IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/bstrat/v12y2003i6p357-371.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Intra‐ and intersectoral effects in environmental disclosures: evidence for legitimacy theory?

Author

Listed:
  • David Campbell

Abstract

Environmental disclosures were recorded from the annual reports of a sample of ten UK FTSE 100 companies in five sectors between 1974 and 2000. ‘Environmental sensitivity’ was employed as a proxy for corporate vulnerability to environmental concern, and intra‐ and intersectoral differences were tested for in the belief that difference in industry response will signify differing perceptions on the need to provide voluntary disclosure and hence restore or maintain legitimacy. Intrasectoral agreements at given points in time were also taken to be evidence for legitimacy theory in that more than one company in a sector perceived a need to change disclosure behaviour at the same time. Legitimacy theory as an explicator for variability in environmental disclosure is supported. Copyright © 2003 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd and ERP Environment.

Suggested Citation

  • David Campbell, 2003. "Intra‐ and intersectoral effects in environmental disclosures: evidence for legitimacy theory?," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 12(6), pages 357-371, November.
    • Handle: RePEc:bla:bstrat:v:12:y:2003:i:6:p:357-371
    DOI: 10.1002/bse.375
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.375
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1002/bse.375?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Patten, Dennis M., 1991. "Exposure, legitimacy, and social disclosure," Journal of Accounting and Public Policy, Elsevier, vol. 10(4), pages 297-308.
    2. Trotman, Ken T. & Bradley, Graham W., 1981. "Associations between social responsibility disclosure and characteristics of companies," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 6(4), pages 355-362, October.
    3. David J. Campbell, 2000. "Legitimacy Theory or Managerial Reality Construction? Corporate Social Disclosure in Marks and Spencer Plc Corporate Reports, 1969–1997," Accounting Forum, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 24(1), pages 80-100, March.
    4. Zezhong Xiao & Michael John Jones & Andy Lymer, 2002. "Immediate trends in Internet reporting," European Accounting Review, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 11(2), pages 245-275.
    5. Patten, Dennis M., 1992. "Intra-industry environmental disclosures in response to the Alaskan oil spill: A note on legitimacy theory," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 17(5), pages 471-475, July.
    6. Craig Deegan & Michaela Rankin & Peter Voght, 2000. "Firms' Disclosure Reactions to Major Social Incidents: Australian Evidence," Accounting Forum, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 24(1), pages 101-130, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Mehmoona Sharif & Kashif Rashid, 2014. "Corporate governance and corporate social responsibility (CSR) reporting: an empirical evidence from commercial banks (CB) of Pakistan," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 48(5), pages 2501-2521, September.
    2. repec:arp:tjssrr:2019:p:117-127 is not listed on IDEAS
    3. Branco, Manuel Castelo & Rodrigues, Lúcia Lima, 2008. "Social responsibility disclosure: A study of proxies for the public visibility of Portuguese banks," The British Accounting Review, Elsevier, vol. 40(2), pages 161-181.
    4. Tony McMurtrie, 2005. "Factors influencing the publication of social performance information: an Australian case study," Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 12(3), pages 129-143, September.
    5. Faizah Darus* & Hidayatul Izati Mohd Zuki & Haslinda Yusoff & Noraslinda Mat Aris, 2018. "Corporate Accountability in Disclosing Carbon Information: Evidence from a Developing Nation," The Journal of Social Sciences Research, Academic Research Publishing Group, pages 984-994:5.
    6. David Campbell & Geoff Moore & Philip Shrives, 2006. "Cross-sectional effects in community disclosure," Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Emerald Group Publishing, vol. 19(6), pages 96-114, November.
    7. Jean-Noël Chauvey & Sophie Giordano-Spring & Charles Cho & Dennis Patten, 2015. "The Normativity and Legitimacy of CSR Disclosure: Evidence from France," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 130(4), pages 789-803, September.
    8. Matthias S. Fifka, 2013. "Corporate Responsibility Reporting and its Determinants in Comparative Perspective – a Review of the Empirical Literature and a Meta‐analysis," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 22(1), pages 1-35, January.
    9. David Campbell & Geoff Moore & Philip Shrives, 2006. "Cross-sectional effects in community disclosure," Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Emerald Group Publishing, vol. 19(1), pages 96-114, January.
    10. Neu, D. & Warsame, H. & Pedwell, K., 1998. "Managing public impressions: environmental disclosures in annual reports," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 23(3), pages 265-282, April.
    11. Moazzem Hossain & Angela Hecimovic & Aklema Choudhury Lema, 2015. "Corporate Social and Environmental Responsibility Reporting Practices from an Emerging Mobile Telecommunications Market," Australian Accounting Review, CPA Australia, vol. 25(4), pages 389-404, December.
    12. Breeda Comyns, 2016. "Determinants of GHG Reporting: An Analysis of Global Oil and Gas Companies," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 136(2), pages 349-369, June.
    13. Denis Cormier & Michel Magnan, 2015. "The Economic Relevance of Environmental Disclosure and its Impact on Corporate Legitimacy: An Empirical Investigation," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 24(6), pages 431-450, September.
    14. Vanessa Magness, 2006. "Strategic posture, financial performance and environmental disclosure: An empirical test of legitimacy theory," Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Emerald Group Publishing, vol. 19(4), pages 540-563, July.
    15. Fraile, Isabel acero & Fradejas, Nuria alcalde, 2012. "Gobierno Corporativo y Rendición de Cuentas: ¿Existe Algún Efecto Sobre la Performance Empresarial?," Revista de Contabilidad - Spanish Accounting Review, Elsevier, vol. 15(1), pages 143-178.
    16. Giovanna Michelon & Antonio Parbonetti, 2012. "The effect of corporate governance on sustainability disclosure," Journal of Management & Governance, Springer;Accademia Italiana di Economia Aziendale (AIDEA), vol. 16(3), pages 477-509, August.
    17. Patten, Dennis M. & Zhao, Na, 2014. "Standalone CSR reporting by U.S. retail companies," Accounting forum, Elsevier, vol. 38(2), pages 132-144.
    18. Stewart Jones & Geoff Frost & Janice Loftus & Sandra Laan, 2007. "An Empirical Examination of the Market Returns and Financial Performance of Entities Engaged in Sustainability Reporting," Australian Accounting Review, CPA Australia, vol. 17(41), pages 78-87, March.
    19. Cuganesan, Suresh & Guthrie, James & Ward, Leanne, 2010. "Examining CSR disclosure strategies within the Australian food and beverage industry," Accounting forum, Elsevier, vol. 34(3), pages 169-183.
    20. Faris Nasif AL- Shubiri & Abedalfattah Zuhair Al-Abedallat & Marwan Mohammad Abu Orabi, 2012. "Financial and Non Financial Determinants of Corporate Social Responsibility," Asian Economic and Financial Review, Asian Economic and Social Society, vol. 2(8), pages 1001-1012.
    21. Isabel Ma García‐Sánchez, 2008. "Corporate social reporting: segmentation and characterization of Spanish companies," Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 15(4), pages 187-198, July.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bla:bstrat:v:12:y:2003:i:6:p:357-371. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/journal/10.1002/(ISSN)1099-0836 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.