Branco and Rodrigues (2008) investigate the factors that influence social responsibility disclosure by Portuguese companies listed on Portuguese Stock Exchange in 2004. The study compares the internet and annual reports as media of social responsibility disclosure and analyzes what influence disclosure. The study uses content analysis to measure the level of social responsibility disclose in company website and on the annual report. A scoring system that added the scores for each company was used to assign a point for each social responsibility disclosure theme pertaining to any of the categories considered. The study divided the disclosure into four categories namely environmental, human resource, product and consumers and community involvement. The independent variables or factors that influence social responsibility used in this study include international experience, company size, consumer proximity, environmental sensitivity and media exposure. The control variable used includes profitability and leverage. International experience is measured by the percentage of sales outside Portugal to total sales as reported in the segment data of the financial statements. Total asset is measured using the total assets as reported on the balance sheet. Consumer proximity is of binary measure of high profile and low profile. A high profile companies are those in household goods and textile, beverages, food and drug retailers, telecommunications services, electricity, gas distributions, water and bank sectors. All other sectors are considered low profile. Environmental sensitivity is also of binary measure of more sensitive and less sensitive. More sensitive sectors are identified as mining, oil and gas, chemicals, construction and building materials, forestry and paper, steel and other metals, electricity, gas distribution and water. Other sectors are considered less sensitive. Measurement for media exposure is based on the number of articles mentioned in two Portuguese newspapers. The study used multiple regression models to analyze the relationship between total social responsibility disclosure and each of the independent variables. The result shows that company size and media exposure have a positive significant relationship with social responsibility disclosure. Determinants of Corporate Social Responsibility Disclosure Ratings by Spanish Listed Firms Carmelo Reverte ABSTRACT. The aim of this paper is to analyze whether a number of firm and industry characteristics, as well as media exposure, are potential determinants of corporate social responsibility (CSR) disclosure practices by Spanish listed firms. Empirical studies have shown that CSR dis- closure activism varies across companies, industries, and time (Gray et al., Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal 8(2), 47–77, 1995; Journal of Business Finance & Accounting 28(3/4), 327–356, 2001; Hackston and Milne, Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal 9(1), 77–108, ...

1. Branco and Rodrigues (2008) investigate the factors that
influence social responsibility disclosure by Portuguese
companies listed on Portuguese Stock Exchange in 2004. The
study compares the internet and annual reports as media of
social responsibility disclosure and analyzes what influence
disclosure. The study uses content analysis to measure the level
of social responsibility disclose in company website and on the
annual report. A scoring system that added the scores for each
company was used to assign a point for each social
responsibility disclosure theme pertaining to any of the
categories considered. The study divided the disclosure into
four categories namely environmental, human resource, product
and consumers and community involvement. The independent
variables or factors that influence social responsibility used in
this study include international experience, company size,
consumer proximity, environmental sensitivity and media
exposure. The control variable used includes profitability and
leverage. International experience is measured by the
percentage of sales outside Portugal to total sales as reported in
the segment data of the financial statements. Total asset is
measured using the total assets as reported on the balance sheet.
Consumer proximity is of binary measure of high profile and
low profile. A high profile companies are those in household
goods and textile, beverages, food and drug retailers,
telecommunications services, electricity, gas distributions,
water and bank sectors. All other sectors are considered low
profile. Environmental sensitivity is also of binary measure of
more sensitive and less sensitive. More sensitive sectors are
identified as mining, oil and gas, chemicals, construction and
building materials, forestry and paper, steel and other metals,
electricity, gas distribution and water. Other sectors are
considered less sensitive. Measurement for media exposure is
based on the number of articles mentioned in two Portuguese
newspapers. The study used multiple regression models to

2. analyze the relationship between total social responsibility
disclosure and each of the independent variables. The result
shows that company size and media exposure have a positive
significant relationship with social responsibility disclosure.
Determinants of Corporate Social
Responsibility Disclosure Ratings
by Spanish Listed Firms Carmelo Reverte
ABSTRACT. The aim of this paper is to analyze whether
a number of firm and industry characteristics, as well as
media exposure, are potential determinants of corporate
social responsibility (CSR) disclosure practices by Spanish
listed firms. Empirical studies have shown that CSR dis-
closure activism varies across companies, industries, and
time (Gray et al., Accounting, Auditing & Accountability
Journal 8(2), 47–77, 1995; Journal of Business Finance &
Accounting 28(3/4), 327–356, 2001; Hackston and Milne,
Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal 9(1), 77–108,
1996; Cormier and Magnan, Journal of International Finan-
cial Management and Accounting 1(2), 171–195, 2003; Cor-

3. mier et al., European Accounting Review 14(1), 3–39, 2005),
which is usually justified by reference to several theoretical
constructs, such as the legitimacy, stakeholder, and agency
theories. Our findings evidence that firms with higher
CSR ratings present a statistically significant larger size and
a higher media exposure, and belong to more environ-
mentally sensitive industries, as compared to firms with
lower CSR ratings. However, neither profitability nor
leverage seem to explain differences in CSR disclosure
practices between Spanish listed firms. The most influen-
tial variable for explaining firms’ variation in CSR ratings is
media exposure, followed by size and industry. Therefore,
it seems that the legitimacy theory, as captured by those
variables related to public or social visibility, is the most
relevant theory for explaining CSR disclosure practices of
Spanish listed firms.
KEY WORDS: corporate social responsibility disclosure,
Spain

4. Introduction
Over the last few decades there has been a growing
public awareness of the role of corporations in
society. Many of the firms which have been credited
with contributing to economic and technological
progress have been criticized for creating social
problems. Issues such as pollution, waste, resource
depletion, product quality and safety, the rights and
status of workers, and the power of large corpora-
tions have become the focus of increasing attention
and concern. In this context, companies have been
increasingly urged to become accountable to a wider
audience than shareholder and creditor groups. As a
matter of fact, public awareness and interest in
environmental and social issues and increased
attention in mass media have resulted in more social
disclosures from corporations in the last two decades
(Deegan and Gordon, 1996; Gray et al., 1995;

5. Hooghiemstra, 2000; Kolk, 2003). In the European
Union context, the publication of the Green Paper
(2001) by the European Commission launched a
wide debate on how the EU could promote cor-
porate social responsibility (CSR). Although there is
still no universal definition of CSR (Godfrey and
Hatch, 2007), most definitions describe it as a con-
cept whereby companies integrate social and envi-
ronmental concerns in their business operations and
in their interaction with their stakeholders on a
voluntary basis. By acting in a responsible way to the
variety of social, environmental, and economic
pressures, companies respond to the expectations of
the various stakeholders with whom they interact,
such as employees, shareholders, investors, con-
sumers, public authorities, and non-governmental
organizations (NGOs).
Companies usually inform of their CSR activities

6. in the annual report or in separate social reports
(CSR Report or Sustainability Report). However,
there is no standardization or uniformity in terms
of the items reported, or the way of reporting.
Journal of Business Ethics (2009) 88:351–366 � Springer 2008
DOI 10.1007/s10551-008-9968-9
Consequently, various NGOs have started devel-
oping models or frameworks for reporting on CSR,
such as the ISO 14001 (Internationally Standards
Organization), World Resources Institute (WRI)
and the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI).
With regard to the empirical research on CSR,
three types of empirical studies characterize the
research in this field. The first one relates to
‘descriptive studies,’ which report on the nature and
extent of CSR with some comparisons on countries
and periods. The second one is related to ‘explicative

7. studies,’ which focus on the potential determinants
of social and environmental reporting. The third one
is interested in the ‘impact of social and environ-
mental information’ on various users, mainly on
market reaction. Our study adopts the second
orientation, as it is focused on analyzing whether a
number of firm and industry characteristics, as well
as media exposure, are potential determinants of
CSR disclosure practices by Spanish listed firms.
Empirical studies have shown that CSR disclosure
activism varies across companies, industries, and time
(Gray et al., 1995, 2001; Hackston and Milne, 1996).
They have also shown this behavior to be impor-
tantly and systematically determined by a variety of
firm and industry characteristics that influence the
relative costs and benefits of disclosing such infor-
mation (Belkaoui and Karpik, 1989; Cormier and
Magnan, 2003; Cormier et al., 2005; Hackston and

8. Milne, 1996; Patten, 2002a, b).
This paper is focused on the Spanish setting for
three reasons. First, most of the present literature is
based on Anglo-American countries (US and UK)
and evidence should be added about other institu-
tional contexts. Second, there is scarce empirical
research on CSR determinants by Spanish compa-
nies. Previous studies (Archel, 2003; Archel and
Lizarraga, 2001; Carmona and Carrasco, 1988;
Garcı́a-Ayuso and Larrinaga, 2003; Moneva and
Llena, 1996, 2000) have mainly focused on one
dimension of CSR such as environmental disclosure,
and the sample periods analyzed in these papers were
previous to the first compulsory regulations in Spain
in the area of environmental disclosure (i.e., the
Royal Decree 437/1998 and the Resolution enacted
on March 25, 2002 by the Institute of Accounting
and Auditing – ICAC-). Our sample period follows

9. the previous mandatory regulations and also the GRI
Sustainability Reporting Guidelines, which have
been generally adopted by Spanish listed firms in the
last years as the benchmark for CSR reporting. As a
result, CSR disclosures by Spanish firms in our
sample period are much more richer and extensive as
compared to previous studies in the Spanish context
in which that information was very scarce and
anecdotical. Moreover, our measure of CSR not
only captures environmental issues but also a number
of social aspects included in the latest developments
in CSR worldwide, specially those stemming from
the GRI Sustainability Reporting Guidelines and the
United Nations Norms on the Responsibilities of
Transnational Corporations and Other Business
Enterprises with regard to Human Rights. Third, in
contrast to the understanding of CSR from common
law English-speaking countries (Australia, Canada,

10. UK, US), the determinants of CSR in Continental
Europe are still relatively unknown. Therefore, our
main goal is to analyze whether the specific features
of Spain regarding its capital market and companies’
financing structure result in a significant difference
between the factors influencing CSR disclosure
practices of Spanish listed firms when compared to
firms from other different institutional contexts. In
particular, Spain is less capital market oriented than
other EU countries and financing policies are bank
oriented.
The remainder of the paper is organized as fol-
lows. In the following section, the theoretical
framework used is presented. Section ‘‘Determinants
of CSR disclosure: development of hypotheses’’
discusses the determinants of CSR disclosure prac-
tices. Section ‘‘Data and method of estimation’’
focuses on the methodology and data. Section

11. ‘‘Results’’ presents the main results of our empirical
analysis. Finally, some conclusions are drawn.
A multi-theoretical framework for CSR
disclosure
Despite widespread academic and business interest in
the issue, a comprehensive theoretical framework of
the underlying determinants of corporate social and
environmental reporting is still elusive. The empir-
ical investigations of CSR practices have produced a
very diverse body of academic literature which
engages different theoretical perspectives in support
of corporate social reporting, such as the agency
352 Carmelo Reverte
theory, the legitimacy theory, and the stakeholder
theory, among others.
For instance, there is extensive evidence that
social and environmental information is useful

12. for decision-making by financial stakeholders
(Blacconiere and Northcut, 1997; Blacconiere and
Patten, 1994; Graham et al., 2000; Richardson and
Welker, 2001). However, with its financial stake-
holders’ focus, it fails to provide a comprehensive
theoretical foundation to explain CSR disclosure,
especially since most of that disclosure is non-
financial. In response to this conceptual gap, other
alternative explanations for CSR disclosure have also
been offered in the literature. Following its emer-
gence as an explanatory model for corporate finan-
cial reporting (Watts and Zimmerman, 1986),
economic agency theory (or positive accounting the-
ory) became an appealing proposition as a rationale
for CSR disclosure (Belkaoui and Karpik, 1989).
Agency theory views the firm as a nexus of contracts
between various economic agents who act oppor-
tunistically within efficient markets. In this context,

