-320. Subsequently, 70 numbers were selected by a randomizer. Thus, each company within the database had the same chance of being selected. However, in order for a firm to be included in the sample, the following requirements had to be met: (1) the firm had to have a stand-alone CSR report or an annual report for 2016 available for download and (2) the control data was available. When this was not the case, a new number was searched via the randomizer.
To ensure the reliability of the coded data (Milne & Adler, 1999), two coders performed the coding of the same disclosures independently. The differences that arose between the codes of the coders were re-analyzed, whereafter the differences were resolved.
Variables and measures
Dependent variables
Content of CSR disclosure: The environmental disclosure index of Clarkson, Li,
Richardson, & Vasvari (2008; Appendix) was used to assess the dependent variable CSR disclosure. Together with an expert in the field of environmental reporting, Clarkson et al. (2008) developed an index to measure the content of CSR disclosure. The index that they developed contains 45 disclosure measures. The Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) guidelines are the basis for these 45 items: each item is referenced to a corresponding section in the GRI guidelines. This results in seven sections of 29 hard objective disclosure measures and 16 soft subjective disclosure measures.
As can be seen in Appendix A, the index measures different issues. For example, the first category is the governance structure and management systems (category A1). This concerns, for instance, whether the executives’ compensation is linked to environmental performance. Besides the governance structure and management systems, the index looks at the credibility of the CSR report (category A2), and environmental performance indicators (category A3). The last category of the hard disclosure items is environmental spending (category A4). This contains items such as the amount spent on fines related to environmental issues. The soft disclosure items and more subjective measures of both indexes contain the categories of meeting the vision and strategy claims (category B1), the firm’s environmental profile (category B2), and the environmental initiatives of the firm (category B3).
Volume of CSR disclosure: As seen in the literature review, in addition to the content
of CSR disclosure, CSR disclosure can be measured by its volume (e.g. Gray et al., 1995; Guthrie & Parker, 1989), for example by the number of words, sentences, pages or disclosure items. In this study, the volume of CSR disclosure was measured by the number of pages of the CSR disclosures.
Independent variable
Corporate reputation: The FMAC list (Fortune, 2015) was used to analyse the
corporate reputation, since this is the most common way to measure corporate reputation in current organizational strategy research (Basdeo et al., 2006, Fryxell and Wang, 1994; in Walker, 2010). In the past, there was some criticism about the validity using FMAC to measure companies’ reputations (Fryxell & Wang, 1994). However, after reassessing Fortune’s reputation data, research has shown that the FMAC list “can continue to be a useful and valid source of data to explore the considerable variance in organizational reputation that remains unexplained” (Flanagan, O’Shaughnessy, & Palmer, 2011: 3).
Global management consulting firm Korn Ferry Hay Group conducts the research for the FMAC list by asking executives, directors and analysts to rate enterprises on nine criteria, from investment value, and quality of management and products to innovation and ability to attract talent. According to Walker (2010), the use of a measure based on the perceptions of stakeholders is appropriate, since it is consistent with the perceptual nature of the concept.
Within the Fortune reputation data, three types of reputation ratings are distinguished: (1) the reputation ranking within the industry, (2) the overall reputation score, and (3) the ranking within Fortune’s 50 All-Stars. The latter is a list made up of companies that ranked in the top 25% in the surveys of 2015, plus those that finished in the top 20% of their industry (Fortune, 2015). Since the overall reputation score is the one score that is available for every selected company and applicable for comparison, this is how the corporate reputation was measured.
Moderating variable
al., 2016), the industry reputation was measured by the level of controversy related to the industry. To distinguish controversial industries from low controversial industries, dummy variables were used. In general, controversial industries are known as those related to manufacturing, licensing, trading, funding and ownership of alcohol, firearms, gambling, military, nuclear power, and tobacco activities (Gamerschlag et al., 2011). Industries engaged in activities that are more likely to affect the environment are classified as inherently controversial as well. Previous authors classify the chemical and pharmaceutical, petroleum, transport (including automobile and airline), utility and resource industries, and the steel industry as controversial industries (Cai, Wilson, & Drake, 2000; Hasseldine, Salama, & Toms, 2005; Kilian & Hennigs, 2014).
