11.pp.0072www.iiste.org call for paper-90

Issues in Social and Environmental Accounting
Vol. 1, No. 1 June 2007
Pp 72-90

Issues in Corporate Social and Environmental
Reporting Research: An Overview

Manuel Castelo Branco
Faculty of Economics
University of Porto, Portugal

Lúcia Lima Rodrigues
School of Economics and Management
University of Minho, Portugal

Abstract

This paper provides an analysis of some relevant issues in corporate social and environmental
reporting (CSER) research by way of review of relevant literature. Issues in the following two
main areas of CSER research are identified: the methodologies used to capture empirical data
on CSER; and how to theoretically interpret the trends of CSER. An overview of these issues is
provided and some clues to understand what is at stake are offered. We argue that the choice of
methods used to collect empirical data on CSER depends upon the context in which the organi-
sations operate and the purpose of the study to be made. Because of the large array of factors
affecting companies’ decisions to engage in social responsibility activities and disclosure, the
use of multi-theoretical frameworks is proposed.
Keywords: annual reports, corporate social and environmental reporting, economic theory
approaches, Internet, social and political theories.

1. Introductory remarks activities related to such responsibility.
The concept of social accountability,
The acknowledgement of corporate so- which only arises if a company has so-
cial responsibility (CSR) implies the cial responsibility (Gray et al., 1996:
need to recognize the importance of dis- 56), concerns both the responsibility to
closure of information on companies’ undertake particular actions or refrain

Manuel Castelo Branco is Assistant Professor at the Faculty of Economics of Porto (FEP), University of Porto, Portu-
gal., email: mcbranco@fep.up.pt .Lúcia Lima Rodrigues is Associate Professor at the School of Economics and Man-
agement, the Head of the Department of Management and the Director of the Master in Accounting and Management,
University of Minho, Portugal., email: lrodrigues@eeg.uminho.pt

M.C. Branco, L.L. Rodrigues / Issues in Social and Environmental Accounting 1 (2007) 72-90 73

from doing so and provide an account of is a research-method oriented paper. It
such actions (Gray et al., 1996:38). provides a document to serve those who
wish to do research in the CSER area.
Corporate social and environmental re- First, it offers a brief overview of the
porting (CSER) has been broadly de- issues mentioned above in which they
fined as the “process of communicating are identified and some clues to under-
the social and environmental effects of stand what is at stake are given. Second,
organisations’ economic actions to par- this paper is also useful as a source of
ticular interest groups within society and reference for those interested in doing
to society at large.” (Gray et al., 1996: 3) research in the area as it mentions a
It seeks to reflect several social and en- fairly up-to-date list of CSER studies. In
vironmental aspects upon which compa- the following section, the issues pertain-
nies’ activities have an impact: em- ing to methodological aspects of CSER
ployee related issues, community in- research are explored. In the third sec-
volvement, environmental concerns, tion, the main theoretical frameworks
other ethical issues, etc. CSER refers to used are presented. Finally, some con-
the disclosure of information about com- cluding remarks are offered.
panies’ interactions with society.

CSER is not a new phenomenon. CSER 2. Methodological issues
in corporate reports can be traced to the
beginning of the twentieth century (see, There are two kinds of methodological
for example, Guthrie & Parker, 1989; issues surrounding research into CSER,
Maltby, 2004). However, it is possible to related to the sample selection and to
consider that it has emerged as an im- data capture. Among the latter kind of
portant subject only in the 1960’s issues, those related to the selection of
(Epstein, 2004). Following a period of the media to use as the basis for data
decline in the 1980’s, there has been a capture and the methodologies employed
resurgence of social disclosure and au- for data collection are particularly rele-
diting. This resurgence was associated vant. These issues are discussed below.
initially with the prominence of corpo-
rate environmental disclosure. This is a 2.1. Sample selection
more recent phenomenon that emerged
mainly in Europe and the USA in the The choice of samples used in CSER
1990’s. More recently, the prominence studies usually has been based on com-
of CSER seems to be related to sustain- pany size, analysing the documents pro-
ability reporting, which addresses simul- duced by large companies (see, for ex-
taneously the economic, environmental ample, Adams et al., 1995, 1998; Gray
and social dimensions of corporate per- et al., 1995a, 1995b; Guthrie & Parker,
formance (KPMG, 2005). 1990; Hackston & Milne, 1996; Neu et
al., 1998). However, there are other pos-
It is possible to identify some conten- sible approaches, such as the selection of
tious issues in two main areas of CSER “interesting” or “best practice” exam-
research: the methodologies used to cap- ples, or the selection of large, medium
ture empirical data; and how to theoreti- and unlisted companies (Gray et al.,
cally interpret the trends of CSER. This 1995b: 87).

74 M.C. Branco, L.L. Rodrigues / Issues in Social and Environmental Accounting 1 (2007) 72-90

There are good reasons to use a sample organisation constructs its social im-
of large companies when studying agery to all stakeholders (Gray et al.,
CSER (Gray et al., 1995b 88): it is more 1995b: 82). Moreover, the annual report
likely to capture more CSER and iden- is considered to possess a degree of
tify innovative examples; as a large credibility not associated with other cor-
number of other studies use large com- porate communication media (Neu et al.
panies samples, its use means greater (1998: 269).
potential for comparability of results
with previous studies; it is easier to ob- Annual reports are statutory documents,
tain the annual reports from large com- required to be produced on an annual
panies. An additional reason to use a basis by all companies, thus allowing
sample of large companies is that they comparisons to be made. Some evidence
are more likely to have a web page that indicates that annual reports are used
provides CSER: these sites are nowa- widely to disclose social responsibility
days important sources of data information and the dominant source of
(Freedman & Jaggi, 2005). information used by a number of stake-
holder groups interested in social and
environmental impacts of companies
2.2. Data capture (Deegan & Rankin, 1997).