13. social and environmental disclosure may prove use-
ful in determining debt contractual obligations,
managerial compensation contracts, or implicit
political costs. However, as indicated by Cormier
et al. (2005), agency theory’s focus on monetary or
wealth considerations among agents who trade in
informationally efficient markets does limit the scope
of relevant social and environmental disclosure as
well as its intended purpose, insofar as many
potential users of this kind of information may not
act in these markets at all (e.g., pressure groups such
as Greenpeace).
In contrast to agency theory, the legitimacy theory
provides a more comprehensive perspective on CSR
disclosure as it explicitly recognizes that businesses
are bound by the social contract in which the firms
agree to perform various socially desired actions in
return for approval of their objectives and other

14. rewards, and this ultimately guarantees their con-
tinued existence (Brown and Deegan, 1998; Dee-
gan, 2002; Guthrie and Parker, 1989). Gray et al.
(1995) and Hooghiemstra (2000), among others,
argue that most insights into CSR disclosure ema-
nate from the use of this theoretical framework
which posits that social and environmental disclosure
is a way to legitimize a firm’s continued existence or
operations to the society. Perrow (1970) defines
legitimacy as a generalized perception or assumption
that the actions of an entity are desirable, proper, or
appropriate within some socially constructed system
of norms, value, beliefs, and definitions. Although
firms have discretion to operate within institutional
constraints, failure to conform to critical, institu-
tionalized norms of acceptability can threaten the
firm’s legitimacy, resources, and, ultimately, its sur-
vival (DiMaggio and Powell, 1983; Oliver, 1991;

15. Scott, 1987). Meyer and Rowan (1977) assert that:
‘as the issues of safety and environmental pollution
arise, and as relevant professions and programs
become institutionalized in laws, union ideologies
and public opinion, organizations incorporate these
programs and professions’ (Meyer and Rowan,
1977, p. 345). Jennings and Zandbergen (1995)
argue that the type of institutional pressure, be it
coercive, mimetic, or normative, influences the rate
at which sustainable development practices diffuse
among firms. Reinforcing the previous arguments,
many prior studies on corporate disclosures have
provided evidence that firms do voluntarily disclose
information in their annual reports as a strategy to
manage their legitimacy (Campbell, 2000; Deegan
and Rankin, 1996; Hutchings and Taylor, 2000;
Nasi et al., 1997; Patten, 1991; Woodward et al.,
2001). Thus, CSR disclosure can be viewed as a

16. constructed image or symbolic impression of itself
that a firm is conveying to the outside world to
control its political or economic position (Neu et al.,
1998).
Finally, the stakeholder theory explicitly considers
the expectations impact of the different stakeholder
groups within society upon corporate disclosure
policies. Under the managerial branch of stakeholder
theory, the central thesis that emerges is that cor-
porate disclosure is a management tool for managing
the informational needs of the various powerful
stakeholder groups (employees, shareholders, inves-
tors, consumers, public authorities and NGOs, …).
Managers use information to manage or manipulate
the most powerful stakeholders in order to gain their
support which is required for survival (Gray et al.,
1996). In relation to the overlap between legitimacy
theory and stakeholder theory, Deegan (2002,
p. 295) state that ‘‘both theories conceptualise the

17. organisation as part of a broader social system
wherein the organisation impacts, and is impacted
by, other groups within society. Whilst legitimacy
Determinants of Corporate Social Responsibility Disclosure 353
theory discusses the expectations of society in gen-
eral (as encapsulated within the ‘social contract’),
stakeholder theory provides a more refined resolu-
tion by referring to particular groups within society
(stakeholder groups). Essentially, stakeholder theory
accepts that because different stakeholder groups will
have different views about how an organisation
should conduct its operations, there will be various
social contracts ‘negotiated’ with different stake-
holder groups, rather than one contract with society
in general. Whilst implied within legitimacy theory,
stakeholder theory explicitly refers to issues of
stakeholder power, and how a stakeholder’s relative

18. power impacts their ability to ‘coerce’ the organi-
sation into complying with the stakeholder’s
expectations.’’
While there are some similarities, the previous
three alternative theories essentially differ on the
basis of fundamental assumptions. Unlike the agency
or positive accounting theory, legitimacy theory and
stakeholder theory make no assumption of rational,
wealth-maximizing individuals operating within the
environment of efficient capital markets. On the
other hand, while Woodward et al. (1996) have
shown that both legitimacy theory and stakeholder
theory consider an organization to be part of the
wider social system, legitimacy theory looks at
society as a whole, whereas stakeholder theory
recognizes that some groups within the society are
more powerful than others. We posit that the
alternative theories which are of value in studies of

19. CSR disclosure policies focus upon distinct per-
spectives of the same issue. Hence, the different
theories outlined should not be seen as competing
perspectives, but rather as alternative ways of com-
prehending and studying organizational decisions to
disclose different kinds of information to the public.
Determinants of CSR disclosure:
development of hypotheses
Empirical studies have shown that CSR disclosure
activism varies across companies, industries, and time
(Gray et al., 1995, 2001; Hackston and Milne, 1996).
They have also shown this behavior to be impor-
tantly and systematically determined by a variety of
firm and industry characteristics that influence
the relative costs and benefits of disclosing such
information (Belkaoui and Karpik, 1989; Cormier
and Magnan, 2003; Cormier et al., 2005; Hackston
and Milne, 1996; Patten, 2002a, b). The theories

20. that seem to have been most successful in explaining
the content and extent of social and environmental
reporting are system-oriented theories, above all
legitimacy and stakeholder theories (Gray et al.,
1995; Milne, 2002). According to these theories,
social disclosure is in first hand used in order
to guard corporations’ reputation and identity
(Hooghiemstra, 2000). Both Adrem (1999) and
Cormier et al. (2005) argue, however, that disclo-
sures are a complex phenomenon that cannot be
explained by one single theory. As pointed out by
Gray et al. (1995), if the aim of the study is to ex-
plain an empirical phenomenon, it could be a
problem when theories are looked upon as com-
petitive instead of complementary. Hence, in this
study we have an eclectic approach and use a multi-
theoretical framework in order to explain the dif-
ferences in CSR disclosure practices between

21. Spanish listed firms. Next, we discuss each of the
explanatory factors analyzed.
Size
The public pressure perspective of legitimacy theory
is concerned with public and, consequently, gov-
ernment intrusions into the activities of organiza-
tions that are deemed to violate their social contract.
This perspective parallels Watts and Zimmerman’s
(1986) political cost hypothesis in that larger com-
panies are deemed to be more highly exposed to
public scrutiny. Watts and Zimmerman (1986) argue
that large companies are more visible to the public,
have more market power, and are more newswor-
thy. Hence, they are more likely to be subject to
public resentment, consumer hostility, militant
employees, and the attention of government regu-
latory bodies. Large corporations do have a bigger
effect on the community, and therefore normally

22. have a bigger group of stakeholders that influence
the corporation (Hackston and Milne, 1996; Knox
et al., 2006). Hence, voluntary disclosures can be
explained as an effort to avoid regulations and reduce
political costs (Adams et al., 1998; Clarke and
Gibson-Sweet, 1999; Gray et al., 1995; Ness and
Mirza, 1991). Dowling and Pfeffer (1975) argue that
354 Carmelo Reverte
larger firms are more politically visible, thus they are
expected to engage more heavily in legitimating
behavior. From an empirical perspective, various
studies have found that there is a positive relation-
ship between CSR disclosure and firm size or
political visibility (Adams et al., 1998; Cullen and
Christopher, 2002; Hamid, 2004; Haniffa and
Cooke, 2005; Hossain et al., 1995; Neu et al., 1998;
Patten, 1991). Hence, the discussion above leads us

23. to the hypothesis that:
H1: There is a positive significant relationship
between firm size and CSR disclosure.
Industry sensitivity
In previous research, industry, together with size, is
the most common variable in order to explain the
content and extent of social and environmental dis-
closures (Adams et al., 1998; Cowen et al., 1987;
Gray et al., 1995). The results from these studies show
that corporations from industries whose manufac-
turing process has a negative influence on the
environment disclose and report considerably more
information than corporations from other industries.
In general, corporations from the mining, oil, and
chemical industries emphasize information regarding
environmental, health, and safety issues (Clarke and
Gibson-Sweet, 1999; Jenkins and Yakovleva, 2006;
Line et al., 2002; Ness and Mirza, 1991), while the

24. finance and service industries in general seem to
report more regarding social issues and philanthrop-
ical deeds (Clarke and Gibson-Sweet, 1999; Line
et al., 2002). A body of empirical literature associates
the metals, resources, paper and pulp, power gener-
ation, water, and chemicals sectors with high envi-
ronmental impacts (Bowen, 2000; Hoffman, 1999;
Morris, 1997). In contrast, other industries, particu-
larly newer manufacturing industries and the service
sector, have significantly lower environmental
impacts and are associated with fewer visible envi-
ronmental issues. Therefore, companies in these
industries are expected to be subject to significantly
less stakeholder pressure regarding their environ-
mental performance, and so would be expected to
display a lesser degree of disclosure activism. Hence,
the discussion above leads us to the hypothesis that:
H2: There is a positive significant relationship be-

25. tween industry environmental sensitivity and
CSR disclosure.
Profitability
There are several studies, mainly based on the
stakeholder theory, that suppose a positive relation-
ship between social disclosure policy and profit-
ability (Belkaoui and Karpik, 1989; Cowen et al.,
1987; Ismail and Chandler, 2005; Roberts, 1992;
Ullmann, 1985), although it should be noted that the
empirical results do not always confirm that positive
relationship (Archel, 2003; Brammer and Pavelin,
2008; Carmona and Carrasco, 1988; Garcı́a-Ayuso
and Larrinaga, 2003; Moneva and Llena, 1996;
Roberts, 1992). According to Belkaoui and Karpik
(1989), the underlying cause of a positive relation-
ship between social disclosure policy and profit-
ability is management’s knowledge. A management
that has the knowledge to make a company profit-

26. able also has the knowledge and understanding of
social responsibility, which leads to more social and
environmental disclosures. In the context of the
agency and political cost theories, Giner (1997)
points out that management in very profitable
corporations provide more detailed information in
order to support their own position and compensa-
tion. Ng and Koh (1994) point to the fact that
profitable corporations are more exposed to political
pressure and public scrutiny, and therefore use more
self-regulating mechanisms, for instance voluntary
disclosure of information, in order to avoid regula-
tion. The most obvious and explicit explanation
might be that profitable corporations have the nec-
essary economical means – the so-called organiza-
tional slack (Cowen et al., 1987; Hackston and
Milne, 1996; Pirsch et al., 2007). In a corporation
with less economical resources, management will

27. probably focus on activities that have a more direct
effect on the corporation’s earnings than the pro-
duction of social and environmental disclosures
(Roberts, 1992; Ullmann, 1985). However, from a
legitimacy theory perspective, profitability can
be regarded to be either positively or negatively
related to CSR disclosure (Neu et al., 1998). As
these authors point out, where the organization is
Determinants of Corporate Social Responsibility Disclosure 355
profitable, environmental disclosures would, for
those stakeholders who value the environment, give
confirmation that profit has not been at the expense
of the environment. Conversely, in periods of rela-
tive unprofitability, these same disclosures might be
either directed at convincing financial stakeholders
that current environmental investments will result in
long-term competitive advantages or at distracting

28. attention from the financial results. Thus, we do
not make any a priori assumption about the sign
of the association between CSR disclosure and
profitability.
H3: There is a significant relationship between
profitability and CSR disclosure.
Ownership structure
The degree to which ownership of company stock is
concentrated in the hands of a few large investors or
dispersed among many has been proposed as an
influence on disclosure policy (Roberts, 1992;
Ullmann, 1985). Opportunistic management
behavior and conflict of interests between agents and
principals are more likely to occur in corporations
with more dispersed ownership. In a widely held
company, voluntary disclosure can act as a bonding
and monitoring tool reducing agency conflicts
between managers and shareholders (Jensen and