In this paper, the transport industry (N = 12), the power industry, including gas utilities (N = 10), and the natural resources industry (N = 6) are considered to be highly controversial industries (N = 28). On the other hand, the computers and communication industry (N = 9), the industries of consumer products (N = 8), the financial industry (N = 6), the media and entertainment industry (N = 9), and the stores and distributors (N = 10) are considered low controversial industries (N = 42), because they are based on low controversial products. However, note that this does not mean that there are no controversies in those industries over time; for example, when a scandal regarding child labour occurs. When an industry is controversial, the industry is coded as 0, while a low controversial industry – or an industry with a good reputation – is coded as 1.
Control variables
Profitability: According to scholars, companies with an excellent financial
performance are more likely to disclose more about their CSR activities than firms that perform less well financially (Da Silva Monteiro & Aibar-Guzmán, 2010; Gamerschlag et al.,
2011). In order to measure solely the effect of corporate reputation and industry reputation on CSR disclosure, this variable needed to be controlled for. The profitability was measured as the total profit of the company in 2016.
Firm size: Prior studies found significant associations between the level of CSR
disclosure and the size of the organization (Brammer & Pavelin, 2006; Cho et al., 2012; Gray et al., 1995). To prevent firm size from acting as an intervening variable, the size of the organization was controlled for as well. The firm size was measured by the number of employees, which is an appropriate measure of overall firm size in a given industry (Audia & Greve, 2006).
Country: Since prior studies found significant differences in CSR disclosure among
countries (Ringov & Zollo, 2007; Thijssens et al., 2015), the country the industries’ HQ operates in was also controlled for. Researchers found that companies from stakeholder-oriented countries, such as Denmark and Norway, had more advanced CSR disclosure than companies from shareholder-oriented countries, such as the US (Thijssens et al., 2015). The countries were distinguished by the USA (0) on the one hand (N = 48), and countries in Europe, Canada and Japan (1) on the other hand (N = 22), since the latter are more stakeholder-oriented countries.
Statistical procedure
In order to analyse the data and measure the first two hypotheses, single linear regression analyses were performed via SPSS. The first regression model indicates whether and how much corporate reputation predicts the content of CSR disclosure, controlled by profitability, firm size and country. The second model shows the extent to which corporate
reputation predicts the volume of CSR disclosure, controlled by profitability, firm size and country.
For the third and fourth hypotheses, with industry reputation as the moderator, two regression analyses were conducted via Hayes' (2013) PROCESS program in SPSS, since this program is said to be an easy way to measure a moderation effect. Before calculating in PROCESS, the independent, dependent, moderating and control variables were standardized, to ensure that there would be no multicollinearity.
RESULTS
In this section the results of this research are reported. First, the descriptive statistics for the variables of the study are presented to provide an overview of the data. Subsequently, a correlation analysis is performed and the significant correlations are noted. Finally, several regression analyses are carried out to test the aforementioned hypotheses.
Descriptive results and correlation analysis
To start off the result section, table 1 shows the correlations, means and standard deviations of the seven central variables of this paper. The correlations were investigated using Pearson’s product-moment correlation coefficient (r). Firstly, the correlations between the dependent variables, and between the dependent variables and the control variables, are presented. Subsequently, the correlations between the dependent variable and the independent and moderating variable are discussed.
There were three significant correlations between the dependent variables and the control variables. First of all, there was a strong, positive correlation between the dependent
variables, namely the content of CSR disclosure and the volume of CSR disclosure, r = .54, p < .01. This implies that the more content regarding CSR activities is disclosed, the greater the volume of CSR disclosure tends to be.