2.2.1. Media to use as the basis for data Particularly over the last decade, compa-
capture nies have begun to use other disclosure
media, such as discrete reports
Many studies of CSER use annual re- (environmental reports, social responsi-
ports as the only source for gathering bility reports, sustainability reports, etc.)
data on social responsibility information and the Internet (Frost et al., 2005: 89).
disclosure. Annual reports are just one The development of the Internet has
source of information. All forms of data been considered “pertinent to further
reaching the public domain can be con- development of social accounting”
sidered to be part of a company’s ac- (Epstein, 2004: 16). Studies analysing
countability discharge activity and, the Internet as a tool for communicating
hence, annual reports, stand-alone re- with stakeholders and a CSER medium
ports, advertising and house magazines, have been growing in recent years (see,
can also be seen as vehicles of social for example, Campbell & Beck, 2004;
accountability (Gray et al., 1995b: 82). Frost et al., 2005; Patten & Crampton,
2004; Williams & Pei, 1999). More re-
In practice, it is impossible to monitor cently, some authors have begun to ana-
all forms of communication about the lyse CSER through three disclosure me-
CSR. But there are other good reasons to dia (annual reports, discrete reports and
focus on the disclosures made in annual web pages) (see, for example, Frost et
reports. First, the annual report is the al., 2005).
main corporate communication tool,
which represents a company and is used The benefits of the Internet for commu-
widely. Some authors consider that the nicating information to stakeholders
annual report is probably the most im- over traditional communication channels
portant document in terms of the way an are related substantially to the possibility


of disseminating more information less Quantifying disclosures
expensively and in a more timely fash-
ion, and to its interactive nature Different “units of analysis” can be used
(Williams & Pei, 1999). One important when codifying qualitative information
aspect which can be regarded as a limi- into quantitative format (i.e. coded data).
tation of the Internet when compared Disclosure themes can be used as a unit
with annual reports is the proximity of of analysis, giving information on the
the narrative material in the annual re- number of different items of CSER pre-
port to the audited financial statements. sent on the documents studied, or fre-
The fact that the auditors must read such quency of disclosures. However, most
material gives it a degree of credibility studies use one or a combination of
that other media can not claim to have words, sentences or pages as the unit of
(Neu et al., 1998: 269), including the analysis, giving information on the vol-
Internet. ume or amount of disclosure.

The simplest form of content analysis
2.2.2. Methodologies employed for data consists of detecting the presence or ab-
collection sence of social responsibility informa-
tion, where at least one information item
Content analysis is the dominant method needs to be disclosed under each cate-
used to examine CSER in annual reports gory (see, for example, Frost et al.,
(see, for example, Gray et al., 1995b; 2005; Haniffa & Cooke, 2005; Magness,
Hackston & Milne, 1996; Milne & 2006). Although it allows to capture the
Adler, 1999; Unerman, 2000), corporate “variety” of disclosures (Haniffa &
web pages (see, for example, Patten & Cooke, 2005: 405), one of the main
Crampton, 2004; Williams & Pei, 1999) shortcomings of this form of content
and stand-alone reports (see, for exam- analysis is that it does not allow meas-
ple, Frost et al., 2005). urement of the extent of information
disclosure and, therefore, the coded data
Content analysis can be defined as a re- do not reflect the emphasis that compa-
search technique “that consists of codi- nies attach to each information item
fying qualitative information in anecdo- (Zéghal & Ahmed, 1990: 42). However,
tal and literary form into categories in some authors believe that analysis of the
order to derive quantitative scales of frequency of disclosure themes and
varying levels of complexity.” (Abbott changes in disclosures over a period of
& Monsen, 1979: 504) It relies on the time is sufficient to reflect the impor-
assumption that the extent of disclosure tance of a disclosure (Burritt & Welch,
(either the number of times an item is 1997: 8).
disclosed, or the amount of space de-
voted to disclosure) provides some indi- If an unweighted scoring approach is
cation of the importance of an issue to used, disclosure scores for each com-
the reporting entity, and to derive an pany can be added and not weighted, the
indication of the meanings, motivations assumption being that each item of dis-
and intentions of the communicator closure is equally important. It does not
(Gray et al., 1995b: 89). allow analysis of the quality or com-
pleteness of the information provided. It


merely recognizes that the company has The advantages of sentences are in over-
provided some information on the rele- coming the problems related to font,
vant issue (Frost et al., 2005). While margin or page size, in not needing to
using two disclosure indexes based on standardise words, in obtaining more
two weighting schemes (equal weights, reliable inter-rater coding (Hackston &
assigning a one to each item, and un- Milne, 1996: 84-86), and in allowing
equal weights), Freedman & Jaggi more detailed analysis of specific issues
(2005: 223) recognize the equal weight and themes (Deegan et al., 2002: 322).
method is simple and avoids controver- However, measuring CSER in terms of
sies. number of words, sentences or lines pre-
cludes measurement of photographs and
Several different methods have been graphics (Unerman, 2000: 675-676).
used by previous studies to measure vol-
ume of CSER, including: Quantity vs. quality of disclosure

• number of sentences disclosed (see, Content analysis has been criticised be-
for example, Deegan et al., 2002; cause the measures used consider quan-
Deegan et al., 2000; Hackston & tity and not quality of disclosure. How-
Milne, 1996; Milne & Adler, 1999; ever, this limitation has been deemed
Walden & Schwartz, 1997; Wil- acceptable by Campbell (2000: 87).
liams, 1999; Williams & Pei, 1999); Some authors believe that distinguishing
• pages or proportion of pages (see, between qualitative and quantified
for example, Adams et al., 1995, (monetary and non-monetary) disclo-
1998; Gray et al., 1995a, 1995b; sures provides some indication of the
Guthrie & Parker, 1989, 1990; Kua- quality of disclosures (Gray et al.,
sirikun & Sherer, 2004; Newson & 1995b: 84), because numerical informa-
Deegan, 2002; Patten, 1991, 1992; tion is believed to be more useful than
Unerman, 2000); descriptive information on a company’s
• number of words disclosed (see, for social and environmental impact.
example, Brown & Deegan, 1998;
Campbell, 2003, 2004; Campbell et Some previous research placed a heavy
al., 2003, 2006; Deegan & Rankin, weighting on quantitative disclosures
1996; Haniffa & Cooke, 2005; Neu (see, for example, Aerts et al., 2006; Al-
et al., 1998); Tuwaijri et al., 2004; Bewley & Li,
• lines (Belal, 2001; Trotman & Brad- 2000; Cormier & Magnan, 2003;
ley, 1981). Cormier et al., 2004; Freedman & Jaggi,
2005; Warsame et al., 2002; Wiseman,
Number of pages as a measure of disclo- 1982). However, some authors consider
sure is often criticized because it does that weighting systems imply some kind
not consider different page sizes, font of bias towards social responsibility of a
sizes, margin sizes (Hackston & Milne, financial kind (Burritt & Welch, 1997:
1996: 84). Number of words is said to 9).
cause difficulties due to different styles
of writing, as is also the case with num- A distinction between the types of news
ber of sentences (Cowen et al., 1987: (for example, “good”, “bad” or
117; Unerman, 2000: 675). “neutral”) can also provide some indica-


