Some Evidence on Executives’ views of Corporate Social Responsibility

Social and Environmental Reporting and Auditing in Indonesia: Maintaining Organizational Legitimacy?

“…They serve as a means for constructing, sustaining, and legitimizing economic and political arrangements, institutions, and ideological themes which contribute to the company's private interests. Woodward et al (2001) propose that because managers tend to manipulate social and environmental disclosures for their own interest, it is crucial that the disclosures should be audited by independent parties and should be made mandatory, particularly for companies with activities that are considered socially and environmentally sensitive. Without mandatory requirement, management will only disclose social and environmental issues if they perceive that the benefits of disclosing such information outweigh the cost of producing and disclosing that information.…”

“…While legitimacy is considered to be a resource on which a company is dependent for survival (Dowling and Pfeffer 1975), it is also a resource that the company can manipulate for its own interest (Woodward et al 2001). For example, a company might manipulate information provided to its stakeholders, particularly important stakeholders such as governments, creditors or social and environmental interest groups, to gain their support and approval or to distract their opposition and disapproval (Ullman 1985).…”

CSR Policies: Effects on Labour Productivity in Spanish Micro and Small Manufacturing Companies

“…Although there are examples of cost structure improvements due to CSR measures (Woodward et al 2001), there is also evidence of how the cost-benefit relationship of CSR measures can be negative in certain circumstances. Welford (2003) argued that only a few CSR measures might reduce costs, and these measures can be related to improved efficiency in operational processes and quality controls.…”

An Evaluation of Management Perspectives of Sustainability Reporting in the Nigerian Oil Industry

“…Field data must therefore engage in intense rigor and detailed reporting to ensure that the target audience can adjudge the quality and reliability of the study (McKinnon, 1988;Woodward et al, 2001;O'Dwyer, 2002) For the purpose of this analysis, the four companies would be referred to as companies A, B, C and D. The various respondents from each company such as company A, would be referred to as respondent A1, A2, A3, A4 and A5; respondents from company B would be referred to as respondent B1, B2, B3, B4 and B5; respondents from company C will referred to as C1, C2, C3, C4 and C5 and respondents from company D will be referred to as D1, D2 D3, D4 and D5. Adams and Frost (2008) follow a similar labelling technique and methodology.…”

“…A sustainability report is a medium through which management relays the social, environmental and economic impact of their operations to the immediate and wider community in which the impact of its operations is felt. Woodward et al (2001) and O'Dwyer (2002) argue that managers preparing such reports do so with the intention of conveying a message to the public in an attempt to legitimize the operations of the organization by elaborating broadly on its social and environmental impact. In seeking legitimacy from the public perception of its reporting mechanism, O'Dwyer (2003) illustrates that managers attempt to maintain a balance between the social responsibility of the business and its obligation to its shareholders in a bid to maximise their corporate wealth.…”