29. Meckling, 1976). Evidence suggests that ownership
dispersion across many investors contributes to
increased pressure for voluntary disclosure (Cullen
and Christopher, 2002; Ullmann, 1985). Hence,
corporations with many owners are in general
expected to disclose more information than corpo-
rations with concentrated ownership in order to
reduce information asymmetries between the orga-
nization and its shareholders (Prencipe, 2004). Firms
whose shares are widely held are more likely to
improve their financial reporting policy by using
their CSR disclosure in order to reduce these
asymmetries. On the contrary, firms with a con-
centrated ownership structure are less motivated to
disclose additional information on their CSR, insofar
as the shareholders of these firms can obtain infor-
mation directly from the firm. Reinforcing the
previous arguments, Brammer and Pavelin (2008)

30. evidence, in the context of environmental infor-
mation, that having greater ownership concentration
makes a firm less likely to disclose an environmental
policy. Thus, we hypothesize that:
H4: There is a negative relationship between CSR
disclosure and concentrated ownership.
International listing
According to Cooke (1989), when a firm is listed on a
foreign exchange, it will disclose more detailed
information since it may need to observe the disclo-
sure rules of two or more stock exchanges, and it will
attract more analyst coverage. In this respect, disclo-
sure serves to limit the monitoring and agency costs
resulting from the existence of a greater number of
shareholders. Reinforcing the previous arguments,
Singhvi and Desai (1971), Cooke (1989), Hossain
et al. (1994, 1995) and Robb et al. (2001) find
international listing status to be a significant deter-

31. minant of the voluntary disclosure level. Thus, we
hypothesize that:
H5: There is a positive significant relationship
between CSR disclosure and international listing.
Media exposure
Legitimacy theory research extends to examining the
role media coverage plays in increasing the public
policy pressures faced by companies (Patten, 2002b).
The total amount of media coverage raises the firm’s
visibility, inviting further public attention and scru-
tiny. The media can play an important role in
mobilizing social movements such as environmental
interest groups. In doing so, it becomes part of the
institution-building process, shaping the norms of
acceptable and legitimate CSR practices. According
to Simon (1992), the media is the main source of
environmental information. The media not only
plays a passive role in shaping institutional norms,

32. but also a more active one by choosing the stories
worth reporting and framing them to reflect editorial
values. Empirical studies have shown that the media
has been particularly influential on corporate envi-
356 Carmelo Reverte
ronmental responses (Bansal and Clelland, 2004;
Bansal and Roth, 2000; Bowen, 2000; Henriques
and Sadorsky, 1996). Based on these arguments, the
following hypothesis is tested:
H6: There is a positive significant relationship
between CSR disclosure and media exposure.
Leverage
Within the context of the agency theory, Jensen and
Meckling (1976) argue that more highly leveraged
firms disclose voluntary information in order to
reduce their agency costs and, as a result, their cost of
capital. However, Brammer and Pavelin (2008)

33. sustain that a low degree of leverage ensures that
creditor stakeholders will exert less pressure to
constrain managers’ discretion over CSR activities,
which are only indirectly linked to the financial
success of the firm. Purushothaman et al. (2000) also
predict a negative relationship between leverage and
CSR disclosure in that companies with high leverage
may have closer relationships with their creditors and
use other means to disclose social responsibility
information. Thus, we do not make any a priori
assumption about the sign of the association between
CSR disclosure and leverage. The following
hypothesis is thus tested:
H7: There is a significant relationship between
CSR disclosure and leverage.
1
Data and method of estimation
CSR ratings: the dependent variable

34. Our data on CSR disclosure ratings come from the
Observatory on corporate social responsibility
(OCSR). This is an association integrated by four-
teen organizations that represent civil society,
NGOs, trade unions, and consumer organizations. It
is a network that fosters participation and coopera-
tion between social organizations that, from different
points of view, are interested in CSR. The OCSR
issues each year a very exhaustive report on CSR
disclosures by Spanish listed firms included in the
IBEX35 index, which comprises the largest 35 firms
in terms of market capitalization. Each of the cov-
ered firms is assigned a numerical rating (ranging
from 0 to 4 in a continuous scale) based on the
adherence of their CSR disclosures to the following
rules/recommendations: (a) Global Reporting Ini-
tiative (GRI)’s Guidelines (G2 and G3); (b) United
Nations Norms on the Responsibilities of Transna-

35. tional Corporations and Other Business Enterprises
with Regard to Human Rights [U.N. Doc. E/
CN.4/Sub.2/2003/38/Rev.2 (2003)]; (c) AA1000
Accountability Principles issued by the Institute of
Social and Ethical AccountAbility); (d) New Eco-
nomics Foundation (NEF) Principles and (e) Cor-
porate Governance recommendations issued by the
Spanish stock market regulator and, in the case of
US cross-listed firms, the Sarbanes-Oxley Law. We
focus on the following three ratings reported by the
OCSR:
a) Total CSR score (TCSR), which captures the
overall adherence of a firm’s CSR disclosure
practices to the previous rules/recommenda-
tions;
b) CSR Content Rating (CR), which evaluates
the concordance of the information provided
by a firm to the recommendations reported in:

36. • GRI Performance Indicators section related
to:
• economic perfomance
• environmental performance
• social performance
– human rights
– labor practices and decent work
– society
– product responsibility
• United Nations Norms on the Responsibili-
ties of Transnational Corporations and Other
Business Enterprises with Regard to Human
Rights (especially in the fields of protection
of consumer rights and corruption);
c) CSR Management Systems Rating (MSR),
which evaluates the adherence of the pro-
cesses and management systems in the CSR
area to those outlined in:
Determinants of Corporate Social Responsibility Disclosure 357

37. • GRI’s Profile section.
• GRI’s Principles (relevance/materiality,
stakeholder inclusiveness, reliability/audit-
ability, neutrality, sustainability context,
accuracy, comparability, clarity, complete-
ness, timeliness, transparency).
• AA1000 Principles (completeness, material-
ity, regularity and timeliness, quality assur-
ance, information quality, embeddedness,
continuous improvement, accessibility).
• NEF’s Principles (inclusivity, completeness,
comparability, embeddedness, disclosure,
external verification, continuous improve-
ment, evolution).
Explanatory variables measurement
Media exposure
To develop a measure of the companies’ media
exposure, the number of articles in the two main
Spanish business newspapers (‘Expansión’ and
‘Actualidad Económica’) was counted. Company

38. exposure was measured by using the search facilities
present on the web pages of those newspapers for
each of the 2 years analyzed (2005 and 2006).
2
Profitability
In order to measure corporate performance, either
accounting- or market-based measures can be used.
In contrast with accounting-based measures, market-
based measures are less subject to bias by managerial
manipulation and they do not rely on past perfor-
mance (McGuire et al., 1988). However, they are
based on investors’ viewpoints on company perfor-
mance, thus ignoring other important stakeholder
groups. This is the main reason for adopting an
accounting-based variable in our paper, such as
return on assets (ROA) (Belkaoui and Karpik, 1989;
Bewley and Li, 2000; Brammer and Pavelin, 2008;
Cormier et al., 2004; Patten, 1991).

39. Industry sensitivity
In this study, ‘‘more sensitive’’ industries are con-
sidered to be those with more risk of being criticized
in CSR matters because of their activities involving
higher risk of environmental impact. Based on prior
literature, the following ‘‘more sensitive’’ sectors are
identified: mining, oil and gas, chemicals, forestry
and paper, steel and other metals, electricity, gas
distribution, and water. All others are considered as
‘‘less sensitive.’’ A one/zero variable is used to des-
ignate companies from these industries: one if the
company is from a more sensitive industry and zero
if it is from a less sensitive industry.
International listing
International listing is measured by the number of
foreing stock markets in which the firm is listed.
Company size
Following prior research, size is measured as the

40. natural logarithm of market capitalization.
3
Ownership concentration
This variable is measured from data concerning
significant shareholdings from 2005 and 2006 annual
reports of the sample companies. Thus, if a firm has a
majority shareholder we assign it a value of 1 and if
not it is assigned a zero value.
Leverage
This variable is measured as long-term debt/book
value of equity (Cormier et al., 2005).
4
Sample
Our sample comprises those firms covered by the
OCSR report, i.e., Spanish firms listed on the
Madrid Stock Exchange and included in
the IBEX35 index. However, due to the fact that
most of our explanatory variables are based on
accounting data, we have excluded financial firms

41. because of the particular characteristics of their
accounting system. Moreover, since all firms under
study present consolidated accounts and they had
to be prepared in accordance with International
Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) issued by the
IASB from 2005 onward – Regulation 1606/2002 of
the European Commission – we have chosen fiscal
years 2005 and 2006 so as to ensure comparability in
accounting data. After eliminating firms with
extreme values for some of the explanatory variables,
the final sample comprises 46 observations.
5
358 Carmelo Reverte
Empirical models
The statistical analysis conducted in this study
includes the use of linear regression models to ana-
lyze the relationship between CSR ratings and each
of the influencing factors referred to in the previous

42. section. The three estimated models differ in their
dependent variables: Total CSR (TSCR), CSR
Content Rating (CR), and CSR Management Sys-
tems Rating (MSR). The approach adopted in the
empirical analysis is summarized by the following
general form of the models:
CSR ratingi ¼b0 þ b1MEi þ b2ILi þ b3INDi
þ b4SIZEi þ b5OWNERi
þ b6ROAi þ b7LEVi þ ei
where, ME: media exposure; IL: International list-
ing; IND: Industry environmental sensitivity;
SIZE: Firm’s size; OWNER: Ownership concen-
tration; ROA: Profitability (return on assets); LEV:
Leverage.
Results
Table I reports the descriptive statistics of the
dependent and independent variables considered in
our study. It can be seen a high variability in CSR
practices across Spanish listed firms, as the total CSR

43. rating varies from 0.170 to 1.940. As the maximum
value is 4, we can assert that the degree of infor-
mation on CSR by Spanish listed firms is still rather
low.
Table II reports the correlation coefficients among
our set of independent variables. It can be seen that
some correlations are statistically significant at a 1%
level, such as those between size and media exposure
(q = 0.599), industry and leverage (q = - 0.465) and
leverage and return on assets (q = - 0.526). How-
ever, none of the variance inflation factors (VIFs)
– not reported – exceed the critical value of 10. Thus,
it can be said that multicollinearity is not a serious
problem in our study.
Table III reports the mean values of the explan-
atory variables under analysis across the several CSR
disclosure ratings for both firms with a rating higher
than the median and those with a rating lower than
the median. To test the statistical significance of the

44. mean differences in the explanatory variables
between both groups of firms, we perform a t-test (if
the variable is normally distributed) and a Wilcoxon
signed-rank test (if the variable is non-normally
distributed). It can be observed that firms with a
total CSR rating higher than the median operate in a
more environmentally sensitive industry (p = 0.008),
have a higher media exposure (p = 0.000), a larger
size (p = 0.010), and a less concentrated ownership
(p = 0.004), as compared to those firms with a CSR
rating lower than the median. However, although
firms disclosing more on CSR activities are listed on a
higher number of foreign stock markets, have a lower
leverage and are more profitable, these differences are
not significantly different, at a 5% level, between
both groups of firms. It should be noted that the
results are generally consistent across the other two
CSR ratings.