tion of the quality of disclosures (Gray 1992; Mahapatra, 1984). “Experimental”
et al., 1995b: 84). However, Bewley & studies assess the impact of social re-
Li (2000: 206) deliberately avoided such sponsibility information on investment
a distinction due to its subjectivity. For decision-making (see, for example,
example, “capital expenditures for pollu- Milne & Chan, 1999; Chan & Milne,
tion control may be ‘good’ news for cor- 1999).
porate environmental stakeholders but
may represent cash outflow with no ex- 3.2. Economic theory approaches
pected economic benefit from a share-
holder’s perspective.” (Bewley & Li, Some prominent economic theory ap-
2000.: 221n) proaches rely on the positive accounting
theory of Watts & Zimmerman (1978)
which suggests that government regula-
3. Issues of theoretical interpretation tion is a political cost to companies.
Positive accounting theory is based on
Different theoretical perspectives about the assumption that economic agents are
the motivations for companies to dis- rational and will act in an opportunistic
close social responsibility information manner to maximize their wealth. Indi-
have been used to interpret empirical viduals are driven by self-interest (tied
evidence. In an influential review of the to wealth maximisation). Based on such
CSER literature, Gray et al. (1995a) di- views, Ness & Mirza (1991: 212) argue
vided much of the extant research into that “managers will disclose social infor-
the following three categories: decision mation only if it increases their welfare,
usefulness studies, economic theory that is, when the benefits from the dis-
studies, and social and political theory closure outweigh the associated costs.”
studies.
When defining political costs, Watts &
3.1. Decision usefulness approaches Zimmerman (1978: 115) specifically
referred to “social responsibility cam-
The basic line of argument for the deci- paigns in the media” as one of the possi-
sion usefulness approaches is that com- ble actions that companies take to avoid
panies release information on their so- the adverse attention that high profits
cial responsibility activities because us- draw. These actions are done to reduce
ers find it useful for their investment the likelihood of adverse political ac-
decisions. Milne & Chan (1999) identi- tions and expected costs. Companies
fied three types of decision usefulness attempt to avoid potential pressure from
studies: survey, market reaction and ex- government regulatory agencies which
perimental studies. The “survey” studies enforce CSR through CSER (see, for
concentrate mainly on undertaking sur- example, Belkaoui & Karpik, 1989).
veys of potential users of the informa-
tion (see, for example, Buzby & Falk, More recently, some studies have
1979; Epstein & Freedman, 1994; adopted an information economics per-
Deegan & Rankin, 1997). Other studies spective to analyse CSER (see, for ex-
focus on studying the market reaction to ample, Bewley & Li, 2000; Cormier &
CSER (see, for example, Belkaoui, Gordon, 2001; Cormier & Magnan,
1976; Ingram, 1978; Jaggi & Freedman, 2003, Li et al., 1997). These studies sug-


gest that companies may disclose social regulators or lobby groups.
responsibility information in a strategic
fashion, with disclosure decisions being A few recent studies also draw upon the
influenced by the risk of the company resource-based views in management
being affected adversely by third parties, research to analyse the economic poten-
who can use information disclosed by tials of CSR and disclosure (Toms,
the company to its disadvantage. 2002; Hasseldine et al., 2005). One of
the advantages of these perspectives re-
Bewley & Li (2000) and Li et al. (1997) garding other economic theories is that
examine environmental disclosure they allow the researcher to concentrate
through the lens of voluntary disclosure on what managers are actually doing to
theory. Proprietary costs are taken into create heterogeneous resources to sus-
account to explain the reluctance of tain competitive advantage in the form
managers to disclose voluntary informa- of enhanced reputation, rather than on
tion. Companies withhold the informa- what they are trying to avoid happening
tion that could be used by third parties (for example, political costs)
(such as competitors who can, for exam- (Hasseldine et al., 2005: 233).
ple, change their production plans) and
cause a decrease in future cash flows. 3.3. Social and political theories
Proprietary costs arise due to the exis-
tence of proprietary information, that is, Under the social and political theory
private information which can be used group one might include three overlap-
by third parties to inflict costs upon the ping perspectives: stakeholder theory,
company. For example, some environ- legitimacy theory and political economy
mental information can be used to dam- theory. In contrast to the decision useful-
age a company’s competitive position ness and economic theory approaches,
(see, for example, Li et al., 1997: 441). these theories take a systems perspec-
tive, recognising that companies influ-
Cormier & Gordon (2001) and Cormier ence, and are influenced by, the society
& Magnan (2003) examine social re- in which they operate. Gray et al.
sponsibility information disclosure (1995a: 67) argue that different ap-
within a costs/benefits framework, con- proaches within social and political
sidering both information and proprie- theories should be seen not as competi-
tary costs. According to such perspective tive explanations but as “sources of in-
(Berthelot et al., 2003: 6): terpretation of different factors at differ-
ent levels of resolution.”
• on the one hand, managers may re-
frain from disclosing information if 3.3.1. Political Economy Theory
they perceive that investors do not
need it or can easily find it from al- Political economy theory suggests “that
ternative sources, and the economic domain cannot be studied
• on the other hand, they may choose in isolation from the political, social and
to minimize the disclosure of infor- institutional framework within which the
mation if it can lead to proprietary economic takes place.” (Gray et al.,
costs through actions against the 1995a: 52) Therefore, economics, poli-
company by third parties, such as tics and society are thought to be insepa-


rable and should all be considered in suppliers, local communities, govern-
accounting research. ment, interest groups, etc.

Following Gray et al. (1995a: 52-53), Two variants of stakeholder theory can
two political economy theories have be identified (Gray et al., 1996: 45-46;
been distinguished. The classical variant Deegan, 2002: 294). The first variant,
of political economy theory views CSER which Deegan (2002) designates as ethi-
as part of an attempt to legitimise not cal (or normative), holds that all stake-
only individual companies within the holders have the right to be treated fairly
capitalist system but the system as a by a company. This view is reflected in
whole (see, for example, Adams et al., the Gray et al. (1996) accountability
1995; Adams & Harte, 1998). framework, which argues that the com-
pany is accountable to all stakeholders to
Proponents of the bourgeois variant of disclose social responsibility informa-
political economy theory argue that dis- tion.
closure can only be explained in relation
to the socio-political environment within The second variant, which Deegan
which companies operate. In general, (2002) designates as managerial (or
CSER is considered to be a function of positive), explains CSER as a way of
social and/or political pressure, and managing the company’s relationship
companies facing greater social/political with different stakeholder groups (see,
pressures are believed to provide more for example, Roberts, 1992; Ullman,
extensive CSER. CSER is seen as a re- 1985). Ullmann (1985) suggested that
sponse to competing pressures from CSER is used strategically to manage
various stakeholders such as govern- relationships with stakeholders. Stake-
ments, employees, environmental holders are considered as having varying
groups, customers, creditors, suppliers, degrees of power or influence over a
the general public and other social activ- company, the importance being associ-
ist groups. Stakeholder theory and legiti- ated with control of resources. The more
macy theory are identified as two over- important (influential or powerful) the
lapping perspectives derived from the stakeholders are to the company, the
bourgeois variant of political economy more effort will be made to manage the
theory. relationship.

