The Supply of Corporate Social Responsibility Disclosures Among U.S. Firms

Holder‐Webb, Lori; Cohen, Jeffrey P.; Nath, Leda; Wood, David А.

doi:10.2139/ssrn.970330

Cited by 138 publications

(216 citation statements)

References 49 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

196

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Source: Based on categories identified by Gray et al, 1995b;Haniffa and Cooke, 2005;Branco and Rodrigues, 2006;Scholtens, 2008;Holder-Webb et al, 2009. ii We also employ OLS regressions with robust standard errors to test the sensitivity of the estimated regression results.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Although reliability testing cannot provide full assurance of scoring objectivity (Linsley, Shrives and Crumpton, 2006), Kripendroff's alpha is commonly used to assess the level of agreement between two or more coders (Newson and Deggan, 2002;Hasseldine et al, 2005;Holder-Webb et al, 2009). …”

Section: Measuring Csr Disclosurementioning

confidence: 99%

“…Previous studies tend to suggest that alpha values of 75% or above are considered generally acceptable (Hasseldine et al, 2005;Holder-Webb et al, 2009). …”

Section: Measuring Csr Disclosurementioning

confidence: 99%

“…Therefore, firm size is likely to influence the amount of CSR disclosure needed to address the concerns of various stakeholder groups (Branco and Rodrigues, 2006). As our sample consists of large US national commercial banks, the study uses a relative rather than absolute measure to control for bank size (De Haan and Poghosyan, 2012;Holder-Webb et al, 2009). …”

Section: Control Variablesmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Corporate Governance and Corporate Social Responsibility Disclosure: Evidence from the US Banking Sector

et al. 2013

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The nal publication is available at Springer via http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10551-013-1929-2.Additional information: Use policyThe full-text may be used and/or reproduced, and given to third parties in any format or medium, without prior permission or charge, for personal research or study, educational, or not-for-pro t purposes provided that:• a full bibliographic reference is made to the original source • a link is made to the metadata record in DRO • the full-text is not changed in any way The full-text must not be sold in any format or medium without the formal permission of the copyright holders.Please consult the full DRO policy for further details. interests. Contrary to our expectations, CEO duality also impacts positively on CSR disclosure. From an agency-theoretical viewpoint, this suggests that powerful CEOs may promote transparency about banks' CSR activities for their private benefits. While this could indicate that powerful CEOs are under particular pressure to appease stakeholders' concerns that they might abuse their power by providing a high degree of CSR disclosure, it could also be a sign of managerial risk aversion or managers' private reputational concerns.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Measuring Csr Disclosurementioning

confidence: 99%

“…Previous studies tend to suggest that alpha values of 75% or above are considered generally acceptable (Hasseldine et al, 2005;Holder-Webb et al, 2009). …”

Section: Measuring Csr Disclosurementioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Control Variablesmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Corporate Governance and Corporate Social Responsibility Disclosure: Evidence from the US Banking Sector

et al. 2013

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Hence, a sample was taken that, in line with prior research, provided an equal spread over two country types: shareholder versus stakeholder-oriented countries (Holder-Webb et al 2008;Simnett et al 2009;Smith et al 2005). To accomplish this, we first selected per country type the corresponding countries with sufficient numbers of company observations, resulting in the US, the UK, Australia, Canada, and Hong Kong for shareholderoriented, and Germany, France, Japan, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, and The Netherlands for stakeholder-oriented countries.…”

Section: Research Methods Samplementioning

confidence: 99%

Secondary Stakeholder Influence on CSR Disclosure: An Application of Stakeholder Salience Theory

2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The aim of this study is to analyse how secondary stakeholders influence managerial decision-making on Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) disclosure. Based on stakeholder salience theory, we empirically investigate whether differences in environmental disclosure among companies are systematically related to differences in the level of power, urgency and legitimacy of the environmental non-governmental organisations (NGOs) with which these companies are confronted. Using proprietary archival data for an international sample of 199 large companies, our results suggest that differences in environmental disclosures between companies are mainly associated with differences between their environmental stakeholders' legitimacy. The effects of power and urgency are of an indirect nature, as they are mediated by legitimacy. This study improves our understanding of CSR disclosure by demonstrating that, next to the welldocumented effect of company characteristics, stakeholder characteristics are also important. Besides, it provides scarce empirical evidence that not only primary stakeholders, but also secondary stakeholders are influential with regards to management decision-making. And more specifically, it offers insight into why some stakeholder groups are better able to influence disclosure decisions than other. The results also have important practical implications for managers of both environmental NGOs and large companies. For managers of environmental NGOs the results provide evidence of the most successful tactics for having their environmental information demands satisfied by companies. For company management the results provide insights into the most important stakeholder characteristics, on the basis of which they may develop strategies for proactively disclosing environmental information.

show abstract

Focus and Standardization of Sustainability Reporting – A Comparative Study of the United Kingdom and Finland

Fifka

Drabble²

2012

Bus Strat Env

119

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Sustainability reporting has attracted significant attention from the business as well as the academic community in recent years. Not only has the latter frequently made recommendations on reporting, it has also extensively examined factors that have an influence on reporting. Several studies have noted differences in the extent and style of reporting across countries, but the influence of specific cultural and socio‐economic environments on reporting has only been given limited consideration so far. It is the goal of this paper to help fill this gap. For this purpose, we examine the sustainability reporting of the 100 largest companies in the United Kingdom and Finland, as both are highly developed countries in North‐Western Europe, but with significantly different cultural and socio‐economic systems. Aside from the extent of reporting and media used, we examine the reporting standards and guidelines applied. Moreover, the focus of disclosure (economic, social or environmental) was investigated, which also brings a new perspective to the academic literature. Our results suggest that the cultural and socio‐economic environment has an impact on the extent of reporting, but with regard to the focus of reporting and the application of standards the results are mixed. A stronger shareholder oriented culture does not lead to a more extensive inclusion of economic issues in sustainability reporting, while the extent of environmental reporting depends on the strength of environmentalism. The impact of cultural and socio‐economic factors on the application of standards, such as the Global Reporting Initiative, appears to be limited. Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd and ERP Environment.

show abstract

The Supply of Corporate Social Responsibility Disclosures Among U.S. Firms

Cited by 138 publications

References 49 publications

Corporate Governance and Corporate Social Responsibility Disclosure: Evidence from the US Banking Sector

Corporate Governance and Corporate Social Responsibility Disclosure: Evidence from the US Banking Sector

Secondary Stakeholder Influence on CSR Disclosure: An Application of Stakeholder Salience Theory

Focus and Standardization of Sustainability Reporting – A Comparative Study of the United Kingdom and Finland

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About