45. Table IV reports the results of regressing the
explanatory factors on the various CSR ratings. The
first rows of each panel present the results of
regressing the explanatory factors one by one on the
CSR ratings, while the last row combines all the
explanatory variables together. When considered
individually, it can be seen that firms with higher
CSR ratings present a statistically significant larger
size, and a higher media exposure. Also, firms with
higher CSR ratings belong to more environmentally
sensitive industries, and are listed in a higher number
of foreign stock markets. As regards ownership
structure, firms with higher CSR ratings have a less
concentrated ownership. However, neither ROA
nor leverage seem to explain differences in CSR
disclosure practices between Spanish listed firms. In
terms of R
2
, the most influential variable for

46. explaining firms’ variation in total CSR ratings is
media exposure (R
2
= 0.338), followed by size
(R
2
= 0.186) and industry (R
2
= 0.164). When
pulling all the explanatory factors together, they
explain between 42.9% and 47.5% of the variation of
the several CSR ratings. The variables that are sta-
tistically significant for all the CSR ratings are those
related to public or social visibility (i.e., size, media
exposure, and industry environmental sensitivity).
According to these results, it seems that the legiti-
macy theory is the most relevant theory for
explaining CSR disclosure practices of Spanish listed
firms. Thus, Spanish firms report on CSR activities

47. in order to respond to public pressures and build or
Determinants of Corporate Social Responsibility Disclosure 359
sustain corporate legitimacy. In this regard, CSR
disclosure can be viewed as a constructed image or
symbolic impression of itself that a firm is conveying
to the outside world to control its political or eco-
nomic position (Neu et al., 1998).
Concluding remarks
The goal of this study is to analyze whether a
number of firm and industry characteristics, as well
as media exposure, are potential determinants of
CSR disclosure practices by Spanish listed firms.
Empirical studies have shown that CSR disclosure
activism varies across companies, industries, and
time (Gray et al., 1995, 2001; Hackston and
Milne, 1996). They have also shown this behavior
to be importantly and systematically determined

48. by a variety of firm and industry characteristics
that influence the relative costs and benefits
of disclosing such information (Belkaoui and
Karpik, 1989; Cormier and Magnan, 2003;
Cormier et al., 2005; Hackston and Milne, 1996;
Patten, 2002a, b).
TABLE I
Descriptive statistics for the dependent and independent
variables
Variable Mean Median SD Minimun Maximum
Dependent variables
TCSR 1.150 1.245 0.485 0.170 1.940
CR 0.835 0.855 0.491 0.020 1.670
MSR 1.194 1.315 0.614 0.020 2.210
Independent variables
ME 69.369 43.000 57.047 6.000 268.000
IL 5.783 6.000 3.039 1.000 12.000
IND 0.456 0.000 0.504 0.000 1.000
SIZE 15.935 15.965 0.936 14.280 18.190

49. OWNER 0.283 0.000 0.455 0.000 1.000
ROA 0.052 0.047 0.033 0.003 0.174
LEV 3.804 3.032 2.769 0.659 13.789
Notes: TCSR: Total corporate social responsibility index; CR:
CSR Content rating; MSI: CSR Management Systems
rating; ME: Media exposure; IL: International listing; IND:
Industry environmental sensitivity; SIZE: Firm’s size;
OWNER: Ownership concentration; ROA: Return on assets;
LEV: Long-term debt/book value of equity. See variables
measurement in the text.
TABLE II
Correlation coefficients among independent variables
ME IL IND SIZE OWNER ROA LEV
ME 0.345* 0.370* 0.599** -0.307* 0.018 -0.071
IL -0.021 0.325* 0.045 0.062 0.076
IND 0.063 -0.381** 0.035 -0.465**
SIZE -0.093 0.317* 0.059
OWNER 0.043 0.302*
ROA -0.526**

50. Notes: ME: Media exposure; IL: International listing; IND:
Industry environmental sensitivity; SIZE: Firm’s size;
OWNER: Ownership concentration; ROA: Return on assets;
LEV: Long-term debt/book value of equity. See variables
measurement in the text.
*Significant at a 5% level, **Significant at a 1% level.
360 Carmelo Reverte
Our findings evidence that firms with higher CSR
ratings present a statistically significant larger size and
a higher media exposure, and belong to more envi-
ronmentally sensitive industries, as compared to firms
with lower CSR ratings. However, neither profit-
ability nor leverage seem to explain differences in
CSR disclosure practices between Spanish listed
firms. The most influential variable for explaining
firms’ variation in CSR ratings is media exposure,
followed by size and industry. Therefore, it seems that
the legitimacy theory, as captured by those variables

51. related to public or social visibility, is the most rele-
vant theory for explaining CSR disclosure practices
of Spanish listed firms. Thus, Spanish firms report on
CSR activities mainly to act and be seen acting within
the bounds of what is considered acceptable accord-
ing to the expectations of stakeholders on how their
operations should be conducted.
Moreover, the results of this study suggest that
factors which influence CSR practices of Spanish
listed companies are not significantly different than
those which influence CSR of companies in other
TABLE III
Differences in the value of the explanatory variables between
firms with higher and lower CSR ratings
Variables Firms with TCSR > median Firms with TCSR <
median Difference (p-value in parentheses)
Panel A: Total CSR rating (TCSR)
ME 98.522 40.217 58.305 (0.000)
IL 6.304 5.261 1.043 (0.076)

52. IND 0.652 0.261 0.391 (0.008)
SIZE 16.287 15.583 0.704 (0.010)
OWNER 0.087 0.478 -0.391 (0.004)
ROA 0.057 0.047 0.010 (0.095)
LEV 3.016 4.592 -1.576 (0.191)
Variables Firms with CR > median Firms with CR < median
Difference (p-value in parentheses)
Panel B: CSR Content Rating (CR)
ME 102.261 36.478 65.783 (0.000)
IL 6.739 4.826 1.913 (0.031)
IND 0.739 0.174 0.565 (0.000)
SIZE 16.302 15.568 0.734 (0.007)
OWNER 0.217 0.348 -0.131 (0.331)
ROA 0.055 0.049 0.006 (0.286)
LEV 3.468 4.139 -0.671 (0.448)
Variables Firms with MSR > median Firms with MSR < median
Difference (p-value in parentheses)
Panel C: CSR Management Systems Rating (MSR)
ME 99.087 39.652 59.435 (0.000)

53. IL 6.304 5.261 1.043 (0.250)
IND 0.696 0.217 0.479 (0.001)
SIZE 16.274 15.596 0.678 (0.013)
OWNER 0.087 0.478 -0.391 (0.004)
ROA 0.057 0.047 0.010 (0.062)
LEV 2.742 4.865 -2.123 (0.063)
Notes: ME: Media exposure; IL: International listing; IND:
Industry environmental sensitivity; SIZE: Firm’s size;
OWNER: Ownership concentration; ROA: Return on assets;
LEV: Long-term debt/book value of equity. See variables
measurement in the text.
Determinants of Corporate Social Responsibility Disclosure 361
T
A
B
L
E
IV
R
e
g

54. re
ss
io
n
re
su
lt
s
o
f
C
S
R
ra
ti
n
g
s
o
n
th
e
e
x
p
la

55. n
at
o
ry
fa
c
to
rs
In
te
rc
e
p
t
M
E
IL
IN
D
S
IZ
E
O
W
N

56. E
R
R
O
A
L
E
V
R
2
P
an
el
A
:
T
ot
al
C
S
R
R
at
in
g

57. (T
C
S
R
)
0
.8
0
7
(0
.0
0
0
)*
0
.0
0
5
(0
.0
0
0
)*
0

58. .3
3
8
0
.8
7
4
(0
.0
0
0
)*
0
.0
4
8
(0
.0
3
4
)*
*
0
.0
9

59. 0
0
.9
7
2
(0
.0
0
0
)*
0
.3
9
0
(0
.0
0
3
)*
0
.1
6
4
-
2

60. .4
1
8
(0
.0
2
8
)*
*
0
.2
2
4
(0
.0
0
0
)*
0
.1
8
6
1
.2
4

61. 0
(0
.0
0
0
)*
-
0
.3
1
8
(0
.0
2
2
)*
*
0
.0
8
9
1
.0
7
1

62. (0
.0
0
0
)*
1
.5
2
1
(0
.5
0
0
)
0
.0
1
0
1
.2
4
2
(0
.0
0

63. 0
)*
-
0
.0
2
4
(0
.3
6
0
)
0
.0
1
9
-
1
.8
9
9
(0
.0
9
5
)*

64. *
*
0
.0
0
3
(0
.0
4
6
)*
*
0
.0
2
3
(0
.1
4
2
)
0
.2
5
3

65. (0
.0
5
3
)*
*
*
0
.1
7
2
(0
.0
1
6
)*
*
-
0
.1
2
2
(0
.2

66. 1
2
)
1
.0
1
5
(0
.7
0
6
)
0
.0
1
0
(0
.7
6
2
)
0
.4
2
9

67. P
an
el
B
:
C
S
R
C
on
te
n
t
R
at
in
g
(C
R
)
0
.4
8
6

68. (0
.0
0
0
)*
0
.0
0
5
(0
.0
0
0
)*
0
.3
4
2
0
.6
3
2
(0
.0
0

69. )*
0
.0
3
5
(0
.0
9
9
)*
*
*
0
.0
4
7
0
.6
2
7
(0
.0
0
0
)*

70. 0
.4
5
6
(0
.0
0
0
)*
0
.2
1
8
-
3
.2
6
4
(0
.0
0
3
)*
*
0

71. .2
5
7
(0
.0
0
0
)*
0
.2
4
0
0
.8
1
6
(0
.0
0
0
)*
-
0
.2
8

72. 6
(0
.0
2
2
)*
*
0
.0
7
0
0
.7
6
9
(0
.0
0
0
)*
1
.2
8
9
(0

73. .5
7
4
)
0
.0
0
7
0
.9
2
3
(0
.0
0
0
)*
-
0
.0
2
3
(0
.3
8

74. 8
)
0
.0
1
7
-
3
.1
3
6
(0
.0
0
6
)*
*
*
0
.0
0
2
(0
.0
8

75. 2
)*
*
*
0
.0
0
6
(0
.3
7
9
)
0
.3
5
5
(0
.0
1
1
)*
*
0
.2

76. 3
6
(0
.0
0
1
)*
0
.0
4
0
(0
.3
9
2
)
0
.0
6
2
(0
.9
8
0
)