3.3.2. Stakeholder Theory Roberts (1992) was probably the first
author using the framework developed
Stakeholder theory is based on the no- by Ullmann to test CSER practices em-
tion that companies have several stake- pirically. He found that stakeholder
holders, defined as “groups and indi- power, strategic posture and economic
viduals who benefit from or are harmed performance are related significantly to
by, and whose rights are violated or re- levels of CSER and that CSER is used
spected by, corporate actions” (Freeman, by managers as a proactive method of
1998: 174), with an interest in the ac- managing stakeholders and their organ-
tions and decisions of companies. Stake- isational environment.
holders include in addition to sharehold-
ers, creditors, employees, customers, About managerial stakeholder theory,


and relating it to political economy the- or to repair or to defend its lost or threat-
ory discussed above, one can say that it ened legitimacy.” (O’Donovan, 2002:
is “explicitly bourgeois in that the world 349).
is seen from the perspective of the man-
agement of the organisation who are If one recognizes that society is made
concerned strategically with the contin- up of various groups having different
ued success of the company” (Gray et views of how companies should conduct
al., 1995a: 53). The same can be said of their operations and unequal power or
legitimacy theory, which is discussed ability to influence their activities, a
below. These two theories hold that change of focus from society to those
CSER is made for strategic reasons and groups who are able to influence a com-
such motivation is in clear contrast with pany’s legitimacy, either granting or
the motivation envisaged by the ethical withholding it, is warranted (Deegan
stakeholder theory which accepts the 2002: 295). These key stakeholders have
responsibility to disclose information to been designated by proponents of legiti-
those who have a right to it. macy theory as “relevant publics” (Buhr,
1998; Neu et al., 1998) or “conferring
3.3.3. Legitimacy Theory publics” (O’Donovan, 2002).

Legitimacy is defined by Suchman Legitimacy requires a reputation that
(1995: 574) as “a generalized perception must be retained, that is, it requires a
or assumption that the actions of an en- company to convince its relevant publics
tity are desirable, proper, or appropriate that its activities are congruent with their
within some socially constructed system values. Issues such as industrial conflict,
of norms, values, beliefs and defini- social and environmental incidents,
tions.” Nowadays companies need to do fraudulent or unethical management be-
more than just provide economic bene- haviour may threaten corporate legiti-
fits, such as profits, wages and employ- macy. However, a company can lose
ment, and comply with the law to be legitimacy even though it does not
considered as legitimate within the soci- change its activities, either due to
ety in which they operate. It has become changes in the composition of its rele-
necessary for them to act and be seen vant publics or changes in their values
acting within the bounds of what is con- (O’Donovan, 2002: 348). If a company
sidered as acceptable according to the is seen to lack legitimacy then, at best,
values and norms of society. profits are short-term. This occurs be-
cause if a company is perceived by
It is necessary to distinguish between stakeholders not to comply with their
legitimacy and legitimation: whilst le- expectations, those stakeholders may
gitimacy can be considered as a withdraw the support needed to ensure
“condition or status”, legitimation is a its continued existence (Deegan, 2002).
process engaged in by companies to take Companies are supposed to have activi-
them to such state (Brown & Deegan, ties which are congruent with social val-
1998: 23). A process of legitimation ues and also to communicate that their
may be engaged in by a company either activities are congruent with such val-
to “gain or to extend legitimacy, to ues. These are the two dimensions in a
maintain its level of current legitimacy, company’s efforts to gain, maintain or


repair legitimacy, identified by Buhr changes in the level of CSER, thus lend-
(1998: 164): action, that is, congruence ing support to legitimacy theory. Com-
of the company’s activities with social panies disclose information in the wake
values; and presentation, that is, appear- of particular incidents such as an envi-
ance of congruence with social values. ronmental disaster (an oil spill or gas
Legitimacy can be at risk even when a explosion) that puts the companies in the
company’s activities accord with soci- spotlight (see, for example, Patten, 1992;
ety’s expectations because the company Deegan et al., 2000; Walden &
has failed to communicate that its activi- Schwartz, 1997). Other studies used le-
ties are congruent with social values. gitimacy theory to explain changes in
Moreover, companies can attempt to disclosure around the time of exposure
“achieve legitimacy by appearing to do to legal proceedings (Deegan & Rankin,
the ‘right things’ or not be involved in 1996), fines (Warsame et al., 2002) or
doing the ‘wrong things’ when this ap- privatization operations (Ogden &
pearance may have little in common Clarke, 2005). The relationship between
with a company’s actual” performance media exposure of certain industries and
(Buhr, 1998: 165). disclosure has also been explored from a
legitimacy theory framework (Brown &
From such a perspective, CSER is seen Deegan, 1998). Other studies examined
as one of the strategies used by compa- one single company over time (see, for
nies to seek acceptance and approval of example, Buhr, 1998; Deegan et al.,
their activities from society. It is seen as 2002) finding supportive evidence of
an important tool in corporate legitima- legitimacy theory. Some authors use
tion strategies, as it may be used to es- textual analysis in case studies
tablish or maintain the legitimacy of the (Moerman & Van Der Laan, 2005). Fi-
company by influencing public opinion nally a large array of studies used a vari-
and public policy. Legitimacy theory ety of proxies for the public exposure of
suggests that CSER provides an impor- companies, such as size, industry type,
tant way of communicating with stake- profitability, media exposure, member-
holders, and convinces them that the ship of pressure groups (see, for exam-
company is fulfilling their expectations ple, Adams et al., 1998; Campbell, 2003,
(even when actual corporate behaviour 2004; Campbell et al., 2003; Cormier &
remains at variance with some of these Magnan, 2003; Mobus, 2005; Newson &
expectations). Deegan, 2002; Neu et al., 1998; O’D-
wyer, 2003; Patten, 1991; Wilmshurst
Guthrie & Parker (1989) did not find and Frost, 2000) obtaining more or less
conclusive evidence of disclosure link- supportive evidence of legitimacy the-
ing corporate and social values in a lon- ory.
gitudinal study of an Australian com-
pany (Broken Hill Proprietary Company,
Ltd.). However, a majority of the em- 4. Discussion and concluding com-
pirical literature which tested LT tends ments
to lend it support.
Although CSER and CSR performance
Some studies found that the occurrence are two very different things, only in
of particular events is followed by specific types of empirical studies it is


