Corporate social responsiveness: An empirical examination using the environmental disclosure index

International Journal of Commerce and Management

Volumn 8, Issue 3-4, 1998, Pages 26-40

  Stanwick, Sarah D ^a   Stanwick, Peter A ^a  

^a AUBURN UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 1542332453     PISSN: 10569219     EISSN: 17588529     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1108/eb047373     Document Type: Article

References (24)

1. Anderson, J., & Frankle, A. (1980). Voluntary social reporting: An Iso-Beta portfolio analysis. Accounting Review, 55, 467-479.
2. Belkaoui, A. (1976). The impact of the disclosure of the environmental effects of organizational behavior on the market. Financial Management, 5, 26-31.
3. Bowman, E. (1978). Strategy, annual reports, and alchemy. California Management Review, 20, 64-71.
4. Carroll, A. (1979). A three-dimensional conceptual model of corporate social performance. Academy of Management Review, 4, 497-505.
5. Chemical Manufacturers Association. (1991). Responsible care: Progress report. Washington, D.C.
6. Clarkson, M. (1995). A stakeholder framework for analyzing and evaluating corporate social performance. Academy of Management Review, 20, 92-117.
7. Cochran, P., & Wood, R. (1984). Corporate social responsibility and financial performance. Academy of Management Journal, 27, 42-56.
8. Dalton, D., & Kesner, I. (1988). On the dynamics of corporate size and illegal activity: An empirical assessment. Journal of Business Ethics, 7, 861-870.
9. Dierkes, M., & Coppock, R. (1978). Europe tries the corporate social report. Business and Society Review, 16, 21-24.
10. Finney, H., & Lesieur, H. (1982). A contingency theory of organizational crime. In S.B. Bacharach (ed.) Research in the Sociology of Organizations (pp. 255-299). Greenwich, Conn: JAI Press.
11. Frederick, W. (1978). From CSRI to CSR2: The maturing of business-and-society thought. Working paper, University of Pittsburgh, Graduate School of Business.
12. Freedman, M., & Jaggi, B. (1982). Pollution disclosures, pollution performance and economic performance. Omega, 10, 167-176.
13. Fry, F., & Hock, R. (1976). Who claims corporate responsibility? The biggest and the worst. Business and Society Review, 18, 62-65.
14. Ingram, R., & Frazier, K. (1980). Environmental performance and corporate disclosure. Journal of Accounting Research, 18, 614-622.
15. Lerner, L., & Fryxell, G. (1988). An empirical study of the predictors of corporate social performance: A multi-dimensional analysis. Journal of Business Ethics, 7, 951-959.
16. Nystrom, P. (1990). Differences in moral values between corporations. Journal of Business Ethics, 9, 971-979.
17. Poduska, R., Forbes, R., & Bober, M. (1992). The challenge of sustainable development: Kodak's response. Columbia Journal of World Business, 27, 286-291.
18. Preston, L. (1978). Analyzing corporate social performance: Methods and results. Journal of Contemporary Business, 7, 135-150.
19. Reilly, W. (1992). Environment, inc. Business Horizons, 35, 9-11.
20. Trotman, K., & Bradley, G. (1981). Associations betsveen social responsibility disclosure and characteristics of companies. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 6, 355-362.
21. Ullmann, A. (1985). Data in search of a theory: A critical examination of the relationships among social performance, social disclosure, and economic performance of U.S. firms. Academy of Management Review, 10, 540-557.
22. Wartick, S., & Cochran, P. (1985). The evolution of the corporate social performance model. Academy of Management Review, 10, 758-769.
23. Wood, D. (1991a). Corporate social performance revisited. Academy of Management Review, 16, 691-718.
24. Wood, D. (1991b). Social issues in management: Theory and research in corporate social performance. Journal of Management, 17, 383-406.