77. 0
.0
0
8
(0
.8
0
6
)
0
.4
7
5
P
an
el
C
:
C
S
R
M
an
ag
em

78. en
t
S
y
st
em
s
R
at
in
g
(M
S
R
)
0
.7
6
5
(0
.0
0
0
)*

79. 0
.0
0
6
(0
.0
0
0
)*
0
.3
2
9
0
.9
0
7
(0
.0
0
0
)*
0
.0
4

80. 9
(0
.0
6
5
)*
*
*
0
.0
6
0
0
.9
4
9
(0
.0
0
0
)*
0
.5
3
6

81. (0
.0
0
0
)*
0
.1
9
3
-
2
.8
4
7
(0
.0
4
8
)*
*
0
.2
5
3
(0

82. .0
0
2
)*
0
.1
4
9
1
.3
1
8
(0
.0
0
0
)*
-
0
.4
4
2
(0
.0
0

83. 4
)*
0
.1
0
7
1
.1
1
0
(0
.0
0
0
)*
1
.6
0
6
(0
.5
7
4
)
0

84. .0
0
7
1
.3
4
3
(0
.0
0
0
)*
-
0
.0
3
9
(0
.2
3
8
)
0
.0
0

85. 9
-
2
.3
2
7
(0
.1
0
8
)
0
.0
0
3
(0
.0
3
7
)*
*
0
.0
2
0

86. (0
.2
3
1
)
0
.3
3
1
(0
.0
4
9
)*
*
0
.2
0
3
(0
.0
2
3
)*
*
0

87. .1
6
6
(0
.1
9
8
)
0
.8
4
4
(0
.8
0
6
)
0
.0
0
4
(0
.9
1
8

88. )
0
.4
7
5
N
ot
es
:
T
h
e
T
ab
le
re
p
o
rt
s
th
e
re
su
lt

89. s
fr
o
m
re
g
re
ss
in
g
th
e
se
v
e
ra
l
C
S
R
ra
ti
n
g
s
o
n

90. th
e
v
ar
io
u
s
e
x
p
la
n
at
o
ry
fa
c
to
rs
.
T
h
e
fi
rs
t

91. se
v
e
n
ro
w
s
o
f
e
ac
h
p
an
e
l
re
p
o
rt
th
e
re
su
lt
s

92. fr
o
m
re
g
re
ss
in
g
th
e
se
v
e
ra
l
C
S
R
ra
ti
n
g
s
o
n
th

93. e
e
x
p
la
n
at
o
ry
fa
c
to
rs
o
n
e
b
y
o
n
e
,
w
h
il
e
th

94. e
la
st
ro
w
o
f
e
ac
h
p
an
e
l
re
p
o
rt
s
th
e
re
su
lt
s
fr

95. o
m
th
e
fo
ll
o
w
in
g
m
o
d
e
l:
C
S
R
ra
ti
n
g
i
¼
b
0
þ

96. b
1
M
E
i
þ
b
2
IL
i
þ
b
3
IN
D
i
þ
b
4
S
IZ
E
i
þ
b
5
O

97. W
N
E
R
i
þ
b
6
R
O
A
i
þ
b
7
L
E
V
i
þ
e i
,
w
h
e
re

98. ,
M
E
:
M
e
d
ia
e
x
p
o
su
re
;
IL
:
In
te
rn
at
io
n
al
li
st

99. in
g
;
IN
D
:
In
d
u
st
ry
e
n
v
ir
o
n
m
e
n
ta
l
se
n
si
ti
v
it

100. y
;
S
IZ
E
:
F
ir
m
’s
si
ze
;
O
W
N
E
R
:
O
w
n
e
rs
h
ip

101. c
o
n
c
e
n
tr
at
io
n
;
R
O
A
:
R
e
tu
rn
o
n
as
se
ts
;
L
E

102. V
:
L
o
n
g
-t
e
rm
d
e
b
t/
b
o
o
k
v
al
u
e
o
f
e
q
u
it
y
.

103. S
e
e
v
ar
ia
b
le
s
m
e
as
u
re
m
e
n
t
in
th
e
te
x
t.
F

104. ig
u
re
s
in
p
ar
e
n
th
e
se
s
re
p
re
se
n
t
th
e
p
-v
al
u
e

105. s.
W
h
e
n
th
e
re
is
h
e
te
ro
sc
e
d
as
ti
c
it
y
ac
c
o
rd
in
g

106. to
th
e
W
h
it
e
te
st
,
p
-v
al
u
e
s
b
as
e
d
o
n
W
h
it
e
-a

107. d
ju
st
e
d
t-
st
at
is
ti
c
s
ar
e
re
p
o
rt
e
d
.
*
S
ig
n
ifi
c

108. an
t
at
a
1
%
le
v
e
l,
*
*
S
ig
n
ifi
c
an
t
at
a
5
%
le
v
e

109. l,
*
*
*
S
ig
n
ifi
c
an
t
at
a
1
0
%
le
v
e
l.
362 Carmelo Reverte
environments. This is consistent with the results of
Cormier and Magnan (2003), which lead them to

110. suggest that the similitude in the way in which dis-
closure strategies are determined, irrespective of a
given country’s socio-cultural environment, is ‘‘an
illustration of the strong impact of globalised stock
markets on fostering convergence in corporate
practices’’ (2003, p. 58).
Notes
1
Results are similar if a market-based measure of risk,
such as beta, is used instead of leverage in the regression
models.
2
Most of the literature in this area assumes a contem-
porary relationship between media exposure and CSR
disclosure (e.g., Bansal and Clelland, 2004; Cormier
et al., 2004, 2005). But this relationship could be prob-
ably delayed, i.e., more media coverage one year could
result in more CSR disclosure in future years. In order
to test this delayed relationship, I have re-estimated the

111. models introducing the variable ‘Media exposure’ (ME)
with a one-year lag (MEt-1). However, this lagged var-
iable has not turned out to be statistically significant.
This result could be due to the high correlation
(q = 0.832) between media exposure in year t (MEt)
and year t - 1 (MEt-1), i.e., those firms with a high
media coverage in one period tend also to be highly
followed by media in the following period.
3
Results are similar is size is proxied by the log of
total assets.
4
If leverage is measured by the ratio total debt/total
assets the results remain unchanged.
5
Taking every year as a separate observation may
aggravate the problem of extreme values. In order to
test the existence of extreme observations that could
unduly influence our results, I have applied the most
usual diagnostic tests for detecting outliers, such as the

112. studentized residuals, the Cook’s D, DF-betas, and least
absolute values (LAV). These additional tests indicate
that the main results of our study are not driven by
outliers.
Acknowledgment
This work is part of the research project ECO2008-
06238-C02-01/ECON funded by the Spanish Ministry
of Education and Science and ERDF.
References
Adams, C. A., W. Y. Hill and C. B. Roberts: 1998,
‘Corporate Social Reporting Practices in Western
Europe: Legitimating Corporate Behaviour’, The
British Accounting Review 30(1), 1–21. doi:10.1006/
bare.1997.0060.
Adrem, A. H.: 1999, Essays on Disclosure Practices in Sweden
– Causes and Effects (Lund University Press).
Archel, P.: 2003, ‘La divulgación de la información social
y medioambiental de la gran empresa española en el

113. perı́odo 1994–1998: situación actual y perspectivas’,
Revista Española de Financiación y Contabilidad 117,
571–601.
Archel, P. and F. Lizarraga: 2001, ‘Algunos determinantes
de la información medioambiental divulgada por las
empresas españolas cotizadas’, Revista de Contabilidad
4(7), 129–153.
Bansal, P. and I. Clelland: 2004, ‘Talking Trash: Legiti-
macy, Impression Management and Unsystematic Risk
in the Context of the Natural Environment’, Academy
of Management Journal 47(1), 93–103.
Bansal, P. and K. Roth: 2000, ‘Why Companies Go Green:
A Model of Ecological Responsiveness’, Academy of
Management Journal 43(4), 717–736. doi:10.2307/
1556363.
Belkaoui, A. and P. G. Karpik: 1989, ‘Determinants of
the Corporate Decision to Disclose Social Informa-
tion’, Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal 2(1),

114. 36–51. doi:10.1108/09513578910132240.
Bewley, K. and Y. Li: 2000, ‘Disclosure of Environ-
mental Information by Canadian Manufacturing
Companies: A Voluntary Disclosure Perspective’,
Advances in Environmental Accounting and Management 1,
201–226. doi:10.1016/S1479-3598(00)01011-6.
Blacconiere, W. G. and W. D. Northcut: 1997, ‘Envi-
ronmental Information and Market Reactions to
Environmental Legislation’, Journal of Accounting,
Auditing & Finance 12(Spring), 149–178.
Blacconiere, W. G. and D. M. Patten: 1994, ‘Environ-
mental Disclosures, Regulatory Costs and Changes in
Firm Value’, Journal of Accounting and Economics 18(3),
357–377. doi:10.1016/0165-4101(94)90026-4.
Bowen, F.: 2000, ‘Environmental Visibility: A Trigger of
Green Organizational Response?’, Business Strategy and
the Environment 9(2), 92–107. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1099-
0836(200003/04)9:2&lt;92::AID-BSE230&gt;3.0.CO;

115. 2-X.
Brammer, S. and S. Pavelin: 2008, ‘Factors Influencing
the Quality of Corporate Environmental Disclosure’,
Business Strategy and the Environment 17, 120–136.
doi:10.1002/bse.506.
Determinants of Corporate Social Responsibility Disclosure 363
http://dx.doi.org/10.1006/bare.1997.0060
http://dx.doi.org/10.1006/bare.1997.0060
http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1556363
http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1556363
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/09513578910132240
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S1479-3598(00)01011-6
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0165-4101(94)90026-4
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1099-
0836(200003/04)9:2&lt;92::AID-BSE230&gt;3.0.CO;2-X
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1099-
0836(200003/04)9:2&lt;92::AID-BSE230&gt;3.0.CO;2-X
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1099-
0836(200003/04)9:2&lt;92::AID-BSE230&gt;3.0.CO;2-X
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/bse.506
Brown, N. and C. Deegan: 1998, ‘The Public Disclo-
sure of Environmental Performance Information – A
Dual Test of Media Agenda Setting Theory and
Legitimacy Theory’, Accounting and Business Review

116. 29(1), 21–41.
Campbell, D. J.: 2000, ‘Legitimacy Theory or Managerial
Reality Construction? Corporate Social Disclosure
in Marks and Spencer, Plc Corporate Reports
1969–1997’, Accounting Forum 24(1), 80–100.
doi:10.1111/1467-6303.00030.
Carmona, S. and F. Carrasco: 1988, ‘Información de
contenido social y estados contables: Una apro-
ximación empı́rica y algunas consideraciones teóricas’,
Actualidad Financiera noviembre, 2175–2192.
CEC: 2001, Green Paper: Promoting a European Framework
for Corporate Social Responsibility (COM), 366 final.
Clarke, J. and M. Gibson-Sweet: 1999, ‘The Use of
Corporate Social Disclosures in the Management of
Reputation and Legitimacy: A Cross Sectoral Analysis
of UK Top 100 Companies’, Business Ethics. European
Review (Chichester, England) 8(1), 5–13.
Cooke, T. E.: 1989, ‘Voluntary Corporate Disclosure by

117. Swedish Companies’, Journal of International Financial
Management and Accounting 1(2), 171–195. doi:10.1111/
j.1467-646X.1989.tb00009.x.
Cormier, D. and M. Magnan: 2003, ‘Environmental
Reporting Management: A Continental European
Perspective’, Journal of Accounting and Public Policy 22(1),
43–62. doi:10.1016/S0278-4254(02)00085-6.
Cormier, D., I. M. Gordon and M. Magnan: 2004, ‘Cor-
porate Environmental Disclosure: Contrasting Man-
agement’s Perceptions with Reality’, Journal of Business
Ethics 49(2), 143–165. doi:10.1023/B:BUSI.0000015
844.86206.b9.
Cormier, D., M. Magnan and B. Van Velthoven: 2005,
‘Environmental Disclosure Quality in Large German
Companies: Economic Incentives, Public Pressures or
Institutional Conditions?’, European Accounting Review
14(1), 3–39. doi:10.1080/0963818042000339617.
Cowen, S. S., L. B. Ferreri and L. D. Parker: 1987, ‘The

118. Impact of Corporate Characteristics on Social
Responsibility Disclosure: A Typology and Frequency-
Based Analysis’, Accounting, Organizations and Society
12(2), 111–122. doi:10.1016/0361-3682(87)90001-8.
Cullen, L. and T. Christopher: 2002, ‘Governance Dis-
closures and Firm Characteristics of Listed Australian
Mining Companies’, International Journal of Business
Studies 10(1), 37–58.
Deegan, C.: 2002, ‘The Legitimising Effect of Social and
Environmental Disclosures – A Theoretical Founda-
tion’, Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal 15(3),
282–311. doi:10.1108/09513570210435852.
Deegan, C. and B. Gordon: 1996, ‘A Study of the Envi-
ronmental Disclosure Practices of Australian Corpora-
tions’, Accounting and Business Review 26(3), 187–199.
Deegan, C. and M. Rankin: 1996, ‘Do Australian
Companies Report Environmental News Objectively?
An Analysis of Environmental Disclosures by Firms

119. Prosecuted Successfully by the Environmental Pro-
tection Authority’, Accounting, Auditing & Accountability
Journal 9(2), 50–67. doi:10.1108/09513579610116
358.
DiMaggio, P. J. and W. W. Powell: 1983, ‘The Iron
Cage Revisited: Institutional Isomorphism and Col-
lective Rationality in Organizational Fields’, American
Sociological Review 48, 147–160. doi:10.2307/2095101.
Dowling, J. and J. Pfeffer: 1975, ‘Organisational Legiti-
macy: Social Values and Organisational Behaviour’,
Pacific Sociological Review 18(1), 122–136.
Garcı́a-Ayuso, M. and C. Larrinaga: 2003, ‘Environ-
mental Disclosure in Spain: Corporate Characteristics
and Media Exposure’, Revista Española de Financiación y
Contabilidad 115, 184–214.
Giner, B.: 1997, ‘The Influence of Company Charac-
teristics and Accounting Regulation on Information
Disclosed by Spanish Firms’, European Accounting