possible to separate the analysis of context in which the organisations oper-
CSER from the analysis of CSR per- ate, and the purpose of the study. For
formance. It is very difficult to deter- example, if the study one wishes to
mine whether social performance data make is about the value relevance of
disclosed by companies are under- CSER, then it is appropriate to place a
reported or over-reported. On the other high weighting on quantitative disclo-
hand, there is evidence suggesting that sures. In other cases, it will probably be
CSER reflect impression management adequate not to introduce a bias towards
rather than accurate disclosure. social responsibility of a financial kind
by using such method.
In this respect, Epstein (2004: 4) argues
that “increased social disclosures may As to the quantification issue, it is al-
have improved corporate accountability ways preferable to use a method which
but may not have improved social and allows the measurement of the extent of
environmental performance.” But even information disclosure, thus reflecting
the accountability credentials of volun- the emphasis that companies attach to
tary corporate CSER is questioned by the information disclosed. This applies
authors, such as Adams (2004), who in particular to the case of longitudinal
contend that there is a reporting- studies, especially if one is analysing the
performance portrayal gap, which is CSER practices of one single company
made visible by comparing voluntary over time. However, given the higher
CSER with information from other, degree of subjectivity involved in using
more independent, sources. Voluntary these methods, if the use of an index
disclosure that is subject to considerable allows a proper detection of variation
discretion by management is cited as a between companies’ disclosure (and this
reason for such gap. Voluntary CSER is the objective of using the method),
can be seen as a communication mecha- then it is adequate.
nism through which companies try to
comply with pressures to conform to The theoretical issues are particularly
socially acceptable norms. In many contentious. Findings which are inter-
cases, real performance is not accompa- preted as being consistent with one par-
nied but rather substituted by disclosure. ticular theory might, in most cases, be
Nonetheless, to analyse CSER corre- interpreted using a different theoretical
sponds also, at least partially, to analyse perspective. For example, Berthelot et
CSR. CSER is likely to be associated in al. (2003: 118) argue that findings that
some ways with social performance. seem consistent with legitimacy theory
Companies which have more reason to explanations may be interpreted also in
have a good social performance will also light of explanations put forward by
have more activity to describe and thus other theories.
their disclosure may be higher
(Campbell et al., 2006: 102). Based on a legitimacy theory frame-
work, Patten (1991) used company size
Regarding the question of the methods and industry affiliation as proxies for
to choose in order to collect empirical public pressure. He analysed the rela-
data on CSER, the authors of this paper tionship between CSER and the two
believe that it is all a question of the public pressure proxies and, in addition,


profitability. The public pressure vari- ing “with absolute authority which par-
ables were found to be significantly as- ticular theoretical perspective offers the
sociated with CSER in his study, more convincing explanation.” (Hibbitt,
whereas profitability was not. Given that 2004) Thus, it is important to recognize
size (see, for example, Belkaoui & Kar- that it remains a matter of subjective
pik, 1989) and industry (see, for exam- belief as to which of the possible theo-
ple, Ness & Mirza, 1991) are also fac- retical explanations is the more accept-
tors that positive accounting theorists able (Hibbitt, 2004: 415).
have used to test the political cost hy-
pothesis, some argue that the findings Even if the researcher is inclined to use
associated to relations with the level of social and political theories due to a
CSER probably “are not an adequate matter of personal belief, some addi-
basis on which to distinguish between tional questions arise. For example, al-
the two positions” (Milne, 2002: 383). though legitimacy theory has been re-
cently considered as the dominant theory
However, the arguments presented to in the CSER research (Hoogiemstra,
explain such association differ. For ex- 2000: 55), social and political theories,
ample, according to positive accounting particularly legitimacy and stakeholder
theory, large or highly profitable compa- theories, should be considered as com-
nies are seen as vulnerable to political plementary rather than alternative or
interference. These companies use sev- opposite (Gray et al., 1995a: 52). Ac-
eral strategies to reduce their political cording to Campbell et al. (2003: 559)
exposure, including social responsibility legitimacy theory may be conceived as
programmes. “a subsidiary theory of the stakeholder
metanarrative in that a number of con-
The social visibility argument used by stituencies are recognized” that “takes a
legitimacy theory is different. Particular more descriptive view of how a com-
companies, especially those which are pany addresses and deals with those con-
large or operate in socially-sensitive in- stituencies.”
dustries, are seen as more exposed to
pressures from social activist groups that Because many factors affect companies’
seek socially responsible behaviour. So- decisions to engage in CSR activities
cially visible companies are seen as re- and disclosure, such as financial per-
sponding to such challenges by using formance, stakeholders’ pressure, public
several legitimation strategies, which exposure and social concern, it is proba-
may include CSER, to manage public bly advisable to recognize that no single
impressions and reduce their exposure to theory is sufficiently comprehensive to
the social and political environment. explain all these factors. Thus, to under-
stand why companies engage in CSR
As emphasised by Hibbitt (2004: 9), “as activities and disclosure it is necessary
with all research in the social sciences, to integrate different theoretical perspec-
including economics and accounting, tives. This much has been acknowledge
‘truth’ is a matter of meta-theoretical in recent studies which adopt multi-
belief not empirical fact.” This fact leads theoretical frameworks (see, for exam-
to an almost total impossibility of assert- ple, Cormier et al., 2005).


5. References formance, and economic per-
formance: A simultaneous equa-
Abbott, W. F. and Monsen, R. J. (1979) tions approach”, Accounting,
“On the measurement of corpo- Organizations and Society, Vol.
rate social responsibility: Self- 29, No. 5/6, pp. 447-471.
reported disclosures as a method Belal, A. R. (2001) “A study of corpo-
of measuring corporate social rate social disclosures in Bangla-
involvement”, Academy of Man- desh”, Managerial Auditing
agement Journal, Vol. 22, No. 3, Journal, Vol. 16, No. 5, pp. 274-
pp. 501-515. 289.
Adams, C. A. (2004), “The ethical, so- Belkaoui, A. (1976) “The impact of the
cial and environmental report- disclosure of the environmental
ing-performance portrayal gap” effects of organizational behav-
Accounting, Auditing and Ac- iour on the market”, Financial
countability Journal, Vol. 17, Management, Vol. 5, No. 4, pp.
No. 5, pp. 731-757. 26-31.
_______, Coutts, A. & Harte, G. (1995) _________ & Karpik, P. G. (1989)
“Corporate equal opportunities “Determinants of the corporate
(non-) disclosure”, British Ac- decision to disclose social infor-
counting Review, Vol. 27, No. 2, mation”, Accounting, Auditing
pp. 87-108. and Accountability Journal, Vol.
_______ & ________ (1998) “The 2, No. 1, pp. 36-51.
changing portrayal of the em- Berthelot, S., Cormier, D. & Magnan,
ployment of women in British M. (2003) “Environmental dis-
banks’ and retail companies’ closure research: Review and
corporate annual reports”, Ac- synthesis”, Journal of Account-
counting, Organizations and So- ing Literature, Vol. 22, pp. 1-44.
ciety, Vol. 23, No. 8, pp. 781- Bewley, K. & Li, Y. (2000) “Disclosure
812. of environmental information by
_______, Hill, W.-Y. & Roberts, C. B. Canadian manufacturing compa-
(1998) “Corporate social report- nies: A voluntary disclosure per-
ing practices in Western Europe: spective”, Advances in Environ-
Legitimating corporate behav- mental Accounting and Manage-
iour”, British Accounting Re- ment, Vol. 1, pp. 201-226.
view, Vol. 30, No. 1, pp. 1-21. Brown, N. & Deegan, C. (1998) “The
Aerts, W., Cormier, D. & Magnan, M. public disclosure of environ-
(2006) “Intra-industry imitation mental performance information
in corporate environmental re- – A dual test of media agenda
porting: An international per- setting theory and legitimacy
spective”, Journal of Accounting theory”, Accounting and Busi-
and Public Policy, Vol. 25, No. ness Research, Vol. 29, No. 1,
3, pp. 299-331. pp. 21–41.
Al-Tuwaijri, S. A., Christensen, T. E. & Buhr, N. (1998) “Environmental per-
Hughes II, K. E. (2004) “The formance legislation and annual
relations among environmental report disclosure: The case of
disclosure, environmental per- acid rain and Falconbridge”, Ac-


