Author
Listed:
- Roman Lanis
- Grant Richardson
Abstract
Purpose - The purpose of this paper is to empirically test legitimacy theory by comparing the corporate social responsibility (CSR) disclosures of tax aggressive corporations with those of non‐tax aggressive corporations in Australia. Design/methodology/approach - A unique sample of 20 Australian corporations accused by the Australian Taxation Office of engaging in tax aggressive activities during the 2001‐2006 period was hand‐collected. These 20 tax aggressive corporations were then matched with 20 non‐tax aggressive corporations (based on industry classification, corporation size and time period). This process generated a choice‐based sample of 40 corporations for empirical analysis. Using content analysis techniques, financial accounting data were gathered from the Aspect‐Huntley database and CSR disclosures were individually measured for each corporation in the sample. Various statistical techniques were then used (e.g. paired sample statistics, Pearson correlation analysis and ordinary least squares regression analysis) to test legitimacy theory. Findings - Overall, the empirical results consistently show a positive and statistically significant association between corporate tax aggressiveness and CSR disclosure, thereby confirming legitimacy theory in the context of corporate tax aggressiveness. Originality/value - The paper provides empirical evidence in support of legitimacy theory as an explanation for why specific corporations disclose more CSR‐related information than others. Additionally, to the best of the authors' knowledge, the paper is one of the first to document an empirical association between corporate tax aggressiveness and CSR in the literature.
Suggested Citation
Roman Lanis & Grant Richardson, 2013.
"Corporate social responsibility and tax aggressiveness: a test of legitimacy theory,"
Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Emerald Group Publishing Limited, vol. 26(1), pages 75-100, January.
Handle:
RePEc:eme:aaajpp:v:26:y:2013:i:1:p:75-100
DOI: 10.1108/09513571311285621
Download full text from publisher
As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to
for a different version of it.
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:eme:aaajpp:v:26:y:2013:i:1:p:75-100. 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.
We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: Emerald Support (email available below). General contact details of provider: .
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through
the various RePEc services.