Secondly, the content of CSR disclosure has a medium positive correlation with the profitability of the firm, r = .25, p = .04. This means that when a firm discloses much content about CSR, the firm usually has a high profitability as well. Moreover, the content of CSR disclosure has a medium positive correlation with the country a firm operates in, r = .39, p < .01. In other words, when a company discloses much content about CSR, the firm is usually based in a stakeholder-oriented country. The latter is also true for the volume of CSR disclosure. Since there is also a medium positive correlation between the volume of CSR disclosure and the country, r = .30, p = .01, it can be assumed that the bigger the volume of CSR disclosure, the more likely it is that the companies’ HQ is located in a stakeholder-oriented country.
Furthermore, no significant correlation was found between the corporate reputation and the content of CSR disclosure, r = .16, p = .19, and volume of CSR disclosure, r = -.16, p = .19. Thus, although it is interesting to see that there is a negative correlation between corporate reputation and the volume of CSR disclosure, and a positive correlation between corporate reputation and the content of CSR disclosure, no representative conclusions can be drawn based on these results. However, there is a significant correlation between the content of CSR disclosure and the moderating variable industry reputation, r = -.34, p < .01. This medium negative correlation implies that the content of CSR disclosure tends to be higher for organizations operating in a controversial industry. For the full set of correlations, please refer to table 1.
Table 1 – Means, Standard Deviations, Correlations Variables Mean S.D. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1. Content of CSR disclosure 31.96 19.83 (.96) 2. Volume of CSR disclosure 59.41 56.31 .54** - 3. Corporate reputation 6.76 .83 .16 -.14 - 4. Industry reputation .60 .50 -.34** -.17 -.07 - 5. Profitability 5,508 b 7,551 b .25* .16 .33** .17 - 6. Firm size 160.775 286.817 .14 .21 .03 .06 .23 - 7. Country .31 .47 .39** .30* -.29* -.39** .01 .03 -
**. Correlation is significant at the .01 level (2-tailed). *. Correlation is significant at the .05 level (2-tailed).
Regression results
In order to measure the first hypothesis, namely that the higher the firm’s reputation, the greater the content of CSR disclosure, a hierarchical single regression analysis was performed (see table 2). The regression analysis was hierarchical because the control variables profitability, firm size and country were taken into account.
In the first model, three predictors were entered: profitability, firm size, and country. This model was statistically significant, F (3, 69) = 6.11; p < .01, and explained 21.7% of the variance in the content of CSR disclosure. After entry of the corporate reputation in the second model, the total variance explained by the statistically significant model as a whole was 26.3%, F (4, 69) = 5.78; p < .01. The introduction of the corporate reputation explained an additional 4.6% variance in the content of CSR disclosure after controlling for profitability, firm size, and country (R2 Change = .046). The standardized coefficient of corporate reputation in model 2 suggests that corporate reputation is a significant, positive predictor of the content of CSR disclosure, t = 2.01, p = .049. Hence, hypothesis 1 is
supported, since the higher the corporate reputation of a firm, the more content the firm discloses about CSR. However, the true effect is not that strong: when a firm’s corporate reputation increases by one, the content of CSR disclosure increases by 0.24.
Table 2 – Linear regression model for content of CSR disclosure
Model 1 Model 2
Variables Control SE Main SE
Profitability .23* .00 .14 .00 Firm size .08 .00 .09 .00 Country .39 4.53 .46 4.65 Corporate reputation .24* 2.89 Model F 6.11** 5.78** R2 .217 .263
**. Correlation is significant at the .01 level (2-tailed). *. Correlation is significant at the .05 level (2-tailed).
Hypothesis 2, whether the firm’s reputation predicts the volume of CSR disclosure, was tested by the same hierarchical single regression analysis, except for the dependent variable. The latter was changed from the content of CSR disclosure to the volume of CSR disclosure. The results are summarized in table 3 below.