120. Review 6(1), 45–68. doi:10.1080/096381897336863.
Godfrey, P. C. and N. W. Hatch: 2007, ‘Researching
Corporate Social Responsibility: An Agenda for the
21st Century’, Journal of Business Ethics 70(1), 87–98.
doi:10.1007/s10551-006-9080-y.
Graham, A., J. Maher and W. D. Northcut: 2000, ‘Envi-
ronmental Liability Information and Bond Ratings’,
Journal of Accounting, Auditing & Finance 15(2), 93–116.
Gray, R., R. Kouhy and S. Lavers: 1995, ‘Corporate Social
and Environmental Reporting: A Review of the Lit-
erature and a Longitudinal Study of UK Disclosure’,
Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal 8(2), 47–77.
doi:10.1108/09513579510146996.
Gray, R. H., D. Owen and C. Adams: 1996, Accounting
and Accountability (Prentice Hall, Hemel Hempstead).
Gray, R., M. Javad, D. M. Power and C. D. Sinclair: 2001,
‘Social and Environmental Disclosure and Corporate
Characteristics: A Research Note and Extension’, Jour-

121. nal of Business Finance & Accounting 28(3/4), 327–356.
doi:10.1111/1468-5957.00376.
Guthrie, J. and L. Parker: 1989, ‘Corporate Social
Reporting: A Rebuttal of Legitimacy Theory’,
Accounting and Business Review 19(3), 343–352.
Hackston, D. and M. J. Milne: 1996, ‘Some Determinants
of Social and Environmental Disclosures in New
Zealand Companies’, Accounting, Auditing & Account-
ability Journal 9(1), 77–108. doi:10.1108/095135796
10109987.
364 Carmelo Reverte
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1467-6303.00030
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-646X.1989.tb00009.x
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-646X.1989.tb00009.x
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0278-4254(02)00085-6
http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/B:BUSI.0000015844.86206.b9
http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/B:BUSI.0000015844.86206.b9
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0963818042000339617
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0361-3682(87)90001-8
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/09513570210435852
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/09513579610116358
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/09513579610116358
http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2095101
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/096381897336863
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10551-006-9080-y

122. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/09513579510146996
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1468-5957.00376
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/09513579610109987
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/09513579610109987
Hamid, F. Z. A.: 2004, ‘Corporate Social Disclosure by
Banks and Finance Companies: Malaysian Evidence’,
Corporate Ownership & Control 1(4), 118–130.
Haniffa, R. M. and T. E. Cooke: 2005, ‘The Impact of
Culture and Governance on Corporate Social
Reporting’, Journal of Accounting and Public Policy 24(5),
391–430. doi:10.1016/j.jaccpubpol.2005.06.001.
Henriques, I. and P. Sadorsky: 1996, ‘The Role of
Information in Coordinating Environmental Issues’, in
Academy of Management Best Paper Proceedings (Cincin-
nati, OH), pp. 1–30.
Hoffman, A. J.: 1999, ‘Institutional Evolution and
Change: Environmentalism and the U.S. Chemical
Industry’, Management Journal 42(4), 351–371.
Hooghiemstra, R.: 2000, ‘Corporate Communication

123. and Impression Management: New Perspectives Why
Companies Engage in Corporate Social Reporting’,
Journal of Business Ethics 27(1/2), 55–68. doi:10.1023/
A:1006400707757.
Hossain, M., L. M. Tan and M. Adams: 1994, ‘Voluntary
Disclosure in an Emerging Capital Market: Some
Empirical Evidence from Companies Listed on Kuala
Lumpur Stock Exchange’, The International Journal of
Accounting 29(4), 334–351.
Hossain, M., M. H. B. Perera and A. R. Rahman: 1995,
‘Voluntary Disclosure in the Annual Reports of New
Zealand Companies’, Journal of International Financial
Management and Accounting 6(1), 69–87. doi:10.1111/
j.1467-646X.1995.tb00050.x.
Hutchings, G. and D. W. Taylor: 2000, ‘The Intra-
Industry Capital Market and Corporate Reporting
Effects of the BHP Ok Tedi Environmental Event’,
Asian Review of Accounting 8(Special Issue), 33–54.

124. Ismail, K. N. and R. Chandler: 2005, ‘Disclosure in the
Quarterly Reports of Malaysian Companies’, Financial
Reporting. Regulation and Governance 4(1), 1–26.
Jenkins, H. M. and N. Yakovleva: 2006, ‘Corporate
Social Responsibility in the Mining Industry: Explor-
ing Trends in Social and Environmental Disclosure’,
Journal of Cleaner Production 14(3–4), 271–284.
doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2004.10.004.
Jennings, P. D. and P. A. Zandbergen: 1995, ‘Ecologi-
cally Sustainable Organizations: An Institutional
Approach’, Academy of Management Review 20(4),
1015–1052. doi:10.2307/258964.
Jensen, M. C. and W. H. Meckling: 1976, ‘Theory of the
Firm: Managerial Behavior, Agency Costs and Own-
ership Structure’, Journal of Financial Economics 3, 305–
360. doi:10.1016/0304-405X(76)90026-X.
Knox, S., S. Maklan and P. French: 2006, ‘Corporate
Social Responsibility: Exploring Stakeholder Rela-

125. tionships and Programme Reporting Across Leading
FTSE Companies’, Journal of Business Ethics 61(1), 7–
28. doi:10.1007/s10551-005-0303-4.
Kolk, A.: 2003, ‘Trends in Sustainability Reporting by
the Fortune Global 250’, Business Strategy and the
Environment 12(5), 279–291. doi:10.1002/bse.370.
Line, M., H. Hawley and R. Krut: 2002, ‘Development in
Global Environmental and Social Reporting’, Corporate
Environmental Strategy 9(1), 69–78. doi:10.1016/S1066-
7938(01)00159-2.
McGuire, J. B., A. Sundgren and T. Schneeweis: 1988,
‘Corporate Social Responsibility and Firm Financial
Performance’, Academy of Management Journal 31(4),
854–872. doi:10.2307/256342.
Meyer, J. W. and B. Rowan: 1977, ‘Institutionalized
Organizations: Formal Structure as Myth and Cere-
mony’, American Journal of Sociology 83, 340–363.
doi:10.1086/226550.

126. Milne, M. J.: 2002, ‘Positive Accounting Theory, Polit-
ical Costs and Social Disclosure Analyses: A Critical
Look’, Critical Perspectives on Accounting 13(3), 369–395.
doi:10.1006/cpac.2001.0509.
Moneva, J. M. and F. Llena: 1996, ‘Análisis de la in-
formación sobre responsabilidad social en las em-
presas industriales que cotizan en Bolsa’, Revista
Española de Financiación y Contabilidad XXV(87),
361–401.
Moneva, J. M. and F. Llena: 2000, ‘Environmental Dis-
closures in the Annual Reports of Large Companies in
Spain’, European Accounting Review 9(1), 7–29.
doi:10.1080/096381800407923.
Morris, S.: 1997, ‘Environmental Pollution and Com-
petitive Advantage: An Exploratory Study of U.S.
Industrial-Goods Manufacturers’, in Academy of Man-
agement Conference Proceedings, 1997 (Academy of
Management, New York).

127. Nasi, J., S. Nasi, N. Phillips and S. Zyglidopoulos: 1997,
‘The Evolution of Corporate Social Responsiveness’,
Business & Society 36(3), 296–321. doi:10.1177/
000765039703600305.
Ness, K. and A. Mirza: 1991, ‘Corporate Social Disclo-
sure: A Note on the Test of Agency Theory’, The
British Accounting Review 23, 211–217. doi:10.1016/
0890-8389(91)90081-C.
Neu, D., H. Warsame and K. Pedwell: 1998, ‘Man-
aging Public Impressions: Environmental Disclosures
in Annual Reports’, Accounting, Organizations and
Society 23(3), 265–282. doi:10.1016/S0361-3682(97)
00008-1.
Ng, E. J. and H. C. Koh: 1994, ‘An Agency Theory and
Profit Analytic Approach to Corporate Non-Manda-
tory Disclosure Compliance’, Asia-Pacific Journal of
Accounting 1(1), 29–44.
Determinants of Corporate Social Responsibility Disclosure 365

128. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jaccpubpol.2005.06.001
http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/A:1006400707757
http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/A:1006400707757
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-646X.1995.tb00050.x
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-646X.1995.tb00050.x
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2004.10.004
http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/258964
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0304-405X(76)90026-X
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10551-005-0303-4
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/bse.370
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S1066-7938(01)00159-2
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S1066-7938(01)00159-2
http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/256342
http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/226550
http://dx.doi.org/10.1006/cpac.2001.0509
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/096381800407923
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/000765039703600305
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/000765039703600305
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0890-8389(91)90081-C
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0890-8389(91)90081-C
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0361-3682(97)00008-1
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0361-3682(97)00008-1
Oliver, C.: 1991, ‘Strategic Responses to Institutional
Processes’, Academy of Management Review 16(1), 145–
179. doi:10.2307/258610.
Patten, D. M.: 1991, ‘Exposure, Legitimacy, and Social
Disclosure’, Journal of Accounting and Public Policy 10(4),
297–308. doi:10.1016/0278-4254(91)90003-3.

129. Patten, D. M.: 2002a, ‘Give or Take on the Internet: An
Examination of the Disclosure Practices of Insurance
Firm Web Innovators’, Journal of Business Ethics 36(3),
247–259. doi:10.1023/A:1014009229437.
Patten, D. M.: 2002b, ‘Media Exposure, Public Policy
Pressure, and Environmental Disclosure: An Exami-
nation of the Impact of Tri Data Availability’,
Accounting Forum 26(2), 152–171. doi:10.1111/1467-
6303.t01-1-00007.
Perrow, C.: 1970, Organizational Analysis: A Sociological
View (Wadsworth, Belmont, CA).
Pirsch, J., S. Gupta and S. Landreth-Grau: 2007, ‘A
Framework for Understanding Corporate Social
Responsibility Programs as a Continuum: An Explor-
atory Study’, Journal of Business Ethics 70(2), 125–140.
doi:10.1007/s10551-006-9100-y.
Prencipe, A.: 2004, ‘Proprietary Costs and Determinants
of Voluntary Segment Disclosure: Evidence from

130. Italian Listed Companies’, European Accounting Review
13(2), 319–340. doi:10.1080/0963818042000204742.
Purushothaman, M., G. Tower, R. Hancock and
R. Taplin: 2000, ‘Determinants of Corporate Social
Reporting Practices of Listed Singapore Companies’,
Pacific Accounting Review 12(2), 101–133.
Richardson, A. J. and M. Welker: 2001, ‘Social Disclo-
sure, Financial Disclosure and the Cost of Capital’,
Accounting, Organizations and Society 26(7/8), 597–616.
doi:10.1016/S0361-3682(01)00025-3.
Robb, S. W. G., L. E. Single and M. T. Zarzeski: 2001,
‘Nonfinancial Disclosures Across Anglo-American
Countries’, Journal of International Accounting 10(1), 71–83.
Roberts, R. W.: 1992, ‘Determinants of Corporate Social
Responsibility Disclosure: An Application of Stake-
holder Theory’, Accounting, Organizations and Society
17(6), 595–612. doi:10.1016/0361-3682(92)90015-K.
Scott, W. R.: 1987, ‘The Adolescence of Institutional

131. Theory’, Administrative Science Quarterly 32(4), 493–511.
doi:10.2307/2392880.
Simon, F. L.: 1992, ‘Marketing Green Products in the
Triad’, Columbia Journal of World Business 27(3,4), 268–
285.
Singhvi, S. and H. Desai: 1971, ‘An Empirical Analysis of
the Quality of Corporate Financial Disclosure’,
Accounting Review 46(1), 129–138.
Ullmann, A. 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(3), 540–557. doi:10.2307/258135.
Watts, R. L. and J. L. Zimmerman: 1986, Positive
Accounting Theory (Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs,
NJ).
Woodward, D. G., P. Edwards and F. Birkin: 1996,
‘Organizational Legitimacy and Stakeholder Informa-