counting, Auditing and Account- ________, Moore, G. & ________
ability Journal, Vol. 11, No. 2, (2006) “Cross-sectional effects
pp. 163-190. in community disclosure”, Ac-
Burritt, R. & Welch, S. (1997) counting, Auditing and Account-
“Australian Commonwealth enti- ability Journal, Vol. 19, No. 1,
ties: An analysis of their envi- pp. 96-114.
ronmental disclosures”, Abacus, Chan, C. C.C. & Milne, M. J. (1999)
Vol. 33, No. 1, pp. 1-19. “Investor reactions to corporate
Buzby, S. L. & Falk, H. (1979) environmental saints and sinners:
“Demand for social responsibil- An experimental analysis”, Ac-
ity information by university counting and Business Research,
investors”, The Accounting Re- Vol. 29, No. 4, pp. 265-279.
view, Vol. 54, No. 1, pp. 23-37. Cormier, D. & Gordon, I. M. (2001) “An
Campbell, D. (2000) “Legitimacy theory examination of social and envi-
or managerial reality construc- ronmental reporting strategies”,
tion? Corporate social disclosure Accounting, Auditing and Ac-
in Marks and Spencer Plc corpo- countability Journal, Vol. 14,
rate reports, 1969-1997”, Ac- No. 5, pp. 587-616.
counting Forum, Vol. 24, No. 1, ________, _______ & Magnan, M.
pp. 80-100. (2004) “Corporate environmental
________ (2003) “Intra- and intersec- disclosure: Contrasting manage-
toral effects in environmental ment’s perceptions with reality”,
disclosures: Evidence for legiti- Journal of Business Ethics, Vol.
macy theory?”, Business Strat- 49, No. 2, pp. 143-165.
egy and the Environment, Vol. ________, & Magnan, M. (2003)
12, No. 6, pp. 357-371. “Environmental reporting man-
________ (2004) “A longitudinal and agement: A continental Euro-
cross-sectional analysis of envi- pean perspective”, Journal of
ronmental disclosure in UK com- Accounting and Public Policy,
panies – A research note”, The Vol. 22, No. 1, pp. 43-62.
British Accounting Review, Vol. ________, _________ & Van Veltho-
36, No. 1, pp. 107-117. ven, B. (2005) “Environmental
________ & Beck, A. C. (2004) disclosure quality in large Ger-
“Answering allegations: The use man companies: Economic in-
of the corporate website for re- centives, public pressures or in-
storative ethical and social dis- stitutional conditions?”, Euro-
closure”, Business Ethics: A pean Accounting Review, Vol.
European Review, Vol. 13, No. 14, No. 1, pp. 3-39.
2/3, pp. 100-116. Cowen, S. S., Ferreri, L. B. & Parker, L.
________, Craven, B. & Shrives, P D. (1987) “The impact of corpo-
(2003) “Voluntary social report- rate characteristics on social re-
ing in three FTSE sectors: A sponsibility disclosure: A typol-
comment on perception and le- ogy and frequency-based analy-
gitimacy”, Accounting, Auditing sis”, Accounting, Organizations
and Accountability Journal, Vol. and Society, Vol. 12, No. 2, pp.
16, No. 4, pp. 558-581. 111-122.


Deegan, C. (2002) “The legitimising Environmental Accounting and
effect of social and environ- Management, Vol. 2, pp. 1-29.
mental disclosures – A theoreti- ________ & Freedman, M. (1994)
cal foundation”, Accounting, Au- “Social disclosure and the indi-
diting and Accountability Jour- vidual investor”, Accounting,
nal, Vol. 15, No. 3, pp. 282-311. Auditing and Accountability
_________ & Gordon, B. (1996) “A Journal, Vol. 7, No. 4, pp. 94-
study of the environmental dis- 109.
closure practices of Australian Freedman, M. & Jaggi, B. (2005)
corporations”, Accounting and “Global warming, commitment
Business Research, Vol. 26, No. to the Kyoto protocol, and ac-
3, pp. 187-199. counting disclosures by the larg-
_________ & Rankin, M. (1996) “Do est global public firms from pol-
Australian companies report en- luting industries”, The Interna-
vironmental news objectively? tional Journal of Accounting,
An analysis of environmental Vol. 40, No. 3, pp. 215-232.
disclosures by firms prosecuted Freeman, R. E. (1998) “A stakeholder
successfully by the Environ- theory of the modern corpora-
mental Protection Authority”, tion”, in Pincus, L. B. (Ed.), Per-
Accounting, Auditing and Ac- spectives in business ethics, pp.
countability Journal, Vol. 9, No. 171-181. Singapore: McGraw-
2, pp. 50-67. Hill.
_________ & _________ (1997) “The Frost, G. et al. (2005) “A survey of sus-
materiality of environmental in- tainability reporting practices of
formation to users of annual re- Australian reporting entities”,
ports”, Accounting, Auditing and Australian Accounting Review,
Accountability Journal, Vol. 10, Vol. 15, No. 1, pp. 89-96.
No. 4, pp. 562-583. Gray, R., Kouhy, R. & Lavers, S.
_________, _________ & Tobin, J. (1995a) “Corporate social and
(2002) “An examination of the environmental reporting: A re-
corporate social and environ- view of the literature and a longi-
mental disclosures of BHP from tudinal study of UK disclosure”,
1983-1997: A test of legitimacy Accounting, Auditing and Ac-
theory”, Accounting, Auditing countability Journal, Vol. 8 No.
and Accountability Journal, Vol. 2, pp. 47-77.
15, No. 3, pp. 312-343. ________, ________ & ________
_________, _________ & Voght, P. ( 1995b) “ M e t hodol o gi c a l
(2000) “Firms’ disclosure reac- themes: Constructing a research
tions to major social incidents: database of social and environ-
Australian evidence”, Account- mental reporting by UK compa-
ing Forum, Vol. 24, No. 1, pp. nies”, Accounting, Auditing and
101-130. Accountability Journal, Vol. 8,
Epstein, M. J. (2004) “The identifica- No. 2, pp. 78-101.
tion, measurement, and reporting ________, Owen, D. & Adams, C.
of corporate social impacts: Past, (1996) Accounting and Account-
present, and future”, Advances in ability: Changes and Challenges