Again, in the first step of this hierarchical single regression analysis, three predictors were entered into the third model: profitability, firm size, and country. This model was statistically significant, F (3, 69) = 3.63; p = .017, and explained 14.2% of the variance in the volume of CSR disclosure. After entry of the corporate reputation in the fourth model, the total variance explained by the model as a whole increased to 15.9%, F (4, 69) = 3.06, p =
in the volume of CSR disclosure after controlling for profitability, firm size, and country (R2 Change = .017). However, in this model, corporate reputation was not found to be a significant predictor of the volume of CSR disclosure, t = -1.15, p = .26. Thus, even though the negative beta suggests that the volume of CSR disclosure decreases when the corporate reputation increases, there is no significant support for hypothesis 2 yet.
Table 3 – Linear regression model for volume of CSR disclosure
Model 3 Model 4
Variables Control SE Main SE
Profitability .12 .00 .17 .00 Firm size .17 .00 .17 .00 Country .30 13.69 .25* 14.34 Corporate reputation -.15 8.89 Model F 3.63* 3.06* R2 .142 .159
*. Correlation is significant at the .05 level (2-tailed).
Hayes' (2013) simple moderating regression analysis was performed to measure the moderating effect of industry reputation on the relationship between corporate reputation and CSR disclosure (see table 4). Concerning the third hypothesis, whether industry reputation has a positive effect on the relationship between corporate reputation and the content of CSR disclosure, the results show that the model with the control variables profitability, firm size and country was significant, F (6, 63) = 6.65, p < .001. Besides that, it explains an additional 34.2% of variance in the content of CSR disclosure. Also both, corporate reputation and industry reputation have significant standardized effects on the content of CSR disclosure,
respectively B* = .42, p = .019, and B* = -.58, p = .032. The betas imply that when the corporate reputation is high, the content of CSR disclosure increases as well, under the constant condition of industry reputation, profitability, firm size and country. Looking solely at the beta of the industry’s reputation, the negative beta shows that when a firm operates in a low controversial industry, the content of CSR disclosure decreases under a constant condition of corporate reputation, profitability, firm size and country, which is not in line with the expectations informed by the literature review. Besides, more importantly, the moderating effect of B* = -.28, p = .214 was not significant. Therefore, there is no evidence to support hypothesis 3.
For the effects on the volume of CSR disclosure, the results are more or less the same. The overall model is significant: F (6, 63) = 2.82, p = .017. The model explains an additional of 15.9% of the variance in the volume of CSR disclosure. Yet the difference is that only the industry reputation has a significant beta: B* = -.57, p = .032. This standardized coefficient implies that firms operating in low controversial industries have a less voluminous CSR disclosures, which is in line with the findings of scholars (Lindblom, 1994; Magness, 2006; Ramus & Montiel, 2005). However, in this model the moderating effect is also not significant: B* = -.29, p = .30. Therefore, the moderating findings cannot be interpreted. Hence, hypothesis 4 cannot be confirmed.
Table 4 – Industry reputation as moderator
Content of CSR disclosure
Volume of CSR disclosure
Model 5 Model 6
Variables Main SE Main SE
Profitability .20 .12 .22 .00
Country .35** .11 .15 14.34 Corporate reputation .42* .19 -.16 .23 Industry reputation -.58* .24 -.57* .26 Moderating effect -.28 .22 -.29 .28 Model F 6.65** 2.82* R2 .342 .159