132. tion Provision’, British Journal of Management 7, 329–347.
doi:10.1111/j.1467-8551.1996.tb00123.x.
Woodward, D., P. Edwards and F. Birkin: 2001, ‘Some
Evidence on Executives’ Views of Corporate Social
Responsibility’, The British Accounting Review 33(3),
357–397. doi:10.1006/bare.2001.0165.
Technical University of Cartagena,
Cartagena, Spain
E-mail: [email protected]
366 Carmelo Reverte
http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/258610
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0278-4254(91)90003-3
http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/A:1014009229437
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1467-6303.t01-1-00007
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1467-6303.t01-1-00007
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10551-006-9100-y
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0963818042000204742
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0361-3682(01)00025-3
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0361-3682(92)90015-K
http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2392880
http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/258135
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8551.1996.tb00123.x
http://dx.doi.org/10.1006/bare.2001.0165Outline
placeholderAbs1Sec1Sec2Sec4Sec5Sec6Sec7Sec8Sec9Sec10Sec
11Sec12Sec13Sec14Sec15Sec16Sec17Sec18Sec19Sec20Sec21Se
c22Sec23Sec24Sec25AckBib1
<<

133. /ASCII85EncodePages false
/AllowTransparency false
/AutoPositionEPSFiles true
/AutoRotatePages /None
/Binding /Left
/CalGrayProfile (None)
/CalRGBProfile (sRGB IEC61966-2.1)
/CalCMYKProfile (ISO Coated v2 300% 050ECI051)
/sRGBProfile (sRGB IEC61966-2.1)
/CannotEmbedFontPolicy /Error
/CompatibilityLevel 1.3
/CompressObjects /Off
/CompressPages true
/ConvertImagesToIndexed true
/PassThroughJPEGImages true
/CreateJDFFile false
/CreateJobTicket false
/DefaultRenderingIntent /Perceptual
/DetectBlends true
/ColorConversionStrategy /sRGB
/DoThumbnails true
/EmbedAllFonts true
/EmbedJobOptions true
/DSCReportingLevel 0
/SyntheticBoldness 1.00
/EmitDSCWarnings false
/EndPage -1
/ImageMemory 524288
/LockDistillerParams true
/MaxSubsetPct 100
/Optimize true
/OPM 1
/ParseDSCComments true
/ParseDSCCommentsForDocInfo true
/PreserveCopyPage true
/PreserveEPSInfo true

134. /PreserveHalftoneInfo false
/PreserveOPIComments false
/PreserveOverprintSettings true
/StartPage 1
/SubsetFonts false
/TransferFunctionInfo /Apply
/UCRandBGInfo /Preserve
/UsePrologue false
/ColorSettingsFile ()
/AlwaysEmbed [ true
]
/NeverEmbed [ true
]
/AntiAliasColorImages false
/DownsampleColorImages true
/ColorImageDownsampleType /Bicubic
/ColorImageResolution 150
/ColorImageDepth -1
/ColorImageDownsampleThreshold 1.50000
/EncodeColorImages true
/ColorImageFilter /DCTEncode
/AutoFilterColorImages false
/ColorImageAutoFilterStrategy /JPEG
/ColorACSImageDict <<
/QFactor 0.76
/HSamples [2 1 1 2] /VSamples [2 1 1 2]
>>
/ColorImageDict <<
/QFactor 0.76
/HSamples [2 1 1 2] /VSamples [2 1 1 2]
>>
/JPEG2000ColorACSImageDict <<
/TileWidth 256
/TileHeight 256
/Quality 30
>>

135. /JPEG2000ColorImageDict <<
/TileWidth 256
/TileHeight 256
/Quality 30
>>
/AntiAliasGrayImages false
/DownsampleGrayImages true
/GrayImageDownsampleType /Bicubic
/GrayImageResolution 150
/GrayImageDepth -1
/GrayImageDownsampleThreshold 1.50000
/EncodeGrayImages true
/GrayImageFilter /DCTEncode
/AutoFilterGrayImages true
/GrayImageAutoFilterStrategy /JPEG
/GrayACSImageDict <<
/QFactor 0.76
/HSamples [2 1 1 2] /VSamples [2 1 1 2]
>>
/GrayImageDict <<
/QFactor 0.15
/HSamples [1 1 1 1] /VSamples [1 1 1 1]
>>
/JPEG2000GrayACSImageDict <<
/TileWidth 256
/TileHeight 256
/Quality 30
>>
/JPEG2000GrayImageDict <<
/TileWidth 256
/TileHeight 256
/Quality 30
>>
/AntiAliasMonoImages false
/DownsampleMonoImages true
/MonoImageDownsampleType /Bicubic

136. /MonoImageResolution 600
/MonoImageDepth -1
/MonoImageDownsampleThreshold 1.50000
/EncodeMonoImages true
/MonoImageFilter /CCITTFaxEncode
/MonoImageDict <<
/K -1
>>
/AllowPSXObjects false
/PDFX1aCheck false
/PDFX3Check false
/PDFXCompliantPDFOnly false
/PDFXNoTrimBoxError true
/PDFXTrimBoxToMediaBoxOffset [
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
]
/PDFXSetBleedBoxToMediaBox true
/PDFXBleedBoxToTrimBoxOffset [
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
]
/PDFXOutputIntentProfile (None)
/PDFXOutputCondition ()
/PDFXRegistryName (http://www.color.org?)
/PDFXTrapped /False
/Description <<
/ENU
<FEFF004a006f0062006f007000740069006f006e007300200066
006f00720020004100630072006f0062006100740020004400690
07300740069006c006c0065007200200036002e000d0050007200

137. 6f006400750063006500730020005000440046002000660069006
c0065007300200077006800690063006800200061007200650020
007500730065006400200066006f0072002000640069006700690
0740061006c0020007000720069006e00740069006e0067002000
61006e00640020006f006e006c0069006e0065002000750073006
100670065002e000d002800630029002000320030003000340020
0053007000720069006e00670065007200200061006e006400200
049006d007000720065007300730065006400200047006d006200
48>
/DEU
<FEFF004a006f0062006f007000740069006f006e007300200066
006f00720020004100630072006f0062006100740020004400690
07300740069006c006c0065007200200036002e000d0050007200
6f006400750063006500730020005000440046002000660069006
c0065007300200077006800690063006800200061007200650020
007500730065006400200066006f00720020006f006e006c00690
06e0065002e000d00280063002900200032003000300038002000
53007000720069006e006700650072002d005600650072006c006
1006700200047006d006200480020000d000d0054006800650020
006c00610074006500730074002000760065007200730069006f0
06e002000630061006e00200062006500200064006f0077006e00
6c006f00610064006500640020006100740020006800740074007
0003a002f002f00700072006f00640075006300740069006f006e0
02e0073007000720069006e006700650072002e0063006f006d00
0d0054006800650072006500200079006f0075002000630061006
e00200061006c0073006f002000660069006e0064002000610020
007300750069007400610062006c006500200045006e0066006f0
063007500730020005000440046002000500072006f0066006900
6c006500200066006f0072002000500069007400530074006f007
0002000500072006f00660065007300730069006f006e0061006c
0020003600200061006e0064002000500069007400530074006f0
07000200053006500720076006500720020003300200066006f00
7200200070007200650066006c00690067006800740069006e006
700200079006f007500720020005000440046002000660069006c
006500730020006200650066006f007200650020006a006f00620
020007300750062006d0069007300730069006f006e002e>

138. >>
>> setdistillerparams
<<
/HWResolution [2400 2400]
/PageSize [5952.756 8418.897]
>> setpagedevice
Factors Influencing Social Responsibility
Disclosure by Portuguese Companies
Manuel Castelo Branco
Lúcia Lima Rodrigues
ABSTRACT. This study compares the Internet (corpo-
rate web pages) and annual reports as media of social
responsibility disclosure (SRD) and analyses what influ-
ences disclosure. It examines SRD on the Internet by
Portuguese listed companies in 2004 and compares the
Internet and 2003 annual reports as disclosure media. The
results are interpreted through the lens of a multi-theo-
retical framework. According to the framework adopted,
companies disclose social responsibility information to
present a socially responsible image so that they can

139. legitimise their behaviours to their stakeholder groups and
influence the external perception of reputation. Results
suggest that a theoretical framework combining legiti-
macy theory and a resource-based perspective provides an
explanatory basis for SRD by Portuguese listed
companies.
KEY WORDS: annual reports, internet, legitimacy
theory, resource-based perspectives, social responsibility
disclosure, Portugal
Introduction
Most of the empirical studies on social responsibility
disclosure (SRD) have focused on the annual report,
which is considered to be the most important tool
used by companies to communicate with their
stakeholders (see, for example, Gray et al., 1995b;
Neu et al., 1998). However, the Internet has become
an important medium through which companies can
disclose information of different natures, and thus

140. some recent studies have been made analysing com-
panies’ web pages as a SRD medium (see, for
example, Frost et al., 2005; Patten, 2002a; Patten and
Crampton, 2004; Williams and Pei, 1999). Explora-
tion of companies’ web pages as a SRD medium is
now as essential as the exploration of annual reports to
understand SRD disclosure practices.
The purpose of this study is to understand SRD,
both on the Internet and in annual reports, by
developing and testing a series of hypotheses. The
nature of SRD in annual reports and on the
Internet by a sample of companies with shares listed
on the Portuguese Stock Exchange (Euronext –
Lisbon) is analysed. Using content analysis, SRD is
classified in terms of theme (environment, human
resources, products and customers and community
involvement).
Companies are considered to engage in corporate

141. social responsibility (CSR) activities and disclosure
because of two different kinds of motivations. Some
companies expect that having good relations with
their stakeholders will lead to increased financial
returns by assisting in developing valuable intangible
assets (resources and capabilities). These assets can
be sources of competitive advantage because they
can differentiate a company from its competitors.
Other companies engage in CSR activities and
disclosure to conform to stakeholder norms and
expectations about how operations should be con-
ducted, thus constituting mainly a legitimacy
instrument used by a company to demonstrate its
adherence to such norms and expectations. Al-
though some companies engage in CSR activities
and disclosure because their managers’ personal
values are aligned with CSR values, this aspect will
not be explored in this study.