in Corporate Social and Envi- An Economic, Social and Politi-
ronmental Reporting. Hemel cal Analysis of Managerial Be-
Hempstead: Prentice Hall haviour. Netherlands: Vrije Uni-
Europe. versiteit Amsterdam.
________, ________ & Maunders, K. Hoogiemstra, R. (2000) “Corporate
(1988) “Corporate social report- communication and impression
ing: Emerging trends in account- management – New perspectives
ability and the social contract”, why companies engage in corpo-
Accounting, Auditing and Ac- rate social reporting”, Journal of
countability Journal, Vol. 1, No. Business Ethics, Vol. 27, No.
1, pp. 6-20. 1/2, pp. 55-68.
Guthrie, J. & Parker, L. D. (1989) Ingram, R. W. (1978) “An investigation
“Corporate social reporting: A of the information content of
rebuttal of legitimacy theory”, (certain) social responsibility
Accounting and Business Re- disclosures”, Journal of Account-
search, Vol. 9, No. 76, pp. 343- ing Research, Vol. 16, No. 2, pp.
352. 270-285.
_________ & _________ (1990) Jaggi, B. & Freedman, M. (1992) “An
“Corporate social disclosure examination of the impact of
practice: A comparative interna- pollution performance on eco-
tional analysis”, Advances in nomic and market performance:
Public Interest Accounting, Vol. Pulp and Paper Firms”, Journal
3, pp. 159-175. of Business Finance and Ac-
Hackston, D. & Milne, M. J. (1996) counting, Vol. 19, No. 5, pp.
“Some determinants of social 697-713.
and environmental disclosures in KPMG (2005) KPMG International Sur-
New Zealand companies”, Ac- vey of Corporate Responsibility
counting, Auditing and Account- Reporting 2005. De Meern:
ability Journal, Vol. 9, No. 1, KPMG.
pp. 77-108. Kuasirikun, N. & Sherer, M. (2004)
Haniffa, R. M. and Cooke, T. E. (2005) “Corporate social accounting
“The impact of culture and gov- disclosure in Thailand”, Ac-
ernance on corporate social re- counting, Auditing and Account-
porting”, Journal of Accounting ability Journal, Vol. 17, No. 4,
and Public Policy, Vol. 24, No. pp. 629-660.
5, pp. 391-430. Li, Y., Richardson, G. D. & Thorton, D.
Hasseldine, J., Salama A. I. and Toms, J. B. (1997) “Corporate disclosure
S. (2005) “Quantity versus qual- of environmental liability infor-
ity: The impact of environmental mation: Theory and evidence”,
disclosures on the reputations of Contemporary Accounting Re-
UK Plcs”, The British Account- search, Vol. 14, No. 3, pp. 435-
ing Review, Vol. 37, No. 2, pp. 474.
231-248. Magness, V. (2006) “Strategic posture,
Hibbitt, C. J. (2004) External Environ- financial performance and envi-
mental Disclosure and Reporting ronmental disclosure – An em-
by Large European Companies – pirical test of legitimacy the-


ory”, Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal, Vol. 18,
Accountability Journal, Vol. 19, No. 3, pp. 374-389.
No. 4, pp. 540-563. Ness, K. E. & Mirza, A. M. (1991)
Mahapatra, S. (1984) “Investor reaction “Corporate social disclosure: A
to a corporate social account- note on a test of agency theory”,
ing”, Journal of Business Fi- British Accounting Review, Vol.
nance and Accounting, Vol. 11, 23, No. 3, pp. 211-217.
No. 1, pp. 29-40. Neu, D., Warsame, H. & Pedwell, K.
Maltby, J. (2004) “Hadfields Ltd: its (1998) “Managing public im-
annual general meetings 1903- pressions: Environmental disclo-
1939 and their relevance for sures in annual reports”, Ac-
contemporary corporate social counting, Organizations and
reporting”, The British Account- Society, Vol. 23, No. 3, pp. 265-
ing Review, Vol. 36, No. 4, pp. 282.
415-439. Newson, M. & Deegan, C. (2002)
Milne, M. J. (2002) “Positive accounting “Global expectations and their
theory, political costs and social association with corporate social
disclosure: A critical look”, disclosure practices in Australia,
Critical Perspectives on Ac- Singapore and South Korea”,
counting, Vol. 13, No. 3, pp. The International Journal of
369-395. Accounting, Vol. 37, No. 2, pp.
_________ & Adler, R. W. (1999) 183-213.
“Exploring the reliability of so- O’Donovan, G. (2002) “Environmental
cial and environmental disclo- disclosures in the annual report:
sures content analysis”, Ac- Extending the applicability and
counting, Auditing and Account- predictive power of legitimacy
ability Journal, Vol. 12, No. 2, theory”, Accounting, Auditing
pp. 237-256. and Accountability Journal, Vol.
_________ & Chan, C. C. C. (1999) 15, No. 3, pp. 344-371.
“Narrative corporate social dis- O’Dwyer, B. (2003) “The ponderous
closures: How much difference evolution of corporate environ-
do they make to investment de- mental reporting in Ireland. Re-
cision-making”, British Ac- cent evidence from publicly
counting Review, Vol. 31, No. 4, listed companies”, Corporate
pp. 439-457. Social Responsibility and Envi-
Mobus, J. L. (2005) “Mandatory environmental Management, Vol.
ronmental disclosures in a legiti- 10, No. 2, pp. 91-100.
macy theory context”, Account- Ogden, S. & Clarke, J. (2005)
ing, Auditing and Accountability “Costumer disclosures, impres-
Journal, Vol. 18, No. 4, pp. 492- sion management and the con-
517. struction of legitimacy: Corpo-
Moerman, L. & Van Der Laan, S. (2005) rate reports in the UK privatised
“Social reporting in the tobacco water industry”, Accounting,
industry: All smoke and mir- Auditing and Accountability
rors?”, Accounting, Auditing and Journal, Vol. 18, No. 3, pp. 313-
345.


