Since the mid-1970s a number of studies have investigated the nature and frequency of corporate social responsibility disclosures, their patterns and trends, and their general relationships to corporate size and profitability. This study seeks to extend our knowledge of the relationship between a number of corporate characteristics and specific types of social responsibility disclosures, based on an extensive sample of U.S. corporate annual reports. Corporate size and industry category are found to correlate with certain types of disclosures while the existence of a corporate social responsibility committee appears to correlate with one particular type of disclosure.

The impact of corporate characteristics on social responsibility disclosure: A typology and frequency-based analysis

This paper reviews the literature on corporate social performance (CSP) measurement and sets that literature into a theoretical context. Following a review of CSP theory development and the literature on relationships between CSP and corporate financial performance, Wood’s CSP model (Wood, D.J. (1991). Corporate social performance revisited. Academy of Management Review, 16, pp. 691‐718) is used as an organizing device to present and discuss studies that use particular measures of CSP. Conclusions emphasize the need for CSP scholars to refocus on stakeholders and society, and to incorporate relevant literatures from other scholarly domains. Corporate social performance (CSP) and its sister concepts – corporate social responsibility, corporate social responsiveness, corporate citizenship – have been present in management scholarship for about 45 years. Notwithstanding this longevity, the CSP domain has remained controversial, fluid, ambiguous and difficult to research. To a large extent, CSP has been equated with ‘doing good’, and the search has been on for a statistical relationship between CSP and financial performance (FP) so as to justify or delegitimize the normative calls for managers to pay attention to CSP. These two phenomena may be largely to blame for the lack of progress in CSP theory and measurement. It is possible, and I believe desirable, to take a different stance on CSP. Corporate social performance, as conceived in the Wood (1991) framework, is a set of descriptive categorizations of business activity, focusing on the impacts and outcomes for society, stakeholders and the firm itself. Types of relevant outcomes are determined by the firm’s linkages, both general and specific, as defined by the structural principles of corporate social responsibility (CSR). The production, monitoring, evaluation, compensation and rectification (or not) of these outcomes are defined by the processes of corporate social responsiveness – the boundary-spanning (or bridging) processes by which the firm connects itself to information, stakeholders and issues. All these elements can be measured and evaluated: impacts and outcomes; processes; and the specific guidance offered by structural principles. The aim of this paper is, first, to describe briefly the conceptual history of CSP and then to explain CSP as a set of structural categories that can be identified, described and measured (following Wood 1991 and modifications by Kang 1995; Swanson 1995, 1999; and Mitnick 1993, 1995, 2000). A ‘detour’ into CSP–FP research emphasizes how much attention has been paid to this aspect of the CSP domain and suggests that other research questions might now be more interesting. The paper then reviews the empirical literature in which some aspect of CSP is measured, showing how the measures themselves fit into an expanded structural CSP model. An additional result of this analysis will be to spotlight the aspects of CSP that have gone relatively (or completely) unexamined, or that have not yet been considered generally as indicators of CSP. Finally, the analysis will suggest some overarching conclusions about existing CSP research which suggest fruitful paths for future work.

Measuring Corporate Social Performance: A Review

This paper provides one review of the social accounting literature of the last 25 years or so with particular attention to the role played by Accounting, Organizations and Society (AOS) in its development. The principal theme of the essay is that social accounting, at its best, is designed to open up a space for new accountings between the ‘conventional' accounting literature and practice and the ‘alternative' critiques and theorising. It seeks to do this, as the title suggests, through privileging — even demanding — engagement and imaginings of new accountings that — it seems inevitable — owe at least as much to pragmatism as to critique. Despite many poor beginnings and a heavy weight of substantive critique, the social accounting project(s) are advancing and are increasingly informed by the alternative/critical projects. The way forward proposed is for social accounting to both draw more from the wealth of theorising and, simultaneously, to take more confidence in itself and learn how to write up — and publish — the extensive experience of engagement which is so central to social accounting.

/pdf/the-social-accounting-project-and-accounting-organizations-5cv6jonxpe.pdf

The social accounting project and Accounting Organizations and Society. Privileging engagement, imaginings, new accountings and pragmatism over critique?

Sustainability in Action: Identifying and Measuring the Key Performance Drivers

Reviews 25 years of social and environmental accounting literature in an attempt to evaluate the position and answer the question posed in the title, as well as to provide a structure or classification for others to use. In order to structure the task, uses three time periods: 1971‐1980; 1981‐1990; and 1991‐1995, and classifies the literature into several sub‐groups including empirical studies, normative statements, philosophical discussion, non‐accounting literature, teaching programmes and textbooks, regulatory frameworks, and other reviews. Attempts, after the classification, to synthesize an overall chronological position. Concludes that there is something to celebrate after 25 years. However, the continued success of this field is dependent on a relatively small number of researchers, writers, and specialized journals without which there would be the danger of a collapse of interest and a loss of what has been gained so far. Consequently, the provision of a place in the advanced undergraduate and graduate curriculum is a major task for the next decade. Argues that appropriately qualified and motivated professionals are needed to contribute to environmental policy and management in both the public and private sectors. However, appropriate educational programmes have not been evident to date.

Twenty‐five years of social and environmental accounting research

In the past 5 years, accounting researchers, management consultants and corporate executives have been attempting to develop operational frameworks for the implementation and institutionalization of corporate social accounting. This has produced a tremendous diversity in the measurement models and reporting frameworks that have been developed. This paper synthesizes the major approaches in the U.S.A. to measurement and reporting of the impact of an organization on society. It also suggests future research needs in this area.

Corporate social accounting in the United States of America: State of the art and future prospects

The purpose of this paper is to examine the origin, nature and intellectual character of the frameworks being used by the various critics of the public accounting profession. The paper looks at three major questions: (1) what are the frameworks critics are using to hold the profession accountable? (2) What does the response of the profession tell us about how it perceives the problem? (3) Where is the current mode of response likely to lead the profession? Our analysis identifies two different frameworks that underlie the criticism being directed at the profession. We label these the “rational scientist” and “humanist-philosopher” viewpoints. These frameworks differ in the way in which they approach intersubjective phenomena. The differences are especially sharp on the notion objectivity . The profession, thus, is caught between the crossfire of these views and is in the difficult position of responding to a set of critical standards for which there exists no consensual framework. Unfortunately, they seem to be moving more toward the “rational-scientist” position of objectivity which is likely to compound their difficulties.

John J. McDonough

Papers

Corporate social accounting in the United States of America: State of the art and future prospects

Intersubjectivity — the challenge and opportunity for accounting