R2 Increase due to moderator .017 .017
**. Correlation is significant at the .01 level (2-tailed). *. Correlation is significant at the .05 level (2-tailed).
DISCUSSION
In this study the influence of a firm’s corporate reputation on its CSR disclosure, moderated by the industry reputation, was researched. Prior research indicated that the relationship between CSR disclosure and corporate reputation was significant and important (e.g. Birkey et al., 2016; Cho et al., 2012; Clarke & Gibson-Sweet, 1999; Pérez, 2015). However, most of these studies were investigations of the influence of CSR disclosure on corporate reputation, instead of the other way around. Yet the concept of the influence of corporate reputation on CSR disclosure is also relevant. Many researchers have suggested that CSR disclosure could function as a strategic tool for companies to enhance their corporate reputation (Cho et al., 2012; Lindblom, 1994; Magness, 2006; Pérez, 2015). Besides, this research distinguishes itself by introducing a rare moderator, which is mostly used as a control variable. By adding the moderator industry reputation, the relationship has become even more interesting. Because companies with bad reputations in controversial industries could use CSR disclosures as a strategic tool by manipulating their CSR disclosures, the decisions of several stakeholders, such as investors and customers, could be influenced. Due to the lack of research in the particular direction of the relationship, this
research was much needed. As a result, this study has laid the foundation on this matter by analyzing the environmental disclosures of 70 global listed companies.
Based on this study, the most important conclusion that can be drawn is that corporate reputation predicts the content and volume of CSR disclosures. The findings suggest that the higher the corporate reputation, the higher the content of CSR disclosure. This is in line with the notion of the self-fulfilling prophecy, explained in the literature review (Merton, 1948). Firms with good reputations are expected to have good CSR performance and high quality CSR disclosures. Based on this study, it can be stated that organizations with good reputations indeed act as they are supposed to by having a high level of content of CSR disclosure. Since CSR disclosure also affects corporate reputations (Cho et al., 2012; Clarke & Gibson-Sweet, 1999), one could say that the two variables are mutually influential. Thus, the corporate reputation reflects the content of a firm’s CSR disclosure and the other way around. Hence, stakeholders such as investors or other firms wanting alliances can base their decisions concerning corporate reputation on the CSR disclosures, especially since the actual CSR performance is positively linked to corporate reputation (Garriga & Melé, 2004; Ozdora Aksak et al., 2016; Tang et al., 2012) and CSR disclosure (Gamerschlag et al., 2011; Michelon, Pilonato, & Ricceri, 2015) as well.
There are no hard statements to be made concerning the volume of CSR disclosure, since corporate reputation was not a significant predictor. However, the negative beta shows that a high corporate reputation could indeed imply that the volume of CSR disclosure decreases if the variable is a significant predictor. As this is in line with expectations, it would be interesting to take a closer look with, for example, a bigger sample size, because this could stress the importance for stakeholders in companies to be alert to the greenwashing phenomenon.
Moreover, this research has shown that industry reputation affects the content and volume of CSR disclosures as well. The results suggest that industry reputation significantly predicts CSR disclosure, both in terms of content and volume. However in contrast with the expectations and the notion of self-fulfilling prophecy (Merton, 1948), companies in low controversial industries have a decrease in the content of CSR disclosure. An explanation for this opposite direction could be that the differences between the controversial industries and the low controversial industries were too low due to the sample size and relatively high corporate reputations (see the limitations below). This limitation could also be the reason for the non-significant moderating effect. Even though the moderating effect on both the content and volume of CSR disclosure was not significant, the trend suggests that for companies with high reputations in low controversial industries, the content of CSR disclosure decreases. Future research is needed to determine whether these results could be significant. Other suggestions for future research are discussed in the coming section, along with the limitations of this study.
Limitations and suggestions for future research
Although this research has laid the foundations for demonstrating that corporate reputation is a driver of CSR disclosure, there are a couple limitations that need to be discussed. Firstly, as indicated above, the sample size of only 70 global listed firms is a bit small. This could be the reason for which the findings are not statically significant. Moreover, the global listed companies used, were companies that had a relatively high corporate reputation, which is the reason for which they appeared in Fortune’s WMAC database (Fortune, 2015). As a result, the scores of the corporate reputation are very close to one another. This made it harder to find significant results concerning industry reputation moderating the corporate reputation-CSR disclosure relationship. In future research, a larger
sample, including firms that are not even considered to be selected in Fortune’s WMAC list, or more controversial firms, would be preferred.