Patten, D. M. (1991) “Exposure, legiti- of the relationships among social
macy, and social disclosure”, performance, social disclosure
Journal of Accounting and Pub- and economic performance of
lic Policy, Vol. 10, No. 4, pp. U.S. firms”, Academy of Man-
297-308. agement Review, Vol. 10, No. 3,
________ (1992) “Intra-industry envi- pp. 540-557.
ronmental disclosures in re- Unerman, J. (2000) “Methodological
sponse to the Alaskan oil spill: issues: Reflections on quantifi-
A note on legitimacy theory”, cation in corporate social report-
Accounting, Organizations and ing content analysis”, Account-
Society, Vol. 17, No. 5, pp. 471- ing, Auditing and Accountability
475. Journal, Vol. 13, No. 5, pp. 667-
________ & Crampton, W. (2004) 680.
“Legitimacy and the Internet: Walden, W. D. & Schwartz, B. N.
An examination of corporate (1997) “Environmental disclo-
web page environmental disclosures and public policy pres-
sures”, Advances in Environ- sure”, Journal of Accounting
mental Accounting and Manage- and Public Policy, Vol. 16, No.
ment, Vol. 2, pp. 31-57. 2, pp. 125-154.
Roberts, R. W. (1992) “Determinants of Warsame, H., Neu, D. & Simmons, C.
corporate social responsibility V. (2002) “Responding to
disclosure: An application of ‘discrediting’ events: Annual
stakeholder theory”, Accounting, report disclosure responses to
Organizations and Society, Vol. environmental fines”, Account-
17, No. 6, pp. 595-612. ing and the Public Interest, Vol.
Suchman, M. C. (1995) “Managing le- 2, pp. 22-40.
gitimacy: Strategic and institu- Watts, R. L. & Zimmerman, J. L. (1978)
tional approaches”, Academy of “Toward a positive theory of the
Management Review, Vol. 20, determination of accounting
No. 3, pp. 571-610. standards”, The Accounting Re-
Toms, J. S. (2002) “Firm resources, view, Vol. 53, No. 1, pp. 112-
quality signals and the determi- 134.
nants of corporate environ- Williams, S. M. (1999) “Voluntary envi-
mental reputation: Some UK ronmental and social accounting
evidence”, British Accounting disclosure practices in the Asia-
Review, Vol. 34, No. 3, pp. 257- Pacific region: An international
282. empirical test of political econ-
Trotman, K. T. & Bradley, G. W. (1981) omy theory”, The International
“Associations between social Journal of Accounting, Vol. 34,
responsibility disclosure and No. 2, pp. 209-238.
characteristics of companies”, _________ & Pei, C.-A. H. W. (1999)
Accounting, Organizations and “Corporate social disclosures by
Society, Vol. 6, No. 4, pp. 355- listed companies on their web
362. sites: An international compari-
Ullman, A. E. (1985) “Data in search of son”, The International Journal
a theory: A critical examination


of Accounting, Vol. 34, No. 3, in corporate annual reports”,
pp. 389-419. Accounting, Organizations and
Wilmshurst, T. D. & Frost, G. R. (2000) Society, Vol. 7, No. 1, pp. 53-63.
“Corporate environmental re- Zéghal, D. & Ahmed, S. A. (1990)
porting: A test of legitimacy the- “Comparison of social responsi-
ory”, Accounting, Auditing and bility information disclosure
Accountability Journal, Vol. 13, media used by Canadian firms”,
No. 1, pp. 10-26. Accounting, Auditing and Ac-
Wiseman, J. (1982) “An evaluation of countability Journal, Vol. 3, No.
environmental disclosures made 1, pp. 38-53.

International Journals Call for Paper
The IISTE, a U.S. publisher, is currently hosting the academic journals listed below. The peer review process of the following journals
usually takes LESS THAN 14 business days and IISTE usually publishes a qualified article within 30 days. Authors should
send their full paper to the following email address. More information can be found in the IISTE website : www.iiste.org

Business, Economics, Finance and Management PAPER SUBMISSION EMAIL
European Journal of Business and Management EJBM@iiste.org
Research Journal of Finance and Accounting RJFA@iiste.org
Journal of Economics and Sustainable Development JESD@iiste.org
Information and Knowledge Management IKM@iiste.org
Developing Country Studies DCS@iiste.org
Industrial Engineering Letters IEL@iiste.org

Physical Sciences, Mathematics and Chemistry PAPER SUBMISSION EMAIL
Journal of Natural Sciences Research JNSR@iiste.org
Chemistry and Materials Research CMR@iiste.org
Mathematical Theory and Modeling MTM@iiste.org
Advances in Physics Theories and Applications APTA@iiste.org
Chemical and Process Engineering Research CPER@iiste.org

Engineering, Technology and Systems PAPER SUBMISSION EMAIL
Computer Engineering and Intelligent Systems CEIS@iiste.org
Innovative Systems Design and Engineering ISDE@iiste.org
Journal of Energy Technologies and Policy JETP@iiste.org
Information and Knowledge Management IKM@iiste.org
Control Theory and Informatics CTI@iiste.org
Journal of Information Engineering and Applications JIEA@iiste.org
Industrial Engineering Letters IEL@iiste.org
Network and Complex Systems NCS@iiste.org

Environment, Civil, Materials Sciences PAPER SUBMISSION EMAIL
Journal of Environment and Earth Science JEES@iiste.org
Civil and Environmental Research CER@iiste.org
Civil and Environmental Research CER@iiste.org

Life Science, Food and Medical Sciences PAPER SUBMISSION EMAIL
Journal of Biology, Agriculture and Healthcare JBAH@iiste.org
Food Science and Quality Management FSQM@iiste.org
Chemistry and Materials Research CMR@iiste.org

Education, and other Social Sciences PAPER SUBMISSION EMAIL
Journal of Education and Practice JEP@iiste.org
Journal of Law, Policy and Globalization JLPG@iiste.org Global knowledge sharing:
New Media and Mass Communication NMMC@iiste.org EBSCO, Index Copernicus, Ulrich's
Journal of Energy Technologies and Policy JETP@iiste.org Periodicals Directory, JournalTOCS, PKP
Historical Research Letter HRL@iiste.org Open Archives Harvester, Bielefeld
Academic Search Engine, Elektronische
Public Policy and Administration Research PPAR@iiste.org Zeitschriftenbibliothek EZB, Open J-Gate,
International Affairs and Global Strategy IAGS@iiste.org OCLC WorldCat, Universe Digtial Library ,
Research on Humanities and Social Sciences RHSS@iiste.org NewJour, Google Scholar.

Developing Country Studies DCS@iiste.org IISTE is member of CrossRef. All journals
Arts and Design Studies ADS@iiste.org have high IC Impact Factor Values (ICV).

11.pp.0072www.iiste.org call for paper-90

Recomendados

Recomendados

Mais conteúdo relacionado

Destaque

Destaque (20)

Semelhante a 11.pp.0072www.iiste.org call for paper-90

Semelhante a 11.pp.0072www.iiste.org call for paper-90 (20)

Mais de Alexander Decker

Mais de Alexander Decker (20)

Último

Último (20)

11.pp.0072www.iiste.org call for paper-90