142. Whereas the first kind of motivations may be
explored through a resource-based perspective ana-
lytical lens (see, for example, Branco and Rodrigues,
2006; Hasseldine et al., 2005; Toms, 2002), the
second kind is consistent with social and political
theory explanations, in particular legitimacy theory
(see, for example, Deegan, 2002; Deephouse and
Carter, 2005; Neu et al., 1998; Patten and
Crampton, 2004; Zimmerman and Zeitz, 2002).
Journal of Business Ethics (2008) 83:685–701 � Springer 2008
DOI 10.1007/s10551-007-9658-z
The results are interpreted through the lens of a
multi-theoretical framework which combines these
two perspectives, according to which companies
disclose social responsibility information mainly to
present a socially responsible image so that they can
legitimise their behaviours to stakeholder groups and

143. influence the external perception of reputation.
Companies with a higher visibility seem to exhibit
greater concern to improve corporate image through
SRD. Results suggest that the framework proposed
may be an explanation of SRD by Portuguese listed
companies.
This paper examines empirical evidence from
Portugal for two reasons. First, we want to add to
the scarce research on SRD by Portuguese compa-
nies by providing new empirical data. Most of the
present literature is based in Anglo-Saxon countries
and evidence should be added about other geo-
graphic, cultural and institutional contexts. In con-
trast to the understanding of SRD from common
law English-speaking countries (Australia, Canada,
UK, USA), the determinants of SRD in Continental
Europe, particularly in Portugal, are still relatively
unknown. Second, we want to analyse if there are

144. reasons to expect that listed companies in less
developed countries, such as Portugal, will behave in
a different manner than companies in more devel-
oped countries.
According to Lopes and Rodrigues (2007, p. 30),
Portugal is one of the least developed countries in
the euro-area and a small OECD country. It presents
specific features regarding its capital market, com-
panies’ financing structure and corporate governance
systems, providing for a different institutional setting
from most developed and capital market-oriented
countries, where most of the SRD studies have
been made. In particular, the degree of family
ownership is significant and financing policies are
bank oriented.
Notwithstanding the particular characteristics of
Portugal, the results of this study suggest that factors
which influence SRD practices of Portuguese listed

145. companies are not significantly different than those
which influence SRD of companies in more
developed countries. This is consistent with the
results of Cormier and Magnan (2003), which lead
them to suggest that the similitude in the way in
which disclosure strategies are determined, irre-
spective of a given country’s socio-cultural envi-
ronment, is ‘‘an illustration of the strong impact of
globalised stock markets on fostering convergence in
corporate practices’’ (op. cit., p. 58).
In the following section, the theoretical frame-
work used is presented. Thereafter follow sections
on hypotheses development, methodology, results
and discussion. Finally, some conclusions are drawn.
Theoretical framework
Two major influences on companies’ SRD are
acknowledged in this study: those related to the
socio-political context within which companies

146. operate, and those related to economic incentives.
The theoretical framework adopted incorporates
both influences, by adopting institutional theory
perspectives, specifically legitimacy theory (see, for
example, Deegan, 2002; Deephouse and Carter,
2005; Neu et al., 1998; Patten and Crampton, 2004;
Zimmerman and Zeitz, 2002), and resource-based
perspectives (see, for example, Branco and
Rodrigues, 2006; Hasseldine et al., 2005; Toms,
2002). Some authors provide important studies in
which similar combinations are attempted (see, for
example, Bansal, 2005).
In this study, companies are considered to engage
in some form of stakeholder management, driven by
two different kinds of motivations. Some companies
believe that being seen as socially responsible will
bring them a competitive advantage, allowing them
to achieve better economic results. They expect that

147. having good relations with their stakeholders will
lead to increased financial returns by assisting in
developing valuable intangible assets (resources and
capabilities) which can be sources of competitive
advantage because such assets can differentiate a
company from its competitors. These motivations
are consistent with a resource-based perspective
analytical lens.
Other companies engage in CSR activities and
disclosure because of external pressures. They either
conform to what other companies do, because they
believe that not doing so would harm them in terms
of their profitability and survival, or respond to
discrediting events, which they believe to be detri-
mental to their profitability and survival and must be
addressed to mitigate their effects. CSR activities and
disclosure appear as mechanisms these companies use
686 Manuel Castelo Branco and Lúcia Lima Rodrigues

148. to act and be seen acting within the bounds of what
is considered acceptable according to the expecta-
tions of stakeholders on how their operations should
be conducted. Social responsibility activities and
disclosure constitute mainly a legitimacy instrument
used by a company to demonstrate its adherence to
such expectations. These motivations are consistent
with social and political theory explanations, in
particular legitimacy theory.
From a resource-based perspective the benefits of
CSR are, to a great extent, related to their effect on
corporate reputation (Branco and Rodrigues, 2006).
Companies with a good social responsibility repu-
tation are able to improve relations with external
actors such as customers, investors, bankers, suppliers
and competitors. They also attract better employees
or increase current employees’ motivation and

149. morale as well as their commitment and loyalty to
the company, which in turn may improve financial
outcomes. Disclosure of information on a company’s
behaviours and outcomes regarding social responsi-
bility helps to build a positive image with stake-
holders.
SRD is particularly important in enhancing the
effects of CSR on corporate reputation. It might be
considered a signal of improved social and envi-
ronmental conduct and hence reputation in those
fields because disclosure influences the external
perception of reputation. It will be difficult for
companies investing in social responsibility activities,
likely to create positive reputation, to realise the
value of such reputation without making associated
disclosures (Hasseldine et al., 2005; Toms, 2002).
Probably the most important weakness of
resource-based perspectives is related to the lack of

150. understanding they provide on the influence that the
relationships between a company and its environ-
ment have on the company’s success (Branco and
Rodrigues, 2006). This is why in this study a
resource-based perspective is combined with social
and political theories, in particular legitimacy and
stakeholder theories. However, these theories are
considered complementary rather than alternative or
opposite (Gray et al., 1995a, p. 52).
The institutional perspective of legitimacy theory
is one of the dominant theories in SRD research
(see, for example, Deegan, 2002; Patten and
Crampton, 2004; Neu et al., 1998). The analytical
focus of legitimacy theory’s institutional perspective
is on social legitimacy, which refers to the accep-
tance of a company by its social environment, and
external constituents. Companies consider the
expectations of various social constituents in their

151. behaviour to achieve social legitimacy. Legitimacy
‘‘is a social judgment of appropriateness, acceptance,
and desirability’’ (Zimmerman and Zeitz, 2002,
p. 418). The importance of social legitimacy comes
from the theoretical assumption that companies are
embedded in the social environment in which they
operate, and that their performance and expectations
are affected by the environment. The company’s
success, even survival, is determined by this
interface.
SRD is seen, from such a perspective, as one of
the strategies used by companies to seek acceptance
and approval of their activities from society. It is seen
as an important tool in corporate legitimation strat-
egies. It is used to establish or maintain the legiti-
macy of the company because it may influence
public opinion and public policy. Legitimacy theory
suggests that SRD provides an important way of

152. communicating with stakeholders, to convince them
that the company is fulfilling their expectations
(even when actual corporate behaviour remains at
variance with some of these expectations).
One problem regarding attempts to combine
different bodies of theory to explain organisational
behaviour is that they are often incommensurable or
incompatible in some important aspects. The theo-
ries often focus on different core concepts. A multi-
theoretical framework should focus on common
core concepts.
Legitimacy theory and resource-based perspec-
tives are believed to be useful as they can be con-
ceived as using what Campbell et al. (2003, p. 559)
call ‘‘the stakeholder metanarrative’’. Thus, these
perspectives can be explored by using stakeholder
theory insights. On the other hand, organisational
legitimacy and organisational reputation are consid-

153. ered to have similar antecedents, social construction
processes and consequences (Deephouse and Carter,
2005). This study refers to these two interrelated
concepts: that of legitimacy, which is explored from
an institutional perspective; and that of reputation,
which is explored from a resource-based perspective.
For the purposes of this study, the fundamental
aspect is that legitimacy requires a reputation that
must be retained. It requires a company to convince
Factors Influencing SRD by Portuguese Companies 687
its relevant publics that its activities are congruent
with their values. Thus, reputation and legitimacy
are inextricably linked, and in this study the
distinction between the two will not be explored
further.
Development of hypotheses
In what follows, explanations for SRD based on the

154. theoretical framework presented in the previous
section are developed by selecting the most relevant
factors influencing SRD. To analyse the usefulness
of the theoretical framework proposed above, this
study adopts the strategy of examining a sample of
companies and using a variety of proxies for a
company’s social visibility related to its characteris-
tics and media exposure. Variables are chosen to
represent particular aspects of social visibility, and in
each case, an expectation regarding its relationship to
SRD is stated based on prior literature.
International experience
International experience is developed by operating
in, and depending upon, foreign markets (Bansal,
2005). The importance of international experience
as a determinant of SRD can be explained from the
perspective of social and political theories (Choi,
1999) and a perspective which is resource based

155. (Bansal, 2005).
The manner in which the role of a company, and
its stakeholders, is defined in a country, will
undoubtedly affect SRD practices. Operating in
foreign markets requires companies to consider na-
tional differences in customer needs, which are
influenced by the culture and customs of that
country. Companies are exposed also to a greater
extent to the laws, rules and regulations governing
trade within different countries.
In less developed countries one would expect that
a company which does a larger amount of business
abroad is exposed to a broader spectrum of stake-
holder influences and to the international commu-
nity scrutiny. Given the trend of pro-social
responsibility international initiatives, such exposure
is likely to lead to more proactive corporate initia-
tives with respect to the social responsibility issues.

156. H1: There will be a positive relationship between
the degree of international activity and SRD.
Company size
SRD is related to corporate size, with larger com-
panies disclosing more than smaller ones (see, for
example, Adams et al., 1998; Archel, 2003; Neu
et al., 1998; Patten, 1991; Purushothaman et al.,
2000). Size is also used commonly as a proxy for
public visibility. Larger companies are more sus-
ceptible to scrutiny from stakeholder groups since
they are highly visible to external groups and more
vulnerable to adverse reactions among them; and
larger companies, on average, are more diversified
across geographical and product markets, thus hav-
ing larger and more diverse stakeholder groups
(Brammer and Pavelin, 2004a, p. 704). It is also
more likely that larger, more visible companies will
consider social responsibility activities and disclosure

157. as a way of enhancing corporate reputation.
H2: There will be a positive relationship between
size and SRD.
Industry affiliation
Another commonly used proxy for social visibility is
industry affiliation. This was found to be related to
SRD by legitimacy theory studies. Industries with
high public visibility, or a potentially more impor-
tant environmental impact, or having less favourable
public images were found to disclose more social
responsibility information than their counterparts
(see, for example, Adams et al., 1998; Archel, 2003;
Clarke and Gibson-Sweet, 1999; Patten, 1991).
There are reasons to suspect that industry affilia-
tion is related to certain categories of SRD. Com-
panies in industries with larger potential
environmental impact are more likely to provide
environmental information, and companies in

158. industries with high visibility among final consumers
are more likely to consider important issues of
community involvement and disclose information
related to such involvement (Clarke and Gibson-
Sweet, 1999).
688 Manuel Castelo Branco and Lúcia Lima Rodrigues
Thus, this study suggests that the classifications of
industries should be refined to provide more reliable
tests. Two types of proxies for social exposure related to
industry affiliation which were proposed in previous
studies are used: ‘‘consumer proximity’’ (see, for
example, Campbell et al., 2006; Clarke and Gibson-
Sweet, 1999) and ‘‘environmental sensitivity’’ (see, for
example, Archel, 2003; Patten, 2002b). The different
proxies for social exposure are believed to be related to
different SRD categories: community disclosure is
expected to be related positively with a measure of

159. proximity to the final consumer, whereas environ-
mental disclosure is expected to be related positively
with a measure of environmental sensitivity.
Consumer proximity
The nearer a company is to the individual consumer,
the more probable is its name to be known to most
members of the general public, and hence, the
greater will be its social visibility. Thus, it is hy-
pothesised that community involvement disclosure is
associated with the measure of a company’s prox-
imity to the final consumer.
H3a: There will be a positive relationship between
community involvement disclosure and the
consumer proximity measure.
Environmental sensitivity
Companies in industries that have a larger potential
impact on the environment are considered to be
subject to greater pressures with respect to envi-

160. ronmental concerns than companies in industries
with less risk in terms of environmental impact.
Therefore, companies in environmentally sensitive
industries are more likely to disclose environmental
information than companies in less environmentally
sensitive industries.
H3b: There will be a positive relationship between
environmental disclosure and the environ-
mental sensitivity measure.
Media exposure
Several studies suggest that individual companies’
media exposure, which is used as a proxy for social
visibility, is likely to be associated to higher levels of
SRD (Bansal, 2005; Brammer and Pavelin, 2004b,
2007, in press; Bewley and Li, 2000; Cormier et al.,
2004, 2005). The total amount of media coverage
raises companies’ visibility, making them the object
of further public attention and scrutiny (Bansal,

161. 2005, p. 203).
H4: There will be a positive relationship between
SRD and the media exposure measure.
Control variables
Control variables, which are designed to account for
other potential influences on SRD practices and
have been analysed in the SRD literature, are
introduced. Prior researchers argue that social
responsibility activities and disclosure are dependent
on the availability of financial resources within a
company (for example, Brammer and Pavelin, 2007,
in press; Roberts, 1992). Following Brammer and
Pavelin (2007, in press), profitability and leverage are
used in this study to capture the availability of
financial resources within a company. These vari-
ables are included as control variables.
Profitability
Several empirical studies have concluded that profit-