Furthermore, in this study only the environmental dimension of CSR disclosure was researched. By excluding the social dimension, a distorted picture could have arisen. After all, some organizations invest more time and money in social responsibility than environmental responsibility. For example, firms such as Facebook are not often associated with a bad environmental performance, since most of its activities happen online. As a result, they might invest more in their social performance and social disclosure. Since most research is focused on either the environmental disclosures of companies or the social disclosures of companies, it might be interesting for future research to investigate both dimensions of CSR disclosures. This could improve the extensiveness and completeness of measuring the CSR disclosures, and in turn contribute to a better understanding in this research field.
Moreover, since this area is often associated with being digital, online and ‘always on’, it could be debated whether standalone environmental reports are as relevant as they were in the past. A new perspective on CSR disclosure could emerge by researching what kind of CSR information firms disclose on their websites and via social media. After all, the online activity of companies has increased enormously compared to a couple of years ago. Since many consumers and investors follow these firms online, it could be interesting to determine whether and how these kinds of disclosures differ from the traditional disclosures in annual or standalone reports.
Nevertheless, this research contributes to the existing literature by turning the relationship between reputation and CSR around. Moreover, it broadens knowledge about what drives CSR disclosure, and how CSR disclosures might be used as a strategic tool. Therefore, this research is another step forward in the direction of investigating whether
REFERENCES
Adams, C. A., Hill, W.-Y., & Roberts, C. (1998). Corporate social reporting practices in western Europe: Legitimating corporate behaviour? The British Accounting Review,
30(1), 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1006/bare.1997.0060
Aguilera, R. V., Rupp, D. E., Williams, C. A., & Ganapathi, J. (2007). Putting the S back in corporate social responsibility: A multilevel theory of social change in organizations.
Academy of Management Review, 32(3), 836–863.
https://doi.org/10.5465/AMR.2007.25275678
Audia, P. G., & Greve, H. R. (2006). Less likely to fail: Low performance, firm size, and factory expansion in the shipbuilding industry. Management Science, 52(1), 83–94. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.1050.0446
Bagnoli, M., & Watts, S. G. (2016). Voluntary assurance of voluntary CSR disclosure.
Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, n/a-n/a.
https://doi.org/10.1111/jems.12171
Barnett, M. L., & Hoffman, A. J. (2008). Beyond corporate reputation: Managing reputational interdependence. Corporate Reputation Review, 11(1), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1057/crr.2008.2
Birkey, R. N., Michelon, G., Patten, D. M., & Sankara, J. (2016). Does assurance on CSR reporting enhance environmental reputation? An examination in the U.S. context.
Accounting Forum, 40(3), 143–152. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.accfor.2016.07.001
Brammer, S., & Pavelin, S. (2006). Voluntary environmental disclosures by large uk companies. Journal of Business Finance & Accounting, 33(7–8), 1168–1188. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-5957.2006.00598.x
Branco, M. C., & Rodrigues, L. L. (2006). Communication of corporate social responsibility by Portuguese banks: A legitimacy theory perspective. Corporate Communications:
An International Journal, 11(3), 232–248.
https://doi.org/10.1108/13563280610680821
Brown-Liburd, H., Cohen, J., & Zamora, V. L. (2016). CSR disclosure items used as fairness heuristics in the investment decision. Journal of Business Ethics, 1–15.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-016-3307-3
Cai, D., Wilson, S., & Drake, L. (2000). Culture in the context of intercultural negotiation.
Human Communication Research, 26(4), 591–617.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2958.2000.tb00770.x
Campbell, D. (2004). A longitudinal and cross-sectional analysis of environmental disclosure in UK companies—a research note. The British Accounting Review, 36(1), 107–117. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bar.2003.09.001
Campopiano, G., & Massis, A. D. (2015). Corporate social responsibility reporting: A content analysis in family and non-family firms. Journal of Business Ethics, 129(3), 511–534. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-014-2174-z
Carroll, A. B. (1999). Corporate social responsibility: Evolution of a definitional construct.
Business & Society, 38(3), 268–295. https://doi.org/10.1177/000765039903800303
Cho, C. H., Guidry, R. P., Hageman, A. M., & Patten, D. M. (2012). Do actions speak louder than words? An empirical investigation of corporate environmental reputation.
Accounting, Organizations and Society, 37(1), 14–25.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aos.2011.12.001
Cho, C. H., Michelon, G., Patten, D. M., & Roberts, R. W. (2015). CSR disclosure: The more things change…? Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 28(1), 14–35. https://doi.org/10.1108/AAAJ-12-2013-1549
Clarke, J., & Gibson-Sweet, M. (1999). The use of corporate social disclosures in the management of reputation and legitimacy: A cross sectoral analysis of UK top 100
companies. Business Ethics: A European Review, 8(1), 5–13. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8608.00120
Clarkson, P. M., Li, Y., Richardson, G. D., & Vasvari, F. P. (2008). Revisiting the relation between environmental performance and environmental disclosure: An empirical analysis. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 33(4–5), 303–327.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aos.2007.05.003
Crane, A., & Matten, D. (2007). Corporate social responsibility as a field of scholarship (SSRN Scholarly Paper No. ID 1865404). Rochester, NY: Social Science Research Network. Retrieved from https://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=1865404
da Silva Monteiro, S. M., & Aibar-Guzmán, B. (2010). Determinants of environmental disclosure in the annual reports of large companies operating in Portugal. Corporate
Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 17(4), 185–204.
https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.197
De Bakker, F. G. A., Groenewegen, P., & Den Hond, F. (2005). A bibliometric analysis of 30 years of research and theory on corporate social responsibility and corporate social performance. Business & Society, 44(3), 283–317.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0007650305278086
Elkington, J. (1997). Cannibals with forks: The triple bottom line of 21st century business. Oxford: Capstone. Retrieved from
http://appli6.hec.fr/amo/Public/Files/Docs/148_en.pdf
Elliott, L. (2003, July 5). Cleaning agent. The Guardian. Retrieved from https://www.theguardian.com/business/2003/jul/05/unilever1
Flanagan, D. J., O’Shaughnessy, K. C., & Palmer, T. B. (2011). Re-assessing the relationship between the fortune reputation data and financial performance: Overwhelming
influence or just a part of the puzzle? Corporate Reputation Review, 14(1), 3–14. https://doi.org/10.1057/crr.2011.4
Font, X., Walmsley, A., Cogotti, S., McCombes, L., & Häusler, N. (2012). Corporate social responsibility: The disclosure-performance gap. Tourism Management, 33(6), 1544– 1553.
Fortune. (2015). The World’s Most Admired Companies for 2015. Retrieved April 19, 2017, from http://fortune.com/worlds-most-admired-companies/2015/
Freeman, R. E. (1984). Strategic management: A stakeholder approach. Boston: Pitman. Retrieved from
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228320877_A_Stakeholder_Approach_to_S trategic_Management
Fryxell, G. E., & Wang, J. (1994). The Fortune corporate “reputation” index: Reputation for what? Journal of Management, 20(1), 1–14.
Gamerschlag, R., Möller, K., & Verbeeten, F. (2011). Determinants of voluntary CSR disclosure: Emperical evidence from Germany. Review of Managerial Science, 5(2– 3), 233–262. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11846-010-0052-3
Garriga, E., & Melé, D. (2004). Corporate social responsibility theories: Mapping the territory. Journal of Business Ethics, 53(1–2), 51–71.
https://doi.org/10.1023/B:BUSI.0000039399.90587.34
Gray, R., Javad, M., Power, D. M., & Sinclair, C. D. (2001). Social and environmental disclosure and corporate characteristics: A research note and extension. Journal of
Business Finance & Accounting, 28(3–4), 327–356.
https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-5957.00376
Gray, R., Kouhy, R., & Lavers, S. (1995). Corporate social and environmental reporting: A review of the literature and a longitudinal study of UK disclosure. Accounting,
